Thesis - 11 30 2009

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Engineering
ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR THE NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES
A Thesis in
Architectural Engineering
by
Michael W. Hopper
© 2009 Michael W. Hopper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
December 2009
The thesis of Michael W. Hopper was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Andres Lepage
Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering
Thesis Advisor
Ali Memari
Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering
M. Kevin Parfitt
Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering
Chimay Anumba
Professor of Architectural Engineering
Head of the Department of Architectural Engineering
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

iii
ABSTRACT
This thesis aims to identify the optimal combination of hysteresis-modeling and

damping parameters implemented in nonlinear dynamic analysis to obtain satisfactory
correlation between calculated and measured seismic response of reinforced concrete
frames. A total of five parameters are included in this investigation: initial stiffness,
bond-slip rotations, post-yield stiffness, unloading stiffness, and viscous damping. These
parameters directly influence the seismic response of individual frame members. In this
study, frame elements are modeled using lumped plasticity by means of an elastic middle
portion bounded by nonlinear springs that connect each end of the member to a rigid
segment representing the beam-column joints.
Three small-scale shake-table multistory test structures and two orthogonal
structural systems from an existing seven-story building with recorded seismic responses
are used in this study. Each test structure was analyzed using three computer programs
for two separate base accelerations and the analytical responses were compared to the
measured responses using the Frequency Domain Error (FDE) index. The existing
building was analyzed for a single recorded seismic event. After analyzing each structure
with all possible combinations of modeling parameters, the optimal combinations of
parameters leading to the best correlations between the calculated and measured response
were identified. Simplified rules are given to derive the modeling parameters that give
consistent low values of FDE for the various structures and structural analysis programs
considered.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 2

1.2 Objectives and Scope .................................................................................... 2
1.3 Organization .................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2 ANALYTICAL TOOLS USED TO PERFORM NONLINEAR

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 5
2.1 LARZ ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 SAP 2000 ....................................................................................................... 8
2.3 PERFORM 3D............................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 NONLINEAR MODELING PARAMETERS ..................................... 14
3.1 Initial Stiffness............................................................................................... 14

3.2 Bond-Slip Effect ............................................................................................ 15
3.3 Post-Yield Stiffness ....................................................................................... 16
3.4 Unloading Stiffness ....................................................................................... 17
3.5 Viscous Damping .......................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 4 MULTISTORY TEST STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO

STRONG GROUND MOTIONS ......................................................... 19
4.1 Test Structures MF1 and MF2 ....................................................................... 19

4.2 Test Structure FNW ....................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 5 SEVEN-STORY HOLIDAY INN BUILDING IN VAN NUYS,

CALIFORNIA ...................................................................................... 23
5.1 Building Description ..................................................................................... 23

5.2 Earthquake Damage....................................................................................... 24
5.3 Modeling Assumptions .................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .............................................................. 28

v
6.1 Calculated Responses for Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW ................. 28
6.2 Calculated Responses for the Holiday Inn Building ..................................... 30
CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 32
APPENDIX FREQUENCY DOMAIN ERROR INDEX........................................... 34
A.1 Combinations of Parameter Values ............................................................... 34

A.2 FDE Clocks ................................................................................................... 34
TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 53
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 102
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................... 105

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 - Viscous Damping Parameter, α and β Values ........................................... 38
Table 4.1 - Assumed Material Properties for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW ........ 39
Table 4.2 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure MF1 ................................... 39
Table 4.3 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure MF2 ................................... 40
Table 4.4 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure FNW .................................. 41
Table 4.5 - Calculated First-Mode Periods of Vibration ............................................. 41
Table 4.6 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure MF1 ....................................................... 42
Table 4.7 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure MF2 ....................................................... 42
Table 4.8 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure FNW ...................................................... 42
Table 5.1 - Specified Material Properties for the Holiday Inn Building ..................... 43
Table 5.2 - Holiday Inn Building Assumed Beam/Slab Reinforcement ...................... 43
Table 5.3 - Holiday Inn Building Column Reinforcement .......................................... 44
Table 5.4 - Column Bar Arrangements, Holiday Inn Building.................................... 44
Table 5.5 - Yield Point Data, Structure HNS............................................................... 45
Table 5.6 - Yield Point Data, Structure HEW ............................................................. 46
Table 6.1 - Number of Nonlinear Analysis Cases Considered, Test Structures .......... 47
Table 6.2 - Number of Nonlinear Analysis Cases Considered, Holiday Inn

Building ..................................................................................................... 47
Table 6.3 - FDE Index Averages for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW, Using
LARZ ......................................................................................................... 48
SAP 2000 ................................................................................................... 48
vii
PERFORM 3D ........................................................................................... 49
LARZ, SAP 2000, and PERFORM 3D ..................................................... 49
Table 6.7 - FDE Index Averages for HEW and HNS, Using LARZ ........................... 50
Table 7.1 - Summary of Best Models for Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW ....... 51
Table A.1 - Summary of Parameters Considered ........................................................ 52

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - Idealized Reinforced Concrete Frame ...................................................... 54
Figure 2.1 - One-Component Model............................................................................ 55
Figure 2.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship.............................................................. 55
Figure 2.3 - Moment-Rotation Relationship Including Bond-Slip Rotation ............... 56
Figure 2.4 - Flowchart of Program LARZ, After Saiidi and Sozen (1979) ................. 57
Figure 2.5 - Bilinear Moment-Rotation Relationship in SAP 2000............................. 58
Figure 2.6 - Assumed Moment and Curvature Diagrams for Frame Members ........... 59
Figure 2.7 - Frame Compound Components Used in PERFORM 3D......................... 59
Figure 2.8 - Moment-Rotation Diagram for the Elastic Component in PERFORM

3D ............................................................................................................. 60
Figure 2.9 - Moment-Rotation Relationship of the Inelastic Component in

PERFORM 3D ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 3.1 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Uncracked Case (U) ...................... 61
Figure 3.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Cracked Case (C)........................... 61
Figure 3.3 - Rotation Due to Bond Slip, After Saiidi and Sozen (1979) ..................... 62
Figure 3.4 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with a Soft Post-Yield Stiffness (S) ...... 63
Figure 3.5 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with a Hard Post-Yield Stiffness (H) .... 63
Figure 3.6 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Non-Reducing (N) Unloading

Stiffness .................................................................................................... 64
Figure 3.7 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Reducing (R) Unloading

Stiffness .................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4.1 - The University of Illinois Earthquake Simulator, After Lepage (1997) .. 65
ix
Figure 4.2 - Specimen MF1 Tested by Moehle and Sozen (1978) .............................. 66
Figure 4.3 - Representative Reinforcement Details, After Moehle and Sozen

(1980) ....................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.4 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure MF1 .............................. 68
Figure 4.5 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure MF2 .............................. 69
Figure 4.6 - Base Acceleration Records, Test Structures MF1 and MF2 .................... 70
Figure 4.7 - Specimen FNW Tested by Moehle and Sozen (1980) ............................. 71
Figure 4.8 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure FNW ............................. 72
Figure 4.9 - Base Acceleration Records, Test Structure FNW .................................... 73
Figure 5.1 - Plan and Elevations of the Holiday Inn Building, After Lepage (1997).. 74
Figure 5.2 - Exterior Frames, North-South Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement

Assumptions ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.3 - Interior Frames, North-South Direction, Slab Reinforcement

Assumptions ............................................................................................. 76
Figure 5.4 - Exterior Frames, East-West Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement

Assumptions ............................................................................................. 77
Figure 5.5 - Interior Frames, East-West Direction, Slab Reinforcement

Assumptions ............................................................................................. 78
Figure 5.6 - Base Acceleration Records, 1994 Holiday Inn Building in Van Nuys,
California.................................................................................................. 79
Figure 5.7 - Frame Element Property Types, Interior Frame, Structure HNS ............. 80
Figure 5.8 - Frame Element Property Types, Exterior Frame, Structure HNS ............ 80
Figure 5.9 - Frame Element Property Types, Interior Frame, Structure HEW ............ 81
Figure 5.10 - Frame Element Property Types, Exterior Frame, Structure HEW......... 81
Figure 6.1 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ ................... 82
Figure 6.2 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run 2, SAP 2000 ............. 82
Figure 6.3 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run 2, PERFORM 3D ..... 82
x
Figure 6.4 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF2, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ ................... 83
Figure 6.5 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF2, Run 1 and Run 2, SAP 2000 ............. 83
Figure 6.6 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF2, Run1 and Run 2, PERFORM 3D ...... 83
Figure 6.7 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ .................. 84
Figure 6.8 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run 2, SAP 2000 ............ 84
Figure 6.9 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run 2, PERFORM 3D .... 84
Figure 6.10 - Ratios of Calculated-to-Measured Maximum Roof Displacement,

Average of Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW for Run 1, LARZ .... 85
Figure 6.11 - Roof Displacement Histories, MF1 Run 1, LARZ ................................ 86
Figure 6.13 - Roof Displacement Histories, FNW Run 1, LARZ ............................... 88

Average of Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW for Run 2, LARZ .... 89
Figure 6.17 - Roof Displacement Histories, FNW Run 2, LARZ ............................... 90
Figure 6.18 - Base Shear Histories, MF1, LARZ ........................................................ 91
Figure 6.19 - Base Shear Histories, MF2, LARZ ........................................................ 91
Figure 6.20 - Base Shear Histories, FNW, LARZ ....................................................... 92
Figure 6.21 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF1, LARZ ........................................ 92
Figure 6.22 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF2, LARZ ........................................ 93
Figure 6.23 - Overturning Moment Histories, FNW, LARZ ....................................... 93
Figure 6.24 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, MF1 Run 1,
Model CHRT - α2 ................................................................................... 94
Model CHRL - α2 ................................................................................... 94
xi
Model CHRT - α2 ................................................................................... 95
Model CHRL - α2 ................................................................................... 95
Figure 6.28 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, FNW Run 1,
Model CHRT - α2 ................................................................................... 96
Figure 6.29 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, FNW Run 2,
Model CHRL - α2 ................................................................................... 96
Figure 6.30 - FDE Clocks, Structure HNS and HEW, LARZ ..................................... 97
Figure 6.31 - FDE Clocks, Structure HNS and HEW, SAP 2000 ............................... 97
Figure 6.32 - FDE Clocks, Structure HNS and HEW, PERFORM 3D ....................... 97

Average of Holiday Inn HNS and HEW, LARZ ................................... 98
Figure 6.34 - Roof Displacement Histories, HNS, LARZ ........................................... 99
Figure 6.35 - Roof Displacement Histories, HEW, LARZ .......................................... 100
Figure A.1 - FDE Representation ................................................................................ 101
Figure A.2 - FDE Clock ............................................................................................... 101

xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer is grateful to his advisor, Andres Lepage, for the assistance and
guidance provided throughout this project. He is also thankful to Sebastian Delgado for
introductory sessions on the nonlinear modeling options of the computer programs used
in this study. Appreciation is given to Jeff Dragovich for his support with the Frequency
Domain Error program. He is also grateful to Jose Pincheira for providing a legible copy
of the original drawings of the Holiday Inn building, located in Van Nuys, California.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The structural engineering community is increasingly using nonlinear static or

dynamic analysis to evaluate the response of a structure subjected to seismic events.
When designing new buildings, structural engineers refer to ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2005)
for loads and analysis procedures. Anytime designers choose a non-compliant system to
resist lateral loads, sufficient analytical and test data must be submitted to assure the non-
compliant system has adequate seismic response comparable to that of a conventional
code-compliant system. These deviations from ASCE 7-05 typically trigger a two-step
design process. First, a traditional code-level design is performed where engineers use a
linear response analysis and apply a response modification factor, R, which is typically
defined in relation to traditional lateral force-resisting systems. Second, the response of
the building to the more severe 2500-year seismic event is evaluated using nonlinear
dynamic analysis.
Another case in which nonlinear dynamic analysis is required is in the
rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE 31 (ASCE, 2003) and ASCE 41 (ASCE,
2006) require nonlinear dynamic analysis in a tier-3 type assessment of a structure.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is also the prevalent method of analysis for structures with
damping systems and is mandatory for structures with base isolation. In both of these
cases, nonlinear response is usually limited to a reduced number of elements and the
definition of their hysteretic response generally follows simple rules. Although a
nonlinear dynamic analysis is an excellent way to evaluate the performance of structures
subjected to strong ground motions, the modeling complexities involved in characterizing
the number and type of material nonlinearities often discourage designers from using this
advanced option.
This chapter defines the problem statement, followed by the objectives and scope
of this study. The chapter ends with a brief description of how this thesis is organized.
2
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Today, a nonlinear dynamic analysis for any structure is not an easy task. To
make an attempt to reduce the effort involved, specialized software must be purchased
that focuses on nonlinear analysis. Expensive training sessions must also be scheduled to
educate engineers on how to use the specialized software. Even with employees who can
efficiently operate a nonlinear analysis program, preparing data for analysis and
interpreting output from the analysis can be very time consuming and therefore expensive
in wages. This is partially due to the limited guidance offered by design specifications
for engineers to use in nonlinear analysis, as well as to the limited guidelines towards
modeling methods and assumptions provided by the available computer programs with
nonlinear capabilities. This study is in search of practical computer models capable of
representing realistic nonlinear seismic response of reinforced concrete frames. Simple
rules are needed to identify and characterize the modeling parameters and how to
implement them using standard structural analysis software.
1.2 Objectives and Scope
The objective of this thesis is to develop a set of rules which consistently lead to
realistic response of reinforced concrete moment frames when performing a nonlinear
dynamic analysis. This study is limited to mid-rise reinforced concrete frames that are
subjected to strong ground motions. Analysis of these reinforced concrete moment
frames include material and geometric nonlinearities. The hysteretic response is
represented by key modeling parameters and their optimal combination is identified by
comparing calculated versus measured response histories of shake-table test structures
and an instrumented building. Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed using three
computer programs:
• LARZ by Saiidi and Sozen (1979),
• SAP 2000 by CSI (2009), and
• PERFORM 3D by CSI (2006).
3
SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D are commercially available structural analysis

