International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)

National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

25-26 April 2011

Case Studies for Performance Based Design Review of Tall Buildings

Naveed Anwar, Ph.D.

Executive Director, AIT Consulting

Asian Institute of Technology Thailand
nanwar@ait.asia

Abstract

The performance of structures especially of buildings during strong earthquakes is a matter of great
concern, both in terms of structural damage and public safety. The traditional methods of structural design
specified in building codes are mostly prescriptive and implicit in nature. There is a general acceptance in the
structural engineering profession that such prescriptive and implicit design need to be evaluated and augmented
by more explicit and reliable methods that can determine the performance of specific structures for particular
seismic hazards and compared against well defined and measurable objectives. This paper presents the overview
of performance based design procedures including pushover methods and full nonlinear time history analysis
approaches applicable to tall buildings. The paper also presents several case studies in which the seismic
performance has been evaluated using site specific ground motion and nonlinear time history analysis both for
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE). Some of performance evaluation is
for existing buildings and some as part of the process for design of new buildings. Most of the buildings are
located in the Philippines and are in the range of 19 to 70 storeys in height.

Keywords: Seismic hazard; Non linear time history analysis; Design Basis Earthquake (DBE); Maximum
Credible Earthquake (MCE); Performance evaluation.

1. Introduction

The traditional codes are developed for low and medium rise buildings whose responses are
typically dominated by first translational mode. These codes use the global force reduction factors
which cannot predict accurately for the structures with significant inelastic response, especially in tall
buildings. Furthermore, the traditional codes attempt to satisfy implicitly the performance objectives
whereas the performance based design explicitly mentions in such a way that the design satisfies the
performance objectives for different levels of earthquakes.

Performance Based Design as a logical design process is one of popular tools to give a solution
to achieve a specified performance. This paper presents the performance based design review of
constructed medium-rise and tall buildings. Evaluation is carried out to evaluate the structural
performance of the buildings in such a way that whether the overall performance and reliability of the
buildings will satisfy the public safety under the effects of gravity and lateral loadings based on the
provided design information.

The structures that are evaluated in this paper include a constructed irregular 19-story residential
building comprising of three towers (19-, 14- and 7-story), a 50-story residential tower (about 166.8
1
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

meters above the ground level) including 3½-story of below grade parking (extending approximately
13 m below the grade) and a 70-story residential building of 242 m total height.. Nonlinear time
history analysis is conducted using the information of the actual provided reinforcement, to determine
the expected actual response of the building and its main structural components against the potential
hazard which is likely to occur once in the life time of the structure.

2. Performance Design Basis

2.1 Performance evaluation criteria

Seismic performance evaluation ensures that during a defined earthquake, no damage beyond the
acceptable limits occurs in any part of the structure. A performance level describes a limiting damage
condition which may be considered satisfactory for a given building or part of the building for a given
ground motion. The limiting condition is described by the physical damage within the structure, the
threat to life safety of the building’s occupants created by the damage, and the post-earthquake
serviceability and repair of the building. Structural performance levels include Immediate Occupancy
(IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP) as discrete damage states and used directly in
evaluation.

2.2 Design basis

The building is designed using the linear elastic design for the DBE response spectrum and is
checked at three level of earthquake demands; service/frequent earthquake, DBE and MCE. The
definition of the three level of earthquake and their performance objectives is given in Table 1.
The overall building response and the structural components shall fulfill the “Life Safety”
performance level at DBE level and “Collapse Prevention” performance level at MCE level. To meet
these limits at the considered earthquake level forces, the acceptance criteria shown in the Table 2
shall be met.

For actions classified as ductile, the strength shall be calculated using expected material
properties (which are typically higher than the design values) and a strength reduction factor of 1.0.
For actions classified as brittle, the strength shall be calculated using expected material properties and
a strength reduction factor as specified in the code ACI 318-05 [1]. This capacity should exceed the
1.3 times the average demand from the seven time history records.

