Seismic Capacity Reduction Factors for a RC Beam and Two RC Columns

  • Pablo Mariano Barlek Mendoza
  • Daniela Micaela Scotta
  • Enrique Emilio Galíndez
Conference paper
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 47)


Many building structures can be damaged and even collapse during a severe earthquake. For this reason it is important to take immediate decisions about the safety of damaged structures in order to avoid possible human losses in case of aftershocks. Therefore, a quantitative damage assessment should be made to estimate residual seismic capacity. Reinforced Concrete (RC) Frames are one of the most common earthquake resistant elements used in Argentina. Consequently, it was judged necessary to study the residual seismic capacity of the basic components of this structural type. Experimental results and numerical models of RC beams and columns were considered to establish the reduction factors for different damage classes. A beam tested by the authors and two columns reported in the bibliography were studied. The results were compared with the values suggested by the revised Japanese Guideline for Post-Earthquake Damage Evaluation and Rehabilitation (2014) and a satisfactory agreement was found between them.


Residual seismic capacity RC beams RC columns Crack width 


  1. Barlek Mendoza P, Galíndez E, Pavoni S (2014) Modelación Numérica de Columnas de Hormigón Armado Sometidas a Cargas Cíclicas (in Spanish). In: 23° Jornadas Argentinas de Ingeniería Estructural, Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 2014Google Scholar
  2. Chang G, Mander J (1994) Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge Columns: part I – evaluation of seismic capacity. Northwestern center for engineering education research, technical report 94–0006Google Scholar
  3. Choi H, Nakano Y, Takahashi N (2006) Residual seismic performance of R.C. frames with unreinforced block wall based on crack widths. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology. Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 September 2006Google Scholar
  4. Kent D, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div ASCE 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  5. Maeda M, Matsukawa K, Ito Y (2014) Revision of guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation of RC buildings in Japan. In: Tenth U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, frontiers of earthquake engineering. Anchorage, Alaska, 21–25 July 2014Google Scholar
  6. Mander J, Priestley N, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress – strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8):1804–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete stress strain curve for concrete. Cem Concr Res 3(5):583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Scotta D, Galíndez E (2012) Simulación Numérica de Elementos de Hormigón Armado Sometidos a Cargas Cíclicas Reversibles (in Spanish). In: VIII Jornadas de Ciencia y Tecnología de Facultades de Ingeniería del NOA (VIII JCTNOA). San Miguel de Tucumán, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  9. Scotta D, Galíndez E, Pavoni S (2012) Residual seismic capacity of reinforced concrete beams under reversible flexural cyclic loads (in Spanish). In: XXXV Jornadas Sul Americanas de Engenharia Estrutural. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 19–21 September 2012Google Scholar
  10. Tanaka H (1990) Effect of lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile behaviour of reinforced concrete columns. PhD dissertation, University of Canterbury, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  11. The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) (1991, revised in 2001 and 2014) Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  12. The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) (1977, revised in 1990 and 2001) Standard for seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  13. Zahn F (1986) Design of reinforced concrete bridge columns for strength and ductility. PhD dissertation, University of Canterbury, New ZealandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo Mariano Barlek Mendoza
    • 1
  • Daniela Micaela Scotta
    • 1
  • Enrique Emilio Galíndez
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Estructuras “Ing. Arturo M. Guzmán”Universidad Nacional de TucumánSan Miguel de TucumánArgentina

Personalised recommendations