A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE NONLINEAR SEISMIC PERFORMANCE METHODS OF THE DIFFERENT SEISMIC CODES

M. B. Ylmaz
OSM Engineering & Consulting Co., Ltd., Istanbul, Turkey

Z. Celep
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

ABSTRACT: The wall-frame systems are of prime importance in the structural systems subjected to large seismic loads. The behavior of the structural system composed of frames and shear walls is highly complex even under the assumption that they behaves linearly. On the other hand, the static and the dynamic nonlinear behavior of these structural systems are difficult to predict. Turkish Seismic Code, Eurocode 8 and ASCE 41-06 give the requirements for the seismic safety evaluation of the existing structural systems based on the performance analysis. The aim of the present study is to summarize these requirements comparatively and to give a numerical investigation dealing with the nonlinear methods of the three codes including the time domain analysis. For the numerical study the structural system of a regular residential building of five stories consisting frames and shear walls is considered and major importance is paid on the consistency of the results of the methods given in the Turkish Seismic Code, Eurocode 8 and ASCE 41-06. Keywords: RC structural wall, Nonlinear static analysis, Nonlinear dynamic analysis

1. INTRODUCTION Performance assessment of existing structures has become a popular subject especially in high seismic regions and has received attention of the structural engineers. The aim of the performance evaluation is generally to predict the nonlinear deformations i.e., the controlled damages of the structure under the expected earthquakes and to determine whether these deformations can be accepted. For the performance evaluation, various different approaches are developed. These approaches can be practically separated into two groups. First one is the linear methods of which engineers are familiar and they use it in everyday engineering practice. Second one is the nonlinear methods which are more realistic than the linear ones to simulate the behavior of structures during earthquake. These methods are static and non-linear implementation procedures. Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) so called pushover analysis has a widespread use in applications. The main effort of the performance evaluation in NSP is to obtain the seismic capacity curve and the target displacement of the structural system under considered earthquake. The capacity curve of a structural system is obtained from a nonlinear model which includes force-deformation relations of the cross-sections, i.e., bending moment-rotation relations. A lateral load pattern is assumed to push the structure laterally. For this load pattern, generally the first mode shape is adopted. The capacity curve of the system is a non-linear relationship between the lateral load and displacement which shows the weak and strong points of the system. Having obtained the capacity curve, a transformation is carried out to convert the multi degree of freedom system (MDOF) to a single degree of freedom system (SDOF). The process of the equivalent linearization is performed to find the effective rigidity or the period of the corresponding SDOF system which represents the existing structural system having MDOF. The displacement demand of the substitute SDOF system has been determined by using the effective period, relevant spectrum and displacement modification factors. In fact, a direct or a modified version of the equivalent displacement rule is used for the evaluation of the performance

point. The validity of this rule and its modification, in other words the relations between Ry--T have been studied by many researches (Miranda, 2000, Chopra & Chintanapakdee, 2004). Then, the reverse substitution is performed in order to establish the relationship between SDOF and MDOF. Having found the performance point i.e., the intersection of the capacity and the demand curves, the seismic deformation demands in the structural components have been determined and checked whether these demands can be met. In the above procedure, the capacity of the structural system and the seismic demand are obtained separately without having any interaction between them. However, the seismic demand depends on the structural capacity (Nassar & Krawinkler, 1991). Their separation as explained above is a simplification of the problem or it can be considered to be the first approximation. Issues like lateral load pattern, equivalent linearization process and displacement modification factors have an important effect on this process. Assumptions used for these issues yield the differences in the requirements of TSC (Turkish Seismic Code), ASCE 41 and, EC8 (Eurocode 8). In fact, these differences in application are discussed in this study for a dual RC system. The application of the pushover procedure mentioned above is illustrated in Figure 1, indicating that the analysis is carried out by keeping the load pattern constant. More refined pushover analysis can be accomplished by considering the variation in the load pattern as the structural character of the system changes due to inelastic deformations. The latter procedure is called adaptive one, by indicating that the load pattern is changed by adapting to the structural behavior of the system.
Mathematical model (including nonlinear F-D relationships) Displacement demands of the MDOFs under the considered level of earthquake

Pushing the system with a invariant load pattern Force

Substitution into SDOFs to find a target displacement Force

Target displacement

Reverse substitution into MDOFs to find displacement demands

Assigning a capacity independent from the demand !

