ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S18
Impact of Seismic Input on Strain/Displacement Response
of Reinforced Concrete Members and Frames
by Aidcer L. Vidot-Vega and Mervyn Kowalsky
This is a study on the effect of displacement histories on the
relationship between material strains and deformation parameters
such as displacement and drift for reinforced concrete (RC) moment
frame structures. The study is divided into two phases: 1) a phase
that considers RC column members subjected to symmetrical and
asymmetrical reversed cyclic displacement and seismic time
histories. Columns with 2 and 4% longitudinal steel ratios and 5 to
20% axial load ratios are analyzed; and 2) a phase that considers
moment frames subjected to seismic acceleration time histories. A
total of five moment frame models are analyzed. The results are
compared to monotonic analyses and simplified design expressions
that were previously developed by the authors. The analysis results
support the use of monotonic section analyses to define the
envelope of seismic response because the relationship between
strains and displacements of seismically well-designed members
appears to be minimally affected by loading history.
Keywords: cyclic loads; load history; reinforced concrete frames; seismic
accelerations; strains.
INTRODUCTION
Several researchers have investigated the effect of
displacement histories on beam and column members.
Tomazevic et al. (1996) determined that the ultimate
displacement is dependent on the displacement history
applied to the structure. In addition, many researchers have
investigated the concept of damage indexes to quantify
damage based on the measure of absorbed energy by the
structure (El-Bahy et al. 1999a,b; Tsuno and Park 2004;
Ingham et al. 2001, 2002). Whereas damage indexes are
useful as an indication of absorbed energy, the drawback,
from the perspective of design, is that they require knowledge
of the load history to predict failure. Performance-based
seismic design (PBSD) procedures, such as direct displace-
ment-based seismic design, control damage through the
control of displacements, which is based on structural and
nonstructural damage criteria. In the case of nonstructural
damage criteria, drift is a useful parameter to define target
displacements. In the case of structural damage criteria,
however, material strain is the more useful parameter. In
both cases, damage indexes are not generally used to define
target displacements. Given the importance of material strain
limits in defining structural performance limit states in
procedures such as displacement-based seismic design, it is
essential to have adequate relationships between material
strains and displacement whose accuracy is investigated
under the influence of various displacement histories.
The goal of this paper is to summarize a numerical study
on the impact of seismic input on the strain-versus-displacement
relationship in RC column members and moment frames.
This is accomplished in two phases. The first phase includes
the analyses of column members subjected to different
displacement histories. The displacement histories considered
178
TECHNICAL PAPER
in the first phase consist of symmetrical and asymmetrical
reversed cyclic as well as seismic acceleration time histories.
The second phase consists of the analyses of RC moment
frames under seismic acceleration time histories.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
At the most fundamental level, current design practice is
based on monotonic moment-curvature analysis at the
section level and monotonic pushover analysis at the
member or system level. Seismic structural testing over the
last several decades has shown that monotonic section analysis
coupled with the plastic hinge method for member deformations
(or pushover analysis) can be used to accurately predict the
force-deformation response of a structural system subjected
to cyclic loading. What is still not understood, however, is
how the relationship between strain and displacement
changes in RC structures under the influence of variable
displacement histories. As has been shown by Moyer and
Kowalsky (2003), four nominally identical columns subjected
to four different displacement histories failed at four different
lateral displacement levels. In the four columns, however, the
total tensile strain levels in the reinforcement were similar.
This highlights the importance of strain as a critical
performance parameter to accurately define performance limit
states and the importance of understanding the relationship
between strain and displacement and how it is impacted by
displacement history. The results of this research will clarify
the impacts of different displacement and seismic acceleration
histories in limits states based on material strains and will lend
confidence toward the use of monotonic section analyses for
the seismic design of RC moment frames.
ANALYSIS OF SDOF COLUMN MEMBERS
Column models
Three different columns were analyzed with two different
reinforced concrete square sections (Table 1). The two
sections of the three columns have 2% (s1) and 4% (s2)
longitudinal steel ratio distributed around the section perimeter,
respectively. The dimensions of the sections are shown in
Table 1. The spacing and diameter of the transverse steel
used for both sections is 3 and 3/8 in. (76 and 9.52 mm),
respectively. The average transverse volumetric steel ratio
was kept constant (1.0%) for both sections. It has been
shown (Vidot-Vega 2008) that this variable does not affect
the relationship between strain and displacement. Note that
this does not mean that a different transverse steel ratio will
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 2, March-April 2011.
MS No. S-2008-309.R2 received January 12, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the January-
February 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
Aidcer L. Vidot-Vega is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering
Science and Materials at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagez, Mayagez,
Puerto Rico, where she received her BS and MS. She received her PhD from North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, in 2008.

