Period-Height Formula for Displacement-Based Assessment of RC Buildings

I.U.S.S.
Istituto Universitario Università degli

di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
PERIODS OF VIBRATION FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED

ASSESSMENT OF RC BUILDINGS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
By
HELEN CROWLEY
Supervisor: Dr RUI PINHO
July 2003
The dissertation entitled “Periods of vibration for displacement-based assessment of RC
buildings”, by Helen Crowley, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Rui Pinho …………………………………
Nigel Priestley …………………………

Abstract
ABSTRACT
Simple empirical relationships are available in many design codes to relate the height of a
building to its fundamental period of vibration. These relationships have been realized for
force-based design and so produce conservative estimates of period such that the lateral shear
force will be conservatively predicted from an acceleration spectrum. Where assessment of a
structure is concerned, it is the displacement demand that gives an indication of the damage
that can be expected, this displacement would be underestimated with the use of the
aforementioned period – height formulae. Furthermore, the period of vibration of interest in
assessment is the yield period, which is calculated using the yield stiffness, also often referred
to as the cracked or elastic stiffness. The derivation of a yield period – height formula for use
in displacement-based assessment of European buildings is thus the focus of this dissertation.
Analytical fibre element models of RC frames of varying height have been developed and the
yield period has been sought using eigenvalue, pushover and dynamic analyses.
Keywords: displacement; assessment; period; yield; RC buildings;
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank in particular Dr Rui Pinho for all of his guidance and support
throughout the duration of this research project and his invaluable critique during the final
stages of the dissertation. In addition, this work has greatly benefited from the comments and
advice of Professor Nigel Priestley. Also, the author is grateful to Professor Shunsuke Otani
for introducing the work of Professor Shunsuke Sugano during his lectures at the ROSE
School, Pavia which proved most useful to the research project. Furthermore, the author would
like to thank Professor Shunsuke Sugano himself, for his kind assistance in supplying data
from his past work.
ii
List of Figures
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………….i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………..ii
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………….iii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………................ix
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Foreword...................................................................................................................................1
1.2 A Proposed Deformation-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure ......................2
1.3 Dissertation outline...................................................................................................................3
2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERIOD AND HEIGHT ..................................................5

2.1 Empirical period-height formulae for force-based design........................................................5
2.2 Empirical period-height formulae for structural assessment ....................................................8
3 CASE STUDIES AND MODELLING APPROACH.................................................................10

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................10
3.2 Description of case studies .....................................................................................................10
3.2.1 One-Storey Frame..........................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Pavia Frame Model........................................................................................................15
3.2.3 ‘Monterosso’ Building...................................................................................................16
3.2.4 ‘ICONS’ Four-Storey Frame .........................................................................................20
3.2.5 Greek Five-Storey frames ..............................................................................................23
iii
List of Figures
3.2.6 Five and Six-Storey Romanian Frames .........................................................................25

3.2.7 Seven-Storey US-Japanese Frame .................................................................................27
3.2.8 Two and Seven-Storey Italian Frames ...........................................................................28
3.2.9 Three, Six and Eight-Storey Italian Frames...................................................................32
3.3 Non-linear Finite Element Package ........................................................................................34
3.3.1 Introduction to the program ...........................................................................................34
3.3.2 Modelling parameters adopted.......................................................................................38
4 EIGENVALUE ANALYSIS USING YIELD STIFFNESS .......................................................41

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................41
4.2 Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis ........................................................................................42
4.2.1 Eigenvalue analysis in SeismoStruct .............................................................................42
4.2.2 Results of gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses...............................................................43
4.3 Strength-independent stiffness reduction factors....................................................................46
4.3.1 Application of stiffness reduction factors in SeismoStruct............................................48
4.3.2 Results of eigenvalue analyses using strength-independent stiffness reduction factors 49
4.4 Strength-dependent stiffness reduction factors.......................................................................51
4.4.1 Analytical study of member yield stiffness ...................................................................53
4.4.2 Results of eigenvalue analyses using analytically derived member yield stiffness .......54
4.4.3 Experimentally derived member yield stiffness.............................................................56
4.4.4 Results of eigenvalue analyses using experimentally derived member yield stiffness..59
5 YIELD PERIOD FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ..................................................................62

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................62
5.2 Conventional and Adaptive Pushover ....................................................................................62
5.3 Period calculation using a pushover curve .............................................................................65
5.4 Initial (gross) period calculation using pushover analysis......................................................66
5.5 Yield period calculation using a pushover curve....................................................................68
5.6 Yield displacement of an RC frame .......................................................................................71
5.7 Period calculation using yield displacement...........................................................................73
6 YIELD PERIOD FROM DYNAMIC TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS .....................................76

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................76
6.2 Time History Records.............................................................................................................76
6.3 Period calculation using displacement response time-history record .....................................78
6.4 Results of yield period from dynamic time history analysis ..................................................80
iv
List of Figures
7 COMPARISON OF PERIOD ‘V’ HEIGHT CURVES .............................................................84

7.1 Summary of all period ‘v’ height curves ................................................................................84
7.2 Period calculation using base shear capacity from code requirements...................................88
7.3 Simplified Formula.................................................................................................................93
8 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................95
9 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................97
v
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 A deformation-based seismic vulnerability assessment procedure (Glaister and Pinho, 2003)
2.1 Results of regression analysis for RC MRF (Chopra and Goel, 1997)
3.1 Results of gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses of all case studies
3.2 One storey frame (Varum, 1996)
3.3 Beam and column sections (Varum, 1996)
3.4 Elevation view of the Pavia frame (Moratti, 2000)
3.5 Typical plan of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
3.6 Plan of fourth floor of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
3.7 RC Column sections (Cosenza, 2000)
3.8 Elevation of the ‘ICONS’ Frame (Carvalho et al, 1999)
3.9 Column Reinforcement Details for the ‘ICONS’ frame (Carvalho et al, 1999)
3.10 Beam reinforcement details for the ‘ICONS’ Frame (Carvalho et al, 1999)
3.11 Model of Greek Frame No. 20 (Table 3.2)
3.12 Model of Greek Frame No. 23 (Table 3.2)
3.13 Model of Five-Storey Romanian Frame No 29 (Table 3.2)
3.14 Model of Six-Storey Romanian Frame No 30 (Table 3.2)
3.15 Plan and Section of the Seven-Storey RC Frame-Wall Structure (ACI, 1984)
3.16 Section reinforcement according to ’81 Yugoslavian design code (ACI, 1984)
3.17 Geometry and reinforcement of two-storey Italian frame (FIB, 2003)
3.18 Geometry and reinforcement of seven-storey Italian frame (FIB, 2003)
3.19 The Three, Six and Eight-storey Italian Frames (Moratti, 2000)
3.20 Column sections, reinforcement and loading (Moratti, 2000)
3.21 Local chord reference system (SeismoStruct, 2003)
3.22 Elastic component of element stiffness matrix (SeismoStruct, 2003)
3.23 Discretistion of an RC section into fibres (SeismoStruct, 2003)
3.24 Location of integration Gauss points within an element (SeismoStruct, 2003)
3.25 Menegotto – Pinto (1973) steel model used in SeismoStruct (2003)
3.26 Mander et al (1988) concrete model used in SeismoStruct (2003)
vi
List of Figures
3.27 Bilinear stress-strain steel model with strain hardening (SeismoStruct, 2003)
4.1 Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of inner and outer frames
4.2 Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of ‘inner’ frames
4.3 Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of older frames
4.4 Comparison of gross stiffness eigenvalue period – height curve with best-fit and upper bound
curves from Chopra and Goel (1997) study
4.5 Period ‘v’ height graph for Paulay and Priestley (1992) reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses
4.6 Comparison of Paulay and Priestley (1992) reduced stiffness period - height curve and gross
stiffness period – height curve
4.7 Moment-curvature relationship under design assumption, i.e. constant stiffness (Priestley, 2003)
4.8 Moment-curvature relationship under realistic conditions, i.e. constant yield curvature
(Priestley, 2003)
4.9 Moment-curvature curves for a rectangular column (Priestley, 2003)
4.10 Effective stiffness of large rectangular columns (Priestley, 2003)
4.11 Period ‘v’ height graph for Priestley (2003) reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses
4.12 Comparison of the period – height curves using the yield stiffness according to Priestley
(2003) and using traditional stiffness reduction factors (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
4.13 Calculated and observed stiffness reduction factor at yielding (Sugano, 1970)
4.14 Curves of equation (4.10), ratio of secant to initial stiffness plotted against axial load ratio for
1% reinforcement ratio
4.15 Period ‘v’ height graph for Sugano reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses
4.16 Comparison of the period – height curves using the yield stiffness according to Sugano (1970)
with that according to Priestley (2003)
5.1 SDOF Substitute structure
5.2 Period ‘v’ height results using the initial stiffness of pushover curves
5.3 Comparison of best-fit curves using the initial stiffness of pushover curves and gross stiffness
eigenvalue analysis
5.4 Elasto-plastic representation of a pushover curve
5.5 Period ‘v’ height results using yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength of pushover curve
5.6 Comparison of best-fit curves using eigenvalue analysis with yield stiffness according to
Sugano (1970) and pushover analysis using the yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength
5.7 Typical beam-column sub-assemblage (Priestley, 2003)
5.8 Period ‘v’ height results using yield stiffness at yield displacement of pushover curve
5.9 Comparison of best-fit curves using yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength of pushover curve
and at yield displacement
6.1 Acceleration time-history records for (a) Sakaria and (b) Emeryville
6.2 Acceleration spectra for Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records
vii
List of Figures
6.3 Displacement spectra for Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records

6.4 Fourier amplitude spectrum showing definite peak amplitude
6.5 Fourier amplitude spectrum with numerous amplitude peaks
6.6 Displacement response time-history at maximum displacement
6.7 Period ‘v’ height results from dynamic time-history analysis using Sakaria record
6.8 Period ‘v’ height results from dynamic time-history analysis using Emeryville record
6.9 Comparison of best-fit curves found using eigenvalue, pushover, and dynamic time-history
analysis
7.1 Comparison of all period – height curves both developed and discussed in Chapters 2 to 6
7.2 Comparison of yield period – height curves
7.3 Proposed yield period – height curve and formula for displacement-based assessment of RC
frames
7.4 Period ‘v’ height results using equation (7.6)
7.5 Comparison of best-fit curves using codified base shear coefficient and pushover base shear
coefficient in equation (7.6)
7.6 Comparison of proposed yield period – height curve with a simplified linear curve
viii
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Summary table of all case studies

3.2 Summary Table of ‘older’ frames used in the study
3.3 Added mass to each floor of the Pavia frame
3.4 Table of columns in ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
3.5 Height and mass of each floor of the ‘Monterosso’ building
3.6 Material properties (‘Monterosso’ Building)
3.7 Height and mass of each floor of the ‘ICONS’ frame
3.8 Material Properties (‘ICONS’ frame)
3.9 Height and mass of each floor of the Greek frames
3.10 Height and mass of each floor of the US/Japanese frame
3.11 Height and mass of each floor of the two-storey frame
3.12 Height and mass of each floor of the seven-storey Italian frame
3.13 Material properties (two and seven-storey Italian frames)
4.1 Effective member moment of inertia (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
4.2 Effective stiffness of members in FEMA 356 (ASCE, 2000)
7.1 Base shear coefficients obtained from both design codes and pushover analyses and respective
yield period data calculated using equation (7.6)
ix
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Foreword
The determination of the natural period of vibration of an RC structure is an essential

procedure in earthquake design and assessment. An improved understanding of the global
demands on a structure under a design earthquake can be obtained from this single
characteristic. This property is dependent on the mass, strength and stiffness of the structure
and is thus affected by many factors such as the structural regularity, the number of storeys and
bays and the section properties including dimensions and extent of cracking. Cracking of RC
members is a phenomenon often ignored in period calculation however it generally occurs
under gravity loading and after moderate seismic action. The stiffness of RC members
significantly decreases after cracking and so this stiffness reduction should be adequately
modelled in analyses to determine an expected period of vibration.
Simple empirical relationships are available in many design codes to relate the height of a
building to its fundamental period of vibration. However these relationships have been
realized for force-based design and so produce conservative estimates of period such that the
base shear force will be conservatively predicted. Where assessment of a structure is
concerned it is the displacement that gives an indication of the damage that can be expected
(Priestley, 1997). Hence the displacement of a structure needs to be conservatively estimated;
however with a conservative period-height relationship the displacements will be under-
predicted. Therefore a relationship is sought that will give more accurate predictions of the
period of vibration for use in displacement-based assessment of RC structures. In particular,
1
an assessment procedure for urban areas has recently been proposed (Glaister and Pinho, 2003)
wherein a relationship between period and height at yield is a requirement of the methodology.
1.2 A Proposed Deformation-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure
The work of Glaister and Pinho (2003) on a simplified deformation-based method for seismic
vulnerability assessment has shown how capacity curves of displacement ‘v’ period can be
constructed for buildings at a given limit state using analytical relationships between
displacement capacity and height, and empirical relationships between height and elastic
period. This is shown conceptually in Figure 1.1.
cumulative
displacement
LS3 LS2 LS1 frequency

ηLS1
PLS1
ηLS2 PLSi – percentage of
buildings failing LSi
ηLS3
PLS2
Demand
Spectra
PLS3
0
TLS3 TLS2 TLS1 effective HLS3 HLS2 HLS1 Height
period
HLSi = f (TLsi , LSi)
FIGURE 1.1 – A deformation-based seismic vulnerability assessment procedure (Glaister and

