See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284722858

Higher-Mode Effects in Performance-Based Seismic Design of High-Rise

Buildings

Conference Paper · September 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 1,444

2 authors:

Gabriele Guerrini Jose Ignacio Restrepo

University of Pavia University of California, San Diego
74 PUBLICATIONS 987 CITATIONS 217 PUBLICATIONS 5,912 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabriele Guerrini on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Higher-Mode Effects in Performance-Based Seismic Design
of High-Rise Buildings
Guerrini, Gabriele, Graduate Student Researcher
University of California - San Diego, Structural Engineering Dept.
Restrepo, Jose’ I., Professor
University of California - San Diego, Structural Engineering Dept.
Abstract
Higher modes are often neglected by design code provisions,
but their influence on the response of tall buildings to ground
motions can be significant. It has been known that, in some
cases, demands from higher modes can be of comparable
magnitude or even greater than demands obtained from the
first mode.
An analytical study has been conducted on reinforced-
concrete wall braced buildings. The number of stories (10,
20, and 40), floor mass distribution along the height of the
structure (uniform, tapered, and discontinuous), and presence
of gravity frames are some of the parameters investigated.
Displacement-controlled adaptive pushover analyses have
been performed on 2-D systems, monitoring the evolution of
the first three modes together with the development of plastic
hinges in the structural members. Non-linear behavior has
been included through plastic hinges at the ends of beams,
columns, and walls, which have been modeled with modified
Giberson’s elements. Changes in the flexural and axial
stiffness of the inner elastic portion of Giberson’s elements
have been included in the analyses as well, to account for
cracking evolution during the loading process. Tri-linear
moment-curvature relationships have been used to represent
the reinforced-concrete section response.
Whenever a plastic hinge has formed, a new eigenvalue
problem has been solved to update the modal parameters.
Comparisons between the first three modal shapes and
frequencies at various stages are provided. Suggestions and
comments about how their effects can be included in the
design procedure are presented as well.
San Diego, California
San Diego, California
Introduction
The past two decades have been characterized by an
increased attention to the seismic performance of buildings
and infrastructures beyond the mere structural response or the
reduction of life losses. Several reasons have led to this
change, for example: repair or replacement costs are usually
much higher for non-structural components than for structural
ones, especially in presence of technologically advanced
equipment (Taghavi and Miranda, 2003); downtime required
by rehabilitation can cause economical losses; strategic
structures, like hospitals or emergency-response centers,
should remain fully operational after a strong earthquake.
Performance-based seismic design aims to address different
objectives within a probabilistic framework (FEMA-445,
2006). Performance objectives are chosen on the basis of
damage states of structural and non-structural elements; these
damage states need to be expressed in terms of structural
parameters like internal forces, deformations, displacements,
interstory drifts, rotations, floor accelerations... For various
seismic hazard scenarios, specific limits are assigned to the
structural parameters, to obtain the desired performance of
the building components. As a consequence, anticipating the
structural response with a relatively high degree of accuracy
becomes a central issue during the design phase.
Controlling key structural response quantities is not possible
with traditional force-based design procedures, usually
recognized by building codes (UBC, 1997; ASCE 7-05; IBC,
2006). These design methods can ensure life safety and
prevent structural collapse, but do not allow the designer to
handle other performance objectives; their limitations is due
to a lack of control on kinematic parameters like
displacements, interstory drifts, rotations, deformations.
Differently, displacement-based procedures look more
suitable for this purpose: they allow to directly target
kinematic and force quantities, with reduced uncertainty.
An essential first step of a displacement-based procedure is
the selection of a kinematically admissible collapse
mechanism that governs the post-elastic response of the
lateral-force resisting system; structural components must be
designed to ensure the chosen mechanism can develop and be
maintained. This can be achieved by applying capacity-
design concepts (Paulay and Priestley, 1992): the designer
should first determine where inelastic deformations are taking
place; then he should detail those locations, the so-called
plastic hinges, to develop enough ductility capacity; finally,
he should design the remaining members, or portions of
them, to elastically carry the maximum expected internal
forces transmitted by the hinges. When reinforced concrete
(RC) is used, it is common to let the plastic hinges be
controlled by flexure, due to the ductile nature of this kind of
deformation. All other regions in the structure should be
protected against shear or anchorage failures, because of their
rather and more unpredictable character.
The collapse mechanism is usually selected following the
first mode shape of a building: in fact, the structural
displacement response is governed by the fundamental mode,
while higher modes only contribute with small modulations.
The overturning moment at the base is commonly dominated
by first-mode effects as well. However base shear, bending
moment distribution, and shear force distribution along the
building height can be significantly affected by higher modes,
especially in tall buildings (Eibl and Keintzel, 1988; Priestley
and Amaris, 2002; Panagiotou and Restrepo, 2009a).
Interactions with elements belonging to the gravity-force
resisting system can have a strong influence on shear forces
as well (Panagiotou and Restrepo, 2009b). Consequently,
accounting for these effects becomes necessary to prevent
unexpected yielding or brittle failure of members, and to
guarantee that the desired mechanism will develop.
Chopra and Goel (2002) have proposed a multi-modal
pushover analysis, where first-mode forces and displacements
are combined with second- and higher-mode quantities.
Priestley, Calvi, and Kowalsky (2007) and Panagiotou and
Restrepo (2009b) have developed displacement-based design
procedures including second mode effects among capacity-
design concepts. Therefore, an accurate estimate of the first
and second mode shapes appears to be essential for the
seismic design of buildings.
This paper presents the results of an analytical study on RC
cantilever-wall braced buildings. Plane models representing
a portion of a lateral force resisting system and made of beam
elements with lumped plasticity at their ends (Giberson,
1967), have been analyzed through an adaptive pushover
methodology, with displacement increments proportional to
the instantaneous first-mode shape. The evolution of mode
shapes, periods, contribution factors, effective masses, and
effective heights is discussed herein for the first three modes,
considering the number of stories, the floor weight
distribution with the height of the building, and the effect of
gravity framing beams.
Building Description
In this study 10-, 20-, and 40-story buildings are analyzed.
They are laterally braced by a RC core which contains
elevator shafts and staircases; wall lengths are assumed to be
the same for all buildings, the only differences being
thicknesses and amounts of steel. Each floor consists of an 8-
in thick post-tensioned RC slab, supported by gravity beams,
columns, and structural walls of the core; a typical plan view
is shown in Figure 1 (Zekioglu et al., 2007; Klemencic et al.,
2007). The interstory height is uniform and equal to 12 ft.
Three possible vertical distributions of floor masses are
considered for each number of stories:
1. uniform: all floors have the same mass, corresponding to
the typical floor plan of Figure 1;
2. tapered: the total mass of the building is the same as for
the uniform case, but the floor mass varies continuously
from the base to the top; for the 10-story building it
varies from 105% to 95% of the typical floor mass, for
the 20-story building from 110% to 90%, and for the 40-
story building from 120% to 80%;
3. discontinuous: the total mass of the building is the same
as for the uniform case, but the floor mass changes
suddenly at mid-height, from 120% of the typical floor
mass in the lower half to 80% in the upper half;
in the last two cases, the building plan is assumed to vary in
the N-S direction, but to remain unchanged in the E-W
direction.
Lateral forces acting in the E-W direction are resisted by
three parallel systems: the northernmost and southernmost
walls can be analyzed as C-shaped sections, while the inner
core can be seen as a tube section with openings. It is
assumed that each C-shaped wall carries one fourth of the
floor inertial forces, while the inner core one half.
 1 2 3 4
6'-0"

