Dissertation2007 Martini

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN
REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

DESIGN VERIFICATION OF A
FORCE- AND DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGNED
TORSIONALLY-UNBALANCED WALL BUILDING

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

by

SARA MARTINI

Supervisor: Dr RUI PINHO

November, 2007

The dissertation entitled Design verification of a force- and displacement-based designed torsionally-
unbalanced wall building, by Sara Martini, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Rui Pinho

Gian Michele Calvi

Abstract

i

ABSTRACT

The Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) is a procedure that has been developed over the past
ten years in order to solve the problems of the current Force-Based Design (FBD), related to the use of
the initial stiffness and to the assumption that a unique force-reduction factor is appropriate to a given
structural type and material. This individual study has the aim of apply the FBD and DDBD approach
to a torsionally eccentric structural wall building and compare the response of the two designed
structures to a target profile related to a given limit state and seismic input level..
The design procedures are applied to an asymmetric structural wall building and the torsional effects
due to its irregularity are considered; the walls displacement profiles related to the given limit state
and earthquake level are obtained and therefore the design shear and moment capacities of the walls
are computed.
The design displacement profiles are then verified by a nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis done
with the finite element program SeismoStruct. The different modelling choices (constraints, mass
discretization, and hysteretic rules) are investigate in order to obtain the best representation of the real
system and the use of the finite element program SAP2000 and of other types of analyses (eigenvalue
and linear dynamic time-history) is considered in order to validate the final results.
The final design and analysis results have differences of about 2% for the stiff wall and 19% for the
flexible one; the comparison with the Force-Based Design values (differences of about 42% and 38%
respectively) shows that the Direct Displacement-Based Design leads to a better distribution of shear
capacities to the walls, a better estimation of the analysis results and therefore also a lower cost of the
structural elements given that a lower reinforcement area is needed.

Keywords: Displacement-Based Design; structural wall building; torsional effects.

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I want to thank Dr. Rui Pinho for his support throughout the Master program and
for all the time he spent discussing and revising my dissertation.
Thanks also to the students that Ive met at the Roses School, especially to Federica and Clara
for their invaluable friendship in all the Masters moments we shared.
Finally I want to thank my Dad who always encourages me and Marcello for his love and
support in all the difficult moments.

iv

Index

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE............................ 1
1.1 Objectives and organisation of the work................................................................................ 1
1.2 Presentation of the prototype structure (Priestley et al., 2007) .............................................. 1
1.3 Seismic input level (Priestley et al., 2007) ............................................................................. 2
1.4 Performance target (Priestley et al., 2007) ............................................................................. 3
1.5 The two approaches................................................................................................................ 4
2. FORCE-BASED DESIGN OF PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ....................................................... 5
2.1 Systems fundamental period ................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Design spectrum..................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Design base shear ................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Member elastic stiffness......................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Design shears and moments ................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Flexural reinforcement design.............................................................................................. 10
2.7 Capacity verification through pushover analysis ................................................................. 11
2.8 Closing remarks.................................................................................................................... 12
3. DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE.................................... 13
3.1 Critical roof displacement .................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Design displacement............................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Equivalent damping.............................................................................................................. 19
3.4 Elastic displacement spectrum............................................................................................. 20
3.5 Base shear............................................................................................................................. 21
3.6 Torsional effects................................................................................................................... 23
3.7 Final results .......................................................................................................................... 24
3.8 Design shears and moments ................................................................................................. 25
3.9 Flexural reinforcement design.............................................................................................. 26
Index

vi
3.10 Capacity verification through pushover analysis ................................................................. 28
3.11 Closing remarks.................................................................................................................... 29
4. VERIFICATION OF NUMERICAL STRUCTURAL MODEL.................................................. 30
4.1 Description of models .......................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1 Modelling considerations................................................................................................. 32
4.1.2 SeismoStruct models........................................................................................................ 38
4.1.3 SAP model ....................................................................................................................... 41
4.1.4 Closing remarks ............................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Eigenvalue analysis .............................................................................................................. 42
4.2.1 Eigenvalue analysis in SeismoStruct ............................................................................... 42
4.2.2 Eigenvalue analysis in SAP ............................................................................................. 45
4.2.3 Comparison between SeismoStruct and SAP results ....................................................... 46
4.2.4 Eigenvalue analysis considering a model with equal walls ............................................. 48
4.2.5 Eigenvalue analysis considering a model with a total central mass................................. 52
4.2.6 Closing remarks ............................................................................................................... 54
4.3 Linear dynamic time-history analysis .................................................................................. 54
4.3.1 Time-histories .................................................................................................................. 55
4.3.2 Linear dynamic time-history analysis in SeismoStruct.................................................... 55
4.3.3 Linear dynamic time-history analysis in SAP.................................................................. 56
4.3.4 Comparison between SeismoStruct and SAP results ....................................................... 57
4.3.5 Closing remarks ............................................................................................................... 59
5. DESIGN VERIFICATION THROUGH NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS...................... 60
5.1 Verification of Force-Based Designed structure .................................................................. 60
5.2 Verification of the Displacement-Based Designed structure ............................................... 64
5.3 Displacement response of centre of mass............................................................................. 68
5.4 Closing remarks.................................................................................................................... 71

Index
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Floor plan ............................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Acceleration and displacement elastic spectra ....................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1 Design acceleration spectrum................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.2 Shear and moment profiles obtained by FBD...................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3 Interaction curves for wall 1 (on the left) and wall 2 (on the right) considering FBD......... 11
Figure 2.4 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 1 considering FBD..... 12
Figure 2.5 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 2 considering FBD..... 12
Figure 3.1 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacement profiles for walls 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the
right).............................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3.2 Roof-level displacement for zero eccentricity (plan view) .................................................. 18
Figure 3.3 Elastic acceleration and displacement spectra...................................................................... 21
Figure 3.4 DDBD inelastic displacement spectrum............................................................................... 22
Figure 3.5 DDBD shear and moment capacity diagrams ...................................................................... 26
Figure 3.6 Moment-Curvature relationships for wall 1 (on the left) and wall 2 (on the right) with
Cumbia and USC_RC programs, considering DDBD.................................................................. 27
Figure 3.7 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 1 considering DDBD. 28
Figure 3.8 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 2 considering DDBD. 29
Figure 4.1 Local and global reference system for geometric nonlinearity (SeismoStruct, 2007) ......... 31
Figure 4.2 Material inelasticity (SeismoStruct, 2007) ........................................................................... 31
Figure 4.3 Diagonals models deformed shape: top and left view......................................................... 32
Figure 4.4 Rigid diaphragm models deformed shape: top and left view.............................................. 33
Figure 4.5 Rigid link (x-y-z-rx-ry-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view............................... 33
Figure 4.6 Rigid link (x-y-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view........................................... 34
Figure 4.7 Rigid link (x-y) models deformed shape: top and left view................................................ 34
Figure 4.8 Rigid link (rx-ry-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view......................................... 35
Index
viii

Figure 4.9 a) Master nodes at wall 3 at each floor (left); b) Master nodes alternatively at walls 1 and 3
(right) ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 4.10 a) Master nodes at walls 1 and 3 at each floor (left); b) Central master nodes (right) ....... 36
Figure 4.11 Nonlinear constant confinement concrete model in SeismoStruct (2007) ......................... 39
Figure 4.12 Menegotto-Pinto steel model in SeismoStruct (2007)........................................................ 39
Figure 4.13 Elastic material model in SeismoStruct (2007) .................................................................. 40
Figure 4.14 SeismoStruct model............................................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.15 SAP model.......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.16 Mode 1: T=0.4943 sec (SeismoStruct) on the left; T=0.4947 sec (SAP) on the right........ 47
Figure 4.19 Mode shape 1: equal walls model on the left; original model on the right ........................ 51
Figure 4.22 Design spectrum-compatible artificial time-histories......................................................... 55
Figure 4.23 Legend of figures 4.23 4.24 - 4.25 .................................................................................. 57
Figure 4.24 Displacement responses of linear dynamic time-history analysis with curve multiplier =
0.01................................................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 4.25 Displacement responses of linear dynamic time-history analysis with curve multiplier =
0.001.............................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.26 Displacement responses of linear analysis with curve multiplier = 9.81 ........................... 59
Figure 5.1 Average and design displacement profiles of the two walls considering FBD.................... 61
Figure 5.2 Comparison between the average and design displacement profiles of the two walls
considering FBD........................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 5.3 Average and design interstory drift profiles of the two walls considering FBD.................. 63
Figure 5.4 Average and design displacement profiles of the two walls considering DDBD................. 65
Figure 5.5 Comparison between the average and design displacement profiles considering DDBD.... 65
Figure 5.6 Average and design interstory drift profiles of the two walls considering DDBD .............. 67
Figure 5.7 Displacement profiles for walls 1 and 2: seven time-histories, average and envelope results
....................................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.8 Displacement time-histories of the centre of mass............................................................... 69
Figure 5.9 Rotation time-histories of the centre of mass ....................................................................... 70
Figure 5.10 Displacements and rotations of the roofs centre of mass .................................................. 70
Figure 5.11 Displacements and rotations of the systems centre of mass.............................................. 71

Index
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Stiffness and shear results for wall 1 (on the left) and for wall 2 (on the right) considering
FBD................................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2.2 Shear and moment capacities of wall 1 considering FBD....................................................... 9
Table 2.3 Shear and moment capacities of wall 2 considering FBD....................................................... 9
Table 3.1 DDBD roof drifts and displacements for the two walls......................................................... 16
Table 3.2 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacements of wall 1......................................................... 16
Table 3.3 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacements of wall 2......................................................... 16
Table 3.4 DDBD results of last iteration ............................................................................................... 24
Table 3.5 DDBD shear and moment capacities of wall 1...................................................................... 25
Table 3.6 DDBD shear and moment capacities of wall 2...................................................................... 26
Table 4.1 Equal lumped masses............................................................................................................. 37
Table 4.2 Lumped masses proportional to the sections area of the walls............................................. 37
Table 4.3 Central mass and torsional mass inertia................................................................................. 38
Table 4.4 Applied loads at each wall ..................................................................................................... 38
Table 4.5 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 1 with four equal lumped masses......................... 44
Table 4.8 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with four equal lumped masses ...................................... 46
Table 4.9 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 1 with four equal lumped masses and equal walls
....................................................................................................................................................... 49
....................................................................................................................................................... 49
....................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.12 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with equal masses and four equal lumped masses........ 50
Index
x

Table 4.13 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 1 (nonlinear model with reinforcement bars) with
total central mass........................................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.14 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 2 (nonlinear model without reinforcement bars)
with total central mass............................................................................................................ 53
Table 4.15 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 3 (linear model) with total central mass ............ 53
Table 4.16 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with total central mass.................................................. 54
Table 5.1 Displacement profile numerical results considering FBD..................................................... 61
Table 5.2 Interstory drift profile numerical results considering FBD.................................................... 63
Table 5.3 Displacement profile numerical results considering DDBD ................................................. 64
Table 5.4 Interstory drift profile numerical results considering DDBD................................................ 66
Chapter 1. Introduction and presentation of prototype structure
1

1. INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF PROTOTYPE
STRUCTURE
1.1 Objectives and organisation of the work
The aim of this work is to compare two different design approaches: the Force-Based Design
(FBD) and the Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD). The first one represents the usual
procedure considered in the design of the structural elements, while the second one was
developed over the past ten years in order to solve the problems related to the FBD.
In order to allow this comparison, a given prototype structure, seismic input level and
performance target are initially defined. Then, both the design procedures (FBD and DDBD)
are applied to the same torsionally-unbalanced wall building (the prototype structure) and the
design shear and moment capacities are obtained in the two cases. A numerical structural
model to use in the analysis verification is defined for both the design structures: the different
modelling choices (constraints, mass discretization, and hysteretic rules) are investigate in
order to obtain the best representation of the real system and the use of the finite element
program SAP2000 and of other types of analyses (eigenvalue and linear dynamic time-
history) is considered in order to validate the final results. At the end, the nonlinear dynamic
time-history analysis is performed, with the finite element program SeismoStruct, considering
both the force-based and displacement-based designed models; the results are finally
compared to the walls design displacement profiles related to the given limit state and
earthquake level.
1.2 Presentation of the prototype structure (Priestley et al., 2007)
The building considered in the design example has six storeys with a uniform height of 2.8 m.
The lateral resistance in the principal directions is given by 4 boundary walls, 2 in each of the
directions x and y (see figure 2.1), while the columns and the flat-slab do not contribute
significantly to the resistance: it is considered a shear wall building because the only lateral
resisting mechanism consists of walls. The plan dimensions are 25 m in x-direction and 20 m
in y-direction and the structure is symmetrical regarding the x-axis; the two walls in the y-
direction have dimensions 8 m x 0.25 m and 4 m x 0.3 m (wall 1 and wall2) while the two
walls in the x-direction are both 6 m x 0.25 m (wall 3 and wall 4).
The material properties related to the structural walls are the followings:
- Concrete: f
c
=30 MPa
2

- Reinforcement steel: f
y
=420 MPa; f
u
/f
y
=1.25; E
s
=200 GPa
In the Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) the expected values of the material
strength are adopted: for concrete MPa f f
c ce
39 ' 3 . 1 ' = = and for steel
MPa f f
y ye
462 ' 1 . 1 ' = = .
Each floor is characterized by an equal floor weight of 3000 kN corresponding to a floor mass
of 305.81 tonne. The centre of mass C
M
is assumed as coincident with the geometric centre of
the plan, while the centre of stiffness C
R
and the centre of strength C
V
are displaced from the
centre of mass because of the asymmetry regarding the y-axis (see figure 2.1).
Only the y-direction of the earthquake is considered in this example and than, walls 1 and 2
(that resist seismic action parallel to the y axis) are verified in the design and in the analyses.

