Effect of elaborate plastic hinge

definition on the pushover analysis of

reinforced concrete buildings

A. Eslami1, H.R. Ronagh2

1
PhD Candidate, School of Civil Engineering,
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

Corresponding author: H.R. Ronagh

Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
Email: h.ronagh@uq.edu.au
Phone: +61 7 3365 9117
Fax: +61 7 3365 4599
Abstract
Due to its simplicity, lumped plasticity approach is usually used for nonlinear
characterization of RC members in pushover analysis. In this approach, the inelastic
force-deformation of hinges could be defined as either the nonlinear properties
suggested in FEMA-356 and ATC-40, or defined hinges quantified based on the
properties of RC members. However, the nonlinear response of RC structures relies
heavily on the inelastic properties of the structural members concentrated in the plastic
hinges. To provide a comparative study, this paper attempts to show the results of
pushover analyses of RC structures modeled based on the FEMA nonlinear hinges and
defined hinges. Following the validation of the adopted models, the force-deformation
curves of the defined hinges are determined in a rigorous approach considering the
material inelastic behavior, reinforcement details, and dimensions of the members. For
the case-studies, two 4-story and one 8-story frames are considered in order to represent
low- and mid-rise buildings with different ductility. Nonlinear responses of both models
are elaborated in terms of the inter-story drift, hinging pattern, failure mechanism, and
the pushover curve. It is confirmed that FEMA hinges underestimate the strength and
more importantly the displacement capacity, especially for the frame possessing low
ductility.

Key words: pushover analysis, plastic rotation, hinge properties, nonlinear

behavior, defined hinges, FEMA hinges, pushover curve, displacement
capacity, lateral strength, RC buildings

1. Introduction

Increasing evidence from earthquakes has proven the inelastic behavior of

structures under seismic loading. Recourse to nonlinear analysis is
unavoidable when it comes to performing a comprehensive assessment of
the elastic and inelastic performance of a structure subjected to a ground
shaking. These nonlinear procedures consist of nonlinear static or pushover
analysis and nonlinear dynamic or time history analysis. Pushover analysis
of a structure includes an increasing monotonic lateral loading up to a
predefined lateral displacement, or the onset of the plastic collapse
mechanism. It is well accepted that nonlinear time history analysis results
in a more accurate prediction of the seismic response of a structure
subjected to elaborate modeling, precise definition of nonlinear properties
of components and selection of a suitable set of ground motion records.
However, some past studies have suggested that within the boundary of its
limitation, pushover analysis could provide a good estimate of seismic
response (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998; Mwafy and Elnashai, 2001;
Sadjadi et al., 2007) in lieu of a time history analysis. The simplicity of
nonlinear static (pushover) analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis
and the implementation of performance based concepts in the design and
rehabilitation of structures have given pushover analysis a significant boost
in recent years which it well deserved. The outcomes of pushover analysis
could provide useful information about the seismic performance of
structures which could not be obtained by linear static or time history
analysis and for that reason it has been recommended for the design and
assessment purposes in FEMA-356 (2000) and ATC-40 (1996).

Accurate nonlinear analysis of a structure requires an elaborate modeling

which considers the nonlinear properties of structural elements precisely.
These nonlinear features control the behavior of a structure during the
analysis. In an RC structure, nonlinear characterization of each member is
performed by two well-known approaches including spread or lumped
plasticity, both quantified by strength and deformation capacity of the
members. While the former requires the definition of moment curvature at
different sections of each component, the latter utilizes concentrated plastic
hinges at the likely locations of plasticity spread based on the idealization
of curvature distribution along the members. Fig. 1 shows the actual and
the idealized curvature together with the moment distribution diagrams in a
cantilever or a part of an RC member between the point of contra-flexure
and the column face. In this Figure, M y is the yield moment, M u is the
ultimate moment, l p stands for the plastic hinge length, and u is the
ultimate curvature. Also,  y and  p indicate the yield and plastic curvature,
respectively. The plastic rotation that can occur at a plastic hinge in the
vicinity of critical sections is defined as the plastic curvature multiplied by
the plastic hinge length (shaded area in Fig.1) (Park and Paulay, 1975).

Fig. 1

Pushover analysis is generally carried out using lump plasticity approach

with the definition of plastic hinges at the ends of frame elements (Zou and
Chan, 2005). The properties of nonlinear hinges influence the accuracy of
the results and the pushover curve substantially. Some practical building
codes; such as FEMA-356 and ATC-40, provide the properties of plastic
hinges for RC members. These values are a function of the type of element
(beam, column, joint, or shear wall), member’s forces and reinforcement
details. Although, these hinge properties can be easily implemented in the
nonlinear analysis, and even some analysis software (i.e. SAP 2000) have
already imported these default hinges, it is believed that these guidelines
suggest mean values based on some severely limiting assumptions and as
such would not be applicable to all RC buildings (Inel and Ozmen, 2006).
Because the nonlinear characteristics of a plastic hinge depend significantly
on the material properties and reinforcing details of respective members,
these can potentially vary from one member to another. Taking into
consideration the reinforcement details and the applied axial load in a
member in order to define the nonlinear plastic hinge property, result in
more accurate strength-deformation curves in a lumped plasticity approach.
In this study, the plastic hinges are defined based on the above
consideration are to be denoted as “defined hinges”.

