Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

A simulated design procedure for the assessment of seismic capacity

of existing reinforced concrete buildings
G.M. Verderame *, M. Polese *, C. Mariniello, G. Manfredi
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the general criteria and implementation of an automatic procedure to evaluate the
Received 31 October 2008 seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete (RC) regular buildings. The method represents a useful
Accepted 28 June 2009 tool in the framework of mechanical based vulnerability assessment methods. In particular, the seismic
Available online 6 August 2009
capacity is retrieved via pushover analyses on a lumped plasticity model for the building. Unlike recent
approaches that rely on a single representative structural model for an entire building population, the
Keywords: proposed method allows virtually all the buildings of the population to be analysed in an automatic loop.
RC building
With the aim of expediting and automatizing the analysis process, a dedicated software was imple-
Seismic capacity
Structural identification
mented, whose main functions are: identifying possible structural systems compatible with regular
Simulated design procedure building shapes of assigned dimensions and designing its elements in terms of cross-section and rein-
Pushover analysis forcement; constructing the related nonlinear model and performing pushover analyses in order to deter-
mine synthetic capacity parameters useful for preliminary vulnerability assessment at a large scale. The
software application and potentialities are shown in an example for the generic building of a class.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as mechanism-based analyses, acknowledging the fact that the

Several methods have been proposed for rapid evaluation of
building vulnerability at the territorial scale. Broadly speaking,
there are two categories of assessment methods.
Observational–statistical ‘‘empirical” methods, adopted world-
wide [1–3], rely on inspection and statistical treatment of a large
number of observations from post-earthquake damage. However,
unavailability of a homogeneous database of damage observations,
especially for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, and the use of
macro-seismic scales to formulate damage probability, discourage
using this method in the framework of quantitative methods for
seismic risk assessment [4].
On the other hand, ‘‘mechanical” methods rely on structural
modelling and analytical evaluation of the aptitude of buildings
to be damaged by earthquakes of a given intensity; building classi-
fication is based on selected parameters that are assumed to have a
clear influence on seismic behavior and are properly accounted for
in the building modelling process. The various analytical methods
for deriving vulnerability relationships for RC buildings are gener-
ally dependent on model parameter availability (quality of the
building inventory). A first approach adopts simple models, such
* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +39 081 7683490; fax: +39 081 7683491 (G.M.
Verderame), tel.: +39 081 7683485; fax: +39 081 7683491 (M. Polese).
E-mail addresses: verderam@unina.it (G.M. Verderame), maria.polese@unina.it
(M. Polese).
available data from building inventory are usually very poor [5,6].
However, the seismic behavior of buildings may be significantly
affected by a number of factors that cannot be accounted for in a
very simplified model. Referring to RC moment resisting frame
structures, for example, brittle failure of short columns or beams,
shear cracking of beam column joint (panel node zone), system’s
stiffening due to strong stairs, are all factors that can influence
the overall response to horizontal actions, and that are hardly
accountable in a very simple system.
More refined methods (using pushover analyses or dynamic
analyses) require a large number of input data for the generic
building (geometric, structural and material properties). For this
reason these methods are generally applied to single buildings
considered as representative of an entire population [7].
The preparation of an inventory of the built environment is usu-
ally the most time-consuming and costly step in loss assessment.
Therefore, although classical methods for compiling a building
inventory (databases of county tax data, insurer’s policy portfolio,
national statistical data [8], speed survey [9,10]) could be supported
by more innovative techniques (methods based on image process-
ing [11], remote sensing, integration of remote sensing and GPS
[12]), knowledge of the built environment at the regional scale is
still generally limited to poor data, such as morphologic shape, base
plant dimensions and building height or number of storeys.
In order to by-pass the problem of the choice of a single
representative building and to optimize computational time, a

