Seismic Assessment &

Retrofitting of Existing RC
Structures using SeismoStruct
and SeismoBuild
Module 5

Stelios Antoniou and Fanis Moschas

 Module 5
Seismic Assessment & Retrofitting of Existing RC Structures: Advanced issues in the use
of SeismoBuild, Modelling and Assessment of larger Reinforced Concrete building,
Strengthening of the Reinforced Concrete building.

Introduction
In the current section, we will discuss about advanced issues in the use of SeismoBuild, such as
the Analysis and Modelling parameters, the parameters used for the structural assessment
according to Eurocodes and ASCE 41-17, as well as the Convergence Criteria and the solution to a
number of convergence problems that might arise. Further, we will create a 3- storey building
showing advanced issues like the assignment of stairs and slab inclination and we will strengthen
it with Reinforced Concrete Jackets.

Tutorials
Tutorial n.1 – Assessment of a Three-Storey Building

Problem Description
Let us try to model a three dimensional, three-storey reinforced concrete building for which you
are asked to assess its capacity according to the Eurocodes. The geometry of all the floors is the
same and is shown in the corresponding plan-views below, the only difference being the presence
of inclined slabs on the third floor.
Plan view of the 1st and 2nd floor of the building

NOTE: A movie describing Τutorial N.2 can be found on Seismosoft‘s YouTube channel.

Plan view of the 3rd floor of the building

Section plan

Getting started: a new project

The introduction of structural members is the same with the previous Tutorial, hence, in the
current tutorial only the steps for the definition of the stairs and the inclined slabs will be
described.

For this tutorial the following settings have been chosen:

 Eurocode 8, Part 3
 SI Units
 European sizes for rebar typology
 3 Storeys
 Storeys’ heights: 3m
 Do not accept beams with free span less than: 0.1m
 Include beam effective widths
A CAD drawing is imported as a background to facilitate the definition of the elements’ geometry.
Building Modeller – CAD drawing insertion

In the material sets module the member’s concrete and reinforcement strength values are
determined. Herein the Default_Existing material set is selected and edited by assigning the
C16/20 concrete class and the S400 steel class.

Building Modeller – Modify Existing Material Scheme

Click on the Advanced Member Properties button to define the settings for the structural member
according to the selected Code. The selected properties for the inserted members are shown in
the figure below:
Building Modeller – Advanced Member Properties

The dimensions and the reinforcement of the members (columns and beams) of the typical floor
are shown in the following tables:

Columns Height Width Longitudinal Transverse

(mm) (mm) reinforcement reinforcement
C1 400 400 416 6/25
C2 1000 200 814+88 6/25
C3 1000 200 814+88 6/25
C4 400 400 416 6/25
C5 200 1000 814+88 6/25
C6 400 400 418 6/25
C7 400 400 418 6/25
C8 400 400 418 6/25
C9 200 1000 814+88 6/25
C10 200 500 616 6/25
C11 400 400 418 6/25
C12 400 400 418 6/25
C13 400 400 418 6/25
C14 200 1000 814+88 6/25
C15 200 500 616 6/25
C16 400 400 416 6/25
C17 1000 200 814+88 6/25
C18 1000 200 814+88 6/25
 Beam Heigh Widt Reinforceme Reinforceme Reinforceme Transverse
s t h nt at the nt at the nt at the End reinforceme
(mm) (mm) Start of the Middle of the of the beam nt
beam beam
B1 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B2 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B3 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B4 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B5 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B6 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B7 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B8 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B9 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B10 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B11 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B12 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B13 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B14 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B15 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214
B16 500 200 o316 o212 o316 8/25
u214 u414 u214

After inserting all the columns and beams you may assign the stairs from the main menu (Insert >
Insert Stairs) or through the toolbar button. This can be easily done by specifying the
centreline and some basic geometric parameters, such us the stairs width, the riser height, the
stairs minimum depth, and the elevation differences relatively to the base floor and the top floor,
as well as the additional permanent and live loads.

Building Modeller – Stairs Properties

Type of Loaded Area

After inserting all the members of the 1st floor, you may automatically create the 2nd and 3rd
floors based on the already created 1st one by using the Copy Floor facility.
Building Modeller – Copy Floor dialogue box

Delete the elements (e.g. the stairs) that are not present in the 3rd floor and define the inclined
slabs. Select the slab that will be modified, click on the “Inclined or elevated slab (defined by
3points)” check-box in the slab’s properties window, define graphically the coordinates of the 3
points and assign their elevation.

Building Modeller – Slab Element Properties

When you create a building model, it is relatively common that one or more very short beams
have been created unintentionally, due to graphical reasons (e.g. by extending slightly a beam’s
end beyond a column edge). For this reason, a check from the main menu (Tools > Verify
Connectivity...) or through the toolbar button for the existence of any beam with free span
smaller than its section height should be carried out. If such beams exist, the following message
appears, and the user can select to remove or keep the member.
Building Modeller – Verify Connectivity

With the building model now fully defined, save the project as a SeismoBuild file (with the *.bpf
extension, e.g. Tutorial_2.bpf) from the main menu (File >Save As...)/(File >Save) or through the
corresponding toolbar button .

You are ready to go to the SeismoBuild Main Window. This can be done from the main menu (File
> Exit & Create 3D Model) or through the toolbar button.

SeismoBuild Main Window

Code Requirements
The Code-based parameters and options are defined as described below:

 All the limit states available in EC8 are to be used in the checks, that is the Limit States of
Damage limitation, of Significant Damage and of Near Collapse;
 The Nonlinear Static Procedure type of analysis is selected, with the eight basic loading
patterns (uniform or modal uniaxial patterns without eccentricities);
 The Knowledge Level 2 is chosen, with a confidence factor value equal to 1.2;
 A peak ground acceleration equal to 0.16g is specified; this acceleration is referred to a
return period of 475 years, 5% damping, response spectra Type 1, ground type A and
Importance class II;
  The Permanent Loads and Live Loads Coefficients are set equal to 1.0 and 0.3, respectively;
 Select all the checks to be carried out, that is Members Chord Rotations checks, Members
Shear Forces, Joints Shear Forces, Joints Horizontal Hoops Area and Joints Vertical
Reinforcement Area checks. Finally, leave the program default values for all the safety
factors.

Analysis & Modelling Parameters

The default predefined settings scheme is employed for the scope of this tutorial.

Eigenvalue Analysis
Run the eigenvalue analysis.

Pushover Analysis
Click on the Run button to run all the selected pushover analyses.

Checks
The results of the structural members’ checks can be visualised in the Checks area, in table or
graphical format, and then copied into any other Windows application. Users may select the limit
state, as well as the analysis, the floor, the type of members and the local axis to view the results.
The elements, where the demand has exceeded the capacity, are displayed in red both in the
table and the 3D plot, as it is depicted in the figure below:
Checks Module (Member Shear Forces)

Report
After running the analyses and finishing the checks process, you may create the technical report
of the assessment.

Technical Report

CAD Drawing
Finally, you may export a variety of CAD drawing files of the structural model (plan views,
members' cross sections and reinforcement tables), together with specially created *.ctb files that
are needed for plotting. It is noted that running the analyses is not a prerequisite for the
exportation of the Cad drawing files, and only the introduction of the structural configuration in
the Building Modeller is required.
CAD drawing

Tutorial n.2 – Rehabilitation of a Three-Storey Building

Problem Description
In this tutorial the model that has already been created in the previous Tutorial will be strengthen
with RC jackets. The columns of all the floors will be strengthened, as well as the beams of the
first and second floor.

Getting started: opening an existing project

Open again the initial window of the software and, after clicking on icon on the toolbar, select
the previous SeismoBuild project (Tutorial_2.bpf). Once opened, save the project with a new
name through File > Save as… menu command.

In the material sets module the member’s concrete and reinforcement strength values are
determined. Herein the Default_New material set is selected and edited by assigning the C20/25
concrete class and the S500 steel class.
Building Modeller – Modify Existing Material Scheme

The dimensions and the reinforcement of the jacketed columns of the first floor are shown in the
following table:

Columns Height Width Internal Internal External External

(mm) (mm) Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse
reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement
C1 600 600 416 6/25 1220 10/10
C2 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
C3 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
C4 600 600 416 6/25 1220 10/10
C5 400 1200 814+88 6/25 2620 12/10
C6 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C7 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C8 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C9 400 1200 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
C10 400 700 616 6/25 1020 10/10
C11 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C12 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C13 600 600 418 6/25 1220 10/10
C14 400 1200 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
C15 400 700 616 6/25 222+820 10/10
C16 600 600 416 6/25 1220 10/10
C17 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
C18 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1216 10/10
The dimensions and the reinforcement of the new/external section of the jacketed beams of the
first floor are shown in the following table. It is noted that the reinforcement of the old/internal
section of the jacketed beams is the same with that of the previous Tutorial.
Beams Heigh Widt External External External External
t h Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforceme Transverse
(mm) (mm) at the Start of at the Middle nt at the End reinforceme
the beam of the beam of the beam nt
B1 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B2 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B3 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B4 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B5 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B6 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B7 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B8 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B9 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B10 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B11 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B12 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
 Beams Heigh Widt External External External External
t h Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforceme Transverse
(mm) (mm) at the Start of at the Middle nt at the End reinforceme
the beam of the beam of the beam nt
B13 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B14 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B15 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B16 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B17 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B18 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B19 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B20 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B21 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B22 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
B23 650 350 o518 u314 o214 u514 o518 10/10
s412 s412 u314
s412
The dimensions and the reinforcement of the jacketed columns of the second and third floors are
shown in the following table:
 Columns Height Width Internal Internal External External
2nd and (mm) (mm) Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse
3rd reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement
Floors
C1 600 600 416 6/25 420+818 10/10
C2 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C3 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C4 600 600 416 6/25 420+818 10/10
C5 400 1200 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C6 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C7 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C8 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C9 400 1200 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C10 400 700 616 6/25 420+618 10/10
C11 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C12 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C13 600 600 418 6/25 420+818 10/10
C14 400 1200 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C15 400 700 616 6/25 420+618 10/10
C16 600 600 416 6/25 420+818 10/10
C17 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
C18 1200 400 814+88 6/25 820+1214 10/10
The dimensions and the reinforcement of the new/external section of the jacketed beams of the
second and third floors are the same with those of the first floor.

