THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)

Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/tal.281

IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR ON

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT
FRAME BUILDINGS WITH LONG PERIODS

CHENG-MING LIN*, LAWRENCE Y. HO AND THOMAS A. SABOL†

Englekirk & Sabol, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA

SUMMARY
Building Codes generally increase design seismic loads in an attempt to address a number of issues on the seismic
design of buildings. For buildings having long vibration periods, the increase of design base shear force could
have significant impacts on the design of lateral bracing system of buildings. Given the constraints facing design
engineers regarding member sizes relative to practical user limits, these increased forces may result in poorer,
not better, seismic performance. This paper describes the impact of higher design lateral loads on the design of
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings, with an emphasis on buildings with long periods. A build-
ing located in Southern California is analyzed using UBC 94 and 97 seismic base shear forces as an example to
demonstrate the impacts. The design of the frame beam, the beam–column joint, and the frame column based on
UBC 94 and 97 are compared and the impacts on the design are highlighted. The significance of axial load demand
on the behavior and design of frame column is particularly emphasized. Several methods of estimating the axial
load demand of frame columns are described and the results are compared. The results emphasize that the goal
of improving seismic performance in buildings by increasing the design base shear may not be achieved in rein-
forced concrete buildings with long periods if the engineers simply react to the higher lateral load demand by
increasing the reinforcing contents of the members. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Traditionally Building Codes demand higher seismic design base shear as an attempt to provide better
seismic protection for buildings. This general trend can be found by comparing earlier editions of
model building codes with current editions such as UBC (1994, 1997), NEHRP (2000) and IBC (2000).
A general conservatism can be found in the model building codes for the design base shear forces of
buildings with longer periods, perhaps defined as periods longer than two seconds, when compared to
seismic demands associated with spectral velocities appropriate for these longer period buildings. For
example, in UBC (1997), IBC (2000) and NEHRP (2000), a lower-bound seismic design base shear
that is independent of the building fundamental period is imposed on buildings having long periods.
This conservatism reflects such things as the uncertainty and the lack of knowledge of actual struc-
tural response for longer period buildings (Blue Book, 1999).
Another factor that leads to the increase of design base shear in Building Codes is the advancement
in earthquake ground motion research. Geotechincal engineers tend to provide ground motion infor-
mation suggesting higher levels of ground shaking than in prior years, especially for buildings located
at the proximity of faults. In seismically active regions such as Southern California, the design base

* Correspondence to: Cheng-Ming Lin, The Englekirk Companies, 2116 Arlington Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90018, USA,
E-mail: cheng-ming.lin@englekirk.com
†
Also of UCLA Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted October 2004
392 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

shear has increased substantially with the implementation of the UBC 97, principally because of near-
source seismic coefficients. Other model codes have followed suit.
The minimum design base shear required in the building codes, combined with the near-source
effect, can increase the design base shear significantly and make the seismic design of high-rise build-
ings very challenging. These amplified design forces increase the pressure structural engineers face to
fit the structure into the limited structural envelope that architects, developers, and end-users have
come to expect. In addition, increased seismic forces also increase the construction costs of projects.
In high-rise buildings, or buildings with long periods, the impacts due to the increase of design base
shear can become very significant.
There is a common perception in the structural engineering community that the greater the elastic
demand that elements within the lateral load-resisting system are designed to resist, the better the struc-
ture will perform in a major earthquake. The continued increase in design load demand reflected in
recent editions of model building codes (UBC, 1994, 1997) reflects this widely held perspective. As
a result, engineers who cannot otherwise increase the number or size of lateral load-resisting elements
often tend to increase the reinforcing steel in seismic members to address the higher seismic demands.
This paper discusses the significance of increasing the reinforcing contents of members within the
context of increasing seismic loads and presents strategies to improve seismic performance of struc-
tures subjected to increased design lateral loads.