0965-9978/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.06.011
324 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
new approach was proposed [13] that evaluates a probabilistic
seismic capacity for a generic RC building starting from few avail-
able data (morphologic shape and global building dimensions). In
such a method, the building model is reproduced through suitably
implemented automatic simulated design procedure, while the
capacity parameters are retrieved based on the results of conven-
tional pushover [14], with force distribution proportional to the
first mode shape or to the seismic masses [15]. The level of approx-
imation of the procedure adopted to evaluate the seismic capacity,
making use of conventional pushover analysis, is intermediate be-
tween those relative to mechanism based analyses and the detailed
ones studying the single structure; the results are reliable for reg-
ular buildings, characterised by translational fundamental vibrat-
ing mode, while irregular buildings should be studied with more
refined methods such as adaptive pushover or nonlinear dynamic
analyses.
Coherently with the type of analysis, that is nonlinear static and
monotonic, the seismic demand should be evaluated with a spec-
tral approach, such as the capacity spectrum method [16]. With a
spectral approach both the seismic demand variability [4] and
the stiffness or strength degradation effect due to earthquake dura-
tion [17,18] may be accounted for.
This paper is focused on the description of the logical and tech-
nical process underlying the simulated design and analysis of a
generic RC building. The whole procedure is implemented in spe-
cific software that allows, for each given built volume: (a) auto-
matic identification of the possible structural systems (moment
resisting frames) connected to the generic volume and design of
the elements; (b) automatic generation of the correspondent
lumped plasticity models for nonlinear analyses; (c) execution of
conventional pushover analyses to determine the global capacity
parameters; the latter are defined considering three different limit
states [15].
Referring to a building population, the software allows consid-
ering explicitly both the intra-building variability, due to the vari-
ation of structural configuration and material properties, and the
building-to-building variability due to the variation of global
dimensions.
In fact, by letting the global dimensions of buildings in a popu-
lation vary, the software allows us to examine in an automatic loop
all the structural solutions that are compatible with all those build-
ings and eventually determine the capacity function for the popu-
lation, which is required to compute total seismic risk at the
regional scale [4].
2. Automatic procedure
The method was automatized by implementing specific soft-
ware that develops the design and seismic evaluation process.
The software is organized in the following routines:
 geometric model routine which, given global building dimen-
sions, identifies all the geometric configurations that are com-
patible with the assigned building volume (Fig. 1a);
 structural model routine which, for each geometric solution
among those retrieved in geometric model routine, identifies
all compatible structural configurations (Fig. 1b);
 simulated design routine which, for each structural solution
among those retrieved in structural model routine, allows the
possible design configurations (structure) to be determined
(Fig. 1c);
 capacity model routine, which allows characterisation of the
nonlinear behavior of the elements and the global seismic
capacity for the structure that has been designed with simulated
design approach.
In the following, the single routines are presented, evidencing
the relative geometric, structural and mechanical parameters that
are necessary to characterise each structure. The software applica-
bility is restricted to regular structures, whose fundamental vibrat-
ing mode is translational; in the following description we refer to
rectangular morphology.
2.1. The geometric model routine
In order to start the procedure global building dimensions are
required: base plant lengths Lx and Ly and building height Lz from
the foundation level up to the roof. The routine allows us to subdi-
vide the building volume into 3D meshes ax, ay, az, each corre-
sponding to possible geometric configurations; the latter will be
the starting point for identifying the corresponding structural con-
figuration (structural model routine).
The module dimensions ax, ay depend mainly on minimum/
maximum beam lengths while the interstorey height az on archi-
tectural features or building use; the variation in az is limited by
the urban code. Hence, for each dimensional module suitable
ranges are defined: ai 2 [aimin, aimax] with i = x, y, z.
In order to consider the possible variability of interstorey height
at the first level, a specific dimension az1 = (j az) is assigned. Final-
ly, the stair module length as and the stair number ns are given.
Considering the existing building’s features, Lz may be expressed
as the sum of two terms: elevation height L0z (from the ground up to
the roof) and the underground height L00z (from the ground level to
the quota of the foundations). In particular when underground lev-
els (Fig. 2a) are present: L00z ¼ ðn0z  a0z Þ;with n0z number of under-
ground levels and a0z interstorey height; else L00z ¼ Daz , where Daz
is the foundation deepening with respect to ground level (Fig. 2b).
Alternatively to L0z the number of storeys nz could be assigned.
Automatic geometric modelling starts and the program identi-
fies the geometric configurations respecting the following compat-
ibility equations:
Lx ¼ nx ax þ ns as
Ly ¼ ny ay
Lz ¼ L0z þ L00z ¼ ½az1 þ ðnz  1Þaz  þ ðn0z a0z Þ
ð1Þ
¼ ½j  az þ ðnz  1Þaz  þ ðn0z a0z Þ ðcase1Þ
Lz ¼ L0z þ L00z ¼ ½az1 þ ðnz  1Þaz  þ Daz
¼ ½j  az þ ðnz  1Þaz  þ Daz ðcase2Þ
where nx and ny are the number of modules in direction X and Y,
while nz is the number of storeys from the ground up to the roof.
Possible geometric configurations are obtained by letting the
module number vary (nx, ny, nz) to reproduce the global dimensions
(Eqs. (1)); only those combinations that respect the ranges
ai 2 [aimin, aimax] with i = x, y, z are admitted. In particular, the min-
imum and maximum module number depends on maximum and
minimum bay lengths, respectively:
ðLx  as ns Þ ðLx  as ns Þ
nxmin ¼ ; nxmax ¼ ð2Þ
axmax axmin
Ly Ly
nymin ¼ ; nymax ¼ ð3Þ
aymax aymin
and the number of storeys depends on interstorey height:
L0z L0z
nzmin ¼ þ ð1  jÞ; nzmax ¼ þ ð1  jÞ ð4Þ
azmax azmin
nimin and nimax with i = x, y, z are to be intended, respectively, as the
lower integer number bigger than nimin and the higher integer value
smaller than nimax, as results of second members of Eqs. (2)–(4).
Varying the module number between the relative extreme val-
ues, compatible solutions may be defined in terms of ax, ay and az
associated to the corresponding global dimensions:
 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 325

Building dimensions (a) Generic geometric configuration

az

az
az
Lz
az
az
az1

ax ay
Ly ax ay
Lx as ax ay
ax

Generic geometric configuration (b) Generic structural configuration

stair

az
az
az
az
az
az
az
az beam
az
az
az1
az1
ax ay ax
ax ay ax ay
as ax as ay
ax ay ax
ax ay
column

Generic structural configuration (c) Generic design configuration

stair

az
column longitudinal
az section reinforcement

az
az beam
az transversal
reinforcement
az1
ax ax ay beam
as ax ay section
ax ay
column

Fig. 1. (a) Geometric identification, (b) structural identification and (c) simulated design: element dimensions and reinforcement evaluation.

