Earthquake Damage-Resistant Tall Buildings at Near Fault Regions Using Base Isolation and Rocking Core Walls

Structures Congress 2015
1266
Earthquake Damage-Resistant Tall Buildings at Near Fault Regions Using Base

Isolation and Rocking Core Walls
Y. Lu1 and M. Panagiotou2
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sami Bangash on 07/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,

Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720. E-mail: yuanLu@berkeley.edu
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720. E-mail: panagiotou@berkeley.edu
Abstract
This paper studies the computational seismic response of two damageresistant 20-story tall buildings, located at near-fault regions of strong earthquakes,
with a reinforced concrete core-wall to provide the majority of lateral resistance
above ground. The first building uses a post-tensioned core-wall designed to rock at
the ground level resulting in minimal structural damage in the wall at the maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) level of shaking. The second building combines an
isolation plane at the base (below ground) of the building with a post-tensioned
rocking core wall (dual-isolation system); the dual-isolation system results in minimal
structural damage at the MCE level of shaking and reduces significantly demands to
non-structural components. The three-dimensional seismic responses of the two
buildings are compared to that of a conventionally designed core-wall building
designed to develop a flexural plastic hinge in the core-wall. Nonlinear response
history analysis is conducted using the two horizontal components of strong historical
near fault ground motions. The three building models use a nonlinear beam-truss
modeling scheme that explicitly accounts for flexure-shear interaction in RC walls
and slabs.
INTRODUCTION
Construction of buildings taller than 50 m in height, referred herein as "tall"
buildings, is increasing in earthquake-prone regions worldwide. Reinforced concrete
(RC) non-planar structural walls (referred to herein as walls) are commonly used
for earthquake resistance in these buildings. Considerable damage of tall buildings in
previous earthquakes has been reported in various earthquakes including the: 1985
M8.0 Mexico earthquake, 1999 M7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake, 2010 M8.8 Chile
earthquake, and 2011 M6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake [see Calugaru
and Panagiotou (2014) for literature review]. Following the 2011 M6.3 Christchurch,
earthquake the majority of the 50 tallest buildings (taller than 35 m) of Christchurch
were demolished after the earthquake (List of tallest buildings in Christchurch) due to
various types of superstructure and foundation damage.
Conventional tall RC wall buildings are designed to develop ductile plastic
hinging in the walls. Calugaru (2013) and Calugaru and Panagiotou (2014) showed
that conventionally designed 20-story RC core-wall buildings (similar to that studied
ASCE
1267
in this paper), located at near-fault regions, develop significant inelastic deformation

(corresponding to roof drift ratio of 2.2% to 2.5%) and large shear forces at the
maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level. The large levels of shear stress under
concurrent large inelastic deformations increases the damage potential of RC walls,
especially crushing of concrete in the diagonal direction which could not be explicitly
modeled with the nonlinear beam elements used in that study.
The study of Calugaru and Panagiotou (2014) showed that base isolation for a
20-story building, at a near-fault site, eliminates structural damage and reduces
significantly shear forces. However, to eliminate structural damage, the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement of the core-wall had to be twice that of the conventional
building. To further increase displacement capacity, and reduce the size of the wall
and amount of reinforcement in the superstructure, Calugaru (2013) developed a
structural system termed dual-isolation here with two seismic isolation planes: (a)
one at the base of the building, below ground, using isolation devices; and (b) a
second at the ground level where a post-tensioned RC core-wall is designed to uplift.
Compared to a design that uses only base isolation, the rocking plane is used to
increase the level of lateral displacement at the onset of structural damage in the core
wall.
The behavior of tall RC wall buildings using only rocking walls without
(Nielson 2009), or with unbonded steel and post-tensioning tendons (Wiebe and
Christopoulos 2009) has also been studied. The latter study proposed a design
including multiple rocking planes along the height of a planar wall to reduce the
contribution of second and higher modes of response.
This paper studies the three-dimensional (3D) seismic response of two
damage-resistant 20-story tall RC core-wall buildings and compares their response to
that of a third conventional building of similar geometry designed to develop flexural
plastic hinging in the core wall. The 3D nonlinear response history analysis uses the
two horizontal components of strong near-fault ground motions. The buildings are
modeled using the beam-truss modeling scheme, recently developed by the authors,
that explicitly accounts for flexure-shear interaction in RC walls and slabs (Lu and
Panagiotou 2014a, Lu et al. 2014).
DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE BUILDINGS
Figure 1(a) shows the main layout features of the fixed-based (FB) and dual-isolation
(DI) buildings. The rocking-wall (RW) building, not shown in this figure, has
identical layout above ground to that of the DI building. A 9.1 m long core wall
coupled through the floor slabs with columns in the perimeter comprises the structural
system above ground in all three buildings. Below ground, a grid of RC walls is used
to distribute forces to the foundation of the FB and RW buildings and to the base
isolation plane of the DI building. The weight of the superstructure (above ground) is
W = 167 MN for all buildings. The weight of the floors below ground of the DI
building is 40 MN. Concrete with expected unconfined compressive strength fc = 48
ASCE
1268
MPa and steel with expected yield strength equal to 483 MPa are used. The columns
have dimension 1
1
and longitudinal steel ratio
= 1.0%. The slab
reinforcement consists of 16-mm-diameter bars every 0.3 m in the two horizontal
directions, both top and bottom. The slab also includes post-tensioned high-strength
steel strands: 186 mm2 every 0.3 m (corresponding to post-tension steel ratio of 0.3%
in each of the two directions) with initial post-tension stress equal to 1.38 GPa. The
following subsections describe distinct characteristics of the three buildings.
Fixed-base (FB) building

