Citation :

Víctor Hinostroza Maraví, Deyvid Froilán Matamoros Paitán, Jean Fernando Pérez Montesinos, "Comparison of Nonlinear Methods in the Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Their Applicability in the Construction of Fragility Curves," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 358-367, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V13I5P124

Abstract

Conventional seismic analysis based on elastic approaches presents limitations in realistically capturing structural response under severe events, which has driven the development of nonlinear methodologies that allow for a more accurate characterization of building performance. In this context, this study aims to make a systematic comparison between the nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses in reinforced concrete frames, with the goals of identifying any divergences in the prediction of parameter performances and then assessing their applicability as input data for methodologies oriented towards fragility. The ETABS software was used to model a four-story building, and nonlinearity was incorporated through the use of plastic hinges according to ASCE41-17 and NIST GCR 10-917-5, and the characterization of the materials followed the LATBSDC 2020 norm. The evaluation of the behavior was based on the overturning moment and the base shear, while also considering gravitational loads and a scaled record of real earthquakes. The results acquired from the evaluations indicated that the nonlinear dynamic analysis estimated that the base shear and overturning moment values are approximately 18% and 16% higher, respectively, than those obtained with nonlinear static analysis. These results highlight the great ability of nonlinear dynamic analysis to capture transient effects and global instability phenomena. These outcomes allow us to argue that both methods provide useful information for structural performance evaluation, with the dynamic analysis more suitable for probabilistic studies, while static analysis constitutes a simplified and less computationally demanding alternative in preliminary design stages. Considering the limitation, this study was restricted to the analysis of a regular two-dimensional frame and a single seismic record; therefore, an extension to three-dimensional and irregular models accompanied by multiple ground motions is recommended to strengthen the generalization of the results.

Keywords

Nonlinear static analysis, Nonlinear dynamic analysis, Reinforced concrete frames, Seismic performance evaluation, Capacity spectrum, Fragility assessment.