Table 1: Performance objective

Level of Earthquake Performance Objective
Frequent: 50% probability of exceedance in 30 years Serviceability: Structure to remain essentially
(43-year return period) elastic with minor damage to structural and non-
structural elements
DBE: 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (475- Code Level: Moderate structural damage; extensive
year return period) repairs may be required
MCE: 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years(2475- Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural damage;
year return period) repairs are required and may not be economically
feasible

Table 2: Performance Acceptance Criteria

Expected
Element Action Type Classification Acceptance Limit
Behaviour
Girders Plastic hinge Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit [2]
rotation
Beam Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Columns Axial-Flexural Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit [2]
interaction
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Shear Axial-Flexural Ductile Nonlinear Tensile strain in rebar rotation ≤ 0.050
Walls interaction Compressive strain in concrete ≤ 0.004
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
2
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

3. Ground Motions

Seven site specific ground motion records are used to evaluate the performance of the
buildings against the desired level of earthquake which is given in Table 3. The ground motions are
scaled appropriately for the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) demand level with an approximate return
period of 475 years (ten-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) at which the performance is
evaluated.

Table 3: Ground Motions

Name of Ground Motions Duration (sec) PGA (g)
ARC 30.00 0.36
CHY 120.98 0.26
DAY 23.82 0.39
ERZ 20.78 0.34
LCN 48.12 0.40
TAB 32.82 0.38
ROS 30.27 0.44

4. Acceptance Criteria

Detailed local acceptance criteria is considered for structural and non structural elements in
performance based design which indicates element-by-element checking rather than overall system R
factor such as is used in the conventional design of new buildings. Acceptance criteria for service,
DBE level and MCE level is detailed in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.

Table 4: Acceptance Criteria (Service Level)

Item Limit
Story Drift 0.5 percent
Coupling Beams Shear strength to remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Flexure Remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Shear Remain essentially elastic
Columns Remain essentially elastic
BRB Remain elastic (no yielding permitted)

• Essentially elastic behavior is defined as no more than 20% of the elements with ductile
actions having a D/C between 1.0 and 1.5. No elements will be allowed to have a D/C >1.5
• Brittle actions are limited to D/C of 1.0

Table 5: Acceptance Criteria (DBE Level)

Expected
Element Action Type Classification Acceptance Limit
Behaviour
Plastic hinge
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Beams rotation
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Columns interaction
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural Tensile strain in rebar rotation ≤ 0.050
Shear Ductile Nonlinear
interaction Compressive strain in concrete ≤ 0.004
Walls
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity

3
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

Table 6: Acceptance Criteria (MCE Level)

Item Limit
Story Drift 3 percent
Coupling Beam Rotation (Diagonal
0.06 radian rotation limit
Reinforcement)
Coupling Beam Rotation (Conventional
0.025 radian rotation limit
reinforcement)
Core Wall Reinforcement Axial Strain Rebar strain = 0.05 in tension and 0.02 in compression
Core Wall Concrete Axial Strain Concrete Compression Strain = 0.004 + 0.1 ρ(fy / f’c)
BRB 9 times yield strain

• Brittle actions are checked against 1.3 times the average MCE demand using expected material
strength and code specified strength reduction factors.

5. Description of Case study Buildings

Three buildings are selected for performance based evaluation ranging from 19 to 70 stories
buildings. Each building has different lateral load resisting system and level of plane irregularties.19
storey building is a residential building comprised of three towers (19-, 14- and 7-story). Nonlinear
finite element models are created for each part of the building to investigate the performance of the
structure under seismic loads which is shown in Figure 1. Part 1 is the tallest part and has irregularity
in plan, with 19 floors. Due to the plan irregularity, it may lead to undesirable effects, such as stress
concentrations and torsion. These conditions often occur simultaneously. Part 2 is the second tallest
part of the building with few irregularities in plan and 14 floors. However, there are eccentric shear
walls which results in torsion due to the lateral stiffness irregularity. Part 3 is the lowest part and
generally regular in geometry and stiffness with 7 floors.

