13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 251

NONLINEAR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF AIRPORT TRAFFIC

CONTROL TOWERS USING PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING
APPROACH
Sassan ESHGHI1, Hooman FARROKHI2

SUMMARY
Airport traffic control towers (ATCTs) are among the most critical structures in an airport, which are
expected to keep their immediate serviceability performance level during & after immense ground
motions. Seismic vulnerability analysis of the new Tehran airport (Imam Khomeini airport) traffic control
tower implementing performance based engineering concept is performed by means of a finite element
program developed by the author. The structure is located at the site 35 kilometers southeast of the capital,
Tehran where is seismically categorized among the very high-risk zones of the country. The study reveals
many facts about the behavior of the discussed type of structures.
INTRODUCTION
As an essential urban organ an Airport must remain fully operable after immense ground motions.
Transportation demand grows extremely every second after a strong earthquake. Especially various
supports may be needed from the capital by the victims. These may conclude the high importance and
strategic value of an Airport in a capital. It may be added that an Airport is usually served by one or more
control towers which are mandatory for the Airport to be serviceable. No departure or arrival may take
place if the controlling staff is not online. Samples of such disasters are control towers of Seattle-Tacoma
Airport in Alaska, Jakarta Airport in Indonesia and Bam Airport in Iran. Seattle-Tacoma control tower
experienced drastic structural & non-structural damage. A portable controlling device was located at the
Airport and it started its operation after months with a very low capacity. After years the control tower is
replaced with a new structure which is a steel braced frame and the Airport is reaching its previous normal
performance level. Same scenarios are expected to happen at Bam & Jakarta. So it may make sense to
evaluate such structures from a more realistic point of view to avoid same sad happenings. The Imam
Khomeini Airport Traffic control tower is a reinforced concrete towers structure consisting of four
symmetric box bearing walls connected together with floor slabs. The structure is originally analyzed and
designed about 50 years ago simultaneous with John F. Kennedy Airport. The construction is completed
about ten years ago by a local constructor. The Airport complex off Tehran is going to be shifted from its
1

Assistant Professor , International Institute of Sismology and Earthquake Engineering

PhD Candidate, KNT University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

current location at Mehr-Abad County to the Imam-Khomeini Airport in the following year. The Airport
has to fulfill the transportation demand of 12 million people currently living in Tehran & added demand at
the time of emergency.

Figure 1 : The Imam Khomeini ATCT

Common engineering approaches may not be used to evaluate such as structures in that they have complex
structural systems. It is moral to evaluate such structures by means of more exact methods. Non-linear
deformations and material models may have unexpected influences on the behavior of the structure. A
nonlinear static analysis is proposed for the structure by means of a finite element program, developed by
the authors named FINNL3D, also acceptance of structural elements are checked by the program
considering FEMA273[10] provisions for seismic evaluations and retrofit of existing structures. In the
following sections basic concepts of material modeling of concrete in the program is discussed. Then the
general procedure of obtaining moment curvature diagrams are presented .At the next section the whole
procedure of a static nonlinear evaluation based on FEMA273 is presented. Finally push over analysis is
performed & the results are evaluated which may give birth to some new questions!
Stair diafragm

2512@20
228 Ext.

Wings

30 cm
2016
6/60 60 Tie
2512 Int.

Figure 2 : General section of the tower

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE TOWER BASED ON FEMA273

PROVISION
Based on FEMA273 existing structures may be evaluated seismically & retrofit designs may be
implemented on a vulnerable structure. The provision suggests four different procedures of analysis for
the structural systems depending on symmetry & total balance of stiffness and mass and physical
dimensions of the structural system also demand to capacity ratios of the structural members and many
other factors which may affect the proximity of the analysis

Figure 3 : Finite element model of the tower built in FINNL3D environment

Four categories of analysis are Linear Static Procedure (LSP) Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) NonLinear Static Procedure (NLSP) and Non-Linear Dynamic Procedure (NLDP). Dynamic analysis may also
be implemented as a mode supperposition analysis or a time history analysis. Considering the geometry
and structural system of the control tower, a non linear static procedure was chosen to be performed on the
structure which may reveal possible weaknesses and vulnerable elements of the structure. The Push Over
analysis of the tower may be performed by means of a finite element program which can consider different
aspects of nonlinear deformations specifically material non linearity. FINNL3D has the ability to consider
concrete cracking and plasticity using a material model based on the failure criterion of Willam-Warnke
and Flow rule of Drucker-Prager on a solid 8 node brick element. It may also simulate nonlinear behavior
of frame elements by user defined or default program generated moment-rotation diagrams. Also target
performance rotations may be checked based on given values. Based on FEMA provision the target
displacement may be calculated using following relation:

t = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa Te2 g/42
C0 =Factor to consider higher modes effect
C1 = Factor to rectify nonlinear deformations
C2 = Degradation factor
C3 = P-Delta Factor
Sa = B . A
B = Response Coefficient
B=2.50(T0 /T)0.66
A=Peak Ground Acceleration
Te = Effective Fundamental Period
Te=Ti (Ki/Ke)0.50
Ti = Initial Linear fundamental period
Ki = Initial Stiffness
Ke = Effective stiffness
g = Gravity

Ke is estimated as the initial slope of the equivalent bilinear force-displacements diagram of the structure
in a way that the area behind bilinear simulation and the actual force-displacement diagram is equal and
the diagrams intersect each other at a point 60 percent of the considered yield state. For the control tower
the parameters was found to be as the following:
C0 = 1.50
C1 = 1.00
C2 = 1.00 (IO)
C3 = 1.00 (>0)
Sa = B . A =0.486
B = 1.337
A=0.35
Te=Ti (Ki/Ke)0.50
Ki = 48.70 Ton/cm
Ke = 20.00 Ton/cm
Te = 1.29 Sec
g= 981 cm/sec2
Therefore the target displacement is found to be

t = 29.0 cm
The moment-rotation diagrams are generated by an ultimate state analysis of the section and target
rotations for different performance levels are defined based on FEMA. Figure 2 shows a typical moment
rotation curve and defined performance levels.
Non-linear static seismic evaluation of the tower using frame elements and nonlinear hinges
Wings of the tower are modeled as frame elements. The sections of the wings are exactly simulated,
defining their mechanical & the nonlinear hinge properties. Then the moment curvature diagrams of the
sections are created automatically which are directly used in the formation of the non-linear flexural hinge
properties which are located at the both ends off the elements.

1.5

0.5

Figure 4: A typical moment rotation diagram

Yield moments, ultimate moments and residual moments of the section is extracted from the moment
rotation diagrams and acceptable rotations are considered the same as stated in FEMA273, also the target

displacements is found to be abounds 29 centimeters for the top of the tower. Rotations of the hinges are
checked at the target displacements which showed that some yielded regions exist at the bottom of the
tower but no unacceptable rotation has taken place regarding the Immediate Occupancy performance
level. Because of their neglect able resistance and stiffness in comparison with the shear walls, the slab
are considered to be moment released at all their edges. The analysis using 3D solid elements approves
this analogy.
Non-linear static seismic evaluation of the tower using 8 node solid elements
The tower was modeled in the FINNL3D finite element program, using 8-node element that is consistent
with a material model for reinforced concrete. The mass of the control room was simulated with
concentrated masses at the top level. The material model presented for the concrete is a plasticity-based
nonlinear material model with a fixed crack approach and is explained in the following paragraph. In the
material model for reinforced concrete, a five parameter Willam-Warnke failure criterion is implemented
to measure cracking or crushing in concrete. Also a Drucker-Prager loading function is used to calculate
multi-axial effects of stress. A fixed orthogonal smeared crack method is used to impose necessary
modifications in stiffness matrix. Willam_Warnke failure criterion is defined based on five parameters as
follows [1]:
Maximum Uniaxial tensile stress
Maximum Uniaxial compressive stress
Maximum biaxial compressive stress
Maximum biaxial confined pressure stress
Maximum biaxial stress for uniaxial pressure
we can now define functions of failure criterion (S) and loading function (F) on the basis of principal
stresses and parameters above , but first we should define some more variables :

-f'c

Compression

f'

D
Compression

Cracking

-fc

Crushing

Figure 5 : Typical stress strain curve for reinforced concrete[1]

Cos =

2 1 2 3

2 ( 1 2 ) + ( 2 3 ) + ( 3 1 )
2

r1 = a 0 + a1 + a 2

r2 = b0 + b1 + b2 2

h
fc

1
2 2

When h is hydrostatic stress :

1
h = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
3

In the equation above 1 ,2, 3 are the principal stresses and 1 is the maximum principal stress and 2 is
the minimum principal stress (considering positive for tensile stress) . Also ao a1 a2 parameters can be
defined with the following equation:
F1 1 = f t ,

= = 0
3

fc 2
F1 1 = 0,

= = f
f
cb
3
c 2
=

1 = h ,

F
1 = a f
2
1
h
fc

f1

h
3

1
1

t t2 a 0

cb cb2 a1
1 12 a 2

When 1, cb, t are defined with the following equations:

1 =

2 f cb
a 2f
ft
; 1 = h 1
; cb =
3 fc
fc 3 fc
3 fc

and bo b1 b2 parameters are defined with the following matrix equation :

F1
fc
F1
fc

1 = 2 =

3 = f

1 = 2 =

a
3 = h

2
h

f
2
fc

1
1

1
q

2
0

22
02

When 2 is :
b0

b
1

b2

And is the positive root of the following equation :

2 =

f
ha
2
fc
3 fc

r2 ( 0 ) = a0 + a1 0 + a2 02 = 0

Figure 6 : 8 node solid element

Uncracked concrete stiffness matrix is similar to that for any other elastic material.[11]. When the
maximum principal stress (1) exceeds maximum tensile stress of concrete, a crack plane will form, and
the normal stiffness component to the crack plane is relived and the shear components of the crack plane
are reduced. When the crack closes the normal component is completely resumed (concrete is considered
to be completely healed) and shear components will grow to a significant value [2,3,4].

f'

Compression
f

Fracture
surface
defined by
stress
components
Initial
yield
surface

-f

Compression

Subsequent
loading
surfaces

-f'

Figure 7 : Yield criterion & loading surfaces[1]

Results of the push over analyses of the tower

Push over analysis was performed up to the target displacement considering both frame element analogy
& solid modeling. The results of the analysis of frame elements shows that yielded hinges are formed at
the bottom of the tower growing up to 1/7 of the height of the tower but still the rotations are acceptable in
accordance with the Immediate Occupancy performance level. In the other hand the push over results of
the solid model shows developed cracked patterns in slabs and bearing walls. These uncommon cracking
patterns are what may have overseen by the former program. Immediate occupancy performance level may
have been violated considering significant cracking in the structure.
3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Figure 8 : Push Over Curve of the Tower

CONCLUSIONS
In the current study the target displacement is calculated using default values presented in FEMA273
Provision which is applicable for common building systems. The studied structure is an uncommon

bearing wall system. More detailed engineering & statistical data may be needed to make a suitable
approximation of the target displacement for this type of structures.
Target performance rotations for immediate occupancy performance level are considered the same values
proposed by FEMA which is applicable to normal high importance buildings like hospitals or other
essential urban building systems. Its clear that needed performance level for a control tower is completely
different due to its vital role and sensitiveness.

Figure 9 : Primary & Secondary Cracks at the bottom of the control tower

Material modeling has a significance affect in the outcome results. Cracking and plasticity in concrete is a
highly sophisticated phenomenon especially in uncommon structures, which can not be simulated by
common simplifying analogy of concentrated plastic hinges. Also shear action affects may be neglected at
these frame element models.
Controlling equipment should be served as secondary structures. Therefore acceptance criteria may be
extracted based on the ultimate accelerations & displacements dilatable by the equipment.

REFERENCES
1. Chen W.F. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete- -Purdue University-School of Engineering Mc Graw
Hill Book Company 1982
2. Chen W.F. & Haan D.J. -Plasticity for Structural Engineers . Purdue University; School of civil
Engineering South china University of Technology; Department of Civil Engineering-1988- SpringerVerlag Book Co.
3. Chen W.F. - Concrete Plasticity Macro & Micro approaches .International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences Volume:35-No.12-p1097-1109- 1993
4. Chopra A.K. -Dynamics of Structures 844 pages - 2nd edition sep./11/2000 Prentice-Hall
International Inc.
5. Neville A.M.-Properties of Concrete -,Pitman Publishing INC. 1981
6. Pierepiekarz.M.R & Ballantyne.D.B & Hambutrger.R.O Damage Report from Seattle ; Civil
Engineering Magazine, June 2001.
7. Roark M. & Turner K.Z & Gould P.L - Seismic Vulnerability of Airport Facilities - Citation: 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering-2000-Newzeland,- Oakland,-paper No.0003.
8. Eshghi., S. and Farrokhi, F. Seismic vulnerability Analysis of Airport Control Towers Journal of
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Volume 5 No.1, Spring 2003.

9. Applied Technology Council (1996)- Evaluation & Retrofit of concrete Buildings ATC-40-Volumes 1
& 2.
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997) NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings, FEMA-273, Washington.
11. Eshghi, S. (1998), Performance-Based Seismic Design of Reservoir Intake Towers, Ph.D. Thesis,
Bristol University.