Structures Congress 2015 2510

Seismic Design and Performance of High-Rise Steel Buildings under Various

International Design Codes
Nadeem Hussain1 and M. Shahria Alam2
1
PhD Student, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni Avenue,
Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V1V7
2
Associate Professor, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni
Avenue, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V1V7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract

The increase in the number of seismic events and their devastations in the recent past
has assisted in many developments in seismic codes of various international
standards. Codes adopt conventional elastic methods in the design of structures to
estimate the strength and deformation demand employing seismic design factors to
represent the nonlinear behavior of the structure. Four typical high-rise steel buildings
of 8, 12, 16 and 20 stories are designed and detailed using various seismic codes.
Seismic response of the reference buildings is assessed with detailed fiber-based
models using inelastic pushover and incremental dynamic analyses subject to 20
strong seismic records. The proposed study provides comparisons between different
seismic design codes for the range of the reference buildings at different performance
levels. This study may help the designers in optimizing their design in the seismic
regions and provide an insight to assess the seismic performance and predict the
behavior at different performance levels.
Keywords: High-rise steel buildings; Seismic codes; Seismic design; Seismic performance; IDA

INTRODUCTION
The advent of high-rise buildings due to increase in urban habitat represents
concentrated human and monetary assets posing potential consequences from natural
hazards, particularly from the seismic events. In the recent past, international seismic
codes have witnessed several developments while employing their seismic parameters
in estimating the strength and deformation to represent the nonlinear behavior of the
structures. This emphasizes the need to analyze and design a range of high-rise steel
buildings using various international design codes and assess their seismic
performance using non-linear analysis.
To meet the study objective, five international seismic building codes namely,
European Codes (EN, 2006), International Building Code (ICC, 2012) with American
Society for Civil Engineers code for loads (ASCE 7, 2010), National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC, 2005), New Zealand Code (NZS, 2004) and Uniform Building
Code (ICBO, 1997) are selected in the present study. Seismic performance of the
reference high-rise buildings is assessed through the fragility relationships. To
provide the most realistic option for the study region, analytical simulations are
adopted to generate the damage data required for the fragility functions.
The aim of the present study is to analyze and design a range of high-rise steel
buildings with various international design codes, assess the seismic performance and
compare their behavior between various international codes. Detailed three-

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2511

dimensional (3D) simulation models are designed and developed covering a wide
range of high-rise buildings with varying heights using selected international codes.
Inelastic static pushover analyses (IPAs) and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs)
under the effect of 20 selected natural and artificial seismic records representing the
study region (Dubai) are presented to derive the vulnerability relationships.
Performance limit states are evaluated and assessed using fragility curves by the IDAs
to provide insights to the seismic response of the reference structures up to collapse.

DESIGN AND MODELING OF STEEL BUILDINGS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Four regular steel buildings of 8, 12, 16 and 20 stories are considered and fully
designed to meet the objective of the current study. All the selected reference
buildings are conceptualized on a similar layout as shown in Figure 1, representing a
typical footprint of high-rise buildings in the study region. These buildings measure
30m x 30m horizontally on either direction laid over a seven grid system of six equal
sized bays of 5m each. The system selected in the present study represents a typical
frame structure that resist horizontal loads efficiently from lateral forces by providing
higher stiffness for the number of stories considered (e.g., Ali and Moon, 2007). Each
building comprises of a ground story and typical upper stories. The typical height of
all floors is 3.3 meters except for the ground story, which is 4.5 meters. The total
heights for the four buildings are 27.60, 40.80, 54.00 and 67.20 meters, respectively.
Self-weight of structural members along with the uniformly distributed load of 4.0
kN/m2 on slabs accounting for partitions and floorings, etc., are considered as the
permanent loads while designing the selected buildings. A live load of 4.8 kN/m2 on
the stair and exit ways and 2.0 kN/m2 on the remaining floor areas is distributed
uniformly in all the selected buildings. The lateral force resisting system of each of
the four reference buildings consists of columns, braces and beams which are
modeled using structural steel I-sections braced in the central span with constant yield
strength of 350 MPa along the height of the structure to effectively resist the lateral
actions. Cast-in-situ slabs of 0.16m thickness reinforced to prevent undesirable failure
modes are placed over the I-sections forming the floor slab system. Lateral actions
generated due to seismic forces are considered in the design of floor slabs. 40 MPa
concrete cube strength and 420 MPa steel reinforcement yield strength is used for the
cast-in-situ floor slabs.
Detailed 3D models are developed using the structural analysis and design program
ETABS (CSI, 2012) in the design of the four reference buildings using all the selected
design codes. The buildings are designed for residential use and founded on a dense to
very dense soil with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.15g representing the
selected region (Dubai, UAE) with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Since the PGA of NBCC is based on 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, its
value is enhanced by 1.5 times (Ellingwood, 1994) to unify with other codes to a
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the sake of comparison. Accordingly,
the spectral acceleration values from smith river case (P. W. Basham, D. H.
Weichert.) representing the study region are selected for the design for NBCC. For the
sake of brevity, the seismic design parameters adopted in the design for the five
selected international codes are presented in Table 1. Four reference steel buildings of
8, 12, 16 and 20 stories are analyzed and designed to various load combinations based
on the design provisions recommended by the respective five selected international
codes using ETABS and detailed accordingly.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2512
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Typical building layout