Figure 1.1 Floor plan
1.3 Seismic input level (Priestley et al., 2007)
The seismic action is assumed considering a seismicity level that has the probability of
exceedance of 10% in 50 years, related to a return period of 475 years; besides the structures
is to be constructed in a region of high seismicity, corresponding to a PGA=0,6g. The general
form of the elastic acceleration spectrum is defined by the following equations from (2.1) to
(2.4):
A
T T 0 ( )
(
+ = 1 C
T
T
1 PGA T S
A
A
A
) ( (2.1)
B A
T T T
A A
C PGA T S = ) ( (2.2)
3

C B
T T T
T
T
C PGA T S
B
A A
= ) ( (2.3)
C
T T
(

=
2
C B
A A
T
T T
C PGA T S ) ( (2.4)
S
A
(T) spectral acceleration expressed in units of g
PGA peak ground acceleration, PGA = 0.6g
C
A
multiplier to obtain the peak response acceleration, C
A
= 2.5
T
A
= 0.15 sec
T
B
= 0.5 sec
T
C
= 4.0 sec
The elastic displacement spectrum is computed from the acceleration one considering that the
relationship between acceleration and displacement is:
g T S
T
T
A

= ) (
4
) (
2
2
(3.30)
S
A
g acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81 m/s
2

The acceleration and the displacement elastic spectra are shown in the following figures:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, T [sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

[
g
]

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, T [sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
D DD D

[
m
]

Figure 1.2 Acceleration and displacement elastic spectra
1.4 Performance target (Priestley et al., 2007)
The building is to be designed to a damage-control limit state: a certain amount of reparable
damage is acceptable, but the cost should be significantly less than the cost of the
4

replacement. It is also necessary to keep damage to an acceptable level and, for this reason,
most of the codes specifies a drift limit of about 0,025.
1.5 The two approaches
The main differences between the two approaches are related to fact that:
1) in the FBD the elastic pre-yield properties are considered and so the initial stiffness
while in the DBD the structure is characterized by its characteristics at the maximum
response and so the secant stiffness at the maximum displacement
2) the FBD is characterized by the use of a unique reduction factor while in the DBD an
equivalent viscous damping is used
3) in the FBD the acceleration spectrum is considered in order to compute the base shear
as the product of mass and spectral acceleration; otherwise in the DBD the base shear
is obtained by the product of stiffness and spectral displacement and so the
displacement spectrum is preferred

Chapter 2. Force-based design of prototype structure
5

2. FORCE-BASED DESIGN OF PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE
The Force-Based Design (FBD) procedure is initially applied to the current example in order
to investigate the accuracy of the Direct Displacement-Based Design. The method can be
summarized as the following:
- Estimation of the structures elastic period with the eigenvalue analysis of the system.
- Evaluation of the design acceleration spectrum taking into account the ductility and
the energy dissipation capacity of the structure with the behaviour factor q.
- Computation of the base shear considering the design acceleration spectrum and the
systems fundamental period.
- Estimation of the member elastic stiffnesses.
- Distribution of the total base shear to the different lateral force-resisting elements
depending on their elastic stiffness.
- Distribution of the shear to the different levels depending on the product of height and
mass.
- Computation of the shear and moment capacities.
2.1 Systems fundamental period
The fundamental period of the structure can be obtained considering stiffness-based equation,
height-dependant relationship (i.e. Eurocode 8) or elastic analysis results. In this case the
eigenvalue analysis (elastic analysis) of the model is considered: the fundamental elastic
period in the seismic direction (y-direction) is T
1
=0.493 sec.
2.2 Design spectrum
The design acceleration spectrum is defined from the elastic one with the introduction of a
reduction factor, known as behaviour factor q that takes into account the energy dissipation
capacity of the system. The spectrum shape is described in equations from (2.1) to (2.4):
A
T T 0
(
|
|
\
|
+ = 1 1 ) (
q
C
T
T
PGA T S
A
A
A
(2.1)
6

B A
T T T
q
C
PGA T S
A
A
= ) ( (2.2)
C B
T T T
T
T
q
C
PGA T S
B A
A
= ) ( (2.3)
C
T T
(

=
2
) (
T
T T
q
C
PGA T S
C B A
A
(2.4)
S
A
C
A
A
= 2.5
q behaviour factor
T
A
= 0.15 sec
T
B
= 0.5 sec
T
C
= 4.0 sec
The behaviour factor q takes into account the dissipative capacity of the structure depending
on the structural type and on the ductility class of the system; it is computed considering
Ordinanza 3274 - section 5.4.2:

R D
K K q q =
0
(2.5)
1
0
4
=
u
q for uncoupled wall system
1 . 1
1
=
u
for uncoupled wall system
1 =
D
K for high ductility class
1 =
R
K for regular in elevation system
From the data above, the behaviour factor is computed as:
4 . 4 1 1 1 . 1 4 4
1
= =
=
R D
u
K K q
The design acceleration spectrum is then described in figure 2.1.
7

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 1 2 3 4
Period, T [sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

[
g
]

Figure 2.1 Design acceleration spectrum
2.3 Design base shear
Considering the design spectrum of figure 2.1, the acceleration related to the fundamental
period of the system is found: in fact, the period T
1
=0.493 sec corresponds to the spectrum
plateau and to acceleration g T S
A
34 . 0 ) (
1
= , obtained by equation (2.2).
The design base shear is estimated as the product between the total mass of the system and the
acceleration due to the seismic action:
=
g
W
T S V
A
) (
1
(2.6)
) (
1
T S
A
spectral acceleration related to the fundamental period of the
system T
1
, g T S
A
34 . 0 ) (
1
=
W weight of the whole system, 18000 = W kN
2

importance factor, = 0.85 if the system has more than three
floors and T
1
< 2 T
C

The design base shear force is equal to kN V 91 . 5215 = .
2.4 Member elastic stiffness
The stiffness of the two walls is defined as the elastic stiffness of the cantilever system:

3
3
h
EJ
k = (2.7)
12
3
l b
J

= effective moment of inertia (b and l are walls dimensions)
8

E elastic modulus, E = 2.5710
7
kPa
h height of the wall, h = 16.8 m
The base shear is then distributed to the two structural walls depending on their elastic
stiffnesses as shown in equation (2.8):

2 1
1
1
k k
k
V V
+
=
2 1
2
2
k k
k
V V
+
= (2.8)
It is observed that the shear is distributed to the two walls considering a proportion of almost
85-15% respectively, due to the fact that the moment of inertia depends on the cube of the
length and consequently the inertia moment of wall 1 is eight times the inertia moment of wall
2. Table 2.1 summarized the results explained above.
Table 2.1 Stiffness and shear results for wall 1 (on the left) and for wall 2 (on the right) considering FBD
l 8 [m]

l 4 [m]
b 0.25 [m] b 0.3 [m]
h 16.8 [m] h 16.8 [m]
E 25700000 [kPa] E 25700000 [kPa]

J
1
10.67 [m
4
] J
2
1.60 [m
4
]

k
1
173442 [kN/m] k
2
26016 [kN/m]
V
1
4535.57 [kN] V
2
680.34 [kN]

2.5 Design shears and moments
The base shears obtained in the previous section are then distributed to the different level
considering a distribution that is linear along the height of the building:

( )
=
j j
i i
i
W z
W z
V F (2.9)
F
i
force that is applied at each level
V total base shear
z
i
, z
j
height of each level
W
i
, W
j
weight of each level
From the forces computed with equation 2.9, the shears and the moments at each level are
obtained considering that:
9

=
=
n
i j
j i
F V ( )
=
=
n
i j
i j j i
z z F M (2.10)
The shear and moment capacities of the two walls are shown in table 2.2 and 2.3 and they are
also represented as diagram in figure 2.2: it is clear the very great difference between the
design shear and moment capacities of the two walls.
Table 2.2 Shear and moment capacities of wall 1 considering FBD
Floor z
i
W
i
z
i
x W
i
F
i
V
i
M
i

[i] [m] [kN] [kN m] [kN] [kN] [kN m]
6 16.8 750 12600 1295.88 1295.88 0
5 14 750 10500 1079.90 2375.78 3628.4585
4 11.2 750 8400 863.92 3239.70 10280.632
3 8.4 750 6300 647.94 3887.63 19351.779
2 5.6 750 4200 431.96 4319.59 30237.154
1 2.8 750 2100 215.98 4535.57 42332.016
0 0 0 0 0.00 4535.57 55031.621
Sum 44100 4535.57

Table 2.3 Shear and moment capacities of wall 2 considering FBD
Floor z
i
W
i
z
i
x W
i
F
i
V
i
M
i

[i] [m] [kN] [kN m] [kN] [kN] [kN m]
6 16.8 750 12600 194.38 194.38 0
5 14 750 10500 161.98 356.37 544.26877
4 11.2 750 8400 129.59 485.95 1542.0949
3 8.4 750 6300 97.19 583.15 2902.7668
2 5.6 750 4200 64.79 647.94 4535.5731
1 2.8 750 2100 32.40 680.34 6349.8024
0 0 0 0 0.00 680.34 8254.7431
Sum 44100 680.34

10

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2000 4000 6000
Shear [kN]
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 20000 40000 60000
Moment [kN m]
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

Figure 2.2 Shear and moment profiles obtained by FBD
2.6 Flexural reinforcement design
The flexural reinforcement of the walls is computed considering the moment-axial load
couples acting at the base of each structural element. The vertical loads have to be distributed
among all the vertical resistant elements and therefore among both walls and columns: the
axial loads at the wall bases are estimated to be 2200 kN for wall 1, 1700 kN for wall 2 and
1800 kN for wall 3 and 4; the moment values are taken from the computations in tables 2.2-
2.3.
The reinforcement areas of each wall are obtained by the axial load-moment interaction
curves found by the URC_RC and Cumbia programs shown in figure 2.3.
- WALL 1: the design axial load and the design base moment are respectively N
1
=2200
kN and M
1
=55000 kN m; these correspond to a reinforcement equal to 11020 bars with
a 145 mm spacing at each level (reinforcement ratio=1.72%)
2
=1700
kN and M
2
=8300 kN m; these correspond to a reinforcement equal to 2020 bars with a
215 mm spacing at each level (reinforcement ratio=0.52%)
- WALL 3-4: the reinforcement ratio is taken as 1.46%; this corresponds to a steel area of
21300 mm
2
; considering a 20 mm diameter bars the reinforcement of each level is 6820
bars with a 180 mm spacing.
11

Figure 2.3 Interaction curves for wall 1 (on the left) and wall 2 (on the right) considering FBD
2.7 Capacity verification through pushover analysis
The SeismoStruct program is used to perform the pushover analysis of each structural wall in
order to verify if the strength of the modelled walls is comparable with this obtained by the
design in section 2.5.
The pushover analysis is a nonlinear static analysis carried out under conditions of constant
gravity loads and monotonically increasing horizontal loads (see Eurocode 8 4.3.3.4.2); for
this reason the individual walls are considered and a lateral increasing load is applied at the
effective height of each wall (in y-direction) until the node at roof reaches a control
displacement equal to 0.5 m. The pushover is carried out considering a response control phase
in which the response of a particular node in the structure is controlled: the load factor is
automatically computed by the program depending on the displacements of the node. From
the analysis, the capacity curves (Force-Displacement and Moment-Rotation) are obtained.
(a) Stiff wall. The strengths related to the stiff wall were computed in section 2.5 with FBD
as M
1
=55000 kN m and V
1
=4500 kN with an axial load of N
1
=2200 kN. The pushover
analysis is applied to the single wall considering a reinforcement area equal to 11020 (as
obtained in the design) and a horizontal load applied at the effective height (equal to 12.3 m).
In figure 2.4 the pushover capacity curves for wall 1 are summarized. It is observed that the
pushover results overestimate the design moment and shear values: the capacity of the wall is
so verified. The great overstrength observed in the pushover curve of figure 2.4 (for both
moment-curvature and force-displacement relationship) is due to the excessive flexural
reinforcement area computed with the FBD that leads to the concretes crisis of the wall.
(b) Flexible wall. The strengths related to the stiff wall were computed in section 2.5 with
FBD as M
2
=8300 kN m and V
2
2
In figure 2.5 the pushover capacity curves for wall 2 are summarized: also in this case the
design capacities are fully verified and the overstrength is lower than in the case before.

12

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0.000 0.001 0.002
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]

Figure 2.4 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 1 considering FBD
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
0.000 0.004 0.008
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]

0
200
400
600
800
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]

Figure 2.5 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 2 considering FBD
2.8 Closing remarks
The two walls were designed considering the FBD procedure; it is observed that the design
moment and shear capacities lead to a very different flexural reinforcement area for the two
walls: the stiff one results in a greatest moment capacity and consequently in a reinforcement
area that is more than five times the flexible one (due to the fact that the moment of inertia
depends on the cube of the length and consequently this of wall 1 is eight times this of wall
2).
The pushover analysis was then use in order to verify that the modelled walls really have the
designed capacities obtained by the FBD procedure.

