Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Design of reinforced concrete frames with damage control

Miguel F. Cruz a,
, Oscar A. Lopez b
a

Universidad de Costa Rica, PO Box 13004-1000, San Jose Avenue 1, C 21 y 23, Edicio Sasso 4to Piso, San Jose, Costa Rica
b
Universidad Central de Venezuela, Venezuela
Received 8 October 2002; received in revised form 7 January 2004; accepted 7 January 2004

Abstract
A reinforced concrete frame design methodology to control damage indices in structural elements and keep them within tolerable limits is presented. The structural element strengths are determined to satisfy the basic design goal, which requires elastic
behavior during moderate earthquakes and inelastic behavior with tolerable damage during strong earthquakes. Maximum lateral
displacement and plastic dissipated energy are used as design parameters. The method uses several inelastic static analyses to optimize the strength of the structural elements in order to satisfy the adopted damage indices. The proposed method was applied to
a six-oor framed structure, representative of an actual building, and the expected solution was achieved after two optimization
cycles. The structure designed with the proposed method was subjected to eight earthquake acceleration records. Its response was
determined from inelastic dynamic analysis. The resulting damage indices were similar to those assumed in the design, which conrm the accuracy of the proposed method.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Seismic design; Damage control; Reinforced concrete; Design methods

1. Introduction
According to most seismic codes the design process
assigns stiness and strength to the structural elements
in order to resist lateral forces obtained through elastic
analysis using a reduced spectrum to account for
inelastic behavior. This procedure yields little information about the expected damage levels in the structural elements [14]. Damage level control should be
the principal objective of the new trends in earthquake
resistant design. To achieve this objective element
damage indices could be used; some of them has been
developed as a function of maximum lateral displacement and loaddeformation history [5,6]. The maximum
displacement of inelastic systems may be calculated
from the maximum displacement of the corresponding
elastic system [7,8], regardless the strength of the structure if the fundamental period, T1, is equal to or greater than the characteristic period of the ground shaking,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +506 256 9294; fax: +506 257 2574.
E-mail address: mfcruz@racsa.co.cr (M.F. Cruz).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.01.002

Tg . Non-linear static analysis procedures are being used

for the evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings [9].
Energy concepts in earthquake-resistant design have
been used in the past [10]. Kato and Akiyama proposed
them for the design of steel structures [11]; they have
shown that input energy per unit of mass, Ei =M, for
one degree of freedom systems can be used to calculate
the input energy of multi-degrees of freedom systems.
Input energy is a stable parameter, which is approximately independent of some structural characteristics
[1114]. On the other hand, plastic dissipated energy,
Ep , is very sensitive to the damping and the strength of
the system. It is also sensitive to ground motion characteristics [15]. An expression to calculate Ep =Ei is proposed in [16] as a function of ground motion and
structure characteristics. The need to introduce energy
concepts in the performance-based design methodologies has been discussed by Teran-Gilmore [17].
The objective of this work is to present an earthquake-resistant design methodology that controls the
damage level in structural elements and therefore leads
to a more reliable and economic structure. The application and evaluation of the proposed methodology

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

2038

is shown in a six-storey framed structure subjected to

several acceleration records that induce inelastic behavior and damage on the structure. Detailed results are
presented in Ref. [18].

2. Proposed methodology
The damage in reinforced concrete elements will be
quantied with the Park and Ang damage index [5].
This index combines the maximum lateral displacement
eects with the plastic dissipated energy at one end of
the element according to the following expression:
ID

dm
b

Ep
du Q y du

where dm is the maximum lateral displacement, du is

the ultimate displacement which can be tolerated by
the element under static load, Qy is the yielding force,
Ep is the plastic dissipated energy and b is a constant
that depends on the structural characteristics. A more
detailed description of these terms is found in Park and
Angs work [5].
It is not necessary to know the entire load
deformation history at the end of the element to calculate this index. It does not require yielding of the steel
to show values of the damage index dierent from
zero, so that damage can be dened in the nominal
elastic range of reinforced concrete. If the damage
index is equal to or greater than 0.4 the practical repair
limit in the element has been attained [19].

