Mengfei Yuan Master Thesis Final Version 12 03

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME BUILDINGS
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master

of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Mengfei Yuan, B.S.
Graduate Program in Civil Engineering
The Ohio State University

2014
Thesis Committee:
Dr. Halil Sezen, Adviser
Dr. Shive Chaturvedi
Dr. Abdollah Shafieezadeh
i
Copyright by
Mengfei Yuan
2014
i
ABSTRACT
The current design standard, ASCE 7 (2010), requires that the lateral
displacements of a building must be calculated, typically using structural
analysis software, and compared with the specified displacement limits for
earthquake loading. This research propose a simplified equation to calculate
frame displacements under different lateral loads. The simplified displacement
equation for calculation of elastic and inelastic displacements of frame buildings
saves time and effort during for the preliminary building design. The simplified
displacement equation can also be used for the assessment of existing buildings
since the lateral displacement or drift is a critical parameter for the evaluation
of a reinforced concrete building. This research derives the simplified
displacement equation based on elastic beam theory. The accuracy of the
equation, which is used for calculation of both elastic and inelastic
displacements is validated by the similar procedures in the ASCE 7 standard.
The accuracy of the proposed displacement equation is also verified by using
linear elastic and nonlinear static analysis of 2-D and 3-D reinforced concrete
frame models in SAP2000 (2013). The applicability of the simplified
displacement equation is also expanded to mixed frames with shear walls and
frames with different frame size. Moreover, the applicability of the simplified
equation for the calculation of inelastic story displacements is verified by
performing inelastic analysis of ordinary, intermediate and special moment-

ii
resisting reinforced concrete frames in SAP2000 (2013).
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my parents.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my adviser, Dr. Sezen, for his intellectual support,
encouragement and enthusiasm which made this research possible. I also want
to thank the committee members and all the professors and teachers at The Ohio
State University who help me to be a better learner.
I would like thank to my parents. I could not have complete this work without
their love, patience and support. I also wish to thank many friends for the
encouragement and support, especially, Zhuo Sun, Yong Hu and Cai Zhang.
v
VITA
June 2013 ...........................................................B.E., Civil Engineering

Shanghai Normal University,
China.
August, 2013 to Present .......................................M.S., Structural Engineering
The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio
Fields of Study
Major Field: Civil Engineering
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................. v
VITA ................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................xii
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1 Problem Statement and Background ................................................... 1
1.1.1 Linear Elastic Analysis ................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis ........................................................ 2
1.1.3 Significance of Lateral Displacement .......................................... 2
1.2 Research Significance ......................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives and Scope .......................................................................... 4
1.4 Organization ........................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SEISMIC DESIGN

AND DISPLACEMENTS ................................................................................. 7
2.1 Seismic Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Buildings .............. 7
2.1.1 Seismic Force and Displacements in ASCE 7 (2010) ................. 8
2.1.2 ACI 318 (2011) .......................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Simplified Method Concrete Buildings Evaluation ................... 15
2.1.4 Shear Modulus ........................................................................... 17
vii
2.2 Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building ..................... 17
2.2.1 Assessment of Shear Walls in Frame Buildings ........................ 18
2.2.2 Shear Walls under Seismic Loads.............................................. 20
2.3 Confined Concrete Model ................................................................. 22
2.4 Nonlinear Static Analysis .................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED MODEL FOR CALCULATION OF

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT ........................................................................ 25
3.1 Beam Theory ..................................................................................... 25
3.1.1 Static Beam Equation ................................................................. 25
3.1.2 Elastic Transverse Displacement of Shear Beam ...................... 27
3.2 Lateral Displacement of Reinforced Concrete Frame Building ........ 29
3.2.1 Calculation Procedure of Lateral Stiffness ................................ 30
3.2.2 Relative Story Drift .................................................................... 34
3.3 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces from ASCE 7 ..................... 37
3.4 Proposed Displacement Equation...................................................... 40
3.4.1 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Uniform

Load…...…………………………………………………………………40
3.4.2 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Inverse

Triangular Load ........................................................................................ 42
3.4.3 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Quadratic

Load……………………………………………………………………...43
3.4.4 Proposed Equation for General Loading from ASCE 7............. 47
3.5 Validation of the Proposed Displacement Equation ......................... 49
CHAPTER 4: LINEAR ANALYSIS OF 2-D FRAMES IN SAP2000 ..... 56
4.1 2-D Frame Model in SAP2000.......................................................... 56
4.1.1 Building Information and Material Properties ........................... 57
4.1.2 Verification of Proposed Method using 2-D Frame Models ..... 59
viii
4.2 Effect of Number of Bays ................................................................. 63
4.3 Applicability of the Proposed Method for Frames with Rigid Beams
……………………………………………………………………...68
4.4 Applicability of Proposed Displacement Equation for 2-D Mixed

Frame ……………………………………………………………………...71
4.4.1 General Assumptions ................................................................. 72
4.4.2 Building Information of 2-D Mixed Frame Building Example . 73
4.4.3 2-D Mixed Frame Displacements .............................................. 74
4.4.4 Effect of Shear Wall in Mixed Frame ........................................ 77
4.5 Summary of the Proposed Method for 2-D Frame ............................ 79
CHAPTER 5: LINEAR ANALYSIS OF 3-D FRAMES IN SAP2000 ..... 81
5.1 Development of 3-D Frame Model in SAP2000............................... 81
5.1.1 3-D Model and Properties .......................................................... 82
5.1.2 Linear Elastic Analysis of 3-D Frame Model ............................ 83
5.2 Applicability of Simplified Displacement Equation for 3-D Frame

with Slabs ..................................................................................................... 87
5.3 3-D Mixed Frame Displacements ..................................................... 91
5.3.1 Verification of Proposed Method on 3-D Mixed Frame ............ 92
5.3.2 Effect of Shear Walls in Mixed Frame ...................................... 95
5.4 Comparison of 3-D Regular Frame and Frame with Rigid Beams ... 98
5.5 Summary of Proposed Method for 3-D Frame................................ 101
CHAPTER 6: INELASTIC ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

FRAMES……………………………………………………………………104
6.1 Material Nonlinear Property............................................................ 105
6.1.1 Concrete Mechanical Behavior ................................................ 105
6.1.2 Steel Mechanical Behavior ...................................................... 107
6.2 Inelastic Displacement Calculation ................................................. 108

ix
6.3 Inelastic Analysis in SAP2000 ........................................................ 109
6.3.1 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame ....... 110
6.3.2 Intermediate Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame . 113
6.3.3 Special Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame.......... 115
6.3.4 Summary of Force-Displacement Relationships for Frame

Structures ................................................................................................ 117
6.4 Failure Modes of Components ........................................................ 120
6.5 Geometry Nonlinearity .................................................................... 123
6.6 Summary of Proposed Method to Predict Inelastic Displacement .. 125
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................... 127
7.1 Summary ......................................................................................... 127
7.1.1 Equation Derivation of Displacement Equation ...................... 127
7.1.2 Elastic Displacement Calculation ............................................ 128
7.1.3 Inelastic Displacement Calculation.......................................... 129
7.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 130
7.3 Limitations of Research .................................................................. 132
7.4 Recommendations and Future Research ......................................... 133
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 135
APPENDIX A: MODEL DETAILS IN SAP2000 ...................................... 137
A.1 Model Information............................................................................... 137
A.1.2 Material Properties ........................................................................ 137
A.1.3 Cross Section Properties ............................................................... 141
A.1.4 Hinge Properties ............................................................................ 143
A.2.1 Liner Analysis ............................................................................... 145
A.2.2 Nonlinear Static Analysis.............................................................. 147
APPENDIX B: MATLAB CALCULATION PROCEDURES .................. 148
x
B.1 Calculation of Elastic and Inelastic Story Displacements ................... 148
B.2 Calculation of Column Shear Strength ................................................ 150
APPENDIX C: DISPLACEMENTS AND DRIFT RATIOS OF 2-D

FRAMES........................................................................................................ 152
C.1 Displacements of 2-D Frame with Different k Values ........................ 152
C.2 Displacements of 2-D Frame with Different Number of Bays ............ 153
C.3 Displacements of 2-D Mixed Frame with Shear Walls ....................... 153
APPENDIX D: DISPLACEMENTS AND DRIFT RATIOS OF 3-D

FRAME .......................................................................................................... 177
D.1 Displacements of 3-D Frame with Different k Values ........................ 177
D.2 Displacements of 3-D Frame with Slabs ............................................. 178
D.3 Displacements of 3-D Mixed Frame with Shear Walls ....................... 178
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Story drift determination ............................................................... 10
Figure 2.2 Design shear for intermediate moment frame ............................... 13
Figure 2.3 Design shear for special moment frame ........................................ 14
Figure 2.4 Force-displacement relationship under inelastic analysis ............. 24
Figure 3.1 Deformation of a beam with two fixed ends ................................. 27
Figure 3.2 Lateral deflection of a frame building ........................................... 29
Figure 3.3 Deformation of a regular frame ..................................................... 30
Figure 3.4 Deformation of a frame with rigid beams and slabs ...................... 34
Figure 3.5 Frame structure under lateral load ................................................. 35
Figure 3.6 Simplified frame model under story seismic forces ...................... 37
Figure 3.7 Frame building under story seismic forces with different k values
.......................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.8 Frame building under lateral distributed loads with different shapes
.......................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.9 Frame under lateral distributed load with a uniform shape ........... 41
Figure 3.10 Lateral distributed load with inverse triangular shape................. 42
Figure 3.11 Frame under lateral load with second-order parabolic shape ...... 44
Figure 3.12 Frame under lateral load with a parabolic shape ......................... 49
Figure 3.13 Transformation process between lumped and distributed loads .. 51
Figure 3.14 Seismic forces from the proposed method and ASCE 7 .............. 53
xii
Figure 3.15 Distributed seismic forces from the proposed method and ASCE 7
.......................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.1 Four-story 2-D frame with eight bays under lateral seismic forces
.......................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.2 Story displacements of a four-story 2-D frame ............................. 60
Figure 4.3 Story displacements of a seven-story 2-D frame ........................... 60
Figure 4.4 Story displacement of a ten-story 2-D frame................................. 61
Figure 4.5 Maximum difference between the displacements calculated from the
proposed method and SAP2000 analysis at each story level for different bay
numbers ............................................................................................................ 62
Figure 4.6 Four-story frame with various number of bays ............................. 63
Figure 4.7 Lateral story displacements of four-story 2-D frame .................... 64
Figure 4.10 Difference between displacements from the proposed method and
SAP2000 linear analysis .................................................................................. 66
Figure 4.13 Story displacements of an eight-bay four-story 2-D frame under
triangular load .................................................................................................. 70
Figure 4.14 Story displacements of a two-bay ten-story 2-D frame under
triangular load .................................................................................................. 71
xiii
Figure 4.15 Mixed frame with shear walls under lateral load ........................ 72
Figure 4.16 Four-story 2-D mixed frame under lateral seismic forces ........... 74
Figure 4.17 Story displacements of a four-story 2-D mixed frame ................ 75
Figure 4.18 Story displacements of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame .............. 76
Figure 4.19 Story displacements of ten-story a 2-D mixed frame .................. 76
Figure 4.20 Story displacements of four-story 2-D regular and mixed frame 77
Figure 4.21 Story displacements of seven-story 2-D regular and mixed frame
.......................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 4.22 Story displacements of ten-story 2-D regular and mixed frame .. 78
Figure 5.1 Plan view of the 3-D reinforced concrete frame in SAP2000 ....... 82
Figure 5.2 3-D view of four-story reinforced concrete frame in SAP2000 .... 83
Figure 5.3 Story displacements of a four-story 3-D frame ............................. 84
Figure 5.4 Story displacements of a seven-story 3-D frame ........................... 86
Figure 5.5 Story displacements of a ten-story 3-D frame ............................... 86
Figure 5.6 3-D view of a four-story reinforced concrete frame with slabs ..... 87
Figure 5.7 Story displacements of four-story 3-D frames with slabs ............. 88
Figure 5.8 Story displacements of seven-story 3-D frames with slabs ........... 89
Figure 5.9 Story displacements of ten-story 3-D frames with slabs ............... 89
Figure 5.10 3-D view of the four-story mixed frame in SAP2000 ................. 91
Figure 5.11 Layout of the a four-story mixed frame in SAP2000 .................. 92
Figure 5.12 Story displacements of a four-story 3-D mixed frame ................ 93
Figure 5.13 Story displacements of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame .............. 94
Figure 5.14 Story displacements of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame .................. 94
Figure 5.15 Story displacements of four-story 3-D regular and mixed frames
xiv
.......................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.16 Story displacements of seven-story 3-D regular and mixed frames
.......................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5.17 Story displacements of ten-story 3-D regular and mixed frames 97
Figure 5.18 SAP2000 building models ........................................................... 98
Figure 5.19 Frame assumptions ...................................................................... 99
Figure 5.20 Story displacements of an eight-bay four-story 3-D frame (k = 1)
........................................................................................................................ 100
Figure 5.21 Story displacements of a two-bay ten-story 3-D frame (k = 1) . 101
Figure 6.1 Compressive stress-strain relationship of unconfined and confined
concrete .......................................................................................................... 107
Figure 6.2 Stress-strain relationship of steel ................................................. 107
Figure 6.3 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story ordinary
moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame example ................................... 112
Figure 6.4 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story intermediate
moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame example ................................... 113
Figure 6.5 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story special moment-
resisting reinforced concrete frame example ................................................. 117
Figure 6.6 Force-displacement relationship of different moment-resisting
frames ............................................................................................................. 118
Figure 6.7 Cross section of column .............................................................. 122
Figure 6.8 Force-displacement relationship of a four-story moment-resisting
frame .............................................................................................................. 124
Figure 6.9 Force-displacement relationship of a ten-story moment-resisting
xv
frame .............................................................................................................. 124
Figure A.1 Steel property definition in SAP2000 ......................................... 138
Figure A.2 Nonlinear steel material property ................................................ 138
Figure A.3 Concrete properties ..................................................................... 139
Figure A.4 Nonlinear material property of confined concrete ...................... 139
Figure A.7 Beam properties in building examples in Chapter 4 through 6... 141
Figure A.8 Column properties in building examples in Chapter 4 through 6
........................................................................................................................ 142
Figure A.9 Definition of shell model for shear walls .................................... 142
Figure A.10 Shear wall with boundary elements .......................................... 143
Figure A.11 Definition of hinge properties ................................................... 144
Figure A.12 Mechanical properties of P-M3 hinges ..................................... 144
Figure A.13 3-D frame structure under triangular lateral distributed load ... 145
Figure A.14 2-D and 3-D models and analysis options ................................ 146
Figure A.15 Potential available analysis procedures .................................... 146
Figure A.16 General definition of nonlinear static analysis.......................... 147
Figure A.17 Detailed definition of inelastic analysis .................................... 147
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Lateral stiffness and relative story displacement of frames ............ 36
Table 3.2 Proposed equation for lateral force distribution and story
displacement .................................................................................................... 48
Table 4.1 Story seismic forces with different k values (Equations 2.1 and 2.2)
.......................................................................................................................... 58
Table 6.1 Design coefficients and factors for moment-resisting frame systems
........................................................................................................................ 109
Table 6.2 Design coefficients and parameters for moment-resisting frame
systems ........................................................................................................... 119
Table 6.3 Summary of calculated axial loads, Nu in columns (kips) .......... 120
Table 6.4 Parameters used in shear strength calculation ............................... 121
Table 6.5 Specified and recommended Cd values ....................................... 125
Table C.1 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under inverse
triangular load (k = 1) .................................................................................... 154
Table C.2 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 155
Table C.3 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 156
Table C.4 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under inverse
xvii
Table C.5 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 158
Table C.6 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 159
Table C.7 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under inverse
Table C.8 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under parabolic
load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................................. 161
Table C.9 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under quadric
load (k = 2) ..................................................................................................... 162
Table C.10 Displacement and drift ratio of a two-bay four-story 2-D frame
under inverse triangular load (k = 1) .............................................................. 163
Table C.11 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-bay four-story 2-D frame
Table C.12 Displacement and drift ratio of a six-bay four-story 2-D frame under
inverse triangular load (k = 1) ........................................................................ 165
Table C.13 Displacement and drift ratio of an eight-bay four-story 2-D frame
Table C.14 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-bay four-story 2-D frame under
Table C.15 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D mixed frame under
xviii
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 169
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 170
Table C.18 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame
under parabolic load (k = 1.5) ........................................................................ 172
under quadratic load (k = 2) ........................................................................... 173
Table C.21 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D mixed frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 175
quadric load (k = 2) ........................................................................................ 176
Table D.1 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under inverse
Table D.2 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 181
Table D.3 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 182
Table D.4 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under inverse
Table D.5 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under
xix
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 184
Table D.6 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 185
Table D.7 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under inverse
Table D.8 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under parabolic
load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................................. 187
Table D.9 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under quadric
load (k = 2) ..................................................................................................... 188
Table D.10 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame with slabs
Table D.13 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame with slabs
Table D.16 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame with slabs
xx
under quadric load (k = 2) .............................................................................. 197
Table D.19 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D mixed frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 199
quadratic load (k = 2) ..................................................................................... 200
Table D.22 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame
Table D.25 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten story 3-D mixed frame under
Table D.26 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame under
parabolic load (k = 1.5) .................................................................................. 205
Table D.27 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame under
quadric load (k = 2) ........................................................................................ 206
xxi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Lateral displacement or drift of a reinforced concrete frame building under
earthquake loading is a critical parameter for structural evaluation or design.
Frame displacements under lateral forces can be calculated using structural

