849

Seismic performance of a full-scale, reinforced

high-performance concrete building. Part II:
Analytical study
Sébastien Mousseau, Patrick Paultre, and Jacky Mazars

Abstract: Full-scale tests provide valuable information on the characteristics of building structures that can be used to
evaluate design methods, to calibrate modelling techniques, and to determine damage corresponding to loading levels.
These tests are scarce due to the enormous requirements in testing space and specialized testing equipment. The seismic
behaviour of a full-scale, two-storey, reinforced high-performance concrete building designed with moderate ductility de-
tailing is evaluated by pseudo-dynamic testing, during which increasing seismic loads are applied, resulting in increasing
levels of permanent damage to the structure. This paper presents the analytical predictions of the test results using a global
force–displacement parameters approach and a refined approach, half-way between global modelling and finite element
modelling, using force–strain parameters and damage mechanics principles. Identification of the parameters required to de-
scribe the response parameters are presented together with a description of the numerical procedures used in each ap-
proach. It is shown that the predictions are in good agreement with the test results. Advantages and disadvantages of each
approach are highlighted in the context of performance-based analysis and design.
Key words: high-performance concrete, reinforced concrete, moment-resisting frames, earthquake engineering, over-
strength, ductility, pseudo-dynamic testing, push-over analysis, damage mechanics, nonlinear analysis.
Résumé : Des essais à grande échelle fournissent des informations importantes sur les caractéristiques des structures qui
peuvent être utilisées pour évaluer les méthodes de dimensionnement, pour calibrer des techniques de modélisation, et
pour déterminer les niveaux d’endommagement correspondant à des niveaux de chargement. La raretée de ces essais est
due principalement à la nécessitée de disposer d’espace de laboratoire conséquent et d’équipements d’essais spécialisés. Le
comportement d’un bâtiment en vraie grandeur de deux étages a été évaluée par essais pseudo-dynamiques dans lesquels
le bâtiment est soumis à des niveaux d’excitation sismique croissants causant des dommages de plus en plus important à
la structure. Dans cet article les prédictions numériques des réesultats obtenus lors des essais à l’aide d’une approche glo-
bale utilisant les forces et les déplacements et d’une approche semi-globale utilisant les forces et les déformations asso-
ciées aux principes de la mécanique de l’endommagement sont présentées. L’identification des paramètres nécessaires à
l’analyse est décrite et les procédures numériques sont expliquées. On montre que les résultats numériques se comparent
bien aux résultats expérimentaux. Les avantages et les désavantages de chaque approche sont soulignés dans le contexte
d’une analyse ou d’un dimensionnement basée sur la performance.
Mots-clés : béton à hautes performances, béton armé, ossature résistant aux moments, génie parasismique, surcapacité,
ductilité, essai pseudo-dynamique, analyse par poussée progressive, mécanique de l’endommagement, analyse non linéaire.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction high-performance concrete building. The first paper (Mous-

This paper is the second of two companion papers on the
seismic performance of a full-scale, two-storey reinforced
Received 31 May 2007. Revision accepted 9 January 2008.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
31 July 2008.
S. Mousseau. SNC-Lavalin inc, 455 René-Lévesque Boulevard
West, Montréal, QC H2Z 1Z3, Canada.
P. Paultre.1 Department of Civil Engineering, Université de
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada.
J. Mazars. Laboratoire Sols, Solides, Structures - Risques,
Grenoble Universités, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 December 2008.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: Patrick.Paultre@usherbrooke.ca).
seau and Paultre 2008) focuses on the design of the test
structure, the experimental procedures, the pseudo-dynamic
(PSD) and push-over tests, and the test results in the context
of the new Canadian standard CSA A23.3–04 Design of
concrete structures (CSA 2004) and new edition of the Na-
tional building code of Canada (NRCC 2005). This paper
compares the experimental results obtained during the seis-
mic tests with the predictions of inelastic time-history dy-
namic analyses. The main objective of this paper is to
evaluate the performance of different inelastic time-history
dynamic and monotonic analyses used for predicting the
seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings and to
validate numerical modelling assumptions.
The behaviour of reinforced concrete is the combination
of several mechanisms including cracking of concrete in ten-
sion, effects of confinement in compression, spalling of con-
crete cover, yielding of the reinforcement, and cyclic

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35: 849–862 (2008) doi:10.1139/L08-019 # 2008 NRC Canada
850 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

behaviour of concrete and steel. Knowledge of these mecha- Fig. 1. Two-dimensional general structural model.
nisms is essential to predict the seismic response of rein-
forced concrete structures with accuracy.
Three different types of modelling using the finite ele-
ment method were chosen to perform the nonlinear time-his-
tory dynamic analyses. The first method is a macroscale
approach that consists of representing the inelastic behaviour
of the structural elements by a relationship between global
variables (moment–curvature, force–displacement, etc.). The
second method is a mesoscale approach using a two-
dimensional layered beam element associating local constit-
utive laws to global force–displacement variables. The
third method is a microscale modelling using finite elements
based on a stress–strain relationship and local constitutive
laws. Only the first two methods will be discussed in this
paper.

