Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings

Mehmet Inel , Hayri Baytan Ozmen
Department of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20070 Denizli, Turkey Received 22 June 2005; received in revised form 20 January 2006; accepted 23 January 2006 Available online 30 March 2006

Abstract Due to its simplicity, the structural engineering profession has been using the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis. Modeling for such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure, quantied by strength and deformation capacities, which depend on the modeling assumptions. Pushover analysis is carried out for either user-dened nonlinear hinge properties or default-hinge properties, available in some programs based on the FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines. While such documents provide the hinge properties for several ranges of detailing, programs may implement averaged values. The user needs to be careful; the misuse of default-hinge properties may lead to unreasonable displacement capacities for existing structures. This paper studies the possible differences in the results of pushover analysis due to default and user-dened nonlinear component properties. Four- and seven-story buildings are considered to represent low- and medium- rise buildings for this study. Plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing are assumed to be effective parameters in the user-dened hinge properties. Observations show that plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing have no inuence on the base shear capacity, while these parameters have considerable effects on the displacement capacity of the frames. Comparisons point out that an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement improves the displacement capacity. Although the capacity curve for the default-hinge model is reasonable for modern code compliant buildings, it may not be suitable for others. Considering that most existing buildings in Turkey and in some other countries do not conform to requirements of modern code detailing, the use of default hinges needs special care. The observations clearly show that the user-dened hinge model is better than the default-hinge model in reecting nonlinear behavior compatible with the element properties. However, if the default-hinge model is preferred due to simplicity, the user should be aware of what is provided in the program and should avoid the misuse of default-hinge properties. c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonlinear hinge properties; Nonlinear static procedure; Plastic hinge length; Pushover analysis; Transverse steel amount; Nonlinear time history

1. Introduction Since inelastic behavior is intended in most structures subjected to infrequent earthquake loading, the use of nonlinear analyses is essential to capture behavior of structures under seismic effects. Due to its simplicity, the structural engineering profession has been using the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis, described in FEMA-356 [1] and ATC-40 [2]. It is widely accepted that, when pushover analysis is used carefully, it provides useful information that cannot be obtained by linear static or dynamic analysis procedures.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 258 213 4030x1547; fax: +90 258 212 5548. E-mail addresses: minel@pamukkale.edu.tr (M. Inel), ozmenhayri@yahoo.com (H.B. Ozmen).

In the implementation of pushover analysis, modeling is one of the important steps. The model must consider nonlinear behavior of structure/elements. Such a model requires the determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure that are quantied by strength and deformation capacities. Lumped plasticity idealization of a cantilever (Fig. 1) is a commonly used approach in models for deformation capacity estimates. The ultimate deformation capacity of a component depends on the ultimate curvature and plastic hinge length. The use of different criteria for the ultimate curvature and different plastic hinge length may result in different deformation capacities. Several plastic hinge lengths have been proposed in the literature [35]. In practical use, most often the default properties provided in the FEMA-356 [1] and ATC-40 [2] documents are preferred,

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.017

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

1495

Fig. 1. Lumped plasticity idealization of a cantilever.

due to convenience and simplicity. These default properties can be implemented in well-known linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis programs such as DRAIN-2DX, DRAIN-3DX, PERFORM-2D, and SAP2000 [69]. Some programs (i.e. SAP2000) have already implemented these default nonlinear properties. The use of this implementation is very common among the structural engineering profession and researchers. Although there may not be signicant differences in the modeling of steel structures, the use of guidelines requires special care for reinforced concrete (RC) structures. As mentioned above, the deformation capacity of reinforced concrete components depends on the modeling assumptions. FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines are prepared on the basis of some assumptions related to typical reinforced concrete construction in the United States. While the documents provide the hinge properties for several ranges of detailing, the programs (i.e. SAP2000) may implement averaged values. Also, there may be some differences in construction techniques and detailing in other countries. If the user knows the capability of the program and the underlying assumptions, then he/she can take advantage of the feature provided to avoid an extensive amount of work. In some cases, the defaulthinge properties are used without any considerations due to simplicity. This paper aims to study the possible differences in the results of pushover analysis due to the default and user-dened nonlinear component properties. Two structures are used with different hinge properties. Since there is no torsional effect in the selected structures, two-dimensional (2-D) modeling is employed. The SAP2000 [9] program is used for pushover analysis. 2. Description of structures Two structures are considered to represent low- and medium-rise RC buildings for study. These consist of two typical beamcolumn RC frame buildings with no shear walls, located in a high-seismicity region of Turkey. Since the majority of buildings were constructed according to the 1975 Earthquake Code [10], 4- and 7-story buildings are designed according to this code, considering both gravity and seismic loads (a design ground acceleration of 0.4g and soil class Z3, which is similar to class C soil of FEMA-356, are assumed). Material properties

