Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Different Values of

Stiffness

Hugo Miguel da Silva Barreto dos Santos

Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal

October 2016

Abstract

The aim of this work is to study the seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings using different values of
cracked stiffness in each resistant element. Eurocode 8 indicates that the stiffness of concrete members
used in analysis should correspond to the initiation of yielding of the reinforcement, and should take into
account the effect of cracking. Eurocode 8 also states that it is permitted to take that stiffness as equal to
50% of the uncracked stiffness, in every member of the structure. However, since the cracked stiffness of a
certain concrete member is influenced by the axial force and reinforcement ratios, it is safe to assume that
the loss of stiffness should not be considered uniform in every concrete member. Moreover, it is known that
the loss of stiffness due to cracking should be higher than 50% of the corresponding stiffness of the
uncracked member. Furthermore, it will be discussed whether or not the simplification suggested in
Eurocode 8 constitutes a good approximation to estimate the cracked stiffness in different types of structural
members. Finally, an evaluation is made comparing the differences between designing a structure
considering the effective stiffness in each concrete member and designing the same structure considering
a loss of stiffness uniform in every concrete member.

Keywords: Stiffness, cracking, moment-curvature diagram, seismic analysis, seismic design

1. Introduction

The provisions of Eurocode 8 [1] for design for energy dissipation and ductility are based on the assumption
that the global inelastic response of a structure to lateral forces is bilinear, close to elastic-plastic. Therefore,
the stiffness used in seismic analysis should be the same as the stiffness of the elastic branch of such
elastic-plastic response. This means that the stiffness used in analysis should correspond to the initiation of
yielding of the reinforcement and must take into account the effect of cracking.

To determine the cracked stiffness of a certain member, it is required that the reinforcement and axial load
ratios are previously known. The axial load in a certain member can be determined without considering the
effect of cracking in stiffness. However, the reinforcement ratio is not known when designing new structures.
To overcome this obstacle, Eurocode 8 suggests that the stiffness of concrete elements used in analysis
can be taken as equal to 50% of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked member, not considering the
reinforcement.

1
Experiments that measured the secant stiffness of typical reinforced concrete members have shown that the
loss of stiffness due to cracking, tends to be higher than 50% [2]. In the context of Eurocode 8, it is safe-
sided to use a higher estimate of the effective stiffness, as it reduces the period of vibration leading to an
increase in the spectral acceleration for which the structure has to be designed.

2. Moment-Curvature Diagram

One of the most common ways to estimate the stiffness of a cracked concrete section, is by determining the
moment-curvature relation. The stiffness of a certain concrete section, K, is given by:

𝑀
𝐾 = 𝐸𝐼 = (1)
(1⁄𝑅)

Before cracking, the moment-curvature relation is linear and the curvature, 1/RI, can be determined
according to:

1 𝑀
= (2)
𝑅𝐼 𝐸𝐼𝐼

Where II represents the moment of inertia of the gross section of the uncracked concrete member. Cracking
first occurs when the tensile strength of concrete is reached at the extreme tension fiber in a certain section
of the concrete member. After cracking, the contribution of concrete subjected to positive stress is lost, and
sudden loss of inertia occurs. The curvature in a cracked section, 1/R 2, is given by:

1 𝑀
= (3)
𝑅𝐼𝐼 𝐸𝐼𝐼𝐼

Where III represents the moment of inertia of the cracked section, assuming that the concrete carries no
tension. In spite of occurring in specific sections, cracking increases the global deformation of the concrete
member, as shown on Figure 1. However, in the uncracked sections, concrete tensile strength still
contributes to flexural stiffness. As a result, the effective curvature, 1/R m, should be determined according
to an estimate between a state where the curvature is determined considering a homogenous uncracked
section, 1/RI, and a state where concrete is assumed to carry no tension, 1/R II. This is shown on Figure 2.