Due to its simplicity, structural engineers often make use of the default
hinges based on the properties provided in FEMA-356 and ATC-40 for
nonlinear analysis of RC structures (Niroomandi et al., 2010) without any
other consideration of the fact that axial forces, reinforcement details and
the material property of members could significantly affect the nonlinear
behavior of hinges. Inel and Ozmen (2006) studied the effect of plastic
hinge properties in the nonlinear response of two RC building designed
based on the 1975 Turkish Earthquake Code (Ministry of Public Works and
Settlement, 1975). Their pushover results showed that for the poorly
confined buildings, which are the case in some old seismic codes, the
displacement capacity of the model with default hinges is significantly
higher than that of defined hinges. They concluded that the incorporation of
default hinges results in reasonable results in well-confined structures, but
not in the poorly confined buildings. The reliability of their results is
questionable as their poorly confined buildings do not satisfy the
conforming conditions in FEMA-356 or ATC-40. In FEMA-356 and ATC-
40, plastic hinge properties were provided for conforming and
nonconforming plastic hinges separately and the plastic rotations for these
two types differ substantially. Bardakis and Dritsos (2007) evaluated the
FEMA-356 provisions for seismic assessment of a 4-story RC building
through pushover analysis and made a comparison with the available
experimental results. They concluded that the accuracy of prediction in the
codes depends on the level of seismic excitation and as such one code is
not always more accurate than the other and vice versa.

Performance based design approach is becoming more and more adopted

by seismic design codes and is possibly the universally accepted method of
design against seismic excitations in the future. In recent decades, pushover
analysis has been proved to be a strong tool for performance assessment of
a building at different design levels. A comprehensive literature review
shows that the effect of nonlinear hinge properties on the pushover curves
of code-compliant buildings is still unknown. Therefore, this study was
conducted in order to compare the pushover results of modern RC
buildings that possess defined hinge properties with those having FEMA-
356 hinges. Torsion effects have been neglected in this study and two-
dimensional (2-D) frames analyzed as being representative of regular RC
buildings. Two 4- & 8-story intermediate and one 4-story ordinary moment
resistant frame were analyzed as case-study structures. A finite element
analysis program, SAP 2000 (Computers and Structures Inc, 2009), very
commonly used by structural engineering professionals, was utilized to run
the nonlinear static analysis.

2. Analysis and design of the structures

The structures considered for pushover analysis were two 4- and one 8-
story moment resisting RC frame representing a low- and mid-rise
building, respectively. Each frame was considered to be part of a lateral
resisting system of a residential building with three bays (each equal to 5
m). The height was assumed to be equal to 3 m for all stories. Structural
design of the frames was based on the ACI 318-02 (ACI Committee 318,
2002) code, while seismic loads were considered according to the
provisions of the Iranian seismic code (Permanet Committee for Revising
the Iranian Code for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 2005) which is
similar to the UBC code (1994). Due to height limitation considered in the
Iranian seismic code for buildings with low ductility, only the 4-story
frame was designed based on both intermediate and ordinary ductility
while ductile provisions were implemented in the design of the 8-story
frame. In the design of these three moment resisting frames, the design
dead load and live load were assumed to be equal to 30 kN / m and 10 kN / m ,
respectively which were applied to the beams in addition to the self-weight
of the structure. For all structures, the concrete compressive strength was
taken as 25 MPa and the Grade 60 ( f y  420 MPa ) deformed bar were
considered as steel reinforcement. Design base shear was determined with
peak ground acceleration of 0.3g for intermediate and 0.25g for ordinary
moment resisting frame, representing a high and intermediate seismic
hazard. In addition, soil type-III which is similar to class D of FEMA-356
was assumed in the seismic design of all frames.

Fig. 2

Fig. 3
Analysis and design of the selected RC frames were carried out using SAP
2000. All the reinforcement details satisfied the seismic provisions of ACI
318-02 to ensure the assumed ductility. In addition, for the structure to be
considered “intermediate”, the conforming conditions suggested in FEMA-
356 were checked in order to implement the conforming default hinges. For
all frames, deformed steel bar, 10 mm in diameter, was selected as
transverse reinforcement. As shown in Fig. 2 for a typical beam and
column section, column longitudinal reinforcement was distributed around
the section, while beam longitudinal bars were positioned at the top and
bottom of the section in all frames. Figs. 3-5 illustrate the three designed
frames together with the dimensions and flexural/transverse reinforcement
of the members.

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

3. Definition of defined hinges

Nonlinear analysis of RC buildings using defined hinges requires the

determination of plastic hinge properties in order to represent the inelastic
behavior of the structure. For each degree of freedom, a rigid plastic hinge
could be defined. For a comprehensive nonlinear analysis consideration of
the shear failure in members is necessary. However, some past studies (Di
Ludovico et al., 2008; Inel and Ozmen, 2006; Jeong and Elnashai, 2005)
showed that even for under-designed RC buildings detailed with inadequate
transverse reinforcement, the shear demand is significantly lower than the
shear capacity in both beams and columns and no shear failure is observed.
Therefore, in this study, only the flexural inelastic behavior of the elements
has been considered. The real moment curvature (or moment rotation)
curve of a RC member in which the tension steel yields, can be idealized to
a simplified bilinear curve, as shown in Fig. 6 for a typical RC beam (Park
and Paulay, 1975).

