International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 520527 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_054

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

RESERVE STRENGTH INDEX IN SEISMIC

EVALUATION
A.K. Sinha
Professor and Centre Director,
Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Patna, 800005, Patna-India

ABSTRACT
The structure's ability to survive an earthquake can be adjudged in terms of the expected damage
of the structure after the earthquake. Damage is a qualitative term and lots of subjectivity is thus
involved in the quantification of damage to a structure. Damage can be quantified using a damage
index. Several damage indices have been defined and established through series of correlation and
evaluation works by many researchers.
Damage indices are defined as functions, which are finally related to a particular structural
damage. A number of response based damage indices are available to be used for seismic
vulnerability assessment for given structural system. Damage indices best suited for the nonlinear
structural analysis are the right candidate for the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing
building because such building which are supposedly deficient or at least doubtful for its seismic
capabilities are expected to cross elastic limit and will make excursions in inelastic range. The
empirical damage indices are mainly based on observed seismic damages to similar type of
construction during past earthquakes. These indices as based on damage surveys may be subjective
and individual bias, but they provide enough and useful information on the overall seismic
performance of structural systems. However, empirical evaluations do not lead to rationally predict
the reserve strength and response characteristics of the structure with a specified degree of damage.
The idea of describing the expected degree of damage to existing building under anticipated future
earthquake by a number on a predefined damage scale in the form of damage index related to
structural response calculated on a rational and simple base is attractive for such studies. Adaptive
Static Pushover analyses and Reserve Strength Index (RSI) have been used to study seismic
vulnerability of building cases representing symmetric as well as asymmetric structures considering
6-and 12 storey RCMRF buildings.
Key words: Reserve Strength, Damage Index, Seismic Damage, Adaptive Push Over Analysis.
Cite This Article: A.K. Sinha, Reserve Strength Index In Seismic Evaluation. International Journal
of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 520527.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 520 editor@iaeme.com

 Reserve Strength Index In Seismic Evaluation

1. INTRODUCTION
In damage prediction or quantification, structural descriptors, may they be strength parameters like bending,
shear, axial stresses, or deformation parameters like joint rotations, storey drift, ductility ratios, roof
displacement, or energy dissipation or absorption, need to be related to damage indices. Damage indicators
should be selected such that quantified damage resulting from analysis should match real damage done to
similar buildings in past.
Damage can be classified as local, global and cumulative. Damage can be assessed by the ratio between
seismic demand (the seismic response) and the capacity of the structure. Both of these depend upon several
mechanisms and are uncertain in nature. Displacement was considered unambiguously as the measure of
damage under seismic loads. Many of the earlier attempts in this field speak out of maximum displacement
in case of simple structural elements. For a complex structure, assemblage was needed to be considered as
this influence damage.

2. DAMAGE ANALYSIS
This is very important part of seismic vulnerability assessment because the final result comes out of this
analysis. The parameters that are to be used to assess damage levels depend entirely on the results of the
analysis carried out. The use of damage model serves as an indicator of damageability. Damage is a
qualitative term and lots of subjectivity is thus involved in the quantification of damage to a structure.
Damage is quantified using a damage index. Damage indices are defined as functions, which are finally
related to a particular structural damage. Several damage indices have been defined and established through
series of correlation and evaluation works by many researchers.
The empirical damage indices are mainly based on observed seismic damages to similar type of
construction during past earthquakes. These indices as based on damage surveys may be subjective and
individual bias, but they provide enough and useful information on the overall seismic performance of
structural systems. However, empirical evaluations do not lend itself well to rationally predicting the strength
reserve.

3. DAMAGE STATES
The idea of describing the expected degree of damage to existing building under anticipated earthquake by a
number on a predefined damage scale in the form of damage index related to structural response calculated
on a rational and simple base is found to be attractive for the present study. The damage state of a structure
can be defined in several ways:
1. A binary damage state - Failure or no failure
2. A discrete valued damage state using qualitative indicators such as none, minor, reparable, severe, and collapse.
For example

No damage 0
Slight damage 0.25
Moderate damage 0.5
Severe damage 0.75
Collapse 1.0

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 521 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

4. DAMAGE DESCRIPTORS
The various nonlinear structural response parameters that may be considered are (Conte, 1997):

Ductility related parameters

Maximum displacement ductility
Number of yield reversal
Maximum normalized plastic deformation range
Normalized cumulative displacement ductility
Residual displacement ductility

Energy related parameters

Normalized earthquake energy input energy
Normalized total hysteretic energy dissipated
Ratio of hysteretic energy dissipated to earthquake energy input energy