ACI member Mervyn Kowalsky is a Professor in the Department of Civil, Construction,

and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University. He is a member of
ACI Committees 213, Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete; 341, Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Bridges; and 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings;
and Joint ACI-ASCE-TMS Committee 530, Masonry Standards Joint Committee.

Table 1Properties of RC column models

(distributed reinforcement)
Model Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Fig. 1Basic symmetrical reverse cyclic loading history.
Lcol, ft (mm) 8 (2438.4) 12 (3657.6) 15 (4572)
Lcol /H 3.75 4.81 7.03
18 x 26 20 x 30 18 x 26
Section, in. (mm)
(457 x 660) (508 x 762) (457 x 660)
long, dbl (s1),
0.02, 1.00 (25.4) 0.02, 1.13 (28.5) 0.02, 1.00 (25.4)
in. (mm)
long, dbl (s2),
0.04, 1.13 (28.5) 0.040,1.43 (35) 0.04, 1.13 (28.5)
in. (mm)

not affect the moment-curvature response. However, it does

imply that for the same level of strain, the drift will be
minimally affected by different transverse steel ratios.
Section 1 (s1) was analyzed with 5 and 10% axial load
ratio (ALR) (defined in Eq. (1)), while Section 2 (s2) was
analyzed with 5 and 20% axial load ratio. The yield strength
of the steel was set to 65 ksi (450 MPa) and the
compressive strength (28 days) was set to 4 ksi (28 MPa).
These values were chosen to be typical for normalweight
concrete and ASTM A706/A706M steel.
Column analysis models
The columns were modeled using a lumped plasticity
approach. Within OpenSees, this was accomplished by using
the beam with hinges element (Scott and Fenves 2006).
This element consists of plastic hinges that are modeled with
fiber elements, whereas regions outside the plastic hinge are
modeled using traditional frame element properties. The
confined and unconfined concrete in the fiber sections of the
element were modeled using the Kent and Park (1971)
concrete model with degraded linear unloading/reloading
stiffness according to the work of Karsan and Jirsa (1969).
This model (Concrete01 in OpenSees) assumes no tensile
strength for concrete. The concrete 28-day compressive
strength fpc, concrete strain at maximum strength epsc0,
concrete crushing strain epsU, and concrete strength fpcu are
the required input for this concrete model. These parameters
were calculated as proposed by Mander at al. (1988). The
concrete strength remains constant beyond the crushing
point. The steel fibers were modeled using a reinforcing steel
model developed by Moehle and Kunnath (2006). The
plastic hinge lengths Lp were calculated using Eq. (2)
(Priestley 1998; Priestley et al. 2007). In Eq. (2), dbl is the
longitudinal bar diameter, Fu is the ultimate steel strength,
and L is the length from the critical section to the point of
contraflexure in the member in SI units. Linear elastic
properties are used for the rest of the element. In addition to
the plastic hinge length, the required inputs for this element
are the modulus of elasticity E, moment of inertia I, and
cross-sectional area A for the elastic portion. Experimental
results from testing of four identical RC circular columns
performed by Moyer and Kowalsky (2003) were used to
Fig. 2Basic asymmetrical reverse cyclic loading history.
validate the results from OpenSees using the above described
hysteretic models. Both the global response (force-displace-
ment) and the local response (base curvatures) obtained from
the finite element model were in close agreement with the
experimental results from Moyer and Kowalsky (2003).
ALR = P/fc Agross (1)
kL + 0.022f y d bl Fu
L p = max ; k = 0.2 ----- 1 0.08 (2)
0.044f y d bl fy
Displacement histories
Four displacement histories were used in the column analyses:
1) monotonic, 2) symmetric reversed cyclic, 3) asymmetric
reversed cyclic, and 4) seismic. In the case of the monotonic
history, the columns were analyzed up to a drift ratio of 8%.
The word monotonic is used to define a displacement
history that is one cycle to failure; it applies equally well to
section, member, or system analysis. For the symmetric
reversed cyclic history, the following drift ratio increments
were used: 0.002, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.025, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05,
0.06, 0.07, and 0.08. The drift increments were applied at
one, three, five, and seven cycles, thus resulting in four
distinct symmetric reversed cyclic histories. The one-cycle
version of this displacement history is shown in Fig. 1.
For the asymmetric displacement history, the same drift
ratio increments and the same number of cycles (one, three,
five, and seven) were employed with the exception that in the
reversed direction, each cycle terminated at the yield drift ratio
of the columns (0.0054, 0.006, and 0.010 for Columns 1, 2 and
3, respectively). The one-cycle version of this displacement
history is shown in Fig. 2. The displacement control location for
all the analyses was at the top of the column.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 179

