6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology

13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

ON THE EFFECTS OF CROSS-SECTIONAL RIGIDITY ON THE RESULTS OF

THE LINEAR AND THE NON-LINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
A.R. Özuygur1, Z. Özcan2 and Z. Celep3
1
Dr., Department of Civil Engineering, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakif University, Istanbul
Email: aliruzi@gmail.com
2
Dr., Department of Civil Engineering, Sakarya University, Sakarya
3
Prof.Dr., Department of Civil Engineering, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakif University, Istanbul

ABSTRACT:

Gross section stiffnesses was used in the structural analysis in the Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings (TSCB
2007), without implementing any reduction, whereas in TSCB 2018, effective stiffness coefficients are given for
evaluation of the effective section stiffnesses. Additionally, in the non-linear analyses, it is generally recommended
to divide the members into two regions, taking into account effectiveness of linear and nonlinear behavior.
Adopting the plastic hinge assumption and using effective stiffness in other parts of structural members is widely
used in structural engineering practice. Use of the gross effective stiffness coefficients is the first simple
assumption to consider nonlinear behavior of the members, including the nonlinear behavior of concrete and steel
as well as cracking of concrete. The presented study focuses on the assumptions related to the cross-sectional
stiffness given in TSCB (2018) by considering a reinforced concrete plane frame consisting of shear wall and
frame. The plane structural system is analyzed by focusing on the modelling assumptions of the structural systems
and on the modelling type of the nonlinear deformations and on the methods of analyses, by assuming linear and
nonlinear behavior. The shear wall is modelled as an equivalent column and plane shell elements. The nonlinear
behavior of the beams and the columns of the frames is considered by adopting plastic hinges at their two ends,
whereas the beams and columns are assumed to be frame members. The plastic hinge assumption is employed in
the frame members and in the shear wall modelled as an equivalent column. Furthermore, for more accurate
modeling nonlinear plane members are adopted for the shear walls as well. In general, the assumptions given in
TSCB (2018) are adopted and their accuracy have been questioned by accomplishing a series of numerical results
and the results are presented in figures comparatively. The results show that the assumptions on the sectional
stiffness have a profound effect on the nonlinear behavior of the structure and on the results.

KEYWORDS: Seismic analysis, linear analysis, nonlinear analysis, Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings

1. INTRODUCTION

Since mathematical precision is not required and not targeted in earthquake engineering applications and analyses
with sufficient approximation are considered to be adequate, structural analysis involving seismic forces is carried
out by using appropriate simplifications. One of the most important simplifications in the analysis of reinforced
concrete structures is the distinct separation of slabs and beams and considering them as discrete members, and
then the acceptance of the effective compression flange width in the beams and evaluation the effective stiffness
accordingly. Consequently, for the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete members, evaluation of section
stiffnesses is a controversial issue, even in the linear structural analysis. As it is known, the gross section stiffnesses
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

was used in the structural analysis in the Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings 2007 (TSCB 2007), without
considering any reduction, whereas in the Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings 2018 (TSCB 2018), effective
stiffness coefficients up to 0.15 are given for evaluation of the effective section stiffness. The large difference can
be considered as a sign of the degree of uncertainty. As it is known, the changes in the section stiffness affect the
distribution of the cross-sectional forces in the members of the structural system, whereas it directly causes changes
in deformations and displacements. Defining more accurate cross-sectional stiffnesses in the nonlinear analyses
involves more complex assumptions. In the non-linear analyses, it is generally recommended to carry out the
analysis by dividing the members into two regions where linear and nonlinear behavior is more effective. Use of
the effective stiffness coefficients is the first simple assumption to consider nonlinear behavior of the members,
including the nonlinear behavior of concrete and steel as well as cracking of concrete, as it is recommended in
TSCB (2018) for the linear analyses. TSCB (2018) recommends use of plastic hinge concept together with the
yield moment and curvature for the non-linear static and dynamic analysis for beams and columns as well as for
the shears walls which can be modelled as equivalent columns. These assumptions can be improved by using the
nonlinear shell elements, as they are adopted in commercial software programs. It is obvious that more
comprehensive results can be obtained, when more refined members and methods are employed. However, it
should be noted that more parameters and assumptions are required when more refined members and methods are
used. Using more parameters will increase the range of variation in results and it will reduce the confidence in
results.

Since the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses are highly nonlinear from the mathematical point of view, and the
nonlinearities increases as the structural system has irregularities, a small change in the system geometry or in the
concrete sections and the reinforcement area may lead to very different results. Being aware of this difficulty, ways
of simplification of the nonlinear analysis are sought in some studies. Simplification of the analysis to obtain more
reliable results is investigated by several studies where modeling parameters related to wall shear behavior, and
global and local building responses are reported (Carvalhoe et al. 2013, Kolozvari et al. 2016, 2017). Using linear
and nonlinear models, the damage states of buildings are investigated to identify the most relevant modeling issues
for the analysis of RC shear wall buildings (Ugalde et al. 2017a, 2017b and 2019). Buildings, designed according
to the requirements of the codes, exhibit nonlinear response, i.e., controlled damage state, when they are subjected
to design earthquake which can be considered a medium-high intensity earthquake. Consequently, non-linear
behavior is expected, and it is indirectly compensated by using the seismic load reduction factor. Behavior factor
and seismic load reduction factor are closely related to each other and are defined to take into account an increase
in the capacity of the structural system and a decrease of the seismic demand. They are investigated by Macedo et
al. (2019) and Sanchez-Ricart (2019) by implementing nonlinear static and dynamic analysis as they are closely
connected to the nonlinear behavior of the structural system. As expected, they depend on the modelling
assumptions of the structure as well.

The present study focuses on the assumptions related to the cross-sectional stiffness given in TSCB (2018) by
considering a reinforced concrete plane structural system consisting of shear walls and frames. The system is
analyzed by focusing on the modelling assumptions of the structural systems and on the modelling approach of
the nonlinear deformations and on the analysis methods including the stiffness variation of the sections and
members. The selected structural systems are analyzed by assuming linear and nonlinear behavior. The shear walls
of the structural system are modelled as equivalent columns and shell elements. The nonlinear behavior of the
beams and the columns of the frames is considered by adopting plastic hinges at their two ends. The plastic hinge
assumption is employed in the shear walls modelled as equivalent columns. Furthermore, for more accurate
modeling, nonlinear layered shell elements are adopted for the shear walls as well. Responses of the selected
structures are evaluated by implementing several conventional analysis methods, i.e., elastic static analysis
(equivalent static method), elastic modal spectral analysis, elastic time domain analysis, inelastic static (pushover)
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

analysis, and inelastic time domain analysis. Assumptions given in TSCB (2018) are adopted and a series of
numerical results are accomplished, and the results are presented in figures comparatively.

A B C C B A A B C
4 20 4 20 4 20 8 26
8
4 16 4 16 4 16 4 18
7 (a) Beam 1 Beam 2

Beam
6 Columns

8x3.20m=25.60m

0.70m

0.18m
5 Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 2 Beam 1
(c) (d)
4  10/150mm
0.35m
Shearwall 0.80m
3 Shearwall

Column 8 20

0.30m
2

(e)
1 (a)
0.30m 16 20
5x8.00m=40.00m
1.60m
8.00m
Models a1 (unreduced) and b1 (reduced)

Models a2 (unreduced) and b2 (reduced)

Shear wall and its boundary elements modelled by
Shear wall modelled by using column and rigid beams shell elements

Column Column

Beam Beam
Rigid beam
(g) (f)

Figure 1. Geometry and reinforcement of the plane structural system used in the numerical analysis

Table 1. Geometry and reinforcement of the columns

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4 Story 5 Story 6 Story 7 Story 8
Square columns 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Column reinforcement 1 2 2 6 1 2 2 5 8 25 8 22 8 22 8 26 8 26 1 2 3 2

2. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

A 3D system having symmetry in two directions and two shear walls in each direction is designed by considering
gravity and seismic loads assuming a moderate seismic effect (Celep, 2020). In this system, the plane frame where
the shear wall is located is considered and all numerical analysis is carried out on it. The design is accomplished
by satisfying the requirements of the TSCB (2018) which is closely related to the ASCE 7-16 (2016). The structural
geometry and reinforcement are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. In order to ensure the moment and force transfer
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

between the beams and the shear wall, the beams are continued in the boundary element of the shear wall. The two
models used in the analyses are presented as well, i.e., using an equivalent column and shell elements for the shear
wall modelling. The seismic parameters used in the design of the structural system are S S D  1 .0 g and S1 D  0 .4 g
which are used for the target spectrum which is employed for scaling of the selected seismic records. The total
seismic load evaluated by using the modal superposition method is 19MN which is transferred to the foundation
by the shear wall (%40), the middle column (%19) and the side column (%11) from the stories of the structural
system equally.

Stiffnesses of the members defined in TSCB in various degree of assumption can be given as follows. In the
present study, the results of the first two are reported only in detail.

a) Use of gross stiffnesses of the members without applying any reduction as given in TSCB (2007) for building
to be designed by elastic analysis, where the nonlinear behavior of the structural system is taken into account by
using the structural behavior factor, which is closely related to the seismic load reduction factor. Furthermore, the
moment transfer between the critical sections of the members is allowed provided that the equilibrium is satisfied.

b) Use of the reduced stiffnesses of members and applying a global stiffness reduction factor for whole member
as given in TSCB (2018) for building to be designed (Table 4.2, TSCB, 2018). The nonlinear behavior of the
structural system is taken into account by using the structural behavior factor as well. The stiffness factors in Table
4.2 (TSCB, 2018) are given in between 0.15 and 0.80 for bending and in between 0.25 and 1.00 for shear. This
factor represents the cracking of concrete and nonlinear deformations of concrete and steel, which can be seen
easily by considering the behavior of the members, such as columns, shear walls and beams. More refined non-
linear analyses can be carried out by adopting the plastic hinge assumption at the two end of the beams and the
columns and at the support of the shear walls modelled as an equivalent column, where excessive inelastic
deformations develop.

c) Use of the effective (reduced) stiffnesses of sections by applying the relations (5.2) and (5.3) of TSCB (2018)
together with the use of the plastic hinge assumption in columns, beams and shear walls and plastic region for the
shear walls where the inelastic region is more widespread. The expressions (5.2) and (5.3) of TSCB (2018) are
driven from the theoretical relations and experimental results. As expected, they include the yield moment and
curvature of the section. Furthermore, the effects of the shear span and the diameter of the tensile reinforcement
are included as a consequence of the experimental results. In fact, the first term in (5.3) corresponds to the regular
bending moment effect and the second term is the modification term to ensure agreement with experimental results
and the third term represents reinforcement slip in the region which can make a significant contribution to the total
stiffness of the section.

In the numerical analyses, the methods of analysis given in TSCB (2018) are employed and the results are
presented comparatively to grasp the effects of the methods of analysis and the assumptions used to determine the
stiffnesses of the members. All numerical analyses are carried out by using ETABS Building Analysis and Design
software.

Linear and nonlinear analyses are carried out by using (a) the unreduced stiffness of the sections and (b) the
reduced stiffness of sections according to Table 4.2 of TSCB (2018). Furthermore (1) equivalent column and (2)
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

shell elements are adopted for the shear wall modelling. In this combination, eight models are developed. Four of
them are linear and the other four are nonlinear which are denoted as a1, a2, b1 and b2 having suffixes L and NL.
Model a2 corresponds to the model where the frame elements are adopted for the beams and the columns and shell
elements are adopted for the shear walls. The difference between Model b2 and Model a2 is that the effective
stiffnesses given in Table 4.4 of TBSC (2018) are used for the beams, columns, and shear walls instead of gross
stiffnesses. Models a1 and b1 correspond to the models where an equivalent column is adopted for the shear wall.

Table 2. Summary of the characteristics of the seismic records

Scale
Record Earthquake Year Station name Magnitude Rjb (km) Vs30 (m/s)
factor(g)
28 6.236 Parkfield 1966 Cholame - Shandon Array #12" 6.19 17.64 409
164 2.387 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Cerro Prieto 6.53 15.19 472
187 2.747 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Parachute Test Site 6.53 12.69 349
549 2.185 Chalfant Valley-02 1986 Bishop - LADWP South St 6.19 14.38 303
725 1.426 Superstition Hills-02 1987 Poe Road (temp) 6.54 11.16 317
850 2.673 Landers 1992 Desert Hot Springs 7.28 21.78 359
1614 3.810 Duzce_ Turkey 1999 Lamont 1061 7.14 11.46 481
2703 3.317 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan-04 1999 CHY028 6.20 17.63 543
2739 3.082 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan-04 1999 CHY080 6.20 12.44 496
6893 1.129 Darfield_ New Zealand 2010 DFHS 7.00 11.86 344
6988 4.524 Darfield_ New Zealand 2010 WSFC 7.00 24.36 344

2.1. Seismic records

The selected structural system is analyzed by using the seismic records obtained from the PEER (2020) database.
Scaling of the records are accomplished by employing the software available in the PEER. The characteristics of
the seismic data which correspond to strike slip mechanism and the scaling factors are given in Table 2. Their
spectra and the target spectra developed by using the seismic parameters S S D  1 .0 g and S1 D  0 .4 g are presented
in Figure 2 for the damping ratio of   0.05 and 0.10 . The mean spectrum of the 11 selected records and the
spectra are shown in Figure 2 by including the mean together with minus and plus of the standard deviation from
the mean.

2.2. Linear analysis

Linear analysis is carried out to evaluate the free vibration periods, the lateral stiffness and the participation of the
shear wall to the total base shear force and to the overturning moment for the models explained above. Thus, the
results of the four models are given in Table 3. In the table, the results of the spectral analysis and the results
obtained by using seismic records are given. The fact that these two series of the results are close to each other
indicates that the seismic records are properly scaled, and their spectra are close to the target spectrum in an
acceptable level of approximation, as Figure 2 shows. As expected, when the stiffnesses of the structural members
are reduced, larger periods and smaller lateral system stiffnesses are obtained. These parameters affect seismic
behavior of the structural system, including seismic forces and displacements. It is obvious that they depend on
the stiffness reduction ratio and the spectrum of the seismic record. Due to the various free vibration periods of
the structural system, the effects of the spectrum are not easy to determine. Since the stiffness reduction is carried
out in all members of the system, there is almost no significant change in the ratio of the shear force of the shear
wall.
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

Table 3. Results of the linear analysis

Model a1L Model a2L Model b1L Model b2L
Unreduced/Equivalen Unreduced/Shell Reduced/Equivalent Reduced/Shell
t column element column element
First three vibration
0.485; 0.117; 0.069 0.479; 0.112; 0.068 0.704; 0.160; 0.084 0.693; 0.153; 0.081
periods(s)
Lateral stiffness
171.429 175.610 81.081 73.903
(kN/mm)
Mass participation
0.691; 0.201; 0.047 0.688; 0.198; 0.047 0.688; 0.205; 0.055 0.685; 0.203; 0.054
ratios
Shear wall normal
0.389 0.389 0.380 0.383
force/Total G+nQ
Lateral seismic
0.629 0.633 0.426 0.457
force/Weight
Seismic
displacement×103/Total 2.793 2.755 3.984 3.930
height
Shear force of the shear
wall/Total seismic 0.938 0.938 0.938 0.938
force
Bending moment of the
shear wall/Overturning 0.749 0.751 0.782 0.784
moment
Max. total seismic 0.334; 0.879; 0.512; 0.342; 0.879; 0.449; 0.267; 0.414; 0.332; 0.255; 0.394; 0.275;
force under the selected 0.644; 1.251; 0.602; 0.614; 1.313; 0.589; 0.732; 0.495; 0.564; 0.647; 0.453; 0.506;
records/Weight 0.552, 0.634; 0.559; 0.545; 0.643; 0.515; 0.373; 0.445; 0.941; 0.318; 0.461; 0.836;
(Average) 0.486, 0.629 (0.644) 0.472; 0.469 (0.621) 0.461; 0.649 (0.516) 0.443; 0.646 (0.476)
Max. seismic
1.484; 3.930; 2.102; 1.502; 3.853; 1.866; 1.859; 3.668; 2.379; 1.754; 3.789; 2.388;
displacements under
2.894; 5.547; 2.512; 2.780; 5.801; 2.446; 5.391; 4.066; 5.215; 5.280; 4.107; 3.308;
the selected
2.945; 2.840; 2.066; 2.930; 2.861; 1.924; 2.527; 2.648; 6.758; 2.656; 2.424; 6.512,
records×103/Total
1.999; 1.945 (2.751) 1.936; 2.002 (2.718) 3.188; 6.650 (4.033) 3.099; 6.827 (3.369)
height (Average)
Max. shear force of the
0.937; 0.938; 0.938; 0.938; 0.937; 0.937; 0.940; 0.937; 0.938; 0.942; 0.936; 0.941;
shear for wall under the
0.938; 0.938; 0.938; 0.937; 0.937; 0.937; 0.938; 0.938; 0.985; 0.938; 0.940; 0.935;
selected records/Total
0.938; 0.939; 0.938; 0.938; 0.938; 0.938; 0.937; 0.941; 0.937; 0.943; 0.947; 0.840;
seismic force
0.938; 0.938 (0.938) 0.937; 0.936 (0.937) 0.938; 0.936 (0.942) 0.941; 0.935 (0.931)
(Average)
Bending moment of the
0.751; 0.750; 0.755; 0.749; 0.752; 0.754; 0.808; 0.783; 0.782; 0.812; 0.783; 0.790;
shear wall under the
0.746; 0.752; 0.751; ; 0.709; 0.752; 0.757; 0.796; 0.791; 0.785; 0.784; 0.780; 0.783;
selected
0.735; 0.742; 0.764; 0.739; 0.743; 0.758; 0.776; 0.807; 0.789; 0.779; 0.801; 0.785;
records/Overturning
0.890; 0.785 (0.766) 0.756; 0.754 (0.748) 0.805; 0.777 (0.791) 0.810; 0.780 (0.790)
moment (Average)
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

3 1.8
Th-28x Th-28x
Th-128x Th-128x
Th-187x 1.6 Th-187x
Damping ratio Damping ratio
Th-549x Th-549x
2.5  =0.05 Th-725x  =0.10 Th-725x
Th-850x 1.4 Th-850x
Th-1614x Th-1614x
a

a
Th-2703x 1.2 Th-2703x
2 Th-2739x Th-2739x
Spectral acceleration S (g)

Spectral acceleration S (g)

Th-6893x Th-6893x
Th-6938x 1 Th-6938x
Target Target
1.5
0.8

1 0.6

0.4
0.5
0.2

0 0
0.01 0.1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
(a) 1 (b)
Period T (s) Period T (s)
1.8
Target
1.6 Sa (  =0.05; )
Sa (  =0.05; - )
1.4 Sa (  =0.05; + )
Sa (  =0.10; )
a

1.2 Sa (  =0.10; - )
Spectral acceleration S (g)

Sa (  =0.10; + )
1

0.8

0.6
(b)

0.4

0.2

(c) 0
0.01 0.1 10
1
Period T (s)

Figure 2. Spectra of the selected and scaled seismic records for   0.05 and 0.10 and the target spectrum for S S D  1 .0 g
and S 1 D  0 .4 g

2.1. Nonlinear analysis

Nonlinear analysis is carried out by adopting static (pushover analysis) and dynamic (time domain). The results
are presented in the figures. Figure 3 illustrates the pushover curves of the four models. Since the nonlinear analysis
which involves an iterative process requires more system parameters than the linear one, it is generally more
sensitive to the structural parameters of the system. The assumptions for the effective stiffness factors of TSCB
(2018) are used in the results illustrated in Figure 3a. When minor differences are ignored, two noticeable
differences can be seen in the figure. One of them is that the b1NL solution has low ductility, on the other hand,
the b2NL solution has both low ductility and low lateral force capacity. Figures 3b and 3c show the results of the
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

parametric study for various values of the stiffnesses in the model where the shear wall is modelled by using shell
elements. In this case, the contribution of the beams and columns to the global behavior of the system appears to
be pronounced, whereas the contribution of the beams and columns is not significant in the case of the equivalents
column case, as Figure 3d indicates. Its probable reason is that, in the column modeling, the plasticization zone is
ideally located at the support, whereas in the case of the spread plasticization, i.e., in the case of shell elements,
plasticizing region spreads upwards from the support and the effect of the frame elements is significant.

14 25
a1NL
kbeam =0.35 a2NL kbeam=0.2
12 b1NL Model a2NL 0.3
kcolumn =0.70 b2NL
20 Model b2NL 0.5
kshearwall=0.50 1.0
in-plane
10 kshearwall=0.25
out-of-plane
V (kN)x10 -3 kcolumn =0.5
Vb (kN)x10 -3

15 kshearwall=0.5
8

6
b

10

4
5
2

(a) 0 (b) 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
u(m) u(m)

14 7

kcolumn =0.25
12 0.5 6
1.0

5 kbeam =1.0
10 0.5
V (kN)x10 -3

kbeam =0.5 0.25

Vb (kN)x10 -3

8 kshearwall=0.5 4
kcolumn =0.5
6 3 kshearwall=0.5
b

column

4 2 Model a1NL
Model b1NL
Model a2NL
2 Model b2NL 1

(c) 0 (d) 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
u(m) u(m)

Figure 3. Pushover curves of the four models for various stiffness reduction factors

The structural system is nonlinearly analyzed by assuming that it is subjected to the selected and scaled seismic
records. Figure 4 shows the maximum base force of the system under the selected seismic records for the four
structural models separately. The figure includes variations of the mean value of the maximum base force including
its mean values and the values of the plus-one and minus-one-standard-deviation of the mean. Figure 5 illustrates
the mean value of the maximum base shear force and top displacement for the four models. Although the base
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

shear forces of the models corresponding to the unreduced stiffness and to the reduced system are close to each
other, as determined in the linear analysis, they differ considerably from each other in the case of the top
displacements. This clearly indicates that modeling the shear walls which displays cantilever column behavior as
columns, as it is the case in the present example, is a good engineering choice, which is superior in terms of
simplicity and easy understanding to the design engineers. One of the important assumptions in the performance-
based design and evaluation of the structures is the mathematical expression of the acceptance limits. As it is
known, the acceptance limits are given in terms of plastic hinge rotations where nonlinear deformations are
concentrated. The other is the acceptance limits for the plastic deformations at the plastic hinges and in the
plasticized regions. These two limits are given separately in TBDY (2018) in detail. Once these limits are reached,
it is assumed that the structural system passes from one higher performance level to a lower one, regardless of the
degree of exceeding the limit, which plays an important role in the case of plastic behavior. This fact indicates that
the inelastic (dissipated) energy can be used as a limiting value. The energy dissipated at the end of the earthquake
motion in the plastic hinges can be considered a parameter to determine the performance of the structural system
in the related earthquake. Recently, for this or similar reason, the concept of energy has been widely used in
earthquake engineering. In Figure 6, the energy dissipated by the global damping and the energy dissipated due to
the nonlinear hysteretic damping in the system, i.e., in the plastic hinges and in the plasticization region are given
for each seismic record. In the figure, the durations of the records are given by expecting that these dissipated
energies are closely related to it. However, it is seen that a good correlation between the dissipated energy and the
duration could not be obtained. It is worth noting that an energy dissipation in a large number of the plastic hinges
corresponds to widespread minor controlled damage, whereas dissipation in a small number of hinges may indicate
that controlled damage will be concentrated in certain areas in the structural system.

25 180
a1NL
a1NL a2NL
a2NL 160 b1NL
b1NL b2NL
b2NL
-3

20 140
Vb max(  =0.05, kN)x10

u max(  =0.05, mm)

120 umax (  + )
Vb max(  + )
15 100
umax (  )
Vb max(  ) 80

10 60
Vb max(  - ) umax (  - )
40

(a) 5 (b) 20
Th-164x

Th-187x

Th-549x

Th-725x

Th-850x
Th-164x

Th-187x

Th-549x

Th-725x

Th-850x

Th-28x

Th-1614x

Th-2703x

Th-2739x

Th-6893x

Th-6938x
Th-28x

Th-1614x

Th-2703x

Th-2739x

Th-6893x

Th-6938x

Figure 4. Maximum base shear and top displacement for the selected and scaled seismic records
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

18 160
Vb max(  + ) umax (  + )
Vb max(  =0.05, kN)x10 -3 16 140

120

u max(  =0.05, mm)

14

Vb spec 100
12
Vb max(  ) 80 uspec
10
60 umax (  )

8 40
Vb max(  - ) umax (  - )
(a) 6 ba) 20
a2NL

b1NL

b2NL
a1NL

a2NL

b1NL

b2NL
a1NL
Figure 5. Mean base shear force and top displacement for the four structural model subjected to the selected and scaled
seismic records
-3

5 0.3
Nonlinear hysteritic damping(  =0.05, kNm)x10
-3

a1NL a1NL
Global damping(  =0.05, kNm)x10

4.5 a2NL a2NL

b1NL b1NL
4 b2NL 0.25 b2NL

3.5
0.2
3
GD(  + )
2.5 0.15
2
NHD(  + )
1.5 GD(  ) 0.1
NHD(  )
1
0.05 NHD(  - )
0.5 GD(  - )
0 0
Th-164x

Th-187x

Th-549x

Th-725x

Th-850x
Th-164x

Th-187x

Th-549x

Th-725x

Th-850x

Th-28x

Th-1614x

Th-2703x

Th-2739x

Th-6893x

Th-6938x
Th-28x

Th-1614x

Th-2703x

Th-2739x

Th-6893x

Th-6938x

(a) (b)
64 64
56 56
duration (s)

50
duration (s)

50 40 40
44 40 40 44 40
40
Seismic

30
Seismic

30
25 25
20 20 20 20

Figure 6. Cumulative energy dissipated by global damping and nonlinear hysteretic damping in the structural models
subjected to the selected and scaled seismic records
6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13-15 October 2021 – GTU – Gebze, Kocaeli / Turkey

6. CONCLUSIONS

The present study focuses on the assumptions on the cross-sectional stiffness given in TSCB (2018) by considering
reinforced concrete plane frame consisting of a shear wall and a frame. An eight-story system is designed and then
analyzed by considering the linear and nonlinear behavior and by adopting various modelling assumptions of the
structural systems, on the modelling type of the nonlinear deformations and on the analysis methods. The shear
wall is modelled as equivalent column and by employing shell elements. The nonlinear behavior of the beams and
the columns is considered by adopting plastic hinges. The plastic hinge assumption is employed in the shear walls
modelled as equivalent columns. Furthermore, nonlinear shell elements consisting of concrete and reinforcement
layers are also employed in the analysis. The results show that the assumptions on the sectional stiffness have a
profound effect on the nonlinear behavior of the structures and a significant effect on the results. It is known that
the structural analyses yield approximate results having an acceptable level of accuracy due to uncertainties in
earthquake motion. However, this fact is often ignored by the practicing engineers who interpret numerical results
assuming that they have mathematical precision. In the study, it is emphasized that the results of the nonlinear
analyses, in particular, yield only guiding values and should be interpreted and used with great care. In high-rise
buildings and buildings with high irregularity, it is recommended to analyze the structural system by using different
effective stiffness parameters and a large number of records as it is emphasized in the TSCB (2018). It is expected
that the comparison of these results leads the practicing engineers to more comprehensive designs.

REFERENCES

Carvalho G, Bento R, Bhatt C (2013) Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of reinforced concrete buildings-comparison of
different modelling approaches. Earthquakes and Structures 4 (5), 451-470.
Kolozvari K, Wallace JW (2016) Practical nonlinear modeling of reinforced concrete structural walls. Journal of Structural
Engineering 142:G4016001.
Kolozvari K, Piatos G, Beyer K (2017) Practical nonlinear modeling of U-shaped reinforced concrete walls under bi-
directional loading. 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile.
Ugalde D, Lopez-Garcia D (2017a) Elastic overstrength of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings in Chile. 16th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile.
Ugalde D, Lopez-Garcia D (2017b) Behavior of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings subjected to large earthquakes. X
International Conference on Structural Dynamics (EURODYN). Roma, Italy.
Ugalde D, Parra PF, Lopez-Garcia D (2019) Assessment of the seismic capacity of tall wall buildings using nonlinear finite
element modeling. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17, 6565–6589.
Macedo L, Silva A, Castro JM (2019) A more rational selection of the behaviour factor for seismic design according to
Eurocode 8, Engineering Structures 188, 69-86.
Sanchez-Ricart L (2020) Reduction factors in seismic codes: On the components to be taken into account for design purposes,
Georisk 4 (4): 208-229.
Celep, Z, (2020) Nonlinear behavior and analysis in reinforced concrete structural systems / Concepts of Turkish Building
Seismic Code (2018), Fifth Edition Beta Publishing (in Turkish).
ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016) Minimum Design Loads for Building and other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers,
ETABS v.18 Building Analysis and Design, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley.
PEER Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center 2020.
Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings (2018) Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara.
Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings (2007) Ministry of Development and Housing, Ankara.
TS500 (2000) Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Turkish Standards Institution.
TS498 (1987) Design Loads for Buildings, Turkish Standards Institution.