THE 7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

"CIVIL ENGINEERING - SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"

GNP 2020 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 10-14 March 2020

Jelena Ristic1

NONLINEAR SEISMIC BEHAVIOR STUDY OF NEWLY DESIGNED

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Abstract
In this paper presented is carried out nonlinear time history analysis for a newly designed
residential building in Skopje, Republic of N. Macedonia and the obtained representative
results. Firstly, the structural system of the building including material, geometrical and
foundation properties is described. Based on the characteristics of the building, 3D nonlinear
model is formulated, with designated zones of plasticity at the expected critical cross sections
of the structural elements. The plastic hinges were defined with interaction moment (M) – axial
force (N) diagrams and moment (M) – curvature (φ) relations, with variation of the axial load.
Then, as an input earthquake selected is the Ulcinj-Albatros record from 1979 and scaled to
PGA45=0.4g. The presented results are divided into two parts: (1) Nonlinear time history
responses of maximal internal forces in characteristic structural elements, maximal
displacements at the top of the structure and inter-story drifts in X and Y direction; and 2)
Nonlinear hysteretic responses of the plastic hinges of the critical cross-sections with discussion
of their distribution and development throughout the structure. Discussed are the reference
limiting values for displacements and seismic forces offered in different Technical Rulebooks.
Further, elaborated is the comparison between the response values and the capacity of the
respective cross-sections, as well as the impact of the total horizontal seismic force on the
structural system. At the end of the paper, given are several conclusions and comments on the
obtained results, as well as proposed approaches for further betterment and upgrading of this
type of reinforced concrete residential building structures built in seismically active regions of
VIII and IX degree seismic intensity zones. Real dynamic behaviour of RC buildings in the
highest seismic zones is actual research interest worldwide, [1]-[6]. Specific topic is evaluation
of critical effects of dynamically varying axial forces on columns, because it is not satisfactory
treated in any existing seismic code, but here is fully considered, evaluated and presented. The
paper describes study part of ongoing innovative project “System for protection of buildings
against strong earthquakes with uniform HS-MG energy control”, supported by Macedonian
innovation fund (FITR) and World Bank, involving the author as creator of innovative seismic
isolation technology and project leader.
Key words
RC building, Concentrated plasticity, Nonlinear analysis, Time history response, Capacity
analysis

1 Asst. Prof. Dr., Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Balkan University, Skopje,
Republic of N. Macedonia, jelena.ristic.ibu@gmail.com, jelena.ristic@ibu.edu.mk

437
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1. INTRODUCTION

Republic of North Macedonia is in a so called “in between” space regarding design

regulations. Our engineers are still using the “Rulebook of technical standards for concrete and
reinforced concrete ("Sl. List SFRJ", br. 38/77, 11/81),” as well as “Rulebook on technical
standards for construction of structures in seismic areas (“Sl. list SFRJ”, br. 31/81, 49/82, 29/83,
21/88 i 52/90)” while gradually shifting toward use of Eurocodes as well.
While Eurocode 2, specifically has many general rules for design and dimensioning of cross
sections, there is still a number of important national annexes to be compiled and decided on by the
national experts. In the following study case, refined 3D nonlinear time history analysis of newly
designed residential building is carried out and the obtained results are discussed.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGNED BUILDING

The presented reinforced concrete residential building is designed and planned to be built in
the neighbourhood Aerodrom, Skopje with the beginning of year 2020. The building consists of
two structural entities, divided by a free dilatation of 20 cm.
Presented in this paper are the analysis and results of the first part of the building, Fig. 1 and
Fig. 2. The spans in the longitudinal X direction are 3.1m and 5.6m, adding up to total axial length
of Lx=31.1m. In the transverse Y direction the varying spans from 4.45m to 6.3m add up to total of
Ly=15.2m. Story heights vary from 3.6m for the ground floor, 2.9m for stories 1 to 8, and 2.4m for
story 9. According to the cross section dimensions, the columns can be categorized in five groups:
starting from 60/80cm and gradually decreasing in size to 50/50cm at the highest story. The beams
cross sections are 50/50cm for all storeys and 50/40cm at the highest. The RC slab has a thickness
of 15 cm. All structural members are designed as reinforced concrete of concrete grade C30, and
main reinforcement RA400/500. The building has three underground stories, that are planned to be
additionally analysed. The building is resting on a foundation slab, on soil of category II.

Fig. 1. Plan of ground floor of the Fig. 2. Representative cross-section of the

residential building: analysed part building: analysed part-left of dilatation

3. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING

The modelling of the structure was done in the software program SAP2000, Fig. 3. All
structural members were modelled with realistic material, geometric and reinforcement properties.

438
 GNP 2 0 2 0

The columns and beams were designed with high precision in the section designer, a separate
integrated utility in the program.
The columns and the beams were modelled with concentrated plasticity by applying plastic
hinges at critical cross sections with highest expected values of internal forces. For columns,
critical cross sections are at relative height of 0 and 1, while for beams at relative length of 0, 0.5
and 1, Fig. 4. The plastic hinges for each different cross section where defined with 3D interaction
curves moment M – axial force N, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, and relations moment M – curvature φ for
varying levels of axial forces.
Table 1. Periods and Dominant Mode Shapes
of the modelled structure

Fig. 3 Formulated 3D nonlinear model Fig. 4 Modelling concept of potential plastic hinges
of analysed representative building part
Assigned to the structure are permanent loads (self weight calculated by the program and
additional permanent load g) and live load p. Carried out is a modal analysis for the structure, with
calculated 15 mode shapes and corresponding periods of vibration. The first three periods and
mode shapes are well within the expected range and are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 5. Interaction 3D capacity curves M2-P for Fig. 6. Interaction 3D capacity curves M3-P
ground & first floor columns 60x80 cm for ground & first floor columns 60x80 cm
With the gravitational loads taken into account, proceeded was with direct integration
nonlinear time history analysis of the model, with application of the selected earthquake record
Ulcinj-Albatros scaled to PGA45=0.4g (PGA=0.288g in X and PGA=0.288g in Y global direction).

439
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

4. SELECTION OF INPUT EARTHQUAKE RECORD AND SCALING

IN REFERENCE TO PGA

For the analysis selected is the earthquake record Ulcinj-Albatros acquired during the
Montenegro earthquake of 1979. The author did a research of recent seismic hazard maps with
return period of 475 years for Balkan region countries, with the intent to suitably scale the selected
earthquake record to a value within the higher range of the intervals presented on the maps, since
Skopje is in IX degree seismic intensity zone. The findings for the highest expected PGA for each
country were the following: (1) Albania PGAmax=0.36g (Kuka et al., 2012); (2) Bosnia and
Herzegovina PGAmax=0.42g (Ademovic et al., 2019); (3) Bulgaria PGAmax=0.30g (Solakov,
Simeonova, 2015); (4) Croatia PGAmax=0.38g (Shiposh et al., 2018); (5) Greece PGAmax=0.56g
(Crowley et al., 2018); (6) N. Macedonia PGAmax=0.40g (Milutinovic, Shalic, 2015); (7) Serbia
PGAmax=0.26g (Seismological Survey of Serbia, 2018); (8) Romania PGAmax=0.40g for return
period of 225 years (Georgescu, Meita, 2014). The input earthquake record was scaled to a
maximal PGA of 0.4g, and applied to the building model at 45 degrees in reference to its
longitudinal axis, having in mind that earthquakes usually strike form an arbitrary direction.

5. TIME HISTORY RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

In this part of the paper, presented are representative time history responses of selected
critical structural members. These members were selected as ones that develop largest internal
forces relative to their capacity and whose target cross-sections are being very close to reaching
their ultimate bearing capacity according to the plastic hinge development and distribution through
the structure (item 6).

Fig. 7. TH response of axial force of internal Fig. 8. TH response of moment My of internal

ground floor column, Ulcinj-Alb. PGA45=0.4g ground floor column, Ulcinj-Alb. PGA45=0.4g
In Fig. 7 presented is time history response of axial force of internal critical ground floor
column, from the Ulcinj-Albatros earthquake record scaled at PGA45=0.4g. The starting axial force
from permanent loads in that column is -1929.3 kN and then varies as a result of the simulated
earthquake effect up to -2894.04 kN. In Fig. 8 presented is time history response of moment M y of
the same critical ground floor column, where My,max = 960.3 kNm.
In the current North Macedonian standards there are no explicit reference values for
maximal allowed horizontal displacement, nor allowed inter-story drifts from nonlinear time
history analysis using input earthquake record. According to the “Rulebook on technical standards

440
 GNP 2 0 2 0

for construction of structures in seismic areas” the maximal horizontal displacement (Dmax, allow.) for
equivalent seismic load case is prescribed to be H/600.

Fig. 9. TH response of displacement Dx of first Fig. 10. TH response of displacement Dy of first

floor & top joint from Ulcinj-Al. PGA45=0.40g floor & top joint from Ulcinj-Al. PGA45=0.40g
The total structural height of the analysed building being 29.3 m, Dmax, allow.= 0.049 m.
According to the same Rulebook, the inter-story drift should be limited to hi / 300 (hi being the
story height). The ground floor height of the building is hG=3.6m, so dmax,allow.= 0.012m. On Fig. 9
presented are (1) time history response of displacement in X direction of joint at first floor (h G=3.6
m), where the maximal inter-story drift is dx,max= 0.028m and (2) time history response of
displacement in X direction of joint at the top level (H = 29.3 m), where the maximal displacement
is Dmax = 0.162 m. The same results are respectively presented on Fig. 10, for Y direction.
From the comparison of the analytically obtained values and the allowed displacements, it
is evident that the inter-story drift is more than double the allowed value (0.028m > 0.012m), and
according to the Rulebook, if that is the case, the stability of the infill and the level of damage
should be proved by experimentally procured data as well as the stability and integrity of the
columns as structural elements.

Fig. 11. TH response of acceleration ax at first Fig. 12. TH response of acceleration ay at first
floor & top joint from Ulcinj-Al. PGA45=0.40g floor & top joint from Ulcinj-Al. PGA45=0.40g
By comparing the analytical value of the horizontal displacement at the top of the building
Dmax, the difference is even larger, about 3.5 times the allowed value (0.162 m >> 0.049 m). The
comparison might not form direct connection of these values, because of the type of elaborated
analysis in the Rulebook. Similar conclusions can be derived from nonlinear mechanics of
structural elements and engineering experience. It is more than evident that the inter-story drifts
and the maximal horizontal top displacement of the nonlinear structure are much above any
equivalent value of linear structure.
On Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 presented are time history responses of acceleration in X direction
ax (m/s2) and acceleration in Y direction ay (m/s2), respectively at first floor and top floor from the
earthquake record Ulcinj-Albatros PGA45=0.4g. The input acceleration in each direction was

441
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

PGAx=PGAy = 2.83 m/s2. At the top of the structure there is noticeable nonlinear amplification of
the acceleration, 78% for X and 82% for Y direction. It is expected the highest level of the
structure to have increased peak acceleration in reference to the actual PGA. In Fig. 13 presented is
time history response of bending moment about local axis M3-3 (kNm) and in Fig. 14 shown is the
time history response of the shear force of the representative first floor beam. The critical plastic
hinge response is discussed in item 6.

Fig. 13. TH response of bending moment of Fig. 14. TH response of shear force of first
first floor beam, Ulcinj-Alb. PGA45=0.4g floor beam, Ulcinj-Alb. PGA45=0.4g

6. LATERAL FORCES IN THE STRUCTURE FROM THE

EARTHQUAKE AND RESPONSE OF PLASTIC HINGES

During the process of design of reinforced concrete buildings, according to the “Rulebook
on technical standards for construction of structures in seismic areas”, carried out is an equivalent
static seismic analysis, where an equivalent horizontal seismic force is distributed along the height
of the structure. This force, depending on the building mass and height, varies from 6% to 12% of
the weight of the structure. Published literature on the topic (Indian books and regulations,
Eurocode 2, ACI) suggest these limits as well.
Table 2. Weight of the structure vs Total Shear Force
Total Dead Load (DL) 39 032.0 kN
Total Positive Shear Force 45o (SF45+) 10 896.2 kN
Total Negative Shear Force 45o (SF45-) 8 423.0 kN
Ratio (SF45+) / (DL) 27.9 %

442
 GNP 2 0 2 0

Fig. 15. Shear force-displacement response of Fig. 16. Shear force-displacement response of
internal ground floor column in X-direction internal ground floor column in Y-direction
This particular case shows that actual seismic forces acting on the structure under real
earthquake and having real nonlinearity included in the model, the numbers are completely
different. The total dead load of the structure is 39 032 kN, Table 2. Because of the changing sign
of the horizontal seismic forces, calculated were the maximal values in both directions,
respectively. The larger one, with an intensity of 10 896.2 kN, reaches nearly 28% of the gravity
loads of the structure.

Fig. 17. Moment-curvature response of plastic Fig. 18. Moment-curvature response of plastic
hinge of critical column in Y-direction hinge of critical first floor beam
On Fig. 15 and Fig. 16, presented are shear force – displacement hysteretic responses of the
critical ground floor column in X and Y direction, respectively. The shear force in only that
column is about 0.8% of the total weight of the structure. To increase the safety level needed is re-
evaluation of the cross sections and reinforcement, or upgrading the structure to propose inclusion
of some efficient system of seismic isolation.

443
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

Fig. 19 Distribution of plastic hinges in X & Y direction in the 3D nonlinear model (last EQ step)
In Fig. 17, presented is the moment (kN) – curvature (rad) response of the plastic hinge of
critical cross-section of ground floor column in Y direction. The maximal value of the moment for
this column, M2-2,max=960.3 kNm is reached early during the earthquake, at 5.62 s. At that moment,
the axial force is N=1983.6 kN, which is at the very edge of capacity of the column, presented as
red triangle on the M-N interaction diagram on Fig. 5.
When the maximal value of the moment M2-2,max= 960.3 kNm and the maximal value of
the curvature φmax=0.00593 rad are compared to the initial yielding values of the moment
My=504.3 kNm and the curvature φy=0.00387 rad, it can be concluded that the column is in a state
of plasticity right before reaching its ultimate capacity, Fig. 19. The same conclusions can be
derived for the response in X direction of the structure.
On Fig. 18 presented is the moment (kN) – curvature (rad) response of the plastic hinge in
representative beam from the first floor. The maximal value of the moment M max=416.9 kNm
exceeds the initial value of the yielding moment My = 124.5 kNm. The maximal reached curvature
φmax = - 0.00378rad is close but below the value for the yielding curvature φ y = 0.005352 rad,
meaning that the beams are in the yielding zone of behaviour, but not in critical state. The
distribution of the plastic hinges in the structural elements in longitudinal and transversal direction
of the structure at the last step of the analysis is presented on Fig. 19.

7. CONCLUSIONS

From the carried out nonlinear time history analysis from the earthquake record Ulcinj-
Albatros scaled to PGA45=0.4g of the newly designed reinforced concrete building, the following
comments can be made:
(1) The beams of the first four floors are generally safe, with a response of plastic behaviour, in
limit of 1.15⋅My (My being the yielding moment). The beams oh the higher floors reach the
yielding point, but do not go much above it; (2) The most critical structural elements of the
building are all columns from the ground and first floor, and about 50% from the second and third
floor of the building, being in the last zone of plasticity, almost reaching ultimate bearing capacity,
Fig. 5, 6, 15, 16, 19. For that reason, before taking further steps, re-evaluation of the geometry and

444
 GNP 2 0 2 0

adopted reinforcement is proposed. The columns of the higher floors are well into the plastic zone
of behaviour as well; (3) The total horizontal displacement, Dmax=16.3 cm, the inter-story drifts,
especially at the lower storeys, and the level of the total shear force of structure, 28% of the total
weight, are unacceptable. For such buildings, or even higher reinforced concrete buildings, that are
built in regions of high expected seismicity and tend to develop large deformations, overall more
suitable would be a modern and innovative approach of design, by including seismic isolation
and/or seismic energy dissipation devices integrated within the structural system.

LITERATURE

[1] E. L. Wilson: “Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical Approach with Emphasis on
Earthquake Engineering”, Computers and Structures Inc., 2002.
[2] A. Chopra: “Dynamics of Structures”, Pearson, 2016.
[3] S.K. Ghost, D.A. Fanella: “Seismic and Wind Design of Concrete Buildings”, International Code
Council, 2004.
[4] P. Bisch et al.: “Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of Buildings Worked examples”, JRC European
Commission, 2011.
[5] C. V. R. Murty at al.: “Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings”, Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority, 2012.
[6] N. Karakas, T. Kalman Sipos, M. Hadzima-Nyarko: “Application of Different Seismic Analyses to
RC Structures”, e-GFOS, 2018, p.38-51.

445