Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
9
9
9
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
T
a
l
l
B
u
i
l
d
.
8
,
1
7
1
2
0
4
(
1
9
9
9
)
therefore larger in the higher strength concrete structures. In all instances, the maximum top
displacement of structures in the R and RS groups is greater than that for structures of the same
concrete strengths in group E. This is expected because of the higher overall stiffness of the structures
in group E. The top displacement of the normal strength concrete structure N35 is comparable with the
maximum values for the structures in group E.
The interstorey drift ratio is the basis for the global failure criterion dened earlier. A sample of the
plot of distribution of maximum drift ratio along the height of the structure is shown in Figure XIII.
It is observed that the maximum drift ratio generally increases with height. It is important to note
that the maximum drift ratio at all oor levels does not necessarily occur at the same instant; as such,
Table XV. Maximum top displacement (mm)
EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
Model 04g 08g 04g 08g 04g 08g
N35 601 1074 618 1208 552 1103
N80 610 1149 672 1334 600 1166
N100 632 1161 687 1351 643 1220
N120 646 1145 707 1342 668 1280
N80R 779 1270 839 1157 787 1212
N100R 803 1261 896 1228 813 1428
N120R 847 1267 963 1393 857 1547
N80RS 783 1262 839 1164 788 1220
N100RS 813 1255 894 1250 819 1433
N120RS 861 1328 950 1365 859 1557
Figure 13. Distribution of maximum drift ratio along a typical HSC structure
194 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
the graph shown is not a prole of the displaced shape of the structure. The largest absolute value of the
maximum drift ratio that occurred along the height of the different structures is given in Table XVI.
It is noted from Table XVI that the use of different input motion yields a slightly different maximum
storey drift ratio. At a PGA of 08g, all the structures are still within the limiting drift ratio of 3%. It is
observed that although N35 has a higher level of overstrength, based on static pushover analysis, its
maximum drift ratio similar to that of the structures in group E is already near the 3% limit. This
indicates that higher mode response has a signicant effect.
The plastic hinges formed in the different structures show that the number of column hinges
generally increases with increasing concrete strength. This is attributable to the higher strain levels in
the steel due to the increase in strength and modulus of elasticity of the concrete used. Although the
strong-column weak-beam provision of the code was satised in the design, the 120MPa concrete
Table XVI. Maximum interstorey drift ratio
Model
EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
04g 08g 04g 08g 04g 08g
N35 0013 0029 0011 0025 0011 0027
N80 0013 0028 0014 0024 0012 0028
N100 0014 0028 0014 0025 0010 0028
N120 0014 0027 0015 0025 0010 0028
N80R 0015 0026 0014 0028 0015 0024
N100R 0014 0025 0015 0026 0016 0027
N120R 0016 0024 0016 0026 0016 0027
N80RS 0015 0025 0014 0027 0015 0024
N100RS 0014 0025 0015 0026 0016 0028
N120RS 0016 0024 0016 0025 0017 0028
Figure 14. Plastic hinge formation of R structures subjected to EC8-108g
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 195
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
structures in group R show substantially more hinging in the columns (Figure 14). The use of high
yield steel in the beams and normal grade steel in the columns of the R structures has an adverse effect
in terms of an increased number of column hinges. The structures in group RS, which used high yield
steel in the columns, had a few column hinges even at high levels of loading. On the other hand, the
spread of inelasticity in the shear wall is unaffected by the change in concrete strength. The use of
normal grade steel with high strength concrete does not cause any undesirable consequences in the
wall. For the beams, at twice the design PGA, yielding has occurred in almost all cases. This is
expected and desirable at this level of loading.
Difference in the characteristics of the input motion did not have an evident effect on the location of
plastic hinges in the structures. However, this does not give a conclusive indication that the local
response was not affected by the characteristics of the record. To verify probable local effects, the
curvature ductility demand of a number of beams at different locations in the structure was calculated.
There are various denitions of yield curvature, such as that of Paulay and Priestley,
45
the yield
curvature to be 133 times the curvature at rst yield. In the absence of a more rigorous analysis, this
denition was adopted for this study. The maximum curvature ductility demand in the beams of the
structure divided according to the criterion used in generating the structure are shown in Table XVII.