Pinho, 2003)
The displacement capacity-height curves are produced by theoretical considerations of failure

mode, member dimensions and material properties for pre-yield and post-yield limit states. An
empirical period-height relationship dependent on the limit state is substituted into the
equations to produce displacement capacity-period curves. These can then be plotted on the
same graph as the displacement demand spectra shown in Figure 1.1 which need to be scaled
by a damping factor which is related to the ductility demand and so, in turn, the limit state
under consideration. The intersections between the displacement capacity curve and the
displacement spectrum, for a given limit state, provide the boundaries where demand and
capacity coincide. The range of periods over which the capacity curve is found to be below the
2
demand spectrum needs to be transformed to a range of equivalent heights, using an empirical

period-height relationship. This range can then be used with a cumulative distribution function
of buildings with height to find the proportion of the building stock failing the given limit state.
At the core of the proposed methodology lays a relationship between period and height that
must be valid throughout the entire displacement range for all limit states. For yield limit
states where the ductility is less than or equal to one, the period of the equivalent SDOF system
is equal to that of the actual building before or at yielding. For post-yield limit states the
period of the substitute structure can be obtained by the secant stiffness to the point of
maximum deflection on a force-displacement curve. Hence the period is highly dependent on
the ductility, and so a relationship between ductility and period is required. Assuming an
elasto-plastic force-displacement relationship, the secant stiffness to the point of maximum
deflection can be shown to be a geometric function of the elastic stiffness and ductility. Since
the elastic period is also a function of elastic stiffness, it can be assumed that the effective
period (TLSi) of the inelastic structure is a function of elastic period and ductility alone:
TLSi = TLSy µ LSi (1.1)
Hence the realisation of an elastic period-height relationship which represents periods of

vibration at yield is seen to be a pivotal formula in the proposed assessment methodology.
1.3 Dissertation outline
The second chapter of this dissertation is concerned with recent empirical relationships that
have been proposed between period and height and their validity for use in displacement-based
structural assessment.
The third chapter presents the finite element analysis program, SeismoStruct, which is used in
this dissertation to model a range of buildings to investigate the relationship between yield
period and height. Some modelling issues are discussed here and the RC frames which have
been modelled are presented.
3
The fourth chapter provides a discussion of yield period calculation using eigenvalue analysis.
The representation of the yield stiffness of RC members using stiffness reduction factors and
more accurate strength-dependent factors is discussed. The results of eigenvalue analyses
using each of the yield stiffness representations are presented.
The fifth chapter introduces the method of period calculation by representing the structure as a
single degree of freedom substitute structure and subsequently calculating the structural
stiffness from its pushover curve. The yield stiffness of the pushover curve is predicted using
both the recommendations of Park (1988) and Priestley (2003).
In the sixth chapter, the use of dynamic time history analyses to find the yield period is
discussed and the results are presented. Two time-history records have been used and the
results serve to substantiate the methods of yield period calculation developed in Chapters 4
and 5.
The penultimate chapter summarises and compares the curves of period ‘v’ height obtained in
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 and concludes with a discussion of the recommended yield period – height
formula to be used in displacement-based assessment of RC buildings. A method of period
calculation using the base shear coefficient prescribed in codes is also developed and discussed
and comparisons are made with the previously derived period-height curves.
In the final chapter, the conclusions from this study are assembled and some suggestions for
future work are provided.
4
Chapter 2. The relationship between period and height
2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERIOD AND HEIGHT
2.1 Empirical period-height formulae for force-based design
Empirical formulae have traditionally been obtained by fitting curves through regression
analysis to the periods of vibration of buildings measured from their motion during
earthquakes. The most useful period data comes from structures which respond elastically to
the ground motion, however this is often the most difficult to obtain. Accumulation of such
data is slow due to the relatively few number of buildings equipped with accelerographs and
the infrequency of earthquakes causing the required motion (Chopra and Goel, 1997).
Generally, the empirical formula is given as a function of height alone because although other
factors such as horizontal dimensions have been used in regression analyses, the height has
been found to play the most important role in fundamental period prediction (Hong and
Hwang, 2000).
The first empirical formulae employed in seismic design codes, such as the U.S. building code
ATC3-06 (ATC 1978), had the form:
T = CtH 0.75
(2.1)
where Ct was taken to be 0.03 for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames (RC MRF) and
H the height in feet. This particular form was theoretically derived using Rayleigh’s method
with the following assumptions: the equivalent static lateral forces are distributed linearly over
the height of the building, the seismic base shear is proportional to 1/T2/3 and the distribution of
stiffness with height produces a uniform storey drift under the linearly distributed lateral
5
forces. The numerical value of the constant Ct was obtained from the measured periods of
buildings during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Other simple formulae have been
recommended such as in the NEHRP-94 (NEHRP 1994) provisions where the period can be
taken as T = 0.1N, where N is the number of storeys; however this formula is restricted to
buildings of less than 12 storeys with minimum storey height of 10ft (3.05m).
In the European earthquake design code, EC8 (CEN, 2002), the following period-height
relationship is specified for force-based design of moment-resisting frames:
T = 0.075H 0.75
(2.2)
As mentioned, this form of period-height relationship can be obtained from Rayleigh’s method
under certain assumptions. The height is measured in metres in Europe, thus the Ct coefficient
has been adapted from feet to metres (0.03x3.2810.75 = 0.073), and has also been rounded up
for simplicity. This formula should ideally be updated for use in EC8 because, as shown by
Chopra and Goel (1997), the period-height formula has found to be better represented by a
different exponent. Also, due to differences in design and construction practice between
Europe and California, it might be the case that a distinct period-height formula is required in
EC8.
In Taiwan, Hong and Hwang (2000) have shown that differences in construction practices
between California and Taiwan do indeed lead to different period – height formulae. The data
obtained during moderate earthquakes from vibration-measuring devices located in Taiwanese
RC moment resisting frames has been processed by Hong and Hwang (2000). Although the
authors derived a relationship between the measured fundamental period and height using the
same methodology as the U.S. building code formula (represented in equation 2.1), they found
that the Taiwanese buildings were much stiffer than the Californian and so produced lower
predictions of the period of vibration for a given height. The results of this Taiwanese study
therefore provide evidence for the need for a distinct formula between the period and height of
a building, depending on its design and construction background.
In order to update the aforementioned U.S. empirical formula, Chopra and Goel (1997)
collected additional data from eight Californian earthquakes, starting with the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake and ending with the 1994 Northridge earthquake, from 42 Steel Moment
6
Resisting Frames, 27 Reinforced-Concrete and 16 RC Shear Frames. The periods were

measured in the two orthogonal lateral directions and the two data points are shown in Figure
2.1 as circles, connected by a vertical line. Although not shown on the graph in Figure 2.1, the
authors also compared the data with the previously mentioned empirical formula employed in
the U.S. building codes (T = 0.03H3/4). They found that the code formula was close to the
lower bound of measured periods for buildings up to 160ft (approximately 16 storeys) but
predicted periods significantly shorter than the measured periods for buildings in the height
range of 160-225 ft.
Therefore a more accurate best-fit curve has been found by Chopra and Goel (1997) from
regression analysis to determine the coefficients α and β in the following chosen form:
T = αHβ (2.3)
FIGURE 2.1 – Results of regression analysis for RC MRF (Chopra and Goel, 1997)
Various regression analyses were undertaken by Chopra and Goel (1997) with and without
constraints on the variable β. The scatter was obviously found to be greater for the constrained
regression analyses, but as the unconstrained β was found to be 0.92, a constrained analysis
7
with β = 0.9 did not cause a significant increase in scatter, hence the latter power was chosen
due to its numerical simplicity.
Figure 2.1 shows the best-fit, best-fit + 1σ and the best-fit – 1σ curves (where σ represents
standard deviation) for the RC MRF. Also shown in Figure 2.1 is the distinction between the
results obtained from ground motion where üg < 0.15g and those where üg ≥ 0.15g. It can be
observed that the periods obtained from stronger shaking are much higher than those from less
intensive shaking. This is due to the increased cracking of RC members leading to reduced
stiffness, and so the periods observed during earthquakes of strong shaking are much higher
than those predicted with code formulas. Such code formulas are calibrated to intentionally
underestimate the period by approximately 10-20% at first yield of the building (Chopra and
Goel, 1997). This is a conservative assumption when applying a force-based design method to
a structure as the underestimation of the period produces a conservative estimation of the base
shear force. Hence for conservatism the authors have recommended the lower bound curve of
best fit – 1σ to be used in codes for estimating the fundamental period of vibration (Chopra and
Goel, 1997). The equation of this lower bound curve is given below in two forms depending
on whether the height is measured in feet or metres:
TL = 0.016H 0.9 (feet) (2.4)
TL = 0.0466H 0.9 (metres) (2.5)
2.2 Empirical period-height formulae for structural assessment
When assessing structures to a given limit state it is known that displacements and/or drifts
give a better indication of damage than forces (Priestley, 1997). As design displacement
spectra generally increase with period, within the range considered applicable for RC frame
buildings, underestimating the period would lead to underestimations of the seismic
displacements: an un-conservative outcome where assessment is concerned.
The upper bound curve of best-fit + 1σ of the previously discussed study (Chopra and Goel,
1997) has been suggested as that which should be used to predict building periods when
8
seismic displacements need to be estimated from displacement spectra (Chopra and Goel,
2000). The equation of this upper bound curve is given below in two forms depending on
whether the height is measured in feet or metres:
TU = 0.023H 0.9 (feet) (2.6)
TU = 0.067H 0.9 (metres) (2.7)
Although this formula provides an improved method of period estimation for structural
assessment, it should be noted that the relationship has been obtained by considering just
Californian buildings, and so it should be applied with caution in other parts of the world with
different construction practices. Also it does not specifically define a yield period as desired
for the displacement-based assessment method described in section 1.2, but rather an upper
bound to the best-fit periods of vibration obtained during ‘strong shaking’, as defined by
Chopra and Goel (1997). This ‘strong shaking’ was purposely taken as that which does not
cause the yield limit of the structures to be reached; this was specified because the motivation
for producing such equations was for force-based design applications.
Hence although formulae do exist to relate the period of vibration of a building to its height, an
empirical yield period-height relationship for European RC moment-resisting frames for use in
displacement-based assessment has not yet been established and is thus the focus of this
dissertation.
9
Chapter 3. Case studies and modelling approach
3 CASE STUDIES AND MODELLING APPROACH
3.1 Introduction
As previously mentioned, the objective of this dissertation is to find an empirical relationship

between fundamental period and height at yield using analytical methods rather than the
measured periods of vibration during earthquakes. This decision was taken due to both the
lack of European buildings equipped with frequency measuring devices and the added
flexibility available when using analytical methods. Therefore many buildings have been
modelled using a non-linear finite element package, Seismostruct (2003), and the required
information has been obtained from various publications. Firstly, the buildings used in the
study are presented, focusing on the important data of country, year, number of storeys and
bays and mass. The older frames are defined as those designed to codes with no capacity
design principles considered; generally this can be interpreted as all frames designed before the
1980’s. It will be shown that it is these older frames which are of interest in this study and so
only the information for these frames will be fully presented. The finite element program
SeismoStruct (2003) will be described in some detail and the modelling parameters adopted in
the program for all frames will be summarised.
3.2 Description of case studies
In order to model frames in SeismoStruct, detailed design data of the frames is required and in
this study these have been obtained from various theses and publications. The frames that have
initially been chosen cover both recent capacity-designed bare frames as well as older, more
10
flexible, column-sway bare frames. Figure 3.1 summarises the frames that have been
modelled. Aside from the geometrical properties of the structure such as beam and column
dimensions, the important information required from the publications is the reinforcement
detailing and material properties.
It soon became apparent during the study that the older frames are of more interest and should
be considered separately from the more recently designed buildings. The scope of this study is
to produce a period-height formula to be used for displacement-based assessment of RC
buildings. It can be considered that more recently designed buildings, designed following
capacity design principles, are not likely to be included in an urban assessment scheme. This
would mean that only older buildings, not designed to capacity design principles need to be
included in this study. The need to consider the two categories of buildings separately has
been further emphasized by the results of the eigenvalue analyses, which will be fully
described and presently in Chapter 4. The fundamental period taken from eigenvalue analyses
of both recently designed and older (pre-1980) frames are shown together in Figure 3.1, with
the former shown as solid black dots and the latter as black rings. The recently designed
buildings are shown to be much stiffer and so the fundamental period is lower; this can be
attributed to capacity design principles leading to large columns being required. Hence only
the older frames were used in further analyses, as listed in Table 3.2.
old frames new frames

2.0
1.5
Period (s)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 3.1 – Results of gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses of all case studies
11
TABLE 3.1 – Summary table of all case studies
No. Country Decade Design Code Heig No. of No. Mass Comments
ht storeys of (t)
(m) bays
1
1 Portugal 80’s RSA ‘83 12 4 5 445 Regular, internal
2 Portugal 90’s DBD2%CD 12 4 5 445 Regular, internal
3 Portugal 80’s RSA ‘83 24 8 5 916 Regular, internal
4 Portugal 90’s DBD1%CD 24 8 5 916 Regular, internal
2
5 Portugal 90’s EC8 ’94 36 12 5 805 Regular, external
6 Portugal 90’s EC8 ’94 36 12 5 798 Regular, external
7 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 36 12 5 757 Regular, external
8 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 36 12 5 775 Regular, external
9 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 25.5 8 5 445 Pilotis, external
13 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 12.5 4 2 175.5 Horiz. irregular, int.
3
14 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 1.725 1 1 0.525 Regular, internal
15 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 24 8 3 499 Regular, internal

16 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 24 8 5 831 Regular, internal
4
17 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 9.25 3 3 101 Horiz. irreg. internal
18 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 9.25- 3-4 13 430 Regular, internal ,
11.8 central penthouse
5
19 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 6 3 3 25.6 2/3 scale model, horiz.
irregular
6
20 Greece 60’s Greek, ‘59 15 5 6 253 Regular, internal

22 Greece 60’s Greek, ‘59 17 5 6 253 Pilotis, internal
7
24 Italy 60’s Italian, ‘60 27.56 7 2 417 Horiz. Irreg, internal
25 Italy 60’s Italian, 60’s 8.8 2 7 214 Horiz. Irreg, internal
5
26 Italy 50-60’s Italian, 50-60s 18 6 3 174 Regular, Internal
8 Romanian, 20-40s
28 Romania 20-40’s 15 5 5 574 Regular, Internal
29 Romania 20-40’s Romanian, 20-40s 18 6 4 670 Regular, Internal
9
30 Portugal 50-60’s Portuguese, 10.8 4 3 174 Horiz. Irreg, internal
50-60’s
10
31 Yugoslavia 70-80’s Yugoslavian ‘81 21.75 7 4 454 Regular, Internal
References: 1) Romäo (2002), 2) Arêde (1997), 3) Varum (1996), 4) Cosenza (2000), 5) Moratti (2000), 6) Zeris et al (2002), 7)
FIB (2003), 8) Bostenaru (2003) 9) Carvalho et al (1999) 10) ACI (1984)
12
TABLE 3.2 – Summary Table of ‘older’ frames used in the study
No. Country Decade Design Code Heig No. of No. Mass Comments
ht storeys of (t)
(m) bays
14 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 1.725 1 1 0.525 Regular, internal
17 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 9.25 3 3 101 Horiz. irreg. internal

18 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 9.25- 3-4 13 430 Regular, internal ,
11.8 central penthouse
19 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 6 3 3 25.6 2/3 scale model, horiz.
irregular

24 Italy 60’s Italian, ‘60 27.56 7 2 417 Horiz. Irreg, internal
25 Italy 60’s Italian, 60’s 8.8 2 7 214 Horiz. Irreg, internal


30 Portugal 50-60’s Portug., 50-60’s 10.8 4 3 174 Horiz. Irreg, internal

31 Yugoslavia 70-80’s Yugoslavian ‘81 21.75 7 4 454 Regular, Internal
All of the 16 frames shown in Table 3.2 will now be described in some detail; the reader
should refer to the references given for detailed information of the buildings not presented
herein.
3.2.1 One-Storey Frame
A one storey frame (number 14 in Table 3.2) has been designed by Varum (1996) to EC8 and
is shown in Figure 3.2. The beam and columns have section size and reinforcement as shown
in Figure 3.3.
13
FIGURE 3.2 – One storey frame (Varum, 1996)
FIGURE 3.3– Beam and column sections (Varum, 1996)
The material properties were provided by Varum through written communication; the
compressive strength of concrete fc’ was taken as 24.6MPa and the tensile strength as 2.2MPa,
the yield strength of the steel was given as 460MPa with a yield strain of 0.235% and a strain
hardening parameter (see section 3.3.2) of 0.00242.
Although this frame has been designed to EC8, a code which considers capacity design
principles, it has been included in the study of older frames as it is currently the only one storey
frame which has been obtained. It is assumed that the design of such a low-rise frame would
not differ greatly from a design to an older code. This assumption appears to be valid when
one considers the results shown in Figure 3.1 where the low-rise older and newer frames
produce similar gross stiffness periods of vibration, whereas the difference becomes greater as
the height increases.
14
3.2.2 Pavia Frame Model
Moratti (2000) describes the design of a frame to just gravity loads according to the Italian
specifications of the 1970’s. It has three-storeys and three bays and has been built to 2/3 scale
at the Department of Structural Mechanics at the University of Pavia, Italy. Figure 3.4 shows
the geometry of the frame (number 19 in Table 3.2) in an elevation view (dimensions are in
cm). The columns have square cross-section with each side equal to 200 mm, while the beams
have dimensions of 200/330 mm. The columns were reinforced with 6Φ8 mm bars and the
beams with 2Φ8 mm bars top and bottom and 2Φ12mm bars top and bottom.
The material properties were obtained from testing carried out at the laboratory in Pavia, and
the concrete was found to have a compressive strength of 17MPa and a tensile strength of
3MPa. The steel reinforcement was found to have yield strength of 370MPa and an ultimate
strength of 470MPa.
FIGURE 3.4 – Elevation view of the Pavia frame (Moratti, 2000)
During testing RC concrete blocks were placed on each floor to simulate slab and live loading.
Table 3.3 shows the additional mass placed at each floor:
15
TABLE 3.3 – Added mass to each floor of the Pavia frame
Floor Added Mass (tonnes)

1 7.44
2 7.44
3 5.52
3.2.3 ‘Monterosso’ Building
In the GNDT report edited by Cosenza (2000), a four story RC building designed to just
gravity loading in the 1970’s in Catania, Italy is presented (referred to as the ‘Monterosso’
building). The building has a transversal axis of symmetry and a typical plan of the first three
storeys is shown in Figure 3.5. The height of each storey varies between 2.75 and 3.25m,
giving a total height of the building of 11.8m (Table 3.5). The fourth storey, being only a
cover to the central staircase, covers a smaller area as shown in Figure 3.6. The column
sections are tabulated in Table 3.4 and the detailing of the longitudinal reinforcement is shown
in Figure 3.7.
Two frames have been taken from this building, a transverse frame (columns 3, 17, 30, 38 in
Figure 3.5) and a longitudinal frame (columns 14-27 in Figure 3.5). These frames have
previously been summarized in Table 3.2 as numbers 17 and 18 respectively.
16
FIGURE 3.5 – Typical plan of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
17
FIGURE 3.6 – Plan of fourth floor of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
TABLE 3.4 – Table of columns in ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)
18
FIGURE 3.7 – RC Column sections (Cosenza, 2000)
TABLE 3.5 – Height and mass of each floor of the ‘Monterosso’ building
Floor Height (m) Mass (tonnes)

1 2.75 392
2 6.00 398
3 9.25 262
4 11.8 81
The permanent loads and 30% live loads lead to a mass of each storey as shown in Table 3.5.
The beams dimensions are shown in Figure 3.5 and the reinforcement is generally 2Φ10 top
and bottom and 2Φ12 bars at the bottom with an additional Φ12 bar at each end of the beam.
The slabs have a width of (150+40) mm, and span in the transversal direction.
The material properties as assumed in Cosenza (2000) are shown in Table 3.6:
19
TABLE 3.6 – Material Properties (‘Monterosso’ building)
Concrete
Compressive strength, fc’ 20.75 MPa
Tensile strength, ft 2.0 MPa
Ultimate strain, εcu 0.005
Steel
Yield strength, fy 380 MPa
Ultimate strength, fult 475 MPa
Yield strain, εy 0.18%
Ultimate strain, εult 14%
3.2.4 ‘ICONS’ Four-Storey Frame
Figure 3.8 shows an elevation of a four-storey, three-bay reinforced concrete bare frame
designed and built at Ispra, Italy for pseudo-dynamic testing by the European Commission,
undertaken by the ECOEST II / ICONS 1 collaboration (Carvalho et al, 1999). The frame was
designed essentially for gravity loads and a nominal lateral load of 8% of its weight. The
reinforcement details attempted to mirror the practices used in southern European countries in
the 1950’s; the columns were non-ductile, smooth reinforcing bars were used, capacity design
principles were ignored and lap splicing occurred in critical regions. Figures 3.9 and 3.10
show column and beam reinforcement details respectively; the column stirrup detail should be
noted in particular.
The height to each floor of the frame and the mass of each floor are given in Table 3.7.
1
ECOEST II is the European Consortium of Earthquake Shaking Tables
ICONS – Innovative Concepts for Seismic Design of New and Existing Structures
20
FIGURE 3.8 – Elevation of the ‘ICONS’ Frame (Carvalho et al, 1999)
FIGURE 3.9 – Column Reinforcement Details for the ‘ICONS’ frame (Carvalho et al, 1999)
21
FIGURE 3.10 – Beam reinforcement details for the ‘ICONS’ Frame (Carvalho et al,
1999)
22
TABLE 3.7 - Height and mass of each floor of the ‘ICONS’ frame

1 2.7 45.5
2 5.4 45.5
3 8.1 45.5
4 10.8 37.5
The material properties were obtained during testing of the frame. The concrete was defined as
C16/C20 and had the properties as shown in Table 3.8. The longitudinal steel reinforcement
consisted of smooth round bars (FeB22k) with the properties as given in Table 3.8.
TABLE 3.8 – Material Properties (‘ICONS’ frame)
Concrete
Compressive strength, fc’ 16.3 MPa
Steel
Ultimate strength, fult 452 MPa
Yield strain, εy 0.1715%
3.2.5 Greek Five-Storey frames
Zeris et al (2002) describe various Greek frames designed to Greek codes from 1959 and 1984.
From this paper, along with correspondence with the authors, information was obtained such
that four frames could be modelled. Two orthogonal frames (numbers 20 and 21 in Table 3.2)
were taken from a five storey building designed to the 1959 Greek code. These frames have a
constant storey height of 3m whilst one frame has four bays and the other has six bays, the
model of the six bay frame is shown in Figure 3.11.
23
FIGURE 3.11 – Model of Greek Frame No. 20 (Table 3.2)
The design loads were taken equal to: 1.5 kN/m2 surcharge and 2.0 kN/m2 live load, interior
light partition weight 1.0 kN/m2 uniform over the entire floor plan and exterior infills 3.6
kN/m2 of façade area. The frames were modelled, as mentioned previously, with the total dead
load plus 30% of the live load. The height to each floor and the mass of each floor has thus
been calculated as given in Table 3.9.
TABLE 3.9 - Height and mass of each floor of the Greek frames
Floor Height (m) Mass (tonnes) Mass (tonnes)

4 bay 6 bay
1 3 34.56 51.32
2 6 34.56 51.32
3 9 34.56 51.32
4 12 34.56 51.32
5 15 32.33 48.07
Both frames have 350/350 mm square columns at the first floor, reduced to 300/300 mm
square at the second floor from where they are further reduced to 250/250 mm up to the roof.
Column reinforcement is typically governed by code minima (0.8 to 1.0% gross section steel
ratio) however the third storey columns are reinforced with 2% gross section steel ratio,
leading to a large strength discontinuity between the second and third storeys. Beams are
24
200/500 mm with light reinforcement (2Φ10 top and 4/5Φ10 bars bottom usually). The slab is
120 mm thick on all floors.
The frames were designed with concrete compressive strength of 16MPa and steel
reinforcement with yield strength of 220MPa, and so these were the properties used in the
model.
A four bay frame and a six bay frame were also taken from a five storey building similar to that
described above, however the first storey height is 5m and so would probably produce a ‘soft
storey’. The model of the four bay frame is shown in Figure 3.12. Column dimensions and
reinforcement are similar to those in the previous frames; however the columns of the ground
floor are now 400/400 mm. The beams also have the same dimensions and similar
reinforcement.
FIGURE 3.12 – Model of Greek Frame No. 23 (Table 3.2)
3.2.6 Five and Six-Storey Romanian Frames
Bostenaru (2003) describes the retrofit of many ‘interwar’ Romanian RC frames and written
communication with the author has lead to the modelling in this study of the original frames of
both a five- and six-storey regular frame (numbers 28 and 29 respectively in Table 3.2). The
five-storey frame has a storey height of 3m and five bays, as shown in Figure 3.13.
25
FIGURE 3.13 – Model of Five-Storey Romanian Frame No 29 (Table 3.2)
The six-storey frame also has a storey height of 3m with four equal 4.5m bays, as shown in
Figure 3.14.
FIGURE 3.14 – Model of Six-Storey Romanian Frame No 30 (Table 3.2)
The columns of both frames are 500 by 500 mm square and the beams are 500 deep in both
frames with a width of 250mm in the five-storey frame and 300mm in the six-storey frame.
Reinforcement of these members follows the practice during the ‘interwar’ period in Romania.
26
The columns were reinforced with 8 Φ 12mm smooth bars in the five-storey frame and 8 Φ
16mm smooth bars in the six-storey frame. The beams were reinforced with gross section steel
ratios between 1-2%.
The concrete compressive strength in these buildings is known to be around 15MPa, whilst
the steel has been assumed with a yield strength of 500MPa (limited information available).
3.2.7 Seven-Storey US-Japanese Frame
A full-scale seven storey RC building has been designed and built through the US-Japan
Cooperative earthquake Engineering Research Program (ACI, 1984). Four designs were made
to various codes and the design chosen to be modelled for this study was to the Yugoslavian
code of 1981, hence it can be considered a European building designed for an area of high
seismicity and is thus applicable for this study.
Figure 3.15 shows the plan and section of the RC frame-wall structure. The frame used in this
study was taken as one of the outer frames, however, as there is no wall present in these
frames.
FIGURE 3.15 – Plan and Section of the Seven-Storey RC Frame-Wall Structure (ACI, 1984)
27
Figure 3.16 shows the beam and column section reinforcement obtained from the Yugoslavian
design code. The end region of the outer columns is composed of section 1 and the middle
region of section 2; the middle columns are composed of section 5. The end region of the
beams is composed of section 3 and the middle region of section 4. The low reinforcement
content, and use of stirrups rather than hoops should be noted, as this follows European
practice up to 20-30 years ago.
FIGURE 3.16 – Section reinforcement according to the ’81 Yugoslavian design code (ACI, 1984)
The height to each storey and mass of each floor is given in Table 3.10.
TABLE 3.10 - Height and mass of each floor of the US/Japanese frame

1 3.75 70.38
2 6.75 65.28
3 9.75 65.28
4 12.75 65.28
5 15.75 65.28
6 18.75 65.28
7 21.75 58.14
The material properties were taken as 29MPa compressive strength and 2.42MPa tensile
strength for the concrete and 375MPa yield strength for the longitudinal steel, as suggested in
ACI (1984).
28
3.2.8 Two and Seven-Storey Italian Frames
Chapter 7 of the state-of-the-art report by FIB (2003) includes the design information of two
typical Italian frames designed and built according to the Italian Seismic Code of 1960 in a
region of high seismic hazard. Design was made by employing a ‘permissible working stress’
approach; this implies that the maximum design stress in the reinforcement is about half the
yield stress. In addition, columns were not dimensioned for shear. The two planar frames have
been taken from a low-rise and a high-rise multi-storey building, the former has bays and two
floors whilst the latter has two bays and seven floors. Figure 3.17 shows the geometry and
reinforcement of the low-rise frame (number 25 in Table 3.2) and Figure 3.18 shows the
geometry and reinforcement of the high-rise frame (number 24 in Table 3.2).
FIGURE 3.17 - Geometry and reinforcement of two-storey Italian frame (FIB, 2003)
29
FIGURE 3.18 – Geometry and reinforcement of seven-storey Italian frame (FIB, 2003)
30
The height to each floor of the two-storey frame and the total mass assumed to load the frame
at each floor are shown in Table 3.11, whilst this data for the seven-storey frame is given in
Table 3.12:
TABLE 3.11 – Height and mass of each floor of the two-storey frame

1 4.7 107
2 8.8 107
TABLE 3.12 - Height and mass of each floor of the seven-storey Italian frame

1 4.96 59.5
2 10.36 59.5
3 13.88 59.5
4 17.4 59.5
5 20.92 59.5
6 24.44 59.5
7 27.56 59.5
The material properties for both frames have been used as presented in the report by FIB
(2003), as outlined in Table 3.13:
TABLE 3.13 – Material properties (two and seven-storey Italian frames)
Concrete
Compressive strength, fc’ 22 MPa
Steel
31
3.2.9 Three, Six and Eight-Storey Italian Frames
Three frames of three, six and eight- storeys were designed for gravity loading only according
to the Italian code provisions available in he 1950’s and 1960’s (Moratti, 2000). The three
frames have been taken from the design of the eight storey structure as shown in Figure 3.19.
The storey height is 3m throughout and the bay lengths are 4.5m, 2m and 4.5m.
3 PIANI
6 PIANI
8 PIANI
FIGURE 3.19 – The Three, Six and Eight-storey Italian Frames (Moratti, 2000)
The six and the eight storey frames have been modelled in this study. The dimensions of all
beams are 300mm by 500mm with 2Φ16mm bars at the top and 4Φ16mm bars at the bottom
with two of the Φ16mm bottom bars bent up at the ends of the beam. The column dimensions,
reinforcement and the loads to each column are shown in Figure 3.20.
The material properties were found from laboratory testing; the concrete was found to have a
compressive strength of 19.62MPa and the longitudinal reinforcing steel a yield strength of
373MPa.
32
N=5073 kg N=7313 kg
25x25 25x25
4 φ14 4 φ14
St φ 6 @ 10 cm St φ 6 @ 10 cm
11136 kg 16088 kg
25x25 25x25
4 φ14 4 φ14
St φ 6 @ 10 cm St φ 6 @ 10 cm
17223 kg 24965 kg
25x25 25x25
4 φ14 4 φ14
St φ 6 @ 10 cm St φ 6 @ 10 cm
23238 kg 33640 kg
25x25 30x30
4 φ14 4 φ16
St φ 6 @ 10 cm St φ 6 @ 10 cm
29363 kg 42480 kg
25x25 30x30
4 φ14 4 φ16
St φ 6 @ 10 cm St φ 6 @ 15 cm
35438 kg 51200 kg
30x30 35x35
4 φ16 4 φ18
St φ 6 @ 15 cm St φ 6 @ 15 cm
41523 kg 60000 kg
30x30 35x35
4 φ16 4 φ18
St φ 6 @ 15 cm St φ 6 @ 15 cm
47590 kg 68755kg
35x35 40x40
4 φ18 4 φ18
St φ 6 @ 15 cm St φ 6 @ 15 cm
FIGURE 3.20 – Column sections, reinforcement and loading (Moratti, 2000)
33
3.3 Non-linear Finite Element Package
The non-linear finite element program SeismoStruct (2003) has been chosen to model the
frames and subsequently calculate their fundamental period. This package carries out
distributed inelasticity fibre analysis as opposed to a concentrated plasticity approach present in
‘plastic hinge modelling’ programs. The program is capable of predicting the large
displacement behaviour of space frames under static or dynamic loading, taking into account
both local and global geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity.
3.3.1 Introduction to the program
In SeismoStruct, both local (beam-column effect) and global (large displacements/rotations

