Seismic Design Considerations For Tall Buildings - 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
i

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
ii

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.

Index
iii

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
Index
iv
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

Index
v

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
vi
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
average
=0.5 (a) Small
average
=0.7 (a) Small
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
Index
vii
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

Index
viii

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
Index
ix

Chapter 1 Introduction
1

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
Chapter 1 Introduction
2
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
3

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.
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) f
c
=
60.0 MPa and (ii) E
c
= 33200 MPa. The expected strengths adopted for the reinforcing steel
include: (i) f
y
= 500 MPa and (ii) E
s
=200000 MPa.

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.
Earthquake Excitation
Direction Considered
Four bays
at 7.5m
centres
F
R
A
M
E

1

F
R
A
M
E

2

F
R
A
M
E

3

F
R
A
M
E

4

W
A
L
L

1

W
A
L
L

2

850Dx750W
RC beams
1400Dx1100W
RC columns
Two 15.0m long x 0.650m thick
RC walls (ignore transverse walls)
200mm thick
RC floors
Floor Area
30.0mx37.5m = 1125m2
Chapter 2 Case Study
4
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 Frame-wall
Plan width in excitation direction, 4 bays (m) 30
Plan width perpendicular to excitation direction, 5 bays (m) 37.5
Bay span (m) 7.5
Number of storeys 45
Storey height 4

Table 2. Summary of material properties used for the case study structure
Concrete compressive strength, f'c (MPa): 60
Concrete elastic modulus, Ec (MPa): 33200
Steel strength, fy (MPa): 500
Steel elastic modulus, Es (MPa): 200000
Concrete self weight (kN/m3) 23.5

Chapter 3 Response spectrum method (Eurocode 8)
5

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:
(
+ = ) 1 5 . 2 . .(
T
T
1 . S . a ) T ( S : T T 0
B
g e B

5 . 2 . . S . a ) T ( S : T T T
g e C B
=
(
=
T
T
5 . 2 . . S . a ) T ( S : T T T
C
g e D C

(
=
2
D C
g e D
T
T . T
5 . 2 . . S . a ) T ( S : s 4 T 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.

6
Table 3. Values of the parameters describing the Type 1 elastic response spectra
Ground
Type
S T
B
(s) T
C
(s) T
D
(s)
A 1.0 0.15 0.4 2.0
B 1.2 0.15 0.5 2.0
C 1.15 0.2 0.6 2.0
D 1.35 0.2 0.8 2.0
E 1.4 0.15 0.5 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]
7
For vibration periods beyond TE, the ordinates of the elastic displacement response spectrum
are obtained from the following expressions:
( )
(

|
|
\
|
+ = 5 , 2 1
T T
T T
5 , 2 T . T . S . a 025 , 0 ) T ( S : T T T
E F
E
D C g De F E

g De F
d ) T ( S : T T =
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
T
E
(s) T
F
(s)
A 4.5 10.0
B 5.0 10.0
C 6.0 10.0
D 6.0 10.0
E 6.0 10.0

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 non-
conservatively low for regions of high seismicity. The research has also shown that the
displacement corner period T
D
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 T
D
= 7.5s.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

Figure 4. Elastic Accleration Response Spectrum
8
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

Figure 5. Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum used for case study investigation
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.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

Figure 6. Design Acceleration Response Spectrum with behaviour factor q = 3

9
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:
10 . 0
h . V
d . P
tot
r tot
=
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
10
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.

Figure 7. Design envelope for bending moments in slender walls of dual systems

a. Moment diagram from
elastic analysis.
b. Design envelope.
a1. Tension shift
11

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 Response spectrum analysis of the case study structure
3.4.1 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.
a. Shear diagram from elastic analysis.
b. Magnified shear diagram.
c. Design envelope.
A. V
wall,base

B. V
wall,top
> V
wall,base
/2
12

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
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
Period (s) 6.1 1.6 0.7 0.4
Modal mass contribution (%) 69 14 6 3

Walls
Frames
13
(b) Second-order effects
To take into account the second-order effect, in Eurocode 8, it is suggested to check the inter-
storey 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
Height
(m)
Shear
(kN)
Gravity
Load (kN)
Storey
Drift (%)
ratio 1/(1-)
45 180 9584 7416 0.95% 0.01 1.01
44 176 5610 14831 0.98% 0.03 1.03
43 172 6245 22247 1.00% 0.03 1.04
42 168 6520 29662 1.03% 0.04 1.05
41 164 6851 37078 1.05% 0.05 1.06
40 160 7074 44494 1.07% 0.06 1.07
39 156 7180 51909 1.10% 0.07 1.08
38 152 7183 59325 1.13% 0.09 1.09
37 148 7120 66740 1.16% 0.10 1.11
36 144 7041 74156 1.19% 0.11 1.13
35 140 7001 81572 1.22% 0.12 1.14
34 136 7043 88987 1.25% 0.14 1.16
33 132 7184 96403 1.27% 0.15 1.17
32 128 7406 103818 1.30% 0.15 1.18
31 124 7672 111234 1.32% 0.16 1.19
30 120 7941 118650 1.34% 0.17 1.20
29 116 8185 126065 1.36% 0.17 1.21
28 112 8387 133481 1.38% 0.18 1.22
27 108 8543 140896 1.40% 0.19 1.23
26 104 8661 148312 1.42% 0.20 1.24
25 100 8754 155728 1.44% 0.20 1.26
24 96 8841 163143 1.46% 0.21 1.27
23 92 8934 170559 1.46% 0.22 1.28
22 88 9041 177975 1.48% 0.23 1.29
21 84 9158 185390 1.49% 0.23 1.30
20 80 9274 192806 1.48% 0.24 1.31
19 76 9376 200221 1.48% 0.24 1.32
18 72 9452 207637 1.48% 0.25 1.33
17 68 9498 215053 1.47% 0.25 1.33
16 64 9522 222468 1.45% 0.25 1.34
15 60 9545 229884 1.43% 0.26 1.34
14 56 9596 237299 1.41% 0.26 1.35
13 52 9707 244715 1.36% 0.26 1.34
12 48 9901 252131 1.31% 0.25 1.33
11 44 10183 259546 1.25% 0.24 1.32
10 40 10540 266962 1.17% 0.23 1.30
9 36 10943 274377 1.09% 0.22 1.27
14
8 32 11357 281793 0.99% 0.20 1.25
7 28 11748 289209 0.90% 0.18 1.22
6 24 12087 296624 0.79% 0.16 1.19
5 20 12354 304040 0.68% 0.14 1.17
4 16 12540 311455 0.55% 0.12 1.14
3 12 12645 318871 0.41% 0.09 1.10
2 8 12686 326287 0.27% 0.06 1.07
1 4 12669 333702 0.11% 0.03 1.03

