Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Displacement Based Design of Vertically
Displacement Based Design of Vertically
di Studi Superiori
Universit degli
Studi di Pavia
ROSE SCHOOL
by
SUHAIB SALAWDEH
_________________
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The objective of this work is to investigate and develop seismic design guidelines for two types of
vertical irregular buildings; (i) vertical irregularity associated with steps in building plan area (core
walls full height and frames that have more bays at base of building than at top), and (ii) vertical
irregularity associated with core walls that stop around mid-height of the building. The work develops
a Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) approach which is used to design 12 and 4 story case
study buildings of each structural type. Non-linear time-history analyses are then used to verify the
performance of the method and the results indicate that the DBD approach is very effective for framewall structures with setbacks and is reasonably effective for frame-wall structures possessing cores
that stop at intermediate levels.
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Tim Sullivan, for his time and effort. His
knowledge, direction, and support helped me to progress in this dissertation.
During my study at MEEES program, I had the opportunity to travel to different countries and meet
great professors and colleagues; I would like to thank them for their friendship and support.
Finally, I would like to thank my Parents, who deserve my highest appreciation, my sisters and
brothers for their love and support, with special thanks for my brother Ihab for his endless support and
encouragement.
ii
Index
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. ix
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Vertical Irregularities in current design codes: .......................................................................... 1
1.2 Eurocode 8: ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 International Building Code (IBC): ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 Failures from past earthquakes: ................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Literature Review on Vertical Irregularities: ............................................................................. 7
2. Displacement Based Design of Dual Frame-Wall Vertically Irregular Structures .......................... 11
2.1 General Behaviour ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Design Displacement Profile ................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Equivalent SDOF System characteristics ................................................................................ 15
2.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Identification of the required stiffness and strength................................................................. 16
3. Design Verification Using Non-Linear Time history Analysis ....................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction:............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Modelling approach and assumptions used for analysis: ......................................................... 18
4. Ground Motions used in this study .................................................................................................. 22
5. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures with Setbacks ................................................................... 27
5.1 Case study structure ................................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Verification of the method with time history analysis: ............................................................ 31
6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid height .................. 35
iii
Index
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1: Criteria for regularity of buildings with setbacks from Eurocode 8 (CEN, 1998)...3
Figure 1-2: Soft-story mechanism in the ground floor in a commercial building during 1997
Managua Earthquake in Nicaragua. ....................................................................................5
Figure 1-3: Three-story apartment building, El Asnam, Algeria, damaged in the 1980 in El
Asnam Earthquake. .............................................................................................................6
Figure 1-4: Olive View Hospital, San Fernando, California. Partial View of the 5-story
Medical Treatment and Care Unit (at right and back of the graph). ...................................6
Figure 1-5: Severe failure of the first story corner column in Mene Grande Building during
the Cracas earthquake in 1967. ...........................................................................................7
Figure 2-1: Distribution of shear forces between Frames and Walls. Graph (a) shows the Total
shear, graph (b) shows frame shears and graph (c) shows wall shears. ............................14
Figure 2-2: Distribution of overturning moments between Frames and walls. Graph (a) shows
the Total moment, Graph (b) shows frame moments and graph (c) shows wall moments
and contra flexure height, HCF. .........................................................................................14
Figure 2-3: Displacement Response Spectrum. ........................................................................17
Figure 3-1: Rayleigh damping model as shown in Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005). ..............20
Figure 3-2: Giberson one-component member model form Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005). 20
Figure 3-3: Modified Takeda hysteresis from Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).. ....................21
Figure 4-1: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3a. ..................................................22
Figure 4-2: Northridge earthquake, January 17, 1994, EQ3b ...................................................22
Figure 4-3: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4a. ..........................................23
Figure 4-4: Imperial Valley earthquake, October 15, 1979, EQ4b. ..........................................23
Figure 4-5: Hector earthquake, October 16, 1999, EQ5a. ........................................................23
v
Index
Index
Figure 5-10: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure with setbacks. .....................................................................................................34
Figure 6-1: plan view of the case studies associated with walls that stop at mid height of the
building. ............................................................................................................................35
Figure 6-2: 12 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height..........36
6-3: 4 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height. ......................36
Figure 6-4: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................40
Figure 6-5: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................41
Figure 6-6: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below. ............................................................41
Figure 6-7: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below. ............................................................42
Figure 6-8: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum
compatible accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam
strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the
design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.................................................................................................................................43
Figure 6-9: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum
compatible accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam
strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the
design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.................................................................................................................................43
Figure 6-10: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
vii
Index
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design
displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height...44
Figure 6-11: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design
displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height.44
Figure 6-12: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................46
Figure 6-13: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................47
Figure 6-14: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum
compatible accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. .................................................47
Figure 6-15: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum
compatible accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height. .................................................48
6-16: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................48
6-17: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height. ....................................................................49
Figure 6-18: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned
as the strengths of the story below it. ................................................................................49
Figure 6-19: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall
structure where the walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned
as half of the strengths of the story below it. ....................................................................50
viii
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 5-1: Design results for the setback irregularity of the frame wall structure. ..................30
Table 6-1: Design results for the irregular frame-wall structure associated with stopping of the
core walls at mid height. ...................................................................................................39
ix
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
Many structures are designed with vertical irregularities due to functional, aesthetic, or
economical reasons. Vertical irregularities are due to sudden changes in stiffness, strength
and/or mass between adjacent stories. Sudden changes in stiffness and strength between
adjacent stories are associated with changes in structural system along the height, changes in
story height, setbacks, changes in materials and unanticipated participation of non-structural
components (Das, 2000). Many structures have suffered unexpected damage or collapse due
to these types of discontinuities.
Vertical irregularities nowadays have a lot of interest in seismic research investigations. This
report will concentrate on the design of this type of structures using the direct displacement
based design method and verifying the performance of this method using non-linear timehistory analyses.
Two types of vertical irregularity will be investigated in this report: (i) vertical irregularity
associated with steps in building plan area (core walls full height and frames that have more
bays at base of the building than at the top), and (ii) vertical irregularity associated with core
walls that stop at intermediate levels within the building.
The following sections in chapter 1 will explain how vertical irregularity is considered in
current design guidelines such as Eurocode 8 (EC8) (CEN, 1998) and International Building
Code (IBC) (ICC, 2003). The work will then give a description of various building failures
that have taken place during past earthquakes, where these failures were caused by the
presence of vertical irregularities in the structure. Finally, a literature review of some of the
previous work on vertical irregular buildings is explained.
