CONCEPT OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF MULTYSTORY BUILDING UNDER WIND AND SEISMIC LOADS By BASSAM BLAL Presented

to the Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Engineering Bucharest Romania DISSERTATION For the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In Structural Design Engineering In Technical University of Civil Engineering-Bucharest Scientific Prof.univ.dr,ing. Constantin PAVEL JUNE 2010

TABLE OF Contents
Chapter A. Multistory and Tall Buildings...................................4
A.1. INTRODUCTION.......4

Chapter 1. Wind Load .....................................................................5

1.1. DESIGN EXAMPLE UBC 1997... 6

Chapter 2. Seismic Design ............................................................... 7

2.1. INTRODUCTION .... 7

Chapter 3. Advanced Earthquake Engineering Performance Based Design ....................................... 10

3.1. INTRODUCTION .... 10 3.2. BASIC METHODOLOGY OF PBSD .... 11 3.3. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES .... 11

Chapter 4. Case Studies ...................................................................14

4.1. INTRODUCTION .... 14 4.2. CASE STUDY I - 7 Story RC BUILDING .... 14 4.2.1. Building Description .... 14 4.2.2. Building Instrumentation .... 15 4.2.3. Description of Structural Model .... 16 4.2.4. Nonlinear Time-History and Pushover Analysis Results .... 16 4.3. CASE STUDY II - 10 Story RC BUILDING .... 23 4.3.1. Building Description .... 23 4.3.2. Building Instrumentation .... 23 4.3.3. Description of Structural Model .... 24 4.3.4. Nonlinear Time-History and Pushover Analysis Results .... 25 4.4. CASE STUDY III - 13 Story RC BUILDING .... 27

4.4.1. Building Description .... 27 4.4.2. Building Instrumentation .... 28 4.4.3. Description of Structural Model .... 29 4.4.4. Nonlinear Time-History and Pushover Analysis Results .... 29

Chapter 5. Research Synthesis, Conclusions and Recomandations...........................................31 References ..................................33 Authors CV ..................................35

A- MULTISTORY AND TALL BUILDINGS

A-1. INTRODUCTION
While the world is full of interesting structures, large and small, old and modern, the most eye-catching and the ones that instill the greatest sense of wonder in the onlooker are the modern skyscrapers. They are monuments of power and prestige, supreme achievements in engineering and design, comforting landmarks, testimonials to the human spirit, and public relations at the highest level. When considering skyscrapers, until recently, the observer was drawn to great cities such as New York and Chicago. Today, after a century during which New York and Chicago went unchal- lenged as home to the worlds tallest modern buildings, the crown has been snatched first by Kuala Lumpurs twin Petronas Towers, then by Taipeis 101 Tower, and recently by the Burj Dubai, the 162 floor, mostly residential concrete tower in Dubai. In New York, the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and with 102 stories stood at no less than 1250 ft height (see Figure A.1. a). Among the many astonishing features of the building is the fact that it has no less than 73 elevators, although not all traverse the full height. Amazingly it was built in the relatively short period of 410 days. After the completion of the Empire State Building, architects began to explore more extensive use of materials such as glass and metal to replace the traditional masonry cladding of the building. The ultimate expression of the trend were the twin towers of the World Trade Center (WTC), as shown in Figure A.1.b, which became the worlds tallest building in 1972 with each tower reaching up to 1368 ft and to 1727 ft with the addition of TV and other antennas. To turn to the worlds tallest towers, it might be surprising to find that the three highest towers in the world lie outside of China and the United States. In Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, are the Petronas Towers standing side by side at a height of 1483 ft (see Figure A.2). The accolade of the worlds tallest building, not accounting for yet to be completed Burj Tower, goes to Taipei 101 Tower, which stands at 1671 ft in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan. The Burj Dubai shown in Figure A.3 is a super-tall skyscraper in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. The tower is composed of a Y-shaped floor plan with setbacks occurring at each segment in an upward-spiraling pattern, decreasing the cross section of the tower as it reaches toward the sky. Tall buildings have fascinated humans from the beginning of civilization as evidenced by the pyramids of Giza, Egypt; the Mayan temples of Tikal, Guatemala; and the Kutub Minar of Delhi, India. The motivation behind their construction was primarily for creating monumental rather than human habitats. By contrast, contemporary tall buildings are primarily a response to the demand by commercial activities, often developed for corporate organizations as prestige symbols in city centers. The Burj Dubai shown in Figure A.3 is a super-tall skyscraper in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. The tower is composed of a Y-shaped floor plan with setbacks occurring at each segment in an upward-spiraling pattern, decreasing the cross section of the tower as it

reaches toward the sky. Four season Hotel shown as a multistory modern building in Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

Four season Hotel-Damascus-Syria

Burj Dubai

FIGURE A.3

CHAPTER 1 Wind Loads

1.1. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In designing for wind, a building cannot be considered independent of its surroundings. The inuence of nearby buildings and land conguration on the sway response of the building can be substantial. The sway at the top of a tall building caused by wind may not be seen by a passerby, but may be of concern to those occupying its top oors. There

is scant evidence that winds, except those due to a tornado or hurricane, have caused major structural damage to new buildings. However, a modern skyscraper, with lightweight curtain walls, dry partitions, and high-strength materials, is more prone to wind motion problems than the early skyscrapers, which had the weight advantage of masonry partitions, heavy stone facades, and massive structural members. To be sure, all buildings sway during windstorms, but the motion in earlier tall buildings with heavy full-height partitions has usually been imperceptible and certainly has not been a cause for concern. Structural innovations and lightweight construction technology have reduced the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of modern buildings. In buildings experiencing wind motion problems, objects may vibrate, doors and chandeliers may swing, pictures may lean, and books may fall off shelves. If the building has a twisting action, its occupants may get an illusory sense that the world outside is moving, creating symptoms of vertigo and disorientation. In more violent storms, windows may break, creating safety problems for pedestrians below. Sometimes, strange and frightening noises are heard by the occupants as the wind shakes elevators, strains oors and walls, and whistles around the sides. Following are some of the criteria that are important in designing for wind: 1. Strength and stability. 2. Fatigue in structural members and connections caused by uctuating wind loads. 3. Excessive lateral deection that may cause cracking of internal partitions and external cladding, misalignment of mechanical systems, and possible permanent deformations of nonstructural elements. 4. Frequency and amplitude of sway that can cause discomfort to occupants of tall, exible buildings. 5. Possible buffeting that may increase the magnitude of wind velocities on neighboring buildings. 6. Wind-induced discomfort in pedestrian areas caused by intense surface winds. 7. Annoying acoustical disturbances. 8. Resonance of building oscillations with vibrations of elevator hoist ropes.

