MODULUS | September 2020

Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

The Effect of Wind Loads on the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings in Sri
Lanka and Thailand
S. Thilakarathnaa, S. Fernandoa, N. Anwarb

Abstract
Due to the rapid increment of population in major cities around the world, the concept of vertical city is currently
emerging to develop sufficient infrastructure facilities. The role of a tall building is to provide sustainable
residential/office space to vertical community. Designing a safer city with skyscrapers, depends on safety of non-
structural and structural components of tall buildings ensured by efficient structural design against wind and
earthquake loadings that are the two major types of lateral dynamic excitations experienced by buildings. A 40-story
dual system building (Building “A”) and a 45-story each, two tower residential building (Building “B”) have been
evaluated in the present study. The first building will be located in Bangkok. A combined reinforced concrete core
wall and a special moment resisting frame are incorporated to resist the lateral force developed by wind and
earthquake loading conditions. Moderate seismic hazard level and three different levels of wind speeds (i.e. low,
moderate and high) are adapted to represent the different wind zones globally. Three building models are designed
according to a given wind hazard level combined with seismic demand. The second building is in Colombo, which is
categorized as moderate wind zone and low to moderate seismic zone. Research into historic events has shown that
significant seismic activities had occurred in the past in Sri Lanka. Thus, it is important to evaluate the capacity of a
building for moderate seismic conditions as presented in this paper for the selected two tower residential buildings.
The detailed seismic performance evaluation is then preceded using the Nonlinear Response History Analysis
(NLRHA) procedure and the true inelastic seismic demands of all building cases is estimated. The results of the
analysis indicate that the wind level can significantly affect the seismic performance of the building. Thus, it can be
concluded that, the overall structural integrity and safety of a building can be ensured by the performance-based
seismic evaluation procedure, even though the wind demand primarily controls the lateral load resisting system of
tall buildings. The performance-based seismic evaluation is also equally important to identify the structural elements
that required additional ductility to satisfy earthquake demands, though the structure was designed for critical wind
load conditions. This kind of study waives away the need of future retrofitting work and undue expenses.
Keywords: wind loading, performance-based seismic evaluation, high-rise buildings.

1. Introduction employed, the wind demands can be higher than the

Tall buildings are dominating the image of urban
communities around the metropolitan areas due to their
economic advantages and sustainability considerations.
With large height and slenderness, seismic and wind
loads become the critical consideration in designing
high-rise buildings. An ideal structural system for wind
design can be described as a solid, heavy system with
strong connections which helps to resist loads as the
wind blows across and over the structure (Aly and
Srinivasa, 2015 [1]). On the other hand, when seismic
load is applied to the building, it experiences cyclic
loading as the building’s inertia responds to the ground
movement. Therefore, the building is designed to
efficiently dissipate the seismic energy through
damping and yielding of the structural components. In
strong wind terrain, when traditional design codes are
S. Thilakarathnaa, S. Fernandoa, N. Anwarb
aCivil and Structural Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd
bStructural Engineering, School of Engineering and
Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
seismic design demands, and therefore, can control the
design. However, studies have shown that the true
nonlinear seismic demands can be significantly higher
than those predicted by the code-based Response
Spectrum Analysis (RSA). The outcomes may invoke
the need of seismic performance evaluation of
buildings originally designed for wind.
2. Literature Review
This integrated approach to assess the structural
performance for both types of loadings has been
investigated by various researchers. Adam and Suradi
(2008) [2] studied the performance of wind-designed
RC buildings in Malaysia against the earthquake loads.
The buildings were originally designed for wind with a
design speed of 30 m/s to 40 m/s using the static
analysis procedure. However, the detailed results show
that these buildings were unable to perform well under
lateral loads even at low seismic intensities. More

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 11

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

recently, Ali and Abburu (2015) [3] conducted a full

dynamic case study to observe the behavior of high-
rise buildings against earthquake and wind loads while
assessing the basic difference between seismic and
wind demands.
Two tall buildings (76- and 54-story) were
examined against seismic and wind hazard using the
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) and
wind tunnel test, respectively. It was reported that the
high-rise buildings designed for high wind were safe
against moderate-level earthquake forces. Hoang
(2011) [4] analyzed a 40-story RCcore wall building
located in Hanoi, Vietnam designed according to
ASCE 7-02 and UBC 97 codes for low to moderate
seismic levels. The detailed NLRHA procedure was
conducted for the maximum considered earthquake
(MCE). It was observed that the true seismic demands
computed by the NLRHA procedure were higher than (a) Building “A” (b) Building “B”
both the wind and seismic demands computed by the
code-based methods.
Figure 1: .Etabs Building models of Building A and B
A building system that has multiple towers on a
common podium is significantly impacted by the
interactions between the towers (Xiaoxuan& Shuang,
The Building “B” consists with two residential
1996 [5]). Therefore, two towers and podium should be towers. Reinforced concrete central core located in the
modelled in same finite element model to capture middle in each tower will provide vertical
interactions between the towers and, towers and the transportation, stairs and MEP services. The central
podium. This approached has been implemented for the core system is expected to be theprimary element
Building “B” in this study. providing Lateral Load Resisting Structural System
(LLRSS). Podium levels proposed up to Level 7 are
allocated for parking thus, a reinforced concrete
3. Methodology column – beam structural frame is proposed up to the
3.1 Description of the Buildings Level 9; where residential floors begin. A transfer
floor is proposed at level 9 and from there onwards
The first case study building (Building “A”) is a reinforced concrete walls are proposed to support all
40-story RC core wall building and it is expected to be the apartment floors located above Level 9.
positioned in Bangkok which is reported as a moderate Reinforced concrete flat slab system with perimeter
seismic and wind hazard area.Fig.1(a) shows the Etabs beams is proposed for typical apartment floors to resist
model of the Building “A”. It is designed separately gravity loads.
against three levels of wind load i.e. low, moderate and
high with moderate seismic load. The lateral load 3.2 The Wind and Seismic Loadings
resisting system mainly comprises of a central RC core
The seismic demands of the case study buildings
wall and the moment resisting frame. The gravity load
were determined using the standard RSA procedure for
carrying system includes a slab and beam system
DBE-level response spectrum which is generally
which rests on peripheral columns and on the central
defined in seismic evaluation guidelines as the
core.
earthquake with 10% probability of exceedance in 50
The second building (Building “B”), proposed years (500-year return period). The performance
forty-five storied residential high rise twin towers has objective for this level is that the structure should
been selected to determine the wind effect on the ensure life safety. For the Building “A”, the design
building located in moderate seismic region. The spectrum (5% damped) and other seismic design
selected case study building is situated in Colombo parameters for Bangkok were obtained from Thailand
which is reported as a low to moderate seismic and seismic standard (DPT 1302). The ASCE 7-10 was
moderate wind hazard region. Fig.1 (b) represent Etabs used as the main design code for the RSA analysis. For
model of the building. the Building “B”, Colombo response spectrum was
obtained from the book of Numerical Simulation of

12 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Earthquake Induced Ground Motion in Sri Lanka a representing at least 90 percent of the cumulative
Finite Difference Approach [6]. The AS-1170 was used participating mass of the building were considered.
as the main design code for the RSA and wind The elastic responses of all significant vibration modes
analysis. Finally, the detailed NLRHA procedure was were obtained and combined into the total responses by
performed to evaluate the seismic performance using a the SRSS method. Then, the combined force demands
set of ground motion records scaled to Maximum are reduced by the response modification factor (R) to
Considered Earthquake (MCE) levels spectrum. The obtain the seismic design demands. The R factor of 6
MCE-level earthquake is usually defined as the was selected according to the classification of “dual
earthquake with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 system with special moment frame” in ASCE 7-10 and
years (2500-year return period). In order to satisfy the 2.6 was selected according to the classification of
performance objective for this hazard level, the “Concrete Structures – Limited ductile shear walls” in
structure should not collapse, however it may undergo AS 1170 for Building “A” and Building “B”
a certain acceptable level of damage. respectively. The design base shear demand obtained
from the RSA procedure should not be less than 90
Three wind design parameters for Building “A” as percent of the design base shear determined by the
low, moderate and high levels; 20 m/s, 40m/s and 55 equivalent static force procedure. The RSA results
m/s (3 second gust speed in 50-year return period) were scaled as per this condition. Both the global and
respectively were obtained as described by Holmes [7]. local responses were obtained from the linear elastic
According to the Thailand’s DPT 1302 standards, analysis. The case study structures were checked for
Bangkok has a mean wind speed of 38 m/s (25 m/s the allowable displacement and drift limits against both
hourly mean) which also closer to the selected wind wind and seismic force. Moreover, base shear, story
speed for moderate level. The estimation of gust shear and overturning moment values were also
response factor was carried out according to ASCE 7- obtained.
10. For the Building “B”, basic wind speed of 38 m/s
(3 second gust speed in 50-year return period) which is
the recommended value for calculating wind loads for
post disaster conditions in non- cyclonic regions in Sri
Lanka was considered for the design [8].
The structural members were designed based on
the maximum demands obtained considering site
specific lateral loading due to wind and earthquake
loads along with vertical gravity loads. American
stand was used for Building “A” and Australian
Standard (AS) was used for Building “B” to obtain
lateral loads.
3.3 Selection of the Ground Motion Records
The ground motions matching with the specific
site conditions are selected from the PEER NGA Figure 2: Spectrum matched ground motion records for
databases [9]. The MCE response spectrum is Bangkok
calculated to be 1.5 times the 5%-damped DBE
response spectrum and all the ground motion records
were spectrally matched (Hancock et al., 2006 [10]) to
this target response spectrum. Fig.2 and Fig.3show the
spectra of selected ground motion records which were
matched to 1.5 times the DBE-level of response
spectrum for Bangkok and Colombo respectively.
3.4 Linear modeling considerations
A linear elastic 3D finite element model was
created and analyzed using ETABS 2015. The modal
properties (natural periods, mode shapes, and modal
mass participation factors) of all significant vibration
modes were obtained in each principal horizontal Figure 3: Spectrum matched ground motion records for
direction (X and Y). The number of significant modes Colombo