Fig. 6

In Fig. 6, point B corresponds to the attainment of the tensile yield strain in

steel indicating yield moment and yield rotation (or curvature) while point
C belongs to the ultimate conditions; namely ultimate moment and
corresponding ultimate rotation (or curvature). In this study, the ultimate
condition was considered to be the attainment of one of the following
conditions; whichever happened earlier; 1) a 20% drop in the moment
capacity of member; 2) when the tensile strain in longitudinal steel reaches
the ultimate tensile strain; and 3) the attainment of the ultimate
compressive strain in concrete using Eq. (1) proposed by Scott et al.
(1982).

 f yh 
 cu  0.004  0.9  s   (1)
 300 

In the above equation,  cu is the ultimate compressive strain of concrete,  s

is the volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement and f yh represents the
yield strength of transverse steel. It is worth mentioning that the above
conditions are similar to those considered by Inel and Ozmen (2006).
However, condition (1) never governed the section analyses of the
structures considered herein. The dominant conditions were conditions 2
and 3 which were also implemented in a similar manner by other
researchers (Di Ludovico et al., 2008). The commonly used confined
concrete model proposed by Mander et al. (1988), was implemented while
for steel, a model of elastic perfectly plastic with parabolic strain hardening
was considered. The properties recommended in ASTM A615M (2009)
were used for the steel reinforcement.

Due to the flexural cracking of RC members, their stiffness is reduced

during the seismic loads. The reduction in the flexural stiffness was
considered in the nonlinear analysis by introducing the equivalent moment
of inertia, I eq , given by:

My
I eq  (2)
Ec y

Where M y and  y are yield moment and yield curvature, respectively. Also,
Ec is Young’s modulus of concrete which was considered according to the
ACI 318-02 (ACI Committee 318, 2002) code and is equal to:

Ec  4700 fc (3)

in which f c is the compressive strength of concrete.

The plastic rotation is defined as the difference between the ultimate and
the yield curvature (curvature ductility) multiplied by the plastic hinge
length. Amongst many equations proposed in past studies for the plastic
hinge length (Park and Paulay, 1975; Paulay and Priestley, 1992), the
simple, yet accurate relation given in Eq. (4) was implemented in this
study. This relation for plastic hinge length is also recommended by ATC-
40 and by other researchers (Zou et al., 2007). It should be noted that
according to Paulay and Priestley (1992), Eq.(4) results in accurate values
for the conventional beam and column sections.

lP  H 2 (4)

In the above equation, l p and H are the plastic hinge length and the height
of section, respectively.

Table 1

Although not the main focus of this study, the acceptance criteria of
immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP)
were defined for the beam and columns similar to the ratios recommended
in FEMA-356.

In order to determine the moment rotation properties in the critical regions

of members, a moment curvature analysis was required for each element. In
this paper, XTRACT software (Imbseon and Associates Inc, 2011) was
employed to calculate the moment curvature relationship based on fiber
analysis of the end sections in each beam and column considering section
properties, reinforcement details and a constant axial load. Axial loads on
the columns were assumed to be equal to the resultant loads from dead
loads plus 20% of live loads (as recommended in the Iranian seismic code).
On the beams, the axial forces due to gravity loads were assumed to be
equal to zero. The plastic hinge properties calculated based on the
aforementioned assumptions and material models are given in Tables 1 to 3
for the selected frames. These defined properties were used in order to
characterize the nonlinear properties of RC members of selected frames in
nonlinear static analysis.

Table 2

For the columns, the yield moment changes according to the axial load.
Thus, a yield moment-axial load interaction curve needs to be defined for
each column. This interaction curve was also calculated using XTRACT
with the definition of the limiting strain.

Similar to the FEMA based plastic hinges, in SAP 2000 for columns, axial-
moment hinges and for beams, flexural moment hinges were introduced at
the end of members and the calculated nonlinear properties based on the
section analysis were then imported to each hinge. During the modeling of
the structures in SAP 2000, rigid plastic hinges were located taking into
consideration beam and column dimensions and plastic hinge length. In this
way, the rigid plastic hinges were modeled at a distance of 0.5LP from the
beam to column joint faces.

Table 3

4. Verification of the modeling approach

In order to validate the above assumptions for the quantification of the

plastic hinge properties and pushover results of the defined hinge model, a
2-D reinforced concrete frame which was evaluated by Filiatrault et al.
(1998a; 1998b) using shake table tests and numerical analyses was
selected. Through the verification with experimental results, they employed
a computer program RUAUMOKO (Carr, 1996) to carry out nonlinear
dynamic and static analysis of two ductile and nominally ductile RC frames
using the concept of spread plasticity. The two test structures were
designed, at their reduced scale, according to the provisions of the National
Building Code of Canada (1995) and the Canadian concrete standard
(1994). Each structure was assumed to be part of the lateral load resisting
system of a building, with two stories (each 1.5 m high) and two bays (each
2.5 m wide). Herein, the pushover results of ductile frame have been
selected to compare with the defined hinge model characterized based on
the assumptions of the previous section. The ductile frame incorporated full
seismic details, composed of rectangular hoops, with 135 hooks, spaced at
30 mm on centre in critical locations of the beams, columns, and joints.

