Multiple Plastic Hinge Concept For High-Rise Reinforced-Concrete Core Wall Buildings

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB9

Multiple plastic hinge concept for
high-rise reinforced-concrete core
wall buildings
Ahmed
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 September 2016 Issue SB9
Pages 688701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00045
Paper 1500045
Received 09/05/2014
Accepted 01/10/2015
Published online 18/02/2016
Keywords: buildings, structures & design/seismic engineering
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Multiple plastic hinge concept

for high-rise reinforced-concrete
core wall buildings
Munir Ahmed PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Mohammad Ali
Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan
(dr.munir@jinnah.edu.pk; munir562002@gmail.com)
High-rise reinforced-concrete core wall buildings are a very popular choice in areas of high seismic activity.
Conventionally, a single plastic hinge is allowed at the base of the wall to control responses in these buildings. Recent
studies, however, show that these core walls will be subjected to large inelastic seismic demands in a seismic event.
It is not economical and sometimes difficult to design these walls for large shear and moment demands. To reduce
these demands, a multiple plastic hinges concept is proposed in this study. Locations of the multiple plastic hinges
are identified using elastic modal decomposition analysis. A 40-storey case study building is investigated in detail to
check the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The seismic demands are found using non-linear response history
analysis at maximum considered earthquake level. A comparison of the multiple plastic hinges approach with the
single plastic hinge approach shows that seismic shear demand reduces 17% at the base of the wall, whereas moment
demand reduces 33 and 60% at the base and mid-height of the wall, respectively.
Notation
Ag
fc
FD
h
Lw
R
Rmodified
SD
y
p
y
1.
gross area of core wall

concrete cylinder compressive strength at 28 days
drift ratio due to floor inclination
total height of wall
length of wall
response modification factor
modified response modification factor
storey drift ratio
yield displacement
plastic rotation
yield rotation
Introduction
High-rise reinforced-concrete (RC) core wall buildings are

being built in areas of high seismic activity. The structural
system of these buildings is classified as a building frame
system according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997).
For reasons of economy, shorter construction time and flexible
architecture, these systems are preferred over other lateralforce-resisting systems, for example, dual structural systems
(Maffei and Yuen, 2007; Moehle, 2008). The core wall buildings consist of a central core wall and peripheral columns connected by post-tensioned slabs at each storey. Sometimes, the
core wall is also connected to the outer columns through outriggers one or two storeys deep to control the lateral displacements. The stiffness of the core wall is much more than the
combined stiffness of the peripheral columns. Therefore, lateral
load is mostly resisted by the core wall. For both the design
688
basis earthquake (DBE) and the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) levels, it is not economical to design these walls
in the elastic range. Under such severe shaking, a flexural
single plastic hinge (SPH) is normally allowed to form at the
base of the core wall to reduce the seismic demands. However,
the plastic rotation in the hinge zone must be within an acceptable limit and the wall above the hinge zone is expected to
remain elastic (Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004); CSA Standard
A233-04 (CSA, 2005); NZS 3101; Panagiotou et al., 2007;
Paulay and Priestley, 1992).
Recent studies on 60-storey and 40-storey RC core wall buildings with SPH at the base in high-seismic areas show that the
base shear demand at MCE level is as high as 1520% of the
total building weight. Furthermore, bending moment demands
at upper levels are greater than at the base level (Klemencic,
2008; Klemencic et al., 2007; Zekioglu et al., 2007). To
address these large shear and moment demands, the design
may not be economically justified for the rare event of a MCE
level. Furthermore, the problem of placing the reinforcement
may arise due to reinforcement congestion. Therefore, these
demands need to be reduced by different possible measures.
Several approaches have been proposed to reduce these
demands. One approach is to allow the wall to yield at any
location along its height. This approach is referred as the
ductile wall (DW) approach and was proposed by Rad and
Adebar (2008). This approach is not economical owing to
stringent ductile detailing requirements all along the wall
height. Furthermore, these buildings may not be economically
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.


wall buildings
Ahmed
repairable owing to spread of damage in a seismic event. The

second approach is the dual plastic hinge (DPH) approach, in
which one hinge is allowed at the mid-height in addition to the
plastic hinge at the base (Panagiotou and Restrepo, 2009).
This approach is effective only for reduction of second-mode
bending moment demand at the mid-height of the wall.
of commercial consultancy. There is a need to explore a more

simplified method, which will consume less time and still give
reasonable locations of the plastic hinges for seismic demand
reduction in higher modes of high-rise buildings.
It is important to understand the reasons for large inelastic