Fig. 2. Plan view of 4- and 7-story buildings. Table 1 Dynamic characteristics of 4-story frame Mode no Period (s) Mass participation factor Story level 4 3 2 1 1 0.755 0.819 1.000 0.853 0.553 0.224 2 0.250 0.117 1.000 0.001 0.842 0.580 3 0.147 0.036 1.000 1.017 0.159 0.788

Normalized mode amplitude

are assumed to be 16 MPa for the concrete compressive strength and 220 MPa for the yield strength of both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. Three layouts are considered for transverse reinforcement in the potential plastic hinge regions, with 100 mm, 150 mm, and 200 mm spacings representing the ranges in typical construction. Both 4- and 7-story buildings are 16 m by 12 m in plan (Fig. 2). Typical oor-to-oor height is 2.8 m. The interior frame as shown in Fig. 2 represents 2-D models of these buildings. The column and beam dimensions used in this study are typical frame element proportions in the existing building stock. The 4-story building is 11.2 m in elevation. Column dimensions and the amount and arrangement of longitudinal reinforcement are provided in Fig. 3. All beams are 200 mm 500 mm and the amounts of top and bottom reinforcement are shown in cm2 in the elevation view. The dead and participating live loads (30% of live load) on the frame are 197.6 tons and 36 tons, respectively. The rst mode period is 0.755 s. Modal properties of the rst three modes are given in Table 1. Note that mode shapes are normalized to 1 at the roof level. The 7-story building is 19.6 m in elevation. Column dimensions and the amount and arrangement of longitudinal reinforcement are provided in Fig. 4. All beams are 250 mm 600 mm and the amounts of top and bottom reinforcement are shown in cm2 in the elevation view. The dead and participating live loads on the frame are 380.7 tons and 64.8 tons, respectively. The rst mode period is 0.965 s. Modal properties of the rst three modes are provided in Table 2.

1496 Table 2 Dynamic characteristics of 7-story frame Mode no Period (s) Mass participation factor Story level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 0.965 0.775 1.000 0.936 0.796 0.634 0.436 0.273 0.109

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

2 0.345 0.126 1.000 0.575 0.172 0.656 0.820 0.660 0.301

3 0.209 0.044 1.000 0.042 0.925 0.497 0.470 0.777 0.462

Normalized mode amplitude

(a) Column labeling.

(b) Longitudinal beam reinforcement amount (cm2 ).