2.1. Maximum displacement and plastic energy

The maximum displacement of the inelastic system is
approximately equal to the maximum displacement of
the corresponding elastic system if T1  Tg [7,8].
Therefore, the maximum displacement at the top oors
of the inelastic system will be determined by mean of a
response spectrum analysis of the elastic system. Input
energy per unit of mass Ei =M can be calculated using
an energy spectrum. The Uang and Bertero expression
[12] or Kuwamura expression [14] can also be used. To
calculate the part of input energy that becomes plastic
energy, Ep =Ei , the procedure proposed in [16] will be
used, which states that Ep =Ei is a function of the earthquake normalized input power:
Ep =Ei 0:44logNp b

where b depends on the structure period and varies

between 0.19 and 0.49 for period values between 0.25
and 3.0 s, respectively. Np is the normalized input
power dened as:

Ei =td
;
Np
Ed =T1


mCy2 g2
Ed
1

1  4pf
e
T1
4px1

where td is the Bolt duration of the ground shaking

for accelerations greater than 0.05 g, Cy is the yielding
force divided by the weight of the structure, g is the
gravity acceleration constant, f is the damping ratio, m
is the mass and x1 is the structure natural frequency.
Ed/T1 is the mean power of the viscous damper in the
elastic range, which is the ratio between the dissipated
energy in the damper during a free oscillation cycle
from the yielding displacement, and the period of the
structure.
2.2. Damage index calculation and maximum allowable
values
The damage indices at the ends of the elements
are obtained from two static non-linear analysis
(push-over) with a lateral load increased monotonically in addition to the gravitational load that may
be present during the earthquake. To consider that
inelastic drift from the dynamic analysis may be greater
than the corresponding drift from the static analysis,
the lateral displacement will be increased by a factor
1.15 which is approximately the ratio between the
dynamic distortion coecient and the static distortion
coecient, as dened in Qi and Moehles paper [8].
The lateral load distribution for the static analysis is
similar to that used in several seismic codes. The load
increments are applied until the maximum expected lateral displacement is achieved at the top oor. The static analysis are performed with lateral loads applied
along each direction of loading, that is positive (+) and
negative () loadings are considered.
Once the plastic dissipated energy (Ep obtained with
eq. (2)) is known, then the
energy dissipated at
 plastic

the ends of the elements ep are obtained distributing
Ep =2 between all the plastic hinges that are formed
during the inelastic response to the positive (+) direction loads. The distribution factor is given by the ratio
between the plastic energy at the end of the element for
the positive (+) load case and the total plastic energy
dissipated by all the elements
in this load case.

The other half Ep =2 of the plastic energy is distributed in a similar way among the plastic hinges that
form during the inelastic response to loads in the negative direction. In this way the other fraction ep of the
plastic energy is calculated at the end of each element.
An increase of 30% in the plastic energy is assigned to
the columns, according to the results obtained in [18]
for a six-storey framed structures. This increment may
vary according to the type of the structure. The damage index at the end of an element in terms of rotation
and considering the two values of energy dened pre-

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

viously is calculated in this work as follows:


ep
hm
b ep
ID

hu hu Mp Mp

where: hm is the maximum rotation at the ends of the

elements in any of the direction of loads, hu is the ultimate rotation that can be tolerated by the element,
under static condition of load, hu can be dened as
du =L, hu may be calculated using the R=C theory as
described in the work of Qi and Moehle [8], ep and
ep are the plastic energy dened previously, Mp and
Mp are the absolute values of the corresponding plastic moments in the considered direction of load, and
b is a parameter that depends on the reinforcement
characteristics of the element. The damage index of the
element is dened as the largest value among the indices of the two ends.
An optimum design requires that the allowable value
of the damage index be chosen previously for each
element or groups of elements, as well as the deviation
of the index of a particular element with respect to the
average for all the elements in the structure. The adopted values in this paper as allowable indices are those
suggested in [1921]: the index in columns should be
less or equal than 0.20 (minor damage), in beams may
be greater but always less than the reparability limit,
0.4 (moderate to severe damage) [19]. It will be
required that the dierence between the average index
for each group of elements in the building, and the
maximum and minimum for one element, can not be
greater than 0.10 in columns, and 0.15 in beams. At the
base of the rst storey columns a damage index equal
to 0.4 will be allowed, due to the large rotations that
can be expected in these regions. Good detailing should
be provided in order to assure a great ultimate rotation
capacity. The average of damage indices in beams for
all the building should be equal or greater than the
average of damage indices in columns.
2.3. Required strength search procedure
The proposed design methodology requires that the
structure survives moderate earthquakes without structural damage and strong earthquakes without collapse
but with some structural repairable damage. These two
levels of structural behavior are described in [24], and
may be associated with the serviceability limit state and
survival limit state, respectively. If the structure is
designed elastically for moderate earthquakes then a
minimum level of strength will be provided; this
strength level is dened as So . Sm is dened as the
minimum strength required to keep the structure in the
elastic range during the strong earthquake.
The optimum structure is dened as that whose
strength S is located between the limits S o and S m , and

2039

satises the previously dened allowable values for the

damage indexes. The required strength for a particular
element, SB for beams and SC for columns, will be
determined through an iterative procedure using the
strength for the moderate earthquake (SBo and SC o )
and the strength for the strong earthquake (SBm and
SC m ):
SB

SC

n1

n1

SBn SBm  SBo kn1

1


 H  H1 n1
o
k2
SBm

SB
N
N
 HN  H1



H  H1 n1
o
k
1

SBm

SB
1
1
HN  H1 3
SC n SC m  SC o kn1
4

 m
 H  H1 n1
o
k5
SCN  SCN
 HN  H1

 m

H  H1 n1
o
k
SC1  SC1 1 
HN  H1 6

where SBn1 and SC n1 are the strength of a beam or column, respectively, located at a height H from the foundation in the n 1 numerical approximation corresponding
to the strength S n1 of the structure. The sub indices N and
1 refer to the elements located in the top oor and rst
oor, at heights HN and H1, respectively. The kn1
are the
i
variables to be determined during the optimization process
in the n1 numerical approximation.

During the rst iteration SBn and SC n are set equal

to SBo and SC o , respectively. With the strengths SBn
and SC n the damage indices IDni for each element i are
calculated in the iteration n. The damage indices are
calculated according to the method described in Section 2.2 and ordered in the vector IDn for each iteration n.
In the same iteration n, six dierent auxiliary structures are dened, each one associated with a small
increment in kj , which is called Dkj , where j 1 6 and
Dkk 0 when k 6 j. These structures are dened based
on the strengths SBn and SC n using the following
equations for each Dkj :
SBn1 SBn SBm  SBo Dk1
SC1n

SC

7a

7b



 H  H1
0
SBn2 SBn SBm
Dk2
N  SBN
HN  H1

7c

SC2n SC n

7d




H  H1
0
SBn3 SBn SBm
Dk3
1  SB1 1 
HN  H1

7e

SC3n SC n

7f

SBn4 SBn

7g

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

2040



SC4n SC n SC m  SC 0 Dk4
SBn5 SBn

7h
7i


 H  H1
SC5n SC n SCNm  SCN0
Dk5
HN  H1

7j

SBn6 SBn

7k



0


SC6n SC n SC1m  SC1

1

H  H1
Dk6
HN  H1

7l

Each auxiliary structure dened for Dkj , with strengths

equal to SBnj and SCjn , is subjected to static inelastic
analyses to obtain the damage indices in each element i,
in the iteration n, which is called IDnij . These calculations
are performed as indicated in Section 2.2. Then a coefcient of sensitivity is obtained for each
 element and
 for
each Dkj , which is given by Kijn IDni  IDni j =Dkj .