Figure 1 and 2 - Global deformation of a concrete element subjected to bending (left). Effective moment-
curvature relation (right). [3]

2
3. Cracked Stiffness

The loss of stiffness due to cracking, is largely dependent on reinforcement and axial load ratios. In concrete
elements subjected to pure bending, the depth of the neutral axis depends only on the properties of its cross
section, before and after cracking. The stiffness of both the cracked section, EI 1, and uncracked section, EI2,
remain constant. It is then fairly easy to determine the moment-curvature relation.

Considering the case of a concrete column, subjected to bending and a constant axial force, N, the moment-
curvature relation is now dependent on the value of N. In this case, the depth of the neutral axis relies upon
a variable eccentricity e=M/N, as depicted on Figure 3. The value of 1/RII varies in a nonlinear way, as seen
on Figure 4. Therefore, it is significantly more complex to determine the moment-curvature curve. As this is
the most common case, it is useful to resort to specific software to compute the moment-curvature relation.

Figure 3 and 4 - Variable eccentricity (left; adapted from [4]) and moment-curvature diagram of a section
subjected to bending and a constant axial load (right; [5]).

It is also worth mentioning that presence of N reduces the loss of stiffness due to cracking, as the area of
the section subjected to positive stress decreases. In Figure 5, it is visible the effect of applying a
compressive force on a concrete member subjected to bending. In contrast, applying tension reduces the
loss of stiffness, which is also shown on Figure 5.

Figure 5 Moment-curvature diagram for pure bending (left) and bending with compressive force (right, in blue)
and tensile force (right in red) [5]

The reinforcement ratio is also important when determining the cracked stiffness of a concrete section, as
after cracking, its behavior is dependent mainly on steel. Naturally, an increase in steel area results in an
increment of inertia of the cracked section, which leads to lower losses of stiffness. This is shown on Figure
6, which displays the loss of stiffness due to cracking considering the cases of pure tensile force and pure
bending for different values of reinforcement ratio.

3
Figure 6 - Loss of stiffness due to cracking in a section subjected to tensile load (left) and pure bending (right),
for diffeten values of reinforcemet ratio [6]

Eurocode 8 considers a bilinear force-deformation relationship at element level, and therefore, the stiffness
of load bearing elements should correspond to the initiation of yielding of the reinforcement, as seen on
Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Bilinear idealization of the seismic response [7]

The stiffness corresponding to the initiation of yielding, K y, of the reinforcement is given by the following
equation:

𝑀𝑦
𝐾𝑦 = (𝐸𝐼)𝑦 = (4)
(1/𝑅)𝑦
Where 𝑀𝑦 and (1/𝑅)𝑦 represent the moment and curvature at first yield of the tensile steel. The loss in
stiffness due to cracking is determined relatively to the uncracked stiffness of the concrete section by:

(𝐼)𝑦 𝑀𝑦 1
= ∙ (5)
𝐼1 𝐸(1/𝑅)𝑦 𝐼1

4. Cross Section Analysis

In this chapter, it is determined the loss of stiffness due to cracking in different cross sections. The main
purpose is to evaluate the loss of stiffness that actually occurs in different types of structural elements, such
as columns and walls, and to check whether or not the loss of stiffness suggested in Eurocode 8 constitutes
a good approximation.

It is known that, in relation to columns, concrete walls, are typically subjected to significantly lower values of
axial load ratio. Moreover, it is expected that a lower reinforcement ratio is adopted in walls, given the
dimensional difference of the cross section.

4
In columns, symmetrical reinforcement should be provided. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio, ρl, shall not
be less than 1% and not more than 4%. In ductile walls, the longitudinal reinforcement must be placed in
boundary elements, according to Eurocode 8. Therefore, it is typical to determine the reinforcement ratio in
relation to the size of these elements. The longitudinal reinforcement in one boundary element should not
be inferior to 0.5% and not superior to 4%. The reinforcement considered in analysis was determined relative
to the dimensions of the boundary elements, ρEE. However, in order to compare the loss of stiffness in walls
and columns, it was also necessary to determine the reinforcement ratio in relation to the dimensions of the
cross section, ρ. Table 1 illustrates how the reinforcement ratio was determined in both walls and columns.