Response parameters indicating how fast the earthquake input energy is imparted to and dissipated the
structure
Maximum rate of normalized earthquake energy input energy
Maximum rate of normalized energy dissipated through damping
Maximum rate of normalized hysteretic energy dissipated.
Apart from the normal design parameters like stresses, maximum displacement, ductility etc energy
methods do consider the reversible nature of the earthquake excitation, which imposes the cyclic ductility,
the number of transitions into the inelastic range, the energy dissipation capacity. The energy concepts are
based on the fact that the damage degree of a structure exposed to seismic effects depends on the earthquake
energy that is transmitted to the structure and the capacity of the structure to absorb this energy. The total
input energy of the earthquake is dissipated due to vibrations of the structure (Kinetic energy), the mechanism
of viscous damping (Damping energy) and elastic and hysteretic energy through deformation. The input
energy is a parameter that refers to the total destructive earthquake potential, whereas the hysteretic energy
is a structural parameter related to the damage degree to the structure. For satisfactory functioning, the ability
to absorb and dissipate energy should be greater than the energy requirements of an earthquake to the
structure.
The energy dissipation index as computed by summing up the surface enclosed by the hysteretic loops
from the force-displacement relationship using six hysteretic model: bending dominant models like Bilinear
model, Clough model, Takeda model, Takeda-bilinear model, Hisada model and tri-linear degrading model
and four shear based model, bilinear-slip, Takeda-slip, Peak oriented and origin-oriented (Necevska et al,
1996).
Ductility ratio (DR) the ductility ratio is defined as the ratio of the maximum deformation to the yield
deformation. It has been extensively used in seismic analysis to evaluate the capacity of structures undergoing
inelastic deformation and in developing inelastic spectra. Flexural damage ratio (FDR) is the ratio of initial
stiffness to the reduced secant stiffness at the maximum displacement can be used as a measure of seismic
damage.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 522 editor@iaeme.com

 Reserve Strength Index In Seismic Evaluation
Park and Ang's (1985) damage index is based on scaled values of ductility and dissipated energy of then
local element during the seismic load. There are modifications in the original Park and Ang damage model
to quantify damage of multi-storey building at global level by including local damage indices using suitable
weights and to eliminate the explicit consideration of hysteretic energy. The cyclic nature can either be
considered by taking cyclic degradation model or by equivalent factor (Fajfar, 1999). The indices must be
calibrated against observed damage using large database. If field observations are not sufficient which is
possible in most of the cases, the damage index may be calibrated in the basis of damage prediction using
nonlinear analysis.

5. DAMAGE INDICES
In damage prediction or quantification, structural descriptors, may they be strength parameters like bending,
shear, axial stresses, or deformation parameters like joint rotations, storey drift, ductility ratios, roof
displacement, or energy dissipation or absorption, need to be related to damage indices. Damage indicators
should be selected such that quantified damage resulting from analysis should match real damage done to
similar buildings in past. Damage can be classified as, global, cumulative and local. The seismic performance
of structures is commonly related to the capacity to undergo inelastic deformations, defined as the ratio of
peak inelastic response to the corresponding yield response or ductility.
The response based damage indices can be divided into three groups according to what the index accounts
for
Maximum deformation,
Cumulative damage, and
Maximum deformation and cumulative damage
Cumulative damage can be taken as weighted sum of damage indices at local level
n

w DI
i =1
i i
D=
w i (1)
Now, this weight can be found based on replacement cost of substructure and relative importance of
substructure to maintain integrity. Park (1985) simplified the bias by making weight as DI itself.
n 2

DI i =1
i
D=
DI i (2)
Member damage indices can first be combined to obtain storey index and storey indices can then be
combined to obtain an overall index. Element level DI provides better information because structure level DI
will not cover non-uniform substructure level damage. Cumulative damage index using Mason-Coffin law
under repeated load resulting in large strains can be assumed as
N S = C (3)
The incremental damage due to cycle ni as proposed by Palmgren and Minor is taken as
Di = 1/N (I) = ni S/C (4)

Total damage, D = Di (5)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 523 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