seismic demands. For this purpose, the inelastic higher modes
were identified using an uncoupled modal response history
analysis (UMRHA) procedure for a 40-storey case study building, in a study by Munir and Warnitchai (2010, 2012, 2013).
The study showed that the first four modes are dominant in
shear and moment demands. Furthermore, only the first-mode
shear and moment demands were effectively reduced owing
to the induction of a SPH at the base. To reduce demands in
the second and third modes, the plastic hinges were induced at
the anti-node of the second- and third-mode inelastic bending
moment diagrams (obtained by the UMRHA procedure). The
demands were effectively reduced owing to induction of plastic
hinges at effective locations. However, this method of locating
plastic hinges is based on the UMRHA procedure, which is a
tedious process and may be difficult to apply in the framework
In the present study, DBE elastic modal demands are found

using elastic modal decomposition analysis, which is very
simple and much less time consuming when compared to the
UMRHA procedure. The plastic hinges are then induced at
the anti-nodes of the elastic bending moment demands of RC
core wall for dominant elastic modes. The NLRHA is then
performed for seven spectrally matched time histories for the
cases of the SPH, proposed multiple plastic hinges (MPH),
DW and DPH approaches. The results obtained from the
different cases are compared to check the effectiveness of the
different approaches.
2.
The case study building and elastic

modal and design demands
2.1
Description of the case study building
The building is taken from previous research studies (Klemencic,
2008; Klemencic et al., 2007; Munir and Warnitchai, 2010;
72 m
72 m
87 m
3 @ 72 m
87 m
X
Plan of the building
3D view of the building
Figure 1. Plan and 3D model of the building
689


wall buildings
Ahmed
Zekioglu et al., 2007). The typical floor plan of the building

and three-dimensional (3D) view is shown in Figure 1. This is a
40-storey residential tower above the ground with three levels
below ground level. The typical storey height is 3 m and a
lobby-level height is 6 m. Thus, the total height of the building
above ground is 120 m. The building is supported by a thick
foundation slab to transfer load on a firm stratum. The soil condition beneath and surrounding the building is represented by
stiff clayey soil. This is equivalent to the soil type SD in the
UBC, 97 (UBC, 1997). The structural components of the building comprise a central RC core wall (750 mm TH up to level
20 and 600 mm TH from level 21 to 40), 14 peripheral columns

(900 mm 900 mm up to level 20 and 600 mm 600 mm from
level 21 to level 40) and 200-mm-thick post-tensioned concrete
flat slabs resting on the peripheral columns and the central core.
There are door openings in the wall. The openings are covered
by coupling beams. The size of coupling beams is 600 mm
(wide) 1500 mm (deep) above lobby level, 750 mm (wide)
800 mm (deep) from level 3 to level 20, whereas it is 600 mm
(wide) 700 mm (deep) from level 21 to 40. The span of the
coupling beams is 1800 mm. Thus, span-to-depth ratio for the
majority of coupling beams is about 225 and 257 for beams up
to level 20 and above level 20, respectively.
SH-PR-360 30
HM-H-090 40
LP-HSP-000 15
CM-EUR-090 40
Hon-MGH-EW 40
Chichi-Taipei-090 60
Imp-Ch-012 40
30
25
20
15
Spectral acceleration: g
The central core wall forms the lateral load-resisting system,

whereas, post-tensioned slabs and peripheral columns mainly
form the gravity load-resisting system.
Response spectra of scaled

ground motions
35
2.2
Target spectra
DBE spectrum (UBC-97, Zone 4, SD)
MCE spectrum (DBE spectrum 15)
10
05
0
0
5
(a)
20
10
15
10
05
0
9
10
Natural period: s
(b)
Figure 2. Comparison of the matched spectra of the ground

motions with DBE and MCE spectra
DBE elastic modal demands by modal response

spectrum analysis
The modal response spectrum analysis of the building is performed using the UBC-97 design basis response spectrum for
seismic zone 4 and soil type SD for 5% damping in each
and every mode. UBC-97 is used because it has been widely
employed as a model code for seismic design of buildings in
many countries and the response spectrum analysis procedure
in its successor, the International Building Code (IBC, 2006),
is almost identical to that of the UBC-97. The response spectrum is shown in Figure 2. The building is analysed in the
X-direction only for brevity and this is considered sufficient
for the purpose of this study. The commercial software Etabs
(CSI, 2006) is used for the modal response spectrum analysis
procedure. The first six modes are found to be sufficient
for 90% mass participation in the modal response spectrum
analysis. However, results show that both shear and moment
demands are mainly dominated by the first four modes. Mode
shapes for the first four modes are shown in Figure 3, and
45
45
40
40
35
30
30
25
25
20
Mode 1
15
Mode 2
Level no.
Level no.
35
05
15
10
10
0
10
20
05
Modal value
1.0
1.0
0
0
05
5
Modal value
05
Figure 3. Mode shapes for first four dominant modes
690
Mode 3
Mode 4
1.0


