Received: 29 May 2016 Revised: 13 March 2017 Accepted: 21 March 2017

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1377

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

A practical numerical substructure method for seismic nonlinear

analysis of tall building structures
Baoyin Sun1 | Quan Gu2 | Peizhou Zhang1 | Jinping Ou1,3

1
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University Summary
of Technology, Dalian, Liao Ning, China It is a challenging task to perform large‐scale nonlinear analysis for complicated tall building struc-
2
School of Architecture Civil Engineering, tures due to the trade‐off between computational efficiency and numerical accuracy. Existing
Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China methods cannot satisfactorily meet the demands of engineering practices because they require
3
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute predetermining local yielded regions or adaptively refining models during the analysis. This paper
of Technology, Harbin, Hei Longjiang, China
presents a modified numerical substructure method (NSM) in which the difficult task is divided
Correspondence
Jinping Ou, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty
into seismic analysis of a linear elastic “master” structure and static nonlinear analyses of a limited
of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian quantity of substructures for local yielded regions. A “nonlinear force corrector” is calculated in
University of Technology, Dalian, Liao Ning, the substructure and applied on the master structure to consider the contribution of the yielded
China.
region's nonlinearity. A 32‐story reinforced concrete frame shear‐wall building under earthquake
Email: oujinping@dlut.edu.cn
is analyzed to verify the NSM and investigate its accuracy and efficiency. In addition, a reinforced
Funding information
concrete frame shake‐table test is simulated using the modified NSM, and local damage behaviors
National Key Research and Development pro-
gram of China, Grant/Award Number: and improved accuracy can be obtained using the refined substructure model.
2016YFC0701106; National Natural Science
Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: KEY W ORDS
51261120376, 5157847 and 91315301‐12
numerical substructure method, large‐scale computation, local nonlinearity, nonlinear force
corrector, CS technique, seismic analysis

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
It is a challenging task to perform large‐scale nonlinear dynamic finite
element (FE) analysis for realistic tall building structures due to the
trade‐off between computational efficiency and numerical accuracy.
A distinctive feature of such problems is the “localized” nonlinearity
exhibited during the earthquake process, that is, only a limited
number of structural components concentrated in a few local regions
exhibit strong nonlinearities, whereas a large number of the
remaining components remain completely linearly elastic.[1] The local
nonlinear regions, although their quantities are usually small, have
crucial effects on the dynamic behaviors of the entire structure
and require particularly careful treatment (e.g., using a very fine FE
mesh or different simulation techniques to simulate the local
damages). It is obviously unnecessary to perform a completely
general nonlinear FE analysis, that is, including the entire structural
system in a single nonlinear equation of motion and solving it using
a conventional iterative scheme (e.g., the Newton–Raphson
algorithm or the N‐R algorithm). The computational effort can be
greatly reduced by taking advantage of the nonlinear localization.
During the past decades, the substructure method has become the
an effective and widely used method for such problems.[1–6] The
essential process includes subdividing the total structural system into
two or more elastic and plastic subsystems, evaluating the stiffness
properties of each subsystem and assembling these subsystems to
obtain the stiffness of the complete structure. The internal degrees
of freedom (DOFs) of each elastic substructure not needed for their
interconnection to the main system can be condensed out (eliminated)
prior to the substructure assembly, greatly reducing the DOFs involved
in the solution of the assembled system. In the framework of this
“conventional” substructure method, extensive research has been
conducted, and various improvements and applications have been
presented. Clough and Wilson[1] proposed a substructure method to
perform dynamic analysis of large structural systems with local
nonlinearities using mode superposition and substructuring
techniques. Bathe and Gracewski[2] presented a detailed mathematical
formulation to solve large‐scale structural systems with small isolated
areas of nonlinearities. Owen and Goncalves[3] applied substructuring
techniques to analyze quasistatic elastoplastic problems. Ali et al[4]
analyzed brick masonry subjected to in‐plane concentrated loads using

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2017;e1377. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 13
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1377
2 of 13
multilevel substructuring techniques and a mesh grading scheme.
Huang and Wang[5] presented a method using substructuring
techniques for buckling analysis of large and complex structures. Chen
and Archer[6] presented a new domain decomposition method for
nonlinear substructures that updates the nonlinear behavior of the
substructure by adding correct modes.
Although the conventional substructure methods can solve the
problem by employing unrefined and refined meshes in linear and
nonlinear regions, respectively, they require either predetermining
the locations of local nonlinearity regions or refining the mesh during
the analysis. However, it is extremely difficult, if not completely
impossible, to prejudge the local nonlinear regions before FE analysis
due to various influencing factors, such as properties of structures,
foundations, soils, and earthquakes. Furthermore, once the FE mesh
is made, it is not easy to adaptively modify (e.g., refine) it during the
seismic analysis process. Therefore, it is difficult to simulate arbitrary
plastic flows and damage propagation processes in the large‐scale
structural analysis by using the traditional substructure methods. In
addition, although the refined and unrefined models have significantly
different accuracies (the simulation of local nonlinearity regions
requires a more accurate model), they are solved by using a single
equation of motion (with only noncondensed DOFs) with a unique
convergence criterion, which may cause a loss of accuracy in the
refined model of local yielded regions. Finally, the two models are
typically analyzed on the same software platform instead of two
separate platforms because they are not physically uncoupled, which
discourages the use of the two most appropriate platforms for the
two significantly different models.
Beside substructure methods, there are other methods available in
[7]
the literature. Wong and Yang proposed a force analogy method
based on a concept of “force analogy” to study the inelastic structural
behaviors. In this method, a linear elastic model is used to simulate the
elastic behaviors of the structure, whereas an additional set of
independent plastic DOFs in possible yielded regions are added to
the system for plastic behaviors. Correspondingly, the elastic force
(defined as the multiplication of the initial stiffness by the elastic
displacement) and the analogy force (defined as the multiplication of
the initial stiffness by the plastic displacement) are included in an
equation of motion that contains both the elastic and plastic DOFs.
The modified equation of motion includes the elastic equations
(i.e., between forces and displacements of elastic DOFs) and an addi-
tional relationship between forces and displacements of plastic DOFs.
Wong and coworkers[8–12] further improved the force analogy method
and applied it to various research areas, for example, analyzing real
moment‐resisting frames using static condensation, investigating the
potential energy, characterizing the energy and its transfer among
various energy forms over the duration of an earthquake and proposing
a damage index for special moment‐resisting steel frames. Chao and
Loh[13] proposed a modified force analogy method to simulate the non-
linear response of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. Gang Li and
Hong‐Nan Li[14] presented an approach based on the force analogy
method to analyze dynamic responses of structures with energy
dissipation devices. However, it is not easy to obtain the relation
between forces and displacements of plastic DOFs for general
nonlinear structural systems under cyclic loading conditions, and the
SUN ET AL.
number and locations of the plastic DOFs are not easy to predetermine
before analysis, limiting the application of the force analogy method.
This paper presents an accurate and efficient numerical substruc-
ture method (NSM) for large‐scale seismic analysis of realistic high‐rise
building structures with local nonlinearities. In the NSM, the difficult
problem of large‐scale nonlinear analysis is divided into two relatively
easier subproblems, that is, a moderate‐scale linear elastic analysis of
a “master” structure representing the entire building and nonlinear anal-
yses of a limited quantity of “substructures” in local yielded regions.
Each substructure is simulated using an isolated and possibly refined
nonlinear model, which can be analyzed in parallel with the master
structure on a most appropriate software platform. A “nonlinear force
corrector” is presented which is calculated in the substructure and
applied to the master structure to take into account the extra contribu-
tion of this substructure due to the nonlinearity. The data transfer
between the master structure and the substructures is achieved by
using an efficient integration technique, that is, the CS technique.[15]
The novel NSM method has several distinguished features when com-
pared with the existing methods. (a) The master structure is simulated
using an unrefined model and studied using a moderate‐scale linear
elastic analysis. The computation is very efficient because a constant
structural stiffness matrix is assembled and decomposed (e.g., LU trian-
gle decomposition) only once during the entire analysis. (b) The isolated
substructures are analyzed efficiently and accurately due to various
merits of the method. First, each substructure model is created when
a new structural component yields (while the master structure model
remains unchanged), therefore, the number and locations of substruc-
tures (i.e., the local yielded regions) do not need to be predetermined.
Furthermore, each substructure is isolated from the master structure
and may be modeled with a refined FE mesh or using other simulation
techniques that can accurately simulate the local nonlinear behaviors
(e.g., concrete cracking and buckling) on a most appropriate software
platform. In addition, the contribution of substructures due to the non-
linearity is taken into account by using a nonlinear force corrector that
can be easily computed by a one‐step static analysis. Finally, the
number of local nonlinearities is usually small to moderate during the
entire seismic process for a typical tall building, therefore, the quantity
of substructures is limited, and the total computational cost is not
prohibitively high. (c) The models for the master structure and the
substructures are physically separated and can be analyzed on different
platforms, using an efficient and reliable CS technique for data transfer
between them. Therefore, the master structure and the different
substructures can be analyzed using parallel and distributed
computation methods. (d) The method is potentially applicable to a wide
range of large‐scale nonlinear problems with local nonlinearities. Two
application examples are employed to verify the feasibility, accuracy
and efficiency of the NSM and its applicability to the large‐scale
nonlinear dynamic analysis of realistic tall building structures.
2 | N U M E R I C A L SU B S T R U C T U R E M E T H O D
After spatial discretization using the FE method, the equation of
motion of a nonlinear structural system (e.g., a high‐rise building) can
be expressed as
SUN ET AL. 3 of 13

e is
stiffness matrix). Furthermore, the nonlinear force corrector F
€ ðtÞ þ Cu_ ðtÞ þ RðuðtÞÞ ¼ PðtÞ;
Mu (1)
assembled from yielded components only, whereas the linear elastic
e
components have no contribution to F.
where M and C are mass and damping matrices, respectively; parame-
For the solution of Equation 7, the calculation for the displace-
ters u, u_ , and u€ are nodal displacement, velocity, and acceleration,
ment field of the whole structure system is performed in master
respectively; parameter R (u) denotes structural resisting force, which
structure system, whereas the nonlinear force corrector e
F is obtained
is a nonlinear function of u; parameter P represents external force
from substructure system, as depicted in Figure 1. Herein, The
applied on the structure; and t denotes time. Without loss of general-
governing equation (Equation 7) can be solved “exactly” with iterations
ity, it is assumed that the time continuous‐spatially discrete equation
or “approximately” without iterations which are called iterative and
(i.e., Equation 1) is integrated numerically in time using a general
noniterative NSMs, respectively. In the iterative NSM, a fixed‐point
one‐step integration algorithm, taking the well‐known Newmark‐β
iterative algorithm is used to compute the current displacement un+1,
method[16] as a special example herein, yielding
the nonlinear force corrector e
F, and the state variables (e.g., the plastic
" #
1 α displacement upnþ1), as shown in Table 1a, and the noniterative method
Mþ C unþ1 þ Rðunþ1 Þ ¼ Fnþ1 ; (2)
βðΔtÞ 2 βΔt is shown in Table 1b, where the subscripts i and n denote the ith
iteration and the nth time step, respectively; Tol denotes the convergence
where tolerance; and ‖⋅‖ denotes the L2‐norm. Given the displacement u, the
"  # resisting force R(u) can be computed using the substructure model, which
1 1 1
Fnþ1 ¼ Pnþ1 þ M un þ _
u n þ −1 €un
βðΔtÞ2 βΔt 2β
     
α α α
þC un þ −1 u_ n þ Δt −1 €un :
βΔt β 2β

The subscript n denotes the last converged time step, α and β are
constant parameters in the Newmark‐β method, and Δt represents the
integration time step size. Introducing a linear elastic resisting force
Kun + 1, where K is the initial elastic stiffness matrix of the structure,
Equation 2 can be modified as
" #
1 α
Mþ C þ K unþ1 ¼ Fnþ1 þ ½Kunþ1 −Rðunþ1 Þ: (3)
βðΔtÞ2 βΔt

The second term of right side in Equation 3 is defined as the “non-

linear force corrector”

e
Fnþ1 ¼ Kunþ1 −Rðunþ1 Þ (4)

because it calculates the difference between the linear elastic and

nonlinear resisting forces and remains zero for the linear elastic struc-
tural system. For a special type of nonlinear system where the elastic
moduli for the loading and unloading stages are the same (i.e., linear
elastic), the total displacement can be divided into elastic and plastic
displacements, that is, unþ1 ¼ uenþ1 þ upnþ1 , the resisting force R can
be expressed as Rðunþ1 Þ ¼ Kuenþ1 , and the nonlinear force corrector
enþ1 can be further simplified as
F

e
Fnþ1 ¼ Kupnþ1 : (5)

By defining an equivalent dynamic stiffness matrix,

1 α
Kdyn ¼ Mþ C þ K; (6)
βðΔtÞ2 βΔt

the governing Equation 3 for the NSM becomes

enþ1 :
Kdyn unþ1 ¼ Fnþ1 þ F (7)

It is worth mentioning that the equivalent dynamic stiffness Kdyn

remains constant if the mass and damping matrixes remain
unchanged during the analysis (e.g., Rayleigh damping using the initial FIGURE 1 Master structure and isolated substructures
4 of 13
TABLE 1 Methods for solving the Equation 3
(a) Iterative NSM:
Step 1: Set i = 0; un+1 , i = un;
substructure 
Step 2: unþ1;i → R unþ1;i (calculated in the substructure model);
 local nonlinearity region of the master structural model. The following
Step 3: eFnþ1;i ¼ Kunþ1;i −R unþ1;i ;
h i−1 h i flowchart (Table 2) is used to compute the nonlinear force corrector:
Step 4: unþ1;iþ1 ¼ Kdyn ⋅ Fnþ1 þ e Fnþ1;i ;
Step 5: IF: ‖un+1 , i+1 − un + 1 , i‖ ≥ Tol
Set i=i+1; go to Step 2,
ELSE: this step converges; set n = n + 1; go to step 1 for the next step.
(b) Noniterative NSM:
substructure
Step 1: un → Rðun Þ (calculated in the substructure model);
en ¼ Kun −Rðun Þ;
Step 2: F
h i−1 h i enþ1 follows a similar
en ;
Step 3: unþ1 ≈ Kdyn ⋅ Fnþ1 þ F
Step 4: set n = n + 1, go to Step 1 for the next time step.
Note. NSM = numerical substructure method.
will be explained in detail later. In the noniterative method, the current dis-
placement is approximated by that in the previous step, that is, un+1 ≈ un,
and the nonlinear force corrector by that in the previous step, that is,
enþ1 ≈F
F en ¼ Kun −Rðun Þ . Applying this assumption to Equation 7, the
current displacement can be computed as
h i−1 h i nonlinear force corrector e
unþ1 ≈ Kdyn ⋅ Fnþ1 þ e
Fn :
3 | N O N L I N E A R F O RC E C O R R E C T O R O F
I S O LA T E D S UB S T R U C T U R E M O D E L
As mentioned above, a high‐rise building structure can be simulated
using a linear elastic FE model with coarse mesh, referred to as the
“master” structure model. During an earthquake, if a local
nonlinearity occurs, a new separated or isolated (possibly refined)
substructure model is built, and the connection between the master
structure and the substructures is set up (Figure 1). In each time step
of the iterative and noniterative NSMs (Table 1), the nodal displace-
ment in the yielded region of the master structure un+1 is sent to the
isolation substructure (refer to Step 2 of the iterative NSM and Step
1 of the noniterative NSM in Table 1). The substructure performs a
one‐step static analysis, calculates a nonlinear force corrector e
Fnþ1
(see Equation 4) and sends it back to the master structure (see
Figure 1). Different types of nonlinear components can be treated as
substructures using the iterative and noniterative NSMs, including
nonlinear frames, shear walls, buckling restrained braces (BRB), soils
and foundations, and hybrid testing structures (Figure 1); however,
only the nonlinear frame and shear wall substructures are studied
in this paper. The connection and data transfer between the master
structure and the substructures are achieved by using an efficient
and reliable data transfer technique, the CS technique. There are
two types of substructures that can be considered herein: unrefined
and refined substructures. The computations of the nonlinear force
corrector for the two types of substructures are different, as
described later.
SUN ET AL.
3.1 | Nonlinear force corrector of the unrefined
substructure model
The DOFs of a substructure model are the same as those in the original
where uisolated
nþ1 is the nodal displacement in the isolated substructure,
which is obtained from the local yielded region of the master structure;
uElement
nþ1 and RElement
nþ1 denote the nodal displacement and resisting force
of an element in the substructure, respectively; and ε and σ denote the
strain and stress in a material point of the element, respectively. The
computation of the nonlinear force corrector F
flowchart as that for computing the structural internal resisting force.
First, the nodal displacement of the substructure uisolated
nþ1 is transferred
from the master structure, from which the nodal displacement of each
element uElement
nþ1 can be extracted, and then the strain in each material
point ε can be computed based on the assumed displacement field using
a shape function interpolation. The stress σ in this material point can be
computed using a material constitutive model (material level), the
element internal resisting force RElement can be integrated using the stress
nþ1
σ of each material point (element level), and the structural internal force
Rn+1 can be computed by assembling RElement
nþ1 (structure level). Then, the
Fnþ1 can be computed using Equation 4.
(8)
3.2 | Nonlinear force corrector of the refined
substructure model
For refined substructures, it is important to set up the relation of
responses (i.e., nodal forces and displacements) between the coarse
mesh in the master structure and the refined mesh in the substruc-
tures. Figure 2 illustrates a local yielded region in the master structure
model (Figure 2b) and an isolated refined substructure model (Figure 2c).
As mentioned above, the nodal displacement uNL in the local yielded
region of the master structure model is transferred to the isolated sub-
structure model, and then the corresponding nonlinear force corrector
e
F (Equation 4) needs to be calculated by the substructure model and
sent back to the master structure model. The nodal displacements in
the substructure usub can be divided into two groups: (a) the displace-
ment of the boundary nodes ub, including both the boundary nodes
on the physical edges of the substructure and the inside nodes at the
same locations as those in the local yielded region of the master
structure (i.e., the central node in Figure 2b is treated as boundary node
in substructure) and (b) the inner nodes ui, including all remaining nodes
besides the boundary nodes. Therefore, the nodal displacement of the
 T
substructure can be expressed as usub ¼ uTb uTi . It is worth mention-
ing that the boundary nodes defined herein are different from the
“conventional” boundary nodes connecting two FE meshes (or connec-
tion boundary) because they may include nodes not on the physical
boundary of the substructure (e.g., the central node in Figure 2c).
In the NSM presented herein, the boundary nodal displacement
ub can be assumed to be consistent with the displacement field of
the master structure to avoid displacement discrepancy on the
connection boundary, that is, ub is interpolated from uNL using the
shape function of the elements in the master structure, which is
SUN ET AL. 5 of 13

TABLE 2 Flowchart for computing the nonlinear force corrector for an unrefined model

ub ¼ NuNL ; (9) RNL ¼ NT Rsub;b : (13)

where N denotes “continuous boundary transfer matrix” that guaran- e of this yielded region is calculated
The nonlinear force corrector F
tees the displacement continuity on the boundary between the by substituting Equation 13 into Equation 4, yielding
master structure and the substructures. In each time step, the
substructure model can be analyzed using a one‐step static analysis e ¼ KuNL −RNL ¼ KuNL −NT Rsub;b :
F (14)
by constraining the boundary nodes to have the specified displace-
ment ub. From Equation 9, it is clear that where K is the initial stiffness of the yielded region in the master
structure.
δub ¼ NδuNL : (10)

On the basis of the principle of virtual work, that is, the local
4 | VERIFICATION AND APPLICATION
yielded region of the master structure and the isolated substructure
O F NSM
have the same virtual work as the following expression:
n o
δub  In this section, the iterative and noniterative NSMs mentioned above
RTNL δuNL ¼ RTsub δusub ¼ RTsub;b RTsub;i ; (11)
δui are implemented, and their accuracy and computational efficiency are
studied in detail by comparing with the existing modified Newton–
where RNL and Rsub are resisting forces of the local yielded region of
Raphson method using initial stiffness (i.e., named as modified NR or
the master structure and the substructure, respectively; Rsub,b and
NR in the following sections). In the NSM, the resisting forces of the
Rsub,i represent resisting forces corresponding to the boundary node
isolated substructures (i.e., the Step 2 in the iterative NSM or the Step
and inner node of the substructure, respectively.
1 in the noniterative NSM as illustrated in Table 1) are computed using
In the NSM, the external force is applied on the master structure
the open‐source software framework OpenSees,[17–19] an open sys-
instead of the substructure. The corresponding displacements of the
tem for earthquake engineering simulation, developed under the aus-
master structure are applied to the boundary nodes of the substruc-
pice of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (http://
ture for calculating the responses of substructures. The inner nodes
peer.berkeley.edu); the other calculations, including the formation
of the substructure do not subject to the external force. Therefore,
and LU decomposition of the whole structure stiffness matrix, the
the resisting force Rsub,i of the inner node is zero according to the
elastoplastic state judgment of element, and the iteration and conver-
equivalence between the resisting force and external force. Then
gence determination of the whole structural system, are all performed
Equation 11 can be modified as
in the master structure system using another OpenSees. The different
RTNL δuNL ¼ RTsub;b δub : (12) OpenSees platforms are integrated by using an efficient and simple CS
technique. In addition, a seismic analysis of the structure using the
Substitute Equation 10 into Equation 12, the resisting force RNL of modified NR method is also conducted on the OpenSees, to make their
the local yielded region in the master structure is obtained, as computational times comparable.

FIGURE 2 Calculation of nonlinear force corrector using refined substructure model

6 of 13
Two different‐scale application examples are presented to verify
the NSM. The first example studies a 32‐story RC tall building
subjected to earthquake base excitation, and computational results
obtained by using the iterative NSM, noniterative NSM and NR are
compared to study the efficiency and accuracy of the NSM.
Furthermore, the other example performs a nonlinear seismic analysis
of a two‐dimensional one‐story three‐bay RC frame and compares the
structural responses calculated by using the NSM with the shake table
test results. Both refined and unrefined models are modeled in the
isolated substructures during the process of the NSM, and the results
are compared to demonstrate the effect of model refinement on the
numerical accuracy.
4.1 | Example I
A 32‐story RC frame‐shear wall tall building (as shown in Figure 3)
under an earthquake is presented to verify the accuracy and efficiency
of the NSM. The building is 129 m high with the first story height of
5.0 m and others of 4.0 m (see Figure 3a). The structure system
consists of RC shear walls, outer steel‐RC mega columns, outer steel
beam, and steel braces (see Figure 3b). The detail dimensions
properties, steel and concrete material parameters, reinforcing detail-
ing of the building are referred to the literature.[20]
During the seismic analysis of the building under cyclic earthquake
load, displacement‐based fiber Euler‐Bernoulli beam‐column elements
with five Gauss points are used to simulate the nonlinear behavior of
the frame beams and columns, where uniaxial behaviors of concrete
and steel fibers in each fiber section of the frame element are
[21]
simulated by using a modified Kent‐Scott‐Park model and Giuffro‐
[22]
Menegotto‐Pinto model, respectively. The shear wall are modeled
using a four‐node shell element, in which in‐plate nonlinear behavior
of each Gauss point is simulated using a plane stress material
consisting of two‐dimensional steel and concrete stresses, and both
the steel and concrete layers' stresses are calculated from the stresses
FIGURE 3 The 32‐story RC frame‐shear wall building (unit: millimeter)
SUN ET AL.
of one‐dimensional steel and concrete bars. The details for this model
are described in the literature.[23] Whereas for simplicity, an elastic
model is adopted to simulate the out‐of‐plate behavior of the shell
element.
After static application of the gravity loads, the structure is sub-
jected to a uniform base excitation, in which the input ground motion
is taken as the 40‐s El‐Centro (1994) earthquake acceleration scaled to
a peek ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4 g (see Figure 4). Herein, the
Newmark‐β integration scheme is employed with the parameters
α = 0.5 and β = 0.25, and Rayleigh damping is assumed with damping
ratio of 0.025[24,25] corresponding to the first and third frequencies
(0.419 and 2.71 Hz) in the seismic action direction (i.e., X direction as
shown in the Figure 3b). A tolerance of 1.0e‐5 mm on the norm of
the incremental displacement is used as the convergence criterion of
the modified NR and iterative NSM. During the seismic analysis, when-
ever local nonlinearity occurs, refined or unrefined substructure
models were created and presented in the following section 4.1 and
4.2, respectively, from which the nonlinear force corrector was calcu-
lated and applied to the master structure model.
There are two analysis cases that are illustrated in Table 3. In
Case 1 (section 4.1), the numerical accuracy and computational effi-
ciency of the NSM are studied, where each shear wall and frame
beam‐column component of all stories are simulated by using one
four‐node shell element and one displacement‐based fiber element in
the master structure, respectively. Each yield element (or component)
in the master structure system is isolated and modeled using a shell
or displacement‐based fiber element in a substructure system. With-
out generality, yield regions, some structural components, buckling
restrained braces, soils and foundation, or hybrid testing structures
can be regarded as substructures (see Figure 1), and in this example
herein a single shell or frame component is taken as a substructure.
At the same time, in order to verify the numerical accuracy and compu-
tational efficiency, a comparative analysis using the modified NR is
performed, where the FE mesh is the same as the master structure.
SUN ET AL.
FIGURE 4 The El‐Centro earthquake accelerations (1940)
Then an application example of the noniterative NSM is studied in the
Case 2, in which each shear wall, frame beam‐column component of all
stories is simulated by using one four‐node shell element, one displace-
ment‐based fiber element in the master structure, respectively, and
each yield element in the master structure system is isolated and
modeled using a shell or displacement‐based fiber element in a
substructure system. Whereas the yield shell elements at the bottom
and 11th stories of the master structure are modeled using 16 shell
elements in the substructure system, considering that these shear
walls may be the key components as the largest drift ratio of the shear
wall at the bottom and 11th story (see Figure 8).
Case 1. Accuracy and efficiency investigation
In this section, each yield element is isolated and modeled using
unrefined substructure model (i.e., 1 shell or frame element in the
substructure) and the numerical accuracy and computational efficiency
of the NSM are studied. The 32‐story RC frame‐shear wall tall building
mentioned above is analyzed by using the iterative NSM, noniterative
NSM, and NR, respectively.
The time histories of top displacements obtained by using the
three methods are compared in Figure 5. Results from the Figure 5
show that the responses obtained by using the iterative NSM and
the modified NR are almost the same, while the noniterative NSM
gives slightly different results. A root‐mean‐square error (eRMS) is used
to quantify the difference between two response, that is,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 N
eRMS ¼ × ∑ ðX i −Y i Þ2 = maxðjXi jÞ×100%;
N i¼1
where N represents total number of data instances (i.e., time steps), Xi
and Yi are two responses to be compared, and subscript i denotes ith
time step. The discrepancies, quantified by the eRMS, of the modified
NR versus the iterative NSM and the modified NR versus the
noniterative NSM are 3.4% and 18.0%, respectively.
The relatively large error of the noniterative NSM may be caused
by the unbalance between the internal and external forces of the
structure system at each time step. In order to study the effect of time
step size on the numerical accuracy using the noniterative NSM,
comparative studies are performed on the structural responses
TABLE 3 Two analysis cases for verification of the numerical substructure method
Shear wall component
Analysis case Story levels Master structure
Case I 1–32 1 shell element
Case II 1st, 11th 1 shell element
Others 1 shell element
7 of 13
calculated by using various time step sizes, that is, 0.02, 0.01, and
0.005 s, as shown in Figure 6. The discrepancy between the analytical
results using the modified NR and noniterative NSM decreases as the
time step size of the noniterative NSM becomes small. The root‐mean‐
square errors obtained by using Equation 15 are 18.0%, 11.6%, and
7.5% when the time step size is taken as 0.02, 0.01, and 0.005 s,
respectively. An acceptable discrepancy (i.e., 7.5%) can be obtained
when the time step size is taken as 0.005 s in this application example.
Furthermore, in order to quantify the computational efficiency, all
these analyses are performed on a Dell workstation with two IntelR
XeonR CPU 2.60 GHz 6‐Core processor. The detail computational
information, including number of load steps, time step size, number
of iterations, number of formations and LU decompositions for the
whole structural stiffness matrix, computational time, and numerical
errors, using the three methods with various time step sizes is summa-
rized in Table 4. From the table, it is evident that the iterative NSM and
the modified NR have the same computational information, that is, the
number of load steps, the time step size, the number of iterations, for-
mations, and LU decompositions for the whole structural stiffness
matrix; however, the iterative NSM has a higher efficiency than the
modified NR, where the absolute computational time of the iterative
NSM and modified NR are 7.47 and 9.64 hr. When the time step size
is taken as 0.02 s, the noniterative NSM and the modified NR have
the same number of load steps, formations, and LU decompositions
for the whole structural stiffness matrix, but the number of iterations
using the noniterative NSM is much less than that using the modified
NR, and as a result of that, the computational efficiency using the
noniterative NSM is 13 times of that using the modified NR. The com-
putational time (efficiency) when time step size reduces to 0.01 and
0.005 s is twice (half) and 4 times (a quarter) of that when the time step
size equals to 0.02 s.
Figure 7 gives the time histories of isolation element ratio for
outer‐frame, core‐tube, and whole structure elements. Results from
the figure show that around 73% of the total elements, including
49% of the outer‐frame elements and 82% of the core‐tube elements,
yield and then are isolated and analyzed in the substructure systems.
(15)
That is to say, 27% of the whole structure elements remain elastic
and thus the determination of states (i.e., calculation for the strain
and stress resultant of integrator points and the resisting force of
element) for them need not to perform, which may be the main factor
leading to the high efficiency of the iterative NSM.
From above analyses, it is concluded that (a) the iterative NSM and
the modified NR have the same analytical results and computational
information, that is, the time histories of top displacement, the number
of iterations, formations, and LU compositions for the whole structural
stiffness matrix; however, the iterative NSM has a higher efficiency
than the modified NR; (b) the discrepancy between the noniterative
NSM and the modified NR decreases as the time step size becomes
Beam‐column component
Substructure Master structure Substructure
1 shell element 1 frame element 1 frame element
16 shell elements 1 frame element 1 frame element
1 shell element 1 frame element 1 frame element
8 of 13
FIGURE 5 Comparisons of top displacement time histories using
modified NR, iterative NSM and noniterative NSM. iter = iterative;
NR = Newton–Raphson; NSM = numerical substructure method
smaller. In the example presented above, the analytical results
between using the noniterative NSM with the time step size of
0.005 s and the modified NR with the time step size taken as 0.02 s
have an acceptable numerical error (i.e., the root‐mean‐square error
is below 10%); at the same time, the time cost using the noniterative
NSM is only around 23% of that using the modified NR. Overall, the
noniterative NSM taken a small time step size is prohibitively efficient
and may have an acceptable accuracy, and thus it is adopted to per-
form the analysis in the following section.
Case 2. Use of the refined substructure
In this section, the same problem as illustrated above is reanalyzed
by using refined substructure models for some yielded regions to study
the detailed local nonlinearity behaviors. Shear walls in the seismic
action direction of the bottom and 11th stories are isolated and simu-
lated by using refined substructures, in which relatively refined mesh,
that is, mesh 4 × 4 and total 16 four‐node shell elements are used to
simulate the nonlinear behavior of the wall components (see Figure 8
). And each shell element is modeled as the same as that in the master
structure, that is, using the nonlinear plate stress material[22] and the
elastic models to simulate the in‐plate and out‐of‐plate behaviors in
the four Gauss points, respectively. Comparison of maximum drift
envelopes between using refined substructure and unrefined substruc-
ture is illustrated in Figure 8; result from the figure shows that
responses of the whole structure using the refined substructure and
unrefined substructure have a little difference; the maximum drift
value using the refined substructure is slightly larger than that using
the unrefined substructure. The refined model can provide more infor-
mation about the crack development (as shown later in Figures 9–12)
and give more detailed results.
SUN ET AL.
It needs to stress that the L‐shaped wall, including Q2 and Q3, is
the main lateral force resisting component in the core tube shear wall,
and it is simulated using two four‐node shell elements for two plane
shear walls in the two perpendicular directions (i.e., Q2 and Q3 in
the Figure 3b) and a displacement‐based fiber Euler‐Bernoulli beam‐
column element with five Gauss points for the connected concealed
column. In this paper, the building structure is subjected to unidirec-
tional input ground motion; therefore, the shear hysteretic behavior
of in‐plane for the shear walls along the direction of the seismic motion
is studied, whereas the out‐of‐plane shear capacity for the shear walls
perpendicular to ground motion direction is not investigated. Herein
gives a local simulation of the shear wall located in the Q3 of the bot-
tom story using the refined substructure, as illustrated in Figure 9. It
shows that the hysteretic curve between the shear force and the drift
ratio of the shear wall. In addition, two points (i.e., initial crack and
maximum crack) are marked to represent initial crack state and maxi-
mum crack state under the cyclic earthquake load in the Figure 9. It
is worth mentioning that strains along diagonal directions (i.e., at 45°
or −45° angle from the horizontal direction) in each Gauss point of
the shell element are studied herein, and the shear wall cracks when
the strain in any of the two directions is larger than 80 με.
Figure 10 gives the initial and maximum crack strain states, respec-
tively. Results from Figures 9 and 10 show that the initial crack occurs
when the drift ratio is 0.01% and a maximum crack width of 2,168 με is
obtained when the drift ratio is −0.23% in the bottom story. From the
Figure 10a,b, it can be concluded that the bottom regions of the shear
wall have a lager tensile strain; that is to say, the crack concentrates on
the bottom regions of the shear walls in the bottom story.
In addition, Figure 11 gives the simulated result of the shear wall
Q3 in the 11th story. It shows the maximum drift ratio in the positive
direction is 0.46% whereas a larger drift ratio (i.e., 0.825%) is obtained
in the negative direction. The initial and maximum crack states are
marked in the Figure 11, but it is worth mentioning that the maximum
crack state occurs corresponds to the maximum drift ratio (i.e., 0.46%)
in the positive direction rather than the negative direction with larger
drift ratio (i.e., 0.825%).
Then Figure 12 depicts the initial and maximum crack states of the
shear wall in the 11th story, respectively. The crack occurs when the
drift ratio reaches 0.033% in the positive direction, and the top right
region of the shear wall cracks first; the crack width of the shear wall
nearly reaches 2,000 με when the drift ratio is 0.46% in the positive
direction in the 11th story.
FIGURE 6 Comparisons of structural
responses using the modified NR method and
the noniterative NSM with various time step
sizes (the time step sizes are 0.02, 0.01, and
0.005 s). iter = iterative; NR = Newton–
Raphson; NSM = numerical substructure
method
SUN ET AL. 9 of 13

TABLE 4 Comparison of computational accuracy and efficiency using various methods

No. of Numerical errors/%
formations
Load Time No. of and LU Comput.
Methods steps step/s iterations decompositions Time/efficiency Top Disp. Top Vel. Bottom resistance

Modified NR 2000 0.02 60419 1 9.64 h/1 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Iter. NSM 2000 0.02 70946 1 7.47 h/1.3 3.4 2.0 0.9
Non‐iter. NSM 2000 0.02 2000 1 0.59 h/13.0 18.0 31.6 5.9
Non‐iter. NSM 4000 0.01 4000 1 1.08 h/8.9 11.6 10.3 4.3
Non‐iter. NSM 8000 0.005 8000 1 2.21 h/4.4 7.5 6.8 3.1

Note. iter = iterative; NSM = numerical substructure method.

The responses of the whole structure using the refined substruc-
ture and unrefined substructure are slightly different. The stiffness
degradation, the process of cracking, widths of crack, and the region
of crack for the shear walls can be well captured in the refined sub-
structure model. The refined model can provide more accurate simula-
tion in some cases as shown in the section 4.2.
4.2 | Example application II
The second example is used to illustrate the effect of model refine-
ment on the simulation accuracy of the isolated substructure and dem-
onstrate the improved accuracy using the refined over the unrefined
model. An example of a RC frame[26] subjected to a unidirectional
shake table excitation is studied. The frame consists of two ductile col-
umns (i.e., C3 and C4), two non‐ductile columns (i.e., C1 and C2), rigid
foots, and rigid top beams. Figure 13 shows the geometry, cross‐
sectional properties, and FE model of the RC frame. The EW compo-
nent of the TCU082 accelerogram from the 1999 Chi‐Chi Taiwan
Earthquake scaled by 7.0 is employed as the shake table input motion
(peek ground acceleration = 1.55 g). The details of the experiments
and test results can be found in the literature.[26]
Analyses are performed in OpenSees for both the master structure
(Figure 13a) and the isolated column substructures modeled at differ-
ent levels of refinement (Figure 13b,c). The first analysis employs an
unrefined substructure model. The top beams in the master structure
are modeled using a rigid beam column element, whereas the four
columns are modeled using an unrefined nonlinear frame element
(Figure 13b) satisfying a specified sectional moment‐curvature rela-
tionship with the following material parameters: bending stiffness
EI = 160.9574 kN.mm2; yield moment My = 0.4088 kN.mm; and ratio
of the post yield to the initial stiffness b = 0.05. Alternately, the second
analysis employs a refined substructure model. The two ductile col-
umns (i.e., C3 and C4) are modeled using a fiber beam column model,
whereas the other two non‐ductile columns (i.e., C1 and C2) are
modeled using a refined truss model[27] (Figure 13e). In the refined
fiber beam column model for C3 and C4, the constitutive behavior of
the reinforcement steel is represented using a uniaxial Giuffre‐
Menegotto‐Pinto constitutive model with linear kinematic harden-
ing[22] with the following material parameters: Young's modulus
E = 2.06e5 MPa; yield stresses fy = 232 MPa and 471 MPa for No. 2
and No. 3 steels, respectively (see Figure 13a); and ratio of the post
yield to the initial stiffness b = 0.01. The concrete material is simulated
using a uniaxial modified Kent‐Scott‐Park model.[21] Different material
parameters are used for the confined “core” and unconfined “cover”
concrete in the columns. For the confined concrete model, the peak
strength fc = −45.08 MPa; the strain at peak strength εc = −0.006;
the residual strength fcu = −6.44 MPa; and the strain at which the resid-
ual strength is reached εcu = −0.008. For the unconfined cover con-
crete model, fc = −32.2 MPa; εc = −0.002; fcu = −6.44 MPa; and
εcu = −0.008. For both the core and cover concrete, the tensile strength
ft = 1.885 MPa; the ratio between the unloading slope at crushing
strength and the initial slope b = 0.1; and the tension softening stiff-
ness Et = −942.5 MPa.

FIGURE 7 Time histories of isolation element ratio for outer frame, FIGURE 8 Comparison of maximum drift responses using refined
inner core tube, and total element substructure and unrefined substructure
10 of 13
FIGURE 9 Hysteretic curve between shear force and drift of the
bottom story shear wall simulated using the refined substructure
FIGURE 10 Initial crack and maximum crack states of the shear wall
Q3 at the bottom story (a) initial crack state and (b) maximum crack
state
FIGURE 11 Hysteretic curve between shear force and drift of the
11th story shear wall simulated using the refined substructure
In the refined truss model for C1 and C2, the bending and shearing
behaviors of the column are modeled by a set of horizontal, vertical,
and diagonal truss components. For each of the horizontal and vertical
truss components, a truss pair, including a concrete truss and a steel
truss, is used to model the bending behavior of the column
SUN ET AL.
FIGURE 12 Initial and maximum crack states of the shear wall Q3 in
the 11th story (a) initial crack state and (b) maximum crack state
(Figure 13d). The concrete and steel constitutive models in the truss
pair are the same as those in the literature.[27] The cross section areas
of the truss pairs are set to 10714 and 17.230 mm2 for the horizontal
concrete and steel trusses, respectively; 7500.0 and 212.65 mm2 for
the vertical boundary concrete and steel trusses, respectively; and
7500.0 and 141.76 mm2 for the vertical center concrete and steel
trusses, respectively. In contrast to the horizontal and vertical truss
components, the diagonal truss component only includes one concrete
truss element with an area of 6144.2 mm2. However, it should be
emphasized that the compressive strength of the truss along one
diagonal direction is reduced by using a softening coefficient β, which
is a function of the tensile strain normal to this compressive direction,
as explained in detail in the literature.[27]
The global or macro responses using the two models are studied
by comparing them with the experimental results. The drift ratio
histories obtained by FE computations and experiments are compared
in Figure 14. It is clear that the analytical results using refined fiber and
truss models have much better agreement with the experimental
results than those using the unrefined model. The peak drift ratios
can be simulated more precisely when using the refined model than
the unrefined model.
The shear force‐displacement responses of C1 computed using
unrefined and refined models are compared to the experimental
results in Figure 15a,b, respectively. It is observed that the refined
model can precisely simulate the complicated nonlinear hysteric
behavior of the column during the base excitation process (e.g., the
pinch effect, reductions of stiffness, and strength), whereas the unre-
fined model cannot simulate these phenomena accurately. Further-
more, the refined truss model can provide extra information
regarding the local damages, such as the generation and propagation
of local cracks in the column (see Figure 15c) simulated by using the
tensile strain in the concrete trusses of the refined truss model. The
trusses with tensile strains larger than 0.1 at a few representative time
steps indicate that cracks occur at a few local regions at these time
steps.
From Example 2, it can be concluded that a refined isolated
substructure model based on the refined fiber and truss models is able
to simulate the nonlinear bending and shear behaviors of the column
SUN ET AL. 11 of 13

FIGURE 13 Geometry, cross‐sectional properties and finite element model of the RC frame. (a) Geometry and section properties; (b) unrefined
moment‐curvature model; (c) refined fiber model; and (d) refined truss model

FIGURE 14 Comparisons of drift ratio

histories obtained from experiments and finite
element analyses

FIGURE 15 Comparisons of the shear force versus the displacement responses of C1 between experimental results and computed results using (a)
an unrefined model and (b) a refined model. (c) Simulations of the local cracks in the C1 column at three representative times by using the refined
truss model

more precisely than the unrefined model. Furthermore, the refined
model (e.g., the refined truss model) is able to simulate the generation
and propagation of local cracks and therefore can be used to model the
local damage behaviors in the framework of the NSM.
5 | CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
This paper presents an efficient and accurate method, referred to as
the NSM, for large‐scale nonlinear static or dynamic analysis of realistic
high‐rise buildings. The difficult problem of large‐scale nonlinear anal-
ysis is divided into two simpler uncoupled subproblems, that is, the
moderate‐scale linear elastic analysis of a master structure
representing the entire building and nonlinear analyses of a limited
quantity of substructures in local yielded regions. Each substructure
is simulated using an isolated refined or unrefined nonlinear model
and analyzed in parallel with the master structure on a most
appropriate software platform. A nonlinear force corrector is calcu-
lated by the substructure and applied to the master structure to take
into account the extra contribution of this substructure due to the
nonlinearity. Both iterative and noniterative NSMs are developed and
compared with the existing modified NR method. A 32‐story high‐rise
frame‐shear wall building is employed to verify the accuracy and
efficiency of the newly developed iterative and noniterative NSMs.
Besides, a RC frame subjected to a unidirectional shake table excitation
is investigated by comparing with experimental results, the advantage
of using refined versus unrefined substructure models are demon-
strated by comparing with experimental results, the advantage of using
refined versus unrefined substructure models are demonstrated.
Several conclusions obtained from these studies can be summa-
rized as follows:
(a) The iterative and noniterative NSMs are practically useful. The
iterative NSM gives the same results as modified NR, while
12 of 13
noniterative NSM gives slightly different results (i.e., the root‐
mean‐square error between them is 18.0% when time step size
is 0.02 s), the root‐mean‐square error decreases with reducing
time step (i.e., 11.6% and 7.5% when time step size taken as
0.01 and 0.005 s, respectively).
(b) The iterative and noniterative NSMs are more efficient than
modified NR. In the examples presented above, the time costs
using the iterative and noniterative NSMs are 7.47 and 0.59 hr,
whose computational efficiencies are 1.3 and 13.0 times of that
using the modified NR (i.e., 9.64 hr), respectively. And the compu-
tational cost using the noniterative NSM increases as more
number of iterations when its time step size becomes smaller
(i.e., the time costs are 1.08 and 2.21 hr when the time step
sizes are 0.01 and 0.005 s, respectively) but is still much less
than that using the modified NR. In addition, the noniterative
NSM with small time step size can be adopted to perform
seismic analysis of structure.
(c) Analytical and experimental results shows that a refined isolated
substructure model based on the refined fiber and truss models is
able to simulate the nonlinear bending and shear behaviors of the
column more precisely than the unrefined model. Furthermore,
the refined model (e.g., the refined truss model) is able to simu-
late the generation and propagation of local cracks and therefore
can be used to model the local damage behaviors in the frame-
work of the NSM.
On the basis of the study presented in this paper, some
advantages of the NSM are demonstrated: (a) the master structure
can be simulated using a coarse‐mesh or even elastic model, which is
not changed during the entire analysis. The computation effort for
the master structure is not prohibitively large. The analysis for the
linear elastic master structure model is efficient because the
constant structural stiffness matrix can be assembled and
decomposed (e.g., LU triangle decomposition) only once during a
seismic analysis; (b) each substructure model is built when a new
structural component yields; therefore, the number and locations
of the substructures (i.e., the local nonlinearity regions) do not need
to be predetermined, and each substructure is isolated from the
master structure and may be modeled with a refined FE mesh or
other simulation techniques that can accurately simulate the local
nonlinear behaviors (e.g., concrete cracking) on a most appropriate
software platform; the number of local nonlinearity regions is usually
small to moderate during an earthquake; therefore, the quantity of
substructures is usually acceptably small and the total computational
cost for the substructures is not prohibitively high; (c) the models for
the master structure and the substructures are physically separated;
therefore, they can be analyzed on different platforms and
integrated by using an efficient and reliable CS technique. The
master structure and the substructures can be analyzed using parallel
and distributed computation methods.
Limitations include the following: (a) the method is not efficient
when applied to nonlinear elastic structure models because the
nonlinear force correctors for all structural components are nonzero;
(b) the geometric nonlinearity has not been considered in the NSM
presented herein; and (c) additional work is needed in each step to
SUN ET AL.
judge the elastoplastic states of the elements in the master
structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support by the National Key Research and Development pro-
gram of China under Grant No. 2016YFC0701106 and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 51261120376,
51578473 and 91315301‐12 are gratefully acknowledged.
RE FE RE NC ES
[1] R. W. Clough, E. L. Wilson, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1979, 17,
107.
[2] K. Bathe, S. Gracewski, Comput. Struct. 1981, 13(5–6), 699.
[3] D. R. J. Owen, O. J. A. Goncalves, Comput. Struct. 1982, 15(3), 205.
[4] S. Ali, I. D. Moore, A. W. Page, Comput. Struct. 1987, 27(3), 417.
[5] J. Huang, T. Wang, Comput. Struct. 1993, 46(5), 845.
[6] H. Chen, G. C. Archer, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2005, 19(2), 148.
[7] K. K. Wong, R. Yang, J. Eng. Mech. 1999, 125(10), 1190.
[8] K. K. Wong, R. Yang, J. Eng. Mech. 2002, 128(3), 308.
[9] K. K. Wong, R. Yang, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 2003, 32(14),
2179.
[10] K. K. Wong, Y. Wang, Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2003, 12(5), 393.
[11] K. K. Wong, D. F. Zhao, J. Eng. Mech. 2007, 133(10), 1061.
[12] X. Zhang, K. K. Wong, Y. Wang, Eng. Struct. 2007, 29(10), 2792.
[13] S. H. Chao, C. H. Loh, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 2007, 36(12),
1659.
[14] G. Li, H. N. Li, Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2011, 20(3), 291.
[15] Q. Gu, O. Ozcelik, Struct. Eng. Mech. 2011, 40(1), 85.
[16] A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of structures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1995.
[17] F. Mckenna, Object‐oriented finite element programming: Frame-
works for analysis, algorithms and parallel computing. University of
California, Berkeley, 1997.
[18] F. Mckenna, M. H. Scott, G. L. Fenves, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2009,
24(1), 95.
[19] G. L. Fenves, F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, Y. Takahashi, An
object‐oriented software environment for collaborative network
simulation. Proceedings of 13th World Conference on earthquake
engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004; 1492. DVD‐ROM.
[20] H. Goman, C. Hongchao, C. Rohin, Build. Struct. 2013, 46(16), 54
(in Chinese).
[21] R. Park, M. J. N. Priestley, W. D. Gill, J. Struct. Div. 1982, 108(4), 929.
[22] M. Menegotto, P. E. Pinto, Method of analysis for cyclically loaded
R.C. Plane frames including changes in geometry and non‐elastic
behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending.
Proc., IABSE Symp. on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of
Structures Acted on by Well‐Defined Repeated Loads, Final Rep.,
Lisbon, Portugal, 1973.
[23] B. Sun, Q. Gu, P. Zhang, J. Ou, Study and application of a novel multi‐
cross‐line reinforced concrete shear wall model. Proceedings of the 25th
National Conference on Structural Engineering, Neimenggu, China,
2016. (in Chinese).
[24] TBI Guidelines Working Group. Guidelines for performance‐based
seismic design of tall buildings. PEER Rep. No. 2010/05, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2010.
[25] C. Cruz, E. Miranda. J. Struct. Eng., 2016; 143(1), 04016144.
[26] C. L. Wu, W. W. Kuo, Y. S. Yang, S. J. Hwang, K. J. Elwood, C. H. Loh,
J. P. Moehle, Earthquake Eng. Struc. Dynam. 2009, 38(2), 205.
[27] M. Mohammadreza, K. Ioannis, P. Marios, C. G. Sadik, Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dynam. 2015, 44(4), 677.
SUN ET AL. 13 of 13

Mr. Baoyin Sun is a PhD candidate at Dalian University of Technol-

How to cite this article: Sun B, Gu Q, Zhang P, Ou J. A prac-
ogy, China. His current research interests include nonlinear finite
tical numerical substructure method for seismic nonlinear anal-
element analysis, simulation, and evaluation of reinforced concrete
ysis of tall building structures. Struct Design Tall Spec Build.
structures.
2017;e1377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tal.1377
Dr. Quan Gu is a professor at the Xiamen University, China. His
research interests include structural analysis and dynamics, earth-
quake engineering, structural reliability, and risk analysis.

Mr. Peizhou Zhang is a PhD at Dalian University of Technology,

China. His current research interests include nonlinear analysis,
simulation, and evaluation of reinforced concrete structures.

Dr. Jinping Ou is a professor at Dalian University of Technology,

China. His research interests include structural monitoring, control
and disaster prevention, and mitigation.