Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

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 articial 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 dened 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; Timehistory collapse analysis; RC buildings; Fourier amplitude analysis

1. Introduction Inelastic timehistory analysis is a powerful tool for the study of structural seismic response. A set of carefully selected ground motion records can give an accurate evaluation of the anticipated seismic performance of structures. Despite the fact that the accuracy and efciency of the computational tools have increased substantially, there are still some reservations about the dynamic inelastic analysis, which are mainly related to its complexity and suitability for practical design applications. Moreover, the calculated inelastic dynamic response is quite sensitive to the characteristics of the input motions, thus the selection of a suite of representative acceleration timehistories is mandatory. This increases the computational effort signicantly. The inelastic static pushover analysis is a simple option for estimating the strength capacity in the post-elastic range. The technique may be also used to highlight potential weak areas in the structure. This procedure involves

* Corresponding author. Fax: +44 207 594 6053. E-mail address: a.elnashai@ic.ac.uk (A.S. Elnashai).

applying a predened lateral load pattern which is distributed along the building height. The lateral forces are then monotonically increased in constant proportion with a displacement control at the top of the building until a certain level of deformation is reached. The target top displacement may be the deformation expected in the design earthquake in case of designing a new structure, or the drift corresponding to structural collapse for assessment purposes. The method allows tracing the sequence of yielding and failure on the member and the structure levels as well as the progress of the overall capacity curve of the structure. The static pushover procedure has been presented and developed over the past twenty years by Saiidi and Sozen [1], Fajfar and Gaspersic [2] and Bracci et al. [3], among others. The method is also described and recommended as a tool for design and assessment purposes by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program NEHRP (FEMA 273) [4] guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Moreover, the technique is accepted by the Structural Engineers Association of California SEAOC (Vision 2000) [5] among other analysis procedures with various level of complexity. This analysis procedure is selected for its

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 7

408

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

applicablity to performance-based seismic design approaches and can be used at different design levels to verify the performance targets. Finally, it is clear from recent discussions in code-drafting committees in Europe that this approach is likely to be recommended in future codes. The technique has been evaluated in several previous studies [610], to some extent, with different emphasis. In most of the previous work, only comparative studies between dynamic and static pushover analysis have been assessed at certain loading levels, i.e. design level, or at equal top displacement (roof displacement from pushover equal to the maximum dynamic roof displacement). The results have been presented mainly in terms of global quantities, i.e. deformations, calculated hysteretic energy and structural damage indices. The main aim of this paper is to develop complete pushover-like load displacement curves from incremental dynamic analysis up to collapse for a range of structural congurations representing the most common types of RC building, including different structural systems, building heights, design acceleration and level of ductility. The dynamic pushover envelopes are then compared with the force deformation curves obtained from inelastic static pushover analysis considering different lateral loading patterns. The procedure offers an opportunity for full comparisons between the two methods of analysis up to ultimate collapse.

representative of a seismic design code applicable to more than one country. While the second and third groups are regular in plan and in elevation, the rst group exhibits two sources of irregularity in elevation. The rst storey has a greater height than the remaining ones and severance at the rst 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 congurations considered are 15 m20 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 rst 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 oor system is solid slab in groups 1 and 2, and a wafe slab in group 3. Live loads and loading from oor nishes 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 (rm). 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].

3. Modelling approach and assumptions 2. Description of the buildings In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives, twelve RC buildings are considered, split into three groups: sets of four 8-storey irregular frame, four 12storey regular frame and four 8-storey dual frame-wall structures. Within each group, combination of two design ground accelerations (0.15 and 0.30 g) and three design ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) lead to the four cases mentioned above. The selection of four cases for each conguration is motivated by the desire to compare the performance of structures design according to a ductility class set of rules but for different ground acceleration and for the same ground acceleration but different ductility class rules. The value of the force reduction factor (behaviour factor q in EC8 and response modication factor R in UBC) increases and rigorous standards on member detailing requirements are imposed for higher ductility classes. Table 1 shows the denition of the set of structures under consideration where the elastic force reduction factors used in the design as well as the observed elastic fundamental period, obtained from elastic free vibration analyses, are also given. Each building has been designed and detailed in accordance with Eurocode 8 [11], Parts 1-1 to 1-3, as a The inelastic analyses have been performed using the 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 bre 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 the member length. It is widely accepted that this technique is more accurate than the pointhinge models mainly used in many other programs, especially when large axial force variations exist. The program has been veried elsewhere [1416]. To accurately predict the inelastic seismic response of the structure with sufcient accuracy, due care has been given to create detailed and efcient models of the structures, taking into account all necessary geometric and strength characteristics of columns, beams and beam column connections. Towards minimising the computational requirements and the volume of input and output data to be handled, an effort was made to select powerful two-dimensional models that can provide, with appropri-

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

409

Table 1 Denition of the structural systems under analysis Group 1 Reference name IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015 No. of storeys and structural system 8-storey irregular frame Ductility class High Medium Medium Low High Medium Medium Low High Medium Medium Low Design acc. (g) 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.15 Force red. factor 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 3.75 3.75 2.50 3.50 2.625 2.625 1.75 Elas. fund. period (s) 0.674 0.654 0.719 0.723 0.857 0.893 0.920 0.913 0.538 0.533 0.592 0.588

