You are on page 1of 21


discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Seismic Vulnerability of RC Shear Wall Building

with a Dome Roof in Moderate Seismic Region
of Saudi Arabia


DOI: 10.1007/s13369-015-1882-8


0 38

3 authors:

Muhammad Ajmal Muhammad Rahman

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals King Fahd University of Petroleum and Miner


M. H. Baluch
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals


Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Ajmal on 16 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310
DOI 10.1007/s13369-015-1882-8


Seismic Vulnerability of RC Shear Wall Building with a Dome

Roof in Moderate Seismic Region of Saudi Arabia
M. Ajmal1 M. K. Rahman2 M. H. Baluch1

Received: 4 January 2015 / Accepted: 6 October 2015 / Published online: 26 October 2015
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2015

Abstract Recent seismic events in low-to-moderate seis- Keywords Pushover analysis Hinge formation Shear
micity regions of Saudi Arabia have led to concerns on the wall Shell element approach Mid-pier approach Base
vulnerability of RC buildings constructed in Saudi Arabia shear Interstory Drift Finite element
up to mid-1990s. These buildings were designed for gravity
loads only, and potential for damage during seismic event is
high. Buildings with dome at the roof level are an architec-
tural feature in many buildings. Monolithic dome at the roof 1 Introduction
of the structure stiffens the upper part of structure requiring
special consideration in seismic design. This paper presents Seismic events in the past two decades have resulted in large-
the assessment of seismic vulnerability, using nonlinear sta- scale loss of human lives and damage to the structures. Recent
tic pushover analysis, of an eight-story building with shear earthquakes including 1995 Kobe in Japan, 1999 Kocaeli in
walls and a large dome at the roof level, under a moder- Turkey, 2005 Kashmir in Pakistan and 2010 in Chile and
ate intensity earthquake. The building is located in western Haiti have highlighted the susceptibility of concrete struc-
region of Saudi Arabia, which is Region 3 as per Saudi Build- tures to extensive damage, under earthquake loading. The
ing Code. Pushover analysis is carried out using the software 1994 Northridge earthquake in the USA also brings forth the
SAP2000 incorporating inelastic material behavior for con- massive economical losses due to damage to infrastructure
crete and steel, for a typical 2D frame in the building with and buildings designed to resist major seismic events.
a shear wall. The shear wall is modeled using the shell ele- Saudi Arabia was generally considered aseismic for sev-
ment and mid-pier approaches. A 3D pushover analysis of eral decades. Majority of structures built up to mid 1990s
the building is also carried out with mid-pier model for shear were not designed for seismic loads. Recent seismic events
walls. The presence of heavy mass at the roof results in yield- in Saudi Arabia (Tabuk 2004, Makkah 2005, Haradh 2006,
ing of hinges in the roof-level columns supporting the dome. Yanbu 2009, Madinah 2009, Jizan 2014) have led to concerns
The beams connected to the shear wall and the shear walls of on the safety of reinforced concrete buildings, which have
the building are deficient under seismic load. Strengthening not been designed for seismic loading. The Saudi Building
of beams, columns at the roof level under the dome and shear Code [1] has categorized the Kingdom into seven regions
walls is warranted to meet the seismic demand. in which the western region has been placed in Region
3 with moderate seismicity. Several public and commer-
cial reinforced concrete buildings constructed in moderate
B M. K. Rahman seismic region of Saudi Arabia are vulnerable to damage and failure during a seismic event. Buildings designed only
1 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, King Fahd
for gravity loads have limited lateral load resistance and
University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are susceptible to column sidesway or soft story mech-
2 Center for Engineering Research, Research Institute, King
anism under earthquake load. For buildings, which are
Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, designed for gravity and wind loads, the lack of ductile
Saudi Arabia detailing at the beamcolumn joint and nonadherence to