After inserting all the jacketed elements, you check the building model for one or more very short
beams that may have been created unintentionally, due to graphical reasons (e.g. by extending
slightly a beam’s end beyond a column edge) from the main menu (Tools > Verify Connectivity...)
or through the respective toolbar button . If such beams exist, a notification message appears,
and the user can select to remove or keep the element.

You are ready to go to the SeismoBuild Main Window. This can be done from the main menu (File
> Exit & Create 3D Model) or through the corresponding toolbar button .
SeismoBuild Main Window

Code Requirements
The Code-based parameters and options are defined as described below:

 All the limit states available in EC8 are to be used in the checks, that is the Limit States of
Damage limitation, of Significant Damage and of Near Collapse;
 The Nonlinear Static Procedure type of analysis is selected, with the eight basic loading
patterns (uniform or modal uniaxial patterns without eccentricities);
 The Knowledge Level 2 is chosen, with a confidence factor value equal to 1.2;
 A peak ground acceleration equal to 0.16g is specified; this acceleration is referred to a
return period of 475 years, 5% damping, response spectra Type 1, ground type A and
Importance class II;
 The Permanent Loads and Live Loads Coefficients are set equal to 1.0 and 0.3, respectively;
 Select all the checks to be carried out, that is Members Chord Rotations checks, Members
Shear Forces, Joints Shear Forces, Joints Horizontal Hoops Area and Joints Vertical
Reinforcement Area checks. Finally, leave the program default values for all the safety
factors.

Analysis & Modelling Parameters

The default predefined settings scheme is employed for the scope of this tutorial.

Eigenvalue Analysis
Run the eigenvalue analysis.

Pushover Analysis
Run all the selected pushover analyses.

Checks
The Checks results can be visualised in the Checks module of the ‘default’ program state.
Checks Module (Members Shear Forces)

Report
After running the analyses and finishing the checks process, you may create the technical report
of the assessment.

Technical Report

CAD Drawing
Finally, you may export a variety of CAD drawing files of the building structural model (plan views,
cross sections and reinforcement tables), together with specially created *.ctb files that are
needed for plotting. It is noted that running the analyses is not a prerequisite for the exportation
of the Cad drawing files.
CAD Drawing
 Analysis & Modelling Parameters
Users are able to define all the parameters required for the nonlinear analytical calculations
within this module, by selecting a predefined settings scheme, by clicking on the Advanced
Settings button or double-clicking on a specific value to open the corresponding tab in the
Advanced Settings module.

Settings Schemes
Because of the requirement for advanced and specialised knowledge for most of the analysis
parameters (e.g. material models, frame element type, convergence criteria tolerances, rigid
diaphragm modelling), ten predefined schemes are available that define the more important
analysis parameter settings.

Settings Schemes bar

These predefined Settings Schemes have been chosen so as to fit the requirements of
multiple types of analysis and models, leading to optimised solutions in terms of
performance efficiency and results accuracy. Depending on a model’s particular
characteristics and demands, different Settings Schemes might fit at different cases; the
program carries out an internal check and a notification message is issued, whenever one or
more of the settings do not seem to suit the needs of the specific project.

When a chosen settings scheme does not seem reasonable, a See Why button appears on
the right side of the bar. By clicking on this button users are able to see why the selected
settings scheme should not be applied to their model, and which specific settings need to be
changed to improve them.
See Why window

Advanced Settings
For each SeismoBuild project it is possible to customise both the usability of the program as
well as the performance characteristics of analytical proceedings, so as to better suit the
needs of any given structural model and/or the preferences of a particular user. This
program/project facility is available from the Analysis Parameters module or the Advanced
Settings panel, which can be accessed through the Advanced Settings button .

The Advanced Settings panel features a number of tab windows, which provide access to
different type of settings, as described below:

 General
 Analysis
 Elements
 Constraints
 Convergence Criteria
 Iterative Strategy
 Gravity & Mass
 Eigenvalue
 Advanced Building Modelling
 Cracked Stiffness

Analysis settings tab windows

NOTE: For the majority of applications, there is no need for the Advanced Settings default values to be modified,
since the available Settings Schemes have been chosen so as to fit the requirements of any building model,
leading to optimised solutions in terms of performance efficiency and results accuracy.
General
The General settings provide the possibility of customising the usability of the program to
the user's preferences.

Text Output
When activated, the Text Output option will lead to the creation, at the end of every
analysis, of a text file (*.out) containing the output of the entire analysis (as given in the Step
Output module).

Multiple Text Output

When activated, the Multiple Text Output option will lead to the creation of multiple text
files (*.out), rather than a single one.

Save Settings
The Save Settings option is used when the user wishes to always make the current project
settings the default settings for every new project that is subsequently created.

General tab window

Analysis
In the Analysis tab window some settings related to the analysis can be defined. In
particular, it is possible to select the solver type and whether to account for geometric
nonlinearities.

Solver
Users may currently choose between two different solvers:
  The Skyline Method (Cholesky decomposition, Cuthill-McKee nodes ordering
algorithm, Skyline storage format);
 The Frontal Method for sparse systems, introduced by Irons [1970] and featuring the
automatic ordering algorithm proposed by Izzuddin [1991].

Pushover Parameters
The number of the analysis steps of Pushover Analysis is defined by the user in this tab, as
well as the maximum interstorey drift of the structure.

Geometric Non-linearities
Unchecking this option will disable the Geometric Nonlinearity formulation, rendering the
analysis linear, from a displacement/rotation viewpoint.

Analysis tab window

Elements
Some beam element formulations, such as those employed in SeismoBuild for the inelastic
frame elements, feature the disadvantage that, if the nodal displacement is zero, one then
gets also nil strains, stresses, and internal forces (e.g. if one models a fully-clamped beam
with a single element, and applies a distributed load, the end moments will come out as
zero, which is clearly wrong). To overcome this limitation, it is common for Finite Element
programs to use so-called stress-recovery algorithms, which allow one to retrieve the
correct internal forces of an element subjected to distributed loading even if its nodes do
not displace. It is noted, however, that (i) such algorithms do not cater for the retrieval of
the correct values of strains stresses, given that these are characterised by a nonlinear
history response, and (ii) will slow down considerably the analyses of large models.
Elements tab window

Constraints
Constraints are typically implemented in structural analysis programs through the use of (i)
Geometrical Transformations, (ii) Penalty Functions, or (iii) Lagrange Multipliers. In
geometrically nonlinear analysis (large displacement/rotations), however, the first of these
three tends to lead to difficulties in numerical convergence, for which reason only the latter
two are commonly employed, and have thus been implemented in SeismoBuild.

Constraints tab window – Penalty Functions

Constraints tab window – Lagrange Multipliers

Convergence Criteria
Four different schemes are available in SeismoBuild for checking the convergence of a
solution at the end of each iteration:

 Displacement/Rotation based
 Force/Moment based
 Displacement/Rotation AND Force/Moment based
 Displacement/Rotation OR Force/Moment based

Displacement/Rotation based
Verification, at each individual degree-of-freedom of the structure, that the current iterative
displacement/rotation is less or equal than a user-specified tolerance, provides the user with
direct control over the degree of precision or, inversely, approximation, adopted in the
solution of the problem.
Convergence Criteria tab window – Displacement/Rotation based

Force/Moment based
There are occasions where the use of a displacement/rotation convergence check criterion is
not sufficient to guarantee a numerically stable and/or accurate solution, due to the fact
that displacement/rotation equilibrium does not guarantee, in such special cases,
force/moment convergence check should be employed.

Convergence Criteria tab window – Force/Moment based

Displacement/Rotation AND Force/Moment based
Maximum accuracy and solution control should be obtained when combining the
displacement/rotation and force/moment convergence check criteria. It is undoubtedly the
most stringent convergence and accuracy control criterion available in SeismoBuild, and
experienced users are advised to take advantage of it whenever accuracy is paramount.

Convergence Criteria tab window – Displacement/Rotation AND Force/Moment based

Displacement/Rotation OR Force/Moment based

This last convergence criterion provides users with maximum flexibility as far as analysis
stability is concerned, since converge is achieved when one of the two criteria is checked.
Convergence Criteria tab window – Displacement/Rotation OR Force/Moment based

General
Users may select if the convergence difficulties that might arise during the analysis will be
visible in the Post-Processor.

