This study presents the results of a nonlinear response-history (NLRH) investigation of cantilever and coupled wall systems, in which the contribution of higher modes to the dynamic response is significant. The limitations of the so-called reduced response spectrum analysis method to predict higher-mode inelastic response are identified and the reasons for its shortcomings are explained. Two procedures for the prediction of the inelastic response of higher modes are presented. The first method is based on the substitute structure method and requires only elastic modal analysis, making it particularly fit for traditional design purposes. The second method is based on structural dynamics closed-form solutions, and it does not require finite element method (FEM) analysis, making it particularly fit for simplified capacity design purposes. The approaches show very good agreement with the results of the NLRH investigation for any structural period, ductility demand, and coupling ratio. Future research should aim to further verify the new methods using more refined modeling and analysis approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntoniouS.and PinhoR.2004. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 643–661.
2.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2011. Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, ATC-58, 75% Draft, Redwood City, CA.
3.
AydinogluM. N.2003. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering1, 3–36.
4.
BeyerK.DazioA.and PriestleyM. J. N.2011. Shear deformations of slender reinforced concrete walls under seismic loading, ACI Structural Journal108, 167–177.
5.
BlakeleyR. W. G.CooneyR. C.and MeggetL. M.1975. Seismic shear loading at flexural capacity in cantilever wall structures, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering8, 278–290.
6.
CarrA. J.2004. RUAUMOKO–Inelastic Dynamic Analysis Program, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
7.
ChopraA. K.2011. Dynamics of Structures, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
8.
ChopraA. K.and GoelR. K.2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31, 561–582.
9.
EiblJ.and KeintzelF.1988. Seismic shear forces in RC cantilever shear walls, in Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
10.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 1998. Eurocode 8–Design of Structures for earthquake resistance–Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN1: 2004.
11.
GrantD. N.and DiaferiaR.2013. Assessing adequacy of spectrum-matched ground motions for response history analysis, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42, 1265–1280.
12.
GülkanP.and SozenM. A.1974. Inelastic responses of reinforced concrete structure to earthquake motions, ACI Journal Proceedings71, 604–610.
13.
GünayM. S.and SucuougluH.2009. Predicting the seismic response of capacity-designed structures by equivalent linearization, Journal of Earthquake Engineering13, 623–649.
14.
GuptaB.and KunnathS. K.2000. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra16, 367–391.
15.
HancockJ.Watson-LampreyJ.AbrahamsonN. A.BommerJ.MarkatisA.McCoyE.and MendisR.2006. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets, Journal of Earthquake Engineering10, 67–89.
16.
MaffeiJ.and YuenN.2007. Seismic performance and design requirements for high-rise buildings, Structure Magazine, 28–32.
17.
MirandaE.and Ruiz GarcíaJ.2002. Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31, 539–560.
18.
PaulayT.and PriestleyM. J. N.1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, First Edition, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
19.
PennucciD.SullivanT. J.and CalviG. M.2011. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall RC Wall Buildings, Research Report 2011/02, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
20.
PetriniL.MaggiC.PriestleyM. J. N.and CalviG. M.2008. Experimental verification of viscous damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes, Journal of Earthquake Engineering12, 125–145.
21.
PriestleyM. J. Nand AmarisA. D.2002. Dynamic Amplification of Seismic Moments and Shear Forces in Cantilever Walls, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
22.
PriestleyM. J. N.and GrantD. N.2005. Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis, Journal of Earthquake Engineering9, 229–255.
23.
PriestleyM. J. N.CalviG. M.and KowalskyM. J.2007. Displacement Based Seismic Design of Structures, First Edition, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
24.
ShibataA.and SozenM. A.1976. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C, Journal of the Structural Division102, 1–18.
25.
SullivanT. J.PriestleyM. J. N.and CalviG. M.2008. Estimating the higher-mode response of ductile structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering12, 456–472.
26.
SullivanT. J.2010. Capacity design considerations for RC frame-wall structures, Earthquakes and Structures1, 391–410.
27.
SullivanT. J2011. An energy-factor method for the displacement-based seismic design of RC Wall structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering15, 1083–1116.
28.
Standards New Zealand (NZS), 1993. Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings, NZS 4203:1992, Wellington, New Zealand.