Fig. 2. Moment–curvature relationship for first-floor concrete col-

Predicting nonlinear responses at the
umn under an axial load of –96 kN (compression).
macroscale
The computer program RUAUMOKO (Carr 1998) was
used to predict the nonlinear responses of the two-storey
frame structure at the macroscale modelling level. This
program allows time-history response analysis of a two-
dimensional framed structure subjected to ground accelera-
tion and monotonic loading. The general structural model
used for the nonlinear analyses is shown in Fig. 1. The
structure properties were presented in a companion paper
(Mousseau and Paultre 2008). To predict the nonlinear re-
sponses of a reinforced concrete frame structure with this
program, it is necessary to know the nonlinear hysteretic
response of all components (column response, beam–slab
response, and joint response). The hysteretic responses of
these components are used to determine the properties of
nonlinear springs in the structural modelling and are de-
pendent on the amount and detailing of the reinforcement
as well as on material properties. All beams and columns
were simulated with Giberson one-component frame mem- stress–strain models for the reinforcement and the confined
bers (Sharpe 1974) with two zero-length nonlinear springs and unconfined concrete. The mechanical properties of the
at each end. The Giberson frame members were assigned concrete and reinforcement steel bars presented in the com-
linear elastic properties, EI, and the two plastic hinge panion paper were used in the sectional analyses. Moment–
springs at both ends of the element were assigned non- curvature relationships were generated for each structural
linear moment–rotation responses based on a specified member of the model. Results obtained from these analyses
moment–curvature (M–’) hysteretic relationship associated were used for defining the backbone bilinear moment–
with an equivalent plastic hinge length (Priestley et al. curvature response of the plastic hinge springs at both
1996) expressed as: ends of each element.
Figures 2 and 3 show moment–curvature results for the
½1
lp ¼ 0:08lc þ 0:022dbl fy first-floor column subjected to an axial load of –96 kN.
Ultimate compressive strain of confined concrete was ob-
where lc is the length between the end of the member and tained with the following equation (Priestley et al. 1996):
the point of contraflexure, and dbl and fy are the diameter
and the yield stress of the longitudinal bars, respectively. In 1:4
s fyh "su
½2
"cu ¼ 0:004 þ
the analyses, an equivalent plastic hinge length of 250 mm fcc0
was used.
The moment–curvature relationships (Fig. 2) used for where rs is the volumetric ratio of confining steel, fyh is the
each structural member were developed from a model that confining steel yield strength, fcc0 is the confined concrete
takes into account passive confinement in concrete elements peak stress, and 3su is the steel strain at maximum tensile
(Cusson and Paultre 1995; Légeron and Paultre 2003). This stress. As shown in Fig. 3, a bilinear moment–curvature re-
uniaxial confinement model is integrated into the WMNPhi lationship was chosen based on sectional analyses. This bi-
sectional analysis program (Paultre 2001). This software is linear model is determined by passing a line from the origin
used to predict the moment–curvature response using several to the point of first yielding in tension characterized by the
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al. 851

Fig. 3. Bilinear moment–curvature relationship privileging maxi- Fig. 4. Bilinear moment–curvature relationship privileging maxi-
mum ductility. mum resistance.

moment at first yielding in tension My and corresponding Fig. 5. Modified Takeda general degrading stiffness force f,
curvature ’y . The line of the second part of the bilinear and displacement u, hysteretic model (Takeda et al. 1970): (a) vari-
model always passes through the ultimate moment Mu and able reloading stiffness and (b) reduced unloading stiffness.
ultimate curvature ’u point and has a slope that is deter-
mined to ensure equality of the area under the analytical
moment–curvature response and the equivalent bilinear mo-
ment–curvature relationship. The intersection of these two
lines gives the effective yield point (Mye ; ’ey ) of the bilinear
idealization.
The bilinear input values of moments, M, curvatures, ’,
sectional ductility, ’ , and the ratio of the post yield stiff-
ness to the initial stiffness, r, are shown in Fig. 3 for the
first-floor columns. This approximation clearly displays the
significant curvature ductility of the section, but the impor-
tant local increase in stiffness at the beginning of the curve
due to strain hardening is not well reproduced. As presented
in Fig. 4, a second approach privileging maximum resistance
and better characterizing the first part of the moment–
curvature curve was chosen because the curvature ductility
demands for the nonlinear analyses carried out in this Structural model
study were always less than the maximum curvature ductil- Figure 1 shows the elevation view of the two-dimensional
ity of the second bilinear model. This approach was chosen frame. The two-storey reinforced concrete frame has a 5 m
and verified for all the other structural members of the fi- bay and storey height measured to top of slab is 3 m. Rota-
nite element model. tional spring elements were used to connect the beams and
columns to account for the geometry of the beam–column
The modified Takeda’s degrading stiffness model (Takeda
joints. The properties of the springs were determined assum-
et al. 1970; Otani 1974; Litton 1975; Kanaan and Powell
1975) was used to predict the cyclic behaviour of the struc- ing a uniform compression field and accounted for the axial
tural members. This model has been found to be well suited load, moment, and shear acting on the beam–column joints.
to represent the hysteretic response of ductile elements. This For the resistance of each beam, the slab bars within three
model is shown in Fig. 5. Basically, the model uses a bilin- slab thicknesses (3hs) from the face of the beam were as-
ear backbone envelope defined by the initial stiffness k0 and sumed to contribute to beam strength. All the details of the
strain hardening with stiffness rk0 after reaching the yield reinforcement for the beams and columns used in the sec-
force fy. Reloading stiffness, kl, is governed by parameter b tional analyses necessary to obtain member properties are
and depends on the past plastic displacement, up (Fig. 5a). given in the companion paper (Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
Reduced unloading stiffness, ku, depends on the largest pre-
vious hinge displacement, ui (Fig. 5b). This effect is con- Nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses
trolled by parameter a. In this study, a = 1 and b = 0 were The Newmark constant acceleration numerical integration
used for all analyses. For the columns, the yield moments in method with constant time step Dt = 0.02 s was adopted for
the modified Takeda hysteretic model vary according to the the analysis. The probable mass (1.0D + 0.5L, where D is
axial loads. Therefore, a classical axial load – maximum the dead load and L is the live load) of the frame was con-
bending moment yield interaction envelope obtained from sidered as well as a Raleigh-type viscous damping model.
sectional analyses with WMNPhi was used. Damping ratios and natural periods measured during the
# 2008 NRC Canada
852
Fig. 6. RUAUMOKO predictions for (a) 1st-floor displacement,
(b) roof displacements, and (c) base shear for (d) north–south com-
ponent of horizontal ground acceleration of the El Centro earth-
quake scaled to 0.430g peak ground acceleration.
forced-vibration tests carried out on the building (Paultre et
al. 2007) were used to obtain the damping matrix. Modal
damping was 1.43% at the first resonant period T1 =
0.587 s and 1.54% at the second resonant period T2 =
0.185 s for the second resonance. Time-history dynamic
analyses were performed with the El Centro recording of
the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake. The peak ground ac-
celeration (PGA) of that excitation function was scaled to a
maximum acceleration, üg max, of 0.430g. The first 30 s time
history of the input accelerations are shown in Fig. 6d. The
5% damped pseudo-acceleration response spectra (PSA) for
this ground motion is presented in the companion paper
(Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
The predictions of the nonlinear numerical model are
compared in Figs. 6–7 and Table 1, with the experimental
results measured during the pseudo-dynamic tests carried
out on the building with the El Centro ground motion scaled
to 0.430g PGA. The two calculated resonant flexural periods
of the reinforced concrete frame are 0.684 and 0.185 s.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Fig. 7. RUAUMOKO predictions for (a) 1st-floor displacement, (b)
roof displacements, and (c) base shear for (d) north–south compo-
nent of horizontal ground acceleration of the El Centro earthquake
scaled to 0.430g peak ground acceleration.
These values are similar to the natural periods measured be-
fore the 0.430g PGA seismic test. Figures 6a and 6b com-
pare the first-floor and roof displacements measured during
the PSD test with the displacements obtained from the
RUAUMOKO analysis. The behaviour prediction is very
good, even if the damage caused by the application of a ser-
ies of earthquakes of various intensities was not considered
because the formulation of the elements does not account
for strength degradation prior to the analysis.
The maximum predicted displacements for the first- and
second-floor (roof) are 57.4 and 127.7 mm, while those meas-
ured are 50.9 and 118.4 mm, respectively. A drift from the
zero-line in the measured displacements is noticeable from
approximately 4 s, which is very well reproduced by the
numerical analysis. Predicted maximum interstorey drift
for the second floor is 73.3 mm and the measured one is
67.5 mm.
Figure 6c compares the measured and calculated base
shear. The prediction is excellent as the maximum measured
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al. 853