1292 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

strong column weak beam concept makes them seismically to show that all nonlinear static pushover techniques tend to
deficient. lead to reasonably satisfactory results. Fahjan et al. [13] car-
Performance-based seismic design code has been imple- ried out a nonlinear static analysis of an existing reinforced
mented in the recent years for design of concrete structures building with shear wall. They modeled shear walls for an
in many countries e.g., in USA [26], in Japan [7], in existing school building by mid-pier as well as shell element
Europe [8] and in Turkey [9]. The performance-based seismic method and found that the pushover analysis for FEMA-356
design emphasizes that public buildings such as hospitals, model and the mid-pier model showed close results.
schools, fire stations and municipalities should remain func- This paper presents the nonlinear behavior of an exist-
tional after seismic events. Seismic capacity and seismic ing reinforced concrete public building in moderate seismic
demands for different performance levels of the structure region of Saudi Arabia, characterized by the presence of a
need to be computed to ensure the achievement of desired heavy mass in the form of dome at the roof, when subjected
performance level. Two methods available to the structural to seismic loading using nonlinear static pushover technique.
engineer to calculate seismic demand of a structure are Using pushover analysis, capacity of the structure, target roof
the dynamic time history analyses and the nonlinear static displacement, interstory drift ratio, formation of hinges and
pushover analyses. sequence of yielding of members are evaluated. Pushover
Pushover analysis of buildings is one of the performance- analysis is first carried out for a selected 2D frame from the
based seismic design approach, which can estimate forces building with a shear wall followed by a pushover analysis
acting on brittle elements, identify failure mechanism of the of the 3D building.
structure, provide interstory drifts, trace the formation of
hinge and sequence of yielding of members and the capac-
ity of structure under seismic demand. Pushover analysis has 2 Description of Building
been widely used in the recent years. It is simplified and
approximate method to evaluate the seismic performance The structure under investigation is an existing public build-
of structural system and to estimate the inelastic structural ing located in the western region of Saudi Arabia, which was
response when subjected to lateral displacement. constructed in mid-1990. The building has eight stories with
A large number of studies on pushover analysis of a typical story height of 3.2 m for first five stories, with the
hypothetical structures have been reported in literature. remaining three story heights being 4.2, 2.4 and 5 m, respec-
Few studies addressing seismic assessment of an actual tively. The plan area of the building is 40 m 40 m. The
structure using the pushover analysis have been reported. building consists of reinforced concrete frame elements and
Rana et al. [10] conducted a pushover analysis of nine- shear walls with ribbed and flat slab systems at different sto-
teen stories, slender concrete tower building located in San ries levels except at the roof level, which has an architectural
Francisco with a gross area of 430,000 square feet. Analy- dome with a mass of about 88,000 kg. The building is located
sis showed formation of hinges in walls and at spandrel in the seismic Region 3 as per SBC-301 and Zone 2B as per
locations, which was considered undesirable for the perfor- Uniform Building Code [14]. The soil strata is stiff soil which
mance objective. By performing trial runs with arbitrarily places the structure in site class D as per SBC-301, and being
increased shear strength of the shear hinges at these loca- a public building the importance factor (I ) is taken as 1.25.
tions, shear-strengthening requirement was quantified. Shear For Region 3, the SBC-301 stipulates the maximum spectral
strengthening of the building enhanced the capacity of the response acceleration at short periods (Ss ) and 1-s (S1 ) are
structure to the desired performance level. Goksu et al. [11] 0.55 and 0.17 g, respectively.
performed a pushover analysis of a typical RC building in
Turkey with all typical construction faults. They investigated
the behavior of existing and retrofitted building frame using 3 Modeling of the Structure for Pushover Analysis
concrete and CFRP jackets. The pushover analysis results
showed a significant enhancement in strength due to retro- A typical plan and 3D model of the building showing the
fitting. beams and columns are shown in Fig. 1. Seismic assess-
3D pushover analysis is an attractive alternative for assess- ment of the building is carried out using pushover analysis.
ing the performance of an irregular reinforced concrete The pushover analysis is carried out for a typical 2D frame
building. Phino et al. [12] assessed 3D irregular SPEAR test with shear wall in the building followed by the 3D pushover
building (a full-scale model tested under pseudo-dynamic analysis of the whole building. The 2D frame consists of two
conditions and subjected to bidirectional seismic loading) shear walls and seven bays. Each story has different sections
using four commonly available nonlinear static procedures. for beams and columns. Figure 2 shows a typical frame of
The comparisons with the results obtained from nonlinear the building with shear walls (designated as FR1) which is
dynamic analysis of a verified model of the structure seemed selected for pushover analysis.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1293

Fig. 1 a Typical plan of building at various levels, b 3D computer model of the building