1.1. Design Examples, UBC 1997 Eleven-Story Building: UBC 1997. Given. Eleven-story communication building deemed necessary for post-disaster emergency communications, Iw = 1.15 Building height 120 ft (36.6 m) consisting of 2 bottom oors at 15 ft (4.6 m) and 9 typical oors at 10 ft (3.05 m) Exposure category = C Basic wind speed V = 100 mph

 Building width = 60 ft Required. Design wind pressures on primary wind-resisting system. Solution. The design pressure is given by the chain equation p = CeCq qs Iw The values of Cethe combined height, exposure, and gust factor coefcient tabulated in Table 1.4are taken directly from Table 1.2. Note that for suction on the leeward face, Ce is at the roof hight, and is constant for the full height of the building. The wind pressure qs corresponding to basic wind speed of 100 mph is given by qs = 0.00256V 2 qs = 0.00256 1002 = 25.6 psf The values of pressure coefcient Cq, obtained using the normal force method (Method 1), are 0.8 for the inward pressure on the windward face, and 0.5 for the suction on the leeward face. Because the building is less than 200 ft (61 m), the combined value of 0.8 + 0.5 = 1.3 may be used throughout the height to calculate the wind load on the primary wind-resisting system. Observe that Method 2 (projected area method) yields the same value of Cq = 1.3. Design pressures and oor-by-oor wind loads are shown in Table 1.4. Notice that the wind pressure and suction on the lower half of the rst story (between the ground and 7.5 ft aboveground) is commonly considered to be transmitted directly into the ground. The wind load at each level is obtained by multiplying the tributary area for the level by the average of design pressures above and below that level. Analytical Procedure: Step-by-Step Process Design wind pressure or suction on a building surface is given by the equation: Pz = qzGf Cp (1.2.5.3)

CHAPTER 2 Seismic Design

2.1. INTRODUCTION
The seismic analysis and design of buildings has traditionally focused on reducing the risk of loss of life in the largest expected earthquake. Building codes have based their provisions on the historic performance of buildings and their deciencies and have developed provisions around life safety concerns, i.e., to prevent collapse under the most intense earthquake expected at a site during the life of a structure. These provisions are based on the concept that the successful performance of buildings in areas of high seismicity depends on a combination of strength, ductility manifested in the details of construction, and the presence

of a fully interconnected, balanced, and complete lateral-force-resisting system. In regions of low seismicity, the need for ductility reduces substantially. In fact, in some instances, strength may even substitute for a lack of ductility. Very brittle lateral-force-resisting systems can be excellent performers as long as they are never pushed beyond their elastic strength. In general, most earthquake code provisions implicity require that structures be able to resist 1. Minor earthquakes without any damage. 2. Moderate earthquakes with negligible structural damage and some nonstructural damage. 3. Major earthquakes with some structural and nonstructural damage but without collapse. The structure is expected to undergo fairly large deformations by yielding in some structural members. It is important to distinguish between forces due to wind and those induced by earthquakes. Earthquake forces result directly from the distortions induced by the motion of the ground on which the structure rests. The magnitude and distribution of forces and displacements resulting from ground motion is inuenced by the properties of the structure and its foundation, as well as the character of the ground motion. An idea of the behavior of a building during an earthquake may be grasped by considering the simplied response shape shown in figure 2.2.1. As the ground on which the building rests is displaced, the base of the building moves with it. However, the building above the base is reluctant to move with it because the inertia of the building mass resists motion and causes the building to distort. This distortion wave travels along the height of the structure, and with continued shaking of the base, causes the building to undergo a complex series of oscillations. Although both wind and seismic forces are essentially dynamic, there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which they are induced in a structure. Wind loads, applied as external loads, are characteristically proportional to the exposed surface of a structure, while the earthquake forces are principally internal forces resulting from the distortion produced by the inertial resistance of the structure to earthquake motions. The magnitude of earthquake forces is a function of the mass of the structure rather than its exposed surface. Whereas in wind design, one would feel greater assurance about the safety of a structure made up of heavy sections, in seismic design, this does not necessarily produce a safer design. Structures that are built into the ground and extended vertically some distance aboveground respond as either simple or complex oscillators when subjected to seismic ground motions. Simple oscillators are represented by single-degree-of-freedom systems (SDOF), and complex oscillators are represented by multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems. A simple oscillator is represented by a single lump of mass on the upper end of a vertically cantilevered pole or by a mass supported by two columns, as shown in figure 2.11.2. The idealized system represents two kinds of structures: 1) a single-column structure with a relatively large mass at its top; 2) a single-story frame with exible columns and a rigid beam.

Figure 2.11.2 Idealized single-degree-of-freedom system

The stiffness K of the system is the force F divided by the corresponding displacement . If the mass is deected and then suddenly released, frequency of free vibrations is called natural or fundamental frequency of vibration. The reciprocal of frequency is the period of vibration. It represents the time for the mass to move through one complete cycle. The period T is given by the relation:
T = 2 M K

(2.11.1)

In an ideal system having no damping, the system would vibrate forever (figure 2.11.3). In a real system, where there is always some damping, the amplitude of motion will gradually decrease for each cycle until the structure comes to a complete stop (figure 2.11.4). The system responds in a similar manner if, instead of displacing the mass at the top, a sudden impulse is applied to the base.

Figure 2.11.3 Undamped free vibrations of a single-degree-of-freedom system Buildings may be analyzed as multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems by lumping story-masses at intervals along the length of a vertically cantilevered pole. During vibration, each mass will deect in one direction or another. For higher modes of vibration, some masses may move in opposite directions. Or all masses may simultaneously deect in the

same direction as in the fundamental mode. An idealized MDOF system has a number of modes equal to the number of masses. Each mode has its own natural period of vibration with a unique mode shaped by a line connecting the deected masses. When ground motion is applied to the base of the multimass system, the deected shape of the system is a combination of all mode shaped, but modes having periods near predominant periods of the base motion will be excited more than the other modes. Each mode of a multimass system can be represented by an equivalent single-mass system having gener alized values M and K for mass and stiffness. The generalized values represent the equivalent combined effects of story masses mi and stiffness ki. This concept, shown in figure 2.11.4, provides a computational basis for using response spectra based on single-mass systems for analyzing multistoried buildings. Given the period, mode shape, and mass distribution of a multistoried building, we can use the response spectra of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system for computing the deected shape.