12-storey regular frame

8-storey regular frame-wall

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

ate selection of parameter values, acceptable representation of the cyclic inelastic behaviour on member and structure levels, while guaranteeing numerical stability. The choice of two-dimensional modelling may be also justied in the light of satisfying basic code requirements

for such type of modelling. Two-dimensional analyses are undertaken in one direction only (global X-direction of frame structures and global Z-direction of frame-wall ones). This is supported by the fact that conservative response parameters will be obtained as a result of the

410

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

domination of gravity loads in long beam spans in the frame structures. On the other hand, the critical strain and shear criteria are expected to occur in the coupling beams in the dual structural systems. Taking advantage of symmetry, only the interaction of two distinct frames (one internal and another external) is considered. Both lateral load-resisting frames are assembled using an overlay approach, which is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the irregular frame structure. The two frames are coupled appropriately with regard to translational and rotational degrees of freedom by 2D joint elements to meet the assumption of innite in-plane stiffness of the slab in the normal direction. The structural mesh utilises three elements for beam column members, the lengths of which are determined on the basis of the critical member lengths. These lengths are determined according to EC8 provisions for different ductility classes. The ends of horizontal elements within the beamcolumn joints are considered rigid. Consequently, two elements are added to each beam at its extremities. Furthermore, shear spring connection elements are introduced to represent the shear stiffness of the beamcolumn connection. To simplify calculations of the shear stiffness of the joint, the force deformation relationship for both concrete and steel reinforcement within the joint is assumed to be linear elastic. Despite the simplicity of the joint modelling, global structural response obtained have been extensively compared and checked with analyses performed by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] and Panagiotakos and Fardis [18]. These show a good conceptual agreement with the current modelling results since the drift values are on the whole higher than the values by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] where no provision for beamcolumn connection behaviour was made. For the sake of brevity, only some results of the comparison are shown in Fig. 3. The results of the current study, for two of the 12-storey frame

buildings, are between results of the rigid beamcolumn joint modelling of the former and the exible, one member lumped plasticity modelling, of the latter where bar slip effects within the joints and member shear deformations are considered. Modelling of the core is achieved by making use of two exural elements, for each wall at each storey, in order to account for splicing of bars at mid-storey height. The elements are located at the centroid of the core Ushaped cross section and connected with beams at each storey level using two rigid links. In addition, ve elements are used to represent each coupling beam, with bidiagonal reinforcement represented by vectorial resolution of the inclined reinforcement area along the longitudinal and transverse directions. The same method is utilised to represent the bidiagonal shear reinforcement in some other beams and in the lower two storeys of the core of the FW-H030 and FW-M030 building. Reinforced concrete column-section and T-section are utilised for modelling of columns and beams, respectively. Both sections, taken from ADAPTIC library, allow the geometrical denition of the section as well as that of the conned concrete region within it. Taking into account the available cross sections in ADAPTIC library, a reasonable approximation is made to replace the original U-shaped section of the core of the framewall structures by a T-section, with the same stiffness properties. The approximation may be justied in the light of the two-dimensional modelling which neglects torsion and the regularity of the structure both in terms of stiffness and strength. Reinforcement patterns are varied for each section as a function of stirrup spacing in accordance with those specied in the design. Connement factors are evaluated as described in Eurocode 8, and varied along the member length 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 beamcolumn joint modelling.

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

411

Fig. 3.

Verication of modelling assumptions (a) RF-H030 building and (b) RF-L015 building (average for four articial accelerograms).

the beam width plus 7% of the clear span of the structural member on either side of the web. Horizontal and vertical structural members including core walls are modelled using two-dimensional cubic elasto-plastic beamcolumn elements, where a cubic shape function is used for the transverse displacement [13]. This formulation is intended to represent short lengths of RC elements, consequently, axial strain is assumed to be constant along the element length. The numerical integration of the governing equations for this element is performed over two Gauss sections, which have a xed position within the element length. The inelastic response of the cross section is assembled from contributions of individual layers for which inelastic cyclic material constitutive relationships are applied. The cubic elasto-plastic elements are combined with material models for concrete, which account for active connement and reinforcing steel with nonlinear hardening. On the concrete side, the uniaxial constant connement concrete model, Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai [19], has been chosen. For steel, the advanced multisurface steel model for cyclic plasticity, which denes the stressstrain response of steel in terms of a series of cubic polynomials, Elnashai and Izzuddin [20], is utilised. The parameters used in the material models are the mean values.