programs used commonly in engineering practice. In this study, reinforced concrete
frames are modeled using a lumped plasticity model where nonlinear properties are
concentrated in a spring at the beam-column interfaces. Beam-column joints are modeled
as rigid segments and the members in the clear span are represented by a linear-elastic
portion. Figure 1.1 displays the idealized reinforced concrete frame. Masses are
assumed lumped at floor level and beams are assumed axially rigid.
The optimal combinations of modeling parameters are identified by comparing
the calculated response to experimental data obtained at the University of Illinois
Earthquake Simulator (Sozen et al., 1969), as well as from the instrumented Holiday Inn
building in Van Nuys, California, with recorded data during the Northridge earthquake in
1994.
The information presented in this study provides practicing structural engineers
with a set of modeling assumptions for performing nonlinear dynamic analysis capable of
representing the actual response of reinforced concrete moment frames.
This study is an extension of the work initiated by Lepage et al. (2008). The
study expands on the number of structures and base motions. The Holiday Inn building
computer model incorporates significant revisions in member properties.
1.3 Organization
Chapter 2 introduces the three computer programs used in this study to perform
the nonlinear dynamic analyses. The chapter includes a summary of the modeling
assumptions and the required input information.
Chapter 3 presents the five main nonlinear modeling parameters considered in this
study. Four of these parameters directly influence the hysteretic response: initial
stiffness, bond-slip effects, post-yield stiffness, and reducing stiffness. The fifth
parameter, viscous damping, is assumed either mass proportional or stiffness
proportional.
4
Chapter 4 describes the multistory test structures that were used in this study to
correlate the measured and calculated response. Details are presented for their geometry,
material properties, and base motions to which they were subjected to.
Chapter 5 extends the applicability of the nonlinear models used in Chapter 4 to
the instrumented Holiday Inn building in Van Nuys, California. This flat-plate reinforced
concrete structure with perimeter moment frames was heavily damaged during the 1994
Northridge earthquake. Since the building response was recorded during this earthquake,
it provides the opportunity to check if the modeling assumptions that best represent the
small-scale test structures of Chapter 4 are also capable of representing the nonlinear
response of an actual full-scale building.
Chapter 6 discusses the calculated responses after the nonlinear dynamic analyses
were performed in this study. In Chapter 7, the summary and conclusions include simple
rules for defining the modeling parameters that consistently led to the best correlations
between the measured and calculated nonlinear seismic responses.
The Frequency Domain Error (FDE) index is described in an Appendix. With the
large number of models and response data, the FDE index is used to help discern the set
of parameters that minimizes the error in the calculated response.
5
CHAPTER 2
ANALYTICAL TOOLS USED TO PERFORM NONLINEAR DYNAMIC

ANALYSIS
There are several computer programs available today with nonlinear dynamic
analysis capabilities. One academic program, LARZ, and two commercial programs,
SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D, are used in this study to perform nonlinear dynamic
analyses of reinforced concrete frames.
A brief program description and a simplified method to calculate yield moments
and curvatures for LARZ input are introduced in Section 2.1. Section 2.2 describes the
input data for SAP 2000 and presents a method to convert moment-curvature data to
moment-rotation. Section 2.3 briefly describes PERFORM 3D. Geometric nonlinearities
(P-delta effects) are taken into account by all of the programs considered.
2.1 LARZ
Program LARZ is a specialized computer program developed for calculating the

nonlinear seismic response of reinforced concrete frames. The original program was
named SAKE and was written by Otani (1975) at the University of Illinois. The program
was renamed LARZ after modifications by Saiidi (1979). Lopez (1988) further modified
the program to study frame-wall structures.
LARZ incorporates several hysteresis models to characterize the moment-rotation
cyclical response of reinforced concrete members. The Takeda hysteresis model, the
Sina hysteresis model, the Otani hysteresis model, the Simple Bilinear model, and the Q-
hysteresis model all can be invoked by the program. If a nonlinear dynamic analysis for
a steel frame is desired, LARZ can be used with the appropriate hysteresis model. In this
study, the Takeda hysteresis model (Takeda et al., 1970) is used to represent the cyclic
6
response of reinforced concrete frame members. The unloading exponent parameter, γ,

was set to 0.6 (as discussed in Chapter 3).
Each member of the structure is modeled by the one-component model, originally
developed by Giberson (1969) as represented in Figure 2.1. Beams and columns are
considered massless line elements with their positions representing their centroidal axes.
Each element consists of a linear elastic line that is bounded at each end by a nonlinear
spring. Nonlinear properties of these springs account for the inelastic deformations of the
structure. Rigid segments represent the beam-column joints.
For each cross section, the moment-curvature relationship is specified to account
for material nonlinearities. Cracking, yielding, and ultimate moment-curvature values at
each end of the member are given to the program. From the moment-curvature data,
LARZ calculates the moment-rotation relationship for each member. Rotations due to
the slip of reinforcement within the beam-column joint are then added to the moment-
rotation curve calculated by LARZ.
Dimensions of the planar structure are input by defining the joints with
coordinates of beam-column intersections. Elements with assigned geometric and
material properties were then defined between joints. More than one lateral-translation
degree-of-freedom can be applied to each floor level if some beams are discontinued,
which allows irregular structures to be analyzed using LARZ. However, this study was
limited to one translational degree-of-freedom per level.
Figure 2.2 shows a representative moment-curvature relationship that must be
given to program LARZ for each element. Figure 2.3 displays the moment-rotation
relationship calculated by LARZ from the input moment-curvature data. Bond-slip
rotations, which are input by the user, are added to the LARZ-calculated rotation to
obtain the final moment-rotation relationship to be used by the program when performing
nonlinear dynamic analysis.
A simplified procedure may be used to calculate the yield point for each frame
element. This method uses interpolation between the balanced point and the pure-
bending point of a P-M interaction diagram when calculating the yield moment and yield
curvature for members with axial load. In this study, the method is only applied when
7
modeling the test structures described in Chapter 4. Several assumptions are implicit
when using this method:
• Compressive and tensile steel are identical and in a single layer,
• Axial loads are below the balanced condition,
• Yield moment at zero axial load neglects the contribution of the compression
steel,
• Yield moment at the balanced condition assumes yielding of the compression and
tension reinforcement, and
• P-M and P-φ diagrams are assumed to vary linearly between pure bending and the
balanced point.
To determine the yield moment and curvature, the neutral axis depth, , is obtained
using Equation 2.1 for the balanced condition and Equation 2.2 for the case of pure
bending:
ε
(2.1)
ε ε
2 1 1 1 (2.2)
where:
Equation 2.1 is used with Equation 2.3 to calculate the moment at the balanced condition:
′ ′ ′ (2.3)
, 0.85 β β 2 0.85
2 2 2
The moment at the pure bending condition is calculated using Equation 2.2 with Equation
2.4:
, (2.4)
3
The curvature for both the balanced and pure-bending cases is determined using Equation
2.5:
8
(2.5)
One can then calculate the moment and curvature at yielding for a given member by
knowing the axial force in that member and using Equation 2.6 and Equation 2.7:
, , , (2.6)
, , , (2.7)
where:
P axial force in member
Pb balanced point 0.85 β 0.85
After the frame geometry has been defined through joint coordinates, the member
properties are assigned using moment and curvature values. LARZ calculates the
elements moment-rotation stiffness matrix and then assembles a condensed structural
stiffness matrix. The equation of motion is solved using the constant-average-
acceleration method (Newmark, 1959). The instantaneous element and structure stiffness
matrices are updated following the chosen hysteresis rules for cyclic loading. This
process is repeated throughout the duration of the base motion. See Figure 2.4 for a
flowchart diagram of the analysis steps implemented by LARZ. Gravity loads are
optional, but definitions of hysteresis models and input base accelerations are required.
2.2 SAP 2000
Another program that was used in this study to perform nonlinear dynamic
analyses for planar reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading is SAP 2000 (CSI,
2009). The program SAP was first developed by CSI in 1975 and several versions have
been released since then. Today, its 3D graphical interface is very user-friendly and
facilitates the input of structural models in a very efficient manner. SAP 2000 is easy to
learn and can be used for simple or complex structural analysis and is used by design
professionals in over 160 countries around the world.
9
The user-friendly interface of SAP 2000, the numerous types of members, and the
potential to model arbitrary geometries provide engineers with ample freedom when
performing either a nonlinear static or dynamic analysis. Good judgment and experience
is essential for obtaining meaningful output, as the results are very sensitive to the
assumptions made.
One way to perform a nonlinear dynamic analysis using SAP 2000 that leads to
acceptable results when compared to experimental structures is to use a lumped plasticity
model and force the program to behave similar to proven models in LARZ. A one-
component model can be simulated using a flexurally rigid element bounded with
nonlinear links (NL links) assigned at each member end. These NL links are then
attached to rigid ends that simulate beam-column joints. NL links contain all linear and
nonlinear flexural properties, given that the central segment is assumed flexurally rigid.
Shear deformations may be accounted for by assigning shear area to the central linear-
elastic segment.
Several types of hysteresis models are available. For reinforced concrete
members, the Pivot hysteresis and Takeda hysteresis models are available. In this study,
the Pivot hysteresis model (Dowell et al., 1998) was used instead of the Takeda hysteresis
model because SAP 2000 implements Takeda with a fixed value for the unloading
stiffness. The Pivot hysteresis model typically requires input values of three parameters:
αpivot, βpivot, and η. For more information regarding these parameters, see Dowell et al.,
1998. The range of values to represent behavior of reinforced concrete members may
include 1 to 10 for αpivot, 0.25 to 0.75 for βpivot, and 0 to 10 for η. In this study, reducing
unloading stiffness models (as discussed in Chapter 3) adopted values of αpivot = 1.0, βpivot
= 0.3, and η = 10 (as discussed in Chapter 3).
In SAP 2000, users must input moment-rotation relationships for each NL link.
Two points of the moment-rotation curve are given to the program: yielding and ultimate.
The hysteresis models in the current version of SAP 2000 do not allow a breakpoint
before the yield point, and therefore the cracking point is not represented. The initial
effective stiffness is then specified as the slope of the moment-rotation curve from the
origin to the yield point. Bond-slip rotations can be accounted for by directly adding
10
them to the moment-rotation curves. See Figure 2.5 for the representative moment-
rotation curve when using SAP 2000. This is also known as a bilinear “backbone” curve.
Although there are several methods to calculate the moment-rotation properties
for a given cross section, a method similar to what LARZ implements was used in this
study. A general expression was developed to calculate cracking, yielding, and ultimate
rotations from known moments and curvatures. Figure 2.6 displays the moment-
curvature diagram assumed for each frame member.
The slope of line 1 of the curvature diagram in Figure 2.6 can be defined as:
2
(2.8)
λ
where:
The slope of line 2 in Figure 2.6 can be defined as:

2
(2.9)
λ
where:
Line 3 in Figure 2.6 can be defined using:

1
2 λ (2.10)
1 λ
A general formula for rotation is:
τ /
θ (2.11)
2
where:
τ / , tangential deviation from A measured at B,

A the left support of the beam, and
B the midspan of the beam.
Integrating the curvature to obtain rotation, per Equation 2.11, gives:
11
θ 2λ 2 1 λ 2 λ 1 λ (2.12)
At cracking, Equation 2.12 may be used with:

λ λ 1
resulting in Equation 2.13:
θ (2.13)
6
At yielding, Equation 2.12 is used with:
λ 1
resulting in Equation 2.14:
θ λ 1 λ (2.14)
6
At ultimate, Equation 2.12 is used with:
Bond-slip rotations, described in Chapter 3, are then added to the rotations calculated
using Equation 2.12 through Equation 2.14.
2.3 PERFORM 3D
PERFORM 3D (CSI, 2006) is the third program considered in this study for
performing nonlinear dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames subjected to strong
base motions. Also developed by CSI, PERFORM 3D is strictly a nonlinear analysis
software program that is used for performance assessment of 3D structures subjected to
seismic events. Structural models can be imported directly from SAP 2000, and therefore
it is likely that engineers would migrate to PERFORM 3D, a more specialized program
12
for evaluation of buildings using performance-based design principles. Future versions

of the program are likely to be integrated into SAP 2000.
There are several options and parameters available with PERFORM 3D. A useful
option for this study was to invoke the use of hysteresis loops with unloading and
reloading stiffness reductions tied to a user-defined energy ratio in relation to energy
dissipated by elastoplastic systems.
Structural members are defined by means of compound components, which are
shown in Figure 2.7. Elastic properties are assigned to a central portion and inelastic
properties are assigned to rigid hinges at member ends. This information is given to
PERFORM 3D by assigning cross sectional properties to the elastic component and by
defining the basic post-yield force-displacement relationship for the inelastic component.
The elastic component is typically defined by width, depth, modulus of elasticity,
and Poisson's ratio. The program automatically calculates the cross-sectional properties
from this information. In this study, the moment of inertia was modified so that the
moment-rotation relationships account for rotations due to bond slip. Figure 2.8 displays
the moment-rotation relationship implemented in PERFORM 3D for the elastic
component. This figure shows the yield point as a function of the modified moment of
inertia to include bond-slip rotations. If the gross section moment of inertia is used, the
program would ignore the softening due to bond-slip effects.
The modified moment of inertia, , is calculated using:
(2.15)
6 θ θ
where:
member clear length,
θ yield rotation,
θ yield rotation due to bond-slip of the reinforcement (see Chapter 3),
E modulus of elasticity of concrete, and
moment at yielding.
The inelastic component uses a rigid-plastic hinge. To specify the moment-
rotation relationship for the rigid-plastic hinge, three points (Y, U, and L) can be input as
13
displayed in Figure 2.9. These three points are the first-yield point (Y); the ultimate
strength point (U) where the maximum strength is reached; and the ductile limit point (L)
where strength loss begins.
PERFORM 3D uses energy dissipation ratios for hysteresis loop rules. Users
have the option to define the loop shape, as well as energy dissipation factors at different
values of ductility. To represent elastoplastic behavior, users may input an energy
dissipation ratio of 1.0. To represent systems with stiffness-reducing hysteresis, typical
of reinforced concrete members, energy ratio values range between 0.1 and 0.4 (Otani,
1981). In this study, an energy ratio of 0.2 was adopted for models with unloading
stiffness reductions (as discussed in Chapter 3).
14
CHAPTER 3
NONLINEAR MODELING PARAMETERS
Due to the competitive environment in the business of consulting engineering,

structural engineers rarely have the time to test their modeling techniques and compare
the results with measured data. Nonlinear dynamic analysis can be complicated and time
consuming and therefore, recommendations for input values on key modeling parameters
are investigated in this study, with the intention of helping engineers create meaningful
models and computer output.
To give simple modeling recommendations for nonlinear seismic analysis of
reinforced concrete frames, the key modeling parameters must be identified. Four
parameters directly influence the primary “backbone” moment-rotation curve: initial
stiffness, bond-slip deformations, post-yield stiffness, and unloading stiffness. Two
relatively extreme values were chosen for each of these parameters to guide engineers
toward the modeling assumptions leading to realistic response. A fifth parameter,
viscous damping, also plays a role in predicting the response of structures subjected to
strong ground motions. Four values of viscous damping are investigated. Each
parameter is described in detail in Sections 3.1 through 3.5. The test structures described
in Chapter 4 are modeled with all possible combinations of the modeling parameters
listed in this chapter and are implemented with the three computer programs described in
Chapter 2.
3.1 Initial Stiffness
In this study, the initial slope of the moment-curvature diagrams is determined

using cracked (C) or uncracked (U) section properties. For uncracked cases, the initial
stiffness is based on gross section properties and the cracking point is based on the
15
modulus of rupture, taken as ½ [MPa]. For cases in which the cross section is
cracked, the initial stiffness is defined using the secant stiffness to the yield point. Both
of these cases share the same yield point. Concrete stress-strain relationships are based
on Hognestad (1951) and steel reinforcement is taken as elastoplastic. Figure 3.1 and
Figure 3.2 display the moment-curvature relationships for the uncracked and cracked
section properties.
3.2 Bond-Slip Effect
This parameter accounts for the additional rotation due to bond-slip effects inside
the beam-column joints. Moment-rotation curves can be derived from moment-curvature
relationships with the assumption that inflection points are at midspan. Once the primary
moment-rotation relationship is determined, additional rotation due to bond-slip is added.
Bond-slip rotation is a softening effect occurring inside the beam-column joint due to the
elongation of the longitudinal reinforcement beyond the column face. In this study,
bond-slip rotation is determined as a function of the development length, λdb:
1
θ λ (3.1)
2
where:
θ bond-slip rotation,
curvature at yielding,
λ reinforcement bar diameter lengths ,
diameter of reinforcement bar,

M moment at point of interest,
yield moment,
yield strength of reinforcement, and
bond stress.
Equation 3.1 contains the following simplifying assumptions: the reinforcement is
fully developed and pullout will not occur; the steel stress varies linearly from a
16
maximum at the beam-column interface to zero inside the joint; the rotation due to bond
slip is measured with respect to the neutral axis; and the tensile stress in the
reinforcement is proportional to the moment. These assumptions are shown in Figure
3.3.
This study accounts for two cases of bond-slip rotation: a case of tight (T) bond
where λ is taken as 20 bar diameter lengths, and a case of loose (L) bond where λ is taken
as 40 bar diameter lengths. The values of λ closely correspond to practical values of fy
and u. For instance, a case where fy = 410 MPa (60 ksi) and u = 5.1 MPa (0.75 ksi),
leads to λ = 20, and a case where fy = 410 MPa (60 ksi) and u = 2.6 MPa (0.38 ksi), leads
to λ = 40. The rotations due to bond slip may also be considered as a partial correction
for the rigid joint assumption, especially for the L cases, where bond stress is assumed
the lowest.
3.3 Post-Yield Stiffness
The slope of the moment-rotation relationship after yielding of the reinforcement

is known as the post-yield stiffness, Kp. For this study, Kp is expressed as a fraction of
the secant-to-yield moment-rotation stiffness, Ke. Two cases are considered: a soft case
(S) in which Kp = 0.02Ke and a hard case (H) where Kp = 0.10Ke. To ensure these post-
yield stiffnesses are achieved, the ultimate point of the moment-rotation relationship is
modified accordingly after incorporating bond-slip effects. Figure 3.4 displays the soft
case and Figure 3.5 displays the hard case. Instead of determining the actual post-yield
stiffness for a known cross section and material stress-strain relationships, the approach
studied is to assign two extreme values and later identify the one leading to the best
correlation with measured data. This approach gives an engineer the option of creating a
model that mostly depends on the yield point.
17
3.4 Unloading Stiffness
Past nonlinear analysis studies have been successful when using hysteresis rules
based on Takeda (Saiidi and Sozen, 1979; Takeda at al., 1970). Therefore in this study,
the unloading stiffness, , of the moment-rotation hysteresis model is controlled by the
Takeda exponent parameter, γ:
θ
(3.2)
θ
where:
θ yield rotation
θ maximum rotation
Two values of γ are considered. A value of 0 represents a non-reducing (N)
unloading slope and a value of 0.6 represents a reducing (R) case. Figure 3.6 and Figure
3.7 display these cases.
Equivalent cases were studied in SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D, although these
programs use different hysteresis models. Both N and R cases were reproduced by
modifying the Pivot hysteresis input values in SAP 2000 and by modifying the energy
dissipation factors in PERFORM 3D to behave similarly to a Takeda hysteresis model
with γ equal to 0 and 0.6. In this study, the Pivot hysteresis model of SAP 2000
represents the N case using αpivot = 10, βpivot = 0.5, and η = 0. The R cases are represented
with αpivot = 1.0, βpivot = 0.3, and η = 10. For the energy-ratio hysteresis of PERFORM
3D, this study assigns the N models a ratio of 0.5 and for the R models a ratio of 0.2 is
adopted.
3.5 Viscous Damping
Four individual cases of viscous damping are considered in this study. Two cases
use mass-proportional damping at 2 and 5 percent of critical damping (α2, α5) and two
cases use stiffness-proportional damping at 2 and 5 percent of critical damping (β2, β5).
18
The damping matrix, , is defined as a linear combination of the mass matrix, , and
the stiffness matrix, , both defined at global structural degrees-of-freedom:
α β (3.3)
and
1
ξ α βω (3.4)
2ω
where:
ξ the fraction of critical damping for mode of frequency ω .
Values of α and β are determined based on the first mode of vibration corresponding to
uncracked section properties. For the case of mass-proportional damping, use Equation
3.5:
2 2π
α and β 0 (3.5)
For the case of stiffness-proportional damping, use Equation 3.6:
β and α 0 (3.6)
π
where:
ξ 0.02 or 0.05 and
the first-mode period of vibration.
Assumed values of α and β for the test structures presented in Chapter 4 and the case
study presented in Chapter 5 are shown in Table 3.1.
19
CHAPTER 4
MULTISTORY TEST STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO STRONG

GROUND MOTIONS
This chapter describes the test structures considered in this study to help identify
the combinations of modeling parameters that best represent measured seismic response.
Three small-scale experimental structures previously tested will be modeled using the
nonlinear modeling parameters described in Chapter 3 and implemented with the three
computer programs presented in Chapter 2. Results of the runs are first reported through
the use of the Frequency Domain Error index (Appendix) and followed by a more
detailed report (Chapter 6) of the global and local structural response of the best models.
Section 4.1 provides the geometry, material properties, reinforcement data, and
base acceleration information for test structures MF1 (Healey, 1978) and MF2 (Moehle,
1978). Section 4.2 provides similar information for test structure FNW (Moehle, 1980).
4.1 Test Structures MF1 and MF2
Healey (1978) tested a ten story, three-bay frame named MF1 and Moehle (1978)
tested a similar structure named MF2. Each test structure had two frames in parallel and
was subjected to unidirectional base motions. These tests were performed at the
University of Illinois Earthquake Simulator. This facility was designed to test small-
scale structures subjected to base motion in one horizontal direction (see Figure 4.1) and
is described in detail by Sozen et al. (1969). Both structures have a first and tenth story
height of 279 mm (11 in.), while all other levels are 229 mm (9 in.). Frame MF2 was
identical to frame MF1, shown in Figure 4.2, except that the first level had a discontinued
beam in one exterior bay.
20
Each story had a 4.45 kN (1000 lbs) mass attached between the planar frames so
that their center-of-mass coincided with the center-of-mass of the frames. Gravity loads
were evenly distributed directly to the columns, and therefore all plastic hinges formed in
the vicinity of the beam-column interface. Connections were designed so that each
element at a given level experienced the same amount of horizontal displacement. The
mass at level one of MF2 was decreased by approximately one-third due to the
discontinued beam.
Each frame had a 254 mm (10 in.) girder at the base to replicate a rigid
foundation. Bays were 305 mm (12 in.) for each structure. Column dimensions were 38
x 51 mm (1.5 x 2 in.) and beams were 38 x 38 mm (1.5 x 1.5 in.). At the top story, the
columns extended 83 mm (3.3 in.) and at each floor level the beams extended 76 mm (3
in.) beyond the end bays to develop the reinforcing wire.
Number 13 gage annealed wire was used in each member for flexural
reinforcement. Transverse reinforcement consisted of number 16 gage wire bent into
rectangular spirals. Beam-column joints were reinforced using number 16 gage wire
spirals, as well as metal tubing to prevent deterioration of the concrete at the connection
of the masses to the frames (see Figure 4.3). Completed reinforcement cages were
sprayed with 10 percent hydrochloric acid to rust the steel to improve bond. This rusting
procedure had negligible effects on the steel force-strain properties. Loose rust scales
were removed with a wire brush before the concrete was cast.
Measured material properties are summarized in Table 4.1. Moment-curvature
values for the cracking and yielding points of each nonlinear spring are provided in Table
4.2 for MF1 and Table 4.3 for MF2. Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 show the assignments of
the element property types for MF1 and MF2. Moment-rotation yield-point data for test
structures MF1 and MF2 is given in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7.
Each test structure was subjected to a total of three runs, where each run had an
increased intensity of base acceleration. During test runs, horizontal displacements and
accelerations were recorded at each level. After the response was recorded for each run,
displacements and accelerations were reset to zero for the next run.
21
In this study, Run 1 and Run 2 were modeled. Run 1 represents a structure that
has never been subjected to strong ground motions and therefore has no previous
structural damage. Run 2 represents a structure that has previously been subjected to
strong ground motions and therefore has some structural damage.
The base motions applied to frames MF1 and MF2 were patterned after the North-
South component of the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake at El Centro Station, California.
The peak base acceleration was 0.40g for MF1 and 0.38g for MF2 in Run 1. In Run 2,
the peak base acceleration was 0.93g for MF1 and 0.83g for MF2. Base acceleration
records for MF1 and MF2 are presented in Figure 4.6. The time scale was compressed by
2.5 to account for the reduced scale of the experiments. Displacement and acceleration
response was recorded at steps of 0.004 seconds. Table 4.5 contains the calculated initial
period for test structures MF1 and MF2.
4.2 Test Structure FNW
Moehle (1980) also tested a combination of frames and walls. Two nine story
planar frames and one wall acting in parallel were mounted to the Earthquake Simulator
at the University of Illinois. Frame FNW, shown in Figure 4.7, had two frames in
parallel without walls and was a parent model to his other tests with walls. Each frame
had a large first story that was twice the height of the typical stories. Column cross-
sectional dimensions are identical to MF1 and MF2. Longitudinal reinforcement in
beams and columns were number 13 gage wire and transverse reinforcement was number
16 gage wires bent into rectangular spirals. A controlled procedure, similar to MF1 and
MF2, was used to rust the reinforcement cages to improve bonding.
4.45 kN (1000 lbs) was distributed equally to each parallel frame. They were
placed so that the center-of-masses of the weights were vertically aligned with the center-
of-mass of each level of the frames. Connections between the masses and frames were
designed so that each element at a given level experienced the same amount of horizontal
displacement.
22
Measured material properties are summarized in Table 4.1. Moment-curvature

values for the cracking and yielding points of the nonlinear springs of FNW are provided
in Table 4.4. Figure 4.8 displays the assumed locations of the nonlinear springs for
FNW. Moment-rotation yield-point data for test structure FNW is given in Table 4.8.
Test structure FNW was subjected to 2 incremental runs, where Run 2 had
increased base acceleration intensities in relation to Run 1. After the horizontal
displacement and acceleration responses were recorded at each level for Run 1, the
displacements and accelerations were set to zero and Run 2 was implemented. In this
study, both Run 1 and Run 2 were modeled.
The base motions that were applied to frame FNW were patterned after the North-
South component of the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake at El Centro Station, California.
The peak acceleration of the applied base motion during Run 1 was 0.39g and during Run
2 was 0.78g. Base acceleration records for FNW are shown in Figure 4.9. The time scale
was compressed by 2.5 to account for the reduced scale of the experiment. Displacement
and acceleration response was recorded at a time step of 0.005 seconds. Table 4.5
contains the calculated initial period for test structure FNW.
23
CHAPTER 5
SEVEN-STORY HOLIDAY INN BUILDING IN VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA
This chapter investigates the applicability of nonlinear models, similar to those

described in Chapter 4 with the nonlinear parameters presented in Chapter 3, to represent
the measured response of an instrumented full-scale building subjected to a strong
seismic event. For this purpose, the seven-story Holiday Inn building located in Van
Nuys, California provides an interesting case study. A total of 16 accelerometers located
at the roof, fifth, second, first, and ground levels recorded motions in the East-West,
North-South, and vertical directions. The recorded peak ground acceleration at the
building site during the 1994 Northridge earthquake was 0.42g and 0.45g in the North-
South and East-West directions, respectively.
Section 5.1 gives a brief description of the building followed by Section 5.2 with
a summary of the structural damage due to the seismic event. Section 5.3 describes the
analytical models used in this study to identify the modeling assumptions that best
correlate with the measured response.
5.1 Building Description
The building was designed in 1965 and was built on the North-East side of the
Los Angeles basin in 1966. The overall dimensions of the building are 19 m (62 ft) wide,
46 m (150 ft) in length, and 20 m (65 ft) in height. Perimeter spandrel beams create
reinforced concrete frames to resist lateral forces while interior framing consists of a flat
slab. The building is symmetrical about both axes, while the stairwell in the southwest
corner is supported by light framing members. Typical bays are approximately 6.1 x 5.72
m (20 x 18.75 ft) and floor-to-floor heights are 4.11 m (13.5 ft) for the first level, 2.64 m
(8.67 ft) for the top story, and 2.65 m (8.7 ft) for all other levels. East-West frames have
24
eight bays and the North-South frames have three bays. The foundation systems used for
this structure consist of groups of cast-in-place reinforced concrete friction piles with pile
caps connected by grade beams. A typical framing plan and elevations are shown in
Figure 5.1. Note that level 1 refers to the first elevated floor.
The original design included both the exterior beam-column frames and the
interior slab-column frames as part of the lateral force-resisting system. The interior
columns are 510 x 510 mm (20 x 20 in.) at level one and 460 x 460 mm (18 x 18 in.)
above level one. The exterior columns are 360 x 510 mm (14 x 20 in.) at all levels, with
the 510 mm dimension along the North-South direction. The spandrel beam sizes vary
throughout the height of the building. In the North-South frames, beams are 360 x 760
mm (14 x 30 in.) at level one, 360 x 570 mm (14 x 22.5 in.) at levels two through six, and
360 x 560 mm (14 x 22 in.) at the roof level. Beams of the East-West perimeter frames
have the same depth dimensions as those of the North-South perimeter frames, but the
width dimensions are 410 mm (16 in.). Slab thicknesses also vary throughout the height
of the structure. Slab thicknesses are 250 mm (10 in.) at the first level, 220 mm (8.5 in.)
at levels two through six, and 200 mm (8 in.) at the roof level. Specified material
properties for the building are summarized in Table 5.1.
5.2 Earthquake Damage
The two largest earthquakes experienced in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan
area in recent past are the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. During both of these seismic events, the Holiday Inn building in Van Nuys
was the closest instrumented building to the epicenter (21 km in 1971 and 6.4 km in
1994).
The 1971 San Fernando earthquake caused minor structural damage. This
damage came in the form of minor spalling and cracking of concrete. These damages
were repaired by patching the first level beam-column joints in the northeast corner of the
building and by using epoxy to repair concrete which had spalled (Blume, 1973).
Although the structural damage was minor, the nonstructural damage was extensive.
25
Most of the severe damage was located on the first and second floors, and the majority of
the repair costs were spent on drywall, bathroom tile, and plumbing fixtures.
During the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the structure experienced severe damage.
The structural damage was located primarily in the East-West perimeter moment frames.
Damage to the South perimeter frame was severe between the third and fourth floor
levels, where shear failure of the columns was followed by buckling of the column
longitudinal reinforcement. The frames in the North-South direction experienced minor
damage, such as flexural cracks (EERI, 1995). The nonstructural damage caused by the
1994 Northridge Earthquake was more severe than that of the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake. Most of the damage was concentrated in the lower 4 floors, where many
bathroom tiles and mirrors were completely shattered.
5.3 Modeling Assumptions
In this study, the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the Holiday Inn building is
performed by modeling the East-West and North-South frames separately. Given the
symmetrical plan of the Holiday Inn building and the presence of perimeter moment
frames, the merits of a two-dimensional model is investigated. This analytical model
uses massless line elements bounded by rigid segments to represent beam-column joints.
Springs containing all nonlinear properties for each member were placed between the
massless line elements and the rigid end segments. The analysis included flexural, axial,
and shear deformations in all frame members, except axial deformations in beams due to
the rigid diaphragm assumption.
In each direction of analysis, the model incorporates interior slab-column frames
and exterior beam-column frames. The interior frame slab width in the North-South
direction (structure HNS) uses the column strip width of 2.87 m (113 in.) and in the East-
West direction (structure HEW) uses the column strip width of 3.12 m (123 in.). Beam
depths at perimeter framing (for both HNS and HEW) are 0.76 m (30 in.) at level 1, 0.57
m (22.5 in.) at levels 2 to 6, and 0.56 m (22 in.) at the roof. The stiffnesses of the exterior
spandrel beams included the composite beam and slab section. In the North-South
26
direction, the assumed effective width of the slab contributing to the beams is 1.60 m (63
in.) at all stories. In the East-West direction the assumed effective width of the slab
contributing to the beams is 1.67 m (66 in.) at typical stories and 1.78 m (70 in.) at the
first and roof levels.
All reinforcement was taken from the original structural drawings by Rissman and
Rissman Associates. The beam and slab reinforcement considered in the models are
shown in Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.5. Each seven-story frame was modeled with three
different levels of beam and slab reinforcement: the first-level reinforcement, four levels
of typical-level reinforcement, and the roof-level reinforcement. The reinforcement in
the members was simplified so that a typical reinforcement is assigned to beams and
slabs at levels 2 through 6 using the reinforcement indicated in the drawings for level 2
(level 2 as indicated in Figure 5.1). Assignments of element property types are shown in
Figure 5.7 through Figure 5.10 for structures HNS and HEW. Moment-rotation yield-
point data for structures HNS and HEW are given in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6.
For a given beam or slab element, the reinforcement was averaged to account for
the positive and negative bending moments. In other words, the top reinforcing steel at
the left support was added to the bottom reinforcing steel at the right support and the
bottom reinforcing steel at the left support was added to the top reinforcing steel at the
right support. The average of these sums is used to characterize identical moment-
rotation relationships at each end of each bay. The areas of reinforcement used to derive
the moment-rotation relationships are presented in Table 5.2. Values of d′ were assumed
to be equal to 1.1 inches in the North-South direction slabs and 1.9 inches in the East-
West direction slabs. The column reinforcement schedule is presented in Table 5.3.
Expected, rather than specified, material properties were used to derive member
moment-rotation relationships. The expected values of the reinforcing steel yield
strength were taken as 1.2 fy (Mirza and MacGregor, 1979). Expected values of the
concrete compressive strength were taken as 1.2 fc′. The modulus of elasticity of the
concrete, in units of psi, was based on Equation 5.1:
57,000 1.2 (5.1)
27
Steel was assumed to have an elastoplastic stress-strain relationship when

calculating the primary trilinear moment-rotation curve for each member. The stress-
strain curve of the concrete was characterized by Hognestad (1951), where a parabolic
and linear function is used. Concrete usable compressive strains were limited to 0.004
and the tensile strength of the concrete was neglected. Bond-slip rotations were
computed assuming the slab reinforcement was #6 bars and the beam reinforcement was
#7 bars for db in Equation 4.1. Column reinforcing bar diameters were taken from the
column schedule in Table 5.3. The ultimate point of the moment-rotation curve was a
function of the Hard (H) and Soft (S) cases as defined in Chapter 4.2. The effect of axial
load was taken into account when defining the moment-rotation relationship for each
column.
The recorded peak base acceleration at the Holiday Inn building during the 1994
Northridge earthquake in the North-South direction was 0.42g. In the East-West
direction, the recorded peak base acceleration was 0.45g. These seismic records are
shown in Figure 5.6.
28
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This chapter contains the results from the nonlinear dynamic analyses performed
in this study. These results were determined after using three computer programs to
represent five nonlinear modeling parameters on three test structures (MF1, MF2, and
FNW) subjected to two base motion intensities. Additional data is presented for the
calculated response of the two full-scale structures (HNS and HEW), composing the
Holiday Inn building in Van Nuys, California. This amounted to a total of 928 calculated
FDE index values, as derived from Table 6.1 and Table 6.2.
To identify the best combinations of modeling parameters that led to realistic
response, the calculated FDE index values were sorted based on the type of damping and
structure. Section 6.1 identifies trends in the data determined after the calculated
responses for the test structures (MF1, MF2, and FNW) using programs LARZ, SAP
2000, and PERFORM 3D. The Holiday Inn building was modeled to verify if the
combinations that led to satisfactory calculated-to-measured correlations for the test
structures also work for the full-scale building, as discussed in Section 6.2.
6.1 Calculated Responses for Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW
FDE clocks (see Appendix) for the calculated roof displacement response for test
structures MF1, MF2, and FNW are shown in Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.9. The data in the
FDE clocks represent not only the FDE indexes, but may also show “+”or “x” to identify
the cases where the amplitude of the maximum measured displacement exceeds the
maximum calculated displacement by more than 25%. For program LARZ, the average
of the ratios of calculated-to-measured maximum roof displacement for all test structures
when subjected to Run 1 are shown in Figure 6.10. This figure emphasizes how the
29
models with 5% mass-proportional damping underestimate the roof displacement by 20%