 Fig. 3Steel tension strain versus drift ratio for symmetrical cyclic loadings (Column 1).

Table 2Earthquakes used in analysis obtained at the cross section at the bottom of the column
(point of maximum moment) at the extreme compression
No. Earthquake Location Year Station PGA, g Mw Near-field
fiber, and at the location of extreme tension bar, respectively,
California, with the neutral axis also measured from the extreme fiber.
1 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy 0.41 6.93
USA
2 Tabas Iran 1978 Dayhook 0.33 7.35
Impact of controlled displacement history
3 Erzican Turkey 1992 95 Erzican 0.52 6.69 x
on strain-displacement relationship
4 Northridge California, 1994 Rinaldi 0.83 6.69 x This section presents a comparison of the results from the
USA
static analysis using the symmetrical and asymmetrical
5 Kobe Japan 1995 KJMA 0.82 6.90
displacement histories (referred to as controlled displace-
6 Imperial California, 1940 El Centro 0.31 6.95 ment histories) and the monotonic analyses. Figures 3 to 6
Valley USA
present the steel tension and concrete compression strains as
Imperial California,
7
Valley USA
1940 Meloland 0.31 6.53 x a function of the drift ratio for the symmetrical and asymmet-
8 Adak Alaska 1971 Adak 0.18 6.50 rical cyclic histories, respectively. The drift ratio is defined
as the top displacement divided by the column length. These
figures show the results for Section 1 (s1) with 5 and 10%
Lastly, the columns were subjected to eight seismic ALR and Section 2 (s2) with 5 and 20% ALR for Column 1.
acceleration time histories (Table 2) at the base that were Similar results were obtained with other columns (Vidot-
selected in order to have a range of different characteristics Vega 2008).The first number in the legend indicates the
(frequency content, duration, and number of cycles). number of cycles at a given drift level (1, 3, 5, or 7). The drift
Earthquakes with near- and far-field characteristics were () ratios can be related to displacement ductility (/y)
considered as part of the analysis. Table 2 shows the name and values. For example, a drift of 8% represents a displacement
year of the earthquake; location; recording station; the ductility value of 13.
moment magnitude Mw , which is a measure of the total energy Comparing the symmetric displacement history results in
released by an earthquake (Hanks and Kanamori 1979); and Fig. 3 and 4, the solid lines represent the strain-versus-drift
the peak ground acceleration (PGA) in g units. ratio response for monotonic analysis, whereas the symbols
The ground motions were normalized to 0.1g to begin represent the response for the cyclic histories. Note that the
each analysis with the same level of PGA. Then, the steel tension strains are greater for the cyclic histories when
accelerations were scaled in increments of 0.1 g up to 1.5 g. compared to the monotonic analysis. The concrete compression
The elastic damping in all the dynamic simulations was strains are lower than the monotonic analysis. It is also worth
represented by 2.0% tangent-stiffness proportional noting that the magnitude of the increase in the steel tension
damping (Priestley et al. 2007). In this study, the choice of strains is the same as the reduction in the concrete compression
damping model should not have any effect on the strains. In the case of asymmetric histories (Fig. 5 to 6),
relationship between strain and displacement. the difference between monotonic and cyclic strains is
For the monotonic and cyclic displacement histories, significantly reduced. Note also that as the axial load
concrete compression and steel tension strains were obtained increases in the section, the monotonic and cyclic strains
at each drift increment. In the case of the seismic acceleration become very similar for a given drift ratio.
histories, steel tension and concrete compressive strains were The difference between cyclic and monotonic steel and
obtained at the maximum drift for each dynamic analysis. In all concrete strains (cyclic-monotonic) was quantified and is
cases, concrete compression and steel tension strains were shown in Fig. 7 and 8 for symmetrical and asymmetrical