Nonlinear Version 8 has been used. A description of the modeling details is provided in the following. A two-dimensional model of each structure is created in SAP2000 to carry out nonlinear static analysis. Beam and column elements are modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by dening plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. The hinges are located as shown in Fig. 5. SAP2000 implements the plastic hinge properties described in FEMA-356 (or ATC-40). As shown in Fig. 6, ve points labeled A, B, C, D, and E dene the forcedeformation behavior of a plastic hinge. The values assigned to each of these points vary depending on the type of element, material properties, longitudinal and transverse steel content, and the axial load level on the element. SAP2000 provides default-hinge properties and recommends PMM hinges for columns and M3 hinges for beams. Once the structure is modeled with section properties, steel content and the loads on it, default hinges are assigned to the elements (PMM for columns and M3 for beams). There is no extensive calculation for each member. The denition of user-dened hinge properties requires momentcurvature analysis of each element. The modied Kent and Park model [11] for conned concrete and the typical steel stressstrain model with strain hardening (i.e. Mander [12]) for steel are implemented in momentcurvature analyses. The points B and C on Fig. 6 are related to yield and ultimate curvatures. Since deformation ductility is not a primary concern, the point B is not the focus, and it is obtained from SAP2000 using approximate component initial effective stiffness values according to ATC-40; 0.5EI and 0.70EI for beams and columns, respectively. In this study, the ultimate curvature is dened as the smallest of the curvatures corresponding to: (1) a reduced moment equal to 80% of the maximum moment, determined from the momentcurvature analysis; (2) the extreme compression ber reaching the ultimate concrete compressive strain, as determined using the simple relation provided by Priestley et al. [4], given in Eq. (1); and (3) the longitudinal steel reaching a tensile strain of 50% of the ultimate strain capacity that corresponds to the monotonic fracture strain. The ultimate concrete compressive strain by Priestley et al. [4] is given as cu = 0.004 + 1.4s f yh su f cc (1)

(c) Column dimensions in mm, arrangement and longitudinal reinforcement. Fig. 3. 4-story frame properties.

3. Modeling approach Analyses have been performed using SAP2000 [9], which is a general-purpose structural analysis program for static and dynamic analyses of structures. In this study, SAP2000

where cu is the ultimate concrete compressive strain, su is the steel strain at the maximum tensile stress, s is the volumetric ratio of conning steel, f yh is the yield strength of transverse reinforcement, and f cc is the peak conned concrete compressive strength. For each column, momentcurvature analyses are carried out, considering section properties and constant axial loads on the elements. On the beams, axial forces were assumed to be zero; on the columns, they were assumed to be constant and equal to the load due to the dead loads plus 30% of the live loads on the columns (TS-500 [13] and UBC [14]).

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

1497

(a) Column labeling.

(b) Longitudinal beam reinforcement amount (cm2 ).

(c) Column dimensions in mm, arrangement and longitudinal reinforcement. Fig. 4. 7-story frame properties.

Fig. 6. Forcedeformation relationship of a typical plastic hinge. Fig. 5. Hinge locations at the columns and beams.

The input required for SAP2000 is the momentrotation relationship instead of the momentcurvature relationship. Also, momentrotation data have been reduced to a ve-point input that brings some inevitable simplications. Plastic hinge length is used to obtain ultimate rotation values from the ultimate curvatures. Several plastic hinge lengths have been proposed in the literature [35]. For the user-dened hinge properties, two plastic hinge length values are considered, as

given in Eqs. (2) and (3); 0.5 H is the simplest form of plastic hinge length (Park and Paulay [3]) and the one given in Eq. (3) is proposed by Priestley et al. [4] and has been used in some guidelines (i.e. ATC-32 [15]): L p = 0 .5 H L p = 0.08 L + 0.022 f ye dbl 0.044 f ye dbl . (2) (3)

In Eqs. (2) and (3), L p is the plastic hinge length, H is the section depth, L is the critical distance from the critical section

1498

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502 Table 3 Pushover analysis cases Default hinge (Case A) User-dened hinges L p w/Eq. (2) L p w/Eq. (3) s = 100 (mm) Case B2 Case B3 s = 150 (mm) Case C3 s = 200 (mm) Case D3

of the plastic hinge to the point of contraexure, and f ye and dbl are the expected yield strength and the diameter of longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. Following the calculation of the ultimate rotation capacity of an element, acceptance criteria are dened, labeled IO, LS, and CP in Fig. 6. IO, LS, and CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention, respectively. This study denes these three points corresponding to 10%, 60%, and 90% use of plastic hinge deformation capacity. In existing reinforced concrete buildings, especially with low concrete strength and an insufcient amount of transverse steel, the shear failure of members should be taken into consideration. For this purpose, shear hinges are introduced for beams and columns. Because of the brittle failure of concrete in shear, no ductility is considered for this type of hinge. Shear hinge properties are dened such that, when the shear force in the member reaches its strength, the member fails immediately. The shear strength of each member ( Vr ) is calculated according to TS-500 [13], which is similar to UBC [14], as follows: Vr = Vc + Vs (4)

where Vc and Vs are shear strengths provided by concrete and shear reinforcement in accordance with Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively: Vc = 0.182bd Vs = f c 1 + 0.07 N Ac (5)

Gravity loads were in place during lateral loading. In all cases, lateral forces were applied monotonically in a step-by-step nonlinear static analysis. The applied lateral forces were proportional to the product of mass and the rst mode shape amplitude at each story level under consideration. PDelta effects were taken into account. Although the rst mode shape is used in this study, a non-modal shape vector, such as an inverted triangular or a rectangular shape, may be used for the lateral load pattern. In pushover analysis, the behavior of the structure is characterized by a capacity curve that represents the relationship between the base shear force and the displacement of the roof. This is a very convenient representation in practice, and can be visualized easily by the engineer. It is recognized that roof displacement was used for the capacity curve because it is widely accepted in practice. Pushover analysis results (capacity curve, plastic hinge mechanisms) are discussed in the following. 4.1. Capacity curve No shear failures were observed in any cases of pushover analyses. This is primarily due to the assumed concrete compressive strength, which happens to be sufcient to prevent shear failures. Even in the case of a 200 mm transverse steel spacing, the shear strength of members was sufcient to carry the shear forces that developed. Thus, the behavior is dominated by exure. Shear failures generally occur in buildings with lower concrete compressive strength and larger spacings of transverse reinforcement, based on the authors observations on damaged buildings. The capacity curves of the 4- and 7-story frames are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for different plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing. The trend in the capacity curves of both frames is similar. The base shear capacity does not depend on the denition of hinge properties. The variation in the base shear capacity is less than 5%. This variation is due to the location of the plastic hinge. However, plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing have considerable effects on the displacement capacity of the frames. Displacement capacities, dened as the point corresponding to 20% or more loss in lateral load resistance, are circled on the capacity curves. A comparison of displacement capacities points out their dependence on transverse reinforcement spacing and the assumed plastic hinge length ( L p ). Fig. 7 plots the capacity curves of 4- and 7-story frames for the effect of the assumed L p . The gure illustrates that there is a difference of about 30% in the displacement capacities of the frames if Eq. (2)

Ash f yh d (6) s where b is the section width, d is the effective depth, f c is the unconned concrete compressive strength, N is the axial load on the section, Ac is the concrete area, and Ash , f yh , and s are the area, yield strength, and spacing of transverse reinforcement, respectively. 4. Pushover analysis Five cases are considered in the pushover analyses of each frame, as shown in Table 3: the default-hinge properties of SAP2000 termed Case A, and four user-dened hinge properties, including the variation of plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing. These four cases are: (i) Case B2: L p with Eq. (2) and transverse reinforcement spacing, s = 100 mm; (ii) Case B3: L p with Eq. (3) and s = 100 mm; (iii) Case C3: s = 150 mm and L p with Eq. (3); and (iv) Case D3: s = 200 mm and L p with Eq. (3). Since modeling of a code-compliant [10] building is intended by the cases with 100 mm transverse steel spacings (Case B2, Case B3), a hook is included in the transverse steel congurations in the middle of the columns in the longer dimension, as the code implies. No hooks are included for the other cases. In the rest of paper, the transverse reinforcement cases are termed well-conned and poorly-conned for the s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm cases, respectively. The pushover analysis consists of the application of gravity loads and a representative lateral load pattern. The frames were subjected to gravity analyses and simultaneous lateral loading.