1.1 Vertical Irregularities in current design codes:
Most building codes propose a simplified method called the equivalent lateral force (ELF)
procedure or the multi-mode response spectrum method to compute design forces. These
methods assume that the dynamic forces developed in a structure during an earthquake are
proportional to the maximum ground acceleration and the modal characteristics of the
structure. These forces are approximated as a set of equivalent lateral forces which are
distributed over the height of the structure. However, the ELF method is based on a number of
assumptions which are true for regular structures structures with uniform distribution of
stiffness, strength, and mass over the height. So the current building codes define criteria in
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
b) for a single setback within the lower 15 % of the total height of the main structural
system, the setback shall be not greater than 50 % of the previous plan dimension as
illustrated in Figure 1-1(c). In this case the structure of the base zone within the vertically
projected perimeter of the upper stories should be designed to resist at least 75% of the
horizontal shear forces that would develop in that zone in a similar building without the
base enlargement.
c) if the setbacks do not preserve symmetry, in each face the sum of the setbacks at all
stories shall be not greater than 30 % of the plan dimension at the ground floor above the
foundation or above the top of a rigid basement, and the individual setbacks shall be not
greater than 10 % of the previous plan dimension as illustrated in Figure 1-1(d).
For buildings not conforming to the regularity criteria explained above, Eurocode 8 (CEN,
1998) adopts the modal response spectrum analysis procedure for design. However, nonlinear static (pushover) analysis or non-linear time history analysis procedures can be used as
an alternative for designing this type of irregularity.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1-1: Criteria for regularity of buildings with setbacks from Eurocode 8 (CEN, 1998).
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1-2: Soft-story mechanism in the ground floor in a commercial building during 1997 Managua
Earthquake in Nicaragua.
As shown in Figure 1-2 the hinging at the top and bottom of the first story columns were
evident at all locations (Das, 2000). This first story was a soft story because, except for glass
partitions all around, it was completely open, while the second story had walls and partitions
that increased significantly the lateral stiffness of this second story relative to the first.
Some of the buildings in a housing development in Algeria were damaged due to El Asnam
Earthquake in 1980 (Figure 1-3). Although most of the buildings in this new housing
development remained standing after the earthquake, some of them were inclined as much as
20 degrees and dropped up to 1 meter, producing significant damage in the structural and nonstructural elements of the first story. The reason for this type of failure was the use of the
Vide Sanitaire, a crawl space about 1 meter above the ground level. This provides space for
plumbing and ventilation under the first floor slab and serves as a barrier against transmission
of humidity from the ground to the first floor. But the way that the vide sanitaires were
constructed created a soft story with inadequate shear resistance. Hence the stubby columns
in this crawl space were sheared off by the inertia forces induced by the earthquake ground
motion (Bertero, 1997).
The olive view medical centre was a 5 story reinforced concrete structure. Figure 1-4
illustrates the damage that olive view hospital suffered during the 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake. As shown in Figure 1-4 a large permanent lateral second floor level displacement
of the main Treatment and Care Unit was found. This large inter-story drift, which induced
significant non-structural and structural damage and which led to the demolishing of the
building, was a consequence of the formation of a soft story at the first story level because of
the existence of a reinforced concrete wall above the second floor level (Bertero, 1997).
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1-3: Three-story apartment building, El Asnam, Algeria, damaged in the 1980 in El Asnam
Earthquake.
Figure 1-4: Olive View Hospital, San Fernando, California. Partial View of the 5-story Medical
Treatment and Care Unit (at right and back of the graph).
Analysis of building performance during earthquakes has revealed that numerous building
failures have resulted from the fact that basic structural systems are designed neglecting the
Chapter 1. Introduction
structural modifications induced by the non-structural components, for example, the Mene
Grande building in Caracas, Venezuela suffered severe damage in the Caracas earthquake
1967. This building, a 16-story reinforced concrete frame with a H-shape plan, had tile walls
in the four exterior ends of the building. The design neglected the interaction effects of these
tile walls. During the earthquake, there was not only considerable non-structural damage to
the tile walls in the lower floors of the building, but there was also severe failure in most of
the first story corner columns, as shown in Figure 1-5 (Das, 2000).
Figure 1-5: Severe failure of the first story corner column in Mene Grande Building during the Cracas
earthquake in 1967.
Chapter 1. Introduction
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
found that the difference in elastic and inelastic inter-story drifts between set-back and
regular structures depends on the level of the story considered. For the tower, inter-story
drifts were found to be larger than for regular structures. For the base, inter-story drifts
were found to be smaller in set-back structures than in the regular ones. This observation
agrees with the findings of Pekau and Green (1974).
Wood (1986) performed an experimental study on two small-scale set-back frames. She
concluded that the behavior of set-back structures did not differ from the behavior of
regular ones.
Aranda (1984) found that the ductility demands of columns and beams are higher for setback buildings than for regular ones. Arandas study was performed using soft soil
records from the 1980 Mexico earthquake. He concluded that the increase in ductilities is
more pronounced in the stories above the set-back level.
Sharooz and Moehle (1990) studied the effects of set-backs on the earthquake response
on multi-story buildings. They observed, based on analytical studies, a concentration of
damage in the tower due to high rotational ductilities. They performed experiments on a
set-back frame structure and concluded that the fundamental mode dominates the
response in the direction parallel to the set-back, and that using static analysis should be
sufficient to predict the response of set-back structures without the need to perform
dynamic analysis.
Wong and Tsu (1994), studied the elastic response of setback structures by means of
response spectrum analysis and found that the modal weights of higher order modes for
setback structures are large, leading to a seismic load distribution that is different from
static code procedures. They also found that for set-back structures, although higher
order modes may contribute more to the base shear than the fundamental mode, the first
mode still dominates the displacement response.
Pinto and Costa (1995), studied Set-back structures and concluded that the seismic
behavior of regular and irregular structures are similar. In their study the amount of
discontinuity and the ratio of the base height to the total height were small.
Duan and Chandler (1995) pointed out that both static and modal spectral analyses were
inadequate to prevent damage concentration in members near the setback level. This
observation support the need for the development of new methods such as the DBD
procedure proposed in this work.
Tena-Colunga (2004) studied two irregular (setback and slender) 14-storey RC moment
resisting framed buildings, with one or two-bay frames in the slender direction. In this
case, structures were designed close to the limiting drift angle of 1.2%, established by the
Mexican code. Results obtained through nonlinear dynamic analyses suggested that the
slender direction of setback buildings with one-bay frames is vulnerable, contrary to
what occurs if a bay is added in the slender direction thanks to the higher redundancy in
framed structures. The author concluded that seismic codes should penalize seismic
design of buildings with single-bay frames in one direction.