This sensitivity coecient represents the variation of the

damage index of the element i, in the iteration n, due to
a small value of Dkj , and keeping zero the other Dkk .
h i
The sensitivity matrix K n Kijn is assembled for all
the elements i and for all the Dkj .
The next step is to solve the system of NM equations
with the six unknowns k n1
which are ordered in the
j
vector kn1 :
ID

n1
obj

 IDn K n kn1

where IDnobj 1 is the vector that contains the damage

indices to be satised in each iteration. These target
indices are selected based on the indices determined in
the previous iteration and on the maximum allowable
indices. kn1 is the vector corresponding to the kn1
j
values and NM is the number of elements (beams and
columns) selected in the search of strength. The system
of equations given in Eq. (8) is over-determined and it
requires the singular value decomposition [25] technique
to obtain the best solution. Once the kn1 are found, the
new element strengths in the iteration n 1 are
obtained using Eqs. (5) and (6). In this new structure the
new IDn1 vector is determined and compared with the
target damage index vector, IDobj . If they are dierent
all the process is repeated until convergence is achieved.
2.4. Calculation process
The following are the steps of calculation in the
design process:
1. Determination of the structural dimensions and
vibration periods.
2. Calculation of the input energy Ei and of the
maximum lateral displacement in the top oor
according to Section 2.1.



3. Design of the structure to obtain SB0 ;SC 0 for a
moderate earthquake and SBm ;SC m for a
strong earthquake. It is supposed that the other
code design requirements are satised.
4. Selection of the maximum allowable damage indices.
5. Inelastic static analysis with lateral load (push
over) of the structure with strength S0 to determine the yielding seismic coecient and the plastic energy EP according to Section 2.1.
6. Calculation of vector ID0 corresponding to damage indices of the structure with strength S 0 ,
according to the procedure given in Section 2.2.
7. Denition of vector IDobj based on the damage
indices ID0 and maximum allowable damage indices given in step 4.
8. Set n 0.
9. Denition
of
vector
IDn1
based
on
obj
n
IDobj and ID .
10. Denition of six auxiliary structures for each Dkj
equal to a small value (e.g. Dkj 0:1) and the
other Dkk 0 (for k 6 j). The auxiliary structures are dened with strength SBnj and SCjn
obtained with Eq. (7).
11. Calculation of the damage index IDnij of the
element i for each auxiliary structure j, according
to Section 2.3.
12. Calculation of the sensitivity coecients Kijn and
assemblage of the sensitivity matrix K n Kijn
.
13. Solution of Eq. (8) using singular value decomposition or other alternative method. Assemblage of
the vector kn1 kn1

.
j
14. Calculation of the Sn1 strengths of the structure
and the element strengths SBn1 and SC n1 ,
according to Eqs. (5) and (6), using the previously
determined kn1
.
j
15. Inelastic static analysis for lateral loads (push
over) of the structure with strengths SBn1 and
SC n1 to determine the yielding seismic coecient
and the plastic energy according to the description given in Section 2.1.
16. Calculation of the damage index IDn1
for each
i
element i in the structure with strength Sn1 ,
according to the description of Section 2.2.
Assemblage of vector IDn with IDni of all the elements used in the search of strengths.
17. Comparison between IDn1 and IDobj . If the difference is acceptable the process is stopped,
otherwise it continues.
18. Return to step 8, replace n with n1.
3. Application of the method to a six-storey frame
The application of the proposed methodology to a
six-storey reinforced concrete frame (Fig. 1) is pre-