Table 1. Comparison of experimental and predicted maximum response values obtained with macro modelling
(RUAUMOKO).

u1max u2max (u2–u1)max f1max f2max V0max M0max 

(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (-)
Pseudo-dynamic test 50.9 118.4 67.5 110.5 169.0 204.3 1031.4 2.11
RUAUMOKO 57.4 127.7 73.3 113.2 163.1 201.2 972.7 2.28

Difference +12.8% +7.9% +8.6% +2.4% –3.5% –1.5% –5.7% +8.1%

Note: u1max, maximum displacement of DOF 1 (first storey); u2max, maximum displacement of DOF 2 (second floor); f1max,
maximum first storey shear; f2max, maximum second storey shear; V0max, maximum base shear; M0max, maximum base overturn-
ing moment; 
, structural ductility ratio.

Fig. 8. Time history of the first 4 s of the predicted and measured
base shears V0, time intervals of yielding, and locations of plastic
hinges.
The first 4 s of the base shear response obtained with
RUAUMOKO is presented in Fig. 8. The time intervals of
yielding and the locations of plastic hinges are also shown.
Yielding is visible around 2 s during the strongest shocks of
the earthquake. The strong column – weak beam principle
used in the building design is effective in keeping away
yielding in the columns at the beam–column joints.
The curvature ductilities of the columns and beams for
positive and negative moments are presented in Table 2.
These values were calculated with WMNPhi by using the
confinement model developed by Légeron and Paultre
(2003). Transverse reinforcement calculated with the new
confinement requirements of the CSA A23.3-04 (CSA
2004) results in members with good ductilities. The maxi-
mum curvature-ductility demand obtained for all the struc-
tural members during the nonlinear time-history dynamic
analysis performed with the El Centro recording scaled to
0.430g PGA are also presented in this table. The curvature-
ductility demand for the columns was between 0.82 and
1.65, while for beams it was between 0.68 and 1.21. All
these values are clearly lower than the curvature-ductility
capacities of the elements.

Nonlinear monotonic analysis

base shear (204.3 kN) is almost equal to the maximum pre-
dicted base shear (201.2 kN). According to the analysis, the
first yielding of a structural element (springs at the left end
of first floor beam and at the bottom end of first floor left
column) occurs at 1.92 s.
The structural model was also used to predict nonlinear
push-over response with RUAUMOKO. Figure 9 shows the
overall hysteretic behaviour of the building in terms of lat-
eral load versus roof displacement. The experimental results
of the push-over test and the results of the pseudo-dynamic
test with the El Centro ground motion scaled to 0.430g
PGA are also shown. The push-over prediction carried out
with RUAUMOKO is excellent. The prediction clearly rep-
resents the experimental results and the strain hardening ef-
fects of the structure during both the PSD and push-over
tests.
Figure 10 shows the sequence of hinge formation ob-
tained from the nonlinear monotonic analysis. First yielding
occurs in the first-floor beam at a base shear 60% over the
design base shear of 99.8 kN. A bilinear idealization of the
building response is also presented in this figure. According
to this idealization, top displacement corresponding to over-
all yielding level, Dy, is 76.2 mm.
Table 2 presents the curvature-ductility demand of all
frame members when the push-over reaches structural duc-
tility, D , of 3.62, i.e., the level reached during the experi-
mental test. All these values are clearly lower then the
curvature-ductility capacities of the considered elements.
# 2008 NRC Canada
854 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

Table 2. Sectional ductility demand for the nonlinear analyses with macro modelling (RUAUMOKO).