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

1499

displacement capacity of the user-dened hinge case (Case B3) is for well-conned cases. The effects of transverse reinforcement spacing are shown in Fig. 8 for the 4- and 7-story frames. It is obvious that an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement improves the displacement capacity. The transverse reinforcement is more effective for smaller spacings. For example, reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 100 mm provides an increas of about 40% in the displacement capacity, while reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 150 mm provides an increase of only 12% for the 4-story frame. These numbers are 25% and 10% for the 7-story frame, respectively. FEMA-356 or ATC-40 provides nonlinear hinge properties for a wide range of RC beams and columns. SAP2000 aims to cover the common range of practice for the default-hinge properties. Of course, the user may dene element-compatible properties, but it is usually common to use what the program provides. Although the model with default-hinge properties seems to provide a reasonable displacement capacity for the well-conned case, the displacement capacity is quite high compared to that of the poorly-conned case (Fig. 8). 4.2. Plastic hinge mechanism
Fig. 7. Capacity curves of 4- and 7-story frames for different plastic hinges.

Fig. 8. Capacity curves of 4- and 7-story frames for different transverse reinforcement spacings.

is used instead of Eq. (3) for L p . The curve for the defaulthinge properties case is also shown in the gures. The capacities for Cases A and B3 are quite similar. However, note that the

Plastic hinge patterns of the 4- and 7-story frames are compared at the different levels of roof displacements to provide information about local and global failure mechanisms in the structure (i.e. weak columnstrong beam response, and soft stories, etc.). Plastic hinge formation mechanisms have been obtained at the displacement points corresponding to global yielding and ultimate displacements. The global yielding point corresponds to the displacement on the capacity curve where the system starts to soften. The ultimate point is considered as displacement at the rst 20% decrease in lateral load capacity. Since the capacity curves for different spacings were similar in shape, the plastic hinge patterns of Cases A (default hinges) and B3 (hinges for s = 100 mm and L p according to Eq. (3)) were compared. Although it is not reported in this paper, the hinging patterns were almost identical for transverse reinforcement spacings of 100 mm, 150 mm, and 200 mm. The hinging patterns of 4- and 7-story frames are plotted in Figs. 9 and 10 for both the Cases A and B3 at the different levels of roof displacement. Comparison of the gures reveals that the patterns at the yielding state are quite similar for Cases A and B3, except for two locations at the base columns. Plastic hinge formation starts with beam ends at lower stories, then propagates to upper stories, and continues with yielding of base columns. However, there are signicant differences in hinging patterns at the ultimate state. Although the hinge locations seem to be consistent, signicant damage or failure occur at the beams for the model with default hinges, while the base columns experience major damage or failure for the model with user-dened hinges. Table 4 summarizes the number of hinges at different damage levels. The hinging pattern of the model with default hinges is suitable for a ductile beam mechanism in which columns are stronger than beams.

1500

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

(a) User-dened hinge model at yielding.

(b) Default-hinge model at yielding.

(c) User-dened hinge model at ultimate.

(d) Default-hinge model at ultimate.

Fig. 9. Plastic hinge patterns for 4-story frame at global yielding and ultimate states.

(a) User-dened hinge model at yielding.

(b) Default-hinge model at yielding.

(c) User-dened hinge model at ultimate.

(d) Default-hinge model at ultimate.

Fig. 10. Plastic hinge patterns for 7-story frame at global yielding and ultimate states. Table 4 Summary of plastic hinging for pushover analysis at different damage levels Hinge damage states 4 story Yield Ultimate 7 story Yield Ultimate User-dened Default User-dened Default User-dened Default User-dened Default A-B 45 46 29 29 87 88 58 59 B-IO 17 25 6 9 39 38 9 23 IO-LS 10 1 30 5 0 0 52 6 LS-CP 0 0 4 22 0 0 4 34 CP-C 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 C-D 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 D-E 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 >E 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Total 72 72 72 72 126 126 126 126

However, this mechanism is not explicitly guaranteed for the structures designed according to the 1975 Turkish Earthquake Code or for structures designed according to pre-modern codes in other countries. The default-hinge model assumes the same deformation capacity for all columns regardless of their axial load level and their weak or strong axis orientation. The outermost and middle base columns of the frames have the same cross-sectional properties. In such a case, the middle columns are expected to have a greater damage level than the outermost columns,

because of the larger axial force level. Even though the userdened models have good agreement with this expectation, the default models are not compatible (Figs. 9 and 10). From left to right, the second- and fourth-row base columns of the frames resist the lateral loading by their weak axis. Therefore, they have lower strength and larger deformation capacities compared with their neighbors. This behaviour can also be seen in the user-dened hinge models, but not on the default-hinge models. The 4- and 7-story frames have a signicant amount of column yielding at the upper stories (Figs. 9 and 10). Careful

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

1501

(a) User-dened hinge model subjected to 1940 El Centro ground motion, demand = 87 mm.