References

1. Pratyush Kumar, and Avik Samanta, “Seismic Fragility Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Patna, India,” Structures, vol. 27, pp. 54-69, 2020.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
2. Christos G. Lachanas, and Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, “Rocking Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 688-703, 2022.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
3. Francisco Bañuelos-Garcia et al., “Dynamic Capacity Curve and its Application to the Seismic Evaluation of Structures,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75-87, 2025.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
4. Cesar Arriola Prieto, “Evaluation of the Seismic Resilience of Self-Built Buildings using Nonlinear Analysis and Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Journal of Scientific and Technological Research Work, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 13-23, 2024.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
5. A. Seyedkazemi, and F. Rahimzadeh Rofooei, “Comparison of Static Pushover Analysis and IDA-Based Probabilistic Methods for Assessing the Seismic Performance Factors of Diagrid Structures,” Scientia Iranica, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 124-137, 2021.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
6. Mohsen Soltani, Rouhollah Amirabadi, and Mahdi Sharifi, “Comparison of IDA and Multicomponent IDA-Based Fragility Analysis,” Research Square, pp. 1-29, 2022.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
7. Mahmoud Miari, and Robert Jankowski, “Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Fragility Assessment of Buildings Founded on Different Soil Types Experiencing Structural Pounding during Earthquakes,” Engineering Structures, vol. 252, 2022.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
8. A. Kaveh, S.M. Javadi, and R. Mahdipour Moghanni, “Optimization-Based Record Selection Approach to Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Estimation of Fragility Curves,” Scientia Iranica. Transaction A, Civil Engineering, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 700-708, 2021.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
9. Khadije Mahmoodi et al., “Seismic Performance Assessment Of A Cemented Material Dam Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Structures, vol. 29, pp. 1187-1198, 2021.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
10. Yaghub Minaei et al., “Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Mid-Rise Buildings with Buckling Restrained Brace Frame System under Pulse-Like Near-Fault Ground Motions,” Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 47-66, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
11. Yan Zou et al., “Performance-Based Seismic Assessment Of Shield Tunnels By Incorporating A Nonlinear Pseudostatic Analysis Approach for the Soil-Tunnel Interaction,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 114, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
12. Abed Rigi et al., “Study of the Seismic Behavior of Rigid and Semi-Rigid Steel Moment-Resisting Frames,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 186, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
13. Shuling Hu et al., “Performance-Based Design of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core System,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 181, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
14. De-Cheng Feng et al., “Investigation of 3D Effects on Dynamic Progressive Collapse Resistance of RC Structures Considering Slabs and Infill Walls,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 54, 2022.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
15. Andrea Nettis et al., “Cloud Capacity Spectrum Method: Accounting for Record-to-Record Variability in Fragility Analysis using Nonlinear Static Procedures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 150, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
16. Navid Rahgozar, and M. Shahria Alam, “Seismic Collapse Assessment of Hybrid Self-Centering Piston-Based Braced Frames Equipped with SMA Bars and Friction Springs,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 208, 2023.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
17. Yutao Pang, and Xiaowei Wang, “Enhanced Endurance-Time-Method (EETM) for Efficient Seismic Fragility, Risk and Resilience Assessment of Structures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 147, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
18. ETABS, Csiespana. [Online]. Available: http://www.csiespana.com/software/5/etabs
19. Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, and C. Allin Cornell, “Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 491-514, 2002.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
20. Sinan Akkar, and Asli Metin, “Assessment of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures in FEMA-440,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 133, no. 9, pp. 1237-1246, 2007.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
21. Fatemeh Jalayer, Ufuk Hancilar, and Nurullah Açıkgöz, “Data-Driven Seismic Fragility Modelling using Bayesian Inference,” Research Square, pp. 1-41, 2026.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
22. Farzin Zareian, and Helmut Krawinkler, “Assessment of Probability of Collapse and Design for Collapse Safety,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 1901-1914, 2007.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
23. Carlos Joao Saldaña Becerra, “Structural Design of A Five-Story Reinforced Concrete Multi-Family Building in the Santiago De Surco District,” Thesis, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, pp. 1-162, 2024.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
24. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (41-17), American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1-550, 2017.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
25. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council — 2020 Los Angeles Tall Buildings Conference. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.latallbuildings.org/2020-conference
26. Standard E.020 Loads, National Building Regulations, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/u/1/d/15atg-9w0OEXjR5C1m6IXUFihwYeUh1aN/view?usp=sharing&usp=embed_facebook
27. Standard E.030 Seismic-resistant Design, National Building Regulations, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W14N6JldWPN8wUZSqWZnUphg6C559bi-/view
28. Standard E.060 Reinforced Concrete, National Building Regulations, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/u/1/d/19EYUVMgwvm6rDs47GV374avco2ylU5Kz/view?usp=sharing&usp=embed_facebook
29. Properties of Materials in Reinforced Concrete Sections, Mander, [Online]. Available: https://es.slideshare.net/juanjosepaganmartinez/modelo-de-mander
30. Properties of Materials in Reinforced Concrete Sections. Scribd. [Online]. Available: https://es.scribd.com/doc/243416282/MODELO-KENT-Y-PARK-Y-MODIFICADO-pdf
31. Michael N. Fardis, Alexandra Papailia, and Georgios Tsionis, “Seismic Fragility of RC Framed and Wall-Frame Buildings Designed to the EN-Eurocodes,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 1767-1793, 2012.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
32. H. Crowley, and R. Pinho, “Period-Height Relationship for Existing European Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 93-119, 2004.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
33.  CISMID, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cismid.uni.edu.pe/
34. Tiziana Rossetto et al., “FRACAS: A Capacity Spectrum Approach for Seismic Fragility Assessment including Record-to-Record Variability,” Engineering Structures, vol. 125, pp. 337-348, 2016.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]