0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

9 просмотров20 страниц© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

9 просмотров20 страниц© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai *

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, Imperial College Road, London SW7 2BU, UK

Received 2 February 2000; received in revised form 23 May 2000; accepted 26 May 2000

Abstract

Owing to the simplicity of inelastic static pushover analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis, the study of this technique

has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. In this paper, the validity and the applicability of this technique are

assessed by comparison with ‘dynamic pushover’ idealised envelopes obtained from incremental dynamic collapse analysis. This is

undertaken using natural and artificial earthquake records imposed on 12 RC buildings of different characteristics. This involves

successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response, up to the achievement

of the structural collapse. The results of over one hundred inelastic dynamic analyses using a detailed 2D modelling approach for

each of the twelve RC buildings have been utilised to develop the dynamic pushover envelopes and compare these with the static

pushover results with different load patterns. Good correlation is obtained between the calculated idealised envelopes of the

dynamic analyses and static pushover results for a defined class of structure. Where discrepancies were observed, extensive

investigations based on Fourier amplitude analysis of the response were undertaken and conservative assumptions were

recommended. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pushover analysis; Time–history collapse analysis; RC buildings; Fourier amplitude analysis

408 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

distributed along the building height. The lateral forces

Inelastic time–history analysis is a powerful tool for are then monotonically increased in constant proportion

the study of structural seismic response. A set of with a displacement control at the top of the building

carefully selected ground motion records can give an until a certain level of deformation is reached. The

accurate evaluation of the anticipated seismic target top displacement may be the deformation

performance of structures. Despite the fact that the expected in the design earthquake in case of designing a

accuracy and efficiency of the computational tools have new structure, or the drift corresponding to structural

increased substantially, there are still some reservations collapse for assessment purposes. The method allows

about the dynamic inelastic analysis, which are mainly tracing the sequence of yielding and failure on the

related to its complexity and suitability for practical member and the structure levels as well as the progress

design applications. Moreover, the calculated inelastic of the overall capacity curve of the structure.

dynamic response is quite sensitive to the characteristics The static pushover procedure has been presented and

of the input motions, thus the selection of a suite of developed over the past twenty years by Saiidi and

representative acceleration time–histories is mandatory. Sozen [1], Fajfar and Gaspersic [2] and Bracci et al. [3] ,

This increases the computational effort significantly.

among others. The method is also described and

The inelastic static pushover analysis is a simple option

for estimating the strength capacity in the post-elastic recommended as a tool for design and assessment

range. The technique may be also used to highlight purposes by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction

potential weak areas in the structure. This procedure Program ‘NEHRP’ (FEMA 273) [4] guidelines for the

involves seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Moreover,

the technique is accepted by the Structural Engineers

Association of California ‘SEAOC’ (Vision 2000) [5]

* Corresponding author. Fax: +44 207 594 6053.

among other analysis procedures with various level of

E-mail address: a.elnashai@ic.ac.uk (A.S. Elnashai).

complexity. This analysis procedure is selected for its

-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII:

S0141-0296(00)00068-7

applicablity to performance-based seismic design and level of ductility. The dynamic pushover envelopes

approaches and can be used at different design levels to are then compared with the force– deformation curves

verify the performance targets. Finally, it is clear from obtained from inelastic static pushover analysis

recent discussions in code-drafting committees in considering different lateral loading patterns. The

Europe that this approach is likely to be recommended in procedure offers an opportunity for full comparisons

future codes. between the two methods of analysis up to ultimate

The technique has been evaluated in several previous collapse.

studies [6–10], to some extent, with different emphasis.

In most of the previous work, only comparative studies

between dynamic and static pushover analysis have been 2. Description of the buildings

assessed at certain loading levels, i.e. design level, or at

equal top displacement (roof displacement from In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives,

pushover equal to the maximum dynamic roof twelve RC buildings are considered, split into three

displacement). The results have been presented mainly groups: sets of four 8-storey irregular frame, four

in terms of global quantities, i.e. deformations, 12storey regular frame and four 8-storey dual frame-wall

calculated hysteretic energy and structural damage structures. Within each group, combination of two

indices. The main aim of this paper is to develop design ground accelerations (0.15 and 0.30 g) and three

complete pushover-like load– displacement curves from design ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) lead to

incremental dynamic analysis up to collapse for a range the four cases mentioned above. The selection of four

of structural configurations representing the most cases for each configuration is motivated by the desire to

common types of RC building, including different compare the performance of structures design according

structural systems, building heights, design acceleration to a ductility class set of rules but for different ground

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 409

acceleration and for the same ground acceleration but the member length. It is widely accepted that this

different ductility class rules. The value of the force technique is more accurate than the point–hinge models

reduction factor (behaviour factor q in EC8 and response mainly used in many other programs, especially when

modification factor R in UBC) increases and rigorous large axial force variations exist. The program has been

standards on member detailing requirements are verified elsewhere [14–16].

imposed for higher ductility classes. Table 1 shows the To accurately predict the inelastic seismic response of

definition of the set of structures under consideration the structure with sufficient accuracy, due care has been

where the elastic force reduction factors used in the given to create detailed and efficient models of the

design as well as the observed elastic fundamental structures, taking into account all necessary geometric

period, obtained from elastic free vibration analyses, are and strength characteristics of columns, beams and

also given. beam– column connections. Towards minimising the

Each building has been designed and detailed in computational requirements and the volume of input and

accordance with Eurocode 8 [11], Parts 1-1 to 1-3, as a output data to be handled, an effort was made to select

representative of a seismic design code applicable to powerful two-dimensional models that can provide, with

more than one country. While the second and third appropri-

groups are regular in plan and in elevation, the first

group exhibits two sources of irregularity in elevation.

The first storey has a greater height than the remaining

ones and severance at the first storey of some

intermediate columns, which are supported by long span

beams. The geometric characteristics of the structures

are illustrated in Fig. 1.