180 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 Fig. 4Concrete compression strain versus drift ratio for symmetrical cyclic loading
(Column 1).
Fig. 5Steel tension strain versus drift ratio for asymmetrical cyclic loadings (Column 1).
cyclic histories, respectively, for the sections under
consideration. In general, the difference between cyclic
and monotonic steel and concrete strains increases as the
number of cycles and drift ratio are increased and the
axial load ratio is decreased. Strain differences as high as
0.012 and 0.0038 were obtained for symmetric and
asymmetrical histories, respectively.
The differences between monotonic and cyclic results can
be partially explained by the calculation of the growth steel
strain gr , which is defined as the strain in the cross section
when the column is at zero displacement. The strain is
uniform when the column is subjected to zero lateral
displacement; however, that strain is not necessarily zero.
The growth strain can be thought of as the vertical elongation
of the column due to cyclic loading, and it has also been
termed the residual strain at zero column displacement.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
The total steel tension strain that the reinforcing bars are
subjected to is a combination of the flexural strain and
growth strain (Moyer and Kowalsky 2003). The flexural
strain is obtained directly from monotonic analyses and flexural
strength theory, whereas the growth strain is a function of the
displacement history and material stress-strain relationships.
Figure 9 shows the growth strain as a function of the drift
ratio obtained for Column Model 1 with symmetrical cyclic
histories with one and seven cycles per drift level. As
expected, gr increases as the drift ratio increases and is
somewhat larger for the column subjected to seven cycles of
loading at each drift level. The growth strain decreases as the
axial load in the section increases, which is expected, and
also explains why the strain differences between monotonic
and cyclic analyses are greatly reduced as the axial load ratio
increases. It is important to note, however, that in all cases,
181
 Fig. 6Concrete compression strain versus drift ratio for asymmetrical cyclic loading
(Column 1).

Fig. 7Strain difference for column models with symmetrical

cyclic loadings.

Fig. 9Growth strain for Column Model 1 for Section 1

(s1) and section 2 (s2) using symmetrical cyclic loadings
with one and seven cycles per drift.

Fig. 8Strain difference for column models with asymmetrical

cyclic loadings.
the growth strain is shown to be much larger than the difference
between the monotonic and cyclic strains, implying that a
direct addition of growth strain and flexural tension strain
may not be appropriate. Consider Fig. 10, which shows the
total steel strain as a function of the drift ratio for Column 1,
Section 1, subjected to one cycle of loading at each drift level Fig. 10Growth strain illustration for symmetrical cyclic
as well as monotonic loading. There are four curves shown loading (Column 1 - s1).