It is interesting to note that the maximum curvature ductility demand occurred in the normal
strength concrete structure and the equivalent stiffness HSC structures. The ductility demand at a PGA
of 08g is already on the high side, but is within the achievable ductility capacity of properly designed
and detailed members. For the R and RS structures, the ductility demand is signicantly less compared
with those of group E. This is partially due to the denition of the yield curvature. Since the R and RS
group structures use high yield steel in the beams, the strain that dened yield is much higher
compared with normal strength steel, hence a higher yield curvature and consequently a lower ductility
demand was observed.
Examination of the calculated ductility demand in the beams did not show any particular trend or
pattern, except for the consistently large difference in values mentioned above between E structures
and R and RS structures. The maximum values given in Table XVII did not occur at the same point nor
at the same instant. However, it is noticeable that many of the larger values occurred in the upper third
portion of the structure (higher mode effects). The variation in ductility demand, using different input
motion, is large. This indicates that in terms of local response the choice of input motion does have a
signicant effect.
5.4. Behaviour factor
Behaviour factor (also termed response modication factor) is an important parameter in force-
based seismic design. It may be viewed as a global measure of force reduction due to inelastic effects.
Table XVII. Maximum curvature ductility demand in beams
Group E Group R Group RS
Model 04g 08g 04g 08g 04g 08g
EC8-1 311 715 168 399 171 387
EC8-2 373 703 163 383 168 390
EC8-3 233 609 165 305 167 312
196 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
It may be estimated analytically from the equation (e.g. Elnashai and Broderick,
46
amongst others)
q =
a
c
a
y
(6)
where
a
c
is the peak ground acceleration at collapse
a
y
is the peak ground acceleration at yield
For each structure, determining the intensity of the ground motion at yield and collapse involves a
number of inelastic analyses. This requires a considerable amount of computational time and effort.
Based on the analysis with the records scaled to 08g, it is noticeable that at this acceleration level most
of the structures are already near the global ultimate limit state. Subsequent analysis has shown that
calculating the collapse acceleration using direct proportionality gives reasonably close values
compared with those obtained from repetitive analyses. On the other hand, the yield acceleration can
be dened using the design loads with due consideration to the available overstrength as follows:
a
y
=
a
d
R
w
OS
14
(7)
where
a
d
is the design peak ground acceleration
R
w
is the behaviour factor used in the design
OS is the calculated overstrength based on static pushover analysis
The coefcient 14 in the denominator accounts for the load factor on the design base shear in UBC.
The calculated overstrength shown in Table XIV is based on the unfactored design base shear. The
values of the calculated peak ground acceleration at yield and at collapse using the three different input
motion is given in Table XVIII.
In assessing the results given in Table XVIII, it should be noted that behaviour factors determined
analytically are highly dependent on the denition of the yield and ultimate criteria and the choice of
the input motion used in the analysis. For the purposes of this study, these calculated values are used as
Table XVIII. Calculated collapse PGA, yield PGA and behaviour factor
a
c
(g) a
y
(g) q
Model EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
N35 0841 0950 0902 0150 0150 0150 561 633 601
N80 0870 0982 0871 0107 0107 0107 813 918 814
N100 0868 0954 0847 0106 0106 0106 819 900 799
N120 0893 0970 0869 0105 0105 0105 850 924 828
N80R 0934 0864 0980 0100 0100 0100 934 864 980
N100R 0958 0911 0898 0111 0111 0111 863 821 809
N120R 0984 0939 0876 0117 0117 0117 841 803 749
N80RS 0963 0901 0980 0101 0101 0101 953 892 970
N100RS 0959 0918 0869 0114 0114 0114 841 805 762
N120RS 0997 0958 0853 0121 0121 0121 824 792 705
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 197
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
a comparative parameter to give some insight into the relative energy dissipation and redistribution
capacity of the different structures.
Of all the structures considered, the normal strength structure has the lowest behaviour factor. This
is attributable to its having a much larger level of overstrength compared with the other structures. The
extra steel reinforcement provided for gravity loading in the normal strength concrete has apparently
affected its energy dissipation capacity. Its yield acceleration is much greater than that of the other
structures, while the collapse acceleration is similar to that of others. The degree of overstrength in a
structure affects the yield acceleration more than the collapse acceleration. The behaviour factor for
the structures in group E is almost constant. On the other hand, the behaviour factor generally
decreases with increasing concrete strength for both R and RS structures (with very few exceptions).
Comparison of the calculated behaviour factors suggest that in terms of structural ability to respond in
the inelastic range, 80MPa concrete is the most effective for the given structural conguration.
5.5. Fourier amplitude spectra of response acceleration
The inelastic period of the structure is examined using the discrete Fourier amplitude spectra of the
response acceleration time-history at the top of the structure. The plot of the Fourier amplitude spectra
for structure N35 is shown in Figure 15. The rst peak in Figure 15(a) at 051seconds and the second
peak at 232seconds correspond to the second mode and the fundamental mode periods of the
structure, respectively. During the preliminary analysis, the elastic periods of the structures were
veried using an eigenvalue analysis. The inelastic period does not coincide exactly with the values
obtained from the eigensolution because of the softening effect due to cracking of the concrete.
However, there was a good one-to-one correspondence between the peaks observed in the Fourier
amplitude spectra and the periods obtained using the eigenvalue analysis.
As observed in Figure 15, the inelastic periods shift slightly to the right as the load is increased. The
shift in the fundamental mode period is much more than that in the second mode period. This is
because the displacement amplitude of the fundamental mode response is larger than that of the second
mode. The same trend is exhibited in all the other structures. It is also noted that the Fourier amplitude
spectra at a PGA of 08g become quite erratic. This is due to the high levels of inelasticity present at
this intensity of loading, where stiffnesses are constantly changing. For the case of a PGA of 08g,
judgement has to be made on which peak in the Fourier amplitude spectra corresponds to the different
Figure 15. Fourier amplitude spectra for N35 with EC8-1: (a) 04g; (b) 08g
198 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
modes of vibration. The inelastic periods corresponding to the fundamental and second mode of
vibration, for all the different structures, are indicated in Table XIX.
The inelastic periods of the structures within the same group are almost the same. As expected, the
structures in the R and RS groups have slightly longer periods. Variation of the inelastic period due to
the difference in input motion are as much as 30%. To compare the inelastic with the design periods,
the rst and second mode periods obtained from the SAP90 analysis are given in Table XX.
It should be noted that in the SAP90 analysis (eigenvalue analysis), the stiffness of the members was
calculated based on 50% of the gross section stiffness. Interestingly, the periods are in good agreement
with the inelastic periods at a design PGA of 04g. This partially validates the code recommendation of
using a percentage of the gross section stiffness in determining the design period of the structure. It
Table XIX. Inelastic period (s) at PGA of 04 and 08g
04g 08g
Model Mode EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
N35 1st Mode 237 220 212 288 290 370
2nd Mode 061 067 056 083 070 068
N80 1st Mode 268 310 215 320 335 430
2nd Mode 061 067 056 083 070 066
N100 1st Mode 279 280 200 380 320 365
2nd Mode 062 068 056 085 070 066
N120 1st Mode 254 304 215 400 328 420
2nd Mode 062 068 056 088 070 066
N80R 1st Mode 340 300 350 440 342 392
2nd Mode 085 070 066 088 098 071
N100R 1st Mode 342 305 346 450 330 364
2nd Mode 083 071 067 088 098 072
N120R 1st Mode 351 320 320 480 352 370
2nd Mode 083 071 067 089 098 073
N80RS 1st Mode 322 318 392 400 345 480
2nd Mode 085 071 066 089 098 073
N100RS 1st Mode 350 310 338 420 336 380
2nd Mode 086 071 067 089 098 072
N120RS 1st Mode 372 318 340 415 380 376
2nd Mode 086 071 067 090 098 077
Table XX. Design periods obtained from SAP90
Model Period (s) 1st mode Period (s) 2nd mode
N35 287 073
N80 277 070
N100 281 071
N120 288 073
N80R 344 086
N100R 348 086
N120R 352 086
N80RS 344 086
N100RS 348 086
N120RS 352 086
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 199
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
appears that it is possible to determine the inelastic periods of the structure by means of a much simpler
eigenvalue analysis, using appropriate member section stiffness. Further parametric studies should be
performed to correlate the percentage of the gross section stiffness to use, design acceleration and
inelastic periods for different structural systems.
The relative contribution of the different modes of response depends on both the characteristics of
the structure and the input motion. To examine the relative contribution of the rst and second mode
response, the amplitude of the Fourier spectra at these periods is compared. The ratio of the spectral
amplitude at the second mode period to the amplitude at the fundamental mode period is given in Table
XXI.
There is no noticeable trend in the ratio of the spectral amplitude of the second mode to the rst
mode response. The most evident observation is that the second mode response predominates in almost
all instances. However, the fundamental mode response should not be discounted considering the
relatively signicant contribution.
The results of this part of the analysis have some implications on displacement-based design. It was
indicated in Bommer and Elnashai
47
that based on the current catalogue of earthquake records, reliable
displacement spectra can be derived only up to a period of three seconds. This apparently might cause
some problems for applications in high rise structures, whose fundamental period might exceed three
seconds. However, based on the results of this study, it appears that the predominant mode of response
of the high rise frame-wall structure considered is the second mode. If the second mode period is taken
as the effective period for displacement-based design, then there is no complication with the limit in
the period range of the displacement spectra. On the other hand, if the contribution of the fundamental
mode, which is relatively signicant, is to be considered together with the second mode period in
deriving an effective period, then a procedure of relative weighting has to be developed.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the seismic performance and cost effectiveness of high rise high strength RC buildings is
investigated. Based on the analyses performed, the following conclusions are supported by the results.
. The cost effectiveness of a structure depends to a large extent on the cost component attributable
to the steel reinforcement. Those structures using a large amount of expensive high yield steel
prove to be the least competitive in terms of cost. With the current prices of high yield steel, its use
should be limited to cases where the use of normal grade steel is not possible. However, a price
Table XXI. Ratio of the second mode to the rst mode spectral amplitude
EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
Model 04g 08g 04g 08g 04g 08g
N35 159 184 209 167 104 157
N80 225 364 296 087 215 296
N100 205 257 332 103 239 156
N120 127 193 256 121 245 326
N80R 113 312 106 157 239 103
N100R 116 192 158 178 207 091
N120R 145 181 098 081 306 145
N80RS 122 208 103 114 223 150
N100RS 203 157 163 123 234 074
N120RS 101 145 116 092 258 138
200 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
reduction in high yield steel of about 30% from current levels will make even structures that uses
only one grade of steel economically viable.
. Contrary to some of the studies performed on columns subjected to pure axial load, the optimum
concrete strength that will give the most economical structure is not necessarily the highest
concrete strength available. The concrete strength that can reduce the cost of the steel component,
while at the same time limit the cost of the concrete component, will result in the most cost
effective structure. The optimum concrete strength depends on the relative prices of the different
grades of concrete and steel.
. In light of the common practice of using high strength concrete only in the columns of a structure,
it was shown that the use of high strength concrete in the beams and slabs, where they are less
effective, can still furnish substantial cost savings. Excepting any detrimental effect on seismic
performance that might be observed in the future, using just one grade of concrete in both the
columns and beams of a structure has the added advantage of eliminating the additional
construction procedure required by the code.
. Under static loading, high strength concrete structures have stable loaddisplacement curves. The
shape of the curve is similar to that of normal strength concrete structures. For this type of loading,
inelasticity developed mostly in the beams. The columns appear to be well protected from hinging
by capacity design regulations.
. The level of overstrength in high strength concrete structures, calculated based on static pushover
analysis, is less than that of a normal strength structure. In a normal strength structure, the
additional steel reinforcement required to resist high axial loads provides extra lateral load
capacity, thus increasing overstrength.
. At the global level, based on the three response parameters examined (top displacement, base
shear and maximum interstorey drift ratio), the performance of high strength concrete structures
compares favourably with that of the equivalent normal strength concrete structure. There were no
indications that a properly designed high strength structure would behave any differently from the
equivalent normal strength structure.
. The choice of the grade of steel to use with high strength concrete is very important. Results from
dynamic analysis indicate that using normal grade steel for concrete strengths of up to 80MPa is
adequate. Beyond 80MPa, the use of normal grade steel with high strength concrete resulted in
signicantly more hinging in the columns. The use of high yield steel in beams and normal grade
steel in columns should also be avoided.
. The maximum curvature ductility demand at the design and twice the design earthquake is 373
and 715, respectively. These are well within the achievable ductility capacity of seismically
designed and detailed members. Moreover, the use of high yield steel with high strength concrete
signicantly reduced the ductility demand on the members to about 163 and 383.
. The use of different input motion, generated and scaled to t the code design spectra, does not
have a signicant effect on the global response parameter studied. The differences are well within
the limits of tolerances acceptable for seismic design and analysis. However, in terms of local
response, as in the case of the curvature ductility demand on the structural members, caution
should be exercised in assessing the results for design or analytical purposes. These parameters
appear to be highly dependent on the input motion used for the analysis.
. The calculated behaviour factors suggest that 80MPa concrete is the optimum concrete strength
for the given structural conguration, in terms of energy dissipation capacity. In general, higher
strength concrete structures have a larger behaviour factor compared with a normal strength
structure.
. For both normal and high strength concrete structures, the inelastic period at the design PGA can
be estimated using the much simpler eigenvalue analysis. Using a member stiffness corresponding
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 201
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
to 50% of the gross section stiffness, the periods obtained from eigenvalue analysis were in good
agreement with the inelastic periods.
. The equivalent and reduced stiffness criteria are effective bases for comparing structures using
different grades of material. The results of the analysis have veried that structures generated
using the same criterion behave similarly. The shape of the loaddisplacement curves, the hinging
pattern and the response characteristic of structures from the same group were consistently
similar.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by several colleagues in terms of support for
the early work on high strength materials at Imperial College, funded by the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC). The initial proposal for funding submitted to ESPRC
was actively supported by the following: Professor P. E. Pinto (University of Rome), Dr E. C.
Carvalho (National Laboratory, Lisbon), Professor T. P. Tassios (National Technical University of
Athens), Professor H. Gulvanessian (Building Research Establishment), Professor G. Somerville
(British Cement Association) and Mr J. Whitley (British Steel).
REFERENCES
1. P. K. Mehta and P. J. M. Montiero, Concrete-Structure Properties and Materials, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, NJ,
U.S.A., 1993.
2. ACI Committee 363, State-of-the-art report on high strength concrete, ACI Report 363R-92, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1992.
3. CEB-FIP, High strength concretestate of the art report, Bulletin dinformation No. 197, London, 1990.
4. E. G. Nawy, Fundamentals of High Strength High Performance Concrete, Longman, UK, 1996.
5. S. Morita and H. Shiohara, Development of high strength mild steel deformed bars for high performance
reinforced structural members, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico,
1996, Paper No. 1742.
6. S. K. Ghosh and M. Saatcioglu, High performance concreteductility and seismic behaviour, S. P. Shah and
S. H. Ahmad (eds), High Performance Concretes and Applications, Edward Arnold, 1994 pp. 237312.
7. S. R. Razvi and M. Saatcioglu, Behaviour of high-strength concrete columns conned with circular spirals,
10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, 1994, pp. 16431648.
8. ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318R-95/318RM-95,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1995.
9. S. H. Ahmad and S. P. Shah, Stressstrain curves for concrete conned by spiral reinforcement, ACI Journal,
79 (46), 484490 (1982).
10. A. Al-Hussaini, P. E. Regan, H.-Y. Xue and K.-E. Ramdane, The behaviour of high strength concrete
columns under axial load, Third International Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer,
Norway, 1993, pp. 8390.
11. L. Bjerkeli, A. Tomaszewicz and J. J. Jensen, Deformation properties and ductility of high-strength concrete,
High Strength ConcreteSecond Int. Symp., ACI SP 121, 1990, pp. 215238.
12. T. Nagashima, S. Sugano, H. Kimura and A. Ichikawa, Monotonic axial compression test on ultra-high-
strength concrete tied columns, 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp.
29832988
13. H. Muguruma, M. Nishiyama and F. Watanabe, Stressstrain curve model for concrete with a wide range of
compressive strength, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway,
1993, pp. 314321.
14. D. Cusson and P. Paultre, Experimental study of high strength concrete columns conned by rectangular
ties, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 136145.
15. S. R. Razvi and M. Saatcioglu, Connement of high-strength concrete columns for seismic applications,
11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1855.
202 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
16. Y. P. Sun, T. Oba, F. S. Tian and T. Ikeda, Connement effects of transverse hoops in high-strength
concrete, 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1363.
17. A. Azizinamini and S. Kuska, Flexural capacity of high strength concrete columns, Third Int. Conf. on
Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 9197.
18. H. Kimura, S. Sugano and T. Nagashima, Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns using ultra-high-
strength concrete under high axial load, Fourth Int. Symp. on Utilisation of High Strength/High Performance
Concrete, Paris, 1996, Paper no. 184.
19. B. Li, R. Park and H. Tanaka, Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete members and frames constructed
from high strength concrete, Research Report 94-5, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1994.
20. H. Tanaka, Y. Sato, R. Park and N. Kani, High-strength concrete columns with longitudinal reinforcement of
mixed grades, Proc. ACI Int. Conf. on High Performance Concrete, Singapore, 1994, pp. 391411.
21. S. Sugano, Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns which used ultra-high-strength concrete, 11th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1383.
22. O. Bayrak and S. A. Sheikh, Connement requirements for high strength concrete columns, 11th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 463.
23. D. Galeota and M. M. Giammatteo, Seismic resistance of high strength concrete columns, 11th World Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1390.
24. H. Muguruma and F. Watanabe, Ductility improvements of high-strength concrete columns with lateral
connement, High Strength ConcreteSecond Int. Symp., 1990, SP-121, pp. 4760.
25. M. Nishiyama, I. Fukushima, F. Watanabe and H. Muguruma, Axial loading tests on high strength concrete
prisms conned with ordinary and high strength steel, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength
Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 322329.
26. A. S. Elnashai, R. G. C. Goddfellow and P. S. Chana, Flexural ductility of high strength reinforced concrete
structures, Proc. Second JapanUK Workshop on Implications of Recent Earthquake on Seismic Risk, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Japan, 1998, pp. 145157.
27. R. Goodfellow, Ductility of RC members with high strength materials, Ph.D. thesis, University of London,
1998, submitted, September 1999.
28. I. Kateinas, Seismic response of R/C structures made with high strength material, MSc Dissertation, Imperial
College, September 1997.
29. A. S. Elnashai, Earthquake resistance of high strength reinforced concrete buildings, in E. Booth (ed.),
Seismic Design Practice into the Next Century, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998, pp. 314.
30. ICBO, Uniform Building Code1994 Edition, International Conference of Building Ofcials, Whittier,
California, U.S.A., 1994.
31. B. A. Izzuddin, and A. S. Elnashai, ADAPTICa Program for adaptive large displacement elasto-plastic
dynamic analysis of steel and composite frames, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering
Report No. 89/7, Imperial College, 1989.
32. W. Schmidt and E. S. Hoffman, 9000 psi Concretewhy? why not?, ASCE Civil Engineering J. 45 (5), 52
55 (1975).
33. J. Moreno and J. Zils, Optimisation of high rise concrete buildings, ACI SP-97, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1985, pp. 2592.
34. G. J. Smith and F. N. Rad, Economic advantages of high strength concretes in columns, Concrete Int. Design
& Construction, 11 (4), 3743 (1989).
35. J. Webb, High strength concrete: economics, design and ductility, Concrete Int. Design & Construction, 15
(1), pp. 2732 (1993).
36. H. G. Russell, High performance concretestructural design considerations and applications, S. P. Shah and
S. H. Ahmad (eds), High Performance Concretes and Applications, Edward Arnold, 1994, pp. 313340.
37. SEAOC Seismology Committee, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, 6th edn,
Structural Engineers Association of California, U.S.A., 1996.
38. E. L. Wilson and A. Habibullah, SAP90 Users Manual, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.,
1989.
39. B. T. Laogan and A. S. Elnashai, Seismic performance and costbenet assessment of high rise high strength
concrete buildings, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. 98/8, Imperial College,
November 1998.
40. A. C. Bianchini, E. Woods and C. Kesler, Effect of oor concrete strength on column strength, Proc ACI J.
56 (11), 11491169 (1960).
41. E. S. Harris, (ed.), CESMM3 Price Database, Telford, London, 1996.
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 203
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
42. J. E. Martinez-Rueda and A. S. Elnashai, Conned concrete model under cyclic load, Materials & Structures
J, 30 (April), 139147 (1997).
43. A. S. Elnashai and B. A. Izzuddin, Modelling of material non-linearities in steel structures subjected to
transient dynamic loading, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 22, 509532 (1993).
44. E. C. Carvalho and E. Coelho (eds), Numerical investigation on the seismic response of reinforced concrete
frame designed in accordance to Eurocode 8, Report No. 7, ECOEST-PREC8, European Commission (HCM
Programme), 1998.
45. T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley,
New York, 1992.
46. A. S. Elnashai and B. M. Broderick Seismic response of composite frames2: Calculation of behaviour
factors, Engineering Structures, 18 (9), 707723 (1995).
47. J. J. Bommer and A. S. Elnashai, Parameterised displacement spectra for seismic design, Engineering
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. 98/7, Imperial College, August 1998.
204 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)