Figure 2.11.4 Damped free vibration of a single-degree-of-freedom system

CHAPTER 3 Advanced Earthquake Engineering Performance Based Design

3.1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, researchers have adopted and developed a new approach in the earthquake resistant design of the structures instead the code-to-follow empirical formulations, this modern tendency is the performance-based seismic design PBSD or PBEE, which is an attempt to design buildings with an expected degree of damages, or in other words, to predict the response of a building with a predictable seismic performance. The PBEE was developed and used in the design and construction of vehicles, after was adopted by earthquake engineering researchers. PBSD implies design, evaluation, and construction of engineered facilities whose performance under common and extreme loads responds to the diverse needs and objectives of owner-users and society. PBSD is based on the premise that performance can be predicted and evaluated with sufficient confidence for the engineer and client jointly to make intelligent and informed decisions based on building life-cycle considerations rather

10

than on construction costs alone [1]. The PBSD based on the fact that the civil engineer must put his signature by his engineering judgement by selecting with the owner a priori a performance objective to be achieved and design the structure for this level of performance. However, this new partnership between the engineer and the owner is the new philosophy of the new codes (especially now in United States) and the future codes, in which the engineer educates his owner in the first stage of selecting the performance level. Furthermore, the PBSD is regarded as the basis of the building code of the future.

3.2. BASIC OF PBSD

METHODOLOGY

Figure 3.2.1 illustrates the PBSD process. It includes an iterative evaluation, beginning by selection of appropriate performance objective, development of one or more preliminary designs the designer believes will be capable of achieving these objectives, assessment of each designs ability to perform as desired, and revision of the design until the desired performance capability is successfully demonstrated. However, performance objective such as life safety LS, collapse prevention CP, or immediate occupancy IO are used to define the state of the building following a design earthquake [3].

3.3.PERFORMANCE BJECTIVES
Based on the requirements of the Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40) [4] the performance objective has two parts: a damage state and a level of seismic hazard. Seismic performance is described by designating the maximum allowable damage state (performance level) for an identified seismic hazard (earthquake ground motion). In this stage and in order to utilize PBSD effectively and intelligently, one need to be aware of the uncertainties involved in both structural performance and seismic hazard estimations. It should be noted that the ATC-40 requirements are addressed to the evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, in contrast the FEMA-273 [5] prescriptions which are addressed to the design of new buildings as well as for existing ones. The performance level for a building during earthquake is measured by the nature and the extent of the potential losses. Obviously, the level of performance is affected by the strength of each earthquake. According to the ATC-40, the overall building performance level is a combination of structural performance level (SP-1 to SP6) and nonstructural level (SP-A to SP-E), as illustrated in figure 3.2.2.

11

Figure 3.3.1 Performance-based design process (source: Ronald O. HAMBURGER) [2-2]) Table 3-1 of ATC-40 gives the recommended combinations of SP and NP to from building performance levels.Now the ATC-58 [2] project (will be done in the near future) has an important goal, is to utilize performance objectives that are quantifiable and predictable, as well as meaningful and useful for the decision makers who must select or approve the objectives used as a basis for design (Hamburger) [2]. However, now the decision makers view seismic performance from a different perspective and select desired performance using different decision making processes.

Figure 3.3.2 Structural Performance level and Non-Structural performance level

12

1. For the global building response, verify: The lateral force resistance has not degraded by more than 20% of the peak resistance. The lateral drift limits satisfy the limits given in the table 3.7.2. 2. Identify and classify the different elements in the building in the following types: beam-column frames, slab-column frames, solid walls, coupled walls, perforated walls, punched walls, floor diaphragms and foundations. 3. Identify all primary and secondary elements. 4. For each element type, identify the critical components and actions to check as detailed in Chapter 11 of ATC-40 [4]. 5. The strength and deformation demands at the performance point should be equal to or less than the capacities detailed in Chapter 11 of ATC-40. 6. The performance of secondary elements (such as gravity load carrying members not part of the lateral load resisting system) are reviewed for acceptability for the specified performance level. 7. Non-structural elements are checked for the specified performance level. Table 3.7.2

To account for the problem of higher mode effects, the pushover analysis should be performed using corresponding force distribution (ATC-40). Another method, as mentioned above, which is the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) developed by Chopra and Goel [8] can be used with, which gives a good accuracy and accounts for higher modes effects. Furthermore, by the development of the CSM, Chopra and Goel proposed also to use the inelastic spectrum developed by Newmark and Hall (see [9]) which opens the challenge in this field. It should be noted that in this section an insight is given on the ATC-40 methodology, this is doesnt exclude the existence of other methods that are cited in the FEMA-273/274, or in another technical reports.

13

CHAPTER 4 Case Studies

4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter shall address the analysis of three multi-story reinforced concrete structures, designed and detailed according to U.S. design codes from 60s. All three structures are part of seismic instrumentation programs for civil buildings NSMIN (National Strong Motion Instrumentation Network), CSMIP (California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program), operated by CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology) and USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). All three constructions are placed in Californian seismic zone from the south-west of USA. For all three structures seismic response records of Northridge 1994 and Whittier Narrows 1987 earthquakes are available. The structures analyzed in this chapter are as it follows: 7 story RC frame structure, without basement. Dual moment-resisting frame coupled with shear walls eleven stories (S+10 above ground stories) structure. Along direction of analysis, horizontal loads are undertaken by moment-resisting frames. III. 15 story moment-resisting frames (2 basements + 13 stories above ground). The available seismic response records, allow calibration and validation of dynamical characteristics and strength capacity of the three structures, by comparing calculated and recorded response. For a better and more precise evaluation of seismic performance of the three structures, their seismic response to Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 earthquakes will be analyzed. For Vrancea 1977 earthquake, INCERC - Bucharest N-S component is considered. For Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake, N-S component is considered. The accelerograms of Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake were gradually scaled up to the level corresponding to first column failure (max > 4pl in a plastic hinge), or to a local failure mechanism appearance. One of the aims of numerical simulations in this chapter is to asses the exactity of high complexity analyses methods (pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses) in describing earthquake structural response of structures. Nevertheless, the possibility of the above mentioned methods to detect seismic response pecularities and structural design faults is investigated as well. I. II.

4.2. CASE STUDY I 7 Story RC Building

4.2.1. Building description
The construction Van Nuys 7 story hotel, is located in the district of Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley), 8244 Orion Avenue at latitude 34.321 and longitude 118.471 W. The building was designed (according Los Angeles City Building Code 1964 edition) in 1965 and constructed in 1966. The structure is cast-in-place. A photograph of the building is shown in figure 4.2.1.1.

14

In-plane dimensions of the building are about 160 x 62 (48.77 x 18.90 m). Total height of the building is 65.7 (20 m). The buildings has three spans (201 2010 201) and eight bays (8 x 18-9). The first story height is 4.12 m, the height of the rest of the stories is 2.65 m.