Khoury et al. (2005) considered four 9-story asymmetric setback perimeter frame
structuresdesigned according to the Israeli steel code SI 1225 (1998)that differed
with special attention on the influence of the setback level, nonlinear dynamic analyses
were performed, and a 3D structural model was used under bi-directional ground
motions. Results showed amplification in response at the upper tower stories, thus
8
Chapter 1. Introduction
suggesting that the higher vibration modes have significant influence, particularly the
torsional ones. In this respect, the authors recommended that future research on setback
buildings should be conducted on full plan-asymmetric structures.
10) Athanassiadou and Bervanakis (2005) studied the seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete buildings with setbacks designed to capacity design procedure provided by
Eurocode 8. In their study, two ten-story frames with two and four large setbacks in the
upper floors respectively, as well as a third one, regular in elevation, have been designed
to the provisions of Eurocode 8 for the high (H) ductility class and a common peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.25g. All frames were subjected to inelastic dynamic
time-history analysis for selected input motions. They found that the seismic
performance of the studied multistory reinforced concrete frame buildings with setbacks
in the upper stories designed to EC8 can be considered as completely satisfactory, not
inferior and in some cases even superior of that of the regular ones, even for motions
twice as strong as the design earthquake. Inter-story drift ratios of irregular frames were
found to remain quite low even in the case of the collapse prevention earthquake with
an intensity double that of the design one.
11) Moehle and Sozen (1980), studied frame-wall structures possessing partial-height walls.
Four 9-story model reinforced concrete structures were built, all possessing the same
overall dimensions. To resist the seismic actions, in parallel to two full height frames,
three of the structures used partial height walls of 1, 4 and 9 stories respectively, and the
fourth had only the two frames to resist the seismic response without the walls. They
found that the variations of top displacements with time of the structures with four and
nine-story walls were nearly identical. The base shears that developed in the walls for
both of these structures was approximately 60% of the total base shear. For the structure
with a single story wall, the base shear in the wall was approximately 95% of the total
base shear. Drifts were considerably greater in the lower stories of the single-story wall
and pure frame structures. Due to the sharp change in story shear stiffness it might have
been anticipated that the use of partial height walls would cause large shear demands
around the point of wall termination. However the study showed that because the
deformations of walls are primarily flexural, large story drifts could develop at
intermediate stories (around the points of wall termination) without the development of
large shears in the wall and frames. This point, together with the observation that top
displacements of the structure with a full height wall were nearly identical to those of the
structure with a four story wall, indicate that the use of partial height walls may be an
acceptable frame-wall structural configuration.
12) Moehle (1984) studied the seismic response of four irregular reinforced concrete test
structures. These test structures were simplified models of 9-story 3 bay building frames
comprised of moment frames and frame-wall combinations. Irregularities in the vertical
plane of these structures were introduced by discontinuing the structural wall at various
levels. Based upon measured displacements and distributions of storey shears between
frames and walls, it was apparent that the extent of the irregularity could not be gauged
solely by comparing the strengths and stiffnesses of adjacent stories in a structure.
Structures having the same stiffness interruption, but occurring in different stories didnt
perform equally. It was observed that the curvature ductility demand in beams varied
Chapter 1. Introduction
from 3.9 to 7.2 and for columns from 1.8 to 2.9, for an abrupt termination of shear walls
at different levels along the height.
13) Moehle and Alarcon (1986) presented a combined experimental and analytical study to
examine the seismic response behaviour of reinforced concrete frame-wall structures. In
one of the models, vertical irregularity in the frame-wall system was introduced by
interrupting the wall at the first story level. Inelastic dynamic analysis was capable of
adequately reproducing measured displacement waveforms, but accurate matches of
responses required a trial and error approach to establish the best modelling assumptions.
It was observed that in the vicinity of the discontinuity, the elements exhibited a
curvature ductility demand 4 to 5 times higher than in the case of the model without any
interruption of the wall.
14) Costa (1990) extended the previous work (Costa et al. (1988)) on seismic behavior of
irregular structures. The study was based on twelve, sixteen, and twenty story reinforced
concrete building models. They found the following conclusions: the role of a shear wall
in a mixed structural system was to distribute the frame ductilities uniformly along the
height, the interruption of a shear wall in part or for the total height of the structure led to
a very irregular distribution of frame ductility, also, a significant increase was observed
in the first level above the interruption of the shear wall. Below the interruption, the
behavior was similar to a regular building.
In summary it can be observed that analytical and experimental investigations by previous
researchers have identified differences in dynamic response of regular and irregular buildings.
Even though there are conflicting conclusions regarding the behaviour of set-back structures,
many of the studies indicate that there is an increase in drifts in the tower of this type of
structures. For the types of irregularities where the wall stops at different heights of the
structures the behaviour was more complex, but many researchers observed increase of
ductility demands on the floor above the termination of the wall.
10
11
To gauge the elastic deformation profile, the yield curvature of the rectangular walls, y,wall, is
obtained using Equation (2.1) from (Priestley, 2003). The yield curvature for other sectional
shapes can be found in (Calvi and Sullivan, 2009).
,
(2.1)
Where lwall is the wall length and y is the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement found
from Equation (2.2):
(2.2)
Where fye is the expected reinforcement yield strength and E is the Youngs modulus of the
reinforcement.
The frame yield drift, y,frame , used later to estimate the ductility and equivalent viscous
damping of the frames is found using Equation (2.3) from (Priestley, 2003):
.
(2.3)
Where lb is the average beam length, y is the yield strain of the beam longitudinal
reinforcement and hb is the average depth of the beams at the level of interest.
For the yield displacement profile, the wall curvature profile is assumed to be represented as
linear from the yield curvature at the base to zero at the point of contra-flexure and it is
assumed that the curvature above the contra-flexure point is zero when determining the story
yield displacement. On the basis of these assumptions the yield displacement profile of the
walls, , can be established using the wall yield curvature, y,wall, contra-flexure height, HCF,
and story height, Hi, as in Equations (2.4a) and (2.4b):
For Hi HCF:
(2.4a)
(2.4b)
Design displacements will either be limited by material strains in the wall plastic hinges, or by
drift limitations (more commonly), where drift will be maximum at contra-flexure height,
HCF.