ðLx  as ns Þ The total number of geometric configurations Ng is given by the

axmin 6 ax ¼ 6 axmax with
nx combination of possible solutions along the three dimensions Lx,
Ly and Lz; with Ngx, Ngy and Ngz indicating the solution numbers
nx ¼ nxmin ; nxmin þ 1; . . . ; nxmax
along X, Y and Z, then Ng = Ngx Ngy Ngz.
Ly Fig. 3 shows the program form related to building geometric
aymin 6 ay ¼ 6 aymax with
ny ð5Þ identification; on the left are input parameters, whereas to the
right the possible geometric configurations are listed.
ny ¼ nymin ; nymin þ 1; . . . ; nymax
L0z 2.2. The structural model routine
azmin 6 az ¼ 6 azmax with
ðnz þ j  1Þ
For each geometric solution a number of compatible structural
nz ¼ nzmin ; nzmin þ 1; . . . ; nzmax configurations are identified. This phase allows the number and
326 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

az

az
az
az
az

az
L’z
L’z
Lz

Lz
az

az
Δaz a1z
a1z
Ground level

L’’z
a’z
L’’z

Foundation level
Foundation level
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Building height evaluation: (a) presence of underground levels and (b) underground level not present.

position of columns and beams to be defined; Fig. 4 shows the nec-
essary identification steps. The generic column is automatically de-
fined as the vertical element connecting consecutive nodes in the
geometric mesh; the column’s nodes coordinates (xi, yi, zi) are
determined as a function of module dimensions ai and number ni
(i = x, y, z):
xi ¼ nxi  ax with nxi ¼ 0; . . . ; nx
yi ¼ nyi  ay with nyi ¼ 0; . . . ; ny
zi ¼ nzi  az with nzi ¼ 0; . . . ; nz
The generic beam is defined as horizontal element connecting
consecutive nodes of the geometric mesh. Perimeter beams are
automatically defined by the program, as are the columns. The po-
sition and number of the remaining beams are determined consid-
ering two more input parameters: the slab resistant direction SW
and the number of frames parallel to the resistant direction of slab
way, np. The latter parameter is to be defined only for the case of
seismic design and represents the number of frames in addition
to perimetral ones.
The only slab way definition allows identifying the minimum
number of plane frames compliant with gravity load design. In par-
ticular, two limit schemes are adopted for the slab way SW: longi-
tudinal direction X (SW-X) and transversal direction Y (SW-Y). If the
input is SW-Y, all the beams connecting consecutive nodes along
direction X exist (being load carrying elements); this means that
it is possible to identify a number (ny  1) of plane frames along
direction X. Analogously, if SW-X is chosen, it is possible to identify
a number (nx + ns  1) of plane frames along direction Y.
When seismic design is to be applied it is necessary to identify
the existing beams parallel to the slab way direction. The global
parameter npi, plane frames along i direction, with i = X, Y, allows
the number of the i way beams to be determined (see Fig. 4).
If SW-Y is chosen, the number of plane frames along Y (to be
ð6Þ added to perimetral ones), npy varies between 0 and [nx + ns  1];
hence, the number of structural solutions resulting from the varia-
tion in npy is [nx + ns]. Analogously, if SW-X is chosen, the number of
plane frames along X, npx varies between 0 and [ny  1]; the num-
ber of structural solutions resulting from the variation in npx is [ny].
The structural influence of the stairs is computed with the intro-
duction of a diagonal connection element in the structural model.
Considering the variation of SW and np parameters a number of
[nx + ny + ns] structural configuration could be identified.
The last parameter that has to be input concerns column’s ori-
entation OR; it is assumed that columns along the building’s
perimeter and the stairs module have prefixed orientation,
whether for the remaining ones X or Y orientation could be as-
signed. Hence, the maximum number of structural configurations
compatible with a single geometric model is Ns = 2[nx + ny + ns].
Fig. 5 shows the structural configuration input form for the case
of SW-Y; as it can be seen input variables are the slab’s way SW, the
number of plane frames along Y, npy, and column’s orientation, OR.

2.3. The simulated design routine

Simulated design for the generic structural configuration has to

respect building codes and design practices in force at the time
of construction. After extensive research into the development of
design codes and rules, a complete database was compiled that col-
lects the main codified design parameters such as design loads
(gravitational, seismic), material allowable stresses, minimum
reinforcement and design criteria. Availability of such a source al-
lows automatic choice of the correct ‘‘code” parameters once build-
ing location and construction age are given (simple database
query). An automatic design process for each structural solution
identified in Section 2.2 is described in the following sections
and briefly represented in Fig. 6.

2.3.1. Design load definition

The first step of simulated design (SD1) allows us to define
Fig. 3. Geometric routine: the Visual Basic program form. the type of design to be adopted (gravitational, seismic) and the
 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 327

Generic geometric configuration

ay
ay
ax ax as ax ax

Default element identification

Columns Perimetral and stair beams

Slab Way beam identification

SW-Y orientation SW-X orientation

Other direction beam identification ( Ex. SW-Y Orientation)

npy= (nx+ns-1)
npy= 2

Column orientation

Fig. 4. The structural identification: the principal steps of the process.

Fig. 5. Structural model identification: the Visual Basic program form.

328 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

relative loads. Once the construction age input parameter is as-
signed, an appropriate query seeks the technical and seismic code
in the above database. The codes are suitably codified in the data-
base; the live loads and seismic action can thus be defined auto-
matically once the code is selected by the query (see Fig. 7).
Giving the building location input parameter the peak ground accel-
eration required for seismic design is sought in the codes.
2.3.2. Element dimensioning
The element dimensioning phase (SD2) utilizes methods that
were adopted at the building design time. In old-type codes and
design practices it was common to determine approximate design
forces for the columns and beams with the use of analytical models
that were developed at the level of the single element and not for
the entire structure. In order to account for the relative approxima-
tion, the stresses adopted for design in the dimensioning phase rc,
rs were cautiously determined as a fraction b of allowable stresses,
r c for concrete and r s for steel, respectively. In SD2 routine the
operator can choose the reduction factor 0 6 b 6 1. From analysis
of a large number of 20th-century designs (from the 1950s to the
1980s) it resulted that a common value of b was in the interval
(0.7–1.0) and usually, depending on the load type, a different value
was assumed [19]. Coherently, for gravity load design b = 1 is
adopted both for concrete and steel, whereas for seismic load de-
sign b < 1 is chosen.
Allowable stresses are defined in the technical codes and are
codified in the database, as for the design loads in SD1. Their value
depends on the class of concrete and steel, and therefore they are
not univocally defined; Table 1 summarises the allowable stresses
adopted in Italy in the period 1940–1970 [20].
The column area Ac was dimensioned based only on the axial
load N and the concrete design stress rc:
N
Ac ¼ ð7Þ
rc
where the axial load N depends on the permanent G and live Q de-
sign loads and on the area of influence of the generic column:
N ¼ ðG þ QÞ  ax  ay  px  py ð8Þ
ax and ay are, respectively, the module dimensions along X and Y,
while px and py are position factors of the column within the struc-
tural carpentry. The column area is transformed into a rectangular

Generic structural configuration

SD1:Design load definition

Codes and Building Gravity load

design location and
practices year of
database construction Seismic load

SD2:Elements dimensioning

Codes and Design Simplified models Minimum Section of

design stress dimension beam and
practices definition column beam definition column
(G+Q)⋅(a y ⋅p x )⋅a x
2
database σc, σs N=(G+Q )⋅a x ⋅a y ⋅p x ⋅p y Bbeam, Bcol definition
Mmax =
α

SD3:Design

Design and Axial load, shear

Selection of analysis
combination load force and bending
model
definition moment evaluation

Design check:
section dimension,
Dimensions of NO Design stress
minimum
section elements: definition
reinforcement
(B,H)beam, (B,H)col σc, σs

YES

Section and reinforcement definition

Fig. 6. Flow chart of the automatic design process.

 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
Input parameters
Construction age
Building location
Fig. 7. SD1 logical scheme.
Table 1
Allowable stresses for concrete and steel class (R.D.2229/1939).
Concrete Steel
Minimum concrete Allowable stress Allowable stress
strength, Rc (MPa) (MPa)
Axial load Axial load and
bending moment
12 3.5 4.0 – As regards the stairs module, it is not involved in seismic force
16 4.5 5.0 140–180
18–22.5 (Rc/3) 6 6.0 (Rc/3) 6 7.5 140–180–200
shape Ac = Bcol  H with assigned base Bcol (Bcol is 0.30 m by default,
but could be modified by the operator); section height H is derived
from the previous relation considering an upper approximation of
0.05 m.
Regarding the beams, only the bending moment Mmax was con-
sidered with the simplified formula:
M max ¼ ðG þ Q Þ  ðay  py Þ  a2x =a
where G and Q are permanent and live loads, respectively, ay the
length of the slabs adjacent to the beam, py the beam position factor
(py = 0.50 for perimeter beam, py = 1.00 for central beam), ax is beam
length and a is a factor depending on the element constraint
scheme (a = 8–12). The above formula refers to SW-Y definition.
Analogously, the moment Mmax could be determined for SW-X def-
inition with the sole permutation of indices x, y in formula. Again,
by defining the minimum transverse dimension Bbeam of the ele-
ment cross-section and imposing respect of design stress for the
materials, the other dimension H may be determined.
This phase is concluded checking that the elements dimensions
comply to basic ‘‘good-practice” rules; for example for the col-
umns, excessive cross-section variation (>10 cm between two
adjacent floors) is avoided along the building elevation.
2.3.3. Element design
This phase (SD3) allows design of the steel reinforcement and
verification of element cross-sections. Proper choice of analysis
models, which have to comply with analysis techniques and codes
applied at the time of construction, is essential. Indeed, it deter-
mines the forces effectively acting on each element and the conse-
quent longitudinal and transversal reinforcement.
Usually, gravity load design was performed with analysis mod-
els at the element level, as in the element dimensioning phase (see
Section 2.3.2); sometimes plane frame analysis was performed.
Both options can be selected by the program user.
As regards seismic design, the analysis models vary according to
the distribution scheme of horizontal forces at each storey. Essen-
tially, two methods are considered:
329
Code Output parameters
Technical code Live loads
Horizontal force
distribution
Seismic code
Seismic mass
evaluation
Peak ground
acceleration
 shear-type element model: the seismic force distribution is
based on the ratio of inertia of the single column versus the
sum of inertia of all the columns at the considered storey;
 plane frames model: the single resisting systems are located and
the related seismic forces are evaluated as a function of the sto-
rey mass affecting the considered plane frame.
distribution, consistently with design practices used at the time.
Once the analysis model is established and the design load com-
bination is considered, the program proceeds to determine ele-
ment forces and longitudinal and transversal reinforcement that
respect allowable stresses for concrete and steel, r c; r
 s , respec-
tively. Reinforcement design is performed for both the end sections
for the columns, and also at midspan for beams; these sections are
checked verifying that the flexural and shear capacity are not ex-
ceeded by the corresponding solicitations. A negative check causes
the program to reiterate the dimensioning and design phase. SD3
ð9Þ routine completes building structural identification and several
structures compatible with building global dimensions are
determined.
2.4. Seismic capacity analysis
Global seismic capacity parameters for the generic structure
identified in the previous phase are determined via nonlinear static
pushover analysis. Adopting the lumped plasticity model, it is first
necessary to define the characteristic curve representing the non-
linear behavior for each single element (beam and column); next,
global building analyses for both directions X and Y is performed.
Element flexural behavior is characterised by the definition of a
moment-rotation constitutive law (plastic hinge); Fig. 8a shows
the monotonic curve of the flexural model, which is described by
seven parameters (Mcr, My, Mmax, Mu, hy, hmax, hu). By performing
nonlinear analyses of the extreme sections of each element we
can determine: cracking moment Mcr, yielding moment My, maxi-
mum moment Mmax, while Mu is evaluated as a fraction of Mmax
(Mu = 0.85 Mmax). The corresponding chord rotations (hy, hmax, hu)
are determined as a function of a number of mechanical/geometric
factors.
In particular, following EC8 [15] indications, the yield chord
rotation for the element’s extreme section hy is calculated as:
 