6. DISPLACEMENT AS DAMAGE INDICATOR

Displacement has been considered unambiguously as the measure of damage under seismic loads. Many of
the earlier attempts in this field speak out of maximum displacement in case of simple structural elements.
For a complex structure, assemblage was needed to be considered as this influences damage. Sozen (1981)
considered inter-storey drift. Maximum displacement is case of simple structural elements in different forms
has been used in past for example inter-storey drift (Sozen, 1981), roof displacement (Meyer and Roufaiel,),
ductility ratio (Newmark and Rosenblueth) (DiPasquale et. Al., 1990).
Comparison of computed plastic hinge rotations against rotation limits established in FEMA-356 to judge
structural performance falls apart on the criteria discussed above, as POA does not seem to compute the
plastic hinge rotation accurately (Chopra and Goel, 2000). Storey drift which is a better structural damage
descriptor in infilled structure can be estimated accurately in POA and hence been considered in the present
study as structural damage descriptor for all cases.
Rodriguez (1994) proposed a damage parameter using non-dimensional energy, an acceptable roof drift
ratio and the maximum roof drift ratio. Gupta et al (2000) studied effects of soft storey by doubling the height
of frames at ground floor. Earthquake motion was scaled to reflect the changed value of period. There was
much higher drift at ground level. It has been observed that a major part of retrofit cost is associated with
damage to nonstructural elements. Hence, an effective control of inter-storey drift is required to limit both
structural and nonstructural damage. Importance of drift based damage analysis is established. In
performance based seismic vulnerability assessment inter-storey-drift is one of the most important attributes
for damage control. Storey drift and its distribution over height are worth considering.
Maximum permanent drift (MPD) is closely related to the inelastic deformations in a structure. The four
levels of structural damage on this basis:-
Safe with storey drift not exceeding 1% of the storey height and no permanent drift,
Lightly damaged with permanent displacement of 0.5% of the storey height,
Damaged with permanent drift of 1 %, and
Critically damaged with top storey displacement showing some periodicity at the end of record with poor
correlation between base shear and top level displacement.
Inter-storey drift (ID) is the maximum relative deformation between two consecutive storey
524normalized to the storey height. The relative storey drift is defined as
xi ( xi xi 1 )
=
hi hi (6)
According to Sozen (1981) the percentage of damage to the structure can be given by
% of damage = 50(maximum inter-storey drift in %) 25 (7)
The relationship between damage and inter-storey drift varies depending on the maximum deformation
at collapse, which depends on ductility class of the structure.
Damage to structural and non-structural elements can be related to drift. This can be defined at the roof
level to provide overall seismic vulnerability at global level or by inter-storey drift to represent the storey
level vulnerability. Drift limit equal to 1.5% of the building height. The distribution of inter-storey drifts can
be adequately estimated using NSP (Browning et. Al., 2000)
The other aspect regarding the permissible or maximum drift limit is regarding the ductile detailing
present in the structure. If the building is provided with the ductility to gain large deformation, it will go to
the highest deformation. In case of low ductility, greater damage will result to meet same drift limit.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 524 editor@iaeme.com

 Reserve Strength Index In Seismic Evaluation
Relating the initial stiffness before and after subjecting the structure to design earthquake, Biddah (1999)
suggested a new global damage index as well as local damage indices as,
DI = 1- (Kfinal / Kinitial) (8)
Where, Kinitial is the slope of the base shear-top deflection relationship resulting from the push over
analysis of the frame before subjecting it to the earthquake ground motion and Kfinal is the initial slope of the
same relationship bur after subjecting to the earthquake time history.
The stiffness damage index for the ith story is defined as:
Dki = 1- (Ki final /Kiinitial) (9)
Where, Kiinitial and Kifinal are the initial slopes of the base shear-story drift relationships of the ith story
resulting from the push over analysis of the frame before and after subjecting it to earthquake, respectively.
The value of the damage index ranges from zero (no damage) to 1 (collapse). Damage may be represented
on terms of reduction of stiffness by pre-selected percentage.
Miranda (1996) related various level of damage in the building to the maximum inter-story drift index using
DI= I-exp [ ln (0.5){ymax/y}a ] (10)
Where, DI is a damage index which varies from 0 (no damage) to 8 (maximum damage); y and a are
parameters which depend on the inter-story drift index associated with the onset of damage in the building
and the maximum inter-story drift index that the critical story in the building can exist.

7. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT USING RESERVE STRENGTH

INDEX (RSI)
Effectiveness of a seismic damage index is imbibed in the sophistication of analytical method used for
determining structural descriptor (Padilla, D., and Rodriguez, M., 2009). Seismic vulnerability analysis hare
has been carried out using Adaptive Static Pushover Analysis (ASPOA) on building examples covering 6-
storey and 12-storey RCMRF buildings. Building examples covered symmetrical as well as unsymmetrical
cases of varying eccentricity. For the purpose of damage quantification an index, Reserve Strength Index
(RSI), has been used as defined in step (iv) hereunder where the procedure adopted is detailed in.
The procedure adopted is detailed hereunder:
1. Find maximum max by conducting adaptive POA on flexible frame featuring in any storey of the building.
2. Find min by conducting adaptive POA on stiff frame considering reduction in shear due to torsion. The value
of corresponding frame shear in stiff frame is found using frame shear in the flexible frame at the maximum
displacement at desired performance objective.