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

sented next. The inertial masses are assigned to the

oors in such a way that the period of the structure is
equal to 1 s. The strong earthquake has a peak ground
acceleration equal to 0.30 g and a peak velocity equal
to 0.30 m/s. The maximum lateral displacement at the
top oor, calculated with the elastic response spectrum,
is equal to 10 cm. The duration of the strong motion is
estimated in 20 s and the Arias intensity is estimated in
1.30 m/s2. The input energy per unit of mass, calculated with the Kuwamura expression [14], is equal to
13.6 ton-m. The lateral load distribution used in the
non-linear static analysis was obtained from the static
method of the Venezuela seismic code [4]. Fig. 1 also
shows this distribution. These calculations correspond
to steps 1 and 2 of the procedure presented in Section
2.4.
The strength for the moderate earthquake, S 0 , is
determined with a peak ground acceleration equal to
0.10 g (earthquake with a 20-year return period in San
Jose, Costa Rica [23]). The strength for the strong
earthquake, S m , was determined according to the
requirements of Costa Rica seismic code [3] (requirements similar to those of California) with a peak
ground acceleration equal to 0.30 g. Elastic behavior is
considered in both cases, no reduction due to ductility
and other eects is applied (step 3). The value of b in
the damage index expression (Eq. (4)) is estimated in
0.15 for all the elements. The ultimate rotation, hu , is
estimated in 0.035 radians for the beams and rststorey columns and 0.02 for the other columns. These
rotations consider the bending and shear eects. Allowable damage indices are chosen per oor (or storey) for
the beams, the two external columns and the internal
columns. These are the three type of elements where
the damage indices will be calculated, 18 elements in
total, that is NM 18.

Fig. 1. Dimensions (cm), loads, masses and periods of the six-storey

structure.

2041

The structure with strength S0 has Cy 0:106,

Ep =Ei 0:817, and Ep 11:18 ton-m (step 5) for
f 0:02. The lateral displacement for the strong earthquake is increased by 15% to achieve 11.5 cm, according to Section 2.2.
The damage indices for the corresponding structure
with strength S 0 , ID0 (step 6), are shown in the second
column of Table 1 where large values are observed at
the base of the rst storey columns and at the beams of
the rst and second oor; these values are greater than
those given in Section 2.2 as maximum allowable indices. With ID0 and the maximum allowable indices, the
target damage index vector IDobj , is obtained (step 7)
and shown in the second column of Table 2. It can be
seen that they satisfy the criteria mentioned in Section
2.2. Then n is set equal to zero (step 8). Next the target
damage index for the rst iteration, ID1obj , (step 9), is
dened and shown in the second column of Table 2.
The selection of ID1obj is done aiming to decrease the
dierence between ID1obj and ID0 and reduce the
numerical errors in the solution of Eq. (8).
Following steps 10 to 13, the values of k1j are calculated and shown in the rst row of Table 3. The
strength S1 of the new structure is obtained using eqs.
(5) and (6) (step 14). New values of Cy 0:128 and
EP 10:2 ton-m are determined for structure S 1 (step
15) and new damage indices, ID1 , are calculated (step
16) and shown in the second column of Table 1. Comparing ID1 of Table 1 with IDobj of Table 2 (step 17), it
can be observed that the damage indices of structure S1
are close to the target values with the exception of the
rst storey columns. Due to these dierences the proTable 1
Damage Indices in the elements for each iteration
Element

Damage indices
in S0 ID0

Damage indices in Damage indices in

S1 ID1
S2 ID2

B6
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1
EC6
EC5
EC4
EC3
EC2
EC1
CC6
CC5
CC4
CC3
CC2
CC1

0.158
0.139
0.234
0.364
0.449
0.492
0.044
0.095
0.108
0.079
0.061
0.793
0.062
0.120
0.165
0.149
0.136
0.581

0.166
0.152
0.263
0.361
0.400
0.402
0.046
0.110
0.103
0.070
0.068
0.569
0.075
0.149
0.172
0.154
0.187
0.375

0.169
0.163
0.286
0.392
0.420
0.389
0.045
0.115
0.105
0.066
0.078
0.413
0.073
0.157
0.171
0.152
0.218
0.332

CCN, central column at storey N; ECN, external column at storey N;

BN, beam at oor N.