LV þ azV h db fy
hy ¼ /y þ 0:0013 1 þ 1:5 þ 0:13/y pffiffiffiffi ð10Þ
3 LV fc
where /y is the yield curvature, LV the shear span of the element, h
the section height, fy steel yield stress and fc concrete compressive
strength; aVz is the tension shift of the bending moment diagram
330 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

(=0 if it is assumed that shear cracking does not precede flexural gion, the shear strength linearly decreases with the increase in
yielding at the end section). the rotational ductility demand for the element, as schematically
The chord rotation corresponding to the failure of the element is shown in Fig. 8b. This model [15] allows both brittle and low duc-
computed as reported in [15]: tile failures to be evaluated. All the cited mechanical models are
 0:225 fully characterised by fc and fy.
1 maxð0:01; x0 Þ
hu ¼ 0:016  ð0:3Þm  fc Nonlinear analysis for the global building model is performed in
cel maxð0:01; xÞ
 0;35  fyw  two phases: (i) nonlinear gravitational analysis is executed first in
LV aqsx fc order to determine the sole effect of gravity loads; (ii) pushover
 25 ð1:25100 qd Þ ð11Þ
h analysis is executed for both X and Y directions using a 3d model.
Referring to vertical distribution of lateral loads the ‘‘modal” pat-
where cel = 1.0 in order to analyse mean value of ultimate chord
tern distribution is applied by default [15]:
rotation; m is the normalized axial force, x and x0 are the mechan-
ical reinforcement ratio of the tension and compression, longitudi- F hi ¼ M i  /1i ð13Þ
nal reinforcement, respectively; fc and fy are the concrete
where Fhi is the horizontal force at the ith storey, Mi is the storey
compressive strength and steel yield strength; qsx the ratio of the
mass depending on gravity loads and /1i the deformed shape of first
transverse steel parallel to the direction x of loading; a is the con-
vibration mode in directions X and Y, respectively. The ‘‘uniform”
finement effectiveness factor and qd is the steel ratio of diagonal
pattern distribution, lateral forces proportional to masses, could
reinforcement in each diagonal direction.
be also selected. Although the effect of accidental eccentricity are
Peak rotation hmax, not explicitly formulated in [15], is calcu-
neglected at the present stage, they could be accounted for with a
lated in an approximate manner as a function of the corresponding
5% shift of the center of mass from its nominal location at each sto-
curvature /max and of the plastic hinge length Lpl as proposed in
rey [15].
EC8:
  The capacity curve, in terms of lateral strength Vb and displace-
Lpl ment at the roof level D, is determined up to maximum lateral
hmax ¼ hy þ ð/max  /y ÞLpl 1  0:5 ð12Þ
LV strength (near-collapse), consistently with the adopted mechanical
The shear strength of the generic structural element is defined models.
as the sum of three resistant mechanisms: the contribution of con- Three limit states are evidenced along the pushover curve:
crete, axial load and transversal reinforcement. In the plastic re- damage limitation, significant damage and ultimate state. Damage

1.50 1.50
M/My V/Vy

1.25 1.25 V max

15% flexural
Mmax strength Vy capacity
1.00 loss 1.00
My shear
Mu capacity
0.75 0.75

0.50 Mcr 0.50

0.25 0.25
θy θmax θu
θ/θy θ/θy
0.00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Mechanical model: (a) moment–rotation relationship of the flexural model; and (b) shear capacity curve.

Δ
Vb 2
Cs = ∑miφ1i
( ∑miφ1i )2 Generic
Cs Limit State

miφ1i Δ
Cd = 2
∑miφ1i capacity curve
∑miφ1i SDOF

∑miφi
T =2π
k k
Vb Cd

Fig. 9. Capacity curve idealization for the equivalent SDOF and the corresponding capacity parameters.
 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 331

limitation corresponds to the first attainment of h = hy for an ele- L0z ¼ 12:00 m and there are no underground levels; hence
ment; significant damage corresponds to the first attainment of L00z ¼ Daz where the foundation deepening with respect to ground
h = (0.75)(1/cel) hu for an element, with parameter cel assumed level Daz = 1.50 m is assumed. Interstorey height at the first level
cautiously as 1.5 [15]. The ultimate state corresponds to the first is equal to the upper stories az1 = (j  az) = az with j = 1.
attainment between element failure, due to ultimate chord rota- For sake of simplicity, the geometric and structural solution in
tion h = 1/cel hu (flexural failure) or ultimate shear strength, and this application are constrained to the hypothesis of symmetry
global failure intended as near-collapse condition of the structure. along X direction. Given these main assignments the program
Global seismic capacity parameters, for the single limit state, starts to retrace the simulated design routines and ask for some
are determined with reference to an equivalent SDOF system, de- more inputs:
fined starting from the capacity curve of the MDOF model (real
structure). Transformation of the capacity curve into bilinear form 3.1. Geometric identification phase
[16] allows us to estimate: nonlinear strength Cs, capacity displace-
ment Cd and the period T of the SDOF structure, as shown in Fig. 9. This phase (see Section 2.1) requires the following
assignments:
3. Application example
 ax 2 [3.00–6.00] m respecting common structural limitations;
This application retraces the entire process of automatic simu-  av 2 [4.00–6.00] m lower bound in compliance with architec-
lated design for a building with rectangular morphologic shape, tural solutions for the stair module;
built in 1961 in a zone that was not classified as seismic (i.e. the  az 2 [2.80–3.20] m in compliance with common values for build-
program automatically applies only the gravity load design meth- ings in Italy;
od). Only the exterior volume is assigned: base plant dimensions  given the low building dimensions it is assumed that just one
are Lx = 27.00 m, Ly = 15.00 m; building height from the ground is stair module is present: ns = 1, as = 3.00 m.

Geometric configuration #1 Geometric configuration #2

ax=4.0m; nx=6 - ay=5.0; ny=3 ax=3.0m; nx=8 - ay=5.0; ny=3

5.0
5.0

5.0
5.0

5.0
5.0

4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
(a)
Structural configuration #1
Structural configuration #2

(b)
Fig. 10. (a) Geometric configurations and (b) structural configurations.
332 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

With these assignments the program determines two geometric
solutions respecting the equations (1) and the symmetry hypothe-
sis. Both configurations have nz = 4 storeys and interstorey height
az = 3.00 m except for the first level az + Daz = 4.50 m; the two solu-
tions differ in the number of bays along directions X and Y, as
shown in Fig. 10a.
3.2. Structural identification phase
This phase (see Section 2.2) allows us to define, for each geo-
metric solution, the possible structural configurations considering
the relative variables: slab way SW, number of plane frames paral-
lel to slab way, np, and column orientation OR. Perimeter columns
and beams are automatically defined by the program. The follow-
ing assumptions apply:
 slab way along transversal direction SW-Y. This choice allows
structural optimization: in fact, global linear extension of the
beams is lower with respect to SW-X solution. Adopting SW-Y,
each structural configuration is characterised by a number
(ny  1) of plane frames along X in addition to the perimeter
frames;

Table 2
Building identification parameters.

Structure Identification parameters

Geometric configuration Structural configuration Simulated design configuration
nx ny OR rc (MPa) rs (MPa)
1 6 3 X 7.5 180
2 200
3 5.0 180
4 Y 7.5 180
5 200
6 5.0 180
7 8 3 X 7.5 180
8 200
9 5.0 180
10 Y 7.5 180
11 200
12 5.0 180

Fig. 11. Simulated design: structural element definition.

 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 333

 respecting the principles of gravity load design there is no need
to add beams (and the corresponding frames) in the other direc-
tion: npy = 0;
 as regards column orientation, both X and Y orientations are
considered for the columns without architectural constraints.
With these assignments two structural solutions are deter-
mined for each geometric one: the four structural configurations
are shown in Fig. 10b.
3.3. Simulated design
For each structural configuration the simulated design (see Sec-
tion 2.3) is performed to comply with codes in force in 1961. Per-
manent and live loads are automatically chosen from the codified
database (see section SD1). Considering simple models the element
cross-sections are dimensioned (SD2), the reinforcement is de-
signed and the section verified (SD3); only axial load for the col-
umns and bending moment for the beams are considered, a = 10
is assumed for evaluation of Mmax.
Minimum dimensions Bcol and Bbeam are assumed equal to
0.30 m. Simulated design variables are listed in Table 2; combining
their possible variation with the four structural solutions a total
number of 12 structures are designed.
Fig. 11 illustrates the first level carpentry of #3 structure, char-
acterised by six bays along X, three bays along Y and OR-X as the
main column orientation. In addition, transversal dimensions are
shown for both the columns and the beams; as can be noted the

1200
Base shear, Vb [kN] damage limitation
significant damage
1000
ultimate state
near collapse
800

600

400

200

roof displacement, Δ [m]

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Fig. 12. Transversal direction (Y) pushover curves.

1200
Base shear, Vb [kN] damage limitation
significant damage
1000
ultimate state
near collapse
800

600

400

200

roof displacement, Δ [m]

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Fig. 13. Longitudinal direction (X) pushover curves.

334 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335

central columns have greater transversal section (30  45) cm with
respect to the corner ones (30  30) cm, confirming the different
axial load acting on these elements. Also, interior beams have
greater height and reinforcement with respect to perimeter beams.
Seismic capacity is evaluated for each of the 12 structures.
Thanks to complete geometric and structural definition, it is possi-
ble to define the characteristic curves in flexural and shear for all
the elements (see section 2.4). With regard to material properties,
we assume a concrete compressive strength fc = 20 MPa and steel
yield strength fy ¼ 2r
 s , that is 360 and 400 MPa. Due to the beam’s
limited flexural strength, column capacity curves are determined
for fixed axial force corresponding to gravity load and kept con-
stant during the analysis. Element capacity is determined at the
three limit states: damage limitation, significant damage and ulti-
mate state.
Distinct pushover analyses along directions Y and X are per-
formed for each structure; Figs. 12 and 13 show the pushover
curves for transversal and longitudinal directions, respectively.
The significant points corresponding to the considered limit states
and structural near-collapse are evidenced along the curves.
It can be noted, as it could be expected, that the building has
higher lateral strength in the longitudinal direction and that the
damage limitation state is attained for higher base shear with re-
spect to direction Y. Moreover, along the longitudinal direction
structural collapse always corresponds to near-collapse state but
the structural elements are not significantly damaged. On the other
hand, in the transversal direction the building collapses due to ele-
ment failure (rotational ultimate state); as can be seen the near-
collapse state is reached after much larger displacements.
The program automatically computes, for each considered limit
state, the capacity parameters for the SDOF equivalent to the real
MDOF system: the capacity strength Cs, the capacity displacement
Cd and the effective period T. Tables 3 and 4 show these parameters
both for longitudinal and transverse directions. As can be seen, the
behavior differs in the two directions both in the elastic phase and
in the nonlinear field: the strength Cs and stiffness are higher (low-
er elastic period T) for the longitudinal direction at the damage
limitation state. The same trend is confirmed for near-collapse;
in particular, the Cs scatter decreases whereas the T scatter in-
creases with displacement.
On intersecting the identification parameters of Table 2 with
the capacity parameters shown in Tables 3 and 4 the effect of the
identification parameters on global capacity may be examined.
As can be noted, the different assumptions for the structural iden-
tification phase lead to capacity variation with a CoV up to 15%.
Bay number (nx, ny) influences both the base shear coefficient Cs
and the equivalent period T; on augmenting the bay number Cs in-
creases and T decreases. The same trend applies to column orienta-
tion; however, OR importance increases with storey number. Last
but not least, the design parameters, allowable stresses for con-
crete r c and steel r
 s : with increases in these stresses the transver-
sal sections of the structural elements decrease, with the

Table 3
Capacity parameters in transversal direction (Y).

Structure Damage limitation Significant damage Ultimate state Near-collapse

Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (s) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (s) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (s) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (s)
1 4.454 0.029 1.894 9.436 0.036 2.304 11.632 0.038 2.432 23.092 0.043 2.799
2 5.845 0.032 2.045 10.479 0.039 2.416 12.677 0.041 2.537 25.940 0.047 2.943
3 4.737 0.031 1.843 9.329 0.039 2.232 11.457 0.041 2.362 25.603 0.048 2.805
4 4.454 0.029 1.894 9.436 0.036 2.304 11.632 0.038 2.432 23.092 0.043 2.799
5 5.845 0.032 2.045 10.479 0.039 2.416 12.677 0.041 2.537 25.940 0.047 2.943
6 4.265 0.033 1.716 8.606 0.042 2.100 10.590 0.045 2.233 21.001 0.054 2.671
7 4.476 0.028 1.888 9.334 0.035 2.326 11.501 0.037 2.471 22.747 0.044 2.946
8 5.734 0.030 2.036 10.357 0.038 2.438 12.574 0.040 2.574 25.946 0.048 3.054
9 5.033 0.029 1.940 9.755 0.037 2.364 11.935 0.039 2.500 24.484 0.047 2.999
10 4.476 0.028 1.888 9.334 0.035 2.326 11.501 0.037 2.471 22.747 0.044 2.946
11 5.734 0.030 2.036 10.357 0.038 2.438 12.574 0.040 2.574 25.946 0.048 3.054
12 4.887 0.030 1.895 9.514 0.038 2.314 11.635 0.040 2.455 22.070 0.048 2.915
Mean 4.995 0.030 1.927 9.701 0.038 2.332 11.865 0.040 2.465 24.051 0.047 2.906
CoV (%) 12.48 5.13 5.18 6.10 4.91 4.16 5.42 5.16 3.91 7.46 6.50 3.98

Table 4
Capacity parameters in longitudinal direction (X).

