Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this Article Rodriguez, Mario E. and Padilla, Daniel(2009) 'A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced
This article proposes a damage index for the seismic analysis of Reinforced Concrete members
using the hysteretic energy dissipated by a structural member and a drift ratio related to failure in
the structure. The index was calibrated against observed damage in laboratory tests of 76 RC
column units under various protocols. Values obtained in this calibration had acceptable agreement
with the levels of damage observed in the test specimens. An analysis of the parameters involved in
the definition of the proposed damage index shows the importance of displacement history in the
drift ratio capacity of structures.
Keywords
1. Introduction
A measure of structural damage for a postulated earthquake is relevant for the seismic
analysis of both new and existing building and bridge structures. Several damage indices
have been proposed in the literature to quantify these measures. With respect to the
existing structures, such damage indices provide important information that could be
implemented in the initial assessment and retrofit decision-making process. They can
also be used for performance-based engineering approaches. Such indices have been
reviewed in the literature [Cosenza et al., 1993; Williams and Sexsmith, 1995; Ghobarah
et al., 1999; Teran-Gilmore and Jirsa, 2005], evidently stressing the need for better
damage indices. Several damages indices have been recently proposed. Erduran and
Yakut [2004] proposed a damage measure expressed in terms of interstory drift ratio and
the effect of displacement history is not taken into account. Colombo and Negro [2005]
proposed a damage index defined as the ratio of the initial and the reduced resistance of a
structure, and requires the definition of several parameters related to ductility and energy
dissipation. Kim et al. [2005] proposed a damage measure based on results of finite
element analyses, in which material models were modified to consider fatigue damage
based on results of numerical tests. In the present article, only the damage index of Park
and Ang [1985] is discussed because quantities involved in that index are also involved
in the damage index later proposed.
Park and Ang [1985] proposed the damage index, IPA, that is widely used in the literature.
This index is perhaps one of the earliest and the most popular damage indeces defined as
IPA
R
um d E H
uu
m r y uu
(1)
364
365
u
h
(3)
(4)
Mt k :
(5)
(6)
(7)
366
K
E
1 m2
m1
m1 c
m2 1
Id
EH
;
E
(8)
(9)
In the above expression, parameter yc is the maximum drift ratio in an elastic SDOF (with
the same frequency of the analyzed system) such that the energy absorbed in this elastic
system, El, is equal to the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El). In the seismic demandto-capacity problem, parameters EH and El would correspond to the demand and capacity
terms, respectively. Therefore, if the plastic work demand is smaller than the capacity,
then according to Eq. (8), Id < 1.
From Eqs. (8) and (9) we obtain
EH
Id
:
(10)
k 2c
Another interpretation of parameter yc is given in the following. At collapse (EH = El)
that is when Id = 1, from Eq. (10) we obtain
2c
E
:
k
(11)
Since ky is the elastic energy absorbed by the SDOF system when it reaches the rotation
y = 1 (see Fig. 1), 2c can be interpreted as the fraction of this energy that is dissipated
by the nonlinear system at collapse (EH = El) in the form of plastic work. By analyzing
results from a column database, it is shown later that parameter 2c appears to be constant
for RC members with similar structural characteristics, regardless of the displacement
history applied up to collapse. It follows that since 2c is the dimensionless plastic work
capacity in an RC member, see Eq. (11), for RC members with similar structural
characteristics, this capacity can be approximately considered an invariant property.
A second form of the proposed seismic damage index, Id, is proposed using a dimensionless form of parameter EH, which is expressed with parameter g, and is computed from
[Rodriguez, 1994]
q
EH
m
! m h
(12)
367
um
:
h
(13)
It is a matter of interest that parameter g has also been used by Fajfar [1992] along with a
seismic design procedure which addresses the effect of cumulative seismic damage.
Parameter g has been evaluated for a set of ground motions and was found that it is
dependant on structural and ground motion parameters [Fajfar, 1992].