Figure 2 shows the plane view of 50 storey building. The case study building is 50-story tower
(about 166.8 meters above the ground level) and 3½-story of below grade parking (extending
approximately 13 m below the grade). The tower consists mainly of residential units, and a terrace and
amenity deck. The ground level contains retail and back of the house space. It is a reinforced concrete
building, which is laterally braced by ductile core wall system together with buckling restrained
braces.

Figure 3 shows the typical floor plane view of 70 storey building. The case study building is 70-
story residential building of 242 m total height with a typical story height of 3.3 m. The building has
5-story basements resting on mat foundation. The building consists of the reinforced concrete moment
resisting frames, reinforced concrete shear walls and the reinforced concrete mega-truss wall panels.
Reinforced concrete shear walls, reinforced concrete moment resisting frames and two-way reinforced
concrete slabs are utilized for gravity load resisting system. The lateral load resisting system consists
of reinforced concrete shear walls moment resisting frames and mega-truss wall (MTW) panels. The
mega-truss wall panels are constructed up to 50-story level at every alternate floor levels. The purpose
of mega-truss wall panels is to enhance the lateral deformation of the entire building by controlling
the story drift and story displacement.

4
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

Figure .1: Full 3D finite element model of each part of 19 storey building

Figure .2: Building Plan of 50 storey Building

Typical tower framing plan Sectional elevation of MTW panel

5
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

Figure .3: Building Plan of 70 storey Building

6. Finite Element Modeling and Nonlinear Modeling

This section presents the Non-linear modeling techniques used for time history analysis of
different buildings.

6.1 Modeling of 19-Storey Building

All ordinary RC beam and column members are modeled as the frame elements for 19-storey
building in SAP2000. The connections are modeled as fully rigid. The RC slabs are modeled as the
membrane elements. In order to consider the out-of-plane bending stiffness of the slabs, equivalent
slab-beams are modeled along the one-way slab direction. All shear walls are modeled as shell
elements. The foundation modeling is simplified by fixing the base of the columns and walls at one
level below the ground level. To model the post-yielding behavior of the beams and columns, plastic
hinges are applied in the frame elements in the finite element model. Uncoupled moment hinges are
assigned to both ends of the beams and coupled P-M2-M3 hinges are assigned to the both ends of the
columns. The hinge properties for both beams and columns are generated automatically by the
program based on FEMA 356 Tables 6-7 and 6-8 respectively [2].

To take into account nonlinearity in the shear wall, nonlinear load-deformation relationship is
considered by applying the nonlinear links at the lower portion of the shear walls. In Part 1, shear
walls are modeled as nonlinear from ground level to 8th floor level. In Part 2, shear walls from ground
level to 5th floor are nonlinear while the shear walls in Part 3 are nonlinear until 3rd floor level. For
the portions below the ground level, the shear walls are modeled as linear. For the nonlinear modeling
of shear wall, it is composed of two different elements. One is the linear shell element considering
only shear stiffness & out-of-plane bending stiffness and the second one is the nonlinear link elements
to consider the axial and in plane flexure effects. The in-plane axial flexure interaction is modeled by
using nonlinear axial link elements.The load-deformation curve of these link elements are calculated
from the stress strain curve [3] of the material and the discretized area of the elements. Confinement
effect is also considered in the calculation of nonlinear load-deformation relationship of the links.

Fig. 4: Modeling technique of shear wall of 19-storey building

6.2 Modeling of 50-Storey Building

A complete full three-dimensional finite element model is created which includes the tower and
the whole podium for 50 storey building. The modeling and analysis of building for evaluation and
design at Service Level earthquake and DBE level are carried out in ETABS 9.5 computational
platform. An elastic model is created with the specified material properties and appropriate stiffness
modifiers for the structural components. For the MCE level performance evaluation, nonlinear three-
dimensional model is created in PERFORM-3D (Version 4.0.4) computational platform. Fiber
modeling technique is used to model the flexural behavior of the core wall. PERFORM-3D shear wall
element is used to model the nonlinear behavior of shear wall [5].
6
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