34'-0"
29'-0"

B
6'-0" 10'-0"
24'-0"
118'-0"

18'-0"

C
24'-0"

10'-0" 6'-0"

gravity beam

D
gravity column
29'-0"

34'-0"

E
6'-0"

N
3'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 3'-0"
96'-0"
E

Figure 1 - Typical floor plan.

In this paper attention is focused on the southernmost wall, Gravity Loads

which is connected to the exterior gravity columns by
framing beams along line D; the resulting subassembly is Gravity loads conform to IBC, 2006, and to the 2002 Los
shown in Figure 2 for the 10-story buildings. Analyses are Angeles Building Code (California Buildings Standards
performed first ignoring the presence of the gravity frames, Commission, 2002). They are summarized in Table 1.
then including their interaction with the lateral resisting
system.
 12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
120'-0"

(a)
12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"

10'-0"

slab edge
(b) D

30'-0" 36'-0" 30'-0"

Figure 2 - Subassembly for the 10-story buildings: (a) elevation and (b) plan view.

Seismic Loads
Table 1 - Gravity loads per floor.
Seismic loads are determined according to ASCE-7, 2005 and
Type Dead Dead Cladding Live IBC, 2006; the buildings are assumed to be located in
(structural) (non-str.) Downtown Los Angeles, California, on a class-C soil. A
Value 140 psf 28 psf 64 kips 40 psf design pseudo-acceleration SDS = 1.33 g is obtained for the
acceleration-controlled plateau, while SD1 = 0.78 g
corresponds to a period T = 1 s. The transition between
velocity-controlled and displacement-controlled region is
located at Tl = 8 s.
Code spectra are given for a 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years, or a return period TR = 475 years. They can be
scaled to spectra with a 50% probability of exceedance in 50
years, or TR = 72 years, through a factor of about 0.3. For the
specific site, seismic coefficient (ratio of pseudo-acceleration
to gravity acceleration) and displacement spectra are shown
in Figure 3.
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cs
their size and end reinforcement is necessary to define
moment-curvature relationships for these elements and their
plastic hinges.
The reference load combination is 1.2 D + 1.6 L (ASCE-7,
2005; IBC, 2006), where D represents the dead load and L the
live load. According to IBC, 2006, live loads can be reduced
by a factor related to the tributary area of the structural
element to be designed:
 
15
L = L0  0.25 + 
 K LL AT 

where L and L0 are respectively the reduced and unreduced
live loads, AT is the tributary area in square feet, and KLL is a
parameter depending on the structural element typology.
Beams
For a typical beam, AT = 715.5 ft2 and KLL = 2.0 lead to L =
0.65 L0. The design load per unit length is w = 6.4 kip/ft and

0.6 the end moment is approximated as wL2/10 = 467 kip-ft =

0.4 5600 kip-in. The reinforcing steel yield strength is chosen as
fy = 60 ksi, while the concrete compressive strength is set at
0.2 f’c = 5 ksi. As a result, a 20-in wide by 30-in deep section,
0.0 with 4 #10 top and bottom bars, is assigned to all beam ends.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Columns
T [s]
For a typical column, at each floor AT = 437.25 ft2 and KLL =
(a)
3.0 lead to L = 0.66 L0. The design point load is Fi = 106
kips. The reinforcing steel yield strength is chosen as fy = 60
70 ksi, while the concrete compressive strength is set at f’c = 8
60 ksi. The following sections (Zekioglu et al., 2007) are
adopted to keep the axial load ratio P/(f’cAg) below 0.40, and
50
the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρl = Asl/Ag between
0.01 and 0.03:
Sd [in]

40
30
• 24 x 24 in with 8 #11 bars:
20 all levels in the 10-story buildings,
10 levels 11 through 20 in the 20-story buildings,
levels 31 through 40 in the 40-story buildings;
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 28 x 28 in with 8 #11 bars:
T [s] levels 1 through 10 in the 20-story buildings,
(b) levels 21 through 30 in the 40-story buildings;

Figure 3 - Elastic design spectra: (a) seismic • 32 x 32 in with 12 #11 bars:

coefficient and (b) displacement. Solid line for
TR = 475 years, dashed line for TR = 72 years.
Gravity Frame Design
Beams and columns of the subassemblies shown in Figure 3
are designed to carry gravity loads only. However, knowing
levels 11 through 20 in the 40-story buildings;
• 36 x 36 in with 12 #11 bars:
levels 1 through 10 in the 40-story buildings.
In the following analyses, the axial load on the columns will
be determined based on the load combination that minimizes
gravity effects, as shown in the next section.
Structural Wall Design the height of the roof above the basement. This corresponds
to a roof yield displacement capacity equal to:
Structural walls must carry both gravity and lateral loads. In 11
this paper, they are designed and analyzed according to the δ n , y = φ y hn2 .
40
load combination from ASCE-7, 2005 that minimizes the For the assumed mode shape, modal contribution factor,
compressive axial load: (0.9 - 0.2 SDS) D + 1.0 E = 0.634 D +
effective weight, and effective height can be computed
1.0 E, where D and E represent the tributary dead load and
(Chopra, 2007):
seismic load, respectively. The reinforcing steel yield n
strength is chosen as fy = 60 ksi, while the concrete
compressive strength is set at f’c = 8 ksi.
∑ Wi Φ1,i
Γ 1* = Φ1, n n
i =1
,
∑ (Φ )
2
Wi
For design purposes, uniform distribution of the floor weight i =1
1, i

along the wall height is assumed. A tributary area AT = 2

1669.5 ft2 produces a vertical force Fi = 180 kips at each  n 
 ∑ Wi Φ1,i 
level. The tributary floor weight for lateral force
Weff ,1 =  i =1  ,
computations, instead, has been assumed to be about one n

∑ Wi (Φ1,i )
2
fourth of the total floor weight, i.e. Wi = 490 kips.
i =1
n
Walls have been designed for seismic lateral resistance
through a displacement-based procedure (Panagiotou and
∑ Wi hi Φ1,i
heff ,1 = i =1
.
Restrepo, 2009b). Two performance objectives have been n

targeted: immediate occupancy (IO) and life safety (LS). The ∑i =1

Wi Φ1,i
first one has been associated to a seismic event with 50%
probability of exceedance in 50 years, the second one to an
event with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The roof yield displacement can then be transformed into the
yield displacement capacity of a single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) oscillator, equivalent to the building first mode:
This paper focuses on the flexural behavior of walls; thus,
only flexural design is carried out. For this purpose, δ y , S ,1 = δ n, y Γ 1* ;
structural walls are designed as cantilevers, ignoring the this oscillator is characterized by mass Meff,1 = Weff,1/g and
interaction with gravity frames that influences mainly the height equal to heff,1, as shown in Figure 4.
shear demand. Higher-mode effects are not included as well:
since in the following analyses walls are quasi-statically
pushed according to the first-mode deflected shape, these
effects are not excited by the loading procedure.

Immediate Occupancy Performance Objective M eff,1

This performance objective is considered to be met if the wall
V b,1
base doesn’t yield under the corresponding seismic demand.
Given the length of the wall lw = 36 ft and the yield strain of
hn

the reinforcing steel εy = 0.00207, the yield curvature of a C-

shaped wall can be estimated as (Priestley, 2003):
heff,1

φ y ≈ 1.5 ε y lw = 7.184 × 10−6 rad/in.

The design process needs iterations to assess the yield roof
displacement.

The elastic first-mode shape is initially assumed to be

V b,1 V b,1
proportional to the deflected shape of a prismatic Euler- Mn Mn
Bernoulli cantilever subjected to lateral forces distributed as
an inverted triangle: (a) (b)
5 3 2
1  hi  10  hi  20  hi 
Φ1,i =   −   +   , Figure 4 - First mode of vibration: (a) first-mode
11  hn  11  hn  11  hn  force distribution on a building, and (b) equivalent
where hi is the height of level i above the basement, and hn is single-degree-of-freedom system.
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρl = Asl/Ag of the base The plastic roof displacement at ultimate is given by:
section should fall between 0.004 (minimum reinforcement)  lp   lp 
and 0.014 (maximum practical reinforcement), where Asl is δ n , p = φ p l p  hn −  = φ y ( µφ − 1) l p  hn −  ,
 2   2
the total area of longitudinal steel and Ag the area of the
concrete gross section. Once a value of ρl is chosen, the and the total ultimate roof displacement capacity is obtained
nominal moment Mn can be determined and the first-mode by superposition:
base shear can be derived:  11  l 
Vb ,1 = M n heff ,1 . δ n ,u = δ n , y + δ n , p = φ y  hn2 + ( µφ − 1) l p  hn − p   .
 40  2  

With this information, the fundamental period of the system

A new first-mode contribution factor can be found by
can be calculated:
superposition of the yield displacement profile with the
M eff ,1 Weff ,1 g ultimate mechanism displacement profile; however, it will be
T1 = 2π = 2π .
K1 Vb ,1 δ y , S ,1 shown that this value differs from the elastic one of less then
5%, so Γ1* is used also for the inelastic deflected shape. The
roof ultimate displacement can then be converted into the
The displacement corresponding to T1 on the spectrum with
equivalent inelastic SDOF oscillator ultimate displacement
TR = 72 years should be compared to the yield displacement
capacity:
capacity of the equivalent SDOF oscillator, and should
satisfy: δ I , S ,1 = δ n ,u Γ 1* ,
δ y , S ,1 ≥ Sd ,72 (T1 ) . and the displacement ductility capacity is evaluated as:
If the condition above is not satisfied, the reinforcement ratio µ∆ = δ I , S ,1 δ y , S ,1 .
of the base section should be increased; this leads to a
stronger and more rigid section, resulting in a shorter The inelastic displacement capacity needs to be transformed
fundamental period and, as a consequence, in a smaller into an elastic value, because it has to be compared with
displacement demand. spectral displacements obtained for elastic systems. This can
be done by applying the inelastic displacement ratio Cµ = δI
Life Safety Performance Objective /δE, i.e. the ratio of the displacement demand on an inelastic
A curvature ductility factor µφ = 15 is assumed to be obtained system to the demand on an elastic one. Expressions for Cµ
at the wall base at ultimate. The inelastic mechanism is have been statistically derived through non-linear time-
characterized by an equivalent plastic hinge of length lp = lw/2 history analyses of elasto-plastic SDOF oscillators (Miranda,
at the wall base (Paulay and Priestley, 1992), as shown in 2000). For T > 0.4 s its 90th percentile is expressed as:
Figure 5. µ −1
Cµ = ∆ 0.4 + 1 ,
7 ⋅ T1
lw δn,p where T1 is the same as for the IO performance objective.
Thus, the ultimate displacement capacity of the equivalent
elastic SDOF oscillator is:
δ I , S ,1 δ n ,u
δ u , S ,1 = = .
Cµ Γ 1*Cµ
hn

The displacement corresponding to T1 on the spectrum with

TR = 475 years should be compared to the ultimate
displacement capacity of the equivalent SDOF oscillator, and
should satisfy:
δ u , S ,1 ≥ Sd ,475 (T1 ) .
plastic hinge

If the condition above is not satisfied, the reinforcement ratio

of the base section should be increased; this leads to a
lp

lp /2

stronger and more rigid section, resulting in a shorter

(a) (b) fundamental period and, as a consequence, in a smaller
displacement demand.
Figure 5 - (a) plastic hinge location and (b) plastic
mechanism.
P-Delta Effects programs has been analyzed, until actual capacities greater
When large lateral displacements are expected, floor weights than demands have been obtained.
tend to produce additional overturning moment (Paulay and
Priestley, 1992): The final design is summarized in Tables 2 to 4, where
n thicknesses and longitudinal reinforcement ratios are shown
M P − ∆ = ∑ Wiδ i , level by level for the different buildings. Lengths of wall
i =1
web and flanges are constant in all cases, as reported in
where Wi is the seismic weight of floor i tributary to the wall,
Figure 2
and δi the lateral displacement of the same floor.
Consequently, the wall capacity of resisting lateral-load
induced base shear is reduced:
Table 2 - Wall design for the 10-story buildings.
M − M P−∆
Vb ,1 = n
heff ,1 Level Thickness Reinforcement
[in] ratio
When MP-∆/Mn is less than 0.085 at the ultimate displaced 1 8 0.008
configuration, Paulay and Priestley (1992) suggest to neglect 2 8 0.008
P-delta effects. When P-delta moments are particularly high, 3 8 0.012
however, they may cause the post-yield slope of the pushover 4 8 0.012
curve to be negative, leading to a great variability in the 5 8 0.010
determination of Cµ. (Miranda and Akkar, 2003). To avoid 6 8 0.008
this inconvenience, a greater base moment capacity needs to 7 8 0.006
be provided. In the specific design cases, P-delta effects 8 8 0.006
control the design of the 40-story buildings only. 9 8 0.004
10 8 0.004
Capacity Design
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio obtained for the base
section should be extended throughout the equivalent plastic
hinge length, that is, the first two levels of the buildings Table 3 - Wall design for the 20-story buildings.
designed herein. The amount of longitudinal reinforcement
required at the remaining levels is found by considering a Level Thickness Reinforcement
simplified linear variation of bending moment demand along [in] ratio
the wall height, from 1.5 Mn at the base to zero at the roof. 1 12 0.007
2 12 0.007
The overstrength factor ΩO = 1.5 has been determined
3 12 0.013
considering an expected steel yield strength fyE = 1.2 fy, and a
4 12 0.013
ratio of the post-yield moment-curvature rigidity to the secant
5 12 0.013
rigidity at nominal yield r = 0.02 (see next section):
6 12 0.011
f yE
ΩO =  r ( µφ − 1) + 1 = 1.5 . 7 12 0.011
f 
y

8 12 0.011
9 12 0.009
Iterations 10 12 0.009
The initial guess on the roof yield displacement is based on 11 8 0.012
the assumption of a prismatic cantilever wall, with the same 12 8 0.010
moment-curvature relationship throughout the entire height. 13 8 0.010
However, changes in thickness, reinforcement ratio, and axial 14 8 0.008
load, may affect significantly this value, especially if the base 15 8 0.008
section is lightly reinforced, because tension-stiffening action 16 8 0.006
becomes not negligible. 17 8 0.006
18 8 0.004
For this reason, after an initial design, each wall has been 19 8 0.004
subjected to an adaptive pushover analysis, to determine the
20 8 0.004
actual yield displacement. With this new value of δn,y the
design has been revised, and a wall with updated reinforcing
For the 10-story building a fundamental period of 0.87 s has The 20-story structure is characterized by a fundamental
been estimated; this corresponds to spectral displacement period of 2.53 s, which gives spectral displacement demands
demands of about 6.6 in and 1.9 in for LS and IO objectives. of 19.2 in and 5.8 in for LS and IO objectives, respectively.
The first-mode-SDOF displacement capacities have been The corresponding SDOF capacities are 29.90 in and 6.79 in.
evaluated as 8.52 in and 1.91 in, respectively.
Finally, the first-mode period of the 40-story building has
been evaluated as 6.92 s; spectral displacement demands are
Table 4 - Wall design for the 40-story buildings. about 52.80 and 15.85 for the two performance objectives,
while SDOF capacities are 129.79 in and 36.67 in,
Level Thickness Reinforcement respectively. In this case the design has been controlled by P-
[in] ratio delta effects.
1 30 0.012
2 30 0.012 Moment-curvature relationships
3 30 0.021
4 30 0.021 Tri-linear moment-curvature relationships have been
5 30 0.021 considered for walls, columns, and beams (Figure 6). They
6 30 0.019 are identified by cracking point, yield point, and post-yield
7 30 0.019 rigidity.
8 30 0.019
9 30 0.019 Cracking Point, C
The cracking moment is found through elasticity theory,
10 30 0.017
assuming a resisting section equal to the gross concrete
11 30 0.017
section (Ag, Ig); because of size effect in concrete, the
12 30 0.017
concrete modulus of rupture is taken equal to the direct
13 30 0.015 tensile strength:
14 30 0.015
15 30 0.015 f r = 4 f c ' [psi]
16 30 0.015 and the moment becomes:
17 30 0.013 M cr =  f r + ( P Ag ) I g ,
18 30 0.013
where P is the axial load, positive in compression and zero
19 30 0.012
for beams. The corresponding curvature is obtained as:
20 30 0.012
21 24 0.014 φcr = M cr ( Ec I g ) ,
22 24 0.014 where the concrete elastic modulus is:
23 24 0.012 Ec = 57000 f c ' [psi].
24 24 0.012
25 24 0.012
26 24 0.010 M
27 24 0.010 post-yield stiffness
28 24 0.010
29 24 0.008 Y
30 24 0.008 Mn
31 18 0.009
32 18 0.009
33 18 0.007 C
M cr
34 18 0.007
35 18 0.005 secant stiffness at yield
36 18 0.005
37 18 0.004 φ
φcr φy
38 18 0.004
39 18 0.004
40 18 0.004 Figure 6 - Tri-linear moment-curvature relationship.
Yield Point, Y
The nominal moment is associated with this point; for beams
and columns it’s approximated as:
M n = As f y ( d − d ') + P ( h 2 ) − ( a 2 )  ,
where As is the area of the steel layer closer to the tension
side, d the distance of this layer from the compression side, d’
the cover thickness, h the overall section depth, and a the
stress-block depth. For walls it is computed similarly, but
considering a flanged section with reinforcement distributed
also in the web. Nominal yield curvatures are computed
according to Priestley (2003):
φ y = λ (ε y L )
where λ is equal to 2.0 for beams, 2.1 for rectangular
columns, 1.5 for flanged walls, and L corresponds to h for
beams and columns, and to lw for walls.
Post-yield Rigidity
It is assumed that the post yield rigidity is equal to 2% of the
secant rigidity at the yield point for all members.
Axial force-deformation relationships
The compressive behavior is taken elastic for all members,
with stiffness equal to the initial uncracked value of the
concrete gross section.
The tensile response is modeled as tri-linear, identified by
cracking point, yield point, and post-yield stiffness. The
cracking point corresponds to a uniform tensile stress
distribution equal to fr on the concrete gross section, with the
associated strain ε = fr/Ec. Yield is characterized by a tensile
stress equal to fy on the reinforcing steel, and the
corresponding strain ε = fy/Es (concrete contribution is
ignored due to cracking). The post-yield stiffness is assumed
to be 1% of the secant stiffness at yield.
Analysis Methodology
A total of 18 building configurations are analyzed: 3 different
numbers of stories, 3 different floor mass distribution, and
absence or presence of gravity frames are considered.
Walls, columns, and beams are modeled as Giberson’s
elements (Giberson, 1967). The central portion of the
element is elastic: its stiffness can vary between the initial
slope and the slope between C and Y, depending on the
values of bending moment and axial force along the member.
At the ends of the elastic portion, plastic hinges are located:
they are activated when the bending moment at their position
reaches the yield value. Finally, rigid links can be added
between plastic hinges and member end nodes.
It should be noted that in beams and columns plastic hinges
are present at both ends, with a length equal to half of the
section depth. In the case of wall segments between floors,
instead, the lower hinge is characterized by a length equal to
the interstory height, while the upper hinge has zero length.
Rigid links are placed only at the ends of beams.
On each building a displacement-controlled adaptive
pushover analysis, based on the first-mode shape, is
performed (Satyarno, 2000). At each step, if changes in
stiffness occur, a new eigenvalue problem is solved, and the
next displacement increment is based on the new mode shape.
The first three mode deflected shapes and parameters are
saved for at the initial stage (uncracked stiffness), right before
each segment of the wall yields, and at a roof displacement
corresponding to the ultimate capacity computed in the
design phase.
Analysis Results
An inspection of the analysis output has shown that only the
two lower wall segments yield; this corresponds to the
anticipated length of the plastic hinge at the wall base.
Consequently, four stages are considered for plotting modal
deflected shapes and other parameters:
1. uncracked members (solid line in graphs);
2. right before the lower segment yields (dashed line);
3. right before the second segment yields (dash-dotted
line);
4. last analysis step (dotted line).
Mode Shapes
A comparison between the mode shapes obtained for a 10-
story cantilever wall alone with uniform floor mass
distribution (Figure 7), and the ones obtained for the same
wall with tapered and discontinuous distributions (Figure 10),
shows that the floor masses have a negligible effect. Same
considerations can be developed for higher buildings and in
presence of gravity frames. For this reason, only the results
obtained for uniform floor weight distribution are shown in
the following graphs.
Modal deflected shapes are plotted on Figures 7 to 9 for the
10-, 20-, and 40-story building, respectively; the first three
modes are considered. Both conditions of cantilever wall
alone and wall with gravity frames are accounted for. Floor
heights above the basement are normalized with respect to
the roof height. Modal deflected shapes Φn,i are normalized
with respect to the modal participation factor Γn, such that
ΓnΦn,i is plotted.
 1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1

0.6 0.6

Height
Height

2 2

3 3
0.4 0.4 4
4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(a) mode 1, cantilever wall alone (d) mode 1, wall with frame
SECOND MODE EVOLUTION
1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1

0.6 0.6
Height
Height

2
2

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
3 3

4 4
0 0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(b) mode 2, cantilever wall alone (e) mode 2, wall with frame
THIRD MODE EVOLUTION
1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1
0.6 0.6
Height

Height

2 2

0.4 3 0.4 3

4 4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(c) mode 3, cantilever wall alone (f) mode 3, wall with frame

Figure 7 - Evolution of the first three mode shapes, 10-story building, uniform floor mass distribution. Solid line
for stage 1 (uncracked members), dashed line for stage 2 (before yielding of the lower wall segment), dash-
dotted line for stage 3 (before yielding of the second wall segment), dotted line for stage 4 (last analysis step).
 1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1
0.6 0.6

Height
Height

2 2

0.4 0.4
3
3
0.2 0.2
4
4
0 0
0 0.2 0.40.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(a) mode 1, cantilever wall alone (d) mode 1, wall with frame

1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1

2
0.6 0.6
Height

Height

0.4 0.4
3
0.2 4 0.2 3

4
0 0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(b) mode 2, cantilever wall alone (e) mode 2, wall with frame

1 1
1 1

0.8 0.8
2
0.6 0.6
Height
Height

2
3
0.4 4 0.4
3

4
0.2 0.2

0 0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(c) mode 3, cantilever wall alone (f) mode 3, wall with frame

Figure 8 - Evolution of the first three mode shapes, 20-story building, uniform floor mass distribution. Solid line
for stage 1 (uncracked members), dashed line for stage 2 (before yielding of the lower wall segment), dash-
dotted line for stage 3 (before yielding of the second wall segment), dotted line for stage 4 (last analysis step).
 1 1

0.8 0.8
1

2 1
0.6 0.6

Height
Height

0.4 4 0.4 4
3

0.2 0.2
3
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(a) mode 1, cantilever wall alone (d) mode 1, wall with frame

1 1

0.8 1 0.8
1
2
0.6 0.6
Height
Height

2
3

0.4 4 0.4

0.2 0.2 3

0 0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(b) mode 2, cantilever wall alone (e) mode 2, wall with frame
THIRD MODE EVOLUTION THIRD MODE EVOLUTION
1 1
1 1
2
0.8 0.8
2
0.6 0.6
Height
Height

0.4 3 0.4 4
4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(c) mode 3, cantilever wall alone (f) mode 3, wall with frame

Figure 9 - Evolution of the first three mode shapes, 40-story building, uniform floor mass distribution. Solid line
for stage 1 (uncracked members), dashed line for stage 2 (before yielding of the lower wall segment), dash-
dotted line for stage 3 (before yielding of the second wall segment), dotted line for stage 4 (last analysis step).
 1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1

0.6 0.6
Height

Height
2 2

3 3
0.4 0.4
4 4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(a) mode 1, tapered floor mass distribution (d) mode 1, discontinuous floor mass distribution

1 1

0.8 0.8
1 1

0.6 0.6
Height

Height

2 2

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 3
3
4 4
0 0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(b) mode 2, tapered floor mass distribution (e) mode 2, discontinuous floor mass distribution

1 1

0.8 0.8
1
0.6 0.6
Height

Height

1
2
2
0.4 3 0.4
3
4
0.2 0.2 4

0 0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Modal displacement Modal displacement
(c) mode 3, tapered floor mass distribution (f) mode 3, discontinuous floor mass distribution

Figure 10 - Evolution of the first three mode shapes, 10-story cantilever wall alone, tapered and discontinuous
floor mass distributions. Solid line for stage 1 (uncracked members), dashed line for stage 2 (before yielding of
the lower wall segment), dash-dotted line for stage 3 (before yielding of the second wall segment), dotted line
for stage 4 (last analysis step).
Periods Modal Contribution Factors
Tables 5 to 7 summarize the period evolution for all building Tables 8 to 10 summarize the modal contribution factor
typologies. evolution for all building typologies.

A comparison between the periods obtained with different
floor weight distributions shows the small influence of this
distribution on the modal response: the maximum variation is
in the order of 10%, but in many cases it is less than this.
Consequently, only the uniform distribution results are
reported for all buildings.
A comparison between the contribution factors obtained for
the 10-story cantilever wall alone with different floor weight
distributions leads to the same conclusions about the
negligible influence of the floor weight distribution, as
exposed before.

Table 5 - Evolution of the first three mode periods Table 8 - Evolution of the first three mode
[s], 10-story building, uniform floor mass contribution factors, 10-story building, uniform
distribution. floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 0.461 1.271 4.853 6.356 Mode 1 1.467 1.444 1.432 1.430
Mode 2 0.073 0.141 0.233 0.325 Mode 2 -0.681 -0.599 -0.558 -0.534
Mode 3 0.026 0.042 0.057 0.109 Mode 3 0.335 0.271 0.198 0.114
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 0.410 0.851 1.288 4.497 Mode 1 1.462 1.436 1.423 1.430
Mode 2 0.071 0.114 0.159 0.299 Mode 2 -0.675 -0.610 -0.553 -0.505
Mode 3 0.026 0.039 0.047 0.086 Mode 3 0.335 0.276 0.199 0.087

Table 6 - Evolution of the first three mode periods Table 9 - Evolution of the first three mode
[s], 20-story building, uniform floor mass contribution factors, 20-story building, uniform
distribution. floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 1.480 3.760 10.838 14.468 Mode 1 1.525 1.496 1.472 1.469
Mode 2 0.256 0.499 0.728 0.832 Mode 2 -0.786 -0.681 -0.635 -0.656
Mode 3 0.091 0.147 0.187 0.254 Mode 3 0.431 0.329 0.271 0.285
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 1.169 1.988 4.371 9.599 Mode 1 1.505 1.468 1.466 1.465
Mode 2 0.238 0.319 0.462 0.589 Mode 2 -0.764 -0.716 -0.658 -0.643
Mode 3 0.089 0.126 0.154 0.193 Mode 3 0.429 0.365 0.291 0.288

Table 7 - Evolution of the first three mode periods Table 10 - Evolution of the first three mode
[s], 40-story building, uniform floor mass contribution factors, 40-story building, uniform
distribution. floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 3.907 7.789 18.340 24.413 Mode 1 1.546 1.541 1.503 1.494
Mode 2 0.651 1.290 1.807 1.870 Mode 2 -0.839 -0.758 -0.695 -0.694
Mode 3 0.237 0.391 0.487 0.520 Mode 3 0.489 0.366 0.307 0.322
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 2.960 4.199 11.852 17.895 Mode 1 1.526 1.497 1.503 1.488
Mode 2 0.592 0.732 1.431 1.603 Mode 2 -0.813 -0.774 -0.684 -0.666
Mode 3 0.227 0.294 0.380 0.414 Mode 3 0.482 0.427 0.337 0.332
Effective Masses Effective Heights
Tables 11 to 13 summarize the effective masses evolution for Tables 14 to 16 summarize the effective height evolution for
all building typologies. all building typologies.

A comparison between the effective masses obtained for the
10-story cantilever wall alone with different floor weight
distributions leads to the same conclusions about the
negligible influence of the floor weight distribution, as
exposed before.
A comparison between the effective heights obtained for the
10-story cantilever wall alone with different floor weight
distributions leads to the same conclusions about the
negligible influence of the floor weight distribution, as
exposed before.

Table 11 - Evolution of the first three mode effective Table 14 - Evolution of the first three mode effective
masses [% of total mass], 10-story building, heights [% of roof height], 10-story building,
uniform floor mass distribution. uniform floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 64 68 78 75 Mode 1 76 75 70 72
Mode 2 20 22 17 24 Mode 2 22 16 1 5
Mode 3 7 5 4 1 Mode 3 13 10 0 4
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 65 70 79 75 Mode 1 76 74 70 71
Mode 2 19 21 17 24 Mode 2 21 13 -1 5
Mode 3 7 4 2 1 Mode 3 13 10 1 4

Table 12 - Evolution of the first three mode effective Table 15 - Evolution of the first three mode effective
masses [% of total mass], 20-story building, heights [% of roof height], 20-story building,
uniform floor mass distribution. uniform floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 62 65 76 74 Mode 1 75 73 69 69
Mode 2 19 21 16 16 Mode 2 23 17 3 4
Mode 3 7 5 4 8 Mode 3 14 9 1 3
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 64 70 75 75 Mode 1 74 71 69 69
Mode 2 17 18 18 20 Mode 2 20 10 3 3
Mode 3 7 5 3 5 Mode 3 14 9 3 2

Table 13 - Evolution of the first three mode effective Table 16 - Evolution of the first three mode effective
masses [% of total mass], 40-story building, heights [% of roof height], 40-story building,
uniform floor mass distribution. uniform floor mass distribution.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Cantilever wall alone Cantilever wall alone
Mode 1 62 61 74 74 Mode 1 74 74 69 68
Mode 2 19 21 15 14 Mode 2 22 22 5 4
Mode 3 7 7 5 5 Mode 3 13 11 1 2
Wall with frame Wall with frame
Mode 1 63 68 73 74 Mode 1 73 71 69 68
Mode 2 18 18 18 15 Mode 2 20 13 6 3
Mode 3 7 6 4 5 Mode 3 13 10 2 2
Discussion
Panagiotou and Restrepo (2009a) have shown that the
second-mode moment demand can crack and even yield the
structural wall at mid-height, especially in taller buildings.
However, interaction with higher modes is neglected in this
study: pushover analyses are based on the first-mode shape
only, as well as the reported cracking and yielding stages. In
fact, this paper aims to illustrate the evolution of mode shapes
with progressive damage at the wall base.
As one can see from the plotted mode shapes, not only the
mass distribution, but also the presence of gravity frames has
a small influence on the modal response, except for periods.
In particular, mode shapes are almost invariant with respect
to these parameters at initial and final stages. However, at
intermediate stages they seem to be slightly sensitive to the
action of beams and columns, due to the fact that a part of
these elements is yielded and a part is not. Thus, certain
attention should be paid to the choice of the deflected shape
at incipient yielding, because it may vary quite a bit
depending on the boundary conditions of the wall.
Periods are particularly affected by the restraints of framing
elements, which produces a stiffer system. In fact, a
reduction in period can be observed for all modes and all
buildings when beams and columns are added. This effect is
very significant at ultimate, when the mechanism is partially
inhibited by frames. Moreover, periods change widely
depending on the damage state of the building, but this result
is not recognized by the current code approaches: an
empirical equation provides the fundamental period without
considering the actual stiffness of structural elements.
Modal contribution factors relative to the first mode remain
almost constant during the loading process: a variation of less
than 4% is observed in all cases. This result justifies the
assumption made during the design of the walls, where the
same contribution factor was used for both elastic and
inelastic deflected shapes. Larger relative variations are
observed for higher modes, whose factors show a decreasing
trend with progressive damage.
Effective modal masses present a uniform trend for the first
mode, increasing from the initial stage to the final one of the
same amount, independently of the building configuration;
instead, the second-mode effective mass has a more irregular
variability. The first mode contributes with 60% to 75% of
the total building mass, while the second mode with 15% to
25%. The third mode has a smaller incidence, in the order of
3% to 8% of the total mass, without significant variations.
The fundamental mode is always characterized by an
effective height greater than higher modes. Moreover,
effective heights tend to decrease for all modes and all
buildings, but this reduction is more evident for higher modes
than for the first one. As a result, higher modes may slightly
contribute to the overturning moment at initial stages, but
after yielding of the system their effect almost disappears.
Consequently, hinging at the base of the wall can prevent
first-mode induced forces from increasing above the yield
value, but has a weaker effect on higher-mode forces, which
become prevalent on the first-mode ones.
These concepts can be applied to the 40-story building,
including the gravity frames. Assuming a near elasto-plastic
lateral force-displacement relationship, at yield the first three
modes contribute with 68%, 18%, and 6% of the total mass
Mtot; they are characterized by effective heights equal to 73%,
20%, and 13% of the roof height hn; the corresponding
periods are 4.12 s, 0.73 s, and 0.29 s, associated with seismic
coefficients of 0.19, 1.08, and 1.33 from the LS spectrum.
When the mechanism is fully developed, effective masses are
respectively 74%, 15%, and 5% of Mtot; effective heights are
68%, 3%, and 2% of hn; periods are 17.90 s, 1.60 s, and 0.41
s, and seismic coefficients become 0.02, 0.49, and 1.33.
The base shear for mode n is given by:
Vb , n = M eff , n S a (Tn ) = Weff , n Cs (Tn ) ,
where Meff,n is the effective mass, Weff,n = Meff,n g the effective
weight, Sa the pseudo-spectral acceleration and Cs = Sa/g the
seismic coefficient.
The overturning moment is given by the product of the base
shear times the effective height:
M b , n = Vb , n heff , n .
At yield, base shears are Vb,1 = 0.13 Wtot, Vb,2 = 0.19 Wtot, and
Vb,3 = 0.08 Wtot. The second-mode effect is greater than the
first-mode one, and must be accounted for; instead, the third
mode can be neglected: using the SRSS rule to combine the
shears, its contribution would increase the response obtained
from the first two of less than 5%. The corresponding
overturning moments are Mb,1 = 0.095 Wtothn, Mb,2 = 0.038
Wtothn, and Mb,3 = 0.01 Wtothn. If modal effects are combined
through the SRSS rule, the second mode affects the response
in measure of 15% of the total moment, while the third mode
is negligible.
At the ultimate stage, base shears become Vb,1 = 0.015 Wtot,
Vb,2 = 0.074 Wtot, and Vb,3 = 0.067 Wtot: it is evident that the
higher-mode response keep increasing more than the
fundamental-mode one after plasticization of the wall base.
Under this condition, overturning moments are Mb,1 = 0.01
Wtothn, Mb,2 = 0.002 Wtothn, and Mb,3 = 0.001 Wtothn: no
significant increments in base moment can be expected after
the plastic hinge has been released.
Panagiotou and Restrepo (2009b) have proposed a design
procedure for medium-rise buildings, accounting for the
second mode in the shear demand. They assume first- and
second-mode shapes and, given the floor weight distribution,
compute modal contribution factors, effective masses, and
effective heights. Approximated shapes are given by:
5 3 2 equations and analytical methods which underestimate its
1  hi  10  hi  20  hi 
Φ1,i =   −   +  
11  hn  11  hn  11  hn 
and
3 2
 hi   hi  hi
Φ 2,i = 2.4   − 8.6   + 5.2 ;
h
 n h
 n h n
The guess of the first-mode shape is based on the deflected
shape of a prismatic cantilever under an inverted-triangular
force distribution, as presented in the wall design section.
The second-mode shape has been calibrated to give near-zero
base moment.
The main limitation of the first-mode approximation, as
discussed before, consists in the assumption of uniform
section behavior throughout the wall height. Changes in
thickness, reinforcement ratio, and axial load, may affect
significantly the deflected shape, especially if the base
section is lightly reinforced, because tension-stiffening action
becomes not negligible.
As a result, the yield roof displacement is overestimated:
values of 4.10 in, 16.31 in, and 65.54 in are anticipated for
the 10-, 20-, and 40-story buildings, while pushover analyses
give yield displacements of 2.75 in, 10.19 in, and 55.00 in,
respectively. The error ranges from 20% in the case of a
heavily reinforced base section (40 story), to 60% in the case
of a lightly reinforced section (20 story). The first-mode
effective mass is also overestimated by about 15%, while
effective height and contribution factor are not very sensitive
to this approximation. In this paper, an iterative approach has
been utilized to assess the yield roof displacement; however,
effects of reinforcement ratio and stiffness changes should be
incorporated into the first-mode shape expression.
A strong simplification in the second-mode guessed shape is
the assumption of near-zero overturning effect at the base: in
fact, analyses show that Mb,2 can reach 30% of Mb,1. If a
different approximation is used, giving some moment at the
base, the nominal moment capacity should be distributed
between the two modes; then, the assumed first- and second-
mode lateral force distribution could be scaled to produce the
desired overturning effect, and the corresponding base shears
could be evaluated. This approach would not need a guess of
the second-mode period, as suggested by Panagiotou and
Restrepo (2009b), but would lead to a direct calculation of
the base shear.
Conclusions
A key step in seismic design of RC-wall braced buildings is
to determine their fundamental period, which is strongly
dependent on the damage level and the interaction with
gravity frames. Current building codes suggest simplified
value, based on the initial stiffness; this is conservative on the
lateral-force demand side, but it is not under the displacement
demand perspective: reducing the period leads to a higher
seismic coefficient but a lower spectral displacement.
Displacement-based design procedures, like the one briefly
exposed in this paper (Panagiotou and Restrepo, 2009b), may
overcome this problem, because fundamental and higher
periods are derived from quantities that engineers can better
control. This goal may be achieved if first- and higher-mode
shapes are accurately approximated: effects due to cracking
and section variation along the wall height should be taken
into account when the yield roof displacement is evaluated,
and the second-mode contribution to the overturning moment
should be considered as well.
Higher modes, in particular the second one, can dominate the
shear demand on buildings, but design codes do not recognize
properly this important contribution. Typically, equivalent-
static-load procedures deal with higher modes by assigning
the total mass of the building to the first mode; however, this
can produce a too conservative estimate of the overturning
moment and an unsafe evaluation of the shear demand, which
is not derived from capacity-design concepts. Modal
response spectrum analyses are affected by unconservative
assumptions as well: the R-factor, which should reduce the
first-mode forces, is applied to the combined response,
resulting in underestimated higher-mode actions.
A more rigorous approach should start from the flexural
design of the hinge region; at this stage the demand could be
derived from the first mode alone and, if a force-based design
method is followed, R-factors should be adopted. Then,
capacity design should be applied in order to derive first- and
second-mode moment demand out of the plastic hinge, and to
determine shear demands; no reduction factors should be
applied to these demands, which are evaluated after the
plasticization of the wall base.
References
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., “A Modal Pushover Analysis
Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings”,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002,
Vol. 31, pp. 561 to 582, John Wiley and Sons.
Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 3rd edition, 2007,
Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Eibl, J., and Keintzel, E., “Seismic Shear Forces in RC
Cantilever Shear Walls”, Proceedings of the 9th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. VI, pp. 5
to 10, Tokyo, Kyoto, Japan.
Giberson, M. F., The Response of Nonlinear Multi-story
Structures subjected to Earthquake Excitation, May 1967,
Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California.
Klemencic, R., Fry, J. A., Hooper, J. D., and Morgen, B. G.,
“Performance-Based Design of Ductile Concrete Core Wall
Buildings - Issues to Consider before Detailed Analysis”, The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2007, Vol.
16, pp. 599 to 614, John Wiley and Sons.
Miranda, E., “Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structures on
Firm Sites”, Journal of Structural Engineering, October
2000, pp. 1150 to 1159, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. D., “Dynamic Instability of
Simple Structural Systems”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, December 2003, pp. 1722 to 1726, American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo, J. I., “Dual-Plastic Hinge
Design Concept for Reducing Higher-Mode Effects on High-
Rise Cantilever Wall Buildings”, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 2009, John Wiley and Sons.
Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo, J. I., “A Displacement-Based
Method of Analysis: Application to the Full-Scale 7-Story
Building Slice Tested At UC San Diego”, 2009, under
preparation.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, 1992, John
Wiley and Sons.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Amaris, A. D., Dynamic
Amplification of Seismic Moments and Shear Forces in
Cantilever Walls, 2002, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake
Engineering, Revisited, 2003, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J.,
Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, 2007,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Satyarno, I., Adaptive Pushover Analysis for the Seismic
View publication stats
Assessment of Older Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2000,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Taghavi, S., and Miranda, E., Response Assessment of
Nonstructural Building Elements, September 2003, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley,
California.
Zekioglu, A., Willford, M., Jin, L., and Melek, M., “Case
Study Using the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural
Design Council Guidelines: 40-Storey Concrete Core Wall
Building”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 2007, Vol. 16, pp. 583 to 597, John Wiley and
Sons.
ASCE, 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures (ASCE 7-05), 2005 edition, pp. 109 to 142,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ATC, 2006, Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic
Design Guidelines, Program Plan for New and Existing
Buildings (FEMA-445), August 2006, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
CBSC, 2002, Los Angeles Building Code, 2002 edition,
California Buildings Standards Commission, Sacramento,
California.
ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code (UBC), Structural
Engineering Provisions, Vol. 2, 1997 edition, pp. 2-1 to 2-38,
International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California.
ICC, 2006, International Building Code (IBC), 2006 edition,
pp. 277 to 326, International Code Council, Country Club
Hills, Illinois.