Displ.

Displ.

Ti , Mi ,

T,M,
i i

T1, M , 1

T,M, i i

Figure 1. Illustration of the non-adaptive (invariant) pushover procedure

Another effort of significance is determination of the level of damage (or inelastic deformation) in structural elements. This process contains also numerous assumptions related to the material behavior of concrete and steel and the sectional behavior of the structural elements subjected to bending moment, shearing force and normal force. Having determined the inelastic deformations, these deformations are compared to their limit values. The limits of these inelastic deformations are given in the building codes depending on the seismic effect, such as, the service, the design and the maximum earthquake. They depend also on the level of the overall behavior of the building, such as, immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention. In the definition of these limits there are very different viewpoints in the codes. One of the simplest definition can be found in FEMA documents where the inelastic deformations to be checked are defined as plastic rotations. The limits of these deformations are given depending on the degree of confinement in concrete and on the shearing force and the normal force at the section. However, strain limits are used for the same purpose as well, as it is done in TSC. Another example can be found in EC8 where chord rotations are adopted as the main parameter assuming that their inelastic deformations represent the overall behavior of the building. In a regular pushover analysis the rotations of the plastic hinges are evaluated easily. However, for the evaluation of the strains and the chord rotations one has to go one more step. In this study, nonlinear behavior of a wall-frame system has been examined by using static and dynamic procedures to make a comparison between the various requirements of the seismic codes. For

this purpose, a five-story building has been designed having a high ductility level in accordance with TSC. By considering the lateral load distribution, NSPs of TSC, EC8 and ASCE41 have been applied and the capacity curves of the structural system is obtained including the corresponding displacement demand and inelastic deformations at the performance point. The inelastic deformations are compared with the corresponding limits of these codes. Later, the same building is analyzed using the nonlinear dynamic procedure by assuming that it is subjected to three code spectrum compatible seismic records. Similarly the inelastic deformations are obtained and compared. The comparison of the results of these nonlinear static and dynamic procedures is done as well.

2. ANALYTICAL MODEL The general layout of the structural system of the building is shown in Figure 2. A computer model of 3D has been prepared in order to design and later to assess the seismic safety of the building under gravity and seismic loads. The building is designed by using the elastic spectrum S(T) as given in TSC. Effective ground acceleration coefficient (A0) has been taken as 0.4 by assuming that the buildings are located in the first seismic zone. In the seismic design the building importance factor (I) and the live load participation factor (n) have been taken as 1.0 and 0.3, respectively. The structural behavior factor (R) which is closely related to the seismic load reduction factor is assumed to be R=7.0 in two directions. This factor depends on the ratio of the base shear force of the shear walls to the total base shear force, s, which is nearly 0.75 a threshold between R=6.0 and R=7.0 as given TSC. This ratio reflects the overall ductility of the structural system in some degree. Following the requirements of TSC, the mass of the dead and live loads are assigned to the geometrical center of the building at each story without creating a eccentricity at the story level.

1 D

Figure 2. Structural layout (dimensions in cm, all beams are 30cm/60cm) Local soil class Z2 has been assumed where the characteristic periods are adopted in accordance with TSC. The columns are assumed to be fixed to the foundation and the soil-structure interaction in the building has not been taken into account at the design and the assessment stages. By using the cracked section bending stiffness, the fundamental vibration period of the building is around 0.75s in the x direction considered. In both nonlinear static and dynamic procedures of the nonlinear analysis, the structural system is modeled by using frame type elements, such as, beams and columns, whereas the shear walls are modeled by considering them as columns connected to the neighboring beams by rigid elements. Gravity load analysis is carried out at the beginning of all the nonlinear response analysis and the second order effects are neglected due to the limited height of the building. Plastic hinge assumption is used, i.e., it is assumed that plastic deformations are concentrated in a cross section called plastic hinge. Bending-curvature behavior of the sections is assumed to be linearly elasticperfectly plastic with no strain hardening. Bending plastic hinges are assigned to the end of the beams, whereas