(a) (b) Figure 4.2.1.1 General view of the Holliday Inn 7 story hotel (a), 3D view of structural model (b) The structural system comprises moment-resisting frames and a flat slab-column system. The moment resisting frame is designed to carry most of lateral loads. It is placed at the exterior of the building. Exterior frames consist of 14 x 20 (356 x 508 mm) inches constant in cross-section columns, 16 x 30 inches (406 x 762 mm) beams at second story and 16 x 22 inch (406 x 0.559 mm) beams at the rest of the stories. The interior columns are squared - 20 inches in dimension at first story and 18 inches (406 mm) in dimension at the rest of the stories. The slab thickness is 10 inches at second story, 8.5 inches at 3rd to 7th stories and 8 inches at the roof. An important observation that can be done about structural system configuration concerns the disadvantageous orientation of column cross-sections of lateral longitudinal frames, i.e. with minor axis perpendicular with plane of lateral frame. The foundation of the building consists of isolated footings interconnected by fundation beams.

4.2.2. Instrumentation
The building is part of California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP Station 24386) operated by California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). It is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the epicenter of Northridge earthquake. The damage experienced during Northridge 1994 earthquake was heavy, building passing near collapse. The building instrumentation consists of sixteen sensors, recording motion on E-W, N-S and Up-Down directions. Acceleration spectra for Northridge 1994 is represented in figure 4.2.2.1 Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake acceleration spectra, as-recorded and scaled with 0.68 and 2.25 respectively, are represented as well. On the very same figure, the first three periods of the structure in longitudinal direction are indicated using vertical bars. Such kind of representation allow a quick and synthetic comparison of efects induced by the three considered earthquakes (Northridge 1994, Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995) upon structure.

15

16 14

Spectral Acc. [m/s/s]

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Northridge - ch.16 Vrancea sf = 1.00 Vrancea sf = 0.68 Al Aqaba sf = 1.00 Al Aqaba sf = 2.25 T1 T2 T3

1.5 2.0 Period [sec]

2.5

3.0

Figure 4.2.2.1 Acceleration spectra for Northridge 1994, Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995. T1, T2 and T3 first three periods of the building in longitudinal (E-W) direction.

4.2.3. Description of Structural Model

The building was analyzed in the E-W (longitudinal) direction. The building was modeled as three-dimensional structure. The floor diaphragms were assumed to be infinitely rigid. The vertical elements are assumed fixed at the ground level. After several trials, the effective stiffnes of the other structural elements is as follows: 0.45EI for columns and 0.30EI for beams. The damping level considered in modelling is 5 % from critical (Reileigh type damping). Actual material strength is 1.50 times design values for steel and concrete. Total mass of structure considered in nonlinear time-history and pushover analyses is about 4548.4 kNs2/m. The fundamental period of structural model in longitudinal direction is practicly identical with the one obtained using seismic records, T1 = 1.534 sec.

4.2.4. Nonlinear Time-history and Pushover Analysis Results

The comparison between recorded and calculated longitudinal displacement response at roof for 1994 Northridge earthquake is presented in figure 4.2.4.1. Up to second 9.00, structural model aproximates with sufficient exactity recorded structural rsponse. Subsequent differences appear after the 4th story columns fail in shear.

16

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 0 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25

Roof Displacement [m]

10

12

14

Recorded Calculated Time [sec]

Figure 4.2.4.1 Comparison between calculated and recorded roof displacement time-history plot In figure 4.2.4.2, deformed shape of structure and plastic hinges configuration at 12.00 seconds are presented. Although number of plastic hinges is important, no excessive plastic rotation occurred (max / yield < 4). Considering the great number of hinges appeard during analysis, it is easy to figure out that energy dissipated through plastic deformations in each plastic hinges is small, which lead to relatively small plastic rotations. The plastic hinge configuration is close to the one corresonding to the ideal plastic mechanism (plastic hinges at beam ends and at the bottom end of first story columns). However, the actual configuration differs from the ideal one by plastic hinges appeared at the 4th story (figure 4.2.4.2). Total number of hinges sorted by plastic rotation is displayed in table 4.2.4.1. Because of the difficulties in formulating constitutive laws for M-N plastic hinges that take into account shear failure, certain quantitative errors present in the analysis might be explained by the level of aproximation admited in describing plastic hinge behavior. Besides the important number of plastic hinges, Northridge 1994 earthquake nonlinear time-history analysis shows that top ends of 4th story columns of lateral frames (which undertake almost entire lateral load) are, with little exceptions, plastified. This effect is due strength capacity reducement as longitudinal reinforcement reduces from 6 # 9 la 6 # 7 at 3rd floor.

Figure 4.2.4.2 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration for Northridge earthquake at 12.00 seconds In figure 4.2.4.3 base shear vs. top displacement for Northridge 1994 earthquake timehistory and pushover analyses are presented. On the plot, absolute values for base shear force

17

and top displacement are represented. The two pushover loading patterns are as it follows: mode 1 loading pattern; pattern 2 lateral loads with distribution along height simmillar to absolute maximum base shear force distribution. One can observe pushover curve coresponding to pattern 1 enclose most of nonlinear time-history base shear force values with one exception a relatively narrow time interval centered on 8.40 second, in which superior modes influence in structural response is more significant.
8000 6000 Base Shear [kN] 4000 2000 0 0 0.15

Northridge Pushover - pattern 1 Pushover - mod1

0.3

0.45

Roof disp. [m]

Figure 4.2.4.3 Absolute base shear force vs. roof displacement for Northridge 1994 earthquake time-history analysis and pushover analyses considering two loading patterns Pushover loading patterns used for 7 story building analysis (other loading patterns than the one corresponding to mode 1) are indicated bellow: - Pattern 1 horizontal loading with distribution simmilar to absolute maximum base shear force distribution for Northridge 1994 earthquake. - Pattern 2 horizontal loading with distribution simmilar to absolute maximum base shear force distribution for Vrancea 1977 earthquake. - Pattern 4 horizontal loading with distribution simmilar to absolute maximum base shear force distribution for Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake.
7 Northridge 6 5 Story 4 3
3 Story Roof 7 6 5 4

2
2

1 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 DRIFT [%] 2.00 2.50

Northridge

1 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Abs.Acc.[m/s/s] 5.0

(a) (b) Figure 4.2.4.4 Drift and absolute acceleration envelope for Northridge 1994 earthquake

18

Further on, some of the results obtained for time history analyses with Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 are presented. Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake accelerograms were gradually scaled, up to the level corresponding to first column failure (max > 4pl in a plastic hinge), or to a local failure mechanism appearance.
0.5

0.5 D is p la ce m en t [m ]
3rd story Roof

D isp lac em e n t [m ]

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0 5 10 Time [sec]

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0 5 10 Time [sec]

3rd story Roof

15

20

15

20

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.2.4.5 3rd floor and roof displacement time-history plots for Vrancea 1977 unscaled (a) and scaled with 1.25 (b) In figure 4.2.4.5 (a) and (b) it can be seen for Vrancea 1977 earthquake (as-recorded and scaled with 1.25) that after 6.80 second important plastic deformations appear.

