Dissertation2008 PhamTuan

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FOR TALL BUILDINGS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Seismology

By
HIEP PHAM TUAN
Supervisors: Dr. Timothy J. Sullivan

Professor Gian Michele Calvi
April, 2008
The dissertation entitled Seismic Design Considerations for Tall Buildings, by Hiep Pham
Tuan, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering.
Dr. Timothy J. Sullivan ________________
Professor Gian Michele Calvi ________________
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to study the performance of tall reinforce concrete frame-wall structures
under seismic loading.
The current seismic design procedures in the code have been issued without any recommendation for
tall buildings. Therefore, when structural engineers design a structure, they use the same rules for
structures with very large differences in height: same response spectrum, same behaviour factors,
same P-delta limits, etc. However, it is considered that tall buildings have particular characteristics
that warrant special consideration.
In this research, a 45-storey reinforced concrete frame-wall case study structure is designed using the
modal response spectrum analysis procedures of the Eurocode 8, then small and large displacement
non-linear time-history analyses are carried out to check the realistic performance of the designed
structure. Through this case study, some significant design considerations for tall frame-wall
structures, such as the response spectrum used, higher mode effects, likely ductility demands on
structural components, the significance of P-delta effects, and beam lengthening effects are
highlighted.
It is shown that axial forces in beams tend to resist the tendency of P-delta effects to increase
displacements. Furthermore, it is shown that beam-lengthening could imply that it may not be
appropriate to rely on the beam axial stiffness.
The case study results also indicate that P-delta effects may not be as significant for long period
structures as current code requirements suggest. To investigate this further, a suite of equivalent
single-degree of freedom analyses is conducted to examine a larger range of tall building periods. The
results of these SDOF studies also indicate that the P-delta limits in current codes could be relaxed.
Various issues to be explored in future work are also identified.
Keywords: tall buildings; frame-wall structures, seismic design, time-history analysis, p-delta effects,
beam lengthening effects.
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank to Dr. Sullivan, T.J. for his always availability in helping me with valuable
advices. I also want to thank to professor Calvi, G.M. for his important review of this research. I am
thankful to professor Priestley, M.J.N. for his great lectures in Roseschool that motivated me in doing
research in reinforced concrete structures. I want to express my gratitude to the MEEES program staff
providing me the opportunity to study and do research in comfortable environment.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................viii
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 General.......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Outline of the thesis ...................................................................................................................1
2 CASE STUDY...................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Description of the case study .....................................................................................................3
3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD (EUROCODE 8)...................................................................5
3.1 Horizontal Elastic Acceleration Response Spectrum.................................................................5
3.2 Horizontal Elastic Design Response Spectrum..........................................................................8
3.3 Performance requirements .........................................................................................................9
3.3.1 Ultimate limit state...........................................................................................................9
3.3.2 Damage limitation limit state...........................................................................................9
3.3.3 Design criteria..................................................................................................................9
3.4 Response spectrum analysis of the case study structure ..........................................................11
3.4.1 Structural Modelling ......................................................................................................11
3.4.2 Analysis results ..............................................................................................................12
3.5 Capacity Design .......................................................................................................................20
3.5.1 Design using the Eurocode ............................................................................................20
3.5.2 Expected strengths .........................................................................................................20
iii
Index
4 LARGE DISPLACEMENT NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY VERIFICATION ANALYSES ....24

4.1 Description...............................................................................................................................24
4.2 Accelerograms .........................................................................................................................24
4.2.1 Real accelerograms ........................................................................................................24
4.3 Modelling.................................................................................................................................26
4.4 Nonlinear time-history analysis results....................................................................................27
4.4.1 Case-study structural periods .........................................................................................27
4.4.2 Maximum storey displacements and drifts ....................................................................28
4.4.3 Moments and shears.......................................................................................................30
4.4.4 Beam ductility demands up the building height.............................................................32
4.4.5 Wall moments and shears ..............................................................................................33
5 P-DELTA EFFECTS AND BEAM LENGTHENING ...................................................................35
5.1 Description...............................................................................................................................35
5.2 A review of P-delta checks included in EC8 ...........................................................................35
5.2.1 EC8 inclusion of P-delta effects.....................................................................................35
5.2.2 P-delta design in seismic regions ...................................................................................35
5.3 Nonlinear analysis results of the case study structure with real accelerograms.......................39
5.4 Nonlinear analysis results of the case study structure with artificial accelerograms ...............40
5.5 Summary of findings................................................................................................................42
5.6 Beam Lengthening ...................................................................................................................42
5.6.1 Description of beam lengthening ...................................................................................42
5.6.2 Modified analysis model to reflect beam lengthening effects .......................................43
5.6.3 Nonlinear analysis results with reduced beam axial stiffness........................................45
5.7 SDOF studies to consider P- effects for tall buildings ..........................................................47
5.7.1 Description.....................................................................................................................47
5.7.2 SDOF structures.............................................................................................................47
5.7.3 Analysis results ..............................................................................................................49
6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................54
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................55
APPENDIX...........................................................................................................................................57
A.1 Ruaumoko input file for the 45 storey case study structure.....................................................57
A.2 Ruaumoko input file for SDOF structure.................................................................................76
A.3 Member hysteresis loops of the case study structure...............................................................77
A.4 Real and artificial accelerograms .............................................................................................84
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Plan view of 45-storey (180m) reinforced concrete frame-wall case study structure ..............3
Figure 2. Type 1 elastic response spectra for [EC8] ground types A to E (5% damping) .......................6
Figure 3. Elastic displacement response spectrum [EC8]........................................................................6
Figure 4. Elastic Accleration Response Spectrum...................................................................................7
Figure 5. Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum used for case study investigation...........................8
Figure 6. Design Acceleration Response Spectrum with behaviour factor q = 3 ....................................8
Figure 7. Design envelope for bending moments in slender walls of dual systems ..............................10
Figure 8. Design envelope for the shear forces in the walls of dual systems ........................................11
Figure 9. Structural Modelling...............................................................................................................12
Figure 10. Storey displacements ............................................................................................................14
Figure 11. Inter-storey drifts..................................................................................................................15
Figure 12. Wall moments.......................................................................................................................17
Figure 13. Wall shears & frame shears from the elastic analysis ..........................................................18
Figure 14. Wall shears after applying EC8 special provisions for shear walls......................................18
Figure 15. Column axial loads...............................................................................................................19
Figure 16. Beam moment-curvature relationship ..................................................................................21
Figure 17. Compression column moment-curvature relationship..........................................................22
Figure 18. Tension column moment-curvature relationship..................................................................22
Figure 19. Wall moment-curvature relationship....................................................................................23
Figure 20. Spectral displacements of real accelerograms with 5% damping.........................................25
Figure 21. Average spectral displacements of real accelerograms ........................................................25
Figure 22. Ruaumoko structural model .................................................................................................27
Figure 23. Maximum storey drifts for all accelerograms ......................................................................28
Figure 24. Maximum storey displacements for all accelerograms ........................................................29
Figure 25. Average storey drifts ............................................................................................................29
Index
Figure 26. Average storey displacements ..............................................................................................30

Figure 27. Beam curvature ductilities up the building height................................................................32
Figure 28. Wall moments.......................................................................................................................33
Figure 29. Wall shears ...........................................................................................................................33
Figure 30. Effects of P-delta moments on lateral response characteristics of a bridge pier (a) Moment
diagram; (b) Force-displacement response ...................................................................................36
Figure 31. Parameters for determining stability under P-Delta effects (a) No P-Delta effects; (b)
Including P-Delta Effects..............................................................................................................36
Figure 32. Experiment test results of column hysteresis when column subjected to axial load
[Priestley M.J.N. and Seible F. ,1991] ..........................................................................................37
Figure 33. Interstorey drifts recorded using real accelerograms............................................................39
Figure 34. Storey displacements recorded using real accelerograms ....................................................39
Figure 35. Spectral displacements for artificial accelerograms with 5% damping................................40
Figure 36. Interstorey drifts recorded using artificial accelerograms ....................................................41
Figure 37. Storey displacements recorded using artificial accelerograms.............................................41
Figure 38. Beam lengthening effects in structural frames under cyclic loadings. ................................42
Figure 39. Average displacement response spectrum of real and artificial accelerograms ...................45
Figure 40. Inter-storey drifts
(with beam axial stiffness reduced by 10 times).................................45
Figure 41. Inter-storey drifts (with beam axial stiffness reduced by 100 times) ...................................46
Figure 42. N.L.T.H. analysis results for SDOF with real acclerograms for average=0.3 (a) Small
displacement analysis. (b) Large displacement analysis...............................................................49
Figure 45. Displacement ratios between large and small displacement NLTHA results versus drift
ratio for all accelerograms.............................................................................................................50
Figure 46. Displacement ratios between large and small displacement analyses for all 3 SDOF
structures with all accelerograms except R4.................................................................................51
Figure 47. Moment-curvature and force-displacement relations of 14s period SDOF structure when
subjected to R4 (small displacement analysis)..............................................................................51
Figure 48. Inelastic small displacement response of the 14s period SDOF structure under R4 excitation
.......................................................................................................................................................53
Figure 49. Wall hysterisis loop with real record R1, large displacement analysis ................................77
Figure 50. Wall hysteresis loop with real record R1, small displacement analysis ...............................77
Figure 51. Wall hysteresis loop with real record R2, large displacement analysis................................78
vi
Index
Figure 59. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, large displacement analysis..................80
Figure 60. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, small displacement analysis.................81
Figure 69. Real accelerogram R1 ..........................................................................................................84
Figure 74. Artificial accelerogram A1 ...................................................................................................85
vii
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Case study building configuration parameters...........................................................................4
Table 2. Summary of material properties used for the case study structure ............................................4
Table 3. Values of the parameters describing the Type 1 elastic response spectra .................................6
Table 4. Additional control periods for Type 1 displacement spectrum..................................................7
Table 5. Modal properties......................................................................................................................12
Table 6. Inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficients..................................................................................13
Table 7. Storey drift (r/hs) contributions by different modes ..............................................................15
Table 8. Base moments..........................................................................................................................16
Table 9. Base shears...............................................................................................................................16
Table 10. Beam moments ......................................................................................................................17
Table 11. Beam shears ...........................................................................................................................17
Table 12. Recalculation of beam stiffness from elastic analysis results................................................20
Table 13. Design details (Eurocode8)....................................................................................................20
Table 14. Member expected strengths ...................................................................................................21
Table 15. List of real earthquake records used in the non-linear time-historey analyses ......................24
Table 16. Struture periods......................................................................................................................27
Table 17. Base moments, shears & axial loads......................................................................................30
Table 18. Beam moments ......................................................................................................................30
Table 19. Member ductilities .................................................................................................................31
Table 20. Average beam axial forces and elongation (N.L.T.H.A. using gross section area) ...............43
Table 21. SDOF structure's parameters with expected drift coefficient = 0.3 ....................................48
Table 24. SDOF fundamental periods analysed with = 0.3 ................................................................49
viii
Index

ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The current seismic design procedures in the code [EN 1998-1] have been issued without any
specific consideration for tall buildings. Therefore, when structural engineers design a
structure, they use the same rules for structures with very large differences in height: same
response spectrum, same behaviour factors, same P-delta limits, etc. However, it is considered
that tall buildings have particular characteristics that warrant special consideration. In this research,
we focus on tall frame-wall reinforced concrete structural systems.
The frame-wall structure, in other words, dual system structure, has been known as an
effective system to resist earthquake actions for many years. The structure is the combined
response of frame and wall structures, which is considerably different from pure frame or wall
structures. The uses of this kind of structure are continuing to increase, especially in highly
populated cities in countries with high economic growth, because it is an efficient and
economical system. However, there is a limited amount of research on the seismic design
procedures for tall buildings with frame-wall structures.
Through the analysis of a 45-storey frame-wall case study structure, the general performance
of tall frame-wall structures will be studied and the appropriateness of current design code for
tall buildings checked.
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this research is to consider the general behaviour of tall frame-wall reinforced
concrete structures under seismic load with the aim of identifying any special consideration
that need to be taken account when designing such structures. In order to accomplish these
objectives, the case study structure will be designed using the current seismic design
procedures in Eurocode 8 [EN 1998-1]. General performances of the tall building structure
will be undertaken through non-linear time history analyses.
1.3
Outline of the thesis
The second chapter of this research presents the reinforced frame-wall structures that will be
studied. Structural layout, components material properties, and assumed soil type, are
proposed.
The third chapter presents some important requirements of the current response spectrum
method in Eurocode 8. The later part is the response spectrum analysis of the case study using
simplified structural 2D model. Structural components were designed conforming to current
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
design code requirements. The expected behaviour of columns, beams, and walls are studied
by carrying out moment-curvature analyses.
The fourth chapter considers the likely behaviour of the structure under real seismic
excitations. To do that, non-linear time history analyses are carried out by using
RUAUMOKO, a non-linear analysis program.
The fifth chapter presents a review of P-delta effects and its effects on the case study
structure. Both real and artificial accelerograms have been used in the study. In order to study
the P-delta effects, analyses of a set of SDOF structures were also carried out. A short
discussion about the possible effects of beam lengthening on the response of the structure is
also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 2 Case Study
2 CASE STUDY
2.1 Description of the case study
The case study structure is a tall RC frame-wall structure with 45 storeys. The plan is shown
in Fig.1. The building consists of a central core wall structure and columns arranged in a
regular 7.5m grid and connected by beams to form moment resisting frames in the two
orthogonal directions. Sections sizes are indicated on Fig.1. The building is examined in the
north south direction only.
FRAME 4
FRAME 3
WALL 2
WALL 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 1
The concrete and reinforcement material properties adopted for the seismic design are values
that could typically be found in tall building practice. Values for the concrete include: (i) fc =
60.0 MPa and (ii) Ec = 33200 MPa. The expected strengths adopted for the reinforcing steel
include: (i) fy = 500 MPa and (ii) Es=200000 MPa.
1400Dx1100W
RC columns
Four bays
at 7.5m
850Dx750W
centres
RC beams
Floor Area
200mm thick
30.0mx37.5m = 1125m2
RC floors
Earthquake Excitation
Direction Considered
Two 15.0m long x 0.650m thick

RC walls (ignore transverse walls)
Figure 1. Plan view of 45-storey (180m) reinforced concrete frame-wall case study structure
Assume partitions weigh 1.0kPa. Services and finishes weigh 0.50kPa. The expected reduced
live load is assumed to be 1.0 kPa at the time of earthquakes. Summaries of materials, loads
and structural component sizes are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Chapter 2 Case Study
The soil condition type is C defined by Eurocode 8, section 3.1.2 [EN 1998-1]. The peak
ground acceleration is assumed to be 0.4g.
Table 1. Case study building configuration parameters
Structural type
Plan width in excitation direction, 4 bays (m)
Plan width perpendicular to excitation direction, 5 bays (m)
Bay span (m)
Number of storeys
Storey height
Frame-wall
30
37.5
7.5
45
4
Table 2. Summary of material properties used for the case study structure
Concrete compressive strength, f'c (MPa):

Concrete elastic modulus, Ec (MPa):
Steel strength, fy (MPa):
Steel elastic modulus, Es (MPa):
Concrete self weight (kN/m3)
60
33200
500
200000
23.5
Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)
3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD (EUROCODE 8)

For elastic analysis of the case study structure, the response spectrum method is used as it is
considered as an effective method applicable to all types of buildings and it is recommended
in the Eurocode 8 [EC8]. In this chapter, some of the main important issues when doing the
modal analysis are reviewed.
3.1 Horizontal Elastic Acceleration Response Spectrum
For the horizontal components of the seismic action, the elastic acceleration response
spectrum Se(T) is defined in the code by the following expressions:
- For structures with natural periods less than 4s:
T
0 T TB : S e (T) = a g .S.1 +
.(.2.5 1)
TB
TB T TC : S e (T ) = a g .S..2.5
T
TC T TD : S e (T ) = a g .S..2.5 C
T
T .T
TD T 4s : S e (T ) = a g .S..2.5 C 2 D
T
where
Se(T) is the elastic acceleration response spectrum;
T is the vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system;
ag is the design ground acceleration;
TB is the lower limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch;
TC is the upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch;
TD is the value defining the beginning of the constant displacement response range
of the spectrum;
S is the soil factor;
is the damping correction factor with a reference value of = 1 for 5% viscous
damping.
Table 3. Values of the parameters describing the Type 1 elastic response spectra
Ground
Type
A
B
C
D
E
TB(s)
TC(s)
TD(s)
1.0
1.2
1.15
1.35
1.4
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Figure 2. Type 1 elastic response spectra for [EC8] ground types A to E (5% damping)
- For structures with natural period larger than 4s, e.g. tall buildings, the seismic action may
be represented in the form of a displacement response spectrum provided in Annex B of EC8:
Figure 3. Elastic displacement response spectrum [EC8]
For vibration periods beyond TE, the ordinates of the elastic displacement response spectrum
are obtained from the following expressions:
T TE
(1 2,5)
TE T TF : S De (T ) = 0,025a g .S.TC .TD 2,5 +
TF TE
T TF : S De (T ) = d g
where
dg = 0,025 ag S TC TD
and the control periods TE and TF are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Additional control periods for Type 1 displacement spectrum
Ground
Type
A
B
C
D
E
TE(s)
TF(s)
4.5
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Spectral Acceleration
(g)
However, recent researches [Faccioli et al, 2004; Campbell et al, 2006; Bommer et al, 2007]
have shown that the EC8 displacement corner period of 2s is considered to be nonconservatively low for regions of high seismicity. The research has also shown that the
displacement corner period TD tends to be a function of earthquake magnitude. Some real
records which are used in this research possessed an average spectral displacement corner
period of 7.5s. From this argument, we used the corner period TD = 7.5s.
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Period (sec)
Figure 4. Elastic Accleration Response Spectrum
Spectral Displacement
(m)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Period (sec)
Figure 5. Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum used for case study investigation
Spectral Acceleration
(g)
3.2 Horizontal Elastic Design Response Spectrum

The design response spectrum is derived from the horizontal elastic response spectrum by
taking into account the behaviour factor q of the structure. For this case study, a reinforced
concrete frame-wall structure, the maximum value of q is 5.4. However, as explained in
section 3.3, in order to cope with the P-delta effect, we used a reduced value of 3 for q. As a
result of using small value of q, we increased the strength of the structures, an effective way
dealing with P-delta effects. It is noted that the design displacement spectrum is equivalent to
elastic displacement spectrum in Fig. 5.
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Period (sec)
Figure 6. Design Acceleration Response Spectrum with behaviour factor q = 3
3.3
Performance requirements
3.3.1
-
Ultimate limit state
Resistance condition:
The following relation shall be satisfied for all structural elements including connections
and the relevant non-structural elements: Ed Rd
where
Ed is the design value of the action effect, due to the seismic design situation
Rd is the corresponding design resistance of the element
Second-order effects (P- effects) need not be taken into account if the following
condition is fulfilled in all storeys:
P .d
= tot r 0.10
Vtot .h
where
is the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient;
Ptot is the total gravity load at and above the storey considered in the seismic
designsituation;
dr is the design interstorey drift, evaluated as the difference of the average lateral
displacements ds at the top and bottom of the storey under consideration.
Vtot is the total seismic storey shear; and h is the interstorey height.
If 0.1 < 0.2, the second-order effects may approximately be taken into account by
multiplying the relevant seismic action effects by a factor equal to 1/(1 - ).
It is noted that the EC8 does not permit the value of the coefficient to exceed 0.3.
3.3.2 Damage limitation limit state

- Limitation of interstorey drift:
For buildings having non-structural elements fixed in a way so as not to interfere with
structural deformations, or without non-structural elements, the interstorey drift shall be
satified the following condition:
dr 0.010 h
where
dr is the design interstorey drift;
h is the storey height;
is the reduction factor which takes into account the lower return period of the
seismic action associated with the damage limitation requirement.
With = 0.5 for importance classes I and II, the requirement of interstorey drift can be
rewritten as dr 0.02 h, which is equivalent to a 2% drift limit commentary in
International Codes.
3.3.3 Design criteria
(a) General
A fundamental in the design of structures under seismic loading is to prevent the formation of
unwanted collapse mechanisms. In Eurocode 8, it said that brittle failure or other undesirable
9
mechanism shall be prevented, by deriving the design action effects of selected regions from
equilibrium conditions, assuming that plastic hinges with their possible overstrengths have
been formed in their adjacent areas.
(b) Special provisions for ductile walls

EC8 recommends that uncertainties in the analysis and post-elastic dynamic effects shall be
taken into account, at least through an appropriate method. If a more precise method is not
available, special rules may be used for the design envelopes for bending moments, with
magnification factors for shear forces. The magnified moment and shear profiles to be used in
design according to EC8 are shown in Figures 7 and 8 respectively.
a. Moment diagram from
elastic analysis.
b. Design envelope.
a1. Tension shift
Figure 7. Design envelope for bending moments in slender walls of dual systems
10
a. Shear diagram from elastic analysis.