bending and axial force plastic hinges are assigned to the end of the columns in accordance with the general assumptions. In the column hinges biaxial moment-axial force interaction was considered at each step of the loading in the nonlinear static and dynamic procedures. Energy dissipation in the structural system comes

into being through the linear Rayleigh damping being 5% of the critical viscous damping and through the hysteretic behavior of the plastic hinges. The building, is analyzed under three artificially simulated accelerograms having code-compatible spectra. The time-history analyses are carried out non-linearly by adopting hysteresis rule, effective stiffness and viscous damping.
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 T (s) 4 Sae(m/s 2) Design Spectrum Mean of the Three Spectra T1

Figure 3. Mean spectrum of the three artificially simulated code-compatible accelerograms

The structure is analyzed by applying the three artificially simulated code-compatible acceleration records (R1, R2, and R3) by using the non-linear time-history analyses. Figure 3 shows that the mean spectrum of these records displays a variation very close to the spectral curve given in TSC. In the same figure, the fundamental period of the structure having cracked sections is displayed as T1.

3. PUSHOVER CURVES There are various differences between the codes about modeling and implementation of NSPs. However, these differences do not cause marked differences in the overall behaviour of the structures, as it is the case building. In other words, differences in the pushover curves become significant, when a strength degradation behavior is assumed in the plastic hinges. In practice these types of behavior are recognized, when the members are not detailed seismically. The main steps of NSP can be summarized as follows: The plastic characteristics of the potential plastic hinge cross sections are determined by considering the geometrical properties, the reinforcement detailing and the mechanical properties of the materials. Before the pushover analysis is carried out, the vertical loads are applied to the structural system. The pushover analysis is accomplished by applying lateral force incrementally by checking all potential sections whether they reach their capacity at each loading step. When one of the potential hinge sections attains its capacity, it means that the cross section has reached the yield curve. At the further loading the cross section will not beyond the yield curve and stays on the curve, however plastic deformations (rotation and elongation or shortening) will be produced. At the end of the pushover analysis, the capacity diagram is obtained on the axes of the reference displacement and the base shear force. In fact, the pushover analysis and the capacity curve is a powerful tool to grasp the inelastic behavior, the capacity of the system and the strong and weak points of the system.

Spectral
1.2 Acceleration

, Sa/g

Code(Z3)-10%/50 Initial Stiffness Modal Capacity

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

Base Shear Force (kN) Ki

Capacity Curve Linearization

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15

T=0.74s

Keff

ut=16.1cm

20

25

0 0 10 20

Ti=0.740s Teff=0.740s =0.045 Vb/W=0.19 4

30 40

Spectral Displacement, Sd (cm)

Top Displacement (cm)

Figure 4. Capacity curve TSC (left) and pushover curve ASCE-41 (right) of the structural system in x-direction
Base Shear(kN)

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20

TSC ASCE41 EC8-mode EC8-uniform IDA-R1 IDA-R2 IDA-R3

Top Displ.(cm)

25

Figure 5. Curves obtained from the incremental static (pushover) and dynamic analyses

One should be aware that the pushover analysis is not a straight forward procedure. It involves various assumptions. In the three documents considered here, the analysis under the vertical loads is carried out before the pushover analysis. However, ASCE 41 (Clause 3.2.8) states that two different gravity load effects should be considered, such as, gravity and seismic loads to be additive and gravity and seismic loads to be counteracting. ASCE 41 (Table 6-5) and EC8-1 (Clause 4.3) state that both effective flexural and shear rigidity should be taken into account. On the other hand, TSC requires a reduction only in the flexural stiffness of the member due to cracking. Lateral load pattern applied in the analysis is another issue of discussion especially for tall buildings. In order to consider higher modes effects and variation of inertia forces distribution during the inelastic behavior various pattern for the lateral load is recommended. ASCE 41 and TSC adopt the first mode shape for the load pattern However, EC8-3 (Clause 4.4.4.2) requires that at least two lateral load patterns (modal and uniform) should be applied to RC buildings. In fact, FEMA 356 which is a pioneer document of ASCE 41 proposes both the modal and uniform load patterns. Pros and cons of the uniform load patterns will be discussed in this study by considering the numerical results. In the present study pushover curves are obtained for the five-story building in accordance with TSC, ASCE-41 and EC8 separately. Since TSC and EC8 use the same spectral displacement, thus, only two curves are given in Figure 4 corresponding to TSC (EC8) and ASCE-41. Figure 5 shows the pushover (Incremental Static Analysis) and IDA (Incremental Dynamic Analysis) curves of the building. The curves on the figure represent a relationship between the base shear and the top displacement of the building. All these curves are depicts the nonlinear static as well as dynamic behavior of the structural system, where the last step of these curves corresponds to the performance point of the system under the design basis earthquake (DBE), where the target displacement can found.

