Seismic Assessment of Structures Using Approximate Methods Based on the Capacity Curve
Downloads
This paper investigates the reliability of approximate seismic assessment methods by critically examining their fundamental assumptions and limitations. Particular attention is given to the influence of lateral load application techniques on the construction of the capacity curve, including force-based, displacement-based, and adaptive spectral modal procedures. Within force-based approaches, the effect of the lateral load vector shape is analyzed, since the estimation of the seismic performance point is governed by the characteristics of the capacity curve. A seismic assessment of three reinforced concrete structures is performed: two mid-rise frame buildings and one continuous viaduct-type bridge. The results obtained from (1) the original Capacity Spectrum Method, (2) a recently developed approximate procedure (2025), proposed by the authors, based on the Dynamic Capacity Curve, constructed through evolutionary spectral modal analyses in which each point represents a performance point, and (3) the benchmark procedure, Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), are compared. The results show that both the lateral load application technique and the load vector shape significantly affect the estimated seismic performance. Approximate methods can provide reliable results when the equal displacement rule is valid and the Multi-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) system can be represented by an equivalent Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) oscillator.
Downloads
[1] EN 1998-1. (2018). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
[2] Fajfar, P., & Gašperšič, P. (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(1), 31–46. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<31::AID-EQE534>3.0.CO;2-V.
[3] Ayala, G., & Escamilla, M. A. (2013). Modal Irregularity in Continuous Reinforced Concrete Bridges. Detection, Effect on the Simplified Seismic Performance Evaluation and Ways of Solution. Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5377-8_8.
[4] Freeman, S., Nicoletti, J., & Tyrell, J. (1975). Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk-A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Proc. Proceedings of U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1975, Washington, United States.
[5] FEMA 273. (2000). NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, United States.
[6] FEMA 440. (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, United States.
[7] ASCE/SEI 41-23. (2023). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, United States. doi:10.1061/9780784416112.
[8] Gencturk, B., & Elnashai, A. S. (2008). Development and application of an advanced capacity spectrum method. Engineering Structures, 30(11), 3345–3354. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.008.
[9] Jing, W., Renjie, L., Chunlin, W., & Zhen, Z. (2011). A modified capacity spectrum method with direct calculation of seismic intensity of points on capacity curve. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4), 664–683. doi:10.1080/13632469.2010.505274.
[10] Kreslin, M., & Fajfar, P. (2012). The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(2), 695–715. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6.
[11] Ruiz-García, J., & González, E. J. (2014). Implementation of Displacement Coefficient method for seismic assessment of buildings built on soft soil sites. Engineering Structures, 59, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.10.017.
[12] Worku, A. M., & Hsiao, P. C. (2022). An improved first-mode-based pushover analytical procedure for assessing seismic performance of special moment resisting frame building structures. Engineering Structures, 252, 113587. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113587.
[13] Jalilkhani, M., Ghasemi, S. H., & Danesh, M. (2020). A multi-mode adaptive pushover analysis procedure for estimating the seismic demands of RC moment-resisting frames. Engineering Structures, 213, 110528. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110528.
[14] Soliman, M. A., Hasan, M. A., Mohamed, H. M., & Abdel Raheem, S. E. (2026). Evaluation of Reduction Factors for Vertically Irregular RC Frames: Conventional vs. Adaptive Pushover Analysis. JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 54(2), 53.
[15] Sharifi, S., & Toopchi-Nezhad, H. (2018). Seismic response modification factor of RC-frame structures based on limit state design. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(9), 1185-1200. doi:10.1007/s40999-017-0276-6.
[16] Ferraioli, M., & Lavino, A. (2020). Irregularity Effects of Masonry Infills on Nonlinear Seismic Behaviour of RC Buildings. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1–15. doi:10.1155/2020/4086320.
[17] Asıkoğlu, A., Vasconcelos, G., & Lourenço, P. B. (2021). Overview on the nonlinear static procedures and performance-based approach on modern unreinforced masonry buildings with structural irregularity. Buildings, 11(4), 147. doi:10.3390/buildings11040147.
[18] Kuria, K. K., & Kegyes-Brassai, O. K. (2024). Pushover Analysis in Seismic Engineering: A Detailed Chronology and Review of Techniques for Structural Assessment. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 14(1), 151. doi:10.3390/app14010151.
[19] Raheem, S. E. A., Youssry, A., Soghier, M. H., Fooly, M. Y. M., & Gamal, Y. A. S. (2025). Evaluation of seismic demands for adjacent irregular buildings with transverse alignment eccentricity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23(1), 301–326. doi:10.1007/s10518-024-02038-0.
