Dissertation2009 Salawdeh

Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori
Universit degli
Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN
REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF VERTICALLY
IRREGULAR FRAME-WALL STRUCTURES

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY

by

SUHAIB SALAWDEH

Supervisor: Dr. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN

APRIL, 2009

The dissertation entitled DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF VERTICALLY
IRREGULAR FRAME-WALL STRUCTURES, by Suhaib Salawdeh, has been approved in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Seismology.

TIMOTHY SULLIVAN ____

_________________

Abstract
i

ABSTRACT

The objective of this work is to investigate and develop seismic design guidelines for two types of
vertical irregular buildings; (i) vertical irregularity associated with steps in building plan area (core
walls full height and frames that have more bays at base of building than at top), and (ii) vertical
irregularity associated with core walls that stop around mid-height of the building. The work develops
a Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) approach which is used to design 12 and 4 story case
study buildings of each structural type. Non-linear time-history analyses are then used to verify the
performance of the method and the results indicate that the DBD approach is very effective for frame-
wall structures with setbacks and is reasonably effective for frame-wall structures possessing cores
that stop at intermediate levels.

Keywords; Vertical Irregularity; setback buildings; Core wall termination.

Acknowledgements
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Tim Sullivan, for his time and effort. His
knowledge, direction, and support helped me to progress in this dissertation.
During my study at MEEES program, I had the opportunity to travel to different countries and meet
great professors and colleagues; I would like to thank them for their friendship and support.
Finally, I would like to thank my Parents, who deserve my highest appreciation, my sisters and
brothers for their love and support, with special thanks for my brother Ihab for his endless support and
encouragement.

Index
iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. ix
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Vertical Irregularities in current design codes: .......................................................................... 1
1.2 Eurocode 8: ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 International Building Code (IBC): ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 Failures from past earthquakes: ................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Literature Review on Vertical Irregularities: ............................................................................. 7
2. Displacement Based Design of Dual Frame-Wall Vertically Irregular Structures .......................... 11
2.1 General Behaviour ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Design Displacement Profile ................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Equivalent SDOF System characteristics ................................................................................ 15
2.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Identification of the required stiffness and strength ................................................................. 16
3. Design Verification Using Non-Linear Time history Analysis ....................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction: ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Modelling approach and assumptions used for analysis: ......................................................... 18
4. Ground Motions used in this study .................................................................................................. 22
5. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures with Setbacks ................................................................... 27
5.1 Case study structure ................................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Verification of the method with time history analysis: ............................................................ 31
6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid height .................. 35
Index
iv
6.1 Case study structure ................................................................................................................. 35
6.2 Design Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 36
6.2.1 Contra Flexure Height .................................................................................................... 36
6.2.2 Frame Shear Ratio .......................................................................................................... 37
6.2.3 Design Displacement Profile ......................................................................................... 37
6.2.4 Strength Distribution ...................................................................................................... 38
6.3 Verification of the method with time history analysis: ............................................................ 40
6.4 New Approach for Design Displacement Profile and Strength Distribution ........................... 45
7. Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 51
7.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 51
7.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 51
7.3 Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 52
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 57

Index
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1-1: Criteria for regularity of buildings with setbacks from Eurocode 8 (CEN, 1998). ..3
Figure 1-2: Soft-story mechanism in the ground floor in a commercial building during 1997
Managua Earthquake in Nicaragua. ....................................................................................5
Figure 1-3: Three-story apartment building, El Asnam, Algeria, damaged in the 1980 in El
Asnam Earthquake. .............................................................................................................6
Figure 1-4: Olive View Hospital, San Fernando, California. Partial View of the 5-story
Medical Treatment and Care Unit (at right and back of the graph). ...................................6
Figure 1-5: Severe failure of the first story corner column in Mene Grande Building during
the Cracas earthquake in 1967. ...........................................................................................7
Figure 2-1: Distribution of shear forces between Frames and Walls. Graph (a) shows the Total
shear, graph (b) shows frame shears and graph (c) shows wall shears. ............................14
Figure 2-2: Distribution of overturning moments between Frames and walls. Graph (a) shows
the Total moment, Graph (b) shows frame moments and graph (c) shows wall moments
and contra flexure height, H
CF
. .........................................................................................14
Figure 2-3: Displacement Response Spectrum. ........................................................................17
Figure 3-1: Rayleigh damping model as shown in Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005). ..............20
Figure 3-2: Giberson one-component member model form Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005). 20
Figure 3-3: Modified Takeda hysteresis from Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).. ....................21
Figure 4-1: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3a. ..................................................22
Figure 4-2: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3b ...................................................22
Figure 4-3: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4a. ..........................................23
Figure 4-4: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4b. ..........................................23
Figure 4-5: Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, EQ5a. ........................................................23
Index
vi
Figure 4-6: Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, EQ5b. ........................................................23
Figure 4-7: Landers earthquake, June 28, 1992, EQ6a. ............................................................23
Figure 4-8: Landers earthquake, June 28, 1992, EQ6b. ............................................................24
Figure 4-9: Scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping compared with the
design spectrum. ...............................................................................................................24
Figure 4-10: Average of scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping
compared with the design displacement spectrum. ...........................................................25
4-11: Displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the design spectrum of
15% damping. ...................................................................................................................26
Figure 4-12: Average displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the
design spectrum of 15% damping. ....................................................................................26
Figure 5-1: plan view of the case studies associated with setbacks along the vertical plan of
the building. ......................................................................................................................27
Figure 5-2: Displacement-spectrum for 5% damping. ..............................................................28
Figure 5-3: 12 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at
the fourth and seventh floor and full height walls. ...........................................................29
Figure 5-4: 4 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at
the second and third floors and full height walls. .............................................................29
Figure 5-5: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure with setbacks. .....................................................................................................32
Figure 5-7: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum
compatible accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story
frame-wall structure with setbacks. ..................................................................................33
frame-wall structure with setbacks. ..................................................................................33
Figure 5-9: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
Index
vii
Figure 6-1: plan view of the case studies associated with walls that stop at mid height of the
building. ............................................................................................................................35
Figure 6-2: 12 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height. .........36
6-3: 4 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height. ......................36
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................40
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below. ............................................................41
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below. ............................................................42
compatible accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam
strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the
design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height. ................................................................................................................................43
compatible accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam
strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the
design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height. ................................................................................................................................43
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
Index
viii
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design
displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. ..44
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design
displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. 44
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. .................................................47
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. .................................................48
6-16: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
6-17: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned
as the strengths of the story below it. ................................................................................49
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned
as half of the strengths of the story below it. ....................................................................50

Index
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 5-1: Design results for the setback irregularity of the frame wall structure. ..................30
Table 6-1: Design results for the irregular frame-wall structure associated with stopping of the
core walls at mid height. ...................................................................................................39

Chapter 1. Introduction
1

1. INTRODUCTION
Many structures are designed with vertical irregularities due to functional, aesthetic, or
economical reasons. Vertical irregularities are due to sudden changes in stiffness, strength
and/or mass between adjacent stories. Sudden changes in stiffness and strength between
adjacent stories are associated with changes in structural system along the height, changes in
story height, setbacks, changes in materials and unanticipated participation of non-structural
components (Das, 2000). Many structures have suffered unexpected damage or collapse due
to these types of discontinuities.
Vertical irregularities nowadays have a lot of interest in seismic research investigations. This
report will concentrate on the design of this type of structures using the direct displacement
based design method and verifying the performance of this method using non-linear time-
history analyses.
Two types of vertical irregularity will be investigated in this report: (i) vertical irregularity
associated with steps in building plan area (core walls full height and frames that have more
bays at base of the building than at the top), and (ii) vertical irregularity associated with core
walls that stop at intermediate levels within the building.
The following sections in chapter 1 will explain how vertical irregularity is considered in
current design guidelines such as Eurocode 8 (EC8) (CEN, 1998) and International Building
Code (IBC) (ICC, 2003). The work will then give a description of various building failures
that have taken place during past earthquakes, where these failures were caused by the
presence of vertical irregularities in the structure. Finally, a literature review of some of the
previous work on vertical irregular buildings is explained.
1.1 Vertical Irregularities in current design codes:
Most building codes propose a simplified method called the equivalent lateral force (ELF)
procedure or the multi-mode response spectrum method to compute design forces. These
methods assume that the dynamic forces developed in a structure during an earthquake are
proportional to the maximum ground acceleration and the modal characteristics of the
structure. These forces are approximated as a set of equivalent lateral forces which are
distributed over the height of the structure. However, the ELF method is based on a number of
assumptions which are true for regular structures structures with uniform distribution of
stiffness, strength, and mass over the height. So the current building codes define criteria in
2
order to categorize building structures as either regular or irregular as explained in the
following paragraphs.
1.2 Eurocode 8:
Eurocode 8 (CEN, 1998) design guidelines contain criteria for classification of vertically
regular and irregular structures, where a structure is defined as being irregular when the
ratio of one of the quantities (such as masses or strength) between adjacent stories exceeds a
minimum prescribed value. For a building to be categorised as being regular in elevation, it
shall satisfy the following:
All lateral load resisting systems, such as cores, structural walls, or frames, shall run without
interruption from their foundations to the top of the building or, if setbacks at different heights
are present, to the top of the relevant zone of the building.
Both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual storeys shall remain constant or
reduce gradually, without abrupt changes, from the base to the top of a particular building.
In framed buildings the ratio of the actual storey resistance to the resistance required by the
analysis should not vary disproportionately between adjacent storeys.
When setbacks are present, the following additional conditions apply:
a) for gradual setbacks preserving axial symmetry, the setback at any floor shall be not greater than
20 % of the previous plan dimension in the direction of the setback as shown in Figures 1-1(a)
and 1-1(b).
b) for a single setback within the lower 15 % of the total height of the main structural
system, the setback shall be not greater than 50 % of the previous plan dimension as
illustrated in Figure 1-1(c). In this case the structure of the base zone within the vertically
projected perimeter of the upper stories should be designed to resist at least 75% of the
horizontal shear forces that would develop in that zone in a similar building without the
base enlargement.
c) if the setbacks do not preserve symmetry, in each face the sum of the setbacks at all
stories shall be not greater than 30 % of the plan dimension at the ground floor above the
foundation or above the top of a rigid basement, and the individual setbacks shall be not
greater than 10 % of the previous plan dimension as illustrated in Figure 1-1(d).
For buildings not conforming to the regularity criteria explained above, Eurocode 8 (CEN,
1998) adopts the modal response spectrum analysis procedure for design. However, non-
linear static (pushover) analysis or non-linear time history analysis procedures can be used as
an alternative for designing this type of irregularity.

3
Figure 1-1: Criteria for regularity of buildings with setbacks from Eurocode 8 (CEN, 1998).
1.3 International Building Code (IBC):
The international Building Code (IBC) (ICC, 2003) lists various types of vertical irregularity
as follows:
1a) Stiffness IrregularitySoft Story: is defined to exist when there is a story in which the
lateral stiffness is less than 70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the average
stiffness of the three stories above.
1b) Stiffness Irregularity -Extreme Soft Story is defined to exist where there is a story in
which the lateral stiffness is less than 60% of that in the story above or less than 70% of the
average stiffness of the three stories above.
2) Weight (Mass) Irregularity is defined to exist where the effective mass of any story is more
than 150% of the effective mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor
below need not be considered.
3) Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist where the horizontal dimension
of the lateral force- resisting system in any story is more than 130% of that in an adjacent
story.
4
4) In-plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral-Force-Resisting Elements is defined to exist
where an in-plane offset of the lateral-force-resisting elements is greater than the length of
those elements or where there is a reduction in stiffness of the resisting element in the story
below.
5) Discontinuity in Capacity-Weak Story where the weak story is one in which the story
lateral strength is less than 80% of that in the story above. The story lateral strength is the
total lateral strength of all seismic-resisting elements sharing the story shear for the direction
under consideration.
Each structure shall be assigned to a seismic design category in accordance with Section
1616.3 in IBC. Seismic design categories are used in IBC to determine permissible structural
systems, limitations on height and irregularity, those components of the structure that must be
designed for seismic resistance and the types of analysis that must be performed.
In the IBC (ICC, 2003), Buildings having one or more of the features of the 5 points listed
above shall be designated as having vertical irregularity except for types 1a, 1b and 2 when no
story drift ratio under design lateral load is greater than 130% of the story drift ratio of the
next story above, also irregularities of these types are not required to be considered for one-
story buildings in any seismic design category or for two-story buildings in Seismic Design
Category A, B, C or D. In these 2 exceptions the structure is deemed to not have the structural
irregularity.
Structures assigned to be vertically irregular in IBC (ICC, 2003) shall comply with specified
requirements depends upon the Seismic Design Category and the type of irregularity
described above. Also Modal Response Spectral Analysis or Non-linear Time History
Analysis procedures are recommended.
1.4 Failures from past earthquakes:
Experience from past earthquakes shows that irregular buildings are prone to severe damage.
Where the irregularity is due to changes in stiffness, strength, mass or setback of one floor to
that of an adjacent floor. From the study of various structural failures, it was found that a soft
and/or weak story in any building poses a high risk of damage during a seismic event (Das
and Nau, 2003). Some examples of actual structural failures for past earthquakes due to
vertical irregularity in the lateral force resisting system are described here:
Commercial Building Casa Micasa S.A., Managua, Nicaragua. A 2-story reinforced concrete
frame building (Figure 1-2) which suffered significant lateral displacement at the second floor
level during the 1972 Managua Earthquake.
5

Figure 1-2: Soft-story mechanism in the ground floor in a commercial building during 1997 Managua
Earthquake in Nicaragua.
As shown in Figure 1-2 the hinging at the top and bottom of the first story columns were
evident at all locations (Das, 2000). This first story was a soft story because, except for glass
partitions all around, it was completely open, while the second story had walls and partitions
that increased significantly the lateral stiffness of this second story relative to the first.
Some of the buildings in a housing development in Algeria were damaged due to El Asnam
Earthquake in 1980 (Figure 1-3). Although most of the buildings in this new housing
development remained standing after the earthquake, some of them were inclined as much as
20 degrees and dropped up to 1 meter, producing significant damage in the structural and non-
structural elements of the first story. The reason for this type of failure was the use of the
Vide Sanitaire, a crawl space about 1 meter above the ground level. This provides space for
plumbing and ventilation under the first floor slab and serves as a barrier against transmission
of humidity from the ground to the first floor. But the way that the vide sanitaires were
constructed created a soft story with inadequate shear resistance. Hence the stubby columns
in this crawl space were sheared off by the inertia forces induced by the earthquake ground
motion (Bertero, 1997).
The olive view medical centre was a 5 story reinforced concrete structure. Figure 1-4
illustrates the damage that olive view hospital suffered during the 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake. As shown in Figure 1-4 a large permanent lateral second floor level displacement
of the main Treatment and Care Unit was found. This large inter-story drift, which induced
significant non-structural and structural damage and which led to the demolishing of the
building, was a consequence of the formation of a soft story at the first story level because of
the existence of a reinforced concrete wall above the second floor level (Bertero, 1997).
6

Figure 1-3: Three-story apartment building, El Asnam, Algeria, damaged in the 1980 in El Asnam
Earthquake.

Figure 1-4: Olive View Hospital, San Fernando, California. Partial View of the 5-story Medical
Treatment and Care Unit (at right and back of the graph).
Analysis of building performance during earthquakes has revealed that numerous building
failures have resulted from the fact that basic structural systems are designed neglecting the
7
structural modifications induced by the non-structural components, for example, the Mene
Grande building in Caracas, Venezuela suffered severe damage in the Caracas earthquake
1967. This building, a 16-story reinforced concrete frame with a H-shape plan, had tile walls
in the four exterior ends of the building. The design neglected the interaction effects of these
tile walls. During the earthquake, there was not only considerable non-structural damage to
the tile walls in the lower floors of the building, but there was also severe failure in most of
the first story corner columns, as shown in Figure 1-5 (Das, 2000).
Figure 1-5: Severe failure of the first story corner column in Mene Grande Building during the Cracas
earthquake in 1967.
1.5 Literature Review on Vertical Irregularities:
Studies aimed to predict the behaviour of structures with vertical irregularities are small in
number compared to the studies aimed to predict the behaviour of structures with horizontal
irregularity. Nevertheless, in recent years research activity in this field has been growing.
Researchers have a lot of studies for the effects of vertical irregularities on the seismic
behaviour of structures. These irregularities are characterised by vertical discontinuities in the
distributions of masses, stiffnesses, and strengths. For the next paragraphs some studies that
consider vertical irregularity associated with setbacks of the structure or stopping of the core
wall at different levels of the structure are listed below:
1) Humar and Wright (1977), using one ground motion record in their study, studied the
dynamic behaviour of multi-storey steel rigid frame buildings with setback towers. They
8
found that the difference in elastic and inelastic inter-story drifts between set-back and
regular structures depends on the level of the story considered. For the tower, inter-story
drifts were found to be larger than for regular structures. For the base, inter-story drifts
were found to be smaller in set-back structures than in the regular ones. This observation
agrees with the findings of Pekau and Green (1974).
2) Wood (1986) performed an experimental study on two small-scale set-back frames. She
concluded that the behavior of set-back structures did not differ from the behavior of
regular ones.
3) Aranda (1984) found that the ductility demands of columns and beams are higher for set-
back buildings than for regular ones. Arandas study was performed using soft soil
records from the 1980 Mexico earthquake. He concluded that the increase in ductilities is
more pronounced in the stories above the set-back level.
4) Sharooz and Moehle (1990) studied the effects of set-backs on the earthquake response
on multi-story buildings. They observed, based on analytical studies, a concentration of
damage in the tower due to high rotational ductilities. They performed experiments on a
set-back frame structure and concluded that the fundamental mode dominates the
response in the direction parallel to the set-back, and that using static analysis should be
sufficient to predict the response of set-back structures without the need to perform
dynamic analysis.
5) Wong and Tsu (1994), studied the elastic response of setback structures by means of
response spectrum analysis and found that the modal weights of higher order modes for
setback structures are large, leading to a seismic load distribution that is different from
static code procedures. They also found that for set-back structures, although higher
order modes may contribute more to the base shear than the fundamental mode, the first
mode still dominates the displacement response.
6) Pinto and Costa (1995), studied Set-back structures and concluded that the seismic
behavior of regular and irregular structures are similar. In their study the amount of
discontinuity and the ratio of the base height to the total height were small.
7) Duan and Chandler (1995) pointed out that both static and modal spectral analyses were
inadequate to prevent damage concentration in members near the setback level. This
observation support the need for the development of new methods such as the DBD
procedure proposed in this work.
8) Tena-Colunga (2004) studied two irregular (setback and slender) 14-storey RC moment
resisting framed buildings, with one or two-bay frames in the slender direction. In this
case, structures were designed close to the limiting drift angle of 1.2%, established by the
Mexican code. Results obtained through nonlinear dynamic analyses suggested that the
slender direction of setback buildings with one-bay frames is vulnerable, contrary to
what occurs if a bay is added in the slender direction thanks to the higher redundancy in
framed structures. The author concluded that seismic codes should penalize seismic
design of buildings with single-bay frames in one direction.
9) Khoury et al. (2005) considered four 9-story asymmetric setback perimeter frame
structuresdesigned according to the Israeli steel code SI 1225 (1998)that differed
with special attention on the influence of the setback level, nonlinear dynamic analyses
were performed, and a 3D structural model was used under bi-directional ground
motions. Results showed amplification in response at the upper tower stories, thus
9
suggesting that the higher vibration modes have significant influence, particularly the
torsional ones. In this respect, the authors recommended that future research on setback
buildings should be conducted on full plan-asymmetric structures.
10) Athanassiadou and Bervanakis (2005) studied the seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete buildings with setbacks designed to capacity design procedure provided by
Eurocode 8. In their study, two ten-story frames with two and four large setbacks in the
upper floors respectively, as well as a third one, regular in elevation, have been designed
to the provisions of Eurocode 8 for the high (H) ductility class and a common peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.25g. All frames were subjected to inelastic dynamic
time-history analysis for selected input motions. They found that the seismic
performance of the studied multistory reinforced concrete frame buildings with setbacks
in the upper stories designed to EC8 can be considered as completely satisfactory, not
inferior and in some cases even superior of that of the regular ones, even for motions
twice as strong as the design earthquake. Inter-story drift ratios of irregular frames were
found to remain quite low even in the case of the collapse prevention earthquake with
an intensity double that of the design one.
11) Moehle and Sozen (1980), studied frame-wall structures possessing partial-height walls.
Four 9-story model reinforced concrete structures were built, all possessing the same
overall dimensions. To resist the seismic actions, in parallel to two full height frames,
three of the structures used partial height walls of 1, 4 and 9 stories respectively, and the
fourth had only the two frames to resist the seismic response without the walls. They
found that the variations of top displacements with time of the structures with four and
nine-story walls were nearly identical. The base shears that developed in the walls for
both of these structures was approximately 60% of the total base shear. For the structure
with a single story wall, the base shear in the wall was approximately 95% of the total
base shear. Drifts were considerably greater in the lower stories of the single-story wall
and pure frame structures. Due to the sharp change in story shear stiffness it might have
been anticipated that the use of partial height walls would cause large shear demands
around the point of wall termination. However the study showed that because the
deformations of walls are primarily flexural, large story drifts could develop at
intermediate stories (around the points of wall termination) without the development of
large shears in the wall and frames. This point, together with the observation that top
displacements of the structure with a full height wall were nearly identical to those of the
structure with a four story wall, indicate that the use of partial height walls may be an
acceptable frame-wall structural configuration.
12) Moehle (1984) studied the seismic response of four irregular reinforced concrete test
structures. These test structures were simplified models of 9-story 3 bay building frames
comprised of moment frames and frame-wall combinations. Irregularities in the vertical
plane of these structures were introduced by discontinuing the structural wall at various
levels. Based upon measured displacements and distributions of storey shears between
frames and walls, it was apparent that the extent of the irregularity could not be gauged
solely by comparing the strengths and stiffnesses of adjacent stories in a structure.
Structures having the same stiffness interruption, but occurring in different stories didnt
perform equally. It was observed that the curvature ductility demand in beams varied
10
from 3.9 to 7.2 and for columns from 1.8 to 2.9, for an abrupt termination of shear walls
at different levels along the height.
13) Moehle and Alarcon (1986) presented a combined experimental and analytical study to
examine the seismic response behaviour of reinforced concrete frame-wall structures. In
one of the models, vertical irregularity in the frame-wall system was introduced by
interrupting the wall at the first story level. Inelastic dynamic analysis was capable of
adequately reproducing measured displacement waveforms, but accurate matches of
responses required a trial and error approach to establish the best modelling assumptions.
It was observed that in the vicinity of the discontinuity, the elements exhibited a
curvature ductility demand 4 to 5 times higher than in the case of the model without any
interruption of the wall.
14) Costa (1990) extended the previous work (Costa et al. (1988)) on seismic behavior of
irregular structures. The study was based on twelve, sixteen, and twenty story reinforced
concrete building models. They found the following conclusions: the role of a shear wall
in a mixed structural system was to distribute the frame ductilities uniformly along the
height, the interruption of a shear wall in part or for the total height of the structure led to
a very irregular distribution of frame ductility, also, a significant increase was observed
in the first level above the interruption of the shear wall. Below the interruption, the
behavior was similar to a regular building.
In summary it can be observed that analytical and experimental investigations by previous
researchers have identified differences in dynamic response of regular and irregular buildings.
Even though there are conflicting conclusions regarding the behaviour of set-back structures,
many of the studies indicate that there is an increase in drifts in the tower of this type of
structures. For the types of irregularities where the wall stops at different heights of the
structures the behaviour was more complex, but many researchers observed increase of
ductility demands on the floor above the termination of the wall.
Chapter 2. Displacement Based Design of Dual Frame-Wall Vertically Irregular Structures
11

2. Displacement Based Design of Dual Frame-Wall Vertically
Irregular Structures
Nowadays displacement based design is widely spreading in the field of seismic design and
extensive research has been done and is ongoing for various types of structures. Direct
Displacement Based Design (DDBD) of Priestley et al. (2007) is becoming more accepted at
the new approaches in the literature, because of its simplicity and its ability to overcome the
deficiencies that exist in traditional force-based design methods (see Priestley et al. 2007)
The buildings investigated in this report are vertically irregular and have both frames and
walls contributing to seismic resistance. A description of the various steps of the DDBD
procedure mainly taken from Sullivan et al. (2006) proposed for the design of the vertically
irregular frame-wall buildings with irregularity associated with steps in building plan area
(core walls extend to the full height of the structures but the frames have more bays at base of
building than at top) is presented in the following paragraphs:
2.1 General Behaviour
The large stiffness variation between frames and walls means that the walls typically yield at
significantly lower lateral displacements than the frames, and hence distributions of lateral
force between walls and frames based on initial elastic stiffnesses have little relevance to the
ductile response of the structure. The design displacement is governed by wall-base material
strains or by wall drift at the contra flexure height, H
CF
, (the height at which the drift will be
maximum, since the moment reversal occurring above this point reduces the drift in the upper
stories as shown in Figure 2-2(c)). The proportion between the contra flexure height, H
CF
, and
the real height of the structure is chosen by the designer based on experience and judgement,
and the proportions of total based shear carried by frames and walls will be dependent upon
this choice as will be explained later in this chapter.
2.2 Design Displacement Profile
The design displacement profile of frame-wall structures can be gauged by considering the
curvature profile in the walls, as demonstrated by Sullivan et al. (2006). The wall
deformations should consider the elastic and inelastic deformation profiles of the wall.
12
To gauge the elastic deformation profile, the yield curvature of the rectangular walls,
y,wall
, is
obtained using Equation (2.1) from (Priestley, 2003). The yield curvature for other sectional
shapes can be found in (Calvi and Sullivan, 2009).
,wuII
= 2 -
s
j
I
wcll
(2.1)
Where l
wall
is the wall length and
y
is the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement found
from Equation (2.2):
e
=
]
jc
L
(2.2)
Where f
ye
is the expected reinforcement yield strength and E is the Youngs modulus of the
reinforcement.
The frame yield drift,
y,frame
, used later to estimate the ductility and equivalent viscous
damping of the frames is found using Equation (2.3) from (Priestley, 2003):
0
]
=
0.5-s
j
-L
b
h
b
(2.3)
Where l
b
is the average beam length,
y
is the yield strain of the beam longitudinal
reinforcement and h
b
is the average depth of the beams at the level of interest.
For the yield displacement profile, the wall curvature profile is assumed to be represented as
linear from the yield curvature at the base to zero at the point of contra-flexure and it is
assumed that the curvature above the contra-flexure point is zero when determining the story
yield displacement. On the basis of these assumptions the yield displacement profile of the
walls,
, can be established using the wall yield curvature,

y,wall
, contra-flexure height, H
CF
,
and story height, H
i
, as in Equations (2.4a) and (2.4b):
For H
i
H
CF
:
=
,w
(
H
i
2
2
-
H
i
3
6H
CF
) (2.4a)
For H
i
> H
CF
:
=
,w
(
H
CF
H
i
2
-
H
CF
2
6
) (2.4b)
Design displacements will either be limited by material strains in the wall plastic hinges, or by
drift limitations (more commonly), where drift will be maximum at contra-flexure height,
H
CF
.
First we check if drift limit of the wall at the contra-flexure height is exceeding the design
drift limit:
Drift limit of the wall at the contra-flexure height, H
CF
, is given by the Equation (2.5)
0
CP
=
q
j,w
H
CF
2
+(
dc
-
,w
)I
p
(2.5)
13
Where
y,wall
is the yield curvature of the wall, H
CF
is the contra-flexure,
dc
is the damage
control curvature given by Equation (2.6):

dc
=
0.072
I
w
(2.6)
And L
p
is Plastic hinge length for wall which taken as Equation (2.7) from Priestley et al.
(2007):
I
p
= KE
CP
+u.1I
w
+ I
sp
(2.7)
Where K is a factor for plastic hinge length found by the expression in Equation (2.8):
K = u.2 _
]
u
]
j
- 1] (2.8)
where f
u
and f
y
are the ultimate and yield strengths respectively.
L
sp
is the strain penetration length found as in Equation (2.9):
I
sp
= u.u22
c
J
bI
(f
ye
in MPA) (2.9)
Where f
ye
and d
bl
are the expected yield strength and the diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
If the design drift governs (the drift at the contra-flexure height in equation (2.5) exceeds the
design drift, 0
C
) then the design displacement profile will be defined by Equation (2.10):
+[0
C
-
q
j,w
H
CF
2
E
(2.10)
Where
is the design displacement at level i,
is the yield displacement of the wall at

level i, 0
C
is the design story drift,
y,wall
CF
is the contra-
flexure height and H
i
is the height at level i.
If wall base material strains govern, the design displacement profile will be as shown in
Equation (2.11):
+ (
dc
-
w
)I
p
E
(2.11)
To calculate the lateral forces proportions and to find the proportions of base shear for frames
and walls that give the assumed contra-flexure height, distribute the total base shear force to
the floor levels in proportion to the product of mass, m
i
, and displacement
i
. As such, the
lateral forces, F
i
, expressed as a proportion of the base shear, V
base
, at different levels will be
as shown in Equation (2.12):
14
P
i
v
bcsc
=
M
i
i
M
i
i
(2.12)
The strength proportions as a function of the total shear, V
i
, are then set in the frames and
walls respectively up the height of the structure.
In the next chapters the details how to distribute the lateral forces between walls and frames
and assure that the proportion chosen will give the assumed contra-flexure height, H
CF
, will
be explained for each case study. In this chapter, an explanation will be given for the 12 story
irregular case study structure possessing steps in the building plan up the height of the
structure. First an arbitrary value for the proportion,
F
, of total base shear, V
base
, carried by
the frames is selected. Then the frame proportions of base shear will be found for the different
floor levels depending upon the number of bays (where beams of equal strengths are used up
the height of the structure). Wall shears are obtained as the difference between the total shear
and the frame shear and the proportions of moment for frames and walls can then be
calculated. By trial and error (changing the value of proportion of base shear allocated to
frames), the proportions of the lateral loads carried by frames that gives the assumed contra-
flexure height, H
CF
, will be found. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the distribution of lateral forces
and overturning moments between frames and walls illustrated earlier.

Figure 2-1: Distribution of shear forces between Frames and Walls. Graph (a) shows the Total shear,
graph (b) shows frame shears and graph (c) shows wall shears.

Figure 2-2: Distribution of overturning moments between Frames and walls. Graph (a) shows the Total
moment, Graph (b) shows frame moments and graph (c) shows wall moments and contra flexure height,
H
CF
.
15
2.3 Equivalent SDOF System characteristics
With the knowledge of the displacement profile, one can obtain various equivalent SDOF
properties of the structure:
The Equivalent SDOF design displacement is given as shown in Equation (2.13):
=
m
i
i
2
m
i
i
(2.13)
Effective mass, m
e
will be found by from Equation (2.14):
m
c
=
m
i
D
(2.14)
And the effective height is given by Equation (2.15):
E
c
=
m
i
i
H
i
m
i
i
(2.15)
2.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping
The other characteristic required to define the substitute structure is the equivalent viscous
damping. This can be related to the ductility demands on the structure which can be obtained
as explained next.
The displacement ductility demand in the wall,
w
, is as shown in Equation (2.16):
waII
=

D
Hc,j,w
(2.16)
Where
is the design displacement given by Equation (2.13) and

Hc,,w
is the yield
displacement of the wall at the effective height which is found by substituting the effective
height H
e
(from Equation (2.15)) into Equation (2.4).
The displacement ductility demand on the frames at each level up the height of the structure
can be obtained using the story drifts as Equation (2.17):
Iramc,I
= [
i
-
i-1
h
i
- h
i-1
-
1
0
j,]rcmc
(2.17)
Where
frame,i
is the frame ductility at level i,
i
,
i-1
, h
i
, and h
i-1
, are the displacements and
heights at level i and level i-1 respectively, and

y,frame
is the yield drift of the frame given by
Equation (2.3). Because beams of equal depth and strength are used up the height of the
structure, the ductility obtained from Equation (2.17) for each story can be averaged to give
the frame displacement ductility demand.
16
To find the equivalent viscous damping,
eq
, the Takeda Thin (TT) model is used for walls
and Takeda Fat (TF) model is used for frames in line with recommendations of PCK (2007)
as shown in Equations (2.18) and (2.19) respectively.
cq,w
= u.uS +u.444[
w
-1
w
n
(2.18)
cq,]
= u.uS +u.S6S_
]
-1
]
] (2.19)
Where
w
is the displacement ductility demand in the walls and
f
is the average displacement
ductility demand for the frames.
Once the wall and the frame damping components have been established, the value of
damping for the equivalent SDOF system is determined using the overturning moment for the
unit base shear, as in Equation (2.20).
ss
= [
{
w
M
OTM,w
+{
F
M
OTM,F
M
OTM
(2.20)
Where M
OTM,w
is the wall overturning resistance, M
OTM,f
is the frame overturning resistance.
2.5 Identification of the required stiffness and strength
At this point of the design process, all of the substitute structure characteristics required for
DDBD procedure have been established and as such, the design displacement spectrum is
developed at the design level of damping by applying a damping modifier R
to the elastic
displacement spectrum. In this work the expression used in 2003 revision to EC8 shown in
Equation (2.21) has been adopted:
R
= [
0.1
(0.05+)
0.5
(2.21)
The new design displacement is then used to read off (or interpolate between known points)
the required effective period from the displacement spectrum developed at the design level of
damping, as shown in Figure 2-3 or Equation (2.22):
I
c
=
1
c
D
R
(
C
(2.22)
With the effective period established, the effective stiffness, K
e
, is determined as per Equation
(2.23):
K
c
=
4n
2
m
c
1
c
2
(2.23)
Where m
e
is the effective mass found from Equation (2.14) and T
e
is the effective period.

17
Figure 2-3: Displacement Response Spectrum.

The base shear is then obtained by multiplying the effective stiffness, K
e
, by the design
displacement,
d
, as shown in Equation (2.24):
I
busc
= K
c
(2.24)
Individual member strengths are then determined by multiplying the strength proportions by
the base shear and reinforcement is set so that the design strength develops at the expected
deformation demand.

Chapter 3. Design Verification Using Non-Linear Time history Analysis
18

3. Design Verification Using Non-Linear Time history Analysis
3.1 Introduction:
In order to verify the performance of the DDBD method used in this report, non linear time
history analyses are carried out with time histories which match the design spectrum used in
the DDBD application. The computer program used for the verification is RUAUMOKO
(Carr, 2005).
The computer program RUAUMOKO has been designed to provide a piece-wise time-history
response of non linear two-dimensional and three-dimensional structures to ground
accelerations, ground displacements or more general time varying force excitations. The
program may also be used for static or pushover analyses.
In this computer program RUAUMOKO, several different options can be used for the
modeling of the Mass, Damping and Stiffness matrices, also the program has a wide variety
of modeling options available to represent the structure and its supports and interactions with
adjoining structures, also a wide variety of member types are available as well, like frame
members, quadrilateral members and other ones to model special effects such as spring and
contact or impact members.
The damping exhibited by the structure can be modeled by the commonly assumed Rayleigh
damping models or by a range of models aimed to give a better representation of the variation
of elastic damping with frequency as well as options for different levels of damping in
different parts of the structural system.
There are a wide range of time-history excitations that may be applied to the structure. The
excitation may be in the form of ground accelerations and these may be applied as a rigid-
body ground motion or as a travelling wave acceleration history. The input may be in the form
of time-varying dynamic loading histories or in the form of ground displacement histories.
3.2 Modelling approach and assumptions used for analysis:
The modelling approaches used in this report are described as the following paragraphs:
The dynamic equation of equilibrium is integrated by the unconditionally stable implicit
Newmark Constant Average Acceleration (Newmark =0.25) method [Clough et al. 1993]
and an integration time step of 0.01 was adopted.
The lateral forces for the model are resisted by walls and frames.
19
A lumped mass type was adopted for the structural models, where the mass was provided by
specifying nodal weights which contribute only to the diagonal terms of the mass matrix
associated with the three translational degrees of freedom at each end of the member but the
terms associated with the rotational degrees of freedom are taken as zero.
The traditional damping model available in most time history programs is the Rayleigh or
Proportional damping model (Figure 3-1)where the structures damping matrix is given by
Equation (3.1):
C = oH + [K (3.1)
where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices for the structure. The coefficients and
are computed to give the required levels of viscous damping at two different frequencies,
most commonly those of the first and second modes of free vibration. So the reason for its
popularity is that it uses matrices that the analysis already has computed and requires only the
computation of the two coefficients and in order to form a damping matrix so that the
analysis may be carried out.
For the case study structures under examination, the non-linear time history analysis was
carried out using tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping, which means that the damping matrix is
based on a Rayleigh damping model which uses the current stiffness of the structure at any
time step as the tangent damping matrix (Carr, 2005). When the structure is inelastic then the
tangent damping matrix changes together with the stiffness matrix throughout the time
history. The damping forces of the structure are adjusted in the time step with the increment
of the damping forces being the product of the tangent damping matrix multiplied by the
incremental velocities in the structure. In addition to the stiffness dependant damping force,
however the Rayleigh damping model includes a mass dependent damping force. The
incremental damping forces are then added to the damping forces existing in the structure at
the beginning of the time step to give the damping forces at the end of the time step. In order
to achieve the effect of 5% tangent stiffness damping considering the constant mass
dependent component, 5% damping was specified for the second mode of vibration and an
artificially low damping coefficient,
*
shown in Equation (3.2) was specified for the first
mode damping in line with the recommendations of Priestley (2007).
-
=
{(1-0.1(
sjs
-1)(1-))
sjs
(1+
sjs
-)
(3.2)
Where
sys
is the system ductility found from Equation (2.20), the viscous damping, , was
taken as 5% and the value of the coefficient r was taken as 0.05.
20

Figure 3-1: Rayleigh damping model as shown in Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).
Only X-direction earthquake was used.
Classical small displacement analysis assumed, where the member stiffnesses are not affected
by the deformations of the structure and the nodal coordinates remain unchanged during the
analysis.
Modal analysis is carried out after the static analysis, even though the results of modal
analysis are not generally used during the dynamic analysis (apart from setting damping
coefficient curve) but it gives a good indication of the different mode shapes.
Base nodes are restrained against displacements and rotations in all axes. But all other nodes
are free for displacement in the x (horizontal) and y (vertical) directions, and free for rotation
about z axis.
Columns and beams are modeled as frame elements, the inelastic behavior of the frame
elements are described by Giberson one-component model (Sharpe, 1974) which has a plastic
hinge possible at one or both ends of the elastic central length of the member as shown in
Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Giberson one-component member model form Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).
21
In the model structures described here, plastic hinges are allowed to be formed at the ends of
the beams and at the bottom of the walls and columns of the ground level.
The inelastic response of members in non-linear time history analysis based on line members
is defined by force-deformation equations describing the loading, unloading and reloading of
the members. The collective equations describing the response for a given member are termed
the hysteresis rule for the member. The hysteresis behaviors of the inelastic sections for our
case studies are modeled by the modified Takeda-Rule (Otani, 1974), which is shown in
Figure 3-3. The modified Takeda rules are characterized by unloading and reloading
stiffnesses that are significantly lower than the initial elastic stiffnesses. The model
parameters used for beams are = 0.3 and =0.6, and for columns and walls = 0.5 and
=0.0.

Figure 3-3: Modified Takeda hysteresis from Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005)..
A bilinear approximation to the moment curvature response, consisting of an initial elastic
branch, and a post yield plastic branch was used.
The elastic moment of inertia about the z axis was found using the slope of the initial branch
in accordance with the following formula: I
zz,cI
=
M
n
L-
j
.
The dynamic excitation was applied through a ground acceleration history applied to the x
direction earthquake only. Eight accelerograms compatible with the design spectrum
explained in chapter 4 were used and the average value of the results was used to verify the
design procedure.
To provide information on all the remaining modelling aspects, an example of input file used
for the analysis of the 12 story case study structure possessing setbacks is included in
Appendex A.
Chapter 4. Ground Motions used in this study
22

4. Ground Motions used in this study
As discussed in Chapter 3, in order to verify the performance of the DBD method for the
vertically irregular case studies, non-linear time history analysis have been undertaken
applying eight different accelerograms (recordings of ground acceleration made by
accelerographs during earthquakes) which were scaled to be compatible with the design
spectrum of our case studies.
Eight accelerograms from four different earthquakes (2 components in orthogonal direction
for each earthquake) were taken from Pennucci et al, (2009). The records were selected by
using a computer program which first filters the whole PEER record database [PEER, 2008]
on user-defined selection criteria, then calculates an optimum linear scaling factor for all
filtered records to best fit the target spectrum across a period range of interest, and finally
ranks these records in order of root-mean-square error (see Grant et al., 2008; ARUP, 2007).
For this study the following earthquakes developed in the this way by Pennucci et al, (2009)
were selected; the Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, with two components (EQ3a and
EQ3b), the Imperial Valley earthquake October 15, 1979, with two components (EQ4a and
EQ4b), Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, with two components (EQ5a and EQ5b) and
Landers earthquake, June 28, 1992, with two components (EQ6a and EQ6b) as shown in
Figures 4-1 to 4-8.

Figure 4-1: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3a.

Figure 4-2: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3b
Time [sec]
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time [sec]
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
23

Figure 4-3: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4a.

Figure 4-4: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4b.

Figure 4-5: Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, EQ5a.

Figure 4-6: Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, EQ5b.

Figure 4-7: Landers earthquake, June 28, 1992, EQ6a.
Time [sec]
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time [sec]
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time [sec]
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time [sec]
44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
24

Figure 4-8: Landers earthquake, June 28, 1992, EQ6b.
The response spectrum for each accelerogram was developed at 5% damping using the
program SeismoSignal and compared with the elastic design spectrum of 5% damping in
order to scale the intensity to match the design response spectrum used for this report.
All the time histories were scaled with the proportions that make the response spectra of these
time histories match with the design spectrum. Response spectra for the scaled accelerograms
were found using the program SeismoSignal with 5% damping value and compared with the
design spectrum as shown in Figure 4-9 which shows a good match. Also Figure 4-10 shows
the average of the entire earthquakes response spectra and compares it with the design
response spectrum and it is found that the average of the earthquakes response spectrum
perfectly match the design response spectra in the period of interest at 5%.

Figure 4-9: Scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping compared with the design
spectrum.
Time [sec]
44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
)
Period(sec)
Design
Spectrum5%
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
25

Figure 4-10: Average of scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping compared with the
design displacement spectrum.
The DBD procedure requires a modification of the elastic displacement response spectrum to
account for ductile response, where the influence of ductility is represented by equivalent
viscous damping. Seismologists have derived formulas for a damping modifier R
to be
applied to the elastic displacement spectrum for different levels of damping . As stated in
Chapter 2, the expression used for the design of the case studies was taken from the 2003
revision to EC8 and is shown in equation (4.1):
R
= [
0.1
(0.05+)
0.5
(4.1)
To assure the compatibility between the modified displacement spectrum at the required level
of damping and the response spectra generated by the accelerograms at the same level of
damping; a damping level of 15% was chosen and the damping modifier R
was found and

applied to the elastic displacement spectrum. In parallel to this, the displacement response
spectra for the accelerograms was found using SeismoSignal with 15% damping value and the
spectra were then compared as shown in Figure 4-11. Also the average of the entire
earthquakes response spectra at 15% damping was compared with the modified design
spectrum as shown in Figure 4-12. It is apparent that the match at the design level of damping
is not perfect but can be considered as acceptable.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
)
Period(sec)
DesignSpectrum
5%damping
Averageforall
accelerograms
26

4-11: Displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the design spectrum of 15%
damping.

Figure 4-12: Average displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the design spectrum
of 15% damping.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
)
Period(sec)
Designspectrum15%
EQ3a15%
EQ3b15%
EQ4a15%
EQ4b15%
EQ5A15%
EQ5b15%
EQ6a15%
EQ6b15%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
)
Period(sec)
DesignSpectrum15%
Averageforall
accelerograms15%
Chapter 5. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures with Setbacks

27

5. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures with Setbacks
5.1 Case study structure
The first type of case study structure investigated in this report are the frame-wall structures
that possess a vertical irregularity associated with setbacks up the vertical axis of the building;
in other words for these buildings the core walls extend to the full height of the structure and
the frames have more bays at base of the building than at top.
All the structures investigated have the same plan view shown in Figure 5-1, where the lateral
loads acting along the longitudinal axis of the building in the excitation direction are resisted
by two 8 m walls and 2 frames with setbacks as will be explained in more details later. Note
that the scope of this research includes only a study of the response in the setback direction,
and the response in transverse direction should be studied as part of future research taking into
consideration the torsional behaviour.

Figure 5-1: plan view of the case studies associated with setbacks along the vertical plan of the building.

28
The case study buildings have a uniform story height of 3m, and the total ultimate dead and
live load is uniformly distributed as 10 KPa for all levels including the roof. All frame bays
are 8m, and the wall length is 8m. The expected material strengths are fce = 40 MPa for the
concrete and f
ye
= 500 MPa for both flexural and transverse reinforcement. The flexural
reinforcing steel is assumed to have a diameter, d
bl
= 25 mm with a ratio of ultimate to yield
strength of f
u
/f
y
= 1.35, and a strain at ultimate strength,
su
= 0.10. It is assumed that the
structure rests on rigid foundations.
The structure is located in a region with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g, with a
displacement-spectrum for 5% damping as shown in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2: Displacement-spectrum for 5% damping.
For this type of irregularity 2 buildings were investigated; a 12 story building and a 4 story
building. For the 12 story building the core walls extend to the full height of the building and
the frames have setbacks, with 8 bays in the first three stories, 5 bays from the fourth to the
sixth floor and only 3 bays for the seventh to the last story as shown in Figure 5-3. The length
of each bay is 8 m.
For the 4 story building the core walls also extend the full height of the building and the
frames have setbacks at the second and third floors as shown in Figure 5-4. . In this case study
structure, the ratio of the height to length of the wall is less than three, where shear
deformations of the walls must be taken into account, but it was neglected in this work for
simplicity.
The general procedure for the design of these case studies was as explained in chapter 2.
Some important aspects of the design of these case studies are explained in the next
paragraphs.


29

Figure 5-3: 12 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at the fourth
and seventh floor and full height walls.

Figure 5-4: 4 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at the second
and third floors and full height walls.
The design story drift limit of 2.5% was selected for these case studies, which is intended to
control damage of non-structural items of the buildings. Damage of structural items is
controlled by material strains in the wall plastic hinge.
For the 12-story irregular frame-wall building the proportion between the contra flexure
height, H
CF
, and the real height, H, of the structure was chosen to be 0.9. Based on the contra
flexure height it was found that the design story drift at the contra flexure height was more
critical and the design was controlled by its value. Using the procedure described in Chapter 2
the proportions of base shear for the frames and walls that give the assumed contra-flexure
height was found to occur when 41.5% of the base shear was allocated to the frames and the
rest to the walls. For the 4-story irregular frame-wall building the contra flexure height, H
CF
,
was taken the same as the real height, and it was decided to allocate 60% of the base shear to
the frames.

30
Beams of constant strength up the height of the building are assigned and assuming that beam
moments are carried equally by columns above and below a beam-column joint, the beam
strength obtained from the frame shear is found as in equation (5.1).
XH
b,
= I
,]umc
b
coI
(5.1)
Where V
i,frame
is the frame shear at level i, M
b,i
are the beame strengths at level i, and h
col
, is
the inter-story height.
Design results for both case studies are presented in Table 5-1:
Table 5-1: Design results for the setback irregularity of the frame wall structure.
4 story irregular FW 12 story irregular FW
Height (m) 12 36
Beam height (m) 0.8 0.6
Beam Width (m) 0.3 0.3
Wall dimensions (L*t) (m) 8*0.15 8*0.20
Contra flexure height (m) 12 32.4
Design story drift 1.98% 2.5%
Design Displacement,
d,
(m) 0.146 0.479
Percent of base shear allocated to frames 60% 41.5%
Effective Height (m) 8.04 23.04
Wall ductility demand 9.3 3.78
Average Frame Ductility 1.48 1.32
System ductility 5.14 2.83
Frames Equivalent Viscous damping 9.51% 7.75%
Walls Equivalent Viscous damping 17.3% 14.8%
System Damping 13.2% 12.1%
Effective Period (sec) 1.53 4.86
Effective Mass (tonnes) 4678.7 11969.4
Effective stiffness (KN/m) 79145 19977
Base Shear (KN) 11538 9563
Design Wall strength (KN.m) 21698 67759
Wall Long. Reinforcement percent 0.5% 1%
Design Beam Strength (KN.m) 649 372
Beam Long. Reinforcement percent 1.75% 1.75%

31
5.2 Verification of the method with time history analysis:
To investigate the performance of the DBD method for the last case study structures, the non-
linear time history method is used, as this is currently the most accurate method for verifying
if inelastic deformations and rotations satisfy the design limits.
The program Ruaumoko (Carr, 2005) was used to undertake the non-linear time history
analyses using 8 different accelerograms as explained in chapter 4.
For each time history analysis the maximum displacement recorded at each floor is found,
which implies that these recorded displacements include the effects of higher modes.
The maximum floor displacements recorded during time-history analyses for the 8
accelerograms are shown in Figures 5-5 and 5-6 and are compared with the design
displacement profile. The average of the maximum recorded displacement during time history
analyses for the eight accelerograms and the design displacement profile are shown in Figures
5-7 and 5-8. It is apparent that there is a very good match between the design displacement
and the maximum displacements recorded from the time history analyses for the 12 story
building. However there was approximately 10% difference for the 4 story building and this is
may be because the displacement spectrum for the accelerograms at 15% damping doesnt
match the design spectrum at 15% damping at the corresponding effective period with a
difference of approximately 9.3%.
The average of the maximum story drifts recorded during time-history analyses using the
eight accelerograms compared with the design drift profile for the case studies is shown in
Figures 5-9 and 5-10. It is found that the design drift profile matches the average of the
maximum recorded story drifts for the eight accelerograms for the 12 story building relatively
well. In line with the displacement results, the story drifts for the 4 story building have been
overestimated by around 18% and this may be because the spectra of the accelerograms didnt
perfectly match for the design spectrum at the specified effective period of the 4 story
building.


32

Figure 5-5: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.

compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b

33

Figure 5-7: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.

accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with
setbacks.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
Thistoryaverage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
DBD
Thistory
Average

34

accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.

accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with
setbacks.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Drift
DBD
THistoryAverage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Drift
DBD
ThistoryAverage
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height

35

6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls
that stop at mid height
6.1 Case study structure
The second type of case study structure investigated in this report are structures with vertical
irregularity associated with core walls that stop at mid-height of the building.
The plan view of the structure is shown in Figure 6-1, and the material properties are the same
as explained in chapter 5.

Figure 6-1: plan view of the case studies associated with walls that stop at mid height of the building.
For this type of irregularity 2 buildings were investigated; a 12 story building and a 4 story
building. For both the 12 and 4 story buildings the core walls stop at mid-height of the
height

36
building and the frames extend the full height with equal number of bays as shown in Figures
6-2 and 6-3.

Figure 6-2: 12 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height.

6-3: 4 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height.
6.2 Design Procedure
The procedure for the design of these case studies is generally the same as explained in
chapter 2, with some specific changes used for this type of irregularity which will be
explained in the next paragraphs.
6.2.1 Contra Flexure Height
The contra flexure height, H
CF
, is taken as the height of the core walls, which is the maximum
value. Lower values could be adopted but for this case study the contra flexure height, H
CF
,
was taken as the height of the core walls in order to take advantage of the walls.
height

37
6.2.2 Frame Shear Ratio
The frame proportions of base shear are selected to be the same as the total shear of the story
just above the story where the core stops using Equation (6.1) taken from Sullivan et al.
(2006):
v
i,tctcl
v
b
= 1 -
n
(-1)
(n+1)
(6.1)
Where V
i, total
is the total shear at level i, V
b
is the total base shear, and n is the total number of
stories in the building.
6.2.3 Design Displacement Profile
The design displacement profile for the first part of the building, the half which has frames
and walls, is defined by equation (6.2):
+[0
C
-
q
j,w
H
CF
2
E
(6.2)
Where

yi
level i found from equation 2.4, 0
C
y,w
is the yield curvature of the
wall, H
CF
is the contra-flexure height and H
i
is the height at level i.
The design displacement profile for the second part of the building, the half which has frames
only, was defined by equation (6.3), which is a modification of the equation used by Pettinga
and Priestley (2005) for normal frames with fixed base, the modification is done in order to
account for our case study with continuous frame base as will be explained later, adding to it
the design displacement at the floor of wall termination,
,t
, just under the start of the frame
structure only.
=
,t
+(0
C
-
0.18s
j
L
b
h
b
)b
[
4H
n
- h
i
4H
n
- h
1
(6.3)
Where
is the design displacement at level i, 0

C
y
is the yield
strain of longitudinal reinforcement, L
b
is the length of the beam, h
b
is the depth of the beam,
h
i
is the height of the floor at level i, H
n
is the full height of the building, and h
1
is the height
of the floor at the first level above wall termination. For 0
C
in Equations (6.2) and (6.3) a
comparison was made between the drift limit of the wall at the contra-flexure height
associated with material strain limits and the design drift limit, and the smallest value was
used.
The Pettinga and Priestley (2005) formula for the design displacement of frames was
developed for fixed base frames with a mechanism which involves the formation of flexural
plastic hinges at the ends of the beams combined with column-base plastic hinges. However,
in the case study structure in this chapter, the base of the pure frame structure is continuous
and the plastic hinges will not form at the column bases. Also there is a rotation of the beam-
column joint at this point of the structure, from which the frames start without the core walls,
height

38
which must be taken into account in the displacement shape. The story drift associated with
the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint was taken as Equation (6.4)
0
].
=
0.18s
j
L
b
h
b
(6.4)
Where
j,r
is the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint,
y
is the yield strain of longitudinal
reinforcement, L
b
is the length of the beam, and h
b
is the depth of the beam. Equation (6.4)
was set by considering the effect of a unit rotation at the beam-column joint under
consideration on the story drift. The displacement of the top of the column relative to the base
due to a uniform curvature (M/EI) was set equal to Equation (6.5)
c,top
=
M
LI
b
coI
-
h
ccl
2
(6.5)
By dividing Equation (6.5) by h
col
and substituting (M/EI)*h
col
as the difference in rotation of
the tangent between the end nodes of the columns, then the rotation at the beam-column joint
can be set as Equation (6.6)
0
],
=
0
j
2
(6.6)
However, the yield drift due to beam flexure, 0
b
, for a concrete frame is found from
Equation (6.7) taken from Priestley et al. (2007):
0
b
= u.28Se
(
L
b
h
b
) (6.7)
By adding 25% to Equation (6.7) to be accounted as a frame yield drift and substitute it in
Equation (6.6) we get the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint as shown in Equation
(6.4).
With the knowledge of the design displacement profile, the equivalent SDOF properties of the
structure can be found in the line with the procedure described in section 2.3.
6.2.4 Strength Distribution
For the strength distribution the following procedure is used:
First, the frame shear for each floor is distributed to columns as the following equations:
For the internal columns, I
,coI,nt
=
2 v
i,]rcmc
n
(6.8)
For the external columns, I
,coI,cxt
=
v
i,]rcmc
n
(6.9)
Where V
i,frame
is the frame shear at level i, and n is the number of beam ends that connected to
columns.
height

39
The moments for the columns at each level are then computed using Equations (6.10) and
(6.11)
For the interior columns, H
,coI,nt
=
h
ccl
-v
i,ccl,int
2
(6.10)
For the exterior columns, H
,coI,cxt
=
h
ccl
-v
i,ccl,cxt
2
(6.11)
Finally the moments carried by the beams at each floor are found using equation (6.12) and
(6.13):
For the beams in the interior part of the frames, H
,bcum
=
M
i,ccl,int
+ M
(i+1),ccl,int
2
(6.12)
For the beams at the edges of the frame, H
,bcum
= H
,coI,cxt
+H
(+1),coI,cxt
(6.13)
Design results for both case studies are presented in Table (6-1):
Table 6-1: Design results for the irregular frame-wall structure associated with stopping of the core walls
at mid height.
4 story irregular FW 12 story irregular FW
Building Height (m) 12 36
Beam height (m) 0.9 0.9
Beam Width (m) 0.4 0.4
Wall dimensions (L*t) (m) 5*0.20 5*0.20
Contra flexure height (m) 12 18
Design story drift 1.9% 2.5%
Design Displacement,
d,
(m) 0.145 0.510
Percent of base shear allocated to frames 70% 73%
Effective Height (m) 8.84 24.9
Wall ductility demand 7.05 3.00
Average Frame Ductility 1.39 1.73
System ductility 2.34 1.91
Frames Equivalent Viscous damping 10.12% 13.2%
Walls Equivalent Viscous damping 17.13% 14.4%
System Damping 11.29% 13.4%
Effective Period (sec) 1.44 5.38
Effective Mass (tonnes) 8981 24621
height

40
Effective stiffness (KN/m) 171644 33611
Base Shear (KN) 24850 17151
Design Wall strength (KN.m) 18491 30553
Wall Long. Reinforcement percent 1.25% 0.85%

6.3 Verification of the method with time history analysis:
To check the performance of the DBD method for the last case studies, non-linear time
history analyses are undertaken as described in previous chapters.
accelerograms for both the 12 and 4 story buildings are shown in Figure 6-4 and 6-5 also the
analyses were done where the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to the
strength of the story below as shown in Figures 6-6 and 6-7 and are compared with the design
displacement profile.

compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
height

41

height.

height and the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
height

42

height and the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below.
The average of the maximum recorded displacement for the eight accelerograms for the
normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to
the strength of the story below are also compared with the design profile for the same
buildings in Figures 6-8 and 6-9. Note that the design displacement is conservatively
maintained considering the maximum displacements recorded from the time history analyses
for the 2 buildings.
eight accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below are compared with the design drift
profile for the case studies in Figures 6-10 and 6-11. It is evident that the peak drifts are
conservatively maintained within the design drift profile over the lower stories for both the 12
and 4 story buildings. When assigning the roof beam strengths equal to the strengths of the
story below, the peak drifts are conservatively maintained within the design drift profile for
the upper levels for the 4 story building but exceed the story drift limit for the 12 story
building.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
height

43

accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned
equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-
wall structure where the walls stop at mid height.

accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 12-story
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
AverageTHistory
Analysis
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
AverageTHistory
Analysis
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
height

44


0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
H
e
i
g
h
t
Drift
DBD
AverageTHistory
Analysis
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
H
e
i
g
h
t
Drift
DBD
THistoryAnalysis
Thistorywithstrong
beamsattop
height

45
6.4 New Approach for Design Displacement Profile and Strength Distribution
Considering the limited success of the previous method, and alternative design displacement
profile for the first part of the building, the half which has frames and walls, is proposed by
equation (6.14):
+[0
C
-
u.18e
y
-I
b
b
b
-
q
j,w
H
CF
2
E
(6.14)
Where

yi
level i found from equation 2.4, 0
C
y
is the yield strain of
longitudinal reinforcement and L
b
is the length of the beam, h
b
is the depth of the beam,
y,w

CF
is the contra-flexure height and H
i
is the height at level
i. The difference between Equation (2.10) and (6.14) is the reduction part of the displacement
shape which aims to take account of the rotation of the beam-column joint at the point of the
building from which the frames start without the core walls.
The design displacement profile for the second part of the building, the half which has frames
only, was defined by equation (6.15), which is a simplified equation for the procedure used in
Pettinga and Priestley (2005) adding to it the design displacement at the floor of wall
termination,
,t
just under the start of the frame structure only.
=
,t
+0
C
b
[
4H
n
- h
i
4H
n
- h
1
(6.15)
Where
is the design displacement at level i, 0

C
is the design story drift, h
i
is the height of
the floor at level i, H
n
is the full height of the building, and h
1
is the height of the floor at the
first level.
To assign moments that are carried by the beams at each floor, Equation (6.16) was used:
XH
b,
= I
,]umc
b
coI
- XH
b,-1
(6.16)
Where V
i,frame
is the frame shear at level i, M
b,i
are the beam strengths at level i, and h
col
, is the
inter-story height.
To assure Equilibrium by using Equation (6.16), the procedure starts from the bottom of the
building to the top which will produce a zigzag of moments for the top half of the building
(frames only). This is because the beams for the floor just above the termination of the wall
will be stronger than the floor below to get the applied lateral shear value. On the other hand,
in the floor above with its corresponding lateral shear value it is found that the beams will be
weaker than in the one below in order to satisfy equilibrium. Also, for the floor just above and
applying its corresponding shear value, the moment of the beams corresponding to that floor
will be higher and so on, because in our case the moment required at top floor is so small.
Again, non-linear time history analyses are undertaken to check the performance of the new
design profile and strength distributions.
height

46
accelerograms for both the 12 and 4 story buildings are shown in Figures 6-12 and 6-13 and
are compared with the design displacement profile. The average of the maximum recorded
displacement for the eight accelerograms is also compared with the design profile for the
same buildings in Figures 6-14 and 6-15. Also, the design displacement is conservatively
maintained considering the maximum displacements recorded from the time history analyses
for the 2 buildings.
eight accelerograms are compared with the design drift profile for the case study in Figures 6-
16 and 6-17. It is evident also that peak drifts are conservatively maintained within the design
drift profile over the lower stories, but exceed the story drift limit at upper levels.

height.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
height

47

height.

accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the
walls stop at mid height.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
EQ6b
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
AverageTHistory
Analysis
height

48

walls stop at mid height.

6-16: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
height.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Displacement(m)
DBD
AverageTHistory
Analysis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
H
e
i
g
h
t
Drift
DBD
Thistory
Analysis
height

49

6-17: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
height.
In considering why the top story drift demand is higher than the design drift one might
consider that the low strength assigned to the beams at roof (as explained in section 6.4) may
have played a role. Considering this, an alternative strength assignment procedure has been
trialled by assigning the strengths of the roof beams the same as strengths of the floor below.
For the 12-story building, a new conservative drift shape is found as shown in Figure 6-18.

walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned as the strengths of the story below it.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
H
e
i
g
h
t
Drift
DBD
Thistory
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Drift
DBD
Thistory
height

50
Similarly, by assigning the strengths of the roof beams to be the same as half the beam
strengths of the floor below for the 4-story building, a new drift shape is found as shown in
Figure 6-19. The new shape appears to be non-conservative for the lower stories but
conservative for the upper critical stories.

walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned as half of the strengths of the story
below it.

Clearly, the drifts expected in the upper stories of this type of frame-wall structure appear to be very
sensitive to the strength assignments and future work should consider the best means of dealing with
this.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
H
e
i
g
h
t
(
m
)
Drift
DBD
Thistory
Analysis
Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusion
51

7. Summary and Conclusion
7.1 Summary
The main objective of this report has been to investigate the design of some types of vertically
irregular frame-wall structures using the DDBD method.
In this report, vertical irregularities in IBC (2003) (ICC, 2003) and EC8 (CEN, 1998) were
discussed and rules used to define structures as being vertically irregular were identified. It
was noted that when the structures are considered as being vertically irregular the equivalent
lateral force method is not permitted for design and the codes require the use of more
complicated methods such as modal analysis or non-linear time history analysis. A
description of various building failures that have taken place during past earthquakes was
used to highlight where failures were caused by the presence of vertical irregularities in
structures. A literature review of some of the previous work on vertical irregular buildings
was also reviewed.
In order to improve current seismic design procedures for vertically irregular frame-wall
structures the steps of a trial DDBD procedure for vertically irregular frame-wall buildings
were described. The first type of structures to which the new method was applied were
structures that possess a vertical irregularity associated with setbacks up the height of the
building; in other words buildings for which the core walls extend the full height of the
structure and the frames have more bays at base of the building than at top. The second type
of structure investigated were structures with vertical irregularity associated with core walls
that stop at mid-height of the building.
To verify the DDBD method, non linear time history analyses were carried out with
accelerograms which possess spectra that match the design spectrum used in the DDBD
method.
7.2 Conclusion
The DDBD procedure presented here for vertically irregular frame-wall structures worked
very well for structures that impose a vertical irregularity associated with setbacks up the
height of the building, where the wall clearly controlled the displaced shape of the structure,
and the design displacement and the story drifts from the DDBD procedure matched with the
displacements and story drifts recorded through the non-linear time history analyses.
52
For structures with vertical irregularity associated with core walls that stop at mid-height of
the building two approaches were used where the displacement shape was formed of two
parts.
For the first approach, the first half of the structure in which both frames and walls were
present, the walls controlled the displacement profile and was designed in the traditional
frame-wall displacement profile shape. For the second part of the structure (frames only), a
reduction term was added to the traditional frame displacement shape, which aimed to take
into account the rotation of the beam-column joint at the point of the building from which the
frames start without the core walls, also the displacement from the half below was added to
the frames displacement profile. The results of displacements were found to be conservative
when applying strong beams at the top story of the building but the story drifts exceed the
design drift in the upper levels for the 12 story buildings.
Considering the limited success of the first approach, a second approach was trialled in which
the first half of the structure in which both frames and walls were present, it was proposed
that the rotation of the joints at the interface with the upper part (frames only) of the structure
must be accounted for in the displacement profile in the first half of the structure and the
displacement profile of the upper half (frames only) used the traditional frame building
displacement profile where the displacement from the half below was added to the frames
displacement profile. The results of displacements and story drifts were found to be
conservative when applying strong beams at the top story of the building. However, the most
significant observation was that the upper storey drift appear to be very sensitive to the beam
strength assignment in these levels.
7.3 Future Research
Future research into the seismic design of other types of irregularities for frame-wall
structures should be undertaken.
For the type of irregularity associated with core walls that stop at mid-height of the building a
modified distribution of the design base shear for the part with frames only, should be
examined. The modified distribution is done normally for plane frame structures by allocating
10% of the frame base shear force to the roof level, and the remaining 90% is distributed to
the frame part in accordance to Equation (7.1).
F
= F
t
+u.9I
b,]
-
M
i
i
M
i
i
(2.12)
Where F
t
= 0.1V
base
at roof level, and F
t
= 0 at all other levels.
Shear deformations of the walls must be taken into account for future research, especially for
short structures with a ratio between the height and the length of the wall less than 3. This
may have influenced the behavior of the 4 story structures considered here.
53
Future work should be done to investigate the performance of vertically irregular frame-wall
structures at the serviceability limit state where no significant remedial action should be
needed for a structure that responds at this limit state.
Future research should be done taking into account the torsional effects of the seismic
response for the vertically irregular structures.
References
54

REFERENCES

Al-Ali, A. A. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1998). Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic
behaviour of building structures. Rep. No. 130, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 198.

Aranda, G. R., (1984). "Ductility Demands for RIC Frames Irregular in Elevation",
Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Vol.
4.

Athanassiadou C, Bervanakis S (2005) Seismic behavior of R/C buildings with setbacks
designed to EC8. In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of
irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.

Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2005) Equivalent viscous damping equations fo
direct displacement-based design. Journal of structural Engineering, Vol. 9, Special Issue 2.

Bertero, V. V., (1997) "illustrated introduction to earthquake engineering principles," From
the National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE), University of
California, Berkeley.

Carr, A. J. (2005). Ruaumoko3D: A Computer Program for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

CEN. EN1998-1(2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels

Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993) Dynamics of Structures. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill,
New York.

COSTA A. G., (1990). Quantification of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Response of
Buildings. Proceedings of the Eight Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium Tokyo,
Japan, vol. 2, pp. 2025-2029.

References
55
Das, S., (2000). Seismic Design of Vertically Irregular Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Duan XN, ChandlerAM (1995) Seismic torsional response and design procedures for a class
of setback frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:761777.

Grant, D. N., Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] Modelling inelastic response in
direct displacement-based design Research ROSE 2005/03,IUSS press, Pavia, Italy.

Humar, J. L. and Wright, E. W., (1977). "Earthquake Response of Steel-Framed Multistorey
Buildings with Setbacks", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5.

International Code Council. (2003) . International Building Code 2003. Falls Church, Va

Khoury W, Rutenberg A, Levy R (2005) The seismic response of asymmetric setback
perimeter-frame structures. Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic
behaviour of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.

MOEHLE, J. P., (1984). Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Structures. Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE 110, 9, 2002-2014.

MOEHLE, J. P., AND ALARCON, L. F., (1986). Modelling and Analysis Methods for
Vertically Irregular Buildings. Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, vol. 3, pp. 57-64.

Moehle, J. P., and Sozen, M. A., (1980). Experiments to study earthquake response of R/C
structures with stiffness interruptions. Structural Research Series No. 482, Civil Engineering
Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne, pp. 421.

Pettinga, D., Priestley, M.J.N., [2005] "Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames
Designed with Direct Displacement-Based Design", ROSE Report, IUSS Press, Vol. 2005/2

Pinto, D., and Costa, A. G., (1995). "Influence of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Response
of Buildings", Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2.

Priesley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J., (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy

Priestley, M. J. N., (2003). Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. Pavia:
IUSS Press

Shahrooz, B. M. and Moehle, J. P., (1990). "Seismic Response and Design of Setback
Buildings", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 116, No.5.
References
56

Sharpe, R.D. (1974). The Seismic Response of Inelastic Structures. Ph.D Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.

Sullivan T. J., Priesley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., (2006). Seismic Design of Frame-Wall Structures,
ROSE Research Report No. 2006/2, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.

Tena-Colunga A, Zambrana-Rojas C., (2006) Dynamic torsional amplifications of base-
isolated structures with an eccentric isolation system. Eng Struct. 28:7283.

Wong, C. M. and Tso, W. K., (1994). "Seismic Loading For Buildings With Setbacks",
Canadian Journal ofCivil Engineering, Vol. 21, No.5, October.

Wood, S. L., (1986). "Dynamic Response of RIC Frames with Irregular Profiles", Proceedings
of the Third U.S. national Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August.

Appendix A
57

APPENDIX A
In this Appendix the input file used for the computer program RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2005) for
the 12 story frame-wall structure with setbacks is presented.

12 story vertically irregular building -walls full height & Frames with setbacks-
all units are in kN and meter
2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
91 138 5 12 1 2 9.81 2.56 5 0.01 24.98 1
10 1 10 10 1 0.1 1 0
DEFAULT
0 0

NODES 0 3
1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
3 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
4 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
5 0 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
6 0 15 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
7 0 18 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
8 0 21 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
9 0 24 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
10 0 27 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
11 0 30 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
12 0 33 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
13 0 36 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
14 8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
15 8 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
16 8 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
17 8 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
18 8 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
19 8 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
Appendix A
58
20 8 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
21 8 21 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 0
22 8 24 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 0
23 8 27 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 10 0
24 8 30 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 11 0
25 8 33 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 12 0
26 8 36 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 13 0
27 16 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
28 16 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
29 16 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
30 16 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
31 16 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
32 16 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
33 16 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
34 16 21 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 0
35 16 24 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 0
36 16 27 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 10 0
37 16 30 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 11 0
38 16 33 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 12 0
39 16 36 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 13 0
40 24 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
41 24 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
42 24 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
43 24 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
44 24 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
45 24 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
46 24 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
47 24 21 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 0
48 24 24 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 0
49 24 27 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 10 0
50 24 30 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 11 0
51 24 33 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 12 0
52 24 36 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 13 0
53 32 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
54 32 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
55 32 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
56 32 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
57 32 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
58 32 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
59 32 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
60 32 21 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 0
61 32 24 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 0
62 32 27 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 10 0
63 32 30 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 11 0
64 32 33 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 12 0
Appendix A
59
65 32 36 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 13 0
66 40 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
67 40 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
68 40 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
69 40 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
70 40 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
71 40 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
72 40 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
73 48 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
74 48 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
75 48 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
76 48 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
77 48 12 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 0
78 48 15 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 0
79 48 18 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 0
80 56 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
81 56 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
82 56 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
83 56 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
84 64 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
85 64 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
86 64 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
87 64 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0
88 72 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
89 72 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0
90 72 6 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0
91 72 9 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 0

Elements
1 2 1 2 0 0 Z 0
2 3 2 3 0 0 Z 0
3 3 3 4 0 0 Z 0
4 3 4 5 0 0 Z 0
5 3 5 6 0 0 Z 0
6 3 6 7 0 0 Z 0
7 3 7 8 0 0 Z 0
8 3 8 9 0 0 Z 0
9 3 9 10 0 0 Z 0
10 3 10 11 0 0 Z 0
11 3 11 12 0 0 Z 0
12 3 12 13 0 0 Z 0
13 4 14 15 0 0 Z 0
14 5 15 16 0 0 Z 0
15 5 16 17 0 0 Z 0
16 5 17 18 0 0 Z 0
Appendix A
60
17 5 18 19 0 0 Z 0
18 5 19 20 0 0 Z 0
19 5 20 21 0 0 Z 0
20 5 21 22 0 0 Z 0
21 5 22 23 0 0 Z 0
22 5 23 24 0 0 Z 0
23 5 24 25 0 0 Z 0
24 5 25 26 0 0 Z 0
25 4 27 28 0 0 Z 0
26 5 28 29 0 0 Z 0
27 5 29 30 0 0 Z 0
28 5 30 31 0 0 Z 0
29 5 31 32 0 0 Z 0
30 5 32 33 0 0 Z 0
31 5 33 34 0 0 Z 0
32 5 34 35 0 0 Z 0
33 5 35 36 0 0 Z 0
34 5 36 37 0 0 Z 0
35 5 37 38 0 0 Z 0
36 5 38 39 0 0 Z 0
37 4 40 41 0 0 Z 0
38 5 41 42 0 0 Z 0
39 5 42 43 0 0 Z 0
40 5 43 44 0 0 Z 0
41 5 44 45 0 0 Z 0
42 5 45 46 0 0 Z 0
43 5 46 47 0 0 Z 0
44 5 47 48 0 0 Z 0
45 5 48 49 0 0 Z 0
46 5 49 50 0 0 Z 0
47 5 50 51 0 0 Z 0
48 5 51 52 0 0 Z 0
49 4 53 54 0 0 Z 0
50 5 54 55 0 0 Z 0
51 5 55 56 0 0 Z 0
52 5 56 57 0 0 Z 0
53 5 57 58 0 0 Z 0
54 5 58 59 0 0 Z 0
55 5 59 60 0 0 Z 0
56 5 60 61 0 0 Z 0
57 5 61 62 0 0 Z 0
58 5 62 63 0 0 Z 0
59 5 63 64 0 0 Z 0
60 5 64 65 0 0 Z 0
61 4 66 67 0 0 Z 0
Appendix A
61
62 5 67 68 0 0 Z 0
63 5 68 69 0 0 Z 0
64 5 69 70 0 0 Z 0
65 5 70 71 0 0 Z 0
66 5 71 72 0 0 Z 0
67 4 73 74 0 0 Z 0
68 5 74 75 0 0 Z 0
69 5 75 76 0 0 Z 0
70 5 76 77 0 0 Z 0
71 5 77 78 0 0 Z 0
72 5 78 79 0 0 Z 0
73 4 80 81 0 0 Z 0
74 5 81 82 0 0 Z 0
75 5 82 83 0 0 Z 0
76 4 84 85 0 0 Z 0
77 5 85 86 0 0 Z 0
78 5 86 87 0 0 Z 0
79 4 88 89 0 0 Z 0
80 5 89 90 0 0 Z 0
81 5 90 91 0 0 Z 0
82 1 15 28 0 0 Z 0
83 1 16 29 0 0 Z 0
84 1 17 30 0 0 Z 0
85 1 18 31 0 0 Z 0
86 1 19 32 0 0 Z 0
87 1 20 33 0 0 Z 0
88 1 21 34 0 0 Z 0
89 1 22 35 0 0 Z 0
90 1 23 36 0 0 Z 0
91 1 24 37 0 0 Z 0
92 1 25 38 0 0 Z 0
93 1 26 39 0 0 Z 0
94 1 28 41 0 0 Z 0
95 1 29 42 0 0 Z 0
96 1 30 43 0 0 Z 0
97 1 31 44 0 0 Z 0
98 1 32 45 0 0 Z 0
99 1 33 46 0 0 Z 0
100 1 34 47 0 0 Z 0
101 1 35 48 0 0 Z 0
102 1 36 49 0 0 Z 0
103 1 37 50 0 0 Z 0
104 1 38 51 0 0 Z 0
105 1 39 52 0 0 Z 0
106 1 41 54 0 0 Z 0
Appendix A
62
107 1 42 55 0 0 Z 0
108 1 43 56 0 0 Z 0
109 1 44 57 0 0 Z 0
110 1 45 58 0 0 Z 0
111 1 46 59 0 0 Z 0
112 1 47 60 0 0 Z 0
113 1 48 61 0 0 Z 0
114 1 49 62 0 0 Z 0
115 1 50 63 0 0 Z 0
116 1 51 64 0 0 Z 0
117 1 52 65 0 0 Z 0
118 1 54 67 0 0 Z 0
119 1 55 68 0 0 Z 0
120 1 56 69 0 0 Z 0
121 1 57 70 0 0 Z 0
122 1 58 71 0 0 Z 0
123 1 59 72 0 0 Z 0
124 1 67 74 0 0 Z 0
125 1 68 75 0 0 Z 0
126 1 69 76 0 0 Z 0
127 1 70 77 0 0 Z 0
128 1 71 78 0 0 Z 0
129 1 72 79 0 0 Z 0
130 1 74 81 0 0 Z 0
131 1 75 82 0 0 Z 0
132 1 76 83 0 0 Z 0
133 1 81 85 0 0 Z 0
134 1 82 86 0 0 Z 0
135 1 83 87 0 0 Z 0
136 1 85 89 0 0 Z 0
137 1 86 90 0 0 Z 0
138 1 87 91 0 0 Z 0

PROPS
1 Frame
1 0 0 0 4 0 0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07 0.18 0 0.001721 0.00073 0.144 0.144 0 0 0
0
0.99 0.99 0.02 0.99
1.2 1.2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix A
63
367 367 0 0
0.3 0.6 1 2
2 Frame
1 0 0 0 4 0 0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07 1.6 0 3.628689 0.003 1.28 1.28 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.99 0.99 0.01 0.99
3.343 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
62110 62110 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
3 Frame
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07 1.6 0 3.628689 0.003 1.3333 1.3333 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4 Frame
1 0 0 0 4 0 0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07 0.25 0 0.001216 0.00122 0.2 0.2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.99 0.99 0.035 0.99
0.55 0.55 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
350 350 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.5 0 1 2
5 Frame
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07 0.25 0 0.001216 0.00122 0.2 0.2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

Weights 0
2 12800 0 0 0 0 0
3 12800 0 0 0 0 0
4 12800 0 0 0 0 0
5 8000 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix A
64
6 8000 0 0 0 0 0
7 8000 0 0 0 0 0
8 4800 0 0 0 0 0
9 4800 0 0 0 0 0
10 4800 0 0 0 0 0
11 4800 0 0 0 0 0
12 4800 0 0 0 0 0
13 4800 0 0 0 0 0
LOADS
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0
EQUAKE
3 1 0.01 1

Dissertation2009 Salawdeh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Dissertation2009 Salawdeh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istituto Universitario

, can be established using the wall yield curvature,

is the design displacement at level i,

is the yield displacement of the wall at

is the design displacement given by Equation (2.13) and

Figure 2-3: Displacement Response Spectrum.

was found and

is the design displacement at level i,

is the design displacement at level i, 0

is the design displacement at level i,

is the design displacement at level i, 0

You might also like