The three curves denoted by R in Figure 5 are obtained as a result of the nonlinear dynamic analysis. Each curve is obtained by using the same acceleration record having increasing scaling factor. In other words, each point of the curve corresponds to a separate non-linear dynamic solution carried out incrementally in the time domain. In this case, the structural system is subjected to the inertia loads which developed due to the dynamic motion of the system. Due to the complex variation of the inertia forces and that of the inelastic deformations, the curves do not display a smooth continuous variation as it is the case in the pushover curves. The last steps of the IDA curves in Figure 5 represent the displacement demands of the same reference point for the design basis earthquake . All curves, whether they correspond to static or dynamic analysis, display a linear variation for the small lateral load or inertia effect, because no inelastic deformations come into being. However, the nonlinearity appears, as the effects become larger and the inelastic deformations are produced in the potential hinge sections.

4. SHEAR DEMAND PROFILE OF THE SHEAR WALL

Floor 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 500 1000 1500 Base Shear 2000 (kN)
T SC EC8-mode EC8-uniform R1 R2 R3 ASCE41

Figure 6. Shear force diagrams of the 3.30m0.25m shear wall of the structural system

Figure 6 represents the shear profile of the shear wall having 3.30m0.25m dimensions as shown in Figure 2, where the results of the nonlinear static and the dynamic analyses are shown. Comparison of the static and dynamic results yield that the dynamic results are larger than the static ones. In fact, this is a good example to show the dynamic shear amplification in the shear wall, i.e., a significant increase in the shear force obtained in the nonlinear dynamic procedure. For the present case the mean shear demand of the three records in the shear wall is about 1737kN, as Figure 6 yields. The largest value which has been evaluated by using the static pushover analysis is about 1479kN obtained by using the uniform lateral load distribution. In fact, the uniform load pattern has a lower moment arm than that of the modal load pattern. Consequently, it yields a higher shear demand than that of the modal load pattern. Furthermore, it seen that none of those the NSPs have the ability to yield a dynamic shear force at the base. This fact produces the amplification of the static shear force to obtain more realistic results. As a result, pushover analysis with a predetermined load pattern will not adequately state the radical changes of modes due to inelastic redistribution (Krawinkler, 2006).

5. FLOOR DISPLACEMENTS AND INTER-STORY DRIFTS Peak floor displacements and story drifts along the building height obtained from the NSPs of the three codes are given in Figure 7 comparatively. The figure also contains the results of the NDA by using the three time history records having spectra of the DBE level. Figure 7 shows that the top floor displacements (the fifth floor) obtained by using the NSP are very close each other for the three codes. However, the top displacements of the results of the nonlinear dynamic analyses show a wide scattering from each other and from the results of the NSP. Therefore, in order to make a comparison

between story drifts, the height-wise distribution of peak floor displacements have been normalized with respect to the top displacement demand of the TSC as shown in Figure 7 as well.
5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20
TSC EC8-mode EC8-unif orm elastic R1 R2 R3 ASCE41

Floor

5 4 3 2 1 0

Floor

TSC EC8-mode EC8-unif orm elastic R1 R2 R3 ASCE41

Displ.(cm)

Drift(%)

Figure 7. Variations of floor displacements (left) floor drifts (right)