From Eqs. (7) and (12) we obtain:
2 2m
EH
:
k
(14)
The above expression indicates that 2 2m is equal to the dimensionless plastic work
demand in the SDOF system. Since k 2m is the energy absorbed in the elastic system
(with the same frequency of the analyzed system) when it reaches a maximum drift ratio
equal to ym, Eq. (14) indicates that when a nonlinear system reaches collapse (EH = El) at
a drift ratio ym, it will dissipate an hysteretic energy at collapse that is equal to g 2 times
that elastic energy. Furthermore, at collapse (EH = El), from Eqs. (11) and (14) we obtain:
c m :
(15)
To illustrate Eq. (15), let us analyze two cases of a SDOF system that reaches collapse (EH =
El) at either ym = ym1 or ym = ym2. For ym = ym1, see Fig. 1, m c , and therefore 1,
which indicates that in the system the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El, see shaded area
in Fig. 1) is larger than the elastic energy absorbed in the elastic system when it reaches the
maximum drift ratio ym1 (see Fig. 1). For ym = ym2, see Fig. 1, m c , and therefore 1,
which indicates that the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El) is smaller than the energy
absorbed by the elastic system when it reaches the maximum drift ratio ym2 (see Fig. 1).
Finally, a relationship between Id and g can be obtained by combining Eqs. (10) and
(14), after which we obtain:
m 2
Id
:
(16)
c
For the case EH < El, using Eqs. (11) and (14) leads to m c , which in Eq. (16)
implies once again that Id 1 .
It is of interest that according to the definition of Id, see Eq. (16), knowing the plastic
work capacity of a RC member (related to parameter yc) and the expected shape of the
hysteresis loops, we could predict whether or not a RC member would fail for a target
displacement history and deformation ym. This can be done by comparing the plastic
work capacity (k 2c , see Eq. 11) and the plastic work demand (k 2 2m , see Eq. 14) for
the target displacement history.
Usually, Force-Displacement relationships are used for the seismic analysis of SDOF
systems. However, the above derivation, based on Moment-Rotation relationships could
be also used in the Force-Displacement domain. These can be done considering that
parameter EH computed in either of the two mentioned domains are equal. This is due to
the fact that the incremental plastic work using the former type of relationship, DF Du, is
368
equal to the incremental plastic work using the latter relationship, DM Dq. For example, if
we want to express Eq. (11) in the Force-Displacement domain, using the given definitions of parameters y and ky, this equation can be expressed as
E
u2c
(17)
k
where uc is equal to yc h.
P
(F, u )
(F, u )
h
h
(F, u )
a) Single curvature
b) Double curvature
369
Designation
(2)
AMCB60C
ANG81U2
ANG81U3
ANG81U4
ANG85U12
ANG85U3
ANG85U4
ARA82102
ARAK19
ARAK9
AT75N10
BETTONO11
DAV75U1
GILL79S1
GILL79S4
IMAI86
J3WS21BS
KANSTC1
KOWALSKIU1
KOWALSKIU2
KUN97A10
KUN97A11
N
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
Reference
(3)
R
C
R
R
C
C
C
R
C
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
C
R
C
C
C
C
Section
type
(4)
46.3
28.5
23.6
25.0
28.6
36.0
30.6
20.6
31.2
30.5
32.4
29.9
33.2
23.1
23.5
27.1
26.5
27.9
34.2
34.2
27.0
27.0
fc
Mpa
(5)
422.0
136.0
156.0
160.0
330.4
84.2
251.0
145.0
151.0
201.0
70.0
177.0
155.0
617.0
642.0
381.0
163.7
68.0
137.9
133.4
70.5
65.8
fy
Mpa
(6)
414.0
280.0
320.0
280.0
328.0
328.0
316.0
323.0
381.0
368.0
392.0
414.0
312.0
297.0
294.0
336.0
334.0
506.0
414.0
414.0
434.0
434.0
f yt
Mpa
(7)
0.736
0.463
0.380
0.210
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.333
0.091
0.093
0.266
0.104
0.046
0.260
0.600
0.072
0.194
0.088
0.032
0.032
0.091
0.091
P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0275
0.0243
0.0151
0.0151
0.0320
0.0320