Table 1 - Reinforcement ratio in columns and walls.

𝑙𝑐 ≥ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 {0.15𝑙𝑤 ; 1.5𝑏𝑤 }

𝐴𝑠1 + 𝐴𝑠2
𝜌𝑙 = 𝐴𝑠1 + 𝐴𝑠2 𝐴𝑠1
𝑏𝑐 ℎ𝑐 𝜌= 𝜌𝐸𝐸 =
𝑏𝑤 𝑙𝑤 𝑏𝑤 𝑙𝑐𝑟

Column A (0.7x0.3) Column B (0.5x0.3)

0,80 0,80
0,70 0,70
0,60 0,60
0,50 0,50
I2/Ic
I2/Ic

0,40 v=0.8 0,40 v=0.8

0,30 v=0.7 0,30 v=0.7
v=0.4≈0.5≈0.6 v=0.4≈0.5≈0.6
0,20 0,20
v=0.2 v=0.2
0,10 v=0.1 0,10 v=0.1
0,00 0,00
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
ρl [%] ρl [%]

Figure 8 - Loss of stiffness in column sections.

Wall A (5x0.3) Wall C (1.5x0.3)

ρEE [%] ρEE [%]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
0,45 0,45
0,40 0,40
0,35 0,35
0,30 0,30
0,25 0,25
I2/Ic
I2/Ic

0,20 v=0.4 0,20 v=0.4

0,15 v=0.3 0,15 v=0.3
0,10 v=0.2 0,10 v=0.2
0,05 v=0.1 0,05
v=0.05 v=0.1
0,00 0,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00
ρ [%] ρ [%]

Figure 9 - Loss of stiffness in wall sections.

5
Figures 8 and 9, show that the loss of stiffness due to cracking, relative to the stiffness of the uncracked
concrete member, is similar in all sections if the same axial load and reinforcement ratios are considered.

In structures, vertical resistant elements are subjected to compressive axial loads. The axial load in each
member is transferred from beams and slabs, and is much more dependent on the distance to adjacent
vertical elements, than it is on the dimensions of the cross section of that member. This means that the axial
load ratio in larger sections will be significantly lower than in smaller sections.

Concrete columns are usually designed so that the axial load ratio is somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8. If a
typical reinforcement ratio is considered (1% to 1.5%), it is possible to say, based on Figure 8, that the
cracked stiffness in concrete columns should be between 0.35K 1 to 0.45K1. Considering that the loss of
stiffness was determined without taking into account the contribution of the uncracked concrete, the value
suggested in Eurocode 8 is adequate for columns in the described conditions. In columns subjected to lower
axial loads, such as columns located on the corners of the structure, a stiffness closer to 0.35K1 might be
considered.

In larger walls, such as Wall A, where the axial load ratio is expected to be lower (between 0.05 and 0.10),
as well as the reinforcement ratio (0.5% to 1%), a cracked stiffness among 0.20K1 can be used. In smaller
walls, like Wall C, considering an axial load ratio between 0.15 and 0.25, and a reinforcement ratio from
1.5% to 2%, a cracked stiffness of 0.25K1 to 0.35K1 might be used.

5. Seismic analysis

In this section, a structure is designed considering two different cases: in the first case, the effective stiffness
used in analysis will be equal to 50% of the uncracked stiffness, as suggested in Eurocode 8; in the second
case, it will be considered a loss of stiffness in each structural element, according the values determined in
Chapter 4.

The structure is shown on Figure 10. In the X direction, lateral loads are mainly resisted by frames and
therefore, the building is classified as a frame system. In the Y direction, lateral stiffness and rigidity is
provided by walls. In this direction, the building is classified as a wall system. The behavior factor was
considered equal to 3, in both directions.