As the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficients are all in the range from 0.1 to 0.3, second-
order 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.
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Figure 10. Storey displacements
15
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Inter-storey Drift (%)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Figure 11. Inter-storey drifts

Table 7. Storey drift (r/hs) contributions by different modes
Storey
Height
(m)
Mode 1
(%)
Mode 2
(%)
Mode 3
(%)
Mode 4
(%)
SRSS
(%)
45 180 0.81% 0.42% 0.21% 0.08% 0.95%
44 176 0.82% 0.43% 0.22% 0.09% 0.98%
43 172 0.83% 0.44% 0.22% 0.08% 1.00%
42 168 0.84% 0.44% 0.22% 0.08% 1.03%
41 164 0.86% 0.45% 0.22% 0.08% 1.05%
40 160 0.87% 0.45% 0.21% 0.07% 1.07%
39 156 0.89% 0.45% 0.20% 0.06% 1.10%
38 152 0.91% 0.45% 0.19% 0.04% 1.13%
37 148 0.93% 0.45% 0.17% 0.03% 1.16%
36 144 0.95% 0.45% 0.14% 0.01% 1.19%
35 140 0.97% 0.44% 0.12% 0.01% 1.22%
34 136 0.99% 0.43% 0.09% 0.02% 1.25%
33 132 1.00% 0.41% 0.06% 0.04% 1.27%
32 128 1.03% 0.39% 0.03% 0.05% 1.30%
31 124 1.04% 0.37% 0.00% 0.06% 1.32%
30 120 1.06% 0.35% 0.03% 0.06% 1.34%
29 116 1.07% 0.32% 0.06% 0.07% 1.36%
28 112 1.09% 0.29% 0.09% 0.06% 1.38%
27 108 1.10% 0.26% 0.12% 0.06% 1.40%
26 104 1.11% 0.22% 0.14% 0.05% 1.42%
25 100 1.12% 0.18% 0.15% 0.04% 1.44%
24 96 1.13% 0.15% 0.17% 0.02% 1.46%
16
23 92 1.13% 0.11% 0.17% 0.01% 1.46%
22 88 1.13% 0.07% 0.17% 0.01% 1.48%
21 84 1.13% 0.03% 0.17% 0.03% 1.49%
20 80 1.12% 0.01% 0.16% 0.04% 1.48%
19 76 1.11% 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 1.48%
18 72 1.11% 0.09% 0.13% 0.06% 1.48%
17 68 1.09% 0.12% 0.11% 0.07% 1.47%
16 64 1.07% 0.15% 0.08% 0.07% 1.45%
15 60 1.04% 0.18% 0.06% 0.06% 1.43%
14 56 1.02% 0.21% 0.03% 0.06% 1.41%
13 52 0.99% 0.23% 0.00% 0.05% 1.36%
12 48 0.95% 0.25% 0.03% 0.04% 1.31%
11 44 0.91% 0.27% 0.05% 0.02% 1.25%
10 40 0.86% 0.27% 0.08% 0.01% 1.17%
9 36 0.81% 0.28% 0.10% 0.01% 1.09%
8 32 0.74% 0.27% 0.11% 0.02% 0.99%
7 28 0.68% 0.26% 0.12% 0.03% 0.90%
6 24 0.60% 0.25% 0.13% 0.04% 0.79%
5 20 0.52% 0.22% 0.12% 0.05% 0.68%
4 16 0.43% 0.19% 0.11% 0.05% 0.55%
3 12 0.32% 0.15% 0.09% 0.04% 0.41%
2 8 0.21% 0.10% 0.07% 0.03% 0.27%
1 4 0.09% 0.05% 0.03% 0.02% 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 Frame Total
Moment 402608.00 687039.13 1089647.13
Percentage % 36.95 63.05
Table 9. Base shears
Wall Frame Total
Shear 10989.00 1674.36 12663.36
Percentage % 86.78 13.22
17
Table 10. Beam moments
Storey M left (kNm) M right (kNm)
15 2062.21 2072.96
23 1983.57 1977.81
31 1695.22 1688.67
Table 11. Beam shears
Storey Q (kN)
15 661.63
23 633.82
31 541.42
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 200000 400000 600000
Wall moments (kN-m)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Figure 12. Wall moments
18
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 5000 10000 15000
Wall shears (kN)
S
t
o
r
e
y

1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 5000 10000 15000
Frame shears (kN)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Figure 13. Wall shears & frame shears from the elastic analysis
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Wall shears (kN)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Figure 14. Wall shears after applying EC8 special provisions for shear walls
19
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Axial Loads (kN)
S
t
o
r
e
y

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 stiffnesses
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 :
c y y
h / 10 . 2 =
Rectangular concrete wall :
w y y
l / 00 . 2 =
Flanged concrete beam :
b y y
h / 7 . 1 =
where
y
is the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement (= ) E / f
s y
, and
b w c
h , l , h are the
20
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 I
cr
= M
N
/E
y
. The
differences between the EC8 50%I
y
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) y=1.7y/hc I (m4) 50% I (m4)
Max moments
(kN-m)
Recalculated I
(m4)
0.85 0.75 0.005 0.03838 0.019 2072 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) 12663
Wall strength (kNm) 402608
Wall long.reinforcement (%) 0.4
Beam strength (kNm) 2073
Beam reinforcement (%) 1.9
Column axial strength (kN) 40703
Column flexural strength (kNm) 951
Column long.reinforcement (%) 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:
'
c ce '
f 3 . 1 f =
Steel:
y ye
f 1 . 1 f =
'
ce
f and
ye
f are low estimates of expected strength. The value for
ye
f is felt to be appropriate
for both reinforcing and structural steel. The concrete strength acknowledges the influence of
21
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 moment-
curvature 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) 590160
Beam strength (kNm) 2729
Column flexural strength
(kNm) 16620

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Curvature (1/m)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)

Figure 16. Beam moment-curvature relationship
22
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Curvature (1/m)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)

Figure 17. Compression column moment-curvature relationship
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Curvature (1/m)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)

Figure 18. Tension column moment-curvature relationship
23
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Curvature (1/m)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
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.

