The nonlinear static procedures have been recognized globally in the philosophy of the performance based design. Recently, the nonlinear static procedures have become the leading theme for many researchers in the academic fields, as well as for practitioners in the engineering fields. One of the foremost and constituent consideration in the nonlinear static procedures is the accurate interpretation of the demand level of seismic performance for structure when subjected to certain earthquake ground motion. The analytical model that established herein this study is based on two story frame reinforced concrete specimen, which designed not in compliance with seismic detailing and tested on a shaking table. The Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA) and pushover analysis are carried out. The nonlinear static procedures such as Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), basic N2 method, Equivalent Linearization Procedure (ELP), and Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) are performed to evaluate the specimen performance in term of the earthquake demand. In order to validate the analytical phase, the experimental result is used as the benchmark data. The analytical results conclude that the four methods considered in this study show relatively
similar results on average. Considering that the difference is negligible among the four nonlinear static procedures, this study suggests the use of DCM for the evaluation of the building with similar properties/characteristics as the test specimen. Typically, the following method offers the least effort to obtain the results and if one of the building assessment interest is to predict structure performance beyond its maximum capacity, DCM can be an option.

The nonlinear static procedures have been recognized globally in the philosophy of the performance based design. Recently, the nonlinear static procedures have become the leading theme for many researchers in the academic fields, as well as for practitioners in the engineering fields. One of the foremost and constituent consideration in the nonlinear static procedures is the accurate interpretation of the demand level of seismic performance for structure when subjected to certain earthquake ground motion. The analytical model that established herein this study is based on two story frame reinforced concrete specimen, which designed not in compliance with seismic detailing and tested on a shaking table. The Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA) and pushover analysis are carried out. The nonlinear static procedures such as Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), basic N2 method, Equivalent Linearization Procedure (ELP), and Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) are performed to evaluate the specimen performance in term of the earthquake demand. In order to validate the analytical phase, the experimental result is used as the benchmark data. The analytical results conclude that the four methods considered in this study show relatively
similar results on average. Considering that the difference is negligible among the four nonlinear static procedures, this study suggests the use of DCM for the evaluation of the building with similar properties/characteristics as the test specimen. Typically, the following method offers the least effort to obtain the results and if one of the building assessment interest is to predict structure performance beyond its maximum capacity, DCM can be an option.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, s.l.: American Society of Civil Engineers.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Applied Technology Council, 1982. An Investigation of the Correlation between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Performance, Report ATC-10, Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.
Applied Technology Council, 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Report ATC-40, Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.
Army, 1986. Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings, Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army (TM 5-809-10-1), Navy (NAVFAC P355.1), and the Air Force (AFM 88-3, Chanpter 13, Section A).
Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B. & Reinhorn, A. M., 1994. Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Load: Part II - Experimental Performance of Subassamblages. ACI Structural Journal, Volume 5, pp. 552-563.
Baez, J. I. & Miranda, E., 2000. Amplification Factors to Estimate Inelastic Displacement Demands for the Design of Structures in the Near Field. Auckland, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K. & Reinhorn, A. M., 1995. Simplified Seismic Performance and Retrofit Evaluation. Journal of the Structural Division.
Caltrans, 2013. Seismic Design Criteria, Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation.
CEN, 2005. EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance–part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization.
Chopra, A. K., 2016. Dynamic of Structures. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chopra, A. K. & Goel, R. K., 1999. Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDF System, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
Computers and Structures, Inc., 2016. SAP2000 Version 19
Eberhard, M. O. & Sozen, M. A., 1993. Behavior-Based Method to Determine Design Shear in Earthquake-Resistant Walls. Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 619-640.
Elwood, K. J. et al., 2007. Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthquake Spectra, pp. 23(3), 493-523.
Fajfar, P., 1999. Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 28, pp. 979-993.
Fajfar, P., 2000. A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design. Earthquake Spectra, pp. Vol. 16, No. 3, 573-592.
Fajfar, P. & FIschinger, M., 1988. N2 – A Method for Non-Linear Seismic Analysis of Regular Structures. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, s.n.
Fajfar, P. & Gaspersic, P., 1996. The N2 Method for the Seismic Damage Analysis of RC Buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, pp. Vol. 25, 31-46.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273; and NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 274, Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440, Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Freeman, S. A., 1978. Prediction of Response of Concrete Buildings to Severe Earthquake Motion. Detroit, Michigan, American Concrete Institute, pp. Publication SP-55.
Freeman, S. A., 2004. Review of the Development of the Capacity Spectrum Method. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, pp. 1-13.
Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P. & Tyrell, J. V., 1975. Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk — A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.. Berkeley, California, EERI, pp. 113-22.
Ghannoum, W. M. & Matamoros, A. B., 2014. Nonlinear Modeling Parameters and Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Columns. Seismic Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, SP-297, K. J. Elwood, J. Dragovich, and I. Kim, eds., American Concrete Institute, p. 24 pp.
Gupta, A. & Krawinkler, H., 2000. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 29, pp. 1287-1305.
Kang, T. H.-K. & Wallace, J. W., 2006. Punching of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Column Connections. American Concrete Institute, Structural Journal, pp. 104(4), 531-540.
Kreslin, M. & Fajfar, P., 2012. The Extended N2 Method Considering Higher Mode Effects in Both Plan and Elevation. Bull Earthquake Eng, Volume 10, pp. 696-715.
Mahaney, J. A., Paret, T. F., Kehoe, B. E. & Freeman, S. A., 1993. The Capacity Spectrum Method for Evaluating Structural Response during the Loma Prieta Earthquake” in “Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States: A Time for Examination and Action. Oakland, CA, U.S.A, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 501-510.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. & Park, R., 1988. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114((8)), pp. 1804-1826.
Massone, L. M., Orakcal, K. & Wallace, J. W., 2006. Modeling of Squat Structural Walls Controlled by Shear. ACI Structural Journal.
Miranda, E., 1993. Site‐Dependent Strength‐Reduction Factors. Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 119, pp. 3503-3519.
Miranda, E. & Bertero, V. V., 1994. Evaluation of Strength ReductionFactors for Earthquake Resistant Design. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 23, pp. 357-379.
Ngoc, C. T. & Li, B., 2015. Experimental Studies on the Backbone Curves of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., p. 29(5).
NIST, 1994. Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned or Leased Buildings, Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5382, ICSSC RP-4.
OpenSees, 2009. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, s.l.: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Paulay, T. & Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. 767p ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Qi, X. & Moehle, J. P., 1991. Displacement DEsign Approach for RC Structures Subjected to Earthquakes, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/02, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, UC Berkeley.
Rahmana, M. & Krawinkler, H., 1993. Effects of Soft Soil and Hysteresis Model on Seismic Demands, Standford, CA: Report no. 108, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Standford University.
Riddel, R., 1995. Inelastic Design Spectra Accouting for Soil Conditions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 24, pp. 1491-1510.
Risk Management Solution, 2000. Chi - Chi, Taiwan Earthquake Event Report, s.l.: Risk Management Solution (RMS).
Saidii, M. & Sozen, A., 1981. Simple Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RC Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 107, pp. 937-952.
Seismosoft, 2012. SeismoSignal - "A computer program for signal processing of time-histories".
Sezen, H. & Moehle, J. P., 2006. Seismic Tests of Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal.
Shin, M. & LaFave, J. M., 2004. Modeling of Cyclic Joint Shear Deformation Contribution in RC beam-column connections to overall frame behavior. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, pp. 18(5), 645-669.
Vidic, T., fajfar, P. & Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Strenght and Displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 23, pp. 507-521.
Whittaker, A., Constantinou, M. & Tsopelas, P., 1998. Displacement Estiamtes for Prformance-Based Seismic Design. Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 124, pp. 905-912.
Wibowo, A., Wilson, J. L., Lam, N. T. K. & Gad, E. F., 2014. Drift Performance of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns. Eng. Struct., pp. 59, 522-535.
Yavari, S., 2011. Shaking Table Tests on the Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Non-Seismic Detailing, Ph. D. Dissertation. Columbia, Vancouver, Canada: The University of British Columbia.
Yavari, S. et al., 2013. Shaking Table Test on Reinforced Concrete Frames without Seismic Detailing. ACI Structural Journal, Volume 110-S81, pp. 1001-1012.