First we check if drift limit of the wall at the contra-flexure height is exceeding the design
drift limit:
Drift limit of the wall at the contra-flexure height, HCF, is given by the Equation (2.5)
,
(2.5)
12
Where y,wall is the yield curvature of the wall, HCF is the contra-flexure,
control curvature given by Equation (2.6):
is the damage
(2.6)
And Lp is Plastic hinge length for wall which taken as Equation (2.7) from Priestley et al.
(2007):
0.1
(2.7)
Where K is a factor for plastic hinge length found by the expression in Equation (2.8):
0.2
(2.8)
(fye in MPA)
(2.9)
Where fye and dbl are the expected yield strength and the diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
If the design drift governs (the drift at the contra-flexure height in equation (2.5) exceeds the
design drift, ) then the design displacement profile will be defined by Equation (2.10):
(2.10)
Where is the design displacement at level i, is the yield displacement of the wall at
level i,
is the design story drift, y,wall is the yield curvature of the wall, HCF is the contraflexure height and Hi is the height at level i.
If wall base material strains govern, the design displacement profile will be as shown in
Equation (2.11):
(2.11)
To calculate the lateral forces proportions and to find the proportions of base shear for frames
and walls that give the assumed contra-flexure height, distribute the total base shear force to
the floor levels in proportion to the product of mass, mi, and displacement i. As such, the
lateral forces, Fi, expressed as a proportion of the base shear, Vbase, at different levels will be
as shown in Equation (2.12):
13
(2.12)
The strength proportions as a function of the total shear, Vi, are then set in the frames and
walls respectively up the height of the structure.
In the next chapters the details how to distribute the lateral forces between walls and frames
and assure that the proportion chosen will give the assumed contra-flexure height, HCF, will
be explained for each case study. In this chapter, an explanation will be given for the 12 story
irregular case study structure possessing steps in the building plan up the height of the
structure. First an arbitrary value for the proportion, F, of total base shear, Vbase, carried by
the frames is selected. Then the frame proportions of base shear will be found for the different
floor levels depending upon the number of bays (where beams of equal strengths are used up
the height of the structure). Wall shears are obtained as the difference between the total shear
and the frame shear and the proportions of moment for frames and walls can then be
calculated. By trial and error (changing the value of proportion of base shear allocated to
frames), the proportions of the lateral loads carried by frames that gives the assumed contraflexure height, HCF, will be found. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the distribution of lateral forces
and overturning moments between frames and walls illustrated earlier.
Figure 2-1: Distribution of shear forces between Frames and Walls. Graph (a) shows the Total shear,
graph (b) shows frame shears and graph (c) shows wall shears.
Figure 2-2: Distribution of overturning moments between Frames and walls. Graph (a) shows the Total
moment, Graph (b) shows frame moments and graph (c) shows wall moments and contra flexure height,
HCF.
14
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(2.16)
, ,
Where is the design displacement given by Equation (2.13) and , , is the yield
displacement of the wall at the effective height which is found by substituting the effective
height He (from Equation (2.15)) into Equation (2.4).
The displacement ductility demand on the frames at each level up the height of the structure
can be obtained using the story drifts as Equation (2.17):
(2.17)
Where frame,i is the frame ductility at level i, i, i-1, hi, and hi-1, are the displacements and
heights at level i and level i-1 respectively, and y,frame is the yield drift of the frame given by
Equation (2.3). Because beams of equal depth and strength are used up the height of the
structure, the ductility obtained from Equation (2.17) for each story can be averaged to give
the frame displacement ductility demand.
15
To find the equivalent viscous damping, eq, the Takeda Thin (TT) model is used for walls
and Takeda Fat (TF) model is used for frames in line with recommendations of PCK (2007)
as shown in Equations (2.18) and (2.19) respectively.
,
0.05
0.444
(2.18)
0.05
0.565
(2.19)
Where w is the displacement ductility demand in the walls and f is the average displacement
ductility demand for the frames.
Once the wall and the frame damping components have been established, the value of
damping for the equivalent SDOF system is determined using the overturning moment for the
unit base shear, as in Equation (2.20).
,
(2.20)
Where MOTM,w is the wall overturning resistance, MOTM,f is the frame overturning resistance.
2.5 Identification of the required stiffness and strength
At this point of the design process, all of the substitute structure characteristics required for
DDBD procedure have been established and as such, the design displacement spectrum is
developed at the design level of damping by applying a damping modifier R to the elastic
displacement spectrum. In this work the expression used in 2003 revision to EC8 shown in
Equation (2.21) has been adopted:
R
.
.
(2.21)
The new design displacement is then used to read off (or interpolate between known points)
the required effective period from the displacement spectrum developed at the design level of
damping, as shown in Figure 2-3 or Equation (2.22):
(2.22)
With the effective period established, the effective stiffness, Ke, is determined as per Equation
(2.23):
(2.23)
Where me is the effective mass found from Equation (2.14) and Te is the effective period.
16
The base shear is then obtained by multiplying the effective stiffness, Ke, by the design
displacement, d, as shown in Equation (2.24):
(2.24)
Individual member strengths are then determined by multiplying the strength proportions by
the base shear and reinforcement is set so that the design strength develops at the expected
deformation demand.
17
18
A lumped mass type was adopted for the structural models, where the mass was provided by
specifying nodal weights which contribute only to the diagonal terms of the mass matrix
associated with the three translational degrees of freedom at each end of the member but the
terms associated with the rotational degrees of freedom are taken as zero.
The traditional damping model available in most time history programs is the Rayleigh or
Proportional damping model (Figure 3-1)where the structures damping matrix is given by
Equation (3.1):
(3.1)
where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices for the structure. The coefficients and
are computed to give the required levels of viscous damping at two different frequencies,
most commonly those of the first and second modes of free vibration. So the reason for its
popularity is that it uses matrices that the analysis already has computed and requires only the
computation of the two coefficients and in order to form a damping matrix so that the
analysis may be carried out.
For the case study structures under examination, the non-linear time history analysis was
carried out using tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping, which means that the damping matrix is
based on a Rayleigh damping model which uses the current stiffness of the structure at any
time step as the tangent damping matrix (Carr, 2005). When the structure is inelastic then the
tangent damping matrix changes together with the stiffness matrix throughout the time
history. The damping forces of the structure are adjusted in the time step with the increment
of the damping forces being the product of the tangent damping matrix multiplied by the
incremental velocities in the structure. In addition to the stiffness dependant damping force,
however the Rayleigh damping model includes a mass dependent damping force. The
incremental damping forces are then added to the damping forces existing in the structure at
the beginning of the time step to give the damping forces at the end of the time step. In order
to achieve the effect of 5% tangent stiffness damping considering the constant mass
dependent component, 5% damping was specified for the second mode of vibration and an
artificially low damping coefficient, * shown in Equation (3.2) was specified for the first
mode damping in line with the recommendations of Priestley (2007).
.
/
(3.2)
Where sys is the system ductility found from Equation (2.20), the viscous damping, , was
taken as 5% and the value of the coefficient r was taken as 0.05.
19
Figure 3-1: Rayleigh damping model as shown in Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).
Figure 3-2: Giberson one-component member model form Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005).
20
In the model structures described here, plastic hinges are allowed to be formed at the ends of
the beams and at the bottom of the walls and columns of the ground level.
The inelastic response of members in non-linear time history analysis based on line members
is defined by force-deformation equations describing the loading, unloading and reloading of
the members. The collective equations describing the response for a given member are termed
the hysteresis rule for the member. The hysteresis behaviors of the inelastic sections for our
case studies are modeled by the modified Takeda-Rule (Otani, 1974), which is shown in
Figure 3-3. The modified Takeda rules are characterized by unloading and reloading
stiffnesses that are significantly lower than the initial elastic stiffnesses. The model
parameters used for beams are = 0.3 and =0.6, and for columns and walls = 0.5 and
=0.0.
Figure 3-3: Modified Takeda hysteresis from Ruaumoko manual (Carr, 2005)..
The dynamic excitation was applied through a ground acceleration history applied to the x
direction earthquake only. Eight accelerograms compatible with the design spectrum
explained in chapter 4 were used and the average value of the results was used to verify the
design procedure.
To provide information on all the remaining modelling aspects, an example of input file used
for the analysis of the 12 story case study structure possessing setbacks is included in
Appendex A.
21
Acceleration [g]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
11
12
13
Time [sec]
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
10
11
12
13
Time [sec]
22
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time [sec]
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Acceleration [g]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time [sec]
55
60
0.8
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [sec]
35
40
45
50
55
60
35
40
45
50
55
60
0.8
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [sec]
0.8
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Time [sec]
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
23
0.8
Acceleration [g]
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Time [sec]
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
The response spectrum for each accelerogram was developed at 5% damping using the
program SeismoSignal and compared with the elastic design spectrum of 5% damping in
order to scale the intensity to match the design response spectrum used for this report.
All the time histories were scaled with the proportions that make the response spectra of these
time histories match with the design spectrum. Response spectra for the scaled accelerograms
were found using the program SeismoSignal with 5% damping value and compared with the
design spectrum as shown in Figure 4-9 which shows a good match. Also Figure 4-10 shows
the average of the entire earthquakes response spectra and compares it with the design
response spectrum and it is found that the average of the earthquakes response spectrum
perfectly match the design response spectra in the period of interest at 5%.
0.8
Design
Spectrum5%
EQ3a
Displacement(m)
0.7
0.6
EQ3b
0.5
EQ4a
0.4
EQ4b
0.3
EQ5a
0.2
0.1
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
EQ6b
Period(sec)
Figure 4-9: Scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping compared with the design
spectrum.
24
0.8
Displacement(m)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
DesignSpectrum
5%damping
0.3
Averageforall
accelerograms
0.2
0.1
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Period(sec)
Figure 4-10: Average of scaled elastic displacement response spectra of 5% damping compared with the
design displacement spectrum.
The DBD procedure requires a modification of the elastic displacement response spectrum to
account for ductile response, where the influence of ductility is represented by equivalent
viscous damping. Seismologists have derived formulas for a damping modifier R to be
applied to the elastic displacement spectrum for different levels of damping . As stated in
Chapter 2, the expression used for the design of the case studies was taken from the 2003
revision to EC8 and is shown in equation (4.1):
R
.
.
(4.1)
To assure the compatibility between the modified displacement spectrum at the required level
of damping and the response spectra generated by the accelerograms at the same level of
damping; a damping level of 15% was chosen and the damping modifier R was found and
applied to the elastic displacement spectrum. In parallel to this, the displacement response
spectra for the accelerograms was found using SeismoSignal with 15% damping value and the
spectra were then compared as shown in Figure 4-11. Also the average of the entire
earthquakes response spectra at 15% damping was compared with the modified design
spectrum as shown in Figure 4-12. It is apparent that the match at the design level of damping
is not perfect but can be considered as acceptable.
25
Displacement(m)
0.6
Designspectrum15%
0.5
EQ3a15%
0.4
EQ3b15%
EQ4a15%
0.3
EQ4b15%
EQ5A15%
0.2
EQ5b15%
0.1
EQ6a15%
0
EQ6b15%
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Period(sec)
4-11: Displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the design spectrum of 15%
damping.
0.6
Displacement(m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
DesignSpectrum15%
0.2
Averageforall
accelerograms15%
0.1
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Period(sec)
Figure 4-12: Average displacement response spectra of 15% damping compared with the design spectrum
of 15% damping.
26
Figure 5-1: plan view of the case studies associated with setbacks along the vertical plan of the building.
27
The case study buildings have a uniform story height of 3m, and the total ultimate dead and
live load is uniformly distributed as 10 KPa for all levels including the roof. All frame bays
are 8m, and the wall length is 8m. The expected material strengths are fce = 40 MPa for the
concrete and fye = 500 MPa for both flexural and transverse reinforcement. The flexural
reinforcing steel is assumed to have a diameter, dbl = 25 mm with a ratio of ultimate to yield
strength of fu/fy = 1.35, and a strain at ultimate strength, su= 0.10. It is assumed that the
structure rests on rigid foundations.
The structure is located in a region with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g, with a
displacement-spectrum for 5% damping as shown in Figure 5-2.
For this type of irregularity 2 buildings were investigated; a 12 story building and a 4 story
building. For the 12 story building the core walls extend to the full height of the building and
the frames have setbacks, with 8 bays in the first three stories, 5 bays from the fourth to the
sixth floor and only 3 bays for the seventh to the last story as shown in Figure 5-3. The length
of each bay is 8 m.
For the 4 story building the core walls also extend the full height of the building and the
frames have setbacks at the second and third floors as shown in Figure 5-4. . In this case study
structure, the ratio of the height to length of the wall is less than three, where shear
deformations of the walls must be taken into account, but it was neglected in this work for
simplicity.
The general procedure for the design of these case studies was as explained in chapter 2.
Some important aspects of the design of these case studies are explained in the next
paragraphs.
28
Figure 5-3: 12 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at the fourth
and seventh floor and full height walls.
Figure 5-4: 4 story irregular Frame wall structure associated with setbacks on the frames at the second
and third floors and full height walls.
