Received: 31 May 2016 Revised: 4 January 2017 Accepted: 20 February 2017

DOI 10.1002/tal.1370

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Incremental dynamic analysis of seismic collapse of supertall

building structures
Tiancan Huang1 | Xiaodan Ren1 | Jie Li1,2

1
School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
200092, Shanghai, China Summary
2
The State Key Laboratory on Disaster In the present work, the incremental dynamic analysis is performed for the supertall building
Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji structure of ZhongNan Center, which is more than 700 m high and is currently under
University, Shanghai, China construction in Suzhou, China. The ChiChi earthquake record is used as the ground motion input.
Correspondence The peak ground accelerations are scaled to five levels including 0.2 g, 0.4 g, 0.8 g, 1.4 g, and
Jie Li, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji
2.0 g. The plastic damage model is adopted to represent the material failure. The finite element
University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai,
200092, China. model is developed by using fiber beam elements for beamcolumns and laminated shell elements
Email: lijie@tongji.edu.cn for shear walls and slabs. Under the attack of strong seismic ground motions, the super tall
Xiaodan Ren, School of Civil Engineering, structure experiences overall collapse, which is well captured by the developed finite element
Tongji University, 200092, Shanghai, China
model. More importantly, the collapse patterns of the super tall structure are rather different
Email: rxdtj@tongji.edu.cn
under the excitations of earthquake records with same wave pattern but different peak
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China, accelerations.
Grant/Award Number: 51208374
KEY W ORDS

collapse pattern, damage model, finite element method, incremental dynamic analysis, structural
collapse, supertall building

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N (GB50011) also include this approach. It is recommended for

With the rapid developments of modern materials and construction
techniques, supertall buildings have been experiencing incredibly
rapid development all over the world. However, the safety of supertall
buildings has not been well investigated and understood. It has been
reported[13] that many hightall buildings, which were designed and
constructed in accordance with modern seismic design principles, have
partially or totally collapsed during earthquakes (see Figure 1).
As is well known, one of the essential objectives of the
performancebased design is to prevent the structures from overall
collapse. Structures subjected to earthquake excitations usually
experience a series of stages including the elastic stage, the damaged
stage, the partial collapse stage, and the total collapse stage. Thus,
the elaborate methods to assess structural damage and collapse under
strong earthquake ground motions are required to implement the
performancebased design procedure. In recent years, the nonlinear
static procedure and the direct dynamic time integration method have
been widely used.[4]
The nonlinear static procedure, also known as the push over
[5]
analysis, was introduced in Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Some design codes such as ATC40 and seismic design code of China
structures that are roughly deformed in the pattern of their first natural
modes of vibration under seismic excitations. Static pushover analysis
has been widely used due to its convenience and simplicity in applica-
tion. On the other hand, it is based on the incorrect assumptions that
the nonlinear response of a structure can be related to the response
of an equivalent single degreeoffreedom system and that the
distribution of the equivalent lateral forces remains constant over the
height of the structure during the entire duration of the structural
response.[4] The direct dynamic time integration[6] is an accurate way
to simulate the behaviors of structures under earthquake excitations.
Both the structural behaviors and the earthquake records are modeled
accurately. Therefore, it could be presumed that an accurate structural
response is obtained. However, this method is unable to provide the
seismic performance of structures in an explicit way and the additional
postprocessing of simulated results should be introduced.
In recent years, incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) have emerged
as a powerful means to study the overall behavior of structures, by
which the response of structures from elastic stage to damage and
finally to overall collapse could be investigated.[7] An incremental
dynamic analysis involves a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses in
which the intensity of the ground motion selected for the collapse