(b) Default-hinge model subjected to 1940 El Centro ground motion, demand = 65 mm.

(c) User-dened hinge model at 87 mm (pushover).

(d) Default-hinge model at 65 mm (pushover).

Fig. 11. Comparison of plastic hinging mechanism of 4-story frame for nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic (subjected to 1940 El Centro ground motion) analyses.

examination of this observation points out that column yielding occurs at the locations where there are changes in column dimensions or amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. The nonlinear time-history analyses of 4- and 7-story frames were carried out to further identify hinging patterns. The models of the frames with default and user-dened hinges were subjected to rst 10 s of 1940 NS El Centro ground motion without scaling. The peak displacements obtained in timehistory analyses do not correspond to the ultimate displacement capacity on the pushover curve. Therefore, the ground motion was also scaled to give peak displacement demand closer to displacement capacity. Fig. 11 plots the hinging mechanism of a 4-story frame at the same displacement level for pushover and time-history analyses for the unscaled ground motion. Comparison of the hinging pattern for pushover and time-history analyses of the 4-story frame shows that the results of both models with the userdened and default hinges are quite compatible in identifying the hinge locations, except for signicant damage at the base columns for time-history analyses. While the base columns are at the yielding state for the pushover case, they have signicant damage in time-history analyses. The hinging patterns of the 4- and 7-story frames with the user-dened hinges are shown in Fig. 12 for time-history analyses at the ultimate displacement levels. The displacement demand of a 4-story frame was 170 mm with a scale factor of 1.88, while that of a 7-story frame was 234 mm with a scale factor of 1.90. Comparison of Figs. 11 and 12 and Figs. 9 and 10 indicates that pushover analyses are reasonably successful in capturing the hinge locations and damage state of hinges, except that time-history analyses give more hinges at the columns. Moreover, the time-history analyses result in more plastic hinge formation in the upper levels, which is not estimated adequately by the pushover analyses, as observed by other researchers (i.e. Lew and Kunnath [16]). 5. Discussion of results The interior frames of 4- and 7-story buildings were considered in pushover analyses to represent low- and mediumrise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings for study. Beam and column elements are modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by dening plastic hinges at both ends of the

Fig. 12. Plastic hinging mechanism of 4- and 7-story frames with user-dened hinges subjected to scaled 1940 El Centro ground motion to obtain the ultimate displacement determined from pushover analysis. (a) 4-story frame (scale factor = 1.88 and demand = 170 mm). (b) 7-story frame (scale factor = 1.90 and demand = 232 mm).

beams and columns. The frames were modeled with default and user-dened hinge properties to study possible differences in the results of pushover analyses. The following ndings were observed: 1. The base shear capacity of models with the default hinges and with the user-dened hinges for different plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing are similar; the variation in the base shear capacity is less than 5%. Thus, the base shear capacity does not depend on whether the default or user-dened hinge properties are used. 2. Plastic hinge length ( L p ) has considerable effects on the displacement capacity of the frames. Comparisons show that there is a variation of about 30% in displacement capacities due to L p . 3. Displacement capacity depends on the amount of transverse reinforcement at the potential hinge regions. Comparisons clearly point out that an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement improves the displacement capacity. The improvement is more effective for smaller spacing. For example, reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 100 mm provides an increase of up to 40% in the displacement capacity, while reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 150 mm provides an increase of only 12% for the 4-story frame.