6. DAMAGE LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS As mentioned before, TSC, EC8, and ASCE adopted different approaches to determine damage level of the structural members. The nonlinear displacement limits of the shear wall of five-story building is shown in the Figure 8. TSC defines strain based limits to determine the controlled damage levels to be accepted. The plastic curvature demands are evaluated by assuming a plastic hinge length from the plastic rotational demands which appear in the results of the analysis. For each section the yield curvature is obtained by using the geometry and the reinforcement. The total curvature demand is appears as the sum of the yield and the plastic curvature. By using the total curvature, the bending moment, the normal force and the geometry and the reinforcement of the section, the corresponding concrete and steel strains are evaluated by considering the stress-strain behavior of the confined and unconfined concrete and the steel in the cross section. Last step is more complex than the previous ones and requires the high degree of knowledge about the material and the section, which is difficult to provide in the existing structures. These strain demands are compared with the strain limits which are specified for different damage levels. By checking these comparisons the performance level evaluation of the section, the structural members and the structure is carried out. In the evaluation the underlying assumption is that all the sections which experience inelastic deformation display ductile behavior. For this end, the obtained shear force demands will be compared with the shear capacity of sections and checked to avoid brittle failure. EC8 defines a drift-type limitation which can be recognized as chord rotation, to determine damage levels. Chord rotation is the angle between the tangent to the axis at the yielding end and the chord connecting that end with the end of the shear span. It is also equal to the element drift ratio (CEN, 2005). There are two different options to determine the damage limit. First one is the total chord rotation formulation which can be used directly to determine the limits for the member. Second one is chord rotation at yielding (elastic part) plus plastic chord rotation (inelastic part) formulation. ASCE-41 defines the limits for the plastic rotation itself, which is very easy to evaluate and compared to strains and chord rotations. On the other hand, there are additional limits to check, such as, 2% of strain limitation for longitudinal reinforcement under compression to prevent buckling failure. The plastic hinge rotation limits are given depending on the level of the shear force and the axial force. As it is well known, the presence of these two forces at the section decreases the plastic hinge rotation capacity. However, the effects of these two forces can not be found in the limits given in TSC. Furthermore, plastic rotation limits are also negatively affected by inadequate development or splicing of the reinforcement at the section. ASCE-41 defines detailed strength degradation models. Cyclic

behavior of the section is taken into account implicitly while determining the target displacement by coefficient of C2.
Moment(kNm)
10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0.00
EC8-IO EC8-LS EC8-CP

ASCE-IO

ASCE-LS

ASCE-CP

M-K
TSC-CP

TSC-IO

TSC-LS

TSC ASCE EC8

Curvature(1/m)
0.01 0.02

Figure 8. Damage limits of the 3.30m0.25m shear wall

7. CONCLUSION The study presents an investigation on the comparison of results the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis given in TSC, EC8 and ASCE41 by considering a five-story building. It is found that these three codes yield close top displacement demands. For this specific building, the inter-story drifts of these procedures are also close to each other except, uniform (rectangular) lateral load pattern which is recommended by EC8. It seems that none of the NSPs have the ability to predict the dynamic shear amplification in the shear walls. Furthermore, it was also expected that damage limits of the codes for the structural members show a wide variation, because they consider different parameters to check the inelastic deformation, i.e., controlled damages. As it is well known, the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses give more realistic results on the behavior of the structural system. However, they require more assumption as well as more detailed information on the structural system, which is not easy to find. The detailed numerical results of the nonlinear analyses are as reliable as the assumptions are.
REFERENCES Nassar, A. A., Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems. Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Researh Center, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Standford University, Standford, California Miranda, E. (2000). Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. Journal of Structural Engineering 126:10, 1150-1159. Chopra, A. K., Chintanapakdee, C. (2004). Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: SDOF bilinear systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 130:9, 1309-1319. CEN (2005), EN 1998-3 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels ASCE (2007), Seismic Rehabilitation and Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE Standard No. ASCE/SEI 4106, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Krawinkler, H. (2006). Importance of good nonlinear analysis. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 15:5, 515-531. TSC (2007), Requirements for buildings to be built in seismic regions, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey