Employing Nonlinear Response History Analysis of ASCE 7-16 on a Benchmark Tall Building

Document Type : Research


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad university, Urmia, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran.


ASCE 7-16 has provided a comprehensive platform for the performance-based design of tall buildings. The core of the procedure is based on nonlinear response history analysis of the structure subjected to recorded or simulated ground motions. This study investigates consistency in the ASCE 7-16 requirements regarding the use of different types of ground motions. For this purpose performance of a benchmark tall building subjected to recorded and different types of spectrally matched ground motions is investigated. Application of ASCE 7-16 procedure, which is also adopted by the Los Angeles Tall Building Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) for amplitude scaling on tall buildings, results in unrealistically large scale factors. As expected, this large scale factor leads to a very conservative estimate of local and global demands by scaled recorded ground motions compared with spectrally matched ones. Recorded ground motions intrinsically cause large variation in engineering demand parameters (EDP), which is significantly magnified by large scale factors. The results are, a large ratio of maximum to mean response and control of the design process by maximum EDPs rather than mean values. Interestingly, capacities associated with maximum EDPs are vaguely defined in the code, partially due to the lack of knowledge on the elements actual response. It is also found that estimates of EDPs by different spectrally matched types of ground motions could be significantly different.


1. ASCE/SEI Standard 7-16 (2016), Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
2. ASCE/SEI Standard 41-17 (2017), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
3. ASCE/SEI Standard 43-05 (2005), Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
4. Los Angles Tall Building Structural Design Council (2018) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in the Los Angles region, A consensus document, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
5. Al Atika, L., Abrahamson, N. (2010), An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching, Earthquake Spectra, 26(3) 601-617, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159 [DOI:10.1193/1.3459159.]
6. Naeim, F., Lew, M., (1995), On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories, Earthquake Spectra, 11(1). [DOI:10.1193/1.1585805]
7. Bazzurro, P. and Luco, N. (2005), Do scaled and spectrum matched near source records produce biased nonlinear structural response?, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
8. Baker, J.W., Haselton, C.B., Luco, N., Stewart, J.P. and Zimmerman, R.B. (2015), Updated Ground Motion Spectral Matching Requirements in the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.
9. Seifried, A.E. and Baker, J.W. (2016), Spectral variability and its relationship to structural response estimated from scaled and spectrum-matched ground motions, Earthquake Spectra, 32(4) 2191-2205, https://doi.org/10.1193/061515EQS094M [DOI:10.1193/061515EQS094M.]
10. Lancieri, M., Bazzurro, P. and Scotti, O. (2018), Spectral matching in time domain: A seismological and engineering analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 108(4), 1972-1994, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170396 [DOI:10.1785/0120170396.]
11. Gasparini, D. A. and Vanmarcke, E.H. (1976) Simulated Earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response spectra, MIT Civil Engineering Research, Rept. R76-4, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
12. Lilhanand, K. and Tseng, W.S. (1988), Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with multiple-damping design spectra, 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
13. PEER 2011/05 (2011), Case Studies of the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings Designed by Alternative Means, Pacific earthquake engineering research center, University of California at Berkeley.
14. De─čer, Z.T. and Wallace, J.W. (2016), Seismic performance of reinforced concrete dual-system buildings designed using two different design methods, The structural design of tall and special buildings, 25(1) 45-59, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1227 [DOI:abs/10.1002/tal.1227.]
15. Hamburger, R., Deierlein, G., Lehman, D., Lowes, L., Shing, B., Van de Lindt, J., Lingos, D., Hortacsu, A. (2016), ATC-114 next generation hysteretic relationships for performance-based modeling and analysis, Proceeding of the SEAOC Convention, Maui, Hawaii, USA.
16. Etabs (2016), ETABS: Integrated building design software, Computer and Structures Incorporation, Berkeley, CA, USA.
17. Perform 3D (2009), Perform-3D: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Computer and Structures Incorporation, Berkeley, CA, USA.
18. ACI 318 (2014), Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
19. Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N. and Park R. (1988), Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8) 1804-1826. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)]
20. Huang, Z., Zhou, W., Chen, T., and Chen, J. (2004), Effect of confined concrete models on simulating RC columns under low-cycle loading, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
21. Powell, G.H. (2007) Detailed Example of a Tall Shear Wall Building Using CSI's Perform 3D Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.
22. Naish, D., Fry, A., Klemencic, R. and Wallace, J. (2013), Reinforced concrete coupling beams, Part II: Modeling, ACI Structural Journal, 110(6) 1067-1075, https://doi.org/10.14359/51686161 [DOI:10.14359/51686161.]
23. SeismoMatch (2018), https://www.seismosoft.com
24. SeismoArtif (2018), https://www.seismosoft.com
25. FEMA P695 (2009), Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Cal, USA.
26. SeismoSignal (2018), https://www.seismosoft.com
27. Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N. A., Bommer, J. J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E. and Mendis, R. (2006), An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets, J. Earthquake Eng., 10, 67-89, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460609350629 [DOI:abs/10.1080/13632460609350629.]
28. Abrahamson, N. A. (1992), Non-stationary spectral matching, Seismol. Res. Lett., 63 30, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.63.1.19 [DOI:10.1785/gssrl.63.1.19.]
29. Halldorsson, B. and Papageorgiou, A.S. (2005), Calibration of the Specific Barrier Model to Earthquakes of Different Tectonic Regions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(4) 1276-1300, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040157 [DOI:10.1785/0120040157.]
30. Papageorgiou, A.S. and Aki, K. (1985), Scaling law of far-field spectra based on observed parameters of the specific barrier model, Pure Appl. Geophys., 123(5), 354-374. [DOI:10.1007/BF00880736]
31. Clough, R.W., Penzien, J. (2003), Dynamics of Structures, Computers and Structures, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
32. Kohrangi, M., Bazzurro, P., Vamvatsikos, D., (2016a), Vector and scalar IMs in structural response estimation: Part II - building demand assessment, Earthquake Spectra, 32(3) 2167-2189, https://doi.org/10.1193/053115EQS081M [DOI:10.1193/053115EQS0881M.]
33. SeismoSpect (2018), https://www.seismosoft.com
34. PEER 2009/01 (2009), Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings, Pacific earthquake engineering research center, University of California at Berkeley