Figure 10 - Floor plan of the structure

6
The loss of stiffness due to cracking considered in the second analysis, was estimated taking into account
the axial load ratio in each element, as well an estimate on the reinforcement adopted in each element. In
this work, it was possible to have a more precise estimate on the reinforced ratio in each element, since a
first analysis was conducted. However, it is also possible to make an estimate on the loss of stiffness based
on commonly adopted values of reinforcement, in each element. The loss of stiffness in each element is
presented in Table 1.

Table 2 - Stiffness used in each element in the second analysis

Element ρ ν I2/Ic
Wall PR 0.7 (ρEE=2.25) 0.08 0.25
Column P1 1.3 0.15 0.4
Column P2 1.1 0.25 0.4
Beam 0.7 0 0.20

In the columns that are part of the flat slab frame, a stiffness equal to 10% of the uncracked stiffness will be
used. These elements are considered secondary seismic members and don’t need to be designed according
to the same rules as the primary elements. However, these elements must maintain capacity to support
gravity loads, while being subjected to the maximum deformations under the seismic design situation.

As expected, the decrease in stiffness lead to a more flexible structure, in both directions. Hence the vibration
periods of the modes of vibration were increased, which lead to lower values of spectral acceleration, as
shown on Figure 11.

Response Spectrum
2,0
(0,57; 1,625)
1,5 (0,74; 1,318) Response Spectrum
Sd m.s-2

(1,09; 0,894) T1 A1 (Movment in X)

1,0
(1,27; 0,768)
T1 A2 (Movement in X)
0,5
T2 A1 (Movement in Y)

0,0 T2 A2 (Movement in Y)
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
T [s]

Figure 11 - Response Spectrum

The reduction in spectral acceleration lead to lower seismic base shear values. Considering that the
reduction in stiffness in walls is higher than in columns, a redistribution of forces occurs. In cases like the
one from this work, this aspect is important to consider, as this increases stresses on the columns in the
weakest direction. The base reactions in both analyses are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Base reactions in each element

Base
Analysis Fwall Fframe Fcolumn Fwall Fframe Fcolumn
Direction Reaction
[kN] [kN] [kN] [%] [%] [%]
[kN]
x 2363 327 1748 288 13.84 73.99 12.18
1
y 3756 3444 144 168 91.70 3.84 4.48
x 2046 266 1666 114 13.02 81.43 5.55
2
y 3210 2919 202 89 90.93 6.30 2.77

7
5.1. Damage limitation requirement and second order effects

In order to verify the damage limitation requirement and to minimize the relevance of second order effects,
it is important to control interstorey drifts. This is especially true in the second analysis, where bigger
displacements are expected, as the structure is globally more flexible.

Table 4 - Damage limitation requirement and interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient

Analysis Storey drx [mm] dry [mm] Ptot [kN] Vx [kN] Vy[kN] θx θy νdrx[mm] νdry[mm]
1 18.7 5.3 29513 2334 3754 0.079 0.014 7.5 2.1
2 29.5 10.4 23610 2118 3549 0.110 0.023 11.8 4.1
1 3 26.9 13.2 17708 1722 3087 0.092 0.025 10.8 5.3
4 20.3 14.2 11805 1315 2410 0.061 0.023 8.1 5.7
5 12.4 13.7 5903 702 14366 0.035 0.019 4.9 5.5
1 22.4 8.1 29513 2046 3210 0.108 0.025 9.0 3.2
2 34.7 15.0 23610 1872 3015 0.146 0.039 13.9 6.0
2 3 31.4 18.5 17708 1589 2604 0.116 0.042 12.5 7.4
4 23.7 19.4 11805 1236 2044 0.075 0.037 9.5 7.8
5 14.6 18.5 5903 754 1259 0.038 0.029 5.8 7.4

The damage limitation requirement is verified if:

𝑑𝑟 𝜈 ≤ 0.005ℎ = 0.005 ∗ 3000 = 15 𝑚𝑚

In both analysis, the damage limitation requirement is met. However, in the X direction, in the second
analysis, the value of νdrx is close to the limit. This means that when considering inferior values of stiffness
in more flexible structures, it is particularly important to control interstorey drifts.

The interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient, θ, should be lower than 0.1 for second order effects to be
negligible. In the X direction, second order effects must be taken into account, and are more relevant in the
second analysis. In this direction, the seismic action effects must be multiplied by a factor equal to 1/(1- θ).

5.2. Design of resistant elements

The design of columns, walls and beams is shown on Tables 4 to 9.

Table 5 - Longitudinal Reinforcement design of the columns P1 and P2

P1 (0.3x0.7) P2 (0.3x0.7)
Analysis Storey Direction NEd MEd ρ MEd ρ
Asl [cm2] NEd [kN.m] Asl [cm2]
[kN.m] [kN.m] [%] [kN.m] [%]
x 431 505.5 1177 552
1 32.19 1.53 28.17 1.34
y 401.5 68.6 931.7 152
1
x 192.4 213.1 692.9 357.8
2 to 5 26.42 1.26 23.37 1.11
y 72.8 104.7 172.5 69.9
x 407.3 507.9 1328 546.3
1 32.19 1.53 26.42 1.26
y 343.9 68.6 1048 167.4
2
x 249.9 247.2 810.1 341.9
2 to 5 26.42 1.26 26.42 1.26
y 173 70 204 72

8
 Table 6 - Shear Reinforcement design of the columns P1 and P2

Critical Regions Noncritical Regions

Elev. VEd VRd,max As,adopt VRd,max As,adopt VRd,max
Analysis Column Asw/s Reinf. Reinf.
[m] [kN] [kN] [cm2] [kN] [cm2] [kN]
P1 322.5 12.67 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.70 399.5 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.7 399.5
1
P2 334.6 13.15 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.70 399.5 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.7 399.5
0a3
P1 283.6 11.14 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.70 399.5 ϕ 10//12.5(2R) 12.56 319.6
2
P2 281.1 11.05 ϕ 10//10(2R) 15.70 399.5 ϕ 10//12.5(2R) 12.56 319.6
926.6
P1 122.8 4.82 ϕ 8//10(2R) 10.10 256.0 ϕ 8//20(2R) 5.02 127.7
1
P2 122.8 4.82 ϕ 8//10(2R) 10.10 256.0 ϕ 8//20(2R) 5.02 127.7
3 a 15
P1 75.3 2.96 ϕ 8//10(2R) 10.10 256.0 ϕ 6//17.5(2R) 3.24 82.4
2
P2 75.3 2.96 ϕ 8//10(2R) 10.10 256.0 ϕ 6//17.5(2R) 3.24 82.4

Table 7 - Longitudinal Reinforcement design of the Wall PR

NEd ρ
Analysis MEd [kN.m] ρv,EE [%]
[kN] [%]
1 14934 2505 0.68 2.26
2 11056 2889 0.41 1.37

Table 8 - Shear Reinforcement design of the Wall PR

Elevation VEd Asw/s As,h,min VRd

Analysis As,h,adopt [cm2/m]
[m] [kN] [cm2/m] [cm2/m] [kN]
0a5 2583 13.20 ϕ10//10 (2R) (15.7) 3073
1 6.48
5 a 15 2308 11.79 ϕ10//12.5 (2R) (12.6) 2467
0a5 2189 11.18 ϕ10//12.5 (2R) (12.6) 2467
2 4.46
5 a 15 1896 9.69 ϕ10//15 (2R) (10.5) 2055

Table 9 - Longitudinal Reinforcement design of the beams

Analysis 1 Analysis 2
Section Layer MEd [kN.m] ρ [%] MEd [kN.m] ρ [%]
Superior 165.5 0.88 -90.2 0.38
Support 1
Inferior 131.7 0.60 56.6 0.38
Superior 0.25 0.25
Mid-Span 10.2 8.4
Inferior 0.25 0.25
Superior -151.1 0.70 -82.2 0.38
Support 2
Inferior 135.2 0.60 61.1 0.38