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 13

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

3.5 The Nonlinear Modeling Considerations were defined as the actions in which failure mode
posed severe consequences to structural stability under
For the nonlinear evaluation purpose, considering gravity and/or lateral loads. For this purpose, 1.5 times
shear wall flexure, all the piers are considered. All the the mean value of demand from seven sets of ground
coupling beams and link beams and the major columns motions was used. The capacity was calculated using
have been considered for the evaluation. Table 1 expected material strength and strength reduction
illustrates Nonlinear and Linear components of above factor of 1. Table 2 shows the acceptance criterion used
mentioned buildings. Considering the detailed in this study.
NLRHA procedure, the full nonlinear 3D models were
created in PERFORM 3D (CSI, 2011 [11]). Fig.4
shows the summary of nonlinear modeling approaches Table 2: The acceptance criteria for MCE level
used for each type of structural component.
Item Value
Peak Maximum of mean values shall
Table 1: Nonlinear and Linear Components of not exceed 3%. Maximum drift
transient drift
Buildings shall not exceed 4.5%.
Components Building “A” Building “B” Residual Maximum of mean values shall
RC Shear Nonlinear (Fiber) Nonlinear (Fiber) drift not exceed 1%. Maximum drift
wall shall not exceed 1.5%.
Columns Nonlinear (Fiber) Nonlinear (Fiber) Coupling & ≤0.025 radian for collapse
Link beam prevention performance level
Coupling Moment/Shear Moment/Shear
Rotation ASCE 41-13 Limits
Beams Hinge Hinge
Column ≤0.01 radian for collapse
Link Beams - Moment/Shear
rotation prevention performance level
Hinge
ASCE 41-13 Limits
Beams Moment/Shear Linear
Shear wall ≤0.02 in tension and ≤0.04 in
(Girders) Hinge
axial strain compression
Basement - Linear
Walls
Slabs Linear Linear 4. Analysis Results of Building “A”
4.1 Linear Analysis Results - Global
Three building models were considered for the
Stiffness properties were obtained from
linear analysis and reinforcement design in Building
LATBSDC [12] for different types of analyses.
“A”. Fig.5 shows the typical building floor plan for
Nonlinear fibre elements automatically account for
Building “A” and the elements that are used to
cracking of concrete because the concrete fibres have
represent results in this paper.
zero tension stiffness. So, stiffness modifiers were not
used for shear walls. In fibre element modeling, an Model 01 - Moderate-level seismic and high-level
adequate amount of concrete and steel fibres were used wind load
to capture the realistic strain distribution across the Model 02 - Moderate-level seismic and wind load
members’ cross-sections. The stress-strain relationship Model 03 - Moderate-level seismic and low-level wind
for nonlinear materials were assigned to each fibre. load
The steel fibres were modeled using the Park’s model, After the design, the three-corresponding
while concrete was modeled using the Mander’s model nonlinear structural models were developed for
[13]. detailed performance evaluation and analyzed
separately for Building “A” and separate nonlinear
3.6 Acceptance Criteria
model for Building “B”. First, second and third
For the deformation-controlled actions, the vibration modes are translational in X direction,
deformation capacities were calculated using the translational in Y direction and the torsion,
expected material properties and strength reduction respectively. The story shear forces for both wind and
factor of 1.0. The results were checked for mean value earthquake (RSA) are shown in the Fig.6 (a) for all
of demand from seven sets of ground motion records. three building models in both X and Y directions.
For the force-controlled actions, the critical actions