wall buildings
Ahmed
their time periods/frequencies and modal participation factors

are shown in Table 1. The combined demands are obtained by
combining individual modal demands using the complete
quadratic combination (CQC) method.
3.
The DBE elastic demands in the first four dominant modes,

and the combined moment and shear demands in the core
wall, are shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(b), respectively. It is
clear from both moment and shear demands that higher
modes, such as second and third modes, are also contributing
significantly to shear and moment demands in addition to the
first mode. It is not economical or practical to design the wall
for these large demands. Therefore, certain measures need to
be used to reduce these demands.
Mode 1
Time period: s
1
3902
2
0746
3
0303
4
0172
Total mass participation
Frequency
Modal mass
participation: %
026
134
330
582
66
20
7
3
96
Multiple plastic hinges approach for

reduction of inelastic seismic demands
As mentioned in the introduction, different approaches have

been proposed to reduce large elastic demands. One widely
used approach is the conventional SPH approach, in which a
plastic hinge is allowed at the base of the wall. The second approach is the DW approach, in which plastic hinges are
allowed anywhere along the height of the wall. The third
approach is the DPH approach, where two plastic hinges one
at the base and a second at the mid-height are allowed. All
these approaches are shown schematically in Figure 5.
Another approach termed the MPH approach is proposed in this
study to reduce large elastic seismic demands. In this approach,
multiple plastic hinges are proposed at different locations along
the wall height. The flexural yielding of the plastic hinges is a
function of moment demands in the wall; therefore, suitable
locations of the flexural plastic hinges are identified based on
DBE elastic moment demands of the core wall. Multiple plastic
hinges are induced at the anti-node of the second and third
mode moment demands, as shown in Figure 6. The anti-node is
the location of maximum bending moment for a particular
mode. These plastic hinges are in addition to the plastic hinge at
the base, which is supposed to control the first mode response.
To check the effectiveness of all these approaches, non-linear
response history analysis (NLRHA) is performed in the following sections and the results are compared.
Table 1. Time period, frequencies and modal mass participation

for first four dominant modes
40
40
35
35
Combined
30
30
Mode 1
Mode 2
25
Mode 3
Mode 4
20
Level no.
Level no.
25
15
20
15
10
10
0
5
5
0
3
Moment: kN m 106
(a)
50
100
Shear: kN 103
(b)
Figure 4. DBE elastic modal and total seismic demands: (a) elastic
modal DBE moment demands and elastic moment demand;
(b) elastic modal DBE shear demand and elastic shear demand
691


wall buildings
Ahmed
Core wall
Plastic hinge
all along the
height
Columns
Plastic
hinges
Slabs
Plastic
hinge at the
base
Basements
DW approach by Rad and Adebar

(2008)
Conventional SPH approach
DPH approach by Panagiotou and Restrepo

(2009)
Figure 5. Locations of the plastic hinges for proposed MPH,

DW and DPH approaches
Mode 2
35
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
15
25
Level no.
20
20
15
20
10
10
Columns
15
10
Mode 3
40
40
Level no.
Level no.
Mode 1
40
Slabs
0.5
Core
wall
Plastic
hinges
1
Building elevation
showing plastic hinges
location
DBE modal elastic moment demands: kN m 106
Figure 6. Proposed location of the plastic hinges based on the

moment demands of the second and third elastic mode at DBE
level
4.
Description of model for NLRHA and

selection of ground motions
The non-linear model is prepared in commercial software

Perform-3D (CSI, 2005). In the case of the SPH approach, a
plastic hinge is modelled at the first and second storeys. In the
case of the DW approach, on the other hand, plastic hinges
are modelled all along the wall height. For the DPH approach,
a second hinge at mid-height of the 20th and 21st storeys is
692
modelled in addition to a plastic hinge at the first and second

storeys. In the MPH case, plastic hinges are allowed at four
locations of the shear wall, namely, first and second storeys,
12th and 13th storeys, 21st and 22nd storeys, and 28th and
29th storeys.
The core wall plan is divided into 22 elements. Each storey
is modelled using 22 one-storey-high (3 m) shear wall elements


wall buildings
Ahmed
of Perform-3D. In total, 946 elements are used to model 43

storeys. In storey numbers 1, 2 (for hinge 1), 12, 13 (for
hinge 2), 21, 22 (for hinge 3), and 28, 29 (for hinge 4), these
elements are modelled as inelastic shear wall elements, whereas
in other storeys, they are modelled as elastic shear wall
elements. Each shear wall element comprised eight concrete
and eight steel fibres at the plastic hinge locations, whereas the
wall at other locations is modelled as linear elastic shear wall
elements. Previous studies (Adebar et al., 2007; Wallace and
Moehle, 1992) show that plastic hinge length of the high-rise
wall may be taken as 1/2 to 2/3 of the wall length (Lw).
The length of the wall in this case is 10 m. Therefore, plastic
hinges were allowed over a two-storey height (6 m), which is
approximately 2/3Lw. However, one-storey-high inelastic shear
wall elements were used over the plastic hinge length based
on section 6.8.2.2.2 of Fema-356 (Fema, 2000), which mentions that plastic hinge length should be smaller, of one-storey
height or Lw/2.
beams is influenced by shear, as an approximation the characteristics of the plastic hinges are determined by beam crosssection properties and the plastic hinge length is assumed to be
05 times the depth of the beams, as it is thought these
assumptions do not influence the main conclusions of this
work. The remaining portion of the coupling beam is modelled
as an elastic beam element. All slabs are modelled by elastic
slab elements, whereas columns are modelled by column
elements of the Perform-3D.
To achieve optimal reduction in the seismic force demands,

the flexural strength at the plastic hinge locations should be as
low as possible to allow early yielding of the wall, but at the
same time plastic hinge rotation as well as related deformation
demands such as storey drift, racking shear deformation, and
so on, should be within permissible limits. In this study, flexural strength is based on the DBE design moment demands
determined by the code-based procedure of UBC-97. These
are the larger of the values obtained either (a) by dividing
the combined elastic demands by appropriate force reduction
factor R of 55 or (b) by dividing by the modified force
reduction factor Rmodified required to satisfy the requirement
of 90% of the base shear obtained from the static analysis procedure. Rmodified is obtained by dividing the elastic combined
demands by 90% of the base shear obtained from the static
analysis procedure. Force reduction factor (R or Rmodified) is
the numerical coefficient representative of the inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity of the lateral forceresisting system. There are two main reasons for setting flexural strength in this way: the first is that this is based on the
standard code-based design; the second reason is that modern
codes such as LATBDC-2008 recommend capacity design as a
first step of performance-based design, and designers are using
the code-based design as the initial step, then later confirm the
performance at MCE level by the NLRHA procedure. The
design demands so obtained, and provided strength at plastic
hinge locations, are shown later in Figure 12 (Section 6). The
provided strength is more than the design demands because of
fulfilment of the minimum requirement of reinforcement for
serviceability in the wall. The minimum longitudinal reinforcement ratio (area of reinforcement as the percentage of gross
area of the wall) of 025% is provided to satisfy the serviceability requirement as per ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008).
The span-to-depth ratio of coupling beams is in the range of
225257 in this study. Even though the behaviour of these
Seven sets of ground motions are selected and matched to the

MCE target spectrum by using the time domain spectral matching technique of Lilhanand and Tseng (1988). The software
RSP match (Hancock et al., 2006) is used for this purpose. The
target spectrum and spectra of seven matched time histories
used in that study are shown in Figure 2. Non-linear material
models similar to those proposed by Park and Mander et al.
(1984) were assigned for rebars and concrete material, respectively (Figure 7). The model damping is set as per recommendations of CTBUH (2008) and Satake et al. (2003).
5.
Non-linear analysis and comparison of

the results for different approaches
The NLRHA is performed using seven spectrally matched

time histories. Different response quantities such as displacement, plastic hinge rotations, shear deformation angle (storey
racking shear deformation), bending moment and shear
force demands are obtained from this analysis. Shear deformation angle is more relevant for assessment of damage to
non-structural components such as facades and interior partitions. It is preferred over the storey drift ratio because, in the
case of high-rise buildings, its value can be larger than the
value of the storey drift ratio (CTBUH, 2008).
Performance-based design is essentially displacementcontrolled design; in other words, plastic hinge rotations,
storey drift and material strains should remain within permissible limits set by different standards. Furthermore, the plastic
rotations of the hinges are required to determine the level
of ductile detailing at the locations of the plastic hinges.
The plastic hinge rotations are calculated by multiplying the
curvature by the plastic hinge length. The mean plastic hinge
rotations obtained from NLRHA for the MPH approach are
0009, 0006, 0006 and 0004 for plastic hinge numbers 1 to
4 from bottom to top, respectively. The plastic rotations calculated for different hinges for all cases are within the acceptable
limit of 0015 according to tables 618 in Fema-356 (Fema,
2000). Furthermore, maximum tension and compression strain
in the rebars and concrete remain within the permissible limits
of 005 and 0003, respectively. Please note that the maximum
useable strain for unconfined concrete is 0002 as per
Fema-356 (Fema, 2000), section 6.4.3.1. The value of 0003
is worked out based on the level of the confinement effect
of concrete. This value of strain corresponds to the ultimate
concrete stress, after which strength degradation starts.
693


wall buildings
Ahmed
Concrete material
Stress
Stress
Steel material
'
fcc
fu
fy
dcEo
Eo
Eo
Eo
y
sh
Strain
c'
ft
Park envelope
Perform-3D
Cyclic
'
cc
cu
Strain
Mander envelope
Perform-3D
Unloading
Reloading
Unloading and reloading are

the same in case of tension
fy = rebar yield stress, fu = rebar ultimate stress capacity

