1

DISPLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SEISMIC

DESIGN OF TALL RC FRAME-WALL BUILDINGS
Timothy J. Sullivan
Buro Happold, London, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT:
In this paper various displacement considerations for the seismic-design of tall reinforced
concrete (RC) frame-wall buildings are made. In particular, simplified expressions are
presented to allow the likely displacement ductility demands on frame and wall elements
to be predicted. A 60-storey RC frame-wall case study structure is subject to non-linear
time-history analyses to illustrate that for realistic large magnitude ground motions the
displacement demands are not likely to be excessive and ductility demands will be low.
The implications this has for the force-based modal response spectrum analyses are
discussed and the need for designers to make displacement considerations is emphasised.
Future work should explore means of better predicting higher mode drifts and capacity
design requirements for tall buildings.
1 INTRODUCTION
With continued urbanisation worldwide, the construction of tall buildings is becoming increasingly
common. However, there appears to be a lack of international standards that provide specific guidance
on the seismic design of tall buildings. Regulations in US codes such as the UBC97 (ICBO, 1997) do
regulate the type of lateral load resisting systems that can be used for buildings above 160ft (approx 12
storeys). However, such guidance is limited and recommendations for the selection of force-reduction
or behaviour factors as well as capacity design considerations specific to tall buildings are not
provided. In addition, most code design spectra have been developed for relatively short spectral
periods (up to say 5s) and do not provide clear guidance on long-period spectral demands that will
most affect tall building response. In this paper it will be argued that a number of straightforward
displacement considerations should be made for the seismic design and assessment of tall frame-wall
structures. In addition, the displacement ductility demands that are likely to develop in tall frame-wall
buildings will be explored and the consequences this will have for seismic design is discussed.
1.1 Long period spectral displacements
The demands that earthquakes impose at large periods, from say 5s to 20s, are typically not well
reported in codes. This is starting to change however, with codes such as the Eurocode EC8 (CEN
2004), the IBC2006 (ICC, 2006) and NEHRP guidelines (FEMA274, 1997) now including some
recommendations for displacement spectra. The general shape of an elastic design displacement
spectrum provided in EC8 is shown in Figure 1. Also included in Figure 1 is the displacement
spectrum derived from the acceleration spectrum of the UBC97. The EC8 spectrum is characterized by
a relatively linear increase in displacement demand up until a corner period T
D
. The displacement
demand is then constant until a period of T
E
, beyond which point it reduces down to the peak ground
displacement at period T
F
. In contrast, codes which specify spectral accelerations that continue to
reduce in proportion to the inverse of the structural period (such as the UBC97, where S
a
= S
D1
/T) are
in reality imposing displacement demands that continue to increase with increasing period.
The EC8 displacement spectrum of Figure 1 implies that if a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
structure has a period of greater than T
D
, then provided its yield displacement is greater than the
displacement associated with T
D
, the design earthquake will be unable to cause structural damage. The
EC8 periods T
D
, T
E
and T
F
indicated in Figure 1, are dependent on the soil type and earthquake
magnitude (type 1 or type 2 spectra). For a type 1 spectrum (large magnitude events) at a stiff soil site,
2
values of 2s, 6s and 10s are recommended by EC8 for T
D
, T
E
and T
F
respectively. As discussed by
Priestley et al. (2007) the EC8 displacement corner period of 2s is considered to be non-conservatively
low for regions of high seismicity.