14 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Figure 4: The nonlinear modeling of structural components

For each model, it can be seen that the story shear

for wind in its X axis is higher than the Y axis. Story
shear for wind tends to gradually decrease when the
wind level is decreasing. In the building model 02, the
story shear for earthquake surpasses the story shear for
wind approximately beyond the story level 30 and 25
in X axis and Y axis, respectively. Fig.6 (b) represents
base shear comparison for wind and seismic loads.

(a) Story shear comparison

G1
G2

G3 G4

G5 G6

(b) Base shear comparison

Figure 5: Typical floor plan and selected elements in
Building “A”
Figure 6: (a) Story shear and (b) Base shear
comparison for wind and Seismic

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 15

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Fig.7 shows the distributions of story moment
about Y and X axis which tend to follow the same
pattern as the story shear. However, the story moment
for earthquake surpasses the story moment for
moderate wind approximately beyond the level 25 and
15 about Y and X axis, respectively.
which the flexural D/C ratio of wind combo exceeds
the flexural D/C ratio of RSA combo and vice versa
depending on the column position. In the building
model 02, it is generally seen that up to story level 20,
the flexural D/C ratio of wind combo significantly
exceeds the flexural D/C ratio of RSA combo and
beyond that level both of them are almost the same.
Same trend can be seen in the shear demand capacity
ratio (Fig.8 (b)).

Figure 7: Story Moments in X and Y

directions Model 01 Model 02 Model 03

(a) Flexure D/C ratio

Story drift and displacement demands for the wind
and RSA in both X and Y axes with allowable (Allow)
limits on the three building models are presented in the
Table 3. Both story drift and displacement in the X axis
is greater than the Y axis and they are gradually
decreasing with the decreasing wind level. However,
both story drift and displacement stay within the
allowable limit.

Table 3: Displacement and drift values for wind Model 01 Model 02 Model 03
and earthquake (b) Shear D/C ratios
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Wind Drift Wind RSA Drift Figure 8: The distribution of (a) flexural and (b)
(Allow. Displacement (Allow2%)
Model
0.4%) (Allow.
shear D/C ratios with story level in column C3
320mm)
X Y X Y X Y The flexural demand-to-capacity (D/C) ratios of
Model 0.21 0.12 211 120 0.16 0.12 the TOP C pier (Core wall) is presented in Fig.9 (a). In
01
all the piers in the building model 03, the flexural D/C
Model 0.16 0.08 133 75 0.16 0.12
ratio is completely governed by the RSA load
02
Model 0.02 0.02 25 14 0.16 0.12 combinations in each story level. In the building model
03 02, in most of the piers, up to story level 10, it is
governed by the wind load combinations and then RSA
demands exceeds the wind demands. In the building
4.2 Linear Analysis Results – Local (Elements) model 01, in almost every pier, up to story level 20, it
is governed by the wind load combinations and then
It is apparent that in building model 01, the
the flexural D/C ratio for RSA and wind becomes
flexural D/C ratio is much higher for wind combo for
almost the same up to the roof level. The shear D/C
all the considered columns and in building model 03
ratios also show a similar pattern as the flexure D/C
the ratio is slightly higher for RSA combo (Fig.8(a)).
ratios (Fig.9. (b)).
However, there are slight variations in the amount

16 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

models are not varying much along the X axis,

however, they are varying reasonably along the Y axis.
Similarly, the average story moment of seven
ground motions for nonlinear model 01, 02 and 03 are
compared with corresponding values from the linear
model (Fig.12). In this case, a reasonable difference
can be seen in the story moment about X axis.

Model 01 Model 02 Model 03

(a) Flexure D/C ratio

Model 01 Model 02 Model 03

(a) Flexure D/C ratio

Model 01 Model 02 Model 03

(b) Shear D/C ratios

Figure 9: The distribution of (a) flexural and (b)

shear D/C ratios with story level in the pier TOP C

In the building model 03, the flexural D/C ratio is

completely governed by the RSA load combinations in
all coupling beams. In the building model 01 it is Model 01 Model 02 Model 03
mostly governed by the wind load combinations with
an exception of the uppermost stories (above level 30) (b) Shear D/C ratios
where D/C ratio of RSA load combinations slightly Figure 10: The distribution of (a) flexural and (b)
exceeds the D/C ratio of wind load. In the building shear D/C ratios with story level in Coupling
model 02, the flexural D/C ratio is governed by the Beam B1
wind load combinations up to the story level 25, and
beyond that it is governed by the RSA load and beyond
that it is governed by the RSA load combinations.
Fig.10 (a) shows the flexure D/C ratio for coupling
beam B1. In each building model, the shear D/C ratio
for both wind and RSA combo in each coupling beam
is showing a similar trend as the flexural D/C ratio
(Fig.10 (b)).
4.3 Nonlinear analysis results
Fig.11 shows the story shear demand obtained from
the NLRHA procedure. In order to evaluate the degree
of nonlinearity, a linear response history analysis
(LRHA) was also performed using the linear elastic
model.The average story shear obtained from seven
ground motion for three building models were Figure 11: The comparison of story shear in linear
compared with the corresponding linear story shears. and nonlinear models
Story shear in the linear model and the three nonlinear

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 17

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Figure 13: The overall energy dissipation for three

building models

Figure 12: The comparison of story moment in Table 5: Energy dissipation comparison
linear and nonlinear models
Percentage of Energy
Dissipation
Table 4 presents the maximum average residual Element Type
drift, transient drift and displacement for seven ground Model Model Model
motions in nonlinear models 01, 02 and 03. The values 01 02 03
are found to remain within the acceptable limits. Column 0.14% 0.08% 0.05%
Shear wall 0.30% 0.22% 0.44%
Table 4: Residual Drift, Transient Drift and Beam 0.77% 0.77% 2.08%
Displacement Comparison Coupling 98.79% 98.93% 97.44%
beam
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Residual Transient Displacement
The average column rotation for three nonlinear
Model Drift Drift
models is shown in Fig.14. The values were examined
(Allow (Allow
against the collapse prevention (CP) limit (lowest limit
1.0%) 3.0%)
among three column sections is 0.01) and found to be
X Y X Y X Y staying within the limits in each column in each model.
Model 0.27 0.17 0.73 0.67 729 566 It can be seen that the columns in model 01 have more
01 rotation than others towards the top of the building
Model 0.23 0.23 0.69 0.59 689 484 (above 20th floor). However, in lower stories, all three
02 models exhibit the same column rotation.
Model 0.23 0.21 0.71 0.56 696 479
03

The amount of average energy dissipation from all

ground motions is also evaluated for the purpose of
comparison. All the nonlinear results can be interpreted
in terms of energy dissipation of the elements. Since
Model 01 is dissipating less energy, it has less overall
damage when compared with other two models. Fig.13
shows the overall energy dissipation in three models.
Table 5 shows comparison of energy dissipated by
individual structural components. The dissipated
energy in columns is higher in model 01 and similarly,
a higher rotation in columns can be seen in the model
01. Likewise, all the nonlinear results can be
Figure 14: The comparison of column rotation in
interpreted in terms of energy dissipation of the
three models
elements.

18 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

The average axial strain values are examined
against the limit and it was found that in some
locations (G1, G2, G5 and G6), this limit is exceeded
in all the building models while in others (G3 and G4),
the average stays within the limit. The comparison of
axial strains for three models in G3 and G2 locations
are shown in the Fig.15. The highest axial strain value
at the bottom can be seen in the model 03.
5. Analysis Results of Building “B”
5.1 Linear Analysis Results
The first and second vibration modes were
translation in X-direction and Y-direction respectively,
while the third mode was in torsion. It was found that
the higher vibration modes were significant in the
seismic response of the building. Fig.17 shows modal
results for linear and nonlinear building models.

Figure 15: The comparison of axial strain in three

models

The average values rotations in coupling beams

are examined against the limit of 0.5 and it was found
that none of the beams exceed this limit in each model.
Fig.16 shows the average rotation in coupling beams in
three models. As an overall observation, the model 02
shows more rotation than other two models. However, Figure 17: Modal results for linear and nonlinear
beam the B3 shows more rotation in model 01 at the model
upper half of the building than others.
Story displacement, drifts, shear and moment are
obtained along the height of the building against wind
and earthquakes loads. Table 6 shows maximum
deflection and base shear and base moment for wind
load. Table 7 represents maximum drift, base shear
and base moment of two towers against RSA
earthquake load.

Table 6: Deflection, base shear and Base moment

against wind
Maximum Base Shear Base Moment
Wind (kN) (kNm x 103)
Tower Displacement
(Tw) (Allow.
328mm)
Figure 16: The comparison of average rotations in X Y X Y X Y
coupling beam in models Tower 01 72 72 5355 5785 906 949
Tower 02 83 71 5695 4995 923 895

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 19

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Table 7: Drift, Base shear and base moment Base shear and overturning moment values are in
against RSA table 9. Fig.20 and Fig.21 represent maximum story
shear and story moment graphs. Tower 01 shows
Maximum Base Shear Base maximum base shear and moment value.
RSA Drift (kN) Moment
Tower (Allowable (kNm x
0.5%) 103) Table 9: Base shear and moment comparison

X Y X Y X Y Maximum Average Maximum

Tower 01 0.33 0.34 3683 3420 243 229 Base Shear x Average Story
Tower 02 0.38 0.33 3043 3321 185 215 Tower 103kN Moment x
105kNm

5.2 Nonlinear Analysis Results X Y X Y

Tower 01 43.48 27.08 29.78 24.62
Story displacements and drifts were checked along Tower 02 40.86 36.54 27.34 25.24
the height of the building against MCE earthquakes.
Table 8 represent the deflection transient drift, residual
drift values against MCE level earthquake and Fig.18
and Fig.19 show maximum value among two towers
(Tw).

Table 8: Residual Drift, Transient Drift and

Displacement Comparison between two towers
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Residual Transient Displacement
Tower Drift (Allow Drift (mm)
1.0%) (Allow
3.0%)
X Y X Y X Y
Tower 01 0.10 0.11 0.45 0.48 453 487
Tower 02 0.99 0.13 0.42 0.52 422 651
Figure 20: Story shear Figure 21: Story Moment
Tw 01 X Dir Tw 01X Dir

Average compressive and tensile strains at the

corners of shear walls shown in Fig.22 were checked
under MCE level earthquakes. Compressive strain of
concrete is limited to 0.004 while tensile strain in steel
is limited to 0.05. In the plots, yielding strain of steel
(0.002) is shown to check the flexural yielding of the
wall. The Fig.23 shows the two maximum axial strains
among 34 locations. Table 10 represents maximum
strain values in tower 01 and 02.

Figure 18: Max. Drift in Tw Figure 19: Residual drift in

02 Y Dir Tw01 Y Dir

20 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

link beam rotation values. Fig.25 shows maximum

rotation at B5 beam.

Figure 22: Shear wall strain IDs and locations

Tower 01_G4 Tower 02_G5

Figure 24: Link and Coupling beam IDs and locations

Table 11: Link beam rotation values in tower 01

and 02
Location Maximum “IO”
Rotation (rad) Limit(rad)
B1 0.0033 0.005
Tw 2

B2 0.0012 0.005
B3 0.0023 0.005
B4 0.0015 0.005
Tw 1

B5 0.0035 0.005
B6 0.0018 0.005
Figure 23: Maximum strain at G4 Tower 01 and G5
Tower 02

Table 10: Maximum Strain Values in tower 01

and 02
Location Compressive Strain Tensile Strain
(x 10-3) (x 10-3)
G4 1.02 1.65
Tw 1

G5 1.05 1.02
G14 1.01 1.02
G2 1.01 0.52
Tw 2

G5 1.18 1.07
G14 1.24 0.59

Rotation of link beams and coupling beams were

checked under MCE level earthquakes. In each story,
the link beam and coupling beam rotations were not to
exceed 0.025 rad in collapse prevention performance
level. Following figures show the immediate Figure 25: Maximum Link Beam Rotation in
occupancy (IO) level performance limit as 0.005 rad to Tower 01 and 02
present results in comparable level. Fig.24 represents
coupling and link beams locations. Table 11 indicates

SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA 21

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03 ENGINEERS’ FORUM

Table 12 shows coupling beam rotation values and

Fig.26 represent maximum rotation among all the
coupling beams in tower 01 and tower 02.