Automatic Adaptation of the Convergence Norms

If this option is selected, in particular steps of the analysis, where convergence is difficult to
achieve, the program may smartly increase the defined convergence norms, in order to
enable convergence and to allow the program to move to the next step of the analysis. In
order not to allow for infinite increase in the value of the convergence norms, a limit is set
by the Largest Acceptable Increase of Norms combo box.

Force-based Element Type / Force-based Plastic-Hinge Element Type

Individual force-based frame elements require a number of iterations to be carried in order
for internal equilibrium to be reached. The maximum number of such element loop
iterations, together with the corresponding (force) convergence criterion or tolerance, can
be defined herein:

 Element Loop Convergence Tolerance. The default value is 1e-5 (users may need to
relax it to e.g. 1e-4, in case of convergence difficulties)
 Element Loop Maximum Iterations (fbd_ite). The default value is 300 (although this
is already a very large value (typically not more than 30 iterations are required to
reach convergence), users may need to increase it to 1000 in cases of persistent
fbd_ite error messages).
Users are also given the possibility of allowing the element forces to be output and passed
on to the global internal forces vector upon reaching the maximum iterations, even if
convergence is not achieved. This non-default option may facilitate the convergence of the
analysis at global/structure level, since it avoids the subdivision of the load increment (note
that the element unbalanced forces are then to be balanced in the subsequent iterations).

Iterative Strategy
In SeismoBuild, all analyses are treated as potentially nonlinear, and therefore an
incremental iterative solution procedure, whereby loads are applied in pre-defined
increments and equilibrated through an iterative procedure, is applied on all cases (with the
exception of eigenvalue analyses).

Maximum number of iterations

This parameter defines the maximum number of iterations to be performed within each load
increment (analysis step).

Number of stiffness updates

This parameter defines the number of iterations, from the start of the increment, in which
the tangent stiffness matrix of the structure is recalculated and updated.

Divergence iteration
This parameter defines the iteration after which divergence and iteration prediction checks
are performed (see divergence and iteration prediction for further details). On all
subsequent step iterations, if the solution is found to be diverging or if the predicted
number of required iterations for convergence is exceeded, the iterations within the current
increment are interrupted, the load increment (or time-step) is reduced and the analysis is
restarted from the last point of equilibrium (end of previous increment or analysis step).

Maximum Tolerance
The possibility of the solution to become numerically unstable is checked at every iteration,
right from the start of any given loading increment, by comparing the Euclidean norm of out-
of-balance loads with a pre-defined maximum tolerance, several orders of magnitude larger
than the applied load vector. If the out-of-balance norm exceeds this tolerance, then the
solution is assumed as numerically unstable, iterations within the current increment are
interrupted, the load increment (or time-step) is reduced and the analysis is restarted from
the last point of equilibrium (end of previous increment or analysis step).

Maximum Step Reduction

Whenever lack of convergence, solution divergence or numerical instability occurs, the
automatic stepping algorithm of SeismoBuild imposes a reduction to the load increment or
time-step, before the analysis is restarted from the last point of equilibrium (end of previous
increment or analysis step). However, in order to prevent ill-behaved analysis (which never
reach convergence) to continue on running indefinitely, a maximum step reduction factor is
imposed and checked upon after each automatic step reduction. In other words, the new
automatically reduced analysis step is confronted with the initial load increment or time-
step defined by the user at the start of the analysis, and if the ratio of the former over the
latter is smaller than the maximum step reduction value then the analysis is terminated.
Minimum number of iterations
This parameter defines the minimum number of iterations to be performed within each load
increment (analysis step).

Step Increase/Decrease Multipliers

The automatic stepping algorithm in SeismoBuild features the possibility of employing
adaptive analysis step reductions, which depend on the level of non-convergence verified.
When the obtained non-converged solution is very far from convergence, a large step
decrease multiplier is used. If, on the other hand, the non-converged solution was very close
to convergence, then a small step decrease multiplier is employed. For intermediate cases,
an average step decrease multiplier is utilised instead.

Also as described in automatic stepping, once convergence is reached, the load increment or
time-step can be gradually increased, up to a size equal to its initial user-specified value. This
is carried out through the use of step increasing factors. When the analysis converges in an
efficient manner, a small step increase multiplier is used. If, on the other hand, the
converged solution was obtained in a highly inefficient way, then a large step increase
multiplier is employed. For intermediate cases, an average step increase multiplier is utilised
instead.

Iterative Strategy tab window

Gravity & Mass

The materials’ specific weight is automatically defined by the program for the calculation of
the distributed self-mass of the structure. More, in the Beams sections, additional
distributed load may also be defined, which will serve to define any load not associated to
the self-weight of the structure (e.g. finishings, infills, variable loading, etc). Finally, the slab’s
loads (self weight, additional gravity and live loads) are applied directly to the beams that
support the slab.
Here, it is possible for users to define which degrees of freedom are to be considered in the
analyses.

Mass Settings
When running analyses, it may sometimes come handy to have the possibility of
constraining the dynamic degrees-of-freedom to only a few directions of interest, in order to
speed up the analyses or avoid the development of spurious response modes in those
directions where the structural mesh was intentionally not adequately devised or refined.
This can be done here, by unchecking those dofs that are not of interest.

Gravity Settings
In SeismoBuild loads are defined explicitly in the Slabs and Beams modules of the Building
Modeller.

The user may define the value of acceleration of gravity ‘g’ (which is to be multiplied by the
masses in order to obtain the permanent loads). Clearly, for the vast majority of standard
applications, the default value (g=9.81 m/s2) need not to be modified. The direction of the
gravity forces is considered in the -z direction.

Gravity & Mass tab window

Eigenvalue
Users may choose between two different eigensolvers, the Lanczos algorithm presented by
Hughes [1987]) or the Jacobi algorithm with Ritz transformation, in order to determine the
modes of vibration of a structure. When the automatic option is selected the most suitable
eigensolver will be used depending on the number of the degrees of freedom of the
building.

Lanczos algorithm
The parameters listed below are used to control the way in which this eigensolver works:

 Number of eigenvalues. The maximum number of eigenvalue solutions required by

the user.
 Maximum number of steps. The maximum number of steps required for convergence
to be reached.

Eigenvalue tab window – Lanczos algorithm

Jacobi algorithm with Ritz transformation

The user may specify:

 Number of Ritz vectors (i.e. modes) to be generated in each direction (X, Y and Z).
This number cannot exceed the number of the degrees of freedom of the model.
 Maximum number of steps. The default value of 50 may, in general, remain
unchanged.
Eigenvalue tab window – Jacobi algorithm

Advanced Building Modelling

The concrete and steel material types and the frame element types that will be used to
model the structural members in SeismoBuild are defined herein, together with other
modelling options, such as the modelling of offsets at beam-column joints, the discretisation
of the slabs, and the determination of the Control Node.

Materials Modelling
Materials that are to be used within a SeismoBuild project come defined in the Advanced
Building Modelling tab. Eight material types are available in SeismoBuild, four types for
concrete and four for steel. The complete list of materials is proposed hereafter:
 Mander et al. nonlinear concrete model - con_ma
 Trilinear concrete model - con_tl
 Chang-Mander nonlinear concrete model – con_cm
 Kappos and Konstantinidis nonlinear concrete model - con_hs
 Menegotto-Pinto steel model - stl_mp
 Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto steel model - stl_gmp
 Bilinear steel model - stl_bl
 Bilinear steel model with isotropic strain hardening- stl_bl2
 Ramberg-Osgood steel model - stl_ro
 Dodd-Restrepo steel model – stl_dr
 Monti-Nuti steel model - stl_mn

Frame Elements Modelling

Different frame element types may be employed for columns/beams and walls. Users may
select between inelastic force-based frame elements (infrmFB), inelastic plastic-hinge force-
based frame elements (infrmFBPH) and inelastic plastic-hinge displacement-based frame
elements (infrmDBPH). Further, it is possible to assign the inelastic displacement-based
frame element type (infrmDB) to short members, a choice that improves both the accuracy
and the stability of the analysis. Users can determine the maximum length of the short
members.

Rigid Ends Definition

The choice whether to include or not rigid ends at the frame elements to model beam-
column joints is also done herein.

Slabs Discretization
Users may select the number of triangles ,to which the slabs are to be subdivided, so that
their weight and mass are appropriately distributed in the supporting beams and columns.

Control Node Definition

The choice of defining the control node at the upper floor or at the floor lower to that (in the
cases of a top floor mass less than 10% of that at the lower floor) is provided.

Advanced Building Modelling tab window

Cracked Stiffness
Users may take into account the effect of cracking during the linear analyses, i.e. Eigenvalue
and Response Spectrum analyses, by selecting to use sections with cracked stiffness.
Cracked Stiffness tab window- user-defined ratios

Cracked Stiffness tab window- My/θy ratios

 EUROCODES
In this section the parameters used for the structures assessment according to the
Eurocodes (EC8-Part1 and Part3) are presented.

Type of Analysis
Current practice in Europe in structural assessment is regulated by the Eurocode 8: Design of
Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic action and rules for
buildings (CEN, 2005a) and Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings (CEN, 2005b).

According to Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005b), the seismic actions effects in combination with the
effects of the permanent and variable loads are evaluated using one of the following
methods:

- Lateral force analysis, subject to limitations specified in EN 1998-1:2004 section

4.3.3.2.1 with the addition of section 4.4.2 of EN 1998-3:2005;
- Modal response spectrum analysis, subject to limitations specified in EN 1998-1:2004
section 4.3.3.3.1 with the addition of the conditions specified in section 4.2 of EN
1998-3:2005;
- Non-linear static (pushover) analysis, according to sections 4.3.3.4.2.1 of EN1998-
1:2004 and 4.4.4 of EN 1998-3:2005;
- Non-linear time history dynamic analysis, according to the procedure of section
4.3.3.4.3. of EN 1998-1:2004;
- q-factor approach, as described in EN 1998-1:2004 section 4.3.3.2 or 4.3.3.3, as
appropriate.
In SeismoBuild the most common method in assessment practice of existing buildings is
employed, which is the nonlinear static analysis. It is based on pushover analyses carried out
under constant gravity loads and increasing lateral forces, applied at the location of the
masses to simulate the inertia forces induced by the seismic action. As the model may
account for both geometrical and mechanical nonlinearity, this method can describe the
evolution of the expected plastic mechanisms and structural damage.

Each pushover analysis leads to a capacity curve, which is a relationship between the total
base shear and the horizontal displacement of a representative point of the structure,
termed “control node”. The demand at the considered Limit State – Near Collapse,
Significant Damage or Damage Limitation - is determined by the appropriate comparison
between the capacity determined by the pushover curve and the demand established as the
damped Linear Response Spectrum. To do so, the “control node” displacements are defined
in terms of spectral quantities relative to an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
system which is derived from the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) response estimated
according to Annex B of EN1998-1:2004.
The structural demand associated with the acquired target displacement shall fulfil the
verification criteria defined in Eurocode 8 – Part3 (CEN, 2005b). Accordingly, element’s
demand for brittle (shear) and ductile (chord rotation deformation) actions are deemed to
comply with limits that take into account: section mechanical properties; element’s bending,
shear and axial force interaction; and strength/stiffness degradation associated with the
ductility demand and cyclic hysteretic response of reinforced concrete elements, through
appropriate material non-linearity consideration.

Performance Requirements
According to EN1998-3 section 2.1, performance requirements refer to the state of damage
in the structure defined through three limit states, namely Near Collapse (NC), Significant
Damage (SD) and Damage Limitation (DL).

The Eurocodes National Annexes specify whether to employ all three Limit States, two of
them, or just one.

Information for Structural Assessment

In order to choose the admissible type of analysis and the appropriate confidence factor
values, the following three knowledge levels are defined:

 KL1: Limited Knowledge

 KL2: Normal Knowledge
 KL3: Full Knowledge

Confidence Factors
In the following table of EN1998-3 a summary and recommendations for the confidence
factors and the analysis methods are provided for each knowledge level.
 Knowledge
Geometry Details Materials Analysis CF
Level
Simulated Default values
design in in accordance
accordance with with standards
relevant of the time of
KL1 LF-MRS CFKL1
practice and construction
from limited in- and from
situ inspection limited in-situ
testing
From From original
From incomplete design
original original detailed specifications
outline construction with limited in-
construction drawings with situ testing or
KL2 All CFKL2
drawings limited in-situ from extended
with sample inspection or in-situ testing
visual from extended
survey or in-situ
from full inspection
survey From original From original
detailed test reports
construction with limited in-
drawings with situ testing or
limited in-situ from
KL3 All CFKL3
inspection or comprehensive
from in-situ testing
comprehensive
in-situ
inspection
NOTE The values ascribed to the confidence factors to be used in a country may be found in its National
Annex. The recommended values are CFKL1=1,35, CFKL2=1,20 and CFKL3=1,00.

Table 3.1 of EN 1998-3

Safety Factors
The values of the safety factors and the Code expressions employed may be specified
through the dialog box that opens from the corresponding button. It is noted the default
values of the safety factors are those defined in Eurocode 8 – Part 3.
 Safety Factors module

Capacity Models for Assessment and Checks

All the member checks (chord rotation capacity and shear capacity) should be carried out for
all the elements of every floor, according to Annex A of EN1998-3:2005, considering the
members as primary or secondary seismic elements, designated in accordance with the
definitions in EN1998-1:2004, 4.2.2(1)P, (2) and (3). Moreover, beam-column joints checks
may be employed in order to check (i) the horizontal shear forces acting on the core of the
joints; (ii) the joint’s horizontal hoops area and (iii) whether adequate vertical reinforcement
is provided to the column passing through the joint.

Deformation Capacity
The deformation capacity of beams, columns and walls is defined in terms of the chord
rotation θ, that is the angle between the tangent to the axis at the yielding end and the
chord connecting that end with the end of the shear span (LV=M/V=moment/shear at the
end section). The chord rotation is also equal to the element drift ratio, which is the
deflection at the end of the shear span with respect to the tangent to the axis at the yielding
end divided by the shear span.

Deformation capacity of beams and columns is highly influenced by the lack of appropriate
seismic resistant detailing in longitudinal reinforcement, as well as by the bars type, that is
whether there are smooth bars or/and of cold-worked brittle steel. Inadequate
development of splicing along the span (beams) and height (columns) and inadequate
embedment into beam-column joints can control the member’s response to seismic action,
drastically limiting its capacity in respect to the situation in which the reinforcement is
considered fully effective. The above limitations to the deformation capacity are taken into
consideration.

The value for the chord rotation capacity for the limit state of near collapse (NC) is the value
of the total chord rotation capacity (elastic plus inelastic part) at ultimate of concrete
members under cyclic loading, which is calculated from the equations (A.1) and (A.3) of EC8:
Part 3 (CEN, 2005b):

, ,
, ;
θ = ∙ 0,016 ∙ (0,3 ) ( , ; )
f ∙ min(9, ) 25 (1,25 )

(A.1) EC8: Part 3

Where γel is equal to 1,5 for primary seismic elements and to 1,0 for secondary seismic ones
and LV is the ratio between bending moment, M, and shear force, V. The remaining relevant
parameters are defined in section A.3.2.2 of EC8: Part 3.

In walls the value given by the equation (A.1) is multiplied by 0,58.

The total chord rotation capacity at ultimate of concrete members under cyclic loading may
be also calculated as the summary of the chord rotation at yielding and the plastic part of
the chord rotation capacity calculated from the following expression:

θ =θ − θ
,
1 max 0,01; ω ,
= ∙ 0,0145 ∙ (0,25 ) ∙f
γ max(0,01; ω)
,
L
∙ min 9, 25 (1,275 )
h

(A.3) EC8:
Part 3

Where γel is equal to 1,8 for primary seismic elements and to 1,0 for secondary seismic ones;
the chord rotation at yielding, θy, is calculated in accordance with the section A.3.2.4 of EC8:
Part 3 and the remaining relevant parameters are defined in section A.3.2.2 of EC8: Part 3.

In walls the value of θ given by the equation (A.3) is multiplied by 0,6.

The chord rotation capacity corresponding to the limit state of significant damage (SD) is
assumed to be ¾ of the ultimate chord rotation, calculated from the equations above.

The chord rotation capacity that corresponds to the limit state of damage limitation (DL) is
given by the chord rotation at yielding, evaluated as:

For beams and columns:

θ =φ + 0,0014 1 + 1,5 +
(A.10a) EC8: Part 3

For walls or rectangular T- or barbelled section:

θ =φ + 0,0013 + (A.11a)
EC8: Part 3

Or from alternative and equivalent expressions for beams and columns

θ =φ + 0,0014 1 + 1,5 +φ
(A.10b) EC8: Part 3

For walls or rectangular T- or barbelled section:

θ =φ + 0,0013 + φ (A.11b)
EC8: Part 3

Where αV is equal to zero if the yielding bending moment is lower than LV multiplied by the
concrete shear resistance – VR,c - and 1.0 otherwise. VR,c is calculated according to EN1992-1-
1:2004 provisions for concrete elements without shear reinforcement. The remaining
relevant parameters are defined in section A.3.2.4 of EC8: Part 3.

The yield curvature of the end section is calculated according to the following expression for
the sections whose compressive zone is of constant width and for the case that the section’s
yielding is due to steel yielding.

f
φ = (1⁄r) =
E 1−ξ d

If the section yields due to the deformation non-linearities of the concrete in compression,
that is for deformation of the edge compressive fibre larger than ε ≈ 1.8 f ⁄E , then the
yield curvature is calculated according to the following expression:

ε 1.8f
φ = (1⁄r) = ≈
ξ d E ξ d

The lower from the two values above is used for the calculation of the chord rotation
capacity.

According to Annex A of EN1998-3 the chord rotation capacity is highly influenced by a

number of different factors such as the type of the longitudinal bars. If cold-worked brittle
steel is used the plastic part of chord rotation is divided by 2, whereas if smooth (plain)
longitudinal bars are applied, section A.3.2.2(5) of Annex A is employed, taking, also, into
consideration whether the longitudinal bars are well lapped or not. In case of members with
lack of appropriate seismic resistant detailing the values given by expressions (A.1) and (A.3)
are divided by 1,2. Moreover, if the deformed (high bond) longitudinal bars have straight
ends lapped starting at the end section of the member, the plastic part of chord rotation is
calculated with the value of the compression reinforcement ratio, ω’, doubled over the value
applying outside the lap splice. In addition, in sections where the reinforcement lap length lo
is less than the minimum lap length for ultimate deformation lou,min, the plastic part of the
chord rotation capacity, given in (A.3) EC8: Part 3 equation, is multiplied by the ratio lo/lou,min,
for more information about the calculation of lou,min you may refer to A.3.2.2(4) of Annex A,
while the value for chord rotation at yielding, θy accounts for the effect of the lapping in
accordance with A.3.2.4(3) of Annex A.