4. Load pattern and seismic action According to the data used in the design [12], a live load Q=2.0 kN/m2 is considered to calculate the total gravity loads on the frames, which is applied as point loads at nodes. Using the appropriate coefcients from EC8, the vertical loads are combined with seismic actions in a combination of 1.0G+0.15Q+EL for all stories except the top oor, where it was taken equal to

1.0G+0.30Q+EL. To account for inertia effects during dynamic analysis, masses are calculated in a manner consistent with the gravity loading combinations and are represented by lumped 2D mass elements. Due to the fact that the lateral force proles in static pushover analyses will inuence the structural response, three different load patterns have been utilised to represent the distribution of inertia forces imposed on the building. The rst shape is calculated as SRSS combinations (for the rst three modes) of the load distributions obtained from modal analyses of the buildings. The choice of this load shape is made to take into consideration the anticipated effect of higher modes of vibrations for moderate long period and irregular structures (the 12-storey and the 8-storey frame buildings), as well as for buildings with hybrid lateral resistance systems (the 8-storey frame-core structures). The design code lateral load pattern and a uniform load distribution shape have been also utilised. The latter represents the lateral forces that are proportional to the vertical distribution of the mass at various levels. On the other hand, the code lateral load shape represents the forces obtained from the predominant mode of vibration. The use of the uniform load shape may be justied in the light of a possible soft storey mechanism of the 8-storey irregular buildings. If this mechanism occurs the response will be controlled by a large drift in the rst storey. Therefore, this load distribution may give better predictions of the overall response. The inverted triangular (code) and the rectangular (uniform) load shapes also represent the extreme cases from the linear distribution point of view. The shape of the lateral load 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 modied with the changes in inertia forces during the actual earthquake. These changes mainly depend on the characteristics of both the

412

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

record and the structure. Several trials [2,3] have been made to permit of changes in inertia forces with the level of inelasticity through the use of adaptive load patterns. The underlying approach of this technique is to redistribute the lateral load shape with the extent of inelastic deformations. The load shape is suggested to be redistributed according to the global displacement shape, the level of storey shear demands or a combination of mode shapes obtained from secant stiffnesses. This redistribution is performed at each time step, which leads to a substantial increase in the computational effort. Moreover, the pushover analysis has not been widely established as yet in the design ofce environment. Therefore, for common types of building the need for more taxing approaches is by no mean fully established. The variable load distribution option may be appropriate for special and long period structures, despite that eminence of this technique has not been conrmed yet [9,10]. On this basis, the aforementioned xed load distribution shapes have been utilised for the current study. It is also worth mentioning that the NEHRP (FEMA 273) guidelines recommend utilising xed load patterns with at least two load proles. The rst shape should be the uniform load distribution and the other is the code prole or the load shape obtained from multimodal analyses. The code lateral load distribution is allowed if more than 75% of the total mass participates in the predominant mode. Timehistory analyses employ four articially generated 10-s duration acceleration records, referred to as Art-rec1 to Art-rec4, as well as two natural records. The articial accelerograms were generated to t the Eurocode 8 elastic response spectrum for medium soil class as shown in Fig. 4 for a PGA=0.3 g. The use of the articial accelerograms is in order to allow effective comparisons and calibrations with the design code. Moreover, the effect of the vertical component of the seismic excitation is worthy of consideration [21], particularly for the irregular frame structures where the

Fig. 4. Acceleration spectra for the articial accelerograms (5% damping).

planted columns are supported by long span beams. 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 given in Table 2, while their acceleration response spectra for 5% damping are shown in Fig. 5. In order to apply the outlined procedure for the evaluation of dynamic collapse envelopes, scaling of the records utilised is frequently required. The technique of scaling earthquake records to possess equal values of spectrum intensity was based on a proposal by Housner [23]. The spectrum intensity is dened as the area under the pseudo-velocity spectrum between certain period limits. It is suggested in the current study to modify the limits employed in the original method (between 0.1 and 2.5 s) to be between 0.8 Ty and 1.2 T2D, where Ty and T2D are the inelastic periods of the structure at global yielding and at twice the design ground acceleration, respectively. This follows the proposal of MartinezRueda [24,25], modied for the range used here. Therefore, the normalisation factor for an accelerogram (n) is equal to the ratio SIc/SIn. Where, SIc and SIn are the areas under the code velocity spectrum and the velocity spectrum of the scaled accelerogram, respectively. SIc and SIn are calculated between periods of 0.8 Ty and 1.2 T2D, as explained above. It is also worth mentioning that there is no need to use the aforementioned scaling method with the articial accelerograms since they are already spectrum-compatible. Hence, the four articial records are scaled according to their PGA. The buildings are analysed rst under the articial records at different PGA levels and the recorded top response time history is utilised to obtain the inelastic periods Ty and T2D of each building from Fourier analyses (average for four articial 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 buildings. Finally, it should be noted that the quoted values of PGA are not of the natural or scaled records but rather multiples of the design ground acceleration.