Table 12: Coupling beam rotations values in tower

01 and 02
Location Maximum Rotation “IO” Limit(rad)
(rad)
CB1 - 0.005
CB2 0.0035 0.005
Tw 2

CB3 0.0040 0.005

CB4 - 0.005 Figure 27: Column locations and IDs
CB5 0.0015 0.005
CB6 - 0.005
Tw 1

CB7 0.0015 0.005

Table 13: Maximum column rotation
CB8 - 0.005
Location Maximum “IO”
Rotation Limit
(rad) (rad)
C2 0.0018 0.004
C3 0.0014 0.004
Tw 2

C5 0.0017 0.004
C7 0.0020 0.004
C14 0.0010 0.004
C16 0.0022 0.004
Tw 1

C18 0.0025 0.004

C22 0.0038 0.004

Figure 26: Maximum Coupling Beam Rotation in

Tower 01 and 02

Rotations of columns were checked under MCE

level earthquakes. Up to transfer level, the column
rotations were not exceeding 0.01 rad in collapse
prevention (CP) performance level. Following figures
show the immediate occupancy (IC) performance level
limit as 0.004 rad. Fig.27 represent column locations
and IDs. Table 13 indicates maximum column rotation Figure 28: Maximum Coupling Beam Rotation in Tower 01
in tower 01 and tower 02. Fig.28 shows maximum and 02
rotation at C7 at tower 01 and C22 at tower 02.

22 SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA

 MODULUS | September 2020
Vol. 30 | No. 03
6. Conclusion
The first study compares the seismic performance
of a 40-story high-rise building designed based on
different levels of lateral wind loads. It is shown that
the true nonlinear seismic demands obtained from the
detailed NLRHA procedure at the MCE-level seismic
hazard are higher than those of both the wind and
seismic demand determined by the RSA procedure.
Model 02 which is the combination of moderate wind
and moderate seismic shows the seismic effect on the
wind design significantly. Hence, if the designers
solely depend on the wind demand when designing a
structure for a moderate seismic hazard region that will
lead for an unsafe design. This shows that the level of
design wind load can alter the seismic performance of
high-rise dual system buildings.
According to the first case study results, it reveals
that moderate hazard zones such as Colombo city, the
Capital of Sri Lanka which is considered as moderate
wind and seismic zone should be prioritized with
special attention in reinforcement designing. Building
“B” which consist of a 45-story each two-tower
residential building originally designed for wind force
which is the governing lateral load has been evaluated
for the true seismic performance. Considering the
nonlinear behavior of the elements, it was noted that
the collapse prevention limit was not exceeded.
However, the true seismic demand which is obtained
from the NLRHA at MCE level is expressively higher
than that of both the wind and seismic demand
determined by code based method. This shows that the
level of design wind load can alter the seismic
performance of high-rise buildings. Therefore, even for
the cases where the wind demands control the design of
lateral load-resisting system, the detailed performance-
based seismic evaluation should be carried out to
ensure the overall structural safety and integrity.
SOCIETY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SRI LANKA
ENGINEERS’ FORUM
7. References
[1] Aly, A. M., and Abburu, S., “On the Design of
High-Rise Buildings for Multihazard:
Fundamental Differences between Wind and
Earthquake Demand". Shock and Vibration, Vol.
2015, Article ID 148681.
[2] Adnan, A., and Suradi, S., “Comparison on the
effect of earthquake and wind loads on the
performance of reinforced concrete buildings”,
14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 2008.
[3] Aly, A. M., &Abburu, S., “Design of buildings for
wind and earthquake”, Proceedings of the World
Congress on Advances in Civil, Environmental,
and Materials Research, ACEM’14, 2014.
[4] Thai Hoang, “Effect of the wind resistant design
on the seismic design of high-rise buildings with
RC core walls in low to moderate seismicity
regions”, Master Thesis, Structural Engineering,
Asian Institute of Technology, 2011.
[5] Xiaoxuan, Q., & Shuang, S., “Dynamic behavior
and seismic design of structural systemshaving
multiple high-rise towers on a common podium”,
11th World Conference onEarthquake
Engineering, 1996.
[6] Shyanaka Dananjaya, “Numerical Simulation of
Earthquake Induced Ground Motion in Sri Lanka
a Finite Difference Approach”, 2016.
[7] Holmes, John D. Wind loading of structures. CRC
press, 2015.
[8] Sri Lankan Ministry of Local Government Housing
and Construction, “Design of Buildings for High
Winds”, 1980.
[9] http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/, Visited 13th August
2017.
23