1502

M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 14941502

4. Comparison of hinging patterns indicates that both models with default hinges (Case A) and the user-dened hinges (Case B3) estimate plastic hinge formation at the yielding state quite well. However, there are signicant differences in the hinging patterns at the ultimate state. Although the hinge locations seem to be consistent, the model with default hinges emphasizes a ductile beam mechanism in which the columns are stronger than the beams; damage or failure occurs at the beams. However, this mechanism is not explicitly guaranteed for the structures designed according to the 1975 Turkish Earthquake Code or pre-modern codes in other countries. 5. Time-history results point out that pushover analysis is reasonably successful in capturing hinging patterns for lowand medium-rise buildings, except that the plastic hinge formation in the upper levels is not estimated adequately by pushover analysis, as observed by other researchers. 6. The orientation and the axial load level of the columns cannot be taken into account properly by the default-hinge properties. Based on the observations in the hinging patterns, it is apparent that the user-dened hinge model is more successful in capturing the hinging mechanism compared to the model with default hinges. 7. Although the capacity curve for the default-hinge model is reasonable for modern code compliant buildings, it may not be suitable for others. Considering that most existing buildings in Turkey and some other countries do not conform to requirements of modern code detailing, the use of default hinges needs special care. Some programs (i.e. SAP2000) provide default-hinge properties based on the ATC-40 or FEMA-356 documents to make modeling practical for nonlinear analyses. If they are used cautiously, they relieve modeling work considerably. The user needs to be aware of the features provided. The misuse of default-hinge properties may result in relatively high displacement capacities. Based on the observations in this study, it is clear that, although default-hinge properties provided in SAP2000 are suitable for modern code compliant buildings, the displacement capacities are quite high for other buildings. In the case of evaluating existing buildings constructed according to pre-modern codes, the user should either modify the defaulthinge properties based on ATC-40 or FEMA-356 documents or use the user-dened hinges based on momentcurvature analysis. Pushover analysis of the default-hinge model emphasizes a ductile beam mechanism for buildings constructed according to pre-modern codes, while pushover analysis of the user-dened hinge model and time-history analyses of both models indicate strong beams and weak columns. This study is carried out to investigate the possible differences between pushover analyses of the default-hinge and user-dened hinge models. The observations clearly show that

the user-dened hinge model is better than the default-hinge model in reecting nonlinear behavior compatible with element properties. However, if the default-hinge model is preferred due to simplicity, the user should be aware of what is provided in the program and should denitely avoid the misuse of default-hinge properties. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support provided by Scientic and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Project No: 105M024. References
[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington (DC); 2000. [2] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings, vols. 1 and 2. California; 1996. [3] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1975. 769 pages. [4] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GMS. Seismic design and retrot of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. [5] Fardis MN, Biskinis DE. Deformation of RC members, as controlled by exure or shear. In: Proceedings of the international symposium honoring Shunsuke Otani on performance-based engineering for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete structures. 2003. [6] Prakash V, Powell GH, Campbell S. Drain2DX base program description and user guide version 1.10. Structural engineering mechanics and materials report no. UCB/SEMM-93-18. Berkeley: University of California; November 1993. [7] Prakash V, Powell GH, Campbell S. Drain3DX base program description and user guide, and element description version 1.10. Structural engineering mechanics and materials report no. UCB/SEMM-94-07 and 94-08. Berkeley: University of California; August 1994. [8] RAM International. Perform-2D. West Carlsbad, CA 92008 at http://www.ramint.com. [9] CSI. SAP2000 V-8. Integrated nite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures Inc; 2002. [10] Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Provisions for structures to be built in disaster areas. Ankara (Turkey); 1975. [11] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stressstrain behavior of concrete conned by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Structural Journal 1982;76(1):1327. [12] Mander JB. Seismic design of bridge piers. Research report 842. Christchurch (New Zealand): Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury; February 1984. [13] Turkish Standards Institute. TS500: Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures. Ankara. (Turkey); 2000. [14] International Conference of Building Ofcials (ICBO). Uniform building codes. California, Whittier; 1988. [15] Applied Technology Council, ATC-32. Improved seismic design criteria for california bridges: Provisional recommendations. Redwood City (CA); 1996. [16] Lew HS, Kunnath SK. Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures for seismic design of buildings. In: 33rd joint meeting of the UJNR panel on wind and seismic effects. 2001.