Dissertation2002 Amaris PDF

Universit degli Studi
Istituto Universitario
di Pavia
di Studi Superiori di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION OF SEISMIC MOMENTS AND

SHEAR FORCES IN CANTILEVER WALLS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
By
ALEJANDRO DARIO AMARIS MESA
Supervisor: Dr NIGEL PRIESTLEY
June, 2002
The dissertation entitled Dynamic Amplifications of Seismic Moments and Shear Forces in cantilever
walls, by Alejandro Dario Amaris Mesa, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
M. J. Nigel Priestley
M.J. Kowalsky
Abstract
ABSTRACT
In recent years, Displacement based design procedure has been used to achieve a specified
acceptable level of damage under the design earthquake. The inappropriateness of the Force
based design assumptions of initial stiffness and ductility capacity suggests that results of base
moments and shear reached in a structure when inelastic response had occurred are not valid. For that
reason, it is proposed in this analysis determine appropriate dynamic amplification factor for flexure
and shear for a wide range of cantilever wall buildings of 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 stories which were
design using the fundamental of displacement based design principles and compare the results with
Force Based Design analysis and time history dynamic analyses.
In addition, the relationship between ductility demand and the dynamic amplification factor in each
wall system was investigated. This was carried out using time history analyses for five different
earthquakes intensities for each wall, and analysing the bending moment and shear force envelopes.
The effects of some of the issues discussed above were analysed through the use of the inelastic
dynamic analysis program, Ruaumoko and the results were compared with existing code requirements.
It was found that dynamic amplification of both shear and moment envelopes became more severe as
the initial elastic period of the structure increased, and also as the ductility increased (effected by
increasing the seismic intensity). Since all the walls were designed to the same drift limit of 0,02, the
level of ductility corresponding to the design seismic intensity decreased as the number of stories
increased.
It was further found that most of the dynamic amplification resulted from second mode response, and
that existing design equations for dynamic amplification for walls were grossly non-conservative.
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A man is the promise of all the things he can be and the farthest aims depend on our interest to make
them true.
To my parents, because without your support and breadth in your advice I could not have reached this
dream that today I devote to you with all my heart. THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS BEING BY MY
SIDE WHEN I NEEDED YOU.
To you Luisa, because day after day you always are the engine of my search, the aim of my thoughts,
the motivation of my life. You always are my support and one reason of my life, all my
reasonsTHANKS FOREVER.
To Professor Nigel Priestley, because your lessons have always guided me to reach my goals, to
understand with clarity the concepts and I have benefited a great deal from your wealth of knowledge.
THANKS FOR YOUR INVALUABLE HELP.
Today and always I will remember with affection all those people who taught me to cultivate the
knowledge and to dream how to reach it. Each one of you has left me a piece of sky of your
knowledge in my heart and with it, I must follow my way to shine as a star guide and to discover that
knowledge is not that reality that we want to reach, knowledge is a dream which we can share with
each other to find the truth that ties us.
ii
Acknowledgments
AGRADECIMIENTOS
Un hombre sera la promesa de lo que todos sus sueos puedan llegar a ser. Sin duda, las metas ms
lejanas dependen de nuestro interes para lograrlo.
A mis padres, porque sin su apoyo, sin su aliento en sus consejos no hubiera podido alcanzar este
sueo que hoy les dedico con mi corazn. GRACIAS POR ESTAR SIEMRE A MI LADO CUANDO
LO HE NECESITADO.
A ti Luisa, porque da tras da eres el motor de mi bsqueda, el fin de mis pensamientos, la motivacin
de mi vida. Tu siempre eres mi apoyo y una de las razones de mi vida, todas mis razones....GRACIAS
ETERNAS.
Al Profesor Nigel Priestley, que con sus enseanzas siempre me orient a cmo lograr los objetivos, a
entender con claridad los conceptos, a darme su opinin y criterio con su conocimiento. GRACIAS
POR SU INVALUABLE AYUDA.
Hoy y siempre recordar con cario a todas aquellas personas que me ensearon a cultivar el
conocimiento, a soar cmo alcanzarlo cada una de ellas me ha dejado un trozo de firmamento de
su conocimiento en mi corazn y con l debo seguir mi camino para brillar como una estrella gua y
descubrir que conocimiento no es esa realidad que queremos alcanzar, conocimiento es un sueo que
queremos compartir con cada uno para encontrar esa verdad que nos ata.
iii
Index
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION OF SEISMIC MOMENTS AND

SHEAR FORCES IN CANTILEVER WALLS
INDEX
page
ABSTRACT...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..
ii
AGRADECIMIENTOS
iii
INDEX ......
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......
viii
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ...
1.1
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE .....
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION
CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS ......
2.1
INTRODUCTION..
2.2
LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION ......
2.3
BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION

FACTOR
2.4
SHEAR FORCE DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION

iv
Index
3.
FACTOR .
page
7
DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL WALLS...
10
3.1
INTRODUCTION .
10
3.2
DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ....
10
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Performance Limit State ...

Design Displacement Spectra ...
Design displacement .
Effective Mass ..
Effective Damping
Effective Period and Effective Stiffness ...
Distribution Of Base Shear ...
11
11
12
13
13
14
15
DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN..
18
PROCEDURE ANALYSIS .
23
4.1
INTRODUCTION .....
23
4.2
FORCE BASED DESIGN PROCEDURE.....
23
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
Equivalent Lateral Force Profile....

Multi Mode Analysis.
Paulay And Priestley Approach.....
23
28
40
NON LINEAR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE...
40
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
Dynamic Analysis Modelling Assuptions.

Moment - Curvature Properties.....
Plastic Hinge length...
Hysteresis Rule..
Viscous Damping..
Shear Deformation
Input Ground Motion.
41
41
42
42
43
44
44
DISCUSSION...
58
3.3
4.
4.3
5.
5.1
COMPARISON TIME HISTORY DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITH

DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ANALYSIS...
58
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
Shear distribution.......
Moment distribution......
Displacement profile......
Interstory Drift.......
58
62
66
66
FORCE BASED DESIGN PROCEDURE.....

5.1.1 Shear distribution.......
5.1.2 Moment distribution......
67
69
70
CONCLUSIONS .
78
5.2
6.
Index
7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..
vi
page
78
Index
LIST OF TABLES
3.1
3.2 a
3.2 b
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Dimensions of the walls and shear force and bending moment at the base designed according to
displacement based design principles.
Distribution of forces, moments and displacement along the height of the walls A, B and C
designed according to displacement based design principles.
Distribution of forces, moments and displacement along the height of the walls D, E and F
Aspect ratio for each wall.
Conditions used for determination of yield, nominal and ultimate moments and curvatures in
bilinear moment-curvature relations.
Bilinear moment-curvature parameters obtained from RECMAN2 analysis.
Bilinear moment-curvature parameters obtained from RECMAN2 analysis just for the base of the
wall.
4.1 a
Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls A, B and C designed
using Equivalent lateral force according to EUROCODE 8.
4.1 b
Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls D, E and F designed using
Equivalent lateral force according to EUROCODE 8.
Shear force and bending moment at the base using Equivalent lateral force according to
EUROCODE 8.
Vibration modes for each wall using 0.5Ig.
Periods and total mass participation for each wall.
Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls A, B and C designed using
Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls D, E and F designed using
Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Shear force and bending moment at the base using modal Analysis SRSS according to
EUROCODE 8.
Plastic hinges lengths values for each structural wall from equation (3.2a) and (3.2b).
Maximum ductility and force reduction factor.
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5 a
4.5 b
4.6
4.7
5.1
vii
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3 a
3.3 b
3.3 c
3.4 d
3.5 a
3.5 b
3.5 c
3.5 d
3.5 e
3.5 f
4.1
4.2 a
4.2 b
4.3
4.4 a
4.4 b
4.4 c
4.4 d
4.4 e
4.4 f
4.4 g
4.4 h
4.4 i
4.4 j
4.4 k
4.4 l
4.5 a
4.5 b
4.5 c
4.5 d
Modeling of the lateral forces and the structure for equivalent lateral force method.
Recommended design moment envelope for structural wall Paulay and Priestley, 1992.
Recommended design moment envelope for structural wall EUROCODE8.
Different distributions of shear from static lateral force analysis, under beam over strength, and
under dynamic amplification.
Idealization of different structural walls.
Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum (5% Damping).
Shear along the height for Displacement Based Design method.
Moments along the height for Displacement Based Design method.
Displacement profile for Displacement Based Design method.
Interstory Drift for Displacement Based Design method.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls A.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls B.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls C.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls D.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls E.
Moment Curvature diagram for Walls F.
Design Response Spectrum with PGA = 0.40g
Shear along the height for Forced Based Design method.
Moments along the height for Forced Based Design method.
Elastic Response Spectrum with PGA=0.4g.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall A.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall A.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall B.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall B.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall C.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall C.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall D.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall D.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall E.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall E.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall F.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall F.
Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Displacement profile for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Interstory drift for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
viii
Index
4.6
4.7 a
4.7 b
4.8 a
4.8 b
4.8 c
4.8 d
4.9 a
4.9 b
4.9 c
4.9 d
4.10 a
4.10 b
4.10 c
4.10 d
4.11 a
4.11 b
4.11 c
4.11 d
4.12 a
4.12 b
4.12 c
4.12 d
4.13 a
4.13 b
4.13 c
4.13 d
5.1
5.2a
5.2b
5.2c
5.2d
5.2e
5.2f
5.3
5.4a
5.4b
5.4c
5.4d
5.4e
5.4f
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9a
5.9b.
The Modified Takeda hysteretic rule.

Comparisons between EC8 and artificial accelerograms matching Elastic acceleration response
spectrum.
Comparisons between EC8 and artificial accelerograms matching Elastic displacement response
spectrum.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Displacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Relation of shears at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Displacement base design
at intensity 1.0
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall A
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall B
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall C
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall D
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall E
Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall F
Relation of moments at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and displacement base
design at intensity 1.0
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall A
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall B
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall C
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall D
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall E
Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0 - Wall F
Intensity of the level of earthquake versus interstory drift at the top of each wall.
Equal Displacements and Energy approximation to estimate the displacement demand.
Relation of shears at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination and
displacement ductility reduction factor applied only to 1st vibration mode at intensity 1.0
Relation of moments at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination and
displacement ductility reduction factor applied only to 1st vibration mode at intensity 1.0
Shear Distribution for time history dynamic analysis compared with Modal combination
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall A.
Moment Distribution for time history dynamic analysis compared with Modal combination
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall A
ix
Index
5.10a
5.10b.
5.11a
5.11b.
5.12a
5.12b.
5.13a
5.13b.
5.14a
5.14b.
Shear Distribution for time history dynamic analysis compared with Modal
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall B.
Moment Distribution for time history dynamic analysis compared with Modal
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall B.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall C.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall C.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall D.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall D.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall E.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall E.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall F.
considering force reduction factor taken from maximum ductility of THA - Wall F.
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
combination
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.
INTRODUCTION
The behavior of structural wall systems can be relatively complex, particularly when walls of different
sizes and stiffness are coupled. Even when this is not the case, the behavior of a simple cantilever
wall is dependent on a number of properties of the wall. In particular, sectional shapes, the aspect
ratio of wall height to length, and base yield moments are important.
Modeling issues are also important in cantilever walls.
Plastic hinge lengths, hysteresis rules,
effective stiffness, viscous damping, input motion and the consideration of shear deformation, can all
be important in a time history analysis of such a wall.
An assumed first mode response is the basis of most structural wall designs with modifications for
higher mode effects on moments and base shear. Current code provisions [NZS 4203, 1992] are based
on elastoplastic time history analyses, with a limited earthquake database [Blakely et al., 1975].
Others intensive studies [Portland Cement Association, 1980] were carried out to determine the
influence of structural wall response to seismic excitation. Parameters such as intensity, frequency
content, characteristic and duration of accelerograms, were studied. Also, base yield moment and
fundamental period of vibration of the structure were considered.
The basic criteria that the designer will aim to satisfy are the provision of adequate stiffness, strength,
and ductility. Also, the designer must take into account carefully detailed walls designed for flexural
ductility and protected against a shear failure by capacity design principles.
All these studies were analysed under principles of force based design procedures of the current
seismic design philosophy, which is based on a required minimum strength, related to initial stiffness,
seismic intensity, and a force reduction factor or ductility factor. It is imperative to do an examination
1
of these proceedings based on the direct displacement based-design principle. The basis of the design
assumption is to achieve a specified acceptable level of damage under the design earthquake, starting
by using the displacement corresponding to a given limit, and the initial elastic properties including
stiffness, strength and period are the end product.
1.1
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The main aim of this project is to determine appropriate dynamic amplification factor for flexure and
shear for a wide range of cantilever wall buildings of 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 stories which were design
using the fundamental of displacement based design principles.
In addition, the relationship between ductility demand and the dynamic amplification factor in each
wall system will be investigated. This will be carried out using time history analyses for five different
earthquakes intensities for each wall, and analysing the bending moment and shear force envelopes.
The effects of some of the issues discussed above are going to be analysed through the use of the
inelastic dynamic analysis program, Ruaumoko [Carr, 1996] and the results will be compared with
existing code requirements.
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION
This dissertation is organized in six chapters covering some important issues of the topics related
above.
An introduction, objectives and the main purpose of this dissertation are presented in Chapter 1.
Chapter 2 refers to the current design provision for moments and shear forces and their dynamic
amplification factors.
The design of the structural walls according to the displacement-based design is shown in chapter 3.
Definition of the performance limit state, design displacement spectra, design displacement, effective
mass, damping, period and stiffness are shown. Finally, the distribution of moment and shear at the
based are shown.
In chapter 4 different methods of analysis are carried out in order to compare moment amplification
factors for structural walls. Forced based design method, and modal combination analysis using the
EUROCODE 8 principles (equivalent lateral force profile) were carried out. Non linear analysis is
carried out in order to obtain a more precise response of the structure considering inelastic properties
of the section at each time history in a generated ground record which match the EUROCODE 8
acceleration and displacement response spectrum.
Chapter 5 presents the discussion of results from the different analysis methods and finally Chapter 6
presents the most relevant conclusions and discussions of the code implications resulting from this
dissertation and shows some important topics for further analysis.
Chapter 2. Current design provisions
2.
2.1
CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS
INTRODUCTION
Most code approaches to the design of buildings for earthquake resistance specify a distribution of
static lateral loads, which the structure must be able to resist safely. These static forces point out to
give a force distribution equivalent to that induced in the structure by seismic base excitation but of
reduced magnitude, if it is acceptable that inelastic deformations and associated hysteretic damping
will occur.
The form of such code lateral load distributions typically has load increasing linearly with height and
is an approximation of the loading pattern associated with the first mode of vibration of the structure
(inverted triangular distribution). Usually this first mode response dominates the deflection response
of a structure, but the participation of 2nd and higher modes is often of significance in force patterns in
individual members.
The effect of higher mode participation (revealed in a quantitative manner by dynamic time history
analyses) is to vary the height of the centroid of action of the inertia forces acting on a wall.
2.2
LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION
Within the context of force-based design, current literature [Paulay & Priestley, 1992] and design
codes [SANZ, 1992; UBC, 1997, EUROCODE8, 1992] suggest the use of an approximation of the
first mode response of the wall, with a correction for higher mode effects. This is the familiar
equivalent lateral force method of analysis (figure 2.1), with an inverted triangular distribution of
forces and a concentrated force at the top story. Although the use of this concentrated force could be
4
questioned, it has been used here, as dynamic amplification of code distributions is being investigated.
The percentage of the total base shear applied as a concentrated force to the top story varies, with 10%
used in Paulay and Priestley, 8% in NZS 4203 [SANZ, 1992], can be 0 up to 25% for UBC, and the
Eurocode8 does not consider this force at the top of the height.
F2
F1
Specified forces
Substitute forces
Figure 2.1 Modeling of the lateral forces and the structure for equivalent lateral force method.
2.3
BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR
An inverted triangular distribution of applied loads to the wall will result in a cubic distribution of
bending moment in the wall, with a maximum value, M E at the base. This distribution is shown in
Figure 2.2
Research into distribution of bending moments in walls from inelastic time history analyses has
suggested that a linear distribution of bending moments, with M E at the base, should be used for
design. This takes into account the contribution of higher modes to the bending moments up the wall.
This distribution is used if curtailment of longitudinal steel is desired at some location, which is of
particular interest for tall walls. In addition to this, the tension shift effect must be taken into
account, but this is independent of the time history analysis, and of no interest here. The design
distribution is compared with the moments consistent with the triangular load distribution in Figure
2.2.
When an appropriate amount of longitudinal steel has been provided such that the nominal moment,
M N , exceeds the design moment, M E (with any reduction factors required by the code taken into
5
account), an overstrength moment, M o , can be calculated. This is the moment that will actually
develop at the base of the wall if material strengths are larger than specified values, and strain
hardening results in an increase in moment carried by the section. For design, M o can be taken as
M N , where = 1.25 [Paulay & Priestley, 1992]. The actual bending moment distribution when
this over strength moment is developed could be expected to follow the linear distribution used for
design, increased uniformly by up the height of the wall. This is also shown in Figure 2.2.
Nominal minimum
Distribution of moment at over
strength
lw
h
w
Linear distribution (assumed

dynamic amplificacion)
Moment due to static lateral
forces (1st Mode only)
M E = M N (assumed)
M 0= M N
Figure 2.2. Recommended design moment envelope for structural wall Paulay and Priestley, 1992.
EUROCODE 8 specifies that a distribution of moments along the height of the wall shall be given by
an envelope of the calculated bending moment diagram (obtain from the structural analysis), vertically
displaced (tension shift) by a distance equal to the height hcr of the critical region of the wall. The
envelope curve may be assumed linear, if the structure does not exhibit important discontinuities of
mass, stiffness or resistance over its height. (Figure 2.3).
The height of the critical region hcr above the base of the wall may be estimated as
h
hcr = max l w , n but greater than 2l w or the story height hs for structures lesser than 6 stories and
6
2hs for structures with 7 or more stories.
Linear distribution (assumed

dynamic amplificacion)
Moment due to static lateral
forces (1st Mode only)
h cr
h
w
Distribution of moment at over

strength
M E = M N (assumed)
Figure 2.3. Recommended design moment envelope for structural wall EUROCODE8.
2.4
SHEAR FORCE DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR
As with the bending moment, a shear force distribution consistent with the assumed linear distribution
of lateral forces can be derived. This will be parabolic in nature, with a non-zero value at the top due
to the 10% concentrated load, as shown in Figure 2.3.
Also shown is the shear obtained by
multiplying the distribution obtained from the equivalent static analysis by the over strength factor,
0,W = M o , w / M E . In this case, assuming no strength reduction factor is used, and longitudinal steel
is provided to ensure M E = M N exactly, then 0,W = = 1.25 .
As with the bending moments, shear forces obtained from analysis and over strength considerations
must be amplified to account for higher mode effects. In fact, the higher modes affect the shears a lot
more than they affect the moments, particularly for taller walls. A dynamic amplification factor, V ,
is applied to the over strength shear forces, as shown as the third curve in Figure 2.3. This factor has
been obtained from previous research, and is presented in Paulay and Priestley (1992) in the following
form:
V = 0.9 + n / 10
V = 1.3 + n / 30
for
n6
for 6 < n < 15
where n is the number of stories in the wall, and need not be taken greater than 15.
(2.1)
Shear with dynamic amplification
h
w
Distribution of shear for

beam overstrength
1st Mode only
VE
Vo = o,wVE
VU = VVo = V o,wVE
Figure 2.4. Different distributions of shear from static lateral force analysis, under beam over strength,
and under dynamic amplification
EUROCODE 8 specifies a simplified procedure based on capacity design criterion to take into account
increase of shear forces after yielding at the base of the wall. A design envelope of the shear forces
VU along the height of the wall shall be

VU = VO
(2.2)
where VO is the shear force along the height of the wall, obtained from the analysis and is the
magnification factor depending on the ductility class of the structure. For structures with low ductility
capacity the magnification factor may be taken equal to 1.3. For structures with high and medium
ductility capacity, can be obtained
M
Se(Tc )
q
= q o u + 0.1
(
)
q
M
Se
T
n
1
(2.3)
where q is the behavior factor which takes into account the energy dissipation capacity of the
structure.
M n is the design bending moment at the base of the wall, M u is the design flexural
resistance at the base of the wall, o over strength ratio of steel and when precise data is not available
it can be taken as 1.25 for structures with high ductility capacity and 1.15 for medium ductility
capacity structures.
T1 is the fundamental period of vibration of the building along the direction of the wall and Tc is the
upper limit period of the constant spectral acceleration branch. Se(T) is the ordinate of the elastic
response spectrum.
Finally, EUROCODE 8 classify squat walls are whose with a height to length ratio hw / l w not greater
than 2.0 and special provisions are given but not comments in this work. Further references see
EUROCODE 8 section 2.11.
Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls
3.
3.1
DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL WALLS
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Displacement based design procedure has been used to achieve a specified acceptable
level of damage under the design earthquake. The starting point of the design is to obtain the
distribution of moment and base shear and therefore the dynamic amplification factors corresponding
to a given damage limit state.
The inappropriateness of the Force based design assumptions of initial stiffness and ductility capacity
suggests that results of base moments and shear reached in a structure when inelastic response had
occurred are not valid. For that reason, it is proposed in this analysis to design the structure according
to Displacement Based Design principles and compare the results with Force Based Design analysis
and time history dynamic analyses.
3.2
DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN
Direct displacement-based design characterizes the structure by secant stiffness at a maximum

displacement and a level of equivalent viscous damping appropriate to the hysteretic energy absorbed
during the inelastic response. This reasonable assumption is closer to the real behavior of the structure
under an earthquake.
A series of walls of different height labeled A to F (Figure 3.1) were designed using Displacement
Based Design principles. They were assumed to be braced at the base.
10
The compressive strength of the concrete f c' = 30 MPa , tensile strength f y = f yh = 450 MPa of
steel and considering strain hardening of 5% were used for material properties. Each wall was
idealized with lumped inertial masses, m = 60 tonnes, and axial loads of P = 200 kN at each floor
level. A value of Ec = 4700 f 'c = 25.7GPa [Paulay & Priestley, 1992]
WALL D
WALL A
P
m
m
4@3m
2@3m
8@3m
WALL E
20@3m
P
12@3m
WALL B
16@3m
WALL F
WALL C
Figure 3.1 Idealization of different structural walls.
3.2.1
Performance Limit State
Crushing of concrete and unacceptably large residual crack widths might define the fully operational
limit state for the structural wall. Limit compression strains of 0.004 and maximum reinforcement
tensile strains of 0.015 were considered as a design limit state for the design. [Priestley & Kowalsky,
2000].
3.2.2
Design Displacement Spectra
The design was made using the EUROCODE8 with elastic response spectrum compatible with PGA
of 0.40g and a medium soil condition (subsoil class B is considerate deep deposits of medium dense
sand, gravel or medium stiff clays with thickness from several tens to many hundred of meters.).
11
Using the displacement spectrum of 5% a linear distribution was considered until 4.0 sec instead of 3.0
sec, which is the recommendation of the EUROCODE8 because it seems more convenient for soil
class type B. This suggestion was very useful in the designing of Walls D to F because the structural
period of the substitute structures were longer than those for the elastic structure. [Priestley and
Kowalsky, 2000] and [Kowalsky, 2001].
3.2.3
Design displacement
In order to obtain the moment and shear forces for Displacement-Based design procedure, it is
required to initially determine the design displacement, and the effective mass and damping of the
equivalent single-degree of freedom substitute structure.
A maximum interstorey drift of 0.02 controlled the design at the top of the structure and, assuming a
linear distribution of curvature along the height, the design displacement profile is found thus
[Priestley and Kowalsky, 2000].
i =
h
2 hi2
y 1.5 i
3 lw
2hn
h
l

+ d sy n hi p
l w
2

(3.1)
Where :
l w is the length of the wall, hi is the Story height at each floor, d the maximum interstorey drift, and
sy is the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement in the section and l p is the Plastic hinge length
which can be taken as
l p = 0.2l w + 0.03hn
(3.2a)
l p = 0.054hn + 0.022 f y d b
(3.2b)
Where hn is the total height of the wall, d b diameter and f y yield stress of the wall vertical
reinforcement.
The plastic hinges basically affect curvature ductility in a structural wall. Its magnitude depends on
the length of the wall l w , the moment gradient at the base, and axial load intensity.
Plastic hinge lengths for walls are expected to be much greater than those used for beams, due to the
large depth of section, and effective height. The plastic hinge length, l p , is directly related to the
extent of diagonal cracking, which is controlled by the section depth, l w .
12
Equation (3.2a) takes the wall length into consideration, while Equation. (3.2b), originally obtained for
columns, does not.
However, Eq. (3.2a) does not take into account strain penetration into the
foundation. It is thought that an equation taking all three parameters into account (wall length, height
and strain penetration) would be most appropriate, but the maximum of Eq. (3.2a) and (3.2b) should
be sufficient.
Having found the design displacement profile, the design displacement for the equivalent singledegree of freedom system was obtained by the expression
(m )
=
(m )
n
i =1
n
2
i
i =1
(3.3)
Where mi are the story masses.

3.2.4
Effective Mass
From consideration of the mass participating in the first inelastic mode, the effective system mass for
the equivalent single-degree of freedom system was calculated using the equation (3.4).
(m )
=
n
me
3.2.5
i =1
(3.4)
Effective Damping
Priestley & Kowalsky, 2000 proposed the use an appropriate level of viscous damping for inelastic
analysis in order to capture the assumptions made in the design as closely as possible. In the design
phase, damping was comprised of two components: elastic viscous damping of 5%, and hysteretic
damping, converted to equivalent viscous damping.
eff = 0.05 + h
(3.5)
where
1 r
r
1
h =
(3.6)
r is a post-yield force-displacement stiffness ratio and is the design ductility which can be
determined from
13
d
y
(3.7)
where y is the yield displacement and
y =
y (0.7hn ) 2
(3.8)
where y is the yield curvature which can be calculated by
y = 2 sy / l w
(3.9)
The curvature ductility is determined by
= 1 +
3.2.6
( 1)
(3.10)
3(l p / hn ) (1 0.5(l p / hn ) )
Effective Period and Effective Stiffness
For a design displacement d and design damping the effective period at peak response is
Te = T p
d
( P ,5)
2 +
7
1/ 2
(3.11)
Where ( P ,5) is the displacement at peak period TP for displacement corresponding at 5% damping.
0.7
0.6
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Period (sec)
Figure 3.2 Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum (5% Damping)
The effective stiffness at peak response is
14
4.0
4.5
4me 2( P ,5) 7
Ke =
TP2 2d 2 +
3.2.7
(3.12)
Distribution Of Base Shear
The base shear was calculated as vertically distributed in proportion to the vertical mass and
displacement profiles and no additional force at the top is recommended
Fi = V B
mi i
(3.13)
(mi i )
i =1
Where VB is the shear force from (3.13) and Moments are obtained multiplying the Fi hi for each
floor.
VB = K e d
(3.14)
The dimensions for each wall are shown in Table 3.1. Transverse reinforcing was assumed to be
2D12 legs at 75mm spacing where a minimum amount of transversal reinforcement is required to
confine the longitudinal reinforcement.
Table 3.1 Dimensions of the walls and shear force and bending moment at the base designed according to
displacement based design principles.
Wall
A
B
C
D
E
F
b (m)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.30
Lw (m)
2.0
2.5
3.3
4.0
5.0
5.6
l
db (mm) Lp (m)
0.0046
14
0.58
0.0080
14
0.86
0.0162
20
1.49
0.0172
28
2.22
0.0161
24
2.83
0.0177
28
3.52
6.4
3.4
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
20.6
12.6
6.0
2.7
2.2
1.0
Teff (sec) Vb (kN) Mb (kNm)

1.2
242
1232
1.8
312
2917
2.6
446
8114
3.1
590
16222
3.7
664
24372
3.9
830
38739
Table 3.2a Distribution of forces, moments and displacement along the height of the walls A, B and C
Story
Fi (kN)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
169
73
0
Wall A
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
169
242
242
0
507
1232
i (m)
0.103
0.044
0.000
Fi (kN)
138
95
56
22
0
Wall B
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
138
233
289
312
312
15
0
414
1114
1982
2917
i (m)
Fi (kN)
0.193
0.134
0.078
0.031
0.000
120
99
79
60
42
27
14
5
0
Wall C
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
120
218
297
357
399
426
441
446
446
0
359
1014
1906
2977
4175
5454
6777
8114
i (m)
0.346
0.287
0.228
0.173
0.123
0.078
0.042
0.014
0.000
Table 3.2b Distribution of forces, moments and displacement along the height of the walls D, E and F
designed according to displacement based design principles
Story
Fi (kN)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
118
104
89
75
61
48
37
26
17
10
4
1
0
Wall D
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
118
222
311
386
447
495
532
558
575
585
589
590
590
0
355
1021
1954
3110
4450
5935
7530
9204
10929
12683
14451
16222
i (m)
Fi (kN)
0.477
0.417
0.358
0.301
0.246
0.195
0.148
0.106
0.069
0.040
0.018
0.004
0.000
106
95
85
75
65
56
47
39
31
24
17
12
7
4
1
0.2
0
Wall E
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
106
201
286
361
427
483
530
568
599
623
640
652
659
663
664
664
664
0
317
919
1777
2861
4140
5588
7176
8881
10678
12546
14466
16421
18398
20386
22379
24372
i (m)
0.617
0.557
0.497
0.439
0.382
0.327
0.275
0.226
0.180
0.138
0.101
0.069
0.042
0.022
0.008
0.001
0.000
Fi (kN)
114
105
95
86
77
68
59
51
43
36
29
23
17
12
8
4
2
0.2
-1
-0.2
0
Wall F
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
114
0
219
342
314
998
400
1941
477
3141
545
4572
605
6207
656
8020
699
9988
735
12085
764
14291
787
16584
804
18946
817
21359
825
23809
829
26283
831
28770
831
31263
831
33757
830
36248
830
38739
i (m)
0.725
0.665
0.606
0.547
0.489
0.433
0.378
0.326
0.276
0.229
0.185
0.145
0.109
0.077
0.050
0.028
0.012
0.001
-0.003
-0.002
0.000
Distribution of shear
Displacement Based Design Analysis
60
57
Wall A
54
Wall B
51
Wall C
Wall D
48
Wall E
45
Wall F
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
Shear (kN)
Figure 3.3 a Shear along the height for Displacement Based Design method.
16
750
800
850
Distribution of Moments
60
57
Wall A
54
Wall B
Wall C
51
Wall D
48
Wall E
Wall F
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
30000
32500
35000
37500
40000
0.70
0.75
Moment (kNm)
Figure 3.3 b Moments along the height for Displacement Based Design method.
Displacement profile
63
60
57
54
51
48
45
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
-0.05
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.3c Displacement profile for Displacement Based Design method.
17
0.65
Interstory Drift
63
60
57
54
51
48
45
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Interstory Drift (%)
Figure 3.3 d Interstory Drift for Displacement Based Design method.
Aspect ratio hW / lW (wall height/length) for each wall is shown in Table 3.3.
A factor
recommendation to increase the lateral design force specified for ordinary structural wall Z 1 is
suggested when the aspect ratio is less than 3.0 [Paulay & Priestley, 1992]. In this project the lateral
design forces factor is not considered.
Table 3.3. Aspect ratio for each wall.
Wall
A
B
C
D
E
F
3.3
hw/lw
3.0
4.8
7.3
9.0
9.6
10.7
ANALYSIS OF THE SECTION
A bilinear approximation to the actual curve was derived, using the yield, nominal and ultimate
conditions given [Paulay & Priestley, 1992].
18
Using the GW-BASIC program, RECMAN2. These values are summarised in Table 3.4 below, where
the compression strength f cc' of confined circular or rectangular section with equal confining stress
f l ' in the orthogonal x and y directions is related to the unconfined strength by the relationship
[Mander, Priestley & Park, 1988]
Table 3.4 Conditions used for determination of yield, nominal and ultimate moments and curvatures in
bilinear moment-curvature relations.
Concrete, c
Steel, s
"First yield" (My and y)
0.002
f y / E s = 0.00225
Nominal (MN)
0.004
0.015
"Yield" of bilinear (y)

Ultimate (Mu and u)
Extrapolation from origin through first yield
0.004 +
1.4 s f yh su
0.6 su = 0.06
f ' cc
Where s , f cc' , and cu are shown in Table 3.5
7.94 f l ' 2 f l ' '

f cc' = 1.254 + 2.254 1 +
' fc
f c'
f c
(3.15)
where f lx' = K e x f yh , and f lx' = f ly' .. Using K e = 0.6 the confinement effectiveness coefficient
[Paulay & Priestley, 1992] and x is the ration of tension reinforcement.
Table 3.5. Bilinear moment-curvature parameters obtained from RECMAN2 analysis
Wall
A
B
C
D
E
F
rx
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.019
0.019
0.015
f'cc (kN)
65.2
65.2
64.4
55.9
55.9
51.6
ecu
0.032
0.032
0.031
0.025
0.025
0.022
Use of the conditions from Table 3.4 and 3.5, along with the output from RECMAN2, values of initial
stiffness, k0, and the bilinear factor, r, were obtained for each level of axial load and for each wall (see
Table 3.6). The r-value, or ratio of the post-yield stiffness to initial stiffness, was only required for
sections expected to behave inelastically, therefore, it was assumed at the base of each wall. Table 3.6
presents a summary of the values obtained. Moment curvature diagram for each wall are shown in
figure 3.3.
19
Table 3.6. Bilinear moment-curvature parameters obtained from RECMAN2 analysis just for the base of
the wall.
N(kN) My (kNm)
400
813
800
1883
1600
5692
2400
10896
3200
16372
4000
25456
Wall
A
B
C
D
E
F
y' (/m)
0.00148
0.00126
0.00104
0.00086
0.00069
0.00061
MN (kNm)
1158
2749
8401
16139
24263
38407
y (/m)
0.00211
0.00184
0.00154
0.00128
0.00102
0.00092
Mu (kNm)
1246
3014
9199
17853
27152
43762
u (/m)
0.03302
0.03039
0.02625
0.01948
0.01678
0.01470
k0 (kNm )
5.48E+05
1.50E+06
5.47E+06
1.27E+07
2.39E+07
4.16E+07
r
0.00522
0.00620
0.00591
0.00744
0.00767
0.00935
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall A

1400
M=20.6 = 1276
=20.6 = 0.044
Mn = 1158
y = 0.00883
1200
Mu = 1246
u = 0.033
Moment (kNm)
1000
800
My = 813
y' = 0.00148
600
400
200
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5a. Moment Curvature diagram for Wall A.
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall B

3500
Mu = 3014
u = 0.0304
3000 Mn = 2749
y = 0.00184
M=12.6 = 2947
=12.6 = 0.0231
Moment (kNm)
2500
2000
My = 1883
y' = 0.00126
1500
1000
Analysis of the section

Bilinear Aproximation
500
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5b. Moment Curvature diagram for Wall B.
20
0.045
0.05
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall C

10000
M=6 = 8649
=6 = 0.00922
Mn = 8401
y = 0.00154
9000
Mu = 9199
u = 0.02625
8000
Moment (kNm)
7000
6000
My = 5692
y' = 0.00104
5000
4000
3000
2000
Bilinear aproximation
1000
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5c. Moment Curvature diagram for Wall C.
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall D

20000
18000
16000
Mu = 17853
u = 0.01948
Mn = 16139
y = 0.00128
M=2.7 = 16343
=2.7 = 0.00344
Moment (kNm)
14000
12000
My = 10896
y' = 0.00086
10000
8000
6000

4000
2000
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5d. Moment Curvature diagram for Wall D.
21
0.018
0.02
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall E

30000
Mn = 24263
y = 0.0010
25000
Mu = 27152
u = 0.0167
M=2.2 = 24486
=2.2 = 0.00223
Moment (kNm)
20000
My = 16372
y' = 0.00069
15000
10000
5000
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5e. Moment Curvature diagram Wall E.
Moment Curvature Diagram Wall F

50000
Mu = 43762
u = 0.0147
45000
Mn = 38407
y = 0.00092
40000
Moment (kNm)
35000
30000
My = 25456
y' = 0.00061
25000
20000
15000

10000
5000
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
curvature (1/m)
Figure 3.5f. Moment Curvature diagram Wall F.
22
0.014
0.016
Chapter 4. Procedure analysis
4.
PROCEDURE ANALYSIS
4.1
INTRODUCTION
Analysis tools for the seismic response quantification of structural walls and the study of the moment
amplification factor for structural walls require the comparison of shear forces and bending moment
obtained from simple linear elastic analysis to dynamic nonlinear response history analysis.
Equivalent Lateral Force Profile is a simple and useful method, which replaces the seismic force for an
equivalent static lateral force but these lateral forces do not represent the real response of the structure,
under a seismic event. These forces represent the behavior of the first mode of vibration and when
higher mode effects are involved a coefficient is introduced which will increase the shear or bending
moment of the structure.
A very common procedure is Multi-mode analysis, which is an elastic dynamic analysis where the
maximum forces for each mode of response of the structure are from the design spectrum and later
combined with each other using CQC or SRSS procedure to obtain the maximum response of the total
structure.
An inelastic dynamic analysis can also be carried out in order to obtain a more precise response of the
structure considering inelastic properties of the section at each time history in the ground motion
record.
In the following, shear and bending moment distributions are found using these types of analyses.
23
4.2
FORCE BASED DESIGN PROCEDURE
For the last few decades, seismic design has been performed with what is often termed forced-based
design, which has worked well and generally met the objective of achieving a safe design. In order to
compare results, the distribution of base moments and shear are obtained using force-based design
procedure.
Three different procedures are using in the analysis, the Equivalent Lateral Force Profile, Multi-Mode
Analysis and Paulay and Priestley approach.
4.2.1
Equivalent Lateral Force Profile
This method replaces the seismic lateral force for an equivalent static lateral force at the base of the
structure. Using EUROCODE8, the force can be obtained
VB = S d (T1 )W
(4.1)
where S d (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1 which is the fundamental period of
vibration for translational motion in the direction considered. W is the total weight of the structure.
The design spectrum at period T1 can be calculated by
0 T TB
TB T TC
TC T TD
TD T
T
S d (T ) = S 1 +
TB
S d (T ) = S
1
q
(4.2b)
0 Tc d 1
S d (T ) = S
q T
S (T ) 0.2
d
S d (T ) = S o
q
S d (T ) 0.2
TC

TD
24
(4.2a)
Kd1
TD
T

(4.2c)
Kd 2
(4.2d)
Where S d (T ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum which is normalized by g, is the ratio of the
design ground acceleration a g to the acceleration of gravity g ( = a g / g ) equal to 0.4, 0 is the
spectral acceleration amplification factor for 5% viscous damping determined by EURCODE 8 as 2.5,
TB , TC are limits of the constant spectral acceleration branch equal to 0,15 and 0.60 respectively, TD
is a value defining the beginning of the constant displacement range of the spectrum equal to 3.0,
k d 1 = 2 / 3, k d 2 = 5 / 3 are exponents which influence the shape of the design spectrum for a vibration
period greater than TC , TD respectively, q is the behavior factor and S is the soil parameter type B.
The behavior factor q takes into account the energy dissipation capacity of a structure. This can be
obtained by
q = q o k D k R kW 1.5
(4.3)
where q o is the basic value of the behavior factor, dependent on the structural type, assuming wall
system with uncoupled walls q o is taken as 4.0.
k D Is the factor reflecting the ductility class.
Assuming ductility class type H and equal to 1.0, which corresponds to structures whose design,
dimensioning and detailing provision ensure a stable mechanism associated with large dissipation of
hysteretic energy, k R is the factor referring to the structural regularity in elevation and equal to 1.0 for
regular structures, and kW is the factor referring to the prevailing failure mode in structural system
with walls and is equal to
kW =
1
2.5 0.5 o
(4.4)
where o is the prevailing aspect ratio of the walls of the structural system o = hw / l w and can be
taken from the Table 3.3. In all cases kW = 1.0 , since o 3 . For further references, see section 2
of the EUROCODE 8.
The intention of this analysis is to achieve a wall with identical moment capacity at the base to the
Displacement Based Design walls of the same height. See chapter 3 for more details.
For purposes of determining the fundamental vibration periods T1 of planar models of buildings,
approximate expressions based on methods of structural dynamics may be used. Then using an
approximation formula to obtain the fundamental period of the structural can be used according to
EUROCODE 8.
T1 = Ct H 3 / 4
25
(4.5)
where H is the height of the building and C t is a factor equal to 0.075 for moment resistant space
concrete frames.
The distribution of the horizontal seismic forces can be obtained assuming the entire mass of the
structure as a substitute mass of the fundamental mode of vibration and considering that the
fundamental mode shape is approximated by horizontal displacement increasing linearly along the
height
0.5
0.4
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Period (sec)
Figure 4.1 Design Response Spectrum with PGA = 0.40g
Fi = V B
Z iWi
Z jW j
(4.6)
where Fi is the horizontal force acting on story i, V B is the seismic base shear according to (4.1),
Z i , Z j are the heights of masses mi , m j above the level of application of the seismic action
(foundation).
The horizontal forces Fi determined in (4.6) can be distributed to the lateral load resisting system
assuming a rigid floor. The results from this analysis are shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2
26
Table 4.1a Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls A, B and C designed using
story Fi (kN)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
196
1
98
0
0
Wall A
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
196
294
294
0
589
1472
Fi (kN)
235
177
118
59
0
Wall B
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
235
412
530
589
589
Fi (kN)
214
187
160
134
107
80
53
27
0
0
706
1942
3532
5297
Wall C
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
214
401
561
694
801
881
935
962
962
0
641
1843
3526
5609
8013
10657
13462
16346
Table 4.1b Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls D, E and F designed using
story Fi (kN)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
181
11
166
10
151
9
136
8
121
7
106
6
91
5
75
4
60
3
45
2
30
1
15
0
0
Wall D
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
181
347
498
634
755
860
951
1026
1087
1132
1162
1177
1177
0
543
1585
3079
4981
7246
9827
12680
15760
19020
22417
25904
29436
Fi (kN)
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Wall E
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
160
310
450
580
700
810
910
999
1079
1149
1209
1259
1299
1329
1349
1359
1359
0
480
1409
2759
4498
6597
9025
11754
14753
17991
21439
25067
28845
32744
36732
40779
44857
Fi (kN)
145
137
130
123
116
109
101
94
87
80
72
65
58
51
43
36
29
22
14
7
0
Wall F
Vi (kN) Mi (kNm)
145
0
282
434
412
1281
536
2518
651
4125
760
6079
861
8358
955
10942
1042
13807
1122
16934
1194
20299
1259
23881
1317
27658
1368
31609
1411
35712
1447
39946
1476
44288
1498
48716
1512
53210
1520
57748
1520
62307
Distribution of Shear
Forced Based Design Analysis
63
60
57
Wall A - FBD
54
Wall B - FBD
51
Wall C - FBD
48
Wall D - FBD
45
Wall E - FBD
42
Wall F - FBD
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
shear (kN)
Figure 4.2a. Shear along the height for Forced Based Design method.
27
1500
1600
Distribution of Moment
Forced Based Design Analysis
63
60
Wall A - FBD
57
Wall B - FBD
54
Wall C - FBD
51
Wall D - FBD
48
Wall E - FBD
45
Wall F - FBD
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.2 b. Moments versus normalised heights for Forced Based Design method.
Table 4.2 shows the shear force and bending moment at the base of each structural wall.
Table 4.2 Shear force and bending moment at the base using Equivalent lateral force according to
EUROCODE 8
Wall
A
B
C
D
E
F
4.2.2
T (sec)
0.29
0.48
0.81
1.10
1.37
1.62
Vb (kN)
294
589
962
1177
1359
1520
M (kNm)
1472
5297
16346
29436
44857
62307
b (m)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.30
Lw (m)
2.0
2.9
5.1
6.0
7.5
8.0
l
0.0084
0.0178
0.0182
0.0194
0.0187
0.0193
Multi-Mode Analysis
The multi mode system analysis is used to determine the response of individual modes, which are then
combined in some way.
Periods of vibration were determined using Ruaumoko (see Table 4.3) with an effective inertia taken
as 0.5Ig
A portion of the total mass participates in each mode as follows:
28
N
im mi
i , m =1
m = N
im2 mi
i , m =1
(4.9)
i =1
Table 4.3 Vibration modes for each wall using 0.5Ig

WALL A
2
Story 1
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 1.000 -0.331
1 0.331 1.000
1.000
0.651
0.333
0.096
WALL B
2
3
-0.721
0.516
1.000
0.548
0.419
-0.906
0.222
1.000
1.000
0.826
0.654
0.488
0.336
0.202
0.096
0.026
WALL C
2
3
1.000
0.265
-0.381
-0.825
-0.991
-0.872
-0.553
-0.193
0.800
-0.301
-0.889
-0.651
0.166
0.901
1.000
0.481
WALL D
2
3
1.000
0.884
0.769
0.655
0.544
0.437
0.337
0.245
0.164
0.097
0.045
0.012
1.000
0.541
0.101
-0.291
-0.602
-0.806
-0.888
-0.850
-0.710
-0.502
-0.275
-0.086
0.953
0.159
-0.499
-0.860
-0.832
-0.451
0.127
0.678
1.000
0.987
0.678
0.256
1.000
0.913
0.827
0.741
0.656
0.572
0.491
0.412
0.338
0.268
0.204
0.146
0.097
0.057
0.026
0.007
WALL E
2
3
1.000
0.668
0.342
0.032
-0.248
-0.486
-0.669
-0.789
-0.842
-0.829
-0.756
-0.634
-0.481
-0.317
-0.165
-0.050
1.000
0.412
-0.132
-0.561
-0.811
-0.847
-0.671
-0.331
0.096
0.514
0.832
0.985
0.949
0.747
0.447
0.156
-0.906
-0.102
0.552
0.867
0.758
0.296
-0.307
-0.787
-0.936
-0.685
-0.138
0.479
0.913
1.000
0.737
0.302
1
1.000
0.932
0.864
0.796
0.729
0.662
0.595
0.530
0.466
0.404
0.344
0.287
0.234
0.184
0.139
0.100
0.066
0.038
0.018
0.005
WALL F
2
3
1.000 1.000
0.785 0.678
0.569 0.352
0.356 0.040
0.149 -0.230
-0.046 -0.431
-0.222 -0.541
-0.373 -0.550
-0.494 -0.460
-0.582 -0.289
-0.633 -0.065
-0.647 0.174
-0.625 0.392
-0.572 0.555
-0.493 0.638
-0.396 0.632
-0.290 0.545
-0.185 0.397
-0.094 0.226
-0.028 0.076
4
1.000
0.590
0.166
-0.209
-0.461
-0.538
-0.428
-0.175
0.139
0.414
0.563
0.540
0.349
0.049
-0.272
-0.518
-0.620
-0.558
-0.368
-0.142
Considering that there are the same vibration modes as number of masses (number of stories), im , is
the mode shape at floor i and mode m and mi is the mass in each floor i to N number of stories of
the structure. EUROCODE 8 recommends that the response of all modes of vibration contributing
significantly to the global response shall be taken into account, and to satisfy this criteria it requires
that the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes considered amounts to at least 90% of the
total mass of the structure and/or by demonstrating that all modes with effective modal masses greater
than 5% of the total mass are considered.
The modal base shear for each mode is obtained then
N
VBm = Sa m g m mi
i =1
(4.10)
where Sa m is the pseudo acceleration corresponding at mode m , and g is the gravity acceleration (see
Figure 4.3).
Modal base shear is distributed up the structure as follows
Fim = VBm
im mi
N
i , m =1
29
im
mi
(4.11)
1.1
1.0
0.9
spectral Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
Period (sec)
Figure 4.3 Elastic Response Spectrum with PGA=0.4g
Modal displacements may be found from the spectra modal displacements
Tm2
4
m = Sa m g
(4.12)
where Tm is the vibration period at mode m and modal displacement for floor i and m is found.
Table 4.4 Periods and total mass participation for each wall.
Wall T1 (sec)
A
0.340
B
0.796
C
1.878
D
2.721
E
3.392
F
3.649
T2 (sec)
0.059
0.131
0.306
0.441
0.549
0.590
T3 (sec) T4 (sec)
0.052
0.114
0.162
0.201
0.106
0.216
0.114
N
im =
im
i , m =1
im
N
m (%)
100.0
98.3
93.0
90.9
93.6
91.4
mi m
(4.13)
2
im
mi
i , m =1
Since the modal maximum does not occur simultaneously, it is excessively conservative to combine
the modal quantities by direct addition; generally SRSS or CQC is used. EUROCODE 8 express that
the response in two vibration modes i and j may be considered as independent of each other when their
periods Ti and T j satisfy the condition that T j 0.9Ti . If the periods are independent then SRSS can
be used or else, a more accurate procedure for combination such as Complete Quadratic Combination
30
can be used which involves cross modal coefficients when modes are close and the modal separation
implied by modal analysis is doubtful. SRSS was used in this project, where forces, shear and
displacement at each floor were obtained using the following equations and in Figure 4.4 the results
are shown and Table 4.5 shows the shear force and bending moment at the base of each structural
wall.
Fi =
Fim2 , Vi =
i , m =1
Vim2 and i =
i , m =1
2
im
(4.14)
i , m =1
Table 4.5a Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls A, B and C designed using
Modal Combination Analysis SRSS
Story
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fi (kN)
177
81
0
WALL A
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
177
238
238
0
532
1236
i (m)
0.034
0.011
0.000
Fi (kN)
163
111
101
59
0
WALL B
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
163
248
305
333
333
0
489
1214
2079
3028
i (m)
Fi (kN)
0.160
0.104
0.053
0.015
0.000
122
63
71
90
96
94
71
29
0
WALL C
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
122
173
189
207
244
292
334
351
351
0
366
880
1405
1913
2446
3075
3839
4715
i (m)
0.404
0.334
0.264
0.198
0.136
0.083
0.040
0.011
0.000
Table 4.5b Distribution of forces and moments along the height of the walls D, E and F designed using
Modal Combination Analysis SRSS
Story
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fi (kN)
127
71
48
65
82
90
94
97
93
76
48
17
0
WALL D
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
127
195
217
213
210
224
256
303
357
406
437
449
449
0
380
963
1599
2192
2700
3136
3545
4000
4580
5339
6275
7343
i (m)
Fi (kN)
0.604
0.533
0.463
0.395
0.328
0.265
0.205
0.151
0.102
0.061
0.029
0.008
0.000
134
85
53
53
65
77
86
94
99
99
96
92
82
65
40
15
0
WALL E
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
134
217
257
266
258
245
238
248
279
327
382
438
489
529
553
562
562
0
401
1050
1812
2584
3295
3906
4403
4795
5117
5435
5831
6386
7153
8145
9330
10654
31
i (m)
0.762
0.695
0.629
0.563
0.499
0.436
0.375
0.316
0.261
0.209
0.161
0.117
0.079
0.047
0.022
0.006
0.000
Fi (kN)
138
102
68
42
38
51
62
67
65
59
56
59
67
75
77
73
61
44
25
8
0
WALL F
Vi (kN)
Mi (kNm)
138
0
240
414
305
1132
338
2047
344
3057
331
4074
311
5035
292
5901
280
6658
275
7317
275
7901
280
8438
294
8959
321
9496
360
10078
404
10740
446
11507
478
12396
496
13406
503
14517
503
15702
i (m)
0.821
0.765
0.709
0.653
0.597
0.542
0.488
0.434
0.382
0.332
0.283
0.237
0.194
0.154
0.117
0.084
0.056
0.033
0.015
0.004
0.000
Distribution of Shears - Wall A

Modal Combination Analysis
7
Vibration mode 1
vibration mode 2
Modal combination SRSS
Height (m)
0
-50
-25
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4a. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall A.
Figure 4.4b. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall A.
32
250
275
Distribution of Shear - Wall B

14
Vibration mode 1
Vibration mode 2
Vibration mode 3
12
10
Height (m)
0
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4c. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall B.
Distribution of Moments - Wall B

15
Vibration mode 1
Vibration mode 2
vibration mode 3
12
Height (m)
0
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.4d. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall B.
33
3500
Distribution of shear - Wall C

27
Vibration mode 1
24
Vibration mode 2
Vibration mode 3
21
Height (m)
18
15
12
0
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4e. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall C.
Distribution of moments - Wall C

27
Vibration mode 1
24
Vibration mode 2
Vibration mode 3
21
Height (m)
18
15
12
0
-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.4f. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall C.
34
6000
Distribution of shear - Wall D

39
36
33
Vibration mode 1
Vibration mode 2
30
Vibration mode 3
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4g. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall D.
Distribution of moments - Wall D

39
Vibration mode 1
36
Vibration mode 2
Vibration mode 3
33
30
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.4h. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall D.
35
6000
Distribution of shear - Wall E

51
48
Vibration mode 1
45
Vibration mode 2
Vibration mode 3
42
Vibration mode 4
39
36
33
Height (m)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4i. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall E.
Figure 4.4j. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall E.
36
550
600
Distribution of shear - Wall F

63
60
Vibration mode 1
57
Vibration mode 2
54
Vibration mode 3
51
Vibration mode 4
48
Modal combination
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.4k Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall F.
Distribution of moments - Wall F

63
60
Vibration mode 1
57
Vibration mode 2
54
Vibration mode 3
51
Vibration mode 4
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-6000
-4500
-3000
-1500
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
10500
12000
13500
15000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.4l. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis Wall F.
37
16500
18000
Table 4.6 Shear force and bending moment at the base using using modal Analysis SRSS according to
EUROCODE 8
Wall Vb (kN) M(kNm)
A
237
1236
B
240
3028
C
309
4715
D
413
7343
E
478
10654
F
405
15702
Results of the Shear and moment for modal combination SRSS are given in Figure 4.5
Distribution of shear
Modal Combination Analysis - SRSS
63
60
57
Wall A - Modal combination SRSS
54
Wall B - Modal combination SRSS
51
Wall C - Modal combination SRSS

Wall D - Modal combination SRSS
48
Wall E - Modal combination SRSS

Wall F - Modal combination SRSS
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.5a. Shear along the height for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Distribution of Moments
63
60
57
54
51
48

45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.5b. Moments along the height for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
38
15000
16000
Displacement Profile
63
60

57
54
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.5c. Displacement profile for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
Interstory Drift
63
60

57
54
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 4.5d. Interstory drift for Modal Combination Analysis SRSS.
39
2.2
2.4
0.9
4.2.3
Paulay and Priestly approach
Paulay and Priestly suggest that in order to take into account high mode effects, a linear distribution
can be assumed for both the moment distribution and the shear distribution, and it is suggested that
shear magnification will increase with the number of stories (see section 2.3).
To isolate the contribution of higher mode effects to the amplification of base bending moment and
base shear, the value of o, w was not calculated from the usual design recommendations. The actual
overstrength moment obtained in the time history dynamic analysis, Mo, (which only includes the
effects of strain hardening, and not material overstrength) was used and M N the moment obtained
from the a static analysis, giving
Vo =
Mo
VE
MN
(4.15)
This allowed the dynamic magnification factor to be applied directly to the appropriate overstrength
shear, to give the ultimate design shear
Vu = vVo =
Mo
VE
MN
(4.16)
where V is the dynamic shear magnification factor to be taken as suggested in section 2.4 such as
V = 0.9 + n / 10
V = 1.3 + n / 30
for
n6
for 6 < n < 15
(2.1)
where n is the number of stories in the wall, and need not be taken greater than 15.
4.3
NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
In order to obtain the response for shear forces, bending moments and displacements for each
structural wall subject to ground acceleration the use of a non-linear analysis program was required.
The time history analysis for each structural wall was carried out using the program Ruaumoko [Carr,
1998] which has different options to model a element member, mass, damping and stiffness for a
structure.
40
In this project a frame type element member, Tangent Stiffness Rayleigh Damping and Takeda
hysteretic rule were considered. Some artificial accelerograms were generated to match the elastic
response spectrum of Eurocode 8.
4.3.1
Dynamic Analysis Modeling Assumptions
Fundamental assumptions were required in order to analyze and obtain a good interpretation of the
results:
The structural properties of the reinforced concrete element (e.g. stiffness, strength and
ductility) are idealized under some well-established theories.
To avoid elastic and inelastic deformations in the foundation structure, all the structural walls
modeled were assumed to have a fixed base foundation.
It was assumed that the floor system provides an efficient diaphragm action (rigid diaphragm)
in order to introduce the inertia forces to the structural wall and an adequate connection to the
diaphragm.
Due to in-plane forces, the floor system remained elastic.
All the lateral forces were resisted by the structural wall.
It was assumed that the sectional properties were concentrated in the vertical centerline of the
each wall model.
4.3.2
Moment - Curvature Properties
Before the model could be input into Ruaumoko, moment-curvature relations were required for each
wall. In Ruaumoko, use of either beam-columns or simple, Giberson-type frame members were
considered. Use of the former would result in great inefficiency in the analysis. At each time step, an
interaction curve would be consulted to determine member properties for the current value of axial
load. Because the axial load is constant in each wall, member properties can be obtained directly for
the initial load, and input directly for each beam segment. For each wall moment curve analysis was
carried out for different level of axial load.
41
Table 3.6 shows the ultimate moment M u and the ratios of the post-yield stiffness to initial stiffness r
required to Ruaumoko input file.
4.3.3
Plastic Hinge Lengths
As was shown in section 3.2.2 two recommendations were used, and the maximum value taken Paulay
& Priestley, 1992 and Priestley & Kowalsky, 2000
l p = 0.2l w + 0.03hn
(3.2)
l p = 0.054hn + 0.022 f y d b
Where hn is the total height of the wall, d b diameter and f y yield stress of the wall vertical
reinforcement. Typical values of the plastic hinge length are such that 0.3 <
lp
lw
< 0.8 , and Table 4.7
shows the results obtained using equation 3.2

Table 4.7 Plastic hinges lengths values for each structural wall from equation (3.2a) and (3.2b)
Equation No.
(3.2a)
(3.2b)
0.3 <
lp
lw
< 0.8
WALL A (mm) WALL B (mm) WALL C (mm) WALL D (mm) WALL E (mm) WALL F (mm)
1176.9
1353.8
1707.5
2061.3
2415.0
2768.8
519.6
841.2
1484.4
2127.6
2770.8
3414.0
0.24
0.27
0.34
0.43
0.55
0.68
Notice that Eq. (3.2a) governs Walls A and B, while Eq. (3.2b) governs from Wall C to Wall F.
4.3.4
Hysteresis Rule
Structural walls were model considering that the base of the wall behaves inelastically and above the
first story the structure is expected to remain elastic. Then plastic hinges will occur at the base of the
columns. The Modified Takeda rule (Otani, 1974) was used to represent the behavior of reinforced
concrete member, with three extra parameters, unloading proportional to inverse square root of
ductility reached (ALFA), reloading points towards maximum moment-curvature point reached
(BETA), and the unloading and reloading behavior parameter (NF). Also, a fourth parameter (KKK)
is required to specify which of the two types of unloading behavior are used. In these analyses,
parameters have been chosen as follows: ALFA = 0.5, BETA = 0, NF = 1.0 (recommended values for
reloading stiffness power factor) and KKK = 2 (Emori and Schnobrich unloading). This rule is a
much better representation of the hysteresis properties of reinforced concrete.
42
F
dp
dp
Fy +
rKo
Ko
Ku=Ko(dy/dm)
KL
dy
KL
Ku
rKo
Fy -
dm
Ku =Ku(Ko,)
=0, Ku=ko
Increasing a softens unloading
KL = KL(Ko,)
=oKL points to B
1KL tend to point to A
Increasing stiffnes reloading
Figure 4.6 The Modified Takeda hysteretic rule.
4.3.5
Viscous Damping
In Ruaumoko, a Rayleigh damping model can be used with either initial stiffness or tangent stiffness,
where the only difference is either the use of initial elastic stiffness or the current tangent stiffness.
Rayleigh viscous damping is determined from a sum of proportional mass M and stiffness K terms.
C = M + K
(4.17)
The coefficients and are computed to give the required level of viscous damping at two different
frequencies. This results in increased damping as frequency increases, and therefore higher damping
applied to higher modes. As highlighted in the Ruaumoko documentation (Carr, 1998), this can lead
to very unrealistic damping values being applied to higher modes. This is especially important for
structures subjected to strong-ground motion, such as the records used in this analysis, described in
Section 4.3.7.
A viscous damping value of 5% is typically assumed for the analysis. This may be appropriate for
elastic analysis, but when hysteresis models are incorporated into an inelastic analysis, this may
overestimate the actual damping. Hysteresis rules are based on laboratory testing, and should be
representative of the total structural damping, in both the elastic and inelastic ranges. Non-structural
damping will also contribute, and a value of 4% seems reasonable to take this into account.
43
Carr (1998) recommends use of uniform damping, or Rayleigh damping based on the tangent stiffness
matrix. In the latter case, values of damping for the higher modes should be less than 100% of critical
damping. Use of the tangent stiffness matrix results in an unrealistic increase in viscous damping
when a member becomes inelastic. However, it is thought that this may help to offset the large
damping that may result in higher modes through inappropriate use of the Rayleigh model.
In this project, a Rayleigh damping model based on the tangent stiffness matrix has been used as a
recommendation (Carr, 1997). A value of 5% damping was applied to the first mode, and 4% to the
second. Ruaumoko generates the proportionality constants and from these values.
4.3.6
Shear Deformation
Because the aspect ratio of height to depth is much higher for structural walls than for beams, shear
deformations can be much more important. Paulay and Priestley, 1992 recommended the use of a
modification to the effect of moment of inertia when the aspect ratio is less than 4.0 (section 3.2.7) to
take into account shear deformations. This reduction is suggested for when "squat" and "slender"
walls are coupled, to ensure that the distribution of load is not skewed by inappropriate relative
stiffnesses. Because floor diaphragms are assumed to be flexible out-of-plane, the wall in Building A
is not coupled, and therefore this recommendation does not apply here. Shear force and moment
distributions should not be affected significantly, except for higher modes. However, displacements
were required from the analysis in order to analyze ductility demands, so shear deformations were
taken into account in the analysis.
4.3.7
Input Ground Motion
Five Artificial accelerograms were generated so that they matched the elastic response spectrum given
in the Figure 4.2. The duration of each accelerogram was 25 sec. In Figure 4.7 are shown the elastic
acceleration and displacement response spectrum obtained using EC8 and the acceleration generated
using artificial accelerograms.
44
1.2
Acceleration spectra EC8 mod

Generate accelerogram 1
1.0
acceleration (g)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Period (sec)
Figure 4.7a Comparisons between EC8 and artificial accelerograms matching Elastic acceleration
response spectrum
0.70
displacement spectra EC8 mod

0.60
Displacement (m)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Period (sec)
Figure 4.7b Comparisons between EC8 and artificial accelerograms matching Elastic displacement
response spectrum.
Results of Displacement based design and time history dynamic analysis is presented in figures 4.8 to
4.13.
45
Distribution of Shear - Wall A

Comparison THA and DBD Analysis
7
Height (m)
3
Shear at 0.5 intensity

Shear DBD Analysis
Shear DBD at overstrength

Shear DBD dynamic amplification
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.8a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Distribution of Moments - Wall A

7
Moment at 0.5 intensity

Moment DBD Analysis
Height (m)
Moment DBD dynamic amplification
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.8b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
46
1300
1400
Displacement Profile - Wall A

7
Height (m)
2
Displacement at 0.5 intensity
Displacement DBD Analysis
0
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.30
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.8c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
Envelope of Interstory Drift - Wall A

7
Interstory drift at 0.5 intensity
Interstory drift DBD Analysis
Height (m)
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Figure 4.8d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall A.
47
4.5
5.0
Distribution of shear - Wall B

15
shear at 1.0 intensity
12
Shear DBD Analysis

Height (m)
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Shear (kNm)
Figure 4.9a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.

15
12

Moment DBD Analysis
Height (m)
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.9b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
48
3250
3500
Displacement profile - Wall B

15.00
12.00
Height (m)
9.00
6.00
Displacement at DBD Analysis
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.9c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall B.
Envelope of interstory Drift - Wall B

15
12
Height (m)
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Figure 4.9d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall B
49
5.0
Distribution of Shear - Wall C

27
24

21
Shear DBD analysis

Height (m)
18
15
12
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.10a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Distribution of Moments - Wall C

27
24

21
Moment DBD Analysis

Height (m)
18
15
12
3
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.10b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
50
8500
9000
Displacement profile - Wall C

27
24
21
Height (m)
18
15
12
9
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
4.0
4.5
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.10c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall C.
Envelope of Interstory Drift - Wall C

27
Intersotyr drift at 2.0 intensity
24
21
Height (m)
18
15
12
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Figure 4.10d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall C
51
Distribution of Shear - Wall D

39
36

33

Shear DBD Analysis
30

27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.11a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Distribution of Moments - Wall D

39
36
33

30
Moment DBD Analysis

Moment dynamic amplification
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.11b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
52
17000
18000
Displacement profile - Wall D

39
36
33
30
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.11c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall D.
Envelope of Interstory Drift - Wall D

39
Interstory drist at 1.0 intensity
36
33
30
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Figure 4.11d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall D
53
4.5
5.0
Distribution of Shear - Wall E

51
48
45

42
Shear DBD Analysis
39
36
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.12a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Distribution of Moments - Wall E

51
48
45

42
39
Moment DBD Analysis

36
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.12b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
54
27500
Displacement profile - Wall E

51
48
45
42
39
36
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15

12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.12c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
Envelope of Interstory Drift - Wall E

51
48
45
42
39
36
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
Interstory dirft at 0.5 intensity

12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
Figure 4.12d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall E.
55
4.0
4.3
4.5
Distribution of Shear - Wall F

63
60
57
54

51
48
Shear DBD Analysis
45

42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
Shear (kN)
Figure 4.13a. Shear along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Distribution of Moments - Wall F

63
60
57
54
51

Moment DBD Analysis
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
30000
32500
35000
37500
Moment (kNm)
Figure 4.13b. Moments along the heights for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
56
40000
42500
Displacement profile - Wall F

63
60
57
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.13c. Diplacement profile for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
Envelope of Interstory Drift - Wall F

63
60
57
54
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
Interstory drift 0.5 intensity

18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
Figure 4.13d. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis Wall F.
57
4.0
4.3
4.5
Chapter 5. Discussion
5.
DISCUSSION
5.1 COMPARISON TIME HISTORY DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITH DISPLACEMENT

BASED DESIGN ANALYSIS
Figures 4.8 to 4.13 show the results for shear, moments, displacement and interstory drift for
displacement based design and time history dynamic analysis.
5.1.1
Shear Distribution.
Shear distribution for displacement-based design along the height of each wall seems to be under
conservative. Considering higher mode effects in the shears obtained for displacement base design
and given the factor for dynamic amplification factor v , the distribution for walls B and C fix well at
midheight but not at the top or bottom of the walls, but these higher mode effects in Walls D, E and F
are significantly important at top and bottom of the walls and do not fix well with the time history
dynamic analysis and they must be taken into account. Wall A is not greatly affected by higher mode
effects so the analysis needs only to be carried out by adjusting a factor that increases the shear force.
Shear is also very sensitive to level of excitation. At low intensity levels (0.5 times the intensity) and
small height walls (25 m) no high mode effects are presented, but as soon as the height increases,
higher mode are presented and the shear distribution changes from parabolic expression to polynomial
one.
When multiplying the intensity of the excitation by one, higher mode effects are introduced very
smoothly at the top of the walls at relatively small heights of walls. At greater intensity levels, 1.5 and
2.0 times the level of excitation, higher mode effects are very important at top and bottom of the walls.
58
Figure 5.1 shows the ratio between time history analysis and displacement base design shear
distribution of each floor and each wall for intensity 1.0. At the base of the walls A and B this factor
is about 1.5 and 1.8 and for walls C to F the factor is 2.5 to 2.9. Notice also for walls C to F that when
there is an increase in the height, the factor decreases up to the midheight of the wall and subsequently
increases again.
Amplification factors along the height
intensity 1.0
63
60
57
54
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
Wall A
18
Wall B
15
Wall C
12
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
6
3
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
V THA / V DBD
Figure 5.1 Relation of shears at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Displacement base
A new expression is suggested that takes into account higher mode effects, which depend on the story
height and the total height of each wall.
For walls greater than 6 m height, the equation to amplify the displacement based design shear force
must be applied
h B
V = V DBD i
A
V = V DBD exp
h1 C
with hi <
H
2
(5.1)
H
with hi
2
where hi is the interstorey height and H the total height of the wall. The coefficients A , B , C and
D can be obtained from the equations
59
A = 0.0056 H 2 + 0.19 H 10.54

B = 0.74 H + 9.43
(5.2)
C = 0.0014 H 2 + 0.22 H + 2.58

D = 0.51H + 0.40
Figure 5.2 will show the shear distribution considering the equation 5.1 and 5.2
Distribution of shear - Wall B
Comparison THA and DBD Analysis with proposed equation
15
Shear DBD Analysis
12

Proposed shear amplification factor
Height (m)
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Shear (kNm)
Figure 5.2a Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0 Wall A
Distribution of Shear - Wall C
27
24

Shear DBD analysis
21

Height (m)
18
15
12
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Shear (kN)
Figure 5.2b Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0- Wall B
60
Distribution of Shear - Wall D

39
36

Shear DBD Analysis
33

30
Proposed Shear amplification factor

27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
1350
1500
1650
1800
Shear (kN)
Figure 5.2c Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0- Wall C
Distribution of Shear - Wall E

51
48
45
42
Shear DBD Analysis

39
36
pProposed Shear amplificartion factor
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
Shear (kN)
Figure 5.2d Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0- Wall D
61
Distribution of Shear - Wall F

63
60
57
54
Shear DBD Analysis
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
1350
1500
1650
1800
1950
2100
2250
Shear (kN)
Figure 5.2e Shear distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.2 at intensity 1.0- Wall E
5.1.2
Moments Distribution
Distribution of moments obtained using displacement based design fix well at the base of each wall.
Higher mode effects are presented in each wall and the ratio between time history dynamic analysis
and displacement base design moment are shown presented Figure 5.3.
Amplification factors along the height
intensity 1.0
60
57
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
Wall A
18
Wall B
15
Wall C
12
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
6
3
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
M THA / M DBD
Figure 5.3 Relation of moments at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Displacement base
62
5.0
This figure shows that amplification factors can be modelled considering a bi-linear approximation,
from the base to the midheight and an approximate expression after the midheight of the wall.
Moment distributions obtained for time history are highly influenced by the intensity of the level of
excitation. At 1.5 and 2.0 times the intensity, moments at midheight of the walls are significantly
increased due to the higher modes, and have to be taken into account.
A new expression it is suggested that takes into account higher mode effects, which depend on story
height of the wall. A linear variation from the base up to midheight of the wall is considered, where at
midheight up to the top the exponential equation must be take into account
M = M DBD exp
hi B
hi
H
2
(5.3)
where hi is the interstorey height and H the total height of the wall. The coefficients A and B can
be obtained from the equations
A = 0.49H + 3.2
(5.4)
B = 0.0038 H 2 + 0.083H 0.32
Figure 5.4 will show the shear distribution considering the equation 5.3 and 5.4
Distribution of Moments - Wall A
7
Moment DBD Analysis

Series7
Height (m)
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4a Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall A
63

15

Moment DBD Analysis
12

Proposed moment amplification factor
Height (m)
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4b Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall B
Distribution of Moments - Wall C

27
24

Moment DBD Analysis
21
Height (m)
18
15
12
9
6
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4c Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall C
64
Distribution of Moments - Wall D

39
36

Moment DBD Analysis
Moment dynamic amplification
33
30
Proposed moment aplification factor
27
Height (m)
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4d Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall D
Distribution of Moments - Wall E

51
48
45
Moment DBD Analysis
42
39
Proposed moment aplification factor
36
Height (m)
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4e Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall E
65
Distribution of Moments - Wall F

63
60
57
54
Moment DBD Analysis
51
48
45
42
Height (m)
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
30000
32500
35000
37500
40000
42500
Moment (kNm)
Figure 5.4f Moment distribution considering higher mode effects from equation 5.3 at intensity 1.0-Wall F
5.1.3
Displacement profile
Displacement based design gives good approximation in the distribution of displacements at low story
walls up to 15 m, but as soon as the height increases, displacement profiles are not conservative.
Time history dynamic analysis shows that for low intensities and small stories wall, the displacement
profile can be approximated as linear distribution, but at higher stories walls, this distribution is not
linear. Higher intensities of the excitation (1.5 or 2.0 times) show that linear distribution can be
assumed linear along the height of the walls for pre designs taking into account stiffness degradation at
the bottom of the walls. In any case, for design purpose, displacements will be evaluated extensively.
5.1.4
Interstory drift
Structural walls were designed to drift limit of 2%, for that reason, this value is reached at the top of
each wall. Interstory drift for time history dynamic analysis for walls A and B is very close to this
value. For wall C to F, the interstory drift at top of the walls is bigger that the interstory drift limit of
2%.
Intensity of the earthquake level is an also important issue to be discussed. It can be seen that the
66
targets of the interstory drift depend on story height and intensity. Figure 5.5 shows the variation
obtained of the interstory drift for each wall and for each level of intensity.
Intensity of the level of earthquake versus interstory drift at the top of each wall
6.0
Wall A
5.5
Wall B
Wall C
5.0
Wall D
Wall E
4.5
Wall F
Interstory drift at top (%)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.25
2.5
Intensity
Figure 5.5 Intensity of the level of earthquake versus interstory drift at the top of each wall.
It is proposed here that drift limit of 1.5%, can be assumed for intensities 0.5. Intensities of 1.0, 2.5%
in the interstory drift limit could be acceptable. At intensities of 1.5, 3.5% in the interstory drift limit
can be assumed for displacement-based design and at very big intensities, interstory drift limits cannot
be formulated prior to an analysis.
5.2 COMPARISON
OF
TIME
HISTORY
DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
WITH
MODAL
COMBINATION ANALYSIS - SRSS

A forced Based design method involves determining the elastic response lateral forces and dividing
by a force reduction factor representing the effects of ductility. In order to analyse these effects, from
time history dynamic analysis it was obtain the maximum ductility at 1.0 times the intensity of the
earthquake.
The distribution of moment and shears for modal superposition was analysed based on a forced
67
reduction factor based on the displacement ductility from table 3.1 only in the first mode and no
reduction factors in higher modes, moment and shear distribution are shown in figure 5.9 to 5.14.
5.2.1
Shear Distribution.
Considering ductility reduction factor in all the vibration modes and only in the first mode is analysed,
it seems that the shear distribution approximates better the time history dynamic analysis. For wall A
this effect cannot be observed due to the fact that no higher effects occur, but for walls B to E a very
good approximation is observed. It can also be observed that shear distribution for Wall F does not fit
well the values obtained with time history dynamic analysis.
Amplification factors along the height considering displacement ductility in all modes
intensity 1.0
60
57
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
V THA / V modal combination
Figure 5.7a Relation of shears at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination
and displacement ductility reduction factor applied to all vibration modes at intensity 1.0
Figure 5.7 shows the shear distribution ratio between time history dynamic analysis and modal
combination considering force reduction factor (maximum displacement ductility obtained from THA)
only in the first vibration mode. Notice that maximum values are obtained at midheight of each wall,
and the maximum value of the ratio is obtained in the highest wall as was mentioned before.
68
Amplification factors along the height considering displacement ductility in 1st mode
intensity 1.0
60
57
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
V THA / V modal combination
Figure 5.7b Relation of shears at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination
and displacement ductility reduction factor applied only to 1st vibration mode at intensity 1.0
5.2.2
Moment Distribution.
Considering ductility reduction factor only in the first mode, it seems that moment distribution fits the
upper midheight of the walls, except for wall F where the distribution of moments along the height
fixes very well the moment from time history dynamic analysis.
Considering the force reduction factor as the maximum displacement ductility in all modes of
vibration it can be observed that moments are underestimated even for very small earthquakes
intensities.
Figure 5.6 shows the moment distribution ratio between time history dynamic analysis and modal
combination considering force reduction factor (maximum displacement ductility obtained from THA)
only in the first vibration mode. Notice that maximum values are obtained at of the height of each
wall and here the wall F fits very well the distribution of moments obtained for time history dynamic
analysis.
69
Amplification factors along the height considering displacement ductility in all modes
intensity 1.0
60
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
57
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
M THA / M modal combiantion
Figure 5.8a Relation of moments at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination
and displacement ductility reduction factor applied only to all vibration modes at intensity 1.0
Amplification factors along the height considering displacement ductility in 1st mode
intensity 1.0
60
Wall A
Wall B
Wall C
Wall D
Wall E
Wall F
57
54
51
48
45
42
39
Height (m)
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
M THA / M modal combiantion
Figure 5.8b Relation of moments at each floor for Time history dynamic analysis and Modal combination
and displacement ductility reduction factor applied only to 1st vibration mode at intensity 1.0
70
71
Chapter 6. Conclusions
6.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has investigated the displacement-based design of cantilever walls of different heights, and
the seismic response to code-compatible accelerograms using time-history analyses.
The
displacement- based designs were compared with designs based on force principles. Analysis of the
designs and time history results leads to the following conclusions:
Displacement-based designs using an upper storey drift of 2% resulted in widely varying

ductility factors for the walls. For the two-storey wall, the design displacement ductility level
was 6.4, while for the 12, 16 and 20 storey walls, the design level of ductility was less than
1.5, with the 20-storey wall responding elastically at the design drift. The fundamental elastic
periods for the walls were calculated based on realistic assessments of stiffness at first yield
of the reinforcement, and were much larger than assumed by normal code equations. A
comparison is shown in Table 6.1, where the code equation refers to the height-dependent
equation of the Eurocode EC8, given in Eqn (4.5), the values listed for I = 0.5Igross are the
values resulting from the multi-mode force-based design procedure, and the column listed
Time History refers to values computed by the time history analysis program Ruaumoko
using the displacement based designs.
Table 6.1 Fundamental periods of the walls from different approaches
WALL
STORIES
2
4
8
12
16
20
CODE
I = 0.5Igross
EQUATION
0.29
0.48
0.81
1.10
1.37
1.62
0.34
0.80
1.88
2.72
3.39
3.65
TIME
HISTORY
0.60
1.20
2.26
3.21
4.09
4.77
The three different design procedures investigated also resulted in different required wall
strengths. These are summarized in Table 6.2. It will be noted that the equivalent lateral force
procedure requires higher base shear strength than does displacement-based design for all six
walls, but the multimode design results in a requirement for significantly weaker designs for
the taller walls. This is the result of the adopted force-reduction factor of 4, which is
unreasonable for the taller walls.
Table 6.2 Design Base Shear Strength from Different Design Approaches
72
Chapter 6. Conclusions
WALL
STOREYS
2
4
8
12
16
20
DISP.
BASED
DESIGN
242
312
446
590
664
830
EQUIV.
LATERAL
FORCE
294
589
962
1177
1359
1520
MULTIMODE
ANALYSIS
238
333
351
449
562
503
Dynamic time-history analyses of the walls under a suite of code-compatible earthquake

records indicated that the displacement profiles obtained at the design intensity were very
close to the design profiles used for the displacement-based design procedure for the shorter
walls, but exceeded the design profiles by as much as 25% for the taller walls. Part of the
reason for this could be attributed to an unrealistically low yield displacement (and hence
unrealistically high damping) used in the design process. However, it also appeared that the
displacement-based design procedure currently uses a damping value that is too high for walls
with low displacement ductility demand. Further research is required to investigate this.
Envelopes of shear force and bending moment were obtained for each of the walls at four
different levels of seismic intensity, ranging from 50% to 200% of the design value. These
were compared with the design shear force and bending moments based on the ductile
response in the first mode, and the envelope of forces resulting from the multi-mode analyses,
reduced by the force-reduction factor of 4. A capacity design amplification of the ductile
first-mode shear force and bending moment envelopes in accordance with New Zealand
design practice was also considered. It was found that the shear force and bending moment
envelopes both increased with increasing seismic intensity, and that even at low seismic
intensities the key values exceeded the design envelopes, indicating non-conservative design.
The effect was particularly pronounced for the taller walls. At high intensities, base shear
force was as high as 2.5 to 3.0 times the capacity design shear force, and the bending moment
at wall mid-height was also substantially higher (often by more than 100%) than the capacity
bending moment envelope
The dependence of shear force (in particular) and bending moment on seismic intensity is a
matter for some concern. First, it is noted that the NZ capacity design procedure appears to
be non-conservative at the design level of intensity. Second, the fundamental precept of
capacity design is that it desensitizes the structure from the earthquake characteristics,
including the intensity. It is generally thought that an increase in seismic intensity above the
design level will just lead to an increase in ductility demand, which can be accommodated by
non-critical spalling and increased crack widths in the designed plastic hinge region. The
results presented in this report indicate that desensitization has not been achieved, and the
shear forces will increase if the earthquake exceeds the design level, leading to increased
probability of brittle shear failure. In a similar fashion, the bending moment at levels above
the base, and particularly in the upper half of the walls, can greatly exceed the design level,
leading to the possibility of plastic hinge formation at unintended locations. The level of
potential excess of demand over capacity indicates that considerable ductility could be
anticipated at these unintended locations. It should be noted that these regions will normally
be designed without close spaced transverse reinforcement, and will also not benefit by the
confinement and anti-buckling stability provided by the foundation structure.
73
Chapter 7. Bibliography
7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
ACI Committee 318 [1998]. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1998.
2.
Antoniou, S. [2001]. SeismoSuite Version 0.9.1. Imperial College of Science Technology &
Medicine, Engineering Seismology & Earthquake Engineering Section.
3.
Blakeley, R.W.G., R.C. Cooney & L.M. Meggett [1975]. Seismic shear loading at flexural
capacity in cantilever wall structures. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 8(4), 278-290.
4.
Carr, A.J. [1996]. Ruaumoko Program for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis. Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
5.
Carr, A.J. [1998]. Ruaumoko The Maori God of Volcanoes and Earthquakes.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
6.
Eurocode 8 [1994]. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, ENV 19982, Comit Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, 1994.
7.
Oesterle, R. G. And Fiorato A.E. amd corley W. G. Reinforcement Detail for Earthquake
Resistant Structural Walls. Concrete International Design and Construction. 2(12). 1980.
8.
Paulay, T. & M.J.N. Priestley [1992]. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. John Wiley, New York.
9.
Priestley, M.J.N. & M.J. Kowalsky [1998]. Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of
rectangular cantilever structural walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 31(6), 246-259.
10.
Priestley, M.J.N. & M.J. Kowalsky [2000]. Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Concrete Buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 33(4), 421445.
11.
Priestley, M.J.N. [XXX]. Displacement Based Approach of Rational Limit Staes Design of
New Structures Keynotes Address. Procedeens 11 European Earthquake Engineering. Paris
74
Chapter 7. Bibliography
12.
Standards Association of New Zealand [1992]. Code of Practice for Structural Design and
Design Loadings for Buildings. NZS 4203. Volume 1 code of practice and Volume 2 commentary.
New Zealand Standard. Wellington. 1992
75

Dissertation2002 Amaris PDF

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

Dissertation2002 Amaris PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universit degli Studi

di Studi Superiori di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION OF SEISMIC MOMENTS AND

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION OF SEISMIC MOMENTS AND

LIST OF FIGURES .......

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE .....

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION

CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS ......

LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION ......

BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION

SHEAR FORCE DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION

DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL WALLS...

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ....

Performance Limit State ...

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN..

FORCE BASED DESIGN PROCEDURE.....

Equivalent Lateral Force Profile....

NON LINEAR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE...

Dynamic Analysis Modelling Assuptions.

COMPARISON TIME HISTORY DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITH

FORCE BASED DESIGN PROCEDURE.....

The Modified Takeda hysteretic rule.

Plastic hinge lengths, hysteresis rules,

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS

LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

Linear distribution (assumed

2hs for structures with 7 or more stories.

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

Linear distribution (assumed

Distribution of moment at over

SHEAR FORCE DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

Also shown is the shear obtained by

for 6 < n < 15

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

Shear with dynamic amplification

Distribution of shear for

VU along the height of the wall shall be

Chapter 2. Current design provisions

Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls

DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL WALLS

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN

Direct displacement-based design characterizes the structure by secant stiffness at a maximum

Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls

Figure 3.1 Idealization of different structural walls.

Performance Limit State

Design Displacement Spectra

Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls

Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls

Where mi are the story masses.

Chapter 3. Design Of Structural Walls

where y is the yield displacement and

where y is the yield curvature which can be calculated by

The curvature ductility is determined by

Effective Period and Effective Stiffness