Chapter 4 Large displacement nonlinear time-history verification analyses
24

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 time-
history 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
Ref. Earthquake Name Magnitude
Record
Length (s)
Time
step (s)
Scaled PGA
(g)
Scale
factor
R1 Imp.Valley El Centro 7.1 30.0 0.02 0.44 2.1
R2 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

25
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Modified EC8 5% R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Figure 20. Spectral displacements of real accelerograms with 5% damping
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
0 5 10 15 20
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
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:
T
D
= 1.0 + 2.5(M
w
5.7) seconds
26
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]:
Log
10
T
D
= -1.25 + 0.3M
w

For earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.6, we can have T
D
= 5.75s and T
D
= 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 T
D
= 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
27
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.

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
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
SAP 2000 (I
cr
= 50% I
g
) 6.1 1.6 0.7 0.4
Ruaumoko (I
cr
= M
n
/
y
E
c
) 7.3 1.9 0.9 0.5

Walls
Frames
28
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.
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
Drifts (%)
S
t
o
r
e
y
R1 R2 R3
R4 R5 EC8
Limit

Figure 23. Maximum storey drifts for all accelerograms
29
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Storey displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
R1 R2 R3 R4
R5 EC8 Limit

Figure 24. Maximum storey displacements for all accelerograms
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
Maximum interstory drift (%)
S
t
o
r
e
y
Average NLTHA EC8 Limit

Figure 25. Average storey drifts
30
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00 2.00 4.00
Maximum storey displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
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
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Wall
Axial Load (kN) -44952 -28976 -24972 -29168 -43628 -68156
Shear (kN) 2406 2644 2646 2642 2414 -20684
Moment (kN-m) 8757 9064 9073 9074 8818 593880
Table 18. Beam moments
Accer 1 Accer 2 Accer 3 Accer 4 Accer 5 Average
Storey M
max(kNm)
M
max(kNm)
M
max(kNm)
M
max(kNm)
M
max(kNm)
M
max(kNm)
15 2741 2745 2754 2753 2763 2751
23 2743 2758 2751 2755 2760 2753
31 2735 2757 2746 2749 2746 2746
31
Table 19. Member ductilities
Accer 1 Accer 2 Accer 3 Accer 4 Accer 5 Average
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m) 0.00547 0.00547 0.00547 0.00547 0.00547 0.00547
Maximum
curvature from
THA (1/m) 0.0095 0.0138 0.0116 0.0128 0.0144 0.0124
Beam
(Storey
23)
Curvature Ductility 1.73 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m) 0.00511 0.00511 0.00511 0.00511 0.00511 0.00511
Maximum
curvature from
THA (1/m) 0.0029 0.0011 0.0027 0.0020 0.0029 0.0023
Column
(External)
Nominal yield
curvature (1/m) 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031
Maximum
curvature from
THA (1/m) 0.0007 0.0004 0.0007 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006
Wall

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.

32
4.4.4 Beam ductility demands up the building height
Figure 27 presents the values of beam curvature ductility demands up the building height.
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Ductility
S
t
o
r
e
y
R1 R2
R3 R4
R5 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.

33
4.4.5 Wall moments and shears
Figures 28 and 29 present the results of wall moments and shears.

1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
Wall moments (kN-m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
Ruaumoko EC8

Figure 28. Wall moments
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0 10000 20000 30000
Wall shears (kN)
S
t
o
r
e
y
Ruaumoko EC8

Figure 29. Wall shears
34
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].

Chapter 5 P-delta effects and beam lengthening
35

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:
10 . 0
h . V
d . P
tot
r tot
= (1)
- 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.

36

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:
L F
P
y
y *

= (2)
where P is the gravity load;
y
F 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:
L K
P
e
*
= (3)
37
where K
e
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
5 . 0
i
K K

= is appropriate for typical column response. The post-elastic stiffness

ratio
p
r including P- effects can be related to the effective stiffness
0
r ignoring P- effects
by the relationship
*
*
0
p
1
r
r

= (4)
Research indicated that a minimum value of
p
r should be 0.05 to allow for uncertainty of
hysteretic characteristics. The maximum permissible value for
*
can be calculated as:
min , p
min , p 0
i
5 . 0
e
*
r 1
r r
L k
P
L K
P
max
= = (5)
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
0
r =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,
0
r =0.19 and = 6, we can find the
maximum value of
*
by using equation (5):
38
147 . 0
05 . 0 1
05 . 0 19 . 0
r 1
r r
min , p
min , p 0 *
max
=
= (6)
Substituting the max value of
*
into equation (5), with = 6, we have
L
20
P
F
06 . 0
L F
P
06 . 0
L k
P
y y
y
y 5 *
i
max
=

(7)
Equation (7) was based on = 6 and hence may be expressed in term of maximum expected
displacement as
L
u
3 . 3
P
F
y

(8)
Equation (8) can be rearranged, with small rounding, to become
3 . 0
L F
P
y
u
it lim

= (9)
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,
0
r is about 0.4. The maximum value of
*
that
suggests one can ignore the P- effects is then 37 . 0
05 . 0 1
05 . 0 4 . 0
r 1
r r
min , p
min , p 0 *
max
=
= and we
can also derive 6 . 0
L F
P
y
u
it lim

=
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.

39
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.
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Elastic modal analysis
with P-delta inclusion
(EC8)
without P-delta
inclusion (EC8)

Figure 33. Interstorey drifts recorded using real accelerograms

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
(EC8)
without P-deta
inclusion (EC8)

Figure 34. Storey displacements recorded using real accelerograms
40
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.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
EC8 5% A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

Figure 35. Spectral displacements for artificial accelerograms with 5% damping
41
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Large placement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Elastic modal
analysis with P-delta
inclustion (EC8)
Elastic modal
analysis without P-
delta inclustion
(EC8)

Figure 36. Interstorey drifts recorded using artificial accelerograms
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Large displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Small displacement
N.L.T.H. analysis
Elastis modal analysis
(EC8)
without P-delta
inclusion (EC8)

Figure 37. Storey displacements recorded using artificial accelerograms
42
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.
LB B' L
Concrete spalls
Bottom bars yield & elongate
F
(a) (b)

F
Concrete crushes
Top bars yield & elongate
LB' B' L LB
(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.
43
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
Beam axial
strain (x10
-5
)
Beam axial
Force (kN)
Elastic
Elongation
(mm)
45 10.45 590 0.78
44 10.44 589 0.78
43 10.43 589 0.78
42 10.40 587 0.78
41 10.37 585 0.78
40 10.32 583 0.77
39 10.27 579 0.77
38 10.19 575 0.76
37 10.10 570 0.76
36 9.99 564 0.75
35 9.86 557 0.74
34 9.71 548 0.73
33 9.54 538 0.72
32 9.34 527 0.70
31 9.13 515 0.68
30 8.89 502 0.67
29 8.62 487 0.65
28 8.34 471 0.63
27 8.05 454 0.60
26 7.74 437 0.58
25 7.42 419 0.56
24 7.08 400 0.53
23 6.73 380 0.50
22 6.36 359 0.48
21 5.98 337 0.45
20 5.59 315 0.42
19 5.19 293 0.39
18 4.79 271 0.36
17 4.39 248 0.33
16 3.99 225 0.30
15 3.60 203 0.27
14 3.21 181 0.24
13 2.83 160 0.21
44
12 2.46 139 0.18
11 2.11 119 0.16
10 1.78 100 0.13
9 1.47 83 0.11
8 1.18 67 0.09
7 0.92 52 0.07
6 0.69 39 0.05
5 0.49 27 0.04
4 0.32 18 0.02
3 0.18 10 0.01
2 0.08 5 0.01
1 0.02 1 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:
p , x e , x total , x
+ = (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:

( ) L
AE
.
L
AE
p , x e , x
e , x
eff
+
= |
\
|
(11)
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
45
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.

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
EC8 5%
Real
accelerograms
Artificial
accelerograms
s
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.
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50%
Real accelerograms with
large displacement
analysis
small displacement
analysis
Artificial accelerograms
with large displacement
analysis
with small displacement
analysis

Figure 40. Inter-storey drifts (with beam axial stiffness reduced by 10 times)
46
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
large displacement
analysis
small displacement
analysis
with large displacement
analysis
with small displacement
analysis

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
47
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, T
D,
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).
48
Table 21. SDOF structure's parameters with expected drift coefficient = 0.3
Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
Moment
Strength
Mn (kN-
m)
Area
A
(m2)
7 58 15.39 600000 14
8 76 26.26 600000 18
9 96 42.06 600000 22
10 118 64.10 600000 28
11 143 93.85 600000 34
12 170 132.92 600000 40
13 200 183.07 600000 47
14 232 246.24 600000 54
15 266 324.50 600000 62

Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
Moment
Strength
Mn (kN-
m)
Area
A
(m2)
7 35 3.32 360000 6
8 45 5.67 360000 8
9 58 9.08 360000 10
10 71 13.85 360000 13
11 86 20.27 360000 16
12 102 28.71 360000 19
13 120 39.54 360000 22
14 139 53.19 360000 25
15 160 70.09 360000 29

Period
T(s)
Height
Heff
(m)
Moment of
area, I
(m4)
Moment
Strength
Mn (kN-
m)
Area
A
(m2)
7 25 1.21 257143 4
8 32 2.07 257143 5
9 41 3.31 257143 6
10 51 5.05 257143 8
11 61 7.39 257143 9
12 73 10.46 257143 11
13 86 14.41 257143 13
14 99 19.38 257143 15
15 114 25.54 257143 18

49
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) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Large displacement period (s) 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.4 13.7 14.9 16.3 17.5 18.7

Large displacement period (s) 11.3 12.3 14.6 15.8 17.5 18.9 >20 >20 >20

Large displacement period (s) 18.4 18.3 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5

(a)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Collapse limit

(b)
average
=0.3
(a) Small displacement analysis. (b) Large displacement analysis

50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5

(a)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Collapse limit

(b)
average
=0.5
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5

(a)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
6 7 8 9
T (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5

(b)
average
=0.7
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Drift ratio (theta)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
-
d
e
l
t
a
/
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
n
o

p
-
d
e
l
t
a
Not collapsed SDOF
structures
Collapsed SDOF
structures

Figure 45. Displacement ratios between large and small displacement NLTHA
results versus drift ratio for all accelerograms
51
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drift ratio (theta)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
-
d
e
l
t
a
/
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
n
o

p
-
d
e
l
t
a

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:
H L ) (
3
H
p e t
2
e
p e t
+
= + = .
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, L
p
is the
plastic hinge length and H is the height of the structure.

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
52
initial elastic curvature. As the result, the peak displacement is very high and it is dominated
by the term
e
H
2
/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.

53
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
6 8 10 12 14 16
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
R4 elastic displacement, 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 L
P
/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.

Chapter 6 Conclusions
54

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 T
D
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.
References
55

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, 8
th
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.
References
56
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, 8
th
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 Frame-
Wall 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. 279-
308.
Appendix
57

APPENDIX
A.1 Ruaumoko input file for the 45 storey case study structure

2 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0
276 450 8 4 1 2 9.81 5 5 0.005 110 1
1 100 100 0 1 50 2 2 46 2 1 0
10 0 0.0001 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0

NODES
1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 4 0 0 0 232 0 0 0
3 0 8 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
4 0 12 0 0 0 234 0 0 0
5 0 16 0 0 0 235 0 0 0
6 0 20 0 0 0 236 0 0 0
7 0 24 0 0 0 237 0 0 0
8 0 28 0 0 0 238 0 0 0
9 0 32 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
10 0 36 0 0 0 240 0 0 0
11 0 40 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
12 0 44 0 0 0 242 0 0 0
13 0 48 0 0 0 243 0 0 0
14 0 52 0 0 0 244 0 0 0
15 0 56 0 0 0 245 0 0 0
16 0 60 0 0 0 246 0 0 0
17 0 64 0 0 0 247 0 0 0
18 0 68 0 0 0 248 0 0 0
19 0 72 0 0 0 249 0 0 0
20 0 76 0 0 0 250 0 0 0
21 0 80 0 0 0 251 0 0 0
22 0 84 0 0 0 252 0 0 0
23 0 88 0 0 0 253 0 0 0
24 0 92 0 0 0 254 0 0 0
25 0 96 0 0 0 255 0 0 0
26 0 100 0 0 0 256 0 0 0
27 0 104 0 0 0 257 0 0 0
28 0 108 0 0 0 258 0 0 0
29 0 112 0 0 0 259 0 0 0
30 0 116 0 0 0 260 0 0 0
31 0 120 0 0 0 261 0 0 0
32 0 124 0 0 0 262 0 0 0
33 0 128 0 0 0 263 0 0 0
34 0 132 0 0 0 264 0 0 0
35 0 136 0 0 0 265 0 0 0
36 0 140 0 0 0 266 0 0 0
37 0 144 0 0 0 267 0 0 0
Appendix
58
38 0 148 0 0 0 268 0 0 0
39 0 152 0 0 0 269 0 0 0
40 0 156 0 0 0 270 0 0 0
41 0 160 0 0 0 271 0 0 0
42 0 164 0 0 0 272 0 0 0
43 0 168 0 0 0 273 0 0 0
44 0 172 0 0 0 274 0 0 0
45 0 176 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
46 0 180 0 0 0 276 0 0 0
47 7.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
48 7.5 4 0 0 0 232 0 0 0
49 7.5 8 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
50 7.5 12 0 0 0 234 0 0 0
51 7.5 16 0 0 0 235 0 0 0
52 7.5 20 0 0 0 236 0 0 0
53 7.5 24 0 0 0 237 0 0 0
54 7.5 28 0 0 0 238 0 0 0
55 7.5 32 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
56 7.5 36 0 0 0 240 0 0 0
57 7.5 40 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
58 7.5 44 0 0 0 242 0 0 0
59 7.5 48 0 0 0 243 0 0 0
60 7.5 52 0 0 0 244 0 0 0
61 7.5 56 0 0 0 245 0 0 0
62 7.5 60 0 0 0 246 0 0 0
63 7.5 64 0 0 0 247 0 0 0
64 7.5 68 0 0 0 248 0 0 0
65 7.5 72 0 0 0 249 0 0 0
66 7.5 76 0 0 0 250 0 0 0
67 7.5 80 0 0 0 251 0 0 0
68 7.5 84 0 0 0 252 0 0 0
69 7.5 88 0 0 0 253 0 0 0
70 7.5 92 0 0 0 254 0 0 0
71 7.5 96 0 0 0 255 0 0 0
72 7.5 100 0 0 0 256 0 0 0
73 7.5 104 0 0 0 257 0 0 0
74 7.5 108 0 0 0 258 0 0 0
75 7.5 112 0 0 0 259 0 0 0
76 7.5 116 0 0 0 260 0 0 0
77 7.5 120 0 0 0 261 0 0 0
78 7.5 124 0 0 0 262 0 0 0
79 7.5 128 0 0 0 263 0 0 0
80 7.5 132 0 0 0 264 0 0 0
81 7.5 136 0 0 0 265 0 0 0
82 7.5 140 0 0 0 266 0 0 0
83 7.5 144 0 0 0 267 0 0 0
84 7.5 148 0 0 0 268 0 0 0
85 7.5 152 0 0 0 269 0 0 0
86 7.5 156 0 0 0 270 0 0 0
87 7.5 160 0 0 0 271 0 0 0
88 7.5 164 0 0 0 272 0 0 0
89 7.5 168 0 0 0 273 0 0 0
90 7.5 172 0 0 0 274 0 0 0
91 7.5 176 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
92 7.5 180 0 0 0 276 0 0 0
93 15 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
94 15 4 0 0 0 232 0 0 0
95 15 8 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
96 15 12 0 0 0 234 0 0 0
Appendix
59
97 15 16 0 0 0 235 0 0 0
98 15 20 0 0 0 236 0 0 0
99 15 24 0 0 0 237 0 0 0
100 15 28 0 0 0 238 0 0 0
101 15 32 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
102 15 36 0 0 0 240 0 0 0
103 15 40 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
104 15 44 0 0 0 242 0 0 0
105 15 48 0 0 0 243 0 0 0
106 15 52 0 0 0 244 0 0 0
107 15 56 0 0 0 245 0 0 0
108 15 60 0 0 0 246 0 0 0
109 15 64 0 0 0 247 0 0 0
110 15 68 0 0 0 248 0 0 0
111 15 72 0 0 0 249 0 0 0
112 15 76 0 0 0 250 0 0 0
113 15 80 0 0 0 251 0 0 0
114 15 84 0 0 0 252 0 0 0
115 15 88 0 0 0 253 0 0 0
116 15 92 0 0 0 254 0 0 0
117 15 96 0 0 0 255 0 0 0
118 15 100 0 0 0 256 0 0 0
119 15 104 0 0 0 257 0 0 0
120 15 108 0 0 0 258 0 0 0
121 15 112 0 0 0 259 0 0 0
122 15 116 0 0 0 260 0 0 0
123 15 120 0 0 0 261 0 0 0
124 15 124 0 0 0 262 0 0 0
125 15 128 0 0 0 263 0 0 0
126 15 132 0 0 0 264 0 0 0
127 15 136 0 0 0 265 0 0 0
128 15 140 0 0 0 266 0 0 0
129 15 144 0 0 0 267 0 0 0
130 15 148 0 0 0 268 0 0 0
131 15 152 0 0 0 269 0 0 0
132 15 156 0 0 0 270 0 0 0
133 15 160 0 0 0 271 0 0 0
134 15 164 0 0 0 272 0 0 0
135 15 168 0 0 0 273 0 0 0
136 15 172 0 0 0 274 0 0 0
137 15 176 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
138 15 180 0 0 0 276 0 0 0
139 22.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
140 22.5 4 0 0 0 232 0 0 0
141 22.5 8 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
142 22.5 12 0 0 0 234 0 0 0
143 22.5 16 0 0 0 235 0 0 0
144 22.5 20 0 0 0 236 0 0 0
145 22.5 24 0 0 0 237 0 0 0
146 22.5 28 0 0 0 238 0 0 0
147 22.5 32 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
148 22.5 36 0 0 0 240 0 0 0
149 22.5 40 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
150 22.5 44 0 0 0 242 0 0 0
151 22.5 48 0 0 0 243 0 0 0
152 22.5 52 0 0 0 244 0 0 0
153 22.5 56 0 0 0 245 0 0 0
154 22.5 60 0 0 0 246 0 0 0
155 22.5 64 0 0 0 247 0 0 0
Appendix
60
156 22.5 68 0 0 0 248 0 0 0
157 22.5 72 0 0 0 249 0 0 0
158 22.5 76 0 0 0 250 0 0 0
159 22.5 80 0 0 0 251 0 0 0
160 22.5 84 0 0 0 252 0 0 0
161 22.5 88 0 0 0 253 0 0 0
162 22.5 92 0 0 0 254 0 0 0
163 22.5 96 0 0 0 255 0 0 0
164 22.5 100 0 0 0 256 0 0 0
165 22.5 104 0 0 0 257 0 0 0
166 22.5 108 0 0 0 258 0 0 0
167 22.5 112 0 0 0 259 0 0 0
168 22.5 116 0 0 0 260 0 0 0
169 22.5 120 0 0 0 261 0 0 0
170 22.5 124 0 0 0 262 0 0 0
171 22.5 128 0 0 0 263 0 0 0
172 22.5 132 0 0 0 264 0 0 0
173 22.5 136 0 0 0 265 0 0 0
174 22.5 140 0 0 0 266 0 0 0
175 22.5 144 0 0 0 267 0 0 0
176 22.5 148 0 0 0 268 0 0 0
177 22.5 152 0 0 0 269 0 0 0
178 22.5 156 0 0 0 270 0 0 0
179 22.5 160 0 0 0 271 0 0 0
180 22.5 164 0 0 0 272 0 0 0
181 22.5 168 0 0 0 273 0 0 0
182 22.5 172 0 0 0 274 0 0 0
183 22.5 176 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
184 22.5 180 0 0 0 276 0 0 0
185 30 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
186 30 4 0 0 0 232 0 0 0
187 30 8 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
188 30 12 0 0 0 234 0 0 0
189 30 16 0 0 0 235 0 0 0
190 30 20 0 0 0 236 0 0 0
191 30 24 0 0 0 237 0 0 0
192 30 28 0 0 0 238 0 0 0
193 30 32 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
194 30 36 0 0 0 240 0 0 0
195 30 40 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
196 30 44 0 0 0 242 0 0 0
197 30 48 0 0 0 243 0 0 0
198 30 52 0 0 0 244 0 0 0
199 30 56 0 0 0 245 0 0 0
200 30 60 0 0 0 246 0 0 0
201 30 64 0 0 0 247 0 0 0
202 30 68 0 0 0 248 0 0 0
203 30 72 0 0 0 249 0 0 0
204 30 76 0 0 0 250 0 0 0
205 30 80 0 0 0 251 0 0 0
206 30 84 0 0 0 252 0 0 0
207 30 88 0 0 0 253 0 0 0
208 30 92 0 0 0 254 0 0 0
209 30 96 0 0 0 255 0 0 0
210 30 100 0 0 0 256 0 0 0
211 30 104 0 0 0 257 0 0 0
212 30 108 0 0 0 258 0 0 0
213 30 112 0 0 0 259 0 0 0
214 30 116 0 0 0 260 0 0 0
Appendix
61
215 30 120 0 0 0 261 0 0 0
216 30 124 0 0 0 262 0 0 0
217 30 128 0 0 0 263 0 0 0
218 30 132 0 0 0 264 0 0 0
219 30 136 0 0 0 265 0 0 0
220 30 140 0 0 0 266 0 0 0
221 30 144 0 0 0 267 0 0 0
222 30 148 0 0 0 268 0 0 0
223 30 152 0 0 0 269 0 0 0
224 30 156 0 0 0 270 0 0 0
225 30 160 0 0 0 271 0 0 0
226 30 164 0 0 0 272 0 0 0
227 30 168 0 0 0 273 0 0 0
228 30 172 0 0 0 274 0 0 0
229 30 176 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
230 30 180 0 0 0 276 0 0 0
231 40 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
232 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 40 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 40 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 40 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
237 40 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 40 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 40 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
240 40 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 40 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 40 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 40 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 40 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 40 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 40 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
249 40 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 40 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
251 40 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
252 40 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 40 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 40 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
255 40 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 40 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
257 40 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 40 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
259 40 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 40 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
261 40 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
262 40 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 40 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 40 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 40 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 40 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
267 40 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
268 40 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
269 40 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 40 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
271 40 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 40 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 40 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix
62
274 40 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 40 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 40 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DRIFT
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 46

ELEMENTS
1 1 1 2
2 4 2 3
3 4 3 4
4 4 4 5
5 4 5 6
6 4 6 7
7 4 7 8
8 4 8 9
9 4 9 10
10 4 10 11
11 4 11 12
12 4 12 13
13 4 13 14
14 4 14 15
15 4 15 16
16 4 16 17
17 4 17 18
18 4 18 19
19 4 19 20
20 4 20 21
21 4 21 22
22 4 22 23
23 4 23 24
24 4 24 25
25 4 25 26
26 4 26 27
27 4 27 28
28 4 28 29
29 4 29 30
30 4 30 31
31 4 31 32
32 4 32 33
33 4 33 34
34 4 34 35
35 4 35 36
36 4 36 37
37 4 37 38
38 4 38 39
39 4 39 40
40 4 40 41
41 4 41 42
42 4 42 43
43 4 43 44
44 4 44 45
45 4 45 46
46 2 47 48
47 4 48 49
48 4 49 50
Appendix
63
49 4 50 51
50 4 51 52
51 4 52 53
52 4 53 54
53 4 54 55
54 4 55 56
55 4 56 57
56 4 57 58
57 4 58 59
58 4 59 60
59 4 60 61
60 4 61 62
61 4 62 63
62 4 63 64
63 4 64 65
64 4 65 66
65 4 66 67
66 4 67 68
67 4 68 69
68 4 69 70
69 4 70 71
70 4 71 72
71 4 72 73
72 4 73 74
73 4 74 75
74 4 75 76
75 4 76 77
76 4 77 78
77 4 78 79
78 4 79 80
79 4 80 81
80 4 81 82
81 4 82 83
82 4 83 84
83 4 84 85
84 4 85 86
85 4 86 87
86 4 87 88
87 4 88 89
88 4 89 90
89 4 90 91
90 4 91 92
91 3 93 94
92 4 94 95
93 4 95 96
94 4 96 97
95 4 97 98
96 4 98 99
97 4 99 100
98 4 100 101
99 4 101 102
100 4 102 103
101 4 103 104
102 4 104 105
103 4 105 106
104 4 106 107
105 4 107 108
106 4 108 109
107 4 109 110
Appendix
64
108 4 110 111
109 4 111 112
110 4 112 113
111 4 113 114
112 4 114 115
113 4 115 116
114 4 116 117
115 4 117 118
116 4 118 119
117 4 119 120
118 4 120 121
119 4 121 122
120 4 122 123
121 4 123 124
122 4 124 125
123 4 125 126
124 4 126 127
125 4 127 128
126 4 128 129
127 4 129 130
128 4 130 131
129 4 131 132
130 4 132 133
131 4 133 134
132 4 134 135
133 4 135 136
134 4 136 137
135 4 137 138
136 2 139 140
137 4 140 141
138 4 141 142
139 4 142 143
140 4 143 144
141 4 144 145
142 4 145 146
143 4 146 147
144 4 147 148
145 4 148 149
146 4 149 150
147 4 150 151
148 4 151 152
149 4 152 153
150 4 153 154
151 4 154 155
152 4 155 156
153 4 156 157
154 4 157 158
155 4 158 159
156 4 159 160
157 4 160 161
158 4 161 162
159 4 162 163
160 4 163 164
161 4 164 165
162 4 165 166
163 4 166 167
164 4 167 168
165 4 168 169
166 4 169 170
Appendix
65
167 4 170 171
168 4 171 172
169 4 172 173
170 4 173 174
171 4 174 175
172 4 175 176
173 4 176 177
174 4 177 178
175 4 178 179
176 4 179 180
177 4 180 181
178 4 181 182
179 4 182 183
180 4 183 184
181 1 185 186
182 4 186 187
183 4 187 188
184 4 188 189
185 4 189 190
186 4 190 191
187 4 191 192
188 4 192 193
189 4 193 194
190 4 194 195
191 4 195 196
192 4 196 197
193 4 197 198
194 4 198 199
195 4 199 200
196 4 200 201
197 4 201 202
198 4 202 203
199 4 203 204
200 4 204 205
201 4 205 206
202 4 206 207
203 4 207 208
204 4 208 209
205 4 209 210
206 4 210 211
207 4 211 212
208 4 212 213
209 4 213 214
210 4 214 215
211 4 215 216
212 4 216 217
213 4 217 218
214 4 218 219
215 4 219 220
216 4 220 221
217 4 221 222
218 4 222 223
219 4 223 224
220 4 224 225
221 4 225 226
222 4 226 227
223 4 227 228
224 4 228 229
225 4 229 230
Appendix
66
226 5 231 232
227 6 232 233
228 6 233 234
229 6 234 235
230 6 235 236
231 6 236 237
232 6 237 238
233 6 238 239
234 6 239 240
235 6 240 241
236 6 241 242
237 6 242 243
238 6 243 244
239 6 244 245
240 6 245 246
241 6 246 247
242 6 247 248
243 6 248 249
244 6 249 250
245 6 250 251
246 6 251 252
247 6 252 253
248 6 253 254
249 6 254 255
250 6 255 256
251 6 256 257
252 6 257 258
253 6 258 259
254 6 259 260
255 6 260 261
256 6 261 262
257 6 262 263
258 6 263 264
259 6 264 265
260 6 265 266
261 6 266 267
262 6 267 268
263 6 268 269
264 6 269 270
265 6 270 271
266 6 271 272
267 6 272 273
268 6 273 274
269 6 274 275
270 6 275 276
271 7 2 48
272 7 48 94
273 7 94 140
274 7 140 186
275 7 3 49
276 7 49 95
277 7 95 141
278 7 141 187
279 7 4 50
280 7 50 96
281 7 96 142
282 7 142 188
283 7 5 51
284 7 51 97
Appendix
67
285 7 97 143
286 7 143 189
287 7 6 52
288 7 52 98
289 7 98 144
290 7 144 190
291 7 7 53
292 7 53 99
293 7 99 145
294 7 145 191
295 7 8 54
296 7 54 100
297 7 100 146
298 7 146 192
299 7 9 55
300 7 55 101
301 7 101 147
302 7 147 193
303 7 10 56
304 7 56 102
305 7 102 148
306 7 148 194
307 7 11 57
308 7 57 103
309 7 103 149
310 7 149 195
311 7 12 58
312 7 58 104
313 7 104 150
314 7 150 196
315 7 13 59
316 7 59 105
317 7 105 151
318 7 151 197
319 7 14 60
320 7 60 106
321 7 106 152
322 7 152 198
323 7 15 61
324 7 61 107
325 7 107 153
326 7 153 199
327 7 16 62
328 7 62 108
329 7 108 154
330 7 154 200
331 7 17 63
332 7 63 109
333 7 109 155
334 7 155 201
335 7 18 64
336 7 64 110
337 7 110 156
338 7 156 202
339 7 19 65
340 7 65 111
341 7 111 157
342 7 157 203
343 7 20 66
Appendix
68
344 7 66 112
345 7 112 158
346 7 158 204
347 7 21 67
348 7 67 113
349 7 113 159
350 7 159 205
351 7 22 68
352 7 68 114
353 7 114 160
354 7 160 206
355 7 23 69
356 7 69 115
357 7 115 161
358 7 161 207
359 7 24 70
360 7 70 116
361 7 116 162
362 7 162 208
363 7 25 71
364 7 71 117
365 7 117 163
366 7 163 209
367 7 26 72
368 7 72 118
369 7 118 164
370 7 164 210
371 7 27 73
372 7 73 119
373 7 119 165
374 7 165 211
375 7 28 74
376 7 74 120
377 7 120 166
378 7 166 212
379 7 29 75
380 7 75 121
381 7 121 167
382 7 167 213
383 7 30 76
384 7 76 122
385 7 122 168
386 7 168 214
387 7 31 77
388 7 77 123
389 7 123 169
390 7 169 215
391 7 32 78
392 7 78 124
393 7 124 170
394 7 170 216
395 7 33 79
396 7 79 125
397 7 125 171
398 7 171 217
399 7 34 80
400 7 80 126
401 7 126 172
402 7 172 218
Appendix
69
403 7 35 81
404 7 81 127
405 7 127 173
406 7 173 219
407 7 36 82
408 7 82 128
409 7 128 174
410 7 174 220
411 7 37 83
412 7 83 129
413 7 129 175
414 7 175 221
415 7 38 84
416 7 84 130
417 7 130 176
418 7 176 222
419 7 39 85
420 7 85 131
421 7 131 177
422 7 177 223
423 7 40 86
424 7 86 132
425 7 132 178
426 7 178 224
427 7 41 87
428 7 87 133
429 7 133 179
430 7 179 225
431 7 42 88
432 7 88 134
433 7 134 180
434 7 180 226
435 7 43 89
436 7 89 135
437 7 135 181
438 7 181 227
439 7 44 90
440 7 90 136
441 7 136 182
442 7 182 228
443 7 45 91
444 7 91 137
445 7 137 183
446 7 183 229
447 8 46 92
448 8 92 138
449 8 138 184
450 8 184 230

PROPS
1 FRAME ! Column Axis 1 & 5 - 1st Storey

1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 3.08 2.566666667 0.2273 0 0 0 0
0
1 0.0010 0.726 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 33241 -33241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
Appendix
70
2 FRAME ! Column Axis 2 & 4 - 1st Storey

1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 3.08 2.566666667 0.2273 0 0 0 0
0
1 0.0010 0.726 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 33241 -33241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
3 FRAME ! Column Axis 3 - 1st Storey

1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 3.08 2.566666667 0.2273 0 0 0 0
0
1 0.0010 0.726 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 33241 -33241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
4 FRAME ! Column Axis 1 -> 5 - Above 1st Storey

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 3.08 2.566666667 0.2273 0 0 0 0
0
5 FRAME ! WALL 1st Storey

1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 9.75 8.125 56.70 0 0 0 0 0

1 0.0060 7.563 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 590160 -590160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
6 FRAME ! WALL Above 1st Storey

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 9.75 8.125 56.70 0 0 0 0 0

7 FRAME ! Beam Floor 1->44

1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 1.275 1.0625 0.0301 0 0 0 0 0

1 0.0068 0.605 0.605 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 5459 -5459 5459 -5459 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
8 FRAME ! Beam Roof
1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
33200000 13280000 1.275 1.0625 0.0301 0 0 0 0 0

1 0.0068 0.605 0.605 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 5459 -5459 5459 -5459 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2

WEIGHTS
232 5583 0 0
233 6909 0 0
234 6909 0 0
235 6909 0 0
236 6909 0 0
237 6909 0 0
238 6909 0 0
239 6909 0 0
Appendix
71
240 6909 0 0
241 6909 0 0
242 6909 0 0
243 6909 0 0
244 6909 0 0
245 6909 0 0
246 6909 0 0
247 6909 0 0
248 6909 0 0
249 6909 0 0
250 6909 0 0
251 6909 0 0
252 6909 0 0
253 6909 0 0
254 6909 0 0
255 6909 0 0
256 6909 0 0
257 6909 0 0
258 6909 0 0
259 6909 0 0
260 6909 0 0
261 6909 0 0
262 6909 0 0
263 6909 0 0
264 6909 0 0
265 6909 0 0
266 6909 0 0
267 6909 0 0
268 6909 0 0
269 6909 0 0
270 6909 0 0
271 6909 0 0
272 6909 0 0
273 6909 0 0
274 6909 0 0
275 6909 0 0
276 6909 0 0

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

EQUAKE
5 1 0.005 1 -1 0 0 1

A.2 Ruaumoko input file for SDOF structure

2 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0
2 1 1 4 1 2 9.81 5 5 0.005 50 1
1000 1000 1000 0 1 25 2 2 2 2 1 0
10 0 0.0001 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0

NODES
1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DRIFT
1 2

ELEMENTS
1 1 1 2

PROPS
1 FRAME
1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
36406000 14562400 14 0 15.39 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2.76 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 600000 -600000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2

WEIGHTS
2 105000 0 0

LOADS
2 0 -150000 0

EQUAKE
5 1 0.02 1 -1 0 0 1

Appendix
77

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
Appendix
78

Figure 51. Wall hysteresis loop with real record R2, large displacement analysis


Appendix
79




Appendix
80



Figure 59. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, large displacement analysis
Appendix
81

Figure 60. Typical beam hysteresis loop with real record R1, small displacement analysis



Appendix
82
s


Appendix
83



Appendix
84
A.4 Real and artificial accelerograms

Time [sec]
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Figure 69. Real accelerogram R1
Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Appendix
85
Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

Figure 74. Artificial accelerogram A1
Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4


Seismic Design Considerations For Tall Buildings - Dissertation2008-PhamTuan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design Considerations For Tall Buildings - Dissertation2008-PhamTuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

FOR TALL BUILDINGS

= is appropriate for typical column response. The post-elastic stiffness

You might also like