182 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 Fig. 11Steel tension strain versus drift ratio for seismic time histories (columns).
Fig. 12Concrete compression strain versus drift ratio for seismic time histories (columns).
in Fig. 10. The solid curve represents the steel tension strain
as a function of drift ratio for the monotonic analysis. As
expected, at zero drift, the steel tension strain at the critical
section is zero. The remaining three curves show the relationship
between steel tension strains and drift ratio for the response
that occurred to a drift ratio of 0.08, 0.09, and 0.10. In each
case, at zero drift ratio, the steel tension strain in the critical
section is equal to the growth strain. As the column lateral
displacement increases, note that the difference between the
steel tension strain versus drift for the cyclic loading and the
monotonic steel tension strain versus drift is not constant.
This implies that the growth strain, which is measured at zero
displacement, is not constant and actually reduces as the
lateral displacement (drift) increases. Of course, this is
contradictory to the assumption that the growth strain can be
added to the flexural tension strain, as suggested by Moyer
and Kowalsky (2003). This observation explains why the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
differences between the monotonic and cyclic strains are smaller
than the growth strain (strain at zero column displacement).
Impact of seismic time histories on
strain-displacement relationship
In addition to the controlled cyclic displacement histories,
seismic time histories were also considered as shown in
Table 2. Fifteen analyses were performed with each earth-
quake for a total of 120 analyses per combination of column
section and axial load. Figures 11 and 12 present steel
tension (at extreme tension bar) and concrete compression
strains (at extreme compression fiber) as a function of drift
ratio, respectively, for the eight earthquakes considered in
this study for Columns 1 and 3. The results are compared
against monotonic analyses (solid line). It can be noted that
the strains from the seismic time histories are very similar to
the strains from the monotonic analysis among all earth-
183
 a consequence, the results shown in this paper should not be
extrapolated to frames that do not satisfy this failure mechanism
(for example, older RC frames with deficient detailing
resulting in soft story mechanisms or extensive column
hinging due to dynamic amplification of moments in taller
buildings). For the monotonic pushover analyses, the lateral
load was applied by distributing the loads in the stories in
proportion to the product of the mass and displacement as is
done in the direct displacement-based design procedure. The
forces are distributed linearly for buildings up to four stories
and parabolic for buildings taller than four stories.
Fig. 13Strain differences versus drift ratio for Section 1
with 10% axial load (seismic time histories). Analysis techniques and displacement histories
Analyses of the RC moment frames were conducted under
Table 3Properties of RC frame models the influence of seismic acceleration time histories (applied
at the base). The same ground motions (Table 2) were
Model Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
considered as those for the member analyses previously
# story, discussed. Similarly, the material models are the same as
4, 2 8, 2 8, 2 12, 2 16, 3
bays
previously described for the member analyses. The bond slip
LB/HB 10 8 9 8 12
(yield penetration) was not directly modeled in the members.
Lcol, The plastic hinge length (Eq. (2)), however, does account for
12 (3657) 12 (3657) 12 (3657) 12 (3657) 12 (3657)
ft (mm)
this indirectly through the length of strain penetration, thus
Lcol /H 6.1 5.6 5.6 5.2 4 addressing the impact of bar slip on the strain-versus-
Beams, 16 x 20 18 x 24 18 x 24 18 x 26 26 x 33 displacement response (Priestley 1998; Priestley et al. 2007).
in. (mm) (406 x 508) (457 x 610) (457 x 610) (457 x 660) (660 x 838)
Again, the elastic damping in all the dynamic simulations
Columns, 24 x 24 26 x 26 26 x 26 28 x 28 36 x 36 was represented by 2.0% tangent-stiffness proportional
in. (mm) (610 x 610) (660 x 660) (660 x 660) (711 x 711) (914 x 914)
damping (Priestley et al. 2007). Steel tension and concrete
long
(beams)
0.017 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.030 compression strains at maximum drifts were obtained at each
analysis. The strains were obtained at the critical section in
long
(columns)
0.027 0.040 0.041 0.054 0.058 the beam plastic hinges because the desired mechanism of
inelastic deformation for these frames involves the formation of
the plastic hinges at the ends of the beams.

quakes. The trends are maintained for all columns and
different axial load cases beyond those shown in the paper.
The difference between strains (concrete and steel) from the
seismic time histories and the monotonic analysis was as
large as 0.0035 for a specific earthquake (EQ4), however,
they are generally much smaller than 0.0035 (Fig. 13). Note
that only one section is shown in Fig. 13, and it was selected
because it had the largest difference between the seismic and
monotonic strains. It is worth noting that in all cases,
concrete compression strain limits are more affected by
changes in the strain and drift relationship because the same
shift in strain is a larger proportion of the total strain for
concrete compression than for steel tension.
ANALYSIS OF MOMENT FRAMES
Moment frame models
A total of five moment frame models were developed. The
beam and column elements were modeled using the beam
with hinges element (Scott and Fenves 2006). Several beam
aspect ratios (LB/HB) were considered. The models consisted
of four-story frames with two bays (LB/HB = 10), eight-story
frames with two bays (LB/HB = 8 and 9), 12-story frames
with two bays (LB/HB = 8), and 16-story frames with three
bays (LB/HB = 12). The properties of the sections and
elements of these models are shown in Table 3. Rectangular
beam and square column sections were used in all the models
with distributed longitudinal reinforcement around the
section perimeter. Constant column lengths (Lcol) were used
at all building floors. These frames were designed according
to the beam-sway mechanism, where plastic hinges form at
the ends of the beams and at the first-floor column base. As
Strain-drift relationships for moment frames
The strain-versus-drift behavior observed in the dynamic
analysis was compared to expressions previously developed
by the authors, which were based on monotonic analysis.
These expressions, shown in Eq. (3) and (4) for steel tension
and concrete compression strains, respectively, were developed
as a design tool. While a detailed discussion of the development
of these equations is outside the scope of this paper, a brief
discussion is warranted. The interested is referred to Vidot-
Vega (2008) for further details. These equations were
obtained through the use of moment curvature analysis of
several rectangular sections with distributed longitudinal
reinforcement and monotonic analysis of RC frames with a
beam-sway mechanism. From the section analysis, rela-
tionships between curvature and material strain (steel and
concrete) were obtained. Then, curvatures were related to
drift in the RC frames by the use of plastic hinge lengths and
data from the monotonic analysis. The purpose of these
equations is to obtain the interstory drift required to reach
specific levels of concrete compression or steel tension
strains in the beams of RC moment frames to be used in
performance-based design methods such as direct displacement-
based design.
In these equations, HB is the depth of the beams, Lp is the
beam plastic hinge length (Eq. (2)); y is the yield strain of
the steel; LB is the beam length; s is the steel strain; c is the
concrete strain; Ky is the yield curvature (Priestley 1998),
which is given by Eq. (5); and s is the mechanical reinforce-
ment ratio (Eq. (6)), which is a function of the longitudinal
steel ratio long , the yield steel strength fy , and concrete
compression strength fc .

184 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 Fig. 14Steel tension versus drift ratio for seismic time histories for frame models.
Steel tension strain
L L
j = 0.5 y ------B- + ( 1.75 s s K y ) ------p- 0.70 s
0.15
H B H B
Concrete compression strain
j = 0.5 y ------B + ( ( 1.6 s + 4 ) c + 0.004 K y ) ------p 0.85 c
L L
H B
where
Ky = yHB = 2.1y
f obtained for the four-story frame model while the smallest
s = long ----y-
f c
Impact of seismic acceleration time histories
Whereas the impact of seismic time histories on the strain-
versus-displacement relationship was small for single
columns, it is perhaps more important to study the impact on
moment frame structures. If the trend observed for single
columns continues for moment frame structures, it lends
confidence to current practice where strain-based drift limits
states are based on monotonic analysis. This section presents
the results obtained from the frame analyses using seismic
acceleration time histories. Also, as previously discussed, a
comparison was performed using the drift equations developed
by Vidot-Vega (2008).
Figure 14 shows the steel tension strain as a function of the
drift ratio for four of the frame models. Figure 15 presents
the concrete compression strains as a function of the drift
ratio for four of the frame models. Also shown in these
figures is a comparison with the monotonic results (solid
line) and the values obtained with the proposed drift equations
(dash-dot line). The points correspond to the strains (steel
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
tension and concrete compression) obtained at each maximum
drift from the analyses using the eight earthquakes (EQ1 to
EQ8) scaled at different PGAs. These results are shown for the
0.080
(3) story that has the highest interstory drift (critical story).
Note that, in general, there does not appear to be a signif-
icant difference on the relationship between strains and drift
ratio for monotonic analysis when compared to the seismic
analysis. The trends are maintained in all frame models
0.065
(4) beyond those described in this paper. It is observed that the
H B drift equations predict the drift for a given strain limit quite
well, especially for the steel strain limits. For concrete strain
limits, the agreement is better for drifts less than 6%. Drift
levels of 6% correspond to beam displacement ductilities
(5) that varied from 6.4 to 9.5, depending on the dimensions of
the beams in each model. The strain differences do not
exceed 0.0035 in any case. The highest differences were
(6)
differences were noticed for the 16-story frame case. The
differences varied for each ground motion considered. Also,
the characteristics of the structure influenced the response to
a given ground motion. Several researchers have found
similar results in which the story drifts are strongly dependent
on the ground motion and structure characteristics (Gupta
and Krawinkler 2000; Krawinkler et al. 2003; Ruiz-Garcia
and Miranda 2006). The relationship between strains and
displacement, however, is minimally affected by the
different ground motions and the trends are maintained in all
building cases considered in this study. This is certainly a
useful outcome because it builds more confidence in the use
of the strain limit states based on monotonic section analysis,
as well as the use of monotonic analysis to describe the
envelope of the response of a structure subjected to cyclic
and seismic ground motions.
CONCLUSIONS
This study presented a numerical study on the effects of
displacement history on the strain-displacement relationship
of RC column members and moment frames. Column
185
 Fig. 15Concrete compression strains versus drift ratio for seismic time histories for
frame models.

models with 2 and 4% of longitudinal steel ratio were occur. This will ultimately require experimental studies with
analyzed with several axial load levels. The columns were careful measurement of strains well into the nonlinear range.
subjected to monotonic, symmetrical, and asymmetrical 7. It is important to note that the aforementioned
cyclic displacement histories and seismic acceleration time conclusions do not imply that damage is only a function of
histories. Also, a total of five frame building models were the maximum displacements. The effect of the inelastic
analyzed under the influence of seismic time histories. From excursions and duration of them cannot be excluded in the
the column and frame analyses, the following conclusions assessment of damage of RC structures. This study has
were drawn: addressed the impact of loading history on the relationship
1. The relationship between strain and displacement is between strain and displacement. Currently, performance
affected most by symmetrical displacement histories. limit states used for design are based on monotonic analyses
Asymmetrical displacement histories and seismic time because the envelope of a cyclic response is well defined by the
histories had less impact on this relationship. This is likely monotonic curve. This in turn leads to the assumption that
due to larger accumulation of residual strain that occurs the strain-versus-deformation relationship is unique and
under symmetric reversals of loading. This observation is independent of load history. Of interest here was the accuracy
consistent with the experimental results of Moyer and of that assumption.
Kowalsky (2003), which consisted of three symmetric and
one asymmetric cyclic tests (no seismic displacement histories NOTATION
were considered in their experimental work). Agross = gross section area
2. The differences between strains obtained using monotonic ALR = axial load ratio
and cyclic or seismic histories were small in magnitude. Small Aslong = longitudinal steel area
differences can be more significant for concrete strain limits. dbl = longitudinal bar diameter
E = concrete modulus of elasticity
3. The relationship between strain and displacement is less
Fu = ultimate steel strength
affected as the axial load in the column increases. fc = compressive concrete strength
4. The simple addition of the growth steel strain to the fy = yield strength of the longitudinal steel
flexural tension strain is not correct, as the difference H = column depth
between cyclic and monotonic strains reduces with increased HB = beam depth
lateral deformation. Ky = yield dimensionless curvature
5. Similar trends were obtained from the moment frame L = member length
analyses. Small differences in strains for a given displacement LB = beam length
were noted depending on the earthquake and characteristics Lcol = column length
of the structure under consideration. Lp = plastic hinge length
P = axial load
6. It can be concluded that monotonic section analyses and c and s = concrete compression and steel tension strains
the strain-based limit states derived from them can be used y = steel yield strain
with reasonable confidence for seismic design of concrete = displacement ductility
moment frames, as seismic time histories generally had a j = interstory drift
minimal impact on the relationship between strain and y = frame yield drift
displacement. Further research is still needed to quantify the long = longitudinal reinforcement ratio
effect of load history on the strain at which key limit states s = mechanical reinforcing ratio