In this study, the pushover analysis of the ductile structure was carried out
using the defined and the FEMA hinge models by SAP 2000 and the
outcomes in terms of load-displacement curves and sequence of hinging
were compared with those concluded by Filiatrault et al. (1998b) using the
RUAUMOKO program. Similar to their analysis, the distribution of lateral
loads in pushover analysis was identical to the one used for the design of
the structures. Also, the full gravity load was applied to the structure. All
loading conditions and assumptions were similar to the model in
RUAUMOKO. The plastic properties of defined hinges were calculated
using member reinforcement and the assumed models for concrete and
steel described in the previous section. For this quantification, the actual
material properties obtained by Filiatrault et al. (1998a) from tensile test on
reinforcing steel and compressive test on concrete cylinders were
considered. The base shear-roof lateral displacement (so-called pushover)
curves obtained from SAP 2000 were compared with that of the
RUAMOKO program in Fig. 7. Despite the differences in the lumped
plasticity approach adopted in this study and the spread plasticity method
used in RUAMOKO, the load-displacement curves of defined hinge model
and RUAMOKO agree well, emphasizing the accuracy of the above
mentioned assumptions for the definition of defined hinges. In particular,
the failure points predicted by the two methods approximately correspond
to each other. Some observed discrepancies are related to the differences in
representing the component plasticity by the two different approaches in
SAP 2000 and RUAMOKO and consideration of inelastic joint
deformation by Filiatrault et al. (1998b).

Fig. 7

The sequence of plastic hinging in the static nonlinear analysis of the

ductile structure obtained by defined hinge model conforms to the capacity
design philosophy in the Canadian concrete standard (1994) to which the
structure was designed. Similar to the static nonlinear results reported by
Filiatrault et al.(1998b), the first four hinges occur in the beams followed
by three others at the base of the columns. It is worth mentioning that there
was no inelastic behavior at the top of the columns up to the point of
failure.

Despite the aforementioned agreement between the spread plasticity and

the defined hinge models, the results of FEMA hinge model was
significantly different to both, as observed in Fig. 7. The large differences
in ultimate load carrying capacity and displacement ductility can be
attributed to the substantial confinement provided by the transverse
reinforcing in the small scaled members. The definition of FEMA hinge
model for large scale members might also be another reason for these
differences.

Comparing the sophisticated model adopted by Filiatrault et al. (1998b),

and the lumped plasticity model carried out in this study, it is evident that
the pushover analysis with defined hinges is a compromise between
accuracy and efficiency. The hinge properties characterized in this study,
could predict the load-displacement curve, initial stiffness, hinging pattern
and ultimate conditions well, having a shorter analysis time while being
simpler.

5. Comparison of the pushover analysis results

For each considered structure, nonlinear static analysis was carried out
using both defined and FEMA-356 hinge model in SAP 2000 and the base
shear-roof displacement curve was determined for each analysis. This
computer program has already implemented the FEMA-356 hinges and
these default properties could be assigned to each beam and column in a
simple manner. The nonlinear properties of defined hinges for each
component were determined through the approach described for the
definition of hinges taking in to account the material property,
reinforcement details, plastic hinge length and ultimate conditions.
Pushover analysis consists of a monotonic increasing lateral load applied to
the structure up to the failure in the presence of a constant gravity load. In
this study, the total dead load plus 20% of the live load based on the Iranian
seismic code, was applied to each frame.

For the seismic evaluation of a building, the lateral force profile applied to
the building should represent, albeit approximately, the likely distribution
of inertial forces induced during earthquake. In a comparative study,
Mwafy and Elnashai (2001) concluded that the inverted triangular
distribution of lateral load provides better estimates of the capacity curve
and seismic responses in comparison to a uniform distribution. In addition
based on their study, while inverted triangular distribution is more practical
than multi-modal distribution, it would yield similar results. Therefore, an
inverted triangular distribution over the height was used as the lateral load
pattern. It should be mentioned that this load pattern is similar to the lateral
load distribution used for the seismic design of considered structures and
has been suggested in the Iranian seismic code. Also, the effect of P   has
been considered in all nonlinear analyses.

The initial effective stiffness values of the members in both models have
been calculated from the elastic portion of the moment curvature curves of
RC members, as suggested by FEMA-356. This provides equal conditions
for comparing the obtained pushover curves and nonlinear results of FEMA
and defined hinge models.
In the following sections, a comparison of the results, including pushover
curves, hinge damage levels and hinging patterns for the three frames is
presented.

5.1 The 8-story intermediate frame

Reinforcement details in plastic hinge regions of the 8-story frame conform

to the conditions stated in FEMA-356. As a result, pushover analysis of the
default hinge model was carried out using the default properties provided in
FEMA-356 for the conformed components. For defined hinges, the plastic
properties determined at the end sections of beams and columns were
assigned to the members.