Structure Damage limitation Significant damage Ultimate state Near-collapse

Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (sec) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (sec) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (sec) Cd (cm) Cs (g) T (sec)
1 7.308 0.051 1.982 – – – – – – 12.745 0.060 2.157
2 8.241 0.053 2.062 13.196 0.062 2.221 – – – 13.377 0.062 2.224
3 6.669 0.062 1.714 15.043 0.080 1.954 – – – 16.162 0.081 1.961
4 7.308 0.051 1.982 – – – – – – 12.745 0.060 2.157
5 8.241 0.053 2.062 13.196 0.062 2.221 – – – 13.377 0.062 2.224
6 7.205 0.058 1.829 14.010 0.072 2.041 17.321 0.072 2.060 17.404 0.072 2.064
7 6.679 0.057 1.757 – – – – – – 11.796 0.067 1.917
8 7.626 0.061 1.829 – – – – – – 11.403 0.069 1.964
9 6.548 0.061 1.678 – – – – – – 11.789 0.073 1.873
10 6.679 0.057 1.757 – – – – – – 11.796 0.067 1.917
11 7.626 0.061 1.829 – – – – – – 11.403 0.069 1.964
12 6.789 0.060 1.734 – – – – – – 11.077 0.070 1.900
Mean 7.243 0.057 1.851 – – – –– – – 12.923 0.068 2.027
CoV (%) 8.274 7.008 7.372 – – – – – – 15.281 9.027 6.469
 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
consequent increase in building deformability (and elastic period
T). As regards strength, a larger r  c leads to lower global lateral
strength Cs, whereas for larger r
 s , Cs grows.
Although not explicitly shown in the application, the program
allows different material (fc, fy) properties to be considered for
the mechanical identification phase.
4. Conclusions
The automatic procedure presented in this paper allows seismic
capacity to be assessed for RC buildings as a function of selected
parameters. The basic input parameter is the built volume (global
building dimensions). The procedure is then implemented in four
consecutive routines: (i) geometric identification that defines a
geometric mesh compatible with global dimensions, (ii) structural
identification which defines a structural configuration compatible
with the previously defined geometric mesh, (iii) simulated design
which allows element dimensions and the relative reinforcement
for each structural configuration to be determined, (iv) seismic
analysis phase which evaluates seismic capacity via pushover anal-
ysis using a lumped plasticity model. Depending on the knowledge
level of the built environment, the parameters characterising each
routine and required to complete the building modelling phase are
either assigned or their relative range of variation is given.
The automatic procedure was computerised so that the seismic
capacity of the generic building, in terms of nonlinear strength Cs,
capacity displacement Cd and period T is explicitly dependent on
the model input parameters. In particular, global capacity is deter-
mined for three significant limit states: damage limitation, signifi-
cant damage and ultimate state.
Acknowledgments
This study was performed in the framework of PE 2005–2008;
joint program DPC-Reluis Theme 10: Definition and development
of databases for the evaluation, planning and management of
emergencies.
335
References
[1] CNR-GNDT. Seismic risk for public buildings. Part I. Methodological aspects.
Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Rome, 1994.
[2] Rossetto T, Elnashai A. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type
RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 2003;25:1241–63.
[3] Di Pasquale G, Orsini G, Romeo RW. New developments in seismic risk
assessment in Italy. Bull Earthquake Eng 2005;3:101–28.
[4] Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G. Seismic risk of
RC building classes. Eng Struct 2007;29:813–20.
[5] Calvi GM. A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of
classes of buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3:411–38.
[6] Glaister S, Pinho R. Development of a simplified deformation-based method for
seismic vulnerability assessment. J Earthquake Eng 2003;7(1):107–40 [special
issue].
[7] Rossetto T, Elnashai AS. A new analytical procedure for the derivation of
displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structures. Eng
Struct 2005;27:397–409.
[8] ISTAT, Buildings and homes, census returns 2001 from the National Institute of
Statistics; 2001 [in Italian].
[9] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Rapid visual screening of buildings for
potential seismic hazards: a handbook prepared for Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA 154, Washington (DC); 1988.
[10] Olshansky RB, Yueming W. Evaluating earthquake safety in mid-American
communities. Nat Hazards Rev, ASCE 2004:71–81.
[11] Ratti C, Richens P. Urban texture analysis with image processing techniques.
In: Augenbroe G, Eastman C, editors. Computers in building: proceedings of
the CAADFutures ‘99 Conference, Atlanta; June 1999. ISBN: 0 7923 8536 5.
[12] Tralli DM. Assessment of advanced technologies for loss estimation. Special
publication MCEER-00-SP02 (on CD-ROM); 2000.
[13] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM. A multilevel approach to the
capacity assessment of RC buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2005;9(1):1–22.
[14] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM. Seismic assessment of
existing RC buildings at urban scale. In: Proceedings of the ACI spring
convention – Italy chapter; 2006.
[15] Comitée Européen de Normalisation, European Standard EN 1998-3: Eurocode
8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3. Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings, Brussels; 2004.
[16] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1999;28:979–93.
[17] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied
Technology Council, California; 1996.
[18] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(4–6):452–64.
[19] Pecce M, Polese M, Verderame GM. Seismic vulnerability aspects of RC
buildings in Benevento. In: Pecce M, Manfredi G, Zollo A. editors. The many
facets of seismic risk CRdC AMRA; 2004.
[20] R.D.L. no. 2229/1939. Regulations for the execution of simple and reinforced
concrete constructions; 1939 [in Italian].