In the case of circular column sections, the equations above cannot be employed for the
calculation of the elements’ chord rotation capacity. In SeismoBuild the equations below
suggested by D. Biskinis and M. N. Fardis [2013] are employed for θy and θu.

L +α z 2 L φ d f
θ =φ + 0.0027 1 − min 1; +α
3 15 D 8 f

Where fy and fc values are in MPa, αV=1 if VRc<VMy, VRc is calculated according to Eurocode 2
(CEN 2004), otherwise αV=0, and αsl=0 if pull-out of the tension bars from their anchorage
zone beyond the yielding end is physically impossible, otherwise αsl=1.

θ = θ + φ −φ L 1 − 0.5 L ⁄L + α Δθ , ⁄γ

Where γel is equal to 2.0 for primary seismic elements and to 1.0 for secondary seismic
elements, Δθu,slip and Lpl are calculated according to the following equations:

Δθ , = 10d φ + φ ⁄2

1 L
L = 0.6D 1 + min 9;
6 D

Users are advised to refer to the relevant publications for the definition of the other
parameters and further details on the expression.

Concrete Jacketing
The following assumptions are made in order to evaluate the deformation capacities of the
jacketed members, according to Annex A of EN1998-3:2005: (i) the jacketed element
behaves monolithically, (ii) the full axial load is assumed to act on the jacketed member,
disregarding the fact that the axial load is originally applied to the old column, and (iii) the
concrete properties of the jacket are assumed to apply over the full section of the element.

The values of the jacketed members for 𝑀∗ , 𝜃 ∗ and 𝜃 ∗ that are adopted in the capacity
verifications depend on the corresponding values calculated under the assumptions above,
according to the following equations of Annex A of EN1998-3:2005:
The yield moment:

M∗ = M (A.18)
EC8: Part 3

The chord rotation at yield:

θ∗ = 1.05θ (A.19a)
EC8: Part 3

The ultimate chord rotation:

θ∗ = θ
(A.20) EC8: Part 3

FRP wrapping
The contribution of the FRP wrapping to members’ capacity is taken into account, according
to Annex A of EN1998-3:2005, as described below:

The effect of FRP wrapping on the members' flexural resistance at yielding is neglected, with
the θy computed in accordance with A3.2.1(2) to (4).

The total chord rotation capacity and its plastic part for the members of rectangular sections
with corners rounded is calculated through the expressions (A.1) and (A.3), respectively,
with the exponent of the term due to confinement increased by αρfff,e, where α is the
confinement effectiveness factor, ρf the FRP ratio parallel to the loading direction and ff,e the
effectiveness stress given from the (A.35) equation of EC8: Part 3.

Shear Capacity
Shear capacity is calculated through the following expression according to Annex A of
EN1998-3:2005, as controlled by the stirrups, accounting for the reduction due to the plastic
part of ductility demand.

V = min(N; 0,55A f ) + 1 − 0,05 min 5; μ ∙ 0,16 max(0,5; 100ρ ) 1−

0,16 min 5; f A +V (A.12) EC8: Part 3

Where γel is equal to 1,15 for primary seismic elements and to 1,0 for secondary ones, the
other variables are calculated as defined in A.3.3.1 of Annex A of EN1998-3.

The shear strength of a concrete wall is not taken greater than the value corresponding to
failure by web crushing, VR,max, which under cyclic loading is calculated according to A3.3.1(2)
of Annex A of EN1998-3:2005 from the following expression:
 , , ;
V , = 1 + 1,8min 0,15; 1 + 0,25max(1,75; 100ρ ) ∙

1 − 0,2min 2; f b z
(A.15) EC8: Part 3

If in a concrete column the shear span ratio (LV/h) at the end section with the maximum of
the two end moments is less or equal to 2, the shear strength is not taken greater than the
value corresponding to the failure by web crushing along the diagonal of the column after
flexural yielding, VR,max, which under cyclic loading is calculated according to A3.3.1(3) of
Annex A of EN1998-3:2005 from the following expression:

4
7 1 − 0,02min 5; μ N
V , = 1 + 1,35 1
γ A f
+ 0,45(100ρ ) min(40; f )b z sin 2δ

(A.16) EC8:
Part 3

Where δ is the angle between the diagonal and the axis of the column (tan δ = h⁄2L ).

Concrete Jacketing
The following assumptions are made in order to evaluate the strength of the jacketed
members, according to Annex A of EN1998-3:2005: (i) the jacketed element behaves
monolithically, (ii) the full axial load is assumed to act on the jacketed member, disregarding
the fact that the axial load is originally applied to the old column, and (iii) the concrete
properties of the jacket are assumed to apply over the full section of the element.

The value for the shear capacity, 𝑉 ∗ , of the jacketed members that is adopted in the
capacity verifications depend on the corresponding value calculated under the assumptions
above, according to the following equation of Annex A of EN1998-3:2005:

V ∗ = 0.9V (A.17)
EC8: Part 3

FRP wrapping
According to section A.4.4.2(9) of Annex A of EN1998-3:2005, in members with their plastic
hinge region fully wrapped in an FRP jacket over a length at least equal to the member
depth, the cyclic resistance VR, may be calculated from expression (A.12) of EC8: Part 3
adding in Vw the contribution of the FRP jacket to shear resistance. The contribution of the
FRP jacket to Vw is computed through the following expression:

V , = 0,5ρ b zf , (A.33)
EC8: Part 3

where ρf is the geometric ratio of the FRP, z the length of the internal lever arm and fu,fd the
design value of the FRP ultimate strength.
Joints Shear Forces
The diagonal compression induced in the joint by the diagonal strut mechanism shall not
exceed the compressive strength of concrete in the presence of transverse tensile strains.
EN 1998-1:2004 defines that this requirement is satisfied by means of the subsequent rules:

For interior beam-column joints the following expression should be satisfied:

V ≤ ηf 1− bh

(5.33) EC8: Part 1

For exterior beam-column joints the corresponding equation is the following:

ν
V ≤ 80%ηf 1− bh
η

Vjhd is the horizontal shear acting on the core of a joint between primary seismic beams and
columns elements and is determined taking into account the most adverse conditions under
seismic actions, i.e. capacity design conditions for the beams framing into the joint and the
lowest compatible values of shear forces in the other framing elements. The expressions for
the horizontal shear force acting on the concrete core of the joints are the following:

For interior beam-column joints:

V = γ (A + A )f −V (5.22)
EC8: Part 1

For exterior beam-column joints:

V =γ A f −V (5.23)
EC8: Part 1

For information about the values in the equations above users may refer to sections
5.5.3.3(2) and 5.5.2.3(2) of EN 1998-1:2004.

Joints Horizontal Hoops Area

According to EN 1998-1:2004, adequate confinement of the joint should be provided, to
limit the maximum diagonal tensile stress of concrete. This requirement may be satisfied by
providing horizontal hoops calculated from the following expression:

≥ −f
(5.35) EC8: Part 1

Where Ash is the total area of the horizontal hoops and fctb is the design value of the tensile
strength of concrete. For the definition of the other values users may refer to section
5.5.3.3(3) of EN 1998-1:2004.
Alternatively, the integrity of the joint after diagonal cracking may be ensured by horizontal
hoop reinforcement. The total area of horizontal hoops that should be provided in the joint
is calculated from the following equations:

For interior joints:

A f ≥ γ (A + A )f (1 − 0,8ν )
(5.36a) EC8: Part 1

For exterior joints:

A f ≥ γ A f (1 − 0,8ν )
(5.36b) EC8: Part 1

Where γRd is equal to 1,2; for the definition of the other values users may refer to section
5.5.3.3(4) of EN 1998-1:2004.

Joints Vertical Reinforcement Area

Adequate vertical reinforcement of the column passing through the joint should be provided
according to section 5.5.3.3(6) of EN 1998-1:2004, so that the following expression is
satisfied:

A , ≥ (2⁄3)A h ⁄h (5.37)
EC8: Part 1

With Asv,i denoting the total area of the intermediate bars placed in the relevant column
faces between corner bars of the column, including bars contributing to the longitudinal
reinforcement of columns.

Capacity Curve
Each pushover analysis leads to a capacity curve, which is a relationship between the total
base shear and the horizontal displacement of a representative point of the structure,
termed “control node”, with the values of the control displacement ranging between zero
and a maximum value defined by the user, which should correspond to 150% of the target
displacement.

Target Displacement
The target displacement is defined as the seismic demand derived from the elastic response
spectrum in terms of displacement of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system. To
define the target displacement of a MDOF system a number of steps have to be followed
according to Annex B of EN1998-1.