(b) Reference buildings showing 8, 12, 16 and 20 stories

Figure 1. Typical building layout for the reference buildings (8 story, 12 story, 16 story and 20 story)

Linear or elastic static and dynamic analyses are performed on the reference buildings
using Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (ELFA) method and Modal Response
Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) method under the selected codes. Preliminary design and
three-dimensional response characteristics of the reference buildings under various
seismic codes are assessed using equivalent lateral force analysis. The design and
detailing of the selected steel buildings using various codes are done using the modal
response spectrum analysis. Accordingly, the elastic dynamic 3D seismic response
characteristics of the reference buildings are compared with various codes analysis.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2513

Table 1. Summary of seismic design parameters of all the selected design codes

Seismic Soil/Site
Seismic Design Parameters
Codes Class
Ground acceleration, ag = 0.15g
EN, 2006 B Spectrum type = 2
behavior factor, q = 4 and Correction factor, λ = 1

Spectral accelerations, Ss = 0.80 and S1 = 0.32

ICC, 2012 C Response modification factor, R = 3.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Importance factor, I = 1

PGA = 0.24 g (value of 0.15g for 10% probability of exceedance

in 50 years), Fa and Fv =1, I = 1, Higher mode factor, Mv = 1.2
NBCC, 2005 C
S0.2 = 0.52, S0.2 = 0.31, S1.0 = 0.15 and S2.0 = 0.086
Ductility modifier, Rd = 3.0, Overstrength modifier, Ro = 1.3

Hazard factor, Z = 0.15g

NZS, 2004 C Return period = 1 and Near fault distance, D = 150 kM
Structural performance factor, Sp = 0.7 and Ductility factor, μ = 3.0

Seismic zone factor, Z = 0.15 and Zone classification = 2A

UBC, 1997 Sc Site coefficients, Ca = 0.18 and Cv = 0.25
Overstrength factor, R = 3.25 and Importance factor, I = 1

Non-linear or inelastic static and dynamic analyses are performed in this study by
adopting the fiber-based idealization approach using ZEUS-NL (Elnashai, et al,
2012). As a conservative approach, the most optimistic building model generated
from the selected seismic design codes are considered from each of the four reference
buildings for the inelastic analysis. Actual material strengths are employed in the
analysis of the ZEUS-NL models. Seismic performance is assessed on the selected
buildings for their respective heights through the fiber modeling approach. The
section is subdivided into different fibers and non-linear stress-strain response of the
member is integrated and monitored at two sections. This approach provides an
explicit platform accounting for the entire dimensions of the section and its
inelasticity, covering both geometric nonlinearities and the material inelasticity.
Modeling uncertainty is reduced by this idealization and moment-curvature
relationships are avoided. Each structural member is modeled using several number of
cubic elasto-plastic elements that are capable of representing the spread of yielding in
the member. The present study adopts this modeling approach based on the practice in
large research projects in the previous studies covering multi-story buildings and
complex bridges (e.g., Jeong et al, , 2012; A. Mwafy, 2012). This idealization is
adopted to evaluate the limit states and develop the fragility relationships in the
present study. Since 3D analysis is computationally demanding while covering wide
range of reference buildings and seismic records, Incremental dynamic analyses
(IDAs) are performed using the two-dimensional (2D) analysis approach. Five
framing systems are assumed to resist the seismic forces in each horizontal direction.
Each of the framing systems is loaded with 20% of the total mass of the building.
Accordingly, the governing frame as shown in Figure 1(a) is considered in the present
study based on the results obtained from 3D ETABS models to reduce the number of
IDAs.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2514

ELASTIC SEISMIC RESPONSE ASSESSMENT

Four reference buildings considered in the current study are analyzed and designed
with the selected international codes. The elastic seismic response of these reference
buildings is evaluated with respect to their elastic periods based on different mode
shapes, design base shear, story shear and story drift in comparison with various
international codes. The accuracy of the designs are controlled by keeping the
fundamental building periods under the allowable tolerance limits and compared with
respect to different mode shapes as indicated in Table 2.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It is worth noting that the elastic periods resemble a fair similarity for the respective
story heights with most of the selected international codes except the NBCC. The
drifts in the buildings designed with the NBCC illustrate a lower value with lower
fundamental periods in comparison with the other codes. Thus, making the buildings
with NBCC more stiffer than the buildings designed with other codes. Whereas, the
buildings designed with IBC and NZS indicate a higher period justified with a larger
drift as compared with the NBCC.
Table 2. Elastic periods of the reference buildings with various international codes
Elastic Period, secs
Building Code
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
EN 1.121 0.963 0.931 0.363 0.323 0.308
IBC 1.115 1.044 0.958 0.368 0.349 0.323
8 Story NBCC 0.794 0.761 0.719 0.261 0.260 0.242
NZS 1.154 1.073 0.984 0.373 0.356 0.328
UBC 0.880 0.841 0.754 0.299 0.287 0.260
EN 1.534 1.308 1.271 0.524 0.459 0.444
IBC 1.763 1.620 1.459 0.564 0.532 0.487
12 Story NBCC 1.235 1.221 1.137 0.408 0.402 0.376
NZS 1.785 1.644 1.478 0.568 0.536 0.490
UBC 1.220 1.207 1.064 0.423 0.416 0.363
EN 1.691 1.687 1.482 0.605 0.604 0.540
IBC 2.316 2.171 1.934 0.710 0.678 0.620
16 Story NBCC 1.660 1.574 1.476 0.573 0.520 0.495
NZS 2.205 2.018 1.876 0.679 0.678 0.590
UBC 1.693 1.651 1.489 0.567 0.554 0.499
EN 2.130 2.079 1.848 0.736 0.713 0.655
IBC 2.963 2.797 2.434 0.912 0.872 0.786
20 Story NBCC 2.053 1.973 1.809 0.697 0.652 0.611
NZS 2.387 2.300 2.003 0.786 0.759 0.676
UBC 2.164 2.102 1.879 0.715 0.702 0.634

Figure 2(a) compares the base shear of the reference buildings along the weaker axis
using various design codes. NBCC and IBC have similar base shear coefficients for
the respective building heights. EN and NZS codes govern for buildings up to 12
stories with EN being the most optimum design, while NBCC and IBC govern for
buildings greater than 12 stories with IBC being the most optimum design as shown in
Figure 2(a). The values of the base shear coefficients reduce with increase in building
height under all codes. Comparisons of these parameters of the reference structures
with the selected international codes are presented in the subsequent sections. The
most optimum code designed building from the selected codes is considered for each

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2515

story height category and assessed for the seismic performance using the IPAs and
IDAs.

Elastic base shear comparison Governing elastic base shear

0.09 0.09
0.08 EN IBC NBCC NZS UBC EN
Base shear coefficient, V/W

Base shear coefficient, V/W

0.08
0.07 IBC
0.07 NBCC
0.06
NZS
0.05 0.06
UBC
0.04 0.05
0.03
0.04
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.02
0.01 0.03
0.00 0.02
8 Story 12 Story 16 Story 20 Story 8S 12 S 16 S 20 S
Storey Story

(a) (b)

Figure 2 . (a) Elastic Base shear and (b) Governing base shear comparison of 8, 12, 16 and 20 story
buildings with various international codes

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS UNCERTAINTY

The site of the reference steel buildings (Dubai, UAE) is characterized by long-
distance events generated from Southern Iran and the earthquakes from the local
seismic faults (Aldama-Bustos et al, 2009; Mwafy et al, 2006; Shama, 2011). The
present study focuses on severe distant earthquake scenarios based on the conclusions
drawn from recent fragility assessment studies carried out on multi-story buildings
with varying heights, which indicated a higher impact on the response of the buildings
with long-distance events (Mwafy et al, 2006). Since the study region lacks in real
strong seismic records, 20 strong ground motions were employed in the present study
representing far-field seismic events (Ambraseys et al., 2004; Hussain, 2012; PEER,
2013) as shown in Figure 3. The selected input ground motions represent severe
distant earthquakes of 6.93 to 7.62 magnitude with epicentral distance of 95 km to
160 km matching the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for Dubai for 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. The ground motion uncertainty, which is considered as the
most significant source of modeling uncertainty (e.g., Porter et al, 2002) is accounted
in the present study by scaling the selected records to a design PGA of 0.16g and its
multiples. The IDA analysis procedure using the fiber-based modeling approach
contribute significantly in reducing the ground motion uncertainties as compared with
other alternatives, hence adopted in the present study.

PERFORMANCE LIMIT STATE INDICATORS

Performance of the reference steel buildings are assessed using the vulnerability
curves in the present study that are derived based on the three performance limit
states, namely: (i) Immediate Occupancy ‘IO’, (ii) Life Safety ‘LS’, and (iii) Collapse
Prevention ‘CP’. Maximum inter-story drift ratio (IDR) is used as a simple
performance measure since it correlates well with structural damage indicating
different levels of inelastic behavior in the structure. Hence, used as the primary
performance criterion to evaluate the damage states of the reference buildings in the
present study. Three performance levels adopted for the braced steel frame structures
in the present study as 0.5%, 0.5% to 1.5% and 2.0% based on FEMA 273
(ASCE/SEI, 2007; FEMA 273, 1997) are related to minor yielding or buckling of

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2516

braces (IO), significant yielding or damage (LS), and extensive yielding resulting in
failure (CP), respectively. CP performance level of 2.0% is adopted based on the
above code provisions.
IPAs are conducted for the reference steel structures in estimating the different
performance limit states. Lateral capacity curves are monitored and the sequence of
yielding is traced along the curve of each building to estimate the IO and LS limit
state up to progress of the CP performance limit state. Uniform and the inverted
triangular lateral load distributions patterns are employed in the IPA based on the
recommendations of the modern design guidelines (ASCE, 2006). Initial stiffness and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lateral capacity is estimated in the present study using uniform lateral load distribution
as it has more conservative values than the inverted triangular load distribution pattern
for high-rise buildings (e.g., Mwafy et al., 2006). Envelopes showing the lateral
capacity of the reference buildings of varying story heights along the weaker direction
are shown in Figure 4. It is worth noting that the first indication of yielding in all the
reference structures is witnessed in the braced members followed with the horizontal
members and then in the vertical members and finally the global yield. This is in
good agreement with a strong column and weak beam theory.

Base Shear Vs Roof Drift Response

0.6
8 Storey
12 Storey
0.5
Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

16 Storey
20 Storey
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3
Roof Drift (%)

Figure 2. Response spectra showing 20 input Figure 1. Capacity envelopes of reference

ground motions with UHS for Dubai (A. M. structures with varying story heights using
Mwafy et al., 2013.) IPA.

The IO performance limit state is considered at the first indication of yield when the
strain of the structural steel exceeds the yield strain of the member. The structure at
this state remains in elastic range so that the non-structural parts of the structure are
not significantly damaged and the building can be occupied immediately after the
earthquake with little or no repair. The IDRs for different story heights at the first
indication of yield in all reference structures are witnessed initially in the bracing
members defining the IO performance limit of the respective buildings as 0.78%,
0.68%, 0.64% and 0.51% for the 8, 12, 16 and 20 story, respectively. These values are
employed in the present study as they are the most conservative values obtained from
both the IPAs and IDAs.
The LS limit state in the present study is considered at the global yield threshold,
which is witnessed with the starting point of the post-elastic branch in the capacity
curve. This limit falls between the IO and CP limits representing a significant damage
sustained by the structure accounting for a reasonable margin of safety against

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2517

collapse whose margin is considered in ASCE-41 (2006) as 50% of the CP limit state.
This value is evaluated as 1.14%, 1.04%, 1.03% and 1.00% for the 8, 12, 16 and 20
story buildings, respectively. The adopted values of IO, LS and CP limit states are
found consistent with earlier studies and closer to FEMA limits (1997). These
performance limit state values are used in deriving the fragility curves by performing
extensive IDAs under 20 selected ground motions as described in the following
sections.

SCALING APPROACH AND FRAGILITY RELATIONSHIPS USING IDA

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Peak ground accelerations and Spectral accelerations were recommended in the

previous studies as some of the forms of measuring the ground motion intensity. The
accuracy of the fragility curve depends on the statistical presentation of the choice of
measure of the ground motion intensity along the horizontal axis representing a
particular seismic scenario. Hence, scaling these ground motions using their PGA
values directly relate to the respective seismic forces with the input ground
accelerations. This simple scaling method is employed in the present study as it is in a
good agreement with the approach adopted in the previous studies and by the
respective design codes. PGA is used to scale the selected input ground motions to
derive the fragility relationships based on the expression proposed by Wen et al.
(2004). Based on the above approach, the IDAs are carried out for all the reference
buildings to evaluate different limit states up to the satisfaction levels. Each of the
selected ground motions is scaled up with an increment of scaling factor of 0.16g that
represents with the design PGA of the reference buildings. To improve the resolution
of the vulnerability relationships and ensure that all limit states are undertaken, time
history analyses are performed for each building using an input ground motion
starting from a PGA of 0.16g till a PGA of 1.28g.
Fragility relationships can be derived using different approaches (Calvi et al., 2006).
In the present study, numerical simulations are adopted to generate the damage data as
it is considered to be a practical option for the study region due to the presence of
very limited earthquake records (Jeong et al., 2012). IDAs are used in monitoring the
local and global response parameters to derive the fragility relationships of the four
buildings under the effect of 20 seismic records throughout the scaling range (0.16g to
1.28g), as discussed above. Extensive time history analyses are performed to generate
the PGA-IDR plot as shown in Figure 5. Each point on the plot represents a PGA-IDR
value that is obtained from the various inelastic response history analysis. To derive
the fragility relationships, the power-law equations required are obtained by carrying
out the regression analyses. For the sake of brevity, the IDA results of a 20 story
building are illustrated in Figure 5. The results from the extensive IDAs from the four
reference buildings are used in the calculation of the statistical distribution at different
intensity levels to determine the probability of exceeding each limit state. The
calculated probability data is plotted with respect to the PGAs to derive the fragility
curves of the 20 story building as shown in Figure 5.
Comparison between the various fragility curves of the reference steel buildings at
different limit states using the above methodology is presented in Figure 6. The IO
fragility curves are seen steeper in comparison with the LS fragility curves. This is
followed by the CP fragility curve. This indicates a presence of higher lateral stiffness
in the structures in the elastic range, decreasing the variability of IDRs significantly

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2518

due to different input ground motions prior to its yielding. The probability of
exceeding limit states increases with an increase in the height of the building under all
the limit state cases.

20 STORY BUILIDNG 20 STORY BUILDING

9 1
8 y= 4.6029x0.9884
Max Interstory Drift Ratio (%)

Moderate
R² = 0.7948 Minor
7 0.8

P(Limit State|GMI)
Severe
6
0.6
5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Collapse
4
0.4
3
CP : 2.0% IO
2 0.2 LS
LS : 1.00%
1 CP
0 IO : 0.51% 0
0.00 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.96 1.12 1.28 0 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.8 0.96 1.12 1.28
PGA (g) PGA (g)
Figure 5. IDA results and fragility relationships of 20 story building

IO @ 1.28 PGA - All Buildings IO @ 0.16 PGA - All Buildings

1.0 0.8
8 Story
Minor
12 Story
0.8
P(Limit State|GMI)
P(Limit State|GMI)

0.6 16 Story
20 Story
0.6
Moderate 0.4
0.4
8 Story
0.2
0.2 12 Story
16 Story
20 Story Moderate
0.0 0
0.00 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.96 1.12 1.28 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
PGA (g) PGA (g)

LS @ 1.128 PGA - All Buildings CP @ 1.28 PGA - All Buildings

1.0 1.0
8 Story
12 Story
0.8 0.8 16 Story
P(Limit State|GMI)
P(Limit State|GMI)

20 Story
Moderate
0.6 0.6
Severe
Severe

0.4 0.4
Collapse

8 Story
0.2 12 Story 0.2
16 Story
20 Story
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.96 1.12 1.28 0.00 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.96 1.12 1.28
PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 6. Fragility curves of reference buildings at IO, LS and CP limit states

For the sake of brevity, four PGA levels, namely 0.16g, 0.24g, 0.32g, and 0.64g are
considered to determine the limit state probabilities by calculating the differences
between them as shown in Figure 7. It is observed that at the design PGA of 0.16g,
the probability of moderate damage to the buildings is in the range of 3% to 45% from
8 story to 20 story, while the probability of severe damage to the buildings is less than
20% and collapse is almost negligible. At the design intensity level, ordinary
buildings are usually designed with a certain level of damage, hence the performance

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2519

is satisfactory and acceptable. Further, the probability of minor/no damage in the

reference buildings under the most conservative seismic scenario indicate a
satisfactory performance. At the 1.5 times the design PGA (i.e., 0.24g), the
probability of moderate and severe damage to the buildings are less than 50% and
32%, respectively, and the probability of collapse ranges between 2% to 12% from 8
story to 20 story, respectively. The results indicate that the performance of the four
reference structures is satisfactory and acceptable at the above PGA. The damage
states increase slightly with increasing height of the buildings and the results of the
four reference buildings are comparable.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Minor Damage State Moderate Damage State Severe Damage State Collapse Damage State

Damage State Probability of Exceedance - 0.16g Damage State Probability of Exceedance - 0.24g
1.00 0.60

Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance

0.80
0.40
0.60

0.40
0.20
0.20

0.00 0.00
8 Story 12 Story 16 Story 20 Story 8 Story 12 Story 16 Story 20 Story
Reference Buildings Reference Buildings

Figure 7. Damage state probabilities at different input ground motions

OVERALL IMPACT ON DESIGN MARGINS

The reference buildings are compared and their impact on the design safety is
assessed with respect to the governing design code on each of the reference buildings
as shown in Figure 8. Eurocode governs for buildings lower than 13 stories as
observed from Figure 2(b), hence used to assess the seismic performance of 8 and 12
stories, respectively. IBC governs for buildings higher than 13 stories as observed
from Figure 2(b), hence used to assess the seismic performance of 16 and 20 stories,
respectively. It can be concluded from the above that the buildings performed fairly
well over the design PGA and their performance was acceptable. Based on the above,
comparison is made with the other codes in each of the respective building as shown
in Figure 8. A design margin of 47.4% and 32.6% is observed in excess for the
buildings designed with UBC in comparison with EN for 8 and 12 story buildings,
respectively. Whereas, a design margin of 27% and 42% is observed in excess for the
buildings designed with UBC and NZS in comparison with IBC for 16 and 20 story,
respectively. This may provide a significant reduction in the use of structural steel in
the respective buildings designed between different codes with an acceptable seismic
performance level and safety margin.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated on the seismic design of a range of high-rise steel buildings
under various international design codes and its performance. The study included the
detailed structural design and numerical modeling of four contemporary high-rise
steel buildings with varying heights, ranging from 8 stories to 20 stories designed
under five international seismic codes. Detailed fiber-based simulation models and 20

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2520

earthquake records were used in carrying out extensive IPAs and IDAs. Local and
global response were utilized in evaluating and verifying the limit states and deriving
the vulnerability relationships of the reference structures. Statistical distributions
obtained from the IDA results were utilized in evaluating the probabilities of
exceeding different limit states at different ground motion intensity levels.

8 story 12 story
0.10 0.08
45.6% 47.4%
Base shear coefficient, V/W

32.6%

Base shear coefficient, V/W

41.1%
0.08 20.4%
0.06 10.3%
8.77% 00.0% 9.1%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

00.0%
0.06
0.04
0.04

0.02
0.02

0.00 0.00
EN NZS IBC NBCC UBC EN NZS NBCC IBC UBC
Codes Codes

16 story 20 story
0.06 0.06
27.9%
Base shear coefficient, V/W

Base shear coefficient, V/W

0.05 14.8% 17.3 % 0.05 41.9% 41.9%
00.0% 0.05% 32.3%
0.04 0.04
00.0% 0.02%
0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
IBC NBCC EN NZS UBC IBC NBCC UBC EN NZS
Codes Codes

Figure 8. Overall impact on design safety margin in the reference buildings with respect to the
governing design code

The reference buildings were compared and their impact on the design safety was
assessed with respect to the governing design code on each of the reference buildings.
Eurocode for buildings lower than 13 stories and IBC for buildings above 13 stories
governed the design of the reference buildings and the selection criteria for seismic
performance was made accordingly. A design safety margin of 47.4% and 32.6% was
observed in excess for the buildings designed with UBC in comparison with EN for 8
and 12 story buildings, respectively. Whereas, a design safety margin of 27% and
42% was observed in excess for the buildings designed with UBC and NZS in
comparison with IBC for 16 and 20 story, respectively. This provides a significant
reduction in the use of structural steel in the respective buildings designed between
different codes. The seismic performance of the reference structures was comparable
and acceptable at both the design PGA and 1.5 times the design PGA levels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada through Discover Grant.

REFERENCES
Aldama-Bustos, G., Bommer, J. J., Fenton, C. H., & Stafford, P. J. (2009). Probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis for rock sites in the cities of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ra’s Al Khaymah, United Arab
Emirates. Georisk, 3(1), 1–29.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 2521

Ali, M. M., & Moon, K. S. (2007). Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and future
prospects. Architectural Science Review, 50(3), 205–223.
Ambraseys, N. N., Douglas, J., Sigbjornsson, R., Berge-Thierry, C., Suhadolc, P., Costa, G., & Smit, P.
M. (2004). Dissemination of European strong-motion data, . using strong-motion datascape
navigator, CD ROM collection. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, U.K.
ASCE. (2006). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06
“formerly FEMA 356”. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston VA.
ASCE 7. (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of
Civil Engineers.
ASCE/SEI, A. 41-06. (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06).
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA; 2007.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J. J., Restrepo-Vélez, L. F., & Crowley, H. (2006).
Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET
Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3), 75–104.
CSI. (2012). ETABS - Integrated Building Design Software,. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
California.
Ellingwood, B. R. (1994). Probability-based codified design for earthquakes. Engineering Structures,
16(7), 498–506.
Elnashai, A., Papanikolaou, V., & Lee, D. (2012). ZEUS-NL - A system for inelastic analysis of
structures, user’s manual, Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL; 2012.
EN. (2006). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance.
FEMA 273. (1997). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997a). “‘NEHRP provisions
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.’” Rep. FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and 274
(Commentary), Washington, D.C.
ICBO. (1997). Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. International Conference of Building Offi cials:
Whittier, CA.
ICC. (2012). International Building Code,. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL.
Jeong, S. H., Mwafy, A., & Elnashai, A. (2012). Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of code-
compliant multi-story RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 34, 527-53.
Mwafy, A. (2012). Analytically derived fragility relationships for the modern high rise buildings in
the UAE. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings.
Mwafy, A., Elnashai, A., Sigbjörnsson, R., & Salama, A. (2006). Significance of severe distant and
moderate close earthquakes on design and behavior of tall buildings. The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings, 15(4), 391–416.
Mwafy, A. M., Hussain, N., & Khaled El-Sawy. (n.d.). Seismic performance and cost-effectiveness of
high-rise buildings with increasing concrete strength. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 10(1002/tall.1165).
NBCC. (2005). National Building Code of Canada, 2005.
NZS. (2004). NZS 1170.5:2004 Structural design actions - Earthquake actions - New Zealand.
P. W. Basham, D. H. Weichert, F. M. A. and M. J. B. (n.d.). New probabilistic strong seismic ground
motion maps of Canada. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75(2), 563–595.
PEER. (2013). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
California. PEER NGA Database.
Porter, K. A., Beck, J. L., & Shaikutdinov, R. V. (2002). Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major
uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra, 18(4): 719.
Shama, A. A. (2011). Site specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at Dubai Creek on the west
coast of UAE. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 10(1), 143–152.
Wen, Y. K., Ellingwood, B. R., & JM, B. (2004). Vulnerability function framework for consequence-
based engineering. Mid-America Earthquake Center Project DS-4 Report, (University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.).

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015