3.1 Mechanical Properties and Loading the building as per SBC-301 and UBC-1997 are shown in
Table 6.
The mechanical properties of steel reinforcement and con-
crete used in the design and maintained in the construction 3.2 Shear Wall Modeling
phase are shown in Table 1. The average compressive strength
of the concrete is 30 MPa, and the yield strength of the For pushover analysis, the shear wall in the building is mod-
reinforcing steel is 420 MPa. The cross section and reinforce- eled using two approaches (1) shell element method and (2)
ments in the shear walls, beams and columns are shown in mid-pier idealization of shear walls. In the shell element
Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Dead and live loads used for approach, a multilayer shell element is used which com-
the analysis are summarized in Table 5. Dead loads consist prises of concrete and smeared rebar layers with material
of the weight of slabs, flooring for the selected frame, floor- properties as shown Fig. 3. The shell element formulation is
ing for the roof, internal partitions and electromechanical based on the assumption that plane section remains plane.
devices. Based on this assumption, first axial strains and curvatures
The seismic loads for the building are calculated using are obtained for the elements, and then using constitutive
FEMA-356 since the mass participation in the fundamen- relationships, stresses are computed. The nonlinear behavior
tal mode is more than 75 %. FEMA-356 design code lateral of shear wall modeled with shell element can be examined by
load distribution pattern is adopted which has the pattern stresses in concrete and steel layers. However, the ATC-40
of first mode shape. The center of mass of the build- and FEMA-356 plastic rotation performance level cannot be
ing is calculated based on mass distribution at each node. assessed using this approach. The stresses in concrete and
For 3D pushover analysis, the lateral loads are applied steel can give an indication of hinge formation, but not the
at the center of the mass. The accidental eccentricity is performance level.
ignored in the seismic loading in order to observe the lat- In mid-pier approach, the shear wall is modeled as
eral load effect on the walls. The seismic parameters for an equivalent mid-pier frame element and rigid beams as

1294 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 2 Frame FR1 of the

building selected for analysis

Table 1 Material properties for structural elements 3.3 Effective Flexural Stiffness of Frame Elements
Properties MPa
According to ATC-40, FEMA-356 and ASCE-41, the effec-
Compressive strength of concrete ( f c ) 30 tive flexural stiffness of a cracked section of the structural
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (E c ) 25,743 members should be used in pushover analysis. A nonlinear
Yield stress of rebar ( f y ) 420 static analysis is performed using the flexural stiffness of the
Ultimate stress of rebar ( f u ) 620 uncracked sections by considering the vertical loads compat-
Modulus of elasticity of steel (E s ) 200,000 ible with story lumped mass (1.0DL + 0.25LL). The axial
loads obtained from this analysis are used for calculating
the effective flexural stiffness values of beams, columns and
shown in Fig. 4. Plastic hinge concept and momentrotation walls. According to ASCE-41, effective flexural stiffness for
relationship are considered in the mid-pier model for the non- different members can be determined as shown in Table 7.
linear behavior of the wall. Plastic hinges are placed in the For the columns if AgPf  0.5, the effective stiffness can
mid-pier element at the location where yielding is expected be taken as 0.7 E c Ig , and if P
Ag f c 0.1, the effective stiffness
(Fig. 4), and the remaining part between the plastic hinges is P
can be taken as 0.3 E c Ig . If the value of Ag f c lies between
kept linear elastic.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1295

Table 2 Shear wall reinforcement details

Shear wall Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Vertical Horizontal Boundary elements reinforcement
reinforcement reinforcement

Longitudinal Ties

SW200 200 7200 12 @ 200 mm 12 @ 200 mm 820 10 @ 200 mm
SW300 300 4200 12 @ 200 mm 12 @ 200 mm 616 10 @ 200 mm

Table 3 Beam dimensions and

Beam b (mm) h (mm) Bottom rebar Top reinforcement Stirrups
reinforcement details
Mid-span Left support Right support

K5 200 500 314 325 325 325 8 @ 200 mm

K9 300 500 316 625 625 625 10 @ 150 mm
K10 300 500 325 316 625 322 10 @ 100 mm
K11 300 500 325 316 325 625 10 @ 100 mm
K16 500 500 820 414 414 414 8 @ 100 mm
K17 500 500 1125 620 620 620 8 @ 50 mm
K28 300 900 425 416 416 416 8 @ 200 mm

Table 4 Column dimensions and reinforcement details Table 6 Seismic parameters for the structure
Column b (mm) h (mm) Longitudinal Ties Description SBC-301 [1] UBC [14]
Seismic zone Region 3 2B
1A13 300 600 1422 310 @ 142 mm
Building importance 1.25 1.25
2A13 300 500 1222 310 @ 142 mm factor (I )
3A13 300 500 1222 310 @ 142 mm Local site class D (stiff soil) D (stiff soil)
4A13 300 400 1016 210 @ 167 mm Structural behavior 6.5 8.5
5A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm response factor (R)
6A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm Live load participation 0.25 0.25
7A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm factor (n)

8A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm

1A11 300 600 1422 210 @ 167 mm
2A11 300 600 1420 210 @ 167 mm 0.5 and 0.3, a linear interpolation method can be used. The
3A11 300 600 1420 210 @ 167 mm effective stiffness values for columns are shown in Table 8.
4A11 300 400 1016 210 @ 167 mm
5A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm 3.4 Modeling of Plastic Hinges
6A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm
7A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm In pushover analysis, a forcedeformation curve is needed
for the plastic hinges. A typical force deformation curve for
hinge is shown in Fig. 5a. The points A, B, C, D and E on the
Table 5 Applied loads on structure
curve characterize the forcedeformation behavior of hinge,
Load description Load value (kN/m2 ) and the points between B and C represent ATC-40 acceptance
Slab (0.1 m) 2.38
criteria for the hinge which are immediate occupancy (IO),
life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP). The values of
Flooring for typical floors 0.94
these performance levels recommended by ATC-40 for IO,
Flooring for the roof 1.43
LS and CP are 0.2, 0.5 and 0.9, where is the length
Superimposed load 0.50
of plastic hinge plateau as shown in Fig. 5b.
Live loads for typical floors 4.80
The beams and columns in the structure are modeled using
Live loads for roof 2.40
an elastic plastic beamcolumn element. The members are
modeled as an elastic beam element with two rigid plastic

1296 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 3 a Multilayer shell

element, b shell element model
for the shear wall

hinges at the ends. The maximum strain values for concrete The resulting momentcurvature relationship for the beam
of 0.003 and for steel of 0.05 (considering strain harden- K28 is shown in Fig. 8. The momentcurvature curve is
ing) according to ASCE-41 and FEMA-356 are used for the converted into bilinear idealized momentplastic rotation by
definition of plastic hinges at the member ends. The stress using Eqs. 1 and 2.
strain curve for the plastic hinges for concrete is obtained
using the Mander unconfined and confined concrete model p = u y (1)
(Mander et al. [15]). The unconfined concrete model is used
p = p L p (2)
for the outer layer of the section extending from the trans-
verse reinforcement to the surface, and confined concrete
model is used for the core concrete. A parabolic strain- where p = plastic curvature; u = ultimate curvature;
hardening stressstrain curve is used for the reinforcing y = yield curvature; p = plastic hinge rotation; L p =
steel. plastic hinge length (L p = 0.5 times depth of the section
according to ACI 318-08 [17]).
The momentrotation relation thus obtained is used for
3.4.1 Plastic Hinges at Beam Ends pushover analysis. Figure 9 shows the idealized moment
rotation curve for the typical beam K28.
The momentcurvature relationship for the plastic hinges in
beams is obtained using the software XTRACT [16]. For a 3.4.2 Plastic Hinge at the Ends of Columns and Shear walls
typical beam (Beam K28, refer to Fig. 2), the cross-sectional
details and typical stressstrain curve for steel are shown in The loadmoment interaction curves for the plastic hinges
Fig. 6. The stressstrain curves obtained from the Mander at the column and shear wall ends are obtained from the
unconfined and confined concrete models for the beam K28 XTRACT [6] software. The moment and axial force interac-
are shown in Fig. 7. tion curve is created for neutral axis angles of 0 , 45 ,

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1297

Fig. 4 Mid-pier model of the

frame FR1 for the shear wall

Table 7 Effective stiffnesses for the structural elements the column 1A13 and the shear wall SW200 are shown in
Component Flexural Shear Axial Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
rigidity rigidity rigidity

Beams nonprestressed 0.3 E c Ig 0.4 E c Aw

Columns P
0.5 0.7 E c Ig 0.4 E c Aw E c Ag
4 Pushover Analysis of the Structure
Ag f c
Columns P
0.1 or
Ag f c 0.3 E c Ig 0.4 E c Aw E c Ag Nonlinear static pushover analysis is carried out to assess
with tension
the adequacy of the design for the building under seismic
loading. Structural analysis software SAP2000 [18] is used
90 , 135 and 180 to get the 3D interaction surface for this purpose. Pushover is carried out for a selected shear
which is required for 3D pushover analysis of the building. wall frame FR1 of the building (Fig. 2) and 3D building
Typical cross-sectional details and 3D interaction curves for (Fig. 1b). Nonlinear models of the frame FR1 and the 3D

1298 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Table 8 Effective flexural stiffness of the columns

Section Axial load Ag (mm2 ) P
Ag f c Effective flexural
P (kN) rigidity (EI)e

1A13 1590.9 180,000 0.29 0.494 E c Ig

2A13 1415.6 150,000 0.31 0.515 E c Ig
3A13 1246.5 150,000 0.28 0.477 E c Ig
4A13 1074.2 120,000 0.30 0.498 E c Ig
5A13 869.1 90,000 0.32 0.521 E c Ig
6A13 665.8 90,000 0.25 0.447 E c Ig
7A13 554.2 90,000 0.21 0.405 E c Ig
8A13 528.9 90,000 0.20 0.396 E c Ig
1A11 1230.4 180,000 0.23 0.428 E c Ig
2A11 1042.9 180,000 0.19 0.393 E c Ig
3A11 852.9 180,000 0.16 0.358 E c Ig
4A11 632.9 120,000 0.18 0.376 E c Ig
5A11 441.6 90,000 0.16 0.364 E c Ig
6A11 260.1 90,000 0.10 0.300 E c Ig
7A11 90.4 90,000 0.03 0.300 E c Ig

Fig. 6 a Cross-sectional details for the beam K28; b stressstrain curve

for steel

are assigned to the plastic hinges as discussed in previous

For 2D frame FR1, pushover analysis is carried out for
two models. In the first model, the shear wall is model using
finite element with multilayer shell element, and in the second
model, the mid-pier idealization of the shear wall is used
together with assigned hinges as shown in Fig. 12. For 3D
pushover analysis of the building mid-pier idealization of the
shear wall is adopted.
The pushover analysis of the frame FR1 and 3D building
is carried out by first analyzing the structure for grav-
ity loads (1.0DL + 0.25LL). The structure is subsequently
subjected to incremental static lateral seismic loads up to
the collapse of the structure in both positive and nega-
tive x-directions. The pushover curves thus generated are
Fig. 5 a Typical forcedeformation curve, b typical momentrotation
curve with acceptance criteria for hinge transformed into first mode capacity curves on the modal
accelerationdisplacement coordinates using transformation
Eqs. 3 and 4.
building are generated by assigning plastic hinges at the ends
of the columns and the beams. Momentcurvature curves for (i)
beams and 3D loadmoment interaction surfaces for columns a1 = (3)

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1299




-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03



Rotation (rad)

Fig. 9 Idealized momentrotation curve for the beam K28

where a1 is the modal acceleration of the fundamental period

at ith step, Vx1 is the base shear at ith step in x-direction, and
Mx1 is the participated mass at the fundamental period in x-
(i) ux N1
d1 = (4)
x N 1 x1

where d1 is the modal displacement of the fundamental
period at ith step, x1 is the modal participation factor of the
Fig. 7 a Unconfined concrete stressstrain curve; b confined concrete fundamental period in x-direction, and x N 1 represents the
stressstrain curve
modal shape of N th story at the fundamental period of x-
direction. u (i)
x N 1 is the top displacement value in x-direction,
obtained from ith step of the pushover analysis.
1500 Capacity curves are then used to determine the perfor-
mance point of the frame FR1 and 3D structure using
1000 FEMA-356 capacity spectrum method (CSM). Capacity
curves and designed response spectrums for 5, 10, 15 and
500 20 % damping ratios for building in western region are plot-
Moment (kNm)

ted on a same scale, and the intersection of the capacity

0 curves and designed response spectrums gives the demand
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 displacement. Demand displacement is transformed to roof
displacement which gives an adequate measure of the tar-
get displacement that the frame FR1 and 3D building are
expected to experience due to the design earthquake excita-

Curvature (rad/m)
5 Results and Discussion for Pushover Analysis of
Fig. 8 Momentcurvature curve for the beam K28 Shear Wall Frame Fr1

5.1 Pushover Curves

Nonlinear static pushover analysis of the typical frame FR1 of

the building with shear wall is carried out until the collapse

1300 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 10 Cross-sectional detail

and 3D interaction curve for the
column 1A13

0 PMM Interacon
Axial Force (kN)

45 PMM Interacon
5000 90 PMM Interacon
135 PMM Interacon


-600 -400 -200 -1000 0 200 400 600

0, -2235
Moment (kNm)


0 PMM Interacon
45 PMM Interacon
Axial Force (kN)

30000 90 PMM Interacon

135 PMM Interacon


-50000 -30000 -10000 10000 30000 50000
Moment (kNm)

Fig. 11 Cross-sectional details and 3D interaction curve for the shear wall SW200

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1301

of the frame, which occurs at a displacement of 210 mm.

Pushover curves for the FR1 frame, modeled with shell ele-
ment and mid-pier approach, are shown in Fig. 13. It can be
seen from Fig. 13 the curves are linear in the beginning, but
start to deviate from linearity as beams and columns undergo
inelastic action. From Fig. 13, it can be seen that the pushover
curves for both approaches are almost identical. The base
shears in the positive x-direction for the frame FR1 modeled
with shell element and mid-pier approach at a displacement
of 0.21 m are 5390.76 and 5066.87 kN, respectively, whereas
in the negative x-direction, the base shears are 5483.87 and
5514.70 kN, respectively. The base shear values are close
using the two approaches. For the design of new structures,
professional engineers can use the mid-pier approach with a
reasonable degree of accuracy with less computational time.
However, for forensic investigations of buildings and retro-
fitting of shear walls in existing structures, it would be more
appropriate to use the shell element approach as one can
visualize the stresses in concrete and steel.

5.2 Demand Displacement at Performance Point

Figures 14 and 15 show the performance points for the frame

FR1 modeled with shell element approach in the positive
and negative x-directions, and Figs. 16 and 17 show the per-
formance points for mid-pier approach. Table 9 shows the
base shear and target displacement of the frame FR1 using
shell element and mid-pier methods at performance point.
The seismic demand for the frame FR1 is 80 mm for shell
element and 82 mm for mid-pier approach in the positive
x-direction. The displacement capacity for the structure is
210 mm at which point the structure is in a collapse state.
Fig. 12 Plastic hinges assigned to frame FR1 for the shell element and
mid-pier methods 5.3 Hinge Formation at Demand Displacement

Figure 18 shows the hinge formation in frame modeled

with shell element based on acceptance criteria for hinge.

Fig. 13 Pushover curves for 6000

the frame FR1 modeled with the +X Mid-Pier Model
shell element and mid-pier 4000
-X Mid-Pier Model
+X Shell Element Model
Base shear (kN)

-X shell Element Model

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3



Displacement (m)

1302 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 14 Performance point in

the positive x-direction for the
frame FR1 modeled with shell
element approach

Fig. 15 Performance point in

the negative x-direction for the
frame FR1 modeled with shell
element approach

Figures 19 and 20 show the crushing of the concrete and walls for the seismic demand. Therefore, the shear walls of
yielding of steel at the base of shear walls, which is an the building need to be retrofitted to meet the seismic demand.
indication of hinge formation in the shear walls at demand Figure 21 shows the hinge formation for the frame FR1 mod-
displacement when the frame is pushed in positive x- eled with mid-pier approach. Both shell element and mid-pier
direction. approach show approximately similar patterns of hinge for-
It can be seen from Fig. 19 that the maximum stress in mation. Some additional hinges in mid-pier approach result
a concrete is 33.6 MPa, which exceeds the average concrete from the slightly higher seismic demand obtained for this
compressive strength of 30 MPa. Similarly, Fig. 20 shows approach.
that the maximum stress in the steel is 455 MPa exceeding the It can be seen from Figs. 18 and 21 that the columns below
yield strength of 420 MPa. The pushover analysis using shell the frame supporting the dome (7th storey) are yielding at
element method clearly shows the deficiency of the shear the demand displacement. This violates the strong column

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1303

Fig. 16 Performance point in

the positive x-direction for the
frame FR1 modeled with
mid-pier approach

Fig. 17 Performance point in

the negative x-direction for the
frame FR1 modeled with
mid-pier approach

Table 9 Performance point of

Frame model Direction Spectral Spectral Base shear Displacement
the frame FR1 from the capacity
acceleration, displacement, (kN) (m)
spectrum method
Sa (g) Sd (m)

Shell element +X 0.321 0.052 4075.3 0.080

Shell element X 0.333 0.051 4227.5 0.077
Mid-pier +X 0.342 0.054 4199.7 0.082
Mid-pier X 0.369 0.054 4516.3 0.080

weak beam philosophy for seismic design. Several column This depicts the fact that the effect of dome at the top of
elements entered into the inelastic range at the top of the the building has not been incorporated in the design of the
building (under the dome) as compared to the lower level. building under seismic load. Pushover analysis of the frame

1304 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 18 Hinge formation at demand displacement for the frame FR1 modeled with shell element approach

Fig. 19 Crushing of concrete at the base of shear wall at demand displacement

FR1 carried out for higher seismic demand (seismic Region 5.4 Lateral Displacement and Interstory Drift Ratio
1 in Saudi Arabia) portrays a strong probability of collapse (IDR)
of the dome and frame at the higher levels of the build-
ing. This behavior also shows that the building has not been Figure 22 shows the lateral displacement for the frame FR1
designed for seismic loads. It is therefore assessed that the model with shell element and mid-pier method in posi-
building needs to be retrofitted to ensure the IO (immedi- tive and negative x-directions at demand displacement. The
ate occupancy) performance level. The columns at the top maximum lateral displacement for the two at a demand dis-
storey level under the dome should be retrofitted to meet the placement is 8.0 and 8.2 cm, respectively, whereas in the
seismic demands and to ensure that the dome does not col- negative x-direction is 7.7 and 8.0 cm, respectively.
lapse. The elements such as domes, lanterns at the top of The interstory drift in a building is an important damage
the structure are particularly vulnerable to damage in a seis- parameter commonly used to assess the vulnerability of the
mic event due to stiffening and heavy mass at the top level structure to seismic loading. The interstory drift ratios are
[19]. computed using Eq. 3.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1305

Fig. 20 Yielding of steel at the base of shear wall at demand displacement





shell model
shell model
mid-pier model
5 mid-pier model

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Lateral Displacement (cm)

Fig. 22 Lateral displacement of stories for the frame FR1 at demand


Figure 23 shows the interstory drift ratio for the frame FR1
model with shell element and mid-pier approach in positive
and negative x-directions at the demand displacement.
The maximum interstory drift ratios in the positive x-
direction for the frame FR1 at the demand displacement are
0.344 and 0.363 %, respectively, whereas in the negative x-
direction these are 0.317 and 0.331 %, respectively. It can be
observed from Figs. 22 and 23 that the maximum lateral dis-
placement and maximum interstory drift ratio obtained from
mid-pier approach give very close results to the shell element
Fig. 21 Hinge formation at demand displacement for the frame FR1
modeled with mid-pier approach
6 Results and Discussion for 3D Pushover Analysis
i = (3) of the Building
where i is interstory drift ratio; h i is the story height; i is The capacity curve for 3D pushover analysis of the build-
the relative floor displacement. ing in x-direction is shown in Fig. 24. The pushover analysis

1306 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 23 Interstory drift ratio 9

Shell Element model Shell Element model
(IDR) for the frame FR1 at
demand displacement 8


Mid-Pier model

Mid-Pier model 2

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Interstorey Drif Ratio (%)

Fig. 24 Pushover curves in 40000

x-direction for 3D building

Base Shear (kN)


-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3



Displacement (m)

shows the formation of hinges in the beams connected to
shear walls and in shear walls at a very small displacement. 25
Lateral displacement and interstory drift ratio are shown in
Figs. 25 and 26. The target displacement at performance 20

point, i.e., at demand level, is 0.085 and 0.087 m in pos-

itive and negative x-directions, which is very close to the
demand level, obtained from 2D pushover analysis of the 10
frame (0.082 m).
The plastic hinge formations in the 3D building are shown 5
in Figs. 27 and 28. Formation of hinges clearly shows
that the members of the building are designed for grav- -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
ity loads only. It can be observed that the shear walls are Lateral Displacement (cm)
deficient in resisting the seismic load. The 3D pushover
analysis shows that at the seismic demand level, hinges cor- Fig. 25 Lateral displacement of stories for 3D building at demand
responding to LS (life safety) are formed in most of beams
connected to the shear wall. Plastic hinges are also formed
the dome. The shear walls are also observed to be defi-
in columns at the top story levels under the dome, which
cient at the demand level. It can be seen from Figs. 27 and
is indicative of deficiency of the supporting members for
28 that most of the hinges can be categorized into LS (life

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1307

Fig. 26 Interstory drift ratio of 9

the building from 3D pushover
analysis 8


-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Interstory Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 27 Plastic hinge status in

the positive x-direction at
demand displacement

safety) as per FEMA-356. The 3D pushover analysis high- obtained from 2D and 3D analysis. It can be seen from Fig. 29
lights the deficiency of the building particularly the beams that the 3D pushover curve is stiffer and gives higher base
connected to the shear walls and the columns under the shear as compared to 2D analysis because the members and
dome. shear walls connected to the frame FR1 in orthogonal direct
For comparison of 2D and 3D pushover analysis results, are not considered in 2D analysis. The base shear in the pos-
the shear wall frame FR1 is considered. Figure 29 shows itive x-direction at a target displacement of 0.21 m from 3D
the comparison between the pushover curves of frame FR1 analysis is 6014 kN which is 1.15 times more than the base

1308 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 28 Plastic hinge status in

the negative x-direction at
demand displacement

Fig. 29 Comparison between 8000

the 2D and 3D pushover curves
3D Pushover curve
for the frame FR1 6000
2D Pushover Curve

Base Shear (kN)


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



Displacement (m)

shear obtained from 2D analysis, whereas it is 1.17 times the frame FR1 at the demand displacement, from 2D and 3D
more in the negative x-direction. pushover analysis, is 8.2 and 8.5 cm, respectively (Fig. 31).
Figure 30 shows a comparison between the hinge forma- In the negative x-direction, the maximum lateral displace-
tions in frame FR1 for the 2D and 3D model. The figure ment is 8.0 and 8.86 cm, respectively. It is apparent that the
shows sequence of yielding of members, and shear walls are 2D pushover analysis response of a typical 2D frame in the
almost similar at the demand level for the 2D and 3D model. building is close to that obtained for the same frame from 3D
The 3D model hinges show higher plastic deformation (LS as pushover analysis of the building. The 2D pushover analysis
per FEMA-356) as compared to 2D model in frame FR1. The of a typical frame in a building can be utilized to predict the
maximum lateral displacement in the positive x-direction for demand displacement for a 3D structure.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1309

Fig. 30 Comparison of hinge

formation at demand
displacement for frame FR1
frame from 2D and 3D pushover

The shell element approach for modeling the shear wall
brings forth the deficiency in the shear wall with the crushing
of concrete and yielding of the reinforcing steel at the base
20 level, which is an indication of hinge formation. In the mid-

pier approach, distinct hinges are formed at this location. The

15 hinge status of shell element and mid-pier approach at max-
3D (Posive) imum displacement provides almost the same pattern. The
10 3D (Negave) mid-pier model is suitable for the design of new structures,
2D (Posive) but for retrofitting of shear wall in existing structures, shell
5 2D (Negave)
element model is more appropriate.
-10 -5 0 5 10 Acknowledgments The study is being funded by King Fahd Uni-
versity of Petroleum and Minerals under Project Number IN101028.
Lateral Displacement (cm)
The support of the Civil Engineering Department and Center for Engi-
neering Research Institute at KFUPM is gratefully acknowledged. The
Fig. 31 Comparison of the lateral displacement of stories at demand
authors acknowledge the support provided by Istanbul Technical Uni-
displacement for the frame FR1
versity and Earthquake Engineering Center to the KFUPM graduate
students involved in this project.

7 Conclusions References

Nonlinear static pushover analysis is a powerful tool to assess 1. SBC-301: Saudi Building Code for Load and Forces Requirements.
the seismic vulnerability of existing structures. Inelastic per- Saudi Arabia (2007)
2. ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.
formance assessment of an eight-story public building with
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA (1997)
a large dome at the roof level, under a moderate inten- 3. ATC-55: Evaluation and Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analy-
sity earthquake using the pushover analysis revealed several sis Procedures. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA
deficiencies in the structure at the seismic demand level. (2001)
4. ASCE-41: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American
Development of hinges in the beams and columns at a low
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), USA (2006)
level of displacement shows that the building was designed 5. FEMA-356: Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Reha-
for the gravity load only. Pushover analysis showed hinges bilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
forming in the columns at the roof level under the dome indi- Reston, Virginia (2002)
6. FEMA-440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
cating the possibility of the collapse of the dome. Both 2D Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reston, Vir-
and 3D pushover analyses show that the building needs to ginia (2005)
be retrofitted to meet the seismic demands. The columns at 7. BCJ: The Seismic Design Code for Building in Japan. Japan (2009)
top level need to be strengthened to preclude the collapse 8. CEN: Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-
part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN
of the dome. The beams connected to the shear walls and 1998-1:2004. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels (2004)
the shear walls itself need to be retrofitted to achieve the IO 9. TEC: Turkish Earthquake Design Resistant Code. Ankara, Turkey
(immediate occupancy) performance level for this important (2007)
public building. In the buildings with heavy mass at the roof 10. Rana, R.; Jin, L.; Zekioglu, A.: Pushover analysis of a 19 story con-
crete shear wall building. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake
(dome), it is important to provide adequate reinforcement in Engineering. Canada (2004)
the columns at top level to preclude formation of hinges at 11. Goksu, C.; Demir, C.; Darilmaz, K.; Ilki, A.; Kumbasar, N.: Sta-
this level under a seismic loading. tic nonlinear analysis of a retrofitted typical reinforced concrete

1310 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

building in Turkey. In: 8th U.S. National Conference on Earth- 16. XTRACT: Cross Section Analysis Program for Structural Engi-
quake Engineering. California, USA (2006) neers. IMBSEN & Associates Inc., USA (2007)
12. Pinho, R.; Bento; Bhatt, C.: Assessing the 3D irregular SPEAR 17. ACI: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Amer-
building with nonlinear static procedures. In: 14th World confer- ican Concrete Institute, USA (2008)
ence on earthquake engineering. Beijing, China (2008) 18. SAP2000: Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Struc-
13. Fahjan, Y.M.; Kubin, J.; Tan, M.T.: Nonlinear analysis methods tures 14.0. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California
for reinforced concrete building with shear walls. In: 14th Euro- (2009)
pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ohrid, Republic of 19. Sonda, D.; Cossu, M.; Miyamoto, H.K.: Seismic improvement of
Macedonia (2010) monumental churches with domes. In: 15th World Conference on
14. UBC: Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Build- Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal (2012)
ing Officials, USA (1997)
15. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R.: Theoretical stressstrain
model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Div. ASCE 114:18041826


View publication stats