El Centro ð€u gmax ¼ 0:430 gÞ Push-over ð
¼ 3:62Þ

’ey ’u ’u ’ ’ ’ ’
First-storey columns 0.0150 0.5450 36.35 0.0247 1.65 0.0553 3.69
Second-storey columns 0.0152 0.5990 39.46 0.0124 0.82 0.0129 0.85
First-storey beam (–) 0.0144 0.4060 28.14 0.0098 0.68 0.0126 0.88
Second-storey beam (–) 0.0145 0.5910 40.82 0.0133 0.92 0.0270 1.86
First-storey beam (+) 0.0170 0.6810 40.15 0.0205 1.21 0.0483 2.84
Second-storey beam (+) 0.0168 0.7070 41.99 0.0175 1.04 0.0363 2.16
Note: ; ’u , curvature ductility capacity; (–), negative moment; (+), positive moment.

Fig. 9. Base shear-roof displacement response for push-over analy- Fig. 11. Concrete uniaxial behaviour with the La Borderie (1991)
sis. PSD, pseudo-dynamic. model. ft, tensile strength; fc0 , compressive strength; 3, strain; s,
stress; sf, crack closure stress.

Fig. 10. Bilinear idealization of the building response and sequence

of hinge formation for push-over analysis.
Predicting nonlinear responses with
mesoscale modelling
Computer program EFiCoS (Éléments Finis par Couches
Superposées) (La Borderie 1991), which uses a layered fi-
nite element approach, is used to perform nonlinear seismic
analysis of structures using mesomodelling associated with
damage mechanics. In this approach, forces and displace-
ments are used while strains are related to displacements by
the Bernouilli–Euler hypothesis. A description of the pro-
gram is given below.
La Borderie unilateral damage law
The concrete model used in EFiCoS is based on the prin-
ciples of damage mechanics (Mazars 1984; Lemaitre and
Chaboche 1996) and was developed by La Borderie (1991).
Accurate modelling of concrete under seismic loading re-
quires accounting for the following phenomena: cracking in
tension, confinement effect in compression, crack closure
mechanism, and cyclic behaviour (see Fig. 11).
Damage mechanics material constitutive laws are used to
represent these phenomena. Damage mechanics uses damage
variables to quantify the damage state of materials. The EFi-
CoS computer program uses a unilateral damage law in
which two damage variables are used to describe concrete
uniaxial behaviour. Variable D1 is used for damage in ten-
sion and variable D2 is used for damage in compression.
These two damage variables reflect the degree of deteriora-
tion in tension and in compression, and are the material’s
memory recording the irreversible damage that the material
has accumulated. Damage cannot be recovered while the
damage variable varies from 0 for an undamaged material
to 1 for a totally damaged one. A damage variable repre-
sents the ratio of the volume of damaged material to the ini-
tial unit volume of material after a certain loading history.
The damage law used in EFiCoS was first proposed by La
Borderie (1991) and is based on the work of Mazars (1986).
Although Mazars formulated the damage model in three di-
mensions, EFiCoS is based on a uniaxial formulation appli-
cable for two-dimensional analyses. In this formulation, the
total strain is given by
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al. 855

½3
" ¼ "e þ "i 2 2 

½12
Y2 ¼ þ
2E0 ð1  D2 Þ2 E0 ð1  D2 Þ2
where 3e and 3i are the elastic and inelastic strains, respec-
tively, and are given by
The damage threshold is handled using the loading func-
þ  tion fi = Yi – Zi, where Yi is the energy release rate and Zi is
½4
"e ¼ þ
E0 ð1  D1 Þ E0 ð1  D2 Þ the threshold dependent on the hardening variables. Before
loading, the damage threshold is equal to the initial threshold
 1 D1  2 D2 (Zi = Y0i) and damage variable Di = 0. When loading in-
½5
"i ¼ F 0 ðÞ þ creases, Yi increases up to Y0i (fi = 0); Zi and Di remain un-
E0 ð1  D1 Þ E0 ð1  D2 Þ
changed. If loading keeps on increasing, Yi > Y0i, then Zi = Yi
in which E0 is the initial tangent Young’s modulus, F(s) is and damage increases as
a crack closure function, b1 and b2 are material constants,
s+ is the positive part of the stress, and s – is the negative 1
part of the stress and are expressed by ½13
Di ¼ 1  i ¼ 1; 2
1 þ ½Ai ðYi  Y0i Þ
Bi
½6
 > 0 ! þ ¼ ;  ¼ 0
where Ai and Bi are material constants. With reversal of
loading, Yi decreases; Di and Zi remain unchanged. Damage
½7
 < 0 ! þ ¼ 0;  ¼  will only increase when Yi reaches the new threshold of da-
mage Zi during the next loading cycle.
where s is the stress and F(s) includes a stiffness recovery
The behavioural law is defined by ten parameters. Param-
procedure from tension to compression and models the
eters Y01, A1, and B1 control the shape of the envelope curve
crack-closure mechanism (Fig. 11). Ramtani et al. (1992)
in tension, and parameters Y02, A2, and B2 control the shape
have developed specialized test procedures to characterize
of the curve in compression. Parameters b1, and b2 manage
the effects of damage in tension on compression responses.
the cyclic behaviour in tension and in compression, respec-
It has been found that a compressive stress, sf, is necessary
tively. Parameter sf controls the crack-closure mechanism.
to completely close the cracks (unilateral effect). Mazars et
Finally, E0 corresponds to the initial tangent modulus of the
al. (1989) have shown that a linear crack-closure function is
material. The method of identifying these parameters from
able to represent this complex mechanism. This function
uniaxial test results can be found in Légeron (1998) and is
can be expressed as
summarized below. Parameters controlling the behaviour in
½8
 > 0 ! FðÞ ¼ ; F 0 ðÞ ¼ 1 tension and in compression are identified independently.