6.3 Modeling of 70-Storey Building

Similarly a full 3D finite element model of 70 storey building has been created for the elastic
model in ETABS, Version 9.5.0; Computers and Structures, Inc., 2008, [3] as shown in figure 5(a).
Member stiffness properties are adjusted in accordance with effective stiffness values given in Table
6-5 of FEMA 356 provisions [4]. A site-specific seismic response spectrum is used for the preliminary
design of structural elements utilizing a linear elastic analysis for the DBE. A complete full 3D finite
element model shown in Figure 5(b) has been created which includes the tower and one level below
the ground level using CSI PERFORM-3D, Version 4.0.4 [5], computational platform. All the
structural components (except the MTW panels & slab elements) are modeled as nonlinear elements.

The deep coupling beam is modelled with elastic frame section with a nonlinear shear hinge
located at mid span of the element. The capacity of the shear hinge is calculated based on the diagonal
reinforcements. The elastic stiffness of the deep beams is reduced to 0.16EIg. The shear capacity of
diagonal reinforcement is calculated based on formula provided in ACI 318-08. The ultimate point is
taken as the 1.33 times of the yielding capacity.

The slender coupling beam is modelled with two moment hinges placed at the ends of the
beam. The capacity of the moment-curvature hinges are calculated based on the longitudinal
reinforcements provided in the beams. The deformations capacities are taken from ASCE 41-06 for
the flexural coupling beams. The elastic stiffness of the slender beams is reduced to 0.5EIg.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5: (a) ETABS Model for 70 storey building, (b) Perform Model

7. Performance Evaluation Results

7.1 Model Analysis Results

This section presents the natural periods of each building from the nonlinear models.

7
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

7.1.1 Model Analysis Results of 19-Storey Building

Table 7 present the modal analysis results for 19-storey building. It can be seen that torsion is
observed in almost all the modes in Part 1 and Part 2 due to the plan and lateral stiffness irregularities.
As a result, it increases the shear demand in the vertical members, especially columns during
earthquake. As Part 3 has fewer irregularities, almost pure translation modes are found from the modal
analysis.

Table 7: Natural Period of all parts of the building

Mode Natural Period (Part 1) Natural Period (Part 2) Natural Period (s) (Part 3)
1 1.68 (Mixed) 1.51 (Mixed) 0.79 (Translation X)
2 1.33 (Mixed) 1.23 (Mixed) 0.45 (Torsion)
3 1.31 (Mixed) 0.72 (Mixed) 0.36 (Translation Y)
4 0.45 (Torsion) 0.46 (Torsion) 0.24 (Mixed)
5 0.34 (Mixed) 0.31 (Mixed) 0.13 (Mixed)

7.1.2 Model Analysis Results of 50-Storey Building

Modal analysis results of 50 storey buildings shows that the natural periods of the building are
5.75 s and 4.86 s in principal directions with 0.40 and 0.42 modal participating mass ratios. Figure 6
shows the model shape for first 3 modes.

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Fig. 6: Mode Shapes

7.1.3 Model Analysis Results of 70-Storey Building

For 70 storey building the fundamental period of the building is found to be 6.8 and 5.6 seconds
in principal directions. Because of L shape geometric plan of the building and also the off-centre
location of the core walls, torsional response is predominant in first few modes resulting an increase
in shear demand in some of the vertical members during earthquake.

7.2 Base Shear

7.2.1 Base Shear Results of 19-Storey Building

Elastic and inelastic base shears of Part 1 from different types of analyses are compared in this
section which is shown in Figure 7. In the equivalent static analysis, elastic base shear is calculated
without considering the response modification coefficient (R) while the elastic base shear is divided
by R to determine the inelastic base shear. Likewise, the inelastic base shear in response spectrum
analysis is calculated by dividing the elastic response of design response spectrum by R.
8
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

In time history analysis, linear time history analysis is conducted to determine the elastic base
shear whereas the inelastic base shear is resulted from the nonlinear time history analysis. It is found
that the expected inelastic base shear is approximately 1 to 1.6 times lower than the elastic base shear
while the code based design inelastic base shear is 8.5 times (R = 8.5) less than the elastic base shear.
This is due to the flexural capacity of beam, column and shear wall members which are significantly
larger than the required capacity based on code based design. As a result, the members remain elastic
and stiffen the structure during the earthquake and increase the base shear demand.