or more.
Table 6.3 presents the FDE index averages for the test structures using LARZ.
For Run 1, the best models for each damping include: CHRT – α2, CHRL – α5, UHRT –
β2, and UHRL – β5. The roof displacement histories for these models applied to the test
structures exhibit satisfactory correlations in Figure 6.11 to Figure 6.13.
For Run 2, LARZ models with 5% mass-proportional damping continue to
underestimate the roof displacement by 20% or more, as indicated in Figure 6.14. From
Table 6.3, model CHRL – α2 was the only model with FDE indexes less than 25% for all
three test structures considered. The roof displacement histories for LARZ models
applied to the test structures are shown in Figure 6.15 to Figure 6.17, which exhibit
satisfactory correlations.
All of the models mentioned as having satisfactory correlations for the roof
displacements, also gave satisfactory correlations for the base-shear histories and
overturning-moment histories. Representative plots are shown in Figure 6.18 to Figure
6.23. The measured base shear and overturning moment response histories were derived
from the known masses and elevations and from the recorded accelerations at each level.
The models with the lowest FDE index values were able to represent satisfactorily
the global response of the test structures as measured by roof displacement, base shear,
and overturning moment. The ability of the models to capture localized rotation demands
may be measured by the story drift ratios (story displacement divided by story height).
Representative plots of story drift ratios, shown in Figure 6.24 to Figure 6.29, indicate
that the analytical models tend to do better in representing the maximum measured story
response in Run 1 than Run 2. The calculated responses for Run 2 show larger deviations
from the measured data, an indication that the analytical models do not properly account
for high-mode effects in cases where the structures had previously yielded.
When running programs SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D, U models were not
included due to limitations in the programs of only allowing bilinear primary moment-
rotation relationships. Both SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D assume plastic response
occurs after the first breakpoint of the primary force-displacement curves.
30
FDE clocks corresponding to the calculated response using SAP 2000 and
PERFORM 3D for test structure MF1, subjected to Run 1 and Run 2, are shown in Figure
6.2 and Figure 6.3. FDE clocks for test structure MF2, subjected to Run 1 and Run 2, are
shown in Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6, while those for test structure FNW are shown in
Figure 6.8 and Figure 6.9.
Average tabulated FDE index values for SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D are
presented in Table 6.4 and Table 6.5. The trends for SAP 2000 are consistent with those
of PERFORM 3D. In general, models CHRT – α2 and CHRL – α5 were among the best
for Run 1, and model CHRL – α2 was among the best for Run 2, which is consistent with
the best models identified after LARZ. Table 6.6 contains the overall averages of the
FDE index values for all three test structures and all three programs considered. The
table shows that models CHRT for Run 1 and CHRL for Run 2 were the best models
regardless of the type of damping, excluding α5 models (which consistently
underestimated the roof displacement by more than 20%).
6.2 Calculated Responses for the Holiday Inn Building
FDE clocks (see Appendix) for the calculated roof displacement response of
structures HNS and HEW are shown in Figure 6.30 to Figure 6.32. The FDE clocks
suggest that the C models in LARZ have a poor correlation with the measured response
when compared to the U models. The FDE clocks, obtained for α2 damping after
programs SAP 2000 and PERFORM 3D (Figure 6.31 and Figure 6.32) also testify on the
poor correlation of the C models and that the C model with α2 damping points to CHRT
as the best model.
For program LARZ, the average of the ratios of calculated-to-measured maximum
roof displacement for structures HNS and HEW are shown in Figure 6.33. The figure
indicates that with the exception of α5 models, the C models overestimated the roof
displacement by as much as 60%. This may be an indication that the nonstructural
components of the building affected the building response either by providing an initial
stiffening effect or additional damping.
31
In Table 6.7, the FDE index averages show that ten models were capable of
attaining an FDE index of 25% or less for both HNS and HEW. Noteworthy are models
UHRT and USRT, which regardless of damping, discarding α5 models, gave consistently
low FDE index values. This finding is somewhat analogous to the selection in Table 6.6
of the CHRT models (Run 1), only that the full-scale structure calls for a U model over
the C model. This is possibly due to the stiffening effect of the nonstructural components
in HNS and HEW.
When comparing Table 6.3 with Table 6.7, only two models coincidentally give
an FDE index below 25% for all structures: models UHRT – β2 and UHRL – β5. The
goodness-of-fit of models UHRT are shown in Figure 6.34 and Figure 6.35. Note that
except for the case of α5 damping, models UHRT attained an FDE index below 25%,
which is an indication of satisfactory correlation with the measured roof displacement
response. Base shear and overturning moment histories are not presented for HNS and
HEW because recorded data is not available for each floor. For this same reason,
envelopes of story drift ratios are not presented.
32
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
To identify the modeling assumptions that lead to the best correlation between
calculated and measured seismic response, a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses were
performed on three small-scale shake-table test structures (MF1, MF2, and FNW) and on
the orthogonal structural systems (HNS and HEW) of an instrumented seven-story
building located in Van Nuys, California. The structures represent multibay multistory
reinforced concrete moment frames. The nonlinear dynamic analyses were implemented
using three programs (LARZ, SAP 2000, and PERFORM 3D). Each program was used
to represent the influence of five modeling parameters: initial stiffness, bond-slip
rotations, post-yield stiffness, unloading stiffness, and viscous damping. In all, a total of
928 analysis cases (see Table 6.1 and Table 6.2) were considered. The calculated
responses were processed using the Frequency Domain Error (FDE) clocks, which is an
effective tool for visualizing the influence of multiple parameter values on the correlation
between the calculated response histories and the measured responses. The FDE index
helped identify the analytical models having the best and most consistent correlation with
the measured data.
From the limited number of structures, modeling parameters, parameter range of
values, and computer programs considered, the following are concluded (refer to Table
A.1 for parameter identifications):
(1) For the test structures (MF1, MF2, and FNW) subjected to Run 1, the best models
for each type of damping were:
• CHRT – α2
• CHRL – α5
• UHRT – β2
• UHRL – β5
These models are derived by the following simple rules:
33
• Use H and R;
• Use C models with α damping and U models with β damping. The softer
C models are compensated for by using constant damping (mass
proportional);
• Use T models with 2% damping and L models with 5% damping. Higher
damping is used on the softer L models.
(2) For the test structures (MF1, MF2, and FNW) subjected to Run 2, one model
outperformed the others:
• CHRL – α2
This model may be viewed as a logical outcome from the rules given for Run 1.
Since the structures had previously yielded when subjected to Run 1, the use of a
C model is sensible. The change from T to L is justified because the structure is
effectively softer due to concrete spalling.
(3) For the full-scale Holiday Inn building (structures HNS and HEW) two of the best
models were consistent with the rules given in conclusion (1):
• UHRT – β2
• UHRL – β5
(4) In general, these models had satisfactory accuracy when representing the global
measured response of the test structures for both Run 1 and Run 2. Calculated
roof displacement, base shear, and overturning moment histories successfully
tracked the measured response.
(5) Although the models for the test structures in Run 1 were able to satisfactorily
represent the local measured response, indicated by story drift ratios, the models
for Run 2 were not as accurate. This is possibly due to limitations in the
analytical models to properly account for high-mode effects.
The findings from this thesis suggest that a valuable contribution to practicing engineers
would be to have developers of structural software incorporate moment frame model
templates with pre-assigned nonlinear springs. The spring definition may be
prepopulated with default property values based on the rules defined in conclusions (1)
through (3).
34
APPENDIX
FREQUENCY DOMAIN ERROR INDEX
The large number of models and output information make this study impractical
to determine the combinations of the nonlinear modeling parameters (Chapter 3) that give
the best correlation between measured and calculated response for each of the structures
considered. This Appendix describes the Frequency Domain Error (FDE) method
(Dragovich and Lepage, 2009) for calculating the error between two signals. The FDE
index lends itself to graphical analysis to identify trends associated with the values
assigned to the five parameters used in this study (Table A.1).
A.1 Combinations of Parameter Values
When all combinations of the parameters described in Chapter 3 are accounted

for, a total of 64 models are created for each structure. Table A.1 shows a summary of
the parameters considered in this study. Due to the large amount of models analyzed, the
FDE index was used to determine the combinations of parameters that led to the best
correlation between the calculated and measured response for reinforced concrete
moment frames.
A.2 FDE Clocks
The FDE index is a method for measuring the correlation between two
waveforms. In this study, the index is used to determine the combinations of parameters
leading to the best correlation between measured and calculated roof displacement
responses for the structures considered.
35
The FDE index quantifies amplitude and phase deviations between two
waveforms. A number between 0 and 1 is calculated, where 0 represents a perfect
correlation and 1 indicates a waveform that is 180 degrees out of phase. To determine
this number, the Fourier Transforms of the calculated and measured signals must be
computed so that the signals can be represented in the frequency domain. The real and
imaginary components of the complex number can be thought of as x and y components.
The x-axis is represented by the real component and the y-axis is represented by the
imaginary component (Argand diagram). The FDE index is based on the error vector
between the calculated and measured vectors. Figure A.1 displays the x-y error
representation for a given frequency for the calculated and measured response signals.
The FDE index is based on the error vector (Figure A.1) normalized by the sum of
the vector magnitudes of the measured and calculated signals:
∑
(A.1)
∑
where:
, real and imaginary component of the measured signal at frequency i
, real and imaginary component of the calculated signal at frequency i
, starting and ending frequency for summation
To visually discern the parameters which lead to the best correlation between
measured and calculated results, the FDE index for each structure was plotted using FDE
clocks (Figure A.2). These clocks are a graphical representation consisting of 16 circular
sectors, with each sector representing one of the models resulting from the combination
of the first four parameters of Table A.1. The perimeter of the circle marks an FDE index
value of 0.75 and the center marks an FDE index value of 0. Uncracked (U) models are
shown in the right half of each FDE clock and cracked (C) models are shown in the left
half. Every sector has an opposite sector located at 180 degrees with the alternative set of
parameters. For example, UHNT is the model most resistant to deformation and on its
opposite side is model CSRL, which is the least resistant to deformation. FDE clocks for
36
each type and value of damping are presented in Chapter 6 for each of the structures
considered.
37
TABLES
38
3
Table 3.1 - Viscous Damping Parameter, α and β Values
Structure T1 α2 α5 β2 β5
MF1 0.205 1.22 3.06 0.00131 0.00327
MF2 0.217 1.16 2.90 0.00138 0.00344
FNW 0.237 1.06 2.65 0.00151 0.00377
HNS 0.96 0.263 0.657 0.00609 0.01520
HEW 0.87 0.289 0.722 0.00554 0.01390
Note: Subscript 2 corresponds to 2% of critical damping and subscript 5 to 5% of critical damping.
4
39
Table 4.1 - Assumed Material Properties for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW
Specimen
Property MF1 MF2 FNW
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
f′c 40 38 40
Ec 22,000 21,000 20,000
fy 350 350 384
Table 4.2 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure MF1
Elementa Dimension Long. Reinf. EI Mc φc My φy

2
(mm) (gage wire/face) (kN-m ) (kN-m) (rad/m) (kN-m) (rad/m)
Beam 1 38 x 38 (2) #13 3.86 0.0291 0.00754 0.0811 0.0821
Beam 2 38 x 38 (3) #13 3.86 0.0291 0.00754 0.1200 0.0875
Column 1 38 x 51 (2) #13 9.16 0.0602 0.00658 0.1310 0.0571
Column 2 38 x 51 (2) #13 9.16 0.0788 0.00861 0.1600 0.0631
Column 3 38 x 51 (3) #13 9.16 0.0958 0.01050 0.2430 0.0710

a
See Figure 4.4 for property assignments.
40
Table 4.3 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure MF2

2
Beam 1 38 x 38 (2) #13 3.69 0.0283 0.00768 0.0810 0.0827
Beam 2 38 x 38 (3) #13 3.69 0.0283 0.00768 0.119 0.0882
Column 1 38 x 51 (2) #13 8.74 0.0588 0.00673 0.130 0.0575
Column 2 38 x 51 (2) #13 8.74 0.0774 0.00886 0.159 0.0637
Column 3 38 x 51 (4) #13 8.74 0.0943 0.01080 0.296 0.0740

a
41
Table 4.4 - Assumed Member Properties, Test Structure FNW

2
Beam 1 38 x 38 (3) #13 3.51 0.0290 0.00827 0.1310 0.0976
Beam 2 38 x 38 (2) #13 3.51 0.0290 0.00827 0.0887 0.0914
Column 1 38 x 51 (4) #13 8.33 0.0948 0.01140 0.3190 0.0796
Column 2 38 x 51 (4) #13 8.33 0.0906 0.01090 0.3120 0.0783
Column 3 38 x 51 (2) #13 8.33 0.0855 0.01030 0.1830 0.0713
Column 4 38 x 51 (2) #13 8.33 0.0736 0.00885 0.1640 0.0675
Column 5 38 x 51 (2) #13 8.33 0.0588 0.00707 0.1400 0.0627

a
Table 4.5 - Calculated First-Mode Periods of Vibration
Structure T1 a
(Seconds)
MF1 0.205
MF2 0.217
FNW 0.237
a
Based on gross-section properties
42
Table 4.6 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure MF1
Elementa P φy My θy θy′ b
(kN) (rad) (kN-m) (rad) (rad)
1 0.0 8.21E-02 8.11E-02 3.48E-03 3.81E-03
2 0.0 8.75E-02 1.20E-01 3.71E-03 4.06E-03
3 1.0 5.71E-02 1.31E-01 2.29E-03 2.65E-03
4 3.2 6.31E-02 1.60E-01 2.00E-03 2.93E-03
5 5.2 7.10E-02 2.43E-01 2.84E-03 3.30E-03
a
See Figure 4.4 for element locations.
b
Values based on L case. For T case, divide by 2 per Section 3.2.
Table 4.7 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure MF2
1 0.0 8.27E-02 8.10E-02 3.50E-03 3.84E-03
2 0.0 8.82E-02 1.19E-01 3.73E-03 4.09E-03
3 1.0 5.75E-02 1.30E-01 2.31E-03 2.67E-03
4 3.2 6.37E-02 1.59E-01 2.02E-03 2.95E-03
5 5.2 7.40E-02 2.96E-01 2.96E-03 3.43E-03
a
b
Table 4.8 - Yield Point Data, Test Structure FNW
1 0.0 9.76E-02 1.31E-01 4.13E-03 4.53E-03
2 0.0 9.14E-02 8.87E-02 3.87E-03 4.24E-03
3 5.1 7.96E-02 3.19E-01 5.55E-03 3.69E-03
4 4.6 7.83E-02 3.12E-01 2.49E-03 3.63E-03
5 4.0 7.13E-02 1.83E-01 2.26E-03 3.31E-03
6 2.6 6.75E-02 1.64E-01 2.14E-03 3.13E-03
7 0.9 6.27E-02 1.40E-01 2.00E-03 2.91E-03
a
b
43
5
Table 5.1 - Specified Material Properties for the Holiday Inn Building
f′c fy
Element Level
(ksi) (ksi)
L 3 – Roof 3 40
Slabs & Beams L2 3 40
L1 4 40
L 3 – Roof 3 60
Columns L2 4 60
L1 5 60
Note: 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
Table 5.2 - Holiday Inn Building Assumed Beam/Slab Reinforcement

North-South Direction (HNS) East-West Direction (HEW)
Exterior Frame Interior Frame Exterior Frame Interior Frame
Level Exterior Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Interior
Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay
As (in2) As (in2) As (in2) As (in2) As (in2) As (in2) As (in2) As (in2)
Roof 2.41 3.15 3.75 5.94 2.30 2.78 3.88 6.06
Typical 4.41 5.63 4.27 6.82 4.31 5.68 3.99 6.27
1 4.67 5.14 4.36 6.79 3.86 4.96 4.22 6.89
Note: 1 in = 25.4 mm
44
Table 5.3 - Holiday Inn Building Column Reinforcement

North-South Direction (HNS) East-West Direction (HEW)
Exterior Frame Interior Frame Exterior Frame Interior Frame
Level Edge Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior
Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column
14”x20” 14”x20” 14”x20” 18”x18” 20”x14” 20”x14” 20”x14” 18”x18”
Roof 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7
6 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7
5 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7 6#7
4 6#7 6#9 6#7 6#8 6#7 6#7 6#9 6#8
3 6#7 8#9 6#9 8#9 6#7 6#9 8#9 8#9
2 6#7 8#9 6#9 10#9 6#7 6#9 8#9 10#9
1 8#9 12#9 10#9 10#9* 8#9 10#9 12#9 10#9*
* Column is 20” x 20”
Table 5.4 - Column Bar Arrangements, Holiday Inn Building
Reinforcementa 14”x20” 18”x18” and 20”x20”
6 Bars
8 Bars
10 Bars
12 Bars
a
Cover to centroid of longitudinal reinforcement taken as 2.5”.
45
Table 5.5 - Yield Point Data, Structure HNS
1 30 2.25E-04 1.59E+04 3.60E-03 3.94E-03
2 61 2.36E-04 1.73E+04 3.82E-03 4.14E-03
3 93 2.48E-04 1.87E+04 4.00E-03 4.34E-03
4 123 2.59E-04 1.95E+04 4.18E-03 4.53E-03
5 155 2.82E-04 2.65E+04 4.55E-03 6.34E-03
6 186 2.71E-04 2.96E+04 4.32E-03 6.10E-03
7 225 2.77E-04 4.35E+04 7.01E-03 6.24E-03
8 58 2.60E-04 1.55E+04 4.16E-03 4.56E-03
9 117 2.83E-04 1.81E+04 4.56E-03 4.95E-03
10 177 3.06E-04 2.06E+04 4.92E-03 5.35E-03
11 236 3.34E-04 2.64E+04 5.38E-03 6.69E-03
12 296 3.65E-04 3.86E+04 5.89E-03 8.21E-03
13 355 3.55E-04 4.27E+04 5.65E-03 7.99E-03
14 430 2.86E-04 5.61E+04 7.18E-03 6.43E-03
15 0 3.40E-04 8.55E+03 1.26E-02 5.10E-03
16 0 3.65E-04 1.29E+04 1.41E-02 5.47E-03
17 0 3.19E-04 1.03E+04 1.18E-02 4.78E-03
18 0 3.43E-04 1.58E+04 1.32E-02 5.14E-03
19 0 2.49E-04 1.30E+04 9.15E-03 3.73E-03
20 0 2.64E-04 1.95E+04 1.01E-02 4.61E-03
21 16 2.20E-04 4.35E+03 3.01E-03 3.85E-03
22 32 2.26E-04 4.57E+03 3.12E-03 3.95E-03
23 48 2.32E-04 4.78E+03 3.20E-03 4.05E-03
24 65 2.38E-04 4.99E+03 3.29E-03 4.16E-03
25 81 2.44E-04 5.19E+03 3.37E-03 4.26E-03
26 97 2.34E-04 5.57E+03 3.19E-03 4.10E-03
27 118 2.49E-04 9.47E+03 5.48E-03 4.36E-03
28 30 2.25E-04 4.54E+03 3.08E-03 3.94E-03
29 61 2.36E-04 4.94E+03 3.27E-03 4.14E-03
30 93 2.48E-04 5.33E+03 3.43E-03 4.34E-03
31 123 2.71E-04 7.47E+03 3.75E-03 6.11E-03
32 155 2.88E-04 8.45E+03 3.98E-03 6.48E-03
33 186 2.78E-04 9.47E+03 3.78E-03 6.24E-03
34 225 2.82E-04 1.33E+04 6.19E-03 6.34E-03
35 0 1.18E-04 4.50E+03 4.35E-03 1.77E-03
36 0 1.22E-04 5.76E+03 4.69E-03 1.84E-03
37 0 1.25E-04 8.08E+03 4.59E-03 2.49E-03
38 0 1.29E-04 1.02E+04 4.96E-03 2.59E-03
39 0 8.36E-05 1.20E+04 3.08E-03 1.67E-03
40 0 8.47E-05 1.32E+04 3.25E-03 1.48E-03
a
See Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 for element locations. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN
b
Values based on L case. For T case, divide by 2 per Section 3.2. 1 in = 25.4 mm
46
Table 5.6 - Yield Point Data, Structure HEW
1 30 3.56E-04 2.96E+03 5.70E-03 6.23E-03
2 61 3.75E-04 3.24E+03 6.05E-03 6.55E-03
3 93 3.94E-04 3.52E+03 6.36E-03 6.89E-03
4 123 4.37E-04 5.30E+03 7.05E-03 9.83E-03
5 155 4.68E-04 6.81E+03 7.56E-03 1.05E-02
6 186 4.48E-04 7.23E+03 7.16E-03 1.01E-02
7 225 4.56E-04 9.57E+03 1.15E-02 1.03E-02
8 58 2.60E-04 4.40E+03 4.16E-03 4.55E-03
9 117 2.82E-04 5.05E+03 4.55E-03 4.94E-03
10 177 3.05E-04 5.43E+03 4.91E-03 5.34E-03
11 236 3.34E-04 6.48E+03 5.35E-03 6.67E-03
12 296 3.64E-04 8.05E+03 5.84E-03 8.19E-03
13 355 3.55E-04 1.10E+04 5.63E-03 7.98E-03
14 430 2.86E-04 1.50E+04 7.16E-03 6.42E-03
15 0 4.03E-04 2.58E+03 1.40E-02 6.04E-03
16 0 4.37E-04 3.56E+03 1.51E-02 6.56E-03
17 0 3.67E-04 2.83E+03 1.28E-02 5.51E-03
18 0 3.98E-04 3.96E+03 1.37E-02 5.97E-03
19 0 2.78E-04 3.70E+03 9.62E-03 4.16E-03
20 0 2.99E-04 5.54E+03 1.02E-02 5.22E-03
21 16 3.48E-04 2.83E+03 4.75E-03 6.08E-03
22 32 3.57E-04 2.98E+03 4.94E-03 6.25E-03
23 48 3.67E-04 3.12E+03 5.07E-03 6.42E-03
24 65 3.77E-04 3.27E+03 5.21E-03 6.60E-03
25 81 3.87E-04 3.41E+03 5.34E-03 6.76E-03
26 97 3.69E-04 3.68E+03 5.04E-03 6.46E-03
27 118 3.99E-04 6.82E+03 8.76E-03 6.98E-03
28 30 3.56E-04 2.96E+03 4.86E-03 6.23E-03
29 61 3.75E-04 3.24E+03 5.18E-03 6.55E-03
30 93 3.94E-04 3.52E+03 5.44E-03 6.89E-03
31 123 4.12E-04 3.77E+03 5.69E-03 7.22E-03
32 155 4.54E-04 5.55E+03 6.28E-03 1.02E-02
33 186 4.34E-04 5.96E+03 5.91E-03 9.77E-03
34 225 4.46E-04 8.35E+03 9.78E-03 1.00E-02
35 0 1.15E-04 4.34E+03 4.06E-03 1.73E-03
36 0 1.18E-04 5.18E+03 4.16E-03 1.77E-03
37 0 1.23E-04 7.94E+03 4.31E-03 2.14E-03
38 0 1.28E-04 1.03E+04 4.49E-03 1.91E-03
39 0 8.04E-05 1.01E+04 2.83E-03 1.41E-03
40 0 8.29E-05 1.28E+04 2.92E-03 1.24E-03
a
See Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 for element locations. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN
b
Values based on L case. For T case, divide by 2 per Section 3.2. 1 in = 25.4 mm
47
6
Table 6.1 - Number of Nonlinear Analysis Cases Considered, Test Structures
Program Cases Total

U/C, H/S, N/R, T/L = 16
α2, α5, β2, β5 =4
LARZ 384
MF1, MF2, FNW =3
Run 1, Run 2 =2
C, H/S, N/R, T/L =8
α2, α5, β2, β5 =4
SAP 2000 192
MF1, MF2, FNW =3
Run 1, Run 2 =2
C, H/S, N/R, T/L =8
α2, α5, β2, β5 =4
PERFORM 3D 192
MF1, MF2, FNW =3
Run 1, Run 2 =2
Table 6.2 - Number of Nonlinear Analysis Cases Considered, Holiday Inn Building
Program Cases Total

U/C, H/S, N/R, T/L = 16
α2, α5, β2, β5 =4
LARZ 128
HEW, HNS =2
1994 Record =1
C, H/S, N/R, T/L =8
α2 =1
SAP 2000 16
HEW, HNS =2
1994 Record =1
C, H/S, N/R, T/L =8
α2 =1
PERFORM 3D 16
HEW, HNS =2
1994 Record =1
48
Table 6.3 - FDE Index Averages for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW, Using LARZ
Average FDE Index RUN 1, % Average FDE Index RUN 2, %

Model
α2 α5 β2 β5 α2 α5 β2 β5
CHNL 26 29 27 24 34 40 32 35
CHRL 31 26 46 40 22 32 27 24
CSNL 27 29 29 25 32 39 29 32
CSRL 34 26 46 42 23 30 32 27
CHNT 30 37 25 28 39 44 37 41
CHRT 20 32 38 31 28 38 23 23
CSNT 29 37 25 26 35 42 31 39
CSRT 25 32 40 34 22 33 24 23
UHNL 33 40 28 31 37 44 35 40
UHRL 23 38 24 19 27 39 21 22
USNL 33 40 28 30 35 43 32 37
USRL 23 38 30 24 24 36 24 24
UHNT 38 44 35 37 41 47 40 44
UHRT 29 41 19 19 33 42 25 28
USNT 37 44 34 37 37 46 35 40
USRT 26 40 25 23 26 38 25 24
Note: Bolded values identify lowest average FDE index for the given damping and are shaded if values
are below 25% for all test structures considered (MF1, MF2, and FNW).
Table 6.4 - FDE Index Averages for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW, Using SAP 2000

Model
α2 α5 β2 β5 α2 α5 β2 β5
CHNL 29 29 32 29 39 44 37 38
CHRL 29 28 37 32 28 39 26 26
CSNL 29 29 32 29 40 44 39 40
CSRL 30 28 38 33 28 39 34 31
CHNT 36 39 33 34 42 46 41 43
CHRT 23 34 26 23 35 42 31 34
CSNT 36 39 33 35 43 46 43 44
CSRT 24 34 28 25 30 41 31 33
Note: Bolded values identify lowest average FDE index for the given damping.
49
Table 6.5 - FDE Index Averages for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW, Using PERFORM 3D

Model
α2 α5 β2 β5 α2 α5 β2 β5
CHNL 30 29 33 30 39 44 37 38
CHRL 30 27 42 34 30 40 23 27
CSNL 31 30 33 31 40 44 38 39
CSRL 32 27 43 37 25 37 27 24
CHNT 34 39 32 34 41 46 40 41
CHRT 23 34 25 21 37 44 34 36
CSNT 35 39 33 34 41 46 40 41
CSRT 24 33 31 23 28 41 25 29
Note: Bolded values identify lowest average FDE index for the given damping.
Table 6.6 - FDE Index Averages for Specimens MF1, MF2, and FNW, Using LARZ,
SAP 2000, and PERFORM 3D

Model
α2 α5 β2 β5 α2 α5 β2 β5
CHNL 28 29 30 27 38 43 35 37
CHRL 30 27 42 35 26 37 25 26
CSNL 29 29 31 28 37 42 35 37
CSRL 32 27 43 37 26 36 31 27
CHNT 33 38 30 32 41 45 39 42
CHRT 22 34 29 25 33 41 29 31
CSNT 33 38 30 32 39 45 38 41
CSRT 24 33 33 27 27 38 27 28
Note: Bolded values identify lowest average FDE index for the given damping. Boxed cells identify
models with consistent low FDE index values regardless of damping type (excluding α5).
50
Table 6.7 - FDE Index Averages for HEW and HNS, Using LARZ
Average FDE Index, %

Model
α2 α5 β2 β5
CHNL 37 32 43 38
CHRL 41 32 56 48
CSNL 38 32 43 39
CSRL 41 32 54 48
CHNT 29 29 31 27
CHRT 31 26 41 33
CSNT 30 29 32 27
CSRT 32 26 40 33
UHNL 27 31 26 24
UHRL 26 30 27 22
USNL 27 31 26 24
USRL 26 30 27 22
UHNT 30 35 27 27
UHRT 24 32 23 21
USNT 29 35 26 26
USRT 24 32 22 20
Note: Shaded values identify models where FDE index values are below 25% for HEW and HNS.
Boxed cells identify models with consistent low FDE index values regardless of damping type
(excluding α5).
7
51
Table 7.1 - Summary of Best Models for Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW
Damping Parameter Run 1 Run 2

α2 CHRTa CHRLa
α5 - -
β2 UHRTb -
β5 UHRLb -
a
Models consistently led to low FDE index values in LARZ, SAP 2000, and PERFORM 3D, see Table 6.6.
b
Models consistently led to low FDE index values in test structures and full-scale structures, see Table 6.3
and Table 6.7.
52
Table A.1 - Summary of Parameters Considered
Parameter Identification Characteristic Symbol
Uncracked fr = ½√ f'c [MPa] U

Initial Stiffness
Cracked fr ≈ 0 C
Tight λ = 20 T
Bond-Slip Effect
Loose λ = 40 L
Hard Kp = 0.10Ke H
Post-Yield Stiffness
Soft Kp = 0.02Ke S
Non Reducing γ=0 N
Unloading Stiffness
Reducing γ = 0.6 R
2% Mass Proportional ξ = 0.02 α2
5% Mass Proportional ξ = 0.05 α5
Viscous Damping
2% Stiffness Proportional ξ = 0.02 β2
5% Stiffness Proportional ξ = 0.05 β5
53
FIGURES
54
1
Figure 1.1 - Idealized Reinforced Concrete Frame

2
55
Linear-elastic
segment Rigid ends
Nonlinear rotational springs
Figure 2.1 - One-Component Model
Mu
My
Moment
Secant to yield
Mc
φc φy φu

Curvature
Figure 2.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship
56
Bond-slip at yielding, θ’y
Mu
My
Rotation due to flexure
Moment
Rotation with bond-slip

Mc
θc + θ’c θy+ θ’y

θu+ θ’u
Rotation
Figure 2.3 - Moment-Rotation Relationship Including Bond-Slip Rotation
57
Start
Time = ΔT
Calculate
element codes
Hysteresis Models
Takeda
Calculate Calculate elastic
Sina
instantaneous element
element and stiffnesses and
Otani
structural structural
Bilinear stiffness matrices stiffness matrices
Q-hyst
Condense
structural
stiffness matrix
and calculate
damping matrix
No Time > Calculate Solve differential

Time =
Duration? member end equation of
Time + ΔT
forces motion
ΔT = time interval of
Yes integration
Stop
Figure 2.4 - Flowchart of Program LARZ, After Saiidi and Sozen (1979)
58
Mu
My
Moment
Ke
θy+ θ’y θu+ θ’u

Rotation
Figure 2.5 - Bilinear Moment-Rotation Relationship in SAP 2000
59
/2
/2
A B Moment Diagram, M
Mc
My
Mu
Member Length, L
A B
Curvature Diagram,
c 1
(λ1/λ2) y
y 2
CL
Figure 2.6 - Assumed Moment and Curvature Diagrams for Frame Members
Elastic component Inelastic component
Rigid ends
Figure 2.7 - Frame Compound Components Used in PERFORM 3D

60
Bond-slip at yielding, θ’y
Neglecting bond-slip effects

My
Using modified moment of inertia
Moment
θys = θy + θ’y

Mc
θc θy θys
Rotation
Figure 2.8 - Moment-Rotation Diagram for the Elastic Component in PERFORM 3D
U L
Mu
Y YU: Post yield

My
UL: Peak strength
Moment
θU θL
Rotation
Figure 2.9 - Moment-Rotation Relationship of the Inelastic Component in PERFORM 3D
61
3
Mu
My
Moment
Mc
φc φy φu

Curvature
Figure 3.1 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Uncracked Case (U)
Mu
My
Moment
Ke
φy
φu
Curvature
Figure 3.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Cracked Case (C)
62
For beams,
kd ≈ d′
Figure 3.3 - Rotation Due to Bond Slip, After Saiidi and Sozen (1979)
63
Mu
Kp = 0.02 Ke
My
Moment
Ke
φy φu
Rotation
Figure 3.4 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with a Soft Post-Yield Stiffness (S)
Mu
Kp = 0.10 Ke
My
Moment
Ke
φy
φu
Rotation
Figure 3.5 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with a Hard Post-Yield Stiffness (H)
64
Mu
My
Moment
Kr = Ke
Ke
θy θu
Rotation
Figure 3.6 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Non-Reducing (N) Unloading Stiffness
Mu
My
Moment
Kr
Ke
θy θu
Rotation
Figure 3.7 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Reducing (R) Unloading Stiffness
65
4
Figure 4.1 - The University of Illinois Earthquake Simulator, After Lepage (1997)
66
Elevation Section through beams
(All dimensions are in millimeters)

Figure 4.2 - Specimen MF1 Tested by Moehle and Sozen (1978)
67
Figure 4.3 - Representative Reinforcement Details, After Moehle and Sozen (1980)
68
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 5 5 4
2 2 2
5 5 5 5
Note: For yield point data, see Table 4.6.

Figure 4.4 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure MF1
69
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
5 4 4
2 2
5
5 5 5
Figure 4.5 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure MF2

70
0.50
MF1 Run 1
0.25
0.00
‐0.25
‐0.50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.00
MF1 Run 2
0.50
0.00
‐0.50
Ground Acceleration, g
‐1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.50
MF2 Run 1
0.25
0.00
‐0.25
‐0.50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.00
MF2 Run 2
0.50
0.00
‐0.50
‐1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, s
Figure 4.6 - Base Acceleration Records, Test Structures MF1 and MF2
71
Elevation Section through beams
(All dimensions are in millimeters)
Figure 4.7 - Specimen FNW Tested by Moehle and Sozen (1980)

72
2 2 2
7 7 7 7
2 2 2
7 7 7 7
2 2 2
6 6 6 6
2 2 2
6 6 6 6
2 2 2
6 6 6 6
2 2 2
6 6 6 6
1 1 1
5 5 5 5
1 1 1
5 4 4 5
1 1 1
3 3 3 3
Figure 4.8 - Frame Element Property Types, Test Structure FNW

73
0.50
FNW Run 1
0.25
0.00
‐0.25
‐0.50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.00
FNW Run 2
0.50
0.00
‐0.50
‐1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, s
Figure 4.9 - Base Acceleration Records, Test Structure FNW

74
5
Figure 5.1 - Plan and Elevations of the Holiday Inn Building, After Lepage (1997)
75
2#9 + 10#5 (Slab) 2#9 + 10#5 (Slab)

2#6 + 4#5 (Slab) 2#9 + 10#5 (Slab)
Roof Level
2#7 2#7
2#7 2#7
2#10 + 1#9 + 13#6 (Slab) 2#10 + 1#9 + 13#6 (Slab)
2#10 + 1#7 + 4#5(Slab) 2#10 + 1#9 + 13#6 (Slab)
Typ. Level
2#9 2#9
2#9 2#9
3#10 + 12#6 (Slab) 3#10 + 12#6 (Slab)
2#9 + 1#10 + 4#5 (Slab) 3#10 + 12#6 (Slab)
Level 1
2#10 2#9
2#10 2#9
Exterior Bay Interior Bay
Figure 5.2 - Exterior Frames, North-South Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement

Assumptions
76
17#6 17#6
6#5 17#6
Roof Level
4#5 10#6
10#6 10#6
21#6 21#6
5#6 21#6
Typ. Level
4#5 8#6 + 2#6
8#6 + 2#6 8#6 + 2#6
16#7 16#7
7#6 16#7
Level 1
5#5 10#5 + 2#6
10#5 + 2#6 10#5 + 2#6
Figure 5.3 - Interior Frames, North-South Direction, Slab Reinforcement Assumptions

77
2#8 + 10#5 (Slab) 2#8 + 10#5 (Slab)

2#6 + 4#5 (Slab) 2#8 + 10#5 (Slab)
Roof Level
2#7 2#6
2#7 2#6
3#9 + 17#6 (Slab) 3#9 + 17#6 (Slab)
3#8 + 4#5 (Slab) 3#9 + 17#6 (Slab)
Typ. Level
2#8 2#6
2#8 2#6
2#9 + 16#6 (Slab) 2#9 + 16#6 (Slab)
2#9 + 4#5 (Slab) 2#9 + 16#6 (Slab)
Level 1
2#8 2#6
2#8 2#6
Figure 5.4 - Exterior Frames, East-West Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement Assumptions

78
19#6 19#6
7#5 19#6
Roof Level
4#5 (10#5 + 10#6)/2
(10#5 + 10#6)/2 (10#5 + 10#6)/2
19#6 19#6
7#5 19#6
Typ. Level
4#5 (8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6
(8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6 (8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6
16#7 16#7
6#5 16#7
Level 1
4#5 (8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6
(8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6 (8#6 + 7#6)/2 + 2#6
Note: Bottom reinforcement is based on average within column-strip on either side of column
gridline.
Figure 5.5 - Interior Frames, East-West Direction, Slab Reinforcement Assumptions

79
0.50
NS
0.25
0.00
‐0.25
‐0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.50
EW
0.25
0.00
‐0.25
‐0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, s
Figure 5.6 - Base Acceleration Records, 1994 Holiday Inn Building in Van Nuys,
California
80
15 16 15
1 8 8 1
17 18 17
2 9 9 2
17 18 17
3 10 10 3
17 18 17
4 11 11 4
17 18 17
5 12 12 5
17 18 17
6 13 13 6
19 20 19
7 14 14 7

Figure 5.7 - Frame Element Property Types, Interior Frame, Structure HNS
35 36 35
21 28 28 21
37 38 37
22 29 29 22
37 38 37
23 30 30 23
37 38 37
24 31 31 24
37 38 37
25 32 32 25
37 38 37
26 33 33 26
39 40 39
27 34 34 27

Figure 5.8 - Frame Element Property Types, Exterior Frame, Structure HNS
81
15 16 16 16 16 16 16 15
1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1
17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2
17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3
17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
4 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 4
17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
5 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 5
17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
6 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 6
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 19
7 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7

Figure 5.9 - Frame Element Property Types, Interior Frame, Structure HEW
35 36 36 36 36 36 36 35
21 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 21
37 38 38 38 38 38 38 37
22 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 22
37 38 38 38 38 38 38 37
23 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 23
37 38 38 38 38 38 38 37
24 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 24
37 38 38 38 38 38 38 37
25 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 25
37 38 38 38 38 38 38 37
26 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 26
39 40 40 40 40 40 40 39
27 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 27

Figure 5.10 - Frame Element Property Types, Exterior Frame, Structure HEW
82
6
0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

CHNL USRL α2 β2 CHNL USRL
0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT
α5 β5 CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

CHNL USRL CHNL USRL RUN 1
R1
R2
RUN 2
Figure 6.1 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ
α 2 0.75
α2
0.75
CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT
0.50 0.50
CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT
CSRL CSRL
CSNL CSNL
CHRL CHRL
CHNL MF1
RUN 1 CHNL R1
RUN 1
MF2
RUN 2 R2
RUN 2
Figure 6.2 - FDE Clocks, Test Figure 6.3 - FDE Clocks, Test
Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run Structure MF1, Run 1 and Run
2, SAP 2000 2, PERFORM 3D
83
0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT
α5 β5 CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

R1
R2
RUN 2
Figure 6.4 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure MF2, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ
α 2 0.75
α2
0.75
CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT
0.50 0.50
CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT
CSRL CSRL
CSNL CSNL
CHRL CHRL
CHNL MF1
RUN 1 CHNL RUN 1
R1
MF2
RUN 2 R2
RUN 2
Structure MF2, Run 1 and Run Structure MF2, Run1 and Run
84
0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT
α5 β5 CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

R1
R2
RUN 2
Figure 6.7 - FDE Clocks, Test Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run 2, LARZ
α 2 0.75
α2
0.75
CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT
0.50 0.50
CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT
CSRL CSRL
CSNL CSNL
CHRL CHRL
CHNL RUN 1
MF1 CHNL RUN 1
R1
RUN 2
MF2 R2
RUN 2
Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run Structure FNW, Run 1 and Run
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
UHNT UHNT UHNT UHNT
UHRT UHRT UHRT UHRT
USNT USNT USNT USNT
USRT USRT USRT USRT
UHNL UHNL UHNL UHNL
UHRL UHRL UHRL UHRL

Stiffer
USNL USNL USNL USNL
USRL USRL USRL USRL
CHNT CHNT CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT CHRT CHRT

Softer
CSNT CSNT CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT CSRT CSRT
CHNL CHNL CHNL CHNL
CHRL CHRL CHRL CHRL
of Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW for Run 1, LARZ

CSNL CSNL CSNL CSNL
CSRL CSRL CSRL CSRL
β5
β2
α5
α2
Figure 6.10 - Ratios of Calculated-to-Measured Maximum Roof Displacement, Average

85
86
30
FDE = 22 CHRT ‐ α2
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
FDE = 21 CHRL ‐ α5
15
‐15
Displacement, mm
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
FDE = 16 UHRT ‐ β2
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
FDE = 20 UHRL ‐ β5
15
‐15
Measured Calculated
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.11 - Roof Displacement Histories, MF1 Run 1, LARZ

87
30
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
Displacement, mm
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
Measured Calculated
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s

88
30
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
Displacement, mm
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
15
‐15
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.13 - Roof Displacement Histories, FNW Run 1, LARZ

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
UHNT UHNT UHNT UHNT
UHRT UHRT UHRT UHRT
USNT USNT USNT USNT
USRT USRT USRT USRT
UHNL UHNL UHNL UHNL
UHRL UHRL UHRL UHRL

Stiffer
USNL USNL USNL USNL
USRL USRL USRL USRL
CHNT CHNT CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT CHRT CHRT

Softer
CSNT CSNT CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT CSRT CSRT
CHNL CHNL CHNL CHNL
CHRL CHRL CHRL CHRL
of Test Structures MF1, MF2, and FNW for Run 2, LARZ

CSNL CSNL CSNL CSNL
CSRL CSRL CSRL CSRL

α5
α2
β5
β2

89
90
60
Displacement, mm 40
20
0
‐20
‐40
Measured Calculated
‐60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
60
40
Displacement, mm
20
0
‐20
‐40
Measured Calculated
‐60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
60
40
Displacement, mm
20
0
‐20
‐40
Measured Calculated
‐60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.17 - Roof Displacement Histories, FNW Run 2, LARZ
91
20
Run 1: CHRT ‐ α2
10
‐10
Base Shear, kN
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20
Run 2: CHRL ‐ α2
10
‐10
Measured Calculated
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.18 - Base Shear Histories, MF1, LARZ
20
Run 1: CHRT ‐ α2
10
‐10
Base Shear, kN
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20
Run 2: CHRL ‐ α2
10
‐10
Measured Calculated
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.19 - Base Shear Histories, MF2, LARZ
92
20
Run 1: CHRT ‐ α2
10
‐10
Base Shear, kN
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20
Run 2: CHRL ‐ α2
10
‐10
Measured Calculated
‐20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.20 - Base Shear Histories, FNW, LARZ
30
20 Run 1: CHRT ‐ α2
10
0
Overturning Moment, kN - m
‐10
‐20
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
20 Run 2: CHRL ‐ α2
10
0
‐10
‐20
Measured Calculated
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.21 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF1, LARZ
93
30
10
0
‐10
‐20
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
10
0
‐10
‐20
Measured Calculated
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.22 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF2, LARZ
30
10
0
‐10
‐20
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
20 Run 2: CHRL ‐ α2
10
0
‐10
‐20
Measured Calculated
‐30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, s
Figure 6.23 - Overturning Moment Histories, FNW, LARZ
94
10 10
Measured
9 9 LARZ
SAP 2000
8 8
PERFORM 3D
7 7
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Mean Drift Ratio, % Story Drift Ratio, %

Figure 6.24 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, MF1 Run 1, Model
CHRT - α2
10 10
Measured
9 9 LARZ
SAP 2000
8 8
PERFORM 3D
7 7
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5

CHRL - α2
95
10 10
Measured
9 9 LARZ
SAP 2000
8 8
PERFORM 3D
7 7
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5

CHRT - α2
10 10
Measured
9 9 LARZ
SAP 2000
8 8
PERFORM 3D
7 7
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5

CHRL - α2
96
9 9
Measured
8 8 LARZ
SAP 2000
7 7 PERFORM 3D
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 6.28 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, FNW Run 1, Model
CHRT - α2
9 9
Measured
8 8 LARZ
SAP 2000
7 7 PERFORM 3D
6 6
5 5
Level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 6.29 - Mean Drift Ratio and Story Drift Ratio Envelopes, FNW Run 2, Model
CHRL - α2
97
0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

0.75 0.75
CHNT USRT
α5 β5 CHNT USRT
CHRT USNT CHRT USNT
0.50 0.50
CSNT UHRT CSNT UHRT
CSRT UHNT CSRT UHNT
CSRL UHNL CSRL UHNL
CSNL UHRL CSNL UHRL
CHRL USNL CHRL USNL

CHNL USRL CHNL USRL H…
HNS
H…
HEW
Figure 6.30 - FDE Clocks, Structure HNS and HEW, LARZ
α 2 0.75
α2 0.75
CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT
0.50 0.50
CSNT CSNT
CSRT CSRT
CSRL CSRL
CSNL CSNL
CHRL CHRL
CHNL HNS
S… CHNL H…
HNS
S…
HEW H…
HEW
Figure 6.31 - FDE Clocks, Figure 6.32 - FDE Clocks,

Structure HNS and HEW, SAP Structure HNS and HEW,
2000 PERFORM 3D
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
UHNT UHNT UHNT UHNT
UHRT UHRT UHRT UHRT
USNT USNT USNT USNT
USRT USRT USRT USRT
UHNL UHNL UHNL UHNL
UHRL UHRL UHRL UHRL

Stiffer
USNL USNL USNL USNL
USRL USRL USRL USRL
CHNT CHNT CHNT CHNT
CHRT CHRT CHRT CHRT

Softer
CSNT CSNT CSNT CSNT
of Holiday Inn HNS and HEW, LARZ

CSRT CSRT CSRT CSRT
CHNL CHNL CHNL CHNL
CHRL CHRL CHRL CHRL
CSNL CSNL CSNL CSNL
CSRL CSRL CSRL CSRL
β5
β2
α5
α2

98
99
300
FDE = 23 UHRT ‐ α2
150
‐150
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
150
‐150
Displacement, mm
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
150
‐150
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
150
‐150
Measured Calculated
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, s
Figure 6.34 - Roof Displacement Histories, HNS, LARZ

100
300
150
‐150
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
150
‐150
Displacement, mm
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
150
‐150
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
300
FDE =21 UHRT ‐ β5
150
‐150
‐300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, s
Figure 6.35 - Roof Displacement Histories, HEW, LARZ

101
Figure A.1 - FDE Representation
Figure A.2 - FDE Clock

102
LIST OF REFERENCES
ASCE (2003). “ASCE/SEI Standard 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,”

American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2005). “ASCE/SEI Standard 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute,
Reston, VA.
ASCE (2006). “ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,”

American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
Blume, J. A., and Associates, Engineers (1973). “Holiday Inn, 8244 Orion Avenue, Van
Nuys,” In San Fernando, California Earthquake of February 9, 1971, U.S Department of
Commerce, Washington, vol. 1, Part A, pp. 359–394.
CSI (2009). “SAP 2000: Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Structures”,
Nonlinear Version 14, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.
CSI (2006). “PERFORM 3D: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D
Structures”, Version 4, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.
Dowell, R. K., F. Seible, and E. L. Wilson (1998). “Pivot Hysteresis Model for
Reinforced Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, 95:5, pp. 607–617.
Dragovich, J., and A. Lepage (2009). “FDE index for goodness-of-fit between measured
and calculated response signals,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
38:15, pp. 1751-1758.
EERI (1995). “Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 Reconnaissance Report,”

Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Supplement C to vol.
11, 2 vols., Publication 95–03.
Giberson, M.F. (1969). “Two Nonlinear Beams with Definitions of Ductility”, Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, 95:2, pp. 137-157.
Healey, T.J. and M.A. Sozen (1978). “Experimental Study of the Dynamic Response of a
Ten-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame with a Tall First Story”, Structural Research
Series, No. 450, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
103
Hognestad, E. (1951). “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced

Concrete Members”, Bulletin Series, No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering
Experiment Station, Urbana, Illinois.
Lepage, A. (1997). “A Method for Drift-Control in Earthquake-Resistant Design of RC

Building Structures”, thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Lepage, A., S.A. Delgado, and J.J. Dragovich (2008). “Appropriate Models for Practical
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames”, The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Lopez, R.R. (1988). “A Numerical Model for Nonlinear Response of R/C Frame-Wall
Structures”, thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Mirza, S.A. and J.G. MacGregor (1979). “Variability of Mechanical Properties of

Reinforcing Bars”, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 105:5, pp. 921–937.
Moehle, J.P. and M.A. Sozen (1978). “Earthquake-Simulation Tests of a Ten-Story

Reinforced Concrete Frame with a Discontinued First-Level Beam”, Structural Research
Series, No. 451, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Moehle, J.P. and M.A. Sozen (1980). “Experiments to Study Earthquake Response of
R/C Structures with Stiffness Interruptions”, Structural Research Series, No. 482, Civil
Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Newmark, N.M. (1959). “A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics”, Journal

of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85:3, pp. 67-94.
Otani, S. (1975). “SAKE – A computer Program for Inelastic Response of R/C Frames to
Earthquake”, Structural Research Series, No. 413, Civil Engineering Studies, University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Otani, S. (1981). “Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response

Analysis,” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, 36:2, pp. 125 –
159.
Saiidi, M. and M.A. Sozen (1979). “Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic
Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Structural Research Series, No. 465, Civil
Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Sozen, M.A., S. Otani, P. Gulkan, and N.N. Nielsen (1969). “The University of Illinois
Earthquake Simulator”, Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Vol. 3, p. 136-150.
104
Takeda, T., M.A. Sozen, and N.N. Nielsen (1970). “Reinforced Concrete Response to
Simulated Earthquakes”, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 96:12, pp. 2557-
2573.
105
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
MICHAEL W. HOPPER
Michael Hopper was born on October 2nd, 1986 in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He

began attending Penn State University in the fall of 2004 as a candidate for a Bachelor of
Architectural Engineering degree. After being admitted into the Schreyer Honors
College, he enrolled in the integrated program, which allowed him to begin graduate
research and coursework in pursuit of a Master of Science degree. He is expected to
graduate in December of 2009 with an integrated B.A.E. degree with honors and a M.S.
degree.
In the summer of 2007, Michael worked as a summer intern at TRC Worldwide
Engineering in Allentown, Pennsylvania. His second internship was in the summer of
2008 with Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. located in New York City.
Throughout these structural engineering internships he was exposed to a wide variety of
projects including parking structures, mixed use facilities, educational buildings, and a
long-span stadium roof system.

Thesis - 11 30 2009

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

Thesis - 11 30 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR THE NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE

OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

© 2009 Michael W. Hopper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

This thesis aims to identify the optimal combination of hysteresis-modeling and

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... xii

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

1.1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 2

CHAPTER 2 ANALYTICAL TOOLS USED TO PERFORM NONLINEAR

2.1 LARZ ............................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 3 NONLINEAR MODELING PARAMETERS ..................................... 14

3.1 Initial Stiffness............................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 4 MULTISTORY TEST STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO

4.1 Test Structures MF1 and MF2 ....................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 5 SEVEN-STORY HOLIDAY INN BUILDING IN VAN NUYS,

5.1 Building Description ..................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .............................................................. 28

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 32

APPENDIX FREQUENCY DOMAIN ERROR INDEX........................................... 34

A.1 Combinations of Parameter Values ............................................................... 34

TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 37

FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 53

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 102

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................... 105

Table 3.1 - Viscous Damping Parameter, α and β Values ........................................... 38

Table 4.5 - Calculated First-Mode Periods of Vibration ............................................. 41

Table 5.3 - Holiday Inn Building Column Reinforcement .......................................... 44

Table 5.4 - Column Bar Arrangements, Holiday Inn Building.................................... 44

Table 5.5 - Yield Point Data, Structure HNS............................................................... 45

Table 5.6 - Yield Point Data, Structure HEW ............................................................. 46

Table 6.2 - Number of Nonlinear Analysis Cases Considered, Holiday Inn

Table A.1 - Summary of Parameters Considered ........................................................ 52

Figure 1.1 - Idealized Reinforced Concrete Frame ...................................................... 54

Figure 2.1 - One-Component Model............................................................................ 55

Figure 2.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship.............................................................. 55

Figure 2.3 - Moment-Rotation Relationship Including Bond-Slip Rotation ............... 56

Figure 2.5 - Bilinear Moment-Rotation Relationship in SAP 2000............................. 58

Figure 2.7 - Frame Compound Components Used in PERFORM 3D......................... 59

Figure 2.8 - Moment-Rotation Diagram for the Elastic Component in PERFORM

Figure 2.9 - Moment-Rotation Relationship of the Inelastic Component in

Figure 3.2 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Cracked Case (C)........................... 61

Figure 3.6 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Non-Reducing (N) Unloading

Figure 3.7 - Moment-Rotation Relationship with Reducing (R) Unloading

Figure 4.3 - Representative Reinforcement Details, After Moehle and Sozen

Figure 5.2 - Exterior Frames, North-South Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement

Figure 5.3 - Interior Frames, North-South Direction, Slab Reinforcement

Figure 5.4 - Exterior Frames, East-West Direction, T-Beam Reinforcement

Figure 5.5 - Interior Frames, East-West Direction, Slab Reinforcement

Figure 6.10 - Ratios of Calculated-to-Measured Maximum Roof Displacement,

Figure 6.14 - Ratios of Calculated-to-Measured Maximum Roof Displacement,

Figure 6.18 - Base Shear Histories, MF1, LARZ ........................................................ 91

Figure 6.19 - Base Shear Histories, MF2, LARZ ........................................................ 91

Figure 6.20 - Base Shear Histories, FNW, LARZ ....................................................... 92

Figure 6.21 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF1, LARZ ........................................ 92

Figure 6.22 - Overturning Moment Histories, MF2, LARZ ........................................ 93

Figure 6.23 - Overturning Moment Histories, FNW, LARZ ....................................... 93

Figure 6.33 - Ratios of Calculated-to-Measured Maximum Roof Displacement,

Figure 6.34 - Roof Displacement Histories, HNS, LARZ ........................................... 99