The design story drift limit of 2.5% was selected for these case studies, which is intended to
control damage of non-structural items of the buildings. Damage of structural items is
controlled by material strains in the wall plastic hinge.
For the 12-story irregular frame-wall building the proportion between the contra flexure
height, HCF, and the real height, H, of the structure was chosen to be 0.9. Based on the contra
flexure height it was found that the design story drift at the contra flexure height was more
critical and the design was controlled by its value. Using the procedure described in Chapter 2
the proportions of base shear for the frames and walls that give the assumed contra-flexure
height was found to occur when 41.5% of the base shear was allocated to the frames and the
rest to the walls. For the 4-story irregular frame-wall building the contra flexure height, HCF,
was taken the same as the real height, and it was decided to allocate 60% of the base shear to
the frames.
29
Beams of constant strength up the height of the building are assigned and assuming that beam
moments are carried equally by columns above and below a beam-column joint, the beam
strength obtained from the frame shear is found as in equation (5.1).
,
(5.1)
Where Vi,frame is the frame shear at level i, Mb,i are the beame strengths at level i, and hcol, is
the inter-story height.
Design results for both case studies are presented in Table 5-1:
Table 5-1: Design results for the setback irregularity of the frame wall structure.
4 story irregular FW
12 story irregular FW
Height (m)
12
36
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
8*0.15
8*0.20
12
32.4
1.98%
2.5%
0.146
0.479
60%
41.5%
8.04
23.04
9.3
3.78
1.48
1.32
System ductility
5.14
2.83
9.51%
7.75%
17.3%
14.8%
System Damping
13.2%
12.1%
1.53
4.86
4678.7
11969.4
79145
19977
11538
9563
21698
67759
0.5%
1%
649
372
1.75%
1.75%
30
31
Height(m)
14
12
DBD
10
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
4
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 5-5: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.
40
Height(m)
35
DBD
30
EQ3a
25
EQ3b
20
EQ4a
15
EQ4b
10
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 5-6: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.
32
14
12
Height(m)
10
8
6
DBD
Thistoryaverage
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Displacement(m)
Figure 5-7: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.
40
35
30
25
20
DBD
15
Thistory
Average
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 5-8: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with
setbacks.
33
14
12
Height(m)
10
8
6
DBD
THistoryAverage
2
0
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Drift
Figure 5-9: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure with setbacks.
40
35
Height(m)
30
25
20
DBD
15
ThistoryAverage
10
5
0
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
Drift
Figure 5-10: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure with
setbacks.
34
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
Figure 6-1: plan view of the case studies associated with walls that stop at mid height of the building.
For this type of irregularity 2 buildings were investigated; a 12 story building and a 4 story
building. For both the 12 and 4 story buildings the core walls stop at mid-height of the
35
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
building and the frames extend the full height with equal number of bays as shown in Figures
6-2 and 6-3.
Figure 6-2: 12 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height.
6-3: 4 story irregular Frame-wall structure where the cores stop at mid height.
36
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
6.2.2 Frame Shear Ratio
The frame proportions of base shear are selected to be the same as the total shear of the story
just above the story where the core stops using Equation (6.1) taken from Sullivan et al.
(2006):
,
(6.1)
Where Vi, total is the total shear at level i, Vb is the total base shear, and n is the total number of
stories in the building.
6.2.3 Design Displacement Profile
The design displacement profile for the first part of the building, the half which has frames
and walls, is defined by equation (6.2):
(6.2)
Where is the design displacement at level i, yi is the yield displacement of the wall at
level i found from equation 2.4,
is the design story drift, y,w is the yield curvature of the
wall, HCF is the contra-flexure height and Hi is the height at level i.
The design displacement profile for the second part of the building, the half which has frames
only, was defined by equation (6.3), which is a modification of the equation used by Pettinga
and Priestley (2005) for normal frames with fixed base, the modification is done in order to
account for our case study with continuous frame base as will be explained later, adding to it
the design displacement at the floor of wall termination, , , just under the start of the frame
structure only.
(6.3)
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
which must be taken into account in the displacement shape. The story drift associated with
the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint was taken as Equation (6.4)
.
(6.4)
Where j,r is the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint, y is the yield strain of longitudinal
reinforcement, Lb is the length of the beam, and hb is the depth of the beam. Equation (6.4)
was set by considering the effect of a unit rotation at the beam-column joint under
consideration on the story drift. The displacement of the top of the column relative to the base
due to a uniform curvature (M/EI) was set equal to Equation (6.5)
(6.5)
By dividing Equation (6.5) by hcol and substituting (M/EI)*hcol as the difference in rotation of
the tangent between the end nodes of the columns, then the rotation at the beam-column joint
can be set as Equation (6.6)
(6.6)
, for a concrete frame is found from
(6.7)
By adding 25% to Equation (6.7) to be accounted as a frame yield drift and substitute it in
Equation (6.6) we get the elastic rotation of the beam-column joint as shown in Equation
(6.4).
With the knowledge of the design displacement profile, the equivalent SDOF properties of the
structure can be found in the line with the procedure described in section 2.3.
6.2.4 Strength Distribution
For the strength distribution the following procedure is used:
First, the frame shear for each floor is distributed to columns as the following equations:
For the internal columns,
For the external columns,
(6.8)
(6.9)
Where Vi,frame is the frame shear at level i, and n is the number of beam ends that connected to
columns.
38
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
The moments for the columns at each level are then computed using Equations (6.10) and
(6.11)
For the interior columns,
For the exterior columns,
(6.10)
(6.11)
Finally the moments carried by the beams at each floor are found using equation (6.12) and
(6.13):
For the beams in the interior part of the frames,
For the beams at the edges of the frame,
(6.12)
(6.13)
Design results for both case studies are presented in Table (6-1):
Table 6-1: Design results for the irregular frame-wall structure associated with stopping of the core walls
at mid height.
4 story irregular FW
12 story irregular FW
12
36
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4
5*0.20
5*0.20
12
18
1.9%
2.5%
0.145
0.510
70%
73%
8.84
24.9
7.05
3.00
1.39
1.73
System ductility
2.34
1.91
10.12%
13.2%
17.13%
14.4%
System Damping
11.29%
13.4%
1.44
5.38
8981
24621
39
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
Effective stiffness (KN/m)
171644
33611
24850
17151
18491
30553
1.25%
0.85%
Height(m)
12
DBD
10
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
4
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-4: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
40
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
40
35
DBD
Height(m)
30
EQ3a
25
EQ3b
20
EQ4a
15
EQ4b
10
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-5: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
Height(m)
14
12
DBD
10
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
4
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-6: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height and the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below.
41
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
40
35
DBD
Height(m)
30
EQ3a
25
EQ3b
20
EQ4a
15
EQ4b
10
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-7: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height and the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below.
The average of the maximum recorded displacement for the eight accelerograms for the
normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned equal to
the strength of the story below are also compared with the design profile for the same
buildings in Figures 6-8 and 6-9. Note that the design displacement is conservatively
maintained considering the maximum displacements recorded from the time history analyses
for the 2 buildings.
The average of the maximum story drifts recorded during time-history analyses using the
eight accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths
have been assigned equal to the strength of the story below are compared with the design drift
profile for the case studies in Figures 6-10 and 6-11. It is evident that the peak drifts are
conservatively maintained within the design drift profile over the lower stories for both the 12
and 4 story buildings. When assigning the roof beam strengths equal to the strengths of the
story below, the peak drifts are conservatively maintained within the design drift profile for
the upper levels for the 4 story building but exceed the story drift limit for the 12 story
building.
42
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
14
12
DBD
Height(m)
10
8
AverageTHistory
Analysis
6
4
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-8: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned
equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 4-story framewall structure where the walls stop at mid height.
40
35
Height(m)
30
DBD
25
20
AverageTHistory
Analysis
15
10
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
5
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-9: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been
assigned equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 12-story
frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid height.
43
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
14
12
Height
10
DBD
8
AverageTHistory
Analysis
6
4
AverageTHistory
Analysiswithstrong
roofbeams
2
0
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Drift
Figure 6-10: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned
equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 4-story framewall structure where the walls stop at mid height.
40
35
Height
30
25
DBD
20
THistoryAnalysis
15
10
Thistorywithstrong
beamsattop
5
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Drift
Figure 6-11: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms for the normal case and for the case where the top story beam strengths have been assigned
equal to the strength of the story below, compared with the design displacements for the 12-story framewall structure where the walls stop at mid height.
44
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
6.4 New Approach for Design Displacement Profile and Strength Distribution
Considering the limited success of the previous method, and alternative design displacement
profile for the first part of the building, the half which has frames and walls, is proposed by
equation (6.14):
0.18
(6.14)
Where is the design displacement at level i, yi is the yield displacement of the wall at
level i found from equation 2.4,
is the design story drift, y is the yield strain of
longitudinal reinforcement and Lb is the length of the beam, hb is the depth of the beam, y,w
is the yield curvature of the wall, HCF is the contra-flexure height and Hi is the height at level
i. The difference between Equation (2.10) and (6.14) is the reduction part of the displacement
shape which aims to take account of the rotation of the beam-column joint at the point of the
building from which the frames start without the core walls.
The design displacement profile for the second part of the building, the half which has frames
only, was defined by equation (6.15), which is a simplified equation for the procedure used in
Pettinga and Priestley (2005) adding to it the design displacement at the floor of wall
termination, , just under the start of the frame structure only.
(6.15)
(6.16)
Where Vi,frame is the frame shear at level i, Mb,i are the beam strengths at level i, and hcol, is the
inter-story height.
To assure Equilibrium by using Equation (6.16), the procedure starts from the bottom of the
building to the top which will produce a zigzag of moments for the top half of the building
(frames only). This is because the beams for the floor just above the termination of the wall
will be stronger than the floor below to get the applied lateral shear value. On the other hand,
in the floor above with its corresponding lateral shear value it is found that the beams will be
weaker than in the one below in order to satisfy equilibrium. Also, for the floor just above and
applying its corresponding shear value, the moment of the beams corresponding to that floor
will be higher and so on, because in our case the moment required at top floor is so small.
Again, non-linear time history analyses are undertaken to check the performance of the new
design profile and strength distributions.
45
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
The maximum floor displacements recorded during time-history analyses for the 8
accelerograms for both the 12 and 4 story buildings are shown in Figures 6-12 and 6-13 and
are compared with the design displacement profile. The average of the maximum recorded
displacement for the eight accelerograms is also compared with the design profile for the
same buildings in Figures 6-14 and 6-15. Also, the design displacement is conservatively
maintained considering the maximum displacements recorded from the time history analyses
for the 2 buildings.
The average of the maximum story drifts recorded during time-history analyses using the
eight accelerograms are compared with the design drift profile for the case study in Figures 616 and 6-17. It is evident also that peak drifts are conservatively maintained within the design
drift profile over the lower stories, but exceed the story drift limit at upper levels.
Height(m)
14
12
DBD
10
EQ3a
EQ3b
EQ4a
EQ4b
4
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-12: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
46
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
40
Height(m)
35
DBD
30
EQ3a
25
EQ3b
20
EQ4a
15
EQ4b
10
EQ5a
EQ5b
EQ6a
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
EQ6b
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-13: Maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
14
12
Height(m)
10
8
DBD
6
AverageTHistory
Analysis
4
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-14: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the
walls stop at mid height.
47
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
40
35
Height(m)
30
25
20
DBD
15
AverageTHistory
Analysis
10
5
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Displacement(m)
Figure 6-15: Average of the maximum recorded displacements for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the
walls stop at mid height.
14
12
Height
10
8
DBD
6
Thistory
Analysis
4
2
0
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Drift
6-16: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
48
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
40
35
Height
30
25
20
DBD
15
Thistory
10
5
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Drift
6-17: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible accelerograms
compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the walls stop at mid
height.
In considering why the top story drift demand is higher than the design drift one might
consider that the low strength assigned to the beams at roof (as explained in section 6.4) may
have played a role. Considering this, an alternative strength assignment procedure has been
trialled by assigning the strengths of the roof beams the same as strengths of the floor below.
For the 12-story building, a new conservative drift shape is found as shown in Figure 6-18.
40
35
Height(m)
30
25
20
DBD
15
Thistory
10
5
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Drift
Figure 6-18: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 12-story frame-wall structure where the
walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned as the strengths of the story below it.
49
Chapter 6. Investigation of Frame-Wall Structures Possessing core walls that stop at mid
height
Similarly, by assigning the strengths of the roof beams to be the same as half the beam
strengths of the floor below for the 4-story building, a new drift shape is found as shown in
Figure 6-19. The new shape appears to be non-conservative for the lower stories but
conservative for the upper critical stories.
14
12
Height(m)
10
8
DBD
6
Thistory
Analysis
4
2
0
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
Drift
Figure 6-19: Average of the maximum recorded story drifts for the eight spectrum compatible
accelerograms compared with the design displacements for the 4-story frame-wall structure where the
walls stop at mid height and the top story beams strengths assigned as half of the strengths of the story
below it.