The capacity curves obtained from the pushover analysis of the FEMA and
defined hinge models are indicated in Fig. 8. As far as the elastic behavior
is concerned, both curves follow the same trend. However, they diverge in
the plastic regions, where the stiffness of pushover curve in the defined
hinge model was higher than that in default hinges. That is particularly due
to the larger ultimate moment capacity of hinges in the defined hinge
model compared to the FEMA hinges. While the load difference at the
global yield point in the two curves was almost identical, the ultimate load
capacity for the defined hinge model was almost 12% larger than that in the
default hinge model. For the definition of the yielding point, a bilinear
idealization was made for each curve. The global yielding point was
assumed at the intersection point of elastic and inelastic regions of the
idealized bilinear curve. The small variation in the yield capacity might be
attributed to the accuracy in the calculation of the yield interaction diagram
in XTRACT.

Fig. 8

Displacement capacity was defined as the point when the curve dropped
significantly. Comparison of the displacement capacities in the two curves
pointed out a significant difference owing to the definition of hinge
properties. As illustrated in Fig. 8, pushover analysis of the default hinge
model underestimated the ultimate displacement of the frame by 29%
(equal to 129 mm). This lower estimation contradicts the philosophy of
extracting the complete capacity of a structure while investigating the
inelastic performance as stated in FEMA-356. This would result in a
misjudegment of the seismic capacity of the structures. Fig. 9 also
compares the inter-story drifts of two models at the ultimate point. Due to
the larger lateral displacement, the defined hinge model experiences larger
inter-story drift than the FEMA hinge model.

Fig. 9

The hinging pattern and damage level of the defined hinge model and the
default hinge model at the ultimate point were shown in Fig. 10. Nonlinear
analysis of defined hinges showed that the first plastic rotation occurred in
the beam at the second story, followed by more plastic hinges at the beams
in the lower stories. Upon increasing the lateral load, more plastic rotations
were experienced by the columns of the fifth and the sixth stories
indicating the weakness of these columns. This could be predicted from the
reinforcing details of these columns. Eventually, the plastic hinges at the
base columns reached their ultimate rotation capacities after which the
failure of beams in the first story resulted in dropping the pushover curve of
the structure. When it turns to the FEMA hinge model, it was observed that
the first plastic hinge developed in the first (ground) floor left external
column, followed by more nonlinear behavior at the beam of the bottom
stories and base columns. When the lateral load increased, the columns in
the first floor suffered from larger plastic rotations. At the last steps of
loading, failure of plastic hinges at the first floor external columns occurred
which followed by failure of the beams in the second story resulted in
failure of structure. It should be mentioned that in the model with FEMA
hinges, formation of plastic hinges at the columns of the fifth and the sixth
stories observed after the failure of the first floor external column, proving
the deficiency of nonlinear properties of FEMA hinges in indicating the
actual behavior of structure during an earthquake.

Fig. 10

Pushover analysis of the frame with defined plastic properties resulted in

more plastic hinges in the upper stories compared to the FEMA hinge
model. Considering the total number of hinges at beams and columns in
both models, it should be mentioned that the defined hinge model
generated more plastic hinges. These observations confirmed the fact that
considering component properties in the definition of plastic properties
could affect nonlinear response of an RC frame. While the FEMA hinges
assumed the same plastic rotation for middle and side columns regardless
of their axial load level, the plastic properties of the defined hinges
determined based on the axial load values applied on the columns. As a
result, middle columns in the defined hinge model experienced more plastic
rotation compared to the FEMA hinge model.

The number of hinges at different damage levels is tabulated in Table 4.

For the frame detailed in this study, the defined hinge model illustrates
more plastic hinges in the nonlinear static analysis. Most of these plastic
rotations occurred at the damage level which was in LS level. The other
nonlinear behaviors of both models were almost similar.

Table 4

5.2 The 4-story intermediate frame

In order to evaluate possible differences between the pushover curves of

the models with defined hinges versus the FEMA hinges in low-rise
building with intermediate ductility, a 4-story structure was selected. The
nonlinear static analysis of the frame was performed for both the defined
and the FEMA based models of the 4-story frame. Investigation of the
designed frame confirmed that the conforming hinge properties defined in
FEMA-356 could be applied to all members of this frame.

Fig. 11

Comparison of the pushover curves of the defined and the FEMA hinge
models demonstrated a similar trend as observed in the 8-story frame. As
calculated from curves in Fig. 11, the global yield and ultimate lateral load
capacity of the defined hinge model were approximately 4% and 7% higher
respectively than those of the FEMA based hinges. However, these
increments were not considerable. The variation was more pronounced
when the displacement capacities of two curves were considered. The roof
drift of the model with user-default hinges was 2.5%, while it stood about
2.04% for the FEMA hinge model. The ultimate displacement of the
defined hinge model showed 23% increment in comparison to the FEMA
hinge model. The inter-story drifts sustained by two models are given in
Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

In Fig. 13, the hinging patterns are illustrated for the two studied models at
the ultimate point. The order of plastic hinge development in both models
was to some extent similar to the 8-story structure. In the defined hinge
model, the first nonlinear hinge formed at the beam in the second story
followed by more plastic rotations at the beams of the lower stories, after
which, nonlinear plastic hinges were occurred at the columns of the first
and the third stories. Finally, failure of plastic hinges at the beam of the
second story concluded the failure of the structure. For the FEMA hinge
model, although the nonlinear behavior was initiated from the beam in the
second story, failure of plastic hinges at the external column and beam of
the first story resulted in the collapse of structure.