The overall plan dimensions of the configurations

considered are 15 m×20 m. The total heights are 25.5,

36 and 24 m for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, with

equal storey heights of 3 m except the first storey of

group 1 , which is 4.5 m high. While the lateral force

resisting system for groups 1 and 2 is moment frames,

group 3 possesses both a central core extending over the

full height and moment frames on the perimeter. The

floor system is solid slab in groups 1 and 2, and a waffle

slab in group 3. Live loads and loading from floor

finishes and partitions are both assumed to be 2.0 kN/m2.

All buildings are assumed to be founded on medium soil

type ‘B’ of EC8 (firm). The cross section capacities have

been computed by considering a characteristic cylinder

strength of 25 N/mm2 for concrete and a characteristic

yield strength of 500 N/mm2 for both longitudinal and

transverse steel. More details regarding member cross

section sizes and reinforcements are given in Fardis [12].

adaptive static and dynamic structural analysis program

ADAPTIC, a program developed at Imperial College

[13] for the nonlinear analysis of steel, reinforced

concrete and composite structures under static and

dynamic loading. The program utilises the layered

‘fibre’ approach for inelastic RC frame analysis and has

the capability of predicting the large displacement

response of elastic and inelastic plane and space frames.

It has also the feature of representing the spread of

inelasticity within the member cross section and along

Table 1

Definition of the structural systems under analysis

Reference No. of storeys and structural Ductility

Group A.M.name

410 class 407–424Design acc. (g)

system / Engineering Structures 23 (2001)

Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai Force red. factor Elas. fund. period ( s )

IF-M030 Medium 3.00 0.654

IF-M015 Medium 0.15 3.00 0.719

IF-L015 Low 2.00 0.723

2 RF-H030 12-storey regular frame High 0.30 5.00 0.857

RF-M030 Medium 3.75 0.893

RF-M015 Medium 0.15 3.75 0.920

RF-L015 Low 2.50 0.913

3 FW-H030 8-storey regular frame-wall High 0.30 3.50 0.538

FW-M030 Medium 2.625 0.533

FW-M015 Medium 0.15 2.625 0.592

FW-L015 Low 1.75 0.588

Fig. 1. Plane and cross sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) 8-storey irregular frame buildings; (b) 12-storey regular frame buildings; (c) 8-

storey regular frame-wall buildings. supported by the fact that conservative response

parameters will be obtained as a result of the domination

of gravity loads in long beam spans in the frame

ate selection of parameter values, acceptable

structures. On the other hand, the critical strain and shear

representation of the cyclic inelastic behaviour on

criteria are expected to occur in the coupling beams in

member and structure levels, while guaranteeing

the dual structural systems. Taking advantage of

numerical stability. The choice of two-dimensional

symmetry, only the interaction of two distinct frames

modelling may be also justified in the light of satisfying

(one internal and another external) is considered. Both

basic code requirements for such type of modelling.

lateral load-resisting frames are assembled using an

Two-dimensional analyses are undertaken in one

overlay approach, which is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the

direction only (global X- direction of frame structures

irregular frame structure. The two frames are coupled

and global Z-direction of frame-wall ones). This is

appropriately with regard to translational and rotational

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 411

degrees of freedom by 2D joint elements to meet the Modelling of the core is achieved by making use of

assumption of infinite in-plane stiffness of the slab in the two flexural elements, for each wall at each storey, in

normal direction. order to account for splicing of bars at mid-storey

The structural mesh utilises three elements for beam– height. The elements are located at the centroid of the

column members, the lengths of which are determined core Ushaped cross section and connected with beams at

on the basis of the critical member lengths. These each storey level using two rigid links. In addition, five

lengths are determined according to EC8 provisions for elements are used to represent each coupling beam, with

different ductility classes. The ends of horizontal bidiagonal reinforcement represented by vectorial

elements within the beam–column joints are considered resolution of the inclined reinforcement area along the

rigid. Consequently, two elements are added to each longitudinal and transverse directions. The same method

beam at its extremities. Furthermore, shear spring is utilised to represent the bidiagonal shear

connection elements are introduced to represent the reinforcement in some other beams and in the lower two

shear stiffness of the beam–column connection. To storeys of the core of the FW-H030 and FW-M030

simplify calculations of the shear stiffness of the joint, building.

the force– deformation relationship for both concrete Reinforced concrete column-section and T-section are

and steel reinforcement within the joint is assumed to be utilised for modelling of columns and beams,

linear elastic. Despite the simplicity of the joint respectively. Both sections, taken from ADAPTIC

modelling, global structural response obtained have been library, allow the geometrical definition of the section as

extensively compared and checked with analyses well as that of the confined concrete region within it.

performed by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] and Taking into account the available cross sections in

Panagiotakos and Fardis [18]. These show a good ADAPTIC library, a reasonable approximation is made

conceptual agreement with the current modelling results to replace the original U-shaped section of the core of

since the drift values are on the whole higher than the the framewall structures by a T-section, with the same

values by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] where no provision stiffness properties. The approximation may be justified

for beam–column connection behaviour was made. For in the light of the two-dimensional modelling which

the sake of brevity, only some results of the comparison neglects torsion and the regularity of the structure both

are shown in Fig. 3. The results of the current study, for in terms of stiffness and strength. Reinforcement

two of the 12-storey frame buildings, are between results patterns are varied for each section as a function of

of the rigid beam–column joint modelling of the former stirrup spacing in accordance with those specified in the

and the flexible, one member lumped plasticity design. Confinement factors are evaluated as described

modelling, of the latter where bar slip effects within the in Eurocode 8, and varied along the member length

joints and member shear deformations are considered. according to the arrangement of transverse

reinforcements. The effective slab width participating in

beam deformation is taken as

Fig. 2. The overlay technique considered and description of the beam–column joint modelling.

412 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

Fig. 3. Verification of modelling assumptions (a) RF-H030 building and (b) RF-L015 building (average for four artificial accelerograms).

the beam width plus 7% of the clear span of the represent the distribution of inertia forces imposed on

structural member on either side of the web. Horizontal the building. The first shape is calculated as SRSS

and vertical structural members including core walls are combinations (for the first three modes) of the load

modelled using two-dimensional cubic elasto-plastic distributions obtained from modal analyses of the

beam–column elements, where a cubic shape function is buildings. The choice of this load shape is made to take

used for the transverse displacement [13]. This into consideration the anticipated effect of higher modes

formulation is intended to represent short lengths of RC of vibrations for moderate long period and irregular

elements, consequently, axial strain is assumed to be structures (the 12-storey and the 8-storey frame

constant along the element length. The numerical buildings), as well as for buildings with hybrid lateral

integration of the governing equations for this element is resistance systems (the 8-storey frame-core structures).

performed over two Gauss sections, which have a fixed The design code lateral load pattern and a uniform load

position within the element length. The inelastic distribution shape have been also utilised. The latter

response of the cross section is assembled from represents the lateral forces that are proportional to the

contributions of individual layers for which inelastic vertical distribution of the mass at various levels. On the

cyclic material constitutive relationships are applied. other hand, the code lateral load shape represents the

The cubic elasto-plastic elements are combined with forces obtained from the predominant mode of vibration.

material models for concrete, which account for active The use of the uniform load shape may be justified in the

confinement and reinforcing steel with nonlinear light of a possible soft storey mechanism of the 8-storey

hardening. On the concrete side, the uniaxial constant irregular buildings. If this mechanism occurs the

confinement concrete model, Martinez-Rueda and response will be controlled by a large drift in the first

Elnashai [19], has been chosen. For steel, the advanced storey. Therefore, this load distribution may give better

multisurface steel model for cyclic plasticity, which predictions of the overall response. The inverted

defines the stress–strain response of steel in terms of a triangular (code) and the rectangular (uniform) load

series of cubic polynomials, Elnashai and Izzuddin [20], shapes also represent the extreme cases from the linear

is utilised. The parameters used in the material models distribution point of view. The shape of the lateral load

are the mean values. should be selected on the light of anticipated changes in

inertia forces as the structure moves from the elastic to

the plastic phases. Ideally, this shape should be modified

4. Load pattern and seismic action with the changes in inertia forces during the actual

earthquake. These changes mainly depend on the

According to the data used in the design [12], a live characteristics of both the record and the structure.

Several trials [2,3] have been made to permit of changes

load Q=2.0 kN/m2 is considered to calculate the total

in inertia forces with the level of inelasticity through the

gravity loads on the frames, which is applied as point

use of adaptive load patterns. The underlying approach

loads at nodes. Using the appropriate coefficients from

of this technique is to redistribute the lateral load shape

EC8, the vertical loads are combined with seismic

with the extent of inelastic deformations. The load shape

actions in a combination of 1.0G+0.15Q+E L for all is suggested to be redistributed according to the global

stories except the top floor, where it was taken equal to displacement shape, the level of storey shear demands or

1.0G+0.30Q+E L . To account for inertia effects during a combination of mode shapes obtained from secant

dynamic analysis, masses are calculated in a manner stiffnesses. This redistribution is performed at each time

consistent with the gravity loading combinations and are step, which leads to a substantial increase in the

represented by lumped 2D mass elements. computational effort. Moreover, the pushover analysis

Due to the fact that the lateral force profiles in static has not been widely established as yet in the design

pushover analyses will influence the structural response, office environment. Therefore, for common types of

three different load patterns have been utilised to building the need for more taxing approaches is by no

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 413

mean fully established. The variable load distribution given in Table 2, while their acceleration response

option may be appropriate for special and long period spectra for 5 % damping are shown in Fig. 5.

structures, despite that eminence of this technique has In order to apply the outlined procedure for the

not been confirmed yet [9,10]. On this basis, the evaluation of dynamic collapse envelopes, scaling of the

aforementioned fixed load distribution shapes have been records utilised is frequently required. The technique of

utilised for the current study. It is also worth mentioning scaling earthquake records to possess equal values of

that the NEHRP (FEMA 273) guidelines recommend spectrum intensity was based on a proposal by Housner

utilising fixed load patterns with at least two load [23]. The spectrum intensity is defined as the area under

profiles. The first shape should be the uniform load the pseudo-velocity spectrum between certain period

distribution and the other is the code profile or the load limits. It is suggested in the current study to modify the

shape obtained from multimodal analyses. The code limits employed in the original method (between 0.1 and

lateral load distribution is allowed if more than 75% of 2.5 s) to be between 0.8 T y and 1.2 T 2D , where T y and T 2 D

the total mass participates in the predominant mode. are the inelastic periods of the structure at global

Time–history analyses employ four artificially yielding and at twice the design ground acceleration,

generated 10-s duration acceleration records, referred to respectively. This follows the proposal of

as Art-rec1 to Art-rec4, as well as two natural records. MartinezRueda [24,25], modified for the range used

The artificial accelerograms were generated to fit the here. Therefore, the normalisation factor for an

Eurocode 8 elastic response spectrum for medium soil accelerogram (n) is equal to the ratio SI c /SI n . Where, SI c

class as shown in Fig. 4 for a PGA=0.3 g. The use of the and SI n are the areas under the code velocity spectrum

artificial accelerograms is in order to allow effective and the velocity spectrum of the scaled accelerogram,

comparisons and calibrations with the design code. respectively. SI c and SI n are calculated between periods

Moreover, the effect of the vertical component of the of 0.8 T y and 1.2

seismic excitation is worthy of consideration [21], T 2D , as explained above.

particularly for the irregular frame structures where the It is also worth mentioning that there is no need to use

the aforementioned scaling method with the artificial

accelerograms since they are already spectrum-

compatible. Hence, the four artificial records are scaled

according to their PGA. The buildings are analysed first

under the artificial records at different PGA levels and

the recorded top response time history is utilised to

obtain the inelastic periods T y and T 2D of each building

from Fourier analyses (average for four artificial

records). The scaling factors are then calculated for the

longitudinal component of natural records and used for

scaling the accelerograms up to collapse. The factors

used to scale the longitudinal earthquake component are

also used to scale the vertical component of the motions,

when employed, to keep the V/H ratio constant. Table 3

shows the average normalisation factors to ground

acceleration 0.30 g for each of the three groups of

Fig. 4. Acceleration spectra for the artificial accelerograms (5% buildings. Finally, it should be noted that the quoted

damping). values of PGA are not of the natural or scaled records

planted columns are supported by long span beams. but rather multiples of the design ground acceleration.

Towards this end, two natural ground motions have been

selected in terms of the V/H ratio (peak vertical-to-

horizontal acceleration). The Kobe (Hyogo-ken Nanbu

at Kobe University, Japan, 1995) and the Loma Prieta

(Northern California at Saratoga ‘Aloha Ave’, USA,

1989) earthquakes are employed and applied with and

without the vertical components, giving two analyses for

each record. However, for the sake of brevity, results of

the effect of vertical ground motion on the seismic

response are not presented herein. Comprehensive

results of this study are given elsewhere [22].

Characteristics of the records that have been used are

Table 2

Characteristics of records used in analysis

Earthquake

414 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Date Ms 407–424

Structures 23 (2001) Station PGA (g) V/H No. of input runs

Horiz. Vert.

Loma Prieta (USA) 18/10/89 7.17 SAR 0.319 0.349 1.09 2

Artificial Records Art-rec1, Art-rec2, Art-rec3,

4

and Art-rec4

displacement formulation is an updated Lagrangian

form, where convected member axes are used to derive

member deformations.

The criteria used for defining collapse are classified

into two groups; local and global criteria. Two failure

criteria on the member-level are applied: the ultimate

curvature, which is normally controlled by the maximum

compression strain at the extreme fibre of the confined

concrete and shear failure in any structural member. An

empirical axial load-sensitive shear model capable of

providing an experimentally verifiable estimate of shear

supply in RC members was proposed by Priestley et al.

[26] and has been utilised in this study [27]. The code

shear supply model has also been employed after elimin

Fig. 5. Elastic spectra for the long. component of the natural records chosen: a limit corresponds to a maximum inter-storey

(5% damping). drift of 3% of the storey height, formation of a sidesway

mechanism and reduction in lateral resistance by

Table 3 considering the load–displacement curve of the

Normalisation factors for ground acceleration 0.30 g structure. Additionally, the criterion used to define

global yield threshold, which is essential for the

Earthquake IF-buildings RF-buildings FW-buildings proposed scaling method of the records, is selected as

Average the yield displacement of the equivalent elasto-plastic

system with reduced stiffness evaluated as the secant

Artificial 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 stiffness at 75% of the ultimate load of the real system.

Kobe (KBU) 0.54 0.61 0.56 0.57

The utilised shear models are implemented with other

Loma Prieta 1.15 1.25 1.32 1.24 collapse and yield criteria in a post-processing program

(SAR) connected to ADAPTIC [28]. This post-processsor

traces the shear supply–demand situation at each time

step at both ends of all members. It also performs the

appropriate calculations to evaluate the local and global

5. Collapse criteria and incremental dynamic collapse response parameters of the structure and directly apply

‘dynamic pushover’ results the selected criteria.

the structural models described earlier. Eigenvalue

analyses are conducted to determine the elastic periods

and the mode shapes of the buildings needed for

calculating the first lateral load profile of the static

pushover analysis (combination of loads from modal

shapes). Inelastic static pushover and dynamic analyses

are then performed using the calculated lateral load

shapes and the seismic actions with increasing severity.

The analyses are progressed until all the predefined

collapse limits are exceeded. In both static and dynamic

analyses, permanent loads are first applied and iteration

to equilibrium is performed. This is followed by

applying the horizontal action (loads or ground

acceleration). The analysis ating the design safety

factors. On the structure level, three collapse criteria are

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 415

The results of more than 1300 inelastic time–history for the two buildings designed for the higher design

analyses were employed to perform regression analyses ground acceleration gives the impression of being higher

to obtain the dynamic pushover (ideal) envelope for each than the other pair of results. The low correlation of the

of the twelve examined buildings. Figs. 6–8 depict former and the high correlation of the latter are reflected

dynamic response points and the fitted regression in the correlation values which are equal to 0.69 and

equations of the response of the buildings subjected to 0.66 for the first pair and 0.93 and 0.88 for the second

the eight seismic actions considered for all limit states. one. It should be noted that the main difference between

The fitted envelopes for the upper and lower response the two pairs is in the longitudinal and transverse

points, the number of analyses carried out, the design reinforcement of the structural members, while the

base shear and the correlation coefficient for each case dimensions of the cross-sections for this group are the

Fig. 6. Dynamic collapse analysis results for the irregular frame structures.

are also shown. The actual response of the 8-storey same except a slight changes, mainly in the beams

irregular frame structures illustrated in Fig. 6 show how crosssection width (from 0.35 m for the first pair to 0.30

the results of the eight seismic actions follow the same m for the second one). In spite of the aforementioned

trend and shape the pushover envelopes without the need observations, the difference in scatter between the higher

to apply curve fitting. This is clear from the correlation and the lower design ground acceleration pair diminishes

coefficient values, which are almost invariably above when calculating the difference between the lower and

0.9. It is worth mentioning that the number of time– the upper response envelope for each case (quotient of

history analyses shown on each graph varies according minimum and maximum strength for the eight records).

to the number of trials needed to identify the collapse This value is equal to 0.69 and 0.72 for the 0.30 g design

and the yield limits, as discussed above. ground motion pair and 0.76 and 0.74 for the other pair.

Concerning the 12-storey regular frame structures, This is more consistent since the calculated inelastic

Fig. 7 shows a higher scatter in the dynamic analysis periods, which are the main cause of the different

results of different ground motions than the results of the response, are very close for the four buildings, as

8-storey irregular frame buildings. Moreover, the scatter subsequently discussed. Finally, the difference in the

416 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

correlation values between the two pair of buildings can pair is 0.35 m, compared to 0.25 m for the other pair.

only be justified in the light of the lower number of runs This causes an increase in the mass at each storey level

( or response points) needed to achieve yield and for the former, hence higher amplification of base shear

collapse for each pair. This number is equal to 97 and demand. Alongside the high initial stiffness of this pair,

105 for the first pair and 60 and 73 for the second one. the difference in response between the two pairs of

The high sensitivity to changes in the input motion building shown in Fig. 8 can be explained.

observed in the 12-storey frame buildings are also 6. Contribution of the elongated period to the seismic

Fig. 7. Dynamic collapse analysis results for the regular frame structures.

reflected, to a lesser extent, in the 8-storey frame-wall response

group. Fig. 8 illustrates the results of the time–history

analyses for this group. At collapse limit state, a scatter The scatter observed for some buildings is mainly in

is observed for values of V Min /V Max shown in Table 4. A the post-elastic range, and is associated with the spread

higher hardening stiffness is also observed for the 0.30 g of yielding and member failure throughout the structure.

design ground acceleration pair compared to the other Subsequently, the stiffness of the structure decreases, the

pair. This is not observed in the other two groups of fundamental period elongates and the distribution of the

building. Previous analytical investigations [29,30] have inertia forces along the building undergoes continuous

indicated that base shear demands of wall structures are change. To provide insight into the response of the

sensitive to higher mode effects. Once a plastic hinge investigated buildings, extensive analyses in the

has formed at the base of the wall, higher mode effects frequency domain (Fourier analyses) of the acceleration

can considerably amplify the base shear as well as the response at the top have been conducted to identify the

shear at each storey level. The results shown in Fig. 8 predominant inelastic period of each building under

confirm that such amplification may occur and could be consideration. Fig. 9 illustrates the calculated periods

large. It is also worth mentioning that the thickness of (average for the eight seismic actions) at the design and

the core-walls for the higher design ground acceleration twice the design ground acceleration, along with the

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 417

Table 4

Observed response at global collapse for the eight records

Group Reference name Roof disp. (mm) D Min /D Max Base shear (kN) VMin /VMax Storeya

D Max D Min Mean VMax V Min Mean

IF-M030 635 500 570 0.79 13,930 12,713 13,146 0.91 1, 2, 4, 5

IF-M015 492 381 449 0.77 7699 6663 7123 0.87 1, 4, 5

IF-L015 590 380 465 0.64 9229 8102 8685 0.88 1, 2, 4, 5

2 RF-H030 690 580 625 0.84 15,647 11,568 13,689 0.74 2, 4, 8, 9

RF-M030 796 611 684 0.77 16,278 12,076 13,990 0.74 4, 5, 8, 9

RF-M015 735 630 681 0.86 9743 9234 9453 0.95 5, 6, 8

RF-L015 785 607 694 0.77 12,735 11,009 11,972 0.86 4, 5, 9

3 FW-H030 643 599 631 0.93 20,821 15,520 17,849 0.75 2, 3, 6, 7

FW-M030 660 576 625 0.87 23,300 18,123 20,738 0.78 2, 5, 7

FW-M015 643 590 621 0.92 12,724 8769 10,642 0.69 2, 3

FW-L015 652 598 626 0.92 16,153 11,604 13,425 0.72 2, 3, 7

a

Location where interstorey drift collapse criterion is observed for the eight ground motions.

elastic period for each building calculated from respectively. It is observed that the average percentage

eigenvalue analyses. of elongation in the period is (100%), (90%), and (60%).

It is clear to what extent the fundamental periods of The percentage increase is clearly related to the overall

the buildings are elongated as a result of the spread of stiffness of the structural system of the building. The

cracks and yielding. The average elastic periods for the maximum calculated elongation is recorded in the most

three groups of building are 0.69, 0.90, and 0.56 s,

respectively. On the other hand, the calculated inelastic

periods at the design and twice the design ground

acceleration are (1.30–1.46), (1.65–1.80), and (0.81–

1.00) s,

418 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

Fig. 9. Elastic and inelastic (at the design and twice the design ground acceleration) predominant response periods of the buildings — average

for the eight seismic actions. average inelastic fundamental period is about 1.75 s,

which corresponds to high amplification in the Loma

Prieta (SAR) record only. This also accounts for the high

flexible system, where the first storey can be considered response of the 12-storey frame structures when

as a soft storey; whereas the minimum elongation is subjected to the latter record. The same applies, to a

observed in the stiff frame-wall structural system. The lesser extent, to the artificial and Loma Prieta (SAR)

results point towards an important conclusion, records when imposed on the frame-wall structures

employment of elastic periods of vibration in estimating (inelastic period 0.91 s), compared to the Kobe (KBU)

design forces leads to high levels of overstrength (ratio record. For this reason the observed scatter for this

of actual-to-required strength). Moreover, they lead to group is less than the 12-storey buildings. On the other

nonuniform safety margins for different structural hand, the ordinates of the spectra correspond to the

systems. inelastic period of the 8-storey irregular buildings are

To facilitate the comparison between the input equivalent, hence the high correlation for this group.

accelerograms utilised in this study in terms of the

frequency content, the records are scaled to ground

acceleration equal to 0.30 g and used to obtain the 7. Inelastic static-to-collapse ‘static pushover’

Fourier spectrum for each record. The normalisation analyses

factors used are the average of the scaling factors

utilised to perform the collapse analysis for the three Following the success in obtaining the incremental

groups of buildings, as shown in Table 3. The Fourier dynamic response envelopes for the twelve buildings

amplitude spectra for the acceleration records (one of the under investigation, inelastic static pushover analyses

utilised artificial records, Artrec1, and the horizontal are performed to assess the applicability of the technique

component of the two natural records) are shown in Fig. (for different load distributions) in predicting the overall

10. The average inelastic period for each group of dynamic response of structures. Figs. 11–13 illustrate the

building is also shown on the graphs. It is clear that the base shear vs top displacement plots for the three lateral

input motions, with the exception of the Kobe (KBU) load profiles utilised along with the incremental dynamic

record, have high amplitude that may amplify the effect envelopes for the twelve buildings. The dynamic

of the second mode of vibration for structures with pushover curve for each case is shown in the form of the

period between 0.35 and 0.50 s. The amplitude in this upper and lower response envelope as well as the best fit

period range is higher than the amplitude corresponding of the time–history analysis results. The global yield and

to the fundamental period of the three groups of collapse thresholds are also shown. It should be pointed

structures. This is one of the reasons for the scatter in the out that it was decided to choose only one global yield

results of the 12-storey regular frame and the 8-storey limit from the limits obtained from the four pushover

frame-wall structures. It is verified that the high envelopes (the three static and the dynamic one). This is

response points in Figs. 7 and 8 are for the artificial and due to the need to unify and simplify obtaining this limit,

Loma Prieta (SAR) records, while the low response is which is necessary for the suggested method of scaling

for the Kobe (KBU) record. This may also justify the input seismic actions explained earlier. The yield

obtaining a higher maximum base shear corresponding limit state obtained from the static pushover analysis

to almost an identical top deflection when applying the using the code lateral load shape is selected for this

same ground motion with higher PGA. Furthermore, the purpose. For collapse, the observed upper and lower

Fourier spectral ordinate corresponding to the inelastic global collapse limits from the eight earthquake records

fundamental period of the buildings can also be utilised

to justify the scatter in the results of the second and the

third group of buildings. For the 12-storey buildings, the

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 419

Fig. 10. Fourier amplitude spectra for the input accelerograms (scaled to 0.30 g) and the average inelastic period of the buildings.

Fig. 11. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the irregular frame structures.

420 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

Fig. 12. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the regular frame structures.

as well as from the three pushover analyses are the code and the multimodal load patterns to the uniform

presented. It is important, however, to note that the static load shape. It is also noticeable that the difference

pushover and the incremental dynamic collapse analyses between load shape A (the design code load pattern,

are continued beyond all the predefined collapse which is almost an inverted triangle) and load shape B

thresholds. This is to ensure that all collapse states are (load shape from multimodal analysis) is very small.

bounded by the dynamic analysis. Although higher mode effects are confirmed in the

The static pushover method is rarely used to predict response of the second and the third group of buildings,

seismic demands when a particular ground motion is as explained earlier, the multimodal analysis load

imposed on a structure [9,10]. If this is needed, the top pattern did not show an enhanced capability to predict

‘target’ displacement expected when this ground motion these effects. This is due to the fact that this load shape

is imposed on the building should be estimated. It is represents the distribution of inertia forces in the elastic

beyond the scope of this study to address the approaches range only, while the amplification of higher mode

of estimating the target displacement. A review of these effects are observed in the post-elastic phase. Table 5

methods was given in the latter two references. Since the presents the results at global collapse limit state for the

main application of the static pushover analysis is to three load shapes. In terms of the predicted ultimate

estimate the seismic capacity of structures, the following strength and drift at collapse, the differences between

observations are driven by this requirement. In this load A and B are less than 4%, for the twelve buildings.

application of the procedure, the analysis is usually As a general trend, the collapse is observed earlier

continued until any of the predefined collapse criteria is when applying the uniform load than the triangular load.

exceeded. Collapse is observed slightly earlier than the triangular

In general, it is clear in all cases that the response of distribution when imposing the multimodal load. In Figs.

the buildings is sensitive to the shape of the lateral load 11–13 the lower collapse limits from static analyses are

distribution. This is particularly true when moving from always from the uniform load and the upper limits are

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 421

Fig. 13. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the frame-wall structures.

Table 5

Results at global collapse limit state for the three load patterns

Group Reference name Roof disp. (mm) Base shear (kN) Storeyd

Aa Aa Aa

Bb Cc Bb Cc Bb Cc

IF-M030 552 534 480 12,690 13,056 14,219 3rd 3rd 2 nd

IF-M015 474 462 432 6652 6914 7620 3rd 3rd 2 nd

IF-L015 516 498 450 8253 8508 9147 3rd 2nd 2 nd

2 RF-H030 648 624 552 12,135 12,499 14,650 5th 4th 3 rd

RF-M030 712 688 568 13,083 13,444 15,748 5th 5th 3 rd

RF-M015 656 640 600 7332 7554 9235 5th 5th 4 th

RF-L015 688 664 592 9817 10,136 12,175 5th 5th 4 th

3 FW-H030 570 560 535 13,243 13,796 16,425 3rd 3rd 3 rd

FW-M030 580 570 545 16,671 17,241 20,754 3rd 3rd 3 rd

FW-M015 575 565 530 7880 7988 9843 3rd 3rd 3 rd

FW-L015 590 580 545 10,001 10,119 12,490 3rd 3rd 2 nd

a b

Triangular load. Multimodal

load. c Uniform load. d Storey at which

collapse is observed.

from the triangular load. Moreover, the maximum uniform load pattern is observed in lower storeys than

interstorey drift collapse limit when employing the the recorded collapse from the triangular or the

422 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

multimodal loads. This observation is also recorded in Higher modes effect and concentration of inelastic

dynamic analyses, where collapse is observed in lower deformations are expected to be significant in the first

storeys for records that impose higher base shear. Fig. 14 group of structures where the buildings exhibit two

depicts the relationship between collapse limit states of sources of irregularity and weak storey.

the three load shapes for one of the investigated Notwithstanding, four static pushover analyses using the

buildings (building RF-L015). It should be emphasised simple triangular load pattern have succeeded in

that the load–deformation envelope is for global predicting the average results of more than 600 inelastic

response, which is a function of the point of application time–history analyses. It is also important to note that

of resultant force. The uniformly distributed load gives the good design of these buildings and the high

the lowest point; hence the maximum strength and overstrength associated with structural elements,

earlier global yield and collapse limit states. On the particularly the columns, prevented any undesirable

other hand, resultant in the triangular load case is mode of failure. The results show that utilising the

applied at a higher point; consequently lower strength triangular load shape only to predict the global response

and delayed global yield and collapse are observed in all of low rise frames as well as well designed irregular

cases. frame structures is adequate.

Despite the fact that all load shapes do not represent In contrast to the first group of buildings, the results of

the actual distribution of relative inertia forces during the the static pushover of the 12-storey group, illustrated in

dynamic analysis, almost an identical response is Fig. 12, show discrepancies with the dynamic response

observed in the first group of buildings between the envelope in the post-elastic range. While the static

dynamic analysis best-fit envelopes and the static pushover results of the triangular and the multimodal

response obtained from the triangular and the load pattern show a good agreement with the dynamic

multimodal distributions. On the other hand, the uniform results best fit in the elastic range, both give a

load overestimates the initial stiffness and the maximum conservative prediction of the maximum lateral strength,

base shear in the four buildings. Table 6 illustrates as also shown in Table 6 for the triangular load.

graphically the differences between the results of the However, in the four buildings the triangular load

static pushover analysis for the triangular and the response is higher than the lower limit envelopes

uniform load patterns on one side, and the incremental obtained from dynamic analyses employing natural and

dynamic analysis (average for eight records) on the artificial records. On the other hand, the capacity curve

other, at global collapse limit state. Since the triangular obtained from the uniformly distributed load

load shape is simple and show very close results with the overestimates the response in the elastic range.

multimodal load pattern, it was decided to exclude the However, it gives better prediction of the ultimate

latter from this comparison. It is clear that the uniformly strength. It is also clear from Fig. 12 that the triangular

distributed load is unconservative in predicting collapse load shape gives good prediction of the deformation at

limit states (underestimates the drift and overestimates collapse, while the uniform load underestimates the

the strength). The overall prediction of collapse using collapse limit state in the four buildings. It is concluded

the triangular load is significantly better. Although it for this group of buildings that the triangular distribution

slightly underestimates the average drift of dynamic is again the most suitable load pattern given that the

analysis in two buildings, it is between the upper and uniform load, which is rec-

lower drift limits obtained from the eight records, as

shown in Fig. 11.

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 423

Table 6

Differences between static and dynamic pushover analysis at global collapse limit state

ommended by the NEHRP guidelines (FEMA 273), is The comparison between static and dynamic pushover

unconservative in predicting the response and the drift at analysis for this group of buildings shows more

collapse. discrepancies than the second group, especially for the

Concerning the frame-wall group of buildings, the 0.30 g design ground motion pair. As explained earlier,

differences between the static pushover and the dynamic these differences are mainly due to higher mode effects,

analysis results are larger than for the other two groups. which amplify the base shear following formation of

In terms of the predicted elastic response and initial first plastic hinge at the base of the wall. In pushover

stiffness, the triangular and the multimodal load shapes analysis, once the wall attained its ultimate lateral

show good correlation with the dynamic analysis best fit strength, it will deform by plastic hinging at the base

for three buildings and a conservative prediction for the [31]. Clearly, for this type of structure (shear frame

fourth (FW-M030). In the post-elastic range, the two response plus cantilever wall response) the amplification

load shapes underestimate the lateral strength obtained of the base shear during the dynamic analysis is difficult

from the time–history analyses. Table 6 shows that the to predict by pushover analysis. However, the triangular

triangular load prediction of strength at global collapse load profile shows good correlation in the elastic range,

is between 20 and 26% less than the average results of conservative predictions of the ultimate strength and

dynamic analyses. Similar to the 12-storey buildings, the reasonable estimations of the collapse limit state

uniform load overestimates the elastic response but gives (underestimates the drift by about 8%). Hence, it may be

better prediction of the lateral strength at collapse for employed for estimating the seismic capacity and

this group of buildings. Moreover, none of the collapse limit state.

investigated load patterns give reasonable prediction of

the high hardening stiffness obtained from dynamic

analysis for the higher design ground motion pair. With

regard to predicting the drift at collapse, both the

triangular and the uniform load patterns are

unconservative. This is clear from Fig. 13 and Table 6.

424 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

Finally, if the static pushover analysis is utilised as a static pushover analysis using three lateral load

tool for predicting seismic demands instead of distributions and local and global limit state criteria are

estimating capacities, the analysis is usually performed utilised. Based on the large amount of information

until the roof drift corresponding to the design ground obtained, which is nonetheless far from comprehensive,

acceleration is attained. Table 7 presents the average for the following conclusions are drawn:

eight ground motions of the maximum top displacement

observed from time–history analyses at the design I Subject to adequate modelling of the structure, careful

ground acceleration. Clearly, the target displacement is selection of the lateral load distribution and articulate

almost always below the global yield limit state. The interpretation of the results, pushover analysis can

comparison between the static pushover and the dynamic provide insight into the elastic as well as the inelastic

analysis discussed above show that the triangular load response of buildings when subjected to earthquake

gives better estimation of the response in the elastic ground motions.

range. In few buildings, however, it underestimates the I Static pushover analysis is more appropriate for low

initial stiffness. In contrast, in the same range the

rise and short period frame structures. For

uniform load shape overestimates the stiffness and the

welldesigned buildings but with structural

base shear in all cases. From the design point of view,

irregularities, the results of the procedure also show

the uniformly distributed load is conservative for the

good correlation with the dynamic analysis. In this

twelve buildings investigated. It is concluded that the

study, response obtained for a group of four 8-storey

use of two load distributions is needed for estimating the

irregular frame buildings using an inverted triangular

seismic demand. The simple triangular or the

lateral load distribution is identical to inelastic time–

multimodal shape, which correlate well with dynamic

history analysis.

analysis results and the uniform load pattern which

shows a conservative prediction of demands in almost I The experience gained from previous studies can help

all cases considered. This conclusion is supported by the to eliminate the discrepancies between static and

observations obtained from the results of the frame-wall dynamic analysis results for special and long period

group of buildings. The uniform load pattern can provide buildings. These differences are mainly due to the

limited capability of the fixed load distribution to

Table 7

Observed maximum roof displacement at the design ground acceleration (average for eight ground motions)

Group 1 Roof disp. (mm) Group 2 Roof disp. (mm) Group 3 Roof disp. ( mm )

IF-M030 202 RF-M030 304 FW-M030 120

IF-M015 138 RF-M015 146 FW-M015 56

IF-L015 136 RF-L015 163 FW-L015 67

a conservative estimation of shear demand below predict higher mode effects in the post-elastic range.

collapse limit states; hence it can support preventing To overcome this problem, more than one load

undesirable shear failure. Moreover, it shows reasonable pattern should be selected to guarantee providing an

estimation of shear at global collapse limit state (at 3% accurate or slightly conservative prediction of

interstorey drift). It is worth mentioning that, according capacities and demands.

to the SEAOC (Vision 2000), complete collapse is I The investigation carried out on two sets of four

considered once the interstorey drift exceeds 2.5%. 12storey frame buildings and four 8-storey frame-

Utilising this definition of collapse leads to obtaining wall structures show that a conservative prediction of

conservative prediction of shear demand in all buildings capacity and a reasonable estimation of deformation

investigated when employing the uniformly distributed is obtained using the simple triangular or the

load. multimodal load distribution. The same load patterns

slightly underestimate the demand of some buildings

in the elastic range. On the other hand, the uniform

8. Conclusions load provides a conservative prediction of seismic

demands in the range before first collapse. It also

The applicability and accuracy of inelastic static yields an acceptable estimation of shear demands at

pushover analysis in predicting the seismic response of the collapse limit state.

RC buildings are investigated. Twelve RC buildings I Comparison between the triangular and the multimodal

with various characteristics, incremental dynamic distribution results show differences less than 4 %,

analysis employing eight natural and artificial records, for the twelve buildings, since the former captures the

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 425

characteristics of the most important mode of [1] Saiidi M, Sozen MA. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C

vibration. The load distribution from multimodal structures. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE

analysis only represents the distribution of inertia 1981;107(ST5):937–51.

forces in the elastic range; hence higher mode effects [2] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage

analysis of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and

are not entirely accounted for in the post-elastic Structural Dynamics 1996;25:31–46.

domain.

[3] Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance

I The elongation in the fundamental period of structures and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal

due to extensive yielding and cracking during of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(1):3–10.

earthquakes depends on the overall stiffness of the [4] FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of

structural system of the building. In the current study, buildings. FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management

Agency,

the observed elongation ranges between 100% for the

1996.

most flexible irregular frame system and 60% for the

stiff frame-wall structural system. Employment of [5] SEAOC. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings.

Vision 2000 Committee, Structural Engineers Association of

elastic periods in seismic code does not therefore California, Sacramento, CA, 1995.

provide uniform levels of safety for different [6] Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H. Nonlinear static push-over

structural systems. analysis — why, when, and how? In: Proceedings 5th US

I The results of the dynamic collapse analysis show NCEE, vol. 1. IL, USA: Chicago, 1994:283–92.

clearly that each earthquake record exhibits its own [7] Mitchell D, Paultre P. Ductility and overstrength in seismic

peculiarities, dictated by frequency content, duration, design of reinforced concrete structures. Canadian Journal of

Civil Engineering 1994;21:1049–60.

sequence of peaks and their amplitude. The dispersion

[8] Faella G, Kilar V. Asymmetric multistorey R/C frame

in the results of different ground motions depends on structures: push-over versus nonlinear dynamic analysis. In:

the characteristics of both the structure and the Proceedings 11th ECEE, Paris, 1996, CD-Rom.

record. The Fourier spectral analysis is an important [9] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover

tool to investigate the observed variability of the analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering

results and to identify the elongated inelastic periods Structures 1998;20(4-6):452–64.

of the structure. [10] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic

analysis of buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and

I The importance of pushover analysis as an assessment Materials 1998;1(3):337–44.

and design tool warrants much needed further [11] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of

developments. These may be classified as ‘tools’ and structures. Part 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Comite Europeen de

‘behaviour’. There is considerable scope for Normalisation, European Pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1, 1-2, and

development of tools for more efficient and versatile 1-3, Bruxelles, 1994.

pushover analysis techniques. One such development [12] Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete

would be the continuous assessment of the effect of buildings according to Eurocodes 2 and 8. Configuration 3, 5

and 6, Reports on Prenormative Research in Support of

inelasticity on the load distribution used, taking into Eurocode 8, 1994.

account the shape of the spectrum. This would enable

[13] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC — a program for

the accurate and realistic analysis of highly irregular adaptive large displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of

structures. With regard to ‘behaviour’, analysis of a steel, concrete and composite frames. ESEE Report No. 89/7,

larger sample of buildings that includes high-rise Imperial College, London, 1989.

structures and structures with heavily irregular [14] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite

strength distribution is needed. steel/concrete members under earthquake loading, Part I:

Analytical model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 1993;22(4):315–45.

To close, it is emphasised that, notwithstanding the [15] Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. Seismic resistance of composite

range of structures analysed, the number of records beam–columns in multi-storey structures, Part 2: Analytical

employed and the rigour of the limit state criteria model and discussion of results. Journal of Construction Steel

Research 1994;30(3):231–58.

monitored, the conclusions are, strictly speaking,

applicable to the range investigated. However, some [16] Elnashai AS, Pinho R. Repair and retrofitting of RC walls using

selective techniques. Journal of Earthquake Engineering

generality may be claimed by noting that every effort 1998;2(4):525–68.

has been made to select distinct structural systems, [17] Salvitti LM, Elnashai AS. Evaluation of behaviour factors for

comprehensive limit states and verified investigation RC buildings by non-linear dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings

tools. 11 th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, CD-Rom, Paper No.

1820.

[18] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Effect of column capacity design

on earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal

References of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(1):113–45.

426 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

under cyclic load. Materials and Structures 1997;30(197):139–

47.

[20] Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities

in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:509–

32.

[21] Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and field evidence of

the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

1996;25:1109–37.

[22] Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of code-designed RC

buildings. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London,

2000. [23] Housner G. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion

earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake

and Blast Effects on Structures. CA, USA: Los Angeles,

1952:20–36.

[24] Martinez-Rueda JE. Energy dissipation devices for seismic

upgrading of RC structures. PhD thesis, Imperial College,

University of London, 1997.

[25] Martinez-Rueda JE. Scaling procedure for natural

accelerograms based on a system of spectrum intensity scales.

Earthquake Spectra 1998;14(1):135–52.

[26] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of

reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE 1994;120(8):2310–29.

[27] Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM, Lee D. Collapse analysis of RC

structures including shear. ASCE Structures Congress, New

Orleans, 1999.

[28] Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of RC buildings under

multiaxial earthquake loading. PhD transfer report, Imperial

College, London, 1998.

[29] Ghosh SK. Required shear strength of earthquake resistant

reinforced concrete shear walls. In: Krawinkler H, Fajar P,

editors. Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced

Concrete Buildings. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1992.

[30] Seneviratna GDPK. Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for

seismic design. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1995.

[31] Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In:

Proceedings 10th ECEE. The Netherlands: Rotterdam,

1995:821–30.