  Identification of E0 and sf

½9
 f <  < 0 ! FðÞ ¼  1  ; Identification of the initial tangent modulus, E0, can be
2f easily obtained from standardized test results or from sug-
 gested values from design codes for concrete structures.
F 0 ðÞ ¼ 1 
f The crack closure stress, sf, can be obtained from the fol-
lowing relationship obtained from cyclic loading tests:
f
½10
 < f ! FðÞ ¼ ; F 0 ðÞ ¼ 0 ½14
f ¼ fc0 =10
2
where F’(s) is the derivative of the crack closure function
and sf is the stress at which a crack is supposed to be totally Identification of parameters controlling behaviour in
closed and concrete stiffness is no longer affected by the compression
previous cycle in tension. Hence, after crack closure, it is Parameter b2 controls the evolution of the permanent
assumed that the behaviour of concrete in compression is strain under cyclic compression and should be determined
not affected by accumulated damage in tension (Ramtani et from test data. Légeron et al. (2005) have shown that this
al. 1992). Equations [3], [4], and [5] indicate that loading parameter is a material constant and is based on a large
and unloading in compression take place on the same linear number of identifications; the authors have proposed to use
path, without hysteresis, when damage is unchanged. an initial value of 0.6fcc0 , where fcc0 is the compressive
Although some hysteresis is observed experimentally at a strength of confined concrete.
small amplitude, it is negligible when compared with the In the uniaxial formulation of the damage model, the ef-
hysteresis resulting from stress reversal following increase fects of lateral pressure from passive confinement need to
in damage. be accounted for when identifying parameters Y02, A2, and
The damage increase is consistent with the thermodynam- B2. Parameter Y02 controls the damage threshold in compres-
ics principle of irreversible processes. Let Y1 be the energy sion. An increase of Y02 increases the linear range of the
release rate in tension and Y2 be the energy release rate in concrete behaviour and increases the maximum strength
compression, as defined by with no change to the corresponding peak strain. Parameter
A2 controls the maximum stress and parameter B2 controls
þ2  1 FðÞ the ductility. An increase of A2 decreases the peak strength
½11
Y1 ¼ þ
2E0 ð1  D1 Þ 2 E0 ð1  D1 Þ2 and the corresponding strain. An increase of B2 decreases
ductility while increasing the strength slightly.
# 2008 NRC Canada
856 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

Table 3. Parameters of damage laws used for confined and unconfined concrete of the structure.

E0 Y01 A1 B1 b1 Y02 A2 B2 b2 sf
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa–1) (-) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa–1) (-) (MPa) (MPa)
Confined concrete
Columns 34 000 704  10–6 1:0  106 1.0 2.26 0.045 1.00 1.28 –58.0 9.16
Beams, floor 1 34 000 704  10–6 1:0  106 1.0 2.26 0.045 1.10 1.25 –53.0 8.89
Beams, floor 2 34 000 704  10–6 1:0  106 1.0 2.26 0.065 1.26 1.20 –49.0 8.46
Unconfined concrete
Cover, slab 35 500 701  10–6 1:0  106 1.0 2.29 0.058 7.50 5.50 –28.0 7.07

Fig. 12. Comparison of responses of the damage model [La Bord- Fig. 13. Comparison of responses of the damage model [La Bord-
erie (1991)] and tests results obtained from standard compressive erie (1991)] and the Légeron and Paultre (2003) model for confined
tests on concrete cylinders. concrete.

Identification of the three parameters mentioned above is ½16
ft ¼ 0:5fr

done graphically by fitting the response of a model of a con-
crete cylinder using the damage model to the measured
stress–strain curve obtained from the compressive tests of a
similar concrete cylinder, if they are available. If they are
not available, identification can be done on available expres-
sions for the stress–strain response of unconfined concrete.
Figure 12 compares the response curve predicted by the
damage model with experimentally determined response
curves from standard compressive tests performed on three
concrete cylinders. When there is passive confinement pres-
sure, the response curve produced by the damage model is
adjusted based on the curve predicted by the Légeron and
Paultre model (Légeron and Paultre 2003). Figure 13 com-
pares the response curve predicted by the damage model
with the response curve determined with the Légeron and
Paultre model.
Identification of parameters controlling behaviour in
tension
The cyclic behaviour of concrete in tension is controlled
by parameter b1. It can be expressed as (Légeron et al.
2005):
½15
 1 ¼ 0:5 þ 0:35ft
where ft is the tensile strength. When the modulus of rupture
is known, ft can be estimated from the following relation-
ship:
where fr is the modulus of rupture of concrete.
In monotonic tension, the model assumes that there is no
damage up to the tensile strength of the concrete. The dam-
age threshold Y01 is determined directly from eq. [11]:
ft2  ft
½17
Y01 ¼ þ 1
2E0 E0
Identification of parameters A1 and B1 can be done by fit-
ting the response curve in tension of a model of a concrete
cylinder yielded by the damage model to the stress–strain
curve obtained with the Vecchio and Collins (1986) tension
stiffening model. For nonlinear seismic analysis, the contri-
bution of the concrete after cracking can be neglected due to
crack interface deterioration. Hence, parameters A1 and B1
can be set at one, resulting in a sharp post-peak softening.
To properly model the structure, all parameters were iden-
tified for four types of concrete representing (i) the confined
concrete for the columns, (ii) the confined concrete for the
beams of storey one, (iii) the confined concrete for the
beams of storey two, and (iv) the unconfined concrete for
the cover and the slab. All parameters are presented in Ta-
ble 3.
EFiCoS computer program
The analysis at the mesoscale is performed with the EFi-
CoS computer program, which is a two-dimensional
damage-mechanics-based finite element program. The basic
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al. 857

Fig. 14. Layered beam element used in EFiCoS: (a) beam element Fig. 15. Predictions of the behaviour of columns (a) C100B60N15,
and (b) layered discretization. L, length of beam element. and (b) C100B60N25, and (c) C100B60N40 tested by Légeron and
Paultre (2000). P, axial load; rg, longitudinal reinforcement ratio;
rs, lateral reinforcement ratio. All dimensions in millimeters.

element used in the program is a layered Bernouilli-type

beam element with three degrees of freedom per node
(Fig. 14). Hence, plane sections are assumed to remain
plane. The damage variables are evaluated at the center of
each layer at element mid-length. The strain at the point of
evaluation of damage in each layer is evaluated with classi-
cal interpolation polynomials.
The determination of the element stiffness matrix is pre-
sented in Légeron et al. (2005). Reinforcement is incorpo-
rated into the concrete layers and is assumed to have
compatible strain, which allows determination of equivalent
modulus of elasticity. A damage mechanics behavioural law
(Rageuneau 1999) is used to model the cyclic behaviour of
reinforcing steel with strain hardening.
An EFiCoS analysis can be controlled by force or dis-
placement. Displacement control is particularly useful for
softening structures. The nonlinear algorithm used in the
program is robust and convergence is reached, even for
very steep post-peak softening. Earthquake effects are ac-
counted for by applying displacement and velocity history
at the supports and solving the equations of motion in terms
of total displacements. For dynamic analysis, the uncondi-
tionally stable Newmark constant acceleration step-by-step
integration method is used together with Rayleigh damping.
An important aspect of EFiCoS is the use of a relatively
small number of degrees of freedom for a given model by
using the nodal generalized displacements instead of layer
strain. This is very effective for seismic and cyclic loading
analyses for flexure-dominated structures, as the loading his-
tory of each layer is taken into account through the damage
variables and the number of degrees of freedom is kept to a
minimum. This small number of degrees of freedom signifi-
cantly reduces the computer time required for nonlinear
time-history analysis of complex structures. The program
can also be used for monotonic loading, such as push-over
analysis, while directly providing damage indices.
Three examples of predictions made with EFiCoS are
shown in Fig. 15 to illustrate the capacity of the program to
predict the response of structures or elements with large
nonlinearity under reversed cyclic loading. The figures com-
pare the measured tip force–displacement responses with the
EFiCoS predictions of three high-strength ( fc0 = 100 MPa)
concrete columns tested by Légeron and Paultre (2000)
under reversed cyclic loading. The three responses are for
columns with transverse reinforcement spaced at 60 mm 0.40Ag fc0 (C100B60N40), where Ag is the gross column
and subjected to constant axial load corresponding to cross section. It can be seen that the overall behaviour is
0.15Ag fc0 (C100B60N15), 0.25Ag fc0 (C100B60N25), and very well predicted in terms of loading and unloading
# 2008 NRC Canada
858
branches, maximum capacity, and pinching effects. The ex-
cellent prediction of these parameters reflects the fact that
the model is capable of taking into account confinement ef-
fects and crack closure mechanisms. The important fact,
useful for performance-based seismic design or analysis, is
that the model accounts for the effect of local behaviour,
i.e., cracking of concrete, onset of spalling at peak, progres-
sive spalling of the concrete cover, and yielding of the rein-
forcement steel. More comparisons can be found in Légeron
et al. (2005).
Response prediction at the mesoscale
The structure was discretized with 46 beam elements.
Rigid-end extension accounting for the beam–column joint
were simulated by using elements in that zone with a stiff-
ness that was 1000 times larger than the stiffness of adjoin-
ing elements.
The columns were subdivided into six elements along
their lengths. The column cross sections were discretized
with 13 layers with confined concrete properties and 17
layers with unconfined concrete properties. The beams were
subdivided into six elements. The beam cross sections were
discretized with 14 layers with confined concrete properties
and 19 layers with unconfined concrete properties. The part
of the slab that is considered to participate in beam stiffness
extends to a distance equal to three times the slab thickness.
The element lengths were chosen so as to avoid possible lo-
calization. This length was set equal to the equivalent plastic
hinge length given by eq. [1]. The complete finite element
model is shown in Fig. 16 for half of the structure, the other
half being symmetric.
As with the RUAUMOKO analyses, the results presented
here correspond to the first 30 s of the El Centro accelero-
gram normalized so that the maximum peak ground acceler-
ation is equal to 0.430g. The time steps, masses, and modal
damping used in the analyses are identical to those used in
the RUAUMOKO analyses. To obtain a good estimation of
the damage, prior to the analysis with the accelerogram
scaled at 0.430g, the model was subjected to the same accel-
erogram, scaled at a peak ground acceleration of 0.270g, as
was done during the PSD test (Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
Figures 17 and 18 compare predicted displacements and
base shear histories with pseudo-dynamic test results. Figure
17 presents the results for the 30 s duration of the El Centro
accelerogram. As expected, displacement is better predicted
than base shear. Also, predictions are much better for the
first 10 s of the accelerogram during which there is more
damage to the structure, as can be seen in Fig. 18 that gives
the first 10 s of the time-history responses. Table 4 com-
pares maximum response values predicted with EFiCoS to
measured values. It is important to note that the pseudo-
dynamic test results for the El Centro accelerogram scaled
at 0.430g used for this comparison correspond to the fifth
earthquake excitation with increasing intensities and to
seven forced-vibration tests and multiple static tests. Con-
sidering this, it can be concluded that the predictions are
excellent overall.
Figures 17a and 18a compare predicted and measured dis-
placements of the first floor. The predicted maximum dis-
placement is 54.9 mm and the measured maximum value is
50.9 mm, which corresponds to a difference of 7.8%. Fig-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Fig. 16. Modelling of the structure: (a) discretization of the
structure; layered discretization of (b) column cross sections and
(c) beam cross sections. All dimensions in millimeters.
ures 17b and 18b compare predicted and measured displace-
ments of the second floor (roof level). The predicted
measured maximum displacements are 118.4 and
116.4 mm, a difference of only 1.7%. Although predicted
displacements are larger from 20 s on, the shift in displace-
ment due to permanent displacements, apparent period of vi-
bration, and overall response are well predicted.
Figures 17c and 18c compare predicted and measured
base shears. The predicted maximum base shear is
219.6 kN and compares well with the maximum measured
base shear of 204.3 kN, both arising at the same time. The
first yielding of the reinforcement in tension is predicted at
1.88 s at the left end of the beam at the first-floor level. At
that time, the base shear is predicted to be 159.7 kN, which
corresponds to an overstrength of 159.7/99.8 = 1.60. The
overstrength from measurements at the first yielding of the
tensile reinforcement in the beam in the first floor is 1.45
(Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
Figure 19 presents a map of damage in tension. Values of
the damage variable in tension, D1, is shown with a colour
scale. Recall that damage is irreversible and varies from 0
for no damage to the material to 1 for total damage. Damage
in tension is concentrated at the ends of the beams and the
columns. Damage is much higher at the bottom of the first-
storey columns than at the top of the first-storey columns
and at the ends of the second-storey columns. Also shown
in the figure are photographs taken at the end of the test of
the beam–column joints and the bottom of the first-storey
column. As can be seen, damage levels predicted by EFiCoS
are in very good agreement with actual damage with respect
to location, distribution, and intensity. Predicted damage
levels in compression (damage variable D2) are shown in
Fig. 20. As can be seen from the damage map, spalling of
the concrete cover is predicted at the bottom of the first-
floor columns and at the ends of the first-floor beam. This
corresponds well with the zones where spalling of the con-
crete cover took place at the end of the tests. Figure 21
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al. 859