1
analysis software, however, it can be an intricate and time-consuming effort
especially during the preliminary design stage. Simplified method to solve the
elastic and inelastic displacements of a structure can significantly reduce the
time needed for checking the stiffness and strength of the building. This research
aims to develop the simplified procedure to calculate lateral frame displacement,
during initial design, preferably without using computer programs.
1.1 Problem Statement and Background
ASCE 7 (2010) recommends a simple equation which includes a deflection
amplification factor, to estimate the inelastic story displacement, of a
building. However, the ASCE 7 (2010) procedure is based on linear elastic
analysis to be performed using software while approximate equations to
calculate elastic story displacement, are not mentioned.
1.1.1 Linear Elastic Analysis
Structural analysis is used to determine the load effects applied on structures
and components. Computer software programs use structural analysis to verify
the serviceability, safety and capability of structures. These programs can save
1
time and materials by replacing experimental tests. Structural analysis usually
includes linear elastic analysis, response spectrum analysis, nonlinear static
analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis, etc. In linear elastic theory, the
stiffness of a structure remain constant with time. This means that the stiffness
and strength of vertical components that participate in lateral load resistance
cannot be reduced after material yielding. In this research, linear elastic analysis
of building frames are performed and simplified methods are expanded to
predict resulting lateral displacements.
1.1.2 Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis
The static nonlinear analysis in SAP2000 (2013) is based on ATC-40 (1996) and
FEMA-273/274 (1997). The main procedure of pushover analysis is to establish
the relationship between the base shear force, and the lateral displacement,
under continuously increasing horizontal loads. The stress-strain
relationship and the occurrence of plastic hinges can also be obtained according
to the post-processor in SAP2000.
1.1.3 Significance of Lateral Displacement
The magnitude of lateral displacement indicates the damage state and the
vulnerability of the building. One of the objectives of this research is to
determine both elastic and inelastic lateral displacements using simplified
methods. In traditional structural design, the strength and stiffness of structures
can be increased by adding new components or increasing the member size of
cross sections to satisfy the strength requirements. However, displacement-
based seismic analysis can estimate adequate earthquake response of reinforced
concrete components. The damage of a structure can be controlled through
2
monitoring displacement under nonlinear analysis. The advantage of pushover
analysis is its ability to indicate the potential damage mechanism of structures
under serious earthquakes. With the application of pushover analysis, the
weakest part of a structure can be located and the best suggestion for
strengthening and fixing the weak positions of the structures can be provided by
software analysis.
1.2 Research Significance
Inelastic deformations are likely to occur in reinforced concrete components
when moderate or large earthquakes strike buildings. The stiffness of
components is no longer constant after the materials yields or crack, and the
internal forces and moments in the frame are redistributed at that time. Even if
the lateral loads applied on a building may only increase by a small portion, the
corresponding increments of lateral displacements change significantly after
steel yields or cover concrete crushes. Thus, it is necessary to control the
inelastic displacements of buildings. However, without experimental tests or
numerical structural analysis using software, lateral displacement of the
structure cannot be calculated quickly. This is especially critical during the
preliminary design stage because member dimensions and building stiffness
need to be revised if the lateral displacements are large. Modeling the building
frame using software can provide more accurate data to evaluate the strength,
stiffness and ductile capacity of the entire structure, but it also can be
computationally expensive and time consuming.
Since the method for inelastic displacement calculation in ASCE 7 (2010)
requires structural analysis, it is necessary to establish efficient and simplified
3
equations to estimate the lateral displacements of reinforced concrete buildings.
In this thesis, a simple equation is proposed in Chapter 3 for calculation of the
elastic lateral story displacements of frame buildings and is verified using
structural analysis software. Through the proposed displacement equation, the
elastic and inelastic story displacements of frame building can be estimated
directly with little building information and few material properties. This
proposed method significantly saves time by eliminating the effort to perform
structural analysis during preliminary structural design. The simplified equation
proposed in Chapter 3 can estimate the story displacements of frame buildings
within acceptable tolerances. The proposed method is verified in Chapters 4
through 6 by performing linear elastic and inelastic analysis to 2-D and 3-D
frame buildings.
In seismic regions all over the world, there are still many dwellings and
buildings designed with unconfined concrete or few transverse reinforcement in
plastic hinge zones of concrete components. The core section of concrete
components is confined in three dimensions by adding transverse rebar, thereby
increasing the compressive strength of concrete. Transverse steel and
confinement can prevent the occurrence and development of cracks, and delay
failure of components. This research develops the numerical building frame
models in SAP2000 (2013) by including the effects of the confined concrete on
the seismic performance of frame structures. The analysis results also provide
guidance and simple displacement methods that can be used by practicing.
1.3 Objectives and Scope
In this research, a simple equation is proposed and verified for the purpose of
4
calculating the story displacements of a frame building. The structural analysis
software, SAP2000 program, is used to model and analyze 2-D and 3-D
reinforced concrete building examples. The example structures include a group
of regular frames with different number of stories under various types of lateral
loadings. By adding concrete shear walls and slabs into the example frame
models, the applicable scope of the equation is expanded within the acceptable
levels compared to theoretical and analytical methods. The applicability of the
proposed displacement equation is also examined for both high-rise slender
frame buildings and low-rise large frame buildings through examples.
1.4 Organization
Research background and previous research studies are summarized in Chapter
2. This chapter mainly includes the design requirements in current building
codes, ACI 318 (2011) and ASCE 7 (2010). Chapter 2 also discusses the
simplified method for calculation of the story displacement proposed by other
researchers and seismic assessments of reinforced concrete structures. Confined
model of concrete is also discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 aims at generating a proposed method to calculate story displacement
of reinforced concrete buildings based on beam theory and ASCE 7 (2010). A
simplified displacement equation is derived step-by-step to calculate story
displacement of frame structures under arbitrary lateral distributed loads.
Chapter 4 is devoted to verification of the displacement equation proposed in
Chapter 3 by conducting linear elastic analysis of 2-D frames using the
structural analysis software SAP2000. By comparing the story displacements
calculated from SAP2000 models and the proposed displacement equation, the
5
application of the proposed method is verified. By modifying the simplified
displacement equation proposed in Chapter 3, the applicability of the proposed
method can also be expanded to mixed frames with shear walls.
Chapter 5 discusses the application of the proposed displacement equation for
3-D frame buildings from linear elastic analysis performed in SAP2000. The
effects of slabs, shear walls and frame size are also investigated.
Chapter 6 provides a comparison of the lateral displacements predicted from the
proposed equation with the results from the inelastic analysis of example frames
in SAP2000. Failure modes of the structures designed with different seismic
requirements, are also examined following the requirements in ACI 318 (2011),
e.g., for ordinary intermediate, and special frames.
Chapter 7 summarizes the research conclusions and recommendation in this
research. The limitation and the scope of future work are also investigated.
Lastly, several appendices are included to provide comprehensive guidelines for
detailed design information for frame example models used in software and
numerical data produced in this research.
6
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SEISMIC
DESIGN AND DISPLACEMENTS
This chapter describes previous research related to seismic assessment and
current design requirements of reinforced concrete structures. This chapter also
introduces the simplified method used for displacement calculation and seismic
design requirements in current building codes. The criteria and procedures for
linear and nonlinear analysis in commercial software SAP2000 (2013) are stated
in this chapter.
2.1 Seismic Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Buildings
For design forces considered with earthquake motions, all members of a
structure should fulfill the requirements on the basis of displacement ductility
in the nonlinear procedures. For seismic design, each structure is defined as
ordinary, intermediate or special moment-resisting frame in ACI 318-11 (2011).
Structures designed as earthquake-resisting systems should comply with the
corresponding ACI 318-11 (2011) design requirements depending on the
specific seismic design categories. One of the major criteria defining the seismic
design category (ordinary, intermediate or special) is the level of displacement
ductility or the ratio of maximum nonlinear displacement to yield displacement.
This research critical to determine the approximate linear and nonlinear
displacements, hence, displacement ductility.
7
2.1.1 Seismic Force and Displacements in ASCE 7 (2010)
General seismic design criteria are mainly discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 of
ASCE 7 (2010). Seismic effects should be considered for all structures,
including non-building structures, non-structural components and structures
with damping systems. The purpose of the seismic design requirements is to
sufficient instructions for structures constructed in seismic regions. To fulfill the
requirements for strength, stiffness and displacement ductility capacity needed
to withstand the earthquake damage, buildings should include properly designed
vertical and lateral force-resisting members, such as columns and shear walls.
Chapter 11 of ASCE 7 (2010) provides detailed procedures for calculating
seismic ground motion and to select seismic design categories. The approximate
base shear force of each type of structure can be calculated. Chapter 12 of ASCE
7 specifies in the design criteria for buildings according to characteristic values
of seismic response properties. The code provides a simple equivalent approach
to calculate the static story seismic forces applied to the structures in accordance
with the total base shear force and the fundamental period of the building.
According to the soil properties of the building site, fundamental periods and
building information, the lateral seismic force, can be calculated by
Equation 2.1.
( 2.1 )
where, is the concentrated force applied at story level x of the structure,
is the vertical distribution factor in term of story weight, w, story height, h, and
fundamental period, and is the shear force at the base of the structure.
8
( 2.2 )
∑
where, or is the portion of the total effective seismic weight of the
structure located or assigned to level x or i, or is the height from the base
to level x or i, k is an exponent related to the structural period as follows: for
structures having a period of 0.5 s or less, k = 1, for structures having a period
of 2.5 or more, k = 2, and for structures having a period between 0.5 s and 2.5
s, k is determined by linear interpolation between 1 and 2.
ASCE 7 (Section 12.2) recommends a simple equation to estimate the inelastic
story displacement, of a building, shown in Equation 2.3. However, the
approximate equation for calculation of elastic story displacement, is not
presented in ASCE 7. The only plausible approach to solve the elastic story
displacement of a building is to conduct linear static analysis using structural
analysis software. Using the deflection amplification factor, and the
building importance factor, , the inelastic displacement, is determined by
Equation 2.3.
( 2.3 )
Figure 2.1 shows the lateral deformation and applied horizontal forces on a
regular frame. The lateral displacements and drifts types under elastic analysis
and inelastic analysis are also illustrated.
9
/
Story level 2
=strength-level design earthquake force
=inelastic displacement
=elastic displacement computed under
strength-level design earthquake force
=story relative drift, ( - )
/ =story drift ratio
Story level 1
=strength-level design earthquake force
=inelastic displacement
=elastic displacement computed under
strength-level design earthquake force
=story relative drift, ( -0)
/ =story drift ratio
Figure 2.1 Story drift determination
Since the elastic story displacement needs to be solved by linear analysis using
software, it is time consuming to model and analyze the building frame to
calculate the lateral displacements during preliminary design. In order to
simplify the process of the lateral displacement calculation based on ASCE 7, a
method is proposed in Chapter 3 to estimate the elastic story displacement, .
10
In Chapters 4 and 5, the proposed displacement equation is verified by
comparing the predicted displacements with results commercial software
SAP2000. In Chapter 6, the proposed displacement equation to calculate
inelastic displacement, is validated by performing inelastic analysis using
SAP2000.
2.1.2 ACI 318 (2011)
ACI 318 (2011) includes criteria for the design and construction of reinforced
concrete structural systems. ACI 318 requires that the structural design of
example frames are checked in Chapter 6. For ordinary, intermediate, and
special moment-resisting frame building examples established in SAP2000
should fulfill the requirement described below. Most of the detailed design
requirements for ordinary, intermediate, and special moment-resisting
structures are provides in Chapter 21. Other requirements of detailed design of
components are itemized in Chapter 11. According to Chapter 11 of ACI 318,
the design shear strength is presented as Equation 2.4.
( 2.4 )
where, is the resistance factor which equals 0.75 per ACI 318, is the
nominal shear strength contributed by concrete and reinforcement, and and
are the shear design strength contribution of concrete and shear
reinforcement, as defined in Equations 2.5 and 2.6. Shear strength provided by
concrete in non-prestressed members is defined in ACI 318 (Section 11.2) and
Equation 2.5 is specified for members subjected to axial compression.
( 2.5 )
2 1
2000
where, is the compressive strength of concrete, (psi), b is the width of the

11
compression face of the member, d is the distance from the extreme
compression fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement, (in.),
and is the factored axial force normal to cross section, and is the gross
area of cross section.
( 2.6 )
where, is the yield strength of reinforcement, is the area of shear
reinforcement, and s is the center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement.
The nominal flexural strength, of columns framing into the joint, is
calculated by including the effect of axial force. is consistent with the
direction of lateral forces considered, resulting in beam flexural strength, which
is shown in Equation 2.7.
( 2.7 )
2
where, is the depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block.
Column shear
Figure 2.2 Design shear for intermediate moment frame
12
Figure 2.2 shows the free body diagram of a column of an intermediate moment-
resisting frame. For all structures, the design shear strength, should be
larger than the shear force demand, calculated from the factored external
load ( ). Additionally for intermediate moment frame structures, the
nominal shear strength, should not exceed the design shear force,
which is required to develop flexural capacity, at column ends, as shown in
Equation 2.8 and Figure 2.2.
2 ( 2.8 )
where, and are the nominal flexural strength at the top and bottom
of the column, respectively, and is the length of column, as shown in Figure
2.2.
The largest probable flexural strength within the column can conservatively be
assumed to occur at the balanced point in the column interaction diagram. ACI
318 (Section 21.6.5.) gives the calculation procedures to calculate the probable
flexural moment. The probable flexural moment, is determined by using
the properties of the members at the joint faces and assuming a tensile stress in
the longitudinal bars of at least 1.25 , where is the longitudinal steel yield
strength. Using a strength reduction factor, of 1.0, the probable flexural
strength is expressed as Equation 2.9.
( 2.9 )
1.25
2
where, ′ is the depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block, which is
recalculated by letting the tensile stress in longitudinal bars to be 1.25 .
13
,
Column shear
, , ,
Figure 2.3 Design shear for special moment frame
Figure 2.3 shows the free body diagram of a column in a special moment-
resisting frame. should not exceed the design shear force, calculated
for shear design of special resisting moment frames as defined in ACI
318(Sections 21.5.4 and 21.6.5). The design shear force can be determined from
the probable moment strength (Equation 2.10 and Figure 2.3).
2 ( 2.10 )
In addition to Equation 2.4, the design shear force, of columns in seismic
resistant frame systems can be determined by the following criteria:
 For all types of structures, it is required that . If ,
then shear failure would be happen, and is the requirement
for all types of structures failure in shear.
 For intermediate moment frames, it is required that , and then
no shear failure is expected.
14
 For special moment structures, it is required that , and
buildings should be designed to develop plastic hinges, and no shear
failure is expected before plastic hinging.
Furthermore, the limitations of flexural bending strength and shear strength of
shear walls are provided in Chapter 21 of ACI 318. For structural walls and
coupling beams, shear failure is probably the main reason for building collapse
during moderate and severe earthquakes. In order to prevent collapse, the design
shear force of a structure wall should not be less than the total base shear force
for the wall. The design shear strength, can be calculated from Equation
2.11 (ACI 318-11).
( 2.11 )
where, is obtained from lateral load analysis in accordance with the factored
load combination, is the gross area of the concrete boundary calculated by
web section, is a coefficient equal to 3.0 for / 1.5, 2.0 for /
2.0, and distributed linearly between 3.0 and 2.0 for / between 1.5 and
2.0, is the light weight concrete coefficient where is 1.0 for normal
weight concrete and 0.8 for light weight concrete, and is the ratio of shear
reinforcement providing resistance in two orthogonal directions in the plane of
the wall.
2.1.3 Simplified Method Concrete Buildings Evaluation
In linear elastic analysis procedure, the equations for calculating of the forces
and displacements are usually derived by using the following two assumptions.
 A frame component or shear wall segment has infinite stiffness in plane
while the out of plane stiffness can be ignored for the relatively small
15
values of stiffness. Based on this assumption, a space structure can be
divided into several parallel plane structures to resist the lateral loads.
The frames or members do not resist to the lateral load in the
perpendicular direction.
 Reinforced concrete component Floors are assumed to have infinite
stiffness in plane while the out-of-plane stiffness can be neglected.
Based on this assumption, the floor can rotate or translate as a rigid body,
but does not bend. The forces applied in plane can be converted within
consecutive stories and within the frame.
Based on these two assumptions, the simplified calculation process of space
frames or shear wall structures can be converted into calculation for several
pieces of plane structures. Thereby the calculation process can be simplified
into the calculation of in-plane displacements and inner forces. Lateral stiffness
is the critical parameter in the calculation process of lateral displacement. The
safety and capacity of structures are usually evaluated through strength, stiffness
and ductility. For structures under lateral loads such as wind and seismic effects,
lateral displacements is an essential criterion to assess the safety and capacity.
Although ASCE 7 (Section 2.2.1) provides a simplified method (Equation 2.1)
to represent earthquake effects as concentrated seismic loads applied on the
buildings, it still requires designers to perform elastic analysis using software.
The calculated lateral displacements are then compared with specified
displacements or drift limits. In order to reduce the time used for computer
modeling and analysis, Tuken (2004) applies a simple analytical method to
determine the lateral drift of reinforced concrete frame buildings. A similar
16
model is proposed in this study. In order to verify the simplified analytical
method, in this research, several models of regular frames and mixed frames
with different number of stories are modeled using the commercial software
SAP2000 (2013). Story displacements and relative story drifts calculated by the
simplified equation are compared with the results from the linear elastic analysis
of SAP2000. Generally, the simple assumptions in the method of Tuken (2004)
and slight difference the predicted and SAP2000 analysis results indicate that
the simplified method can estimate the lateral drift of reinforced concrete frames
under lateral load with an inverse triangular shape reasonably well.
2.1.4 Shear Modulus
Homogeneous isotropic elastic materials have their elastic properties uniquely
determined by the other two modulus values. According to the given elastic
modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, , the shear modulus, can be calculated by
Equation 2.12.
( 2.12 )
2 1
Poisson’s ratio can be regarded as 0.2 for concrete material, hence, the shear
modulus of concrete can be simply expressed as 0.42 . For uncracked or
elastic reinforced concrete members, the shear stiffness is defined as GA where
A is the effective area of cross section.
2.2 Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building
The total lateral stiffness of a building depends on the number and location of
the vertical components such as columns and shear walls. The lateral stiffness
of the bare frame mostly consists of the bending stiffness while the lateral
stiffness of mixed frames (frames with shear walls) consists of both the bending
17
stiffness and shear stiffness. In mixed frames, a large portion of lateral loads are
usually resisted by the shear walls. The stiffness of columns can even be ignored
in some structures since to the lateral stiffness of shear walls can be relatively
large compared to column stiffness. Moreover, for regular beam-column frame
structures, the lateral deformations in the upper stories are usually smaller than
those in the lower stories, which are typically dominated by flexural
deformations. However, shear walls constructed within frames can reduce the
difference with relative inter-story drift by increasing the overall lateral stiffness
of buildings.
2.2.1 Assessment of Shear Walls in Frame Buildings
Hassan and Sozen (1997) and Tuken and Siddiqui (2012) proposed the
simplified methods to evaluate the contribution of shear walls and overall
seismic resistance of reinforced concrete buildings. In Tuken and Siddiqui
(2012), a simplified equation is proposed to determine the lateral capacity of
frame structures and is verified by an example. The proposed method of Hassan
and Sozen (1997) considers the effects from columns, walls and non-structural
elements at the same time. Tuken and Siddiqui (2012) assumes that the lateral
loads are totally resisted by shear walls and the lateral resistance of columns can
be neglected.
The simplified method proposed by Hassan and Sozen (1997) used to assess the
seismic vulnerability of low-rise monolithic reinforced concrete buildings. The
proposed of “Priority Index (PI)” expressed as the combination of “Wall Index
(WI)” and “Column Index” (CI) is used as a criteria for calculating the lateral
capacity of buildings and determining seismic risk. The proposed method
18
proposed by Hassan and Sozen (1997) is verified by a large amount of data
collected after the Erzincan earthquake in 1992. Statistical data show that
buildings which suffered severe damage are mostly constructed with low PI
values. The advantage of the simplified method proposed by Hassan and Sozen
(1997) is that it determines the approximate seismic damage risk of existing
buildings with very little building information.
Tuken and Siddiqui (2012) proposed a method to determine the required amount
of shear walls in reinforced concrete buildings by a single equation. In order to
avoid spending time performing computer analysis, the simple equation can be
very effective during preliminary design of the reinforced concrete buildings.
The goal of the simplified equation was to determine the numbers and stiffness
of vertical components which can resist moderate and severe earthquakes with
little building information and few known material properties. Tuken and
Siddiqui (2012) also gives an expression of “Wall index” with the assumption
that the total design base shear force is resisted by shear walls only. The amount
of shear walls can be represented by wall index, which is the ratio of the area of
shear walls to the area of the floor ( / , which are related to the magnitude
of ground motion. In order to fulfill both the strength and stiffness requirements,
the proposed equation is also used to check the story drift limits. The accuracy
of the proposed equation is checked using an example of a ten-story reinforced
concrete mixed frame building. Tuken and Siddiqui (2012) conclude that the
requirements of stiffness are satisfied if the amount of shear walls fulfills the
strength requirements.
19
2.2.2 Shear Walls under Seismic Loads
The shear walls are planar vertical components that serve as lateral load
resisting elements in reinforced concrete buildings according to characteristic
values of seismic response properties. Mixed frames with adequate numbers of
shear walls usually show superior performance when resisting seismic loads.
Wallace and Moehle (1992) proposed an analytical method to determine the
relationship between shear wall index (WI) and the roof drift of concrete
buildings. Then, Wallace (1994) improved the previous analytical equation
considering ductility and provided recommendations for detailed design
requirements for shear walls with boundary elements under seismic loads.
Canbolat et al. (2009) presented a variation in story drifts by varying the values
of the shear wall index in both elastic and inelastic analysis approaches. In order
to propose the most appropriate ratio of the shear wall area to floor area, Burak
and Comlekoglu (2013) conducted numerical simulations on mixed frames with
different properties of elements.
Wallace and Moehle (1992) studied the effects of confinement in boundary
elements of shear walls in reinforced concrete buildings. They discuss the
critical parameters for confined boundary elements are ratio of shear wall area
and floor area, the wall aspect ratio, the wall reinforcement ratio, and the wall
configuration. They indicated that the roof drift of a building is less than 1%
under severe earthquake, when the wall index is larger than 1.5% and the shear
wall aspect ratio equal to or less than 5. In order to avoid the conservative results
from force-based method, Wallace and Moehle (1992) applied displacement-
based methods considering the effect of confinement and boundary elements to
20
predict the response of shear wall structures. They conclude that at least 1%
shear wall ratio should be provided in the design of mid-rise building for
purpose of drift control.
Wallace (1994) proposes an analytical approach to determine the relationship
between the roof displacement and the wall index, which is the ratio of shear
wall area to the total floor area / ). For buildings with different wall
aspect ratios (the ratio of wall thickness to length), the roof drifts of structural
systems decrease along with the continuous increase of the wall index. Wallace
(1994) also examined the effect of transverse reinforcement in the boundary
elements of shear walls and assess the lateral deformation according to the
distribution of the wall strain.
Canbolat et al. (2009) investigates the relationship of roof drifts and inter-story
drifts for different shear wall indices using both elastic and inelastic analysis
results. This study provides guidance for preliminary design and assessment of
buildings with shear walls. The results are also compared with several similar
procedures and concluded that inter-story drifts of buildings tend to decrease
while the wall index keeps increasing up to 2%.
The collapse of reinforced concrete frame buildings mostly results from the
shear failure of columns and shear walls that may occur at excessive inter-story
drifts. Burak and Comlekoglu (2012) perform an analytical study to investigate
the seismic behavior of mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings by changing the
shear wall area to the total floor area which is also defined as wall index. The
researchers found that for wall aspect ratio greater than 1.0%, the seismic
resistant performance does not improve significantly.
21
2.3 Confined Concrete Model
Tri-axial compression tests on concrete cylinders show that the yielding
compressive stress of confined concrete, would be several times of
unconfined compressive stress, . In order to assess the seismic performance
of reinforced concrete buildings including shear walls with boundary
confinement, Mander et al. (1988) establish the stress-strain relationship of
confined concrete under uniaxial compressive loading with different type of
transverse steel.
Mander et al. (1988) proposed a relationship of concrete confined by transverse
reinforcement. Mander et al. (1988) discussed that adding lateral confinement
to concrete column could effectively reduce the inelastic displacement of a
column under the same axial load. Mander et al. (1988) provides a method to
calculate the confined concrete stress, ′ and strain, corresponding to
confined concrete. This research employs the method of Mander et al. (1988) to
calculate the strain-stress relationships of confined concrete in Chapter 6. By
adding different types of transverse steel, building with different levels of
seismic design requirement are modeled in SAP2000.
2.4 Nonlinear Static Analysis
Buildings including columns with insufficient transverse reinforcement may be
in danger or brittle shear failure and collapse during strong earthquakes.
Confinement of concrete in columns or boundary elements of shear walls can
improve the lateral capacity to resist earthquake loads. Nonlinear static analysis
considers the inelastic behavior of materials and provides an indication of
deformation capacity after steel yielding, and energy dissipation capacity of
22
lateral load carrying members and systems.
Inelastic deformation is usually expected in reinforced concrete components
when moderate or strong earthquakes strike the buildings. Teran-Gilmore and
Ruiz-Garcia (2009) stated that masonry buildings with sufficient transverse
reinforcement show better seismic performance. In order to study at the seismic
assessment of low-rise masonry buildings, Teran-Gilmore and Ruiz-Garcia
(2009) obtained the roof displacement demands for a masonry building using
coefficient method from ASCE 41-06 Standard and FEMA documents.
Additionally, pushover analysis is applied on a regular confined masonry
building example using SAP2000, and the capacity curves are also obtained for
seismic assessment.
Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis (SAP2000) commonly
used for the performance assessment of existing buildings and design of new
structures. Nonlinear static procedure is implemented to determine lateral load-
displacement relationship under increasing static lateral load or displacement of
structures. The lateral forces or displacements are increased gradually until the
structure collapses or the structure achieves the target force or displacement,
which can be point E (Figure 2.4). After the applied lateral force or displacement
exceeds the yield point at B, the structure starts to show inelastic behavior and
experience larger displacement. IO (Immediately Occupy), LS (Life Safety) and
CP (Collapse Prevention) are three performance objectives that can be tied to
inelastic deformation of buildings. Computational analysis can provide clear
concepts to users how the structures deformed under earthquake damages
through the three inelastic stages. Usually, the mass center of the top story of
23
the building is optimally selected to apply the target lateral loads or
displacements. The target displacement is suggested to be the largest possible
inelastic deformation under seismic loads. In this research, elastic and inelastic
displacements can be calculated for sample structures and can be compared with
displacements predicted from a simple equation proposed in this study.
Force CP
IO LS
C
B
D E
A
Displacement
Figure 2.4 Force-displacement relationship under inelastic analysis
Pushover method attempts to determine the nonlinear static response of the
structures by treating the structure as a discrete system with multiple degrees of
freedom. Pushover analysis is a simple, fast and efficient seismic performance
assessment method which may not be as accurate as computationally expensive
nonlinear dynamic analysis method. With the effect of strong earthquakes,
materials show nonlinear properties and structures under the large deformation
turn into geometry nonlinear behaviors. Both material nonlinear and geometry
nonlinear relationship can be defined and pushover analysis can be performed
in SAP2000.
24
CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED MODEL FOR CALCULATION OF
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT
The lateral seismic forces applied on any level of a frame building are
determined based on the fundamental period computed using ASCE 7 (2010).
In Tuken (2004), a simplified equation of elastic drift, under distributed
load with an inverse triangular shape is presented and verified by performing
linear elastic analysis in commercial software SAP2000 (2013). A new
displacement equation used to calculate the elastic displacements of frame
buildings is derived based on the beam theory. The proposed method can
calculate the lateral displacement of the frames under distributed loads with
arbitrary nonlinear shapes. The proposed displacement equation is also
validated by comparing to the method provided in ASCE 7 (2010).
3.1 Beam Theory
Beam theory in engineering field, also known as the Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory, is based on a differential equation used to express the relationship
between external loads and lateral deflections. The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory
is a simplified linear theory. It is based on small transverse deformation and
small angle at any location of a beam when it is subjected to transverse loads.
3.1.1 Static Beam Equation
The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory defines the relationship between the applied
25
distributed load, and the deflection, of a shear beam. The relationship of
external load and the beam deflection is presented in Equation 3.1.
( 3.1 )
where, the E is the elastic modulus of the beam material, I is the moment of
inertia of the beam’s cross section in Equation 3.2, is the function of the
transverse distributed external load applied on beam, unit in force per length,
and is the transverse deflection of the beam at location x.
( 3.2 )
In Equation 3.2, the x-direction is perpendicular to the cross section along the
beam length and the moment of inertia is calculated with respect to the centroid
of the cross section in y – z plane.
Since the production of elastic modulus and moment of inertia, EI is constant,
the deflection of a static beam is expressed as Equation 3.3.
( 3.3 )
Equation 3.3 gives the transverse deflection of the static beam under external
loads. The first-order differential term of deflection, / is known as the
slope of the deformed beam. The distributed load can be seen as a second-order
differential term of the moment caused by transverse load. Thus, the bending
moment, caused by deflection is expressed as Equation 3.4 and the shear
force, is expressed as Equation 3.5.
( 3.4 )
26
( 3.5 )
Based on the static beam equation and Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the
relationship between transverse displacements and applied external force is
derived in the next section.
3.1.2 Elastic Transverse Displacement of Shear Beam
Based on the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the relationship between external
distributed load and the lateral deflection of an elastic shear beam is illustrated
in Equation 3.3. By integrating on Equation 3.3 four times, the change in lateral
deflection along the length of the beam can be expressed as Equation 3.6, with
four coefficients to be determined.
1 1 ( 3.6 )