Similar to the 8-story frame, more plastic rotations were experienced at the
upper stories of the defined hinge model compared to the FEMA based
hinge model. Considering the damage level experienced by the beams in
the two models, it was observed that the defined hinges suffered from more
severe damage than the FEMA hinges. This was in agreement with the
design philosophy of weak-beam strong-column. A summary of the plastic
hinging status at different performance levels is provided in Table 4. A
similar behavior to the 8-story frame was seen regarding the total number
of plastic hinges in both models. More hinges in the elements underwent
plastic rotation after nonlinear static analysis of the defined hinge model.
These extra plastic hinges occurred at the IO performance level.

Fig. 13

5.3 The 4-story ordinary frame

In order to study the result of RC buildings with inadequate or poor

confinement, a 4-story ordinary moment resistant frame was designed and
the static pushover analysis of this low ductility frame was carried out with
the two different hinge models. Due to the fact that the spacing of
transverse reinforcement and shear forces in this frame would not conform
to the conditions set in FEMA-356, the non-conforming FEMA hinges
were implemented for nonlinear analysis of the FEMA based hinge model.

Pushover analysis of the defined and the FEMA based hinge model was
carried out up to the ultimate capacity. Fig. 14 provides a comparison of the
two pushover curves. When the lateral load carrying capacity of the two
models was compared, a similar behavior to the 4- and 8- story frames was
observed. The ultimate load capacity of the defined hinge model was 815
kN which was roughly 10% higher than that of the FEMA based hinge
model. The load difference at the yield point was calculated to be about 6%
between the two load-displacement curves.
 Fig. 14

Considering the displacement capacity of the two pushover curves, it is

worth noting that Fig. 14 pointed out a significant lateral displacement
capacity for the defined hinge model. The lateral displacement capacity of
the frame estimated by the defined hinges was calculated to be almost
twice of the FEMA hinge model. This considerable difference was due to
the very low plastic rotation considered in FEMA-356 for non-conforming
hinges. Technically speaking, the definition of these default hinges was
supposed to be for very poorly confined members where there was a
significant shift between conforming and non-conforming transverse
reinforcement. However, in the determination of the nonlinear behavior of
the defined hinges, the actual conditions of the members, including the
reinforcement details, material properties and axial load were considered
and the plastic rotation was calculated based on the provided transverse
reinforcement. In addition, it is worth mentioning that comparing the inter-
story drifts in the two models, it was observed that the defined hinge model
underwent higher inter-story drifts than default hinges (see Fig. 15). This
was particularly attributed to the larger lateral displacement capacity of the
structural model with defined hinges.

Fig. 15

Pushover results of the two different models for this low ductility frame
addressed a rather more different behavior in the hinging pattern at ultimate
capacity, as illustrated in Fig. 16. For the model with the FEMA hinges,
most of the damage occurred at the base of the columns, whereas this
happened at the top of the columns in the third story of the model with the
defined hinges. This was due to the lower confinement level provided for
the columns at the third level compared to the first level according to the
ACI provisions for column reinforcement details. Even though, the results
of the defined hinge model are in good agreement with the reinforcing
details, the FEMA hinge model could not consider these characteristics. An
exact investigation of the damage levels of plastic hinges in both models
confirmed a column sideway mechanism in defined hinge model, whereas
this behavior was not observed in the FEMA hinge model. This shows, to
some extent, that the FEMA hinge model indicates a weak-beam strong-
column behavior compared to the defined hinges, which is not compatible
with the design philosophy of the non-ductile frames.
As far as the formation of plastic hinges is concerned, it was observed that
similar to the other structures, in the defined hinge model, the first plastic
hinge occurred at beam in the second story followed by more plastic hinge
formation at beams. As the lateral load was increased, columns at the first
and the third levels suffered from nonlinear rotations at their ends. In this
model, collapse of plastic hinges at the third level caused the failure of
structure. Nonlinear static analysis of FEMA hinge model showed that the
first plastic hinges formed at beam in the first and second levels after which
more plastic rotation occurred at the first story columns and the beams in
the first two stories. Then plastic rotation observed in the column of the
third story. Eventually, collapse of plastic hinges at the first story columns
resulted in a significant drop of lateral load- displacement curve.

As observed in the other frames, the total number of plastic hinges in

defined model is larger than FEMA hinge model (see Table 4). These extra
plastic rotations occurred mostly at the performance level of LS. At this
performance level, the number of plastic hinges in the defined hinge model
was calculated to be twice of the FEMA hinge model.

Fig. 16

6. Conclusions and discussion

Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses of three code-compliant RC frames

were performed and the results were compared in order to investigate the
effect of plastic hinge definition in the nonlinear responses. For
characterizing the plastic properties of beam and column elements, lumped
plasticity approach has been used and plastic hinges were modeled at the
end sections of each element. Comparison of the results between the
defined hinge model and the FEMA based hinge model concluded the
following points:
1. Variations of the load carrying capacity at the global yielding points
were negligible (around 4% and 7% for intermediate and ordinary
frames, respectively). However, at the ultimate point, the differences
in the load carrying capacity were calculated to be higher (up to 12%
for the 8-story building). Generally speaking, the definition of plastic
hinges did not substantially influence the lateral load capacity of the
case-study frames.
2. The FEMA based hinge models of the three frames resulted in a
significant decrease in the displacement capacities compared to the
defined hinge model. This trend was calculated to be the highest for
 the ordinary frame. Taking into consideration that most of the
existing RC frames in need of retrofitting, are categorized as low
ductility structures, the importance of an elaborate definition of
plastic hinge properties is evident.
3. Comparing the hinging patterns of both models in the intermediate
frames, more hinges underwent plastic rotation in the upper stories of
the defined hinge model. Although for the intermediate frames, the
collapsed hinges were almost similar in both models; the definition
of hinge properties in the ordinary frame shifted the most damaged
hinges from the first story of the FEMA based hinge model to the
third in the defined hinge model.
4. With the defined hinge model, more hinges suffered plastic
deformations in the beams and columns than in the FEMA based
hinge model.

The most important conclusion of this numerical study is the observation

that models based on the FEMA hinges did not predict the displacement
ductility (or displacement capacity) of the RC frames adequately;
especially for the ordinary frame. For the performance assessment and
retrofitting purposes of RC frames, these results encourage the use of
defined hinges based on the plastic properties of the material,
reinforcement detail and axial load applied to the element.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank Imbsen &Associate, Inc. for providing a free
license for the XTRACT software (Imbseon and Associates Inc, 2011).

References

ACI Committee 318. 2002. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02). Farmington Hills, Mich. : American
Concrete Institute.
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). 2000. Prestandard and commentary for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA-356). Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
ASTM A615M. 2009. Standard specification for deformed and plain carbon-steel bars
for concrete reinforcement. Philadelphia, Pa. : American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ATC. 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings(ATC-40). California:
Applied Technology Council.
Bardakis VG, Dritsos SE. 2007. Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of
existing buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27(3):223-233.
Carr AJ. 1996. RUAUMOKO the Maori god of volcano and earthquake. Computer
Program Library. 27 January 1996 ed. Christchurch (New Zealand): Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2009. Static and dynamic finite element analysis of
structures. SAP 2000. 14.1.0 ed. Berkeley (CA); .
CSA. 1994. Design of concrete structures for building. Standard CAN-A-233-94.
Rexdale, Ont.: Canadian Standards Association.
Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. 2008. Seismic strengthening of an
under-designed RC structure with FRP. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 37(1):141-162.
Filiatrault A, Lachapelle E, Lamontagne P. 1998a. Seismic performance of ductile and
nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. I. Experimental
study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 25:331-341.
Filiatrault A, Lachapelle E, Lamontagne P. 1998b. Seismic performance of ductile and
nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. II. Analytical
study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 25:342-352.
Imbseon and Associates Inc. 2011. Cross section analysis program for structural
engineers. XTRACT. 3.0.8 ed. California; .
Inel M, Ozmen HB. 2006. Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering Structures 28(11):1494-1502.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1994. Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Whittier (CA); .
Jeong SH, Elnashai AS. 2005. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-
scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing Part I: Analytical model verification. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering 9(1):95-128.
Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 20(4-6):452-464.
Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. 1988. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 114(Compendex):1804-1826.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. 1975. Provisions for structures to be built in
disaster area. Ankara (Turkey); .
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. 2001. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of
RC buildings. Engineering Structures 23(5):407-424.
NBCC. 1995. National building code of Canada. Ottawa, Ont.: Associate Committee on
the National Building Code, National Research Council of Canada.
Niroomandi A, Maheri A, Maheri MR, Mahini SS. 2010. Seismic performance of
ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets. Engineering Structures
32(8):2326-2336.
Park R, Paulay T. 1975. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: Wiley. 769 p.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: Wiley. xxiii, 744 p : p.
Permanet Committee for Revising the Iranian Code for Seismic Resistant Design of
Buildings. 2005. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of
buildings (Standard No. 2800-05). 3rd ed. Tehran (Iran): Building and Housing
Research Center (BHRC).
Sadjadi R, Kianoush MR, Talebi S. 2007. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
moment resisting frames. Engineering Structures 29(9):2365-2380.
Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. 1982. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 79(Compendex):13-27.
Zou XK, Chan CM. 2005. Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced
concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis. Engineering Structures
27(8):1289-1302.
Zou XK, Teng JG, De Lorenzis L, Xia SH. 2007. Optimal performance-based design of
FRP jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames. Composites Part
B: Engineering 38(5-6):584-597.
 Table 1. Plastic hinge properties of defined hinges in the 8-story
intermediate frame
Axial Load Yield moment Ultimate moment Plastic
Section Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) rotation
A-A 1690 - 913.7 1011 0.019
1473 - 879 999.5 0.020
956 - 794.7 964.6 0.024
834 - 774.1 955 0.024
B-B 1257 - 591.8 660.8 0.025
1042 - 551.9 638.3 0.026
711 - 487.9 605.8 0.029
587 - 463.5 602.6 0.033
C-C 827 - 351.7 398.9 0.033
620 - 322 384.7 0.036
463 - 297.5 371.9 0.038
348 - 277.1 368.2 0.042
231 - 258.2 361.1 0.047
114 - 239 351.8 0.051
D-D - Positive 318.2 459.5 0.059
- Negative 467.2 615 0.040
E-E - Positive 251.8 358.8 0.059
- Negative 368.1 502.2 0.047
F-F - Positive 131.3 183.2 0.058
Negative 253.6 352.1 0.064
 Table 2. Plastic hinge properties of defined hinges in the 4-story
intermediate frame
Axial Load Yield moment Ultimate moment Plastic
Section Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) rotation
A-A 780 - 421 499.7 0.026
B-B 580 - 225 257.8 0.037
400 - 203.8 250.3 0.040
300 - 192.8 245.4 0.041
C-C 386 - 175 213 0.040
200 - 152 199 0.037
100 - 138.5 190 0.036
D-D - Positive 95.2 121.8 0.031
- Negative 240.6 269.4 0.032
E-E - Positive 80.4 102.2 0.031
Negative 192.4 225 0.041
Table 3. Plastic hinge properties of defined hinges in the 4-story ordinary
frame
Axial Load Yield moment Ultimate moment Plastic
Section Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) rotation
A-A 806 - 447.3 501 0.018
423 - 393 477.7 0.021
B-B 602 - 317.3 373.6 0.024
313 - 270.1 349.4 0.032
C-C 400 - 210 200.5 0.013
200 - 186.2 201 0.017
100 - 173.1 200 0.020
D-D - Positive 166.3 213 0.030
- Negative 319.5 390.8 0.027
E-E - Positive 112.8 144.3 0.030
Negative 270 304 0.022
 Table 4. Number of hinges at different damage states
Hinge damage
A-B B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C >C Total
state
8-story FEMA hinges 71 11 11 15 0 4 112
intermediate
frame Defined hinges 55 23 25 2 0 7 112
4-story FEMA hinges 28 9 12 5 0 2 56
intermediate
frame Defined hinges 23 12 11 8 0 2 56

4-story FEMA hinges 35 4 8 6 0 3 56

ordinary frame Defined hinges 29 7 16 2 2 56
 Fig. 1. Actual and Idealized curvature distribution in a cantilever

b b

As
d

A
h

h
A' s
d'

d'

Typical column section Typical beam section

Fig. 2. Distribution of longitudinal reinforcement in a typical beam and

column section
 CL

F F
F F
C C C C
F F
F F
C C C C
E E
E E
C C C C
E E
E E
8@3m

C C C C
D D
D D
B B B B
D D
D D
B B B B
D D
D D
A A A A
D D
D D
A A A A

3@5m

Transverse steel
Section b h d d' Ast As A'S
spacing (mm)
A-A 600 600 540 60 16 25 - - 150
B-B 600 600 540 60 16 18 - - 150
C-C 500 500 440 60 16 16 - - 125
D-D 500 500 440 60 - 6 25 4 25 100
E-E 500 500 440 60 - 6 22 4 22 100
F-F 500 500 440 60 - 6 18 3 18 100

Fig. 3. Reinforcement details of the 8-story intermediate frame

 CL

E E
E E
C C C C
E E
E E

8@3m
C C C C
D D
D D
B B B B
D D
D D
B B A A

3@5m

Transverse steel
Section b h d d' Ast As A'S
spacing (mm)
A-A 500 500 440 60 12 22 - - 140
B-B 400 400 340 60 12 18 - - 110
C-C 400 400 340 60 12 16 - - 110
4 22 +
D-D 400 400 340 60 - 2 22 85
1 25
E-E 400 400 340 60 - 5 20 2 20 85

Fig. 4. Reinforcement details of the 4-story intermediate frame

 CL

E E
E E
C C C C
E E
E E
8@3m C C C C
D D
D D

B B B B
D D
D D

A A A A

3@5m

Transverse steel
Section b h d d' Ast As A'S
spacing (mm)
A-A 500 500 440 60 16 20 - - 250
B-B 500 500 440 60 8 22 - - 250
C-C 400 400 340 60 8 22 - - 250
D-D 450 450 390 60 - 6 22 3 22 200
E-E 450 450 390 60 - 5 22 2 22 200

Fig. 5. Reinforcement details of the 4-story ordinary frame

Fig. 6. Idealized and a typical real moment rotation (or moment curvature)
curve for a flexural plastic hinge
Fig. 7. Comparison of pushover curves of ductile RC frame
Fig. 8. Pushover curves of the 8-story frame for two different plastic hinges
Fig. 9. Inter-story drift distribution in the 8-story intermediate frame
 (a) FEMA hinge model

(b) Defined hinge model

Fig. 10. Comparison of hinging patterns at ultimate point for the defined
and FEMA hinge models of the 8-story frame
Fig. 11. Pushover curves of the 4-story intermediate frame for two different
plastic hinges
Fig. 12. Inter-story drifts of the 4-story intermediate frame
 (a) FEMA hinge model

(b) Defined hinge model

Fig. 13. Comparison of hinging patterns at ultimate point for the defined
and FEMA hinge models of the 4-story intermediate frame
Fig. 14. Pushover curves of the 4-story ordinary frame for two different
plastic hinges
Fig. 15. Inter-story drifts of the 4-story ordinary frame
 (a) FEMA hinge model

(b) Defined hinge model

Fig. 16. Comparison of hinging patterns at ultimate point for the defined
and FEMA hinge model of the 4-story ordinary frame