Figure 4.2.4.6 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration for Vrancea earthquake at 6.86

Figure 4.2.4.7 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration for Vrancea earthquake scaled with 1.25, at 6.82 seconds

19

As can be seen in figures 4.2.4.5, 4.2.4.6, and 4.2.4.7, for Vrancea 1977 earthquake the structure is at its strength limit.
8000 6000 Base Shear [kN] 4000 2000 0 0 0.15

Vrancea Pushover - pattern 2 Pushover - mod1

0.3

0.45

Roof disp. [m]

Figure 4.2.4.8 Absolute base shear force vs. roof displacement for Vrancea earthquake time-history and pushover analyses Obs: pattern mod 1 similar to mode 1 imposed displacements loading pattern; load pattern 2 simmilar to lateral load distribution at second 7.46 of Vrancea earthquake time-history analysis (at sec. 7.46 base shear is maximum). For Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake, structural system has linear-elastic behavior. For a more eficient use of Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake in , the accelerogram will be scaled with 4.66. The value of scalling factor (4.66) was chosen so that maximum plastic rotation dont exceed 4pl.
Vrancea f = 1.00 Vrancea f = 1.25
Roof 7 6 Story 5 4 3 Vrancea f = 1.25 Vrancea f = 1.00

7 6 5

Story

4 3 2 1 0.00 1.50 3.00 DRIFT [%] 4.50

2 1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Abs.Acc.[m/s/s]

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.2.4.9 Drift and absolute acceleration envelope for Vrancea earthquake

20

0.06 D is p la c e m e n t [m ]
D is p la c e m e n t [m ]

0.3

0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 5

3rd story Roof

0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 5

3th story Roof

10

15

20

25

30

10

15

20

25

30

Time [sec]

Time [sec]

(a) (b) Figure 4.2.4.10 3rd story and roof displacement time-history plot for Al Aqaba 1995. As-recorded (a) and scaled with a factor of 4.66 (b) Nonlinear time-history analysis for Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake scaled with 4.66 reveal the appearance of important plastic deformations. As figures 4.2.4.10 (b) si 4.2.4.11 show, these deformations are mainly concentrated at stories 4 and 5.

Figure 4.2.4.11 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration for Al Aqaba earthquake, scaled with 4.66, at 23.1 seconds
10000 8000 Base Shear [kN] 6000 4000 2000 0 0
Al Aqaba f = 4.66 Pushover - pattern 4 Pushover - mod1

0.15
R o of di sp. [ m ]

0.3

Figure 4.2.4.12 Absolute base shear force vs. roof displacement for Al Aqaba earthquake time-history and pushover analyses

21

Similarities in response spectra of Northridge 1994 and Al Aqaba 1995 (scaled with 4.66) can be seen in structural response as well maximum drift and maximum absolute acceleration for the two earthquakes are quite similar.
7 6 5

Al Aqaba f = 1.00 Al Aqaba f = 4.66

Roof 7 6 Story 5 4 3

Story

4 3 2

1 0.00 1.00 2.00 DRIFT [%] 3.00

1 0.0

Al Aqaba f = 4.66 Al Aqaba f = 1.00 1.5 3.0 Abs.Acc.[m/s/s] 4.5

Figure 4.2.4.17 Drift and absolute acceleration envelope for Al Aqaba earthquake In table 4.2.4.1 column plastic rotation informations are centralized. Due to important number of plastic hinges opened in structural elements during the three earthquake analyses (and by that low energy dissipation requirement in plastic hinges), maximum plastic rotations in column hinges dont exceed 4pl. Table 4.2.4.1 Total number of column plastic hinges Acc. scale factor 1 1 0.68 1 2.25 Number of column hinges with max / Y between 1..4 73 184 163 0 87 4..6 0 24 24 0 0 >6 0 23 0 0 0

Earthquake Whittier Narrows Vrancea '77 Vrancea '77 Al Aqaba Al Aqaba

For the other two structures simmilar type of calculations were performed. A few of them shall be presented bellow.

22

4.3. CASE STUDY II 10 Story RC Building

4.3.1 Building description
The construction Lutheran Whittier Tower Building, is located in Los Angeles metropolitan area (City of Whittier, 7215 Bright Avenue) at latitude 30.98 and longitude 118.04 W. The building was designed (according UBC 1970) and constructed in 1972. A photograph of the building and of structural model is shown in figure 4.3.1.1.

(a) (b) Figure 4.3.1.1 General view of the Lutheran Whittier Tower (a); 3D view of structural model (b) The structural system in longitudinal (north-south) direction comprises a momentresisting frames designed to carry most of lateral loads in the exterior frames. Exterior frames consist of 20 x 20 (508 x 508 mm) in columns and 24 x 24 inch (610 x 610 mm) beams. The interior frames consist of columns with squared 16 inch (406 mm) cross-section and a 6 inch (165 mm) thick cast-in-place flat plate. In transverse direction, the structural system consist in shear walls coupled with moment resisting frames. The shear walls are disposed at the ends of the building axes 2 and 13, and in the vicinity of elevator shaft (axes 7 and 8). The frames in the remaining lines are very flexibile column flat plate, so that the most important part of transverse lateral loading is undertaken by walls. The foundation of the building consists of spread footings. The bassement has in-plane extents greater than the building and strong perimetral walls. In-plane dimensions of the building are 1834 x 642 (55.92 x 19.57 m) for first 1-2 story and 1834 x 528 (55.92 x 16.06 m) for the rest of the stories. The total height of the building is 90 (27.51 m). The first story height is 12 (3.66 m), the height of the rest of the stories is 88 (2.65 m).

4.3.2 Instrumentation
The building is part of National Strong-Motion Instrumentation Network (NSMIN) operated by U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). The building instrumentation consists of three SMA analog accelerographs, each capable to record three components of the motion. The location of instruments can be seen in figure 4.3.2.1 (bassement, 5th floor and 10th floor).

23

Figure 4.3.2.1 Building instrumentation scheme In figure 4.3.2.2 the following acceleration response spectra are represented: - Whittier Narrows acceleration response spectra; - Vrancea 1977 as-recorded and scaled with 0.68; - Al Aqaba 1995 as-recorded and scaled with 2.25. Beside the five response spectra, the first three natural periods are marked on the plot by vertical bars.
14 12

Spectral Acc. [m/s/s]

10 8 6 4 2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Whitt.Narrows Vrancea sf = 1.00 Vrancea sf = 0.68 Al Aqaba sf = 1.00 Al Aqaba sf = 2.25 T1 T2 T3

1.5 2.0 Period [sec]

2.5

3.0

Figure 4.3.2.2 Acceleration spectra for Northridge 1994, Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995. T1, T2 and T3 first three periods of the building in longitudinal (E-W) direction.