Table 4. Comparison of predicted and measured maximum response values obtained with meso modelling
(EFiCoS).

u1max u2max (u2–u1)max f1max f2max V0max M0max mD

(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (-)
Pseudo-dynamic test 50.9 118.4 67.5 110.5 169.0 204.3 1031.4 2.11
EFiCoS 54.9 116.4 61.5 110.7 165.5 219.6 1008.4 2.08

Difference +7.8% –1.7% –8.8% +0.2% –2.1% +7.5% –2.2% –1.7%

Fig. 17. EFiCoS predictions for (a) 1st-floor displacement, (b) roof Fig. 18. EFiCoS predictions for (a) 1st-floor displacement, (b) roof
displacements, and (c) base shear for (d) north–south component of displacements, and (c) base shear for (d) north–south component of
horizontal ground acceleration of the El Centro earthquake scaled to horizontal ground acceleration of the El Centro earthquake scaled
0.430g peak ground acceleration. PSD, pseudo-dynamic. to 0.430g peak ground acceleration.

shows permanent plastic deformation levels for the longitudi-
nal reinforcement in the columns and beams at the end of the
analysis. As can be seen, moderate permanent plastic defor-
mation (yielding) is predicted at the ends of both beams and
at the bottom of the first-storey columns. This agrees well
with measured strains on the longitudinal reinforcement. This
type of mesoscale analysis performed with EFiCoS provides a
better prediction of the test results while giving much more
information than the macroanalyses with RUAUMOKO. In
addition to global force–displacement results, distribution of
cracking, damage in compression (spalling of concrete
cover), and distribution of permanent plastic deformation can
be used in performance-based analysis and design as the dif-
ference in performance can be measured at a more refined
scale, although at the expense of more computing time. This
is no longer a concern with today’s powerful computers.
# 2008 NRC Canada
860 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

Fig. 19. Map of predicted damage in tension by EFiCoS and photographs of the structure after the last pseudo-dynamic test.

Fig. 20. Map of predicted damage in compression by EFiCoS and photographs of the structure after the last pseudo-dynamic test.

Conclusions of performing a sectional analysis of confined and uncon-

Two types of analysis of a reinforced-concrete structure
tested under simulated seismic loading were presented. A
global approach combined with a computer program capable
fined reinforced concrete sections was first used to predict
the results obtained from the tests. A push-over analysis
was also performed. The global results (force, displacement,
moment, rotation) obtained from the analysis are in good
# 2008 NRC Canada
Mousseau et al.
Fig. 21. Map of predicted permanent plastic strain by EFiCoS in longitudinal reinforcements after the last pseudo-dynamic test.
agreement with the test results. A mesoscale analysis with a
finite element layered beam computer program was also per-
formed after identification of material-property parameters.
Results obtained from this type of analysis are also in good
agreement with the test results. An important point to men-
tion is that the mesoscale analysis gives more information
concerning damage in tension (cracking), damage in com-
pression (spalling), and distribution of permanent plastic de-
formation (yielding). This information is much more useful
in performance-based analysis and design, and such analysis
has great potential in the future. Both analyses predict the
test results well. Macroscale analyses require a specialized
computer program to predict values of stiffness, moment–
curvature and moment–rotation response of reinforced con-
crete sections. Mesoscale analyses require identification of a
larger set of parameters to describe the material properties.
Effects of confinement need to be accounted for in both
analyses. Mesoscale analyses require more computing time
and the identification process at the beginning of the analy-
sis is not a trivial task. However, tables of typical values are
available and can facilitate preparation of the input data.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada. This research was carried out as part of the work
by the second author on the seismic design subcommittee of
the CSA Standard A23.3-04 Design of concrete structures.
References
Carr, A.J. 1998. RUAUMOKO, 9 October 1998 release [computer
program]. Computer Program Library, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
861
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. CSA standard CSA-
A23.3-04. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 1995. Stress-strain model for confined
high-strength concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering,
121(3): 468–477. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)
121:3(468).
Kanaan, A.E., and Powell, G.H. 1975. DRAIN-2D – A general pur-
pose computer program for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane
structures [computer program]. Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Report
EERC-73/22.
La Borderie, C. 1991. Phénomènes unilatéraux dans un matériau en-
dommageable: modélisation et application à l’analyse des struc-
tures en béton. Ph.D. thesis, Laboratoire de Mécanique et de
Technologie, Université Paris VI, Cachan, France. [In French.]
Légeron, F. 1998. Comportement sismique des structures en béton
ordinaire et en béton à haute performance armé. Ph.D. thesis,
École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France et Univer-
sité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que. [In French.]
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 2000. Behavior of high-strength con-
crete columns under cyclic flexure and constant axial load. ACI
Structural Journal, 97(4): 591–601.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 2003. Uniaxial confinement model for
normal- and high-strength concrete columns. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 129(2): 241–252. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2003)129:2(241).
Légeron, F., Paultre, P., and Mazars, J. 2005. Damage mechanics
modeling of nonlinear seismic behavior of concrete structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(6): 946–955. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:6(946).
Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J.-L. 1996. Mécanique des matériaux
solides. Dunod, Paris, France. [In French.]
Litton, R.W. 1975. A contribution to the analysis of concrete struc-
tures under cyclic loading. Ph.D. thesis, University of California,
Berkeley, Calif.
# 2008 NRC Canada
862
Mazars, J. 1984. Application de la mécanique de l’endomm-
agement au comportement non linéaire et à la rupture du béton
de structure. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris VI, France. [In
French.]
Mazars, J. 1986. A description of micro- and macroscale damage
of concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 25(5–
6): 729–737. doi:10.1016/0013-7944(86)90036-6.
Mazars, J., Ramtani, S., and Berthaud, Y. 1989. An experimental
procedure to delocalize tensile failure and to identify the unilat-
eral effect of tensile damage. In Cracking and damage – Strain
localization and size effect. Edited by J. Mazars and Z. P. Ba-
zant. Elsevier Science, London. pp. 55–64.
Mousseau, S., and Paultre, P. 2008. Seismic performance of a full-
scale, reinforced high-performance concrete building. Part I: Ex-
perimental study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(8):
832–848. doi:101139/L08-017.
NRCC. 2005. National building code of Canada. National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Otani, S. 1974. SAKE – A computer program for inelastic response
of R/C frames to earthquake. Civil Engineering Studies, Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Report UILU-ENG-74–2029.
Paultre, P. 2001. WMNPHI – A program for sectional analysis of
structural concrete – User manual. Centre de recherche en génie
parasismique et en dynamique des structures, Université de
Sherbrooke, Qc. Report CRGP-2001.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Paultre, P., Weber, B., Mousseau, S., and Proulx, J. 2007. Measur-
ing earthquake damages in a high-strength concrete structure.
Centre de recherche en génie parasismique et en dynamique des
structures, Université de Sherbrooke, Qc. Report CRGP-2007.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. 1996. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New York.
Ragueneau, F., 1999. Dynamic behavior of concrete structures –
Influence of local hysteretic behavior. Ph.D. thesis. Université
Paris VI, Laboratoire de Mécanique et de Technologie, Cachan,
France. [In French.]
Ramtani, S., Berthaud, Y., and Mazars, J. 1992. Orthotropic beha-
vior of concrete with directional aspects: modelling and experi-
ments. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 133(1): 97–111. doi:10.
1016/0029-5493(92)90094-C.
Sharpe, R.D. 1974. The seismic response of inelastic structures.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M.A., and Nielsen, N.N. 1970. Reinforced con-
crete response to simulated earthquakes. Journal of the Struc-
tural Division, 96(12): 2557–2573.
Vecchio, F.J., and Collins, M.P. 1986. The modified compression
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.
ACI Journal, 83(2): 219–231.
# 2008 NRC Canada