Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s13369-014-1011-0
Received: 17 September 2012 / Accepted: 31 March 2013 / Published online: 11 March 2014
© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2014
Abstract Earthquake events with magnitudes larger than Keywords Seismic damage index · Hysteretic energy ·
eight Richter along subduction zones have been reported Nonlinear dynamic analysis
worldwide. Due to large number of load reversals and ex-
cessive hysteretic energy, the effect of cumulative damage
on structural components due to deterioration becomes crit-
ical for buildings designed based on current seismic codes.
By specifying the damage index of a structure from its real
inelastic behavior, the required criterion for strengthening
would be given. In this paper, three steel structures with
dual systems consisting of intermediate moment-resisting
frames and concentrically braced ones were selected and de-
signed based on ASD method of UBC-97. Then, for eval-
uating inelastic behavior, these structures were subjected to
three earthquake records and the nonlinear dynamic analyses
were carried out by the PERFORM 3D (VER 4.0.1) software.
Next, hysteretic energy and damage measure were computed
for all members of the structures. It is observed that in spite
of uniformity of strength ratios along height and also among
resisting elements of each story, structural damages among
such members do not confirm this uniformity and most of the
damage of columns and beams is correlated to the external
bracing frames. Of course, some regularity in the damage
distribution has been seen in plans of buildings, so that con-
centration of damage in the center of the plan is less than
that of external frames. Thus, approaching the center of the 1 Introduction
plans, the damage imposed on the members decreases.
In recent years, the general evolution of the structural de-
sign criteria adopted for the modern structures and the ma-
jor importance of the evaluation of the seismic behavior of
G. Abdollahzadeh (B) · S. Rabbanifar existing under-designed buildings have extended the objec-
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, tives in the seismic design; safety against the collapse re-
Babol, Iran mains the most important objective, while performance in
e-mail: abdollahzadeh@nit.ac.ir
terms of functionality and economy is assumed to play a
S. Niknafs central role in the design criteria [1,2]. Therefore, several
Department of Civil Engineering, Amol University, Amol, Iran authors have discussed the need of an improvement of the
123
3500 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
current earthquake-resistant design methods in order not only damage indexes. Each damage index uses specific damage
to avoid the collapse for destructive earthquake, but also to parameters and the parameters used to categorize the dam-
limit the seismic damage for moderate earthquakes. Mov- age index. Damage indexes are usually normalized so that
ing from a simple force-strength approach the new design their value is equal to zero when there is no damage and is
philosophy tends toward multi-level probabilistic structural equal to unity when total collapse or failure occurs. On the
performance criteria [3–5]. Also in the seismic design of other hand, a damage parameter is a quantity that is used for
structures, the concepts of damage and vulnerability play a estimating the damage. A damage index can involve a com-
central role. It is accepted that standard design procedures, bination of one or more damage variables in its calculation.
based on the concept of the force reduction factor, even if As a result, to calculate damage indexes, damage parameters
adequate in most practical cases, do not result in structures should also be normalized [10].
possessing uniform and indexes or damage indicators have The earliest damage indexes were mostly based on dis-
become popular [6]. Modern codes for seismic design imply placement or rotational ductility only. For example, Banon
large values of the seismic force reduction factor relying on et al. [11] used the rotational ductility (μθ ) at the end of a
the design and detailing strategy, which allows a substantial structural member as its damage index:
dissipation of hysteretic energy supplied by spreading the θm θm − θy
ductility demands in large parts of the structure [7]. μθ = =1+ (1)
θy θy
For more than a decade now, performance-based seismic
design (PBSD) has been at the forefront of earthquake engi- where θm is the maximum rotation (including both elastic
neering research. One of the prime aspects of PBSD is the and plastic rotations) under an earthquake and θy is the yield
realistic characterization of seismic structural damage and its rotation, considering the member’s anti-symmetric double
direct incorporation in the design or performance evaluation curvature bending with the point of contra flexure in its mid-
methodology. In addition, a major emphasis is also placed span. Such ductility-based damage indexes fail to take into
on the consideration of all the uncertainties in the design account the effects of repeated cycles including the strength
and evaluation of structures. The various modes of charac- and stiffness degradations under low-cycle fatigue. The “flex-
terizing the potential seismic damage lead to various PBSD ural damage ratio” [11] and the “modified flexural damage
approaches [8]. ratio” [12] are two other damage indexes also suffer from
The present study focuses on the evaluation of the damage these shortcomings. One of the earliest cumulative damage
distribution pattern in all parts of dual steel buildings accord- parameters was the “normalized cumulative rotation” [11],
ing to Park–Ang damage index, designed in accordance with which is defined as the ratio of the sum of all plastic ro-
UBC-97 [9]. To obtain parameters of damage indexes, non- tations (except for unloading parts) in inelastic springs to
linear dynamic analyses have been carried out using PER- the yield rotation. Several other researchers [13–15] also de-
FORM 3D Software. The PERFORM 3D is a complete and fined similar displacement-/rotation-based cumulative dam-
powerful program to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses age indexes, while some others [16,17] followed a low-cycle
through which many nonlinear parameters could be achieved. fatigue-based approach to define damage indexes in terms of
Therefore, this program had been used for nonlinear dynamic the number of cycles to failure.
modeling. Among the many damage indicators available, the Park–
Ang damage index appears to be the most promising due to its
simplicity and extensive calibration against experimentally
observed seismic damage in reinforced concrete structures,
2 Damage Indexes for Structures although it is less reliable in the case of steel structures [18,
19]. The relation between Park and Ang damage index and
Some parameters of the building response have been pro- damage state is shown in Table 1 [18]. In this method, the
posed as indexes of structural damage. They are shortly called damage index, DPA,I , consists of a linear combination of the
Table 1 The relation between damage index and damage state [18]
Degree of damage Physical appearance Damage index State of building
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510 3501
ductility and energy dissipation indexes: be based on moment–curvature or fiber stress–strain relation-
ships. PERFORM 3D software provides two components that
Umax β can be used for this type of model, namely curvature hinges
DPA,I= + dE, (2)
Uu Q r Uu and fiber segments. Figure 2 shows a finite element model
using curvature hinges. The current version of PERFORM
where Umax = is the maximum response deformation, Uu = imposes a limit of all components in a beam or column com-
the ultimate deformation under monotonic loading, dE = pound component.
dissipated hysteretic energy, Q r = yield strength, and β = Each material and each basic structural member have one
is a nonnegative constant. or more actions or forces and corresponding deformations.
The global damage index is a weighted average of the For example, for a simple material the action is stress and the
local damage indexes and the dissipated energy is chosen as deformation is strain, and for a simple plastic hinge the action
the weighting function. The global damage index is given by is bending moment and the deformation is hinge rotation.
the following relation: The relationship between these two parameters is the F–D
n relationship.
i=1 DIL E i
DIG = n (3) Most of the inelastic members in PERFORM 3D software
i=1 E i have the same form of the F–D relationship. This is a trilinear
where DIG is the global damage index, DIL is the local dam- relationship with optional strength loss, as shown in Fig. 3.
age index after Park–Ang, E i is the energy dissipated at lo- Also, for many members an elastic–perfectly plastic rela-
cation I and n is the number of locations at which the local tionship, rather than a trilinear relationship, may be adequate.
damage is computed. In this case, the Y and U points are the same.
Values of β about 0.15, derived by fitting test results [20], Some members may continue to strain hardening without
were used in the literature for reinforced concrete structures reaching an ultimate load. PERFORM 3D software allows
[21], while in the case of steel structures a value of β = 0.025, this for some members, by an additional parallel stiffness as
which is used in the present study, can be adopted [22]. A shown in Fig. 4.
comparison of the effectiveness of different damage indexes
can be found in many research publications [20,23–26].
3 PERFORM 3D Performance
Fig. 2 Finite element model with hinges [27] Fig. 4 Additional parallel stiffness
123
3502 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
In a structural member, “brittle” strength loss can be component loses strength, if possible the lost strength is re-
caused by a number of effects, including tensile fracture, con- distributed to adjacent members and the resulting behavior
crete crushing, concrete shear failure, and buckling. When a can be complex.
Usually it is not permissible to deform an inelastic member
beyond the L point. It means that the deformation capacity is
usually smaller than the L point deformation. For example,
the FEMA 356 criteria generally allow deformation beyond
the L point only for certain secondary members at the collapse
prevention performance level. Figure 5 shows the action–
deformation relationships for FEMA 356 (Q– relationship)
and PERFORM 3D (F–D relationship).
In the FEMA 356 relationship, there is sudden strength
loss at Point C and total strength loss at Point E. In the PER-
FORM relationship, strength loss begins at Point L and can
be sudden or gradual. It is likely that strength loss in an actual
structure will be gradual, and hence sudden strength loss is
not realistic. Also in the FEMA 356 relationship, there is to-
Fig. 6 FEMA356 action–deformation relationship
Beams
A: h
tw ≤ √
3,185
, bf
≤ √420 9θy 11θy 0.6
Fye 2tf Fye
B: h
tw ≥ √
5,365 bf
, ≤ √545 4θy 6θy 0.2
Fye 2tf Fye
Columns
A: h
tw ≤ √
2,500
, bf
≤ √420 9θy 11θy 0.6
Fye 2tf Fye
B: h
tw ≥ √
3,850 bf
, ≤ √545 4θy 6θy 0.2
Fye 2tf Fye
Fye expected yield stress of material (kg/cm2 ), h height of the section (cm), tw web thickness (cm), bf flange width (cm), tf flange thickness (cm)
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510 3503
Northridge 1/17/1994 12:31 Covina—S. Grand Ave. GRA074 0.066 6.7 35 0.91
GRA344 0.062
Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 12:05 APEEL 3E Hayward CSUH A3E000 0.078 6.9 40 1.22
A3E090 0.084
San Fernando 2/9/1971 14:00 Wrightwood—6074 Park Dr WTW025 0.061 6.6 20 1.14
WTW295 0.044
123
3504 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
DIBR= 0.353
DIBR= 0.243
DIC= 0.674 DIC= 0.237 DIC= 0.57
DIBR= 0.441
DIBR= 0.629
DIC= 0.649 DIC= 0.233 DIC= 0.154 DIC= 0.107 DIC= 0.121 DIC= 0.644
DIB= 0.09
DIC= 0.477 DIC= 0.394 DIC= 0.477 DIC= 0.344 DIC= 0.48 DIC= 0.407 DIC= 0.431 DIC= 0.385
DIBR= 0.392 DIB= 0.042 DIBR= 0.377 DIB= 0.04 DIB= 0.036 DIBR= 0.388 DIB= 0.034 DIBR= 0.246 DIB= 0.036
DIC= 0.112 DIC= 0.338 DIC= 0.355 DIC= 0.239 DIC= 0.269
DIBR= 0.707 DIBR= 0.707 DIB= 0.036
DIC= 0.044
DIC= 0.341 DIC= 0.06 DIC= 0.034 DIC= 0.034
DIBR= 0.582
DIC= 0.171 DIC= 0.181 DIC= 0.075 DIC= 0.044 DIC= 0.045
behavior of steel elements is determined by trilinear skeleton tal components of far-fault records from major earthquake
curve. Degrading parameters have been chosen from exper- events. Scaling of the original seismic acceleration records,
imental results of cyclic force–deformation characteristics which modifies the nonlinear and the damage effects, has
of typical components of the studied structures [27]. Thus, been carried out in accordance with UBC-97. For each pair
the nominal parameter for stiffness degradation and strength of horizontal ground motion components, the square root of
deterioration has been chosen. the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the 5 % damped spectrum of
The acceleration records, selected for site class C and their the normalized horizontal components has been constructed.
scaled response spectra, of all seismic excitations given in The motions have been scaled such that the average SRSS
Table 4, were used as input data for the nonlinear dynamic spectrum does not fall below 1.4 times the 5 % damped de-
analyses. Earthquake records include three pairs of horizon- sign spectrum for periods from 0.2 to 1.5 T where T is the
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510 3505
DIBR= 0.223
DIB= 0.034 DIC= 0.308
DIB= 0.036
DIB= 0.034
DIB= 0.034
DIC= 0.072 DIC= 0.207 DIC= 0.176 DIC= 0.246 DIC= 0.065 DIC= 0.052
DIBR= 0.331 DIB= 0.068 DIBR= 0.33 DIBR= 0.227 DIB= 0.07 DIBR= 0.177
DIC= 0.268 DIC= 0.233 DIC= 0.345 DIC= 0.167 DIC= 0.042 DIC= 0.349 DIC= 0.326 DIC= 0.349 DIC= 0.363
DIBR= 0.261 DIB= 0.075 DIBR= 0.259 DIB= 0.042 DIB= 0.034 DIBR= 0.465 DIB= 0.08 DIBR= 0.294 DIB= 0.075
DIC= 0.121 DIC= 0.092 DIC= 0.084 DIC= 0.119 DIC= 0.233 DIC= 0.404 DIC= 0.062 DIC= 0.054
DIB= 0.034
DIC= 0.309 DIC= 0.173 DIC= 0.233 DIC= 0.11 DIC= 0.155 DIC= 0.455
DIC= 0.242 DIC= 0.237 DIC= 0.14 DIC= 0.165 DIC= 0.084 DIC= 0.7 DIC= 0.107 DIC= 0.057 DIC= 0.06 DIC= 0.104
DIB= 0.039
DIC= 0.212 DIC= 0.32 DIC= 0.451 DIC= 0.356 DIC= 0.402 DIC= 0.508 DIC= 0.49 DIC= 0.387 DIC= 0.455
DIB= 0.036 DIBR= 0.388 DIB= 0.093 DIBR= 0.366 DIB= 0.088 DIB= 0.084 DIBR= 0.562 DIB= 0.089 DIBR= 0.392 DIB= 0.078
DIBR= 0.636
DIC= 0.166
DIC= 0.274
DIC= 0.292
DIBR= 0.659
DIBR= 0.642
DIC= 0.111
DIC= 0.089
123
3506 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
DIB= 0.101 DIBR= 0.58 DIB= 0.117 DIBR= 0.276 DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.042
DIB= 0.038
DIB= 0.037
DIB= 0.035
DIC= 0.067 DIC= 0.087
DIBR= 0.164
DIB= 0.045 DIBR= 0.453 DIB= 0.118 DIBR= 0.453
DIBR= 0.206
DIB= 0.041
DIB= 0.036
DIC= 0.106 DIC= 0.039
DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.034
DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.034
DIC= 0.078 DIC= 0.037 DIC= 0.041 DIC= 0.038
DIBR= 0.176 DIB= 0.033 DIBR= 0.173 DIB= 0.035 DIBR= 0.394 DIB= 0.082 DIBR= 0.189
DIB= 0.084 DIBR= 0.405 DIB= 0.236 DIBR= 0.228 DIB= 0.041
DIB= 0.076
DIB= 0.037
DIB= 0.036
DIB= 0.04
DIBR= 0.465 DIB= 0.146 DIBR= 0.475 DIB= 0.036
DIC= 0.116
DIC= 0.093
D IC= 0.69 5 D IC = 0 . 4 3 8
DIB= 0.041
DIB= 0.034
DIB= 0.037
DIC= 0.065 DIC= 0.205 DIC= 0.318 DIC= 0.284 DIC= 0.108
DIB= 0.041 DIBR= 0.294 DIB= 0.101 DIBR= 0.275 DIB= 0.044 DIBR= 0.282 DIB= 0.132 DIBR= 0.129 DIB= 0.035
fundamental period of the structure (UBC 1997). Response the figures. The Park–Ang damage index has been used for
spectra of the scaled acceleration records of Loma Prieta, evaluation of dual steel elements and all the buildings have
Northridge and San Fernando earthquakes and the design been designed in accordance with UBC-97. Dynamic non-
spectrum of UBC-97 are shown in Fig. 8. linear analyses have been carried out by PERFORM 3D for
obtaining the parameters of damage indexes. Because of the
large number of analyses with large stiffness matrixes, e.g.,
5 Evaluation of the Results of Nonlinear Dynamic 388 nodes and 1,024 elements for the 8-story building, an-
Analysis in Plan alyzing and evaluating the damage distribution in all parts
of the buildings are very time consuming and difficult. In
Usually perpetual structural damage is seen in the end of an the Figs. 9, 10 and 11: DIBR, damage index of brace; DIC,
earthquake. Therefore, distribution of damage in this time damage index of column; DIB, damage index of beam.
is an expressive of perpetual damage in stories of the build- According to the Fig. 12, maximum damage is seen in the
ing. In this research, the structures have been subjected to external braced frames. In these frames, columns that are
two scaled horizontal components of acceleration records, correlated with brace show the higher damage, both in the
simultaneously. Average damage of the three earthquakes in form of high absorption of hysteretic energy and that of high
the members of 3-, 5- and 8-story buildings has been com- displacement.
puted and is shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11, respectively. In this section, damage indexes of the buildings are evalu-
In these figures, only the damaged members have been ated along their heights. It seems that higher stories undergo
defined. It means that damage indexes have been computed more serious damages than lower stories. Damages along
and shown for members that have experienced inelastic de- height of buildings are shown in Fig. 12 which is result of
formations. Also, the braced spans have been highlighted in average of Loma prieta, Northridge and San Fernando earth-
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510 3507
Fig. 11 continued
DIC= 0.154
DIB= 0.053 DIBR= 0.175 DIB= 0.109 DIBR= 0.136
DIC= 0.119
DIB= 0.037 DIBR= 0.04 DIB= 0.05 DIBR= 0.043
DIB= 0.173 DIBR= 0.586 DIB= 0.223 DIBR= 0.431 DIB= 0.123
DIB= 0.049
DIB= 0.089
DIB= 0.093
DIB= 0.035
DIC= 0.29
DIC= 0.253 DIC= 0.315 DIC= 0.237 DIC= 0.135 DIC= 0.153
DIB= 0.174 DIBR= 0.561 DIB= 0.252 DIBR= 0.543 DIB= 0.129
DIB= 0.048
DIB= 0.058
DIB= 0.055
DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.034
DIB= 0.034
DIC= 0.563 DIC= 0.201 DIC= 0.192 DIC= 0.156 DIC= 0.295
DIC= 0.69 DIC= 0.227 DIC= 0.14 DIC= 0.076 DIC= 0.24
DIC= 0.577 DIC= 0.304 DIC= 0.48 DIC= 0.483 DIC= 0.313
DIC= 0.717 DIC= 0.178 DIC= 0.247 DIC= 0.24 DIC= 0.167
DIB= 0.04
DIB= 0.035
DIB= 0.034
DIB= 0.035 DIC= 0.063 DIC= 0.342 DIC= 0.387 DIC= 0.411 DIC= 0.291
DIC= 0.065 DIC= 0.207 DIC= 0.37 DIC= 0.423 DIC= 0.219
DIB= 0.087 DIBR= 0.219 DIB= 0.141 DIBR= 0.245 DIB= 0.085 DIB= 0.083 DIBR= 0.387 DIB= 0.154 DIBR= 0.243 DIB= 0.1
DIB= 0.035
Damage index of story 5 Damage index of story 6
DIB= 0.119
DIB= 0.108
DIB= 0.115
DIC= 0.04
DIC= 0.065 DIC= 0.234 DIC= 0.119 DIC= 0.18
DIC= 0.176 DIC= 0.08 DIC= 0.095 DIC= 0.14 DIC= 0.249 DIC= 0.039 DIC= 0.04 DIC= 0.036 DIC= 0.046
DIC= 0.518 DIC= 0.162 DIC= 0.19 DIC= 0.12 DIC= 0.042 DIC= 0.097 DIC= 0.033
DIC= 0.593 DIC= 0.137 DIC= 0.051 DIC= 0.035 DIC= 0.05 DIC= 0.226
DIC= 0.428 DIC= 0.338 DIC= 0.155 DIC= 0.308 DIC= 0.109 DIC= 0.117 DIC= 0.177 DIC= 0.072
DIB= 0.073 DIB= 0.036
DIC= 0.036 DIC= 0.216 DIC= 0.247 DIC= 0.119 DIC= 0.247 DIC= 0.087 DIC= 0.052
DIB= 0.093 DIBR= 0.525 DIB= 0.125 DIBR= 0.506 DIB= 0.098 DIB= 0.076 DIBR= 0.717 DIB= 0.122 DIBR= 0.594 DIB= 0.077
DIB= 0.043 DIB= 0.036 DIB= 0.038 DIB= 0.038
Damage index of story 7 Damage index of story 8
quakes. This figure shows that in all structures, most damage accelerograms are imposed on the four sides of the buildings.
has occurred in the Northridge earthquake. Because of symmetric plans in all the buildings under study
of this survey, to comparison member’s damage or assess-
ment of one member damage, nonlinear dynamic analyse of
6 Variation of Damage on Braces of Surveyed Structures structures; subjected to the one pair of accelerograms which
imposed to one side of structures is sufficient. In compar-
In this section, damage distribution of the elements in the ing damages, the maximum damage of surveyed member
main x-braces and the beams adjacent to them is discussed and three other symmetric members has been chosen as a
and shown. Because of symmetric and square plans, dam- maximum damage in worst mode. In this section, damage
age distribution on two diagonals of the same span is similar. variation in the braces of surveyed structures has been eval-
In present study, two horizontal components of earthquake uated and shown in Figs. 13 and 14. These figures have been
records are exerted on the structural models simultaneously. concluded from the average of three earthquakes of Loma
It is also possible that earthquakes are imposed on the struc- Prieta, Northridge and San Fernando.
tures from every direction. Therefore, in the dynamic analysis In this section, because of the large number of plans,
we must impose two horizontal accelerograms in all angles only three of them have been considered. In accordance with
into the structures to find the worst mode in which members Figs. 13 and 14, some regularity in damage distribution can
have a maximum damage. But this method is time consum- be seen in plans of buildings. Damage has been reduced while
ing and almost impossible. Therefore, only two horizontal moving on diagonals of structure members. Therefore, dam-
123
3508 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
Fig. 12 Damage distribution in stories of a 3-story building, b 5-story building, c 8-story building
Fig. 13 Variation of columns’ damage on diagonal of a story 1 of 3-story building, b story 3 of 5-story building, and c story 5 of 8-story building
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510 3509
Fig. 14 Variation of beams damage besides of diagonal of a story 1 of 3-story building, b story 3 of 5-story building, and c story 5 of 8-story
building
age concentration in the center of the plan is less than that of get to the center of plans, the less the damage of members
external frames. we see.
4. In upper and lower stories, braces have the most damage
among all members. Also in all parts of buildings, beams
7 Conclusions have a less damage than the other members.
123
3510 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:3499–3510
7. Dimova, S.L.; Negro, P.: Seismic assessment of an industrial frame 18. Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.-S.: Mechanistic seismic damage model for
structure designed according to Eurocodes. Part 2: Capacity and reinforced concrete. Struct. Eng. 111(4), 722–739 (1985)
vulnerability. Eng. Struct. 27, 724–735 (2005) 19. Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.-S.; Wen, Y.K.: Damage-limiting a seismic
8. Ghosh, S.; Datta, D.; Katakdhond, A.A.: Estimation of the Park– design of buildings. Earthq. Spectra. 3(1), 1–26 (1987)
Ang damage index for planar multi-storey frames using equivalent 20. Cosenza, E.; Manfredi, G.; Ramasco, R.: The use of damage func-
single-degree systems. Eng. Struct. 33, 2509–2524 (2011) tional in Earthquake resistant design: a comparison among different
9. Uniform building code. In: International conference of building procedures. Struct. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22, 68–855 (1993)
officials (1997) 21. Park, Y.J.: Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design
10. Estekanchi, H.; Arjomandi, K.: Comparison of damage indexes in of R/C structures. Ph.D thesis. Department of Civil Engineering,
nonlinear time history analysis of steel moment frames. Asian J. University of Illinois, Ubana (IL) (1984)
Civ. Eng. 8, 629–646 (2007) 22. Cosenza, E.; Manfredi, G.: Classificazione e comportamentosis-
11. Banon, H.; Biggs, J.M.; Irvine, H.M.; ASCE: Seismic damage mico di modelliciclicidegradanti. In: Proceedings of workshop
in reinforced concrete frames. J. Struct. Eng, 107(9), 29–1713 on Danneggiamentociclico e prove pseudo-dinamiche, pp. 59–74
(1981) (1994)
12. Roufaiel, M.S.L.; Meyer, C.; ASCE: Analytical modeling of hys- 23. Carr, A.J.; Tabuchi, M.: The structural ductility and the damage
teretic behavior of R/C frames. J. Struct. Eng. 113(3), 57–429 index for reinforced concrete structure under seismic excitation.
(1987) In: 2nd European conference on structural dynamics, vol. 1, pp.
13. Stephens, J.E.; Yao, J.T.P.; ASCE: Damage assessment using re- 76–169 (1993)
sponse measurement. J. Struct. Eng. 113(4), 787–801 (1987) 24. Kunnath, S.K.; Jenne, C.: Seismic damage assessment of inelas-
14. Wang, M.L.; Shah, S.P.: Reinforced concrete hysteresis model tic RC structures. In: 5th US national conference on earthquake
based in the damage concept. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 15(8), 993– engineering, vol. 1, pp. 55–64 (1994)
1003 (1987) 25. Ghobarah, A.; Abou-Elfath, H.; Biddah, A.: Response-based dam-
15. Powell, G.H.; Allahabadi, R.: Seismic damage prediction by de- age assessment of structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28(1), 79–
terministic methods: concepts and procedures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. 104 (1999)
Dyn. 16(5), 34–719 (1988) 26. Castiglioni, C.A.; Pucinotti, R.: Failure criteria and cumulative
16. Jeong, G.D.; Iwan, W.D.: Effect of earthquake duration on damage damage models for steel components under cyclic loading. J. Con-
of structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 16(8), 11–1201 (1988) str. Steel Res. 65, 751–765 (2009)
17. Chung, Y.S.; Meyer, C.; Shinozuka, M.: Modeling of concrete dam- 27. Powell, G.H.: CSI Perform 3D, User Guide, Version 4.0.1.RAM
age. ACI Struct. J. 86(3), 71–259 (1989) International, L.L.C., University of California, Berkeley (2006)
123