186 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 REFERENCES
El-Bahy, A.; Kunnath, S.; Stone, W.; and Taylor, A., 1999a, Cumulative
Damage on Circular Bridge Columns: Benchmark and Low Fatigue Tests,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 633-641.
El-Bahy, A.; Kunnath, S.; Stone, W.; and Taylor, A., 1999b, Cumulative
Damage on Circular Bridge Columns: Variable Amplitude Tests, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 711-719.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 2000, Estimation of Seismic Drift
Demands for Frame Structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, V. 29, pp. 1287-1305.
Hanks, T., and Kanamori, H., 1979, A Moment Magnitude Scale,
Journal of Geophysics, V. 84, No. B5, pp. 2348-2350.
Ingham, J.; Liddell, D.; and Davidson, B., 2001, Influence of Loading
History on the Response of a RC Beam, Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society of Earthquake Engineering, V. 34, No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Ingham, J.; Liddell, D.; and Davidson, B., 2002, An Assessment of
Parameters Describing a Reinforced Concrete Beam, Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering, V. 34, No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Karsan, I., and Jirsa, J., 1969, Behavior of Concrete under
Compressive Loadings, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 95,
No. 12, pp. 2543-2563.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R., 1971, Flexural Members with Confined
Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 97, No. 7, July,
pp. 1969-1990.
Krawinkler, H.; Medina, R.; and Alavi, B., 2003, Seismic Drift and
Ductility Demands and their Dependence on Ground Motions, Engineering
Structures, V. 25, pp. 637-653.
Mander, J. P.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug., pp. 1804-1826.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
View publication stats
McKenna, F.; Fenves, G. L.; Scott, M. H.; and Jeremic, B., 2000, Open
System for Earthquake Engineering SimulationOpenSees, http://
opensees.berkeley.edu.
Moehle, J., and Kunnath, S., 2006, Reinforcing Steel: OpenSees Users
Manual, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Moyer, M., and Kowalsky, M., 2003, Influence of Tension Strain on
Buckling of Reinforcement in Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 100, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 75-85.
Priestley, M. J. N., 1998, Brief Comments on Elastic Flexibility of RC
Frames, and Significance to Seismic Design, Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society of Earthquake Engineering, V. 31, No. 4, pp. 246-259.
Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., 2007, Displace-
ment-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Italy, 721 pp.
Ruiz-Garcia, J., and Miranda, E., 2006, Evaluation of Residual Drift
Demands in Regular Multi-Storey Frames for Performance-Based
Seismic Assessment, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
V. 35, pp. 1609-1629.
Scott, M., and Fenves, G., 2006, Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for
Force-Based Beam-Column Elements, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 132, No. 2, Feb., pp. 244-252.
Tomazevic, M.; Lutman, M.; and Petkovic, L., 1996, Seismic Behavior
of Masonry Walls: Modeling of Hysteric Rules, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 122, No. 9, Sept., pp. 1048-1054.
Tsuno, K., and Park, R., 2004, Prediction Method for Seismic Damage
on RC Bridge Columns, Structural/Earthquake Engineering, JSCE, V. 21,
No. 2, July, pp. 97-111.
Vidot-Vega, A. L., 2008, The Impact of Load History on Deformation
Limit States for the Displacement-Based Seismic Design of RC Moment
Frame Buildings, PhD dissertation, Department of Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Raleigh, NC.
187