0.0320
0.0066
0.0381
0.0508
0.0167
0.0244
0.0249
0.0179
0.0179
0.0266
0.0091
0.0142
0.0207
0.0207
0.0200
0.0200
rl
(9)
0.0089
0.0153
0.0283
0.0222
0.0102
0.0051
0.0051
0.0118
0.0060
0.0070
0.0093
0.0026
0.0043
0.0150
0.0250
0.0036
0.0393
0.0038
0.0093
0.0093
0.0094
0.0094
rt
(10)
0.88
1.25
4.27
2.76
0.97
0.39
0.44
2.06
0.50
0.58
1.25
0.40
0.34
2.14
3.48
0.50
1.18
0.77
0.94
0.94
1.26
1.26
rt/rACI
(11)
646
1600
1600
1600
600
1000
800
750
900
600
1676
914
2750
1200
1200
1650
500
1500
2438
2438
1372
1372
h
mm
(12)
1.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.1
5.5
1.5
5.5
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.0
2.5
5.3
5.3
4.6
4.6
M/VD
(13)
444.2
21.6
22.9
16.3
53.5
8.7
29.5
80.6
79.5
174.8
5.6
77.0
10.3
120.5
205.8
224.1
104.3
15.7
3.6
5.3
5.4
5.7
K
kN/mm
(14)
EH
(m/sec)2
(16)
(Continued)
0.0046
3.60
0.0234 26.40
0.0318 49.38
0.0365 61.10
0.0301 28.94
0.0403 28.15
0.0225 15.78
0.0168
9.52
0.0137
4.38
0.0099
2.51
0.0229 18.52
0.0070
1.83
0.0221 57.25
0.0282 96.54
0.0129 56.20
0.0105
8.15
0.0160
8.09
0.0230 25.05
0.0615 226.73
0.1080 336.91
0.0661 64.85
0.0548 56.69
ym
(rad)
(15)
370
Designation
(2)
KUN97A12
KUN97A7
KUN97A8
KUN97A9
LEH1015
LEH407
LEH415
LEH430
LEH815
MUG89AH1
MUG89AH2
MUG89BH1
MUG89BL2
NAG1063
NAG1932
OHNO84L1
OHNO84L3
ONO025C
ONO060C
POT79N3
S1RP
SAATU6
SAK90B1
N
(1)
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Reference
(3)
TABLE 1 (Continued)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R
Section
type
(4)
27.0
32.8
32.8
32.5
34.0
30.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
85.7
85.7
115.8
115.8
21.6
21.0
24.8
24.8
25.8
25.8
26.6
29.5
37.3
99.5
fc
Mpa
(5)
70.3
75.4
63.8
70.5
93.0
171.9
274.0
445.3
144.0
214.3
210.0
223.0
256.0
74.0
93.0
113.0
90.0
110.0
123.0
647.0
188.0
314.0
366.0
fy
Mpa
(6)
434.0
434.0
434.0
434.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
792.3
792.3
729.3
328.4
344.0
344.0
325.0
325.0
426.0
426.0
300.0
350.0
425.0
774.0
f yt
Mpa
(7)
0.091
0.075
0.075
0.076
0.069
0.079
0.079
0.074
0.069
0.400
0.629
0.254
0.423
0.170
0.350
0.040
0.040
0.257
0.616
0.449
0.232
0.131
0.350
P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0150
0.0075
0.0150
0.0150
0.0150
0.0381
0.0381
0.0381
0.0381
0.0133
0.0133
0.0142
0.0142
0.0236
0.0236
0.0243
0.0205
0.0327
0.0255
rl
(9)
0.0094
0.0094
0.0094
0.0094
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0161
0.0161
0.0161
0.0161
0.0081
0.0139
0.0032
0.0032
0.0091
0.0091
0.0112
0.0013
0.0195
0.0050
rt
(10)
1.26
1.04
1.04
1.05
0.82
0.93
0.93
0.88
0.82
1.65
1.65
1.13
0.51
1.43
2.53
0.47
0.47
1.42
1.42
1.05
0.14
2.47
0.43
rt/rACI
(11)
1372
1372
1372
1372
6096
2438
2438
2438
4877
500
500
500
500
600
600
1600
1600
600
600
1200
1600
1000
1000
h
mm
(12)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
10.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
4.6
2.9
2.0
M/VD
(13)
6.1
5.5
4.7
5.4
0.9
12.2
12.3
15.0
1.9
81.5
102.4
82.6
102.4
87.1
109.4
11.1
13.6
101.9
123.0
202.8
38.4
28.3
178.5
K
kN/mm
(14)
0.0393
0.0591
0.0569
0.066
0.0990
0.0521
0.0730
0.073
0.0914
0.0710
0.0451
0.0644
0.0203
0.0077
0.0078
0.0509
0.0456
0.0013
0.0050
0.0120
0.0185
0.0890
0.0103
ym
(rad)
(15)
57.77
47.80
49.22
62.50
394.27
168.57
376.21
596.15
455.26
52.71
45.79
49.46
5.83
1.05
1.45
31.81
110.88
3.91
1.87
55.86
17.11
381.07
15.06
EH
(m/sec)2
(16)
371
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
SOES86U1
SOES86U2
SOES86U3
SOES86U4
SS1RP
TANA90U1
TANA90U2
TANA90U3
TANA90U4
TANA90U5
TANA90U6
TANA90U7
TANA90U8
TANA90U9
TP001
TP002
TP003
TP004
TP005
TP006
WAT89U10
WAT89U5
WAT89U6
WAT89U7
WAT89U8
WAT89U9
WONG90U1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
C
46.5
44.0
44.0
40.0
29.5
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
32.0
32.0
32.1
32.1
26.9
35.9
35.7
34.3
33.2
36.8
35.9
40.0
41.0
40.0
42.0
39.0
40.0
38.0
181.0
228.0
222.0
228.0
603.0
149.8
141.3
153.1
136.1
378.0
384.7
511.0
513.5
371.4
149.1
145.2
153.2
153.8
150.8
160.1
174.6
256.8
259.0
288.0
265.0
289.5
425.0
364.0
360.0
354.0
255.0
350.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
305.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
372.0
372.0
388.0
308.0
372.0
308.0
300.0
0.100
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.112
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.300
0.300
0.100
0.027
0.027
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.027
0.414
0.500
0.500
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.149
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0136
0.0157
0.0157
0.0157
0.0157
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0188
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0180
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0320
0.0086
0.0122
0.0080
0.0057
0.0013
0.0255
0.0255
0.0255
0.0255
0.0170
0.0170
0.0208
0.0208
0.0217
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0063
0.0060
0.0032
0.0126
0.0070
0.0233
0.0145
0.75
1.11
0.72
0.40
0.17
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
1.92
1.92
2.34
2.34
2.73
0.65
0.65
0.68
0.70
0.63
0.65
0.49
0.60
0.34
1.03
0.74
1.99
0.95
1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1650
1650
1600
1784
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
800
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
22.3
36.3
39.4
38.9
137.7
14.0
19.8
24.2
22.7
30.7
34.4
61.3
72.3
35.2
18.7
13.3
16.9
18.0
16.7
15.0
32.6
48.5
51.4
64.6
56.1
49.8
77.3
141.41
44.00
40.29
42.55
233.92
53.35
52.48
47.10
70.85
146.67
184.16
257.37
150.90
246.66
74.6
45.26
47.40
14.40
66.20
16.30
44.13
56.03
31.34
18.72
23.30
78.51
199.72
(Continued)
0.0612
0.0314
0.0282
0.0220
0.0267
0.0401
0.0404
0.0351
0.0487
0.0450
0.0544
0.0503
0.0354
0.0473
0.0340
0.0439
0.0576
0.0824
0.0724
0.0866
0.0201
0.0200
0.0157
0.0084
0.0111
0.0218
0.0513
372
ZAHN86U7
ZHO1248
ZHO21408
ZHO22309
Designation
(2)
1
1
1
1
Reference
(3)
R
R
R
R
Section
type
(4)
fy
Mpa
(6)
f yt
Mpa
(7)
fc
Mpa
(5)
0.223
0.801
0.800
0.900
P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0151
0.0245
0.0245
0.0245
rl
(9)
Reference:
1) Reference: Taylor et al. NISTIR 5285 (1993).
2) Reference: Taylor et al. NISTIR 5984(1997).
3) Reference: Kawashima Earthquake Eng. Lab.(http://www.ce.washington.edu/peera1/).
73
74
75
76
N
(1)
TABLE 1 (Continued)
0.0156
0.0175
0.0150
0.0175
rt
(10)
2.85
5.49
4.42
5.15
rt/rACI
(11)
1600
320
640
640
h
mm
(12)
4.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
M/VD
(13)
19.6
101.5
47.2
41.5
K
kN/mm
(14)
0.0516
0.0192
0.0104
0.0193
ym
(rad)
(15)
83.03
2.63
1.40
2.12
EH
(m/sec)2
(16)
373
Characteristic
Range
76
24
52
23
fc (Mpa)
fy (MPa)
fyt (MPa)
P/Ag fc
19.8115.8
240511
255792
00.9
53
rt
0.0010.039
36
40
29
26
21
2
63
rt / rACI
rt fyt / fc
ym (%)
M/VD
0.17.49
0.020.5
0.510.8
1.010
11
20
10
0
10
20
0
(mm)
(mm)
0
120
80
40
0
40
150
75
0
(mm)
120
80
40
0
40
(mm)
40
20
0
20
40
12
6
0
6
12
150
(mm)
120
60
0
-60
-120
(mm)
(mm)
120
80
40
0
40
(mm)
40
80
90
45
0
45
90
(mm)
80
40
(mm)
(mm)
the columns had low or high confinement. In addition, Table 2 lists the range of values
for typical design parameters in these columns, such as compressive strength of concrete
fc, tensile stress at yielding of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, fy and fyt,
respectively; axial load ratio P/Ag fc; ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to
volume of column core rt; confinement index (rt fyt/fc); maximum drift ratio ym; and
shear span ratio M/VD. The range of values for this parameter and the observation of
damage at end of testing for the column units of the database suggest that their failure
mode were either flexure or flexure-shear dominated.
Figure 3 shows typical examples of lateral displacement histories applied in the 76
RC columns of the database. As seen here, these cyclic displacement histories cover a
wide range of displacement histories. Most column units of the database were tested
(mm)
Characteristic
75
150
0
75
0
-75
-150
20
10
0
10
20
0
374
statically and in other cases dynamically using earthquake excitations such as column
units No 2126 (see Table 1).
375
TABLE 3 Analysis of the effect of displacement history on drift ratio capacity of similar
RC column
Group
Test Unit
ym
yc
(a)
LEH1015
LEH815
KOWAU1
KOWAU2
1.08
1.09
1.67
0.96
0.099
0.091
0.062
0.108
0.107
0.100
0.103
0.104
(b)
KUN7
KUN8
KUN9
KUN10
KUN11
KUN12
1.14
1.31
1.18
1.21
1.32
1.80
0.059
0.057
0.066
0.066
0.055
0.039
0.067
0.075
0.078
0.079
0.073
0.07
(c)
KANSTC1
OHNO84L3
SOES86U1
TP001
TP002
TP005
1.15
1.24
0.81
1.5
1.07
0.71
0.0461
0.0456
0.0612
0.034
0.044
0.0724
0.0532
0.0564
0.0498
0.051
0.047
0.051
(d)
ANG81U4
TANA90U1
TANA90U4
TANA90U2
ZAHN86U7
1.05
0.96
0.72
0.80
0.79
0.0365
0.0401
0.0487
0.0404
0.0516
0.0383
0.0386
0.0349
0.0322
0.0407
(e)
ZHO22309
ARA82102
WAT89U9
ANG81U3
ZHO1248
0.58
0.85
1.14
0.91
0.87
0.0383
0.0340
0.0218
0.0318
0.0366
0.0224
0.0290
0.0248
0.0290
0.0318
(f)
SOES86U2
SOES86U3
SOES86U4
0.69
0.71
0.94
0.0314
0.0282
0.022
0.0218
0.0200
0.0207
P/Agf c = 0.3
40%<rt /rACI < 111%
M/VD = 4
(g)
WAT89U6
WAT89U7
WAT89U8
0.98
1.27
1.15
0.0157
0.0084
0.0111
0.0154
0.0106
0.0127
376
0.10
4 .5
0.08
4 . 5 4 .5
(b)
4 .5
4 .5
4 .5
0.06
3 .1
0.04
4
4
(f)
0.02
4
0.00
0.00
2 4
4 43
5
3 .1
4
4
4
3 .1
10 5.3
(a)
c= m
(d)
(e)
(g)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
377
0.015
0.012
2
c = m
0.009
2
c > m
( >1)
0.006
c < m
( <1)
0.003
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
378
F (kN)
200
F (kN)
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50
0.1
0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
100
150
150
200
200
200
F (kN)
150
0.1
100
150
100
100
50
50
0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50
50
200
F (kN)
200
0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0.1
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
0.1
(c) Test Unit TP003 (m = 0.058, c = 0.043, = 0.74) (d) Test Unit TP004 (m = 0.082, c = 0.043, = 0.52)
F (kN)
200
F (kN)
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50
0.1
0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
0.1
(e) Test Unit TP005 (m = 0.072, c = 0.051, = 0.71) (f) Test Unit TP006 (m = 0.087, c = 0.047, = 0.54)
Figure 8 plots values of parameter yc obtained as the ratio El / ky (see Eq. 11) for the
six test specimens as a function of observed parameter ym. Results shown in Fig. 8
indicate that the six test specimens had about the same value of equivalent elastic drift yc.