2 max
avg =
Find average drift using
( max + min ) (11)
3. Find the reserve strength in frames at the desired performance level after modifying the target displacement
by the ratio . is the ratio between maximum deflection and average deflection. The reserve strength index
is defined as the ratio of the difference in capacity of the structure or element under probe at the desired
performance limit and corresponding demand to the seismic demand. Seismic demand at the denominator of
the ratio gives due consideration to the higher storey and higher seismic load situations.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 525 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

8. ESULTS
The RSI for flexible side as well as stiff side for the different cases has been presented in for of Tables 2-5.
Different eccentricity cases have been mentioned in Table 1. The values for RSI and its variation for different
cases clearly speak about relative seismic vulnerability.

Table 1 Different eccentricity cases

Case Static eccentricity (e/b) Accidental eccentricity
Number considered
A 00 NO
B 00 Yes
C 0.05 Yes
D 0.10 Yes
E 0.15 Yes
F 0.20 Yes

Table 2 Reserve strength index for stiff frame (6 Story building)

Performance Eccentricity cases
objectives A B C D E F
IO 1.98 1.78 1.54 1.11 1.01 0.78
LS 2.25 2.21 2.06 1.91 1.79 1.22
CP 2.76 2.71 2.56 2.06 1.67 1.43

Table 3 Reserve strength index for flexible frame (6 Story building)

Performance Eccentricity cases
objectives A B C D E F
IO 1.98 1.78 1.03 0.81 0.15 -0.12
LS 2.25 2.21 1.35 0.72 0.51 0.32
CP 2.76 2.71 1.39 0.78 0.57 0.43

Table 4 Reserve strength index for stiff frame (12 Story building)
Performance Eccentricity cases
objectives A B C D E F
IO 0.98 0.88 0.74 0.61 0.31 0.11
LS 1.55 1.48 1.21 1.01 0.91 0.61
CP 1.51 1.46 1.20 1.02 0.90 0.57

Table 5 Reserve strength index for flexible frame (12 Story building)
Performance Eccentricity cases
objectives A B C D E F
IO 0.98 0.88 0.48 0.21 -0.05 -0.35
LS 1.55 1.48 0.94 0.54 0.116 -0.05
CP 1.51 1.46 - - - -

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 526 editor@iaeme.com

 Reserve Strength Index In Seismic Evaluation

REFERENCES
[1] FEMA 356 (2000), Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[2] Biddah Ashraf, Ghobarah, A, & H. Abou-Elfath (1999), Response-Based Damage Assessment of
Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.- 28, 79-104.
[3] IS: 1893 Part-I (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[4] Miranda, E. (1996), Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability Existing Buildings, XIth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico.
[5] Park, Y.J. & Ang, H.S. (1985), Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Jl ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 4, 722-739.
[6] Park, Y.J., Ang, H.S. & Wen, Y.K. (1985), Seismic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Jl ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 4, 740-756.
[7] Rodriguez, M (1994), A Measure of the Capacity of Earthquake Ground Motion to Damage Structures,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.- 23, 627-643.
[8] Sozen, M.A. and Saiidi, M (1981), Simple Nonlinear Seismic analysis of R/C Structures, Jl of Structural
Div, Jl ASCE, Vol-107, No 5, 937-951.
[9] SeismoSoft (2016) "SeismoStruct - A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures".
[10] Browning, J., Roger, Y.L., Lynn A. & Moehle, J.P. (2000), Performance Assessment for a Reinforced
Concrete Frame Building, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No.3, 541-555
[11] Chopra, A.K. & Goel, R.K. (2000), Evaluation of NSP to Estimate Seismic Deformation: SDF Systems,
Journal of Structural Engineering, A.S.C.E., Vol. 126, No. 4, 482-490.
[12] Fafjar,P. & Gaspersic, P. (1996), The N2 Method for Seismic Damage analysis of RC Buildings
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.-25, No 1, 31-46
[13] Gupta, B. & Kunnath, S. K. (2000), Adaptive Spectra-Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation
of Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 16, No. 2, 367-391.
[14] DiPasquale, & Cakmak, A.S. (1990), Seismic Damage Assessment using Linear Models, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, 194-216.
[15] Suhail Shafi, Dr. A R Dar, DanishZafar Wani and Mohd Hanief Dar, Seismic Evaluation of Masonry
Building A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(6), 2015, pp. 79-91.
[16] Javaid Ahmad, Seismic Evaluation & Retrofit Assessment of Jlnm Hospital, Rainawari Srinagar.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 4(4), 2013, pp. 278-283
[17] Padilla, D., and Rodriguez, M. (2009). A damage index for the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete
members. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13:3, 364-383.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 527 editor@iaeme.com