effect) sources of geometric nonlinearity are automatically taken into account. Modelling of
the latter is carried out through the employment of a co-rotational formulation (e.g. Izzuddin,
2001), whereby local element displacements and resulting internal forces are defined with
regard to a moving local chord system. In this local system six basic degrees-of-freedom are
employed (θ2(A), θ3(A), θ2(B), θ3(B), ∆, θT), as shown in Figure 3.21. Exact transformation of
element internal forces (M2(A), M3(A), M2(B), F, MT) and the stiffness matrix, obtained in the local
chord system, into the global system of coordinates allows for large displacements/rotations to
be accounted for (e.g. Izzuddin, 1991).
Figure 3.21 Local chord reference system (SeismoStruct, 2003)
34
The interaction between axial force and transverse deformation of the element (beam-column
effect), on the other hand, is implicitly incorporated in the element cubic formulation suggested
by Izzuddin (1991), whereby the strain states within the element are completely defined by the
generalised axial strain and curvature along the element reference axis (x), whilst a cubic shape
function is employed to calculate the transverse displacement as a function of the end rotations
of the element:
θ +θ   2θ + θ B2  2
u 2 (x ) =  A2 2 B2  x 3 −  A2  x + θ A2 x (3.1)
 L   L 
θ +θ   2θ + θ B3  2
u 3 (x ) =  A3 2 B3  x 3 −  A3  x + θ A3 x (3.2)
 L   L 
The resulting elastic component of the stiffness matrix of the element, as defined in the local
chord system (Izzuddin, 2001) is:
Figure 3.22 Elastic component of element stiffness matrix (SeismoStruct, 2003)
In Figure 3.22, E denotes the modulus of elasticity, A is the cross-sectional area and I2 and I3
are the moments of inertia about the local axes (2) and (3). The torsional constant is denoted
by J, whilst G stands for the modulus of rigidity, obtained as G = E/(2(1+ν)), where ν is the
Poisson’s ratio.
Since a constant generalised axial strain shape function (∆(x) = ∆) is assumed in the adopted
cubic formulation, it results that its application is only fully valid to model the nonlinear
response of relatively short members (Izzuddin, 1991) and hence a number of elements (3-4
per structural member) is required for the accurate modelling of structural frame members.
35
It should be noted that shear strains across the element cross-section are not modelled, thus the
strain state of a section is fully represented by the curvature and centroidal strains alone
(Izzuddin, 1991). Also warping strains and warping effects (cross-section distortion) are not
considered.
The spread of inelasticity along the member length and across the section depth is explicitly
modelled in SeismoStruct following a fibre modelling approach, thus allowing for an accurate
estimation of damage distribution.
The sectional stress-strain state of inelastic beam-column frame elements is obtained through
the integration of the nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain response of the individual fibres into
which the section has been subdivided. The discretisation of a typical reinforced concrete
section is illustrated in Figure 3.23. The user is required to define a sufficient number of fibres
(about 200 is recommended for spatial analysis) and then the distribution of material
nonlinearity across the section area is accurately modelled, even in the highly inelastic range.
Figure 3.23 Discretisation of an RC section into fibres (SeismoStruct, 2003)
The spread of inelasticity along the member length arises as a result of the inelastic cubic
formulation suggested by Izzuddin (1991), on which the beam-column elements within
SeismoStruct are based. Two integration Gauss points per element are used for the numerical
integration of the governing equations of the cubic formulation, as shown in Figure 3.24. If a
sufficient number of elements is used (5-6 per structural member), then the plastic hinge length
of structural members subjected to high levels of material inelasticity can accurately estimated.
It is evident that if the plastic hinges are to be accurately modelled, more elements should be
defined where hinges are expected to form. The division of the member into shorter elements
36
also renders valid the use of the cubic formulation to model nonlinear response, as mentioned
previously.
Figure 3.24 Location of integration Gauss points within an element (SeismoStruct, 2003)
There are seven material models of steel and concrete available within the program library such
that the user can define the material behaviour to the required degree of accuracy, however it
should be noted that more calibration is required for increasingly complex models. Steel
models include a bilinear stress-strain model with strain hardening, a Menegotto – Pinto (1973)
model which utilises a damage modulus to represent more accurately the unloading stiffness
under loading reversals (Figure 3.25) and a Monti – Nuti (1992) model able to describe the
post-elastic buckling behaviour of reinforcing bars.
Figure 3.25 Menegotto - Pinto (1973) steel model used in SeismoStruct (2003)
37
Concrete can be modelled most simply by a simple trilinear model with no tensile resistance.
More accurate models for normal strength concrete are available considering either constant
confinement following the Mander et al (1988) model (see Figure 3.26) or variable
confinement as proposed by Madas and Elnashai (1992). A high-strength concrete model is
also available as proposed by Kappos and Konstantinidis (1999) which allows for constant
confinement modelling.
Figure 3.26 Mander et al (1988) concrete model in SeismoStruct (2003)
3.3.2 Modelling parameters adopted
The following parameters have been applied to all frames that have been modelled:
(1) The Mander et al (1988) constant confinement material model (see Figure 3.26) was
used for concrete. This requires the input of concrete compressive strength (fc’), tensile
strength (ft), strain at peak stress and a confinement factor. The confinement factor is defined
as the ratio between the confined and unconfined compressive stress of the concrete, and is
used to scale up the stress-strain relationship throughout the entire strain range. This material
model was used for both confined and unconfined concrete, with the confinement factor for the
latter being taken as 1.0. When information regarding the tensile strength and strain at peak
stress was not available, the former has been calculated as 0.5√fc’ and the latter taken as 0.002.
The bi-linear stress strain with strain hardening model was used for steel (see Figure 3.27).
This model requires the definition of yield strength (fy), modulus of elasticity (E), and a strain
38
hardening parameter. The strain hardening parameter is the ratio between the post-yield
stiffness (Esp) of the material and the initial elastic stiffness (Es). The former is defined as
Esp = (fult-fy)/(εult-fy/Es), where fult and εult represent the ultimate or maximum stress and strain
capacity of the material, respectively. When information was not available for the modulus of
elasticity and strain hardening parameter, the former was assumed to be 2E105MPa and the
latter to be 0.005.
FIGURE 3.27 – Bilinear stress-strain steel model with strain hardening (SeismoStruct, 2003)
(2) 4-5 elements, with smaller elements at member ends, were used to model beams and
columns to ensure inelasticity could be accurately modelled;
(3) The inertia was taken as the dead load plus approximately 30% of the live load;
(4) Beams and columns were modelled as extending from the centre of one beam-column
joint to the centre of the next.
SeismoStruct cannot model shear deformations however they need to be accounted for in both
joints and members so that frame deformations can be accurately predicted. Within joints,
alongside the shear deformation, there is also increased flexibility due to yield penetration and
bar slip. A large proportion of the current building stock in Europe is considered to have been
constructed with smooth bars, following the general building practice up until about 30 – 40
years ago. Therefore it is proposed that the inclusion of bar slip in the determination of yield
stiffness is justified.
39
In this study, the increased member length of beams and columns has been assumed to account
for the increased joint flexibility, until further research and calibration can be carried out. This
would require the joint offset to be modelled with an elastic element and springs to be added
where the beam connects to the joint to account for bar slippage and shear deformation. The
shear deformation of the members may still not be accounted for in the model, however until
further calibration is carried out the models will be used as defined above.
40
Chapter 4. Eigenvalue analysis using yield stiffness
4 EIGENVALUE ANALYSIS USING YIELD STIFFNESS
4.1 Introduction
The discussion of elastic stiffness of RC members has recently been reopened (Priestley,
2003). The elastic stiffness is an important quantity required at the initial stages of traditional
earthquake design for the calculation of required lateral strength. Priestley (2003) reports the
stiffness prescribed by many design codes, being the gross section (un-cracked) stiffness, as
inappropriate considering cracking of critical elements such as beams generally occurs under
gravity loading alone. However if cracking is not found to have occurred before the design
seismic level of excitation (considered unlikely as this level of excitation would with all
probability have been preceded by a number of lower intensity events), it will occur early on in
the response to excitation and thereafter the stiffness will reduce rapidly. The tension
stiffening effect of the concrete is lost following the initiation of seismic excitation and will not
be regained without post-earthquake intervention. Thus the reliable stiffness of the members
can only be confidently taken as the yield stiffness.
Traditionally, the cracked stiffness that should be modelled in beams and columns at yield has
been prescribed in codes as a proportion of the gross stiffness, regardless of the axial load and
strength of the member under question. This practice is discussed in this chapter along with
recent developments to prescribe a more accurate stiffness reduction factor. A ratio between
stiffness at yield and initial stiffness of members that was proposed in Japan over 30 years ago
is also presented. All methods for yield stiffness determination have been applied to the case
studies, and eigenvalue analyses have been run to find in particular the fundamental yield
period.
41
4.2 Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis
The first analysis to run when a building has been modelled is an eigenvalue analysis as this
will immediately give an indication of the soundness of the model. Hence an eigenvalue
analysis using the gross stiffness of the members has been carried out for each frame in the
study.
4.2.1 Eigenvalue analysis in SeismoStruct
Eigenvalue analysis is a purely elastic type of structural analysis, since material properties are
taken as constant throughout the entire computation procedure. SeismoStruct has the facility to
employ elastic frame elements requiring only the input of axial, flexural and torsional rigidity
to be used with eigenvalue analysis. This means that the material properties, section types and
the reinforcement areas and sectional co-ordinates do not need to be specified. However it is
recommended that if the model is to be subsequently used for inelastic analysis, such as
pushover or dynamic analysis, that the frame elements are input as inelastic elements even for
eigenvalue analysis. This also has the advantage that hand calculations are not required to find
the section mechanical properties, as these are computed by the program from the sectional
geometry and material properties using basic structural mechanics.
The eigenproblem that needs to be solved for eigenvectors and eigenvalues is:
Kφ = λMφ (5.1)
where K is the stiffness matrix of the MDOF system, M is the mass matrix, φ is the mode shape
vector and λ is the mode frequency vector. Eigenvalue analysis uses the properties of matrices
and vectors to its advantage, such as the orthogonality of eigenvectors corresponding to distinct
eigenvalues. However in practice round-off errors may mean that these vectors are not in fact
orthogonal. When dealing with large structures with many degrees of freedom where only a
few eigenvalues and eigenvectors are required, an efficient remedy to the problem of
orthogonalisation is the Lanczos algorithm (Hughes, 1987). SeismoStruct uses this algorithm
in eigenvalue analyses for its proven efficiency.
42
4.2.2 Results of gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses
The results of gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses for all frames, both internal and external
frames are shown in Figure 4.1.
inner frames outer frames
2.0
1.5
Period (s)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.1 – Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of inner and outer frames
The results of the gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses show at first glance that the outer frames
have periods of vibration much lower than the frames taken from within the building. The
outer frames were originally included in the study as detailed design information was presented
for these frames only in some publications. The mass on the outer frames is around half of that
on the frames within the building, and it is assumed that the stiffness and strength difference
between the internal and external frames is not in proportion with this mass difference. This
would explain the difference between the periods of vibration found for the internal and
external frames. It is assumed that the building is better represented in mass, stiffness and
strength by an internal frame. In order to represent the external frames as internal frames, the
mass to the former has been doubled, however it should be noted that this requires the
assumption that during design all frames were designed for the same lateral forces.
43
Figure 4.2 shows the results of the gross eigenvalue analyses for all ‘internal’ frames. It is not
immediately apparent that there is a trend between period and height. A closer inspection of
the data included in this graph showed that lower periods of vibration were obtained for
recently designed buildings. The disparity between the fundamental un-cracked periods of
older and recently designed buildings suggests that they should not be considered together. It
was decided that the recently designed frames should be removed from further analyses
because, as mentioned previously, the motivation of this dissertation is to produce a yield
period – height curve that is to be used for assessment of older structures.
old frames new frames

2.0
1.5
Period (s)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.2 – Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of all ‘inner’ frames
Figure 4.3 shows the gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis plot with only the older structures
included, along with the best-fit line to the data and the corresponding curve equation. The
best-fit line to the data has been obtained by regression analysis. The curve has been taken as a
power series of the unconstrained form T = αΗβ, as recommended by Chopra and Goel (1997)
after various theoretical studies.
To quantify the scatter in the results, the standard deviation of the calculated periods of
vibration from the best-fit equation has been found by employing:
44
1 n
sd = ∑ (x j − x ) 2
n − 1 j=1
(4.1)
where x is the mean period found from the best fit line and xj is the actual period measured at
each height studied, j. Due to the unconstrained form of the period-height relationship the
standard deviation found is lower than would be obtained if a constrained relationship were to
be specified as has been demonstrated by Chopra and Goel (1997). The standard deviation of
the period – height curve obtained by gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis is shown in Figure 4.3
to be just 0.089 seconds. It can thus be deduced that the data fit relatively well to an
unconstrained period – height curve of the form T = αΗβ, and so this form will be used for the
regression analysis of all subsequent period – height data.
2.0
Gross stiffness eigenvalue

1.1698
y = 0.0344x
1.5
Period (s)
1.0
standard deviation = 0.089 s
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.3 – Gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis of older frames
Figure 4.4 shows a comparison of the gross stiffness eigenvalue best-fit curve with the best-fit
curve from the Chopra and Goel (1997) study. It is evident that the best-fit curve from the
Chopra and Goel (1997) Californian study is much lower that the un-cracked best-fit curve
obtained in this study using European buildings. The upper bound curve of the Californian
study is also beneath the European un-cracked curve for buildings higher than about 4 storeys,
even though this upper bound curve has been specified to be used to estimate a cracked period
45
for use in displacement-based assessment. The reason for the higher un-cracked periods of
vibration of European buildings compared to the cracked periods in the Chopra and Goel
(1997) study might be attributed to the different design and construction practices between
Europe and California. These findings highlight the need for a European yield period – height
curve, as previously claimed in Chapter 2.
2.0

1.1698
y = 0.0344x
1.5
Period (s)
Chopra & Goel

1.0
upper bound
0.9
y = 0.067x
Chopra & Goel

0.5 best-fit
0.9
y = 0.052x
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.4 – Comparison of gross stiffness eigenvalue period – height curve with best-fit and
upper bound curves from Chopra and Goel (1997) study
4.3 Strength-independent stiffness reduction factors
The gross-stiffness periods obtained in the previous section are known to be lower than the
periods that are observed in practice under even moderate seismic action. Seismic actions
subject the members of RC moment-resisting frames to moment reversals along their length,
flexural cracking at their ends and un-cracked central regions. Hence with the variation of
cracking/stiffness, the moment of inertia, I of the member also varies along its length. The
moment of inertia is known to be influenced by the magnitude and sign of the moment, the
amount of flexural reinforcement, section geometry and axial load (P). In addition, diagonal
cracking of the member due to shear and reversed cyclic loading affect the moment of inertia
46
and consequently the stiffness of the member (Paulay and Priestley, 1992). The common
procedure to take account of all of the aforementioned effects on the stiffness has been to
reduce the moment of area of the gross section Ig to obtain an equivalent moment of inertia, Ie.
The reduction factors given in Paulay and Priestley (1992) give ranges of values for
rectangular, T and L shaped beams, and for columns depending on the axial load in
compression and/or tension (see Table 4.1).
TABLE 4.1 – Effective member moment of inertia (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
Member Range of Ig Recommended Ig