b. Magnified shear diagram.
c. Design envelope.
A. Vwall,base
B. Vwall,top > Vwall,base/2
Figure 8. Design envelope for the shear forces in the walls of dual systems
The possible increase in shear forces after yielding at the base of a primary seismic wall can
be taken into account by increasing the shear forces to be 50% higher than the values obtained
from the analysis [EC8, clause 5.4.2.4(7)]. This simplified rule for the wall shear forces has
been used for the case study structure in the next section.
3.4
3.4.1
Response spectrum analysis of the case study structure

Structural Modelling
The case study structure is analysed with a simplified 2D model using SAP2000. The
diaphragm is assumed to be rigid in-plane, so the displacements of the frame and wall are the
same for a given storey level. As such, in the model, we constrained all the points at the same
floor levels to move together.
Considering stiffness used in the modelling process, as recommended in EC8, clause 4.3.1(7),
when an accurate analysis of the cracked elements is not performed, the elastic flexural and
shear stiffness properties of concrete may be taken to be equal to 50% of the corresponding
stiffness of the uncracked elements. More accurate values of stiffness can be obtained using
moment curvature analyses and these are used in the N.L.T.H.A. verification in the next
chapter. In this chapter, we use 50% gross section stiffness as it is suggested in the code and is
an approximate value that engineers usually use in practice.
11
Frames
Walls
Figure 9. Structural Modelling
The structure is designed using the response spectrum specified in the previous section 3.2.
The column foundation connections were assumed to be rigid and were modeled as rigid
moment connections in SAP2000. Structure foundation interactions were not considered in
the analyses of the case study structure as it is outside the scope of this research.
3.4.2
Analysis results
Results from the elastic analysis of the case study structure are presented in the following
sections.
(a) Modal properties

Table 5 shows the modal periods and modal mass contribution. The sum of modal mass
contribution of all modes is 92%, so we can ignore the contributions of modes higher than 4.
Table 5. Modal properties
Period (s)
Modal mass contribution (%)
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
6.1
69
1.6
14
0.7
6
0.4
3
12
(b) Second-order effects

To take into account the second-order effect, in Eurocode 8, it is suggested to check the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient. Second-order effects must be taken into account when the
coefficients are larger than 0.1, as discussed in section 3.3.1. Table 6 presents the shears,
gravity loads and storey drifts at different floor levels. The inter-storey drift coefficients and
the factor 1/(1-) at floor levels are also calculated.
Table 6. Inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficients
Storey
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
Height
(m)
180
176
172
168
164
160
156
152
148
144
140
136
132
128
124
120
116
112
108
104
100
96
92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
Shear
(kN)
9584
5610
6245
6520
6851
7074
7180
7183
7120
7041
7001
7043
7184
7406
7672
7941
8185
8387
8543
8661
8754
8841
8934
9041
9158
9274
9376
9452
9498
9522
9545
9596
9707
9901
10183
10540
10943
Gravity
Load (kN)
Storey
Drift (%)
7416
14831
22247
29662
37078
44494
51909
59325
66740
74156
81572
88987
96403
103818
111234
118650
126065
133481
140896
148312
155728
163143
170559
177975
185390
192806
200221
207637
215053
222468
229884
237299
244715
252131
259546
266962
274377
0.95%
0.98%
1.00%
1.03%
1.05%
1.07%
1.10%
1.13%
1.16%
1.19%
1.22%
1.25%
1.27%
1.30%
1.32%
1.34%
1.36%
1.38%
1.40%
1.42%
1.44%
1.46%
1.46%
1.48%
1.49%
1.48%
1.48%
1.48%
1.47%
1.45%
1.43%
1.41%
1.36%
1.31%
1.25%
1.17%
1.09%
ratio
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.22
1/(1-)
1.01
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.30
1.27
13
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
11357
11748
12087
12354
12540
12645
12686
12669
281793
289209
296624
304040
311455
318871
326287
333702
0.99%
0.90%
0.79%
0.68%
0.55%
0.41%
0.27%
0.11%
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.03
1.25
1.22
1.19
1.17
1.14
1.10
1.07
1.03
As the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficients are all in the range from 0.1 to 0.3, secondorder effects must be considered. Following the recommendations in the code, second-order
effects can be taken into account by multiplying the relevant seismic action effects by the
factor 1/ (1 - ). Although the code did suggest that the inter-storey drifts shall not exceed 0.3,
the code does not give any suggestions on how to include P-delta effects when the coefficients
lie in the between 0.2 and 0.3. Therefore, for simplicity, we used the same way of including
P-delta effects for the whole of range from 0.1 to 0.3. It is considered that the
recommendations in the code should give more guidance on this point.
(c) Storey displacements and drifts

Maximum storey displacements and drifts are calculated with the consideration of second
order effects through the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient as explained in the previous
paragraph. Figures 10 & 11 show the values of max storey displacements and drifts predicted
for different storeys.
48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Displacement (m)
Figure 10. Storey displacements
14
48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Inter-storey Drift (%)
Table 7. Storey drift (r/hs) contributions by different modes
Storey
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
Height
(m)
180
176
172
168
164
160
156
152
148
144
140
136
132
128
124
120
116
112
108
104
100
96
Mode 1
(%)
0.81%
0.82%
0.83%
0.84%
0.86%
0.87%
0.89%
0.91%
0.93%
0.95%
0.97%
0.99%
1.00%
1.03%
1.04%
1.06%
1.07%
1.09%
1.10%
1.11%
1.12%
1.13%
Mode 2
(%)
0.42%
0.43%
0.44%
0.44%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.44%
0.43%
0.41%
0.39%
0.37%
0.35%
0.32%
0.29%
0.26%
0.22%
0.18%
0.15%
Mode 3
(%)
0.21%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.21%
0.20%
0.19%
0.17%
0.14%
0.12%
0.09%
0.06%
0.03%
0.00%
0.03%
0.06%
0.09%
0.12%
0.14%
0.15%
0.17%
Mode 4
(%)
0.08%
0.09%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.07%
0.06%
0.04%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.04%
0.05%
0.06%
0.06%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.02%
SRSS
(%)
0.95%
0.98%
1.00%
1.03%
1.05%
1.07%
1.10%
1.13%
1.16%
1.19%
1.22%
1.25%
1.27%
1.30%
1.32%
1.34%
1.36%
1.38%
1.40%
1.42%
1.44%
1.46%
15
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
1.13%
1.13%
1.13%
1.12%
1.11%
1.11%
1.09%
1.07%
1.04%
1.02%
0.99%
0.95%
0.91%
0.86%
0.81%
0.74%
0.68%
0.60%
0.52%
0.43%
0.32%
0.21%
0.09%
0.11%
0.07%
0.03%
0.01%
0.05%
0.09%
0.12%
0.15%
0.18%
0.21%
0.23%
0.25%
0.27%
0.27%
0.28%
0.27%
0.26%
0.25%
0.22%
0.19%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.17%
0.17%
0.17%
0.16%
0.15%
0.13%
0.11%
0.08%
0.06%
0.03%
0.00%
0.03%
0.05%
0.08%
0.10%
0.11%
0.12%
0.13%
0.12%
0.11%
0.09%
0.07%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.04%
0.05%
0.06%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.03%
0.04%
0.05%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
1.46%
1.48%
1.49%
1.48%
1.48%
1.48%
1.47%
1.45%
1.43%
1.41%
1.36%
1.31%
1.25%
1.17%
1.09%
0.99%
0.90%
0.79%
0.68%
0.55%
0.41%
0.27%
0.11%
Fig.11 shows that the maximum design inter-storey drift is 1.5%. The drift limit calculated in
accordance with EC8 with = 0,5 is 2%. Therefore, the design satisfied the code inter-storey
drift requirement. Results presented in Table 7 show the contributions of higher modes to the
total inter-storey drifts. Higher modes can contribute up to nearly 50% of the total drift. The
effects of higher modes are more significant at the storeys close to the top of the structure.
(c) Moments and shears

Results of base moments and shears are presented in Table 8 and 9. Table 10 and 11 show
beam moments and shears at some typical storey levels. Figures from 12 to 14 show the
distribution of moment and shear forces up the height of the structural wall. The axial load on
a typical column is shown in Figure 15.
Table 8. Base moments
Wall
Moment
Percentage %
402608.00
36.95
Frame
687039.13
63.05
Total
1089647.13
Table 9. Base shears
Wall
Shear
Percentage %
10989.00
86.78
Frame
1674.36
13.22
Total
12663.36
16
Table 10. Beam moments
Storey
M left (kNm)
15
23
31
M right (kNm)
2062.21
1983.57
1695.22
2072.96
1977.81
1688.67
Table 11. Beam shears
Storey
Q (kN)
Storey
15
23
31
661.63
633.82
541.42
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
200000 400000 600000

Wall moments (kN-m)
Figure 12. Wall moments
17
49
46
43
40
37
34
Storey
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
5000
10000
Wall shears (kN)
15000
5000
10000
15000
Frame shears (kN)
Figure 13. Wall shears & frame shears from the elastic analysis
Storey
Storey
31
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
5000
10000 15000 20000
Wall shears (kN)

Figure 14. Wall shears after applying EC8 special provisions for shear walls
18
48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
10000
20000 30000
40000
50000
Axial Loads (kN)
Figure 15. Column axial loads
Analysis results indicate that the percentage of moments resisted by the wall is different from
that of shear force. Most of the base shear force is taken by the shear wall, which resists 87%.
The frames take only 13%. In contrast, base overturning moment is taken mostly by the
frames, about 63%. The other 37% of the overturning moment is resisted by the walls.
Although the sum of column section modulus is small compared to the walls, a large part of
overturning demands is resisted by the frames. The reason for this is that the beam moments
are transferred to the frame in the form of very large column axial loads, which can be seen in
Fig.15. From this result, we can see that the moment resistance of frames is important. The
proportion of total base shear carried by the frames, which is recommended in practice from
15% to 50%, and in the UBC 97 must be 25%, should not be considered as relevant as the
moments when designing frame-wall structures and considering the equivalent SDOF
resistance offered.
(c) Recalculation of structural component stiffnesse s