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2017;e1370. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 11
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1370
2 of 11
FIGURE 1 Collapse of modern buildings (a) 1995 Kobe, Japan
earthquake; (b) 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan earthquake; and (c) 2010
Offshore Maule, Chile earthquake
investigation is incrementally increased until the overall collapse of the
structure is reached. The concept of IDA was proposed as early as
1977 by Bertero.[8] In the milestone work of Vamvatsikos and
Cornell,[9] the details of IDA were well described. Later, the enhanced
techniques for IDA were also proposed.[10] It was also recommended
by FEMA (2000a)[7] to estimate the seismic performance of structure.
With the rapid development of computational techniques and
facilities, we are capable of applying the IDA to supertall building
HUANG ET AL.
structures, defined on average as over 500 m high, and made up of
hundreds of thousands of structural elements.
The present paper aims at assessing the anticollapse capacities of
supertall structures under earthquake ground motions based on IDA
analysis. In order to accurately obtain the nonlinear responses of super
tall building structures subjected to earthquake excitations, a finite
element model is developed by using the finite element package
ABAQUS with plasticity damage model implemented as user's defined
subroutine. In order to perform IDA, a set of ground motion records
were chosen with their Peak ground acceleration (PGA) scaled to five
levels. The patterns of structural collapse under different levels of
ground motions are obtained and discussed.
2 | D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E S U P E R T A L L
B U I LD I N G
ZhongNan Center Tower, a 729 m high office tower, is located in the
west bund of JinJi Lake, Suzhou, China.* The tower has 137 stories
and the structural height reaches 598 m (see Figure 2). The aspect ratio
of height to width is 8.7, and it is designed to be the tallest building in
China thus far. The building is divided into nine zones along its vertical
direction (see Figure 3). With a square base of 61 m by 61 m, the struc-
ture is symmetric and gradually shrinking along the height direction
(see Figure 4). The primary structural components include core tube,
mega columns, coupling beams, outriggers, belt trusses, and floor slabs
(see Figure 5).
The core tube is designed as square tabular structures, with 4 4
tubes from bottom to 349 m and 2 2 tubes in the upper levels. The
maximum thickness of the inner tube is 1.2 m in bottom, and it is
reduced to 0.5 m for the top level. The maximum thickness of the
outer tube is 0.9 m in bottom, and it is reduced to 0.45 m for the top
level.
The mega columns are rectangular, varying from 3.8 m 4.9 m to
1.9 m 1.9 m. There are 6 outriggers connecting the core tube and
mega columns located in different levels of the structure. According
to the structural plan, the core tube bears a majority of the horizontal
shear and part of the overturning moment. With the help of outrigger
trusses, the mega columns provide substantial bending stiffness.
According to the seismic design code of China,[11] the tower is
located in Suzhou with the seismic design intensity categorized as 7.
The site soil in Suzhou is specified as typeIII and the characteristic
period of the site soil is 0.57 s.
3 | D E V E L O P M E N T OF TH E S T RU C T U R A L
MODEL
3.1 | 3D finite element model
As shown in Figure 6, a threedimensional finite element model is
developed based on ABAQUS platform. The structural components
*The structural design considered in the present study is not the finalized design
of ZhongNan Center Tower. The improved design has been finished partially
based on the results and findings of the present work. The contents of the pres-
ent work are only for research purposes.
HUANG ET AL. 3 of 11

FIGURE 2 ZhongNan Center Tower

of the tower, including core tubes, mega columns, outriggers, belt

trusses, and floor slabs, are modeled by appropriate finite elements.
The fiber beamcolumn element is used to model the beamcolumns
(see Figure 7), and the multilayer shell element is used for the shear
walls (see Figure 8). As for the floor slabs, the regular shell elements
(SR4) were used. The refined mesh was developed to ensure the
accuracy of numerical simulation (see Table 1).
The materials considered in the structural design include (a)
concrete used in core tube (C60), mega columns (C70,C60, C50) and
floor slabs (C35); (b) steel tube used in outriggertrusses (Q235) and FIGURE 3 The partition of elevation
steel reinforcing bars in core tube (HRB335), mega column and floor
slabs. The constitutive models describing nonlinear behaviors and
dynamic failures of materials are briefly summarized in the following ; (2)
subsections.

P : ; (3)
3.2 | Plasticdamage concrete model
According to the principle of strain equivalence,[12,13] the effective
P : ; (4)
stress tensor can be represented as

E0 : e E0 : p ; (1) where P+ and P are rankfour stress projection tensors in the

following form:
where E0 is forthorder initial elastic tensor; , e, and p are second
 
order tensors, denoting the strain tensor and its elastic and plastic bi Pi Pi Pi Pi ;
P H (5)
i
components, respectively.
To account for the unilateral effect, the effective strain tensor is
decomposed as follows: P IP (6)
4 of 11 HUANG ET AL.

FIGURE 6 Finite element mesh

where the fourthorder damage tensor D is expressed as

D d P d P : (9)

It should be noted that Equation 8 is the standard relation

FIGURE 4 Structural plan for regular levels between the Cauchy stress tensor and the effective stress in
Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM), according to the strain
equivalence assumption.[12,15]

FIGURE 7 Fiber beamcolumn element

FIGURE 5 Truss system connecting core tube and mega columns

bi is the ith the eigenvalue of

and I is the forthorder identity tensor;
the effective stress tensor; Pi is the ith normalized eigenvector
bi ; H() is the Heaviside function defined as follows:
corresponding to


1; x>0
Hx : (7)
0; x0

Based on the principle of thermodynamics, we could obtain the

final form for the constitutive law, which is expressed by Cauchy stress
tensor[14]

ID : ID : E0 : p ; (8) FIGURE 8 Mutilayer shell element

HUANG ET AL. 5 of 11

TABLE 1 Summary of finite elements Thus far, the framework of damageplasticity model could be used
for the numerical simulation of structures.
Number of Nodes 225632
Number of fiber beamcolumn elements 53822
Number of multilayer shell elements 27021 3.3 | Steel constitutive law
Number of SR4 elements 62277 A standard elastoplastic strainhardening model has been used to
simulate the nonlinear behavior of steel tubes and steel reinforcing
The evolutionary law of damage scalars[16] is expressed as
bars under cyclic loading. The fundamental stressstrain relation is
8  
>
< d f
d eq E0 : p : (17)
 ; (10)
>
: d f d eq
The evolutionary law of plastic strain is

where the energy equivalent strains are 8 p

_
< _ f
>
8 p F ; p f kp ; (18)
> Y >
:
>
>
F0; 0; _ _ 0
F
< eq
E0
p : (11)
>
> Y
>
: eq where k is the hardening modulus and is the evolutionary coefficient.
1E0
The von Mises type yield function is
[17]
And the expressions of damage energy release rate are p
f J2 ; (19)
8
>
> 21 12
>
<Y 3J2 I1 I1 I1 I1 where J2 is the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor s. The
3 3
 q 2 ; (12)
>
> equivalent plastic strain is in the following form:
>
: Y I1 3J2
r
2 p p
_ p _ : _ : (20)

where I
1 ,I1 ,J2 , and J2 are invariants of and , respectively; is
3
Piosson's ratio; andis material parameter related to biaxial compres-
The uniaxial stressstrain relation of steel is shown in Figure 9.
sive strength increase of concrete. Based on the Mander's model[18]
and the Guo's model,[19] the damage evolutionary functions are
adopted as follows:
3.4 | Central difference method for time integration
To simulate the collapse of structures, material damage and softening
8
> n
>
> x 1
should be taken into account, and the contacts between elements
< 1 n 1 x n

f d ; (13) and nodes should be reproduced properly. The system with those
>
>
>
: 1 x 1 strong nonlinearities could hardly be solved by implicit solver, which
2
d x 1 x
is developed based on the NewtonRaphson method due to illness
of system Jacobian. Thus, in the present work, Abaqus/Explicit is
f E0 adopted, which has been used and verified for a wide variety of simu-
x ; ; n ; (14)
E0 E0 f lations including crash, blast, material failure, and impact applications.
The explicit dynamic analysis procedure in Abaqus/Explicit is
where f denotes the uniaxial tensile strength and the uniaxial compres-
based upon the implementation of the central difference method.[21]
sive strength, as appropriate; is the strain corresponding to the peak
value of the stress; and d is the parameter governs the slope of the
descending part of stressstrain curve.
According to literature,[12] the plastic evolutions could be devel-
oped based on the concept of operator splitting. In the present work,
we turn to the empirical plastic evolutionary model.[20] By analogy of
decomposition of damage tensor, we introduce the decomposition of
plastic strain as follows:

p p p ; (15)

where p and p are plastic strains under tension and compression,
respectively. Considering the coupling between damage and plasticity,
the evolutions of plastic strains are expressed as follows:
n     
_ p H d_ E0 : _ H d_ p d np E1
np 1 _ p _

p d 0 : ; (16)

where
p, p , n
p and np are material parameters related to plasticity. FIGURE 9 Uniaxial stressstrain relation of steel
6 of 11 HUANG ET AL.

Consider the nth time increment as follows: parallelized so that the collapse of largescale structures could be
simulated by taking advantage of largescale computers or servers.
1  n1
tn1=2 tn1 tn ; tn1=2 t tn ; tn On the other hand, the central difference method is conditionally
2
t n1=2
t n1=2
: (21) stable. The stability limit for the dynamic system without damping is
given in terms of the highest eigenvalue max as follows:
Denote the vectors of displacement, velocity, and acceleration by
2
u,v, and a. The central difference formula for the velocity could be tstable : (31)
max
expressed as follows:
In Abaqus/Explicit, a small amount of damping is usually
un1 un 1  introduced to suppress the high frequency oscillations. With damping
_ n1=2
u v
n1=2
n1 n n1=2 un1 un : (22)
t t t the stable time increment is given by

This difference formula can be converted to an integration 2

tstable p  ; (32)
formula, as follows: max 1 2

un1 un tn1=2 vn1=2 : (23) where is the fraction of critical damping in the highest natural mode.
The stable time increment defined by Equation 31 or 32 is usually
The velocity at the nth time step is defined as follows: rather small (105 ~ 107 s) for regular structural simulations compared
with the total time length of earthquakes (101 ~ 102 s). Thus, usually a
1  n1=2 
v n
v vn1=2 great number of time increments is required for the full process
2

1 1  n1 n 1 
simulation of structural collapse. That is the price for the explicit
u u n1=2 un un1 : (24)
2 t n1=2
t
method for which the Jacobian of system is neglected.

For the equal time steps, the formula of velocity reduces to

4 | D E S C R I P T I O N OF SI NG L E S E I S M I C
un1 2un un1
vn : (25) RECORD INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2tn

The acceleration is The seismic collapse of structures is by its essence a dynamic stability

  problem, which is closely related to both the structural performance

vn1=2 vn1=2 tn1=2 un1 un tn1=2 un un1 and the dynamic excitations. IDA is a parametric analysis that
n
u a n1=2 n1=2
n
: (26)
t t tn tn1=2 tn1=2 estimates structural performance under seismic loads. It can reflect

For the case of equal time steps, the reduced form of acceleration the dynamic response process of structures, which are subjected to

could be obtained as follows: different levels of ground motion while structural responses are shifted
from the elastic state to the nonlinear state until collapse. IDA not only
un1 2un un1 can evaluate the anticollapse capacity of structure, but also can grasp
u n an : (27)
tn 2 the seismic performance of structure.
This paper develops the IDA process specifically for the structure
The integration formula of acceleration is
of ZhongNan Center, a supertall building. The key steps of implemen-
vn1=2 vn1=2 tn an : (28) tation are as follows:

The system of structural dynamics could be expressed by the (1) Select a ground motion record and determine the intensity
following second order equations: measure.

Man Cvn fint un fnext ; (29) (2) Define the scale factor and obtain a suit of ground motion
records of different intensities.
where M and C are mass and damping matrices; and fint and fext are (3) Calculate the dynamic response of the structure subjected to the
internal and external forces. Substituting Equations 25 and 27 into ground motion records.
Equation 29 gives the explicit integration formula as follows:
(4) Assess seismic performance and anticollapse capacity of
" # structurebased on the simulated results.
M C
n u
n1
fnext fint un (30)
tn 2 2t " #
M C  n n1 The ground motion of ChiChi, Taiwan 1999 is adopted for this
n 2u u :
tn 2 2t study. The earthquake was of a Richter magnitude of 7.62 with
moderate epicentral distance of 35.39 km. The recorded PGA was
According to Equation 30, the displacement at the (n + 1)th step 0.1031 g, peak ground velocity was 43.44 cm/sec, and permanent
n
could be explicitly updated by u without any matrix interactions and ground deformation was 33.27 cm. Figure 10 shows the ground
inversions. Thus, material damage and softening cannot enhance the motion record scaled to 1.0 g and the response spectra is shown in
difficulties to solve the structural system. It is also very easy to be Figure 11. PGA was adopted as the Monotonic Scalable Ground
HUANG ET AL. 7 of 11

FIGURE 10 Scaled acceleration of ChiChi

earthquake (1.0 g)

FIGURE 11 Scaled acceleration spectra of

ChiChi earthquake (5% damping ratio)

Motion Intensity Measure, which was scaled to five levels including 5.2 | Patterns of collapse
0.2 g, 0.4 g, 0.8 g, 1.4 g, and 2.0 g.
The supertall structure collapses in rather different patterns under
different levels of seismic excitations. They are briefly summarized as
5 | RE S UL T S A N D D I S CU S S I O N S follows:

Case 1. PGA = 0.2 g

5.1 | Basis dynamic characteristics of the supertall
building
The linear perturbation analysis is performed to calculate the natural
periods of the supertall building structure. Using the Lanczos algorithm,
the first 50 natural modes are calculated. The first three natural modes
(Figures 12) and 10 free natural periods are presented (Table 2).
Figures 1314 show the collapse process of the structure subject
to the ground motion with scaled PGA to be 3.92 m/s2(0.2 g).The
damage of the structure occurs in the top and the middle part where
the thickness and section of the core tube are changed. The local
outrigger trusses and belt trusses start to yield in zone 9 at 35 s as
parts of the coupling beams have failed. At 42.5 s, the bottom of the
core tube starts to crack and the damage of shear wall in zone 8 and
9 propagates gradually. At 50 s the cracks penetrate the core tube in
zone 9, and the core tube finally ruptures at the height of 542 m.

Case 2. PGA = 0.4 g

In Case 2 (see Figures 1516), the initial damage of the structure

also occurs in the top and the middle part where the section of the
core tube changes. More coupling beam and belt trusses have failed
in zone 8 and 9 until 35 s compared to Case 1; in the meantime, the
bottom of the core tube starts to crack. Until 38 s, most of the belt
trusses at the height of the 542 m region have failed, and the structure
in zone 9 has seriously inclined. The shear walls in zone 6 and 8 appear
to be damaged at 42.5 s. At 50 s the cracks cut through the shear wall
in zone 6 so that the structure in zone 68 collapses.

FIGURE 12 The first three mode shapes of model Case 3. PGA = 0.8 g

TABLE 2 The natural periods of structure

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
9.28 s 9.06 s 4.05 s 3.77 s 3.65 s 2.80s 2.14 s 2.08 s 2.02 s 1.39 s
8 of 11
FIGURE 13 Collapse process of the structure
FIGURE 14 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
FIGURE 15 Collapse process of the structure
In Case 3 (see Figures 1718), the initial damage of the structure
also occurs in the top and the middle part where the section of the
core tube changes. Up till to 35 s the core tube in zone 1 and 9
has been damaged more seriously compared to Case 1 and Case 2;
in the meanwhile, many coupling beams, outrigger trusses, and belt
trusses in the region have failed. In the time of 38 s, the damage
FIGURE 16 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
HUANG ET AL.
of structure develops rather rapidly, and the shear wall appears to
be seriously damaged in zone 3, zone 6, and zone 9. At 42.5 s the
cracks cut through the core tube at different sections at the heights
of 221 m, 349 m, and 542 m, simultaneously. Then the whole
structure collapses rapidly due to impacts of dropping structural
components.
HUANG ET AL.
FIGURE 17 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
Case 4. PGA = 1.4 g
In Case 4 (see in Figures 1920), the damage of the structure also
initiates in the top and the middle part where the section of the core
tube changes. Later on, different phenomena are shown. At 35 s the
damage of core tube is mainly concentrated in zones 69. Especially
in zone 9, most of the structural components fail, and the structure
experiences significant tilt. At 37.5 s, the damage in core tube develops
in a rather rapid way to form the damage zones. Finally, at the time of
40 s, the crack cuts through the core tube at the heights of 151 m and
349 m, and the structure collapses.
Case 5. PGA = 2.0 g
In Case 5 (see Figures 2122), the PGA reaches 2.0 g. The initial
damage of the structure also occurred in the top and the middle part
where the section of shear wall tube changes. Later, the structural
FIGURE 18 Collapse process of the structure
FIGURE 19 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
9 of 11
damage distribution shows different features from other cases. At
35 s, the bottom of core tube starts to crack and form an evident
damage zone. After that, governing cracks and damage bands rapidly
penetrate the bottom of the core tube due to the fatal earthquake
excitations. The core tube finally ruptures at the bottom, and the
structure collapses at 38 s.
It is indicated by the analytical results of IDA that the damage of
the supertall building structure initiates in the similar regions, which
are mainly within upper region and the middle region whereas the
section of shear wall tube changes. The reason is that in the early stage
of earthquake, the supertall building structure is governed by the
elastic deformation, for which the stresses concentrate in the regions
with changes of stiffness. Then with the increase of structural
deformation, the P effect gradually governs the development of
the structural damage. As the peak intensity of ground acceleration
increases, the structural deformation increases. In the meanwhile, the
bending moment of the total structure in the bottom part also
10 of 11
FIGURE 20 Collapse process of the structure
FIGURE 21 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
FIGURE 22 Tensile damage evolution of coretube
increases faster than the top part due to the P effect. Thus, the
damage concentration zones of structure gradually goes downward.
On the other hand, the supertall building structure usually has a series
of transfer region, which the internal forces are transferred between
internal tube and outer columns by trusses. Thus, the inertial tube
would experience sudden change of overall bending moment within
transfer region. This will significantly affect the development process
of structural damage evolution. As a result, when subjected to earth-
quakes with the same waveform but different PGAs, the supertall
building structure experiences rather different patterns of damage
evolution. Finally, the structure collapses in quite different schemas.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
According to the IDAbased seismic collapse simulation and analysis of
supertall building structure in the present paper, several conclusions
could be drawn:
HUANG ET AL.
(1) To numerically reproduce the seismic collapse of super tall
structures, a number of essential factors should be carefully
considered, e.g., material softening under severe deformation
modeled by damage model, deformation of element modeled by
proper structural elements, contact between dropping elements,
and illness of the system determined by explicit algorithm.
(2) Incremental dynamic analysis gives a comprehensive assessment
of not only the regular behavior but also the collapse of struc-
tures under seismic loads. As a dynamic equivalence of static
pushover analysis, the supertall structure could be dynamically
pushed over to its collapse in rather different patterns.
(3) The initiation of structural damage is governed by the weakness
of structures, including the transition stories of shear wall thick-
ness, sectional shape, and truss arrangement. The subsequent
damage evolutions are closed related to the realtime waveforms
and intensities of the corresponding earthquake record. Although
the sets of ground motion records adopted for IDA are of the
HUANG ET AL.
same waveform, their local waveforms and intensities are quite
different corresponding to the critical moments including damage
initiation, unstable damage propagation, and structural collapse.
Thus, the final patterns of collapse for the super tall structures
are quite different.
(4) In the design of supertall building structures, at least multiple
collapse patterns should be considered, even for the ground
motion record with similar waveforms but different intensities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
Financial supports from the National Science Foundation of China are
gratefully appreciated (GNs: 51261120374, 91315301, and
51678439).
RE FE R ENC E S
[1] S. C. Huang, M. J. Skokan, Collapse of the Tungshing building during the
1999 ChiChi earthquake in Taiwan. in Proc. 7th U.S. National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, 2002, Boston.
[2] L. D. Carpenter, F. Naeim, M. Lew, N. F. Youssef, F. Rojas, G. R.
Saragoni, M. S. Adaros, Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings.
2010, 19(8), 826.
[3] M. Nakashima, K. Inoue, M. Tada, Engineering Structure. 1998, 20(46),
271.
[4] R. Villaverde, Journal Structure of Engineering ASCE. 2007, 133(1), 57.
[5] Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic reha-
bilitation of buildings. Publ. No. 273, prepared by the Applied Technology
Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council, FEMA Washington, D.C
1997.
[6] R. W. Clough, J. Penzien, Dynamics of structures, McGraw Hill, New
York 1975.
[7] Building Seismic Safety Council, Recommended seismic design criteria
for new steel moment frame buildings. Publ. No. 350, FEMA,
Washington, D.C 2000a, 2000.
[8] V. V. Bertero, in Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under
extreme environments. Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics,
(Ed: K. S. Pister), PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1977.
[9] D. Vamvatsikos, C. A. Cornell, Earthquake Engineering Structure
Dynamic. 2002, 31(3), 491.
[10] D. Vamvatsikos, C. A. Cornell, Earthquake Spectra. 2004, 20(2), 523.
[11] GB50011, 2001, Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing 2001.
11 of 11
[12] J. W. Ju, Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 1989, 115(11), 2507.
[13] J. Lemaitre, Proceeding of ICAM1, Japan 1971.
[14] J. Li, J. Y. Wu, In: Proceedings of the ISCC2004 (No. Key9), Changsha,
China 2004, pp. 209221.
[15] J. Lemaitre, Journal of Engineering Materials Technology. 1985, 107, 83.
[16] J. Li, X. D. Ren, International Journal of Solids and Structures. 2009, 46,
2407.
[17] J. Y. Wu, J. Li, R. Faria, International Journal of Solids and Structures.
2006, 43(34), 583.
[18] J. Mander, M. Priestley, R. Park, Journal of Structural Engineering 1988,
114(8), 1804.
[19] Z. Guo, X. Shi, Reinforced concrete theory and analyse (in Chinese),
China, Tsinghua University Press, Beijing 2003.
[20] X. D. Ren, S. J. Zeng, J. Li, Computational Mechanics 2014, 55(2), 267.
[21] T. Belytschko, W. K. Liu, B. Moran, K. I. Elkhodary, Nonlinear finite
elements for continua and structures, John Wiley & Sons 2013.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Tiancan Huang is a lecturer at Guangzhou University. He received his
PhD from Tongji University in the year 2017. His research interests
include nonlinear analysis of structures and high performance
computation.
Xiaodan Ren is an Associate Professor at Tongji University. He
received his PhD from Tongji University in the year 2011. His research
interests include damage models of concrete and computational
methods for structures.
Jie Li is a distinguished professor of the Department of Structural Engi-
neering and the State Key Laboratory of Reduction in Civil Engineering
at Tongji University. He received his PhD in structural engineering
from Tongji University in China in 1988. His research interests include
stochastic damage mechanics, probability density evolution method,
and reliability assessment of concrete structures.
How to cite this article: Huang T, Ren X, Li J. Incremental
dynamic analysis of seismic collapse of supertall building struc-
tures. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2017;e1370. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tal.1370