Moreover, the ratio between inelastic base shear calculated from nonlinear time history analyses
and inelastic base shear from equivalent static analysis are also compared. It is found that the expected
inelastic base shear from time history analyses is approximately two to four times higher than the
inelastic base shear calculated from equivalent static analysis. This result also indicates that the actual
structure is stiffer than expected in the code based design.

2.3
Fig. 7: Comparison of base shear (Part 1)

7.2.2 Base Shear Results of 50-Storey Building

The base shear is compared between DBE level response spectrum analysis and average of MCE
level nonlinear response history analysis in the following table. The base shear is calculated above the
podium level and considered the tower portion only. The seismic weight of the tower above the
podium level is 616,900 kN.

Table 8: Base Shear Comparison

Base Shear % of Seismic
Load Cases
(KN) Weight
DBE level (Along principal major dir.) 21,012 3.56
DBE level (Along principal minor dir.) 22,691 3.84
MCE level (Along principal major dir.) 47,892 7.76
MCE level (Along principal minor dir.) 46,462 7.53

7.2.3 Base Shear Results of 70-Storey Building

The inelastic base shear obtained from design response spectrum and nonlinear time history
analysis is compared which is shown in Table 9. It is found that the base shear obtained from the
nonlinear time history analysis results (NLTHA) are about 3.5 to 4 times higher than those obtained
from the response spectrum analysis.

9
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

Table 9: Comparison of base shear

Load Cases Base Shear (KN) % of Seismic Weight
Inelastic DBE Base Shear X -
23,912 1.94
Response Spectrum
Inelastic DBE Base Shear Y-Response
25,599 2.08
Spectrum
Average Base Shear X- NLTHA 83,875 6.80
Average Base Shear Y- NLTHA 98,514 7.99

7.3 Storey Drift

7.3.1 Storey Drift Results of 19-Storey Building

The maximum story drifts in the nonlinear time history analyses for Part 1 are shown in Figure 8.
It is found that the story drifts are within the acceptable limit which is 0.02 for the life safety (LS)
level. For other towers also, the lateral drifts are within the acceptable limit.

Fig. 8: Maximum Story Drift in X- and Y-Direction (Part 1)

7.3.2 Storey Drift Results of 50-Storey Building

In the preliminary investigation, the story drifts are checked at MCE level without using BRBs.
Then, the BRBs are applied in the model and the story drifts are rechecked. One advantage is that
BRBs reduce the story drift of the building in the principal minor direction. The maximum story drifts
envelopes for both principal directions are less than 3% which is acceptable limit against MCE level
earthquakes.

10
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

Fig. 9: Story Drift 70 storey Building

7.4 Performance Evaluation of Shear Walls

7.4.1 Performance Evaluation of Shear Wall of 19-storey Building

The flexural deformation capacity of the shear wall is evaluated in terms of maximum allowable
strains in the concrete and steel. The maximum tensile strain in reinforcing steel is limited to 0.050
while the maximum compressive strain in concrete is limited 0.004. It is found that both compressive
strain and tensile strain are within the acceptable limit in all shear walls.The shear capacity of the
shear walls is checked against the maximum shear force demand from time history analyses. Both
concrete and reinforcement are considered in the calculation of shear capacity. It is found that some
portions of the shear walls in Part 1 and Part 2 seem to be overstressed in shear whereas all shear
walls in Part 3 have enough capacity to resist the shear demand.

7.4.2 Performance Evaluation of Shear Wall of 50-storey Building

The flexural capacity of shear wall is evaluated in terms of the yielding of steel and crushing of
concrete materials. The strain in steel fibre and concrete fibre are checked against the acceptable strain
limits. The compression strain of MCE analysis is increased by 2 times and compared with the limit
set in the performance criteria.

7.4.3 Performance Evaluation of Shear Wall of 70-storey Building

The flexural deformation capacity of the shear wall is evaluated in terms of maximum allowable
strains in the concrete and steel. The maximum tensile strain in reinforcing steel is limited to 0.050
with the yielding strain of 0.002 while the maximum compressive strain in concrete is limited 0.004.
It is found that both compressive strain and tensile strain are within the acceptable limit in all shear
walls.As the shear failure is the brittle failure mode, the average shear force demand obtained from the
nonlinear time history analyses is multiplied by the factor of 1.3. Demand and capacity of each leg of
the shear walls are calculated throughout the height of the wall. Average D/C ratio of each pier is
shown in the Figure 15. It should be noted that expected material strength and code based strength
reduction factors are used for the capacity calculation. It is found that almost all the shear walls are
strong enough to meet the shear demand.

8. Conclusions

The performance evaluation has been carried out through the use of state-of-the-art analyses tools
and procedures with special emphasis on the effects due to earthquakes. Nonlinear time history
analysis is conducted, using the information of the actual provided reinforcement, to determine the
expected actual response of the building and its main structural components against the potential
hazard which is likely to occur once in the life time of the structure. Following conclusions are drawn
from this evaluation:

Based on nonlinear performance evaluation, it is found that almost all of the girders have either
just yielded stage or remain elastic in all parts of the building in case of 19 storey building, showing
good flexural response. In terms of shear capacity, more than 90% of the girders seem to have
sufficient shear capacity to resist the shear demand induced by earthquakes at DBE level. Almost all
of the columns are within the “Immediate Occupancy” limit for the axial and flexural interaction
deformation capacity, which shows very limited damage due to flexural deformation. For shear
capacity, few columns seem to be overstressed in shear, about 8% of total columns in Part 1 and 3% of
total columns in Part 2, having demand to capacity ratio greater than 1.2.

For 50 storey building overall response of the building remains elastic, i.e. the building will
remain operational during the service level/frequent earthquakes. Furthermore, the overall response of
the building is within the collapse prevention limit at the MCE level, extreme earthquakes, in which
the demand base shear is two times larger than DBE level base shear. On the other hand, it is
uncertain that the building with traditional code based design can resist the MCE level earthquake
without partial or total collapse since the performance is not checked explicitly.

Because of L shape geometric plan of the building and off-center location of the core walls in 70
11
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology (ICEES-2011)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
25-26 April 2011

storey building; the modal analysis results shows that the torsional response is predominant in first
few modes, resulting an increase in shear demand in some of the vertical members during earthquake.
From the non linear time history analyis results; almost all girders, columns and shear walls seem to
be either just reach the yield level or remain within the elastic range in the flexural behavior, which
indicates good elastic response. Also, these members seem to have adequate shear capacity to resist
the demand forces except few columns and girders which are possibly overstressed in shear. The
building has sufficient strength and stiffness to resist the demand forces induced by the frequent
earthquakes during the lifetime of the building. The building will remain serviceable after the service
level earthquakes.

9. References

[1] ACI Committee 318, 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary (ACI 318-05). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, 430.
[2] ASCE. 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-06). American Society of
Civil Engineers.
[3] ETABS Nonlinear, Version 9.5.0, 2008. Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems. Computers
and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
[4] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2000. FEMA 356: Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, DC.
[5] PERFORM-3D, Version 4.0.4, 2008. Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment of 3D
Structures. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
[6] Computers and Structures, Inc. 2006, Perform 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
Assessment for 3D Structures User Guide, Version 4, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
CA.
[7] Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., Park R.,“Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 144, No. 8, August 1988
[8] ACI. 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute.
[9] Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. 2008, An Alternative Procedure for
Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles Tall
Buildings Structural Design Council

12

View publication stats