Research done by Priestley [1998, 2003] and Paulay [1992] indicates that for reinforced
concrete members, the yield curvature is essentially independent of reinforcement content and
axial load level, and is a function of yield strain and section depth alone. Based on extensive
analyses, the following equations for yield curvature of some different section shapes have
been obtained:
Rectangular concrete column :
y = 2.10 y / h c
Rectangular concrete wall
Flanged concrete beam
y = 2.00 y / l w
:
y = 1 .7 y / h b
where y is the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement (= f y / E s ) , and h c , l w , h b are the
19
section depths of the rectangular column, rectangular wall, and flanged concrete beam
sections respectively.
Considering the implications of this for the beams which are more critical under flexural
effects, more accurate estimates of cracked section stiffness can be obtained by dividing the
design moments by the constant yield curvature and concrete modulus as Icr = MN/Ey. The
differences between the EC8 50%Iy and this more accurate method are shown for the beams
in Table 12.
Table 12. Recalculation of beam stiffness from elastic analysis results
Depth(m)
Width(m)
0.85
0.75
y=1.7y/hc
0.005
I (m4)
0.03838
50% I (m4)
Max moments
(kN-m)
0.019
2072
Recalculated I
(m4)
0.012
Results show that the recalculated moment of inertia is much smaller than the initial input
value, which is recommended to be 50% of gross moment of inertia. This is typically
considered conservative for design because modal analysis yields higher accelerations when
shorter periods are assumed. However, underestimating periods will probably mean
underestimating displacements. In order to have a more precise elastic analysis results,
iterations in analyses with recalculated stiffness should be carried out other than doing the
analysis only once.
3.5
Capacity Design
3.5.1 Design using the Eurocode

Beams, columns, and wall are designed conforming to current code procedures in EC 2 and
EC8. Details of the design are provided in the following table.
Table 13. Design details (Eurocode8)
Base shear (kN)
Wall strength (kNm)
Wall long.reinforcement (%)
Beam strength (kNm)
Beam reinforcement (%)
Column axial strength (kN)
Column flexural strength (kNm)
Column long.reinforcement (%)
12663
402608
0.4
2073
1.9
40703
951
0.98
3.5.2 Expected strengths

Based on recommendations for seismic design of bridges and buildings by Priestley et al
[2007], it is recommended that the following design material strengths be adopted:
Concrete: f 'ce = 1.3f c'
Steel:
f ye = 1.1f y
f ce' and f ye are low estimates of expected strength. The value for f ye is felt to be appropriate
for both reinforcing and structural steel. The concrete strength acknowledges the influence of
20
conservative batching practice, and the increase in strength after 28 days before the structure
subjected to the design loading, which will certainly occur later than 28 days.
In that consideration, expected material properties have been used to carry out the momentcurvature analyses for the structural components. Results of moment-curvature analyses show
that, external columns, which are subjected to both tensile forces and compressive forces
during seismic cyclic loading, can respond in two possible ways, as shown in Fig.17 and
Fig.18. However, the combination of responses is about the same during the earthquakes.
Results of expected strengths will be used for the non-linear analyses in the next chapter.
Table 14. Member expected strengths
Wall strength (kNm)
Beam strength (kNm)
Column flexural strength
(kNm)
590160
2729
16620
3500
3000
Moment (kN-m)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Curvature (1/m )
Figure 16. Beam moment-curvature relationship
21
25000
Moment (kN-m)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Curvature (1/m )
Figure 17. Compression column moment-curvature relationship

14000
12000
Moment (kN-m)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Curvature (1/m )
Figure 18. Tension column moment-curvature relationship
22
700000
600000
Moment (kN-m)
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
Curvature (1/m )
Figure 19. Wall moment-curvature relationship
Moment-curvature analyses of the designed components show that the expected curvature
ductility capacity for beams and walls can be as high as about 13. For columns, due to the
effects of high axial loads, expected curvature ductility capacity is about 3. While these values
are quite low, the ductility demands on tall buildings are also expected to be low as will be
seen in the next chapter. It is also noted that the curvature ductility capacity could be
improved by increasing the confinement of the sections studied.
23
Chapter 4 Large displacement nonlinear time-history verification analyses
4 LARGE DISPLACEMENT NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY

VERIFICATION ANALYSES
4.1 Description
To investigate whether the structure as designed to EC8 would satisfy the design limits,
inelastic time-history analyses are carried out using Ruaumoko [Carr, 2004], a nonlinear timehistory analysis program, to assess the likely inelastic deformation demand.
4.2
Accelerograms
4.2.1 Real accelerograms

Accelerograms used for nonlinear analysis purposes are scaled accelerograms from real
recorded earthquakes, as shown in Table 15. Figures 20 and 21 presents the displacement
spectra of the accelerograms. It is noted that the real records all have spectral displacement
corner periods of about 7.5s. The records were scaled to meet the intensity of the Type 1
earthquake from EC8 with the assumed PGA = 0.4g and soil type C.
Table 15. List of real earthquake records used in the non-linear time-historey analyses
Record
Time
Scaled PGA
Scale
Length (s)
step (s)
(g)
factor
7.1
30.0
0.02
0.44
2.1
Lome Prieta
7.1
39.635
0.005
0.67
2.4
R3
Chi Chi
7.6
89.998
0.005
0.18
2.4
R4
Tabas
7.7
34.98
0.02
0.33
3.7
R5
Landers
7.3
79.98
0.02
0.35
1.45
Ref.
Earthquake Name
Magnitude
R1
Imp.Valley El Centro
R2
24
Spectral Displacement (m)
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Period (sec)
Modified EC8 5%
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Figure 20. Spectral displacements of real accelerograms with 5% damping
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
10
15
20
Period (sec)
5% Damped Spectra
EC8 5%
Figure 21. Average spectral displacements of real accelerograms
As briefly mentioned in section 3.1, recent research [Faccioli et al, 2004; Campbell et al,
2006; Bommer et al, 2007] has shown that the EC8 constant displacement corner period of 2s
is considered to be non-conservatively low for regions of high seismicity. Work by Faccioli et
al [2004] analyzing a large number of recent high-quality digital records, has indicated that
the corner period appears to increase almost linearly with magnitude. The research suggested
that the following relationship seems conservative:
TD = 1.0 + 2.5(Mw 5.7) seconds
25
The NEHRP guidelines (FEMA274, 1997), based primarily on seismology theory,

recommends a relationship with which the corner period is likely larger than that
recommended in the work of Faccioli et al [2004]:
Log10TD = -1.25 + 0.3Mw
For earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.6, we can have TD = 5.75s and TD = 10.7s using Faoccioli
et all [2004] and NEHRP formulas respectively.
The research also showed that long period displacement demands not only depend on the
value of the corner period but also the displacement magnitude at the corner period, which is
related to the epicentral distance.
In this work, a design spectrum and a set of records with approximate TD = 7.5s have been
selected. This research will show that the peak displacement associated with the cut-off period
can effectively change the displacement demands on tall buildings. Clearly, from the above
discussion, the critical period and displacement demand will depend on the likely magnitude
and distance, and this should be considered extending the findings made in this work to
specific seismic regions.
Spectral displacements of the selected real accelerograms decrease when the periods are
larger than the corner period of about 7.5s. This tendency may affect our non-linear analysis
results significantly if the inelastic natural period of the case study structure is much larger
than 7.5s. However, it seems that these should not the case as the approximate inelastic
structural period may lie around the range from 7s to 8s.
4.3 Modelling
The structure is analyzed using a 2D model in Ruaumoko [Carr, 2004]. The floors are
assumed to act as rigid diaphragms in plane, so the displacements at the floor levels are the
same at every point on the same level. To model this, simple constraints were assigned to the
columns and walls at the same floor level.
Beams, columns, and walls were modelled using 2-hinge Giberson beam elements.
For our case study structure, the beams and walls are likely to be subject to a relatively
constant axial load during the seismic loading, so they could be modelled without using
beam-column elements which can be used to take into account the change in strength due to
axial load variations. For columns, the average axial load could experience variations because
there are compressive and tensile forces in the exterior columns during the earthquakes.
However, as discussed in Sullivan et al [2006], the effects this stiffness variation has on the
system response is negligible because the reduction in strength and stiffness in tension
columns is typically balanced by the increase in strength and stiffness in the compression
columns. Therefore, using beam type elements for all members is deemed acceptable in
modelling the case study structure for the purposes of studying system response. Structural
components were assigned with the expected strengths reported in the capacity design section
in the previous chapter. Takeda hysteric models with 5% yield displacement stiffness were
26
used for all structural components. In order to take into account P-delta effects, the large
displacement analysis is chosen. An integration time-step of 0.005s is utilised.
Frames
Walls
Figure 22. Ruaumoko structural model
4.4
Nonlinear time-history analysis results
4.4.1 Case-study structural periods

Before running the non-linear-time-history [N.L.T.H.] analyses, Eigen-value analyses were
conducted to establish the various modes of vibration of the case study structure. These are
reported and compared with those obtained using the EC8 simplified cracked section stiffness
properties in Table 16.
Table 16. Struture periods
SAP 2000 (Icr = 50% Ig)

Ruaumoko (Icr = Mn/yEc)
Mode 1
6.1
7.3
Mode 2
1.6
1.9
Mode 3
0.7
0.9
Mode 4
0.4
0.5
27
The fundamental period of the structure when modeling with realistic component stiffness
increases from 6.1 to 7.3. This difference could lead to a larger displacements of the structure
under cyclic loading. This difference could be expected to lead to significant differences in
the predicted displacements of the structure. The N.L.T.H. analyses were conducted to obtain
maximum recorded values of storey drift and displacement. These peak values are presented
for each record and the average of the records in Figures 23 to 26.
4.4.2 Maximum storey displacements and drifts

Figures 23 and 24 shows the maximum interstorey drifts and displacements for all
accelerograms along the height of the building. The average values are presented in Figures
25 and 26.
48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
Drifts (%)
R1
R2
R3
R4
Limit
R5
EC8
Figure 23. Maximum storey drifts for all accelerograms
28
48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Storey displacement (m)

R1
R2
R3
R5
EC8
Limit
R4
Figure 24. Maximum storey displacements for all accelerograms

48
45
42
39
36
33
Storey
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
Maximum interstory drift (%)

Average NLTHA
EC8
Limit
Figure 25. Average storey drifts
29
Storey
48
45
42
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
Maximum storey displacement (m)

Average NLTHA
EC8
Limit
Figure 26. Average storey displacements
From the results, it can be seen that even though the period is underestimated, the non-linear
response of the structure is smaller than the code response predicted by elastic analysis. It can
be seen that the displacement shape is relatively linear and a maximum storey drift of 1.3%
was recorded. The designed structure satisfied the code requirements on structural
deformations.
4.4.3
Moments and shears
Table 17 shows the base moments, shears and axial loads. Table 18 shows beam moments for
different accelerograms and the average values.
Table 17. Base moments, shears & axial loads
Axial Load (kN)

Shear (kN)
Moment (kN-m)
Column 1
Column 2 Column 3
Column 4 Column 5
Wall
-44952
-28976
-24972
-29168
-43628
-68156
2406
2644
2646
2642
2414
-20684
8757
9064
9073
9074
8818
593880
Table 18. Beam moments
Accer 1
Accer 2
Accer 3
Accer 4
Accer 5
Average
M
M
M
M
M
M
max(kNm)
max(kNm)
max(kNm)
max(kNm) max(kNm) max(kNm)
15
2741
2745
2754
2753
2763
2751
23
2743
2758
2751
2755
2760
2753
31
2735
2757
2746
2749
2746
2746
Storey
30
Table 19. Member ductilities
Accer 1
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m)
Beam
Maximum
(Storey
curvature from
23)
THA (1/m)
Curvature Ductility
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m)
Column Maximum
(External) curvature from
THA (1/m)
Wall
Curvature Ductility
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m)
Maximum
curvature from
THA (1/m)
Curvature Ductility
Accer 2
Accer 3
Accer 4
Accer 5
Average
0.00547
0.00547
0.00547
0.00547
0.00547
0.00547
0.0095
1.73
0.0138
2.5
0.0116
2.1
0.0128
2.3
0.0144
2.6
0.0124
2.3
0.00511
0.00511
0.00511
0.00511
0.00511
0.00511
0.0029
0.0011
0.0027
0.0020
0.0029
0.0023
0.57
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.00031
0.00031
0.00031
0.00031
0.00031
0.00031
0.0007
2.33
0.0004
1.4
0.0007
2.2
0.0006
1.9
0.0008
2.4
0.0006
2.0
The member ductility results, as shown in Table 19, indicate that the actual ductility demands
on the structure is far smaller than the ductility considered implicitly in selection of the
behaviour factor within the force-based modal response spectrum method. In addition,
ductility capacities are sufficiently greater than demands. For the beams and walls, expected
ductilities are about 13, but here we got only less than 3. Hysteresis loops of the beams and
walls obtained from the analyses were quite narrow representing very low ductility values
(see Fig.49 to Fig.68 in appendix). The columns respond elastically, so hysteresis loops were
represented by straight lines. This suggested that the studied structure is designed to response
almost elastically. The reason for this is that tall buildings will inherently possess large
displacement capacity and earthquake displacement demands may often struggle to push the
structure far beyond yield. In addition, the EC8 required the structure be designed to satisfy
strict requirements for second order effects, with the requirement that the inter-storey
sensitivity coefficient is less than 0.3.
31
4.4.4 Beam ductility demands up the building height

Figure 27 presents the values of beam curvature ductility demands up the building height.
49
46
43
40
37
Storey
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0.00
1.00
2.00
Ductility
R1
R3
R5
3.00
R2
R4
Yield Limit
Figure 27. Beam curvature ductilities up the building height
The result indicates that at the bottom storey, beams responded elastically, whereas, at higher
storeys, they respond nonlinearly. The maximum ductility, which is nearly 3, is at the middle
of the structure. This is to be expected because the displacement and drift demands are
expected to be greater at height. These locations of max drift and ductility demands suggest
that more considerations should be given to beams on higher storeys when designing or
retrofitting tall building structures.
32
4.4.5 Wall moments and shears

Figures 28 and 29 present the results of wall moments and shears.
49
46
43
40
37
34
Storey
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
Wall moments (kN-m)

Ruaumoko
EC8
Figure 28. Wall moments

49
46
43
40
37
34
Storey
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
10000
20000
30000
Wall shears (kN)

Ruaumoko
EC8
Figure 29. Wall shears
33
Results from non-linear analyses show that the expected wall moment and shear strengths
were much larger than predicted by elastic analysis, about 50% and 25% for moments and
shears respectively, even with the EC8 special rules for shear walls applied to the design.
The reason for the difference in results between N.L.T.H. analysis and EC8 modal analysis
would be in the modal combination method in EC8. Research by Priestley and Amaris [2002]
indicated that considering the force reduction factor in all modes of vibration can
underestimate wall moments and shears even for very small earthquake intensities. The
research suggested that when doing the modal combination, the reduction factor should only
be applied to the first mode of vibration as ductility does not affect all modes equally. In
addition, work by Sullivan et al [2006] showed that the higher mode period lengthening can
affect the forces. These factors would be expected to account for the differences seen, but this
is outside of the scope of this study and further information can be found in the research done
by Priestley & Amaris [2002] and Sullivan et al [2006].
34
Chapter 5 P-delta effects and beam lengthening
5 P-DELTA EFFECTS AND BEAM LENGTHENING

5.1 Description
In order to check the P-delta effects on the studied structure, we carried out two analyses. The
first analysis used small displacement choice. The other is done with large displacement
choice. Real accelerograms, models are the same as in previous analyses.
5.2
A review of P-delta checks included in EC8
5.2.1 EC8 inclusion of P-delta effects

In EC8, it is said that second-order effects (P- effects) need not be taken into account if the
following condition is fulfilled in all storeys:
Ptot .d r
0.10
(1)
Vtot .h
- is the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient;
- Ptot is the total gravity load at and above the storey considered in the seismic
designsituation;
- dr is the design interstorey drift, evaluated as the difference of the average lateral
displacements ds at the top and bottom of the storey under consideration.
- Vtot is the total seismic storey shear; and h is the interstorey height.
- If 0,1 < 0,2, the second-order effects may approximately be taken into account by
multiplying the relevant seismic action effects by a factor equal to 1/(1 - ).
- The value of the coefficient shall not exceed 0,3. (*)
=
In our case study, the inter-storey drift coefficient is in the range form 0.1 to 0.3, so P-delta
effects need to be taken into account.
5.2.2 P-delta design in seismic regions

This section presents a review of research related to P-delta effects, which appears to have
leaded to the way P- effects are accounted for in the European [EC8] and US Codes [IBC
2005, ASCE7-5]. Priestley M.J.N and MacRae G.A. [1993] did intensive research about the
P-delta effects. In their research, P-delta effects were studied from experiments with columns.
35
Figure 30. Effects of P-delta moments on lateral response characteristics of a bridge pier
(a) Moment diagram; (b) Force-displacement response
Figure 31. Parameters for determining stability under P-Delta effects

(a) No P-Delta effects; (b) Including P-Delta Effects
The effects are generally related to a stability index, *, measured at first yield:
* =
P y
Fy L
(2)
where P is the gravity load; Fy and y are yield force and displacement; L is the column
height. Thus * is the ratio of P- moments at yield to the base moment capacity. Equation
(2) may be expressed as:
P
* =
(3)
K eL
36
where Ke is the elastic stiffness. Research indicated that the unloading stiffness K should be
used for the elastic stiffness. If the Takeda stiffness model [Otani, 1974] is used, an unloading
stiffness of K = K i 0.5 is appropriate for typical column response. The post-elastic stiffness
ratio rp including P- effects can be related to the effective stiffness r0 ignoring P- effects
by the relationship
r *
rp = 0 *
(4)
1
Research indicated that a minimum value of rp should be 0.05 to allow for uncertainty of
hysteretic characteristics. The maximum permissible value for * can be calculated as:
P
P 0.5 r0 rp ,min
*max =
=
=
(5)
KeL
kiL
1 rp, min
The value of the effective stiffness is obtained from load-displacement hysteresis loops from
tests of well-confined reinforced concrete columns. An example of the column test result is
shown in Fig. 32, carried out at the University of California, San Diego. The stiffness is
calculated as the bilinear stiffness divided by the elastic unloading stiffness at a certain value
of ductility, , e.g r0 =0.19 for = 6 shown in the Fig. 32.
Figure 32. Experiment test results of column hysteresis when column subjected to
axial load [Priestley M.J.N. and Seible F. ,1991]
With the sample values derived from the experiments, r0 =0.19 and = 6, we can find the
maximum value of * by using equation (5):
37
*max =
r0 rp,min
1 rp ,min
0.19 0.05
= 0.147
1 0.05
(6)
Substituting the max value of * into equation (5), with = 6, we have

Fy
yP
y
P
*max 5 = 0.06
0.06
20
(7)
kiL
Fy L
P
L
Equation (7) was based on = 6 and hence may be expressed in term of maximum expected
displacement as
Fy
P
3.3
u
L
(8)
Equation (8) can be rearranged, with small rounding, to become
lim it =
P u
0.3 (9)
Fy L
The limiting value of the storey-drift coefficient, limit, given by Eq.(9) corresponds to that
recommended in the EC8. The limit value for the inter-storey drift coefficient, therefore, is
tied to a certain high value of ductility, e.g. of 6 in this case.
For tall buildings, which have very high gravity load, in order to satisfy the inter-storey drift
coefficient limit of 0.3, the only effective way is to increase the strength of the structural
components. However, as the results of increasing the strengths of the structure, the ductility
demands should be less and the use of the code limits would not be applicable since it was
derived assuming a ductility value equal to 6.
If one considers a structure with =3, using a similar approach, one can find the limit values
of the storey-drift coefficients. From Fig. 32, r0 is about 0.4. The maximum value of * that
r0 rp,min 0.4 0.05
suggests one can ignore the P- effects is then *max =
=
= 0.37 and we
1 rp ,min
1 0.05
P u
0 .6
Fy L
These are estimate limit values of drift ratios for tall buildings that will be discussed in the
next sections of this chapter through analyses of the case study structure and a set of SDOF
structures.
can also derive lim it =
38
5.3 Nonlinear analysis results of the case study structure with real accelerograms
Figures 33 and 34 show the values of storey drifts and displacements of N.L.T.H.A with real
accelerograms.
49
46
43
40
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
37
34
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
31
28
25
Elastic modal analysis

with P-delta inclusion
(EC8)
22
19

without P-delta
inclusion (EC8)
16
13
10
7
4
1
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Figure 33. Interstorey drifts recorded using real accelerograms
48
45
42
39
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
36
33
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
30
27

(EC8)
24
21

without P-deta
inclusion (EC8)
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Figure 34. Storey displacements recorded using real accelerograms
39
The results show that P-delta effects have a negligible influence on the response of the case
study structure. There is almost no difference between the results of large displacement and
small displacement analyses. The inelastic responses are quite similar to the response
predicted by modal analysis without the inclusion of P-delta effects.
5.4 Nonlinear analysis results of the case study structure with artificial accelerograms
Reason for the small difference between small and large displacement analyses in the
previous section could be considered to be because the displacement response of the structure,
when subjected to real accelerograms, enters the long period displacement response spectrum.
This would account for the very small differences between large and small displacement
analyses. It suggested that doing analyses with artificial accelerograms which have no plateau
in their displacement response spectrum should show that P- effects can be significant. As
such, the structure is re-analysed with a set of artificial accelerograms, the spectra for which
are shown in Fig.35. The artificial accelerograms time series are shown from Fig.74 to Fig.78
in the Appendix. The NLTHA results obtained using these artificial accelerograms are
presented in Fig.36 and Fig.37.
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Period (sec)
EC8 5%
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Figure 35. Spectral displacements for artificial accelerograms with 5% damping
40
49
46
Large placement
N.L.T.H. analysis
43
40
37
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
34
31
28
Elastic modal
analysis with P-delta
inclustion (EC8)
25
22
Elastic modal
analysis without Pdelta inclustion
(EC8)
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Figure 36. Interstorey drifts recorded using artificial accelerograms
48
45
42
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
39
36
33
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
30
27
24
21
Elastis modal analysis

(EC8)
18
15
12

without P-delta
inclusion (EC8)
9
6
3
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Figure 37. Storey displacements recorded using artificial accelerograms
41
The results of the artificial acclerograms were almost the same as those of real accelerograms.
This suggests that the type of accelerograms used is not the only reason for the small
differences between small & large displacement analyses of the case study structure. This also
indicates that the tall structure, which is designed to satisfy the inter-storey drift limit of 0.3,
would not be affected significantly by P-delta effects. The code adjustments for P-delta
effects by a factor 1/(1 - ) appear to be conservative.
5.5 Summary of findings

Maximum displacements and drifts with artificial accelerograms resemble those with real
accelerograms. There was no significant difference between large and small displacement
analyses.
From the results, one would conclude that the P-delta effects on the studied structure were
negligible. This suggests that further research should be done to improve the requirement for
second-order effects for tall buildings and this will be explored by looking at SDOF systems
in Section 5.7
5.6
Beam Lengthening
5.6.1 Description of beam lengthening

In both previous analyses, the gross axial stiffness was used when modelling the beams of the
frames. However, research by Fenwick et al [1981, 1993, 2007] has indicated that elongation
of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete (RC) beams can have a significant effect on the
seismic performance of RC structures. Fig.38 represents sequential stages that beams can
experience under cyclic loading. If axial stiffness reduces allowing the deformation of the
beams, large displacement analyses may lead to significant difference compared to the small
displacement choices. The phenomenon may affect our results of the second-order effects.
F
LB
L B'
Concrete spalls
Bottom bars yield & elongate
(a)
F
(b)
L B'
L B' L B
Top bars yield & elongate
Concrete crushes
(c)
(d)
Figure 38. Beam lengthening effects in structural frames under cyclic loadings.
(a) Before loading. (b) First loading. (c) Second loading. (d) After loading.
42
5.6.2 Modified analysis model to reflect beam lengthening effects

Although the beam lengthening effects can be seen clearly through experiments, no
satisfactory analytical models are known to be available at the moment. A model which can
be used to predict the influence of elongation on the seismic performance is understood to be
under development at the University of Canterbury. However, it is certain that beam axial
stiffness changes when beam lengthening effects occur. Given this, it was decided to check
the values of beam axial forces and axial elongation obtained in the previous N.L.T.H.A
undertaken with real accelerograms. It is noted that in the analyses gross section areas for the
beams were used. Table 20 represents average values of beam axial forces and elastic
elongation up the building height.
Table 20. Average beam axial forces and elongation (N.L.T.H.A. using gross section area)
Storey
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
Beam axial
strain (x10-5)
10.45
10.44
10.43
10.40
10.37
10.32
10.27
10.19
10.10
9.99
9.86
9.71
9.54
9.34
9.13
8.89
8.62
8.34
8.05
7.74
7.42
7.08
6.73
6.36
5.98
5.59
5.19
4.79
4.39
3.99
3.60
3.21
2.83
Beam axial
Force (kN)
590
589
589
587
585
583
579
575
570
564
557
548
538
527
515
502
487
471
454
437
419
400
380
359
337
315
293
271
248
225
203
181
160
Elastic
Elongation
(mm)
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.65
0.63
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.53
0.50
0.48
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.21
43
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2.46
2.11
1.78
1.47
1.18
0.92
0.69
0.49
0.32
0.18
0.08
0.02
139
119
100
83
67
52
39
27
18
10
5
1
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
It can be seen from Table 20 that the beams attract significant axial forces and experience
very small deformation. The reason is attributed to the use of gross section area when
modelling the structure. The gross section area used for beams in the analyses may not be
realistic. Extensive experimental tests on the seismic behaviour of RC beams carried out at the
University of Auckland have shown that plastic hinges in ductile RC beam typically elongate
between 2 and 5 percent of the beam depth before strength degradation occurs. We note that
the elastic axial deformation of a beam is x,e = PL/AE. Clearly, because of plastic hinge
lengthening, the effective axial stiffness reduces. The effects of the hinge lengthening on the
axial stiffness can be gauged considering the change in length as a source of axial flexibility.
As such, the total axial deformation is given by:
x , total = x ,e + x ,p
(10)
where x,e and x,p are the elastic deformation and plastic deformation respectively.
Equation 10 indicates that for a given axial load, the axial deformation is not x,e but is
instead x,total. Therefore, we can define the effective axial stiffness as:
x ,e
AE
AE
.
(11)
=
L eff ( x ,e + x ,p ) L
If we assume that the plastic hinges of each beam in our case study structure elongate at 5
percent of the beam depth, which is 850mm, the total beam elongation would be about 85mm
considering elongation of plastic hinges at both ends. Substituting this approximate plastic
elongation and the maximum elastic deformation given in Table 20 into the Equation 11, one
obtains an effective axial stiffness value 110 times smaller than the elastic axial stiffness. In
the same way, if one uses the lower value of plastic hinge elongation of 2 percent of the beam
depth, it can be shown that the effective axial stiffness is about 30 times smaller than the
elastic axial stiffness. It is noted that the above plastic elongation values are based on
experimental tests, which are likely to have been deformed to high ductility demands. Thus,
the reduction in the effective axial stiffness could be lower. To this extent, we repeated
analyses using approximate lower and upper bounds of the effective axial stiffness, with axial
stiffness value of the beams reduced by 10 and 100 times. These values of 10 and 100 might
be considered to represent low and high ductility demands respectively. Although these
choices of beam axial stiffness are not calibrated, analysis results may give us an estimation
44
of beam lengthening effects on our results of large displacement analyses. Both real and
artificial accelerograms are used in this study. The average displacement response spectrum of
the accelerograms is re-presented in Fig. 39 for easy reference.
5.00
4.50
4.00
EC8 5%
3.50
3.00
Real
accelerograms
2.50
2.00
Artificial
accelerograms
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Period (sec)
Figure 39. Average displacement response spectrum of real and artificial accelerograms
5.6.3
Nonlinear analysis results with reduced beam axial stiffness
Figures 40 and 41 show the storey drift results of the two N.L.T.H. analyses with different
reduction in beam axial stiffness.
49
46
Real accelerograms with

large displacement
analysis
43
40
37
34

small displacement
analysis
31
28
25
22
Artificial accelerograms
with large displacement
analysis
19
16
13
10
7
4
with small displacement
analysis
1
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
(with beam axial stiffness reduced by 10 times)
45
49
46
large displacement
analysis
43
40
37
34

small displacement
analysis
31
28
25
22
with large displacement
analysis
19
16
13
10
with small displacement
analysis
7
4
1
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Figure 41. Inter-storey drifts (with beam axial stiffness reduced by 100 times)
It can be seen from Figure 40 and 41 that the results of N.L.T.H. analyses are affected by the
value of beam axial stiffness.
In Fig.40, which shows the results obtained when beam axial stiffness is reduced only by a
factor of 10, indicates that there is almost no difference between large and small displacement
analyses with both real and artificial accelerograms. The result is similar to that obtained in
the previous section 5.4, where analyses are run without a reduction in beam axial stiffness.
The reason for this is that even though beam axial stiffness is reduced, the reduction in
stiffness of the structure is small and the effective period of the structure does not increase
much. As a result, the change in displacement response can not be seen clearly.
In contrast, a very different result can be seen in Fig.41, which shows the results obtained
when a high reduction in beam axial stiffness is used. For real accelerograms, the results of
small and large displacement analyses are the same as with gross section stiffness properties
for the beams. As such, there is no significant difference between small and large
displacement analyses. This can be explained by considering that the response of the structure
cannot increase when the period of the structure is larger than the corner period of the real
acclerogram displacement spectrum. The response of the structure corresponds to the plateau
portion of the response spectrum. However, for artificial acclerograms, the differences in
results between small and large displacement analyses can be seen more clearly. The
differences come from the nature of the displacement response spectrum. For artificial
accelerograms, when the period of the structure increases, the displacement increases as there
is no plateau in the spectrum.
Furthermore, Fig.41 also shows that there is a large difference in the displacement response
between results of analyses with real and artificial accelerograms, which was not observed
46
when gross beam axial stiffness values were used. A high reduction in beam axial stiffness
makes the structure more flexible entering the displacement response at higher period. The
displacement response of artificial accelerograms can be much higher than that of real
accelerograms at periods considerably higher than the corner period, TD, of 7.5s. This further
suggests that P- effects may not be significant for tall buildings when real accelerograms are
considered.
Figures 40 and 41 point out that axial stiffness reduction can affect on the large displacement
behaviour of tall structures. However, this reduction depends on the relation between beam
lengthening and ductility demand, which is not currently well understood. If large ductility
demands are expected, P- effects may be significant when response has not entered within
the constant displacement demand period range.
It is noted that the strength of our case study structure is quite high in order to satisfy with the
EC8 drift limit considering P-delta effects. Therefore, the large displacement drifts are not
significantly larger than those of small displacements. More flexible structures can experience
higher displacements when considering large displacement behaviour. Results of analyses
using reduced values of beam axial stiffness suggest that beam axial stiffness can significantly
affect large displacement behaviours of the structures under cyclic loading. Exactly what
value of beam axial stiffness should be used to realistically reflect the effects of beam
lengthening is outside the scope of this research. Further research should be carried out to find
out an appropriate way of modelling the beams under earthquake excitation.
5.7
SDOF studies to consider P- effects for tall buildings
5.7.1 Description
The results in the previous chapters, which have been obtained from simplified 2D analysis of
a frame-wall structure, can be examined over a wider range of structures by investigating the
behaviour of a set of SDOF systems with different fundamental periods under the same real
excitations as shown in Fig. 20.
5.7.2 SDOF structures
SDOF systems used in the investigation are constructed by assuming that they would
experience a specified expected displacement with specified drift coefficients. In this case, the
expected displacement is initially taken as the max displacement (of 1.2m) of the real
displacement response spectrum, presented in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21. P-Delta drift coefficients of
0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 are used in constructing the SDOD systems. The assumed vertical load P is
150000kN and the effective mass is taken as 70% of the ratio between P and g, the
acceleration due to gravity. By varying the height and using simple calculations, we can get
the necessary parameters for the different period SDOF structures as shown from Tables 21 to
23. For N.L.T.H. analysis, the SDOF structures were modelled using the Takeda thin
hysteretic model with an effective post stiffness ratio r = 0 (i.e. strain hardening effects are
ignored so that lateral resistance constant beyond yield & P- ratio easily computed).
47
Table 21. SDOF structure's parameters with expected drift coefficient = 0.3
Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
58
76
96
118
143
170
200
232
266
15.39
26.26
42.06
64.10
93.85
132.92
183.07
246.24
324.50
Moment
Strength
Mn (kNm)
600000
600000
600000
600000
600000
600000
600000
600000
600000
Area
A
(m2)
14
18
22
28
34
40
47
54
62
Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
35
45
58
71
86
102
120
139
160
3.32
5.67
9.08
13.85
20.27
28.71
39.54
53.19
70.09
Moment
Strength
Mn (kNm)
360000
360000
360000
360000
360000
360000
360000
360000
360000
Area
A
(m2)
6
8
10
13
16
19
22
25
29
Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
25
32
41
51
61
73
86
99
114
1.21
2.07
3.31
5.05
7.39
10.46
14.41
19.38
25.54
Moment
Strength
Mn (kNm)
257143
257143
257143
257143
257143
257143
257143
257143
257143
Area
A
(m2)
4
5
6
8
9
11
13
15
18
48
5.7.3 Analysis results

Large and small displacement N.L.T.H. analyses were carried out for the SDOF structures.
Because the maximum period of the real accelerograms is 20s, only the large displacement
results which have lengthened periods less than 20s are considered. The analysis results are
presented in Figures 42 to 47 and Tables 24 to 26.
Table 24. SDOF fundamental periods analysed with = 0.3
Small displacement period (s)
Large displacement period (s)
8.8
10.1
10
11
11.3 12.4
12
13
13.7 14.9
14
15
16.3 17.5
18.7
11.3 12.3
10
11
14.6 15.8
12
17.5 18.9
13
14
15
>20
>20
>20
10
11
12
13
14
15
18.4
18.3
>20
>20
>20
>20
>20
>20
>20
5.00
5.00
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
3.50
R1
3.00
R2
2.50
R3
2.00
R4
1.50
R5
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
3.50
3.00
R1
2.50
R2
R3
2.00
R4
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
Collapse limit
R5
0.00
10
11
T (s)
(a)
12
13
14
15
16
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
T (s)
(b)
Figure 42. N.L.T.H. analysis results for SDOF with real acclerograms for average=0.3
(a) Small displacement analysis. (b) Large displacement analysis
49
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
Collapse limit
2.00
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
R1
R2
1.50
R3
R4
1.00
R5
0.50
2.00
R1
R2
1.50
R3
R4
1.00
R5
0.50
0.00
0.00
10
11
T (s)
12
13
14
15
16
10
11
12
13
T (s)
(a)
(b)
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
Displacement (m)
2.00
R1
R2
1.50
R3
R4
1.00
R5
0.50
2.00
R1
R2
1.50
R3
R4
1.00
R5
0.50
0.00
6
10
11
T (s)
12
13
14
15
0.00
16
T (s)
(a)
(b)
Displacement p-delta/Displacement no p-delta
Displacement (m)
4.50
4.00
3.50
Not collapsed SDOF

structures
3.00
2.50
Collapsed SDOF
structures
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Drift ratio (theta)
Figure 45. Displacement ratios between large and small displacement NLTHA
results versus drift ratio for all accelerograms
50
Displacement p-delta/Displacement no p-delta
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Drift ratio (theta)
Figure 46. Displacement ratios between large and small displacement analyses
for all 3 SDOF structures with all accelerograms except R4
Results of small displacement N.L.T.H. analyses shown in Fig. 42 (a), Fig. 43 (a) and Fig.44
(a) indicate that the displacement responses of the SDOF systems reflect the displacement
response spectrum of the real accelerograms. For accelerogram R4, the displacements are
significantly larger than the displacements in the spectrum at the periods from 12s to 15s. To
consider why this has occurred, it should first be noted that when the structure displaces
inelastically, the total displacement is the sum of yield displacement and the displacement due
to deformation of the plastic hinge:
e H 2
+ ( t e ) L p H .
3
where: t, e are the total and elastic displacements respectively, p is the displacement due
to deformation of the plastic hinge, t and e are the total and elastic curvatures, Lp is the
plastic hinge length and H is the height of the structure.
t = e + p =
Figure 47. Moment-curvature and force-displacement relations of 14s period

SDOF structure when subjected to R4 (small displacement analysis)
Fig. 47 shows the moment-curvature and force-displacement relations of the 14s period
SDOF structure using the real record R4. It can be seen that when the force is unloaded to
zero after the structure yields, there is a negative curvature stored in the structure. When the
structure is reloaded again, the total curvature it can have before yielding is larger than the
51
initial elastic curvature. As the result, the peak displacement is very high and it is dominated
by the term eH2/3 corresponding to the highest value of e.
For large displacement N.L.T.H. analyses shown in Fig. 42 (b), Fig. 43 (b) and Fig.44 (b),
because of the reduction in the stiffness, the structures fundamental period increases. As a
result, the displacement response of the structures reflects the displacement response spectrum
effectively translated to larger periods. The SDOF structures with = 0.3 and = 0.5 have a
range of periods in which they collapse under R4 excitation. The range is from 13s to 15s and
from 10s to 12s for the SDOF structures created with expected drift coefficients of 0.3 and 0.5
respectively. The collapses occur in those ranges of periods because the structures period in
large displacement response increases and lies in the range from 16s to 18s in which R4
spectra displacement is much larger than the expected max displacement of 1.2m, and for the
hysteretic behaviour discussed in the previous two paragraphs.
Fig. 45 shows the displacement ratios between the displacement results of the large and small
displacement analyses versus drift ratios for all accelerograms. Fig.46 shows the same
parameters but it does not include results from R4. In Fig.45, there are points that correspond
to the collapse of the structures due to R4.
Results without R4, shown in Fig.46, indicate that, for acclerograms R1, R2, R3, R5, the
displacement ratios are in vicinity of 1, even for P-delta drift coefficients as high as 0.8. This
observation suggests that P- effects are not significant for long period structures when
periods are in the constant displacement range of the spectra. The effect of the displacement
cut-off was highlighted comparing results obtained using real & artificial records in sections
5.3 and 5.4. Again, the reason for this is that the stiffness reduction due to P- effects does
not result in significantly higher displacement, because the displacement response at the
higher periods enters the plateau region. These SDOF results combined with discussions in
the previous sections suggest that for tall building structures, the limit drift coefficient could
be larger than the limit currently specified limit in the code of 0.3. The estimate drift
coefficient limit of 0.6 derived in section 5.2.2 would be a more reasonable value for tall
buildings when lying in a constant range of the displacement spectrum and when ductility
demands are less than three.
52
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
6
10
12
14
16
R4 elastic displacement,
Period (sec)0% damping
R4 elastic displacement spectrum, 5% damping
SDOF small displacement inelastic response
Figure 48. Inelastic small displacement response of the

14s period SDOF structure under R4 excitation
The high displacement response seen in the results with R4 between periods 12s and 15s, as
shown in Fig.48, does put some doubts on the general conclusions made thus far about P-
effects. Fig. 48 compares the inelastic spectral demands of record R4 with the damped
spectral demands. It is surprising that even when 0% damping is considered, the maximum
inelastic displacement demands are greater than the elastic spectrum. The behaviour observed
for record R4 is expected to be sensitive to the LP/H ratio and in practice, plastic hinges will
form up the structures height. The observation suggests that care must be taken in the
selection of the plastic hinge lengths for lumped plasticity analyses. Furthermore, the
observations raise doubts over the general accuracy of lumped plasticity analyses for
structures of high slenderness ratio. Future work should look to explore this observation
further, possibly comparing results obtained with lumped plasticity and distributed plasticity
models. This future work could be particularly important for displacement based design
purposes since if the trend shown by R4 is true, the results would suggest the use of highly
damped elastic spectra may not provide sufficiently accurate prediction of peak displacement
demands.
53
Chapter 6 Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
For structures with long natural period, EC8 suggests that seismic actions may be represented
in the form of a displacement response spectrum. However, the recommended values of
corner period TD may currently be too small as real records showed that it may be as large as
7.5s.
For tall building structures subjected to seismic loads, it has been shown that higher modes
can contribute largely to the total inter-storey drifts of the structures, up to 50% of total drifts.
Ductilities of structural components under seismic loadings are typically much smaller than is
assumed within the force-based modal analysis approach.
The current code procedures appear to be inappropriate when dealing with tall building
structures. When considering the structural component forces of a 45 storey case study
structure, it was noted that wall shears and moments were underestimated by the modal
analysis procedure. However, the inclusion of P-delta effects in the code seems to be too
conservative or may be unrealistic.
P-Delta limit may need review since for real records, the maximum displacement is limited
and therefore reductions in effective stiffness due to P-delta effects do not significantly affect
the performance of the system. The inter-storey drift coefficient limit, which is derived for a
certain ductility value, may be too small for tall building structures. Results from this study
suggested that the limiting inter-storey drift coefficient limit could be increased to 0.6.
Results from the SDOF study for tall structures suggest that the inelastic response spectrum
could be more appropriate than a highly damped elastic one, but more work is required to
investigate this.
When large-displacement analyses are carried out, it has been shown that the axial stiffness
assumed for the beam (and possibly floor) system can significantly affect the dynamic
response. It is noted that research by Fenwick et al [1981, 1993, 2007] have shown that beam
lengthening does occur with cyclic flexural response due to plastic elongation of longitudinal
reinforcing bars and the opening of cracks in plastic hinge regions. Without reductions in
beam axial stiffness, the beams can attract large axial forces when large displacement
analyses are conducted and this added stiffness tends to counteract any P-delta effects. Further
research should be carried out to find out an appropriate way of modelling beam axial
stiffness during seismic excitations.
54
References
7 REFERENCES
Akkar, S., and J. J. Bommer [2007] Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Europe and
the Middle East, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. Vol. 36, pp. 12751301.
Brian, H.H., Peng, Fenwick, R.C., Dhakal, R.P., Car, A.J., Bull, D.K. [2007] Flexural, Axial Load
and Elongation Response of Plastic Hinges in Reinforced Concrete Member, 8th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Singapore, Paper No. 30.
Campbell, K.W., Bozorgnia, Y. [2006] Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA empirical ground motion model
for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and SA at selected spectral periods from 0.01
10.0 seconds, Interim Report for USGS Review.
Car, A.J. [2007] Ruaumoko2D Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
CEN 1998, Eurocode EC8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN-1998-1.
Chopra, A. K.[2000] Dynamics of Structures, Pearson Education, USA.
Faolucci, E., Paolucci, R., Rey, J. [2004] Displacement spectra for Long Periods, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 347-376.
Fenwick, R. C., and Megget, L. M. [1993] Elongation and load deflection characteristics of
reinforced concrete members containing plastic hinges, Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 26(1), pp. 28-41.
Fenwick, R. C., Tankut, A. T., and Thom, C. W. [1981] The deformation of reinforced concrete
beams subjected to inelastic cyclic loading: experimental results, Report No. 268, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Macrae, G.A., Priestley, M.J.N, Tao, J. [1991] P- in seismic regions, Structural Systems Research
Project, Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, University of California,
San Diego, Report No.SSRP-93/05.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N. [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Priestley, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J. [2007] Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Grant, D.N. [2005] Viscous Damping in Seismic design and Analysis, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, SP2, pp. 229-255.
55
References
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Mallet Milne
Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N. Amaris, A. [2002] Dynamic Amplification of Seismic Moments and Shear Forces
in Cantilever Walls, Research Report, No.01, European School for Advanced Studies in
Reduction of Seismic Risk, University of Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N, Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Priestley, M.J.N, Seible, F. [1991] Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges, Structural Systems
Research Project, Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, University of
California, San Diego, Report No.SSRP-91/03.
SeismoSoft [2004] SeismoSignal A computer program for processing strong motion data
Available online from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com
Sullivan, T.J. [2007] Displacement consideration for the seismic design of tall RC frame-wall
structures, 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Singapore, Paper No. 125.
Sullivan, T.J., Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. [2006] Seismic Design of Frame-Wall Structures,
Research Report, ROSE 2006/02, IUSS press (www.iusspress.it).
Sullivan, T. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M. [2006] Direct Displacement-Based Design of FrameWall Structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, SPI/1, pp. 91-124.
Sullivan, T. J., Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M. [2005] Development of an innovative seismic design
procedure for frame-wall structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, SP2, pp. 279308.
56
Appendix
APPENDIX
A.1 Ruaumoko input file for the 45 storey case study structure
2
276
1
10
0
450
100
0
NODES
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
10
0
11
0
12
0
13
0
14
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
18
0
19
0
20
0
21
0
22
0
23
0
24
0
25
0
26
0
27
0
28
0
29
0
30
0
31
0
32
0
33
0
34
0
35
0
36
0
37
0
1
8
100
0.0001
0
4
0
0
6
1
1
0
0
2
50
0
1
9.81
2
5
0
5
2
5
1
5
46
0
0
0.005
2
0
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
1
0
1
0
57
Appendix
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
15
15
15
15
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
0
4
8
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
232
233
234
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
Appendix
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
Appendix
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
Appendix
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
Appendix
274
275
276
40
40
40
172
176
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DRIFT
1
2
14
26
38
3
15
27
39
4
16
28
40
5
17
29
41
6
18
30
42
7
19
31
43
8
20
32
44
9
21
33
45
10
22
34
46
ELEMENTS
1
1
2
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
8
4
9
4
10
4
11
4
12
4
13
4
14
4
15
4
16
4
17
4
18
4
19
4
20
4
21
4
22
4
23
4
24
4
25
4
26
4
27
4
28
4
29
4
30
4
31
4
32
4
33
4
34
4
35
4
36
4
37
4
38
4
39
4
40
4
41
4
42
4
43
4
44
4
45
4
46
2
47
4
48
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
11
23
35
12
24
36
13
25
37
62
Appendix
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
63
Appendix
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
64
Appendix
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
65
Appendix
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
2
48
94
140
3
49
95
141
4
50
96
142
5
51
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
48
94
140
186
49
95
141
187
50
96
142
188
51
97
66
Appendix
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
97
143
6
52
98
144
7
53
99
145
8
54
100
146
9
55
101
147
10
56
102
148
11
57
103
149
12
58
104
150
13
59
105
151
14
60
106
152
15
61
107
153
16
62
108
154
17
63
109
155
18
64
110
156
19
65
111
157
20
143
189
52
98
144
190
53
99
145
191
54
100
146
192
55
101
147
193
56
102
148
194
57
103
149
195
58
104
150
196
59
105
151
197
60
106
152
198
61
107
153
199
62
108
154
200
63
109
155
201
64
110
156
202
65
111
157
203
66
67
Appendix
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
66
112
158
21
67
113
159
22
68
114
160
23
69
115
161
24
70
116
162
25
71
117
163
26
72
118
164
27
73
119
165
28
74
120
166
29
75
121
167
30
76
122
168
31
77
123
169
32
78
124
170
33
79
125
171
34
80
126
172
112
158
204
67
113
159
205
68
114
160
206
69
115
161
207
70
116
162
208
71
117
163
209
72
118
164
210
73
119
165
211
74
120
166
212
75
121
167
213
76
122
168
214
77
123
169
215
78
124
170
216
79
125
171
217
80
126
172
218
68
Appendix
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
35
81
127
173
36
82
128
174
37
83
129
175
38
84
130
176
39
85
131
177
40
86
132
178
41
87
133
179
42
88
134
180
43
89
135
181
44
90
136
182
45
91
137
183
46
92
138
184
PROPS
1
FRAME
1
0
33200000
0
1
0.0010
0
0
0.5
0
81
127
173
219
82
128
174
220
83
129
175
221
84
130
176
222
85
131
177
223
86
132
178
224
87
133
179
225
88
134
180
226
89
135
181
227
90
136
182
228
91
137
183
229
92
138
184
230
! Column Axis 1 & 5 - 1st Storey

0
4
13280000
0.726
33241
1
0
3.08
0
0
-33241 0
2
0
0
2.566666667
0
0.2273 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
Appendix
FRAME
! Column Axis 2 & 4 - 1st Storey

0
4
13280000
1
0
33200000
0
1
0.0010
0
0
0.5
0
FRAME
1
0
33200000
0
1
0.0010
0
0
0.5
0
FRAME
1
0
33200000
0
FRAME
! WALL 1st Storey
1
0
33200000
0
4
13280000
1
0.0060
0
0
0.5
0
FRAME
0
0.2273 0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2273 0
0.726 0
0
0
0
33241 -33241 0
0
0
1
2
! Column Axis 1 -> 5 - Above 1st Storey
0
0
0
0
0
0
13280000
0
0
2.566666667
0
0.2273 0
0
8.125
0
56.70
0
0
7.563 0
0
0
590160 -590160 0
0
1
2
! WALL Above 1st Storey
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
33200000
0
0
13280000
0
56.70
0
0
FRAME
! Beam Floor 1->44
1
0
33200000
0
4
13280000
0
1.275
0
0
0
1.0625 0.0301 0
1
0.0068
0
0
0.5
0
FRAME
1
0
33200000
0.605 0.605
5459
-5459
1
2
! Beam Roof
0
4
13280000
0
5459
0
-5459
0
0
0
0
0
1.275
0
0
0
1.0625 0.0301 0
0
5459
0
-5459
0
0
1
0
0.5
WEIGHTS
232
5583
233
6909
234
6909
235
6909
236
6909
237
6909
238
6909
239
6909
0
0
2.566666667
0.726 0
0
0
33241 -33241 0
0
1
2
! Column Axis 3 - 1st Storey
0
4
13280000
0.0068 0.605
0
5459
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.08
0.605
-5459
2
0
3.08
0
3.08
0
9.75
0
9.75
0
0
0
0
2.566666667
0
8.125
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
Appendix
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
6909
LOADS
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
10
0
11
0
12
0
13
0
14
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
18
0
19
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-145
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
Appendix
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-729
-145
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
Appendix
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-977
-145
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
Appendix
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-145
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-1122
-977
-145
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
Appendix
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-874
-729
-458
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
Appendix
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1524
-1066
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUAKE
5
1
0.005
-1
A.2 Ruaumoko input file for SDOF structure

2
2
1000
10
0
1
1000
0
NODES
1
0
2
0
1
1
1000
0.0001
0
4
0
0
6
1
1
0
0
2
25
0
1
9.81
2
3
0
5
2
3
1
5
2
0
0
0.005
2
0
0
58
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
1
0
1
0
DRIFT
1
2
ELEMENTS
1
1
PROPS
1
FRAME
1
0
36406000
1
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
4
0
14562400
14
2.76
0
0
600000 -600000 0
1
2
WEIGHTS
2
105000 0
LOADS
2
0
-150000 0
EQUAKE
5
1
0.02
-1
76
Appendix
A.3 Member hysteresis loops of the case study structure
Figure 49. Wall hysterisis loop with real record R1, large displacement analysis
Figure 50. Wall hysteresis loop with real record R1, small displacement analysis
77
Appendix
Figure 51. Wall hysteresis loop with real record R2, large displacement analysis
78
Appendix
79
Appendix
Figure 59. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, large displacement analysis
80
Appendix
Figure 60. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, small displacement analysis
81
Appendix
s
82
Appendix
83
Appendix
Acceleration [g]
A.4 Real and artificial accelerograms

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]
Figure 69. Real accelerogram R1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time [sec]
84
Acceleration [g]
Appendix
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]
Figure 74. Artificial accelerogram A1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [sec]
Acceleration [g]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [sec]
85

Dissertation2008 PhamTuan

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dissertation2008 PhamTuan

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

FOR TALL BUILDINGS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Seismology

HIEP PHAM TUAN

Supervisors: Dr. Timothy J. Sullivan

Dr. Timothy J. Sullivan ________________

Professor Gian Michele Calvi ________________

4 LARGE DISPLACEMENT NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY VERIFICATION ANALYSES ....24

Figure 26. Average storey displacements ..............................................................................................30

(with beam axial stiffness reduced by 10 times).................................45

Table 25. SDOF fundamental periods analysed with = 0.5 ................................................................49

Outline of the thesis

Chapter 2 Case Study

Two 15.0m long x 0.650m thick

Chapter 2 Case Study

Concrete compressive strength, f'c (MPa):

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD (EUROCODE 8)

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Figure 3. Elastic displacement response spectrum [EC8]

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

3.2 Horizontal Elastic Design Response Spectrum

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Ultimate limit state

3.3.2 Damage limitation limit state

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

(b) Special provisions for ductile walls

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

a. Shear diagram from elastic analysis.

Response spectrum analysis of the case study structure

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Figure 9. Structural Modelling

(a) Modal properties

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

(b) Second-order effects

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

(c) Storey displacements and drifts

Figure 10. Storey displacements

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Inter-storey Drift (%)

Figure 11. Inter-storey drifts

Table 7. Storey drift (r/hs) contributions by different modes

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

(c) Moments and shears

Table 9. Base shears

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Table 10. Beam moments

Table 11. Beam shears

200000 400000 600000

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Frame shears (kN)

10000 15000 20000

Wall shears (kN)

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

Axial Loads (kN)

Figure 15. Column axial loads

(c) Recalculation of structural component stiffnesse s

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)

3.5.1 Design using the Eurocode

3.5.2 Expected strengths

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)