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

413

Table 2 Characteristics of records used in analysis Earthquake Date Ms Station PGA (g) Horiz. Kobe (Japan) 17/01/95 Loma Prieta (USA) 18/10/89 Articial Records Art-rec1, Art-rec2, Art-rec3, and Art-rec4 7.20 7.17 KBU SAR 0.276 0.319 Vert. 0.431 0.349 1.56 1.09 2 2 4 V/H No. of input runs

Fig. 5. Elastic spectra for the long. component of the natural records (5% damping). Table 3 Normalisation factors for ground acceleration 0.30 g Earthquake IF-buildings RF-buildings FW-buildings 0.30 0.61 1.25 0.30 0.56 1.32 Average 0.30 0.57 1.24

Articial 0.30 Kobe (KBU) 0.54 Loma Prieta 1.15 (SAR)

5. Collapse criteria and incremental dynamic collapse dynamic pushover results Three types of analyses have been performed using 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 rst lateral load prole 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 predened collapse limits are exceeded. In both static and dynamic analyses, permanent loads are rst applied and iteration to equilibrium is performed. This is followed by applying the horizontal action (loads or ground acceleration). The analysis

is both inelastic and geometrically nonlinear. The large displacement formulation is an updated Lagrangian form, where convected member axes are used to derive member deformations. The criteria used for dening collapse are classied 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 bre of the conned concrete and shear failure in any structural member. An empirical axial load-sensitive shear model capable of providing an experimentally veriable 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 eliminating the design safety factors. On the structure level, three collapse criteria are chosen: a limit corresponds to a maximum inter-storey drift of 3% of the storey height, formation of a sidesway mechanism and reduction in lateral resistance by considering the loaddisplacement curve of the structure. Additionally, the criterion used to dene global yield threshold, which is essential for the proposed scaling method of the records, is selected as the yield displacement of the equivalent elasto-plastic system with reduced stiffness evaluated as the secant stiffness at 75% of the ultimate load of the real system. The utilised shear models are implemented with other collapse and yield criteria in a post-processing program connected to ADAPTIC [28]. This post-processsor traces the shear supplydemand situation at each time step at both ends of all members. It also performs the appropriate calculations to evaluate the local and global response parameters of the structure and directly apply the selected criteria. The results of more than 1300 inelastic timehistory analyses were employed to perform regression analyses to obtain the dynamic pushover (ideal) envelope for each of the twelve examined buildings. Figs. 68 depict dynamic response points and the tted regression equations of the response of the buildings subjected to the eight seismic actions considered for all limit states. The tted envelopes for the upper and lower response points, the number of analyses carried out, the design base shear and the correlation coefcient for each case are also

414

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

Fig. 6.

Dynamic collapse analysis results for the irregular frame structures.

shown. The actual response of the 8-storey irregular frame structures illustrated in Fig. 6 show how the results of the eight seismic actions follow the same trend and shape the pushover envelopes without the need to apply curve tting. This is clear from the correlation coefcient values, which are almost invariably above 0.9. It is worth mentioning that the number of timehistory analyses shown on each graph varies according to the number of trials needed to identify the collapse and the yield limits, as discussed above. Concerning the 12-storey regular frame structures, Fig. 7 shows a higher scatter in the dynamic analysis results of different ground motions than the results of the 8-storey irregular frame buildings. Moreover, the scatter for the two buildings designed for the higher design ground acceleration gives the impression of being higher than the other pair of results. The low correlation of the former and the high correlation of the latter are reected in the correlation values which are equal to 0.69 and 0.66 for the rst pair and 0.93 and 0.88 for the second one. It should be noted that the main difference between the two pairs is in the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the structural members, while the

dimensions of the cross-sections for this group are the same except a slight changes, mainly in the beams crosssection width (from 0.35 m for the rst pair to 0.30 m for the second one). In spite of the aforementioned observations, the difference in scatter between the higher and the lower design ground acceleration pair diminishes when calculating the difference between the lower and the upper response envelope for each case (quotient of minimum and maximum strength for the eight records). This value is equal to 0.69 and 0.72 for the 0.30 g design ground motion pair and 0.76 and 0.74 for the other pair. This is more consistent since the calculated inelastic periods, which are the main cause of the different response, are very close for the four buildings, as subsequently discussed. Finally, the difference in the correlation values between the two pair of buildings can only be justied in the light of the lower number of runs (or response points) needed to achieve yield and collapse for each pair. This number is equal to 97 and 105 for the rst pair and 60 and 73 for the second one. The high sensitivity to changes in the input motion observed in the 12-storey frame buildings are also reected, to a lesser extent, in the 8-storey frame-wall

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

415

Fig. 7.

Dynamic collapse analysis results for the regular frame structures.

group. Fig. 8 illustrates the results of the timehistory analyses for this group. At collapse limit state, a scatter is observed for values of VMin/VMax shown in Table 4. A higher hardening stiffness is also observed for the 0.30 g design ground acceleration pair compared to the other pair. This is not observed in the other two groups of building. Previous analytical investigations [29,30] have indicated that base shear demands of wall structures are sensitive to higher mode effects. Once a plastic hinge has formed at the base of the wall, higher mode effects can considerably amplify the base shear as well as the shear at each storey level. The results shown in Fig. 8 conrm that such amplication may occur and could be large. It is also worth mentioning that the thickness of the core-walls for the higher design ground acceleration pair is 0.35 m, compared to 0.25 m for the other pair. This causes an increase in the mass at each storey level for the former, hence higher amplication of base shear demand. Alongside the high initial stiffness of this pair, the difference in response between the two pairs of building shown in Fig. 8 can be explained.

6. Contribution of the elongated period to the seismic response The scatter observed for some buildings is mainly in the post-elastic range, and is associated with the spread of yielding and member failure throughout the structure. Subsequently, the stiffness of the structure decreases, the fundamental period elongates and the distribution of the inertia forces along the building undergoes continuous change. To provide insight into the response of the investigated buildings, extensive analyses in the frequency domain (Fourier analyses) of the acceleration response at the top have been conducted to identify the predominant inelastic period of each building under consideration. Fig. 9 illustrates the calculated periods (average for the eight seismic actions) at the design and twice the design ground acceleration, along with the elastic period for each building calculated from eigenvalue analyses. It is clear to what extent the fundamental periods of the buildings are elongated as a result of the spread of

416

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

Fig. 8.

Dynamic collapse analysis results for the frame-wall structures.

Table 4 Observed response at global collapse for the eight records Group Reference name Roof disp. (mm) Max 1 IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015
a

Min/Max Mean 542 570 449 465 625 684 681 694 631 625 621 626 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.64 0.84 0.77 0.86 0.77 0.93 0.87 0.92 0.92

Base shear (kN) VMax 11,614 13,930 7699 9229 15,647 16,278 9743 12,735 20,821 23,300 12,724 16,153 VMin 9918 12,713 6663 8102 11,568 12,076 9234 11,009 15,520 18,123 8769 11,604 Mean 10,567 13,146 7123 8685 13,689 13,990 9453 11,972 17,849 20,738 10,642 13,425

VMin/VMax

Storeya

Min 503 500 381 380 580 611 630 607 599 576 590 598

613 635 492 590 690 796 735 785 643 660 643 652

0.85 0.91 0.87 0.88 0.74 0.74 0.95 0.86 0.75 0.78 0.69 0.72

1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2,

2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 3, 5, 3 3,

3, 4, 5 4, 8, 8, 8 9 6, 7 7

5 5 5 9 9

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

cracks and yielding. The average elastic periods for the 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 (1.301.46), (1.651.80), and (0.811.00) s,

respectively. It is observed that the average percentage of elongation in the period is (100%), (90%), and (60%). The percentage increase is clearly related to the overall stiffness of the structural system of the building. The maximum calculated elongation is recorded in the most

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

417

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.

exible system, where the rst storey can be considered as a soft storey; whereas the minimum elongation is observed in the stiff frame-wall structural system. The results point towards an important conclusion, employment of elastic periods of vibration in estimating design forces leads to high levels of overstrength (ratio of actual-to-required strength). Moreover, they lead to nonuniform safety margins for different structural systems. To facilitate the comparison between the input 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 Fourier spectrum for each record. The normalisation factors used are the average of the scaling factors utilised to perform the collapse analysis for the three groups of buildings, as shown in Table 3. The Fourier amplitude spectra for the acceleration records (one of the utilised articial records, Artrec1, and the horizontal component of the two natural records) are shown in Fig. 10. The average inelastic period for each group of building is also shown on the graphs. It is clear that the input motions, with the exception of the Kobe (KBU) record, have high amplitude that may amplify the effect of the second mode of vibration for structures with period between 0.35 and 0.50 s. The amplitude in this period range is higher than the amplitude corresponding to the fundamental period of the three groups of structures. This is one of the reasons for the scatter in the results of the 12-storey regular frame and the 8-storey frame-wall structures. It is veried that the high response points in Figs. 7 and 8 are for the articial and Loma Prieta (SAR) records, while the low response is for the Kobe (KBU) record. This may also justify obtaining a higher maximum base shear corresponding to almost an identical top deection when applying the same ground motion with higher PGA. Furthermore, the Fourier spectral ordinate corresponding to the inelastic 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 average inelastic fundamental period

is about 1.75 s, which corresponds to high amplication in the Loma Prieta (SAR) record only. This also accounts for the high response of the 12-storey frame structures when subjected to the latter record. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the articial and Loma Prieta (SAR) records when imposed on the frame-wall structures (inelastic period 0.91 s), compared to the Kobe (KBU) record. For this reason the observed scatter for this group is less than the 12-storey buildings. On the other hand, the ordinates of the spectra correspond to the inelastic period of the 8-storey irregular buildings are equivalent, hence the high correlation for this group.

7. Inelastic static-to-collapse static pushover analyses Following the success in obtaining the incremental dynamic response envelopes for the twelve buildings under investigation, inelastic static pushover analyses are performed to assess the applicability of the technique (for different load distributions) in predicting the overall dynamic response of structures. Figs. 1113 illustrate the base shear vs top displacement plots for the three lateral load proles utilised along with the incremental dynamic envelopes for the twelve buildings. The dynamic pushover curve for each case is shown in the form of the upper and lower response envelope as well as the best t of the timehistory analysis results. The global yield and collapse thresholds are also shown. It should be pointed out that it was decided to choose only one global yield limit from the limits obtained from the four pushover envelopes (the three static and the dynamic one). This is due to the need to unify and simplify obtaining this limit, which is necessary for the suggested method of scaling the input seismic actions explained earlier. The yield limit state obtained from the static pushover analysis using the code lateral load shape is selected for this purpose. For collapse, the observed upper and lower global collapse limits from the eight earthquake records

418

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

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.

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

419

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

as well as from the three pushover analyses are presented. It is important, however, to note that the static pushover and the incremental dynamic collapse analyses are continued beyond all the predened collapse thresholds. This is to ensure that all collapse states are bounded by the dynamic analysis. The static pushover method is rarely used to predict seismic demands when a particular ground motion is imposed on a structure [9,10]. If this is needed, the top target displacement expected when this ground motion is imposed on the building should be estimated. It is beyond the scope of this study to address the approaches of estimating the target displacement. A review of these methods was given in the latter two references. Since the main application of the static pushover analysis is to estimate the seismic capacity of structures, the following observations are driven by this requirement. In this application of the procedure, the analysis is usually continued until any of the predened collapse criteria is exceeded. In general, it is clear in all cases that the response of the buildings is sensitive to the shape of the lateral load distribution. This is particularly true when moving from

the code and the multimodal load patterns to the uniform load shape. It is also noticeable that the difference between load shape A (the design code load pattern, which is almost an inverted triangle) and load shape B (load shape from multimodal analysis) is very small. Although higher mode effects are conrmed in the response of the second and the third group of buildings, as explained earlier, the multimodal analysis load pattern did not show an enhanced capability to predict these effects. This is due to the fact that this load shape represents the distribution of inertia forces in the elastic range only, while the amplication of higher mode effects are observed in the post-elastic phase. Table 5 presents the results at global collapse limit state for the three load shapes. In terms of the predicted ultimate strength and drift at collapse, the differences between load A and B are less than 4%, for the twelve buildings. As a general trend, the collapse is observed earlier when applying the uniform load than the triangular load. Collapse is observed slightly earlier than the triangular distribution when imposing the multimodal load. In Figs. 1113 the lower collapse limits from static analyses are always from the uniform load and the upper limits are

420

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

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) Aa 1 IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015
a b c d

Base shear (kN) Cc 508 480 432 450 552 568 600 592 535 545 530 545 Aa 10,091 12,690 6652 8253 12,135 13,083 7332 9817 13,243 16,671 7880 10,001 Bb 10,446 13,056 6914 8508 12,499 13,444 7554 10,136 13,796 17,241 7988 10,119 Cc 11,592 14,219 7620 9147 14,650 15,748 9235 12,175 16,425 20,754 9843 12,490

Storeyd Aa 4th 3rd 3rd 3rd 5th 5th 5th 5th 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd Bb 3rd 3rd 3rd 2nd 4th 5th 5th 5th 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd Cc 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 4th 4th 3rd 3rd 3rd 2nd

Bb 528 534 462 498 624 688 640 664 560 570 565 580

534 552 474 516 648 712 656 688 570 580 575 590

Triangular load. Multimodal load. Uniform load. Storey at which collapse is observed.

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

421

from the triangular load. Moreover, the maximum interstorey drift collapse limit when employing the uniform load pattern is observed in lower storeys than the recorded collapse from the triangular or the multimodal loads. This observation is also recorded in dynamic analyses, where collapse is observed in lower storeys for records that impose higher base shear. Fig. 14 depicts the relationship between collapse limit states of the three load shapes for one of the investigated buildings (building RF-L015). It should be emphasised that the loaddeformation envelope is for global response, which is a function of the point of application of resultant force. The uniformly distributed load gives the lowest point; hence the maximum strength and earlier global yield and collapse limit states. On the other hand, resultant in the triangular load case is applied at a higher point; consequently lower strength and delayed global yield and collapse are observed in all cases. Despite the fact that all load shapes do not represent the actual distribution of relative inertia forces during the dynamic analysis, almost an identical response is observed in the rst group of buildings between the dynamic analysis best-t envelopes and the static response obtained from the triangular and the multimodal distributions. On the other hand, the uniform load overestimates the initial stiffness and the maximum base shear in the four buildings. Table 6 illustrates graphically the differences between the results of the static pushover analysis for the triangular and the uniform load patterns on one side, and the incremental dynamic analysis (average for eight records) on the other, at global collapse limit state. Since the triangular load shape is simple and show very close results with the multimodal load pattern, it was decided to exclude the latter from this comparison. It is clear that the uniformly distributed load is unconservative in predicting collapse limit states (underestimates the drift and overestimates the strength). The overall prediction of collapse using the triangular load is signicantly better. Although it slightly under-

estimates the average drift of dynamic analysis in two buildings, it is between the upper and lower drift limits obtained from the eight records, as shown in Fig. 11. Higher modes effect and concentration of inelastic deformations are expected to be signicant in the rst group of structures where the buildings exhibit two sources of irregularity and weak storey. Notwithstanding, four static pushover analyses using the simple triangular load pattern have succeeded in predicting the average results of more than 600 inelastic timehistory analyses. It is also important to note that the good design of these buildings and the high overstrength associated with structural elements, particularly the columns, prevented any undesirable mode of failure. The results show that utilising the triangular load shape only to predict the global response of low rise frames as well as well designed irregular frame structures is adequate. In contrast to the rst group of buildings, the results of the static pushover of the 12-storey group, illustrated in Fig. 12, show discrepancies with the dynamic response envelope in the post-elastic range. While the static pushover results of the triangular and the multimodal load pattern show a good agreement with the dynamic results best t in the elastic range, both give a conservative prediction of the maximum lateral strength, as also shown in Table 6 for the triangular load. However, in the four buildings the triangular load response is higher than the lower limit envelopes obtained from dynamic analyses employing natural and articial records. On the other hand, the capacity curve obtained from the uniformly distributed load overestimates the response in the elastic range. However, it gives better prediction of the ultimate strength. It is also clear from Fig. 12 that the triangular load shape gives good prediction of the deformation at collapse, while the uniform load underestimates the collapse limit state in the four buildings. It is concluded for this group of buildings that the triangular distribution is again the most suitable load pattern given that the uniform load, which is rec-

Fig. 14.

Differences between the three lateral load patterns.

422

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

Table 6 Differences between static and dynamic pushover analysis at global collapse limit state Group Difference in drift Triangular Uniform Difference in strength Triangular Uniform

ommended by the NEHRP guidelines (FEMA 273), is unconservative in predicting the response and the drift at collapse. Concerning the frame-wall group of buildings, the differences between the static pushover and the dynamic analysis results are larger than for the other two groups. In terms of the predicted elastic response and initial stiffness, the triangular and the multimodal load shapes show good correlation with the dynamic analysis best t for three buildings and a conservative prediction for the fourth (FW-M030). In the post-elastic range, the two load shapes underestimate the lateral strength obtained from the timehistory analyses. Table 6 shows that the triangular load prediction of strength at global collapse is between 20 and 26% less than the average results of dynamic analyses. Similar to the 12-storey buildings, the uniform load overestimates the elastic response but gives better prediction of the lateral strength at collapse for this group of buildings. Moreover, none of the 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. The comparison between static and dynamic pushover analysis for this group of buildings shows more discrepancies than the second group, especially for the 0.30 g design ground motion pair. As explained earlier, these differences are mainly due to higher mode effects, which amplify the base shear following formation of rst plastic hinge at the base of the wall. In pushover analysis, once the wall attained its ultimate lateral strength, it will deform by plastic hinging at the base [31]. Clearly, for this type of structure (shear frame response plus cantil-

ever wall response) the amplication of the base shear during the dynamic analysis is difcult to predict by pushover analysis. However, the triangular load prole shows good correlation in the elastic range, conservative predictions of the ultimate strength and reasonable estimations of the collapse limit state (underestimates the drift by about 8%). Hence, it may be employed for estimating the seismic capacity and collapse limit state. Finally, if the static pushover analysis is utilised as a tool for predicting seismic demands instead of estimating capacities, the analysis is usually performed until the roof drift corresponding to the design ground acceleration is attained. Table 7 presents the average for eight ground motions of the maximum top displacement observed from timehistory analyses at the design ground acceleration. Clearly, the target displacement is almost always below the global yield limit state. The comparison between the static pushover and the dynamic analysis discussed above show that the triangular load gives better estimation of the response in the elastic range. In few buildings, however, it underestimates the initial stiffness. In contrast, in the same range the uniform load shape overestimates the stiffness and the base shear in all cases. From the design point of view, the uniformly distributed load is conservative for the twelve buildings investigated. It is concluded that the use of two load distributions is needed for estimating the seismic demand. The simple triangular or the multimodal shape, which correlate well with dynamic analysis results and the uniform load pattern which shows a conservative prediction of demands in almost all cases considered. This conclusion is supported by the observations obtained from the results of the frame-wall group of buildings. The uniform load pattern can provide a conservative estimation of shear demand below collapse

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

423

Table 7 Observed maximum roof displacement at the design ground acceleration (average for eight ground motions) Group 1 IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 Roof disp. (mm) 285 202 138 136 Group 2 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 Roof disp. (mm) 290 304 146 163 Group 3 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015 Roof disp. (mm) 115 120 56 67

limit states; hence it can support preventing undesirable shear failure. Moreover, it shows reasonable estimation of shear at global collapse limit state (at 3% interstorey drift). It is worth mentioning that, according to the SEAOC (Vision 2000), complete collapse is considered once the interstorey drift exceeds 2.5%. Utilising this denition of collapse leads to obtaining conservative prediction of shear demand in all buildings investigated when employing the uniformly distributed load.

8. Conclusions The applicability and accuracy of inelastic static pushover analysis in predicting the seismic response of RC buildings are investigated. Twelve RC buildings with various characteristics, incremental dynamic analysis employing eight natural and articial records, static pushover analysis using three lateral load distributions and local and global limit state criteria are utilised. Based on the large amount of information obtained, which is nonetheless far from comprehensive, the following conclusions are drawn: Subject to adequate modelling of the structure, careful selection of the lateral load distribution and articulate interpretation of the results, pushover analysis can provide insight into the elastic as well as the inelastic response of buildings when subjected to earthquake ground motions. Static pushover analysis is more appropriate for low rise and short period frame structures. For welldesigned buildings but with structural irregularities, the results of the procedure also show good correlation with the dynamic analysis. In this study, response obtained for a group of four 8-storey irregular frame buildings using an inverted triangular lateral load distribution is identical to inelastic timehistory analysis. The experience gained from previous studies can help to eliminate the discrepancies between static and dynamic analysis results for special and long period buildings. These differences are mainly due to the limited capability of the xed load distribution to predict higher mode effects in the post-elastic range. To overcome this problem, more than one load pattern

should be selected to guarantee providing an accurate or slightly conservative prediction of capacities and demands. The investigation carried out on two sets of four 12storey frame buildings and four 8-storey frame-wall structures show that a conservative prediction of capacity and a reasonable estimation of deformation is obtained using the simple triangular or the multimodal load distribution. The same load patterns slightly underestimate the demand of some buildings in the elastic range. On the other hand, the uniform load provides a conservative prediction of seismic demands in the range before rst collapse. It also yields an acceptable estimation of shear demands at the collapse limit state. Comparison between the triangular and the multimodal distribution results show differences less than 4%, for the twelve buildings, since the former captures the characteristics of the most important mode of vibration. The load distribution from multimodal analysis only represents the distribution of inertia forces in the elastic range; hence higher mode effects are not entirely accounted for in the post-elastic domain. The elongation in the fundamental period of structures due to extensive yielding and cracking during earthquakes depends on the overall stiffness of the structural system of the building. In the current study, the observed elongation ranges between 100% for the most exible irregular frame system and 60% for the stiff frame-wall structural system. Employment of elastic periods in seismic code does not therefore provide uniform levels of safety for different structural systems. The results of the dynamic collapse analysis show clearly that each earthquake record exhibits its own peculiarities, dictated by frequency content, duration, sequence of peaks and their amplitude. The dispersion in the results of different ground motions depends on the characteristics of both the structure and the record. The Fourier spectral analysis is an important tool to investigate the observed variability of the results and to identify the elongated inelastic periods of the structure. The importance of pushover analysis as an assessment and design tool warrants much needed further devel-

424

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407424

opments. These may be classied as tools and behaviour. There is considerable scope for development of tools for more efcient and versatile pushover analysis techniques. One such development would be the continuous assessment of the effect of inelasticity on the load distribution used, taking into account the shape of the spectrum. This would enable the accurate and realistic analysis of highly irregular structures. With regard to behaviour, analysis of a larger sample of buildings that includes high-rise structures and structures with heavily irregular strength distribution is needed. To close, it is emphasised that, notwithstanding the range of structures analysed, the number of records employed and the rigour of the limit state criteria monitored, the conclusions are, strictly speaking, applicable to the range investigated. However, some generality may be claimed by noting that every effort has been made to select distinct structural systems, comprehensive limit states and veried investigation tools.

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

References
[1] Saiidi M, Sozen MA. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1981;107(ST5):93751. [2] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:3146. [3] Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrot evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(1):310. [4] FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996. [5] SEAOC. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Vision 2000 Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA, 1995. [6] Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H. Nonlinear static push-over analysis why, when, and how? In: Proceedings 5th US NCEE, vol. 1. IL, USA: Chicago, 1994:28392. [7] Mitchell D, Paultre P. Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994;21:104960. [8] Faella G, Kilar V. Asymmetric multistorey R/C frame structures: push-over versus nonlinear dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings 11th ECEE, Paris, 1996, CD-Rom. [9] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4-6):45264. [10] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 1998;1(3):33744. [11] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Comite Europeen de Normalisation,

[20]

[21]

[22] [23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] [31]

European Pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1, 1-2, and 1-3, Bruxelles, 1994. Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings according to Eurocodes 2 and 8. Conguration 3, 5 and 6, Reports on Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8, 1994. Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC a program for adaptive large displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of steel, concrete and composite frames. ESEE Report No. 89/7, Imperial College, London, 1989. Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading, Part I: Analytical model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22(4):31545. Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. Seismic resistance of composite beamcolumns in multi-storey structures, Part 2: Analytical model and discussion of results. Journal of Construction Steel Research 1994;30(3):23158. Elnashai AS, Pinho R. Repair and retrotting of RC walls using selective techniques. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(4):52568. Salvitti LM, Elnashai AS. Evaluation of behaviour factors for RC buildings by non-linear dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings 11th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, CD-Rom, Paper No. 1820. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Effect of column capacity design on earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(1):11345. Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Conned concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures 1997;30(197):13947. Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:50932. Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and eld evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:110937. Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of code-designed RC buildings. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 2000. Housner G. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures. CA, USA: Los Angeles, 1952:2036. Martinez-Rueda JE. Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC structures. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1997. Martinez-Rueda JE. Scaling procedure for natural accelerograms based on a system of spectrum intensity scales. Earthquake Spectra 1998;14(1):13552. Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994;120(8):231029. Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM, Lee D. Collapse analysis of RC structures including shear. ASCE Structures Congress, New Orleans, 1999. Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of RC buildings under multiaxial earthquake loading. PhD transfer report, Imperial College, London, 1998. 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. Seneviratna GDPK. Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1995. Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In: Proceedings 10th ECEE. The Netherlands: Rotterdam, 1995:82130.