6 2
Figure 3.1 shows the deformation of a beam with two fixed ends.
where, EI is defined as the bending stiffness of a beam, and are the
rotation angles at beam-column connections, and δ is the story drift for a shear
beam.
z
EI
δ x
Figure 3.1 Deformation of a beam with two fixed ends
27
In order to solve the four uncertain coefficients in Equation 3.6, four boundary
conditions are applied shown below:
 When 0, 0
 When ,
 When 0, /
 When , /
The solutions of coefficient A, B, C and D are shown as follows:
 4 2
 0
 0
By inserting these coefficients, the displacement equation along the length of
beam is solved. The displacement equation static elastic beam is presented in
Equation 3.7.
2 3 2 ( 3.7 )

Using the relationship between bending moment, and the lateral deflection,
in Equation 3.4, by differentiating Equation 3.7 twice, the bending moment,
is expressed as Equation 3.8. By differentiating Equation 3.8 once, the shear
force, V is expressed as Equation 3.9.
12 6 ( 3.8 )
4 2 6
28
12 6 ( 3.9 )
Based on the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the displacement equation for a
frame building is proposed in the following section.
3.2 Lateral Displacement of Reinforced Concrete Frame Building
The deformation of a cantilever column under lateral loads usually consists of
two parts: the bending deformation and the shear deformation. The bending and
the shear deformations can be represented with different shape functions along
the column height. Assuming that the entire frame structure behaves like a shear
beam provided in Figure 3.1, the lateral deflection of the frame structure
consists of two types of deflections as shown in Figure 3.2.
z z
δ δ δ
+ =
q q q
Shear deflection Flexural deflection Total deflection
Figure 3.2 Lateral deflection of a frame building
The relative drifts between consecutive stories of frame building caused by
flexural deformation can be approximately calculated by using the principles of
29
elastic continuum mechanics. However, for frames behaving as shear beams,
the flexural deflection can be ignored since it is likely to be relatively small
compared to the magnitude of shear deflection. The relative drift between two
stories caused by shear deformation can be calculated by static beam equation
which is presented Equation 3.7. In this section, the step by step derivation
process for equation of the relative story drift is presented.
3.2.1 Calculation Procedure of Lateral Stiffness
External horizontal loads or displacements resulted in relative sway, between
both ends of each column and rotation angle and at each beam-column
connection. Figure 3.3 illustrates the deformation of a regular frame. As an
example, calculation procedure of the lateral stiffness of the middle column
between joint 1 and 2 is described below.
3
h
2
h
1
h
Figure 3.3 Deformation of a regular frame
The lateral stiffness, K is defined as the force produced when the structure is
30
subjected to a unit displacement on the top. Thus, the relationship between the
shear force in the column, and lateral stiffness of the column, K can be
defined in Equation 3.10.
( 3.10 )
where, is the relative drift between and 1 stories, which is also
the displacement difference between top and bottom of the column, and is
the height of the story and it is also regard as the calculated length of column.
In order to solve the equation of lateral stiffness, , the relationship between the
relative drift, and the rotation angle, need to be determined by using
Equation 3.8. The bending moments, M at both ends of column, at joint 1 and 2
can be expressed as Equations 3.11.a and 3.11.b.
6 ( 3.11.a )
4 2
6 ( 3.11.b )
4 2
Similarly, Equation 3.9 can be revised and the shear force of the middle column
between joint 1 and 2 can be expressed as Equation 3.12.
12 6 ( 3.12 )
where, , and are the moment of inertia of the column, the beam on
the left side and the beam on the right side, h is the story height or the length of
column, is the rotation angle right at the beam-column connection, and
is the relative drift between the two consecutive stories.
In order to further simplified process, the frame in Figure 3.3 is assumed as a
regular frame with identical materials and cross section properties. For regular
31
frames, all components including beams and columns can be assumed to be
elastic shear beams defined in Section 3.1.2. By assuming the relative drifts and
the rotation angles of each story are identical, there exists a relationship
that , . As an example, the static equivalent
force is defined in Equation 3.13 by taking a moment at the beam-column
connection. In Equation 3.13, the balanced moment at a beam-column
connection, i, is consisted of two parts: the moment from beams and the moment
from columns.
( 3.13 )
, ,
12
12 6 0
2
⇒
2
2 2
where, , is the moment produced by columns and , is the moment
produced by beams at the beam-column connection i.
By inserting calculated by Equation 3.13 into Equation 3.12, the relationship
between shear force, and lateral deflection, can be expressed as
Equation 3.14.
12 12 ( 3.14 )

12 1

2 /
1
/ /
32
By comparing Equations 3.10 and 3.14, the lateral stiffness, K of a column can
be expressed as Equation 3.15.
12 1 ( 3.15.a )
2 /
1
/ /
In Equation 3.13, the effect of the moment caused by the beam rotation are
included. It should be notice that Equation 3.15 provides the expression of
stiffness of frame column in upper level, the stiffness of the bottom column
should be modified in Equation 3.15.b. The lower side of the column is
connected with rigid ground so that the rotation angle, at the lower side
should equal to zero for bottom columns.
/ ( 3.15.b )
12 1
2 / /
2 /
1
/ /
In order to modify the proposed displacement for slender frame, the beams can
be assumed to be monolithic and relatively rigid. Thus, it can be assumed that
the moment of inertia of beams are infinity, ∞ and then the rotation
angles at beam-connections can be ignored. This means the lateral stiffness of
the building is simply consisted of the summation of column stiffness. Figure
3.4 shows the deformation of a frame with rigid beams and slabs.
Equations 3.15 and 3.16 provide lateral stiffness of a regular beam-column
frame and a frame with rigid beams respectively. The next section includes
discussion of lateral frame displacements.
12 ( 3.16 )
33
∞
3 0
h
∞
2 0
h
∞
1 0
h
∞
Figure 3.4 Deformation of a frame with rigid beams and slabs
3.2.2 Relative Story Drift
Relationship between the roof displacement of a column and the lateral force is
defined in Equation 3.10. Inserting the expression of lateral stiffness, K or K’
which are given by Equations 3.15 and 3.16, the relative drift under unit force,
∆ between the two consecutive stories is given by Equation 3.17.
It should be noted that Equation 3.17 is for a regular frame with lateral stiffness,
K is defined in Equation 3.15. As for calculation of the frame with rigid beams
and slabs, the displacement equation can be expressed by simply replacing the
stiffness term with K’ in Equation 3.16.
1 1 ( 3.17 )
∆
12 1
2 /
1
/ /
Figure 3.5 shows a 2-D frame with horizontal deflection under lumped lateral
loads. δ is the roof displacement and ∆ is the relative story drift between
consecutive stories.
34
δ
~
∆
~
Figure 3.5 Frame structure under lateral load
Since Equation 3.17 gives the expression of relative drift, ∆ under unit
force, the relative drift between the story and the 1 story, ∆ can
be written as Equation 3.18.
∆ ∆ ( 3.18 )
where, is the shear force of the story and ∆ is the relative drift
under unit lateral force calculated by Equation 3.17.
The expressions of lateral stiffness, K and the relative story displacement, ∆
are summarizes in Table 3.1. For the model of regular frame and frame with
rigid beams, the general assumptions for both types of frames are the rotation
angle at each beam-column connection is identical.
In Table 3.1, ∆ , ∆ ′ is the relative story displacement of story level. For
all terms with subscript “c” in this table are represented the properties of
columns and all terms subscript “b” in the table are represented the properties
of beams.
35
Table 3.1 Lateral stiffness and relative story displacement of frames
Type of frame Assumptions Lateral stiffness Relative story displacement
12 1 ∆
12 1
2 /
1 2 /
= , = 0 / / 1
Regular frame / /
36
(Equation 3.15)
(Equation 3.17)
12
= , =0
Frame with ∆
0 12
rigid beams
∞ (Equation 3.16)
3.3 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces from ASCE 7
ASCE 7 provides a method to distribute the total base shear force onto each
story level of a building. In order to simplify the structural model of the frame
building, the total mass of each story can be lumped at the mass center, at
that story level which is subjected to a concentrated story seismic force, .
Figure 3.6 demonstrates a simplified building model under story seismic forces.
Figure 3.6 Simplified frame model under story seismic forces
The lateral distribution of the story seismic forces, applied on each story
level can be determined by Equation 2.1 according to ASCE 7. The shear force,
at each story level is the summation of story seismic forces applied on the
building above the story, which can be calculated by Equation 3.19. For
example, the shear force at the second story, .
( 3.19 )
37
where, is the design seismic shear force and is the story seismic force of
the story
Considering the relationship between the applied loads and lateral deflection,
Equation 3.20 describes the relationship between the elastic roof displacement,
and the total base shear force, .
( 3.20 )
∆ ∆
Using Equation 3.20, the proposed displacement equation for frame under
distributed loads as defined in ASCE 7 with uniform, inverse triangular, and
parabolic shapes is derived step by step in Section 3.4 separately.
The story seismic forces, are calculated by Equation 2.1, also shown in
Figure 3.7. The shape of lateral seismic force distribution over the height of the
building are depended on k, a function of the fundamental period of the structure,
which is defined in Equation 2.2. The story seismic forces can be distributed
with uniform, triangular, and quadratic shapes corresponding to k = 0, 1 and 2
respectively. It should be noted that ASCE 7 (Section 12.8.3) limits the value of
k between 1 and 2. Figure 3.7 describes a simplified model of a four-story
building with an identical story height under lateral seismic forces based on
three different k values. The total base shear force, is assumed to be 100
kips as a general case and distributed as concentrate force, at each mass
center.
38
53.33 kips 40 kips 25 kips
h
h
13.33 kips 20 kips 25 kips H
h
h
Parabolic Triangular Uniform
k=2 k=1 k=0 =100 kips
∑ (Equation 2.2)
Figure 3.7 Frame building under story seismic forces with different k values
As shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8, when k = 0, concentrated seismic forces can
be regarded as distributed loads with a uniform shape, when k = 1, lateral forces
have an inverse triangular shape, and when k = 2, lateral forces have a parabolic
shape.
h H
h
Parabolic Triangle Uniform =100 kips
Figure 3.8 Frame building under lateral distributed loads with different shapes
39
3.4 Proposed Displacement Equation
In order to apply the proposed method onto displacement equation of frame
structures, some more detailed assumptions are provided. The effects from shear
deformation and axial deformation of frame components on the total lateral
deflection are relative small so that can be neglected. Moreover, columns and
beams are typically placed symmetrically within the frame and the center lines
of components are usually from a grid. The gravity loads typically produce
relative small lateral forces or moments. Therefore the P-Δ effects can be
ignored in most of frame buildings. In this section, a simplified equation is
derived to calculate the story displacement of frame buildings.
3.4.1 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Uniform Load
Uniform lateral distributed loads can produce the same effect as story seismic
forces calculated by Equations 2.1 and 2.2 with k = 0. In Figure 3.9, uniform
distributed loads are applied along the height of the frame building behaving as
a cantilever shear beam.
/ H
Figure 3.9 Frame under lateral distributed load with a uniform shape
40
The summation of lateral loads should be identical with the total base shear
force, . The function of the distributed load, with a uniform shape can
be expressed as Equation 3.21
( 3.21 )
where, is the base shear force at the bottom, and H is the total height of the
building.
Beam theory describes that the shear force at x level of the building can be
determined by integrating the distributed load. Since Equation 3.17 gives the
relationship between relative story drift, ∆ and the shear force, , the
story displacement at the level x of the building, the derivation of elastic
displacement at x level of a building can be presented in Equation 3.22.
1 1 ( 3.22 )
0
1
0
where, is the horizontal displacement of the building at location x,
is the shear force at the level x, and is the magnitude of lateral load along
the height of building.
Thus, the proposed displacement equation for distributed load with a uniform
shape is presented in Equation 3.23.
41
( 3.23 )
2
3.4.2 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Inverse
Triangular Load
Lateral distributed load has inverse triangular shape if the story seismic forces
are calculated from Equations 2.1 and 2.2 with k = 1. In Figure 3.10, lateral load
with an inverse triangular shape are applied along height of the frame building.
2
H
Figure 3.10 Lateral distributed load with inverse triangular shape
Since the summation of lateral distributed load should be equal to the total base
shear force, from ASCE 7, the magnitude of the inverse triangle load should

be equal to at the top while the distributed force at the bottom intensity
should be equal to zero. The function of lateral load with an inverse triangular
shape can be expressed as Equation 3.24.
2 2 ( 3.24 )
42
By applying the same method in Section 3.3.1, the derivation process of
displacement equation of the building under lateral load with an inverse
triangular shape can be presented in Equation 3.25.
1 1 ( 3.25 )
0
1
0
1 2 2

2

2
Thus, the proposed displacement equation for lateral loads in uniform shape is
presented in Equation 3.26.
2 ( 3.26 )
3
Since the slopes of the distributed load with uniform and triangle shapes are
constant values, the equations of distributed loads at the x level of a building are
easy to observe from drawings in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. However, the proposed
displacement equation for a frame building under distributed load with a
parabolic shape cannot be derived easily. The following section provides an
example to determine displacement equation for frame under distributed load in
quadratic shape.
3.4.3 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Quadratic Load
In previous sections, the uniform lateral load is assumed as a zero-order function
of x, and the inverse triangular shape distributed load is assumed as a first-order
function of x. Thus, the shape function of the distributed load in quadratic shape
43
can be assumed as an arbitrary second-order function of x as presented in
Equation 3.27 which is also shown in Figure 3.11 (a).
( 3.27 )
where, a, b, and c are constant coefficients to be determined.
H
H
3
x x

(a) (b)
Figure 3.11 Frame under lateral load with second-order parabolic shape
In Figure 3.11 (b), the solution function of lateral loads is shown and the solution
process is stated. In order to determine the coefficients in the Equation 3.27, it
is recommended to make some assumptions to simplify the derivation.
Assuming the story weight, and story height, are identical along the
height of the building, the story height and typical story weight cancel out. Then
Equation 2.2 can be rewritten as Equation 3.28 directly.
( 3.28 )
∑ ∑
where, i is the number of story, n is the maximum story number of the building.
Other parameters are defined in Section 2.3.1.

44
Distributed loads has a quadratic shape by inserting k = 2 into Equation 3.21
and the story seismic force, can be obtained in Equation 3.29.
( 3.29 )

∑

1 2 ⋯ ⋯
6
∙
1 2 1
In order to determine the values of coefficient a, b and c, three boundary
conditions presented below can be applied onto Equation 3.27.
(1) when 0, 0 0 ⇒ 0
(2)
2 2
| ⇒
3 2 3
(3) when / is close to zero as a limit situation, there exists a relationship
that . But this assumption may produce difference for
lower frame buildings. In the process of derivation shown below, the
and F obtained below are calculated by Equations 3.27 and
3.29.
2 2 2
∙ ∙
3 3
6
∙
1 2 1
18 6
⇒
1 2 1
Based on the derivations shown above, the three coefficients of distributed load
are solved. The equation of is presented in Equation 3.30.

45
( 3.30 )
where, 6 and 6 .
when n is very large, i.e., → ∞, = 3 and = 0. Hence, the expression of
distributed load can be simplified as Equation 3.31.
3 3 ( 3.31 )
where, is an arbitrary height of a building and represents the magnitude
of the quadratic lateral distributed load at the top or roof level of the building
frame which is shown in Figure 3.11 (b).
By applying the same method described in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, the story
displacement at the level x of the building under lateral load in quadratic shape
is obtained in Equation 3.32.
1 1 ( 3.32 )
0
1
0
1 3 3

where, is the magnitude of lateral distributed load at the top of the building.
Thereby, the elastic story displacement, for lateral load with a quadratic
shape is presented in Equation 3.33.
( 3.33 )
3 34 33
46
In order to simplify the displacement equation, 3 and 0 are
inserted into Equation 3.33. Thus, the simplified equation of elastic story
displacement for a frame under lateral load with a quadratic shape is presented
in Equation 3.34.
( 3.34 )
4
3.4.4 Proposed Equation for General Loading from ASCE 7
In Section 3.4.1 through 3.4.3, the functions of elastic displacement, for
frame under lateral load with three different shapes are presented. Table 3.2
provides the proposed displacement equations for a building frame under lateral
load with uniform, inverse triangular and parabolic shapes. Then, the simplified
displacement equation under a general lateral load can be derived by the three
specific equations.
According to the expressions of the three different functions for k equals to 0, 1
and 2, the general function of distributed load, can be concluded in
Equation 3.35 as a general case. The function of distributed load is derived from
Equation 2.1 and 2.2 of ASCE 7.
( 3.35 )
1
By integrating over the building height as shown in Equations 3.35 and
by dividing by stiffness K which is defined in Equation 3.15, the elastic story
displacement, at the level x of the building under lateral loads with a
nonlinear shape is presented in Equation 3.36.
( 3.36 )
2
47
Table 3.2 Proposed equation for lateral force distribution and story displacement
k Lateral distributed load Distributed load function ( ) Elastic lateral displacement (
Uniform 1
0
(Figure 3.9)
(Equation 3.21) (Equation 3.23)
2
Inverse Triangular 2
48
1
(Figure 3.10)
3
Quadric 3
2
(Figure 3.11)
2
General (ASCE 7) 1 1
2
(Figure 3.12)
Figure 3.12 shows a continuous distributed load with an arbitrary nonlinear
shape applied on a building.
H
1
Figure 3.12 Frame under lateral load with a parabolic shape.
It should be noted that Equation 3.35 is a continuous function of some position
x of the height of the entire building, however, the displacement equation,
Equation 3.36 is not a continuous function of x. The displacement and drift ratio
at bottom should be defined as zero while Equation 3.36 does not obtain the
correct values
3.5 Validation of the Proposed Displacement Equation
In order to verify the accuracy of Equations 3.35 and 3.36, the boundary
condition presented in Equation 3.37 is applied. If the story seismic forces
calculated from the proposed equations are identical with the seismic forces
calculated by ASCE 7, the accuracy of the proposed method can be verified.
51
( 3.37 )
where, is the lateral distributed load presented in Equation 3.35 and
is the seismic force applied on the story of the building calculated by ASCE
7 which is presented in Equation 2.1.
By inserting Equation 2.2 which is in terms of i, k, n and h into Equation 3.37,
the seismic force at any story level calculated by proposed method and the
ASCE 7 method can be expressed as Equations 3.38 and 3.39. By plotting the
corresponding displacement curves, the story seismic forces from the proposed
method and ASCE 7 are compared.
1
1 |
1
( 3.38 )
1
( 3.39 )

∑
For approaches applied above are based on calculated story seismic forces from
ASCE 7 and the proposed method. The concentrated story seismic force applied
on each story level can also be transformed into distributed loads with triangular
or trapezoid shapes along the story height between consecutive stories. If the
distributed loads transformed from ASCE 7 are identical with the distributed
seismic loads from the proposed method, the accuracy of calculated from
Equation 3.35 can be double verified. The transformation process is shown in

50
Figure 3.13.
The accuracy of the proposed displacement equation is verified at the same time.
The equivalent condition for distributed load is presented in Equation 3.40.
( 3.40 )
where, is the function of lateral distributed load calculated by Equation
3.36 and is the transformed lateral distributed loads from ASCE 7. The
relationship between and is obtained in Equation 3.41 according to
Figure 3.13,
1 ( 3.41 )
2
where, is the concentrated seismic force applied at each story level and
is the distributed load converted from the equivalent force.
≡ h
H
h
Figure 3.13 Transformation process between lumped and distributed loads
51
Story number
10
5 ASCE 7
(Equation 3.42)
k=1.00
4 k=1.33
k=1.67
3 k=2.00
Proposed method
(Equation 3.35)
2
k=1.00
k=1.33
1 k=1.67
k=2.00
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Distributed lateral load (kips/in.)
Figure 3.14 Seismic forces from the proposed method and ASCE 7
The distributed load transferred from ASCE 7 (Equation 3.41) can be presented
in Equation 3.42. Then, the lateral distributed loads calculated by the proposed
method (Equation 3.35) can be compared in Figure 3.15.
2 ( 3.42 )
1
The two approaches can be compared using an example, which is described in
full details in Section 4.1. Figure 3.14 shows the difference between
52
concentrated story seismic forces calculated by the proposed method, (Equation
3.38) and ASCE 7, (Equation 3.39) with four different k values varied between
1 and 2, in an example of a ten-story frame. In this example, the constant story
height is 10 feet.
Figure 3.15 shows that the story seismic forces calculated by the proposed
method is appear to be close to forces calculated from ASCE 7 method for the
same k value. The maximum difference between the two methods exists in the
first story for any k value. In the first story, the maximum difference between
the proposed and ASCE 7 equations is about 60% for k = 2, and 40% for k =1.
However, as the number of stories increases, two groups of curves are getting
closer to each other. The difference between the two methods are less than 10%
for any k value for stories is above third story. The minimum difference occurs
somewhere between the sixth and the seventh story, which is less than 2% for
all the k values. It should be noted that a turning point exists in Figure 3.14 about
the seventh story. Before approaching this point, the story seismic forces
calculated by the proposed method are smaller than story seismic forces
calculated by ASCE 7. However, the story seismic forces calculated by the
proposed method become greater than the other method above the seventh story.
Figure 3.15 compares the difference between lateral distributed loads,
calculated by the proposed method and ASCE 7 from Equations 3.55 and 3.42
also in an example of a ten story frame.
53
Story number
10
5 ASCE 7
(Equation 3.42)
k=1.00
4 k=1.33
k=1.67
3 k=2.00
Proposed method
(Equation 3.35)
2
k=1.00
k=1.33
1 k=1.67
k=2.00
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Distributed lateral load (kips/in.)
Figure 3.15 Distributed seismic forces from the proposed method and ASCE 7
In general, the lateral distributed loads calculated by ASCE 7 are identical with
the proposed method. The maximum difference between the proposed method
and ASCE 7 is about 70% for k = 2 and is approximately 60% for k = 1 in the
first story. However, the calculated distributed forces closer to each other in
upper level of the building. The difference between the two methods with
different k values is less than 20% above the fourth story. The difference
between the two methods is less than 10% above the seventh story level for any
54
k value. The minimum difference occurs somewhere between the ninth and the
tenth story, which is less than 5%. In Figure 3.15, there also exists a turning
point at the seventh story level. The distributed loads calculated by proposed
method are smaller than the loads calculated by ASCE 7 below the turning point,
and exceeds that calculated by the ASCE 7 method above the turning point.
Generally, the proposed method can be used based on double confirmations of
the similarities between the proposed method and the ASCE 7. In Chapters 4
and 5, the proposed displacement equation, Equation 3.36, is compared with
linear elastic analysis results from the commercial software SAP2000 (2013)
using 2-D and 3-D frame building examples. The scope of applicability of
proposed method are also discussed by considering the effects of frame size,
shear walls and slabs.
55
CHAPTER 4: LINEAR ANALYSIS OF 2-D FRAMES IN SAP2000
In the previous chapter, a simplified equation was presented for the calculation
of the elastic lateral displacements of frame buildings. In this chapter, the
applicability of the proposed displacement equation investigates analyzing
various 2-D frame models in SAP2000 (2013) with different number of stories.
The proposed method assumes that the lateral response of frame is shear
dominated, and the flexural deflection is considered only for slender and high-
rise building frames. The proposed displacement equation is also applied to
predict the lateral displacement of 2-D mixed frames with shear walls in this
chapter.
4.1 2-D Frame Model in SAP2000
The elastic lateral displacement, at any story level of buildings, can be
calculated using the simplified displacement equation proposed in Chapter 3. In
order to verify the applicability of the proposed method, several 2-D frame
models are established using SAP2000 (2013). In this section, both the proposed
method and the ASCE 7 method are used to calculate and compare lateral story
displacements of a symmetrical 2-D reinforced concrete frame building under
lateral distributed loads with different shapes. The calculated story
displacements are compared with the linear elastic analysis obtained in
SAP2000.
56
4.1.1 Building Information and Material Properties
The generic 2-D beam-column frame model used for the purpose of validation
is shown in Figure 4.1. In order to make the analysis and comparison process
simple and general, the total base shear force of the four story 2-D example
frame, is assumed as 100 kips. Building information and analysis
procedures followed in SAP2000 are included in Appendix A.
h
beam
column h
lb
=100kips
Figure 4.1 Four-story 2-D frame with eight bays under lateral seismic forces
The example frame model established using SAP2000 is an eight-bay four-story
2-D frame. All columns are assumed have fixed supports at the base of the
building. In order to keep analysis general, the material properties of the
components keep consistent within the whole building as shown below.
 Cross section of column: 18 in. by 18 in.
 Cross section of beam: 10 in. by 20 in.
 Bay widths: 16 ft
57
 Constant story height: 10 ft
 Design compressive strength of concrete: 6,000 psi
 Design yielding strength of steel: 60,000 psi
 Modulus of elasticity of concrete: 57,000
Lateral seismic forces ( , , , ) are calculated by the requirements in
ASCE 7 as described in Equation 2.1. Seismic force that applied on the
story, is calculated by different k values and are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Story seismic forces with different k values (Equations 2.1 and 2.2)
Lateral load with different shapes

ASCE 7
Number story
uniform Triangle Parabolic
of seismic
story force
k=0 k=1 k = 1.5 k = 2.0
(kips)
1 25 10 5.87 3.33
2 25 20 16.61 13.33
3 25 30 30.52 30.00
4 25 40 46.99 50.33
According to the theoretical derivations in Chapter 3, concentrated story seismic
forces can be converted into uniform lateral load when k =0, and converted into
inverse triangle lateral load when k = 1. For k values varying between 1 and 2,
the story seismic forces applied on frame building can be represented by a lateral
load distribution with parabolic shapes.
58
4.1.2 Verification of Proposed Method using 2-D Frame Models
Appendix B shows the calculation process of proposed displacement over an
example script written in MATLAB (2014). Story displacements, and drift
ratios, are selected as critical deformation parameters. Relative story
displacement, , and the story drift ratio, can be calculated from Equations
4.1 and 4.2. Detailed calculations of story displacements, , and drift ratios,
are provided in tables and figures in Appendix C.
∆ 1 (4.1 )
/ (4.2 )
Figures 4.2 through 4.4 show the relationship between elastic displacement
calculated by the proposed method and SAP2000 linear analysis. The elastic
story displacements, calculated by two approaches are compared in the
figures. The triangular and two parabolic lateral force distributions with k =1.5
and 2.0, are applied on four-, seven-, and ten-story frames, respectively. Each
frame model had eight bays (Figure 4.1). The reasonably well comparison of
results in Figures 4.2 through 4.4 demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
displacement equation on 2-D reinforced concrete frames. Figures 4.2 through
4.4 show that difference between the results calculated by the simplified
displacement equation proposed in Chapter 3 and the SAP2000 linear analysis,
are relatively close.
59
Story number
4
2
Proposed method
k=1.0
k=1.5
1 k=2.0
SAP2000
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Story displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2 Story displacements of a four-story 2-D frame
Story number
7
3 Proposed method
k=1.0
2 k=1.5
k=2.0
SAP2000
1 k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 4.3 Story displacements of a seven-story 2-D frame
60
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 Proposed method
k=1.0
3 k=1.5
k=2.0
2 SAP2000
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure 4.4 Story displacements of a ten-story 2-D frame
In Figure 4.2, the maximum difference between the two approaches is
approximately 8% at the third story level for the four-story frame building. In
Figure 4.3, for the seven-story frame, the maximum difference between the two
approaches is approximately 5% which occurs at the roof or top of the building.
In Figure 4.4, the maximum difference between the two approaches is
approximately 7%, which also occurs at the top of the ten-story frame building.
Percent difference between the two approaches are lower than 5% for all other
stories. In general, difference between the two approaches increase as the
number of stories increases for different k values. Figure 4.5 shows the
difference of roof displacements between the two approaches for the three
models with different number of stories and different k values.
61
Story number
10
Four-story frame
Seven-story frame
Ten-story frame
8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Maximum Percent difference between story displacements (in.)
Figure 4.5 Maximum difference between the displacements calculated from
the proposed method and SAP2000 analysis at each story level for different
bay numbers
From Figure 4.5, it can be noted that the maximum difference occurs at the top
of the building for the ten-story frame. The maximum difference occurs at the
third story level and the seventh story for seven-story frame. The maximum
difference occurs at the top of four-story frame. Percent difference between the
calculated displacement results from the two approaches are less than 10% in
all buildings for all k values. Similarities between the results generated from the
two approaches verify with reasonable accuracy that the applicability of the
proposed elastic displacement equation under lateral loads with different shapes.
62
4.2 Effect of Number of Bays
The example frame model used for checking the accuracy of the simplified
displacement equation has eight bays in x-z plane (Figure 4.1). For large and
low-rise structures with numerous bays, the deformation is likely to be shear
dominated. However, the deflection of the slender and high-rise structures
usually consists of the shear and flexural deformations, and possibly dominated
be flexural response. Thus, the height to width ratio of the whole building may
influence the capacity to resist lateral effects and lateral displacements. Thus,
the applicability of the simplified displacement equation should be investigated
effect of the frame size and slenderness. In this section, the effects of flexural
deformation are discussed by changing the number of bays of frame models.
z
~
h
~
h
~
h
~
h x
Figure 4.6 Four-story frame with various number of bays
In order to study the influence of frame size, lateral displacement of 2-D
reinforced concrete frame models with two to ten bays are calculated by the
proposed method with three selected k values (k = 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0). The goal
is to compare elastic story displacements, calculated by the proposed
method and SAP2000 analysis of different models. Beam-column frame

63
properties were provided in Section 4.1.1. Figures 4.7 through 4.9 show the
story displacement, of frame models with different number of bays.
Story number
4
Proposed
method
3 2 bays
4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
2 10 bays
SAP2000
2 bays
1 4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 4.7 Lateral story displacements of four-story 2-D frame
The difference between story displacements calculated by the proposed method
and SAP2000 linear analysis varies vastly according to Figures 4.7 through 4.9,.
The maximum difference between the two approaches is approximately 40%
for two-bay and four-bay frame models for any k value. However, the proposed
method fits well on six-bay, eight-bay and ten-bay frame models. By keeping
other influence factors consistently, displacements calculated by the proposed
method and SAP2000 analysis, are getting closer to each other when the number
of bays increases.
64
Story number
4
Proposed
method
3 2 bays
4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
2 10 bays
SAP2000
2 bays
1 4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Story number
4
Proposed
method
3 2 bays
4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
2 10 bays
SAP2000
2 bays
1 4 bays
6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

65
Figures 4.10 through 4.12 present the percent difference between the two
approaches for a four-story frame building with various numbers of bays. Three
k values or lateral force are selected to examine the story displacements
calculated by the proposed method and SAP2000 linear analysis.
Story number
4
2
2 bays
4 bays
1 6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent difference between calculated displacements
SAP2000 linear analysis
Figures 4.10 through 4.12 shows that the proposed equation works better with
frames large numbers of bays, or with less slenderness. The maximum
difference between predicted (from Equation 3.36) and calculated (from
SAP2000) displacements is approximately 30 to 40% for two-bay frames. For
four-bay frames, the maximum difference is less than 20% between the
proposed method and SAP2000 analysis.
66
Story number
4
2 bays
4 bays
1 6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Story number
4
2
2 bays
4 bays
1 6 bays
8 bays
10 bays
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

67
The proposed method may not be applicable to estimate lateral displacement for
frames with fewer bays, if the approximate aspect ratio (height to width of the
frame) is larger than 1.0. However, for the frames with six or more bays, the
difference between the two approaches is less than 10%. Thus, the proposed
method is feasible to estimate lateral displacements of a four-story building
frame wider than six bays. The minor difference between the two approaches
on frame models with a large number of bays proves that the proposed method
is properly acceptable to estimate story displacements of wide and low-rise
structures. The possible reason for this phenomenon is that the derivation
process of the simplified equation proposed in Chapter 3 is based on the main
assumption that the lateral response of frame is shear dominated ,while the
behavior of slender structures is likely to be dominated by have more flexure.
4.3 Applicability of the Proposed Method for Frames with Rigid Beams
The previous section illustrates that the proposed displacement equation is more
applicable to wider low-rise frame structures. For regular frame described in
Section 3.2.1 (Figure 3.3), the proposed displacement equation considers both
the column deflections and rotations at the same time. However, the calculation
of lateral stiffness of a frame with rigid beams (Figure 3.4) ignores the effects
of beam rotations. Usually, high-rise and slender frames are allowed to be
modeled as frames with rigid beams as shown in Figure 3.4. For frames with
rigid beams and slabs, the lateral resistance mainly depends on the stiffness of
vertical components, and the moment caused by the beam rotation can be
ignored. Thus, the proposed displacement equation for a slender and high-rise
68
building is obtained in Equation 4.3 by simply replacing the stiffness term with
K’ calculated by Equation 3.16.
( 4.3)
′ 2
where, is the elastic horizontal displacement of the building at level x,
is the total base shear force of the building, H is the total height of the building,
and K’ is the lateral stiffness of frame with rigid beams, and slabs (Equation
3.16).
In order to verify whether Equation 4.3 is applicable for frames with rigid beams,
the proposed method and SAP2000 linear elastic analysis are compared for large
frames and slender frames in this section. Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show the story
displacements of an eight-bay four-story 2-D frame and a two-bay ten-story 2-
D frame calculated by the two approaches when the building is subjected to
lateral forces with triangular shape (k =1.0). The eight-bay four-story frame
represents a large and low-rise frame structure, while the two-bay ten-story
frame is an example of high-rise and slender frame structure.
Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show that the lateral displacements of both the regular
frame and frame with rigid beams are compared by using the proposed method
and the SAP2000 analysis. Figure 4.13 indicates that the proposed displacement
equation based on assumption of regular frame is more suitable for large frame
structures because of the slight difference between the results from the two
approaches. When the frame is assumed as regular frame, the lateral stiffness
considers the column deflections and rotations. The average difference between
the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis is approximately 4.4%.
However, when the eight-bay four-story frame is assumed as a frame with the
69
rigid beams and slabs, the average difference between the proposed method and
the SAP2000 is 12.4%.
Story number
4
Regular frame
Proposed method
1 SAP2000
Rigid frame
Proposed method
SAP2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Figure 4.13 Story displacements of an eight-bay four-story 2-D frame under
triangular load
In Figure 4.14, the same comparison is made for the two-bay ten-story 2-D
frame model. The conclusion is exactly opposite. Figure 4.14 shows that the
average difference between the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis is
roughly 12% with the assumption of regular frame applied on the two-bay ten-
story frame. Additionally, the average difference between the proposed method
and the SAP2000 is about 15% when the frame is assumed with rigid beams.
Results in Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show that the proposed model works
70
reasonably well for all cases, except for slender high rise frame with rigid beams.
One needs to be cautious in using the proposed model to estimate the
displacement of high-rise frame with rigid beams.
Story number
10
4
Regular frame
3 Proposed method
SAP2000
2
Rigid frame
1 Proposed method
SAP2000
0
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 4.14 Story displacements of a two-bay ten-story 2-D frame under

triangular load
4.4 Applicability of Proposed Displacement Equation for 2-D Mixed
Frame
Previous sections show that the proposed method can be used to the estimate
elastic lateral displacement of is applicable in 2-D reinforced concrete frame
buildings. This section examines the applicability of the proposed displacement
equation for calculation of lateral story displacements of mixed frames with
71
shear walls. The results of the proposed method are compared to linear analysis
results from SAP2000.
4.4.1 General Assumptions
Figure 4.15 shows 2-D view of a reinforced concrete mixed frame with shear
walls. Columns and shear walls contribute in resisting the lateral seismic loads.
δ
~
~
f(x) H Δi
~
Figure 4.15 Mixed frame with shear walls under lateral load
The calculations of lateral stiffness between regular beam-column frames and
mixed frames are different. In mixed frames with shear walls, both flexural and
shear deformation should be considered at the same time. Hence, the total
displacement, include two types of deflections, the shear deformation,
and the flexural deformation, (Equation 4.4). The total
lateral stiffness of a shear wall, is the total equivalent stiffness of frame
which is presented in Equation 4.5 based on beam theory. The lateral stiffness
of mixed frame includes both shear stiffness, and bending stiffness, .
72
( 4.4 )
1 1 1 ( 4.5 )
where, bending stiffness, of shear walls can be calculated by Equation 3.16
be treating the wall segment as a wide column, and the shear stiffness, can
be calculated by Equation 4.5.
0.42 ( 4.6 )
where, shear modulus of concrete, 0.42 was defined in Equation 2.13,
is the elastic modulus of concrete which can be calculated from
57,000 from normal strength concrete, and is the equivalent area of
cross section for shear wall.
The equivalent moment of inertia can be expressed in Equation 4.7 according
to bending stiffness and shear stiffness expressed by Equations 4.6 and 3.15.
The total stiffness of the shear wall segment is expressed in Equation 4.8.
1 ( 4.7 )
0.42
1 1 0.42
0.42
( 4.8 )
With consideration of flexural and shear stiffness of shear walls, i.e. by
replacing the lateral stiffness term K in Equation 3.36, the proposed story
displacement equation for mixed frame structures is obtained in Equation 4.6.
( 4.9 )
2
4.4.2 Building Information of 2-D Mixed Frame Building Example
In order to simplify the procedure, the material properties of shear walls are set
identically with beams and columns which are described in Section 4.1.1. The
73
width of wall segment is identical to the beam, = 10 in. The length of wall
segment is identical with the bay width, = 16 ft.
shear shear h
wall wall
h
beam
column h
=100 kips
Figure 4.16 Four-story 2-D mixed frame under lateral seismic forces
The detailed procedures for model development in SAP2000 are provided in
Appendix A. The example model of 2-D mixed frame is shown in Figure 4.16,
which is constructed with eight bays. The story seismic forces applied to the
model are identical with those provided in Table 4.2.
4.4.3 2-D Mixed Frame Displacements
The elastic story displacements, calculated by Equation 4.6 and the linear
analysis results from SAP2000 are compared in Figures 4.17 through 4.19.
Detailed results including the numerical values of story displacement, and
story drift ratio, θ are provided in tables and figures in Appendix C.
Since the difference between story displacements calculated by the proposed
equation and SAP2000 linear analysis, it is possible to conclude that the
74
proposed method can be used to determine lateral displacement of 2-D mixed
frames. The largest difference is on the first floor if four-story frame, in the top
four stories of the seven story frame, and the top two stories of the ten-story
frame building. Displacement distribution is almost linear over the height of
mixed frame, whereas the proposed equation yields less story drift near the top
floors of the seven and ten-story frames. It should be noted that shear walls have
shear deformation and flexural deformation at the same time. Thus, both shear
stiffness, and bending stiffness, are recommended to be considered
when the displacement is calculated using the proposed equation.
Story number
4
2
Proposed method
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
1 SAP2000
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Figure 4.17 Story displacements of a four-story 2-D mixed frame
75
Story number
4
Proposed method
3 k=1.0
k=1.5
2 k=2.0
SAP2000
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Figure 4.18 Story displacements of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Proposed method
k=1.0
4
k=1.5
3 k=2.0
SAP2000
2 k=1.0
k=1.5
1 k=2.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 4.19 Story displacements of ten-story a 2-D mixed frame
76
4.4.4 Effect of Shear Wall in Mixed Frame
Compared to regular beam-column frame structure, adding shear walls into the
frame structures can improve the ability to resist the lateral seismic forces.
Figures 4.20 through 4.22 demonstrate the difference of story displacements
between mixed frames and regular frames calculated by the proposed method.
Figures 4.20 through 4.22 show that shear walls significantly contributed to the
lateral stiffness and reduce the lateral displacements in mixed frames. The
maximum difference between two groups of curves in the figures is
approximately 40% for all k values, which means that adding shear walls into
frame structures can enhance the lateral resisting ability. Also, the overall shape
of the displacement distribution over the height does not change, indicating a
deficiency in the proposed model which cannot capture the shear stiffness.
Story number
4
2
Regular frame
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
1 Mixed frame
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 4.20 Story displacements of four-story 2-D regular and mixed frame
77
Story number
7
4
Regular frame
3 k=1.0
k=1.5
2 k=2.0
Mixed frame
1 k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 4.21 Story displacements of seven-story 2-D regular and mixed frame
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Regular frame
4 k=1.0
k=1.5
3 k=2.0
Mixed frame
2 k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure 4.22 Story displacements of ten-story 2-D regular and mixed frame
78
4.5 Summary of the Proposed Method for 2-D Frame
This chapter validates the application of simplified displacement equation
proposed in Chapter 3 by contribution of modeling 2-D frame structures in
SAP2000. By changing the building frame properties and lateral force
distribution parameters, the results from the proposed method are compared
with the SAP2000 analysis results. Brief summary and conclusions are provided
below.
 For varying value of exponent k between 1 and 2, which is a function of
fundamental period, the difference between the calculated
displacements from the story proposed equation and SAP2000 linear
analysis are relatively close, lower than 8% at any story level of building
models (Figures 4.2 through 4.4).
 Comparison of story displacements for four-story, seven-story and ten-
story frames, it can show that the larger difference between the two
approaches usually occurs at upper levels of building models (Figures
4.2 through 4.4).
 By changing the number of bays in frame models, the difference
between the proposed method and SAP2000 analysis varies vastly with
different number of bays (Figures 4.7 through 4.12). Section 4.2 shows
that the proposed displacement equation works much better for frames
with a large number of bays, where the difference between the two
approaches is less than 10%. Results in Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show that
the proposed model works reasonably well for low-rise and mid-rise
79
frame building, and produced larger but acceptable difference for
slender high-rise frame with rigid beams.
 The proposed displacement equation can also be used to calculate the
lateral displacement of mixed frames with shear walls. The analysis
results show that, in the models selected, the ability of resisting lateral
seismic forces can be enhanced by approximately 30 to 40% by adding
shear walls into regular beam-column frames.
80
CHAPTER 5: LINEAR ANALYSIS OF 3-D FRAMES IN SAP2000
Ideally, all types of structures should be modeled and analyzed as space
structures in three dimensions. The simplified displacement equation proposed
in Chapter 3 is only verified by linear elastic analysis of 2-D reinforced concrete
frames in SAP2000 (2013) in Chapter 4. Since the 2-D analytical models only
consider the forces and moments in x - z plane and 3-D effects such as the
contribution of floor slabs are not considered, it is required to verify the
applicability of the proposed method by modeling 3-D reinforced concrete
frames in SAP2000 (2013). This chapter compares the lateral displacements
calculated by the method proposed in Chapter 3 and the SAP2000 linear elastic
analysis for different types of 3-D reinforced concrete frames. The effects of
slabs and shear walls on the 3-D frame behavior are also discussed.
5.1 Development of 3-D Frame Model in SAP2000
The 3-D reinforced concrete frame models under lateral earthquake loading can
be considered as shear dominated frames according to the assumptions
described in Section 2.3.1. This is partially based on the realistic assumption
that reinforced concrete slabs can be assumed to be rigid diaphragms. In
addition, this research focuses on the lateral response of low-rise or mid-rise
reinforced concrete buildings (up to ten stories.), where higher mode effects are
less critical.
81
Only if the exponent k and the total base shear force, are determined by
fundamental period, the lateral displacement at any story level of the building
can be determined by the simplified displacement equation proposed in Chapter
3. The calculation of lateral stiffness and story displacement of 3-D frame
building examples are provided in an example MATLAB script in Appendix B.
In this section, 3-D frame models and various parameters are established in
SAP2000. The displacements calculated by the proposed method are compared
with the linear analysis results obtained from 3-D SAP2000 models.
5.1.1 3-D Model and Properties
The example 3-D frame model in SAP2000 is a symmetrical 3-D reinforced
concrete building with no torsional deformations. Figure 5.1 shows the plan
view in x – y plane of the 3-D example frame model in SAP2000.
All columns All beams

18 in. 18 in. 10 in. 20 in.
6 = 96 ft
16 ft
16 ft 8 = 128 ft
Figure 5.1 Plan view of the 3-D reinforced concrete frame in SAP2000
82
The example frame model in SAP2000 is a regular 3-D reinforced concrete
frame as shown in Figure 5.2. All columns are assumed have fixed supports at
the base of the building. The material properties and building information are
identical to those of 2-D frame described in Section 4.1.1. Moreover, the
detailed procedures of establishing 3-D frame model in SAP2000 are provided
in Appendix A.
Figure 5.2 3-D view of four-story reinforced concrete frame in SAP2000
5.1.2 Linear Elastic Analysis of 3-D Frame Model
Elastic story displacement, calculated by the simplified displacement
equation proposed in Chapter 3 and the linear analysis results of SAP2000 are
compared in Figures 5.3 through 5.5, which show the story displacements of 3-
D frames under lateral loads with triangular and parabolic shapes determined
by different k values. The slight difference between analytical results of the
proposed method and structural analysis results from SAP2000 for the four-
83
story, seven-story and ten-story reinforced concrete frame buildings show the
potential applicability of the proposed displacement equation. Detailed results
including the story displacement, and drift ratio, θ are provided in
Appendix C.
Story number
4
2 Proposed method
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
1 SAP2000
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure 5.3 Story displacements of a four-story 3-D frame
Figures 5.3 through 5.5 show reasonably low difference between displacements
calculated from the proposed simplifies equation (Equation 3.36) and linear
elastic SAP2000 analysis. For the four-story buildings (Figure 5.3), the
maximum difference between the two approaches is about 19% at the third story
level and the difference for other stories is less than15% for all the k values. For
the seven-story frame building in Figure 5.4, the maximum difference between
the two approaches about 16% at the top of the building. The difference for
84
other stories is less than 13% for any k value. For the ten-story frame building
(Figure 5.5), the maximum difference is also approximately 18% occurred at
the top of the frame and the minimum difference between the two approaches
is about 8%.
Story number
4
Proposed method
3 k=1.0
k=1.5
2 k=2.0
SAP2000
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Figure 5.4 Story displacements of a seven-story 3-D frame
In general, the average difference between the story displacements calculated
by the proposed method and SAP2000 linear analysis of the 3-D frames is less
than 13% for different k values and different number of stories. Along with the
increase of the number of stories, the difference between the two approaches
decreases slightly.
85
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Proposed method
4 k=1.0
k=1.5
3 k=2.0
SAP2000
2 k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Figure 5.5 Story displacements of a ten-story 3-D frame
Assuming less than 20% difference between the two approaches is acceptable,
the elastic displacement, can be estimated by the simplified displacement
equation proposed in Chapter 3. Compared to linear elastic analysis in
SAP2000, the proposed method can save time to predict and check
displacements during preliminary design with little building or member
information. For example, the reinforced concrete details of beams, and
columns are not known at this stage. However, the applicability of the simplified
displacement equation is still required to be examined for other factors, such as
the effect from slabs and shear walls. Those factors are discussed in the
following sections.
86
5.2 Applicability of Simplified Displacement Equation for 3-D Frame
with Slabs
The example frame model used to verify the accuracy of the simplified
displacement equation in the previous section is a 3-D reinforced concrete
beam-column frame. Although the lateral displacements are mainly determined
by the number, behavior and location of vertical components, the effects of slabs
on the lateral resistance cannot be ignored directly. The deformation vertical
components can be restricted by the constraints created by slabs typically
defined as shell models. In this section, the difference between the lateral
displacements calculated by the proposed method and the SAP2000 linear
analysis of frames with slabs are provided. Figure 5.6 shows an example model
of 3-D frame building with slabs modeled in SAP2000.
Figure 5.6 3-D view of a four-story reinforced concrete frame with slabs
87
As described in Section 3.2.1, the lateral stiffness of regular frames are mainly
contributed by columns and beams. However, the lateral load resisting capacity
of frames with slabs should be improved since each beam-column connection
is restrained by the slab when the frame start deforming. Thus, it is expected
that the proposed displacement equation may be a little bit conservative when
the effect of slabs is not considered. Figures 5.7 through 5.9 show the difference
between story displacements of the 3-D frame with slabs calculated by the
simplified displacement equation and the linear analysis using SAP2000.
Story number
4
Proposed method
2 k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
Frame with slabs
1 (SAP2000)
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 5.7 Story displacements of four-story 3-D frames with slabs
88
Story number
7
4
Proposed method
k=1.0
3 k=1.5
k=2.0
2 Frame with slabs
(SAP2000)
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Figure 5.8 Story displacements of seven-story 3-D frames with slabs
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Proposed method
k=1.0
4 k=1.5
k=2.0
3 Frame with slabs
(SAP2000)
2 k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Figure 5.9 Story displacements of ten-story 3-D frames with slabs

89
Figures 5.7 through 5.9 show a large difference between the displacements
calculated from the proposed method and SAP2000linear analysis. In Figure 5.7,
the maximum difference between the two approaches is 40% and occurs at the
top of the building for the four-story frame. The minimum difference is 25%
and occurs near the bottom of the building for any k value. In Figure 5.8, for a
seven-story frame, the maximum difference between the two approaches is 40%
and occurs at the top story level. The minimum difference is 20% and occurs at
the first story level with any k value. With the increase in the number of stories,
the difference between the two approaches becomes smaller. This means the
proposed method is a little more accurate to calculate the displacement of upper
levels of frames. For the ten-story frame (Figure 5.9), the maximum difference
between the two approaches is 35% occurs at the top while the minimum
difference is 15% near the bottom of the building. The average of the difference
between the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis is about 28% for the
entire height of a building.
In general, the proposed method is much more conservative to estimate the
lateral displacements of 3-D frames with slabs. One reason for the difference
between the two approaches is that the proposed method cannot accurately
capture the effect of rigid slabs (this Section) or rigid beams (Section 4.3). The
lateral stiffness of frame do not include the stiffness provided by the transverse
beams based on the derivation process of lateral stiffness in Section 3.2
(Equations 3.15 and 3.16). Hence, the proposed method produces larger
difference when it is used to calculate 3-D frame structures.
90
5.3 3-D Mixed Frame Displacements
Building information and material properties of the 3-D mixed frame are
identical with those of the 2-D mixed frames described in Section 4.4.1.
Detailed modeling procedures in SAP2000 are provided in Appendix A. The
example 3-D mixed frame model of SAP2000 is shown in Figure 5.10 and the
plan view is shown in Figure 5.11. The story seismic forces applied on each
lateral frame are provided in Table 4.2 (Section 4.1.1).
Figure 5.10 3-D view of the four-story mixed frame in SAP2000
The example model shown in Figures 5.10 and 5.11 is a four-story 3-D mixed
frame with eight bays in x direction and six bays in y direction. As shown in
Figure 5.11, eight shear wall segments are added into the frame along with the
91
x direction. The wall index ( / ) is around 1% in each floor level in
order to satisfy the minimum requirement, proposed by Tuken and Siddiqui
(2013), of resisting the lateral earthquake forces.
Shear wall Beam Column
10in. 192in. 10in. 20in. 18 in. 18 in.
96 ft
6
16 ft
16 ft 8 128 ft
Figure 5.11 Layout of the a four-story mixed frame in SAP2000
5.3.1 Verification of Proposed Method on 3-D Mixed Frame
Story displacements of different types calculated by the proposed method are
92
compared with displacement from SAP2000 linear elastic analysis. Figures 5.12
through 5.14 show the difference between the results from the proposed method
and the SAP2000 analysis of different 3-D mixed frames.
Figures 5.12 through 5.14 show the difference between the two approaches are
acceptable to verify the applicability of the proposed method. Thus, the
applicability of the simplified displacement equation can be used for calculating
3-D mixed frames under lateral loads with different shapes. It should be noted
that the lateral stiffness calculation of mixed frame is recommended to consider
the shear stiffness, and the bending stiffness, at the same time.
Story number
4
2 Proposed method
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
1 SAP2000
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Figure 5.12 Story displacements of a four-story 3-D mixed frame
93
Story number
7
4
Proposed method
3 k=1.0
k=1.5
2 k=2.0
SAP2000
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure 5.13 Story displacements of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Proposed method
4 k=1.0
k=1.5
3 k=2.0
SAP2000
2 k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Figure 5.14 Story displacements of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame
94
Figure 5.12 shows the difference between the two approaches of a four-story
mixed frame. The maximum difference is 23% near the top of the building for
k = 1, and the maximum difference is approximately 25% at the second story
level for k = 1.5 and k =2. The minimum difference between the two approaches
is approximately 8% for the four-story 3-D frame. Figure 5.13 shows the
difference between the two approaches of a seven-story mixed frame. The
maximum difference is about 16% at the fourth story level for all the k values,
and the minimum difference for lower stories is approximately 2%. Figure 5.14
shows the difference between the two approaches of a ten-story mixed frame.
The maximum difference is roughly 40% at the fourth story level when k
=1while the minimum difference is 20% among the lower stories. For k = 1.5
and k = 2, the maximum difference is about 30% at the fourth story level and
the minimum difference is 15%.
The proposed method can estimate the elastic story displacements of 3-D mixed
frames under lateral loads with different shapes since the average difference is
less than 20% for various cases between the two approaches. Moreover, based
on the similarity between curves (Figure 5.13), it can be concluded that the
proposed method is normally suitable to estimate the story displacements of
mid-rise mixed frame buildings.
5.3.2 Effect of Shear Walls in Mixed Frame
Columns and shear walls are vertical components contribute in resisting the
lateral loads. Compared with regular frames which are constructed with beams
and columns, shear walls added into frame structures can improve the ability of
resisting the lateral seismic effect. In this section, the regular beam-column
95
frames are compared with mixed frames with shear walls. Figures 5.15 through
5.17 show the difference between the story displacements mixed frames and
regular frames calculated by the proposed method. Figures 5.15 through 5.17
show huge difference of the lateral displacements between regular beam-
column frames and mixed frames under the same seismic loads. The average
difference between the two types of structures is 33% for different number of
stories and different k value. This means that the capacity to resist earthquake
damage can be improved a lot by adding shear walls.
Story number
4
2
Regular frame
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
1 Mixed frame
k=1.0
k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 5.15 Story displacements of four-story 3-D regular and mixed frames
96
Story number
7
4
Regular frame
3 k=1.0
k=1.5
2 k=2.0
Mixed frame
k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Figure 5.16 Story displacements of seven-story 3-D regular and mixed frames
Story number
10
9
8
7
6
5 Regular frame
4 k=1.0
k=1.5
3 k=2.0
Mixed frame
2 k=1.0
1 k=1.5
k=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Figure 5.17 Story displacements of ten-story 3-D regular and mixed frames
97
5.4 Comparison of 3-D Regular Frame and Frame with Rigid Beams
In Section 4.3, 2-D short and slender are modeled in SAP2000 in purpose of
verifying the applicability of the proposed displacement equation on frames
with different size. In this section, the similar analysis is applied onto 3-D
regular frames and frames with rigid beams. The SAP2000 model of a ten-story
slender frame (Figure 5.18(a)) and a four-story large frame (Figure 5.18(b)) are
defined as two frame assumptions, which are shown in Figure 5.19 (a) and (b).
(a) (b)
Figure 5.18 SAP2000 building models
for: a) slender high-rise frame, and b) large low-rise frame
With the two different assumptions shown in Figure 5.19, regular frame and
rigid frame, the story displacement of 3-D frames are compared. Figures 5.21
and 5.22 show the story displacements of a large four-story frame and a slender
98
ten-story frame calculated by the proposed method and SAP2000 linear elastic
analysis under triangular lateral load distribution (k =1) specified in Table 4.1.
∞
3 3 0
h h
∞
2 2 0
h h
∞
1 1 0
h h
∞
(a) (b)
Regular frame Frame with rigid beams
Figure 5.19 Frame assumptions
for: a) regular frame, and b) frame with rigid beams
Figure 5.20 shows that larger difference when the proposed method is used to
calculate the lateral displacement for large and low-rise frame structures. The
average difference between the displacements from the proposed method and
the SAP2000 analysis is 15% when the eight-bay four-story frame modeled as
a regular frame. However, when this frame is modeled as frame with rigid beams
and slabs, which means that the lateral stiffness is only provided by the vertical
components, the average difference between the story displacements from two
approaches is 53%. Hence, 3-D large and low-rise frame buildings are
99
recommended to be assumed as a regular frame.
Story number
4
Regular Frame
1 Proposed method
SAP2000
Frame with rigid beams
Proposed method
SAP2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 5.20 Story displacements of an eight-bay four-story 3-D frame (k = 1)
Figure 5.21 shows that the average difference between the displacements
calculated from proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis is about 13% when
the two-bay ten-story frame is modeled as a regular frame (Figure 5.18a) In
addition, the average difference between the results from two approaches is 15%.
Thus, in order to obtain the accurate story displacements by the proposed
method, different assumptions should be made on different types of frames.
Large and low-rise frames are recommended to be regarded as regular frame
including the effect of beam-column rotations. However, based on the
100
comparison in Figure 5.21, the displacements of slender and high-rise building
example calculated by the proposed method show more uncertainty. The
proposed method compares quite well with those from SAP2000 when the high-
rise building model includes rigid beams.
Story number
10
4
Regular Frame
3 Proposed method
SAP2000
2
Frame with rigid beams
1 Proposed method
SAP2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Figure 5.21 Story displacements of a two-bay ten-story 3-D frame (k = 1)
5.5 Summary of Proposed Method for 3-D Frame
This chapter presents the applicability of the simplified displacement equation
proposed in Chapter 3 by analyzing different types of 3-D frame buildings in
SAP2000. Furthermore, the applicability of the proposed displacement equation
is expanded by considering the effect from rigid slabs and shear walls. Brief
summary and conclusions are presented below.
101
 For varying values of exponent k between 1 and 2, which is a function
of fundamental period, the difference between the frame displacements
calculated from the simplified equation and the SAP2000 linear analysis
are relatively close, and less than 15% at any story level of a building
(Figures 5.3 through 5.5).
 The story displacements of 3-D frames with different number of stories
calculated by the two approaches conclude that the difference between
the story displacements is larger in upper levels of the building
examples. (Figures 5.3 through 5.5).
 The proposed method is conservative when it applies to 3-D frames with
slabs. The average difference between the displacements calculated by
the proposed method and the SAP2000 linear analysis is approximately
30% (Figures 5.7 through 5.9).
 The simplified displacement equation can be used to estimate the lateral
displacements of 3-D mixed frames with shear walls since the average
difference between the two approaches is less than 20%. Furthermore,
the proposed method is more appropriate to mid-rise frame buildings.
The lateral load resistance can be enhanced about approximately 33%
when shear walls are added into the regular frames (Figures 5.12 through
5.17).
 Comparison of the two types of frame assumptions (Figure 5.19) shows
that the large and low-rise buildings are more suitable to be modeled as
regular frame and calculated by the proposed method. The proposed
102
method shows more uncertainty when it is used for calculation of the
displacements of slender and high-rise building example.
103
CHAPTER 6: INELASTIC ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE FRAMES
The validation and applicability of the simplified displacement equation
proposed in Chapter 3 are verified through linear elastic analysis using
SAP2000 (2013) of 2-D and 3-D reinforced concrete frame buildings in
Chapters 4 and 5. However, in reality, the lateral stiffness, K may be reduced at
large lateral displacements instead of a constant number due to material
nonlinearity, which may be due to concrete cracking or crushing, and steel
yielding. Displacement beyond yielding or other material nonlinearity is called
inelastic displacement. In this research only material nonlinearity or inelastic
deformations are considered. Geometric nonlinearity or P-Δ effects are not
included in the analysis. Section 6.5 shows that geometric or P-Δ effects were
not critical in the building models considered in this thesis, especially for low-
rise buildings.
In order to estimate the inelastic displacement, of a building, ASCE 7
(2010) provides a simple equation (in Section 12.2) which increases the elastic
displacement, of a building by a deflection amplification factor, . Since
the simplified equation for the calculation of the elastic story displacement,
is already proposed in Chapter 3, hence, the inelastic displacement of buildings
can also be obtained using the simple approach adopted in ASCE 7 (Section
104
12.2). In this chapter, the inelastic displacements of 3-D ordinary, intermediate
and special moment-resisting concrete frame structures are calculated by both
the proposed method based on ASCE 7 and the inelastic analysis using
SAP2000. In order to represent the ductility of structures as simple as possible,
plastic hinges are assigned at both ends of frame components.
6.1 Material Nonlinear Property
ACI 318 (2011) defines modulus of elasticity of normal strength concrete (
.
33 ), where is the concrete compressive strength, and is the
density of concrete. In this research, = 150 pcf, which leads to
57,000 . represents the elastic stiffness of concrete, where is the
uncracked or gross moment of inertia of the cross section. ACI 318 uses a
bilinear material model for steel, by assuming steel stays elastic until yielding.
Beyond yielding, it is assumed that steel strength is constant and equal to yield
strength, . However, the material strength does not behave like the definition
in ACI 318 in post-yielding stage.
6.1.1 Concrete Mechanical Behavior
Generally speaking, concrete components subjected to pure axial loads do not
exist in reality. Concrete components are usually subjected to complex shear
and axial stresses in two or three dimensions. The compressive strength of
concrete can be enhanced if it is confined in three dimensions. A concrete
cylinder which is confined in three dimensions is shown in Figure 6.1. In order
to improve the strength and stiffens of concrete, concrete is recommended to be
confined. The stress-strain relationship of the confined concrete model defined
by Mander (1988) and the unconfined concrete model defined by Roy and
105
Sozen (1964), as defined in Sezen (2002) are used in this research. In Figure 6.1,
four curves are provided to describe the stress-strain relationship of unconfined
concrete and three types of confined concrete separately. s shown in Figure 6.1
represents the spacing of transverse reinforcement in concrete components. As
the amount and spacing, s of transverse steel increase, the confinement and
strength of concrete and reinforced concrete columns improve. Figure 6.1 shows
that the axial strength of unconfined concrete can be increased from 6,000 psi
to approximately 7,800 psi by decreasing column tie spacing to 4 inches.
Similarly, the axial strain capacity can be increased from 0.004 to 0.024. In
overall, the compressive capacity and the ductility of concrete can be improved
to a large extent by adding closely spaced transverse reinforcement to concrete
components.
Stress (psi)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000 Unconfined
Confined (s=18 in.)
1000 Confined (s=10 in.)
Confined (s=4 in.)
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain (in. /in.)
Figure 6.1 Compressive stress-strain relationship of unconfined and confined
106
concrete
6.1.2 Steel Mechanical Behavior
ACI 318 (2011) indicates that the stress in steel stays constant after yielding,
and the yielding stress, is used for structural design if the steel strain is larger
than the yield strain. Actually, there also exists a nonlinear strength hardening
stage after yielding point which is beneficial to improving overall ductility and
strength of the steel material. The strain-stress relationship of reinforcing steel
is provided in Figure 6.2.
Stress (psi)
4
x 10
12
10
2 Grade 60 rebar
Steel behavior
ACI 318 (2011)
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain (in./in.)
Figure 6.2 Stress-strain relationship of steel
In Figure 6.2, the specified and design yielding strength of steel, , is 60,000
psi. Observed from Figure 6.2, the stress-strain curve of steel is linear before
107
the stress reaches the yielding strength. Steel behaves nonlinearly after the
yielding point, and then keep increasing nonlinearly until it reaches the
maximum strength, . ACI 318 conservatively defines the properties the steel
strength constant after yielding point.
6.2 Inelastic Displacement Calculation
ASCE 7 gives a simple equation to increase the elastic displacement into
inelastic displacement using a deflection amplification factor, which is
described in Equation 2.3 in Section 2.1.1. Thus, based on the displacement
equation used to calculate the elastic displacement, which is proposed in
Chapter 3, the simplified equation used for the calculation of the inelastic
displacement can be amplified directly by the deflection factor, given in
ASCE 7. Thereby, the inelastic displacement equation, can be calculated by
the proposed method from Equation 6.1.
2 ( 6.1 )
1
2
where, is the horizontal inelastic displacement of the building at level x,
is the total base shear force at the bottom of the building calculated by Equation
2.18, H is the total height of the building, K is the lateral stiffness of the structure,
k is an exponent of h related to the structural period which is defined in Equation
2.2, is the deflection amplification factor provided in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE
7 (Section 12.2), and is the importance factor defined in ASCE 7 (Section
11.5). ASCE 7 (Table 12.2-1) gives the design coefficients and factors for
seismic force-resisting systems, which are also provided in Table 6.1. In Table
6.1, NL means “Not Limited” with no limitation for building height, and NP
means “Not Permitted”.

108
Table 6.1 Design coefficients and factors for moment-resisting frame systems
Response Deflection Seismic design category

Moment-resisting
modification amplification
frame system B C D E F
coefficient, R factor,
Special reinforced
8 5.5 NL NL NL NL NL
concrete moment frame
Intermediate reinforced
5 4.5 NL NL NP NP NP
Ordinary reinforced
3 2.5 NL NP NP NP NP
In order to verify the applicability of the inelastic displacement equation,
(Equation 6.1), lateral displacements of the example frame models designed as
ordinary, intermediate and special moment-resisting frames are calculated by
the proposed method based on ASCE 7 and the SAP2000 inelastic analysis. The
displacements calculated by the two approaches are compared. The base shear
force from linear analysis, can be set equal to R times of the maximum
inelastic base shear force, according to the definition of response
modification coefficient, R. The deflection amplification factor, is the ratio
of the elastic and inelastic displacement. The relationship between elastic and
inelastic displacement and base shear force are given in Equations 6.2 and 6.3.
( 6.2 )
/ ( 6.3 )
6.3 Inelastic Analysis in SAP2000
In order to verify the accuracy of the simplified inelastic displacement equation,
Equation 6.1 which is based on ASCE 7, three example frame models are
109
established in SAP2000. The ordinary, intermediate and special moment-
resisting frame systems are designed and modeled in SAP2000 with
consideration of material nonlinear properties. The building model example
designed for ordinary, intermediate, and special moment-resisting frame models
under inelastic analysis are 3-D four-story reinforced concrete frame with
different design requirements. The spacing of transvers reinforcement in
column changes for different seismic moment-resisting systems. The properties
of beams are same as the 3-D frames defined in Section 5.1 for different seismic
moment-resisting frames. The building information and plan view are provided
in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The detailed procedures of modeling in SAP2000 are
provided in Appendix A.
6.3.1 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame
For ordinary moment-resisting frames, the mechanical properties of concrete
column is defined as concrete confined by columns ties spaced by 18 inches.
The other properties are provided in Section 5.1. As shown in Figure 6.1, the
concrete compressive strength, is equal to 6,000 psi in all beam-column
members of the ordinary frame. By performing inelastic analysis using
SAP2000, the inelastic lateral force-displacement relationship can be obtained.
Figure 6.3 shows the relationship between roof displacement and the
corresponding base reaction obtained from SAP2000 inelastic analysis. The
inelastic displacement calculated by the proposed method is also shown in
Figure 6.3 by amplifying the elastic displacement with 2.5. The dotted line
shows the linear relationship between the elastic base reaction and the
displacement under elastic analysis. The dash line represents the nonlinear static
110
pushover curve obtained from SAP2000 inelastic analysis. The solid lines show
how the simplified method is used to amplify the elastic displacement to obtain
directly into inelastic displacement. In Figure 6.3, , represents the
inelastic roof displacement corresponding to the maximum base reaction, which
is obtained from the SAP2000 pushover analysis. represents the elastic
roof displacement under linear analysis, which can also be calculated by the
simplified equation proposed in Chapter 3. , represents the inelastic roof
displacement amplified by the inelastic deflection factor, . , shown in
Figure 6.3 is the maximum base shear can be produced by the pushover analysis
in SAP2000.
Base reaction (kips)
5000
Ordinary RC moment frame
Linear elastic analysis (Equation 3.36)
4000 Inelastic analysis (SAP2000)
ASCE simplified method (Equation 6.1)
,
3000
2000
1000
1.62 , 4.06 , 9.03

0
0 5 10
Roof displacement (in.)
Figure 6.3 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story ordinary
moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame example
111
Figure 6.3 shows that the force-displacement relationship is linear under linear
elastic analysis. However, the SAP2000 inelastic curve shows that the
displacement keeps increasing in large increments after steel yielding. Point A
is corresponding to the maximum base shear, , during the pushover
analysis in SAP2000. The inelastic force-displacement curve begins to decrease
beyond the point A. That means the frame structure convert from the stage of
“Collapse Prevention” to “Failure” as shown in Figure 2.4 in Section 2.4.
The inelastic displacement under pushover analysis obtained from SAP2000 is
about 9.03 inches (Figure 6.3) while the inelastic displacement calculated by the
ASCE simplified method is 4.06 inches ( 1.62 in. 2.5 = 4.06 in.).
There exist large difference between inelastic displacement from SAP2000
inelastic analysis, , , and the inelastic displacement calculated by the
ASCE simplified method, , . Hence, the ASCE simplified method is not
able to estimate the inelastic displacements of the ordinary reinforced concrete
frame example. The inelastic displacements from SAP2000 indicates that the
deflection amplification factor, should be conservatively modified as 5.57
( , , / 9.03 in./1.62 in. = 5.57).
It should be noted that the slope of the dotted line (Linear elastic analysis using
proposed method) is different from the slope of the dash line (SAP2000 inelastic
analysis) at the origin of Figure 6.3. Since proposed method is a very simple
method to estimate the elastic displacement of building with little building
information and few material property at preliminary design stage, it cannot
consider the property of confinement or steel.
112
6.3.2 Intermediate Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame
For the intermediate moment-resisting frame example, a column tie spacing of
10 inches was used. The inelastic displacements of the 3-D four-story reinforced
concrete intermediate moment-resisting frame are calculated by the ASCE
simplified method (Equation 6.1) and the SAP2000 inelastic analysis. Figure
6.4 shows inelastic force-displacement relationship obtained from the two
approaches. The dotted line shows the linear relationship between the elastic
base reaction and the displacement under elastic analysis. The dash line
represents the nonlinear static pushover curve obtained from SAP2000 inelastic
analysis. The solid lines show how the simplified method is used to amplify the
elastic displacement to obtain directly into inelastic displacement.

5000
Intermediate RC moment frame
ASCE simplified method (Equation 6.1)
,
3000
2000
1000
1.63 , 7.29 , 10.16
0
0 4 8 12
Figure 6.4 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story intermediate
113
The inelastic displacement for intermediate moment-resisting frame is
amplified by 4.5 according to the ASCE 7 simplified method (Equation
6.1). In Figure 6.4, , represents the inelastic roof displacement
corresponding to the maximum base reaction, which is obtained from the
SAP2000 pushover analysis. represents the elastic roof displacement
under linear analysis which is calculated by the simplified equation proposed in
Chapter 3. , represents the inelastic roof displacement calculated by the
ASCE simplified method. , shown in Figure 6.4 is the maximum base
shear can be produced by the pushover analysis in SAP2000.
The SAP2000 inelastic force-displacement curve yields large displacements
keeps increasing in large increments in Figure 6.4 after the steel yields. The
inelastic displacement is about 10.16 inches which is corresponding to the
maximum base shear force obtained from SAP2000 inelastic analysis. The
inelastic displacement calculated by the ASCE simplified method is 7.29 inches
( 1.63 in. 4.5 = 7.29 in.). The difference between the two inelastic
approaches for intermediate moment-resisting frame example becomes smaller,
but the ASCE simplified method conservatively estimates the inelastic
displacements. For this example, a deflection amplification factor, of 6.27
needs to be match the maximum inelastic displacement calculated from the
SAP2000 analysis ( , , / 10.16 in./1.63 in. = 6.27).
In Figure 6.4, the slope of at the bottom the dotted line (Linear elastic analysis
using proposed method) is not same with the slope of the dash line (SAP2000
inelastic analysis). One possible reason is the proposed method is only a crush
114
method for preliminary design so that it cannot consider the property of
confinement or steel. Hence, the slope of the linear elastic force-displacement
relationship (dotted line) is different from the slope of the nonlinear pushover
curve (dash line) at the origin.
6.3.3 Special Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame
For the special moment-resisting frame example, column tie spacing was equal
to 4 inches. The dotted line shows the linear relationship between the elastic
base reaction and the displacement under elastic analysis. The dash line
represents the nonlinear static pushover curve obtained from SAP2000 inelastic
analysis. The solid lines show how the simplified method is used to amplify the
elastic displacement to obtain directly into inelastic displacement. For the
inelastic displacement of the special moment-resisting frame calculated by the
ASCE 7 simplified method (Equation 6.1), a deflection amplification factor,
of 5.5 was used. The displacements calculated by the ASCE simplified method
and the SAP2000 inelastic analysis are compared in Figure 6.5. ,
represents the inelastic roof displacement corresponding to the maximum base
reaction, which is obtained from the SAP2000 pushover analysis.
represents the elastic roof displacement under linear analysis, which can also be
calculated by the simplified equation proposed in Chapter 3. , represents
the inelastic roof displacement amplified by the inelastic deflection factor, .
, is the maximum base shear can be produced by the pushover analysis in
SAP2000.
115
6000
Special RC moment frame
, ASCE simplified method (Equation 6.1)
4000
3000
2000
1000
1.57 , 8.61 , 13.59
0
0 5 10 15
Figure 6.5 Force-displacement relationship for 3-D four-story special
Figure 6.5 shows the force-displacement relationship of a 3-D four-story special
moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame. The lateral inelastic displacement
is about 13.59 inches obtained from the SAP2000 pushover analysis while the
corresponding inelastic displacement calculated by the ASCE simplified
method is 8.61 inches ( 1.57 in. 5.5 = 8.61 in.). The difference
between the two approaches is smaller in Figure 6.5 compared to ordinary and
intermediate frames (Figures 6.3 and 6.4). Based on the analysis results of a
deflection amplification factor, of 8.68 is needed to predict the actual
maximum inelastic displacement ( , , / 13.59
in./1.57 in. = 8.68). In Figure 6.5, the slope of at the bottom the dotted line
(Linear elastic analysis using proposed method) is not same with the slope of
116
the dash line (SAP2000 inelastic analysis). One possible reason is the proposed
method is only a crush method for preliminary design so that it cannot consider
the property of confinement or steel. Hence, similarly, the slope of the linear
elastic force-displacement relationship (dotted line) is different from the slope
of the nonlinear pushover curve (dash line) at the origin.
6.3.4 Summary of Force-Displacement Relationships for Frame
Structures
Figure 6.6 compares the inelastic displacements of the ordinary, intermediate
and special moment-resisting frame examples calculated by the ASCE
simplified method and the SAP2000 inelastic analysis. Table 6.2 provides the
inelastic displacements from SAP2000 inelastic analysis based on Figures 6.3
through 6.5. In Figure 6.6, , , , and , represent the maximum base
shear forces of the ordinary, intermediate and special moment-resisting frames
under SAP2000 pushover analysis. They are equal to 3104, 3190, and 3390 kips,
respectively. In Figure 6.6, , , , , , and , , represent the
corresponding inelastic roof displacements of ordinary, intermediate and special
moment-resisting frames, which are amplified by the deflection factor
, as defined in Table 6.2 . , , , , , and , , represent the
inelastic roof displacements of ordinary, intermediate and special moment-
resisting frames corresponding to the maximum base reactions under SAP2000
inelastic analysis (Figure 6.6).
117
4000
,
,
,
3000
ASCE Simplified method

2000 Special RC moment frame
Inelastic analysis in SAP2000
118

Special RC moment frame
1000
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
0
0 5 10 15
Figure 6.6 Force-displacement relationship of different moment-resisting frames

Table 6.2 Design coefficients and parameters for moment-resisting frame
systems
ASCE 7 SAP2000
Moment-resisting Parameters simplified method inelastic
frame systems analysis
(Equation 6.1)
2.5 5.57
Ordinary reinforced (in.) 4.05 9.03

concrete moment frames
, (kips) 3,104
4.5 6.27
Intermediate reinforced (in.) 7.27 10.25

, (kips) 3,190
5.5 8.61
Special reinforced (in.) 8.61 13.59

, (kips) 3,390
Table 6.2 compares values for reinforced concrete ordinary moment-
resisting frames. Although the calculated values of deflection amplification
factor, , are larger than , as defined in ASCE 7 (Section
12.2), one should be keep in mind that ASCE 7 is a standard structural design
of new structures. Therefore, it should be normal to predict less inelastic
capacity or more conservative design. It should be noted that lateral inelastic
displacements provided in Figures 6.3 through 6.5 correspond to the maximum
base shear forces. Thus, before the earthquake force approaching the post-
serviceability stage, the ASCE 7 simplified method can approximately estimate
the inelastic displacement of building to some extent.

119
6.4 Failure Modes of Components
Depending on the reinforcement details provided according to ACI 318 (2011),
reinforced concrete members may fail in shear after very limited or large
displacements are achieved. This section examines the failure modes of a corner
column on the first story of a four-story 3-D reinforced concrete frame. The 3-
D frame example is defined in Section 5.1 (Figure 5.2). This frame example is
assumed to resist gravity loads and earthquake loads at the same time. The
design load combination selected in this example is 0.9D+1.0 E which is given
by ASCE 7 (Section 2.1), where D is the dead load and E is the earthquake
loading. In order to calculate the critical design shear force, the corner column
selected here is the one produces the smallest shear force, . Table 6.3 provides
the minimum values of axial load in corner columns with different k values and
different number of stories, for the load combination 0.9D+1.0 E.
Table 6.3 Summary of calculated axial loads, in columns (kips)
Story number k=1 k = 1.5 k=2
4 38.50 36.51 36.51
7 64.51 67.35 69.56
10 93.26 97.01 99.92
The factored nominal shear strength, can be calculated from Equation 2.5
and compared to both the design shear force, defined in Equation 2.8, and
compared to the probable design shear force, defined in Equation 2.10. The
120
material properties and parameters used for the calculation of shear strength are
provided in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Parameters used in shear strength calculation
Patameters Definition Unit
Shear resistance factor 0.75 -
Modulus of elasticity of concrete 57,000 psi
Shear modulus of concrete (G = 0.42 0.42 psi
fc’ Compressive strength of concrete 6,000 psi
fy Design yield strength of steel 60,000 psi
Column size 18 18 in.
L Length of column 10 ft
d Effective depth 2.5 in.) 15.5 in.
No. 10 longitudinal bars are used in columns. Three legs of No. 4 column ties
are used in columns. The cross section of the reinforced concrete column is
shown in Figure 6.7. The shear strength values are given below and the detailed
procedure is provided in Appendix B. The columns are expected to develop the
plastic hinge zones at both ends of the columns in intermediate and special
moment-resisting frames under the inelastic analysis. From Equations 2.4
through 2.10, the characteristic values of shear design can be calculated. As an
example, for a corner column in a four-story special moment-resisting

121
reinforced concrete frame building with column ties spacing of 4 inches, the
concrete contribution to shear strength, is calculated as 43.2 kips.
Transverse steel contribution to shear strength, is calculated as 91.30 kips.
The factored nominal shear strength in the corner column, is calculated as
100.90 kips. The design shear force for intermediate moment-resisting frame,
is calculated as 52.63 kips. The probable shear force for special moment-
resisting frame, is calculated as 64.41 kips. The general calculation
procedure and detailing design information are provided in Appendix B.
#10
3 legs #4 ties
=18 in.
=18 in.
Figure 6.7 Cross section of column
 0.75 43.22 91.30 100.90 kips

 100.90 kips 52.63 kips

 100.90 kips 64.41 kips
122
6.5 Geometry Nonlinearity
P-∆ effect, also known as geometry nonlinearity, accounts for the additional
lateral displacement produced by the combination of gravity loads and lateral
loads. In this section, a low-rise frame building and a high-rise frame building
are analyzed using SAP2000. The inelastic displacements are calculated with
and without P-∆ effects. The two selected frame examples, the 3-D four-story
and the 3-D ten-story reinforced concrete frame, have the same floor plan. The
building information and material properties are provided in Section 5.1.
The solid line in Figure 6.8 shows the nonlinear force-displacement relationship
of a four-story reinforced concrete frame calculated from SAP2000 pushover
analysis without considering the P-∆ effect. The dash line shows the force-
displacement relationship for the same frame building by considering the large
displacement and P-∆ effects. Similarly, Figure 6.9 shows the force-
displacement relationship of a 3-D ten-story reinforced concrete frame under
pushover analysis (SAP2000), with and without considering the P-∆ effect. The
point A shown in Figures 6.8 and 6.9 corresponded to the maximum shear force
under the SAP2000 pushover analysis.
Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show that the larger displacement difference occurs in the
high-rise building while the P-∆ effect produces a very small displacement
difference for the low-rise building. This research (Section 6.3) only considers
the material nonlinearity since the difference in the calculated inelastic force-
displacement with and without considering the P-∆ effect are relatively small
according to Figures 6.8 and 6.9.
123
300
A
250
200
150
100

No P-∆ effect
P-∆ effect
0
0 5 10 15
Figure 6.8 Force-displacement relationship of a four-story frame with and
without P-∆ effect

250
200 A
150
100

No P-∆ effect
P-∆ effect
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 6.9 Force-displacement relationship of a ten-story moment-resisting
frame
124
6.6 Summary of Proposed Method to Predict Inelastic Displacement
This chapter presents modeling and inelastic analysis of the ordinary,
intermediate, and special moment-resisting frame examples using SAP2000.
The deflection amplification factor, defined in ASCE 7 (Section 12.2) is
modified by comparing the ASCE simplified method (Equation 6.1) and
SAP2000 inelastic analysis. The calculated maximum inelastic displacement
(SAP2000) indicates that the value larger than 5.57 for ordinary moment-
resisting frames. Similarly, the calculated deflection amplification factors for
intermediate and special moment-resisting frames are 6.27 and 8.68,
respectively. Although the calculated values of deflection amplification factor,
are larger than those defined in ASCE 7, the simplified method can estimate
the inelastic displacements before the buildings reach collapse limit state. The
calculated value of is recommended to be larger as shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.5 Specified and recommended values
ASCE 7 deflection Modified deflection

Moment-resisting frame
amplification factor, amplification factor,
system
, ,
Special reinforced concrete

5.5 8.5
moment frame
Intermediate reinforced
4.5 6.5
Ordinary reinforced concrete
2.5 5.5
moment frame
125
Since the modified deflection amplification factor, , shown in Table
6.5 correspond to the maximum base reactions of the building examples under
the pushover analysis (SAP2000), the ASCE method predict lower inelastic
displacements (Figures 6.3 through 6.5). This chapter also discusses the
influence of P-∆ effect during the inelastic analysis. Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show
that P-∆ effect or geometry nonlinearity has very small influence on inelastic
lateral displacement of the low-rise building example and somewhat larger
influence for the high-rise building example. Thus, this research only considers
the material nonlinearity during the inelastic analysis.
126
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ASCE 7 (2010) provides an equivalent seismic force procedure for the
calculation of the lateral concentrated seismic forces applied on buildings. In
this research, the lateral concentrated seismic forces on floor level are represents
distributed loads with triangular or parabolic shapes. A simplified equation for
the calculation of the elastic and inelastic lateral displacement of reinforced
concrete frame buildings is proposed based on elastic beam theory and ASCE 7
(2010), and verified by structural analysis software SAP2000 (2013).
7.1 Summary
This research proposes a simple equation to calculate the elastic story
displacement of frame buildings. The accuracy of the simplified equation
proposed in Chapter 3 is verified by performing linear elastic analysis of 2-D
and 3-D reinforced concrete frame buildings using SAP2000 (2013) software.
The applicability of the equation is also expanded by considering the effects
from shear walls and slabs in frame model examples. The accuracy of the
simplified equation for the calculation of inelastic story displacements is also
verified by performing inelastic analysis for ordinary, intermediate, and special
reinforced concrete moment-resisting systems.
7.1.1 Equation Derivation of Displacement Equation
The displacement equation proposed in Chapter 3 is derived from elastic beam
theory and ASCE 7 (2010). Chapter 12 of ASCE 7 provides an equivalent
127
procedure to convert the earthquake load effects to static lumped seismic forces
applied on each story level of a structure. The seismic forces applied at each
story level of a building are related to the fundamental period of the building.
The simplified displacement equation proposed in Chapter 3 assumes that the
stiffness and strength of frame buildings are constant values regardless of the
magnitude of the lateral loading. However, the internal forces and moments of
frame buildings can be redistributed or reduced after the post-yielding stage.
For the calculation of the inelastic displacement, ASCE 7 provides a simple
equation (Equation 6.1) to calculate the inelastic deflection, by amplifying
elastic deflection, in accordance with the design requirements of buildings.
The values of deflection amplification factor, are categorized for different
seismic resistance systems and becomes larger as the seismic design
requirements become stricter or more rigorous. In this research, the inelastic
displacement, at each story level is estimated based on the ASCE 7
procedure by multiplying the predicted elastic displacement, (Equation
3.36) by the deflection amplification factor.
7.1.2 Elastic Displacement Calculation
The validation and application of the simplified displacement equation
proposed in Chapter 3 are verified by linear elastic analysis of 2-D and 3-D
frame examples in Chapters 4 and 5. In Chapter 4, the accuracy of the simplified
equation is examined with the linear elastic analysis of 2-D frames in SAP2000.
In this research, frame model examples with different number of stories under
different lateral loads are analyzed using SAP2000. The exponent k, which is a
function of the fundamental period of the structure (ranges from 1 to 2), defines
128
the shape of the lateral distributed loads with different shapes. Since the 2-D
frame models only consider the forces and moments in the x-z or 2-D plane,
Chapter 5 continues to discuss the applicability of the simplified equation by
modeling 3-D frames in SAP2000.
The applicability of the proposed simplified displacement equation is also
verified by mixed frames with beam-column members and shear walls. For the
2-D and 3-D mixed frames with shear walls, the lateral stiffness of frame
buildings cannot be calculated directly without considering the effect of flexural
deformation. For a shear dominated column, the flexural deformation can be
neglected since the value is relatively small when compared to the shear
deformation. However, both the bending stiffness and shear stiffness should be
included in calculation of the story displacements of mixed frames with shear
walls. Another critical parameter discussed in this research is the frame size.
For the frame example with four stories, the difference of lateral story
displacements between the two approaches are compared by varying number of
bays varies from two to ten.
7.1.3 Inelastic Displacement Calculation
ASCE 7 provides a simple equation to estimate the inelastic story displacements,
by amplifying the elastic story displacement, ( ). The values
of deflection amplification factor, are categorized by different seismic
moment-resisting systems in ASCE 7. The value of increases as the seismic
detailing requirements become more strict. Both the proposed method and the
SAP2000 inelastic analysis are applied to ordinary, intermediate and special
moment-resisting frames so that the deflection amplification factor, could
129
be calculated and compared with those specified in ASCE 7.
7.2 Conclusions
The following are the main findings and conclusions of this research:
 This research proposed a continuous function of the equivalent
earthquake forces distributed over the entire height of a building.
Through the similarities of force distribution between the proposed
method and the ASCE 7 method, a simplified equation is proposed for
the calculation of story displacement of frame buildings which is based
on the elastic beam theory. The proposed equation (Equation 3.36) can
be used to calculated lateral displacement and drift ratio at any location
of building above the ground.
 For four-story, seven-story and ten-story frame building examples, the
story displacements are calculated by the proposed method. The
maximum difference which defines the shape of lateral earthquake
forces was 8% between the displacements calculated from simplified
equation and SAP2000 analysis when k is equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. The
results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis show much
larger difference in the upper story levels. For the lower levels of
buildings, the displacements calculated by the proposed method are
much closer to the accurate results from SAP2000 analysis (Figures 4.2
through 4.4).
 For frame models with different number of stories, the maximum
difference between the displacements calculated from the proposed
method and the SAP2000 analysis is lower than 15% when k varies
130
between 1 and 2. Larger difference exist in the upper floor levels of
buildings since the 3-D frame models should consider the lateral forces
in two dimensions. However, the proposed method provides
conservative results for 3-D frame buildings with slabs because average
difference was approximately 30% between the two approaches. One
possible reason for that much difference is the proposed simplified
method cannot account for the effects of transverse beams and relatively
rigid reinforced concrete slabs of 3-D frame buildings.
 The displacements calculated by the proposed method produce a up to
approximately 20% difference approximately when compared to the
result from SAP2000 analysis for both 2-D and 3-D mixed frame
buildings with shear walls. The results of frame examples with different
story numbers and different lateral loadings show that the proposed
method is more applicable for mid-rise frame buildings. The lateral
stiffness of frame buildings can be enhanced by approximately 30% by
adding shear walls into regular beam-column frames.
 The proposed method is much more suitable to calculate the story
displacements of low-rise or mid-rise frame buildings with large plane
dimensions. However, for slender frames or low-rise buildings with
small plane dimensions, the proposed simplified method is not
acceptable because on average the difference between the calculated
displacements approximately 40%.
 Results from the SAP2000 inelastic analysis suggest larger values of
deflection amplification factor, when compared to the values
131
specified in ASCE 7. The calculated values of are 5.5, 6.5, and 8.5
for ordinary, intermediate, and special reinforced concrete moment-
resisting frames, respectively, while the corresponding specified
values (by ASCE 7) are 2.5, 4.5, and 5.5. The ASCE simplified method
can estimate the inelastic displacements to some extent before the frame
structure approaches the post-serviceability stage.
7.3 Limitations of Research
In this research, the proposed displacement equation is based on elastic beam
theory and is examined by linear elastic analysis and inelastic analysis using
SAP2000. This research uses nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) to
examine if the example frame models are designed to meet the seismic design
requirements. For pushover analysis, the continuously increasing static
earthquake load (or displacements) is applied on the each beam-column
connection of a structure. However, in reality, forces cannot be converted into
static forces directly. The limitation of nonlinear static analysis is the restriction
of combining the ground motion records into the static load patterns on the
structural models when compared to the dynamic analysis. Therefore, the results
from pushover analysis can be uncertain depending on the earthquake or
building characteristics.
In nonlinear dynamic analysis, the nonlinear properties of structures are no
longer expressed as a simple function of displacement. By conducting nonlinear
dynamic analysis in software, the seismic behavior of structural models can be
determined more accurately. However, the dynamic analysis is more
complicated, and it may require much more time to analyze the models. Thus,
132
the simplified method proposed in this research is feasible and applicable to
represent the potential earthquake scenarios and to quickly predict lateral story
displacements during the preliminary design stage.
7.4 Recommendations and Future Research
The seismic load is only assumed to act in one direction of the structural model
in Chapters 4 through 6. However, earthquake effect may come from different
directions at the same time. This research assumes that earthquake effect only
comes from one direction of the model and neglects torsional effects. Similarly,
for mixed frames modeled in Chapter 5, the shear walls are modeled only in the
x direction in SAP2000. In reality, the torsional effects may be caused by a
multi-directional seismic response. Hence, the torsional effects need to consider
for all buildings constructed in regions with high seismic risks.
Additionally, seismic forces also produce torsional effects when the center of
mass and center of rigidity are at different locations at any floor level. In this
research, all the frame model examples are symmetrical frames. The properties
of material and structural components are identical. These limitations neglect
the torsional effects caused by the potential unsymmetrical design and
construction errors in reality. Thereby, the torsional effects increase depending
on the eccentricity between the mass center and the rigidity center. Hence, the
torsional effects should be considered in future research.
The large displacements and P-Δ effects are not included in the analysis in this
research since the frame examples are not high-rise buildings and axial loads
are not too large. For high-rise structures, additional moments can be produced
due to the combined effect of gravity loads and lateral loads when ths lateral
133
displacement are large. For high-rise and slender structures, the P-Δ effects
should also be considered to determine the intermal forces and displacements
of structures in future research.
134
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). “ACI 318 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary”. Detroit, MI, USA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2010). “Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures”. ASCE 7, Reston, VA, USA.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996). “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Concrete Buildings”. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings”. FEMA-273/274, Washington DC, USA.
Burcu B., and Comlekoglu H. G. (2012). “Effect of Shear Wall Area to Floor
Area Ratio on the Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(11), 1928-1937.
Canbolat B. B., Soydas O., and Yakut A. (2009). “Influence of Shear Wall Index
on the Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”. WCEE-ECCE-
TCCE Joint Conference on Earthquake and Tsunami, June 22-24, 2009,
Istanbul, Turkey, 1-12.
Hassan A. F., and Sozen M. A. (1997). “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
Low-rise Buildings in Regions with Infrequent Earthquakes”. ACI Structural
Journal, 94(1), 31-39.
Mander J. B., Priestley M. J. N., and Park R. (1988). “Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model for Confined Concrete”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8),

135
1804-1826.
Roy H. E. H., and Sozen M. A. (1964). “Ductility of Concrete”. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete,
ASCE-ACI, November 1964, Miami, FL, USA, 213-224.
Sezen H. (2002). “Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Building Columns”. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,
pp.336.
Tuken A. (2004). “Quantifying Seismic Design Criteria for Concrete Buildings”.
Ph.D. dissertation, Middle East Technical University, pp.242.
Tuken A. and Siddiqui N.A. (2013). “Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in
Seismic-Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”. Arabian Journal
for Science and Engineering, 38(1), 2639-2648.
Teran-Gilmore A., and Ruiz-Garcia J. (2009). “Displacement-Based
Assessment Procedure for Regular Confined Masonry Buildings in Seismic
Regions”. In Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and
Other Structures, December, 9-11, 2009, San Francisco, CA, USA, 789-800.
Wallace J. W., and Moehle J. P. (1992). “Ductility and Detailing Requirements
of Bearing Wall Buildings”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(6), 1625-
1644.
Wallace, J. W. (1994). “A New Methodology for Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(3), 863-884.
136
APPENDIX A: MODEL DETAILS IN SAP2000
A.1 Model Information
The example model established in SAP2000 (2013) is a symmetrical regular
reinforced concrete frame building (Chapters 4 through 6). The material
properties, cross sections, and analysis procedures are provided in this section.
The results presented in Chapters 4 through 6 are obtained from SAP2000 linear
and inelastic analysis.
A.1.2 Material Properties
The design compressive strength of concrete is 6000 psi, and the design yield
strength of rebar, is 60,000 psi which is the default option “grade 60” steel
in SAP2000. In this thesis, materials are defined as both elastic and inelastic for
various uses. For linear elastic analysis procedure, materials are only defined as
having the default property with no yielding or nonlinearity. However, as shown
below, the nonlinear mechanical behavior of concrete can be defined by users.
Both the elastic and inelastic properties of steel are defined in Figures A.1 and
A.2. Figure A.3 defines the elastic mechanical properties of concrete. In Figures
A.4 through A.6, the inelastic properties of concrete are defined. In this research,
three types of confined concrete are used in ordinary, intermediate, and special
moment-resisting frame models separately. The stress-strain relationship is
calculated from the confined concrete model proposed by Mander (1988). The
only major difference between the three models is the spacing of transverse
137
reinforcement, hence confinement level.
Figure A.1 Steel property definition in SAP2000
Figure A.2 Nonlinear steel material property
138
Figure A.3 Concrete properties
Figure A.4 Nonlinear material property of confined concrete
139
140
A.1.3 Cross Section Properties
The example models in this research consists of beams, columns, slabs and
shear walls depending on the objective of the analysis procedures. The
following screen shots in SAP2000 show the definitions of cross sections in
frame examples. In Figure A.7, the size of beam cross section is 10 in. x 20 in.
and is only designed for the default M3 hinge in SAP2000 (Figure A.12).
Figure A.7 Beam properties in building examples in Chapter 4 through 6
In Figure A.8, the cross section of the column is 18 in. x 18 in. No.10 rebar is
selected to be the longitudinal reinforcement and the No.4 rebar is selected to
be the transverse reinforcement. Shear walls added into the example mixed
frame models in Chapters 4 and 5. Walls are designed with boundary elements
which is shown in Figure A.10.
141
Figure A.8 Column properties in building examples in Chapter 4 through 6
Figure A.9 Definition of shell model for shear walls
142
Figure A.10 Shear wall with boundary elements
A.1.4 Hinge Properties
In the process of inelastic analysis of frame models in SAP2000, plastic hinges
are assigned onto both ends of column and beams. Figure A.11 illustrates the
way used to define and assign plastic hinges. Figure A.12 displays the
mechanical properties of P-M3 hinges used in this research (Chapter 6).
143
Figure A.11 Definition of hinge properties
Figure A.12 Mechanical properties of P-M3 hinges
144
A.2.1 Liner Analysis
In elastic linear analysis, gravity loads and earthquake loads produce the lateral
displacement of buildings at the same time. As an example, Figure A.13 shows
a four-story 3-D reinforced concrete frame under triangular shape lateral load
as an example. The horizontal loads are calculated from ASCE 7 and defined as
earthquake loads in SAP2000. The sum of lateral loads should equal to the value
of total base shear, , which is equal to100 kips in this case, i.e., in Chapters
4 and 5.
Figure A.13 3-D frame structure under triangular lateral distributed load
Figure A.14 shows the 2-D and 3-D frame analysis options before running the
analysis. The number of degrees of freedom and boundary conditions can be
selected in this step. Figure A.15 shows the analysis options for load cases
selected.
145
Figure A.14 2-D and 3-D models and analysis options
Figure A.15 Potential available analysis procedures
146
A.2.2 Nonlinear Static Analysis
In Chapter 6, the SAP2000 inelastic analysis is performed to evaluate the ASCE
simplified method. Pushover analysis is defined as shown in Figures A.16 and
A.17.
Figure A.16 General definition of nonlinear static analysis
Figure A.17 Detailed definition of inelastic analysis
147
APPENDIX B: MATLAB CALCULATION PROCEDURES
In this section, several MATLAB scripts used for the calculation of the story
seismic forces and the lateral displacements of 2-D and 3-D frames are shown.
B.1 Calculation of Elastic and Inelastic Story Displacements
The example script below is used for calculation of story displacements of 2-D
or 3-D reinforced concrete frame building examples with different number of
stories and k values.
clear all; close all; clc;

digits(5)
% Notaiton:
% All units shall be inch and Kips
% This calculation is used for story displacement according to
ASCE
%% Input
% layout and structural property
% m is the number of stories
% Input the SAP2000 result into this file
load('dsappic_2D_10_k_1.0.mat')
n=10;% number of story

k=1.0;% exponent to height
x=2;% number of bays in x-direction
% y=6; % number of bays in y-direction (for 3-D frame)
h=120;% story height
bay=192;% bay width
% load property
Vb=100;% base shear
% material properties
fc1=6000;
Ec=57000*fc1^0.5;% modulus of elasticity
% member section properties
%columns
lc=120;
bc=18;
hc=18;
% beam on the left
l1=192;
148
bb1=10;
hb1=20;
% beam on the right
l2=l1;
bb2=bb1;
hb2=hb1;
% a is the magnified factor for flange of beam
% 2.6 for 1st floor, 1.6 for 2nd and 3rd floors, 1.25 for all
other floors
a=[2.6 1.6 1.25];
% create a viable differentiate external and internal column
inex=[0 1];
% 0 is external column
% 1 is internal column
%% output
H=n*h;% total height
Ib1=1/12*bb1*hb1^3;% moment of inertia for beam
Ib2=1/12*bb2*hb2^3;% moment of inertia for beam
Ic=1/12*bc*hc^3;% moment of inertia for column
Kin=zeros(1,n);
Kex=zeros(1,n);
for i=1
Kin(i)=12*Ec*Ic/lc^2*1/(1+2*Ic/(lc*(a(1)*Ib1/l1+a(1)*Ib2/l2)));
Kex(i)=12*Ec*Ic/lc^2*1/(1+2*Ic/(lc*a(1)*Ib1/l1));
end
for i=2:3
end
for i=4:n
end
K=(x-1)*Kin+2*Kex;
Kin;
Kex;
%% Calculte the roof drift, interstory drift and interstory
scope
% d is the story displacement
% d1 is the relative story displacement
% slope is the drift ratio
for i=1:n
story(i)=i;
d(i)=Vb/K(i)*(i*h-(i*h)^(k+2)/((k+2)*H^(k+1)));
if i<=1
d1(i)=d(i);
d1sap(i)=dsap(i);
else
d1(i)=d(i)-d(i-1);
d1sap(i)=dsap(i)-dsap(i-1);
end
if i<=1
149
slope1(i)=d(i)/h;
slope1sap(i)=dsap(i)/h;
else
slope1(i)=(d(i)-d(i-1))/h;
slope1sap(i)=(dsap(i)-dsap(i-1))/h;
end
end
B.2 Calculation of Column Shear Strength
The example script is used for calculation of moment strength ( and
in ACI 318) and shear capacity of a column in regular beam-column reinforced
concrete frame building.
% Notations
% all units in lb,in
% all the equations in ACI-318
% Material Property
fc1=6000;%psi
fy=60000;%psi
Ec = 57000*fc1.^(1/2);
G=0.42*Ec;
% Cross Section Property, for column
L=120;% Length of column, inch
b=18;% inch
h=18;% inch
d=h-2.5;% inch
Ag=b*h;%inch^2
% column ties spacing
s=18; % for ordinary
s=10; % for intemediate
s=4; % for special
n=3;%number of rebar per cross section

nv=3;%3 legs
cover=1.5;%for column and beams
ds=10/8;%use #10 rebar
dsv=4/8;%use #4 stirrup
As1=1/4*pi*ds^2;%inch^2
Asv1=1/4*pi*dsv^2;%inch^2
As=n*As1;%inch^2
Asv=nv*Asv1;%inch^2
%% Shear design
a=(As*fy)/(0.85*fc1*b);
a1=(As*1.25*fy)/(0.85*fc1*b);
belta=0.85-0.05*(fc1/1000-4);
% check bottom stress
c=a/belta;
ec=0.003;
es=ec*(d-c)/c;% This output value should larger than ey=0.002
% design shear force
150
belta=0.85-0.05*(fc1/1000-4);
% load the data from SAP2000
load('Nu.mat')
load('Nu_2E.mat')
phi=0.75;% for shear design

Vc=2*(fc1)^0.5*b*d*(1+Nu/(2000*Ag));
Vs=Asv*fy*d/s;
Vn=Vc+Vs;
phiVn=phi*Vn;
Vc_2E=2*(fc1)^0.5*b*d*(1+Nu_2E/(2000*Ag));
% Intermediate
Mn=As*fy*(d-a/2);
Vu1=2*Mn/L;
% Special
Mpr=As*(1.25*fy)*(d-a1/2);
Ve=2*Mpr/L;
% convert units
Vc=vpa(Vc)/1000
Vs=vpa(Vs)/1000
phiVn=vpa(phiVn)/1000
Vc_2E=vpa(Vc_2E)/1000
Vu1=vpa(Vu1)/1000
Ve=vpa(Ve)/1000
151
APPENDIX C: DISPLACEMENTS AND DRIFT RATIOS OF 2-D
FRAMES
In this Section, the elastic displacement, and drift ratio, ∆ / for 2-D
frames under lateral loads with different shapes and different number of stories,
152
different number of bays and mixed frame with shear walls are provided. Data
used for plots shown in Chapter 4 are all provided in the tables in this appendix.
In addition, it should be noted that displacement, are in inch unit.
C.1 Displacements of 2-D Frame with Different k Values
Table C.1 through C.3 display the calculated displacement, and drift ratio,
∆ / of a four-story 2-D frame subjected to lateral load with different shapes.
Both results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis are displayed.
The difference between the two approaches are also shown in the tables below.
The frame properties are described in Section 4.1.1.
Table C.4 through C.6 display displacement, and drift ratio, ∆ / of a
seven-story 2-D frame subjected to lateral load with different shapes. Both
results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis, and the difference
between the two approaches are displayed in Tables C.4 through C.6.
152
results from the proposed method and from the SAP2000 analysis, and the
difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.
C.2 Displacements of 2-D Frame with Different Number of Bays
four-story 2-D frame subjected to the same lateral load, the inverse triangular
with different number of bays. Both results from the proposed method, from the
SAP2000 analysis and the difference between the two approaches are displayed
in tables below. The frame properties are illustrated in Section 4.2.
C.3 Displacements of 2-D Mixed Frame with Shear Walls
four-story 2-D frame with shear walls subjected to lateral load with different
153
shapes. Both results from the proposed method, from the SAP2000 analysis,
and the difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.
The frame properties are illustrated in Section 4.4.2.
four-story 2-D frame with shear wall subjected to lateral load with different
shapes. Both results from the proposed method, from the SAP2000 analysis,
and the difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.
four-story 2-D frame with shear wall subjected to lateral load with different
shapes. Both results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis and
the difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.
153
Table C.1 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular lateral load (k = 1)
Story Displacement ( ) Displacement ( ) Difference Drift ratio (∆ / ) Drift ratio (∆ ) Difference

number (Proposed method) (SAP2000) (%) (Proposed method) (SAP2000) (%)
1 0.089 0.089 0.15 0.00074 0.00074 0.15
2 0.217 0.212 2.62 0.00107 0.00102 4.41

154
3 0.289 0.304 5.00 0.00060 0.00077 22.45
4 0.369 0.336 9.83 0.00066 0.00026 152.65
154
Table C.2 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)
Story Displacement ( ) Displacement ( ) Difference Drift ratio (∆ / ) Drift ratio (∆ / ) Difference

1 0.090 0.089 1.98 0.00075 0.00074 1.98
2 0.225 0.221 1.91 0.00112 0.00110 1.86

155
3 0.306 0.336 9.03 0.00067 0.00096 29.92
4 0.395 0.413 4.38 0.00074 0.00064 16.01
155
Table C.3 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D frame under quadratic lateral load (k = 2)

1 0.091 0.088 3.03 0.00076 0.00074 3.03
2 0.230 0.224 2.54 0.00116 0.00113 2.22

156
3 0.318 0.348 8.75 0.00074 0.00104 29.05
4 0.415 0.436 4.87 0.00081 0.00073 10.61
156
Table C.4 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.091 0.088 2.63 0.00076 0.00074 2.63
2 0.231 0.223 3.31 0.00117 0.00112 3.76

157
3 0.334 0.355 5.90 0.00086 0.00110 21.54
4 0.493 0.472 4.44 0.00132 0.00098 35.78
5 0.573 0.568 0.95 0.00067 0.00080 16.14
6 0.626 0.639 1.95 0.00044 0.00059 25.32
7 0.645 0.680 5.20 0.00016 0.00035 54.94
157
Table C.5 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.091 0.088 3.48 0.00076 0.00073 3.48
2 0.234 0.226 3.77 0.00119 0.00115 3.95

158
3 0.343 0.364 5.63 0.00091 0.00115 20.96
4 0.514 0.491 4.67 0.00142 0.00106 34.12
5 0.606 0.599 1.08 0.00077 0.00090 15.16
6 0.668 0.682 1.99 0.00052 0.00069 24.38
7 0.691 0.732 5.60 0.00019 0.00042 54.41
158
Table C.6 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.091 0.088 3.81 0.00076 0.00073 3.81
2 0.236 0.227 3.95 0.00120 0.00116 4.04

159
3 0.348 0.369 5.51 0.00094 0.00118 20.59
4 0.527 0.503 4.77 0.00149 0.00112 33.02
5 0.628 0.621 1.13 0.00084 0.00098 14.39
6 0.699 0.713 2.08 0.00059 0.00077 23.61
7 0.725 0.772 6.01 0.00022 0.00049 54.01
159
Table C.7 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.091 0.088 3.24 0.00076 0.00073 3.24
2 0.234 0.225 3.68 0.00119 0.00114 3.96
3 0.345 0.365 5.54 0.00092 0.00116 20.46
4 0.523 0.498 5.07 0.00149 0.00111 34.21

160
5 0.633 0.621 2.02 0.00092 0.00102 10.35
6 0.730 0.731 0.12 0.00080 0.00091 12.25
7 0.809 0.824 1.83 0.00066 0.00078 15.09
8 0.870 0.900 3.33 0.00050 0.00063 19.84
9 0.908 0.954 4.81 0.00032 0.00045 29.30
10 0.921 0.986 6.56 0.00011 0.00027 58.58
160
Table C.8 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.091 0.088 3.71 0.00076 0.00073 3.71
2 0.236 0.227 3.90 0.00120 0.00116 4.02
3 0.350 0.371 5.44 0.00096 0.00120 20.19
4 0.537 0.511 5.14 0.00155 0.00117 33.17

161
5 0.656 0.643 2.06 0.00099 0.00110 9.81
6 0.763 0.764 0.10 0.00089 0.00101 11.58
7 0.854 0.870 1.83 0.00076 0.00088 14.31
8 0.925 0.957 3.40 0.00059 0.00073 18.98
9 0.971 1.021 4.97 0.00038 0.00054 28.44
10 0.987 1.060 6.92 0.00014 0.00033 57.95
161
Table C.9 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D frame under quadric load (k = 2)

1 0.091 0.088 3.84 0.00076 0.00073 3.84
2 0.236 0.227 3.96 0.00121 0.00116 4.03
3 0.353 0.373 5.42 0.00097 0.00122 20.06
4 0.544 0.517 5.15 0.00159 0.00120 32.55

162
5 0.669 0.656 2.07 0.00105 0.00115 9.44
6 0.784 0.785 0.10 0.00096 0.00108 11.10
7 0.884 0.901 1.85 0.00083 0.00097 13.71
8 0.964 0.999 3.46 0.00066 0.00081 18.28
9 1.017 1.072 5.12 0.00044 0.00061 27.73
10 1.036 1.117 7.25 0.00016 0.00038 57.45
162
Table C.10 Displacement and drift ratio of a two-bay four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.477 0.291 64.04 0.00398 0.00242 64.04
2 1.239 0.728 70.21 0.00634 0.00364 74.33

163
3 1.647 1.096 50.31 0.00340 0.00307 10.94
4 2.167 1.328 63.17 0.00433 0.00194 123.80
163
Table C.11 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-bay four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.195 0.162 20.14 0.00163 0.00135 20.14
2 0.482 0.397 21.45 0.00239 0.00196 22.35

164
3 0.641 0.592 8.38 0.00132 0.00162 18.29
4 0.825 0.713 15.78 0.00153 0.00101 52.05
164
Table C.12 Displacement and drift ratio of a six-bay four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.123 0.114 7.32 0.00102 0.00095 7.32
2 0.300 0.277 8.18 0.00147 0.00136 8.78

165
3 0.398 0.411 3.10 0.00082 0.00112 26.39
4 0.509 0.494 3.08 0.00093 0.00069 33.62
165
Table C.13 Displacement and drift ratio of an eight-bay four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.089 0.089 0.15 0.00074 0.00074 0.15
2 0.217 0.212 2.62 0.00107 0.00102 4.41

166
3 0.289 0.304 5.00 0.00060 0.00077 22.45
4 0.369 0.336 9.83 0.00066 0.00026 152.65
166
Table C.14 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-bay four-story 2-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.070 0.074 5.59 0.00059 0.00062 5.59
2 0.170 0.179 4.80 0.00083 0.00087 4.25

167
3 0.227 0.265 14.54 0.00047 0.00072 34.77
4 0.289 0.319 9.56 0.00052 0.00045 14.83
167
Table C.15 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.053 0.070 23.87 0.00044 0.00058 23.87
2 0.137 0.132 4.01 0.00070 0.00052 35.09

168
3 0.182 0.188 2.87 0.00038 0.00047 19.10
4 0.238 0.237 0.47 0.00046 0.00041 13.17
168
Table C.16 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.054 0.076 29.31 0.00045 0.00063 29.31

169
2 0.142 0.142 0.30 0.00074 0.00055 34.33
3 0.193 0.206 6.28 0.00043 0.00054 20.71
4 0.255 0.269 5.07 0.00052 0.00052 1.07
169
Table C.17 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 2-D mixed frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.054 0.070 22.91 0.00045 0.00058 22.91
2 0.145 0.141 3.16 0.00076 0.00059 28.92

170
3 0.201 0.206 2.59 0.00047 0.00055 14.91
4 0.268 0.264 1.36 0.00056 0.00048 15.37
170
Table C.18 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.054 0.070 23.34 0.00045 0.00058 23.34
2 0.146 0.140 4.01 0.00077 0.00058 31.40
3 0.211 0.205 2.98 0.00054 0.00054 0.76

171
4 0.318 0.268 18.84 0.00090 0.00053 70.18
5 0.371 0.329 12.50 0.00044 0.00051 15.11
6 0.405 0.389 3.96 0.00028 0.00050 43.09
7 0.417 0.442 5.66 0.00010 0.00044 76.87
171
Table C.19 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.054 0.070 23.42 0.00045 0.00059 23.42
2 0.148 0.145 2.13 0.00078 0.00062 26.35
3 0.217 0.214 1.08 0.00057 0.00058 1.11

172
4 0.332 0.283 17.31 0.00096 0.00057 68.13
5 0.391 0.350 11.83 0.00050 0.00056 11.32
6 0.432 0.415 3.89 0.00033 0.00055 38.57
7 0.446 0.473 5.62 0.00012 0.00048 74.25
172
Table C.20 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 2-D mixed frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.054 0.071 23.66 0.00045 0.00059 23.66
2 0.149 0.148 0.35 0.00079 0.00065 22.26
3 0.220 0.222 0.80 0.00059 0.00061 3.11

173
4 0.341 0.294 15.66 0.00100 0.00060 65.96
5 0.406 0.366 10.94 0.00054 0.00059 8.52
6 0.451 0.436 3.63 0.00038 0.00058 34.68
7 0.469 0.497 5.72 0.00014 0.00051 71.79
173
Table C.21 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.054 0.071 24.36 0.00045 0.00059 24.36
2 0.148 0.148 0.36 0.00078 0.00064 21.86
3 0.218 0.221 1.48 0.00058 0.00061 3.78
4 0.338 0.293 15.48 0.00100 0.00060 67.70

174
5 0.409 0.363 12.68 0.00059 0.00059 1.06
6 0.471 0.432 9.22 0.00052 0.00057 9.16
7 0.523 0.498 5.03 0.00043 0.00055 22.28
8 0.562 0.562 0.00 0.00032 0.00053 39.08
9 0.587 0.624 5.98 0.00021 0.00052 60.20
10 0.595 0.679 12.28 0.00007 0.00046 84.19
174
Table C.22 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.054 0.072 24.79 0.00045 0.00060 24.79
2 0.149 0.153 2.66 0.00079 0.00068 16.92
3 0.221 0.231 4.06 0.00060 0.00065 6.83
4 0.347 0.308 12.74 0.00105 0.00064 63.12

175
5 0.424 0.384 10.53 0.00064 0.00063 1.57
6 0.493 0.458 7.71 0.00058 0.00062 6.86
7 0.552 0.530 4.12 0.00049 0.00060 18.64
8 0.598 0.600 0.43 0.00038 0.00058 34.82
9 0.627 0.668 6.14 0.00025 0.00057 56.44
10 0.638 0.728 12.42 0.00009 0.00050 82.32
175
Table C.23 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 2-D mixed frame under quadric load (k = 2)

1 0.054 0.072 25.23 0.00045 0.00060 25.23
2 0.149 0.156 4.54 0.00079 0.00070 13.22
3 0.223 0.238 6.22 0.00061 0.00068 9.45
4 0.351 0.318 10.35 0.00107 0.00067 59.14

176
5 0.433 0.398 8.55 0.00068 0.00067 1.37
6 0.507 0.477 6.23 0.00062 0.00066 5.50
7 0.571 0.554 3.16 0.00054 0.00064 15.91
8 0.623 0.629 0.94 0.00043 0.00062 31.27
9 0.657 0.702 6.36 0.00029 0.00061 53.06
10 0.670 0.766 12.59 0.00010 0.00054 80.55
176
APPENDIX D: DISPLACEMENTS AND DRIFT RATIOS OF 3-D
FRAME
In this Section, the displacement, and drift ratio, ∆ / for 3-D frame
under lateral load with different shapes, different number of story, with slabs,
177
with shear walls are provided in tabular. Data used for plots shown in Chapter
5 are all presented in this section. In addition, it should be noted that
displacement, are in inch unit.
D.1 Displacements of 3-D Frame with Different k Values
Table D.1 through D.3 display displacement, and drift ratio, ∆ / of a
four-story 3-D frame subjected to lateral load with different shapes. Both result
from the proposed method and from the SAP2000 analysis, and the difference
between the two approaches are displayed in tables below. The frame properties
are illustrated in Section 5.1.1.
results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis and the difference
between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.
four-story 3-D frame subjected to lateral load with different shapes. Both results
from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis and the difference
177
D.2 Displacements of 3-D Frame with Slabs
four-story 3-D frame with slabs subjected to lateral load with different shapes.
Both results from the proposed method and the SAP2000 analysis and the
difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below. The frame
properties are illustrated in Section 5.2.
results from the proposed method, from the SAP2000 analysis and the
difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below.

178
four-story 3-D frame subjected to lateral load with different shapes. Both results
from the proposed method and from the SAP2000 analysis and the difference
D.3 Displacements of 3-D Mixed Frame with Shear Walls
shapes. Both results from the proposed method, from the SAP2000 analysis and
the difference between the two approaches are displayed in tables below. The
frame properties are illustrated in Section 5.3.
178
179
179
Table D.1 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 15.38 0.00009 0.00011 15.38
2 0.027 0.031 12.90 0.00013 0.00015 11.11

180
3 0.036 0.046 21.74 0.00008 0.00013 40.00
4 0.046 0.055 16.36 0.00008 0.00008 11.11

Table D.2 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 15.38 0.00009 0.00011 15.38

181
2 0.028 0.032 12.50 0.00014 0.00016 10.53
3 0.038 0.048 20.83 0.00008 0.00013 37.50
4 0.050 0.059 15.25 0.00010 0.00009 9.09

Table D.3 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.013 15.38 0.00009 0.00011 15.38

0.011
2 0.029 0.032 9.38 0.00015 0.00016 5.26
182
3 0.040 0.050 20.00 0.00009 0.00015 38.89
4 0.052 0.062 16.13 0.00010 0.00010 0.00

Table D.4 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 9.58 0.00010 0.00011 9.58
2 0.029 0.032 9.14 0.00015 0.00016 8.85
3 0.042 0.051 17.24 0.00011 0.00016 30.99

183
4 0.062 0.067 8.21 0.00017 0.00014 19.15
5 0.072 0.081 11.28 0.00008 0.00011 26.30
6 0.079 0.091 13.83 0.00006 0.00008 34.37
7 0.081 0.097 16.69 0.00002 0.00005 60.40

Table D.5 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 8.89 0.00010 0.00010 8.89
2 0.029 0.032 8.82 0.00015 0.00016 8.77
3 0.043 0.052 17.07 0.00011 0.00016 30.54

184
4 0.064 0.070 8.09 0.00018 0.00015 17.60
5 0.076 0.086 11.24 0.00010 0.00013 25.50
6 0.084 0.097 13.94 0.00007 0.00010 33.61
7 0.087 0.105 17.11 0.00002 0.00006 59.98

Table D.6 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.013 8.53 0.00010 0.00010 8.53
2 0.030 0.032 8.58 0.00015 0.00017 8.61
3 0.044 0.053 16.90 0.00012 0.00017 30.16

185
4 0.066 0.072 7.92 0.00019 0.00016 16.75
5 0.079 0.089 11.12 0.00011 0.00014 24.77
6 0.088 0.102 13.94 0.00007 0.00011 32.87
7 0.091 0.110 17.40 0.00003 0.00007 59.60

Table D.7 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 9.16 0.00010 0.00011 9.16
2 0.029 0.032 8.94 0.00015 0.00016 8.79
3 0.043 0.052 17.04 0.00012 0.00017 30.14
4 0.066 0.071 7.79 0.00019 0.00016 17.60

186
5 0.079 0.089 10.47 0.00012 0.00015 21.32
6 0.092 0.104 12.35 0.00010 0.00013 22.99
7 0.102 0.118 13.84 0.00008 0.00011 25.47
8 0.109 0.129 15.16 0.00006 0.00009 29.65
9 0.114 0.136 16.46 0.00004 0.00006 37.96
10 0.116 0.141 18.00 0.00001 0.00004 63.65

Table D.8 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 8.64 0.00010 0.00010 8.64
2 0.030 0.032 8.63 0.00015 0.00017 8.62
3 0.044 0.053 16.85 0.00012 0.00017 29.83
4 0.067 0.073 7.62 0.00019 0.00017 16.83

187
5 0.082 0.092 10.32 0.00012 0.00016 20.77
6 0.096 0.109 12.23 0.00011 0.00014 22.32
7 0.107 0.124 13.75 0.00010 0.00013 24.73
8 0.116 0.137 15.13 0.00007 0.00010 28.88
9 0.122 0.146 16.52 0.00005 0.00008 37.15
10 0.124 0.152 18.24 0.00002 0.00005 63.11

Table D.9 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame under quadric load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.013 8.58 0.00010 0.00010 8.58
2 0.030 0.033 8.62 0.00015 0.00017 8.65
3 0.044 0.053 16.86 0.00012 0.00017 29.72
4 0.068 0.074 7.65 0.00020 0.00017 16.23

188
5 0.084 0.094 10.36 0.00013 0.00017 20.50
6 0.098 0.112 12.27 0.00012 0.00015 21.94
7 0.111 0.129 13.80 0.00010 0.00014 24.20
8 0.121 0.143 15.21 0.00008 0.00012 28.21
9 0.128 0.153 16.67 0.00006 0.00009 36.56
10 0.130 0.160 18.54 0.00002 0.00005 62.63

Table D.10 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame with slabs under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.008 33.30 0.00009 0.00007 33.30
2 0.027 0.017 61.32 0.00013 0.00007 89.21

189
3 0.036 0.024 52.04 0.00007 0.00006 29.43
4 0.046 0.028 63.09 0.00008 0.00004 121.73

Table D.11 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame with slabs under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.008 37.83 0.00009 0.00007 37.83
2 0.028 0.017 64.84 0.00014 0.00007 89.95

190
3 0.038 0.025 53.85 0.00008 0.00007 29.81
4 0.050 0.030 62.82 0.00009 0.00005 103.85

Table D.12 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D frame with slabs under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.008 40.30 0.00010 0.00007 40.30

191
2 0.029 0.017 67.05 0.00014 0.00008 91.01
3 0.040 0.026 54.88 0.00009 0.00007 30.23
4 0.052 0.032 61.88 0.00010 0.00005 90.31

Table D.13 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame with slabs under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.009 27.82 0.00010 0.00007 27.82
2 0.029 0.019 55.86 0.00015 0.00008 81.79
3 0.042 0.028 50.43 0.00011 0.00008 39.58

192
4 0.062 0.036 70.29 0.00017 0.00007 135.80
5 0.072 0.043 65.49 0.00008 0.00006 41.21
6 0.079 0.049 60.26 0.00006 0.00005 19.25
7 0.081 0.053 53.59 0.00002 0.00003 35.62

Table D.14 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame with slabs under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.009 28.66 0.00010 0.00007 28.66
2 0.029 0.019 56.35 0.00015 0.00008 81.30
3 0.043 0.029 50.74 0.00011 0.00008 39.98

193
4 0.064 0.038 70.60 0.00018 0.00008 132.33
5 0.076 0.046 65.72 0.00010 0.00007 42.93
6 0.084 0.052 60.25 0.00007 0.00005 21.24
7 0.087 0.057 52.97 0.00002 0.00004 34.12

Table D.15 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D frame with slabs under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.009 28.87 0.00010 0.00007 28.87
2 0.030 0.019 56.56 0.00015 0.00008 81.24
3 0.044 0.029 50.96 0.00012 0.00008 40.48

194
4 0.066 0.039 70.91 0.00019 0.00008 130.49
5 0.079 0.047 66.02 0.00011 0.00007 44.46
6 0.088 0.055 60.35 0.00007 0.00006 23.00
7 0.091 0.060 52.48 0.00003 0.00004 32.98

Table D.16 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame with slabs under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.010 15.33 0.00010 0.00008 15.33
2 0.029 0.021 40.97 0.00015 0.00009 64.31
3 0.043 0.032 36.47 0.00012 0.00009 27.87
4 0.066 0.042 55.28 0.00019 0.00009 111.82

195
5 0.079 0.052 52.20 0.00012 0.00008 39.08
6 0.092 0.061 49.47 0.00010 0.00008 33.69
7 0.102 0.069 46.87 0.00008 0.00007 26.69
8 0.109 0.076 44.21 0.00006 0.00005 16.01
9 0.114 0.081 41.29 0.00004 0.00004 3.23
10 0.116 0.084 37.64 0.00001 0.00003 50.09

Table D.17 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame with slabs under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.010 20.38 0.00010 0.00008 20.38
2 0.030 0.020 46.40 0.00015 0.00009 69.61
3 0.044 0.031 41.33 0.00012 0.00009 31.93
4 0.067 0.042 60.55 0.00019 0.00009 115.92

196
5 0.082 0.052 57.22 0.00012 0.00009 43.78
6 0.096 0.062 54.29 0.00011 0.00008 38.50
7 0.107 0.071 51.48 0.00010 0.00007 31.40
8 0.116 0.078 48.52 0.00007 0.00006 20.17
9 0.122 0.084 45.16 0.00005 0.00005 0.29
10 0.124 0.088 40.76 0.00002 0.00003 49.60

Table D.18 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D frame with slabs under quadric load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.010 19.76 0.00010 0.00008 19.76
2 0.030 0.020 45.65 0.00015 0.00009 68.62
3 0.044 0.032 40.65 0.00012 0.00009 31.49
4 0.068 0.043 59.87 0.00020 0.00009 114.12

197
5 0.084 0.054 56.67 0.00013 0.00009 44.16
6 0.098 0.064 53.90 0.00012 0.00009 39.53
7 0.111 0.073 51.24 0.00010 0.00008 33.14
8 0.121 0.082 48.37 0.00008 0.00007 22.56
9 0.128 0.088 44.95 0.00006 0.00005 2.15
10 0.130 0.093 40.30 0.00002 0.00004 47.69

Table D.19 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 11.97 0.00009 0.00011 11.97
2 0.027 0.031 11.43 0.00013 0.00015 11.05

198
3 0.036 0.046 20.53 0.00007 0.00012 39.42
4 0.046 0.055 15.75 0.00008 0.00008 7.84

Table D.20 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 10.16 0.00009 0.00011 10.16
2 0.028 0.032 10.38 0.00014 0.00016 10.52

199
3 0.038 0.048 20.00 0.00008 0.00014 38.37
4 0.050 0.059 15.97 0.00009 0.00009 1.69

Table D.21 Displacement and drift ratio of a four-story 3-D mixed frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.013 9.30 0.00010 0.00011 9.30

200
2 0.029 0.032 9.87 0.00014 0.00016 10.24
3 0.040 0.050 19.81 0.00009 0.00015 37.65
4 0.052 0.062 16.46 0.00010 0.00010 3.10

Table D.22 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 9.58 0.00010 0.00011 9.58
2 0.029 0.032 9.14 0.00015 0.00016 8.85
3 0.042 0.051 17.24 0.00011 0.00016 30.99

201
4 0.062 0.067 8.21 0.00017 0.00014 19.15
5 0.072 0.081 11.28 0.00008 0.00011 26.30
6 0.079 0.091 13.83 0.00006 0.00008 34.37
7 0.081 0.097 16.69 0.00002 0.00005 60.40

Table D.23 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 8.89 0.00010 0.00010 8.89
2 0.029 0.032 8.82 0.00015 0.00016 8.77
3 0.043 0.052 17.07 0.00011 0.00016 30.54

202
4 0.064 0.07 8.09 0.00018 0.00015 17.60
5 0.076 0.086 11.24 0.00010 0.00013 25.50
6 0.084 0.097 13.94 0.00007 0.00010 33.61
7 0.087 0.105 17.11 0.00002 0.00006 59.98

Table D.24 Displacement and drift ratio of a seven-story 3-D mixed frame under quadratic load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.013 8.53 0.00010 0.00010 8.53
2 0.032 0.032 8.58 0.00015 0.00017 8.61
3 0.044 0.053 16.90 0.00012 0.00017 30.16

203
4 0.066 0.072 7.92 0.00019 0.00016 16.75
5 0.079 0.089 11.12 0.00011 0.00014 24.77
6 0.088 0.102 13.94 0.00007 0.00011 32.87
7 0.091 0.110 17.40 0.00003 0.00007 59.60

Table D.25 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten story 3-D mixed frame under inverse triangular load (k = 1)

1 0.011 0.013 9.16 0.00010 0.00011 9.16
2 0.029 0.032 8.94 0.00015 0.00016 8.79
3 0.043 0.052 17.04 0.00012 0.00017 30.14
4 0.066 0.071 7.79 0.00019 0.00016 17.60

204
5 0.079 0.089 10.47 0.00012 0.00015 21.32
6 0.092 0.104 12.35 0.00010 0.00013 22.99
7 0.102 0.118 13.84 0.00008 0.00011 25.47
8 0.109 0.129 15.16 0.00006 0.00009 29.65
9 0.114 0.136 16.46 0.00004 0.00006 37.96
10 0.116 0.141 18.00 0.00001 0.00004 63.65

Table D.26 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame under parabolic load (k = 1.5)

1 0.011 0.013 8.64 0.00010 0.00010 8.64
2 0.030 0.032 8.63 0.00015 0.00017 8.62
3 0.044 0.053 16.85 0.00012 0.00017 29.83
4 0.067 0.073 7.62 0.00019 0.00017 16.83

205
5 0.082 0.092 10.32 0.00012 0.00016 20.77
6 0.096 0.109 12.23 0.00011 0.00014 22.32
7 0.107 0.124 13.75 0.00010 0.00013 24.73
8 0.116 0.137 15.13 0.00007 0.00010 28.88
9 0.122 0.146 16.52 0.00005 0.00008 37.15
10 0.124 0.152 18.24 0.00002 0.00005 63.11

Table D.27 Displacement and drift ratio of a ten-story 3-D mixed frame under quadric load (k = 2)

1 0.011 0.013 8.58 0.00010 0.00010 8.58
2 0.030 0.033 8.62 0.00015 0.00017 8.65
3 0.044 0.053 16.86 0.00012 0.00017 29.72
4 0.068 0.074 7.65 0.00020 0.00017 16.23

206
5 0.084 0.094 10.36 0.00013 0.00017 20.50
6 0.098 0.112 12.27 0.00012 0.00015 21.94
7 0.111 0.129 13.80 0.00010 0.00014 24.20
8 0.121 0.143 15.21 0.00008 0.00012 28.21
9 0.128 0.153 16.67 0.00006 0.00009 36.56
10 0.130 0.160 18.54 0.00002 0.00005 62.63

Mengfei Yuan Master Thesis Final Version 12 03

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mengfei Yuan Master Thesis Final Version 12 03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME BUILDINGS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master

Mengfei Yuan, B.S.

Graduate Program in Civil Engineering

The Ohio State University

Dr. Halil Sezen, Adviser

Dr. Shive Chaturvedi

Dr. Abdollah Shafieezadeh

displacements of a building must be calculated, typically using structural

earthquake loading. This research propose a simplified equation to calculate

frame displacements under different lateral loads. The simplified displacement

equation for calculation of elastic and inelastic displacements of frame buildings

of a reinforced concrete building. This research derives the simplified

displacement equation based on elastic beam theory. The accuracy of the

equation, which is used for calculation of both elastic and inelastic

displacements is validated by the similar procedures in the ASCE 7 standard.

The accuracy of the proposed displacement equation is also verified by using

frame models in SAP2000 (2013). The applicability of the simplified

equation for the calculation of inelastic story displacements is verified by

performing inelastic analysis of ordinary, intermediate and special moment-

I dedicate this work to my parents.

State University who help me to be a better learner.

June 2013 ...........................................................B.E., Civil Engineering

August, 2013 to Present .......................................M.S., Structural Engineering

The Ohio State University,

Major Field: Civil Engineering

DEDICATION .................................................................................................. iv

VITA ................................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................xii

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................xvii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

1.1 Problem Statement and Background ................................................... 1

1.1.1 Linear Elastic Analysis ................................................................ 1

1.1.2 Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis ........................................................ 2

1.1.3 Significance of Lateral Displacement .......................................... 2

1.2 Research Significance ......................................................................... 3

1.3 Objectives and Scope .......................................................................... 4

1.4 Organization ........................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SEISMIC DESIGN

2.1 Seismic Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Buildings .............. 7

2.1.1 Seismic Force and Displacements in ASCE 7 (2010) ................. 8

2.1.2 ACI 318 (2011) .......................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Simplified Method Concrete Buildings Evaluation ................... 15

2.1.4 Shear Modulus ........................................................................... 17

2.2.1 Assessment of Shear Walls in Frame Buildings ........................ 18

2.2.2 Shear Walls under Seismic Loads.............................................. 20

2.3 Confined Concrete Model ................................................................. 22

2.4 Nonlinear Static Analysis .................................................................. 22

CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED MODEL FOR CALCULATION OF

3.1 Beam Theory ..................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Static Beam Equation ................................................................. 25

3.1.2 Elastic Transverse Displacement of Shear Beam ...................... 27

3.2 Lateral Displacement of Reinforced Concrete Frame Building ........ 29

3.2.1 Calculation Procedure of Lateral Stiffness ................................ 30

3.2.2 Relative Story Drift .................................................................... 34

3.3 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces from ASCE 7 ..................... 37

3.4 Proposed Displacement Equation...................................................... 40

3.4.1 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Uniform

3.4.2 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Inverse

3.4.3 Simplified Equation for Story Displacement under Quadratic

3.5 Validation of the Proposed Displacement Equation ......................... 49

CHAPTER 4: LINEAR ANALYSIS OF 2-D FRAMES IN SAP2000 ..... 56