[20] Suliman, M., & Lu, L. (2024). A Comparative Study of Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Using Chinese and African Seismic Codes. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 5588833. doi:10.1155/2024/5588833.
[21] Fan, Y., Song, J., Zhou, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Seismic Performance Evaluation of a Frame System Strengthened with External Self-Centering Components. Buildings, 14(11), 3666. doi:10.3390/buildings14113666.
[22] Tsai, M. T., & Hsu, C. C. (2024). Assessment of structural performance, materials efficiency, and environmental impact of multi-story hybrid timber structures in high seismic zone. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 21, 3695. doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03695.
[23] Shendkar, M. R., Tantri, A., & Rao, A. U. (2025). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience, 6(1), 2. doi:10.1186/s43065-024-00114-y.
[24] Vamvatsikos, D., & Allin Cornell, C. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514. doi:10.1002/eqe.141.
[25] Paret, T., Sasaki, K., Eilbeck, D., & Freeman, S. (1996). Approximate Inelastic Procedures to Identify Failure Mechanisms from Higher Mode Effects. Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24-29 June 1996, Acapulco, Mexico.
[26] Requena, M., & Ayala, G. (2000). Evaluation of a simplified method for the determination of the nonlinear seismic response of RC frames. Proceedings of the twelfth world conference on earthquake engineering, 30 January-4 February 2000, Auckland, New Zeland.
[27] Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 561–582. doi:10.1002/eqe.144.
[28] ATC-40. (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, United States.
[29] Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K., & Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). Seismic Performance and Retrofit Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(1), 3–10. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1997)123:1(3).
[30] Antoniou, S., & Pinho, R. (2004). Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(4), 497–522. doi:10.1080/13632460409350498.
[31] Antoniou, S., & Pinho, R. (2004). Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(5), 643–661. doi:10.1080/13632460409350504.
[32] Aydinoǧlu, M. N. (2003). An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1(1), 3–36. doi:10.1023/A:1024853326383.
[33] Veletsos, A. S., & Newmark, N. M. (1960). Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 11-18 July, 2960, Tokyo, Japan.
[34] Alba, F., Ayala, A. G., & Bento, R. (2005, August). Seismic performance evaluation of plane frames regular and irregular in elevation. Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, 26-27 August, Thessaloniki, Greece.
[35] Bañuelos-Garcia, F., Escamilla, M., Ayala, G., & Valdes-Gonzalez, J. (2025). Dynamic capacity curve and its application to the seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake and Structures, 28(1), 75–87. doi:10.12989/eas.2025.28.1.075.
[36] Mendoza Pérez, M., & Ayala Milián, G. (2013). Performance-Based Evaluation Procedure for Reinforced Concrete Buildings: Development and Validation. Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica, 88(88), 23–41. doi:10.18867/ris.88.8.
[37] Fragiadakis, M., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2011). Qualitative comparison of static pushover versus incremental dynamic analysis capacity curves. 7th Hellenic National Conference of Steel Structures.
[38] NTC-DS-2023. (2023). Complementary technical standards for earthquake design. Government of Mexico City (GCDMX), Mexico City, Mexico.
[39] Isaković, T., & Fischinger, M. (2000). Regularity indices for bridge structures. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), 30 January-4 February, Auckland, New Zealand.
[40] Isaković, T., & Fischinger, M. (2005). Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. Earthquake Engineering &Amp; Structural Dynamics, 35(1), 95–114. doi:10.1002/eqe.535.
[41] Computers and Structures Inc. (2024). SAP2000 (Version 24). Computers and Structures, Inc, Walnut Creek, United States.
[42] Seismosoft Ltd. (2024). SeismoStruct (Version 2024). Seismosoft Ltd, Pavia, Italy.
[43] EN 1998-2. (1998). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges (ENV 1998-2). European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
[44] AASHTO. (2007). LRFD bridge design specifications (4th Ed.). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, United States.
[45] Maalek, S., Akbari, R., & Maheri, M. R. (2009). The effect of higher modes on the regularity of single-column-bent highway viaducts. Bridge Structures, 5(1), 29–43. doi:10.1080/15732480902775573.
[46] Escamilla, M. A. (2016). Influence of the evolution of modal shapes on the seismic performance of irregular structures using approximate seismic evaluation and design methods. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. (In Spanish).
- Authors retain all copyrights. It is noticeable that authors will not be forced to sign any copyright transfer agreements.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
