You are on page 1of 12

WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI

ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A CONCRETE BUILDING ACCORDING TO THE
TURKISH SEISMIC CODE (2007)

M. B. Yilmaz1, Z. Celep2, O. Tuncer3

ABSTRACT

In the present paper a reinforced concrete school building of three stories having dual wall-frame
structural system is considered. The building is designed by following the requirements of the
Chapters 2 and 3 of the Turkish Seismic Code (2007) that regulates the design of concrete buildings
to be built in the seismic areas. The design procedure is carried out by following the equivalent
seismic load method. Later the performance of the same building is studied by following the
requirements of the Chapter 7 of the Turkish Seismic Code (2007) that regulates the seismic
evaluation of existing buildings. The evaluation procedure is carried out by following the linear and
the non-linear methods as well as the inelastic time history analysis. The linear evaluation
procedure is a strength based method and can be accepted an extension of the procedure used for
the design of buildings to be built. However, the non-linear seismic evaluation method is a
displacement based assessment method which is carried out by applying the incremental equivalent
seismic load analysis. The simplest non-linear seismic evaluation method is called the pushover
analysis which is carried out by considering the first vibration mode only. On the other hand the
inelastic time history analysis is also a displacement based evaluation procedure. In the present
paper the inelastic time history analysis is applied to the building by considering three different
strong ground motion acceleration records. In the present example, the evaluation results of the
building are presented in various figures comparatively. It is observed that the pushover analysis of
the building yields relatively accurate results, under the assumption that the nonlinear time history
analysis has the highest accuracy. Furthermore, a close agreement is observed between the story
drift ratios obtained in the pushover analysis and those obtained in the inelastic time history
analysis. The shear walls of the building has been designed by following the rules of the Turkish
Seismic Code (2007) which requires that the shear force capacity of the shear walls should be 50 %
larger than the shear force compatible to the bending moment capacity of the corresponding cross
section. The increase of 50 % represents the dynamic magnification factor as well as the effects of
the higher modes of the structural system in the inelastic time history analysis. However, the results
of the present example yield this requirement of the Turkish Seismic Code (2007) could not provide
barely enough shear safety for the shear walls in case of the inelastic time history analysis, although
it provides enough shear safety in the pushover analysis. It is worth to note that the reversal
behavior of the structural system (unloading after loading) in the inelastic time history analysis and
the assumption that the plastic deformations are normal to the yield curve produce axial plastic
deformations which cumulatively increase in course of the strong ground motion and affect the
damage level significantly. In the present paper all numerical results are given comparatively and all
steps of the performance evaluation methods are critically discussed.

Keywords: Evaluation of Earthquake Performance, Static Pushover Analysis, Inelastic Time History
Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

The development of the performance base evaluation has accelerated with Vision 2000 (SEAOC, 1995), ATC-
40 (ATC, 1996), FEMA 273, 274 (FEMA, 1997). The goal of the Vision 2000 (1995) has been to develop a
framework for the procedures that yield structures having predictable seismic performance. After that, ATC-40
has been published in 1996 by Applied Technology Council. FEMA 273 and FEMA 274 which published by
Building Seismic Safety Council, have followed this document.

Most of the seismic codes specify that buildings under gravitational and seismic loads are to be designed
following the rules of the linear methods including the principles of the capacity design and the seismic load
reduction factor. However, it is well-known that the use of these two concepts is a simple way for taking into
account the non-linear behavior of the structural system indirectly. Following the requirements of the seismic
codes, the elastic seismic loads to be applied to buildings are decreased by using Seismic Load Reduction
Factor. In this way the non-linear behavior of the structure can be taken into account in a simple way. The

1
Civil Engineer, MSc, OSM Engineering Company, Istanbul, Turkey, y.mehmetburak@gmail.com
2
Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, celep@itu.edu.tr
3
Civil Engineer, MSc, Tuncel Engineering Company, Istanbul Turkey, tt.tuncer@gmail.com

1

60m. Column dimensions are 0.90mx0.4 by assuming that the building is located in the first seismic zone. There are two different kinds of slab thickness as 0.4 and 0. In this case single or multi mode pushover analysis is possible for evaluating the lateral load capacity of the structure. In the present study an attempt is made to compare the results of the evaluation methods given in TSC-2007. The structural arrangement of the ground flour is shown in Figure 1. Qualities of concrete and reinforcing steel of the building are assumed to be C25 and S420.00 in y direction.6.12m and 0. As it is well known. Its upper limit depends on the ductility of the member and on the damage to be accepted. this type of reduction is valid under the assumption that the structural system has the required ductility and the expected limited damage is acceptable. All non-linear evaluations require more detailed data for the structure and the accuracy of the results depends on the accuracy of knowledge on the geometrical and the mechanical properties of the structure. TSC-2007 requires that the seismic evaluation of existing buildings should be done in detail to capture the more realistic behavior by using the linear and the non-linear evaluation methods which are more sophisticated procedures than those used in the design stage of buildings.20m. The second method given in TSC-2007 is called the nonlinear evaluation method based on deformation concept. However. The 3D computer model has been prepared in order to determine the behavior of the building under gravity and seismic loads. respectively. It can be considered as an extension of the linear procedures applied for buildings to be built where the seismic force reduction is of prime importance and is constant for entire structure. The building is designed by using the elastic acceleration spectrum S(T) as given in TSC- 2007.73. By using the uncracked section bending stiffness. as given TSC-2007.40mx0. As expected the requirement of the code given for design of new buildings and those given for evaluation of the existing buildings do not yield the same performance level. assuming that it is a school building.5 % and the same longitudinal reinforcement configuration has been used at all stories.30mx18. In fact this parameter can be accepted a measure for the expected ductility of the structural members.20m.30m and depth of 0. Local site class Z2 has been taken in accordance with TSC-2007. respectively. In order to take into account the increase in the capacity of the structural system and the deceases in the demand of seismic effect more consistently in the inelastic analysis. They depend on the ratio of the base shear force of the shear walls to the total base shear force which are αs. One of them is called the linear evaluation method based on strength concept.30mx2. respectively. Effective ground acceleration coefficient (A0) has been taken as 0. However they are acceptable close to each other. 2 . On the other hand the ductility depends on the type of the elements as well as on the type and level of the internal force. the natural vibration period of the building is found to be 0. TSC-2007 states two methods for seismic evaluation of the existing structures.247s at y direction.60m. The structure system of the reinforced concrete building consists of solid structural wall-frame system of high ductility level. The results of the seismic safety evaluation are given comparatively and discussed in detail. The soil-structure interaction in the building has not been taken into account at the design and the assessment stages. In this method the nonlinear behavior of the structure is investigated by carrying out the pushover analysis where the plastic hinge hypothesis is used.30m.10m and 3. The configuration of the building is assumed to be same at all stories.60m and 0. The building is located in a rectangular having dimensions of 33.y = 0.14m. The structural behavior factor (R) which is closely related to the seismic load reduction factor is evaluated to be Rx = 6. The heights of the stories are the same and 3.198s at x direction and 0. 2. The building importance factor (I) and the live load participation factor (n) have been taken as 1. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the columns is found to be about 1.44 in x direction and Ry = 7. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUILDING The three-story building has nine spans at x direction and three spans at y direction. All beams have width of 0. The application of the global force reduction factor to all structural elements can not be regarded as a realistic approach due to wide variation in ductility of the members of the existing structure.89 and αs. shear wall dimensions are 0. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI seismic load reduction factor is also used in the Turkish Seismic Code 2007 (TSC-2007) and it enables the designer to reduce the elastic seismic load by about 4~8 depending the characteristics of the structural system. in the linear method used in the evaluation of existing buildings a parameter which may correspond to the seismic load reduction factor is calculated.x = 0. On the other hand.30mx0.

the immediate occupancy under the design earthquake (10%/50 year) and the life safety under the maximum earthquake (2%/50 years). the visible damage region (VD).75 - 3 0.e. where the first-two mode 3 . The cracked section stiffness has been accepted as 40 % of uncracked section for the beams.379 . SEISMIC SAFETY EVALUATION OF THE BUILDING Seismic safety of the building shown in Figure 1 is evaluated following the requirements of TSC-2007. the nonlinear method is applied by adopting the incremental equivalent seismic load procedure. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI Figure 1. depending on the level of the normal stress at the cross section.20 - TSC-2007 requires the use of moment of inertia of cracked cross sections in the static and dynamic analysis of the structural system including in evaluation of its period and its lateral displacement. Furthermore. The code requires the cracked bending stiffness is in between 40-80 % of the uncracked one for the column and the shear wall sections. 0. i. The bending moment capacities of the beam and the columns are evaluated by considering the characteristic strength of the concrete and the characteristic yield stress of the steel.292 0. Numerical analysis is carried out by using these requirements of the linear method by adopting the equivalent static seismic load procedure.17 4 0. The Periods of the vibration modes and related effective mass ratios Mod # Period (s) Participating mass ratios (ηr) x direction y direction 1 0.77 2 0. The code requires that the seismic evaluation of a school building should be carried out by considering two levels of the performance objective. Table 1. 0. due to lower level of the normal stresses.075 0. TSC-2007 defines the four damage regions: the minimum damage region (MD). The inelastic time history procedure is used in the evaluation as well. the significant damage region (SD) and the collapse region (CR) for cross sections of the structural members. In the numerical procedures no eccentricity of the center of the mass is taken into account and the slabs are assumed to be rigid diaphragms as TSC-2007 states.101 . are presented in Table 1. The periods of the building. Structural arrangement of the school building 3.. which have been calculated by using stiffness of cracked section. However in the present case the ratio of 40 % is adopted for them as well.

Unlike the design stage. These comments bases on the acceptance that the building should satisfy Immediate Occupancy Performance level in the design earthquake.1.e. the information level factor has been taken into account as 1. On the other hand the discrepancy can be eliminated by modifying the acceptance ratio of the beams in the minimum damage region. Later demand/capacity ratios have been calculated for all structural elements for the two different earthquake levels separately by assuming that the capacity ratio represents the capacity remaining for the seismic load at the cross section. However the results of Figure 3 show that it is not the case. Since the capacity of the cross section is known. Shear safety checks have been carried out for all structural members and it has been found that the ductile- type failure can be anticipated for all structural members. I. only limited results are presented due to the space restriction.77) (Tx=0. For the present building Detailed Information Level has been adopted for the geometry and it assumed that the material properties as well as for the reinforcement details conform to the requirements of TSC-2007. The Linear Evaluation Method The earthquake assessment of the existing building has been performed by the linear elastic method as given in TSC-2007. The factor r can be seen as the demand/capacity ratio or as a measure for the damage ratio as well. ηyr =%0. the immediate occupancy under the design earthquake (10%/50 year) and the life safety under the maximum earthquake (2%/50 years) is investigated.. The demand/capacity ratios of the structural elements for the linear evaluation method are displayed for the design and the maximum earthquake in Figure 3. in the assessment stage the seismic load is not reduced. (Ty=0. ηxr=0.. The upper limits of the demand/capacity ratios depend on axial load/axial load capacity ratio. It is due to the fact that the requirements and the design principles of TSC-2007 have been used strictly in the design stage. Although two levels of the performance objective. because it is closely related to the expected ductility. 3. although a small number of the beams are in the visible damage stage. 4 . The building is accepted to satisfy Immediate Occupancy Performance level in the design earthquake. i. because it is designed conforming to the code. The analysis of the structural system is carried out by using the elastic analysis. the elastic seismic load is adopted as the base shear force for both x and y directions. As it is seen. First two-mode shapes of x and y directions.292s. Consequently. the cross sections consequently. the members appear to be in the minimum damage stage. the numerical results of the present building show that the upper limits of the demand/capacity ratio probably low and should be increased. as it is expected. the expected value of the seismic load reduction factor r is obtained for each section and the corresponding damage stage is found by comparing the factor r to the limits given in the code. on shear force/shear force capacity ratio.e. on longitudinal reinforcement ratio and on confinement reinforcement condition.379s. so that the number of the beams in the visible damage stage is decreased. Inspection of the table yields that the first modes in each direction are effective and the contribution of the others can be expected to be small. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI shapes and the participating effective mass ratios are given for each direction. which means that no capacity reduction is done for the structural members.75) Figure 2. However.

Later the inelastic performance point is obtained from this elastic performance point by adopting the equal displacement principle which requires a modification for structures having small periods as given in TSC-2007.. In the second step the demand curve is developed by taking into account the elastic spectral curve of the seismic effect.e.2. In the first step. Demand/capacity ratios of structural elements in the linear evaluation method for the design and the maximum earthquakes 3. 45° and 90°. This procedure has to be repeated for the each seismic spectrum. By intersecting these two curves the performance point of the building is obtained. In the third step the structural displacement at the performance point is obtained. The inelastic deformations can be taken into account by assuming plastic hinges can be accepted at the regions of these members. It is generally done by assuming that the inelastic deformations come into being at the two-end regions of the beams and the columns and at the support regions of the shear walls. TSC-2007 predicts that the hinge length is equal to the half of the effective height of the member. For evaluation of the pushover curve the positive and negative yield moments of the beams have been assigned to the beam ends assuming an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. Generally it is done by intersecting the elastic spectral curve and the elastic pushover curve which is a straight line being a tangent to the inelastic pushover curve at the origin. the inelastic deformation at the cross section can be found. which is not an easy task and may require some iterations. The Nonlinear Static Evaluation Method This method is a displacement based procedure and consists of three steps. At the last stage these inelastic deformations are checked whether they can be acceptable for the assumed performance objective. for the design earthquake (10%/50years) and the maximum earthquake (2%/50years). the pushover curve of the structural system is obtained by considering the nonlinear behavior of the structural system.01. At that stage the length of the plastic hinge region is required. Having obtained the inelastic performance point and the corresponding inelastic lateral displacement. The bending moments and the normal forces at the yield surface of the sections are defined by assuming the maximum compression strain for concrete to be 0. The yield surfaces for the rectangular columns and the shear walls which have symmetric reinforcement are defined with three yield curves for the angles 0°. 5 . i.003 and the maximum strain for reinforcement to be 0. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI X DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR X DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR Y DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR Y DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Figure 3.

as it is given TSC-2007. The damage ratios of the structural elements have been shown in Figure 9 in x and y directions under the design and the maximum earthquakes. is obtained by using the linear elastic spectral displacement Sde1. As the lateral load gets larger. Because the first mode period of the structure is small for both two directions. The spectra defined in TSC-2007 and those of the three strong ground motion acceleration records and the mean of these three acceleration records have been plotted in Figure 6. According to the Equal Displacement Rule.9mm and 54. Modal capacity and demand curves for the design and the maximum earthquake Having defined all the plastic properties of the members. 3. The target top displacements of the building in x direction are found to be 34. the inelastic and total strains can be found. The nonlinear spectral displacement Sdi1. respectively. respectively. The damage ratios of structural elements for the nonlinear static evaluation are displayed in Figure 5. These three strong ground motion acceleration records are parts of the SAC Steel Project of FEMA and have been scaled in order to comply with the requirements of TSC-2007. plastic rotations and plastic elongation (or shortening). 6 . the lateral displacement and the internal forces increase and the two ends of the beams and the columns may reach their capacity and the plastic hinges come into being in these regions. In this process the lateral load distribution is assumed to be proportional to the first mode displacements and to the story masses. Having obtained the maximum inelastic lateral displacement and the inelastic rotations in the plastic hinge sections.3. the maximum inelastic lateral displacement experienced by the structure in the nonlinear behavior will be equal to the maximum lateral displacement experienced by the structure in the linear elastic behavior.e. During the pushover process. Inelastic time history (ITH) analysis is used to perform the nonlinear dynamic evaluation of the present building. For the present structure the modal capacity and the demand curves are given in Figure 4 for two orthogonal directions. shall be used in the non linear dynamic evaluation analysis to be performed in the time domain and the most unfavorable response quantities shall be considered in the design or in the assessment. The structural system model has been pushed up to the calculated top displacement values under different target performance levels (2% of 50 years and 10% of 50 years) for two orthogonal earthquake directions. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI x direction y direction Figure 4.4mm under the design and the maximum earthquakes. I. Further increase in the lateral load causes additional plastic hinges and plastic rotation in the existing plastic hinges.4mm under the design and the maximum earthquakes. previously recorded or generated in accordance with the TSC-2007. The Nonlinear Dynamic Evaluation Method TSC-2007 requires that at least three acceleration records. These damage ratios have been determined by neglecting the axial plastic elongation effect which is mentioned in Section 5.9mm and 75. this rule is modified increasing the elastic spectral displacements by CR1 to find the nonlinear spectral displacement as TSC-2007 anticipates.. the structural system subjected to the vertical gravity loads is pushed up to the displacement of the related seismic demand. whereas the target top displacements of the building in y direction are 49. The acceleration records have been applied to the structural model to determine the performance levels (10%/50years and 2%/50years) for two earthquake directions. the plastic hinge sections endure plastic deformations.

0 1.0 Elastic Spectral Acceleration [m/s²] 12 LA4x1. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI X DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR X DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR Y DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR Y DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Figure 5.5 T . Damage ratios of the structural elements in the nonlinear static evaluation method for the design and the maximum earthquakes 16 .0 10 BO27x1.5 2.0 2.8 Mean 8 6 4 2 0 0.Period [s] Figure 6. Elastic response spectra of the code and the three acceleration records 7 .0 0.5 1. 14 Code Spectrum LA1x1.

00 1.31 0. This fact shows that in the ITH analysis the first mode effective and the contribution of the higher modes are of negligible order.2) up to the target displacements is displayed as well.0 PUSH(X) PUSH(X) 10000 10000 5000 5000 Top Displacement [mm] Top Displacement [mm] 0 0 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -5000 -5000 -10000 -10000 -15000 -15000 Base Shear Base Shear Force [kN] Force [kN] 15000 20000 ITH(Y)-LA1x1.22 Inspection of Table 2 yields that the maximum story drift ratios.5 ITH(X)-LA1x1. 4. are very close each other. However. Table 2.31 0. the difference between these results and those of the elastic first mode shows that the inelastic deformations of the structural system are effective in the ITH and in the pushover analyses. OBSERVATIONS IN THE SEISMIC SAFETY EVALUATION The maximum story displacements obtained in ITH analysis are normalized with respect to the displacement of the second story in x and y directions for the maximum earthquake. The related normalized mode shapes in the two directions are presented Table 2. Same procedure has been applied for the story displacements obtained in the pushover analysis. as expected. in the same figure.0 PUSH(Y) 10000 5000 5000 Top Displacement [mm] Top Displacement [mm] 0 0 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -5000 -5000 -10000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -15000 Figure 7.65 0. which have been calculated in the ITH and pushover analysis.33 0. 8 .00 1st Floor 0.5 15000 PUSH(Y) 10000 ITH(Y)-LA1x1.00 1. Normalized Story Drifts of x and y Directionsx direction x direction ITH Pushover 1st Mode Shape 2nd Floor 1.00 1st Floor 0.62 Ground Floor 0.65 0. Probably it is due to the fact that the building is not a slender structure.30 0.67 0.21 y direction ITH Pushover 1st Mode Shape 2nd Floor 1.68 0. Furthermore. Under the assumption that the ITH analysis yields the highest accuracy.59 Ground Floor 0. are presented for the one (LA1) of the three acceleration records for x and y directions and for the design and the maximum earthquakes.00 1. it is seen that the pushover analysis which is done by adopting the first mode only leads to very accurate results. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI Base Shear Base Shear Force [kN] Force [kN] 15000 15000 ITH(X)-LA1x1.00 1. these normalized story displacements can be considered normalized story drifts as well. Base shear force-top displacement relationships of ITH and pushover analysis The base shear force–top displacement relationships shown in Figure 7. Since the story height of the building is equal. the pushover-curve (the top displacement-base shear force curve discussed in Section 3.

02>1. Damage ratios of the structural elements in the nonlinear dynamic evaluation method for the design and the maximum earthquakes 9 .65 fctm + ρsh fywm) = 3900×300× (0.65×1.00262×420) = 2618kN Ve = 2675 kN (Figure 8) Ve/Vr = 2675/2618=1. As it is shown below the maximum demand is almost equal to the shear capacity of the shear wall (Vr): Vr = Ach (0.00 GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR X DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR X DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR Y DIRECTION-10%/50YEAR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall GROUND FLOOR 1st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR MD VD SD CR Y DIRECTION-2%/50YEAR 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Beam Column Shear Wall Figure 9. Base shear force-time relationship of the P390×30 shear wall in x direction The time variation of the shear force Ve(t) at the P390×30 shear wall in the first floor under the LA1 maximum earthquake in x direction is presented in Figure 8.75+0. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI Figure 8.

the plastic hinge of P390×30 shear wall has passed into the plastic region 51 times in x direction under the LA1 maximum earthquake. Figure 10. 10 . Figure 11.5) as given in TSC-2007 could provide the enough shear safety in case of the inelastic time history analysis. Each time plastic deformations (elongation and rotation) are produced. Moment-plastic rotation relationship of the P390×30 shear wall Figure 11 shows the relationship between the bending moment and the plastic rotation at the support P390×30 shear wall subjected to the maximum earthquake. the plastic deformation being normal to the yield curve. It means that the shear walls of the building designed by considering its moment capacity and the dynamic magnification factor (β=1. has two components: Plastic rotation due to the bending moment and plastic elongation (shortening) due to the axial force as shown in Figure 10. As mentioned above. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI It means that the shear capacity of the shear wall can meet barely the shear demand of the LA1 maximum earthquake. l1 and l2 lines show the upper and the lower limits of the axial force on the yield curve of the cross-section during the same earthquake. because the maximum shear demand of the shear wall is 1782kN at the first floor and much lower in the second floor. As expected in the first and in the second floors. Yield Curve of the P390×30 Shear Wall A close inspection of the numerical results yields that the plastic hinge at the support of the P390×30 shear wall has passed into the plastic region 51 times in x direction under the LA1 maximum earthquake because of the reversal effect of the earthquake. When the normal force and the bending moment remain on the yield curve within this interval. although the pushover analysis yields much lower shear force demand. P390×30 shear wall demand of the maximum earthquake in x direction much lower that the capacity. In Figure 10. Cumulative time variation of the axial plastic elongation is shown in Figure 12.

The plastic strain can be evaluated. Since a part of the beams of the structural system is at the visible damage zone. 2008). The numerical results are given comparatively. CONCLUSIONS In this study. the building does not provide the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level in x and y direction under the design 11 . Only this plastic elongation is enough to decide that the performance level of the building is at the Collapse Level in x and y directions. In fact it is worth to note the importance of the axial plastic deformation which comes into being due to the normality conditions and can increase cumulatively due to the reversal effect of the earthquake loading. The building provides the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level in y direction under the design earthquake and it provides also the Life Safety Performance Level in both x and y directions under the maximum earthquake. When the design earthquake is considered. performance level of a school building has been evaluated according to the three different methods available in TSC-2007.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Figure 12.020 Time [s] 0. However. These and many numerical results not reported here but can be found in (Yılmaz.060 0. Cumulative axial plastic elongation-time variation of P390×30 shear wall It is worth to note that approximately a plastic elongation of 120mm is produced cumulatively due to the reversal loading in the region beyond the elastic behavior in case of the maximum earthquake as shown in Figure 12. As an example the P30×210 shear wall can be considered where a plastic hinge length of 1.140 [m] 0. When the nonlinear time history method is used for earthquake performance assessment. when the building is under the maximum earthquake. However. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI Axial Plastic Elongation 0.040 0. 5. b. the building provides the Life Safety Performance Level in both x and y direction under the maximum earthquake. This fact shows that the damage limits and/or the ratios of the number of the damaged beams to the total number of the beams in TSC-2007 appear to be too strict and probably modified. Plastic elongation of the same shear wall under the design earthquake is around 35mm. Discussion of the validity of the normality of the plastic deformations to the yield curve in a reinforced concrete section is beyond this study. when the pushover analysis is used due to beams that pass into the visible damage region. c. The results of the requirements of the linear elastic equivalent earthquake load method yields that the building does not provide the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level in x direction under the design earthquake.100 0.05m can be accepted as it is anticipated in TSC-2007. The building does not provide the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level in both x and y direction under the design earthquake.080 0. although it is designed following the rules of TSC-2007 and although all the columns and the shear walls are at the minimum damage region. the plastic elongation appears to be small and it is not dominant any more. by assuming a length for the plastic hinge region. there are large number discussions including examples on this subject (Celep.120 0. In this case a plastic elongation about 10 % will be produced at the plastic hinge region which is larger than the strain limit of the onset of the collapse. the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level along x direction under the design earthquake can not be provided. The building has three-story and dual wall-frame reinforced concrete structural system and has been designed according to the requirements of TSC-2007. 2008) lead to the following conclusions: a. Similarly an axial plastic deformation of 120mm is produced at the plastic hinge of the shear wall of P30×210 in y direction under the LA1 maximum earthquake.

. effects the damage level significantly under the assumption that the plastic deformations are normal to the yields surface. Comparative Seismic Performance Evaluation of a School Building According to the Turkish Seismic Code (2007). Celep.N. This fact indicates that the higher mode effects are of negligible order for the present example..Redwood City. although it provides in a relatively large margin the pushover analysis.. M. Berkeley. WCCE – ECCE – TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI earthquake.edu/data/strong_motion/sacsteel/ Aydınoğlu. Özer. Washington D. Sucuoğlu. Istanbul (in Turkish). California. Requirements for Buildings to Be Built in Seismic Regions – Examples. (2008).. Institute for Turkish Standards. E.. Ankara. 12 . Structural analysis program. Z. Z..B.C. E.. H. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Requirements for Buildings to Be Built in Seismic Regions – Book for Examples. Nonlinear Behavior and Analysis of reinforced concrete structural systems.N. Second Edition. Ankara. e. Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings (Vision 2000). The building provides the Life Safety Performance Level in both x and y direction under the maximum earthquake. California 2000. Celep. M. H. Sacramento. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA273) and NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA274). Graduate School. Sacramento 2001. d. http://nisee. (2008). MSc Thesis. Istanbul Technical University (in Turkish). Ankara (in Turkish).. Aydınoğlu. Imbsen Software System. California. (2007). It has been observed that the story drift ratios of the pushover analysis and the inelastic time history analysis are very close to each other.berkeley. TS500 (2000). TSC-2007 (2007) Requirements for Buildings to Be Built in Seismic Regions. It is observed that the reversal behavior of earthquake effect (unloading after loading) in the inelastic time history analysis produces the axial plastic deformations which cumulatively increase in course of the strong ground motion. Ankara 2007 (in Turkish)). It has been observed that the shear walls of the building designed by considering its moment capacity and the dynamic magnification factor as given in TSC-2007 provides enough shear safety in case of the inelastic time history analysis. Yılmaz. Beta Publication. REFERENCES SEAOC-Structural Engineers Association of California (1995). M. Furthermore. Sucuoğlu. Cross sectional analysis of components. SAP2000. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (ATC- 40). Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. FEMA-Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997). XTRACT2001. ATC-Applied Technology Council (1996). Z. Computers and Structures Inc. Requirements for Design and Constructıon of Reinforced Concrete Sructures. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Celep. f. it is seen that the pushover analysis by adopting the first mode only yields very accurate results under the assumption that the nonlinear time history analysis has the highest accuracy. Özer. SAC Steel Project.