4.3.3 Description of Structural Model

The building was analyzed in the N-S (longitudinal) direction. The building was modeled as three-dimensional structure. The floor diaphragms were assumed to be infinitely rigid. The vertical elements are assumed fixed at the bassement level. In-plane translation of column ends at first story is restrained (due to bassement perimetral strong shear walls). The width of slab interacting with interior columns was established according to ACI 318-08: C+3h, where C column width and h slab thickness. To account rapid bending stiffness degradation of the slab during earthquake, the effective stiffness of slab strips is taken 0.3EI. Shear walls are modeled with linear-elastic frame elements. This assumption is reasonable

24

because of the little influence exerted by walls working along minor inertia axis in N-S directional response. After several trials, the effective stiffnes of the other structural elements is as follows: 0.75EI for columns and 0.6EI for beams. The bending stiffness of shear walls working in longitudinal direction (along minor axis) is 0.6 EI. The damping level considered in modelling is 5 % from critical (Reileigh type damping). Actual material strength is 1.35/1.75 times design values for steel and concrete respectively. Total mass of structure considered for time-history analyses is 8969.4 kNs2/m. The first three natural periods of structure in longitudinal direction are in good accordance with the ones determined using seismic response records: T1 = 1.430 sec, T2 = 0.485 sec si T3 = 0.286 sec.

4.3.4 Nonlinear Time-history and Pushover Analysis Results

The comparison between recorded and calculated longitudinal displacement response at stories 5 and 10 for Whittier Narrows 1987 earthquake is presented in figures 4.3.4.1 and 4.3.4.2. The corelation between calculated and recorded is good.
0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 0 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05

Displacement [m]

10

Recorded Calculated Time [sec]

Figure 4.3.4.1 Comparison between calculated and recorded 5th story relative displacement time-history plot
0.08 0.06 Displacement [m] 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 0 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 Time [sec] 2 4 6 8 10

Recorded Calculated

Figure 4.3.4.2 Comparison between calculated and recorded 10th story relative displacement time-history plot

25

In figure 4.3.4.3, deformed shape of structure and plastic hinges configuration at second 4.48 (the time instant characterized by maximum deformaations) are presented. Concurently with field observation, degradation level is small - total number of plastic hinges is small and no excessive plastic rotation occurred (max / yield < 4). Yet, the wide majority of plastic hinges are formed in upper levels columns (this fact could be explained by flexural capacity reduction caused by axial stress reduction). The configuration of lateral frames determines a strong beam week column type behavior.

Figure 4.3.4.3 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration at sec 4.48

20000
Whittier Narrows

16000 Base Shear [kN] 12000 8000 4000 0 0

Pushover - pattern 1

0.1

0.2

0.3

10th story disp. [m]

Figure 4.3.4.5 Absolute base shear force vs. roof displacement for Whittier Narrows earthquake analyses and linear load pattern pushover analyses Note in pushover analysis the influence of shear walls was not considered (their bending and shear stiffnes was afected with very small coefficients).

26

4.4. CASE STUDY III 13 Story RC Building

4.4.1. Building description
The building, is located in Los Angeles metropolitan area (District of Sherman Oaks, Ventura Boulevard no.24322) at latitude 34.154 N and longitude 118.465 W. The building was designed (according to Los Angeles Civil Building Code 1964) and constructed in 1965. A photograph of the building and a 3D view of structural model is shown in figure 4.4.1.1. The building is a 15-story RC building, with two stories bellow ground level and thirteen above. The stories bellow ground are enclosed by structural walls. The building orientation is E-W in longitudinal direction. The lateral load resisting system is a frame structure with two spans of 27 ft (10.97 m) and seven bays of 27 ft (8.23 m). The height of transversal beams is 50 in (1.27 m) at the 2nd floor (above ground) and 33 in (0.84 m) for the rest of stories. Longitudinal beams have 24 x 32 rectangular cross-section. The exterior columns (except corner columns which are L shaped) are rectangular in cross-section 24 x 36 in (0.61 x 0.91 m) and the interior ones square, with 36 inches (0.91 m) in dimension. Transverse frames along lines F, G, H, J, K, L and E, M are identical to each other. The longitudinal frames 1A and 4 are identical as well (and symmetrical about 2A line). In longitudinal direction there are two secondary floor beams for every width.

(a) Figure 4.4.1.1 General view of the building

(b)

The foundation of the building consists of concrete 34-ft-deep piles. The soil is recent alluvial deposit and is generally only moderately firm with soft layers at varying depth.

27

4.4.2. Instrumentation
The building was part of instrumentation program conducted by California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). The building instrumentation consists of 15 installed accelerometers mounted at different locations (see figure 4.4.2.1). Before instrumentation, the building had experienced 1971 San Fernando earthquake when little damage occurred to structural system. The corner columns at stories 1 and 2, spandrel beams at 2nd story and basement walls suffered some damage (cracks and anchorage slippage). During 1994 Northridge earthquake the structural and non-structural elements sustained moderate damage as well. Epicentral distance was about 9.7 Km. Al 15 accelerometers triggered during earthquake.

Figure 4.4.2.1 Building instrumentation scheme

Spectral Acc. [m/s/s]

20 15 10 5 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Northridge Vrancea sf = 1.00 Vrancea sf = 1.2 Al Aqaba sf = 1.00 Al Aqaba sf = 5.00 T 1 = 2.94 sec T 2 = 0.98 sec T 3 = 0.55 sec

1.5 2.0 Period [sec]

2.5

3.0

Figure 4.4.2.4 Acceleration spectra for Northridge 1994, Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995. T1, T2 and T3 first three periods of the building in longitudinal (E-W) direction.

28

4.4.3. Description of Structural Model

The building was analyzed in the N-S (transversal) direction. The building was modeled as three-dimensional structure. The floor diaphragms were assumed to be infinitely rigid. The vertical elements are assumed fixed at the ground level. The width of slab interacting with interior columns was established according to ACI 318-08: C+3h, where C column width and h slab thickness. To account rapid bending stiffness degradation of the slab during earthquake, the effective stiffness of slab strips is taken 0.3EI. Shear walls are modeled with linear-elastic frame elements. This assumption is reasonable because of the little influence exerted by walls working along minor inertia axis in N-S directional response. After several trials, the effective stiffnes of the other structural elements is as follows: 0.75EI for columns and 0.6EI for beams. The bending stiffness of shear walls working in longitudinal direction (along minor axis) is 0.6 EI. The damping level considered in modelling is 5 % from critical (Reileigh type damping). Actual material strength is 1.35/1.75 times design values for steel and concrete respectively. Total mass of structure during seismic action was considered to be 20946 kNs2/m. The first three periods of structural model in transverse direction are in good accordance with the ones determined from seismic response records: T1 = 2.945 sec, T2 = 0.985 sec and T3 = 0.546 sec.