Chapter 3. Displacement-based design of prototype structure
13

3. DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF PROTOTYPE
STRUCTURE
The Direct Displacement-Based Design is applied to a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
representation of the structure at the peak displacement response and not at the initial state.
The aim of this approach is that the structure achieves a given performance limit state (related
to a fixed deformation) under a design-level earthquake: this procedure is so compatible with
the uniform-risk spectra of the codes. The SDOF system is characterized by the secant
stiffness at the maximum displacement and by the equivalent viscous damping (that takes into
account both elastic and hysteretic damping). The design procedure can be briefly
summarized as the following:
- Computation of the design displacement related to the given performance limit state.
- Computation of the corresponding equivalent damping related to the expected ductility
demand.
- Estimation of the effective period from the displacement spectra considering the
computed design displacement and the level of damping.
- Computation of the effective stiffness.
- Estimation of the base shear as the product of effective stiffness and design
displacement.
The building, described in section 1.3, has to be design considering the damage-control limit
state (characterized by the fact that a certain repairable damage is acceptable) for which the
code sets a drift limit equal to
c
=0.025. Since the structure is also characterized by a torsional
behaviour due to its asymmetry, the design procedure has to be modified in order to take into
account for torsion and both strength and stiffness eccentricities; usually, the optimum
solution is to design for zero strength eccentricity, however if it is not possible strength
eccentricity has to be minimized and stiffness eccentricity has always to be considered. Since
strength and stiffness eccentricities and torsional stiffness are not known at the beginning of
the design, an iterative approach is suitable; the procedure is generally described in the
following sections (from 3.1 to 3.6) and at the end the results of the final iteration are
summarized.
14

3.1 Critical roof displacement
The first step in the design of a structural wall building is to compute the roof-level limit
displacement of each wall and determine which the critical one is. In the case of a cantilever
wall system the maximum drift occurs in the top storey and this value may be limited by the
code drift limit or by the plastic rotation capacity of the base plastic hinge.
The roof displacement is the sum of yield and plastic displacements:

pn yn n
+ = (3.1)
The yield curvature represents the corner of the equivalent bilinear force-deformation
response; it is essentially independent of reinforcement ratio and strength and it is related to
the reinforcement yield strength f
y
and to the aspect ratio of the section. In the case of a
rectangular concrete wall it can be defined as:

w y y
l = 00 . 2 (3.2)
s
y
y
E
f
= expected yield strain
l
w
length of the wall
The strain penetration length takes into account the anchorage deformations of the element:
in fact, the strains related to tension reinforcements does not go to zero at the wall base but at
a depth that is equal to the development length of the reinforcement (it represents the length
over which the curvature may be considered constant).

bl ye SP
d f L = 022 . 0 (3.3)
f
ye
expected yield strength
d
bl
diameter of the reinforcement bars
The roof yield displacement for the cantilever is defined as:

( )
3
2
SP n y
yn
L H +
= (3.4)
y
yield curvature
H
n
height of the wall
L
SP
strain penetration length
The plastic hinge length (depth over which strain and curvature are considered to be equal to
the maximum value at the element base) for walls can be taken as:

SP w eff P
L l H k L + + = 1 . 0 (3.5)
15

k factor for plastic hinge length, 08 . 0 1 2 . 0 <
|
|
\
|
=
y
u
f
f
k
H
eff
effective height,
n eff
H H = 75 . 0
l
w
length of the wall
L
SP
The strain-based plastic rotation is given by equation (3.6) in which the plastic curvature is
given by the difference between the maximum design curvature (corresponding to the
considered limit state) and the yield curvature:
( )
P y p
L =
max
(3.6)
max
maximum design curvature corresponding to the limit state
considered,
w
l
072 . 0
max
= for damage-control limit state
y
yield curvature
L
P
plastic hinge length
The roof yield drift is obtained by considering a simple triangular distribution of the first-
mode curvature with height at yield:

( )
w
SP n y
yn
l
L H +
= (3.7)
y
expected yield strain
H
n
height of the wall
L
SP
l
w
length of the wall
The strain-based roof drift is computed as the sum of the yield and plastic rotations:

p yn n
+ = (3.8)
The design of this structural wall building is done considering the damage-control limit state
that corresponds to a code drift limit
c
=0.025. Therefore if the value of the strain-based roof
drift
n
is lower than the code limit, hence material strains limit the response; otherwise if
n

is greater than the code limit, hence the code drift limits the wall performance.
The roof-level maximum displacement is given by:
16

n p yn pn yn n
H + = + = (3.9)
Considering table 3.1 it is observed that in the case of wall 1 material strains limit the
response (
c n
< ), thus the plastic rotation is equal to this computed considering equation
(3.6); in the case of wall 2 code drift limits the response (
c n
> ), thus the plastic rotation is
recomputed by equation (3.10) as the difference between the code limit and the roof yield
drift and it is lower than this computed with equation (3.6):

yn p
=
max
(3.10)
Table 3.1 DDBD roof drifts and displacements for the two walls

y

Eq.(3.2)
yn

Eq.(3.4)
L
p

Eq.(3.5)
p

Eq.(3.6)
yn

Eq.(3.7)
n

Eq.(3.8)
Limit
p

Eq.(3.10)
n

Eq.(3.9)

[1/m] [m] [m] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [m]
Wall 1 0.00058 0.0557 1.633 0.0138 0.0049 0.0187 <
c
- 0.2868
Wall 2 0.00116 0.1113 1.233 0.0208 0.0098 0.0306 >
c
0.0152 0.3663

The yield, plastic and total displacements are then distributed to the different level of the
structure considering equations (3.11), (3.12), (3.13); the values and the other results
necessary to the further computations are summarized in tables 3.2 and 3.3.

|
|
\
|

=
n
i
i
w
y
yi
H
H
H
l 3
1
2
(3.11)

i p pi
H = (3.12)

pi yi ni
+ = (3.13)
Table 3.2 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacements of wall 1
Floor H
i

yi

Pi

Di

2
Di

Di
H
i
[i] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m
2
] [m
2
]
6 16.8 0.0557 0.2311 0.2868 0.0822 4.8176
5 14 0.0420 0.1926 0.2346 0.0550 3.2847
4 11.2 0.0292 0.1541 0.1832 0.0336 2.0521
3 8.4 0.0178 0.1156 0.1333 0.0178 1.1199
2 5.6 0.0086 0.0770 0.0857 0.0073 0.4797
1 2.8 0.0025 0.0385 0.0410 0.0017 0.1147
0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sum 0.9646 0.1976 11.8686

Table 3.3 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacements of wall 2
17

Floor H
i

yi

Pi

Di

2
Di

Di
H
i
[i] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m
2
] [m
2
]
6 16.8 0.1113 0.2550 0.3663 0.1342 6.1545
5 14 0.0841 0.2125 0.2966 0.0880 4.1523
4 11.2 0.0583 0.1700 0.2283 0.0521 2.5573
3 8.4 0.0355 0.1275 0.1631 0.0266 1.3696
2 5.6 0.0172 0.0850 0.1022 0.0105 0.5726
1 2.8 0.0049 0.0425 0.0474 0.0022 0.1327
0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sum 1.2040 0.3136 14.9391

The displacement profiles are also represented in figure 3.1 for each wall.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement [m]
L
e
v
e
l
Yield displacement
Plastic displacement
Total displacement

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.2 0.4
Displacement [m]
L
e
v
e
l
Yield displacement
Plastic displacement
Total displacement

Figure 3.1 DDBD yield, plastic and total displacement profiles for walls 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the right)
In order to determine which of the two walls is the critical one, equations (3.14) is considered;
this relationship derives from the fact that with zero strength eccentricity, with average
ductility demand and even with large differences in wall length, the centre of mass
displacement is typically 10 % higher than this of the stiffer wall and 10 % lower than this of
the flexible wall.

stiff n n CM , ,
1 . 1
flex n n CM , ,
9 . 0 (3.14)
stiff n,
maximum displacement of stiff wall
flex n,
maximum displacement of flexible wall
18

In this design example it is obtained that
flex n stiff n , ,
9 . 0 1 . 1 < , thus the stiffer wall is the
critical one.
3.2 Design displacement
In the case in which the stiffer wall governs, the design with zero eccentricity is not
necessarily a minimum design condition as for the case in which the flexible wall is critical.
Therefore the design is done considering a planned eccentricity: the optimum solution is
obtained when both stiff and flexible walls reach their limit displacement because this case
corresponds to a limited strength eccentricity condition (dashed line in figure 3.2b).

Figure 3.2 Roof-level displacement for zero eccentricity (plan view)
Since the design is done considering a planned eccentricity in which the stiff and the flexible
walls simultaneously achieve their maximum displacement, the twist angle can be computed
considering equation (3.15).

( )
x
stiff n flex n
n nom
L
, ,
,

= (3.15)
Since the stiff wall governs the design, the roof displacement at the centre of mass is larger
than the displacement of the critical element in proportion to the torsional displacement:
( )
Vx x n nom stiff n sys n CM
e L + = = 5 . 0
, , ,
(3.16)
L
X
length of the plan in x-direction
e
Vx
strength eccentricity (equation (3.17))
The strength eccentricity e
Vx
is computed considering the ratio between the strength capacities
of the two walls (equation (3.17)); since this value is not known at the beginning, an initial
assumption is made ( = 1.4) and then the procedure is iterated in order to obtain
convergence.
19

( )
x Vx
L e
+

=
1
1 5 . 0
(3.17)
ratio between strength capacities,
2
1
V
V
=
The effective heights for the two walls are computed considering equation (3.18):

( )
( )
=
i i
i i i
e
m
H m
H (3.18)
m
i
mass at the i-floor
i
displacement at the i-floor
H
i
height of the i-floor
The design displacement at the effective height for the stiff wall, that governs the design, is
given by:

( )
( )
=
i i
i i
stiff He
m
m
2
,
(3.19)
m
i
mass at the i-floor
i
displacement at the i-floor
The design displacement of the system at the effective height is found considering the SDOF
displacement profile:

stiff n
stiff He sys n
sys He
,
, ,
,

= (3.20)
The twist angle at the effective height is given by proportion:

stiff n
stiff He n nom
He nom
,
, ,
,

= (3.21)
3.3 Equivalent damping
The yield displacement of the whole system is found by weighting the single wall yield
displacements by the fraction of the total base shear :

2 1 2
2
1
1
,
1
1
1
y y y y sys y
V
V
V
V
+
+
+
= + = (3.22)
1 y
yield displacement at effective height of wall 1 considering Eq.(3.11)
20

2 y
yield displacement at effective height of wall 2 considering Eq.(3.11)
The system displacement ductility demand is defined by the ratio of the maximum to the
effective yield deformation:

sys y
sys He
sys
,
,
= (3.23)
The equivalent viscous damping is given by the sum of the elastic and the hysteretic damping.
The latter is related to the energy absorbed during a hysteretic cycle and it obviously depends
on the considered hysteretic rule; in this case the Takeda Thin (TT) is used because it
represents the response of a ductile reinforced concrete wall. The elastic damping takes into
account the damping that is not captured in the hysteretic model and it is usually described as
fraction of a critical damping: in this design case it is taken
el
=0.05. Equation (3.24)
represents the equivalent viscous damping formulation, if elastic damping is equal to 0.05 and
if the Takeda Thin rule is used.

|
|
\
|

+ = + =
s
s
hyst el eq
1
444 . 0 05 . 0 (3.24)
The reduction coefficient to be applied to the elastic displacement spectrum in order to obtain
the inelastic one can be found as:

5 . 0
02 . 0
07 . 0
|
|
\
|
+
=
eq
R (3.25)
3.4 Elastic displacement spectrum
In order to allow the comparison between the results of the Displacement-Based and the
Force-Based design, the elastic displacement spectrum is obtained by the same general
equations used for the FBD in section 2.2:
A
T T 0 ( )
(
+ = 1 1 ) (
A
A
A
C
T
T
PGA T S (3.26)
B A
T T T
A A
C PGA T S = ) ( (3.27)
C B
T T T
T
T
C PGA T S
B
A A
= ) ( (3.28)
C
T T
(

=
2
) (
T
T T
C PGA T S
C B
A A
(3.29)
21

S
A
(T) spectral acceleration expressed in units of g (=gravity
acceleration)
C
A
A
= 2.5
T
A
= 0.15 sec
T
B
= 0.5 sec
T
C
= 4.0 sec
The elastic displacement spectrum is computed from the acceleration one considering that the
relationship between acceleration and displacement is:
g T S
T
T
A

= ) (
4
) (
2
2
(3.30)
S
A
2

The elastic acceleration and displacement spectra are shown in the following graphs:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, T [sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

[
g
]

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, T [sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
D DD D

[
m
]

Figure 3.3 Elastic acceleration and displacement spectra
3.5 Base shear
In DDBD the elastic displacement spectrum is then reduced considering the modification
factor R, computed in section 3.3, which takes into account the hysteretic rule related to the
structural system, the level of elastic damping and the ductility demand.
Considering the reduced spectrum corresponding to the computed equivalent damping and the
design displacement
sys He,
the effective period T
e
is estimated as shown in figure 3.4.
22

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, T [sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
=0.05
eq=0.16
1
Te=1.95 4
0.75
0.463
He,sys=0.227

Figure 3.4 DDBD inelastic displacement spectrum
The effective mass of the equivalent SDOF system is given by equation:

( )
stiff He
i i
e
m
m
,
=

(3.31)
stiff He,
design displacement of the stiff wall at the effective height
The correspondent effective stiffness of the equivalent SDOF system is computed by
inverting the equation of the period of a SDOF oscillator:

2
2
4
e
e
e
T
m
K

= (3.32)
The base shear is then obtained by the product between the effective stiffness and the design
displacement of the system at the effective height.

sys He e base
K V
,
= (3.33)
The base shear is then distributed to the two structural walls depending on the ratio between
the wall strengths and then the stiffnesses of each of the walls are computed.

+
=
1
1 base
V V
+
=
1
1
2 base
V V (3.34)

1
1
1
y
V
k
=
2
2
2
y
V
k
= (3.35)

23

3.6 Torsional effects
The torsional influence on the response has now to be considered; the ductile rotational
stiffness is estimated with equation (3.36): it differs from the elastic rotational stiffness
because the stiffness of the walls in each direction is modified by the system ductility
sys
in
the considered direction.
( ) ( )

+
2 2
1
, Ry i Xi Rx i
sys
Y
R
e y k e x
k
J (3.36)
k
Y1
stiffness of walls in y-direction
e
Rx
stiffness eccentricity in x-direction
k
X1
stiffness of walls in y-direction

e
Ry
stiffness eccentricity in y-direction, e
Ry
= 0
Now stiffness and strength eccentricity can be recomputed considering equation (3.37) and
(3.38).

base
R He nom
R
V
J
e

=
, ,
(3.37)

|
\
|
+
|
\
|

=
x
R
x
R
L
e
L
e
5 . 0
5 . 0
(3.38)
Having a new value of , the procedure is iterated because the system yield displacement
depends on the strength ratio.

24

3.7 Final results
The iteration is carried on until convergence is achieved; the results of the last iteration are
summarized in the following table:
Table 3.4 DDBD results of last iteration

Symbol Value Unit
roof twist angle
nom,n
0.00318 -
strength eccentricity
e
v
-2.57 m
centre of mass displacement at roof level
CM
0.318 m
effective height
H
e
12.3 m
design displacement at effective height of stiff wall
He,stiff
0.2049 m
centre of mass displacement at effective height
D,sys
0.2275 m
system yield displacement at effective height
y,syst
0.048 m
system displacement ductility demand
4.7 -
effective damping
eq
0.161 -
displacement reduction coefficient
R 0.621 -
effective period
T
e
1.95 sec
effective stiffness of the system
k
e
14891 kN/m
total base shear
V
base
3387 kN
design strength of wall 1
V
1
2042 kN
V
2
1345 kN
k
1
59886 kN/m
k
2
19460 kN/m
effective stiffness of wall 3 and 4
k
3-4
37259 kN/m
rotational stiffness
J 9389 MN m
2

stiffness eccentricity
e
R
-6.3 m
wall strength ratio
1.518 -

It is observed that the shear is shared by the walls very differently respect to the case of FBD
in which the proportion was almost 85%-15% respectively; in this case the distribution
respects a proportion of almost 60%-40%.

25

3.8 Design shears and moments
The wall base shear is distributed along the different levels of the system depending on the
product of the mass and the levels displacement. This distribution differs from this used in
the case of FBD: in fact, in the latter a simple linear variation depending on the height is used,
while in the former the forces were computed depending on the deformed shape of the wall
(product of displacement and mass).

( )
=
j j
i i
i
m
m
V F (3.39)
F
i
force that is applied at each level
V total base shear
m
i
, m
j
mass of each level
i
,
j
displacement at each level
From the forces computed with equation 3.39, the shears and the moments at each level are
obtained considering that:

=
=
n
i j
j i
F V ( )
=
=
n
i j
i j j i
z z F M (3.40)
The final results are summarized in tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Table 3.5 DDBD shear and moment capacities of wall 1
Floor z
i
D
i
m D
i
F
i
V
i
M
i

[i] [m] [m] [tonne m] [kN] [kN] [kN m]
6 16.8 0.287 21.92 607.07 607.07 0
5 14 0.235 17.94 496.69 1103.76 1699.796
4 11.2 0.183 14.01 387.89 1491.64 4790.32
3 8.4 0.133 10.19 282.24 1773.88 8966.923
2 5.6 0.086 6.55 181.33 1955.21 13933.8
1 2.8 0.041 3.13 86.73 2041.94 19408.39
0 0 0 0 0 2041.97 25125.83
Sum 0.965 73.74 2041.97

26

Table 3.6 DDBD shear and moment capacities of wall 2
Floor z
i
D
i
m D
i
F
i
V
i
M
i

[i] [m] [m] [tonne m] [kN] [kN] [kN m]
6 16.8 0.366 28.01 409.39 409.39 0
5 14 0.297 22.68 331.44 740.83 1146.285
4 11.2 0.228 17.46 255.16 995.99 3220.604
3 8.4 0.163 12.47 182.21 1178.20 6009.369
2 5.6 0.102 7.82 114.26 1292.46 9308.324
1 2.8 0.047 3.62 52.98 1345.44 12927.21
0 0 0 0 0.03 1345.47 16694.44
Sum 1.204 92.05 1345.47

The shear and moment diagrams for each wall are also represented in figure 3.5.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1000 2000 3000
Shear [kN]
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10000 20000 30000
Moment [kN m]
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

Figure 3.5 DDBD shear and moment capacity diagrams
3.9 Flexural reinforcement design
It is decided to consider an uniform distribution of the reinforcement bars along the length of
the sections that has little effect on the flexural capacity but it reduces the bar buckling and
better controls the shear deformations and P- effects. The moment-curvature analysis
programs USC_RC and Cumbia are used to compute the reinforcement area including the
stain-hardening and the concrete confinement effects.
Since the stiff wall is governed by the material strain limits, the design curvature is given by
equation 3.41; the flexible wall is governed by the roof drift limit and hence design curvature
is described by equation 3.42.
27

m
l
w
stiff D
/ 009 . 0
072 . 0
,
= = (3.41)
m
L
p
p
y p y flexible D
/ 0135 . 0
233 . 1
0152 . 0
001156 . 0
,
= + =
+ = + = (3.42)
The vertical loads have to be distributed among all the vertical resistant elements and
therefore among both walls and columns: the axial loads at the wall bases are estimated to be
2200 kN for wall 1, 1700 kN for wall 2 and 1800 kN for wall 3 and 4. The axial force-
bending moment couples for each wall and the reinforcement areas are:
1
=2200
kN and M
1
2
=1700
kN and M
2
- WALL 3-4: the reinforcement ratio is taken as 1.46%; this corresponds to a steel area of
21300 mm
2
; considering a 20 mm diameter bars the reinforcement of each level is 6820
bars with a 180 mm spacing.
From the results described above, the moment-curvature relationships for the two walls are
computed by two different programs (USC_RC and Cumbia) in order to verify the considered
reinforcement areas. In figure 3.6 the Moment-Curvature relationships are described: it is
observed that at the design curvature the moment is verified for each wall. The diagrams
obtained by the two programs are completely comparable: Cumbia and USC_RC results are
identified respectively by the continuous and the dashed lines.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]
Cumbia results USC_RC results

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]
Cumbia results USC_RC results

Figure 3.6 Moment-Curvature relationships for wall 1 (on the left) and wall 2 (on the right) with Cumbia
and USC_RC programs, considering DDBD
28

3.10 Capacity verification through pushover analysis
The pushover analysis is performed for both walls and the capacity curves (Force-
Displacement and Moment-Rotation) are obtained and compared to the design results of
section 3.8. The individual walls are considered and a lateral increasing load is applied at the
effective height of each wall (in y-direction) until the node at roof reaches a control
displacement equal to 0.5 m.
(a) Stiff wall. The strengths related to the stiff wall were computed in section 3.8 with FBD
as M
1
=25200 kN m and V
1
1
In figure 3.7 the pushover capacity curves for wall 1 are summarized. It is observed that the
pushover results overestimate the design moment and shear values: the capacity of the wall is
so verified.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]
Pus hover Design

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]

Figure 3.7 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 1 considering DDBD
(b) Flexible wall. The strengths related to the stiff wall were computed in section 3.8 with
FBD as M
1
=17000 kN m and V
1
1
As described in Figure 3.8, the pushover moment-curvature relationship almost overlaps the
design one, while in the case of the force-displacement curve the pushover results are a bit
lower respect to the design ones.

29

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Curvature
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N

m
]
Pushover Design
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]

Figure 3.8 Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement relationships for wall 2 considering DDBD
3.11 Closing remarks
The Direct Displacement-Based Design of the wall system, taking into account the torsional
effects due to the asymmetry of the plan, was developed to compute the wall capacities
(shears and moments) that the structure has to verify in order to obtain the given design
displacement profiles under the considered earthquake-level and limit state. The
reinforcement of the walls to achieve the computed capacities was then estimated considering
the Moment-Curvature analysis.
It is observed that the base shear is distributed to the walls very differently respect to the case
of FBD in which the elastic stiffness of the structural elements were considered (the
proportion is 85%-15% respectively for wall 1 and 2 in the case of FBD and 60%-40% in the
case of DDBD). In fact, in DDBD the shear capacities of the two walls are more comparable
and for this reason the flexural reinforcement of the flexible system is greater than this of the
stiff one (on the contrary of FBD case); it can be summarized that wall 1 has a reinforcement
of 11020 and 2620 respectively for FBD and DDBD, while wall 2 respectively of 2020
4220.
At the end, the pushover analysis was then use in order to verify that the modelled walls really
have the designed capacities obtained by the FBD procedure.
The building design is now completely defined for both procedure and has to be confirmed
considering a nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis. In the following section 4 a proper
model of the system is developed and first verified by the use of eigenvalue and linear time-
history analyses. Once the model is finally approved the nonlinear dynamic time history
analyses will be performed in order to validate the Displacement-Based Design of the wall
building.

Chapter 4. Verification of numerical structural model
30

4. VERIFICATION OF NUMERICAL STRUCTURAL MODEL
Two different finite element programs are chosen to model the structure: SAP and
SeismoStruct. Both are used in the eigenvalue and linear analyses while only the second one
is considered to get the nonlinear dynamic time history analysis results. The role of SAP is to
obtain results useful to compare and calibrate the eigenvalue and linear analyses carried out
by SeismoStruct and consequently to validate the nonlinear results obtained only with
SeismoStruct.
The main differences between the two programs are related to the material and geometric
nonlinearities and to how they can be modelled. The geometric nonlinearity has three
different sources: large displacements/rotations, P-delta and beam-column effects. In fact, if
an elastic system is subjected to large displacements the geometric nonlinearity has to be
taken into account because the displacements are no more proportional to the applied loads.
This kind of nonlinearity is taken into account introducing a co-rotational formulation (as
described by Crisfield [1990] and Sandhu et al. [1990]) that refers to the provision of a single
element frame that continuously rotates with the element. Since in large displacements the
dominant motion is due to the rigid motion, if this one is eliminated, the elastic deformation
can be isolated. For this reason a local reference system (local chord system) is attached to
each finite element and it translates and rotates with the element in order to describe the
current unknown deformation; finally a transformation from the local to the global reference
system gives the final global response of the system (see figure 4.1). In SeismoStruct the local
and global geometric nonlinearities are automatically taken into account by the program
during the analysis: the large displacements/rotations effects are modelled considering the co-
rotational formulation and the beam-column effects considering a cubic formulation by
Izzudin [1991] that computes the transverse displacement as a function of the end-rotations of
the element. On the other side in SAP the geometric nonlinearity parameters (P-delta plus
large displacements effects) are available only for nonlinear direct-integration time-history
analysis: they are not automatically taken into account by the program but the user has to
define them.
31

Figure 4.1 Local and global reference system for geometric nonlinearity (SeismoStruct, 2007)
Besides, material inelasticity is very important in the definition of the nonlinear response of
the system and it can be modelled through concentrated plasticity or through distributed
plasticity: in the first case the elements are considered elastic and some plastic hinges are
inserted at the end nodes; in the second case the inelasticity is distributed along the whole
structural element. In SeismoStruct the material inelasticity along the member is represented
through the use of a fibre modelling approach (inelastic frame element): the element is
divided into a number of segments and the delimiting sections follow the Navier-Bernoulli
approximation (plane sections remain plane); besides, the section is discretized in a sufficient
number of fibres (that represent an area of concrete or reinforcing bars) and the sections
response is determined by the numerical integration of the single fibres response between the
two Gaussian sections, as shown in figure 4.2. In SAP the material nonlinearity is not taken
into account.

Figure 4.2 Material inelasticity (SeismoStruct, 2007)
Besides, eleven different material types (elastic, linear, bilinear, nonlinear..) are available in
SeismoStruct while only elastic materials (isotropic, orthotropic or uniaxial) are allowed in
SAP.
32

The models, the materials, the sections and the analysis parameters used in the two programs
are described in the following paragraphs.
4.1 Description of models
4.1.1 Modelling considerations
Before obtaining the final models used in the analyses, the structure was modelled
considering different characteristics and parameters in order to find these that better fit the
real behaviour of the system (floor modelling, mass discretization, activated global mass
directions, applied loads).
(a) Analysis of different floor modellings The floors at each level were first modelled
considering different constraints in order to verify which type was the best approximation to
the real behaviour of the whole system. The different models were created and the related
deformed shapes were observed.
1) Slab modelled with diagonals: in this case no constraint is used and the rigidity of the
floor is given by elastic diagonal inserted at each floor with a central truss (1 m x 1m) that
connects all the levels. The deformed shape (figure 4.3) shows that the diagonals keep the
floor rigid in the x-y plane but the out-of-plane deformations are allowed; the
displacements are mostly in the y-direction but also some rotations of the plan are
allowed.

Figure 4.3 Diagonals models deformed shape: top and left view
2) Slab modelled with rigid diaphragm: in this case the joints are connected to each other by
links that are rigid in the plane but that do not affect the out-of-plane deformations; the
central node at each floor is set as the master node of the constraint; the plane in which the
deformations are restrained has to be defined as the x-y plane. The resultant deformed
shape is shown in figure 4.4: even if the plan keeps its shape constant, floors are not rigid
respect to the out-of-plane deformations (z direction) and consequently the floors do not
33

remain plane; the displacements are mostly in the y direction (the earthquake acts in y-
direction) but there is also a significant rotation of the plan during the time history.

Figure 4.4 Rigid diaphragm models deformed shape: top and left view
3) Slab modelled with rigid link: the constrained nodes move together as a rigid body and do
not displace relative to each other; a certain number of degrees of freedom (DOFs) has to
be selected to be constrained. Different cases are considered:
a. x-y-z-rx-ry-rz: in this case all the DOFs are restrained. The deformed shape is shown
in figure 4.5: the displacements are mostly in y direction and the rotation of the plane
is almost negligible; the floors are rigid and there is not out-of-plane deformation.
Comparing with the diaphragm model, the system is stiffer (lower period checked in
eigenvalue analysis) with significantly lower displacements.

Figure 4.5 Rigid link (x-y-z-rx-ry-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view
b. x-y-rz: in this case the two deformations in the plane and the rotation related to z-
direction are restrained. The deformed shape (see figure 4.6) and the analysis results
34

are almost coincident with these of the rigid diaphragm model: the plan shape does not
change but there are out-of-plane deformations with rotation of the plans.

Figure 4.6 Rigid link (x-y-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view
c. x-y: in this case only the two deformations in the x-y plane are restrained. The results
are very similar to these obtained in the previous case (figure 4.7): the out-of-plane
deformations are allowed and the floors rotate regarding the z axis (see deformed
shape in figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7 Rigid link (x-y) models deformed shape: top and left view
d. rx-ry and rx-ry-rz: in these two cases only the rotations are restrained; the results are
meaningless because, since the translations in the plane are not restrained, the floors
do not maintain the original shape as shown in figure 4.8.
35

Figure 4.8 Rigid link (rx-ry-rz) models deformed shape: top and left view
In order to allow a better comparison of the results, the figures above are all considered at the
same time step of the time history (t=10.34 sec) and with the same deformation multiplier
(100). As a conclusion, the rigid diaphragm model is taken as the final choice because this is
the model that better fit the real behaviour of the structure; in fact, even if at the first sight
figure 4.5 seems to be the best behaviour, a real slab do have out-of-plane deformations (as in
the rigid diaphragm) and can not be modelled as a rigid link with all restrained DOFs.
Besides, also different cases of constraint nets are considered in order to investigate the
influence of the master nodes and of the constraint grid: master nodes at wall 3 at each floor
(figure 4.9.a); master nodes alternatively at wall 1 or 3 at each floor (figure 4.9.b); master
nodes at both walls 1 and 3 at each floor with a double net of links (figure 4.10a); central
master nodes (figure 4.10b).

Figure 4.9 a) Master nodes at wall 3 at each floor (left); b) Master nodes alternatively at walls 1 and 3
(right)
36

Figure 4.10 a) Master nodes at walls 1 and 3 at each floor (left); b) Central master nodes (right)
In the diaphragm modelling the best thing is to have a unique central node at each floor; for
this reason the last case (figure 4.10.b) is considered in the analyses even if a central truss has
to be inserted in order to avoid instability problems of the program.
The constraints are considered as penalty functions type where a penalty functions exponent,
that represents the rigid links weight respect to the maximum stiffness, has to be defined. The
value of this coefficient is chosen considering the comparison between SAP and SeismoStruct
eigenvalue analyses results (see section 4.2).
(b) Mass discretization Generally in wall buildings the masses are concentrated at the
centrelines of the walls and excessive refinement in mass distribution assumptions should be
avoided. But it is also important that the mass torsional inertia is correctly represented if a 2D
or 3D seismic input is considered (Priestley et al [2007]).
In the final models of this example, the total mass is lumped at the central node of each floor
(case c in the following list) in order to be consistent with the design that considers the centre
of mass in the geometrical centre of the plan.
Even if these considerations are made, three different mass discretizations are considered in
order to compare the results of the analyses:
a. Four equal masses lumped at the four walls: in this case the total floor mass is equally
divided between the four walls (see table 4.1) and the rotational inertia is implicit
modelled.

37

Table 4.1 Equal lumped masses
NODES MASS
Wall 1 76.45 tonne
Wall 2 76.45 tonne
Wall 3 76.45 tonne
Wall 4 76.45 tonne
Total 305.8 tonne

b. Four different masses lumped at the four walls: the total floor mass is divided between the
four walls considering the different sections area of the walls (see table 4.2) and also in
this case the rotational mass is implicit modelled.
Table 4.2 Lumped masses proportional to the sections area of the walls
NODES DIMENSIONS MASS
Wall 1 8 m x 0.25 m 99.08 tonne
Wall 2 4 m x 0.30 m 59.94 tonne
Wall 3 6 m x 0.25 m 73.39 tonne
Wall 4 6 m x 0.25 m 73.39 tonne
Total 305.8 tonne

c. One central mass: the total floor mass is lumped in the central node of the plan and in this
case also the mass torsional inertia has to be defined. The latter is computed as the
following:

2
= m M
zz
(4.1)

12
2 2
b a +
=
12
2 2
2
b a +
= (4.2)

where: m is the floor mass
is the inertia radius
a and b are the plan dimensions
In this case it is obtained:

( ) ( )
2
2 2 2 2
2
26121
12
20 25
81 . 305
12
m tonne
m m
tonnne
b a
m m M
zz
=
+
=
+
= = (4.3)

38

Table 4.3 Central mass and torsional mass inertia
NODE MASS
TORSIONAL
INERTIA
Central node 305.81 tonne 26121 tonne m
2

(c) Global mass directions In all the three cases described in section 4.1.1.b the masses are
inserted in both directions x and y; in the case of the single central mass also the rotational
mass M
zz
is inserted. In the analysis there is the possibility of constraining the dynamic
degrees of freedom to only a few directions of interested. In these analyses all the mass global
directions are activated after conclusions drawn from eigenvalue analysis (see section 4.2).
(d) Applied loads The total load acting in the building is equal to 18000 kN (3000 kN for
each floor); the vertical loads have to be distributed among all the vertical resistant elements
and therefore among both walls and columns, as explained in section 3.9. The axial loads at
the wall bases are estimated to be 2200 kN for wall 1, 1700 kN for wall 2 and 1800 kN for
wall 3 and 4. Since the 3D model represents only the lateral resisting elements the applied
loads are distributed to the 4 walls in order to have at the base the estimated axial loads and
the remaining load is lumped at the central nodes of the plan.
Table 4.4 Applied loads at each wall
NODES
LUMPED LOAD
at each level
AXIAL LOAD
at the base
Wall 1 367 kN 2202 kN
Wall 2 283 kN 1698 kN
Wall 3 300 kN 1800 kN
Wall 4 300 kN 1800 kN
Central node 1750 kN 10500 kN
Total 3000 kN 18000 kN

4.1.2 SeismoStruct models
Two different models are finally considered in SeismoStruct, in order to take into account
both the linear and the nonlinear analysis cases.
(a) Nonlinear model All the lateral resistance of the system is given by the 4 boundary
walls that are modelled considering a reinforced concrete flexural wall section with sections
properties (length, width..) listed in section 1.3 and reinforcement of section 3.9. Each wall is
discretized into 12 elements (2 for each floor with a height of 1.4 m each), defined as 3D
inelastic beam-column elements that are capable of capturing geometric and material
nonlinearities, considering 400 section fibres. Some elastic frame elements are inserted at
each floor between the wall elements, as beam elements.
The material types used in the nonlinear model are the following:
39

(1) Nonlinear constant confinement concrete model (con_cc) for both confined and
unconfined areas of each sections with the following characteristics: compressive strength
f
c
=39000 kPa, tensile strength f
t
=3000 kPa and strain at peak stress
c
=0.002 mm/mm; the
specific weight is set to 0 kN/m
3
because the masses and the loads are assigned manually. The
confined and unconfined concrete differ only in the value of the confinement factor (1.2 and 1
respectively). This unified stress-strain model, proposed by Mander et al. [1988], was
developed for concrete subjected to uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse
reinforcement (see figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11 Nonlinear constant confinement concrete model in SeismoStruct (2007)
(2) Menegotto-Pinto steel model (stl_mp) for the reinforcement with yield strength f
y
=462
MPa, modulus of elasticity E
s
=200 GPa and strain hardening parameter =0.005; also in this
case the specific weight is set to 0 kN/m
3
. This is a uniaxial steel model that follows the
stress-strain relationship proposed by Menegotto and Pinto [1973].

Figure 4.12 Menegotto-Pinto steel model in SeismoStruct (2007)
(3) Elastic material model (el_mat) for the central truss; this is an elastic material model
with symmetric behaviour in tension and compression. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 1
kPa in order to obtain a very rigid element; the specific weight is set equal to 0 kN/m
3
.
40

Figure 4.13 Elastic material model in SeismoStruct (2007)
At each floor a rigid diaphragm is inserted in order to restrain the deformations in the x-y
plane and the central node is set as master node for each floor (see section 4.1.1). Besides, the
different floors are connected by a central truss element in order to avoid some analysis
problems linked to the presence of the constraints: this elements has a square section 0.1 m x
0.1 m of elastic material in the case of eigenvalue analysis and it is modelled as an inelastic
truss element that works in its axial direction only, with 10 section fibres.
The total mass at each floor (305.81 tonne) is considered lumped at the central nodes of each
floor; the mass is inserted in both x and y directions (see considerations of section 4.1.1.b
4.1.1.c). The self weight and loads of the structure were not automatically computed by
SeismoStruct but directly applied as vertical loads. The total load at each floor (3000kN) is
distributed as described in section 4.1.1.d.
Fixed restraints are considered at the base nodes of the model. All the analyses are carried out
without considering the damping.
(b) Linear model The linear model differs from the nonlinear one only in the modelling of
the four walls. In fact, they are considered as rectangular solid sections in which only the two
dimensions have to be defined. Besides, no difference between concrete and reinforcement
bars is considered but only one elastic material is defined with the following characteristics:
modulus of elasticity Es=2.57
107 kPa and a specific weight =0 kN/m3.

The characteristics of this linear material were defined considering a relationship with the
con_cc material used in the nonlinear model; in fact, it is known that SeismoStruct considers a
modulus of elasticity for the con_cc materials computes as:

5 . 0
4700
c s
f E =
(4.4)
In this case it is obtained that:

( ) kPa MPa f E
c s
7 5 . 0 5 . 0
10 57 . 2 30 4700 4700 = = =
(4.5)
41

This value of the modulus of elasticity is the one that SeismoStruct uses in the eigenvalue
analysis with nonlinear materials (see section 4.2).
In figure 4.14 the SeismoStruct model is shown: the cubes at each floor represent the lumped
masses, the horizontal lines the rigid diaphragms, the cubes at the base nodes the fixed
restraints.

Figure 4.14 SeismoStruct model
4.1.3 SAP model
The SAP model is created considering the same characteristics of the SeismoStruct one in
order to allow the comparison between the different results. Accordingly, the four walls,
giving the lateral resistance of the structure, are modelled as rectangular section with the
geometric characteristics listed in section 1.3. The central truss is defined as a square section
and it is inserted in the floors centre of mass as described in section 4.1.2. Two different
elastic materials are defined in this model:
(1) Uniaxial concrete model for the walls, with a modulus of elasticity E
s
=2.5710
7
kPa
and a specific weight =0 kN/m
3
as in the SeismoStruct linear model. No reinforcement bars
are inserted in the sections.
(2) Uniaxial elastic model for the central truss used in the eigenvalue analysis with
modulus of elasticity E
s
=1 kPa and specific weight =0 kN/m
3
.
Besides, a rigid diaphragm is inserted at each floor in order to constraint the displacement of
the nodes in the x-y plane. The total mass of the floors is applied at the central nodes; the
permanent loads are applied at each floor considering the same values as described in section
4.1.1.d.
42

Also in this case the base nodes are fixed and no damping is considered in the different
analyses.
In figure 4.15 the SAP model is shown.

Figure 4.15 SAP model
4.1.4 Closing remarks
Two different models (linear, both in SAP and SeismoStruct, and nonlinear, only in
SeismoStruct) have been defined, considering different modelling choices: mass
discretization, elements properties, materials and dissipative capacity of the system.
The eigenvalue analysis is now performed with both SAP2000 and SeismoStruct in order to
verify the modelling choices by comparing the results.
4.2 Eigenvalue analysis
The eigenvalue analysis is carried out considering both SAP and SeismoStruct in order to
compare and calibrate the results.
4.2.1 Eigenvalue analysis in SeismoStruct
Eigenvalue analysis is a purely elastic structural analysis in which the material properties are
taken as constant throughout all the computation; this analysis is used for the evaluation of the
structures modes: natural periods, mode shapes and effective modal masses. Even if the
analysis is completely elastic, in SeismoStruct the model can be defined using both the elastic
and the inelastic frames: in fact, in the first case the properties of the materials are taken from
the input values defined by the user, while in the second case the sections elastic properties
are computed directly by the program depending on the material type. For this reason the
eigenvalue analysis of this example is carried out considering three different models:
43

1) Structure modelled with the nonlinear model, as described in section 4.1.2 (but with four
lumped masses at the walls), with the reinforcement bars as computed in section 3.9. In
this case SeismoStruct computes automatically the modulus of elasticity to use in the
eigenvalue analysis as previously explained (see equation 4.5).
2) Structure modelled with the nonlinear model, as described in section 4.1.2 (but with four
lumped masses at the walls), but without reinforcement bars. Also in this case, since the
model is characterized by nonlinear elements the modulus of elasticity of the materials is
automatically computed by the program (equation 4.5).
3) Structure modelled with the linear model, as described in section 4.1.3 (but with four
lumped masses at the walls). In this case the elastic characteristics of the materials are
directly defined by the user; the modulus of elasticity is taken equal to this computed
automatically by SeismoStruct in the nonlinear case in order to compare the results
(E
s
=2.5710
7
kPa).
The Lanczos algorithm (from Hughes [1987]) is used by SeismoStruct in the evaluation of the
eigenvalue analysis results. Considering lumped masses and rigid diaphragm, the system will
be described by n 3 degrees of freedom (with n the number of floors): two in the orthogonal
directions of the plan and one related to the rotation around z-axis. The number of modes is
equal to the number of the DOFs and in this case a number of 18 eigenvalues has to be found.
The linear combination of the different modes defines the global position of the system.
The following tables 5.1 - 5.2 - 5.3 show the eigenvalue results for the three different cases
previously described: column (1) represents the mode number (the higher mode is the first
one and it is also known as the fundamental period of the structure); column (2) lists the
period of each mode (expresses in seconds); columns from (3) to (5) give the effective modal
mass percentages in the three directions x, y and z; columns from (6) to (8) lists the
cumulative mass percentages in the same three directions (with all the 18 modes the 100% of
the modal mass is reached).
Considering tables 4.5 and 4.6, it is observed that the presence of reinforcement bars (table
4.5) makes the structure stiffer and the periods decrease (for example the first period goes
from 0.4947 sec in the case without reinforcements to 0.4693 sec in the case with
reinforcements); as far as modal mass is concerned, in x direction it remains unchanged while
in y-direction it changes: this is due to the fact that the structure is asymmetric regarding y-
direction.
Considering tables 4.6 and 4.7, the results are the almost coincident; this shows the
consistency in the eigenvalue analysis between the nonlinear model without reinforcement
bars (case 2) and the linear model with elastic material (case 3), as explained in section 4.1.2.
The mass is inserted only in x and y directions and consequently there is not modal mass
percentage in z-direction (defined as NAN% in SeismoStruct).

44

Table 4.5 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 1 with four equal lumped masses
Mode Period [ Ux ] [ Uy ] [ Uz ] [ Ux ] [ Uy ] [ Uz ]
1 0.4693 0.00% 48.79% NAN% 0.00% 48.79% NAN%
2 0.3829 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 48.79% NAN%
3 0.2224 0.00% 17.93% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0741 0.00% 14.86% NAN% 66.72% 81.58% NAN%
5 0.0603 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 81.58% NAN%
6 0.0350 0.00% 5.49% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0262 0.00% 5.08% NAN% 87.07% 92.16% NAN%
8 0.0213 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.16% NAN%
9 0.0134 0.00% 2.52% NAN% 94.04% 94.68% NAN%
10 0.0124 0.00% 1.88% NAN% 94.04% 96.56% NAN%
11 0.0109 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 96.56% NAN%
12 0.0083 0.00% 1.34% NAN% 97.49% 97.90% NAN%
13 0.0068 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 97.90% NAN%
14 0.0063 0.00% 0.93% NAN% 99.33% 98.84% NAN%
15 0.0062 0.00% 0.49% NAN% 99.33% 99.32% NAN%
16 0.0051 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.32% NAN%
17 0.0039 0.00% 0.50% NAN% 100.00% 99.82% NAN%
18 0.0030 0.00% 0.18% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%
Individual Modal Mass Cumulative Modal Mass

1 0.4947 0.00% 47.96% NAN% 0.00% 47.96% NAN%
2 0.4043 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 47.96% NAN%
3 0.2283 0.00% 18.76% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0780 0.00% 14.62% NAN% 66.72% 81.34% NAN%
5 0.0637 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 81.34% NAN%
6 0.0360 0.00% 5.74% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0276 0.00% 5.00% NAN% 87.07% 92.07% NAN%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.07% NAN%
9 0.0141 0.00% 2.48% NAN% 94.04% 94.55% NAN%
10 0.0127 0.00% 1.96% NAN% 94.04% 96.52% NAN%
11 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 96.52% NAN%
12 0.0088 0.00% 1.32% NAN% 97.49% 97.84% NAN%
13 0.0072 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 97.84% NAN%
14 0.0066 0.00% 0.48% NAN% 99.33% 98.32% NAN%
15 0.0065 0.00% 0.97% NAN% 99.33% 99.29% NAN%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.29% NAN%
17 0.0040 0.00% 0.52% NAN% 100.00% 99.81% NAN%
18 0.0030 0.00% 0.19% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%

45

1 0.4943 0.00% 47.94% NAN% 0.00% 47.94% NAN%
2 0.4040 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 47.94% NAN%
3 0.2282 0.00% 18.78% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0780 0.00% 14.62% NAN% 66.72% 81.34% NAN%
5 0.0636 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 81.34% NAN%
6 0.0360 0.00% 5.74% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0276 0.00% 5.00% NAN% 87.07% 92.07% NAN%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.07% NAN%
9 0.0141 0.00% 2.48% NAN% 94.04% 94.55% NAN%
10 0.0127 0.00% 1.96% NAN% 94.04% 96.52% NAN%
11 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 96.52% NAN%
12 0.0088 0.00% 1.32% NAN% 97.49% 97.84% NAN%
13 0.0072 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 97.84% NAN%
14 0.0066 0.00% 0.48% NAN% 99.33% 98.32% NAN%
15 0.0065 0.00% 0.97% NAN% 99.33% 99.29% NAN%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.29% NAN%
17 0.0040 0.00% 0.52% NAN% 100.00% 99.81% NAN%
18 0.0030 0.00% 0.19% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%

4.2.2 Eigenvalue analysis in SAP
In SAP an eigenvector modal analysis type is used, considering the model described in
section 4.1.2. The eigenvalue results are shown in table 4.8: also in this case it is observed
that there are 18 modes that give a cumulative total mass of 100% and no mass is considered
in z direction.

46

Table 4.8 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with four equal lumped masses
1 0.4947 0.00% 47.91% 0.00% 0.00% 47.91% 0.00%
2 0.4038 66.72% 0.00% 0.00% 66.72% 47.91% 0.00%
3 0.2281 0.00% 18.82% 0.00% 66.72% 66.72% 0.00%
4 0.0779 0.00% 14.61% 0.00% 66.72% 81.33% 0.00%
5 0.0636 20.35% 0.00% 0.00% 87.07% 81.33% 0.00%
6 0.0359 0.00% 5.74% 0.00% 87.07% 87.07% 0.00%
7 0.0275 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 87.07% 92.07% 0.00%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% 0.00% 94.04% 92.07% 0.00%
9 0.0140 0.00% 2.48% 0.00% 94.04% 94.55% 0.00%
10 0.0127 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% 94.04% 96.52% 0.00%
11 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% 0.00% 97.49% 96.52% 0.00%
12 0.0088 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 97.49% 97.84% 0.00%
13 0.0071 1.84% 0.00% 0.00% 99.34% 97.84% 0.00%
14 0.0066 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% 99.34% 98.32% 0.00%
15 0.0065 0.00% 0.98% 0.00% 99.34% 99.29% 0.00%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.29% 0.00%
17 0.0040 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 100.00% 99.81% 0.00%
18 0.0030 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

4.2.3 Comparison between SeismoStruct and SAP results
The eigenvalue results, obtained by the different analyses in SAP and SeismoStruct, point out
some conclusions:
- It is verified that there is consistency between the SeismoStruct nonlinear model and
the SeismoStruct linear one because the eigenvalue analysis is an elastic analysis; for
this reason both linear and nonlinear system can be used because the program uses the
elastic characteristics in both cases. In this study both models were considered in order
to verify and calibrate the results between SAP and SeismoStruct.
- There is also a clear consistency between SAP and SeismoStruct models; in fact, the
results of SAP are almost equal to these obtained by the SeismoStruct nonlinear model
without reinforcements (in fact in SAP the reinforcements are not considered): the
periods and modal mass percentages coincide (as shown in tables 4.6 and 4.8) and the
mode shapes are comparable (as shown in the following figures from 4.16 to 4.18).
47

Figure 4.16 Mode 1: T=0.4943 sec (SeismoStruct) on the left; T=0.4947 sec (SAP) on the right


48

- In order to obtain SeismoStruct results consistent with SAP results, a penalty function
type constraint with a penalty functions exponent equal to 10e1 is used; considering
analyses with an exponent equal to 10e2 or 10e3, SeismoStruct results are not well
comparable with SAP ones.
- In order to obtain SeismoStruct results consistent with SAP results all global mass
directions are activated in SeismoStruct model; considering different cases of
activated directions the results are not comparable.
- It can be stated that the fundamental period of the considered structure is T=0.469 sec
(considering the model with reinforcement bars that really represents the structure).
4.2.4 Eigenvalue analysis considering a model with equal walls
The eigenvalue analysis was carried out considering also a model with four equal walls in
order to better investigate the influence of the torsion in the results. The models are the same
as described in section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 unlike the wall dimensions: all the four walls are
considered as 8 m x 0.25 m.
The obtained mode results are summarized in the tables from 4.9 to 4.12. It is observed that:
- The difference in the results between the model with reinforcement bars (case 1) and
this without them (case 2) is lower respect to the case with the different wall (section
4.2.3) because in the latter there is the influence of the torsional effects.
- In the models with equal walls the periods and the modal masses in x and y direction
are equal two by two because of the systems symmetry regarding both directions.
- The results are obtained considering the equal walls model with a penalty functions
exponent equal to 10e1: the SeismoStruct periods are equal to SAP ones, but there are
problems in the analysis (NAN in the mass percentages). Considering a penalty
function exponent equal to 10e3 the results have some differences (for example the
modes in x and y directions are not equal two by two) but there are no problems in the
analysis.
- Considering the deformed shapes (figures from 4.19 to 4.21), it is observed that in the
equal walls model (on the left in the figures) the modes are respectively one in y-
direction, one in x-direction and one related to rotation; in the different walls model
(on the right in the figures) the modes with modal mass in x-direction (mode 2) have
only displacements in x, while modes 1 and 3 in y-direction have both displacement in
y-direction and rotation due to the asymmetry along the y-axis.

49

1 0.2578 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 0.00% NAN%
2 0.2577 0.00% 66.72% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
3 0.1822 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0406 0.00% 20.35% NAN% 66.72% 87.07% NAN%
5 0.0406 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
6 0.0287 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0143 0.03% 6.94% NAN% 87.10% 94.01% NAN%
8 0.0143 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.06% 94.01% NAN%
9 0.0102 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 94.06% 94.01% NAN%
10 0.0073 0.11% 3.35% NAN% 94.17% 97.36% NAN%
11 0.0073 NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
12 0.0052 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
13 0.0046 1.84% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
14 0.0034 0.59% 0.08% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
15 0.0034 0.08% 0.59% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
17 0.0024 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%

1 0.2627 0.00% 66.72% NAN% 0.00% 66.72% NAN%
2 0.2627 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
3 0.1857 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0414 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 66.72% NAN%
5 0.0414 0.00% 20.35% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
6 0.0293 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0146 0.01% 6.96% NAN% 87.08% 94.03% NAN%
8 0.0146 6.96% 0.01% NAN% 94.04% 94.04% NAN%
9 0.0103 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 94.04% NAN%
10 0.0075 0.00% 3.46% NAN% 94.04% 97.49% NAN%
11 0.0075 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 97.49% NAN%
12 0.0053 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 97.49% NAN%
13 0.0047 1.78% 0.06% NAN% 99.28% 97.55% NAN%
14 0.0047 0.00% 1.84% NAN% 99.28% 99.39% NAN%
17 0.0025 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
18 0.0000 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%

50

1 0.2627 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 0.00% NAN%
2 0.2627 0.00% 66.72% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
3 0.1858 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0414 0.00% 20.35% NAN% 66.72% 87.07% NAN%
5 0.0414 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
6 0.0293 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0146 0.00% 6.96% NAN% 87.07% 94.04% NAN%
8 0.0146 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 94.04% NAN%
9 0.0103 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 94.04% NAN%
10 0.0075 0.00% 3.46% NAN% 94.04% 97.49% NAN%
11 0.0075 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 97.49% NAN%
12 0.0053 0.00% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 97.49% NAN%
13 0.0047 0.07% 1.77% NAN% 97.56% 99.27% NAN%
14 0.0047 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.40% 99.27% NAN%
16 0.0033 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
17 0.0025 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%
18 0.0000 0.00% 0.00% NAN% NAN% NAN% NAN%

Table 4.12 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with equal masses and four equal lumped masses
1 0.2624 0.00% 66.72% 0.00% 0.00% 66.72% 0.00%
2 0.2624 66.72% 0.00% 0.00% 66.72% 66.72% 0.00%
3 0.1856 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.72% 66.72% 0.00%
4 0.0413 16.97% 3.38% 0.00% 83.69% 70.10% 0.00%
5 0.0413 3.38% 16.97% 0.00% 87.07% 87.07% 0.00%
6 0.0292 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.07% 87.07% 0.00%
7 0.0146 1.54% 5.43% 0.00% 88.61% 92.50% 0.00%
8 0.0146 5.43% 1.54% 0.00% 94.04% 94.04% 0.00%
9 0.0103 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.04% 94.04% 0.00%
10 0.0074 3.27% 0.19% 0.00% 97.30% 94.23% 0.00%
11 0.0074 0.19% 3.27% 0.00% 97.49% 97.49% 0.00%
12 0.0053 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.49% 97.49% 0.00%
13 0.0046 1.63% 0.22% 0.00% 99.12% 97.71% 0.00%
14 0.0046 0.22% 1.63% 0.00% 99.34% 99.34% 0.00%
15 0.0035 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.34% 0.00%
16 0.0035 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%
17 0.0033 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%
18 0.0025 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

51

Figure 4.19 Mode shape 1: equal walls model on the left; original model on the right


52

4.2.5 Eigenvalue analysis considering a model with a total central mass
The original model with the total floor mass lumped at the central node of the plan with a
mass torsional inertia M
zz
= 26121 tonne m
2
(see equation 4.3) is also considered in the
eigenvalue analysis.
Considering the equal walls model the results obtained with a total central mass are equal to
these with four equal masses lumped at the four walls: in fact in this case the two models are
equivalent because there is no torsion; for this reason considering a single central mass or four
equal masses at the walls is the same.
On the contrary, considering the original model with the different walls, the results are not the
same because of the presence of the torsional effects. In fact the use of four equal mass
lumped at the four walls is a simplification to be consistent with the design in which the
centre of mass is considered coincident with the geometrical centre of the plan. The results for
the model with the central mass are listed in tables from 4.13 to 4.16.
From the results it is observed that in the model with the total central mass the values of
periods and modal mass percentages in the x-direction are the same of these with the four
lumped masses; on the other side, the differences are related to the values in y-direction
because of the asymmetry regarding the y-axis: the results in y-direction can not be the same
because the masses can not be equally divided between walls 1 and 2 that have different
dimensions.
Table 4.13 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 1 (nonlinear model with reinforcement bars) with
total central mass
1 0.4494 0.00% 55.63% NAN% 0.00% 55.63% NAN%
2 0.3829 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 55.63% NAN%
3 0.1896 0.00% 11.09% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0710 0.00% 16.95% NAN% 66.72% 83.67% NAN%
5 0.0603 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 83.67% NAN%
6 0.0299 0.00% 3.40% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0251 0.00% 5.80% NAN% 87.07% 92.87% NAN%
8 0.0213 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.87% NAN%
9 0.0128 0.00% 2.88% NAN% 94.04% 95.75% NAN%
10 0.0109 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 95.75% NAN%
11 0.0106 0.00% 1.17% NAN% 97.49% 96.91% NAN%
12 0.0080 0.00% 1.53% NAN% 97.49% 98.45% NAN%
13 0.0068 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 98.45% NAN%
14 0.0060 0.00% 0.55% NAN% 99.33% 99.00% NAN%
15 0.0054 0.00% 0.58% NAN% 99.33% 99.58% NAN%
16 0.0051 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.58% NAN%
17 0.0034 0.00% 0.31% NAN% 100.00% 99.89% NAN%
18 0.0025 0.00% 0.11% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%
Individual modal mass Cumulative modal mass

53

Table 4.14 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 2 (nonlinear model without reinforcement bars) with
total central mass

1 0.4726 0.00% 54.91% NAN% 0.00% 54.91% NAN%
2 0.4043 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 54.91% NAN%
3 0.1951 0.00% 11.80% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0745 0.00% 16.74% NAN% 66.72% 83.46% NAN%
5 0.0637 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 83.46% NAN%
6 0.0307 0.00% 3.61% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0263 0.00% 5.73% NAN% 87.07% 92.80% NAN%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.80% NAN%
9 0.0134 0.00% 2.84% NAN% 94.04% 95.64% NAN%
10 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 95.64% NAN%
11 0.0109 0.00% 1.24% NAN% 97.49% 96.88% NAN%
12 0.0084 0.00% 1.51% NAN% 97.49% 98.39% NAN%
13 0.0072 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 98.39% NAN%
14 0.0063 0.00% 0.55% NAN% 99.33% 98.94% NAN%
15 0.0055 0.00% 0.61% NAN% 99.33% 99.55% NAN%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.55% NAN%
17 0.0035 0.00% 0.33% NAN% 100.00% 99.88% NAN%
18 0.0026 0.00% 0.12% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%

Table 4.15 Eigenvalue results for SeismoStruct case 3 (linear model) with total central mass
1 0.4722 0.00% 54.90% NAN% 0.00% 54.90% NAN%
2 0.4040 66.72% 0.00% NAN% 66.72% 54.90% NAN%
3 0.1950 0.00% 11.81% NAN% 66.72% 66.72% NAN%
4 0.0745 0.00% 16.74% NAN% 66.72% 83.46% NAN%
5 0.0636 20.35% 0.00% NAN% 87.07% 83.46% NAN%
6 0.0307 0.00% 3.61% NAN% 87.07% 87.07% NAN%
7 0.0263 0.00% 5.73% NAN% 87.07% 92.80% NAN%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% NAN% 94.04% 92.80% NAN%
9 0.0134 0.00% 2.84% NAN% 94.04% 95.64% NAN%
10 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% NAN% 97.49% 95.64% NAN%
11 0.0109 0.00% 1.24% NAN% 97.49% 96.88% NAN%
12 0.0084 0.00% 1.51% NAN% 97.49% 98.39% NAN%
13 0.0072 1.84% 0.00% NAN% 99.33% 98.39% NAN%
14 0.0063 0.00% 0.55% NAN% 99.33% 98.94% NAN%
15 0.0055 0.00% 0.61% NAN% 99.33% 99.55% NAN%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% NAN% 100.00% 99.55% NAN%
17 0.0035 0.00% 0.33% NAN% 100.00% 99.88% NAN%
18 0.0026 0.00% 0.12% NAN% 100.00% 100.00% NAN%

54

Table 4.16 Eigenvalue results for SAP model with total central mass
1 0.4726 0.00% 54.87% 0.00% 0.00% 54.87% 0.00%
2 0.4038 66.72% 0.00% 0.00% 66.72% 54.87% 0.00%
3 0.1950 0.00% 11.85% 0.00% 66.72% 66.72% 0.00%
4 0.0744 0.00% 16.74% 0.00% 66.72% 83.46% 0.00%
5 0.0636 20.35% 0.00% 0.00% 87.07% 83.46% 0.00%
6 0.0307 0.00% 3.61% 0.00% 87.07% 87.07% 0.00%
7 0.0263 0.00% 5.73% 0.00% 87.07% 92.80% 0.00%
8 0.0225 6.96% 0.00% 0.00% 94.04% 92.80% 0.00%
9 0.0134 0.00% 2.84% 0.00% 94.04% 95.64% 0.00%
10 0.0115 3.46% 0.00% 0.00% 97.49% 95.64% 0.00%
11 0.0109 0.00% 1.24% 0.00% 97.49% 96.88% 0.00%
12 0.0084 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 97.49% 98.39% 0.00%
13 0.0072 1.84% 0.00% 0.00% 99.34% 98.39% 0.00%
14 0.0063 0.00% 0.55% 0.00% 99.34% 98.94% 0.00%
15 0.0055 0.00% 0.61% 0.00% 99.34% 99.56% 0.00%
16 0.0054 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.56% 0.00%
17 0.0035 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 100.00% 99.88% 0.00%
18 0.0026 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

By using the eigenvalue analysis, the SeismoStruct and SAP models (as they were defined in
section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) were compared in order to verify and define the modelling choice
(penalty function, global mass direction, section elements): the consistency of the results is
evident. From this point, two different mass discretizations (four lumped masses and total
central mass) are considered in order to verify the influence of this modelling choice in the
displacement response defined by the nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis.
The linear dynamic time-history analyses with SAP and SeismoStruct are now performed in
order to compare the results and verify their consistency.
4.3 Linear dynamic time-history analysis
The dynamic time history analysis is used to compute the inelastic response of a system
subjected to seismic actions: in fact, the multi-modal analysis is inadequate for inelastic
seismic design because of the problem with the initial stiffness, the higher mode
representation and the torsional response. The dynamic time history analysis is carried out
considering the direct numerical integration of the nonlinear equations of motion of the
system, with a 3D model and the seismic actions represented by accelerograms. This kind of
structural analysis is commonly used to predict the nonlinear response but also the linear one
can be modelled, as it is done in this design example.
55

The linear dynamic time history is carried out both with SAP and SeismoStruct in order to
compare the different results.
4.3.1 Time-histories
The seismic action is represented by a time-history input that represents the accelerations
function of the time (duration of 20 sec); as prescribed in Eurocode 8 3.2.3.1, both artificial
and recorded or simulated accelerograms can be used in the analysis: artificial spectrum-
compatible records are obtained by some special purpose programs, while real records can be
manipulated to match the design spectrum over the full range of periods or only in the range
of interest (Priestley et al [2007]). As prescribed in Eurocode 8 - 4.3.3.4.3, the response is
given by the average of the response quantities if at least seven nonlinear time history are
considered or by the most unfavourable value of the response otherwise. In this case an
ensemble of seven design spectrum-compatible artificial records are used (see figure 4.22);
besides, since in this design example the absolute value of the response is of interested, the
average of the absolute maximum displacement for each time-histories will be considered as
the design value (Priestley et al [2007]).
Time histories
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 1 2 3 4
Period [s]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
eq1 eq2
eq3 eq4
eq5 eq6
eq7 Spectrum

Figure 4.22 Design spectrum-compatible artificial time-histories
4.3.2 Linear dynamic time-history analysis in SeismoStruct
In the SeismoStruct linear time-history analysis only the linear model (with the walls
modelled as rectangular solid section and elastic material) is used; in this way the material
nonlinearities are eliminated by the user and only the geometric ones can be activated by the
program. The central truss of the model is increased to a 1 m x 1 m square of concrete
material (confined concrete used in the frame) in order to allow the application of the loads at
the centre of mass and to eliminate the divergences. The direct integration of the equation of
motions is made using the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor (HHT) integration scheme with = -0.1, =
0.3025 and = 0.6. The time-step considered in the analysis is the same of the defined time-
histories (dt=0.01 sec) and the iterative strategy can be summarized with the following data:
- maximum number of iteration = 60
56

- number of updates of the tangent stiffness matrix at each iteration = 50
- maximum tolerance = 10
25

- maximum step reduction = 0.001
The Displacement/Rotation Based convergence check criterion is considered, with
displacement tolerance of 0.0001 m and rotation tolerance of 10
-4
rad.
The analyses are run three times considering three different accelerograms curve multipliers
in order to investigate the influence of the geometric nonlinearities in the response. In fact,
even if linear materials are used in the SeismoStruct model, the geometric nonlinearities can
not be eliminated because they are automatically activated by the analysis. The three cases
are:
1. curve multiplier = 0.01: the accelerograms are greatly scaled in order to be sure that
the displacements are little enough to not activate the geometric nonlinearities.
2. curve multiplier = 0.001: the accelerograms are ten times lower than the previous case
in order to validate the results obtained by the first case.
3. curve multiplier = 9.81: in this case the real accelerograms are considered.
The use of the triple analysis is useful to make a sure comparison between SeismoStruct and
SAP results, since in SeismoStruct the nonlinearities are taken automatically into account
while in SAP they are not.
In each of the three cases the analysis is run seven times with the different time-histories and
then the average of the responses is done.
4.3.3 Linear dynamic time-history analysis in SAP
In SAP three different analysis cases are considered because the choice between two types of
analyses (linear and nonlinear) and time-history (modal or direct integration) is allowed:
1) Linear modal analysis: the method of mode superposition is used to get the systems
response.
2) Linear direct integration analysis with Newmark integration scheme: the systems
equations are solved at each time step of the time history using Newmark solution
with = 0.5 and = 0.25.
3) Linear direct integration analysis with HHT integration scheme: the systems
equations are solved at each time step of the time history using HHT solution with =
-0.1, = 0.3025 and = 0.6 as in SeismoStruct.
Also in this case the analyses are run three times with the three different values of the curve
multiplier described in section 6.2. Besides also the nonlinear cases are considered in order to
investigate the influence of the nonlinear parameters on the response.

57

4.3.4 Comparison between SeismoStruct and SAP results
After running the different analyses in SeismoStruct and SAP, all the results are compared.
The case with a curve multiplier equal to 0.01 is first considered (see figure 4.23): with such
low accelerograms the results of all the analyses should converge to the same values. It is
observed that SeismoStruct results (continuous line) are comparable to the SAP linear modal
analysis results (curve with squares) and SAP nonlinear direct integration analysis with
Newmark integration scheme results (curve with triangles). This means that the nonlinearities
are not activated in SeismoStruct because of the low displacements and that the three analysis
results are clearly comparable; this is much more evident for the wall 2 (the flexible one) than
for the wall 1 (the stiff one). Only the curve of the linear direct integration analysis with
Hilber-Hughes-Taylor integration scheme done with SAP is far away from the others: this can
be explained considering that the HHT method with = 0 is equivalent to the Newmark
method with = 0.5 and = 0.25 (the same as the average acceleration method, also called
the trapezoidal rule). When considering a negative alpha value in the HHT method, the higher
frequency modes are more severely damped, even if this is not physical damping since it
decreases as smaller time-steps are used: changing the interval step the results will converge
to the other analyses results. Therefore the HHT results are greatly damped and so much
lower than all the other values.

Figure 4.23 Legend of figures 4.23 4.24 - 4.25
WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 5.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.5E-04
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 2.5E-04 5.0E-04
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

Figure 4.24 Displacement responses of linear dynamic time-history analysis with curve multiplier = 0.01
58

The same analyses are run considering a curve multiplier equal to 0.001 (figure 4.24). Also in
this case all the analysis results are comparable, unless the values of the Newmark direct
integration (line with circles in the graph) as explained above for the multiplier equal to 0.01;
it can also be observed that the SAP values are almost coincident while the SeismoStruct ones
are a bit greater for both walls. These results allow validating the values obtained with the
multiplier equal to 0.01. In fact, in both cases, the SeismoStruct nonlinearities are not
activated because of the very little displacements.
WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

Figure 4.25 Displacement responses of linear dynamic time-history analysis with curve multiplier = 0.001
When considering the case with a curve multiplier equal to 9.81 (see figure 4.25), it is
observed that the results of SAP linear modal analysis (curve with squares) and SAP linear
direct integration with Newmark (curve with triangles) are almost equal as in the previous
cases. This is due to the fact that in SAP the nonlinearities are not automatically taken into
account, even if the displacements are not low. Besides, the SeismoStruct results (continuous
line) are much lower because of the activation of the geometric and material nonlinearities
that in this program are automatically considered: the displacements are great enough to
activate the nonlinearities. The SAP results with the HHT integration scheme are different
from the other for the same reasons explained above for the other multiplier cases.
In SAP also the nonlinear analysis cases (as explained in section 4.3.3) are performed:
considering the results, there is no difference between the y-direction displacements of the
SAP linear and nonlinear analyses (both for the modal and direct integration cases); only little
changes in the x and z displacements and rotations are observed. The results are not
considered in this study.

59

WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 5.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.5E-01
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0E+00 2.5E-01 5.0E-01
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l

Figure 4.26 Displacement responses of linear analysis with curve multiplier = 9.81
The linear dynamic time-history analysis was used to compare the SeismoStruct ant SAP
results; in fact, since in SAP the nonlinearities are not taken into account, a linear model is
used in SeismoStruct in order to eliminate the material nonlinearities; therefore different
accelerograms multipliers were used to investigate the influence of the geometric
nonlinearities.
From the obtained results, it is achieved that SAP and SeismoStruct model are consistent and
therefore that the SeismoStruct analyses is reliable in order to obtain the nonlinear dynamic
time history analysis results, explained in chapter 5.

Chapter 5. Design verification through nonlinear dynamic analysis
60

5. DESIGN VERIFICATION THROUGH NONLINEAR
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Usually the nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis is preferred to the elastic dynamic time-
history because with the former the different hysteretic characteristics can be represented and
the inelastic deformations are accurately verified. In this case the inelastic dynamic time-
history analysis is carried out only with SeismoStruct considering the nonlinear model with
the reinforcement bars (case 1 in section 4.2.1); as explained in section 4.3, the central truss of
the model is modified: since in the time-history analysis the loads have to be applied also in
the central nodes as described in table 4.4, the truss is increased to a 1 m x 1 m square of
concrete material (confined concrete used in the frame) in order to allow the application of the
loads at the centre of mass and to eliminate the divergences. The analyses are run considering
the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor integration scheme with = -0.1, = 0.3025 and = 0.6; the
convergence and iterative criteria are the same used in the linear analysis and described in
section 4.3.2.
5.1 Verification of Force-Based Designed structure
The dynamic time history analyses are performed considering the nonlinear model described
in section 4.1.2 with the reinforcement bars defined in section 2.6 with the forced-based
design. The analysis is carried out seven times with the different time-histories (see section
4.3.1) and then the average of the maximum displacement and interstory drift responses is
done.
a) Displacements: the target profile (represented in figure 5.1 by the triangle line) is the
design displacement profile related to the given Damage-Control Limit State and seismicity
level. The average displacement profile (represented in figure 5.1 by the square line) is the
average of the maximum responses obtained by the seven nonlinear dynamic time-history
analyses considering the FBD nonlinear model. Considering the graph (figure 5.1) and the
numerical results in table 5.1, it is observed that the FBDed structure is very stiff with respect
to the target profile: the target displacements are greater than the analysis results for both
walls and for the whole height of the building even if some different considerations can be
made. First of all the graphs show that the difference between the average and the design
results is greater at the first floor (about 63% and 53% respectively for wall 1 and wall 2); in
the other levels of the structure, the overestimation is still great with percentages of 42%-53%
and 38%-41% respectively for the stiff and the flexible wall.
61

Figure 5.2 shows that the displacement profile of the stiff wall has lower values than the
displacement profile of the flexible wall for both the analysis and design cases: it is obvious
that the stiffer element has lower displacements.
Table 5.1 Displacement profile numerical results considering FBD
WALL 1 WALL 2
Average Design
Percentage
difference
Average Design
Percentage
difference
m m % m m %
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0153 0.041 62.72 0.0226 0.048 52.94
0.0409 0.086 52.44 0.0603 0.102 40.90
0.0701 0.134 47.67 0.1010 0.163 38.05
0.1016 0.184 44.78 0.1426 0.229 37.73
0.1343 0.235 42.87 0.1842 0.297 37.99
0.1676 0.288 41.81 0.2267 0.367 38.23
WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target

Figure 5.1 Average and design displacement profiles of the two walls considering FBD
62

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Average displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Target displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

Figure 5.2 Comparison between the average and design displacement profiles of the two walls considering
FBD
b) Interstory drifts: the interstory drifts are computed considering equation (5.1) for both
average and design displacement results.

i
i i
i
h
d d
1
= (5.1)
i
interstory drift at the floor i
d
i
displacement at the floor i
d
i-1
displacement at the floor (i-1)
h
i
height of storey i
From table 5.2 and figure 5.3, it is observed that the analysis interstory drift are greatly low
than the target ones along all the height of the system with a peak of 63% for wall 1 and 53%
for wall 2 at the first floor. The percentage difference varies from 36% to 43% for wall 1 and
from 30% to 39% for wall 2.

63

Table 5.2 Interstory drift profile numerical results considering FBD
WALL 1 WALL 2
Average Design
Percentage
difference
Average Design
Percentage
difference
m m % m m %
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0055 0.015 62.72 0.0081 0.017 52.94
0.0091 0.016 43.07 0.0135 0.019 30.20
0.0104 0.017 39.14 0.0145 0.022 33.27
0.0112 0.018 37.04 0.0149 0.024 36.96
0.0117 0.018 35.96 0.0148 0.024 38.86
0.0119 0.019 37.10 0.0152 0.025 39.22

WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3
Interstory drift (%)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Drift limit

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Drift limit

Figure 5.3 Average and design interstory drift profiles of the two walls considering FBD
64

5.2 Verification of the Displacement-Based Designed structure
The displacement profiles obtained by the DDBD in chapter 3 and summarized in the tables
3.2 - 3.3 are now verified considering the nonlinear model of section 4.1.2 with the flexural
reinforcement computed in section 2.6 by DDBD; the dynamic time-history analysis is
performed seven times with the different time-histories. Both displacement and interstory
drifts are considered in the verification.
a) Displacements: in figure 5.4 the design displacement profile is represented by the triangle
lien while the analysis one by the square line. The target values are related to the given
Damage-Control Limit State and seismic input level: in the case of wall 1 the material strains
limit the response while in the case of wall 2 the code drift does. The analysis values are the
average of the maximum responses obtained by the nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses
with the seven different earthquakes. Considering the graph (figure 5.4) and the numerical
results in table 5.3, it is observed that in the case of wall 1 the design and average profiles are
very similar: at level 3, 4 and 5 they almost overlap with difference from 2% to 12% while the
greatest difference is observed at the first floor (41%). In the case of wall 2 the design results
overestimate the average one along all the height of the system with difference of about 19%-
30% with a peak at the base (48%).
It is also observed that the displacements obtained by the nonlinear dynamic time-history
analysis are almost coincident for the two walls (stiff and flexible walls have similar
behaviour), while the design profiles are somehow different (the flexible wall has greater
displacements than the stiffer one) as shown in figure 5.5: in fact, the design displacements
are obtained considering separately the two walls as it was described in section 3.1; otherwise,
in the case of the average profile, the whole system is considered in the analysis (3D model)
and therefore also the constraints and the other structural elements can influence the single
wall behaviour.
Table 5.3 Displacement profile numerical results considering DDBD
WALL 1 WALL 2
Average Design
Percentage
difference
Average Design
Percentage
difference
m m % m m %
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.024 0.041 40.79 0.0252 0.048 47.45
0.068 0.086 20.61 0.0713 0.102 30.14
0.118 0.134 11.58 0.1241 0.163 23.89
0.172 0.184 6.65 0.1803 0.229 21.27
0.226 0.235 3.72 0.2386 0.297 19.68
0.282 0.288 2.12 0.2974 0.367 18.96
65

WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target

Figure 5.4 Average and design displacement profiles of the two walls considering DDBD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Average displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Target displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Wall 1 Wall 2

Figure 5.5 Comparison between the average and design displacement profiles considering DDBD
66

b) Interstory drifts: the interstory drifts are computed considering equation (5.1) for both
average and design displacement results. From table 5.4 and figure 5.6, it is observed that the
interstory drift is greatly overestimated at the first floor (with percentage differences of about
41% and 48% respectively, equal to these related to the displacements); considering the other
storeys, the average interstory drift results have a more constant variation along the height
respect to the displacement results previously described (from -7% to 2% for the stiff wall and
from 13% to 16% for the flexible one). For wall 1 the average and design interstory drifts are
almost comparable except for level 1 and at level 3, 4, 5 and 6 the average interstory drift is
greater than the design one (with negative differences). In the case of wall 2, the difference
between the results is greater along all the height of the system; the design drift at the roof
coincides with the code limit because, as it was previously described, the flexible wall
response is governed by the code drift and not by the strain limit as for wall 1.

Table 5.4 Interstory drift profile numerical results considering DDBD
WALL 1 WALL 2
Average Design
Percentage
difference
Average Design
Percentage
difference
m m % m m %
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.009 0.015 40.79 0.0090 0.017 47.45
0.016 0.016 2.22 0.0164 0.019 14.76
0.018 0.017 -4.59 0.0189 0.022 13.43
0.019 0.018 -6.56 0.0201 0.024 14.81
0.019 0.018 -6.85 0.0208 0.024 14.31
0.020 0.019 -5.00 0.0210 0.025 15.92
67

WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Drift limit

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Drift limit

Figure 5.6 Average and design interstory drift profiles of the two walls considering DDBD
It is observed that, in this case, the DBDed structure leads to a seismic performance that is
very similar to the target one. The difference that still remain in the displacements, most of all
in wall 2 can be derived by the fact that in the SeismoStruct programs the shear deformations
are not taken into account: the latter introduces a significant pinching in the cyclic response of
wall that leads to a lower energy dissipation and so to a greater displacement. For this reason,
since in the nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis the pinching is not considered, the
analysis overpredicts the dissipation capacity and therefore underpredicts the displacements.
This phenomenon is much evident in the structural wall systems, in which shear deformations
are more significant, while in the case of a frame building the pinching can be neglected
because it does not influence so much the response.
The performances of the two walls are also shown in figure 5.7 considering different types of
response:
- time history response: the maximum values of the displacement at each floor,
considering separately the seven different time-histories; in the graph it is described by
the seven grey lines with the crosses.
- average response: the average of the maximum displacements obtained at each floor
by the seven earthquakes that corresponds to the average of the seven curves described
by the previous point; in the graph it is represented by the blue line with the squares.
68

- envelope response: the envelope of the responses of all time histories that corresponds
to the maximum displacement induced by the earthquakes at each floor; in the graph it
is the orange curve with the circles.
- design response: the displacement responses obtained by the DDBD considered in
section 3; it is represented by the red line with the triangles.
From figure 5.7 it is derived that the average response is obviously lower than the envelope
one and that the latter coincides with the displacement response induced by earthquake 6 for
wall 1 and earthquake 1 for wall 2. In the case of the stiff wall the envelope response at level
4, 5 and 6 is greater than the design results; five of the time histories give displacements that
are lower than the design ones while three of them are greater. In the case of the flexible wall
the envelope curve is lower than the design one as all the seven earthquakes do.
WALL 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Envelope EQ
EQ2 EQ3

WALL 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average Target
Envelope EQ
EQ2 EQ3

Figure 5.7 Displacement profiles for walls 1 and 2: seven time-histories, average and envelope results
5.3 Displacement response of centre of mass
The design displacement profiles obtained by the Direct Displacement-Based Design were
computed without taking into account the torsional effects because they represent the
maximum displacements that can be achieved by the walls. Since the results obtained by the
analyses are lower than the design ones, also the response of the centre of mass is considered
in order to verify if the torsional effects influence the response; in fact, as explained in chapter
3, the displacement and rotation of the centre of mass are obtained considering the torsional
effects after having computed the displacement limits.
As described in section 3, the stiff wall governs the design and in this case the shear strength
associated to the zero eccentricity is not necessarily a minimum in the design; for this reason a
planned eccentricity that corresponds to the case in which both stiff and flexible walls
simultaneously achieve their maximum displacement, is considered. The rotation of the centre
69

of mass at the roof is so represented by this twist angle (equation (3.15)) that is considered in
the design as the maximum possible rotation.
Besides, the displacement of the centre of mass takes into account the torsional effects; in
fact, it is computed considering also the displacement depending on twist angle and strength
eccentricity (equation (3.16)).
The displacement and rotation time-histories are obtained by the nonlinear dynamic time-
history analyses, as shown in figure 5.8 and 5.9. It is observed that the peak displacement is
reached at t = 3.54 sec with the earthquake 1, while the maximum rotation is achieved at t =
2.24 sec with earthquake 7; the two peaks do not happen at the same time because the peak
rotation does not necessarily correspond to the peak displacements of the two walls: in fact,
considering equation 3.15, it is clear that the maximum rotation happens at the time in which
the two wall displacements have the greatest difference and not when they have the greatest
values. It is also observed that the peak centre of mass displacement corresponds to the
maximum roof displacements of both wall 1 and 2 (they all happens at time t = 3.54 sec).
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
EQ1
EQ2
EQ3
EQ4
EQ5
EQ6
EQ7
T =3.54 sec

Figure 5.8 Displacement time-histories of the centre of mass
70

-2.5E-03
-2.0E-03
-1.5E-03
-1.0E-03
-5.0E-04
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
0 5 10 15 20
Time [sec]
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
EQ1
EQ2
EQ3
EQ4
EQ5
EQ6
EQ7
T =2.24 sec

Figure 5.9 Rotation time-histories of the centre of mass
The roof centre of mass displacement and rotation are then compared with the design value
computed with the DDBD in section 3 (equation (3.15) and (3.16)). In figure 5.10 the
maximum centre of mass displacements due to each earthquake (rhombus), the average
response (triangle) and the design one (red square) are represented. Even if the torsional
effects are considered, the average response is much lower than the design one:
- centre of mass displacement: the average response is lower than the design with a
difference of about 20%; it is observed that one of the displacement profile due to the
earthquake is greater than the design value.
- centre of mass rotation: the average rotation is lower than the design one of about
43%.
CM displacement
0
6
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Analysis Average Target

CM rotation
0
6
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Rotation
L
e
v
e
l
Analysis Average Target

Figure 5.10 Displacements and rotations of the roofs centre of mass
71

The displacements and rotations of the centres of mass of each floor are described in figure
5.11 and they are compared with a curve that represents the design values and that is defined
by the two points obtained by the design: displacement and rotation of the centre of mass at
the roof and at the effective height.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
L
e
v
e
l
Average
Target
Envelope
Poli. (Target)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0000 0.0016 0.0032
Rotation
L
e
v
e
l
Average
Target
Envelope
Poli. (Target)
Figure 5.11 Displacements and rotations of the systems centre of mass
5.4 Closing remarks
Considering the time-history analysis, the design displacement results were compared with
both the Force-Based and Displacement-Based designed structures; in the second case the
results are very well estimated most of wall for wall 1 while in the case of wall 2 some
difference still remain.

Chapter 6. Conclusions
72

6. CONCLUSIONS
Both FBD and DDBD procedure were used in order to design the wall system and compute
the flexural reinforcements. The nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis is performed
considering both the Forced-Based and the Displacement-Based designed system and the
design displacements for each wall are verified. Some conclusions can be drawn from the
obtained results.
The force-based design leads to:
- an illogical distribution of the shear demand among the walls (85% and 15%
respectively for wall 1 and 2) depending on the use of the elastic stiffness (initial/gross
stiffness)
- an exaggeratedly stiff and conservative design solution since the actual seismic
response resulted about 40-50% lower than the design target
- therefore an unnecessarily expensive design solution
The displacement-based design leads to:
- a more rational distribution of the shear demand among the two walls (60% and 40%
respectively for wall 1 and 2)
- a seismic response that is very close to the target profile, especially for wall 1
- a more economical solution (half the reinforcement required with respect to the FBD
case)
To conclude the comparison between the two design procedures shows that the Direct
Displacement-Based Design leads to a better distribution of shear capacities to the walls, a
better estimation of the analysis results and therefore also a lower cost of the structural
elements given that a lower reinforcement area is needed.

References
73

REFERENCES
Asad Esmaeily, USC_RC version 1.0.2: Moment-Curvature, Force-Deflection and Axial Force-
Bending Moment Interaction Analysis (Hysteretic Response); Reinforced Concrete Members, USC
Civil Engineering Department
Comit Europen de Normalisation, Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part
1:General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, December 2004 draft,
Belgium
Computers and Structures [2005] SAP2000: Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and
Design of Three Dimensional Structures, Berkeley, California, USA.
Cosenza, E., Magliuolo, G., Pecce, M., Damasco, R. [2004] Progetto Antisismico di Edifici in
Cemento Armato, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Crisfield, M.A. [1990] "A consistent co-rotational formulation for nonlinear, three dimensional, beam
elements," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 81, pp. 131-150.
Hughes, T.J.R. [1987] The Finite Element Method, Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element
Analysis, Prentice-Hall.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. [1988] "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Menegotto M., Pinto P.E. [1973] "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames
including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force
and bending," Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by
Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 15-22.
Montejo L.A. [2007], Cumbia: Set of codes for the analysis of reinforced concrete members,
Department of civil, construction and environmental engineering North Carolina State University
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 03/03/2003 as modified by Ordinanza
del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3431 03/05/2005, Norme tecniche per il progetto, la
valutazione e ladeguamento sismico degli edifici, Italy
Petrini, L., Pinho, R., Calvi, G.M. [2004] Criteri di progettazione antisismica degli edifici, IUSS
Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquakes Engineering, Revisited. The Mallet Milne
Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia Italy.
References
74

Priestley, M.J.N, Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2007] Displacement-based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Sandhu, J.S, Stevens, K.A., Davies, G.O.A. [1990] "A 3D, co-rotational, curved and twisted beam
element," Computers & Structures, Vol. 35, pp. 69-79.
SeismoSoft [2007] SeismoStruct: A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures (online), available from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com.
Smith, R.S.H., Tso, W.K. [2002] "Inconsistency of Force-Based Design Procedure," Journal of
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1.

Dissertation2007 Martini

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dissertation2007 Martini

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

107 kPa and a specific weight =0 kN/m3.

Вам также может понравиться