Clearly, the drifts expected in the upper stories of this type of frame-wall structure appear to be very
sensitive to the strength assignments and future work should consider the best means of dealing with
this.
50
51
For structures with vertical irregularity associated with core walls that stop at mid-height of
the building two approaches were used where the displacement shape was formed of two
parts.
For the first approach, the first half of the structure in which both frames and walls were
present, the walls controlled the displacement profile and was designed in the traditional
frame-wall displacement profile shape. For the second part of the structure (frames only), a
reduction term was added to the traditional frame displacement shape, which aimed to take
into account the rotation of the beam-column joint at the point of the building from which the
frames start without the core walls, also the displacement from the half below was added to
the frames displacement profile. The results of displacements were found to be conservative
when applying strong beams at the top story of the building but the story drifts exceed the
design drift in the upper levels for the 12 story buildings.
Considering the limited success of the first approach, a second approach was trialled in which
the first half of the structure in which both frames and walls were present, it was proposed
that the rotation of the joints at the interface with the upper part (frames only) of the structure
must be accounted for in the displacement profile in the first half of the structure and the
displacement profile of the upper half (frames only) used the traditional frame building
displacement profile where the displacement from the half below was added to the frames
displacement profile. The results of displacements and story drifts were found to be
conservative when applying strong beams at the top story of the building. However, the most
significant observation was that the upper storey drift appear to be very sensitive to the beam
strength assignment in these levels.
7.3 Future Research
Future research into the seismic design of other types of irregularities for frame-wall
structures should be undertaken.
For the type of irregularity associated with core walls that stop at mid-height of the building a
modified distribution of the design base shear for the part with frames only, should be
examined. The modified distribution is done normally for plane frame structures by allocating
10% of the frame base shear force to the roof level, and the remaining 90% is distributed to
the frame part in accordance to Equation (7.1).
0.9
(2.12)
52
Future work should be done to investigate the performance of vertically irregular frame-wall
structures at the serviceability limit state where no significant remedial action should be
needed for a structure that responds at this limit state.
Future research should be done taking into account the torsional effects of the seismic
response for the vertically irregular structures.
53
References
REFERENCES
54
References
Das, S., (2000). Seismic Design of Vertically Irregular Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Duan XN, ChandlerAM (1995) Seismic torsional response and design procedures for a class
of setback frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:761777.
Grant, D. N., Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] Modelling inelastic response in
direct displacement-based design Research ROSE 2005/03,IUSS press, Pavia, Italy.
Humar, J. L. and Wright, E. W., (1977). "Earthquake Response of Steel-Framed Multistorey
Buildings with Setbacks", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5.
International Code Council. (2003) . International Building Code 2003. Falls Church, Va
Khoury W, Rutenberg A, Levy R (2005) The seismic response of asymmetric setback
perimeter-frame structures. Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic
behaviour of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
MOEHLE, J. P., (1984). Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Structures. Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE 110, 9, 2002-2014.
MOEHLE, J. P., AND ALARCON, L. F., (1986). Modelling and Analysis Methods for
Vertically Irregular Buildings. Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, vol. 3, pp. 57-64.
Moehle, J. P., and Sozen, M. A., (1980). Experiments to study earthquake response of R/C
structures with stiffness interruptions. Structural Research Series No. 482, Civil Engineering
Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne, pp. 421.
Pettinga, D., Priestley, M.J.N., [2005] "Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames
Designed with Direct Displacement-Based Design", ROSE Report, IUSS Press, Vol. 2005/2
Pinto, D., and Costa, A. G., (1995). "Influence of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Response
of Buildings", Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2.
Priesley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J., (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy
Priestley, M. J. N., (2003). Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. Pavia:
IUSS Press
Shahrooz, B. M. and Moehle, J. P., (1990). "Seismic Response and Design of Setback
Buildings", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 116, No.5.
55
References
Sharpe, R.D. (1974). The Seismic Response of Inelastic Structures. Ph.D Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Sullivan T. J., Priesley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., (2006). Seismic Design of Frame-Wall Structures,
ROSE Research Report No. 2006/2, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Tena-Colunga A, Zambrana-Rojas C., (2006) Dynamic torsional amplifications of baseisolated structures with an eccentric isolation system. Eng Struct. 28:7283.
Wong, C. M. and Tso, W. K., (1994). "Seismic Loading For Buildings With Setbacks",
Canadian Journal ofCivil Engineering, Vol. 21, No.5, October.
Wood, S. L., (1986). "Dynamic Response of RIC Frames with Irregular Profiles", Proceedings
of the Third U.S. national Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August.
56
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
In this Appendix the input file used for the computer program RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2005) for
the 12 story frame-wall structure with setbacks is presented.
12 story vertically irregular building -walls full height & Frames with setbacksall units are in kN and meter
2
91
10
1
138
1
DEFAULT
0
NODES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
5
10
1
12
10
0
1
1
0
0
0
2 9.81 2.56
0.1
1
0
0.01 24.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
0
3
6
9
12
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix A
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
32
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
56
56
56
56
64
64
64
64
72
72
72
72
36
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
0
3
6
9
0
3
6
9
0
3
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
2
3
4
0
2
3
4
0
2
3
4
Elements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix A
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
66
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
Appendix A
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
82
84
85
86
88
89
90
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
85
86
87
89
90
91
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
Appendix A
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
76
81
82
83
85
86
87
PROPS
1 Frame
1
0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07
0
0.99
0.99
1.2
1.2
0
0
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
85
86
87
89
90
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0 0.001721 0.00073
0.99
0
0
0
0.144
0.144
62
Appendix A
367
0.3
367
0.6
0
1
2 Frame
1
0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07
0
0
0.99
0.99
3.343
1
0
0
62110
62110
0
0
0.5
0
0
1.6
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0 3.628689
0
0.99
0
0
0
0
0
2
3 Frame
1
0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
0
0 3.628689
0
4 Frame
1
0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07
0
0
0.99
0.99
0.55
0.55
0
0
350
350
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.25
0
0.035
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0 0.001216 0.00122
0
0.99
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0.2
5 Frame
1
0
2.7E+07 1.10E+07
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0 0.001216 0.00122
0
0
0.2
Weights
2
3
4
5
0
12800
12800
12800
8000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.003
0
1.28
1.28
0
0
0.003 1.3333 1.3333
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
63
Appendix A
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
8000
8000
4800
4800
4800
4800
4800
4800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOADS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EQUAKE
3
0.01
64