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

2042
Table 2
Allowable damage indices
Element

Target IDobj

Target at iteration Target al iteration

1 ID1obj
2 ID2obj

B6
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1
EC6
EC5
EC4
EC3
EC2
EC1
CC6
CC5
CC4
CC3
CC2
CC1

0.160
0.140
0.250
0.360
0.40
0.40
0.050
0.100
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.400
0.070
0.120
0.160
0.150
0.140
0.350

0.158
0.139
0.234
0.364
0.40
0.40
0.040
0.095
0.108
0.079
0.061
0.600
0.062
0.120
0.165
0.149
0.136
0.500

0.166
0.152
0.263
0.361
0.40
0.40
0.046
0.110
0.103
0.070
0.068
0.400
0.075
0.149
0.172
0.154
0.187
0.350

Fig. 2.

Table 3
Values of kj

First
iteration kj1
Second
iteration k2j

k1

k2

k3

k4

k5

k6

0.151

0.435

0.362

0.00

0.541

0.141

0.106

0.083 0.143

0.00

0.00

0.121

cess continued. A new target damage index vector,

ID2obj , was dened with values similar to those of IDobj ;
the new iteration for n 1 is started at step 8. The
resulting kj values for this second iteration are shown
in Table 3. The damage index values for the S2 structure are shown in the fourth column of Table 1. They
are very close to the target damage indices, IDobj , of
Table 2 and for this reason the design process is stopped. The structure with strength S2 satises the adopted requirements, with a damage distribution almost
uniform and very close to the target. Fig. 2 shows the
strengths and the damage indices in each iteration. It is
observed that columns require a greater strength
increment than the beams, and also the strength increments are smaller in the upper elements and larger in
the lower elements.
4. Evaluation of the proposed method
The accuracy of the damage indices predicted by the
proposed method is evaluated by means of a non-linear
response history analysis of the resulting structure with
strength S2 subjected to several recorded motions. The
severity of the earthquake motions is similar to that of
the strong earthquake used in the previous example. To

Strength and damage indices at each iteration.

perform these analyses, eight acceleration records are

chosen whose more relevant characteristics are shown
in Table 4. The Cobano, Alajuela and Limon earthquakes are described in [22]. To keep some level of similitude in the severity of the ground motions, they were
modied following some normalizing criteria. Four different normalizing criteria were considered to dene
four groups of records: (1) same input energy, Ei
13:6 ton-m; (2) same lateral displacement at the top
oor, 10 cm; (3) same normalized input power,
Np 0:68; and (4) same peak ground acceleration,
amax 0:30 g. In this last group the Mexico record is
excluded because the resultant motion is unrealistic.
Table 4
Earthquake ground motions
Earthquake,
date

Station
direction

Ms

Peak
acceleration
a (g)

Cobano,
25 March 1990

Hospital
Puntarenas,
N 90 E
Cipet,
N 90 E

6.9

0.25

5.7

0.45

17

7.5

0.19

20.8

6.3

0.34

27

8.1

0.16

33.1

CIG,
N 90 E

5.4

0.68

8.2

Llolleo,
N 10 E
Pacoima,
N 76 W

7.8

0.67

40.4

6.4

1.25

13.9

Alajuela,
22 December
1990
Limon,
22 April 1991
Imperial Valley,
18 March 1940
Mexico,
19 September
1985
El Salvador,
10 October
1986
Chile,
3 March 1985
San Fernando,
9 February 1971

UCR,
N 00 E
El Centro,
N 00 E
STC,
N 90 E

Duration
td (s)
9.6

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

2043

Table 5
Displacement (cm) at the top oor for each ground motion in each
group
Ground
motion

Group 1
(controlled
energy)

Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
(controlled (controlled
(controlled
displacement) input power) acceleration)

Alajuela
Mexico
El Centro
El Salvador
Cobano
Limon
Llolleo
Pacoima
Average

17.4
11.7
14.5
28.2
25.4
12.1
7.61
14.2
16.4

10.0
10.1
9.99
9.97
9.99
10.0
9.94
10.1
10.0

15.3
16.6
18.4
13.7
17.9
12.2
10.1
12.7
14.6

8.3

13.6
10.5
24.9
5.3
7.08
10.8
11.5

Table 5 shows the displacement at the top oor produced by each record in each group. A large dispersion
of the values within each group is observed with the
obvious exception of group 2. This dispersion is due to
the dierences in the ground motion details. However,
as a result of all the inelastic dynamic analyses the
average value of the plastic energy divided by input
energy, Ep =Ei , was very close to 0.73 that was obtained
with the proposed method in the resultant structure S2.

Fig. 3. Damage indices (ID) in the external columns for each

ground motion, with controlled displacement.

4.1. Comparison of damage indices

For each structural element a damage index was calculated from the non-linear response to each ground
motion in each group. For all the eight analysis in each
group an average damage index is calculated for the
elements in each oor (or storey), and also the standard deviation and the condence limits of the average
for 90% of certitude [26].
Fig. 3 shows the damage indices in the external columns for each ground motion in group 2. The largest
values of the indices are in the rst storey. Fig. 4 compares the damage indices predicted with the proposed
method (PM) and the average of the damage indices
for all ground motions (Av), including the two condence limits, superior condence limit (LCs) and
inferior condence limit (LCi). Observe how the proposed method yields a value quite similar to the average, specially in storeys 1, 4, 5 and 6. Results for beams
and central columns are shown in Figs. 36. In general,
the damage indices predicted by the proposed method
are located between the condence limits or close to
them, for most elements.
A similar precision was observed in the damage indices obtained using the ground motions of group 4
(controlled acceleration, Table 5), where the values
obtained with the proposed method are always within
the range dened by the condence limits, with the
exception of the beams at oor 5, the external columns
at storey 6 and the central columns at storey 3 and

Fig. 4. Comparison of damage indices in lateral columns (displacement controlled, group 2).

Fig. 5. Damage Indices (ID) in beams for each ground motion with
displacement controlled (group 2).

2044

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

Fig. 6. Comparison of damage indices in beams (displacement controlled, group 2).

storey 6 which have values slightly larger than those of

the superior condence limit.
In the case of group 1 and group 3, ground motions
normalized with controlled energy and controlled input
power, respectively, the values of the damage indices
predicted by the proposed method are, in many cases,
under the inferior condences limit; these results were
expected because the average lateral displacement at
the top oor of the structure for groups 1 and 3 is larger than 10 cm that is the lateral displacement used in
the proposed method, as pointed out in the last row of
Table 5. Repeating the calculation increasing the lateral displacement in 64 and 46% to match the average
values for groups 1 and 3, a similar precision as that
obtained in groups 2 and 4 was attained.
5. Conclusions
A design method for reinforced concrete frames that
allows to control the expected damage indices in structural elements during strong earthquakes, was presented. The method performs successive static inelastic
analyses (push-over) in the structure, changing the
strength of the elements according to an iterative process that pursues to keep the damage indices within
predetermined ranges.
The strength of the structural elements is determined
in order to satisfy the basic design philosophy that
requires elastic behavior for moderate earthquakes and
inelastic behavior with acceptable damage during strong
earthquakes. Maximum lateral displacement and plastic dissipated energy are used as design parameters.
The proposed design method was applied to a sixoor framed structure and the desired solution was
obtained after two cycles of search of the optimization
parameters. The damage indices, as well as its distribution among the dierent elements, are within the
ranges adopted in the design process.