4.4.4. Nonlinear Time-history and Pushover Analysis Results

The comparison between recorded and calculated longitudinal displacement response at 8 story and roof for Northridge 1994 earthquake are presented in figures 4.4.4.1 and 4.4.4.2. As can be seen in the figures, the corelation between calculated and recorded response is good.
th

0.3
Roof Displacement [m]

0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0 3

Recorded Caculated

12

15

Time [sec]

Figure 4.4.4.1 Roof relative displacement time-history plot In figure 4.4.4.3 deformed shape and plastic hinge configuration for marginal (a) and interior (b) transversal frame at 11.60 seconds of Northridge 1994 earthquake. It can be observed from figure 4.4.4.3 the column plastic hinges are formed at the upper stories where axial load level (and so, the flexural capacity) is low.

29

0.20 8th Story Disp. [m] 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 0 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20
Recorded Caculated

12

15

Time [sec]

Figure 4.4.4.2 8th story relative displacement time-history plot

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.4.4.3 Deformed shape and plastic hinges configuration for Northridge 1994 earthquake at sec 11.60 (a) lateral transverse frame (b) interior transverse frame

28000 24000 20000 Base Shear [kN] 16000 12000 8000 4000 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Roof disp. [m]
Northridge Pushover - pattern 1

Figure 4.4.4.4 Absolute base shear force vs. roof displacement for Northridge time-history analysis and mode 1 load pattern pushover analysis

30

CHAPTER 5 Research Synthesis, Conclusions and Recomandations

Thesis objective is to analyze the concordance between the results of high complexity structural analysis methods (dynamic nonlinear and pushover analysis) and response records corroborated with field observations for reinforced concrete structures. For the study, three multi-story reinforced concrete structures from suthern California were considered. The considered structures were designed according to midd 60s and early 70s design codes. For the analyzed structures response records to Northridge 1994 earthquake and Whittier Narrows 1987 earthquake are available. The three structures are part of NSMIN - National Strong Motion Instrumentation Network and CSMIP (California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program) network. Some field observations established immediately after the above mentioned earthqakes are available too. The three reinforced structures are briefly described bellow. 1. 7 story reinforced concrete structure without basement, The structural system comprises moment-resisting frames and a flat slab-column system. The moment resisting frame is designed to carry most of lateral loads. It is placed at the exterior of the building. In-plane dimensions of the building are about 48.77 x 18.90 m. Total height of the building is 20 m. The buildings has three spans (6.10 m 6.70 m 6.10 m) and eight bays (8 x 5.70 m). The first story height is 4.12 m, the height of the rest of the stories is 2.65 m. 2. 11-story RC building, with one story bellow ground level and ten above. The structural system in the analyzed (longitudinal) direction comprises a lateral momentresisting frame (designed to carry most of lateral loads) asociated with columns with squared cross-section with a thick cast-in-place flat plate. In transverse direction, the structural system consist in shear walls coupled with moment resisting frames. In-plane dimensions of the building are 55.92 x 19.57 m for first 1-2 story and 55.92 x 16.06 m for the rest of the stories. The total height of the building is 27.51 m. The first story height is 3.66 m, the height of the rest of the stories is 2.65 m. 3. 15-story RC building, with two stories bellow ground level and thirteen above. The stories bellow ground are enclosed by structural walls. The lateral load resisting system is a frame structure with two spans of 10.97 m and seven bays of 8.23 m. Typical story height is 3.58 m and for the first (above ground) story 7.16 m. For the analyzed structures, static (pushover) and dynamic nonlinear (time-history) analyses were conducted. For dynamic nonlinear analyses, the following input accelerogram were considered: Northridge 1994 (for 7-story and 13-story RC buildings) and Whittier Narrows 1987 (for 10-story building) as accelerograms of earthquakes experienced by the structures and Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 to better describe the structural behavior and performances of the three structures. Vrancea 1977 (Romania) and Al Aqaba 1995 (Jordania) were used as-recorded and scaled with factors that correspond to maximum plastic rotations in column plastic hinges of about 4pl or to the appearnce of local failure mechanism in the structure. Static nonlinear anlyses were conducted considering imposed lateral displacements proportional with fundamental mode deformed shape in the analyzed direction and

31

considering horizontal forces distributed identically with maximum instantaneous lateral load distribution obtained in nonlinear time-history analyses. The results of nonlinear time-history analyses of the three structures for earthquakes they had experienced are generaly in good accordance with their recorded response. The position and magnitude of structural degradation (plastic hinges) broad into the light by nonlinear dynamic analyses are concurent with field observations. However, for the 7-story structure certain quantitative errors in calculated response are observed. These are mainly produced because of the level of simplification admited in describing column plastic hinge behavior. The constitutive model does not consider the possibility of shear failure for the columns. It has been observed during Northridge 1994 earthquake shear failure at 4th story columns. Nonlinear dynamic analyses conducted with Vrancea 1977 and Al Aqaba 1995 show some design faults. For 13-story structure, the value of scale factor considered for Al Aqaba 1995 earthquake (5.00), correspond to a local failure mechanism formation at first story. This fact reveal an important disadvantage in structural design of the structure, because no matter the type and intensity of a given earthquake, no local failure mechanisms are admitted.

CONCLUSIONS
The good accordance of calculated and recorded seismic response for the analyzed structures show the advanced structural analysis methods (nonlinear static and dynamic) as offering a high-fidelity image of the structural behavior during seismic action, especially for structures that can be modeled as 3D frame structures. In this case, the fidellity level of structural model is maximum, especially in post-elastic domain. The failure mechanisms can be defined accurately and precise. This is much more difficult to achieve in the case of dual or shear walls structures.

RECOMANDATIONS
1. For the constructions designed in seismic zone of Al Aqaba Jordania, nonlinear time-history analyses with local accelerograms must be performed. At the same time, amplified intensity local ground motions must be used in order to broad into light potential design faults like local failure mechanisms. Such failure mechanisms must be avoided for any intensity the earthquake might have. The overall colaps must take place by maximum plastic rotations exeedance in plastic hinges from beam ends. Failure by soft story mechanisms is totally restricted. 2. It is necessary to increase the number of seismic records and to create a ground motion database as a base for seismic design in Syria. Adopting seismic design codes without take into account the local conditions may conduct to potential faults in structural design.

32

References
1. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California, "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary", San Francisco, California, 1999 Vol 1 - SEAOC. 2. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, "Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994", Oakland, California, 1994. Available from PEER: http://peer.berkeley.edu/ 3. Computers & Structures, Inc., ETABS Integrated Building Analysis & Design, User Interface Manual,January 2006 4. Naeim Farzad 1997 Performance of extensively instrumented buildings during the January 1997, Northridge earthquake. Los Angeles: John A. Martin & Associates, Inc 5. ATC-33.03, "Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (75% complete draft), Volume I: Guidelines", Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, October 1995. 6. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building Code, 1997. 7. P100-1_2006 Code for A Seismic Design of Residential Buildings, Agro-zoo-technical and Industrial structures", Ministry of Public Works and Territory Planning. 8. Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), Standard Building Code, Birmingham, AL, 1993. 9. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, FEMA-222,Washington, DC, 1994. 10. Applied Technology Council, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC 3-06,Washington, DC, 1978. 11. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Loma Prieta Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement to Volume 6, May 1990. 12. Clough, R. W., and Benuska, K. L., "Earthquake Performance of High-Rise Buildings", Report to the Federal Housing Administration, T. Y. Lin and Associates, Van Nuys, CA, October 1965. 13. Jordan, R. M., "Evaluation of Strengthening Schemes for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame Structures Subjected to Seismic Loads", Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, May 1991. 14. Eduardo Miranda 1987 Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of Existing Buildings, Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley 15. Chopra, A. K., "Dynamics of Structures, A Primer", Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1981. 16. Clough, R.W., and Penzien, J., "Dynamics of Structures", McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 1975. 17. Biot, M. A., "A Mechanical Analyzer for Prediction of Earthquake Stresses", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 31, pp.151-171, 1941. 18. Biot, M. A., "Analytical and Experimental Methods in Engineering Seismology", Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 68, pp.49-69, 1942. 19. Housner, G. W., "An Investigation of the Effects of Earthquakes on Buildings", Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1941. 20. Miranda, E., Bertero, V., Evaluation of Seismic Performance of a Ten-Story RC Building During the Whittier Narrows Earthquake, Report EERC 91-10, October 1991, University of California at Berkeley. 21. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Combination of Modes and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis", Regulatory Guide 1.92, Washington, DC, 1976. 22. Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. M., "Earthquake Spectra and Design", Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1982. 23. Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M. A., "Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures", Structural Research Series No. 465, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, August 1979. 24. Kaazem Moslem and Mihailo D. Trifunac EFFECTS OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON THE RESPONSE OF BUILDINGS DURING THE STRONG EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Report No. 86-0 March 1986 25. Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M., "Engineering Data and Analyses of the Whittier, California, Earthquake of January 1, 1976", Report No. EERL 77-05, Nov. 1977, Caltech, Pasadena, California. 26. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Available from PEER: http://peer.berkeley.edu/ 27. Applied Technology Council, "Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings", ATC-20, Redwood City, CA, 1989. 28. Vision 2000 Committee, "VISION 2000, Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings", Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, CA, April 1995. 29. Evaluation of Seismic Capacity and Retrofitting of a Typical 12 Stories RC Frame Structure in Bucharest,

33

Romanian by DR. Mihai PAVEL* (For the course of Earthquake Engineering 2003 2004) 30. Sasani, M., Bertero, V., Anderson, J., Rehabilitation of Nonductile RC Frame Building Using Encasement Plates and Energy Dissipating Devices, Report PEER 12/1992, University at California at Berkeley 31. INCERC seismic station ACCELEROGRAMS RECORDEDIN THE INCERC NETWORK DURING THE VRANCEA EARTHQUAKES OF 1977 (Mw=7.5, h=109km) http://www.incerc2004.ro/accelerograms.htm 32. Vlado Gicev and Mihailo D. Trifunac Non-linesr Earthquake Waves in Seven-story Reinforced Concrete HotelReport CE 06-03 November, 2006 Los Angeles, California. 33. William T. Holmes, Helen M. Ferner, Margaret Longstreth Buildings Case Studies Project1994 Northridge Earthquake Proposition 122: Product 3.2 Edited by Rutherford & Chekene Seismic Safety Commission 1900 K Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95814 SSC 94-06 34. M.D. Trifunac and T.Y. Hao 7-Story Reinforced Concrete Building in Van Nuys, Photographs of the Damage from 1994 Northridge Earthquake Report CE 01-05 July, 2001 Los Angeles, California. http://www.usc.edu/dept/civil_eng/Earthquake_eng/ 35. Wilson E., "Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering" - Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, Third Edition - January 2002. 36. Li, Y.R. (1996), Non-Linear Time History And Pushover Analyses for Seismic Design and Evaluation, Ph.D. Dissertation University of Texas, Austin, TX. 37. Ukaji, Kenichi Analysis of soil-foundation-structure interaction during earthquakesBLUME-018, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Stanford, California, 1975-03, 195 pages (535U3941975) 38. Melbourne F. Giberson THE RESPONSE OF NONLINEAR MULTI-STORY STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION A report on research conducted under a grant from the National Science Foundation Pasadena, California 1967 39. Toshikazu Takeda, Mete A. Sozen and N. Norby Nielsen, Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated SrthquakesMembers, ASCE STRUCTURAL DIVISION Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 40. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP FEMA_222 FEMA _273 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS 41. Russel Martio Nonlinear Push-Over Analysis of Reinforced Concrete StructuresFAINAL REPORT Colorado Advanced Software Institute. 42. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97,(7), 1971, pp. 1969-1989. 43. Response-2000 Load-Deformation Response of Reinforced Concrete Sections by Evan C. Bentz and Michael P. Collins. Available from http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm 44. ATC40 Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Volume 1 ATC Applied Technology Council CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Report SSC 96-01 45. James A. Mahaney, Terrence F. Paret, Brian E. Kehoe, Sigmund A. Freeman THE CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD FOR EVALUATING STRUCTURAL RESPONSE DURING THE LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE CONFERENCE 1993. 46. SeismoSignal [2003] "Computer program for signal processing of strong motion data" [online]. Available from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com . 47. SIMQKE-II Erik H. Vanmarcke Gordon A. Fenton Ernesto Heredia-Zavoni Conditioned Earthquake Ground Motion SimulatorUser's Manual, Version 2 Feb 19, 1997 Copyright Princeton University 1996 All rights reserved

34

CURRICULUM VITAE (Biography)

BASSAM BLAL was born in Swaida City , and originally from Tartous City . Syrian Arab Republic on February 20,1962, the son of Mahmoud and Manar. After completion of his study in Tartous Sheikh Saad High School in 1979. He was admitted to The Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest Romania. He was graduated the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering with Honour in 1985.

Latest projects designed 1. KIDZANIA DUBAI MALL( Kids city 14 Buildings) 2. 12 Cinemas DUBAI MALL (REEL CINEMAS)

This Dissertation was typed by the Author.

35