See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325567390

The Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC High-Rise Buildings Designed to

Various Building Codes

Conference Paper · April 2018

DOI: 10.2749/kualalumpur.2018.0427

CITATIONS READS

5 1,085

4 authors:

Waqar Hassan Naveed Anwar

Asian Institute of Technology CSI Bangkok
1 PUBLICATION 5 CITATIONS 155 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pramin Norachan Fawad Ahmed Najam

Asian Institute of Technology University of British Columbia - Okanagan
26 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 363 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Naveed Anwar on 05 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC High-rise Buildings

Designed to Various Building Codes
Waqar Hassan
AIT Solutions, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand

Naveed Anwar
AIT Solutions, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand

Pramin Norachan
AIT Solutions, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand

Fawad A. Najam
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Contact: [email protected]

Abstract
This study evaluates and compares the expected seismic performance of a high-rise building when
designed according to various international building codes. Using a 40-story reinforced concrete
(RC) case study building, the comparison among the three most widely used building codes (ACI
318/ASCE 7-10, BS 8110 and EC-2/EC-8) is presented in terms of structural design and seismic
performance. The case study building has a dual structural system (moment-resisting frame and
shear walls) and is assumed to be located in a highly active seismic region. First, its linear elastic
model was created and analysed to perform the code-based design for gravity and seismic loads.
The building is designed separately for three codes following their prescribed load combinations,
cracked stiffness modifiers and seismic design factors. Then, the detailed performance evaluation
of case study building (separately designed for each building code) was carried out using the
nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) under different input ground motions. Based on
obtained results, a comparison of three building codes is presented in terms of the design, seismic
performance and economic considerations.
Keywords: high-rise buildings; dual systems; code-based design; nonlinear dynamic analysis;
performance-based seismic evaluation.

standards for the design, construction and

1 Introduction maintenance of constructed objects such as
Building codes are a set of rules and regulations buildings and non-building structures. These
specifying the minimum safety, health and energy standards are often prepared by the international

1
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

organizations and their committees based on the building in terms of displacements is almost same
general consensus of subject experts, researchers, for all other design codes. Similarly, Santos [2]
engineering community and governmental compared design criteria for buildings among
agencies. The codes become the law of a various codes. Obtained results were compared by
particular jurisdiction when officially enacted by applying several design standards on a regular ten
any particular governmental or private authority. story building. It was observed that difference in
design spectra shapes can cause differences in
With the rapid economic growth and urbanization,
overall results which can be even more than 100
the construction of tall buildings increased in the
percent in some cases.
middle of 20th century. A variety of social
requirements for commercial or aesthetic reasons More recently, Asmita et al. [3] reviewed seismic
and limited availability of land has resulted in design and evaluated high rise structures using
more challenges and difficulties for design and various international codes. Main objective was to
evaluation of high-rise buildings. examine the differences caused by using various
international codes during analysis of tall
Recently, occurrence of actual observed damages
buildings. However, details results showed that
especially human lives during earthquakes in
building designed using Euro code performs better
various parts of the world has proved that
as compared to Indian and American codes. It was
capacity of resisting earthquake loads is quite
also observed that Euro code serves to be the
insufficient. Buildings having non-ductile
most economical design and Indian code is the
reinforcement details were the main reason of the
least economical code.
structural inadequacy. Low lateral strength, poor
proportioning of frame members might also be This study will also focus on seismic performance
the one of reason in few countries which reduce comparison of a case study high-rise building with
seismic resistance in the buildings. For preserving shear walls, located in a high seismic zone and
life of public and structure all such important designed according to three international building
factors should be considered to prevent major codes (ACI, BS and EURO).
damage. Various seismic codes help to improve
the behavior of the structures so that they may 2 Methodology
withstand the earthquake effects without
significant loss of life and property. In order to In this study, a 40-story shear wall building
design an earthquake resistant structure, the structure located in a highly active seismic region
designer must have a good knowledge about (Makati, Philippines) is selected. It is first designed
various seismic design codes. The structural design according to three building codes. Then, the
practice in different countries involves the use of seismic performance is evaluated by comparing
different codes. However, the common and major various key response indicators, both at local
objective is to ensure the life of occupants. (members) level and global (structural) level, by
subjecting the building (separately designed
It should also be noted that satisfying a structure according to these codes) to a site-specific suit of
from one code may not compliance with the ground motion records.
design provisions given by another code. It is
expected that a comparative seismic assessment The case study building is a residential tower
of buildings designed to various codes will help to originally designed by the MKA (Magnusson
identify the code which can ensure better seismic Klemencic Associates) according to LATBDSC [4].
performance as compared to others. The lateral forces are mainly resisted by the
reinforced concrete structure core wall built
Recently, several studies have attempted to around the elevator shaft and special moment
perform such a comparison. Karthiga and Titus [1] resisting frames connecting the core. The typical
designed a ten story RC building using four plan and 3D view is shown in Figure 1, while basic
different international codes. It was found that BS features, dimensions and other structural and
code has consumed the highest reinforcement as non-structural details are shown in Table 1.
compared to other codes and the performance of

2
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Table 2. Selection of codes

Design Codes Seismic Codes
ACI 318-14 ASCE 7-10
BS 8110-1997 EURO-8
Euro Code-2-2004 EURO-8

The linear elastic model of case study building is

created in ETABS [5] and is used to perform code-
based design. The model includes shear walls,
columns, coupling beams, beams and slabs. Shear
walls, slabs, are modeled using shell elements.
Columns, coupling beams and beams are modeled
Figure 1. 3D view & typical layout plan of building using frame elements. The stiffness parameters
for various elements are varied in each model for
several types of analysis. A critical damping ratio
Table 1. Basic geometric information of the case of 5% is used for DBE analysis in compliance with
study building and section sizes codes. For determining the design seismic
Description Dimensions demands, the standard Response Spectrum
Location Philippines Analysis (RSA) procedure is applied for DBE level
No of Stories 40 m for all three codes. Design parameters (e.g.
Width 35 m reinforcement ratio) obtained from three widely
Length 30 m used building codes i.e. ACI 318 [6]/ASCE 7-10[7],
Total Height (40-story) 121.92 m BS 8110 [8] and EC 2/EC 8 [9] (Table 2), were
Width to Length ratio 1.12 compared in terms of their adequacy for providing
Width to Height ratio 3.5 better seismic performance as well as for
Length to Height ratio 4 economic considerations.
Foundation: Fixed support (columns), pinned
support (shear walls)
The detailed nonlinear models were then created
Total no of lift-cores 2 in PERFORM 3D [10]. The models include inelastic
Dead Load Self-weight member properties for elements that were
Live Load 1.5 KN/m2 anticipated to be loaded beyond their elastic
Superimposed dead load 2.5 KN/m2 limits. These include flexural response of coupling
Reinforced concrete shear walls beams, girders and shear wall. The shear walls
Core wall  SW-1: 1000 mm, L01-L20 were modeled using nonlinear concrete and steel
 SW-2: 750 mm, L21-L40 fibers. The steel fibers are modeled using the
Reinforced concrete columns: Park’s model, while concrete is modeled using the
 800mm x 800mm (L01-L10) Mander’s model [11]. Girders, conventional RC
Columns
 700mm x 700mm (L11-L20) beams and coupling beams were modeled with
 600mm x 600mm (L21-L40) moment hinges at the ends. The deformations
Reinforced concrete Beams: capacities are taken from Table 10-7 of ASCE 41-
Beams  B-400X750 (L01-L10) 13 [12]. The performance evaluation is carried out
 B-400X650 (Inner) (L01-L20)
using nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA)
 B-500X750 (T-Inner) (L21-L40)
under MCE level earthquake with an approximate
Conventional coupling Beams:
Coupling return period of 2475 years (2% probability of
 CPB-750X750
Beams exceedance in 50 years). The input ground
 CPB-800X800
Slab 150 mm reinforced concrete slab motions were obtained from a recent Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) study for the city

3
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

of case study building (Makati city, Philippines).

Seven pairs of ground motions were modified to
match with the MCE-level response spectrum
shown in Figure 2 and were used in the detailed
NLRHA procedure. Table 3 shows the acceptance
criteria for MCE-level seismic hazard.

2.5
MCE DBE
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (G)

2.0
Mode 1 (2.69 s) Mode 2 (0.81 s) Mode 3 (0.66 s)
1.5
Y Direction

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PERIOD (S)

Figure 2. The DBE- & MCE-level response spectra

used in this study
Mode 1 (2.47 s) Mode 2 (0.87 s) Mode 3 (0.66 s)
Table 3. Acceptance criteria for maximum Torsion
considered earthquake (MCE)
Item Value
Maximum of mean values
Peak transient shall not exceed 3%.
drift Maximum drift shall not
exceed 4.5%.
Maximum of mean values
shall not exceed 1%.
Residual drift
Maximum drift shall not
exceed 1.5%.
Coupling beam
≤ASCE 41-13 limits
inelastic rotation
Column Inelastic
≤ASCE 41-13 limits
Rotation
Mode 1 (2.24 s) Mode 2 (1 s) Mode 3 (0.75 s)
Shear wall
≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in
reinforcement
axial strain
compression Figure 3. The vibration mode shapes
Remain elastic. (Check for 1.5
Shear wall shear 3.1 DBE-Level Response Spectrum Analysis
times mean value)
Girder inelastic It is observed that the base shear computed at
≤ASCE 41-13 limits
rotation DBE level by using ASCE 7-10 was 1.24 and 1.37
Girders shear Remain elastic.
times higher than Euro-8 in X and Y direction
respectively (Figure 4). Since BS don’t have their
3 Results and Discussion own seismic code so, Euro-8 were used as a
Figure 3 shows the natural periods for first three seismic code of BS due to which base shear came
vibration modes in both directions and torsion. same in both cases.
X Direction Figure 5 shows the story shear and moment
comparison in X-Direction of the case study

4
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

building. As expected, ASCE 7-10 [7] is resulting in The elastic story drifts were also evaluated and
higher story shears and corresponding overturning compared at the DBE level earthquake in both X
moments. and Y directions. Although they are within
acceptable limits, ASCE 7-10 has slightly higher
Response Spectrucum -Base Shear Comparison
7.20% 7.20% more drift as compared to Euro-8 (Figure 6).
5.8% The summary of reinforcement requirement for all
5.3%
3 codes is shown in Figures 7 to 10. BS code has
Base Shear (% age)

3.1%
resulted in more reinforcement in selected
2.7% coupling beams, main beams and columns.

Column Rebar( %age)

2.0% 1.8%

X Along Direcrtion Y
ASCE 7-10 Un scaled RS-ASCE 7-10 RS-EURO 1.5%

REBAR PERCENTAGE
1.1% 1.0% 1.1%
1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Figure 4. RS-Base Shear comparison (DBE-Level) 1.0%

Story Shear (X) Story Moment (X) 0.5%

45 45
40 40 EURO-8 0.0%
ACI BS EURO
35 35 ASCE 7-10
L0-L10 L11-L20 L21-L30
30 30
Story Level

25 25 Figure 7. Column reinforcement

20 20
Shear Wall Rebar (% Age)
15 15 2.0%
10 10
1.5%
Rebar (% age)

5 5
0 0 1.0%
0 20000 40000 0 500 100015002000
Shear Force (KN) 0.5%
Moment (10^3 KN-m)
0.0%
Figure 5. Story shear and moment comparison (X- ACI BS EURO
P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P1-A P2-A P3-A P4-A
DBE Level)
Figure 18. Shear wall reinforcement
Story Drift-X Story Drift-Y
50 45 Coupling Beam Reinforcement Comparison
ASCE 7-10 40 27682
EURO-8 24465
40 35
30 18822
30 17854
25 16114
Story Level

As TOP (mm2)

20 12572
20
15
10 10
5
0 0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% ACI BS EURO
Story Drift Story Drift Along Codes
CPB-750X750 CPB-800X800

Figure 6. Story drift (X, Y Directions ) DBE Level) Figure 9. Coupling beams Reinforcement

5
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

12000 Top + Bottom Reinforcement 11331 NL-ACI NL-EURO NL-BS

9554 45
10000 NL-Story Shear (X) 40
8167 7753
8000 35
As (mm2)

6249
6000 4697 30

Story Level
4000 2922 25
2554 2778
20
2000
15
0
10
ACI BS EURO
B-500X750 B-400X750 B-400X650 5
0
Figure 10. Beams reinforcement -120000 -60000 0 60000 120000
Shear Force (KN)

The total amount of longitudinal reinforcement Figure 12. NL story shear (X-MCE level)
was also compared between three design codes. It
was found that Euro code required less Figures 12 and 13 show the comparison of story
reinforcement of about 183 tons as compared to shear and overturning moments in both X and Y-
ACI and 200 tons less than building designed by BS directions.
code. The comparison between three codes is NL-Story Moment (X)
45
shown in Table 3.
40
Table 3. The comparison of reinforcement 35
Reinforcement Comparison (Weight in Kg) 30
Story Level

ACI BS EURO 25
Columns 67,598 81,484 64,362 20
Beams 280,522 334,593 387,196 15
Coupling Beams 73,784 86,949 60,791 10
Shear Walls 480,852 412,804 204,048 5
Total Sum (Kg) 902,756 915,830 716,396 0
-3000000 -1500000 0 1500000 3000000
3.2 MCE-Level Nonlinear Response History Story Moment (KN-m)
ACI EURO BS
(NLRHA) Analysis
The detailed NLRHA procedure was carried out Figure 13. NL story moment (X-MCE level)
using 7 pairs of MCE-level ground motions. It is
Under MCE level earthquake, the story
observed that the computed base shear for Euro
displacements and drifts (averaged value from 7
code is lower than those of ACI & BS codes in both pairs of ground motions) in both X & Y direction
X and Y directions (Figure 11). were compared among three models. Mean
NLTH-ACI NLTH-BS NLTH-EURO values of peak transient drift ratios were also
19.50%
18.27%
17.16%
compared under MCE level earthquakes and were
13.68%14.38%
checked against the limit of 0.03. The maximum
Base Shear (% age)

11.59% story drift ratio from any ground motion was

compared against the limit of 0.045. It is observed
that all models performed satisfactorily in
transient drifts and residual drift ratios and
remained within the acceptable limits (Figures 14
x Along Direcrtion Y and 15).
Figure 11. Nonlinear (NL) base shear expressed as
a percentage of total seismic weight

6
IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Story Displacement (X) considerations. It is observed that all of structural

45 members evaluated from three models are within
40 allowable limit and performed satisfactorily under
35 MCE level. However, designing a building by Euro
30 code can save 185 tons of longitudinal steel as
Story Level

25
compared to building designed by ACI & BS codes.
20
Therefore, Euro standards can comparatively
15
serve to be the most economical design codes for
10
the site specific hazard at the site of case study
5
building (Makati city, Philippines).
0
-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Displacement (m) 5 References
ACI EURO BS
[1] Karthiga S., Titus H.E. Design and comparison of a
Figure 14. NL story Displacement (X-MCE level) residential building (g+10) for seismic forces using
the codes: IS1893, Euro code8, ASCE 7-10 and
British code. International Journal of Research in
Transient Story Drift (X) Engineering and Technology, 2015; 4(5)
45
40 [2] Santos S.H. Comparative study of codes for the
seismic design of structures. Mathematical
35
Modelling in Civil Engineering. 2013; 9(1)
30
Story Level

25 [3] Asmita R.W., Salunke P. J., Narkhede T.N. Review

20
On Seismic Design and Assessment of High Rise
Structures Using Various International Codes.
15
International Journal of Scientific Research and
10
Development. 2016; 4(3): 1851-1855
5
[4] LATBSDC. An alternative procedure for seismic
0
-3.50% -2.00% -0.50% 1.00% 2.50% analysis and design of tall buildings located in the
Drift (% age) Los Angeles region. 2015; Los Angeles Tall
ACI EURO BS Limit Buildings Structural Design Council.
[5] CSI v9.7.4. Extended Three Dimensional Analysis
Figure 15. Transient Story Drift (X-MCE level) of Building System, 2011. Computer and
Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, California, USA.
4 Conclusions [6] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements
This study presented the design and expected for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14). American
seismic performance of a case study high-rise Concrete Institute.
building according to three most widely used [7] ASCE 7-10. Minimum design loads for buildings
building codes (ACI 318/ASCE 7-10, BS 8110 and and other structures. American Society of Civil
EC-2/EC-8). The building is designed separately for Engineers; 2010.
three codes following their prescribed load [8] BS 8110. Structural use of concrete. Part I: Code
combinations, cracked stiffness modifiers and of practice for design and construction. British
seismic design factors. Then, the detailed Standards Institution, UK. 1997.
performance evaluation of the building
[9] Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-
(separately designed for each building code) was 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. British
carried out using the nonlinear response history Standards Institution; 2004.
analysis (NLRHA) under different input ground
[10] PERFORM 3D v4. Nonlinear analysis and
motions. Based on obtained results, a comparison
performance assessment for 3D structures.
of three building codes is presented in terms of
California, USA: Computers and Structures Inc.
the design, seismic performance and economic 2006.

7
 IABSE Conference – Engineering the Developing World
April 25-27 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[11] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical

stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal
of structural engineering. 1988;114(8):04-26.
[12] ASCE 41-13: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
existing buildings. ASCE, 2012.

View publication stats