Considering Eq. (11) and that parameters k and h had similar values in this group of
specimens, these results indicate that these test units dissipated about the same hysteretic
energy at different levels of parameter ym.
According to Eq (10) for an evaluation of parameter Id, it is necessary to determine
the value of parameter yc. Results in Fig. 5 show a wide range of expected yc values.
These values depend on three main structural properties: the axial load ratio P/Ag fc, the
379
0.06
TP002
TP005
TP006
TP001
0.04
TP003
TP004
0.02
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
FIGURE 8 Relationship between an equivalent elastic drift and ym for identical columns
tested by Takemura and Kawashima [1997].
confining reinforcement and the shear-span ratio M/VD. An accurate procedure for
evaluating parameter yc as a function of the mentioned structural properties is beyond
the scope of this paper. However, the authors suggest a simple procedure to obtain an
approximation of the expected value of parameter yc for a particular case. The
procedure is based on assuming that the case under study belongs to one of the
seven groups shown in Fig. 5, after which its corresponding value of yc can be
obtained. Given the complexity of the seismic damage analysis problem addressed in
this study, in which we need to consider not only energy dissipation capacity but also
energy demand, the use of this simple procedure for evaluating yc is useful for such
damage analysis.
The above findings suggest that both static and dynamic experimental responses are
not directly comparable, since displacement history is relevant for defining the capacity
for the drift ratio of RC members. As discussed before, in such a comparison the plastic
work demands (k 2 2m , see Eq. 14) need to be computed, and compared to the plastic
work capacity (k 2c , see Eq. 11).
(18)
Considering the collapse level (EH = El), parameter yc is calculated using Eqs. (11) and
(18), which leads to:
380
k
E
r yh
FIGURE 9 Parameters involved in the evaluation of the proposed damage index for a
RC member that fails under monotonic loading.
2c 4 y m y :
(19)
4 2m
1
1 :
m
m
(20)
Equation (20) indicates that by using the parameters ym and mm obtained in testing an RC
member that fails under monotonic loading, we can get an approximation of the energy
dissipation capacity of a similar member when it fails under cyclic loading. Some
examples are given in the following which support this hypothesis.
Let us analyze the cases of test units TP004 and TP006, which failed under monotonic
loading and were discussed in Sec. 5 of this article along with their companion test units
with similar structural characteristics but tested using different displacement histories.
Measured values of parameters ym and mm at collapse found after monotonic testing of
column units TP004 and TP006 are shown in Table 4. Results of the computation of yc with
Eq. (20) using these values are also shown in this table. As seen in Table 4, these results are
close to the previously computed values of parameter yc shown in insets of Fig. 7.
Furthermore, these computed values of parameter yc for the monotonic cases using Eq.
(20) are also close to those previously computed for the column units tested under cyclic
loading, namely, TP001, TP002, TP003, and TP005; see insets in Fig. 7.
ym
mm
yc (Eq 20)
yc (Fig 7)
0.082
0.087
12
10
0.046
0.052
0.043
0.047
381
[Rodriguez and Padilla, 2006]. This number of test specimens was arrived at based on the
detailed description of observed evolution of damage presently available. The following
classification of damage levels was considered in this calibration:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 10 shows a plot of results found for Id using Eq. (10), where EH was computed at
the drift ratio yi, corresponding to the levels of damage AD observed during the testing
of the 21 test units. These levels of damage are identified with the symbols shown in an
inset of Fig. 10. The results shown in Fig. 10 indicate some trends on the relationships
between observed damage and parameters Id and yi/ym. These trends are summarized in
an inset of Fig. 10, which indicates that minor damage would correspond to Id < 0.1;
moderate damage would correspond to 0.1 < Id < 0.6; and severe damage would
correspond to Id > 0.6. The inset of Fig. 10 also shows the values of yi/ym that would
correspond to each of these three levels of damage.
A calibration of the Park and Ang index, IPA, against the observed evolution of
damage in the abovementioned set of 21 test units is shown in Fig. 11. As seen there, the
trend of results using the Park and Ang index is comparable to that shown in Fig. 10 for
the proposed damage index. Results in Fig.11 indicate that minor damage would correspond to IPA < 0.2; moderate damage would correspond to 0.2 < IPA < 0.6; and severe
damage would correspond to IPA > 0.6.