The uniformly distributed longitudinal reinforcement of the core wall corresponds to
a longitudinal steel ratio of 1% for the north (N), west (W), and east (E) segments of
the core wall, and 1.6% for the south (S) segments. The area extending 1.6 m from
each corner of the N, E, and W segments and the entire S segment is modeled
assuming confined concrete with a confined concrete compressive strength fcc = 68.9
MPa. The shear reinforcement for the N, W, and E segments of the core consisted of
two 28-mm-diameter bars every 0.38 m (corresponding to a transverse steel ratio t =
0.66%), and two 28-mm-diameter bars every 0.23 m (t = 1.1%) for the S segment.
Dual isolation (DI) building
This design develops the majority of lateral deformations in the base isolation plane.
As shown in Figure 1(d), the base isolation plane combines 16 tension-resistant
friction pendulum bearings and 8 fluid viscous dampers. The displacement capacity
of the bearings was assumed to be 1.3 m. The bearings have a radius of curvature
equal to 9.0 m resulting in an isolation period Tis = 6 s and a coefficient of friction
equal to 0.03. Linear viscous dampers were assumed with a damping constant equal
to 5.3 MN/(m/s) per damper.
The core wall was designed to rock at the ground level with the columns
pinned at ground level; the entire section of the core wall at the ground level is
confined resulting in expected confined strength of concrete fcc = 96.5 MPa. The
transverse reinforcement in the bottom five stories is twice that of the FB buildings.
Furthermore, headed longitudinal rebars were used in the part of the wall above the
rocking plane [Figure 1(b)] to enhance the compression damage resistance. The steel
ratio of the headed bars was 2%. The wall used high-strength low relaxation
unbonded post-tensioned strands, with a post-tensioned steel ratio equal to 0.45% and
initial post-tension stress 1.38 GPa. To provide hysteretic energy dissipation, eight
buckling restraining devices (BRD) were externally fastened to the inner side of the
core wall; the hysteretic steel ratio (area of yielding steel of BRDs divided by core
wall gross section area) is 0.8% and the yield strength of steel of the BRBs is 483
MPa with hardening ratio 1.5%. External BRDs are easily replaced after an
earthquake resulting in a structural system adaptable over its entire service life.
Rocking wall (RW) building
In this design, the majority of lateral deformation develops in the rocking plane. The
RW building uses a post-tensioned core-wall designed to rock at the ground level
with the columns pinned at ground level. Identical to the DI building, the entire
ASCE
1269
section of the core wall at ground level is confined with fcc = 96.5 MPa with the same
transverse reinforcement and external BRDs. Headed longitudinal rebars with
2% were used in the wall directly above the rocking plane. To enhance
(compared to the DI building) the compression damage resistance of the corners,
4%
twice as many headed rebars are used in the corners of the wall, resulting in
locally in each corner of the core wall. High-strength low relaxation unbonded posttensioned strands, with a post-tensioned steel ratio equal to 0.5% and initial posttension stress 0.9 GPa was used.
Figure 1. Description of the fixed-base and dual isolation buildings.
ASCE
1270
COMPUTATIONAL MODELING
The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [McKenna

2014] is used for the analysis with GiD postprocessor (CIMNE 2014) for
visualization. Figure 2(a) shows a schematic view of the FB building model while
Figure 2(b) shows the core wall only. The FB building model includes the core wall,
slabs, and the columns. The RW building model consists of the same superstructure
with the rocking plane at ground level and the stories below ground. The DI building
model consists of the superstructure, rocking plane, and stories below ground as well
as the base isolation plane. The FB building model consists of 2777 nodes and 14639
elements, the RW building model consists of 2845 nodes and 14877 elements, and the
DI building model 2877 nodes and 14969 elements; reinforcing steel and concrete is
modeled using the Steel02 and ConcretewBeta material models of Opensees,
respectively.
The bottom five stories of the core wall are modeled using the beam-truss
modeling approach developed in Lu and Panagiotou (2014a). The beam-truss model
accounts for shear-flexure interaction, including the effect of normal tension strain on
the behavior of concrete in compression. Bar buckling and fracture are not modeled.
Figure 2(c) shows the layout of the beam-truss model for the core walls. Vertical and
horizontal fiber-section nonlinear beams model the corresponding steel and concrete
areas. The horizontal beams are pinned in the plane of the wall segment. The biaxial
Truss2 element models the diagonal compression field of concrete using the
Concretewbeta material (Lu and Panagiotou 2014a). The angle of the diagonals is
55.7 with respect to the horizontal.
Above the fifth floor, a line of fiber-section nonlinear beam elements models
the entire wall. Stiff outriggers are used to connect the core wall elements to the
perimeter of the core wall. For all floors, the slabs are modeled using a beam-truss
technique similar to that used for the core-wall. This is similar to the beam-truss
modeling scheme for slabs used in Lu et al. (2014). The post-tensioning in the slabs is
modeled using steel fibers and the initial strain material. Figure 2(d) shows the plan
view of the beam-truss layout of the bottom five stories, above ground, of the
building. The columns are modeled using nonlinear fiber-section beam elements.
For the RW and DI building models, the super-structure above the rocking
plane is modeled identically (in terms of type of elements and layout) to the FB
building model. The stories below ground are modeled with a grid of elastic elements
representing the stiffness of the walls below ground. Contact zero-length springs
(with contact stiffness calculated using the tributary contact area and an effective
height of 0.5 m) are used at the rocking plane. Contact springs were also used to
model the shear keys [see Figure 1(e)]. The post-tensioned stands of the core wall are
modeled using trusses, with initial strain, that extend from the base of the foundation
to the top of the core wall. The BRDs are modeled using truss elements with a steel
material model and extends from the base of the rocking plane to the second floor.
ASCE
1271
For the RW building model, the stories below ground are fixed at their base.
For the DI building model, the isolation layer is modeled at the base of the stories
below ground. The isolation bearings are modeled using zero-length springs with
bilinear material properties. The dampers are modeled using a zero-length spring with
linear viscous material.
Figure 2. Three-dimensional view of the fixed-base building model.

GROUND MOTIONS
The models are subjected to the recorded ground motions Symlar Converter Station
(SCS) from the M6.7 1994 Northridge, California earthquake and TCU052 from the
M7.6 1999 Chi-chi, Taiwan earthquake. Both ground acceleration records are filtered
with a low-pass at 5Hz and applied at the base of the building models. Figure 3 shows
the linear acceleration and displacement spectra of the two records. The spectra for
ASCE
1272
the two horizontal components of each motion, which are that applied in the north
and east directions of Figure 1(c), are shown separately. The response spectra of the
ground motions is compared to the Design Earthquake (DE) and Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) design spectra according to ASCE 7-10 for a site in
Pacifica (Bay Area), California at 0.5 km from the San Andreas Fault. Ground motion
record SCS was recorded 5.4 km from the fault plane and include pulses of dominant
periods equal to 1.2 and 2.4 s based on wavelet analysis (Lu and Panagiotou 2014b).
Ground motion record TCU052 was recorded 0.7 km from the fault plane; it includes
distinct and strong pulses of dominant periods, based on wavelet analysis (Lu and
Panagiotou 2014b), equal to 2 and 7.4 s.
Spectral Acceleration
Sa (g)
SCS, 1994 Northridge, California, M6.7

3
DE (ASCE 7-10)
MCE (ASCE 7-10)
2
TCU052 - N direction
TCU052 - E direction
1
Spectral Displacement
Sd (m)
0
0
TCU052, 1999 Chi-chi, Taiwan, M7.6

3
0
0
0
0
4
period (s)
0
0
4
period (s)
Figure 3. Linear response spectra for ground motion records SCS and TCU052
(5% damping ratio).
RESULTS OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Fixed-base (FB) building
The initial period of the first mode of the FB building was 1.5 s in the horizontal
directions. The FB building model reached a maximum roof drift ratio of 1.8% in the
N-E direction for ground motion record SCS. The peak shear force at the base of the
core wall at the ground level was 0.17W and 0.16W in the N and E directions,
respectively. During SCS, spalling of the unconfined diagonals was computed at a
drift ratio of 0.97% and the maximum diagonal compression strain was 0.3% which
occurred at the N-E corner at the instance of max roof drift. The peak tension strain of
the longitudinal reinforcement (averaged over 1.7 m element height) reached 1.4%.
ASCE
1273
Spaalling of con
ncrete in verttical directioon was compputed for all elements in the corners
of the
t core walll over the heeight of the first
f
story.
Fiigure 4: Ressponse histoory and straain contour of the fixed-base buildiing model
subjectted to groun
nd motion reecord TCU0052.
Figure 4(a) and (b)) show the response histories of rooof drift ratiio (r) and
t core walll at the ground level (Vb,,w), respectivvely, for ground motion
sheear force of the
recoord TCU052
2. The respoonses in the N-S and E--W horizontaal directionss are shown
inddependently. During TC
CU052, the bottom
b
storiies of the coore wall aboove ground
devveloped high
hly inelastic deformationns (both in teension and compression)
c
) and major
dam
mage in com
mpression booth in the diaagonal as well as in thee vertical dirrection. The
peaak tension sttrain of the longitudinall reinforcem
ment (averaged over 1.7 m element
heigght) reached
d 2.7%. The peak Vb,w inn the north direction
d
waas 0.13W corrresponding
in an
a average shear
s
stress of the W annd E segmennts of the coore equal to 0.09fc. Lu
andd Panagiotou (2014c) presents a video show
wing the reesponse, inccluding the
dispplaced shapee and strain contour,
c
of the
t FB buildding model suubjected to TCU052.
T
First spalling (0.2%
% strain in coompression) of the concrrete diagonaals occurs at
3.8 s with r = 1.7% in thhe S-E direction near the S-E corneer of the core wall. The
c
(0.44% compressive strain) occurs at 7.335 s with r = 2.3% in
firsst diagonal crushing
the S-E directio
on the maxximum drift in this direcction; first diiagonal crushhing occurs
in the second floor of thhe east segm
ment of thee core walll at a regioon with no
connfinement reeinforcementt. At the poiint of first crrushing, the diagonal haas a normal
tenssion strain equal
e
to 0.88%. At that instant, the average com
mpressive strain in the
verrtical directio
on of the S-E
E corner vertical elemennt at the basee of the core wall above
groound is 0.7%
%.
4 plots thhe deformed shape of thhe bottom 5 stories of thhe core wall
Figure 4(c)
aboove ground at
a the instannt of t = 10.66 s where r = 3% in thhe N-W direection. This
figuure also sho
ows the straain contour at that instaant. At this instant, thee maximum
ASCE
1274
com
mpression sttrain in thee diagonals is 1.5%. Diagonal
D
cruushing is observed
o
to
proopagate both
h horizontallly over halff of the waall length annd verticallyy over four
storries in the unconfinedd region of the wall [see Figurre 4(c)]. The vertical
com
mpression iss resisted by
b the N-W
W corner verrtical element only whhich has an
aveerage strain (over
(
1.7 m) of 1.2%.
Roccking-wall (RW)
(
buildin
ng
Figgure 5(a) to (c)
( plots the following reesponse histtories of the RW buildinng subjected
to the
t SCS gro
ound motionn: the roof drrift ratio r (composed of the deforrmations of
the rocking plaane and superstructure), the
t roof drifft ratio r,w due to deformations of
the superstructu
ure above thhe rocking plane,
p
and thhe shear forrce of the roocking core
walll at the grou
und level Vb,w
.
The
peak
k
roof
drift ratio in anyy direction was
w 2.6% in
b
the S-W directiion and the peak deform
mation of thee superstructture was equual to 1.1%
rooof drift ratio. The peak upplift at the rocking planee was equal to 0.22 m, occurring
o
at
the N-E cornerr of the core wall duringg the instant of peak rooof drift. The peak shear
forcce at the basse of the corre wall at thee ground levvel was 0.344W and 0.25W in the N
andd E directio
ons, respecttively, and strong highher mode oscillations
o
(period of
appproximately 0.6 s) are obbserved in thhe shear forcee response history
h
[Figuure 5(c)].
Figure 5: Response
R
hisstory and sttrain contou
ur of the roccking-wall building
b
model su
ubjected to ground
g
mottion record SCS.
The peaak compresssion strain of any cornner element (averaged over
o
1.7 m
elem
ment height)) was 0.7%; this occurs at t = 5.4 s, where the core
c
wall pivvots around
the N-E cornerr with total roof drift raatio of 2.3%
%. Figure 5(dd) shows the deformed
shaape of the bottom
b
five stories abovve ground of
o the core wall at t = 5.5 s. The
ASCE
1275
maxximum uplifft of the coree wall at this instance iss 0.21 m at the
t S-W cornner. Lu and
Pannagiotou (20
014d) presennts a video of
o the respoonse, including the displlaced shape
andd strain conto
our, of the RW
R building model subjeected to the ground
g
motiion SCS.
W building model was also subjecct to the TC

CU052 grouund motion
The RW
recoord, resultin
ng in a maxim
mum r = 4..8% and r,ww = 1.1%. Thhis level of deformation
d
signnificantly ex
xceeds the performance
p
e objectives of this systtem for the MCE. The
peaak uplift at the
t rocking place
p
was eqqual to 0.422 m, occurrinng at the S-E
E corner of
the core wall du
uring the insstant of peakk roof drift. The peak shhear force at the base of
the core wall at
a the grounnd level did not exceedd 0.3W in thhe N and E directions.
Siggnificant dam
mage of the corners
c
of thhe core wall was
w computed at the roccking plane:
the peak comp
pression straain of any corner
c
elemeent (averageed over 1.7 m element
heigght) was 1.5
5% at the grround level. The peak diiagonal com
mpression strain reached
1.1% for the diagonal
d
eleements connnecting to thhe corners of
o the core wall at the
rocking plane. Above
A
the fiirst story, neegligible struuctural damaage was com
mputed.
Dual isolation (DI) buildin
ng model
d
thee response of the DI building
b
moodel to grouund motion
Thiis section discusses
TCU052. Figu
ure 6(a) to (c)
( plot the response histories
h
of the roof drift ratio r
(composed of the
t deformaations of thee two isolation planes annd the deforrmations of
the superstructu
ure above thhe rocking plane),
p
the rooof drift ratiio r,w due to only the
defformations of the supersttructure abovve the rockinng plane, annd the shear force of the
rocking core waall at the groound level Vb,w.
F
Figure
6: Response
R
history and strrain contour of the duaal-isolation building
b
model subjjected to ground motioon record TC
CU052.
ASCE
1276
Figure 6(d) depicts the deformed shape of the bottom five stories above
ground of the core wall, the stories below ground and the isolation system at t = 4 s
when the peak uplift (45 mm of the N-W corner) of the wall occurred. Lu and
Panagiotou (2014e) shows a video of the response, including the displaced shape and
strain contour, of the DI building model subjected to TCU052.
The DI building subjected to the TCU52 ground motion developed negligible

structural damage, developing 1.03 m peak displacement of the bearings. The peak
roof drift ratio in any direction was 2% and occurred at t = 10.9 s. At that instant the
max uplift of the core wall was 23 mm at the S-E corner. The peak horizontal force
resisted in the base isolation plane (sum of dampers and isolation bearings) was
0.26W; the peak tension force in any isolation bearing was 2.19 MN. The peak shear
force (in any direction) of the core wall at the ground level was 0.2W.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper studied the 3D seismic response of three 20-story tall RC buildings with a
core-wall to provide the majority of lateral resistance above ground. The buildings
were subjected to strong historical near-fault ground motion records. Two of the
buildings employed damage-resistant seismic designs using base isolation and/or a
rocking core wall. The third building was conventionally design to develop plastic
hinging in the core-wall. The buildings were modeled with a beam-truss technique
that explicitly accounts for flexure-shear interaction. The main conclusions are:
1.
The high inelastic strains at the base of conventionally designed core-wall
buildings, increase the likelihood of diagonal shear failures. The fixed-base building
experienced crushing of concrete in the diagonal direction at 2.3% roof drift ratio
this is very close to the 2.2% roof drift ratio at MCE level of shaking of a similar 20story building studied by Calugaru and Panagiotou (2014).
2.
The rocking wall building showed very good damage-resistant behavior for
roof drift ratios up to 2.6% (SCS motion) with minor structural damage at the corners
of the core-wall. For ground motion TCU052, which had pulses with dominant
periods up to 7.4 s, the rocking wall building reached up to 4.8% roof drift ratio with
significant damage at the corners of the base of the rocking core wall. The shear
response histories indicated significant higher mode response.
3.
The dual-isolation building demonstrated excellent damage-resistant behavior
for the strong near-fault ground motion TCU052 studied in this paper the entire
super-structure remained virtually undamaged. While the majority of the deformation
is located in the base-isolation layer (1.03 m displacement of bearings), the rocking
plane at ground level ensures that the core wall does not develop significant damage.
In this study the rotation due to uplift was less than 0.4%.
ASCE
1277
REFERENCES
Calugaru, V. (2013). Earthquake resilient tall reinforced concrete buildings at nearfault sites using base isolation and rocking core walls. Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley,
Berkeley CA.
Calugaru, V. and Panagiotou, M. (2014). Seismic responses of 20-story baseisolated and fixed-base RC structural wall buildings at a near-fault site.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 43(6), pp. 927-948.
CIMNE International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (2014). GiD Pre
and
Post
Processor
version
11
[Software].
Available
from
http://http://www.gidhome.com/
List of tallest buildings in Christchurch. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Christchurch.
Accessed May 2014.
Lu, Y. and Panagiotou, M. (2014a). Threedimensional nonlinear cyclic beamtruss
model for reinforced concrete nonplanar walls. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering. 140(3), 04013071, 11 pp.
Lu, Y. and Panagiotou, M. (2014b). Characterization and representation of near
fault ground motions using cumulative pulse extraction with wavelet analysis.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 104 (1), pp. 410-426.
Lu, Y. and Panagiotou, M. (2014c). Seismic response of 20-story RC core-wall
building: TCU052 record from M7.6 Chichi Earthquake. Retrieved from
<http://youtu.be/r14GDOB9tgY> on January 6, 2014.
Lu, Y. and Panagiotou, M. (2014d). 20 story building with rocking core wall Sylmar Converter Station motion from M6.7 Northridge Earthquake.
Retrieved from <http://youtu.be/DmEwyWwcRP4> on January 6, 2014.
Lu, Y. and Panagiotou, M. (2014e). Seismic response of 20-story base-isolated
building with rocking wall: TCU052 record from M7.6 Chichi Earthquake.
Retrieved from <http://youtu.be/FBj-mNos8gU> on January 6, 2014.
Lu, Y., Panagiotou M., and Koutromanos, I. (2014). Three-dimensional beam-truss
model for reinforced concrete walls and slabs subjected to cyclic static or
dynamic loading. Report PEER 2014/18, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
McKenna, F. (2014). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees)
version
2.4.4
MP
[Software].
Available
from
http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
Nielsen, G. M. (2009). Performance of rocking core walls in tall buildings subjected
to severe seismic demands. Masters Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA.
Wiebe, L. and Christopoulos, C. Mitigation of higher model effects in base-rocking
systems by using multiple rocking sections. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering. 13(1), pp. 83-108.
ASCE

Earthquake Damage-Resistant Tall Buildings at Near Fault Regions Using Base Isolation and Rocking Core Walls

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

Earthquake Damage-Resistant Tall Buildings at Near Fault Regions Using Base Isolation and Rocking Core Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2015