'
y = rebar yields train, sh = strain in rebar at onset of strain hardening, fc = compressive strength of unconfined concrete
' = compressive strength of confined concrete
fcc
u = rebar ultimate strain capacity, Eo = modulus of elasticity
'c = concrete strain at fc'
'
' = concrete strain at fcc
cc
cu = ultimate strain capacity for confined concrete
Eo = tangent modulus of elasticity, dc = energy dissipation factor for the reloading stiffness
ft = tensile strength of concrete = 75 fc' (fc' is in psi)
Level no.
Figure 7. Non-linear Park steel and Mander et al.s concrete

model
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
Conventional
SPH
Proposed MPH
10
10
DPH
5
DW
5
0
Displacement: m
001
002
Figure 8. Comparison of the inelastic MCE displacement and

shear deformation angle demands for the case study building
with conventional SPH, proposed MPH, DW and DPH approaches
694
003
Shear deformation angle: rad
004

Plastic hinge no.
y: rad

wall buildings
Ahmed
p: rad
Distance to centre of hinge

length from top of building: m
Yield displacement: m
Plastic displacement: m
Plastic hinge length = one storey high = 3 m, elastic displacementa = yield displacement = y = 008 0003/Lw h 2, Lw = length of
wall = 10 m, h = 125 m
1
0001
00063
125
034
078
2
00136
90
122
3
000825
63
051
4
000353
41
014
SRSS (hinge 1 + hinge 2 + hinge 3 + hinge 4)
034
155
Total displacement (elastic + plastic)
189
Displacement from NLRHA
185
Difference: %
216
a
Elastic displacement relationship has been developed on the basis of actual elastic displacement found by pushover analysis in
first mode
Table 2. Calculation of elastic and inelastic components of

inelastic displacement at top of wall from hinge rotations and its
comparison with that obtained from NLRHA
The displacement and racking shear deformation angles for

all approaches are shown in Figure 8. Displacement in case of
the proposed MPH approach remains almost equal to the displacement for conventional SPH, DW and DPH approaches.
However, the racking deformation angle reduces at the lower
half, whereas it remains almost the same at the upper half of
the wall. The reasons for this distribution are explained for one
typical ground motion in Table 2 and Figure 9 for the proposed MPH approach. Flag-shaped behaviour, that is, the hysteretic loop concentrates towards the origin without significant
permanent deformation, is observed in all plastic hinges.
In the loading phase, the softening in lateral stiffness is mainly
caused by the cracking of RC walls. In the unloading/phase
reloading in the other direction, for a small portion instantaneous stiffness is approximately equal to the initial stiffness.
After that the lateral stiffness becomes soft, until the cracks in
the RC walls close through the effect of gravity loads and low
reinforcement ratio. The unloading path then rejoins the loading path with uncracked stiffness. By this crack-closing and
self-centring mechanism, zero residual deformation is attained
and a flag-shaped hysteretic behaviour results. This is in close
agreement with the behaviour observed during experimental
testing of a large-scale high-rise wall model simulating the first
mode lateral load pattern by Adebar et al. (2007). The wall in
that study was subjected to axial force ratio of 10% (01 f c Ag)
and minimum reinforcement ratio. It was found that the
combination of comparatively large axial force and low
reinforcement ratio was responsible for closing of the cracks
and regaining initial stiffness. Table 2 shows that plastic
hinge rotations are 00063, 00136, 000825 and 000353
for hinge numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The rotation at
each hinge is different because of different axial force ratio and
moment demand.
Total top displacement has been divided into two components,

namely, elastic displacement (due to elastic bending of the
wall) and plastic displacement (due to rigid body rotation of
the wall for each plastic hinge). It was observed from the
response spectrum elastic analysis that the elastic displacement
is dominated by the first mode. The pushover analysis in the
first mode is performed to find the actual elastic displacement.
The relationship between yield curvature and tip displacement
was developed based on the actual elastic displacement, which
shows that elastic displacement can be found by multiplying
yield curvature (the maximum elastic curvature) with 008
times the square of total height of the wall. The time history
of each plastic hinge rotation for one typical set of ground
motions is plotted in Figure 10. It can be seen that the
maximum rotations at plastic hinge numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 do
not occur simultaneously during the time history. The statistical combination rule, such as square root of sum of squares
(SRSS), is applied in structural analysis to combine two or
more response quantities when they do not achieve a maximum
value simultaneously during a response history. Therefore,
total inelastic displacement is found by combining inelastic
displacement attributable to each hinge using the SRSS combination rule. The total displacement is the sum of the elastic
and inelastic displacement.
The sum of the displacement at the top of the wall calculated
from plastic hinge rotations matches with an accuracy of 11%
the displacement obtained by NLRHA. This shows that, in
the non-linear range, the deformation of the wall concentrates
at the plastic hinges, with little deformation in between. The
racking shear deformation angle is the contribution from four
rigid body displacements due to the rotation of four plastic
hinges. Therefore, the racking shear deformation angle is
695


wall buildings
Ahmed
uin = 0162 + 045 + 076 + 030 + 011 = 178 m

45
45
40
40
35
30
Level no.
35
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
0
1
Displacement: m
2 106
Hinge 2
1 106
5 105
0012
0
0006
0000
5 105
1 106
0006
0012
t = 00073,
y = 000094,
8 105
Hinge 4
4 105
6
105
6 105
4 105
2 105
2 105
0
0015 0010 0005 0
2 105
0005 0010 0015

t = 000938,
y = 000094,
p = 000825
8 105
Rotation: rad
0
0015 00100005 5 0
2 10
4 105
6 105
0005 0010 0015

t = 000447,
y = 000094,
p = 000353
8 105
Rotation: rad
Figure 9. Calculation of elastic and inelastic components of

inelastic displacement at top of wall from hinge rotations and
comparison with that obtained from NLRHA
696
t = 00145,
y = 000094,
p = 00136
2 106
Rotation: rad
Moment: kN m
Moment: kN m
105
1 106
1 106
8 105
6
006
0
0015 001000050000 0005 0010 0015
5 105
1 106
105
002
004
Drift ratio: rad
5 105
p = 00063
2 106
Rotation: rad
Hinge 3
2 106
Moment: kN m
Moment: kN m
Hinge 1
FD
SD


wall buildings
Ahmed
Rotation: rad
0009
Initial yield time = 978 s
Maximum rotation time = 1038 s
0006
Hinge 1
0003
Yield rotation +
0
0003
Yield rotation
0
10
20
30
Time: s
0015
50

0012
Rotation: rad
40
0009
0006
Hinge 2
0003
Yield rotation +
Yield rotation
0003
10
20
30
40
50
Time: s
0009

Rotation: rad
0006
0003
Hinge 3
0
yield rotation +
0003
Yield rotation
0006
10
20
30
40
50
Time: s
Rotation: rad
0008
0004
Hinge 4
Yield rotation +
0004
Yield rotation
0008
10
20
30
40
50
Time: s
Figure 10. Curvaturetime history of hinges 1, 2, 3 and 4 for one

typical ground motion showing time instant of hinge yielding
distributed in a stepwise manner in the MPH and DPH approaches. Furthermore, the racking deformation angle is less
than that for the conventional SPH approach in the lower half
because the plastic rotation of the wall was concentrated only
at the base in the case of the conventional SPH approach,
whereas plastic rotation is distributed at four locations along
the height of the wall in the present case.
The MCE inelastic shear and moment demands are shown in
Figure 11. The shear and moment demands are reduced
significantly all along the height of the wall with 33, 17 and
60% reduction in the base shear demand, moment demand at
foundation level and moment demand at the mid-height,
respectively, as compared with those obtained from the conventional SPH approach.
The comparison of the proposed MPH approach with
the DPH approach shows that inducing plastic hinges at effective locations can smoothen the shape of bending moment
demands and hence its magnitude along the wall height.
697


wall buildings
Ahmed
40
30
Conventional
SPH approach
Proposed MPH
approach
DW approach
25
DPH approach
Level no.
35
20
15
10
5
0
5
1
2
Moment: kN m 106
40
80
Shear: kN 103
120
Figure 11. Comparison of MCE inelastic moment and shear

demands for case study building with conventional SPH, proposed
MPH, DW and DPH approaches
40
Proposed approach
Demands
35
30
DBE design
demands
25
Level no.
Provided strength at
other locations
20
Provided flexural
strength at plastic
hinge locations
15
10
5
0
5
Moment: kN m 106
(a)
2 3 4 5 6 7
Shear: kN 103
(b)
Figure 12. (a) Design demands, flexure strength provided at

plastic hinge locations, NLRHA demands and flexure strength
provided at other locations. (b) NLRHA shear demands and
provided shear strength. (c) Locations of plastic hinges
698
9
(c)


wall buildings
Ahmed
As shown in Figure 11, the moment as well as shear demand

in the proposed MPH approach are less than those of the
DPH approach, especially near one-third and two-thirds the
height of the wall. This is mainly because of the dominance of
the third mode in the absence of plastic hinge numbers 2 and 4
in the case of the DPH approach. The moment and shear
demands at these locations for the proposed plastic hinge
approach are reduced by 3040% and 1525%, respectively, in
comparison with those for the DPH approach.
yield strength will increase due to material over-strength

(expected material strength is more than the nominal material
strength and strength reduction factors). Furthermore, the
moment strength about half a storey below or above the plastic
hinge locations will also be greater, owing to the increase in
the reinforcement due to the rebars splicing.
The comparison of the MPH approach with the DW approach

shows that shear force and bending moment demands are
similar for both approaches. This indicates that it is sufficient
to induce plastic hinges at specific locations to reasonably
reduce the demands, avoiding the need to design for ductility
throughout the height of the core wall.
6.
Capacity design of structural elements

for proposed MPH approach
6.1
Structural elements designed for inelastic actions
In the previous sections, the design of the structural elements
intended to develop inelastic mechanism, namely, the elements
at plastic hinge locations, has been presented in detail. The
NLRHA demands and provided flexural and shear strength in
the core wall at intended inelastic locations (plastic hinges in
the wall) as well as other locations are shown in Figure 12. It
is noted from Figure 12 that the MCE NLRHA demands at
plastic hinge locations are about 12 times more than provided
flexure strength capacity. This is mainly because of the overstrength due to strain hardening of the rebar material.
To ensure an effective plastic hinge mechanism, the ductile
detailing and boundary elements should be provided in storey
numbers 01, 02, 12, 13, 21, 22, 28 and 29, which are designated as the plastic hinge regions. The ductile detailing should
be provided in only eight out of 40 storeys, consequently
saving a lot of reinforcement in addition to controlling the
spread of damage.
6.2
Structural elements intended to remain elastic
In the capacity design process, the relative strengths of the
different members are attributed in such a way that only the
inelastic mechanisms chosen by the designer can develop
during strong seismic shaking (Priestly, 2003). In this study,
plastic hinge formation at undesirable locations in the core
wall is avoided by providing flexural strength at these locations
about 11 times greater than the NLRHA MCE demands.
NLRHA demands and provided strength capacities are shown
in Figure 12. The nominal strength of the materials and
strength reduction factors as per ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008) are
used for calculation of flexural and shear strength capacities
for elastic actions and members. This will further enhance the
capacity of the elements, thus minimising the chance of formation of plastic hinges. This is because the actual flexural
The structural system of the case study building is a building

frame system in which post-tensioned slabs and columns carry
the gravity load (almost 50% in this case) and a minor portion
of lateral load (only about 10% in this case), whereas the core
wall carries almost all of the lateral load (90% in this case)
and some portion of the gravity load (almost 50% in this
case). The columns curvature demand and yield curvature
capacity have been checked. The maximum column curvature
demand is 0005, whereas column curvature yield capacity
with concrete strength of 8 MPa and minimum reinforcement
ratio of 1% is 0007 for a given axial load. This shows that
columns will remain elastic for a given MCE level of ground
motions. Similarly, slab elements are also expected to remain
elastic for the level of demands imposed by the given MCE
level of ground motions.
7.
&
&
&
&
&
&
Conclusions
In this study, a MPH concept in high-rise RC core wall
buildings by inducing plastic hinges at effective locations is
proposed. In this approach, locations of plastic hinges are
identified based on the DBE elastic bending moment
demands. NLRHA is then performed to verify the
reduction in the moment and shear demands as compared
to the conventional SPH, DPH and DW approaches.
The plastic hinge mechanism is explained by verifying the
displacement at the top of the wall obtained from NLRHA
with that obtained from plastic hinge rotations.
The verification results show that there is significant
reduction in shear and moment demands. The reduction is
60% in terms of moment demand at the mid-height,
whereas it is 17 and 33% in terms of the base shear and
moment demand at base level, respectively, as compared to
the conventional SPH approach.
Comparison with the DPH approach shows that the
proposed MPH approach can effectively reduce the
moment and shear demands at third-mode-dominant
locations, such as one-third and two-thirds the height of
the wall, by 3040% and 1525%, respectively.
Multiple hinges are nearly impossible from a static
viewpoint for stability of the structure. However, under
dynamic excitation, these are possible and favourable to
reduce the bending moment demands along the wall
height. Furthermore, they will flatten the shape of the
bending moment diagram and make the placement of
longitudinal reinforcement easy.
Limiting the plastic hinges to suitable locations, where
they can control the seismic demands most effectively, can
699

&
minimise the problems associated with the possibility of

developmentof plastic hinges anywhere along the wall
height. At the same time, responses associated with the
dominant higher modes can be reduced.
This work is equally important for academia and
practising engineers, especially those working in the field
of performance-based design of high-rise buildings in
commercial consultancy. This will help them to locate
plastic hinges at appropriate locations while designing their
buildings in an optimal way.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2008) ACI 318-08:
Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA.
Adebar P, Ibrahim AMM and Bryson M (2007) Test of high-rise
core wall: effective stiffness for seismic analysis. ACI
Structural Journal 104(5): 549559.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) (2004)
Eurocode-8-04: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association) (2005) Standard
A23.3- 04: Design of concrete structures. Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, p. 214.
CSI (Computers and Structures, Inc.) (2005) ETABS Extended
3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear
Version 9.0.0. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
CA, USA.
CSI (2006) Perform 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
Assessment for 3D Structures User Guide, Version 4.
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.
CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) (2008)
Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise
Buildings. A Consensus Document CTBUH Seismic
Working Group, Chicago, USA.
Fema (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2000) Fema
356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Hancock J, Watson-Lampray J, Abrahamson NA et al. (2006)
An improved method of matching response spectra of
recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets.
Imperial College Press, Journal of Earthquake Engineering
10(1): 6789.
IBC (International Building Code) (2006) IBC-2009:
International Building Code. International Code Council,
Washington DC, USA.
Klemencic R (2008) Performance based seismic
design-rising. Structure Magazine June, 1013, see
http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/
C-StructuralPractices-Klemencic-June081.pdf (accessed
02/08/2016).
700

wall buildings
Ahmed
Klemencic R, Fry A, Hooper JD and Morgen BG (2007)
Performance based design of ductile concrete core wall

buildings Issues to consider before detail analysis.
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 16(5):
599614.
Lilhanand K and Tseng WS (1988) Development and application
of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with
multiple damping design spectra. Proceedings of the 9th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto,
Japan, vol. II, pp. 819824.
Maffei J and Yuen N (2007) Seismic performance and design
requirements for high rise buildings. Structure Magazine
April, 2832, see http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/09/F-HighRise-Maffei-Apr07-onlineversion1.pdf (accessed 05/01/2016).
Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R (1984) Seismic design of
bridge piers, Research Rep. No. 84-2, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R (1988) Theoretical
stressstrain model for confined concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 114(8): 18041826.
Moehle JP (2008) Performance-based seismic design of tall
buildings in the U.S. Proceedings of the 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Munir A and Warnitchai P (2010) Reduction of inelastic seismic
demands by inducing plastic hinges at effective locations.
Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand.
Munir A and Warnitchai P (2012) The cause of
unproportionately large higher mode contributions in the
inelastic seismic responses of high-rise core-wall buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(15):
21952214.
Munir A and Warnitchai P (2013) Optimal reduction of
inelastic seismic demands in high-rise reinforced concrete
core wall buildings using energy-dissipating devices.
543568.
NZS (New Zealand Standards) (2006) NZS 3101: New Zealand
Standard, part 1 the design of concrete structures.
StandardsNew Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Panagiotou M and Restrepo JI (2009) Dual-plastic hinge design
concept for reducing higher-mode effects on high rise
cantilever wall buildings. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 38(12): 13591380.
Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI and Conte JP (2007) Shake
Table Test of a 7-Story Full Scale Reinforced Concrete
Structural Wall Building Slice Phase I: Rectangular
Wall. Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA,
SSRP 07-07 Report.
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,
USA.


wall buildings
Ahmed
Priestly MJN (2003) Does capacity design do the job?
UBC (Uniform Building Code) (1997) Uniform Building
An examination of higher mode effects in cantilever

wall. Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 36(4): 276292.
Rad BR and Adebar P (2008) Dynamic shear amplification in
high-rise concrete walls: effect of multiple flexural hinges
and shear cracking. Proceedings of the 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Satake N, Suda K, Arakawa T, Sasaki K and Tamura Y (2003)
Damping evaluation using full scale data of buildings in
Japan. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 129(4):
470477.
Code. International Conference of Building Officials,

Whittier, CA, USA, vol. 2, Chapter 16, Pages 29
to 238.
Wallace JW and Moehle JP (1992) Ductility and detailing
requirements of bearing wall buildings. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 118(6): 16251644.
Zekioglu A, Wilford M, Jin L and Melek M (2007)
Case study using the Los Angeles tall buildings
structural guidelines: 40-storey concrete core wall building.
583597.
HOW CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from
the civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
701

Multiple Plastic Hinge Concept For High-Rise Reinforced-Concrete Core Wall Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Multiple Plastic Hinge Concept For High-Rise Reinforced-Concrete Core Wall Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB9

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers