PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS IN EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT BUILDINGS DESIGN

S. Oliveiraa, A. Costa b
a

Instituto Superior Tcnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal (sergio.b.oliveira@ist.utl.pt)

b

Instituto Superior Tcnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal (acosta@civil.ist.utl.pt)

October 2013

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
Throughout almost the entire length of the continental Portuguese territory the seismic action
has a moderate to high intensity so it is of practical importance to define the characteristics of
the structural solutions that are used in structural design in order to achieve a good seismic
behavior of the structure. Due to the increased competitiveness in the construction business, it
is also important to analyze the monetary differences associated with the different structural
systems commonly used in earthquake-resistant buildings in order to decide which one is the
most cost-efficient if alternative systems can be equated.
The purpose of the thesis is to study and analyze the differences associated with the structural
systems provided in Eurocode 8 for earthquake-resistant buildings when applied to a mediumrise residential building. In the study it will be taken into consideration the structural behavior
of each structural system and it will also be elaborated a budgeting in order to conclude which
is the most cost-effective system for a building with the characteristics stated above. Despite
the necessary adjustments in the floor plan related to the lack of architectural constraints that
are required in order to be able to design different structural systems for the same building,
the basis of all the studied systems was the same architecture floor plan.
Four structural systems where studied namely a Frame System, a Dual System, a Wall System
and a Coupled Walls System. It was analyzed the behavior of the four structural solutions
under the seismic action and the safety limits addressed in EC8-1 were verified. Were also
evaluated the quantities of materials for each structural solution and its cost to enable their
comparison in terms of the systems economic performance.
Key-Words: Frame System, Dual System, Wall System, Coupled Walls System
______________________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION
With the growth of competitiveness in the
construction business due to the economic
context that is affecting Southern Europe
countries, information related to the best
cost-effective structural system that can be
applied in each scenario is a significant
advantage for engineers. However, the

tight time schedules required in the design

phase does not allow us to conduct
extended structural comparisons during
this process. In this study four different
structural systems where applied to a
medium-rise building making it possible to
conclude which one leads to the best
compromise between performance and
cost.
1

2. Case Study Definition

The basis of the structural systems design
was the architectural plan shown in Figure
1. The design of a building structure is
often limited by the architectural
requirements that were already defined
when an engineer starts his work.
Therefore, to ensure that each of the
systems intended to be studied could be
properly designed, of all constraints
present in the original floor plan the ones
that were taken into consideration as part
of the actual basis for the study were the
elevator shaft and the staircase. Despite
that fact, other common architectural
constraints were considered during the
design phase such as the height of the
interior and exterior beams, related to the
doors height and windows box blinds,
respectively. In flat slabs design it was also
determined that enlarged column heads
should not be used due to the residential
occupation of the building because the
common way to hide them is by using false
ceilings which are inappropriate for the
storey height of such buildings.
The case study is a thirteen storey building,
two of which are underground storeys and
there is also a ground floor making it a ten

storey building above the ground. It is

located in Lisbon and its ground foundation
is classified as a Ground Type C according
to Eurocode 8. It is also important to refer
that an Importance Class II building
includes the residential use in its Eurocode
8 definition so the structural systems
studied fit in this category. In the structural
detailing the DCM class was considered
and it takes also part in the q-factor value
choice.
2.1 Materials
The information about the physical
properties of the materials used, concrete
and steel, are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 Concrete properties C30/37

fcd [Mpa]

fck [Mpa]

fctm [Mpa]

Ec [Gpa]

20,0

30,0

2,9

33,0

Table 2 Steel properties A500NR SD

Fyd [Mpa]

Fyk [Mpa]

Es [Gpa]

435,0

500,0

200,0

16.55

20.00

Figure 1 Base plan for the structural design (dim. In meters)

2.2 Acting Actions

The actions considered in element stress

calculations are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Acting actions

0,2

Concrete self-weigth

25,0 kN/m

Partition walls

2,1 kN/m

Exterior Walls

2,7 kN/m

Floor cover

1,5 kN/m

Terrace floor cover

Residential
Floors
Live
Parking Floors
Loads

2,5 kN/m

2
2

3. Structural Systems Definition

2,5 kN/m

2,0 kN/m

Residential Floors

0,7

0,5

0,3

Parking Floors

0,7

0,7

0,6

Terrace

0,0

0,0

0,0

The seismic action is the primary focus in

this study and the parameters related to
the referred action are present in Table 5.
The Spectrum Type that leads to the
highest basal force demand in every
structural system is the Type 1. As a result
in the analysis conducted in the following
paragraphs it will only be considered that
seismic action.
Table 5 Spectrum Type 1 parameters

agr
2
[m/s ]

TB
[s]

TC
[s]

TD
[s]

Smax

1,50

1,00

0,10

0,60

2,0

1,60

1,50

The spectrum Type definition is shown in

the following equations.

[4]

Load

2,5

2,0 kN/m

Table 4 Combination coeficients

= +

[3]

0,2

Terrace

2,5

[1]

Before conducting the comparisons

between the structural systems studied it
is important to illustrate the floor design of
each system for a better understanding of
the structural behavior addressed in the
following paragraphs and Figure 2 to Figure
5 are responsible for it.
It is important to point out that all systems
where designed to meet the Eurocode 8
parameters related with interstorey drift in
the serviceability state and second order
effects characterized by the interstorey
drift sensibility coefficient (). Once the
value intervals given in the code where
met, it was considered that the structural
design process was finished.
In the Frame System the design of the
beams and columns was controlled by the
coefficient while in the Wall System the
design was controlled by interstorey drift in
the serviceability state.
The Dual System base design was the
Frame System which was weakened by
diminishing some of the columns
dimensions and complemented by the
introduction of some ductile walls.
In the Coupled Walls System the primary
concern was the limitation of the walls
maximum compression to be able to avoid
their failure due to a lower ductility
behavior induced by the rise of the
compression force.

[2]

The columns have larger dimensions in Y

direction and beam VC is higher than the
rest because that is the more flexible
structural direction and that dimensions
intended to make this structural direction
stiffer to be within second order sensibility
limits set by Eurocode 8.

3.1 Frame System

The dimensions of the structural elements
present in the Frame System are shown in
Tables 6 to 8. The ground storey, as well as
the underground ones, has a flat slab floor
solution. The elevated floor plan is
illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 8 Columns dimensions, Frame System

Table 6 Slab thickness, Frame System

Designao

0a9

0,30

0,50

0a5

0,60

0,30

6a9

0,50

0,30

0a5

0,30

0,75

6a9

0,30

0,65

-2 a 5

0,50

0,70

6a9

0,50

0,60

-2 a 5

0,60

0,30

6a9

0,50

0,30

P7

-2 a 9

0,50

0,25

P8

-2 a 9

0,25

0,50

Pisos

e [m]

_1 e 0

0,18

P1

1 a 10

0,17

P2 e P3

Table 7 Beams dimensions, Frame System

Designao

h [m]

b [m]

VA, VB e VD

0,50

0,30

VC

0,55

0,30

VE e VC'

0,30

0,25

P4
P5
P6B e P6C

4.00
VA

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

4.20

3.60

VA

VA

4.20

4.00

VA

VA

5.30

P1

P2

VC

VD

VB

P3

VB

P6B

P3

P6B

VB

P2

P1

VD

VC

VB

VB

P5

P4

3.80

e = 0,17 m

VD

VC

P4

P5

VC

VD

B'
P8

e = 0,22 m

P8

1.70
VB

P6C

VB

C
P4

P6C

VB

VB

VB

P5

P4

P5

1.60

VE
VE

C'

P7

P7

VC'

VD

VC

VC

VD

3.85
y

P1
x

VA

P2

VA

P3

VA

P3

Figure 2 Structural floor plan, Frame System

VA

P2

VA

P1

Table 10 Beams dimensions, Dual System

3.2 Dual System

There were made some changes in the
structural layout and dimensions in the
Frame System in order to provide the
adjustments necessary to achieve, in the
Dual System, a basal force distribution
close to 50% between the two structural
systems that are part of the dual one. In
the tables below element dimensions will
be shown and the elevated floor plan is
illustrated in Figure 3. The slab thickness of
each storey is shown in Table 6 because
these values are the same as the ones used
in the Frame System. The ground and
underground storeys have the same floor
solution of the Frame System.

Designao

h [m]

b [m]

VA, VB e VD

0,50

0,30

VC

0,55

0,30

VE e VC'

0,30

0,25

Table 11 Columns dimensions, Dual System

Designao

0a9

0,30

0,50

0a5

0,60

0,30

6a9

0,50

0,30

0a5

0,30

0,70

6a9

0,30

0,60

-2 a 5

0,50

0,70

6a9

0,50

0,60

-2 a 5

0,60

0,30

6a9

0,50

0,30

P6

-2 a 9

0,50

0,25

P7

-2 a 9

0,25

0,50

P1
P2
P3
P4

Table 9 Walls dimensions, Dual System

P5B e P5C
Designao

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

PA1

0a9

0,30

1,60

PA2

0a9

1,80

0,30

4.00

4.20

VA

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

3.60

4.20

4.00

VA

VA

VA

5.30

P1

P2

VC

VD

VB

PA2

VB

P5B

P5B

VB

P2

P1

VD

VC

VB

VB

P4

P3

3.80

e = 0,17 m

VD

VC

P3

P4

VC

VD

B'
P7

e = 0,22 m

P7

1.70
VB

P5C

VB

C
PA1

P5C

VB

VB

VB

P4

PA1

P4

1.60

VE
VE

C'

P6

VC'

P6

VD

VC

VC

VD

3.85
y

P1
x

VA

P2

VA

PA2

VA

P2

VA

P1

Figure 3 Structural floor plan, Dual System

3.3 Wall System

Table 14 Columns dimensions, Wall System

The Wall System was designed considering

as secondary seismic elements the interior
columns. There is also important to refer
that the flat slab thickness was controlled
not by gravity loads but by the detailing
related to the seismic action. The
dimensions of the structural elements that
take part of the referred system are shown
in the following tables. In Figure 4 is shown
the elevated structural floor plan of this
system.

Designao

e [m]

_1 e 10

0,22

h [m]

b [m]

VA e VB

0,40

0,30

VC e VC

0,35

0,25

4.38
0.50

0,30

0,40

P2

0a9

0,30

0,50

-2 a 5

0,50

0,70

6a9

0,50

0,60

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

PA1.1

0a9

3,00

0,30

PA1.2

0a9

0,30

3,00

PA2

-2 a 5

0,25

3,40

PA3

-2 a 5

0,25

1,75

4.00

0a9

Designao

Table 15 Walls dimensions, Wall System

Table 13 Beams dimensions, Wall System

Designao

x
P1

P3

Table 12 Flat slab thickness, Wall System

Pisos

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

4.38

3.25

0.88

0.88

4.00
0.50

A
VA

P1

4.00

VA

PA1.1

P1

VA

PA1.1

VB

VB

P2

A'

P2

1.30

0.15

B
P3

P3
VB

VB

PA2

PA2

e = 0,22 m

3.80

VC

VC

PA1.2

PA1.2
P3

1.60

P3

0.40
PA3

C'

VC'

3.85

VB

VB

P1
x

PA3

VA

0.50

0.88

VA

0.88

D
PA1.1

PA1.1

Figure 4 Structural floor plan, Wall System

0.50

VA

P1

Table 18 Walls dimensions, Coupled Wall System

3.4 Coupled Wall System

The
secondary
seismic
elements
considered in the analysis of this structure
were all the columns and beams. During
the detailing process just the interior
columns and the concurrent slab sections
were detailed elastically. In other words,
the frame in the building contour was
detailed using the q-factor affecting the
element stresses.

Designao

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

PA1

0a9

2,50

0,30

PA2

0a9

0,30

2,00

PA3

-2 a 5

0,25

3,40

PA4

-2 a 5

0,25

1,75

Table 19 Beams dimensions, Coupled Wall System

Table 16 Flat slab thickness, Coupled Wall System

Pisos

e [m]

_1 e 10

0,22

Table 17 Columns dimensions, Coupled Wall

System

Designao

P2

h [m]

b [m]

V1 e V2

0,40

0,30

VA1

0,70

0,30

VA2

0,60

0,30

V3 e VC

0,35

0,25

Dimenses [m]

Pisos

0a9

0,30

0,40

-2 a 5

0,50

0,70

6a9

0,50

0,60

P1

Designao

With the structural design of the couple

beams plus the ductile walls the degree of
couple obtained was in the 60% range in
both orthogonal directions.

4.00

4.38
0.88

1.00

4.38

3.25
0.88

4.00
1.00

A
V1

P1

VA1

PA1

P1

V1

PA1

V2

V2

5.30

1.05
B

0.15

PA2

PA2

P2

P2

PA3

PA3
e = 0,22 m

3.80

VA2

VA2

V3

V3

C
PA2

1.60

P2

2.00

PA4

C'

VC'

3.85

PA2

P2

0.40

PA4

V2

V2

P1
x

V1

V1

VA1

P1

D
0.40

PA1

PA1

Figure 5 Structural floor plan, Coupled Wall System

4. Systems Comparisons
In this chapter considerations will be made
regarding the structural behavior of the
systems in study as well as the quantities
of materials consumed in each one.

4.1 Behavior analysis

To begin with, there will be shown the
fundamental periods in each orthogonal
direction and also the rotational
fundamental period, which is always the
third one, because their value indirectly
indicates the directional strength of the
building. Furthermore, the analysis of the
seismic shear can also show the structural
differences between the systems in study.
Table 20 Fundamental Periods

System
T1 [s]
Translation
T2 [s]
Translation
T3 [s]
Rotation

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Wall

1,51

1,42

1,38

1,39

1,37

1,29

1,26

1,26

1,33

1,14

1,04

1,01

Table 21 Seismic shear

System

Frame

Dual

Wall

TSx [kN]

1942,7

2370,0

2755,8

Coupled
Wall
2311,3

0,051

0,062

0,075

0,062

TSy [kN]

1796,4

2177,8

3068,3

2563,2

0,048

0,057

0,084

0,069

[5]

with:
Total seismic shear in i direction
Total mass of the building in the
seismic event
The observation of Table 20 clearly
indicates that the most flexible system is
8

the Frame System. The changes in the

configuration of the structural system
made from the Frame to the Dual System
improved the building behavior in terms of
its displacements. This improvement can
also be observed by the displacement
values present in Table 22. It is also
possible to conclude that the stiffer
systems are the ones where walls play a
more important role. The introduction of
walls that was progressively made from the
Frame System to the Wall System indicates
that these elements clearly improve the
torsional stiffness of the building. From the
information present in both Table 20 and
Table 21 we can conclude that the upper
dynamic modes play a more important role
in the Wall System as in the Coupled Wall
one because their fundamental periods
assume similar values but there is a
significant difference between their seismic
shear values.
The information present in the next two
tables is related to the most flexible
direction of each system because it is the
one that conditions the fulfillment of the
limits imposed by EC8. It can be observed
that the Dual System has the lower
maximum displacement and this can be
explained by the interaction between the
two subsystems that are part of it. In the
lower storeys the walls stiffness reduces
the tendency of the frame structure to
have bigger interstorey drifts and in the
upper ones the interaction way is reversed
as the frame system holds back the walls
by controlling the displacement growth in
height.
Table 22 Maximum displacement of the most
flexible direction

System

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Wall

dmax [cm]
(dD-di)/dD
[%]

18,5

17,1

17,8

17,5

8,2

0,00

3,9

2,3

with:
dD maximum displacement of the Dual
System
di maximum displacement of i system

Table 23 - Maximum interstorey service drift of the

most flexible direction

System

Frame

Dual

Wall

. mx

Coupled
Wall

0,010

0,010

0,009

0,009

Storey

1 to 3

5 and 6

3 to 5

. 0,014

[6]

Table 24 Maximum of the most flexible

direction

System

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Wall

mx

0,176

0,134

0,092

0,116

Storey
(D- i)/D
[%]

31,8

0,0

-31,6

-13,5

[7]

with:
interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient
total gravity load at and above the
storey considered
interstorey drift
seismic shear force in the considered
storey
h storey height
D maximum value of in the Dual
System
i maximum value of in system i
The values present in Table 24 indicate that
the wall presence in the structural system
reduces its tendency to display interstorey
drift sensitivity. In the third line of this
table is shown the storey where the
maximum value of the referred parameter
occurs.

low significance for the purpose of the

differences between them in terms of
seismic behavior. Therefore, the total
constructed area that was considered to
calculate the material consumption or cost
per square meter follow the assumption
stated above. It is of relevant importance
to refer that all measurements where
according to the full element detailing that
was carried out in each system.
Table 25 Concrete total volume

System

[m ]

[m /m ]

Frame

938,82

0,26

Dual

959,26

0,26

Wall

1.139,36

0,31

Coupled Wall

1.147,16

0,32

Table 26 Steel bars total weight

System

Steel
2

[kg]

[kg/m ]

Frame

100.297,41

27,55

Dual

92.623,17

25,44

Wall

102.964,70

28,63

Coupled Wall

100.137,10

27,84

Table 27 Concrete Cost

System

Concrete
2

[]

[/m ]

Frame

92.353,99

25,37

Dual

94.120,04

25,85

Wall

111.266,46

30,56

Coupled Wall

111.930,42

30,74

Table 28 Steel bars Cost

4.2 Material consumption and Costs

The data in this section is only related to
the storeys at and above the ground level
and all structural elements that meet this
criteria where considered in the
measurements. Below that level the
differences between the systems are of

Concrete
3

System

Steel
2

[]

[/m ]

Frame

81.094,17

22,27

Dual

74.978,61

20,59

Wall

83.522,07

22,94

Coupled Wall

81.281,10

22,32

By the analysis of the data in Tables 24 to

27 it is possible to conclude that the
inclusion of walls in the structural system
induces a higher consumption of concrete
although it allows reducing the number of
columns. On the other hand the Dual
System showed that the steel bar
reinforcement was reduced when the walls
were introduced if we compared it with the
Frame System. Considering the other two
systems it is interesting to observe that the
overall
consumption
of
steel
is
approximately the same. In the Coupled
Wall System there is a higher demand of
steel in the confinement areas than in the
Wall System due not only to a higher
compression in the wall pier but also to the
increased q-factor and consequently a
higher curvature ductility factor. The
reinforcement ratio needed to provide the
bending
moment
resistence
is
approximately the same in the two
structures but the Wall System requires
more web reinforcement due to bigger
wall sections. In the end, the walls steel
ratio is approximately the same in the two
systems, which consume the same amount
of concrete in walls, and the difference
between them concerns the number of
columns present in each system.
Table 29 Concrete cost comparison

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Wall

92.353,99

94.120,04

111.266,46

111.930,42

-1,9

0,0

18,2

18,9

System
Concrete
[]
[%]

Table 30 Steel cost comparison

System
Steel
[]

[%]

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Wall

81.094,17

74.978,61

83.522,07

81.281,10

8,2

0,0

11,4

8,4

= /

[9]

with:
Steel bars cost variation over the Dual
System
Steel bars cost in system i
Steel bars cost in the Dual System
The prices showed in Table 31 include not
only the sum of concrete and steel bars
costs but also the formwork cost which
was never addressed before because does
not take part in the seismic behavior of the
building. Despite that fact, as it is a
necessary element in the construction of a
concrete building and varies depending on
the shape of the structural elements it is a
parameter of distinction between systems.
The procedure used in the formwork
quantity evaluation was the same used in
the other two materials.
Table 31 Total cost comparison
System

Frame

Dual

Wall

Coupled
Walls

Cost []
2
Cost/m
2
[/m ]

[%]

228.637,98

225.505,78

247.747,95

247.069,92

62,80

61,94

68,04

67,86

1,4

0,0

9,9

9,6

= /
= /

[8]

with:
Concrete cost variation over the Dual
System
Concrete cost in system i
Concrete cost in the Dual System
10

[10]

with:

Global cost variation over the Dual

System
Global cost of materials of the system i
Global cost of materials of the Dual
system

5. Conclusions
After the analysis of the data shown in this
document it is fairly easy to conclude
which is the most cost-effective structural
solution for a medium-rise building like the
one studied. The structural cost of the
Frame System is very similar to the
expenses required to build the Dual System
structure but the last one is the cheapest.
Despite the fact that behavior aspects are
an important feature in the system choice,
they play a secondary role in this decision
because they all meet the regulation limits
stated in EC8. However, apart from the
difference in cost leading to the Dual
System as the right choice, the increased
performance shown by this system when
compared to the Frame System
corroborates even more this choice as the
most appropriate one.
Although the other two systems studied
demonstrate a good seismic behavior the
increase in the cost, close to 10%, when
compared to the Dual System, shows they
are not so cost-effective.

6. References
[1] APPLETON, J.; MARCHO, C. Beto
Armado e Pr-Esforado I - Mdulo 2
Verificao da Segurana aos Estados
Limites ltimos de Elementos com Esforo
Axial Desprezvel, Departamento de
Engenharia Civil, IST, Lisboa, 2007
[2] APPLETON, J.; MARCHO, C. Beto
Armado e Pr-Esforado I - Mdulo 3
Verificao da Segurana aos Estados
Limites de Utilizao, Departamento de
Engenharia Civil, IST, Lisboa, 2007
[3] APPLETON, J.; MARCHO, C. Beto
Armado e Pr-Esforado II - Mdulo 2
Lajes de Beto Armado, Departamento de
Engenharia Civil, IST, Lisboa, 2007
[4] APPLETON, J.; CAMARA, J.; MARCHO,
C. Beto Armado e Pr-Esforado II Mdulo 3 Fundaes de Edifcios,
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, IST,
Lisboa, 2007

[5] ASCE Recommendations for Seismic

Design of Hybrid Coupled Walls, ASCE
Composite Construction Committee
[6] COSTA, ANTNIO; Projecto de
estruturas para resistncia aos sismos EC81 Exemplo de Aplicao 1, Ordem dos
Engenheiros, Lisboa, 2011
[7] COSTA, ANTNIO; Projecto de
estruturas para resistncia aos sismos EC81 Exemplo de Aplicao 2,Ordem dos
Engenheiros, Lisboa, 2011
[8] FARDIS, MICHAEL N.; et al, Seismic
Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of
Concrete Buildings, Springer
[9] GOMES, A.; VINAGRE, J. Beto
Armado e Pr-Esforado I Tabelas de
Clculo, Departamento de Engenharia
Civil, IST, Lisboa, 1997
[10] LOPES, M.; DELGADO, R. et al, Sismos
e Edifcios, Orion, Lisboa, 2008
[11] NP EN 1990: 2009: Eurocdigo 0
Bases para o projecto de estruturas, LNEC,
Lisboa, 2009
[12] NP EN 1991-1-1: 2009; Eurocdigo 1:
Aces em estruturas Part1-1: General
actions Pesos volmicos, pesos prprios,
sobrecargas em edifcios, LNEC, Lisboa,
2009
[13] NP EN 1992-1-1: 2010; Eurocdigo 2:
Projecto de estruturas de beto Parte 11: Regras gerais e regras para edifcios,
LNEC, Lisboa, 2010
[14] NP EN 1998-1: 2010; Eurocdigo 8:
Projecto de estruturas para resistncia aos
sismos Parte 1: Regras gerais, aces
ssmicas e regras para edifcios, LNEC,
Lisboa, 2010
[15] ORGANIZAO E GESTO DE OBRAS
Trabalho Prtico Construo de um
edifcio
de
servios
de
sade,
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, IST,
Lisboa, 2011
[16] TURGEON, JACOB A.; et al, The
Seismic
Performance
of
Coupled
Reinforced Concrete Walls, Washington,
2011
[17] www.thomazsantos.pt

11