The following relation between normalized lateral forces Fi and normalized displacements Φi
is assumed:
F =mΦ
Where mi is the mass in the i-th storey.
Displacements are normalized in such a way that Φn=1, where n is the control node,
consequently Fn=mn.
Transformation to an equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) system
The mass of an equivalent SDOF system m* is determined as:

m∗ = m Φ = F

And the transformation factor is given by:

m∗ ∑F
Γ= =
∑m Φ F
∑
m
The force F* and displacement d* of the equivalent SDOF system are computed as:
F
F∗ =
Γ
d
d∗ =
Γ
Where Fb and dn are, respectively, the base shear force and the control node displacement
of the Multi Degree of Freedom (MDOF) system.

Determination of the idealized elasto-perfectly plastic force-displacement relationship

The yield force Fy*, which represents also the ultimate strength of the idealized SDOF
system, is equal to the base shear force at the formation of the plastic mechanism. The
initial stiffness of the idealized system is determined in such a way that the areas under the
actual and the idealized force-deformation curves are equal, as shown in the figure B.1
below:

Figure B.1 of EN 1998-1 : Determination of the idealized elasto-perfectly plastic force-displacement

relationship

Based on this assumption, the yield displacement on the idealized SDOF system dy* is given
by:

E∗
d∗ = 2 d∗ −
F∗

Where Em* is the actual deformation energy up to the formation of the plastic mechanism.
Determination of the period of the idealized equivalent SDOF system
The period T* of the idealized equivalent SDOF system is determined by:
m ∗ d∗
T ∗ = 2π
F∗

Determination of the target displacement for the equivalent SDOF system

The target displacement of the structure with period T* and unlimited elastic behaviour is
given by:
∗
T∗
d= S (T ∗ )
2π
Where Se(T ) is the elastic acceleration response spectrum at the period T*.
*

For the determination of the target displacement dt* for structures in the sort-period range
and for structures in the medium and long-period ranges different expressions should be
used as indicated below. The corner period between the short- and medium-period range is
T C.
 For T*<TC (short period range)
If F ∗ ⁄m∗ ≥ S (T ∗ ), the response is elastic and thus
d∗ = d ∗
If F m < S (T ), the response is nonlinear and
∗⁄ ∗ ∗

d∗ T
d∗ = 1 + (q − 1) ∗ ≥ d∗
q T
Where qu is the ratio between the acceleration in the structure with unlimited elastic
behaviour Se(T*) and the structure with limited strength Fy*/m*.
S (T ∗ )m∗
q =
F∗
dt* need not exceed 3 det*
 For T*≥TC (medium and long period range)
d∗ = d ∗

Determination of target displacement for the MDOF system

The target displacement of the MDOF system is given by:
d = Γd∗
Note that the target displacement corresponds to the displacement of the control node.
 ASCE
In this appendix the parameters used for the structures assessment according to the
American Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings Code, ASCE/SEI 41-17, are
presented.

Type of Analysis
Current practice in USA is regulated by the ASCE 41-17: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings in combination with ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary and ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures.

According to ASCE 41-17, the seismic actions effects in combination with the effects of the
permanent and variable loads are evaluated using one of the following methods:

- Linear Static Procedure (LSP) in accordance with section 7.4.1 of ASCE 41-17;
- Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) in accordance with section 7.4.2 of ASCE 41-17;
- Non-linear Static Procedure (NSP) according to section 7.4.3 of ASCE 41-17;
- Non-Linear Dynamic Procedure (NDP) according to section 7.4.4 of ASCE 41-17.
In SeismoBuild the most common method in assessment practice of existing buildings is
employed, which is the nonlinear static analysis. It is based on pushover analyses carried out
under constant gravity loads and increasing lateral forces, applied at the location of the
masses to simulate the inertia forces induced by the seismic action. As the model may
account for both geometrical and mechanical nonlinearity, this method can describe the
evolution of the expected plastic mechanisms and structural damage.

Each pushover analysis leads to a capacity curve, which is a relationship between the total
base shear and the horizontal displacement of a representative point of the structure,
termed “control node”. The demand at the considered Performance Level – Operational
Level, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety or Collapse Prevention - is determined by the
appropriate comparison between the capacity determined by the pushover curve and the
demand established as the damped Linear Response Spectrum. To do so, the “control node”
displacements are defined in terms of spectral quantities relative to an equivalent single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system which is derived from the multi-degree-of-freedom
(MDOF) response estimated according to section 7.4.3.3 of ASCE 41-17.

The structural demand associated with the acquired target displacement shall fulfil the
verification criteria defined in ASCE 41-17. Accordingly, element’s demand for brittle (shear)
and ductile (plastic hinge or chord rotation) actions are deemed to comply with limits that
take into account: section mechanical properties; element’s bending, shear and axial force
interaction; and strength/stiffness degradation associated with the ductility demand and
cyclic hysteretic response of reinforced concrete elements, through appropriate material
non-linearity consideration.
Performance Requirements
According to ASCE 41-17 section 2.2, the objectives of the assessment or redesign (Table C2-
2) consist of combinations of both a performance level and a seismic action, given an
"acceptable probability of exceedance within the life cycle of the building" (design
earthquake), as shown in Table C2-2 of ASCE 41-17 below.

Target Building Performance Levels

Immediate
Operational Life Safety
Seismic Hazard Occupancy Collapse Prevention
Performance Performance
Level Performance Performance Level
Level Level
Level (5-D)
(1-A) (3-C)
(1-B)
50%/50years a b c d
BSE-1E
e f g h
(20%/50 years)
BSE-2E
i j k l
(5%/50 years)
BSE-2N
m n o p
(2%/50 years)
Table C2-2. Performance Objectives

The target building performance levels refer to the state of damage in the structure defined
through four limit states, namely Operational Level (1-A), Immediate Occupancy (1-B), Life
Safety (3-C) and Collapse Prevention (5-D).

The criteria for the selection of the Performance Objectives may be found in ASCE 41-17.

Information for Structural Assessment

In order to choose the admissible type of analysis and the appropriate confidence factor
values, the following three knowledge levels are defined:

 Minimum Knowledge
 Usual Knowledge
 Comprehensive Knowledge
The factors determining the obtained data reliability level are the (i) geometry, which is the
geometrical properties of the structural system and of non-structural elements, e.g. masonry
infill panels, that may affect structural response; (ii) details, which include the amount and
detailing of reinforcement in reinforced concrete sections, the connection of floor
diaphragms to lateral resisting structure, the bond and mortar jointing of masonry and the
nature of any reinforcing elements in masonry; and finally (iii) materials, that is the
mechanical properties of the constituent materials.

Knowledge Factors
In the following table of ASCE 41-17 a summary and recommendations for the confidence
factors and the analysis methods are provided for each knowledge level.
Table 6-1 of ASCE

Safety Factors
In ASCE 41-17 the safety factors are directly incorporated in the member’s strengths and
deformation limits.

In members where the longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement exceeds half the
component effective depth measured in the direction of shear, transverse reinforcement
shall be assumed 50% effective in resisting shear. Also, in members where the longitudinal
spacing of transverse reinforcement exceeds the component effective depth measured in
the direction of shear, transverse reinforcement shall be assumed ineffective in resisting
shear. Users may decide in the Safety Factors dialog box, whether to enforce such very strict
rule or not. For more information on this rule, users may refer to section 10.3.4 of ASCE 41-
17.

Capacity Models for Assessment and Checks

All the member checks (chord rotation capacity and shear capacity) should be carried out for
all the elements of every floor, according to Chapter 10 of ASCE 41-17, Chapter 11 of ACI
318-14 and Chapter 11 of ACI 440, taking into account Table 7-7 of ASCE 41-17. Interstorey
drift ratio should be checked for walls controlled by shear. Moreover, beam-column joints
checks can be employed in order to check the joint’s shear force.

Deformation Capacity
The deformation capacity of beams, columns and walls controlled by flexure is defined in
terms of the total chord rotation θ, that is the angle between the tangent to the axis at the
yielding end and the chord connecting that end with the end of the shear span
(LV=M/V=moment/shear at the end section).. The chord rotation is also equal to the element
drift ratio, which is the deflection at the end of the shear span with respect to the tangent to
the axis at the yielding end divided by the shear span.

Deformation capacity of beams, columns and walls controlled by flexure is highly influenced
by the lack of appropriate seismic resistant detailing in longitudinal reinforcement, as well as
whether there are smooth bars. Inadequate development of splicing along the span (beams)
and height (columns) and inadequate embedment into beam-column joints can control the
members’ response to seismic action, drastically limiting its capacity, in respect to the
situation in which the reinforcement is considered fully effective. The above limitations to
the deformation capacity are taken into consideration.

The total chord rotation capacity at ultimate of concrete members under cyclic loading is
calculated as the sum of the chord rotation at yielding and the plastic part of the chord
rotation capacity

θ=θ +θ

The chord rotation capacity at yield, θy, is calculated as described below:

 For beams and columns from the equation (4.29) of D.Biskinis (2007):
M L
θ =
3EI

where the effective stiffness value , EIeff, is calculated according to Table 10-5 of
ASCE 41-17.

 For walls from equation (10-5) of ASCE 41-17:

θ = ( )
l
(10-5) ASCE 41-17

The plastic part of the chord rotation capacity is calculated as indicated below:

 For beams according to Table 10-7 of ASCE 41-17

 For columns according to Table 10-8 of ASCE 41-17
 For walls controlled by flexure according to Table 10-19 of ASCE 41-17
The deformation capacity of walls controlled by shear is defined in terms of the interstorey
drift ratio as indicated in Table 10-20 of ASCE 41-17.

The yield moment capacity is calculated according to the equations of Appendix 7A of

KANEPE.

Users are advised to refer to the relevant publications for the definition of the other
parameters and further details on the expressions.

FRP wrapping
The contribution of the FRP wrapping to members’ capacity is taken into account in the
calculation of the yield moment capacity.

Shear Capacity
The Shear capacity of columns is calculated through the following expression according to
section 10.4.2.3 of ASCE 41-17.
 /
V =k V =k 𝛼 /
+λ ⁄
1+ 0.8A (lb/in.2
/

units)
10-3) ASCE 41-17

. /
/
V =k V =k 𝛼 +λ ⁄
1+ 0.8A (Mpa units)
. /

10-3.si) ASCE 41-17

The shear strength of a shear wall is calculated from the following expression:

V =V +V (11.5.4.4) ACI
318-14

Where the shear strength of a shear wall provided by concrete should be the lesser of the
values computed from the equations of Table 11.5.4.6 of ACI 318-14:

V = 0.27λ f hd +
(d)

or

. .
V = 0.05λ f + hd

(e)

Equation (e) is not applied when (Mu/Vu-lW/2) is negative.

The shear strength provided by the transverse reinforcement is computed from the
following expression:

V = (11.5.4.8) ACI
318-14

The value for Vn at any horizontal section for shear in plane of wall shall not be taken greater
than 0.83 f hd according to section 11.5.4.3 of ACI 318-14.

The shear capacity of beam sections is calculated from the equation (22.5.1.1) of ACI 318-14,
with the shear strength provided by the transverse reinforcement computed from equation
(22.5.10.5.3) of ACI 318-14 and the shear strength provided by concrete computed by the
detailed calculation of section 22.5.5.1 of ACI 318-14.
 ⎧ 0.16λ f + 17𝜌 b d;⎫
⎪ ⎪
V = min 0.16λ f + 17𝜌 b d;
⎨ ⎬
⎪ ⎪
⎩ 0.29λ f b d ⎭

Users are advised to refer to the relevant publications for the definition of the other
parameters and further details on the expressions.

FRP wrapping
The shear resistance Vn, may be calculated from expression (10-3) of ASCE 41-17 for columns
or the equation (22.5.1.1) of ACI 318-14 for beams and shear walls adding in Vs the
contribution of the FRP jacket to the shear resistance.

The contribution of the FRP jacket to the shear resistance is computed through the following
expression multiplied by a reduction factor ψf, as described in section 11.4 of ACI 440:

( )
V = (11-3)
ACI 440

where

A = 2nt w (11-4)
ACI 440

and

f =ε E (11-5)
ACI 440

The total shear strength provided by the sum of the FRP shear reinforcement and the steel
shear reinforcement should be limited as indicated in the equation below:

V +V ≤8 f b d in in-lb units

V + V ≤ 0.66 f b d in SI units (11-11) ACI 440

Users are advised to refer to the relevant publications for the definition of the other
parameters and further details on the expressions.
Joints Shear Force
The equation of section 10.4.2.3.2 of ASCE 41-17 is employed for the calculation of the shear
capacity of joints:

V = λγ f / Α (lb/in.2 units) (10-4) ASCE

41-17

V = 0.083λγ f / Α (MPa units) (10-4.si) ASCE 41-17

The value for γ is defined in Table 10-12 of ASCE 41-17.

Users are advised to refer to the relevant publications for the definition of the other
parameters and further details on the expressions.

Capacity Curve
Each pushover analysis leads to a capacity curve, which is a relationship between the total
base shear and the horizontal displacement of a representative point of the structure,
termed “control node”, with the values of the control displacement ranging between zero
and a maximum value defined by the user.

Target Displacement
The target displacement δt (§ 7.4.3.3 of ASCE 41-17) shall be calculated taking into account
all the relevant factors affecting the displacement of a building that responds inelastically. It
is permitted to consider the displacement of an elastic single degree of freedom system with
a fundamental period equal to the fundamental period of the building that is subjected to
the seismic actions, for which the verification is made. An appropriate correction is needed
in order to derive the corresponding displacement of the building assumed to be responding
as an elastic-perfectly plastic system.

For buildings with rigid diaphragms at each floor level, the target displacement shall be
calculated in accordance with equation (7-28) of ASCE 41-17 or by an approved procedure
that accounts for the nonlinear response of building.

δ =C C C S g (7-28)
ASCE 41-17

where Sα is the response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period and
damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration, as calculated in Sections
2.4.1 or 2.4.2 of ASCE 41-17, and C0, C1 and C2 are modification factors that are defined as
follows:

C0: Modification factor that relates the spectral displacement of the equivalent single degree
of freedom (SDOF) system with the roof displacement of the building muli degree of
freedom (MDOF) system calculated using the appropriate value from Table 7-5.
 Other
Shear Buildings
Number of Buildings
Stories Triangular Load Pattern Uniform Load Pattern Any Load
(1.1, 1.2, 1.3) (2.1) Pattern
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 1.2 1.15 1.2
3 1.2 1.2 1.3
5 1.3 1.2 1.4
10+ 1.3 1.2 1.5
Table 7-5 of ASCE 41-17: Values for Modification Factor C0

C1: Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to

displacements calculated for linear elastic response. For periods less than 0.2s, C1 need not
be taken greater than the value at T=0.2s.

C1=1.0 for Τ ≥ 1s, and

C =1+ for 0.2s ≤ Τ < 1s, (7-29) ASCE 41-17

where α is the site class factor (is equal to 130 for site class A or B, 90 for site class C and 60
for site class D, E, or F), Τe is the fundamental period of the building in the direction under
consideration and μstrength is the ratio of the elastic strength demand to yield strength
coefficient calculated in accorgance with equation (7-31) of ASCE 41-17.

C2: Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness
degradation, and strength deterioration on the maximum displacement response. For
periods greater than 0.7, C2=1.0;

C =1+ (7-30)
ASCE 41-17

Where the strength ratio μstrength is calculated according to the following equation:

μ = ⁄
C (7-31)
ASCE 41-17

Cm is the effective mass factor with values according to Table 7-4 of ASCE 41-17.

Users are advised to refer to the Code for the definition of the other parameters and further
details on the expressions.

Determination of the idealized elasto-perfectly plastic force-displacement relationship

The non-linear force-displacement relationship that relates the base shear with the
displacement of the control node shall be replaced by an idealized curve for the
determination of the equivalent lateral stiffness Ke and the corresponding yield strength Vy
of the building.

It is recommended that the idealized capacity curve (force-displacement relationship) is

bilinear, with a slope of the first branch equal to Ke and a slope of the second branch equal
α1Ke. The two lines that compose the bilinear curve can be defined graphically, on the
criterion of approximately equal areas of the sections defined above and below the
intersection of the actual and the idealized curves (Figure 7-3 of ASCE 41-17).

Figure 7-3 of ASCE 41-17 Idealized Force -_Displacement Curve

The equivalent lateral stiffness Ke is determined as the secant stiffness that corresponds to a
base shear force equal to the 60% of the effective yield strength Vy, the latter defined by the
intersection of the lines above. The normalized inclination (α1) of the second branch is
determined by a straight line passing through the point (Vd, Δd) and a point at the
intersection with the first line segment such that the areas above and below the actual curve
are approximately balanced. (Vd, Δd) shall be a point on the actual force-displacement curve
at the calculated target displacement, or at the displacement corresponding to the
maximum shear, whichever is least.

Determination of the fundamental period

The effective fundamental period in the direction under consideration shall be estimated
based on the idealized force-displacement curve.
The value Te of the effective fundamental period is derived by the following expression:

T =T (7-27)
ASCE 41-17

where Ti is the elastic fundamental period in the direction under consideration, and is
derived by eigenvalue analysis, Ki is the corresponding elastic lateral stiffness, and Ke is the
effective lateral stiffness.
 Numerical instability, divergence and
iteration prediction
In addition to the convergence verification, at the end of an iterative step three other
solution checks may be carried out; numerical instability, solution divergence and iteration
prediction. These criteria, all of a force/moment nature, serve the purpose of avoiding the
computation of useless equilibrium iterations in cases where it is apparent that convergence
will not be reached, thus minimising the duration of the analysis.

Numerical instability
The possibility of the solution becoming numerically unstable is checked at every iteration by
comparing the Euclidean norm of out-of-balance loads, Gnorm, with a pre-defined maximum
tolerance, several orders of magnitude larger than the applied load vector. If Gnorm exceeds
this tolerance, then the solution is assumed as being numerically unstable and iterations
within the current increment are interrupted, with a log flag message equal to Max_Tol.

On occasions, very unstable models lead to the sudden development of out-of-balance

forces that are several orders of magnitude larger than the maximum tolerance value. This
in turn creates a so-called Solution Problem (i.e. the analysis crashes, albeit in a "clean
manner"), and iterations within the current increment are interrupted, with a log flag
message equal to Sol_Prb.

Solution divergence
Divergence of the solution is checked by comparing the value of Gnorm obtained in the
current iteration with that obtained in the previous one. If Gnorm has increased, then it is
assumed that the solution is diverging and iterations within the current increment are
interrupted, with a log flag message equal to Diverge.

Iteration prediction
Finally, a logarithmic convergence rate check is also carried out, so as to try to predict the
number of iterations (itepred) required for convergence to be achieved. If itepred is larger
than the maximum number of iterations specified by the user, then it is assumed that the
solution will not achieve convergence and iterations within the current increment are
interrupted, with a log flag message equal to Prd_Ite.

The following equation is used to compute the value of itepred, noting that ite represents
the current number of iterations and Gtol is the force/moment tolerance:

G
log
G
itepred = ite +
G
log
G
The three checks described above are usually reliable and effective within the scope of
applicability of SeismoBuild, for as long as the divergence and iteration prediction check is
not carried out during the first iterations of an increment when the solution might not yet be
stable enough. This issue is discussed in further detail in the iterative strategy section, where
all user-defined parameters related to these criteria are described.

List of SeismoBuild Convergence and Divergence Flags

Hereby a complete list of the messages that are output by the SeismoBuild solver in the case
if divergence is provided, together with possible measures that the user can take, in order to
make the analysis converge.

Converg: This message means that the analysis has converged in the current loading step,
and is proceeding to the next step.

Max_Ite: This message is output, if the maximum number of iterations has been reached in
the current loading step, and convergence has not been achieved yet. In such cases, either
increase the maximum number of iterations (Analysis Settings>Iterative Strategy), increase
the convergence criteria values (Analysis Settings>Convergence Criteria) or employ a less
stringent type of convergence check (e.g. Displacement/Rotation based only scheme instead
of Displacement/ Rotation based AND Force/Moment based).

Prd_Ite: This flag is similar to the Max_Ite message, the difference being that the solver does
not wait until the maximum number iterations have been reached. Instead, it makes a
prediction of the number of iterations that are expected to be needed for convergence,
based on how the iterative solution is converging (i.e. size of out-of-balance forces, and how
fast the convergence tolerance is being reached). If the predicted iterations is larger than the
maximum iterations specified by the user, the Prd_Ite flag is output and the analysis
diverges. In such cases, either increase the Maximum number of iterations (Analysis
Settings>Iterative Strategy), choose a looser convergence criteria scheme with larger
convergence tolerances (Analysis Settings>Convergence Criteria), or increase the analysis
steps, as with the Max_Ite message. It is noted that Prd_Ite is the most common divergence
flag.

Diverge: This flag is output when the iterative process in the current step is diverging,
instead of converging to the solution. It is noted that the check for diverging solutions is
always carried out after the Divergence Iteration that is specified by the user in Analysis
Settings>Iterative Strategy. This is done because in general the solution procedures are
unstable at the initial 3-4 steps, before they get stable and gradually converge to the
solution. Users are advised to either increase the Divergence Iteration and the Maximum
number of iterations from the Iterative Strategy page of the Analysis Settings, choose looser
convergence criteria from the Convergence Criteria page, or increase the analysis steps.

fbd_Ite: This message appears when the maximum number of iterations (default=300
iterations) is reached in the internal element loop of the force-based elements (infrmFB and
infrmFBPH), without internal equilibrium having been achieved. Users are advised to either
increase the number of iterations or increase the convergence tolerance from the Elements
tab of the Analysis Settings. Alternatively, the ‘Do not allow element unbalanced forces in
case of fbd_ite’ option may be unchecked. Finally, measure on the global level may be taken,
for instance the analysis load step can be decreased (by increasing the analysis steps), and
the global convergence criteria can be increased. Users are advised to refer to the specific
documentation [e.g. Spacone et al. 1996; Neuenhofer and Filippou 1997] for a better
understanding of the internal loops of the force-based elements.

fbd_Inv: This message appears when the stiffness matrix of a force-based element cannot be
inverted during the internal element loops. In such cases, users are advised to increase the
elements' convergence tolerance from the Elements tab of the Analysis Settings, to increase
the analysis steps or the global convergence tolerance values.

fbd_Tol: This message appears when the maximum tolerance value, as specified in the
Iterative Strategy page of the Analysis Settings, has been exceeded during the internal
element loops of the force-based elements. Similar actions with the fbd_Inv flag should be
taken.

Max_Tol: This flag signifies solutions that become very unstable numerically with out-of-
balance forces larger than the Maximum Tolerance (default=1.0E+20) that is specified in the
Iterative Strategy page of the Analysis Settings. Users are advised to increase the analysis
steps, or to adopt looser convergence criteria. Alternatively, the Maximum Tolerance may
be increased, but its value should never exceed values of 1.0E+35 or 1.0E+40, whilst it is
noted that in very few cases the latter will lead to stable solutions. If the Max_Tol message
appears in first 2-3 steps of the analysis, or at the application of the initial loads, an
eigenvalue analysis should be run, in order to confirm that all the members of the model are
correctly connected to each other.

Sol_Prb: This message means that a solution of the analysis equations in the current
iteration could not be found. There are numerous reasons for this behaviour, such as
extreme values of out-of-balance forces or zero diagonal stiffness values. Similar measures
to those suggested for the case of Max_Tol flag should be taken.

Tips to Solve Convergence Problems

Hereby a number of steps to follow for solving convergence problems are proposed. Users
are advised to:

 Apply the automatic adaptation of the norms in the Convergence criteria tab of the
program’s Advanced Settings (Analysis Parameters>Advanced Settings).
 Select to show Convergence problems in the post-processor through the Analysis
Parameters>Advanced Settings> Convergence criteria tab. The visualisation of the
locations of the structure (elements or nodes), where the convergence difficulties
arise, provides significant feedback for the identification of the reasons for divergence
(e.g. under-reinforced beams that cannot sustain the gravity loads, elements with
very high deformations demand, such as short columns or coupling beams, etc.).
 Uncheck the ‘Do not allow unbalanced forces in case of fbd_Ite’ for both infrmFB and
infrmFBPH element types in the Elements tab of the Advanced Settings.
 Reduce the Maximum Interstorey Drift value in the Analysis tab of the Code
Requirements. This value should not exceed 1.00 or 1.20% for tall buildings and for
stiff buildings with large shear walls.
  Assign 100 pushover analysis steps in the Analysis tab of the Code Requirements. This
value should be further increased in the cases, where significant loading is expected.
 Select the ‘Apply Displacement Based Frame Elements To All Members With Length
(m) <’ in the Advanced Building Modelling tab of the program’s Advanced Settings
(Analysis Parameters>Advanced Settings), in order to use the infrmDB element type
for short members. This change typically leads to improved convergence.
 Increase the maximum number of iterations to 70, the number of stiffness updates to
60 and the divergence iteration to 60 in the Iterative Strategy tab of the Advanced
Settings (Analysis Parameters>Advanced Settings).
 Use the elastic frame element type for the coupling beams that cause convergence
problems. In such cases the elements’ moment releases should released by selecting
the relevant checkboxes for the M2a, M3a, M2b and M3b degrees-of–freedom,
through the Advanced Member Modelling Parameters of the member in the Building
Modeller, in order to account for the formation of plastic hinges at the ends of the
coupling beams.
 Increase the values of the convergence norms from the Convergence Criteria tab of
the program’s Advanced Settings (Analysis Parameters>Advanced Settings).
 Increase the rigidity of the rigid diaphragms to 1.0E+13 through the Constraints tab of
the Advanced Settings.
 Select the Control Node to be in the side of the building with the larger deformation
demand, through the Structural Modelling tab of the Building Modelling Settings
inside the Building Modeller.
 If the divergence messages of the analysis are mostly Max_Tol or fbd_tol, increase the
Maximum Tolerance value to 1e40 in the Iterative Strategy tab of the Advanced
Settings (Analysis Parameters>Advanced Settings).
 Increase the number of fibers for the walls in the Modelling Parameters of the
members inside the Building Modeller.
 For taller buildings uncheck the Include Geometric Nonlinearities checkbox in the
Analysis tab of the Advanced Settings.
Moreover:

 users are advised to check the last or the 2-3 last steps of the analysis with
convergence problems in order to understand and resolve the reasons for divergence.
In such cases the Convergence Problems page of the post-processor should be
advised. Furthermore, running an Eigenvalue analysis with the same model might
offer valuable insight to the problem (e.g. identify a beam that is close to, but
unconnected, to an adjacent column, and behaves as a cantilever, not being able to
sustain the gravity load);
 it is noted that elements that cause divergence problems are not necessarily the ones
that withstand significant loading. They are the ones that at the current step face
increased tangential change of the deformation state/internal force re-distribution.
Hence, sometimes failed elements can increase significantly the load sustained by
adjacent elements, thus leading them to convergence difficulties, contrary to the
failed elements themselves, which converge easily;
the removal of the effective width of beams should also be considered by unchecking the
‘Include Effective Width’ checkbox in the Structural Modelling tab of the Building Modelling
Settings inside the Building Modeller.
Convergence Problems
Whenever convergence problems arise, users may be informed about the elements that
cause the diverging solutions. The elements or the locations of the structure, where the
convergence problems are caused, are marked in the 3D view format, whereas information
about the type of divergence (value of convergence norms and their limits, divergence
message and the corresponding elements or nodes) are displayed on the top-left corner of
the screen.

Convergence Problems