Rectangular beams 0.30 – 0.50 Ig 0.40 Ig
T and L shaped beams 0.25 – 0.45 Ig 0.35 Ig
Columns
P > 0.5 fc’Ag 0.70 – 0.90 Ig 0.80 Ig
P = 0.2 fc’Ag 0.50 – 0.70 Ig 0.60 Ig
P = -0.05 fc’Ag 0.30 – 0.50 Ig 0.40 Ig
Considering that the axial load to the member affects the reduction in stiffness that is assigned,
an approximation to the seismic axial forces on the outer columns is required to check possible
tensile forces to these columns. It is recommended to take the combination of 1.1 DL
(permanent gravity load) to the columns plus the axial load from the seismic overturning
effects in axial load calculation. Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend the following
formula for the seismic axial load calculation for a regular planar frame, based on an inverted
triangular distribution of lateral forces:
V .l n   i 2 
Pi = bf c
j.l
∑i 1 −  n   (4.2)
 
where Pi is the axial seismic force at level i of an n storey frame with j approximately equal
bays, Vbf is the frame base shear, lc is the constant storey height and l is the bay length.
Some design codes do recognise the influence of cracking and specify reduction factors such as
the New Zealand concrete design code (New Zealand Standard NZS4203, 1992) and FEMA
356 (ASCE, 2000). FEMA 356 (ASCE, 2000) states that the components of the structure
47
should be modelled with linearly elastic stiffness, corresponding to the secant value to the yield
level; Table 4.2 has been taken from the specifications and gives the stiffness reduction factors
which should be used to this end.
TABLE 4.2 – Effective stiffness of members in FEMA 356 (ASCE, 2000)
Due to the low axial load to columns and some uplift forces the reduction factor to the columns
was generally taken as 0.5Ig. This agrees with the factor given in Table 4.2 for columns with
compression loads ≤ 0.3 Agf’c. The stiffness reduction factor for beams was taken between
0.35 – 0.4 Ig; this is slightly lower than the recommended factor for nonprestressed beams in
Table 4.2. Note that, however, only the Paulay and Priestley (1992) factors were used in the
analyses to be described in the next section.
4.3.1 Application of stiffness reduction factors in SeismoStruct
The proposed reduction factors to the moment of inertia of members described in section 4.3
and shown in Table 4.1 from the work of Paulay and Priestley (1992) have been used to reduce
the gross stiffness of the members used in the eigenvalue analyses presented previously.
This can be undertaken in SeismoStruct by reducing the modulus of elasticity, E, of the

material used in the member as opposed to the moment of inertia, Ig, as when E and I are
multiplied to give EIeff in the stiffness calculations, the same value will be obtained regardless
of which property has been reduced. The constant confinement (Mander et al, 1988) model has
been used for concrete and this requires the compressive strength fc’ to be input and uses the
48
relationship E = 4700√fc’ to calculate the modulus of elasticity. To account for the reduced
stiffness the compressive strength of concrete needs to be multiplied by the square of the
reduction factor, r, to the moment of inertia, as shown in the following workings:
E g = 4700 f c ' (4.3)
E g .r = 4700 f c..red
'
(4.4)
∴ f c..red
'
= r2 fc ' (4.5)
The axial load to columns needs to be calculated considering permanent gravity loading and
seismic axial loads to define groups of columns with the same stiffness. Generally all beams
will fall under the same stiffness group if they are all either rectangular or T/L shaped beams.
For each member, a concrete model needs to be defined with reduced compressive strength and
the eigenvalue analyses can then be run as previously.
It should be noted that only the flexural stiffness will be affected by this reduction to the
material strength as SeismoStruct can only model the flexural stiffness matrix and so the
additional stiffness provided by the shear strength is not included. This means that the model
of the structure in SeismoStruct is more flexible than the real structure. Hence as we are not
modelling the shear stiffness initially, we do not need to consider a reduction factor to the shear
strength when carrying out reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses. Incidentally, if the stiffness
of a member were to be calculated by hand, considering both flexural and shear stiffness, it has
been recommended (Priestley et al, 1995) that the effective (yield) shear stiffness is found by
employing the same reduction factor as applied to the flexural stiffness until further research
data in this field becomes available. A method of calculation of a stiffness reduction factor to
both flexural and shear stiffness will in fact be provided later on in this chapter.
4.3.2 Results of eigenvalue analyses using strength-independent stiffness reduction factors
The results of the effective stiffness eigenvalue analyses are show in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.6
shows the comparison of the Paulay and Priestley (1992) reduced stiffness best-fit curve with
49
the best-fit curve for the gross stiffness eigenvalue analyses. As expected the reduced stiffness
curve is clearly higher than the un-cracked concrete curve.
3.0
Paulay and Priestley

1.1517
2.5 y = 0.0483x
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
standard deviation = 0.105s
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.5 – Period ‘v’ height graph for Paulay and Priestley (1992) reduced stiffness
eigenvalue analyses
3.0
Paulay and Priestley

2.5 y = 0.0483x
1.1517
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0 Gross stiffness eigenvalue

1.1698
y = 0.0344x
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.6 – Comparison of Paulay and Priestley (1992) reduced stiffness period - height curve
and gross stiffness period - height curve
50
4.4 Strength-dependent stiffness reduction factors
The stiffness reduction factors described in section 4.3 do not take into account the flexural
strength of the member. The result of the assumption that stiffness is independent of the
flexural strength is shown in Figure 4.7. The consequence of this assumption in conventional
seismic design is that the stiffness of the structure can be predicted at the beginning of the
design considering either the gross or effective section properties and so the period of vibration
can subsequently be found. In force-based design this period is used to obtain the design
spectral acceleration and then the required strength of the structure to the associated lateral
forces can be supplied. This greatly simplifies the design process, but as shown by Priestley
(2003), the initial assumption of strength-independent stiffness is in fact erroneous.
M1
M
M2
M3
φy3 φy2 φy1 φ
FIGURE 4.7 – Moment-curvature relationship under design assumption, i.e. constant stiffness
(Priestley, 2003)
Recent research papers (Priestley and Kowalsky 2000, Priestley, 2003) reporting experimental
evidence and detailed analytical results have shown that stiffness actually cannot be assumed to
be independent of the strength. On the contrary it has been found that it is the yield curvature
of members that is effectively independent of the strength and that it can be found from the
geometrical properties of the member:
Circular columns φy = 2.25εy / D (4.6)
Rectangular column φy = 2.10εy / hc (4.7)
Rectangular cantilever walls φy = 2.00εy / lw (4.8)
51
T-section beams φy = 1.70εy / hb (4.9)
These equations can be intuitively accepted, when one considers that at section yielding the
reinforcement at both ends of the section is likely to be either at or close to yielding, and so in a
typical column the yield curvature of the section is given by twice the yield strain of the
reinforcement divided by the depth between reinforcement bars.
So if the yield curvature can be taken as a constant for given section dimensions, when one
considers the moment-curvature relationship: EI = MN / φy , where MN is the nominal moment
capacity of the section, it can be deduced that the stiffness of the member is directly
proportional to the flexural strength (see Figure 4.8). The upshot of these findings is that it is
not possible to perform an accurate analysis of the elastic structural periods or the elastic
distribution of required strength through the structure until the final member strengths have
been determined. This implies that conventional seismic design based on elastic member
stiffnesses and force-based considerations should be an iterative process where the member
stiffnesses are updated at each iteration (Priestley, 2003).
M1
M
M2
M3
φy φ
FIGURE 4.8 – Moment-curvature relationship under realistic conditions, i.e. constant yield
curvature (Priestley, 2003)
In subsequent sections, two different approaches (analytical and experimental) to calculating

the strength-dependent member stiffness are described and employed in the estimation of the
period of vibration of buildings.
52
4.4.1 Analytical study of member yield stiffness
A study of the yield stiffness of rectangular columns has recently been carried out (Priestley,
2003). Moment-curvature curves were computed for a large square column with evenly
distributed flexural reinforcement under varying levels of reinforcement and axial load. The
results show that there is a strong influence of the axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio on
the moment capacity, but the effective yield curvature of the equivalent bi-linear
approximation to the moment-curvature relationship shows insignificant variation to the
aforementioned ratios (see Figure 4.9).
Yield curvature
Yield curvature
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)
FIGURE 4.9 – Moment-curvature curves for a rectangular column (Priestley, 2003)
From the results of the bi-linear moment-curvature graphs, curves were plotted of stiffness
ratio, calculated as EI/EI gross = M N /φ y EI gross , against axial load ratio, for each reinforcement
ratio considered (see Figure 4.10).
The author mentions that the dimensionless results from this figure can be applied to other
material strengths and column sizes, provided the EIgross of these columns are used to calculate
the effective stiffness. Small errors may be expected when small column dimensions are used,
53
as the ratio of cover to core dimensions is significantly larger than that which applies to the
data presented. Also it is advised that the results should not be used to predict the stiffness of
sections with very high strength concrete or reinforcement.
FIGURE 4.10 – Effective stiffness of large rectangular columns (Priestley, 2003)
4.4.2 Results of eigenvalue analyses using analytically derived member yield stiffness
Reduction factors have been calculated using Figure 4.10 for all members in the frames
depending on the axial load and reinforcement ratio present. The concrete material properties
were modified as described previously with a separate material model required for each
column and beam with a distinct axial load and reinforcement ratio, thus slightly increasing the
complexity of the method. Figure 4.11 shows the results of the eigenvalue analyses using this
approach according to Priestley (2003).
Figure 4.12 shows the comparison of the best-fit curve using the yield stiffness according to
Priestley (2003) with that obtained using traditional stiffness reduction factors (Paulay and
54
Priestley, 1992). The former best-fit curve predicts higher periods of vibration than the latter
best-fit curve and highlights the influence of member strength on the stiffness of buildings.
3.0
Priestley stiffness
1.1156
2.5 y = 0.0654x
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.11 – Period ‘v’ height graph for Priestley (2003) reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses
3.0
Priestley stiffness
1.1156
2.5 y = 0.0654x
2.0
Period (s)
1.5 Paulay and Priestley

1.1517
y = 0.0483x
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.12 - Comparison of the period – height curves using the yield stiffness
according to Priestley (2003) and using traditional stiffness reduction factors (Paulay and
Priestley, 1992)
55
The stiffness reduction factors given in Paulay and Priestley (1992), when compared with those
by Priestley (2003) in Figure 4.10, fall within the curves of 2-3% reinforcement ratio for both
beams and columns. This would be a rather high reinforcement ratio for a beam and the
columns in this study all had reinforcement ratios less than 2.5% with the majority around 1%.
According to the Priestley (2003) study, lower strength produces lower stiffness, thus
explaining the conservative stiffness prediction using the factors of Paulay and Priestley
(2003).
There is a balance between accuracy and simplicity when reduction factors without strength
consideration are used. The use of a blanket reduction factor for beams and for columns
simplifies the calculations for eigenvalue analyses as material properties for each beam and
column with a different axial load ratio or reinforcement ratio do not need to be defined. If
such factors are to be specified in codes for assessment, then for greater accuracy they should
be reduced from the values that are currently being employed due to the higher occurrence of
members with lower strength in older buildings. A range of higher factors could also be
specified for structures with much higher reinforcement ratios such as are present in bridge
columns.
4.4.3 Experimentally derived member yield stiffness
In Japan, an empirical expression for the ratio αy of secant stiffness at yielding and initial
stiffness has been used since it was first presented by Sugano (1970):
2
 a  d
α y =  0.043 + 1.64n ⋅p t +0.043 + 0.33η  ⋅   (4.10)
 D  D
where n is the modular ratio of reinforcement to concrete, pt is the tensile reinforcement ratio, a
is the shear span of the beam, D is the section depth, η = N/(bDf c ' ) is the axial force ratio, b is
the width of the section and d is the effective depth. The expression is applicable for the
tensile reinforcement ratio range of pt = 0.4 to 2.8 %, shear span to depth ratio: a / D = 2.0 to
5.0 and axial force ratio η = 0.0 to 0.55. This empirical expression accounts for flexural
yielding, shear deformation and deformation caused by bar slip within the anchorage zone.
56
The results of the calculated and observed αy(D/d)2 are shown in Figure 4.13 (Sugano, 1970).
Ninety percent of normal strength reinforced concrete beam and column observed αy(D/d)2
were reported to fall within +/- 30 percent of the calculated αy(D/d)2, as shown in Figure 4.13.
0
3
1.
1.
0.7
2
Observed αy(D/d)
Beams
Columns
2
Calculated αy(D/d)
FIGURE 4.13 – Calculated and observed stiffness reduction factor at yielding (Sugano, 1970)
The secant stiffness of members at yielding can therefore be found by multiplying the ratio αy
by the initial stiffness, which is calculated considering flexural and shear deformations:
1 1 1
= + (4.11)
Ki Kf Ks
where Kf is the flexural stiffness and Ks is the shear stiffness.
Otani (2002) mentions that although this stiffness degradation ratio has been used in nonlinear
earthquake analyses of buildings under design in Japan, it should be considered that the
accuracy will depend on the determination of initial stiffness, and thus the reliability of
expressions used for the elastic modulus Ec of concrete, as is also the case in the previously
described methods of elastic stiffness calculation.
57
The elastic modulus of concrete is taken as the initial tangent stiffness of stress-strain
relationship for concrete, which lies between the stiffness of the aggregate and that of the paste.
Its value can be estimated from these stiffnesses using composite material modelling laws,
however often the concrete strength and unit weight are the only known variables. The work
of Pauw (1960) shows that a secant modulus can be defined at 0.4fc’ from the stress-strain
relationship, thus:
E c = w 1.5 0.043 f c ' (4.12)
where wc is the unit weight of concrete. For normal weight concrete equation (4.12) gives:
E c = 4730 f c ' (4.13)
which is recommended for strengths of concrete less than 40MPa. At these strengths the
difference between the initial tangent stiffness and the secant stiffness should be negligible
(Collins, 1997). Otani (2002) discusses the rather high degree of scatter in the data used for the
derivation of equation (4.12). Therefore one should consider the degree of scatter inherent in
the data as well as the degree of uncertainty in the strength of concrete (fc’) in an existing
structure when running analyses with a reduced stiffness as a proportion of the initial stiffness.
In order to compare Sugano’s equation (4.10) with the graph proposed by Priestley (Figure
4.10), the ratio of secant stiffness at yielding to initial stiffness under increasing axial load ratio
has been plotted in Figure 4.14. In order to plot this graph a couple of assumptions were
required; it was supposed that the ratio between effective depth and depth (d/D) of a typical
section is of the order of 0.92 and that the tension reinforcement in a typical column would be
half of the total reinforcement in the section.
The immediate difference that can be noted between these plots and those produced by
Priestley (2003) is that in the former a range of stiffness reduction factors are defined for each
reinforcement ratio depending on both shear span to depth ratio, a/D, and axial load ratio. This
additional dependence of the stiffness ratio on a/D provides a consideration of the ‘stockiness’
of the member; long, slender members have a higher shear span to depth ratio and thus will
predict a lower stiffness reduction than shorter stockier members. Considering that stockier
members are more likely to behave in a shear mode, it may be assumed that extensive cracking
58
would occur in these members and so the secant stiffness at yield would be lower than that of a
slender flexible member behaving in flexure. Therefore it seems feasible that the shear span to
depth ratio is a factor in the determination of cracked stiffness.
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25 Sugano a/D = 5, ρ = 1%

Stiffness Ratio
0.20
0.15 Sugano a/D = 2, ρ =
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Axial Load Ratio
FIGURE 4.14 – Curves of equation (4.10), ratio of secant to initial stiffness plotted against axial
load ratio for 1% reinforcement ratio
4.4.4 Results of eigenvalue analyses using experimentally derived member yield stiffness
The ratio between the secant stiffness and initial stiffness proposed by Sugano (1970) has been
calculated for each column and beam with a distinct axial load and reinforcement ratio and the
corresponding concrete material properties were modified as carried out in the previous
analyses. Figure 4.15 shows the period – height data and best-fit curve for the eigenvalue
analyses conducted with this stiffness ratio.
Figure 4.16 compares the best-fit curve of eigenvalue analyses using the strength-dependent
stiffness ratio proposed by Sugano (1970) with that by Priestley (2003).
59
3.0
Sugano stiffness
1.0981
2.5 y = 0.0733x
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.15 – Period ‘v’ height graph for Sugano reduced stiffness eigenvalue analyses
3.0
Sugano stiffness
1.0981
2.5 y = 0.0733x
2.0
Priestley stiffness
Period (s)
1.1156
1.5 y = 0.0654x
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 4.16 – Comparison of the period – height curves using the yield stiffness
according to Sugano (1970) with that according to Priestley (2003)
60
Figure 4.16 shows that the results of eigenvalue analyses using the member stiffness ratios
predicted by the analytical study of Priestley (2003) and the experimental study of Sugano
(1970) are very similar. The best-fit curve of the latter study is slightly higher than the former
due to the explicit inclusion of bar slip and shear deformations in the definition of member
effective stiffness. It has been mentioned previously that when using SeismoStruct (2003) only
a flexural stiffness reduction factor needs to be defined as shear stiffness is not modelled by
this program. Hence when using the stiffness reduction factors proposed by the work of
Sugano (1970) which account for both flexural and shear stiffness with a program that does not
model shear stiffness, underestimations of the stiffness are probable, and so the results may be
over-conservative. A more accurate procedure would be to model the flexural and shear
stiffness of the members and then use the stiffness reduction factor proposed by Sugano
(1970).
The inclusion of bar slip is, however, considered to be important in the definition of yield
stiffness of RC members within structures built more than 30 years ago. Considering that the
work of Sugano (1970) accounts for bar slip and that the results of the eigenvalue analysis are
conservative, this approach is recommended for the calculation of the yield period of a
structure using eigenvalue analysis.
61
Chapter 5. Yield period from pushover analysis
5 YIELD PERIOD FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of pushover analyses are used to calculate the yield period of the
structures within the study. The yield period can be calculated using the equation of a simple
oscillator, T = 2π√(m/k), providing the multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) structure is converted
to a substitute single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure with an effective mass, height and
stiffness. The effective yield stiffness is obtained by an elasto-plastic representation of the
pushover curve following both the guidelines of Park (1988) and Priestley (2003).
5.2 Conventional and Adaptive Pushover
In SeismoStruct, if inelastic elements have been used to model the structure, the same models
as constructed for eigenvalue analysis may also be used for pushover analysis. SeismoStruct
can carry out conventional and adaptive pushover analyses to estimate horizontal structural
capacity with the former analysis ignoring the effect that structural deformation may have on
the structure’s dynamic response characteristics and the latter providing for this eventuality.
In conventional pushover analysis the applied incremental load P is kept proportional to the
pattern of nominal loads initially defined by the user:
P = λ i {P0 } (5.1)
62
The pattern of these initial loads may be triangular, follow the first mode shape or be uniform.
A triangular load pattern may be reasonably used to approximate the first mode shape of a
regular RC frame building to avoid calculation of the first mode shape. A uniform shape
provides more accurate results when the structure is likely to develop a soft-storey.
The load applied may be a displacement or a force, however unless the structure is a SDOF
structure the load should be input as a force, otherwise the displacement ratio between storeys
of the building will be kept constant and possible soft storeys will never be predicted.
The load factor λ is automatically increased by the program until a user-defined limit or
numerical failure is reached. The load factor may be incremented following a load control, a
response control or an automatic response control. Load control means that the load factor is
directly incremented and the global structural displacements are determined at each load factor
level. The drawback of this control measure is that once the ultimate strength of the structure
has been reached the loads can no longer be increased and so the analysis stops. A remedy to
this drawback is to then apply a response control as this means that the global displacement is
directly incremented at one node and the load factor is back-calculated to that which
corresponds to this displacement. This means that the post-peak of the pushover curve can be
produced.
The authors of SeismoStruct have also developed and tested an adaptive pushover procedure
(Antonio and Pinho, 2003) to extend the applicability of pushover analysis to account for
higher mode effects as well as progressive stiffness degradation. The lateral load distribution
is constantly updated during the analysis by considering the structural stiffness at different
deformation levels in the evaluation of the forces to be applied. The method proposed is also
‘multi-modal’ and explicitly accounts for higher mode effects, and the spectral amplification of
different modes can be considered by using site-specific spectra.
The basic steps of the proposed methodology have been defined by the authors thus:
(1) At each load increment, prior to additional load application, eigenvalue analysis is
performed considering the stiffness state at the end of the previous load increment to calculate
the periods and eigenvectors of the system.
63
(2) For each mode, based on the modal shapes and participation factors of the
eigensolution, the patterns of storey forces are determined. If a spectral shape is considered,
the corresponding spectral amplification for each mode of vibration is also used in the
determination of force pattern.
(3) The lateral load profiles of the modes are combined using either the Square Root of the
Sum of the Squares (SRSS) or the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method, as defined
by the user. The horizontal loads are normalised with respect to the total value, since only the
relative values of storey forces are of interest.
(4) The load factor λ is increased and the forces applied at each storey are evaluated as the
product of the updated load factor, the nominal loads at that storey and the storey forces
obtained in the previous step, this is known as total scaling. Incremental scaling may also be
employed whereby only the load increment is updated by the load factor and then added to the
load applied to the structure calculated from the previous steps. The former scaling is said to be
more theoretically robust with well representative force shapes, whereas the latter scaling is
considerably more stable. It is strongly recommended that the nominal load profile is uniform
so that the load applied at every node is fully determined by the modal characteristics of the
structure and spectral shape used.
(5) The new calculated forces are applied to the model and the system of equations to give
the structural response is solved.
(6) The tangent stiffness matrix of the structure is updated and then step (1) of the
algorithm is repeated for the next increment of the adaptive pushover analysis.
The adaptive pushover is therefore used to give a pushover curve that should be more accurate
than conventional pushover, because when higher mode effects have an important role in the
structure’s behaviour and when strength and stiffness irregularities occur, they can all be
accounted for within the lateral force distribution. The modes of vibration at any load factor
within the pushover can be obtained by the eigenvalue analysis results found during the
analysis using the tangent stiffness matrix at the step in question.
Both conventional and adaptive pushover analyses have been carried out in this study, however
due to the regularity in mass, strength and stiffness of the structures considered, the results
were shown to be very similar. The use of the eigenvalue analyses carried out during adaptive
pushover is of no particular benefit in this study because the tangent stiffness is used as
opposed to the secant stiffness. The secant stiffness can be related to the structural stiffness
64
however structurally, the tangent stiffness has no significance. Hence the use of conventional
pushover is justified for this study and only these results will be included in the following
sections.
5.3 Period calculation using a pushover curve
Pushover analyses can be used to calculate the fundamental period of vibration of MDOF
structures by using the familiar equation for the period of vibration of a simple oscillator:
m
T = 2π (5.2)
k
In order to estimate the period of vibration of a multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) structure, it

is necessary to convert the MDOF structure into a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system so
that the aforementioned equation may be used. This is carried out by converting the structure
into an upturned pendulum with an effective height and an effective mass such that the
overturning moment is the same as the original structure, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Meff
Heff Ky
FIGURE 5.1 – SDOF Substitute structure
The concept of effective mass is required to represent the difference between a simple SDOF
system where all the mass moves at the same speed and in one direction and a MDOF
distributed system where the movement of the mass varies from the ground level to the top and
different parts may move in different directions leading to different modes of vibration. When
the structure can be represented by having lumped masses at each horizontal level, than the part
of the total mass that would respond in each mode in a SDOF oscillator, the effective modal
mass, can be found by the following equation:
65
2
L
M eff = n (5.3)
Mn
where the factors are given by L n = φ n m.{1} and M n = φ n m .φ n . For a structure having a
T T
lumped mass mi at each floor and from the deflected shape a deflection φi at each floor, the
previous equation may be rewritten as:
2
 n 
 ∑ miφi 
M eff =  i =n1  (5.4)
∑ miφi
2
i =1
The first mode of vibration is of interest as the period-height relationship that is sought is
needed to predict the fundamental period of vibration. The effective mass required is thus the
first modal mass, obtained using the first mode deflected shape. The effective height is the
height to the centre of seismic force and can be simply found from the deflected shape and
mass distribution thus:
∑m φ h i i
h eff = i =1
n
(5.5)
∑m φ
i =1
i i
The pushover curve at the effective height needs to be plotted and from this the effective
stiffness at yield can be obtained, then along with the effective mass the fundamental period of
vibration can be calculated, using equation (5.2).
5.4 Initial (gross) period calculation using pushover analysis
The period of vibration at initial stiffness will be studied to compare the fundamental period
obtained with the initial stiffness from pushover analysis with that from gross stiffness
66
eigenvalue analysis. This will give an indication of the accuracy of the method of SDOF
substitute structure representation of a pushover curve.
Pushover analyses have been carried out with a triangular load pattern for all frames. The
effective height and mass have been found using the deformed shape at the initial stages of
loading, given in the output file of the pushover analysis. The effective stiffness has been
calculated at the effective height at one of the initial stages of loading and the period has been
calculated using equation (5.2).
The results of the fundamental period calculation using the initial stiffness of the pushover
curve are shown in Figure 5.2 along with the best-fit curve. Figure 5.3 shows the comparison
between this initial stiffness best-fit curve with that obtained from gross stiffness eigenvalue
analyses. The two curves are seen to be very similar and so this provides confidence towards
the method of using a pushover curve with a SDOF system representation of the frame as a
means of calculating the fundamental period of vibration.
2.0
Initial Stiffness
1.1396
y = 0.038x
1.5
Period (s)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.2 – Period ‘v’ height results using the initial stiffness of pushover curves
67
2.0
1.5
Initial Stiffness
Period (s)
1.1396
y = 0.038x
1.0

1.1698
y = 0.0344x
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.3 – Comparison of best-fit curves using the initial stiffness of pushover curves and
gross stiffness eigenvalue analysis
5.5 Yield period calculation using a pushover curve
The main difficulty in using a pushover curve to obtain a yield period for a structure involves
the definition of the yield stiffness of the curve. First yielding may occur during the early
stages of lateral loading but then plastic hinges continue to form gradually throughout the
structure.
Park (1988) describes methods for estimating the yield deformation from pushover curves and
suggests an elastic perfectly-plastic definition of the real system where no clear yield point is
present. The yield stiffness should be taken as the secant stiffness at 75% of the ultimate
strength, and the ultimate lateral strength of the real system is utilised for the post-elastic
portion of the bi-linear curve. In this way, the stiffness at yield, Ky, can be found at 75% of the
ultimate strength of the actual pushover curve, as is illustrated in Figure 5.4.
68
Vu
0.75Vu
Ky
∆y ∆
FIGURE 5.4 – Elasto-plastic representation of a pushover curve
Hence the effective (yield) stiffness of the structure is given by:
Vu
Ky = (5.6)
∆y
where Vu is the ultimate base shear capacity. The yield stiffness and effective mass of the
structure can then be used to calculate the yield period, using the equation of vibration of a
simple oscillator, as presented previously in equation (5.2).
The effective height and mass have been calculated using the deformed shape at 75% ultimate
strength on the pushover curve, using equations (5.4) and (5.5). All curves have been plotted at
the effective height of the structure and the yield stiffness has been calculated using 75% base
shear and the corresponding displacement taken from the curve. These stiffnesses have then
been used with the effective mass for the calculation of the fundamental period of vibration of
the equivalent SDOF system. Figure 5.5 shows the yield period – height data and best-fit
curve obtained using the aforementioned procedure. This best-fit curve is compared in Figure
5.6 with the best-fit curve obtained in section 4.44, using the member yield stiffness approach
proposed by Sugano (1970). Bar slip and member shear cracking are only explicitly accounted
69
for in Sugano’s calculation of member yield stiffness and so their inclusion can be seen to
influence the structural stiffness, leading to greater flexibility and higher periods of vibration.
3.5
3.0 75% Ult strength

1.0782
y = 0.0697x
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.5 – Period ‘v’ height results using yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength of pushover
curve
3.0
Sugano stiffness
1.0981
y = 0.0733x
2.5
2.0
75% Ult strength
1.0782
Period (s)
y = 0.0697x
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.6 – Comparison of best-fit curves using eigenvalue analysis with yield stiffness
according to Sugano (1970) and pushover analysis using the yield stiffness at 75% ultimate
strength
70
5.6 Yield displacement of an RC frame
The relative independence of yield curvature with strength has been discussed in section 4.4. It
was shown how the yield curvature could be found from just the geometrical and material
properties of the member. The same argument has also been developed for the yield drift of
frames.
It has been suggested by Priestley (2003) that the yield drift of beam-sway frames can be
calculated from a typical beam/column sub-assemblage (see Figure 5.7) by considering the
rotations of the joint centre due to beam flexure and joint shear, θby and θjy respectively, and
the flexural deformation of the column top relative to the tangent rotation at the joint centre ∆c
and the additional deformation of the column top due to shear deformation of beams and
columns ∆s.
Figure 5.7 Typical beam-column sub-assemblage (Priestley, 2003)
71
Equations (5.7) to (5.9) show how the yield drift can be calculated from just the geometrical
properties of the beam and the yield strain of the steel. The yield drift due to beam flexure can
been calculated from the yield curvature distribution in a beam, and the column curvature can
be assumed to be 40% of this value based on a typical storey height/bay length ratio of 0.533
(storey height = 3.2m, bay length =6m). The additional components of joint deformation and
member shear deformation can be assumed to be 25% and 10% respectively of the drift due to
beam flexure, based on experience (Priestley, 2003).
2∆ c 2∆ s
θ y = θ by + θ jy + + (5.7)
lc lc
l 
θ y = (1.0 + 0.25 + 0.4 + 0.1) × 0.283ε y  b  (5.8)
hb 
l 
∴ θ y = 0.5ε y  b  (5.9)
hb 
The yield drift of the frame can be used to calculate the yield displacement of a substitute
SDOF structure by the following expression:
lb
∆ LSy = 0.5ef h H T ε y (5.10)
hb
Hence the yield rotation is multiplied by the height of the SDOF substitute structure, which is
given by multiplying the total height by an effective height coefficient, efh, dependent on the
number of storeys of the frame. The same concepts have been applied to frames exhibiting
column-sway behaviour (Glaister and Pinho, 2003) and the following expression has been
obtained for the yield displacement, again dependent on the effective height coefficient:
hs
∆ LSy = 0.43ef h H T ε y (5.11)
hc
where hs is the height of the storey and hc is the height of the column.
72
The definition of two different equations for beam and column sway mechanisms at yield may
seem illogical, as column or beam sway frames are assumed have the same deformed shape up
to yield. However, it is commented by Glaister and Pinho (2003) that from inception a frame
which is more disposed to produce a column sway as opposed to a beam sway mechanism will
behave differently; a strong column – weak beam frame would mean deeper columns than
beams and so different behaviour as compared with a frame with stronger deeper beams than
columns.
5.7 Period calculation using yield displacement
The equations (5.10) and (5.11) for the yield displacement of beam and column sway frames
respectively can be used with the results of the pushover curves to obtain a yield period of the
structure. The yield displacement predicted by the equations is for a SDOF substitute structure
exhibiting elasto-plastic behaviour, and so it can be used directly with the ultimate base shear
capacity of the frames, found from pushover analyses, to find the effective stiffness of the
equivalent SDOF system.
Hence the yield displacement was calculated depending on whether the frame behaved in a
predominately beam or column sway mode. This was then used with the base shear capacity to
calculate the effective stiffness. The effective mass and the effective stiffness were input into
equation (5.2) to find the yield period of each frame. The effective mass and height were found
using the deformed shape at 75% ultimate strength, as in the previous analyses, for
convenience as the deformed shape occurring at the yield displacement and ultimate base shear
capacity is not given in the pushover output, as this is not a point on the curve. The error
should be negligible as it has been seen in this study that after 75% of the ultimate base shear
capacity is reached, the deformed shape does not change significantly.
Figure 5.8 shows the yield period data calculated using the yield displacement as a means to
find the yield stiffness.
Figure 5.9 shows the comparison of the period – height curves using the two different methods
of yield stiffness definition; one using the yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength according to
Park (1988) and the other using the yield stiffness found from the yield displacement of the
73
frame, calculated considering the geometric and material properties of the frame (Priestley,
2003).
3.5
Yield displacement
1.1391
3.0 y = 0.0661x
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.8 - Period ‘v’ height results using yield stiffness at yield displacement of pushover
curve
3.5
Yield displacement
1.1391
3.0 y = 0.0661x
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
75% Utimate strength

1.5 1.0782
y = 0.0697x
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 5.9 – Comparison of best-fit curves using yield stiffness at 75% ultimate strength of
pushover curve and at yield displacement
74
The yield displacement equation produces lower yield stiffness and thus higher yield periods
due to the inclusion of shear deformation of the members in the calculation of yield
displacement. Shear deformations are not modelled by SeismoStruct and although some
account has been taken of the shear deformation in joints due to the extended length of the
members, as described in Chapter 3, shear deformations of the members are not accounted for.
This explains the higher stiffness and lower periods when the yield stiffness is found from the
pushover curve at 75% ultimate strength.
The inclusion of joint flexibility and member shear strength is required for the accurate
determination of structural yield stiffness. The approach using the yield deformation predicted
by the equations of Priestley (2003) is thus recommended until calibration of the models can be
carried out to ensure accurate modelling of joint and shear stiffness.
75
Chapter 6. Yield period from dynamic time-history analysis
6 YIELD PERIOD FROM DYNAMIC TIME-HISTORY

ANALYSIS
6.1 Introduction
An additional method of yield period calculation is presented in this chapter, whereby the RC
frames are used in dynamic time-history analysis using scaled accelerograms. The input
accelerogram is chosen such that the frame reaches ‘yield’ and then the response displacement
time history of the top node of the structure is obtained. This can then be used to obtain the
Fourier Amplitude Spectrum by means of a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) of the input
time-history. The Fourier amplitude spectrum shows how the amplitude of the record is
distributed with respect to frequency (or period), effectively meaning that the frequency
content of the given accelerogram can be fully determined. This spectrum can then be
interpreted to obtain the fundamental period within the record of the response motion.
6.2 Time History Records
Two real accelerograms have been chosen for this study; Sakaria time-history record from the
Egyptian earthquake of 1999 and Emeryville time-history record from the Loma Prieta,
Californian earthquake of 1989. The acceleration time history of each record has been scaled
to the same PGA and is shown in Figure 6.1. The original records are not of interest as they
will be scaled when used in the dynamic time history analyses. It can be noted that the Sakaria
time-history is richer in high frequency (low period) components than the Emeryville record.
76
0.3
0.2
0.1
acceleration (g)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
time (s)
(a)
0.3
0.2
0.1
acceleration (g)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
time (s)
(b)
FIGURE 6.1 – Acceleration time-history records for (a) Sakaria and (b) Emeryville
The acceleration and displacement spectra, at 5% damping, are compared for each earthquake
in Figures 6.2 and 6.3 respectively. The Sakaria record has higher spectral acceleration
amplification in the lower period range (<0.5 sec), whereas the Emeryville record has slightly
higher amplification in the higher period range (>0.5 sec). Considering the displacement
spectra, the Sakaria record contains higher displacement spectral amplification in the higher
period range, (> 2.5 sec). The Emeryville record has higher displacement spectral
amplification in the lower period range from 0.5 – 2.5 seconds. Hence we can see that
amplification in acceleration and displacement of a wide range of periods is obtained with the
use of both of these time-history records.
77
Emeryville Sakaria
0.9
0.8
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
FIGURE 6.2 – Acceleration spectra for Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records
Emeryville Sakaria
40
35
Spectral Displacement (cm)
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
FIGURE 6.3 – Displacement spectra for Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records
6.3 Period calculation using displacement response time-history record
Each of the 16 frames has undergone dynamic time-history analysis with both accelerograms.
For each frame, the record has been scaled accordingly so that the maximum response
displacement obtained at the effective height during the time-history corresponds to the yield
displacement, as defined previously in section 5.6.
78
The displacement response time history at the top node of each building has then been obtained
from the output file and the record has been processed using the program SeismoSignal (2003).
This program can carry out Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) of the time-history to produce
the Fourier Amplitude Spectrum (FAS). The distribution of the amplitude of the record with
respect to frequency (or period) is thus obtained and the fundamental period of the structure at
yield can be ascertained. An example of an FAS is shown in Figure 6.4:
180
160
140
Fourier Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
FIGURE 6.4 – Fourier amplitude spectrum showing definite peak amplitude
The period of vibration which has the highest peak may be assumed to be the fundamental
period when the FAS gives a peak as significant as that shown in Figure 6.4. However when
the results of the FAS are slightly more difficult to interpret, such as shown in Figure 6.5, other
means may need to be used to ascertain the fundamental period.
70
60
Fourier Amplitude
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
FIGURE 6.5 – Fourier amplitude spectrum with numerous amplitude peaks
79
Indeed, another complementary method of yield period calculation which can be undertaken is
to visually obtain the period from the displacement response time history. The maximum
displacement is placed as the crest (or trough) of a single wave and the period of the wave is
found directly from the plot, as shown in Figure 6.6. The period of this wave can be seen from
the figure to be around 1.38 seconds, which does actually correspond to the period at the
highest peak of the FAS in Figure 6.5. Hence this additional check can help to affirm the
findings of the Fourier analysis when uncertainties arise.
50
40
30
Displacement (mm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Max. displacement
-40
-50
6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8 8.2 8.4
Time (s)
FIGURE 6.6 – Displacement response time-history at maximum displacement
6.4 Results of yield period from dynamic time history analysis
Figures 6.7 and 6.8 show the yield periods calculated from the displacement response time-
history to the Sakaria and Emeryville earthquakes respectively. Using dynamic time history
analysis to calculate the yield period could be considered more realistic than a conventional
pushover analysis or an eigenvalue analysis with reduced stiffness of all members. This is
because in the former, the effects of higher modes of vibration are not accounted for and in the
latter all members within the building are assumed to be at yield stiffness. As has been
discussed previously, the frames used in this study are regular with regards to mass, stiffness
and strength and so higher modes should not have a significant effect on the behaviour of the
frames. This is highlighted by the similarity in the best-fit curves obtained from dynamic
analysis and pushover analysis (Figures 6.9).
80
3.5
Dynamic Analysis, Sakaria

3.0
y = 0.078x1.0758
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 6.7 – Period ‘v’ height results from dynamic time-history analysis using Sakaria record
3.5
3.0 Dynamic Analysis, Emeryville

1.0267
y = 0.0836x
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 6.8 – Period ‘v’ height results from dynamic time-history analysis using Emeryville
record
81
50
Priestley Yield disp
Priestley Stiffness
Sugano Stiffness
75% Ult Strength
45
Emeryville
Sakaria
40
35
30
Height (m)
25
20
15
10
5
0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Period (s)
FIGURE 6.9 – Comparison of best-fit curves found using eigenvalue, pushover, and
dynamic time-history analysis
The curves obtained using dynamic analysis with the Sakaria and Emeryville records are also
compared with the curves obtained using eigenvalue analysis in Figure 6.9. It is apparent that
these curves are all very similar and so it can be deduced that although the modelling of yield
stiffness of all members in eigenvalue analysis does not appear realistic, it does in fact give a
good estimation of the yield period; this can be ascertained because both pushover and
dynamic analyses accurately model the yield stiffness of members within the structure.
It is also notable from Figure 6.9 that the time-history record employed in the dynamic analysis
influences the yield period obtained due to the differences found in the Emeryville and Sakaria
best-fit curves. It is noted, however, that the two chosen accelerograms featured significantly
different frequency content, as observed through their respective response spectra (Figures 6.2
and 6.3). Therefore, the differences seen here can be considered as large as can be expected.
Hence, it is believed that there is not much to be gained if other accelerograms were to be
considered.
83
Chapter 7. Comparison of period ‘v’ height curves
7 COMPARISON OF PERIOD ‘V’ HEIGHT CURVES
7.1 Summary of all period ‘v’ height curves
Figure 7.1 shows all the equations that have been discussed and obtained in previous chapters
that give a relationship between fundamental period of vibration and height of a building. As
has been previously mentioned, the equations of particular interest are those that provide a
relationship at yield, as this is a requirement in displacement-based assessment of buildings, in
particular for the formulation of the methodology of Glaister and Pinho (2003). It will now be
discussed how a European yield period – height formula has been selected from all of these
curves.
Many of the curves shown in Figure 7.1 will not be considered further in the search for a yield
period – height formula for displacement-based design of European RC buildings for reasons
that will now be outlined.
As has been discussed in Chapter 2, the Chopra and Goel (2000) upper bound curve is not
suitable as it has been derived using Californian building stock and it does not specifically give
a ‘yield’ period.
The gross stiffness eigenvalue period – height curve derived in Chapter 4 predicts an un-
cracked period and not a yield period, which is known to occur after significant cracking of RC
members; hence it is also not suitable for assessment.
84
5.0 Priestley Yield disp
Sugano Stiffness
4.5 Sakaria
Priestley Stiffness
4.0 Emeryville
75% Ult Strength
3.5 Paulay & Priestley
3.0
2.5
Period (s)
2 to 6
2.0 Chopra & Goel
Upper Bound
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Height (m)
FIGURE 7.1 – Comparison of all period – height curves both developed and discussed in Chapters
The period ‘v’ height curve obtained by applying the reduced stiffness factors as given in
Paulay and Priestley (1992) would not reliably predict a yield period as the strength of the
members has not been considered in the prediction of reduced stiffness. The proportionality
between stiffness and strength is an important relationship that needs to be taken into account.
The remaining curves from which a yield period can be predicted with confidence, due to the
consideration of both cracking and strength/stiffness proportionality of the members in their
derivation, are plotted in Figure 7.2. It is immediately apparent that these curves are all very
similar and fall within the same zone despite being derived from completely different
procedures. The final choice of a yield period – height formula should thus be rather
straightforward.
The curves obtained from dynamic analysis, as outlined in Chapter 6, have been produced to
check the validity of the curves from pushover and eigenvalue analyses. The behaviour of the
frame under dynamic analysis may be considered to be more realistic due to the inclusion of
higher mode effects and the realistic modelling of the stiffness of the members (i.e. not all
members being at yield). It is observed that the yield period – height curves obtained using
both the Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records fall within the range of all the other yield
period – height curves in Figure 7.2.
The best-fit curve obtained using eigenvalue analyses with the stiffness at yield proposed by
Sugano (1970) accounts for bar slip and the shear and flexural deformation of both joints and
members. The standard deviation of the data from the best-fit line is low at 0.108 seconds, and
it is the second most conservative curve. As has been discussed in Chapter 2, conservative
prediction of the period is a requirement for assessment of RC buildings so that a conservative
prediction of displacement demand can be made.
It is this curve which is proposed to give a yield period – height formula for displacement-
based assessment of RC buildings because, although only the second most conservative curve,
it has a much lower standard deviation compared with the most conservative curve produced
using the yield displacement equation of Priestley (2003).
The curve and associated period – height formula are shown in Figure 7.3.
86
5.0
Priestley Yield disp
Sugano Stiffness
4.5 Sakaria
Priestley Stiffness
4.0 Emeryville
75% Ult Strength
3.5
3.0
2.5
Period (s)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
FIGURE 7.2 – Comparison of yield period – height curves

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Height (m)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Period (s)
2.5
2.0 1.1
T = 0.073H
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 7.3 – Proposed yield period – height curve and formula for displacement-based
assessment of RC frames
This formula will be used in the urban assessment methodology of Glaister and Pinho (2003).
As has been discussed in Chapter 1, this methodology uses basic structural principles to
construct capacity curves between period and displacement for RC structures. It would be
desirable to use in the methodology a period – height formula which has not been obtained by
regression analysis, but by also using basic structural mechanics principles. The next section in
this chapter investigates the formulation and application of such a formula.
7.2 Period calculation using base shear capacity from code requirements
Older, force-based design codes prescribed a base shear coefficient to be used for design. This
base shear coefficient was generally given as a proportion of the weight which was to be
resisted laterally by the structure. In fact, it would be most advantageous if based on the year
of construction one could obtain the base shear coefficient of buildings when assessing an
urban area. Hence, theoretically, it would then be possible to identify the ultimate base shear
capacity of buildings designed to a certain design code, knowing only the mass of the building.
Utilising this information, it has been found that the period of the structure can be calculated
88
using just the yield deformation of the frame and the base shear coefficient, as shown in the
following workings.
(1) Using the base shear coefficient, α, the base shear capacity is given as:
Vu = α ⋅ m ⋅ g (7.1)
(2) The proportion of the total mass giving the effective mass, c, is either known or
estimated, giving:
m eff = c ⋅ m (7.2)
c ⋅ Vu
∴ m eff = (7.3)
α⋅g
(3) The effective stiffness can be found as shown previously using the yield displacement
of the frame:
Vu
k eff = (7.4)
∆y
(4) Substituting the effective mass and stiffness into the period equation gives:
m eff c.Vu ⋅ ∆ y c⋅∆y

∴ T = 2π = 2π = 2π (7.5)
k α ⋅ g ⋅ Vu α⋅g
Hence the elastic period of the frame can be estimated knowing just the proportion of mass
responding in the first mode of vibration, the base shear coefficient from the code and the yield
displacement. By employing this equation, the use regression-derived equations in assessment
could thus be prevented, using instead basic principles throughout the urban assessment
procedure.
89
To simplify the calculation it is necessary to estimate the effective first modal mass. Typically
the proportion of the total mass vibrating in the first elastic mode is found to be between 70-
90% for regular RC moment-resisting frame buildings. To obtain an approximate method of
period calculation it is considered appropriate to assume that the effective mass is 80% of the
total mass. The equation can therefore be approximated as:
∆y
T = 0.0567 (7.6)
α
In order to study the validity of this equation, the codes assumed to have been used to design
the older structures included within this study have been consulted to find the specified base
shear coefficient.
The Greek frames used in the study have been taken from buildings built in the mid 1960’s.
The Greek seismic design code of 1959 prescribed a base shear capacity of 4% of the building
weight for seismic zone I (hard soil) under a service level earthquake. A 70% increase in this
coefficient was allowed which reflected the allowable design stress to yield stress of the
reinforcement used, hence producing a maximum base shear coefficient of 6.8%.
The Italian structures would most likely have been designed following the guidelines laid down
in the provisions of 1924, later updated in 1927 (Paz, 1994). Two seismic zones were
identified; buildings higher than 12m falling within the first zone were to be designed to
horizontal forces equal to 1/6 of the weights considered to be at floor levels whilst buildings in
the second seismic area were to be designed to horizontal seismic forces of 1/10 of the weights
for buildings less than 15m and 1/8 of the weights for buildings greater than 15m.
Figure 7.4 shows the results of the yield periods calculated using equation (7.6) with the base
shear coefficient taken from the code, as has been described, and the yield displacement as
calculated in section 5.7. Figure 7.5 shows the comparison of the best-fit curves using equation
(7.6) when the base shear coefficient is taken from the design code and when it is obtained
from the pushover analyses carried out in this study. The significant difference between these
two curves can be explained by studying the base shear coefficients used in each curve, shown
in Table 7.1.
90
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5 Code Base shear coeff.

0.6127
y = 0.2718x
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 7.4 – Period ‘v’ height results using equation (7.6)
3.5
3.0
Pushover base shear coeff
1.265
y = 0.0468x
2.5
2.0
Period (s)
1.5 Code Base shear coeff

0.6127
y = 0.2718x
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height (m)
FIGURE 7.5 – Comparison of best-fit curves using codified base shear coefficient and pushover
base shear coefficient in equation (7.6)
91
TABLE 7.1 – Base shear coefficients obtained from both design codes and pushover analyses and
respective yield period data calculated using equation (7.6)
Country & Year Height Code base T (s) Pushover T (s)

of Design Code (m) shear Equation base shear Equation
(7.6) (7.6)
coefficient coefficient
(% W) (% W)
Italy 60s 6 0.10 0.84 0.255 0.53
Italy 60s 8.8 0.10 0.91 0.267 0.56
Italy 60s 8.8 0.10 0.91 0.256 0.57
Italy 70s 9.25 0.10 1.01 0.205 0.71
Italy 70s 9.25 0.10 1.01 0.199 0.72
Italy 70s 10.34 0.10 1.27 0.147 1.04
Italy 50-60s 10.8 0.10 1.43 0.110 1.36
Italy 50-60s 10.8 0.10 1.43 0.107 1.38
Greek ‘59 15 0.068 1.28 0.077 1.21

Greek ‘59 15 0.068 1.28 0.075 1.22
Greek ‘59 17 0.068 1.61 0.070 1.58
Greek ‘59 17 0.068 1.61 0.072 1.57
Italy 50-60s 18 0.125 1.63 0.092 1.91
Italy 50-60s 24 0.125 1.89 0.085 2.29
Italy 60s 27.56 0.125 2.10 0.047 3.44
Italy 60s 27.56 0.125 2.10 0.044 3.53
Table 7.1 shows that the base shear capacity of the frames found from pushover analysis is
higher than that prescribed by the code for the low-rise frames, however the high-rise frames
have lower base shear capacity than appears to have been prescribed in the codes. Thus the
periods of vibration of the low-rise frames are higher than calculated using pushover analyses,
whilst the high-rise frames are predicted to have lower periods.
The usability of equation (7.6) depends on the ease with which the base shear coefficient can be
obtained, knowing only the design code employed and the year of construction. However, it
has been shown from the calculations that have just been presented that even when the code
base shear coefficient is thought to be known buildings often possess higher lateral capacity:
92
the overstrength being attributed to many factors such as higher strength of materials than
specified, larger structural members and reinforcement bar sizes than those required, and non-
structural elements (e.g. infill walls) and structural elements (e.g. slabs) not considered in
lateral load capacity calculations. On the other hand, the design code that one believes has
been used may not in fact have been employed, as appears to have occurred in the buildings
with strength lower than prescribed in the assumed design code.
Therefore it is possible that the simple equation (7.6) for period calculation will over-predict
the fundamental period of vibration due to overstrength of actual structures and under-predict
the yield period where structures have not been designed to the assumed design code. This
approach, therefore, is not recommended for use in the urban assessment of RC buildings.
7.3 Simplified Formula
A yield period – height equation derived by regression analysis is thus the chosen relationship
to be used in the urban assessment methodology by Glaister and Pinho (2003). As has been
discussed in section 7.1, the proposed yield period – height formula for displacement-based
assessment of RC buildings is given by:
T = 0.073H 1.1 (7.7)
It is apparent that this period – height formula is almost linear, and so the definition of a linear
formula between period and height could be considered feasible. Such a formula is particularly
desirable for use in the urban assessment methodology of Glaister and Pinho (2003). This is
due to the required inversion of the period-height equation during derivation of the capacity
curves resulting in rather complex equations; the outline of the procedure has been described in
section 1.2 however the reader is referred to Glaister and Pinho (2003) for further explanation
of the methodology.
A simple relationship, T = 0.1H, has been found to provide a good approximation to the
proposed curve, as shown in Figure 7.6. This approximate formula slightly overestimates the
periods at low heights and it is evident that as the height increases past 25m the formula
predicts lower periods, with the error steadily increasing. However, even at a height of 65m,
93
the simple linear formula under-predicts the period by only 10% and at double this height the
error only reaches around 15%.
Both formulas shown in Figure 7.6 will be introduced into the methodology of Glaister and
Pinho (2003) and a study will be made as to how the results of an urban assessment are
influenced by this simple approximation to the regression-derived yield period – height
formula.
4.5
4.0
T = 0.073H1.1
3.5
3.0
Period (s)
2.5
T = 0.1H
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height (m)
FIGURE 7.6 – Comparison of derived yield period – height curve with a simplified linear curve
94
Chapter 8. Conclusions
8 CONCLUSIONS
The motivation for this dissertation arose from the need for a relationship between the yield
period of vibration and the height of a building for use in the displacement-based urban
assessment of European RC buildings. The formulae derived using measured periods during
moderate earthquakes which are currently available have been shown to under-predict the yield
period of vibration of European buildings; this can be attributed to different construction
practices around the world and the moderate ground motion causing the buildings to respond
elastically, without yielding. A regression-derived yield period – height formula using
European data has thus been the focus of this dissertation. It has been found that European
structures designed before capacity design principles were included in the design codes have
higher periods of vibration than those designed to more recent codes. Only the ‘older’
structures, generally those designed before the 1980’s, have been used to obtain a yield period
– height formula in this dissertation as these would be the buildings considered in an urban
assessment.
Analytical procedures have been used to obtain the yield period due to their increased
flexibility and the lack of European buildings with period-measuring devices. Eigenvalue,
pushover and dynamic analyses have all been employed in the yield period determination of
many buildings of various heights. The results have shown that all best-fit yield period –
height curves fall within the same zone despite having been derived from completely different
theoretical backgrounds. Hence there is a high confidence in the results obtained and a
straightforward choice of a proposed European period –height formula. This formula has been
chosen from considerations of conservatism and standard deviations of the data from the best-
fit line. The proposed formula is thus given as:
95
Chapter 8. Conclusions
T = 0.073H 1.1 (8.1)
A formula derived from basic principles of structural mechanics has also been studied, using
the base shear coefficient prescribed in older codes:
∆y
T = 0.0567 (8.2)
α
It was considered that it would be most advantageous if, based on the year of construction one
could obtain the period of vibration of buildings when assessing an urban area. However this
formula has been found to give misleading results; on the one hand, because the overstrength
of buildings leads to higher base shear capacity than prescribed by the code, and on the other
due to ‘understrength’ when the assumed seismic design code has not actually been employed.
Thus the use of such a formula is not recommended unless there is a high certainty in the base
shear coefficient of the structure under consideration; this is not considered to be the case in the
assessment of urban areas.
A yield period – height equation derived by regression analysis is thus the chosen relationship
to be used in an urban assessment methodology. The proposed formula in equation (8.1) has
been seen in Chapter 7 to be almost linear and so a simplified linear formula has been
suggested as follows:
T = 0.1H (8.3)
The main advantage of such a formula is that when used in the methodology of Glaister and
Pinho (2003), it can be inverted easily and the complexity of the resulting capacity equations
reduces greatly. There may be some error involved in using such a simplified equation
however this will be studied when both the derived and simplified equations are used in an
urban assessment and the results compared.
The immediate work arising from this dissertation includes the additional modelling of RC
frames to eliminate the dearth of data in the range of 8 storeys and higher. Within a different
scope, a similar type of work is perhaps pertinent for new structures, the results of which may
be employed in current design codes.
96
Chapter 9. References
9 REFERENCES
America Concrete Institute (1984) “Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Concrete Structures”

Publication SP-84, US – Japan Research, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2000) “FEMA 356 Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Antonio, S. and Pinho, R. (2003) “Advantages and Limitations of the Force-Based Adaptive
Pushover Procedure”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, accepted for publication
Applied Technology Council (1978) “Tentative provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for buildings.” Report No. ATC3-06, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto,
California.
Arêde, A.J. (1997) “Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures with a New
Flexibility Based Element” PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal.
Bostenaru, M. (2003) “Early reinforced concrete frame condominium building with masonry
infill walls designed for gravity loads only.” World Housing Encyclopedia (www.world-
housing.net). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and International Association for
Earthquake Engineering, Romania/Report 96. Accepted for publication.
97
Carvalho, E.C., Coelho, E. and Campos-Costa, A. (1999) “Preparation of the full-scale tests on
reinforced concrete frames. Characteristics of the test specimens, materials and testing
conditions.” ICONS Report, Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for New and Existing
Structures, European TMR Network, LNEC.
CEN (2002) European Prestandard ENV 1998-1-4: Eurocode 8 – Design provisions for
earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1-4: Strengthening and repair of buildings. Draft No.
5, May 2002, Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N317, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels.
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (1997) “Period Formulas for Moment-resisting Frame
Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering; Volume 123, Issue 11:1454-1461
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2000) “Building Period Formulas for Estimating Seismic
Displacements”, Technical Note, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 16 (2), 533-536
Collins, M. (1997) “Prestressed Concrete Structures” Response Publications, Canada.
Cosenza, E. (2000) “Il comportamento sismico di edifice in c.a. progettati per carichi verticali”
CNR - Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma.
FIB (2003) "Seismic assessment and retrofit of RC buildings," State-of-the-Art Report,

Chapter 7, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Glaister, S. and Pinho, R. (2003) “Development of a simplified deformation-based method for

seismic vulnerability assessment” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, Special Issue 1,
pp. 107-140.
Hong, L. and Hwang, W. (2000) “Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of
reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics;
29:327-337
Hughes T.J.R. (1987) “The Finite Element Method, Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element
Analysis”, Prentice-Hall.
98
Izzuddin B.A. [1991] “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed Structures,” PhD Thesis,
Imperial College, University of London, London.
Izzuddin B.A. [2001] “Conceptual issues in geometrically nonlinear analysis of 3D framed

structures,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 191, pp. 1029-
1053
Kappos and Konstantinidis (1999) “Statistical analysis of confined high strength concrete,”
Materials and Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 734-748.
Madas P. and Elnashai A.S. (1992) “A new passive confinement model for transient analysis of
reinforced concrete structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp.
409-431.
Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N. and Park R. (1988) “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Menegotto M. and Pinto P.E. (1973) “Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane
frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined
normal force and bending,” Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of
Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 15-22.
Monti G. and Nuti C. (1992) “Nonlinear cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars including
buckling,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 3268-3284.
Moratti, M. (2000) “Risposta sismica di nodi trave-colonna progettati per i soli carichi di
gravità: studi analitici e sperimentali”, Graduation Project, Department of Structural
Mechanics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy. (in Italian)
NEHRP (1994) “Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new
buildings”, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.
99
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) “Assessment and Improvement of
the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes” (Draft for comment, 2002)
New Zealand Standard NZS4203, “Code of practice for general structural design and design
loadings for buildings” New Zealand Standards Association, Wellington, 1992.
Otani, S. (2002) “Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”

Lecture Notes presented at Rose School, Pavia, Italy.
Park, R. (1988) “State-of-the-art report: ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical
testing” Proceedings 9th WCEE, IAEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan VIII: 605-616
Paulay, T and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992) “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings”, J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pauw, A. (1960) “Static modulus of elasticity of concrete as affected by density”, Journal,

American Concrete Institute, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp 679 – 687
Paz, M. (1994) “International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering: codes, programs and

examples”, Chapman & Hall.
Pinho, R. (2003) “Introduction to nonlinear solution procedures” and “Introduction to

geometric nonlinearity” Lecture notes presented during ‘Assessment and retrofitting of
reinforced concrete structures’, Rose School, Pavia, Italy
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M, (1996) “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges”
Wiley – Interscience.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1997) “Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete

buildings”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 157-192
Priestley, M.J.N. (2003) “Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering – Revisited” Mallet-
Milne Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
100
Romäo, X. (2002) “Novos modelos de dimensionamento sismico de estruturus” MSc

Dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. (in
Portuguese)
SeismoSignal (2003) Computer program to process strong-motion data (online). Available

from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com
SeismoStruct (2003) “Computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed
structures” (online). Available from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com.
Sugano, S. (1970) “Experimental Study on Restoring Force Characteristics of Reinforced

Concrete Members” (in Japanese) thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements of Doctor of
Philosophy, University of Tokyo.
Varum, H. (1996) “Modelo Histerético das Relações Forças-Deslocamentos adequado à

Análise Sísmica de Estruturas,” MSc Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal. (in Portuguese)
Zeris, C., Vintzeleou, E. and Repapis, C. (2002) “Structural Overstrength Evaluation of

Existing Buildings” 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London.
101

Period-Height Formula for Displacement-Based Assessment of RC Buildings

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

Period-Height Formula for Displacement-Based Assessment of RC Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.U.S.S.

Istituto Universitario Università degli

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

PERIODS OF VIBRATION FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Supervisor: Dr RUI PINHO

Rui Pinho …………………………………

Nigel Priestley …………………………

Keywords: displacement; assessment; period; yield; RC buildings;

List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………….vi

2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERIOD AND HEIGHT ..................................................5

3 CASE STUDIES AND MODELLING APPROACH.................................................................10

3.2.6 Five and Six-Storey Romanian Frames .........................................................................25

4 EIGENVALUE ANALYSIS USING YIELD STIFFNESS .......................................................41

5 YIELD PERIOD FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ..................................................................62

6 YIELD PERIOD FROM DYNAMIC TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS .....................................76

7 COMPARISON OF PERIOD ‘V’ HEIGHT CURVES .............................................................84

6.3 Displacement spectra for Sakaria and Emeryville time-history records

3.1 Summary table of all case studies

The determination of the natural period of vibration of an RC structure is an essential

1.2 A Proposed Deformation-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure

LS3 LS2 LS1 frequency

HLSi = f (TLsi , LSi)

FIGURE 1.1 – A deformation-based seismic vulnerability assessment procedure (Glaister and

The displacement capacity-height curves are produced by theoretical considerations of failure

demand spectrum needs to be transformed to a range of equivalent heights, using an empirical

TLSi = TLSy µ LSi (1.1)

Hence the realisation of an elastic period-height relationship which represents periods of

1.3 Dissertation outline

2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERIOD AND HEIGHT

2.1 Empirical period-height formulae for force-based design

Resisting Frames, 27 Reinforced-Concrete and 16 RC Shear Frames. The periods were

TL = 0.016H 0.9 (feet) (2.4)

TL = 0.0466H 0.9 (metres) (2.5)

2.2 Empirical period-height formulae for structural assessment

TU = 0.023H 0.9 (feet) (2.6)

TU = 0.067H 0.9 (metres) (2.7)

3 CASE STUDIES AND MODELLING APPROACH

As previously mentioned, the objective of this dissertation is to find an empirical relationship

3.2 Description of case studies

old frames new frames

TABLE 3.1 – Summary table of all case studies

15 Portugal 90’s EC8 ‘94 24 8 3 499 Regular, internal

21 Greece 60’s Greek, ‘59 15 5 4 171 Regular, internal

29 Romania 20-40’s Romanian, 20-40s 18 6 4 670 Regular, Internal

TABLE 3.2 – Summary Table of ‘older’ frames used in the study

17 Italy 70’s Italian, 70’s 9.25 3 3 101 Horiz. irreg. internal

22 Greece 60’s Greek, ‘59 17 5 6 253 Pilotis, internal

23 Greece 60’s Greek, ‘59 17 5 4 171 Pilotis, internal

25 Italy 60’s Italian, 60’s 8.8 2 7 214 Horiz. Irreg, internal

26 Italy 50-60’s Italian, 50-60s 18 6 3 174 Regular, Internal

28 Romania 20-40’s Romanian, 20-40s 15 5 5 574 Regular, Internal

30 Portugal 50-60’s Portug., 50-60’s 10.8 4 3 174 Horiz. Irreg, internal

3.2.1 One-Storey Frame

FIGURE 3.2 – One storey frame (Varum, 1996)

FIGURE 3.3– Beam and column sections (Varum, 1996)

3.2.2 Pavia Frame Model

FIGURE 3.4 – Elevation view of the Pavia frame (Moratti, 2000)

TABLE 3.3 – Added mass to each floor of the Pavia frame

Floor Added Mass (tonnes)

3.2.3 ‘Monterosso’ Building

FIGURE 3.5 – Typical plan of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)

FIGURE 3.6 – Plan of fourth floor of ‘Monterosso’ building (Cosenza, 2000)