Table 10- Shear Reinforcement design of the beams

Asw,adopt/s ρw
Analysis lcl [m] MRb- [kN.m] MRb+ [kN.m] VEd [kN]
[cm2] [%]
1 5.3 145.0 204.9 75.8 2Rϕ6//0.125 (4.52) 1.21
2 5.3 95.8 95.8 45.9 2Rϕ6//0.10 (5.66) 1.89

In columns, there is not much difference between analysis, as the stiffness used in the second analysis is
only 10% lower than that of the first. Moreover, in the second analysis, second order effects are more
relevant and therefore, the coefficient 1/(1-θ) is higher. This results in minimal differences in the adopted
longitudinal reinforcement ratios. In critical areas, the requirements regarding the confinement of these areas
lead to the use of the same shear reinforcement in both analyses. In non-critical areas, it was possible to
place the hoops further apart, in the second analysis.

In walls, significantly lower areas of longitudinal reinforcement were used in the second analysis. The high
contribution of these elements to the lateral load resistance, and the significantly lower stiffness of the walls

9
used in the second analysis, lead to lower values of bending and shear stresses. Hence, it was possible to
reduce the adopted shear reinforcement.

As in walls, the reduction of the stiffness of the beams was significant. This lead to lower values of bending
moment in the second analysis, and as a result, the longitudinal reinforcement adopted in the beams was
determined by the minimums indicated in Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8. The design shear forces were
determined by equilibrium, in accordance to the capacity design rule. This lead to significantly lower values
of shear force in the second analysis. However, the rules for confinement of the critical regions of the beam
were stricter in the second analysis, resulting in higher shear reinforcement in these regions.

6. Conclusion

Considering the results presented in chapters 4 and 5, it is possible to say that considering a loss in stiffness
equal to 50% of the uncracked stiffness might be a good estimate in concrete elements subjected to higher
values of axial load ratio, such as columns. In walls and beams, it is possible to use lower values of stiffness,
as long as eventual redistribution in forces are accounted for.

When considering lower values of stiffness, displacements due to the seismic action will increase which may
lead to excessive interstorey drifts, especially in more flexibles structures. This means that, when using lower
values of stiffness, it is advised to check if interstorey drifts are within the limits imposed by the damage
limitation requirement, before designing structural elements.

7. References

[1] CEN – “Eurocódigo 8 – Projecto de Estruturas para Resistência aos Sismos – Parte 1: Regras
Gerais, Acções Sísmicas e Regras para Edifícios”, EN 1998-1:2004;

[2] Fardis, Michael; Carvalho, Eduardo; Elnashai, Amr; Faccioli, Ezio; Pinto, Paolo; Plumier, Andre –
“Designers’ Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-1”, Thomas Telford, 2005;

[3] DECivil – “Estruturas de Betão I – Folhas de Apoio às Aulas”, Instituto Superior Técnico, 2013;

[4] Camara, José – “Comportamento em Serviço de Estruturas de Betão Armado e Pré-Esforçado”,

Tese de Doutoramento, Instituto Superior Técnico, 1988;

[5] Botelho, Diogo – “Edifícios com Dimensões Significativas em Planta: Efeitos em Diferentes
Elementos Estruturais”, Tese de Mestrado, Instituto Superior Técnico, 2014

[6] Camara, José; Luís, Ricardo – “Structural Response and Design Criteria for Imposed Deformations
Superimposed to Vertical Loads”, The Second FIB Congress, Naples, 2006;

[7] CEN – “Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges”, EN 1998-
2:2004;

[8] DECivil – “Comportamento Fisicamente Não Linear de Estruturas de Betão Armado”, Instituto
Superior Técnico;

[9] Camara, José – “Análise Não Linear de Estruturas de Betão Armado nas Condições de Serviço”,
Instituto Superior Técnico, 1990;

10