Static and Dynamic Approaches on the Low-Rise RC Frames Capacity Evaluation and Damage Quantification

  • Victor-Adrian Pǎunescu
  • Mihail Iancovici
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


The seismic capacity evaluation is a key-tool for practitioners in the standard post-design stage of building structures. This also serves as a major component for performing higher level analysis modules as seismic vulnerability analysis, risk analysis, loss estimation and resilience analysis. The seismic capacity of a structure is dependent of the applied load pattern as well as of nonlinear modelling of members. The paper examines the dependency of capacity curve parameters of typical low-rise regular reinforced concrete frames as a large proportion from actual building stock in Bucharest, using both nonlinear static and dynamic analysis approaches as well as discrete and distributed available plasticity models for reinforced concrete members. The sensitivity analysis of global seismic damage index based on the probabilistic approach using HAZUS methodology (2007) is then performed. A more accurate prediction of structural capacity in conjunction with integrated tools for the assessment of the damage states up to progressive collapse associated to various earthquake scenarios and time-domain analysis approach would truly lead implementing a real performance-based seismic design into practice.


Seismic capacity Pushover curve Incremental dynamic analysis Damage index 



Part of the research presented in the paper was supported through the Seismic Risk Evaluation Center (CCERS) of Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest (UTCB) by the RO-RISK Project SIPOCA 30/2016 funded by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration and co-funded by the European Social Fund. The authors highly acknowledge this support.


  1. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Advantages and limitations of force-based adaptive and non-adaptive pushover procedures. J Earthq Eng 8(4):497–522Google Scholar
  2. ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC-40 report, vols 1 and 2. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. CEB (1996) RC frames under earthquake loading. State of the Art report. Thomas Thelford. ISBN 072772085 6Google Scholar
  4. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mech 12(1):51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA-440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic procedures, ATC-55 Draft, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman SA (1998) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 11th european conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. HAZUS-MH 2.1 (2007) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake model estimates earthquake damage and loss to buildings. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Iancovici M (2001) The assessment of the reinforced concrete building structures seismic performance based on the elements performance. Bull Int Inst Seismolog Earthq Eng 239–251Google Scholar
  12. Iancovici M, Fukuyama H, Kusunoki K (2002) The assessment of the reinforced concrete building structures based on the seismic performance concept. Fifth international congress on advances in civil engineering, Turkey, vol 1, pp 555–564Google Scholar
  13. Katsanos E, Sextos A, Manolis G (2010) Selection of earthquake ground motion records: a state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kramer S (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall Inc, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, J Struct Engi 114(8):1804–1826Google Scholar
  16. Mark K (1976) Nonlinear dynamic response of reinforced concrete frames. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (Res. Rep. R76-38)Google Scholar
  17. P100-1 (2013) Code for seismic design—part I—design prescriptions for buildings. BucharestGoogle Scholar
  18. Păunescu VA (2013) Abordări statice și dinamice în determinarea curbei de capacitate a structurilor. Lucrare de disertatie, Universitatea Tehnică de Constructii Bucuresti (in Romanian), p 60Google Scholar
  19. Pietra D (2008) Evaluation of pushover procedures for the seismic design of buildings. M.Sc. Thesis, Rose School, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements. J Struct Eng ASCE 132(2):244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SeismoStruct (2016) A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Available online at
  22. Tagel-Din H, Meguro K (2000) Applied element method for simulation of nonlinear materials: theory and application for RC structures. Jpn Soc Civil Eng (JSCE) 17(2):137–148Google Scholar
  23. Tagel-Din H, Meguro K (2001) Applied element simulation of RC structures under cyclic loading. J Struct Eng ASCE 127(11):137–148Google Scholar
  24. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ideea ProiectBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Structural MechanicsTechnical University of Civil Engineering of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations