Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Seismic performance evaluation of a tall building: Practical modeling of

surrounding basement structures
Seung Yong Jeong a, Thomas H.-K. Kang a, *, Jang Keun Yoon b, Ron Klemencic c
a
Seoul National Univ., Seoul, 08826, Korea
b
DAELIM, Seoul, 03152, Korea
c
Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The seismic performance evaluation of a 49-story residential building under construction in Seoul, Korea is the
Seismic performance subject of this paper. The building for this case study has an irregular plan and a deep basement shared with
High-rise building adjacent buildings. A series of nonlinear time history analyses were carried out for the Maximum Considered
Basement structure
Earthquake (MCE) and Rare Earthquake (RE). Effects of modeling methods of the basement were studied.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Modeling of the surrounding underground structure included transfer of torsional modes, which can easily be
amplified by high frequency components of ground motions and result in localized damage at the upper part of
building. Based on the analysis presented, the basement model with surrounding underground structures and non
soil-structure interaction is recommended for a conservative design.

1. Introduction sometimes also deepen. Modeling of underground structures to which

Much previous research on performance-based seismic design
(PBSD) has been conducted, and now there are several guidelines. ASCE
41–13 [1] and FEMA 356 [2] are conventional guidelines for PBSD, but
are limited to the nonlinear static analysis and low-to-mid-rise buildings.
These guidelines present performance evaluation criteria for each
element and system. PEER/ATC 72–1 [3] is a guideline specialized for
high-rise buildings, in which modeling methods such as nonlinear ele­
ments and damping are presented. TBI 2017 [4] is also a practical
guideline for tall buildings. It presents seismic performance evaluation
criteria by service level and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), as
well as modeling methods. Although several guidelines exist today and
provide proper reference list, they do not cover seismic performance
evaluation of all high-rise buildings. Recently, many researchers have
attempted to investigate and carry out case studies of tall buildings with
unique characteristics: buildings with irregular plans [5,6], a building
with vertical irregularity [7], buildings with basement [8], and build­
ings with dual structural system [9,10]. Despite that, seismic perfor­
mance evaluations for important buildings using enhanced earthquakes,
modeling of inelastic hysteretic behavior of various elements, and
modeling of basement effects still need to be addressed.
As buildings become taller, basements of the high-rise building
seismic loads are applied is an important element in seismic design. The
basement, which is often used for parking, is usually larger than the
upper building lending itself to a lateral stiffness distribution irregu­
larity. Due to this increase in stiffness at the ground level and contri­
bution of the surrounding soil, shear reversal, called the backstay effect,
is often observed below the ground level. When a building has a deep
basement, it is difficult to predict the behavior of the underground
structure due to soil-structure interaction.
Another important issue is modeling of the basement common to
multiple towers. Residential buildings in Korea often share a huge un­
derground parking garage. Here, the in-plane load acting on the un­
derground diaphragm may be significantly different from that of a single
building due to the unsynchronized vibration where various buildings
are subject to different seismic periods. Few guidelines exist for this
case. PEER/ATC 72–1 (2010) mentions the potential for creation of
diaphragm forces due to the unsynchronized behavior of buildings with
a common basement, but no specific modeling method is addressed. The
most accurate analysis method is to model multiple towers and the
common basement simultaneously but the computational effect is sig­
nificant. Thus, an alternate model that can be used for design practice is
needed. Qi and Chen [11] studied the seismic behavior of multiple
towers on a common podium by simplified 3 degree-of-freedom (DOF)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tkang@snu.ac.kr (T.H.-K. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101420
Received 18 December 2019; Received in revised form 26 March 2020; Accepted 9 April 2020
Available online 15 April 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S.Y. Jeong et al.
system. The authors concluded that dynamic properties of two towers
and podium significantly affect the behavior of each unit. Of the two
buildings, the building with less stiffness experienced larger responses.
The limitations were that the common podium was considered as single
DOF without internal deformation and that inelastic behavior was not
considered. Behnamfar et al. [12] suggested rapid response estimation
of connected adjacent structures. Neglecting the mass of link element,
the dynamic response of one structure was expressed as combination of
kinematic and kinetic interactions. Using this method, adjacent struc­
tures can be designed separately during initial design, including the
interaction effect, though there are still the following limitations. First,
neglect of link element’s mass may underestimate the contribution of
kinetic effect by link element (i.e., common basement) when a common
basement is deep and huge. Second, due to the inelastic behavior, it is
difficult to apply this method to PBSD. Zhou et al. [13] compared the
seismic behavior of multi-tower with a common podium above ground
level and a single tower with a portion of the podium using both
experimental and analytical results. One span of 2-story podium around
the tower was included for the single tower model. The single tower
model showed larger story drifts compared with the entire model. From
the research, a single tower model with the portion of podium may be
employed for a conservative design practice. Tura and Orakcal [14]
carried out a case study of multiple towers on a common podium. The
full model and single tower including half podium with fixed end re­
straints and free condition at the interface were compared in their
nonlinear analysis. The single tower with fixed interface model over­
estimated podium diaphragm forces, and the responses of the single
tower with free condition were well matched with those of the full
model.
For this paper, a case study of a 49-story residential building is
conducted to determine the influence of inelastic behavior under MCE
and Rare Earthquakes (RE) exceeding Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)
of IX. Modeling issues associated with design practices for nonlinear
dynamic analysis are presented. Particularly, an emphasis of the study is
on practical modeling of surrounding basement structures.
Table 1
Summary of case study building.
Contents
Size 49-story above ground/7-story below ground
Structural system Building frame system
Outrigger walls (28F)
Post-tension flat plate
Analysis model Walls Cracked P-M fiber modela (B7 ~ 6F & 26–30F)
Uncracked Elastic model (other floors)
Outrigger walls Elastic model (shell element)
PT slabs 1–25F Elastic model (shell element)
31–49F
B7–B1F Elastic model (shell element)
26–30F
Columns P-M-M fiber modelb
Coupling beams Concentrated plastic hinge
Note: EIg is the flexural rigidity of gross section; EA is the axial rigidity; and GA is the shear rigidity. The whole connections are assumed to be rigid.
a
The P-M fiber elements are distributed along the wall length direction, and only P-M interaction of in-plane direction is considered.
b
The P-M-M fiber elements are distributed in cross sections of columns, and P-M-M interaction about two perpendicular axes is considered.
c
The value is for initial stiffness without a crack. The effective stiffness is automatically considered in the fiber elements.
2
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
2. Modeling of case study building
2.1. Building information
The case study building is a T-shaped, 49-story residential building
with post-tensioned (PT) slab floors under construction in Seoul, Korea.
Building characteristics and the analysis model are summarized in
Table 1 and shown in Figs. 1–3, respectively. Concrete strengths (fck)
ranging from 30 to 59 MPa along with the high-strength steel rein­
forcement ranging from 500 to 600 MPa were used. The steel reinforced
concrete (SRC) columns consisted of structural steel with 490–570 MPa
tensile strength. The expected strengths and moduli of elasticity (E) of
materials are determined based on the probable strength factors rec­
ommended by Architectural Institute of Korea [15] as summarized in
Tables 2 and 3. The summary of structural members is shown in Table 4.
The building was designed per KBC 2016 [16] using linear analysis for
wind loads and response spectrum analysis for seismic loads. Nonlinear
time integration analysis using ETABS 2016 [17] was carried out for the
seismic performance evaluation in this paper.
2.2. Modeling of vertical elements
The core walls for the building frame system are the main lateral-
load-resisting elements. Since inelastic behavior of the shear walls
may occur under an excessively strong earthquake, modeling is essen­
tial. Due to the development of computers, analysis using fiber elements
have begun to be widely used (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2016)
[17]. Fiber elements can capture the inelastic behavior based on the
stress-strain relationships of the materials. Thus, stress-strain relation­
ships and hysteresis modeling should be predefined. The stress-strain
curves and hysteresis models are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The strength
degradation of concrete model is determined in accordance with
Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) (2015) [15]. The backbone curve
of rebar model is determined from the experimental results of Korea
Concrete Institute (KCI) (2010) [41]. The concrete hysteresis model and
kinetic hysteresis model are adopted for the concrete fibers and rebar
fibers, respectively. In Fig. 6, the hysteresis models were verified with
the experimental result of the RW2 specimen [18]. Given the case study
building has relatively thick core walls and little inelastic behavior is
Notes
Height: 199.9 m (above ground)/29.2 m (below ground)
Moment frames resist vertical load and shear walls resist lateral load
In-plane stiffness: 1.0EIgc, 0.5GA
Out-of-plane stiffness: 0.25EIg
Element mesh size: No mesh due to fiber elements
In-plane stiffness: 0.7EIg, 0.7GA
Out-of-plane stiffness: 0.25EIg
Element mesh size: less than 1 m
In-plane stiffness: 0.35EIg, 0.35GA
Out-of-plane stiffness: 0.25EIg
Element mesh size: less than 0.5 m
In-plane stiffness: rigid diaphragm
Out-of-plane stiffness: 0.2EIg
Element mesh size: less than 1 m
In-plane stiffness: 0.5EA, 0.5GA
Out-of-plane stiffness: 0.2EIg
Element mesh size: less than 1 m
1.0EA, 1.0EIgc, 1.0GA
1.0EA, 0.15EIg, 1.0GA
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 1. Typical structural plan.
Fig. 2. PT outrigger wall system.
expected, the hysteresis models proposed are deemed adequate.
Because design of most shear walls in the tall buildings in Korea and
many other countries is governed by wind loads, application of fiber
elements along the height of the entire shear wall, which is computa­
tionally intense, may not be required for the inelastic modeling. The
fiber elements are applied to the shear walls from the base to 6th floor.
The inelastic model was also applied to 26th to 30th floor to address the
potential effect of the outrigger walls located at the 28th floor. An elastic
model with effective stiffness of 0.25EIg was used for the out-of-plane
behavior of the walls.
Given that a perimeter column in a high-rise building with outriggers
experiences large cyclic axial forces under a seismic load rather than
moments, concentrated plastic hinges commonly employed for inelastic
modeling of columns may be inappropriate for the modeling P-M
interaction. There are few guidelines on modeling of the effective stiff­
ness, nonlinear hinge, and hysteresis model for SRC columns. Zhang
et al. [19] verified numerical simulations of SRC-RC columns with
3
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
100–150 fiber elements by experimental results. Thus, P-M-M fiber
model, which considers the interaction of axial force and moment of two
perpendicular axes, was used for the inelastic modeling of columns in
this study. A total of 50–150 fiber elements are used for column cross
section. The columns are divided into five elements along their length
with fiber elements applied to the center of each piece. Fiber elements
are located at each end along the 10% of the column length. The story
heights range from 3.75 to 6.5 m, and depths of columns vary from 650
to 1300 mm. The location of fiber elements is close to the plastic hinge
lengths suggested by many researchers [20–22].
2.3. Modeling of coupling beams
Coupling beams were used in the core wall system to accommodate
openings and are expected to yield prior to the wall and will dissipate
seismic energy. Due to their relatively short spans, they were also ex­
pected to experience larger deformations compared with coupled walls
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 3. Analysis model.
4
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
[23].
Primary focus of existing research on coupling beams has been on the
improvement of seismic performance. Paulay and Binney [24] proposed
diagonally reinforced coupling beams. Xiao et al. [25] conducted ex­
periments on high-strength concrete coupling beams with various lon­
gitudinal rebar ratios and span-to-depth ratios. Experiments on coupling
beams with span-to-depth ratio of 1.5 and various layouts of diagonal
and rhombic rebars were conducted by Galano and Vignoli [26]. Naish
et al. [27] carried out experiments on diagonally reinforced coupling
beams with different confinement. In addition, modeling of coupling
beams using commercial software PERFORM-3D [28] was conducted by
Naish et al. [29] where hysteretic modeling of moment hinges at each
end of the beam capturing stiffness degradation along with shear hinge
at the center was compared. Lim et al. [30,31] also conducted experi­
ments on coupling beams with various aspect ratios and diagonal rebar
and confinement layouts.
From the experimental results, inclusion of diagonal rebar improves
ductility and hysteretic behavior, but constructability is often an issue.
In addition, diagonally reinforced coupling beams may not be required
depending on their span-to-depth ratio and/or building code re­
quirements for tall buildings in low-to-moderate seismicity regions, and
there is need to examine the use of conventionally reinforced coupling
beams and applicability in tall buildings.
To perform nonlinear dynamic analysis, establishment of backbone
curves and the hysteretic model is required. ASCE 41-13 suggests
modeling of the backbone curves. However, results appear to be too
conservative when compared with experimental results. Therefore,
backbone curves for this study were determined from experimental re­
sults. Unlike diagonally reinforced coupling beams, conventional
coupling beams show a distinct pinching effect. The hysteresis model
used by Naish et al. [29], which was linearly peak-oriented during
reloading, showed coincidence for the diagonally reinforced coupling
beams, but it overestimated energy dissipation for conventionally rein­
forced coupling beams due to the distinct pinching effect. Thus, a hys­
teresis model is required to accurately capture the pinching effect.
The pinching effect on a general beam is caused by a flexural
deformation, but that on a coupling beam is influenced by both flexural
and shear deformation. The shear stiffness for a beam was suggested as
the following equation by Park and Paulay [32].
Gbd
Kv ¼ (1)
fL
where, G is the shear modulus (�0.4E), f ¼ 1.2 for rectangular section,
and f ¼ 1.0 for T- and I-shaped section. Using the above equation, shear
deformations in beams with intermediate span-to-depth ratio (2.5 � L/
H � 5.0) are from 6 to 24% of flexural deformation, which is not
negligible.
The pivot hysteresis model shown in Fig. 7 proposed by Dowell et al.
[33] was adopted to describe the pinching effect for this study. This
model is based on experimental observations, when the reloading curve
of an RC member passes through a specific point on the initial loading
curve called the pivot point (βp), and the extensions of the unloading
curves also gather at a pivot point (αp). To determine the pivot points αp
and βp, experimental results of conventionally reinforced coupling
beams with the span-to-depth ratios (L/H) of 2.5 or larger were studied
by Jeong and Kang [34]. Specimens from Barney et al., Xiao et al., Naish
et al. [25,27,35] and Lim et al. [31] were used. Relationships of βp, the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ), and the span-to-depth ratio of the
specimens are shown in Fig. 8. To consider the influence of shear
deformation on the pinching effect, the reverse of square of
span-to-depth ratio was selected as a parameter. Transverse reinforce­
ment is not considered, because conventional transverse reinforcement
scarcely contributes to the shear deformation [30]. From the experi­
mental results of Xiao et al. [25], the influence of longitudinal rein­
forcement ratio was also considered. As ρ increases, cracks within
S.Y. Jeong et al. Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420

Table 2
Expected strengths and moduli of elasticity for concrete.
Floor Wall/Column/Beam PT Slab

fck Ec Expected fck (MPa) Expected fck Ec Expected fck (MPa) Expected
(MPa) (MPa) Ec (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Ec (MPa)

30~Roof 30 27,537 33 28,324 30 27,537 33 28,324

19–29F 40 30,008 44 30,977 30 27,537 33 28,324
11–18F 49 32,108 49 32,108 35 28,825 38.5 29,663
B7~10F 59 34,159 59 34,159 45 31,210 45 31,210

Table 3
Expected strengths of reinforcing bars and structural steel.
Material fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Expected fy (MPa) Expected fu (MPa) Es (MPa) Notes

SD400 400 560 440 616 200,000 SRC column rebars

SD500 500 620 525 651 Less than D13
SD600 600 710 600 710 Larger than D13
SHN490 325 490 390 588 SRC column structural steel
SM570 430 570 473 627

concrete are reduced, and the pinching effect is also reduced. The
relationship of βp, ρ, and L/H is determined from linear regression
analysis with slight modification as in the following equation:
0:5ρ þ 0:002
βp ¼
ðL=HÞ2
Verification of the hysteresis models is shown in Fig. 9. The values of
αp and ηp of 3.0 and 0.1, respectively, were noted to be suitable for
conventional RC coupling beams.
For modeling of coupling beams, the effective stiffness of 0.15EIg was
used in accordance with PEER/ATC 72–1. Because all coupling beams in
the building have aspect ratio exceeding 3 and are governed by flexure,
moment hinges were modeled at the end of the beam. The backbone
curve of CB2 was determined from the experimental results of HB4-10L-
T65 specimen of Xiao et al. [25], and the others from HB3-10L-T50
(2) specimen. The hysteresis parameter of βp was determined using the
given longitudinal reinforcing bar ratio and the length and depth of the
coupling beam (Eq. (2)), which were pre-determined.
2.4. Modeling of PT slabs
Modeling of slabs is not typically considered in current Korean

Table 4
Summary of structural members.
Member ID Section (B � D) or Thickness Longitudinal Transverse Note
Rebar Ratio (%) Rebar Ratio (%)

Wall CW1, CW2, CW7, CW8 B7~29F: 1200 mm 30~Roof: 800 mm 0.12–0.57% 0.21–0.43%
CW3, CW4, CW5, CW6 1200 mm 0.12–0.46% 0.21–0.54%
Outrigger OW1, OW4, OW5, OW8, OW10, OW12 800 mm 0.31–0.32% 0.32% Post-tensioning
Wall OW2, OW3,OW6, OW7, OW9, OW11 1.07–1.32% 1.05–1.30%
Column C01, C02 B7~B2F: 1300 mm (Square) 6~Roof: 1.03–3.98% 7~Roof: 0.14–0.22% SRC columns (D�B � tw � tf)
B1: 1300 mm (Circular) B7~5F: 0.76–0.91% B7~6F: 0.06–0.12% B7~B3F: 500 � 500 � 35 � 55
1–46F: 1200 mm (Circular) B2~1F: 450 � 450 � 20 � 25
46~Roof: 1000 mm (Circular) 2~6F: 428 � 407 � 20 � 35
C03, C04, C05, C06 B7~B1F: 1200 mm (Square) 1~Roof: 0.9–1.29% 2~Roof: 0.14–0.18% B7~B3F: 500 � 500 � 35 � 55
1F: 1200 mm (Circular) B7~B1F: 0.42% B7~1F: 0.05–0.07% B2~B1F: 450 � 450 � 20 � 25
2~Roof: 1000 mm (Circular) 1F: 400 � 400 � 13 � 21
C07, C08 B7~B1F: 2000 mm � 800 mm 1~Roof: 1.03–3.12% 1~Roof: 0.10–0.34% B7~B3F: 500 � 500 � 35 � 55
1–46F: 1800 mm � 800 mm B7~B1F: 0.48% B7~B1F: 0.04–0.06% B2~B1F: 450 � 450 � 20 � 25
47~Roof: 1600 mm � 800 mm 1F: 428 � 407 � 20 � 35
C09, C11 B7~1F: 1800 mm � 800 mm 1~Roof: 1.09–2.71% 2~Roof: 0.11–0.35% B7~B3F: 500 � 500 � 35 � 55
2~Roof: 1400 mm � 800 mm B7~B1F: 0.42% B7~1F: 0.04–0.08% B2~B1F: 450 � 450 � 20 � 25
1F: 400 � 400 � 13 � 21
C10, C12 1~Roof: 0.16–0.34% B7~B3F: 500 � 500 � 35 � 55
B7~B1F: 0.04–0.06% B2~B1F: 450 � 450 � 20 � 25
1F: 400 � 400 � 13 � 21
Coupling CB1 B1~29F: 1200 mm � 600 mm 0.61–2.55% 0.12–0.59%
Beam 30~Roof: 800 mm � 600 mm
CB2 1200 mm � 600 mm 0.61–3.94% 0.14–0.78%
CB3 1200 mm � 600 mm 0.83–3.66% 0.14–0.93%
CB4 B1~29F: 1200 mm � 600 mm 0.83–3.66% 0.14–0.93%
30~Roof: 800 mm � 600 mm

5
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 4. 59 MPa concrete model.
Fig. 5. 600 MPa reinforcing bar model.
Fig. 6. Verification of hysteresis models for fiber elements.
design practice. Normally, only the rigid diaphragm or a small effective
out-of-plane flexural stiffness of about 10% of the gross section is
considered. Neglect of the out-of-plane bending stiffness of slabs in the
system at first glance appears to be a conservative design, but under­
estimation of lateral stiffness of the system leads to the underestimation
of associated seismic forces.
6
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
Kang and Wallace [36] suggested the effective stiffness factor for
cracking of 1/3 and 2/3 for RC and PT slab-column frame systems,
respectively. Given the larger cracking factor, it was assumed that the PT
slabs have an effective stiffness of 0.2EIg in this study, which is twice the
practical value of 0.1EIg for RC slabs used in Korea. Despite this value is
still lower than experimental results of Kang and Wallace [36], it is
deemed appropriate because the inelastic behavior is not modeled and
the whole action of slab is treated as force-controlled action.
2.5. Modeling of PT outrigger walls
As shown in Fig. 2, the PT outrigger wall system is employed at the
28th floor to control the lateral displacement due to wind loads. The
outrigger walls distribute the lateral loads from the core walls to the
perimeter columns. Since the analysis software does not provide a
nonlinear element (fiber element) for the horizontal walls, the outrigger
walls, which act as beams, were modeled as being elastic having flexural
and shear effective stiffnesses of 0.35EIg and 0.35GA, respectively. A bit
lower values were assumed because of the presence of the openings.
Under seismic loads, large shear forces in the outrigger walls were ex­
pected and diagonal post-tensioning was applied due to large openings
in the walls.
2.6. Damping
Since responses of a dynamic analysis are very sensitive to the
damping, selection of damping ratio and modeling method is important.
In accordance with PEER/ATC 72–1, the damping ratio tends to
decrease as the height of the building increases. TBI 2017 [4] suggests
that the damping ratio be inversely proportional to the height of
building. The target damping ratio of 2.5% is used in this study in
accordance with TBI 2017 [4] damping ratio recommendation for MCE
ground motions.
The mass and stiffness proportional damping, called Rayleigh
damping, is classical damping commonly used for time integration
analysis. The main advantage of Rayleigh damping is the decoupling of
the damping matrix, which makes the computation fast. However, it is
difficult to determine proper values for α0 and α1 in a high-rise building.
A high-rise building has the 1st mode with a long period, and also has
higher modes with short periods. Although these higher modes have
relatively small mass participations, response contribution may not be
small due to resonance with ground motions which usually have very
short periods. The increase of the periods caused by the yielding of
structural members in the nonlinear dynamic analysis also leads to an
overestimation of damping. Thus, a large range of target frequencies for
Rayleigh damping is required to consider the contribution of higher
modes in high-rise buildings.
When modal damping is used in time integration analysis, it is
inevitable to use modes less than the degree-of-freedom of the system,
since undamped higher modes may cause a convergence problem during
the time integration analysis. To overcome the limitations of modal and
Rayleigh damping, a combination of modal damping of 2.25% and
Rayleigh damping of 0.25% was employed in this study. The modal
damping was applied up to 100th mode, which achieved modal
participating mass ratio of 90% for X, Y, and Rot-Z directions. The fre­
quencies of 1st and 10th modes were used as the target frequencies for
determination of Rayleigh damping.
2.7. Ground motions
To consider amplification associated with soil conditions at the
subject site, a site response analysis was carried out. The 24 outcrop
motions recorded at the rock site (Vs,30 > 760 m/s) are collected for the
local site response analysis. The site response analysis was conducted by
using equivalent linear analysis and effective shear modulus proposed
by Kim and Choo [37]. From the analysis, 10 ground motions (EQ (1) to
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 7. Pivot hysteresis model [33].
Fig. 8. Relationships of βp, ρ, and L/H.
EQ (10)) shown in Table 5 were selected. Among the 10 ground motions,
7 ground motions were scaled to match the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) level target spectrum of KBC 2016. The average
Fig. 9. Verification of hysteresis models for coupling beams.
7
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
spectrum of the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) method of the two
perpendicular components of each ground motion was matched to the
target spectrum such that the average was not be less than 90% of 1.3
times the target spectrum for the range from 0.2T to 1.5T, where T is the
fundamental period of the structure.
EQ (8) to EQ (10) are the ground motions of the Rare Earthquake
(RE) with MMI exceeding IX. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI), which
is commonly used in Korea for its straightforwardness, was determined
in accordance with Gutenberg and Richter [38]. The RE ground motions
were not matched to the target spectrum to confirm the seismic per­
formance with recorded earthquakes. RE ground motions have relatively
small spectral accelerations in long periods and extremely large spectral
accelerations in the short periods. The response spectra of the selected
ground motions and the target spectrum of KBC 2016 are shown in
Fig. 10, and the records are shown in the reference [39].
3. Modeling of the basement
3.1. Basement models
Because modeling of soil-structure-interaction (SSI) is difficult,
simplified models are employed in design practice where influence of
surrounding underground structures along with soils is neglected.
However, this simplified model may not be appropriate for a tall
building with deep underground structures. Without consideration of
S.Y. Jeong et al. Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420

Table 5
Ground motions.
ID Name Station Magnitude Distance from Epicenter (km) PGA (g) MMI

EQ 1 Loma Prieta Piedmont Jr. High School Grounds 6.93 73 0.540 IX (9.6)
EQ 2 Loma Prieta SF – Pacific Heights 6.93 76 0.248 VIII (8.9)
EQ 3 Kocaeli Gebze 7.51 11 0.310 VIII (8.8)
EQ 4 Chi-Chi ILA015 7.62 85 0.253 VIII (8.5)
EQ 5 Chi-Chi TAP067 7.62 97 0.140 VII (7.7)
EQ 6 Duzce Lamont 1060 7.14 26 0.238 IX (9.0)
EQ 7 Chi-Chi TAP075 7.62 109 0.390 VIII (8.9)
EQ 8 Northridge-01 Vasquez Rocks Park 6.69 24 0.340 IX (9.1)
EQ 9 Montenegro Ulcinj-Hotel Albatros 6.90 21 0.481 IX (9.4)
EQ 10 Tottori SMNH10 6.61 16 0.652 IX (9.6)

ground level fixed model, fixed at base without SSI model, fixed end
spring model, rigid bathtub model, and full substructure model. From
the case studies of regular shaped buildings, NIST [40] concluded that
the bathtub model was the best matched model with the full substruc­
ture and the fixed at base without SSI model being second. Other models
were not recommended due to variations. TBI 2017 [4] suggests three
underground models for design practice: the bathtub model, fixed at
base without SSI model, and the interaction at base-level only model.
PEER/ATC 72–1 (2010) suggested modeling of backstay effects by
both upper and lower bounds of soil stiffness. The upper bound soil
stiffness is used to determine design forces for diaphragm and perimeter
walls, while the lower bound soil stiffness is for design forces of the
tower basement elements.
Suggested basement models in TBI 2017 and NIST [4,40] include the
perimeter basement walls. However the case study building shares a
huge underground parking garage with the perimeter walls only on one
side. The boundary condition is not clear, and it is computationally
Fig. 10. Response spectra of ground motions.
intense to analyze the entire basement simultaneously. In the current
study, the building has a deeper basement and only the portion of the
the back stay effect at the ground level, the demands at the ground level
basement structure is employed as shown in Figs. 3 and 11.
can be underestimated.
Basement models studied of the underground structure are shown in
NIST [40] compared the seismic responses of five basement models:

Fig. 11. Basement structural plan.

8
S.Y. Jeong et al. Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420

Fig. 12. Basement models.

Fig. 12. Models (a) and (b) are generally used in design practice when
the basement is not deep. Model (a) neglects the surrounding basement
structure and soil, and the lateral stiffness of the surrounding soil is
assumed to be infinite in Model (b). In Model (c), the surrounding
basement structure is included, but soil contribution was neglected. In
Model (d), lateral supports are added.
Model (c) and Model (d) represent lower and upper bounds of soil
stiffness, respectively. Actual interaction between the basement and soil
lies between Models (c) and (d). In Model (c), the Y-direction reaction
force induced by the diaphragm and perimeter walls in the basement
may be underestimated due to the limited range of the model. Whereas
in Model (d), the in-plane stiffness of basement slabs is relatively small
compared with the lateral stiffness of the building, and the basement
slabs for the in-plane direction may largely deform. Hence, the slabs of
basement of Models (c) and (d) were considered as semi-rigid with an in-
plane effective stiffness of 0.5EA and 0.5GA as recommended by TBI
2017 [4].
slabs makes the building stiffer and reduces building periods. Since the
large mass of the basement can affect modal mass participating ratios,
modal participating mass of each mode was normalized by dividing by
that of Model (a). Due to the order of 8th and 9th modes of Model (c)
having been changed, modal masses of these modes were divided by
those of 9th and 8th modes of Model (a), respectively. The main di­
rections of each mode are bold in Table 6. Due to the T-shaped irregular
plan, the X-dir. and Rot-Z-dir. modes are coupled. With the exception of
torsional modes, the differences of normalized modal masses of lower
modes were not large. The torsional modes were shown as higher modes
when the confinement by basement diaphragms was present. Whereas,
normalized modal masses in minor directions of modes vary depending
on the modeling methods, though its contribution is negligible. The
42%–54% increases of normalized modal masses of X-dir. and Rot-Z-
dir., respectively, at 8th mode in Model (c) are observed, because the
fundamental periods of basement structures exist in this range. A similar
phenomenon is shifted to 11th mode in Model (d).

3.2. Modal properties 3.3. Effects on seismic response

The total masses for the model with and without the surrounding
basement structure are 126,394 and 99,927 tons, respectively. Table 6
shows the modal properties. The models considering the reaction force
by surrounding soil with lateral supports (Models (b) and (d)) show
shorter periods due to the confinement effect. The existence of basement
For a detailed comparison, shear forces applied to the core walls
were compared. EQ (2), which caused the inelastic deformation of the
core wall below the ground unlike other ground motions, was used for
the comparison. To normalize the lateral forces on shear walls that
varied in length, height, and thickness, the shear stresses of core walls

Table 6
Modal properties.
Mode Model (a) Model (b) Model (c) Model (d)

Period Modal mass participating Period Normalized modal Period Normalized modal massa Period Normalized modal
(sec) ratio (%) (sec) massa (sec) (sec) massa

X Y RZ X Y RZ X Y RZ X Y RZ

1 7.59 46.55 0.61 15.44 7.23 0.93 0.11 1.33 7.50 1.09 0.17 0.26 7.36 1.02 0.15 0.59
2 7.24 0.66 64.96 0.00 6.38 0.17 0.94 0.72 6.80 0.15 0.96 14.83 6.60 0.19 1.00 26.70
3 5.85 16.02 0.10 51.88 5.18 1.13 0.40 0.92 5.64 0.84 0.25 0.66 5.35 1.11 0.51 0.78
4 2.20 6.37 0.03 3.83 2.11 0.97 0.67 0.84 2.15 1.17 0.84 0.21 2.13 1.04 0.84 0.43
5 2.03 0.01 13.02 0.01 1.76 3.00 0.95 1.00 1.90 13.91 1.00 3.79 1.83 3.79 1.01 0.10
6 1.88 4.32 0.00 5.74 1.69 1.00 9.79 1.01 1.82 0.95 66.05 0.81 1.73 1.02 8.26 0.87
7 1.11 2.71 0.00 4.78 1.01 0.70 35.34 0.64 1.04 1.10 62.39 0.22 1.03 0.80 39.76 0.39
8 0.92 0.06 5.99 0.06 0.77 0.17 0.85 0.01 0.89 1.42 1.26 1.54 0.81 0.42 0.95 0.01
9 0.90 4.38 0.11 1.98 0.76 0.75 0.09 1.01 0.85 1.05 1.11 1.05 0.80 0.87 0.23 0.98
10 0.68 2.30 0.00 3.21 0.61 0.34 9.27 0.43 0.62 0.59 4.86 0.17 0.62 0.42 4.57 0.28

Note: aThe normalized modal mass is determined by dividing modal mass participating ratio of Model (b), (c), or (d) by that of Model (a).

9
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 13. Maximum shear stress distribution of core walls (See location of each wall in Fig. 1).
are compared in Fig. 13. Maximum shear stresses noted above the
ground level were almost identical regardless of the basement models.
Model (a) has relatively large variances above the ground level.
Model (b) shows an abrupt peak below the ground level due to the
lateral supports at the basement. The backstay effect, however, should
be much smaller in the real condition due to in-plane deformation of
basement diaphragm. Model (b) overestimates seismic forces on the
floor just below the ground level and underestimates that near the base.
Although the actual response is expected to be between Models (c) and
(d), Model (c) was assumed to be appropriate for a conservative design
practice.
3.4. Diaphragm forces
The ground level slabs of surrounding basement structures, which
experience large compressive in-plane forces under seismic loads, in
Models (c) and (d) are the main backstay diaphragm. The maximum
compressive stresses of these diaphragms in Models (c) and (d) are
Fig. 14. Maximum compressive stresses of ground level diaphragms.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
compared in Fig. 14. The distributions of compressive stresses for the
two models are similar, except the differences between Y-dir. stresses
near the boundaries due to the existence of lateral supports, which do
not impose a significant impact on diaphragm design. Overall, Model (d)
shows larger stresses due to the confinement effect. For the diaphragm
design of ground level slabs, it is recommended to checking in-plane
stress demands using both Models (c) and (d).
4. Seismic performance evaluation
4.1. Dynamic responses
The seismic performance evaluation in this section was conducted
using the basement model of Model (c). All columns were elastic, and
core walls were elastic except under EQ (2). The maximum tensile strain
of reinforcement in core wall was less than 0.008, which is much less
than the tensile strain limit of 0.05 in ASCE 41–13. The story drift and
the plastic chord rotation of coupling beams are shown in Figs. 15 and
S.Y. Jeong et al.
Fig. 15. Maximum story displacement and drift.
Fig. 16. Maximum plastic chord rotation of coupling beams.
16, respectively. The maximum story drifts in Fig. 15 are obtained from
the maximum drift value for each story, which occurs at different time
each other, during the response histories; however, for the calculation of
story drift, two floors’ displacements at the same time were used. The
small peaks of story drifts above the ground (1st story) and above
outrigger walls (29th story) are due to their larger story heights. The
responses of nonlinear dynamic analyses were found sensitive to input
ground motions. The maximum response of MCE occurred under EQ (3),
which has relatively large spectral accelerations in the long periods.
FEMA 356 suggests story drift as the seismic performance criteria for the
subject building system. Story drift limits of Immediate Occupancy (IO)
and Life Safety (LS) for shear wall system are 0.5% and 1.0%, respec­
tively. The limits of plastic chord rotation for coupling beams were
determined in accordance with AIK [15]. The acceptance criteria for
coupling beams in AIK [15] are shown in Table 7, and the criteria for
coupling beams with nonconforming transverse reinforcement were
used. The performance criteria of LS for story drift in both directions
were satisfied, though the plastic rotations of CB 1 and CB 2 (See loca­
tion of each coupling beam in Fig. 1) just satisfied Collapse Prevention
(CP) level in X-dir. due to coupling with torsional deformation.
Conversely, the plastic rotations of CB3 and CB4, which are related to
Y-dir. deformation with almost no torsional effect, remained in IO level.
AIK [15] suggests performance evaluation of force-controlled action
as in the following equation.
Fu � φFn;e (3)
11
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
where, Fu is 1.2 times the average force applied to a member, Fn,e is the
probable member strength based on the expected strength of materials,
and strength reduction factor, φ, is 1.0.
Although core walls remained in the almost elastic range of de­
formations, the shear forces of the core walls are close to the capacity
limits as shown in Fig. 17, where the maximum shear capacity, Vc, is
determined by the following equation (KBC 2016).
Vc ¼
5 pffiffiffiffi
fck hd (4)
6
where, fck is the concrete strength, h is the thickness of wall, and d is the
effective depth of wall, which is 80% of horizontal length of wall. The
peaks of shear forces on CW3 and CW4 near the ground level are due to
the existence of coupling “wall” at the 1st floor rather than coupling
beam CB2. The shear forces of basement core walls under RE ground
motions are larger than those by MCE ground motions. The high fre­
quency components of RE ground motions amplified the local responses
of basement. Although the shear demands of CW2 and CW4 at the
basement by RE ground motions slightly exceed the capacity, the
approach to determine the demands is very conservative and the ca­
pacities satisfy the demands without demand increasing factor of 1.2.
Therefore, the performance is deemed to be satisfied.
The deformation in X-dir. induced torsional moments due to the T-
shaped plan. This resulted in large inelastic deformation of coupling
beam CB1. Here, the long coupled shear walls are located far from the
S.Y. Jeong et al. Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420

Table 7 fact that modeling of underground structures does not affect seismic
Acceptance criteria for coupling beams controlled by flexure [15]. performance of the main tower building above the ground level, local
Conditions V=ð
pffiffiffiffiffi
fck BDÞa Plastic chord rotation (rad.) damage at the basement due to the relatively short periods can be
significantly affected.
IO Primary Secondary
componentb componentc

LS CP LS CP 4.2. Effect of outrigger walls

Conventional �0.25 0.01 0.02 0.025 0.025 0.05
longitudinal �0.5 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 The story drift and plastic rotation of coupling beams showed a
reinforcement decrease near the 28th floor due to the existence of outrigger walls. Shear
with conforming
reversal occurred at the 27th floor core walls. Inelastic behavior of the
transverse
reinforcementd
core walls did not occur at the ground level unlike the initial pre­
Conventional �0.25 0.006 0.012 0.02 0.02 0.035 sumption, but occurred above the outrigger. Due to the relatively large
longitudinal �0.5 0.005 0.008 0.01 0.01 0.025 stiffness of the continuous outrigger walls from OW1 to OW4 and core
reinforcement walls CW1 and CW2 (See location of each wall in Fig. 1), the critical
with
member under EQ (2) was CW1 with a plastic rotation of 0.3%. Appli­
nonconforming
transverse cation of the inelastic model to core walls above and below the outrigger
reinforcement by 1/8 of the height from the outrigger to the roof was deemed appro­
Diagonal – 0.006 0.018 0.03 0.03 0.05 priate in order to capture the effect of outrigger walls.
reinforcement
Because the outriggers distribute the lateral loads from the core to
Note: Linear interpolation between values shall be permitted. perimeter columns in the form of axial forces, the failure mechanism of
a
V: applied shear force; fck: concrete strength; B: width of coupling beam; D: columns can be changed. At extreme conditions, the columns at the
depth of coupling beam. bottom are expected to fail in compression, and those below the out­
b
Primary component mainly resists lateral loads. riggers are expected to fail in tension rather than moment. If an
c
Secondary component does not resist lateral load, but has to maintain outrigger system is used, a fiber model is recommended to capture the
bearing capacity of vertical load during the lateral deformation.
d inelastic P-M interaction of the perimeter column.
Conforming transverse reinforcement criteria in KBC 2016 shall be satisfied.
In this study, the columns remain in the elastic range. But when a
larger earthquake is applied, the columns at bottom may fail in
center of the torsional deformation at the flange part of the plan. In order compression, leading to brittle collapse of the building without proper
for torsional deformation to occur, significant deformation is required in confinement reinforcement.
the walls and coupling beams. In contrast, the shear walls at the web
part are close to the center, having less deformation.
5. Conclusion
Story drift of the building is determined by the size of response
spectrum of the ground motions near its fundamental period rather than
The seismic performance evaluation of the case study building with a
PGA of ground motions that usually takes place in the high frequency
deep basement was carried out by using MCE and RE ground motions.
region. Although the story drift by RE is much less, the strong high
Several practical modeling issues such as basement, hysteresis modeling,
frequency components in EQ (10) result in local damage (i.e., flexural
and damping were presented, and the effects on seismic performance
bar yielding) of coupling beams at the upper part of the building. The X-
were studied. The findings are summarized as follows:
dir. story drift satisfies IO, while the coupling beam CB1 satisfies CP.
This gap implies that when conducting the seismic performance evalu­
(1) Coupling beams in tall building are the most vulnerable under
ation, story drift does not represent the local damage much. Story drift
seismic loads, and require appropriate hysteretic modeling. To
and plastic rotation of coupling beam are also large at the basement
describe pinching effect, the pivot hysteresis model with previ­
under EQ (10) (still in IO level, though). The large plastic rotation of
ously proposed values is recommended for conventionally rein­
coupling beams resulted in the amplification of shear forces on the core
forced coupling beams.
walls, which is critical at the basement core walls. According to the
(2) Modeling of the basement has little effects on the behavior of the
modal participating mass ratio results, the surrounding basement is
structure above ground level. However, the underground struc­
estimated to have a very short fundamental period of 0.89 s. Despite the
tures are significantly affected. Model (a) may underestimate the

Fig. 17. Maximum shear force distribution of core walls (See location of each wall in Fig. 1).

12
S.Y. Jeong et al.
lateral loads on the basement when the confinement effect is
large. Model (b) is not recommended due to an abnormally large
shear reversal at lateral supports. Actual behavior considering SSI
by the surrounding soil is expected to lie between Model (c) and
(d). For conservative design practice for the main tower and
ground level diaphragm, Model (c) and Model (d) are recom­
mended, respectively.
(3) The confinement effect of the underground structure transfers
torsional modes for the T-shaped plan to higher modes. These
torsional modes are easily amplified by high frequency compo­
nents of ground motions that can translate into local damage of
coupling beams at the upper part and basement of the building.
(4) The seismic performance evaluation using RE with strong high
frequency components can be an alternative for an enhanced
evaluation of local damage.
(5) Like the backstay effect at the ground level, a shear reversal is
observed at the story below the outrigger walls. To capture the
effect by outrigger walls, application of the inelastic model to
core walls above and below the outrigger by 1/8 to 1/6 of the
height from the outrigger to the roof is recommended.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The seismic performance evaluation project funded by DAELIM was
conducted by the first three authors, and Magnusson Klemencic Asso­
ciates participated in this project as a peer reviewer. The ground motions
were generated by Prof. Dong-Kwan Kim at Cheongju University, Korea.
Additional supports were from the National Research Foundation
(2015R1A5A1037548) and Institute of Construction & Environmental
Engineering of Seoul National University, Korea.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101420.
References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-13), 2014 (Reston, VA).
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Prestandard and Commentary
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), American Society of Civil
Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
[3] PEER/ATC, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of
Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC 72-1), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA,
2010.
[4] Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI), Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of
Tall Buildings (TBI 2017), Developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER) as Part of the Tall Buildings Initiative, 2017.
[5] A.R. Ozuygur,
€ Performance-based seismic design of an irregular tall building in
Istanbul, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 24 (2015) 703–723.
[6] N. Anwar, T.H. Aung, P. Norachan, A.M. Badar, “Case Study: Performance-Based
Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building,” Proceedings, 6th
Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE), 2016 (Cebu, Philippines).
[7] A. Mwafy, S. Khalifa, Effect of vertical structural irregularity on seismic design of
tall buildings, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 26 (2017) 1–22.
[8] W.D.L. Finn, B.H. Pandey, C.E. Ventura, Modeling soil-foundation-structure
interaction, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 20 (2011) 47–62.
[9] T. Ghodsi, J.A.F. Ruiz, Pacific earthquake engineering research/seismic safety
commission tall building design case study 2, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 19
(2010) 197–256.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 31 (2020) 101420
[10] Z.T. De�ger, T.Y. Yang, J.W. Wallace, J. Moehle, Seismic performance of reinforced
concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frames, Struct.
Des. Tall Special Build. 24 (2015) 477–490.
[11] X. Qi, S. Chen, “Dynamic Behavior and Seismic Design of Structural Systems
Having Multiple High-Rise Towers on a Common Podium,” Paper No. 1101,
Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996.
[12] F. Behnamfar, S. Dorafshan, A. Taheri, B.H. Hashemi, A method for rapid
estimation of dynamic coupling and spectral responses of connected adjacent
structures, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 25 (2016) 605–625.
[13] Y. Zhou, P. Chen, C. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Lu, Seismic performance evaluation of tall,
multitower reinforced concrete buildings with large bottom podiums, Struct.
Concr. 19 (6) (2018) 1591–1607.
[14] C. Tura, K. Orakcal, Earthquake response analysis of multiple towers on a common
podium: a representative case study, Tek. Dergi 30 (6) (2019) 9647–9673.
[15] Architectural Institute of Korea, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design
of Residential Buildings, 2015 (in Korean).
[16] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (Korea), Korean Building Code
(KBC 2016), 2016 (in Korean).
[17] Computers and Structures Inc, ETABS Integrated Building Design Software Version
2016 (ETABS 2016), 2016 (Walnut Creek, CA).
[18] J.H. Thomsen IV, J.W. Wallace, “Displacement-Based Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls: an Experimental Investigation of Walls with Rectangular
and T-Shaped Cross-Sections,” Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1995.
[19] H. Zhang, P. Cao, K. Wu, C. Xu, L. Ren, Lateral bearing capacity and stiffness
calculation method of SRC-RC column, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 23 (5) (2019)
2158–2174.
[20] R. Park, M.J.N. Priestley, W.D. Gill, Ductility of square-confined concrete columns,
J. Struct. Div. 108 (1982) 929–950.
[21] T. Paulay, M.J.N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1992.
[22] S.A. Sheikh, S.S. Khoury, Confined concrete columns with stubs, ACI Struct. J. 90
(4) (1993) 414–431.
[23] R.D. Lequesne, G.J. Parra-Montesinos, J.K. Wight, Seismic response of fiber-
reinforced concrete coupled walls, ACI Struct. J. 113 (3) (2016) 435–445.
[24] T. Paulay, J.R. Binney, Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls, in:
Shear in Reinforcement Concrete, vol. 2, Publication SP-42, 1974, pp. 579–598.
[25] Y. Xiao, A. Esmaeily-Ghasemabadi, H. Wu, High-strength concrete short beams
subjected to cyclic shear, ACI Struct. J. 96 (3) (1999) 392–400.
[26] L. Galano, A. Vignoli, Seismic behavior of short coupling beams with different
reinforcement layouts, ACI Struct. J. 97 (6) (2000) 876–885.
[27] D. Naish, A. Fry, R. Klemencic, J.W. Wallace, Reinforced concrete coupling beams-
Part I: testing, ACI Struct. J. 110 (6) (2013) 1057–1066.
[28] Computers and Structures Inc, PERFORM-3D Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
Assessment for 3D Structures Version 4 (PERFORM-3D), 2011 (Walnut Creek, CA).
[29] D. Naish, A. Fry, R. Klemencic, J.W. Wallace, Reinforced concrete coupling beams-
Part II: modeling, ACI Struct. J. 110 (6) (2013) 1067–1076.
[30] E. Lim, S.-J. Hwang, T.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Chang, An investigation on the seismic
behavior of deep reinforced concrete coupling beams, ACI Struct. J. 113 (2) (2016)
217–226.
[31] E. Lim, S.-J. Hwang, C.-H. Cheng, P.-Y. Lin, Cyclic tests of reinforced concrete
coupling beam with intermediate span-depth ratio, ACI Struct. J. 113 (3) (2016)
515–524.
[32] R. Park, T. Paulay, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, N.Y, 1975.
[33] R.K. Dowell, F. Seible, E.L. Wilson, Pivot hysteresis model for reinforced concrete
members, ACI Struct. J. 95 (5) (1998) 607–617.
[34] S.Y. Jeong, T.H.-K. Kang, Hysteretic behavior and modeling of RC coupling beams,
in: Proceedings, the 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computational
Design (ICACD18), 2018 (Incheon, Korea).
[35] G.B. Barney, K.N. Shiu, B.G. Rabbat, A.E. Fiorato, H.G. Russell, W.G. Corley,
Behavior of Coupling Beams under Load Reversals, Portland Cement Association,
1980, pp. 1–24.
[36] T.H.-K. Kang, J.W. Wallace, Dynamic responses of flat plate systems with shear
reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 102 (5) (2005) 763–773.
[37] D.S. Kim, Y.W. Choo, Dynamic deformation characteristics of cohesionless soils in
Korea using resonant column tests, J. Kor. Geotech. Soc. 17 (5) (2001) 115–128 (in
Korean).
[38] B. Gutenberg, C.F. Richter, Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and
acceleration, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 32 (3) (1942) 163–191.
[39] S.Y. Jeong, Seismic Performance Evaluation of the High-Rise Building Using
Nonlinear Analysis, Master’s Thesis, Department of Architecture and Architectural
Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2017.
[40] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Soil-Structure Interaction
for Building Structures, Report No. NIST GCR 12-917-21, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C, 2012.
[41] Korea Concrete Institute (KCI), A Study on the Application of High Strength
Reinforcement to Concrete Structures, 2010 (in Korean).