Figure 1. Form of Eurocode EC8 elastic design displacement spectrum (solid line) compared with
UBC97 displacement spectrum (dashed line).
Rather than considering a constant value for the spectral displacement corner period, the NEHRP
guidelines (FEMA 274) and Faccioli et al. (2003) indicate that the corner period is principally a
function of earthquake magnitude, with larger period earthquakes being characterised by larger corner
period values. For an interesting comparison of the two magnitude-dependent expressions for the
corner period presented in FEMA 274 and Faccioli et al. (2003), refer to Priestley et al. (2007).
Clearly, long period displacement demands are not only affected by the value of the corner period but
also the displacement magnitude at the corner period. For a given magnitude event, the spectral
displacement at the corner period will be related principally to the distance the earthquake occurs from
the site. However, as will be seen later in this work, even considering some of the most demanding
accelerograms on record, long period displacement demands are limited. Given this, the question that
follows is how do the demands relate to the displacement characteristics of tall buildings?
2 YIELD DISPLACEMENTS OF TALL RC FRAME-WALL STRUCTURES
2.1 Nominal yield curvatures of reinforced concrete sections
In evaluating the yield displacements of a structure one can first consider the response at a sectional
level. This is perhaps best done for RC structures through the use of moment-curvature analyses. In
moment-curvature analysis, a certain curvature demand is imposed onto a section, strains and stresses
are computed, equilibrium is checked and the flexural strength corresponding to the curvature level is
then established. A range of curvature demands are considered in the process such that the flexural
strength versus curvature plot can be developed such as that shown on the right of Figure 2. Bi-linear
representations for the moment-curvature response are established by considering limiting strain
values for the concrete in compression and the reinforcement in tension.
By undertaking moment-curvature analyses for a number of reinforced concrete sections, considering
variations in both axial load and longitudinal reinforcement content, Priestley (2003) and Paulay
(2002) have shown that the nominal yield curvature of a reinforced concrete member is practically
independent of its strength and instead is a function of its depth and longitudinal reinforcement yield
strain. Based on such moment-curvature analyses, Priestley (2003) reports that the nominal yield
curvature for rectangular RC wall sections,
y,wall
, can be adequately estimated through Eq. (1).
w
y
wall y
L

2
,
= (1)
where
y
is the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement in the wall and L
w
is the wall length.
UBC97
Spectral
Displacement

S
d

EC8
TD TE TF TC Period
3
To demonstrate the implications of this important finding, Figure 2 shows the moment-curvature
response for two different walls of the same length and thickness but with wall 1 possessing roughly
twice the longitudinal reinforcement of wall 2. Note that not only is the nominal yield curvature for
both sections the same, but because the strength of wall 1 is twice that of wall 2, this implies that the
cracked stiffness of wall 1 is twice that of wall 2.

Figure 2. Strength and stiffness considerations of reinforced concrete elements.
2.2 Frame yield drifts for tall RC frame-wall structures
A similar expression to Eq.(1) was put-forward by Priestley (2003) for RC beam sections. In addition,
however, by considering the typical proportions of frame deformation caused by beams, columns and
joints, Priestley (2003) proposed Eq.(2) for the yield drift of RC frames.
b
b
y frame y
h
L
5 . 0
,
= (2)
where and L
b
is the beam length (between column centres) and h
b
is the beam depth.
Within Eq.(2) the assumption is made that columns will deform to around 75% of their yield curvature
and as such, column flexure makes up approximately 23% of the yield drift estimate. In addition,
based on experience, Priestley (2003) argued that joint deformations cause approximately 14% of the
frame yield drift. Priestley showed that yield drift values predicted through Eq. (2) compare well with
experimental results obtained from 46 different beam-column test assemblages.
For tall frame structures however, the columns tend to become very large owing to high gravity load
requirements. Consequently, it is considered that columns and joints will contribute less to the storey
drift in comparison to normal frame structures for which Eq.(2) was developed. In light of this, Eq. (3)
is proposed for the yield drift of tall frame structures whereby it has been assumed that, due to the
presence of massive columns, the column and joint contributions are 75% of those within Eq.(2).
b
b
y frame tall y
h
L
45 . 0
_ ,
= (3)
It is pointed out that Eq.(3) has not been calibrated against experimental test results and as such, some
care should be adopted in its application. The expression does have a logical basis however, and
therefore it is expected that a calibrated expression is not likely to vary greatly.
2.3 Wall yield displacements for tall RC frame-wall structures
The deformed shape and yield displacement of a RC frame-wall structure will depend on the
proportions of strength assigned to the frames and walls respectively. As reported by Sullivan et al.
(2006), the curvatures that develop in the walls of frame-wall structures tend to control their displaced
shape. This is because RC walls are large stiff elements that are designed to remain elastic above their
base. The frames do influence the displaced shape by changing the moment and therefore curvature
Curvature
Moment
Wall 1 Wall 2
Wall 2
Wall 1
y
EI1
EI2
Mn

Mn1
Mcr
4
profile in the walls. For a simple wall structure the moments and therefore curvatures in the walls are
zero at the top of the building and continue to increase towards the base. In contrast, in frame-wall
structures the overturning resistance that frames offer at height tends to restrain the tops of the walls
such that a point of contra-flexure develops in the walls at a height, h
cf
, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Typical shear and moment distributions associated with 1
st
mode response of frame-wall
structures (modified from Sullivan et al. 2006).
Through a suite of non-linear time-history analyses on a range of frame-wall case study structures,
Sullivan et al. (2006) showed that the storey drifts tend to be relatively constant above the point of
contra-flexure. This enabled development of Eq. (4) in which the height to the point of contra-flexure,
h
cf
, is used to estimate the displacements,
y,wall i
, of storey i at wall yield and where
y,wall
is the yield
curvature of the wall (from Eq.(1)), and h
i
is the height of storey i.
6 2
2
, ,
,
cf wall y i cf wall y
i
wall y
h h h
= for h
i
> h
cf
. (4a)
cf
i wall y i wall y
i
wall y
h
h h
6 2
3
,
2
,
,

= for h
i
< h
cf
. (4b)
The height to the point of contra-flexure can be obtained through knowledge of the proportions of
overturning resisted by the frames and walls respectively, including the relative distribution of beam
strengths up the height of the frames. With such proportions known, the internal moment distribution
can be established as a function of the base shear, as explained by Sullivan et al. (2006).
One of the advantages of using frame-wall structures is that, because the walls will absorb any
differences between floor inertia forces and frame resistance, the strength of the frames can be set to
suit the designer, as proposed by Paulay (2002). One attractive strength distribution for tall frame-wall
structures is to use beams of equal strength up the building height. For a regular frame-wall structure,
this corresponds, approximately (refer Sullivan et al. 2006), to a uniform frame shear resistance up the
building height, similar to that shown in Figure 3(i). By assuming a 1st mode triangular equivalent
lateral force distribution, it can be shown that for constant frame shear the wall contra-flexure height
ratio, h
cf
/H, is related to the frame proportion of overturning resistance, M
fr
/M
total
, by Eq. (5).
( )( )
( )
(
(

|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
+
+ +

|
|

\
|
=

1
3
1
1 2 1
3
1 1
2
2
2 2
1
H
h
n
n
H
h
n
H
h
n
n n n H
h
M
M
cf cf cf cf
total
fr
(5)
(ii) Typical 1st mode Internal
Moment Distribution
(i) Typical 1
st
mode Shear
Distribution (proportions of V
b
)
Total Shear
0.5 1.0
Wall Shear
(shaded area)
0.0
Frame Shear
(dashed line)
h
cf

=
=
=
n i
i
i beam base col
V N
1
, ,
Mcol1,base Mcol2,base Mcol3,base Mn,Wall
5
where n is the number of storeys and H is the total building height. Eq.(5) considers floors as
discretised masses and as such, a point of contra-flexure cannot develop above the penultimate floor
level.
Figure 4 plots Eq. (5) for different numbers of storeys. It can be seen that as the proportion of
overturning resisted by the frames increases, the point of contra-flexure reduces. For low and medium
rise structures one will typically assign a greater proportion of the overturning resistance to the walls.
However, for high rise structures, walls will typically have such large aspect ratios (height/length) that
it will be difficult to force them to resist a large portion of the overturning. Note also that when the
building possesses more than around 15 storeys, the contra-flexure height ratio becomes relatively
independent of the number of storeys.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
hcf/H
M
f
r
/
M
t
o
t
a
l
n = 5
n = 10
n = 15
n = 20

Figure 4. Wall contra-flexure height ratio as a function of the proportion of frame overturning
resistance.
Figure 4 can be used to obtain the contra-flexure height for a given structure which is then substituted
into Eq.(4) to obtain the fundamental mode displaced shape of the structure at wall yield. Given the
relatively large proportion of overturning resistance that the frames will resist in tall frame-wall
structures, the displaced shape at peak response will be fairly linear. If a linear displaced shape at
maximum response is assumed, then the effective height of an equivalent SDOF representation of a
tall frame-wall structure can be taken as h
e
=0.675H. This can then be substituted into the appropriate
form of Eq. (4) to obtain an estimate of the building displacement at yield of the walls. This is useful
in assessing the likely ductility demands on frame-wall structures as explained in the next section.
3 DUCTILITY AND DRIFT DEMANDS ON TALL RC FRAME-WALL STRUCTURES
Displacement ductility demands on the frames and walls can be estimated rather quickly using a
displacement-based assessment procedure similar to that described by Priestley et al. (2007). For tall
frame wall structures it can be conservatively assumed that the building period will lie beyond the
spectrum corner period and therefore the plateau of the elastic design displacement spectrum can be
taken as the elastic displacement demand imposed on the structure, as illustrated in Figure 5.
The wall displacement ductility can be estimated by dividing the 1
st
mode spectral displacement by the
yield displacement at the effective height, from the appropriate form of Eq. (4), as shown in Eq. (6).
wall y
d
h wall
S
e
,
1 ,
,

= (6)
The building drift due to the first mode can be approximated by dividing the spectral displacement,
S
d,1
, by the effective height (approximately 0.675H for tall buildings) as shown in Eq. (7).
H
S
d
675 . 0
1 ,
1
= (7)
6


Figure 5. Equivalent SDOF considerations of the likely earthquake demands for tall buildings.
The influence of higher modes on storey drifts, however, is likely to be very significant, particularly if
the fundamental mode period is well beyond the spectral displacement corner period. Considering the
right side of Figure 5, one can see that if the structure is very flexible, it is conceivable that the 2
nd

mode period would begin to approach the corner period T
D
and therefore the 2
nd
mode spectral
displacement could potentially be the same as the fundamental mode displacement. The aim of future
work should be to consider means of estimating higher mode drifts as a function of the first mode drift
so that a simple displacement-based assessment procedure can be developed. One possibility to be
explored here is to use the characteristic functions for uniform beams, as presented by Young and
Felgar (1949), to develop Eq. (8) as a trial estimate of the 2
nd
mode drift component,
2,trial
.
H
S
d
trial
2 ,
, 2
2 = (8)
Where S
d,2
, is the second mode spectral acceleration. Note that this expression does not attempt to
account for the effects of inelasticity on mode shape or period and requires knowledge of the 2
nd
mode
period of the structure to obtain the 2nd mode spectral acceleration. With this in mind, modal
superposition approaches are likely to give a more accurate estimate of the storey drifts, particularly if
the response is likely to be elastic. However, it is of interest to see whether a simplified approach can
provide approximate values in order that future work can look to develop a simplified displacement-
based assessment procedure that takes account of higher modes.
In order to estimate the maximum storey drifts, a trial application will simply add the 1st and 2nd
mode drift components from Eq. (7) and (8). This is proposed in place of the SRSS combination in
order to approximately account for 3rd and 4th (and higher) mode contributions. This maximum
storey drift can then be divided by the frame yield drift of Eq.(3) to evaluate approximate frame
ductility demands, as shown in Eq. (9).
frame tall y
trial
frame
_ ,
, 2 1

+
= (9)
Clearly, the maximum storey drifts are also a practical means of considering non-structural damage.
International codes tend to require designers to limit storey drifts to between 2.0% and 2.5% for a life-
safety event. As such, in the next section, the maximum storey drifts recorded for a tall frame-wall
case study structure will also be considered from a non-structural damage point of view.
For Eq.(6) to Eq.(8) one can iterate to consider the effects of inelasticity through an equivalent viscous
damping approach which will reduce the spectral displacements (Priestley et al. 2007). However, as
ductility demands are likely to be low in tall buildings, iteration may not be deemed necessary.
he
Equivalent SDOF representation
RC Frames RC Walls
d
me
Sd,1
Spectral
Displacement
Building
Period
T1
Increasing period
beyond TD does not
increase Sd1
TD
T2
Sd,2
Potential Earthquake Demands
5%
H
7
4 CASE STUDY: 60 STOREY RC FRAME-WALL STRUCTURE
To investigate and illustrate the likely displacement demands on a tall RC frame-wall structure, the 60
storey case study building shown in plan in Figure 6 below has been examined. 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
Figure 6. The areas of columns and walls were sized to control axial load ratios under gravity loads.
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 6. Plan view of 60-storey (240m) reinforced concrete frame-wall case study structure.
A specific design procedure for assigning strength was not followed and instead beams and walls were
given strength corresponding to reasonable longitudinal reinforcement contents (A
s
/A
g
= 1.07% for
walls and 1.70% for beams). As such, the frames resist 73% of the total overturning moment. From
Figure 4, the wall contra-flexure height is estimated at 0.40H = 96m, and the equivalent SDOF
displacement at wall yield is 2.1m (Eq.(4a)). The yield drift of the frames, according to Eq.(3) is 1.0%.
Cracked section properties were obtained for modal analysis by dividing the member nominal flexural
strengths by the section yield curvatures obtained from the Priestley (2003) equations. The wall
cracked section stiffness determined at the base section of the wall was assumed constant up the
building height by assuming that despite possible reductions in the amount of cracking there would
also be reductions in the wall thickness. Modal analysis gave 1st and 2nd mode periods of 13.4s and
3.5s respectively. These are long periods for a 60 storey structure and it is likely that wind
requirements would force the design to be stiffer, but the aim here is to demonstrate that even when a
tall RC frame-wall structure is very flexible building deformations are not likely to be problematic.
Using the displacement spectra of Figure 7 and the periods obtained from modal analysis, one might
expect a 1
st
and 2
nd
mode spectral displacements of 1.05m and 0.63m respectively. Combining Eq. (7)
and Eq. (8) the maximum storey drift is estimated at 1.17%. From Eq. (6) and Eq. (8) these values give
displacement ductility demands for the walls and frames of 0.5 (ie. elastic) and 1.17 respectively.
Non-linear time-history analyses of the case study structure were carried out using Ruaumoko (Carr,
2007) using an integration time step of 0.001s. The five accelerograms listed in Table 1 and shown in
Figure 7 were used for the analyses. Note that the real records possess an average spectral
displacement corner period of 7.5s. The records were scaled to provide an intensity corresponding to a
type 1 earthquake from EC8 with a PGA = 0.4g and soil type C.
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

850Dx800W
RC beams
1600Dx1200W
RC columns
Two 15.0m long x 0.750m
thick RC walls
200mm thick
RC floors
Floor Area
30.0mx37.5m = 1125m2
8
Table 1. List of real earthquake records used in the non-linear time-history analyses
Ref. Earthquake name
Earthquake
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 Loma 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
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 5 10 15 20
Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

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

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

(
m
)
5% Damped Spectra
10% Damped Spectra
15% Damped Spectra
EC8 5%
EC8 10%
EC8 15%

Figure 7. Displacement spectra (left) of the ground motions used in non-linear time-history analyses
of the case study structure and (right) average spectral demands at different damping levels.
In modelling the structures for non-linear time-history analysis, elastic properties were assigned to
elements that are not intended to yield. This infers that appropriate capacity design would have
ensured that inelasticity is concentrated only in regions associated with the collapse mechanism.
Yielding elements were represented using the Takeda [Otani, 1981] hysteretic model, with 5% post-
yield displacement stiffness. The Rayleigh tangent stiffness damping model was adopted with 5%
damping set on the 1
st
and 2
nd
modes. The plastic hinge lengths associated with the yielding elements
were calculated using the recommendations from Priestley et al. [2007].
Figure 8 presents the maximum recorded storey displacements and storey drifts for the different
earthquake records. It is seen that both the average displacement recorded at the effective height (level
41) of 0.97m and average maximum storey drift over the top half of the building of 1.28% compare
reasonably well with the estimates made prior to the analyses. Walls were observed to remain elastic
and frames underwent limited inelastic rotations as expected.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Max Storey Displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Max Storey Drift
S
t
o
r
e
y
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5

Figure 8. Maximum storey displacements (left) and storey drifts (right) recorded from non-linear
time-history analyses for the 60-storey case study structure.
9
5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The considerations made in this paper have a number of implications for the design of tall frame-wall
buildings. Clearly, because the work indicates that even large magnitude events are only likely to
impose limited displacement ductility demands on tall frame-wall buildings, the use of large behaviour
factors for modal response spectrum analysis is inappropriate. On the other hand, it has been shown
that once the fundamental period lies beyond the spectral displacement corner period, reducing the
strength and stiffness of the main lateral load resisting system is not likely to lead to unacceptable
displacements and deformations, provided that adequate capacity design procedures have been
adopted. To this extent, code (UBC97) prescribed capacity design wall shear forces are likely to be
underestimated when response spectrum analysis is adopted with large behaviour factors. For
alternative guidelines on the capacity design of frame-wall structures refer to Sullivan et al (2006).
An important conclusion of this work is that seismic assessment and design should include
displacement considerations. Such considerations may enable reductions in detailing requirements as
ductility demands will often be low, and should lead to more appropriate distributions of strength.
Future work should look to study capacity design requirements and further explore the role that higher
modes have on storey drifts of tall frame-wall buildings. It is noted that the analyses conducted in this
work have been small displacement analyses that did not consider p-delta effects. The effect of this
and other modelling approximations should be explored in future work. Finally, it is pointed out that
the study has not considered displacement demands and capacities of tall buildings that traverse faults
as the permanent displacement of the ground would be expected to permanently deform the building.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The author would like to thank Dr Jamie Goggins for his useful comments on the paper and Dr J.
Didier Pettinga for providing the accelerograms used for the non-linear time-history analyses.
REFERENCES:
Carr, A. J. 2004. Ruaumoko3D A program for Inelastic Time-History Analysis. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury, 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, Comite Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, Belgium.
Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R., Rey, J. 2004. Displacement Spectra for Long Periods. Earthqauke Spectra, 20(2).
FEMA 274, 1997. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: FEMA 274. Washington, USA.
ICBO, 1997. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, USA.
ICC 2006. International Code Council, International Building Code, Thomas Delmar Learning, USA.
Otani, S. 1981. Hysteresis models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis Journal of the
Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol. XXXVI, No.2, pp125-159.
Paulay, T. 2003. Seismic displacement capacity of ductile reinforced concrete building systems. Bulletin of New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 36(1).
Paulay, T. 2002. A displacement-focussed seismic design of mixed building systems. Earthquake Spectra, 18(4).
Priestley, M.J.N. 2003. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Mallet Milne Lecture,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. 2007. Displacement Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS
Press, Pavia, Italy. 720pages (www.iusspress.it).
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).
Young, D., Felgar, Jr. R.P., 1949. Tables of characteristic functions representing normal modes of vibration of a
uniform beam. The University of Texas publication No.4913, July 1, 1949.