The proposed method was able to reduce damage

indices at points where they were required, with no
need to increase the strength uniformly in all the elements of the structure. This means that the proposed
method succeeds in distributing the strength along the
height of the building and between beams and columns, in such a way that the damage indices are within
the predetermined ranges.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the method, the
resultant structure was subjected to several acceleration
records. The damage indices determined through
inelastic dynamic analyses were similar to those predicted in the design.
It is possible to design earthquake-resistant structures predicting and controlling the damage in each design stage, which represents an advantage with respect
to design methods prescribed in most seismic codes.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank IMME of the Central University
of Venezuela, and CONICIT (Republic of Costa Rica)
for the nancial support given to this research.
References
[1] International Conference of Building Ocials (ICBO). 1997 Uniform building code, Volume 2, Structural engineering design
provisions, Whittier, CA, 1997, 492 p.
[2] NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings, 1997 edition. FEMA302, Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, DC, 1998.
[3] Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica.
Codigo Ssmico de Costa Rica 1986 (in Spanish). Editorial Tecnologica de Costa Rica, Cartago 1987, 110 p.
[4] COVENIN Edicaciones Sismorresistentes (in Spanish), Normas
Venezolana COVENIN 1756-98 (Rev. 2001), May 2001.
[5] Park Y-J, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. ASCE, J Struct Eng 1985;111(4, April):72239.
[6] Reinhorn AM, Mander JB, Bracci J, Kunnath SK. A post-earthquake damage evaluation strategy for R/C buildings. Proceedings
of the Fourth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, May 1990, Palm Springs, California. 1990, p. 104756.
[7] Bariola J. Drift response of medium-rise reinforced concrete
buildings during earthquakes. ACI Struct J 1992;89(4):38490
JulyAugust.
[8] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced
concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Report N. UCB/
EERC-91/02. University of California at Berkeley; 1991, 179 p.
[9] California Seismic Safety Commission. Seismic evaluation and
retrot of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council ATC40, Report No. SSC 96-01, 1996.
[10] Blume JA. A reserve energy technique for the earthquake design
and rating of structures in the inelastic range. Proceedings of the
2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II,
Tokyo, Japan, July. 1960, p. 106183.
[11] Kato B, Akiyama H. Seismic design of steel buildings. ASCE, J
Struct Div 1982;108(ST5):170921 August.
[12] Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1990;19:7790.

M.F. Cruz, O.A. Lopez / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 20372045

[13] Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M. Seismic demand in medium- and
long-period structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1989;18:113344.
[14] Kuwamura H, Galambos TV. Earthquake load for structural
reliability. ASCE, J Struct Eng 1989;115(5):141662 June.
[15] Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC. Seismic energy demands on
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 1993;22:53345.
[16] Cruz MF, Lopez OA. Plastic energy dissipated during an earthquake as a function of structural properties and ground motion
characteristics. Eng Struct 2000;22(7):78492 Elsevier.
[17] Teran-Gilmore A. Energy concepts and damage indices. NISEE
Symposium in Honor of Vitelmo Bertero, California. 1997.
[18] Cruz MF. Una metodologa para el diseno sismo resistente de
estructuras con dano controlado. Doctoral thesis, Universidad
Central De Venezuela, Caracas, 1996 (in Spanish).
[19] Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. Damage-limiting aseismic design of
buildings. Third National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, Charleston, South Carolina, August. 1986, p. 17219.

2045

[20] Park YJ, Ang AHSW, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis of
reinforced concrete buildings. ASCE, J Struct Eng
1985;111(4):74057 April.
[21] Williams SM, Sexmith RG. Seismic damage indices for concrete
structures: a state of the art review. EERI, Earthq Spectra
1995;11(May, 2); California.
[22] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Proceedings US
Costa Rica Workshop Costa Rica Earthquakes 19901991. Publication 93-A, California, 1993.
[23] The J.A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. A study of seismic risk for Costa Rica. Report No. 25, California, 1977.
[24] Priestley MJ, Calvi GM. Towards a capacity-design assessment
procedure for reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Spectra
1991;7(3):41337.
[25] Haykin S. Singular value decomposition. Adaptive lter theory,
2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1991, p. 40242.
[26] Bruck HD. Introduccion a la estadstica matematica. Mexico
DF: Editorial Frillas; 1979 (in Spanish).