It must be pointed out that the proposed damage index does not have the previously
mentioned disadvantages of using the Park and Ang damage index, since when um is
equal to uy the index Id is equal to zero, and Id is equal to 1 when the structure fails under
monotonic loading
1.0
(A)
(B)
(C)
0.8
(D)
Id = 0.1
Id = 0.6
Id
0.6
Id
0.4
Damage
Classification
i / m
0 to 0.1
A,B
0 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.6
0.3 to 0.7
0.6 to 1.0
0.7 to 1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
i/m
382
0.8
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
IPA = 0.2
IPA = 0.6
0.6
IPA
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
i/m
0.6
0.8
1.0
FIGURE 11 Calibration of Park and Ang damage index, IPA, and observed damage in 21
test specimens of the database.
8. Conclusions
This article proposes a new damage measure for the seismic damage analysis of structural
RC members. The following conclusions were obtained in this study.
1. An evaluation of results observed in laboratory tests of a set of RC column units
under different loading protocols showed the importance of displacement history
for defining the capacity for the drift ratio of RC members in a seismic event. It
follows that there is no unique capacity for the drift ratio of an RC member (or
similar ones).
2. The plastic work capacity of an RC member is nearly constant for RC members
with similar structural properties. Since at failure this work is equal to the plastic
work demand (earthquake or laboratory test demands), this leads to a definition of
a rational seismic damage measure.
3. The proposed damage measure was calibrated against experimental results
from a column database selected for this study at failure and at levels of
damage preceding failure. Results of this calibration indicate a reasonable
agreement between predicted and observed damage in the analyzed column
database.
4. There is a relationship between displacement history and the capacity for the
drift ratio of RC members, which is captured by the parameter g (or yc/ym).
This relationship can be used for defining lateral loading protocols in laboratory
tests.
5. The proposed damage index has the convenient feature that is equal to zero when
the maximum displacement is equal to the displacement at yielding, and it is equal
to 1 when the RC member fails under monotonic loading.
383
Acknowledgments
Professor S. Pujol from Purdue University, and four reviewers made useful suggestions
that helped to improve the manuscript. Their reviews and time are greatly appreciated.
References
ACI Committee 318. [2005] Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-05),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Colombo, A. and Negro, P. [2005] A damage index of generalised applicability, Engineering
Structures 27, 11641174.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi G., and Ramasco R. [1993] The use of damage functionals in earthquake
engineering: A comparison between different methods, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 22, 855868.
Erduran, E. and Yakut, A. [2004] Drift based damage functions for reinforced concrete columns,
Computers and Structures 82, 121130.
Fajfar, P. [1992] Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 21, 837848.
Ghobarah, A., Abou-Elfath, and Biddah A. [1999] Response-based damage assessment of
structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 79104.
Kim, T., Lee, K., and Chung, Y. [2005] Seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete bridge
columns, Engineering Structures 27, 576592.
Park, Y. J. and Ang, A. H. S. [1985] Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 111(4), 722739.
Rodriguez, M. [1994] A measure of the capacity of earthquake ground motions to damage
structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23, 627643.
Rodriguez, M. E. and Aristizabal J.C. [1999] Evaluation of a seismic damage parameter,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 28, 463477.
Rodriguez, M. E. and Padilla, D. [2006] A seismic damage index for reinforced concrete
buildings (in Spanish), Research Report SID/652, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mexico
City, p. 184. In electronic form in PDF file in http://www.iingen.unam.mx/C3/Publicaciones/
default.aspx
Taylor, A. W. and Stone, W. [1993] A summary of cyclic lateral load tests on spiral reinforced
concrete columns, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Gaithersburg, MD, NISTIR 5285.
Taylor, A. W., Kuo, C., Wellenius, K., and Chung, D. [1997] A summary of cyclic lateral load
tests on rectangular reinforced concrete columns, Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
Gaithersburg, MD, NISTIR 5984.
Takemura, H. and Kawashima, K. [1997] Effect of loading hysteresis on ductility capacity of
reinforced concrete bridge piers, Journal of Structural Engineering 97(43A), 849858.
Teran-Gilmore, A. and Jirsa, J. [2005] A damage model for practical seismic design that accounts
for low-cycle fatigue, Earthquake Spectra, 21(3), 803832.
Williams, M. S. and Sexsmith, R. G. [1995] Seismic damage indices for concrete structures:
A state-of-the-art-review, Earthquake Spectra 11(2), 319345.