The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of damage indicators for predicting damage in reinforced concrete structures. Two damage assessment approaches were investigated. One of these approaches leads to damage indices based on structural properties. The other approach leads to damage indices based on structural dynamic characteristics. Both approaches were used to characterize the damage of five 0.45 scale reinforced concrete bridge bents that were subjected to lateral slow cyclic loading at the Structures Laboratory of the University of British Columbia. These bents were tested as part of a seismic retrofit program undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of British Columbia (MOTH), in collaboration with Klohn-Crippen Consultants and the University of British Columbia. The specimens underwent lateral slow cyclic loading which was monotonically increased until failure or very significant damage of the specimen occurred. During the loading process, load-deformation relationships were determined to assess structural properties of the specimens. Vibration measurement tests (ambient and impact testing) were performed at different stages of the loading cycles in order to identify the dynamic properties of the specimens.

Damage assessment based on structural properties, such as displacement, stiffness and energy absorption, consisted in the evaluation of three damage indices:​ displacement ductility, modified stiffness ratio and the modified Park and Ang index. For the five specimens tested in the laboratory, these three indices were evaluated at different stages of damage as the displacement level increased. Damage based on dynamic properties, such as natural frequencies and damping ratios, was assessed using three damage indices:​ ultimate stiffness degradation, maximum softening and normalized damping ratio.

For each damage index considered in this study, the specimens were ranked according to their performance and the results from these evaluations were compared with the physical damage observed at different stages of the load testing. The results of the study showed that the agreement between analytical predictions and experimental observations was, in general, satisfactory. This study also indicated that, while two of the structural damage indices could provide some indication on the failure mode, none of the modal damage indices could give specific information on the failure mode (shear/flexure). Finally, comparison of index values from the two approaches indicated that modal damage indices generally provide a better damage characterization than structural damage indices.