2. COMPARISON BETWEEN DESIGN LATERAL LOADS IN UBC 94 AND UBC 97

The design base shear forces obtained from the static lateral force procedure according to UBC 94
and 97 for an example high-rise building located in the Southern California area are compared. The
basic building design information is described in Table 1, while the base shear coefficients for UBC
94 and 97 are presented in Table 2.
Thus, for the 1994 UBC:
2 3 2 3
C = 1◊25 S T = 1◊25(1◊2) (2◊8)

V = (ZIC RW )W = 0◊03 W but C RW ≥ 0◊075

Table 1. Summary of example building design parameters (per UBC 97)

Building design parameter Comment

Building description 24 stories above grade with three subterranean parking levels
The building height is 289 ft above grade
The seismic dead load of a typical floor is 190 psf
Seismic system Cast-in-place ductile reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame. Concrete
compressive strength in the frame beams is 6000 psi, while that in the
frame columns is 10,000 psi at the lower floor and reduces to 6000 psi at
higher levels
Seismic zoning Zone 4
Seismic source Type B
Soil profile type Sc

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 393

Table 2. Summary of base shear coefficient per UBC 94a and 97b

Seismic design parameter Parameter value

Rw 12 (special concrete moment-resisting frame)a
R 8·5 (special concrete moment-resisting frame)b
I 1·0 (regular occupancy buildings)
Z 0·4 (Seismic Zone 4)
Fundamental period (Method B) T = 2·8 s
Near-source parameters Na = 1·3a, Nv = 1·6a
S 1·2 for Sc
C = 1·25 S/T2/3 1·25(1·2)/(2·8)2/3

1.76

Figure 1. Comparison of code design base shear

To compare this value with UBC 97 lateral load on the same basis, the static base shear needs to
be multiplied by 1·4 load factor to adjust the service level load to the ultimate level:

V = 0◊03 W * 1◊4 = 0◊042 W

For buildings in Zone 4, the 1997 UBC Equation 30-7 governs the design base shear and yields

V = 0◊8 ZNv I R W

V = 0◊06 W

Figure 1 compares the design base shear requirements according to UBC 97 and 94 provisions. It
can be observed in the figure that, firstly, EQ 30-7 governs the design base shear when the building
period is equal or longer than 1·76 s for this project site. Secondly, the increase in design lateral load
from UBC 94 to 97 for the example building is approximately 43% (i.e. 0·042 W vs. 0·06 W).
It should be noted that even though dynamic spectral analysis is in general required for high-rise
buildings, the design base shear obtained from dynamic analysis is allowed to be scaled to match the

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
394 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

static design base shear. Therefore the member design using static base shear force provides the basis
for comparison.

3. IMPACTS ON THE DESIGN OF BEAMS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUCTILE

MOMENT FRAME
Beams in reinforced concrete ductile moment-resisting frames are critical elements as they provide
post-yield deformability through plastic hinge formation at the girder ends. Careful design and
detailing are essential to the successful performance of the moment-resisting frame in a major
earthquake.
Consider a frame beam 30 in. wide by 36 in. deep. The beam is designed based on the maximum
Mu of frame beams at lower levels of the building obtained from analysis using the equivalent lateral
force procedure per UBC 97 and 94. The size of the frame beams is kept the same for purposes of
comparison but also because it is unlikely that the design engineer would be able to increase the size
of the beam significantly and still fit within the structural envelope established for the building. The
frame beam design information is shown in Table 3. It can be seen in the table that the flexural demand
of the frame beam increases as much as 40% based on the seismic demand change from UBC 94 to
UBC 97. Accordingly, the beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio r increases from 0·018 to 0·025 by
roughly the same amount.
It is known that the higher the reinforcement ratio in a frame beam, the lower the available curva-
ture ductility (Paulay and Priestley, 1992; Englekirk, 2003). Figures 2(a) and (b) compare the avail-
able ductility of the frame beams of the same size but with different reinforcement ratios based on
beams A and B in Table 3. The moment–curvature curves terminate at the point where strain of rein-
forcing steel reaches the ultimate strain, assuming 0·10 in/in. It can be seen that beam A (rt = 0·025)
has an estimated available curvature ductility of 27, while beam B (rt = 0·018) has an estimated avail-
able curvature ductility of 38·5. This also means that at the same curvature ductility demand for both
beams, the concrete strain in beam B is smaller than that in beam A. Smaller concrete strain implies
less damage.
The analysis described above demonstrates that increasing beam longitudinal reinforcement, which
is the result of increased of design base shear, reduces the available ductility in beams if the beam
cross-section size remains constant. Although enlarging the frame beam section is a better way to gain
more flexural strength without compromising the ductility, constraints within the building normally
make increasing the size problematic. Given this size constraint, engineers tend to provide more lon-
gitudinal bars to meet the strength requirement until the reinforcing ratio reaches the limit.
It should be noted that the maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratio permitted by ACI 318 (2002)
is 0·025, while Pauley and Priestly (1992) suggest it be limited to 1/Fy, which is 0·016 for Fy = 60 ksi.
Limiting the reinforcement ratio on frame beams attempts to prevent brittle failure modes while pro-

Table 3. Comparison of frame beam design (30 in. ¥ 36 in.), f¢c = 6000 psi

Code Mu,E (k-ft)a Top and bottom bars rt Shear stirrupsb

UBC 97 (beam A) 3094 15-#11 0·025 5-legs of #5 @ 5”
UBC 94 (beam B) 2272 11-#11 0·018 4-legs of #5 @ 5”
a
Mu,E for UBC 94 has been multiplied by a load factor equal to 1·4.
b
Shear stirrups are calculated per UBC 97 1921.3.4. Ve = 2 Mpr /Ln and Vc = 0.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 395

viding higher levels of ductility at the ultimate limit state. In addition, it will also ensure that prema-
ture spalling of cover concrete does not occur in moderate earthquakes. It appears that ACI 318 pro-
visions only provide minimal protection and cannot guarantee fully ductile behavior.
Designers should exercise caution whenever the frame beam reinforcement ratio is greater than
0·015, since the available curvature ductility of the beams may not be sufficient to meet the curvature
demand associated with the lateral drift demand of the building. Conducting moment–curvature
analysis on the frame beam sections may be necessary to demonstrate that the beams can provide the
required curvature ductility. For high-rise buildings in high seismic regions, it is recommended that
the maximum frame beam reinforcement ratio be limited to 0·015 in the absence of a more detailed
analysis.
The moment frame beams of the example building were initially designed as 30 in. wide ¥ 36 in.
deep. Given the very high reinforcement ratio in the original design, the moment frame beams were
increased to 30 in. ¥ 42 in. in order to keep the tensile reinforcement ratio below 0·015. The increased
beam depth causes the floor-to-floor height to increase by 6 in. to maintain the same headroom at each
level. This results in a total increase in building height by 12 ft for the 24-story building. This added
height, in turn, has other significant impacts on the design of the building such as increased over-
turning forces and higher exterior finish or curtain wall costs.

4. IMPACTS ON THE DESIGN OF BEAM–COLUMN JOINTS

Beam–column joints are critical areas in reinforced concrete ductile moment frames. Joints need to
maintain strength and stiffness while the desired inelastic frame mechanism is developed. Premature
joint failure is detrimental to the ductile behavior of moment frame when subject to seismic loads,
principally because of the loss of lateral load strength, stiffness and the formation of unstable frame
mechanisms.
Both UBC 97 and 94 adopted the ACI provisions for seismic design of beam–column joints. The
joint shear stress needs to be checked and may not exceed the nominal strength prescribed in the model
building codes. The maximum joint shear stress allowed depends solely on the geometry of frame
beams framing into the joint and does not consider the amount of joint reinforcement provided. Accord-
ing to ACI 318 (2002), the nominal shear strength of the joint should not be taken greater than
15÷ f c¢ Aj for joints confined on three faces or on two opposite faces.
The joint shear force is calculated in Figure 3 as

Vjh = 2l o As Fy - Vcol (1)

In Equation (1), it is assumed A¢s = As. The factor lo = 1·25 accounts for the over-strength in the flex-
ural tensile reinforcement. Vcol is the shear force in the column above the joint. The joint shear force
of an interior joint having frame beams on both sides, designed per UBC 97 and 94, respectively, in
Table 3, is tabulated in Table 4. The ratio of required joint area to joint size is calculated and listed in
Table 4 based on

Vjh Aj < (f15÷ fc¢)

It can be seen from Equation (1) that the joint shear force is a function of frame beam bar tensile
force. Table 4 also shows that the joint shear force increases as a result of the increase of beam flex-
ural reinforcement caused by the increased UBC 97 base shear. In order to make the joint shear stress
fall below the allowable joint shear, the joint with frame beams designed based on UBC 97 lateral
load on both sides of the joint need to be dimensioned as 54 in. by 54 in. For the UBC 94 lateral load,

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
396 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

(a)

Figure 2. (a) Moment–curvature analysis of beam A.

the joint dimensions are 46 in. by 46 in. However, the resulting joint and column size (54 in. ¥ 54 in.)
for the UBC 97 base shear demands would result in significant impacts on the architectural design
because of the much larger column.
The two joint designs presented show the result of the increased amount of frame beam longitudi-
nal rebar and the increased joint shear. Thus, the higher design base shear force will increase the joint
shear stress, resulting in larger joint and column sizes. For high-rise buildings, the size of the joint
and column can become unacceptable from a practical perspective.
In lieu of the larger column size, another method to reduce the impact of the higher demand is to
specify higher concrete strength. For the example building designed using UBC 97, in order to reduce
the column size to 48 in. ¥ 48 in., specified concrete compressive strength needs to be increased to
10,000 psi to satisfy the nominal joint shear stress.
Although using high-strength concrete can reduce the joint and column size, this approach cannot
be followed indefinitely. Recent research (Englekirk, 2001; Xiao et al., 1998) indicates that special
care must be taken when high-strength concrete is used in seismic resisting members. For beam–
column joint design, it is found that nominal joint shear strength no longer benefits from the increase
of f c¢ when ÷f c¢ exceeds 100 psi. Although in ACI 318 (2002) there is no maximum limit on f c¢ that can
be used in the concrete elements designed for seismic resistance, building departments in some
jurisdictions require special approval of use of high-strength concrete because of the unpredictable
performance of poorly proportioned high-strength mix designs and the presence of relatively low-

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 397

(b)

Figure 2. (b) Moment–curvature analysis of beam B

strength large aggregate in some areas. The special approval often requires a building code variance
and this can discourage the design engineer from using high-strength concrete.

5. IMPACTS ON THE DESIGN OF FRAME COLUMNS

5.1 General design procedure
The essence of frame column design of ductile moment frames is that columns must be capable of
resisting the probable moment input from adjacent beam mechanisms while no significant yielding
and plastic deformation of the columns occur. This methodology attempts to preclude undesirable
column story mechanisms in which plastic hinges form in the top and bottom of all columns on a
story.
The important design steps for frame columns consist of:

• estimating probable levels of flexural demand;

• estimating the axial load demand;
• control of axial load;
• moment curvature analysis of frame column section.
The impact of higher seismic demands on each of these steps is examined below.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
398 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

Horizontal Shear in Beam-Column Connection

Figure 3. Shear force in an interior beam–column joint

Table 4. Calculation of joint shear stress

Code Vjh (kips) Aj required/joint size Allowable vjh (f15÷f¢c)a (psi)

UBC 97 2830 2864 in.2 or 54 ¥ 54 in. 986
UBC 94 2074 2101 in.2 or 46 ¥ 46 in. 986
a
Based on f¢c = 6000 psi.

5.2 Estimating probable levels of flexural demand

In order to protect frame columns from inelastic yielding while the sway mechanism is developed,
frame columns must possess flexural strength that is greater than the input moments from adjacent
frame beams. This is the so-called strong column/weak beam design strategy for ductile moment-
resisting frames.
At a given joint, ACI 318 stipulates a minimum nominal frame column flexural strength compared
to the summation of nominal frame beam flexural strength to ensure strong column/weak beam behav-
ior. This is expressed in ACI 318 Equation 21-1:

ÂM c ≥ 6 5 Â Mg

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 399

Table 5. Frame column moment demand for example building

Method 1 Mcol (k-ft) (ACI 318) Method 2 Mcol (k-ft) (Mpr is used for Mg)a
UBC 97 4212 5266
UBC 94 3089 3862
a
Mpr = 1·25AsFy(d - d¢)

where Mg and Mc are nominal flexural strength of beams and columns at the face of the joint,
respectively.
This provision in ACI 318 does not require using the probable strength of the frame girders (i.e.
Mpr, in lieu of Mg) despite the fact that flexural over-strength is likely to develop when plastic hinges
develop in beams. It appears that this equation only provides minimum protection for frame columns.
From the capacity design perspective, the input of frame beam flexural demands must account for
the development of probable moments that include an over-strength factor and an adjustment factor
that attempts to account for the uncertainty in the point of inflection of frame columns due to the
higher modes effect (Paulay and Priestley, 1992). The higher mode effects are likely to be pronounced
in high-rise buildings. It is recommended by the authors that probable moment strength, Mpr, be
adopted when calculating Mg for frame columns design in high-rise buildings in seismically active
regions.
Table 5 compares the code-estimated flexural demand of a frame column having beams framing at
both sides with that associated with the estimated probable flexural demand for a representative con-
dition in the example building based on the UBC 94 and UBC 97 codes. It can be seen that the column
design moment increases by about 36% from UBC 94 load to UBC 97 load design. The use of Mpr,
which is recommended from the capacity design perspective, further increases the frame column
moment demand. Comparing Mcol based on the demand suggested by Mpr from the per UBC 97 load
and the Mcol based on the demand suggested by Mpr from the UBC 94 load, the column moment demand
increases 70% (5266/3089 = 1·7). This substantial increase of moment demand would increase the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement in the frame columns. In some cases, it can cause construction
difficulty due to the congestion of the steel rebar.

5.3 Estimating the axial load demand

The axial load from a building code perspective is the factored dead and live loads plus the seismi-
cally induced axial load from the elastic analysis. Seismic design provisions in the model building
codes, such as UBC 97 and IBC 2000, can be confusing with respect to the calculation of seismic
demand of axial load used for frame column design. In UBC 97 Section 1612.2, wherein the basic
load combination factors are defined, the earthquake force component is defined as the force associ-
ated with the code static lateral force. Although special seismic load combinations are defined in
1612.4, in which the force amplification due to system over-strength is considered, the application of
these amplified demands for member design is not specifically required in the concrete design provi-
sions found in Chapter 19 of the UBC.
The special load combination involves estimating the maximum earthquake force that can be devel-
oped in the structure, Em, which is defined as Em = W0 Eh. W0 is the seismic amplification factor that
is assumed to account for structural over-strength and is prescribed in the UBC for buildings based
on their structural systems. However, within the provisions of Chapter 19, where the seismic design
of reinforced concrete members is described, no specific provisions require the use of the special
seismic load combination defined in 1612.4.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
400 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

Nevertheless, from a seismic behavior perspective, seismic axial load demands for exterior columns
would be greater than the axial force obtained from the code base shear elastic analysis at the post-
yield stage. This is due to the accumulation of seismically induced frame beam shear over the height
of the frame. When plastic hinges develop progressively over the elevation of the frame, the seismi-
cally induced axial load in the exterior frame columns increases as a result of accumulation of shear
force in frame beams. There are several factors affecting the seismic axial load demand for exterior
columns: mainly the drift demand of the frame, the aspect ratio of the frame, the dynamic effect of
the frame, the flexural over-strength which the frame beams will develop, and the extent to which
frame beams develop inelastic action over the height of the frame.
These factors make estimation of axial load demand on the exterior column difficult. Nevertheless,
axial loads in exterior frame columns in high-rise buildings may become extremely high when moment
frames reach the ultimate limit state. Design and detailing of exterior frame columns to cope with high
axial load demand becomes a critical factor to ensure adequate seismic performance in high-rise
moment frame buildings. It is understood that when the column axial load exceeds the balanced load
(Pb), the inherent ductility of the column diminishes (Englekirk, 2003). Axial load carrying capacity
must be preserved to avoid crushing of concrete in the exterior columns. This becomes even more
crucial for the columns at the frame base where yielding of column reinforcement cannot be avoided.
Therefore, axial load demand on the exterior frame columns must be evaluated and controlled
(Englekirk, 2003), especially for high-rise buildings.
Several methods are used to estimate the axial load demand of exterior frame columns. These are
discussed below.

5.3.1 Method A: Code-prescribed over-strength factor W0

Rather than conduct an explicit plastic analysis, W0 is a factor stipulated in the model building codes
that attempts to account for the over-strength in an element. W0 varies between 2·0 to 2·8 for differ-
ent lateral load systems. As a general rule, the larger the lateral load reduction factor (R), the larger
the W0 value.
According to UBC 97, W0 = 2·8 for a concrete ductile frame system. Figure 4 presents a frame ele-
vation for a 24-story moment frame building analyzed for this example. Two frames, oriented in the
same direction as the applied seismic load, are linked together with hinge/rigid links to investigate
their associated behavior. The seismic axial compressive force on the exterior column in the three-bay
frame obtained from the code static force procedure is Pe = 4280 kips from UBC 97 and 2690 from
UBC 94. The amplified column axial force estimated using the code-specified W0 is equal to Pu = W0
Pe = 2·8 ¥ 4280 = 11984 kips for UBC 97 and 7532 kips for UBC 94, respectively.
Since the W0 factor is a constant value regardless of the frame aspect ratio, reinforcing ratio,
material strength, and member sizes, the demand estimated using this method does not necessarily
represent a realistic estimate.
An upper bound of seismic-induced column axial load can be calculated by the summation of Ve
of all frame beams above the level under consideration, where Ve can be calculated as Ve = 2Mpr/Ln.
However, it is understood that, depending on the ultimate design lateral drift, increasing the number
of stories above the level to be considered results in a reduction in the number of plastic hinges at
which Mpr is likely to develop. For this reason, a realistic reduction of the summation of Ve needs to
be taken into account. For example, the New Zealand Standard (1995; Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
adopts a method in which the beam shear force Ve is summed and multiplied by a reduction factor Rv
that ranges from 0·97 to 0·54. The column demand resulting from shears associated with frame beam
hinging is estimated as

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 401

Figure 4. Elevation of frame analyzed

Pu = Rv  Ve > Pe

5.3.2 Method B: Push-over analysis

Another method that may more realistically estimate the column axial load demand at ultimate limit
state is based on a non-linear static push-over analysis. In a push-over analysis, beams and columns
are modeled as non-linear elements consisting of a rigid link with plastic hinges at both ends. The
plastic hinge properties may be modeled assuming elastic–plastic behavior. The plastic moments of
the hinges are derived from probable strength with over-strength being considered. A vertical distri-
bution of lateral load based on assumed first mode response is applied gradually to the frame to be
analyzed. The roof lateral displacement is monitored and recorded as the lateral load increases. Static
push-over analysis is widely used as a tool to evaluate the lateral load capacity of the building as well
as the deformation demand of elements.
Figure 5(a) shows the lateral load versus roof displacement curve for the example frame in Figure
4. Figure 5(b) presents the compressive load on the exterior column of the three-bay frame versus the
lateral drift. It can be seen that the seismically induced column compressive load reaches about 9100
kips (dead load plus seismic load) at lateral drift approximately 1·2%. Under increasing lateral drift,
the axial load plateaus.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
402 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

3,600

(a)
Figure 5. (a) Push-over curve, base shear vs. lateral drift.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 403

9,100 (D+L+E)))

(b)
Figure 5. (b) Column axial force (compression) vs. lateral drift from push-over analysis

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
404 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

5.3.3 Method C: Time history analysis

Another method of evaluating the column axial load demand is to conduct a non-linear time history
analysis. The moment frame analyzed using this method is the same as that in the push-over analysis
shown in Figure 4. The El Centro earthquake record was selected as the input of earthquake excita-
tion. Each acceleration record is then multiplied by 2 to match the spectrum acceleration at the period
2–3 s range of the site-specific spectrum. Figure 6 shows the seismically induced column axial loads
from the time history analysis for the exterior columns of the three-bay frame. It can be seen that the
column compressive force reaches a peak value of 8500 kips, which is less than the force obtained
from the push-over analysis.
Table 6 summarizies the seismic-induced axial forces from the three methods and the ratios between
Pu and Pe, where Pe is the column axial force from linear elastic analysis using the building code static
base shear.
It can be seen from Table 6 that Method A (W0) tends to overestimate the column axial load demand.
In combination with the influence of lateral load increases in current building codes, Method A can
result in very large columns that are likely to be considered unacceptable because of the area they take
up.

Figure 6. Column axial load from time history analysis

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 405

Table 6. Comparison of column axial forces for exterior column at the base of the example three-bay frame

Code static Method B: Method C:

Analysis Method A: W0 Push-over analysis Time history analysis
Pe (kips) Pu (kips) Pu /Pe Pu (kips) Pu /Pe Pu (kips) Pu /Pe
UBC 97 4,280 11,984 2·8 8,100a 1·89 7,500a 1·75
UBC 94 2,690 7,532 2·8 5,084b 1·89 4,708b 1·75
a
Seismically induced axial force only; gravity load (1000 kips) was deducted from the analysis output.
b
Estimated force using the same ratio of Pu/Pe from UBC 97.

Table 7. Size of frame column 2 per UBC 97 and 94

Ag (in.2) or column size (in.) Remarks

UBC 97 2600 or 51 ¥ 51 in. Pcol = PD + Pu, Method B
UBC 94 1453 or 38 ¥ 38 in. Pcol = PD + Pu, Method B

Assuming f¢c = 10,000 psi.

5.4 Control of column axial load

The column axial force associated with the post-yield mechanism must be limited to ensure the
integrity of the column and the frame.
The model building codes require the following minimum axial load combination to be checked
and compared to the reduced nominal column strength:

Pu = 1◊2 PD + 0◊5 PL + W 0 Pe £ f (0◊85 fc¢Ag + Ast Fy )

Another objective, aimed at improving the seismic performance of the building in a major earth-
quake, is to limit the column axial load demand to less than the balanced axial load (Pb) (Englekirk,
2003). Frame columns are subjected to compressive load and flexural moment simultaneously and a
certain level of ductility must be maintained, especially for columns at the frame base where flexural
yielding is assumed to occur when the frame sidesway mechanism is developed. Controlling the
column compressive load protects the frame columns from severe damage while the axial load carry-
ing capacity is maintained.
It can be shown that the balanced column axial load (Pb) is approximately 0·37f c¢Ag for concrete
with f c¢ = 5000 psi (Englekirk, 2003). Thus, for preliminary design purposes, the target section area of
frame column in the example building is estimated as

Ag = Pu (0◊35 fc¢)

The exterior column of the three-bay frame, identified as column 2 on the frame elevation, is sized
using the above equation and axial forces estimated from Method B (i.e. the push-over analysis
method). Table 7 compares the results of column sizes based on demands from UBC 97 and UBC 94.
The column based on UBC 97 is significantly larger than that from UBC 94 because of the differing
seismic demands that result from the larger girders required to satisfy the increased seismic demand
specified in the UBC 97.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
406 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

Figure 7. Moment curvature analysis of frame column section under constant axial compressive force =
13,600 kips

5.5 Moment–curvature analysis of frame column section

It is understood that the curvature ductility of a frame column diminishes when axial compressive
load on the column increases. Since flexural yielding is assumed to occur in columns at the base of
the frame, a moment–curvature analysis was conducted to investigate the frame column section, espe-
cially for columns subject to significant axial compressive force.
Figure 7 illustrates the moment–curvature analysis of a 48 in. ¥ 48 in. column section reinforced
with 36 #11 rebars (Fy = 60 ksi, f c¢ = 10 ksi) under compressive force Pu = 13,600 kips. Horizontal con-
finement is provided using hoops with 9 legs of #5 ties at 4 in. vertical spacing. The confinement effect
from the hoops was considered in the concrete model when developing the moment–curvature
relationship.
The curve terminates at the point where the ultimate strain 0·026 for confined concrete is reached.
The curvature of the column section corresponding to 1·5% lateral drift (which is the drift limitation,
DM, for this example building) is calculated as 5·29E-04 1/in. The point on the figure where the cur-
vature reaches 5·29E-04 1/in is about half-way between the first yield point and the termination point.
The column still has significant additional ductility as long as the concrete core is confined. It is found
that the maximum concrete strain corresponding to this curvature at the outmost of the column section
is 0·012, which is significantly less than the ultimate strain 0·026.
The analysis described above indicates that with the increase of column size and the use of 10 ksi
concrete, the column at the seismic base would be adequate to sustain the anticipated plastic defor-

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
 IMPACT OF INCREASED CODE DESIGN BASE SHEAR 407

mation while carrying 13,600 kips axial compression. Without the size increase and the concrete com-
pressive strength increase, the frame column may not perform well.

6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses the impacts on seismic design of reinforced concrete moment frame buildings
with long periods due to high seismic load demand. The design of each component of the example
moment frame following UBC 97 and UBC 94 design loads is compared and the impacts due to higher
demands found in current model building codes are highlighted. The design strategy to deal with the
higher lateral load demand and ensure ductile seismic performance is presented.
It can be concluded that:

(1) The design lateral load requirements in major model building codes appear to be conservative for
buildings having long periods because of the high minimum loads compared to more realistic
methods of estimating seismic demand.
(2) Increasing the reinforcement ratio in seismic frame members to cope with higher lateral load
demands required by modern model building codes, without other design adjustments, does not
guarantee better seismic performance for reinforced concrete building structures. Nevertheless,
this appears to be an option engineers might be temped to select when facing constraints on struc-
tural member sizes.
(3) Adding longitudinal reinforcement in frame beams to satisfy increased flexural strength tends to
reduce the curvature ductility capacity of beams unless the beam sizes are increased. For high-
rise buildings, it is recommended that beam sizes be increased to limit the maximum reinforce-
ment ratio to no more than 0·015.
(4) Increasing the frame beam reinforcement has a direct impact on the demand of joint shear stress.
The resulting section size of beam–column joints based on building code requirements can become
unacceptably large for high-rise buildings. Appropriate use of high-strength concrete in frame
column/joints appears to be a reasonable design option to reduce the column/joint size.
(5) The influence of system over-strength on the frame column axial load demand should be evalu-
ated in the design of frame columns. For the high-rise building studied in this example, push-over
analysis appears to provide a reasonable estimate of seismic column axial force demand. The code-
mandated use of W0 appears to significantly overestimate the demand.
(6) It is recommended that the frame column section be sized to limit the axial stress ratio to no more
than 0·35f c¢Ag to ensure a reasonable level of column ductility.
(7) The use of high-strength concrete to make the frame column size acceptable for high-rise con-
crete buildings appears to be a reasonable design option.

REFERENCES

ACI 318. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
02). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI.
Blue Book. 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Structural Engineers Association
of California: Sacramento, CA.
Englekirk R. 2001. C4 High-Strength Concrete Research. Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee:
Riverside, CA.
Englekirk R. 2003. Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings. Wiley: New York.
IBC (International Building Code). 2000. International Code Council.
NEHRP. 2000. Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Build-
ing Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)
408 C.-M. LIN ET AL.

New Zealand Standard. 1995. Concrete Structures Standards. Part 1: The Design of Concrete Structures, NZS
3101:1995. 1995 Standards New Zealand.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley: New York.
UBC (Uniform Building Code). 1994. International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier, CA.
UBC (Uniform Building Code). 1997. International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier, CA.
Xiao Y, Yun HW. 1998. Full Scale Experimental Studies on High-Strength Concrete Columns, Report No. USC
SERP 98/05, July. University of Southern California: Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 391–408 (2004)