Nonlinear Dynamic Behavior and

Response of Building Structures

Tahir Mehmood, PhD

Assistant Professor
COMSATS University Islamabad
Wah Campus
Response of buildings to seismic loading

𝑀𝑢ሷ + 𝐶 𝑢ሶ + 𝐾𝑢 = −𝑀𝑥𝑔ሷ (𝑡)

Inertial Force

Damping Force

Restoring force
ẍg(t) (MDOF)
Effective Earthquake force
Response of Buildings to ground shaking

 The seismic response of the building

structures is very complex
• Several vibration modes other than
the fundamental mode-for high-rise
and irregular structures
• Commonly known as “higher modes
effect”
Seismic analysis methods

▪ Linear static procedures

Equivalent static analysis
▪ Linear dynamic procedures
Modal analysis
Direct time-history analysis
▪ Nonlinear static analysis
- Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs)
Capacity spectrum analysis (ATC-40, FEMA-440)
Displacement coefficients method (FEMA-273-274,356,440)
- Improved NSPs
Modal pushover analysis (MPA) (Chopra & Goel, 2002)
Adaptive Modal Combination (AMC) (Kalkan & Kunnath, 2006)
▪ Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Widely considered and accepted as the most reliable and accurate one
Seismic analysis methods

Why we are Interested in Non-

linear response or Nonlinear
Analysis?
Overview of Non-linear Static Procedures
V

D
MDOF
Target Displacement m
ξi

SDOF
Overview of Non-linear Static Procedures

 Fundamental Assumptions:
The response of the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDF) structure can be related to the
response of an equivalent SDF system, implying that the response is controlled by a single
mode and this mode shape remains unchanged even after yielding occurs.
 Issues related to Non-linear static procedures:
 Non-Linear Static Pushover Procedure (NSP)
• Simplified procedure, commonly preferred
• Account only for the first vibration mode
• Not suitable for tall and Irregular buildings where ‘higher modes effects’ are
strong
 Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA)—Chopra and Goel (2002)
• Account for multi-mode responses
• Need to push to ‘target displacement’ for each mode
• Modal combination rule--questionable
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA)
Response spectra of scaled ground motions
3.5 Response spectra
SH-PR-360 x 3.0
3 HM-H-090 x 4.0
LP-HSP-000 x 1.5
2.5 CM-EUR-090 x4.0
Hon-MGH-EW x 4.0
2
Chichi-Taipei-090 x 6.0
Imp-Ch-012 x 4.0
1.5
Target spectra Target Spectra

Nonlinear 1 DBE Spectrum (UBC-97, Zone 4, SD)

MCE Spectrum (DBE Spectrum x 1.5)

Modeling 0.5

Spectral Acc. (g)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

2 (a)

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 (b) 3 4 5

3D Building Model Natural Period (Sec)

Ground Motion Selection

Application of Ground Motions and

Interpretation of Results
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA)
 Non-linear Modeling 6
5
4
Rigid Beam
Level m

Elastic Concrete Flat Slab k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . kn

(1-c)h
h
(Shell Element) ch

Level (m-1)
2
3 1 Rigid Beam
x1 x

RC Shear Wall Model

Masonry Infill Wall Model (FEMA 356)

RC Beam and Columns Model

Fixed Support
Situation in Pakistan

Seismic Detailing
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
Mode shapes Mass X Y • Mode 1 X-axis
Participation • Time Period 0.82
54% 1.2%
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
Mode shapes Mass X Y • Mode 2 X-axis
Participation • Time Period 0.23
15% 0%
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan

Mode shapes Mass X Y • Mode 1 Y-axis

Participation
• Time Period 1.16
4.5% 56%
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
Mode shapes Mass X Y • Mode 2 Y-axis
Participation
• Time Period 0.31
0% 17%
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Ground Motions

PGA Duration
No Earthquake Event Year Mw
(g) (sec)
1 Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 0.14 60

2 Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 0.21 59.88

3 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 0.27 80

4 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 0.15 70

5 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1992 7.62 0.13 70

6 Cape Mendocino 1999 7.01 0.33 28

7 Iwate_ Japan 2008 6.9 0.35 47
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Spectral Matching of Ground Motions

1.2 DBE
MCE
1 EQ1
EQ2
0.8 EQ3
EQ4
0.6 EQ5
EQ6
0.4 EQ7

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Yielding in Walls
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Yielding in Columns
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Yielding in Beams
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan

13 13
12 12
11 11
NLRHA Mean NLRHA Mean
10 10
Design Design
9 9

Level No.
Level No.

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Story shear (KNx106) Story shear (KNx106)
Case Study: Situation in Pakistan
 Shear failure in Walls
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
Level No.

7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 5000 10000 15000
Shear (KN) Shear (KN)
In depth Study of non-linear seismic behavior:
UMRHA

Vb

xr

Displacement-related responses
MDOF
m
ξi 𝐹s𝑖 /𝐿𝑖 = 𝑉𝑏𝑖 /Γ𝑖 𝐿𝑖

𝐷𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖𝑟 /(𝛤𝑖 𝜙𝑖𝑟 )

SDOF
Force-related responses
Pushover of a 44 Story High-rise RC Building

Shear Wall Crushing

0.08
Normalized Base Shear (Vb/W)

Shear Wall Rebar Yielding

Column Rebar Yielding
0.06

0.04
Column Cracking

Shear Wall Cracking

0.02

Infill Wall Cracking Roof Drift Ratio (%)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Cyclic Pushover of a 44 Story High-rise RC Building
UMRHA Results

Story Shear (N x106)

(Summation of 3 modes)
UMRHA Results

Floor Acceleration (g)

(Summation of 3 modes)
UMRHA Results

Inter-story Drift Ratio (%)

(Summation of 3 modes)
UMRHA Results : Better Understanding

Story Shear (N x 106) Inter-story Drift Ratio (%) Floor Acceleration (g)

What kind of damper should be used to suppress the

high shear demand?
Summary

 There is a dire need to bridge the gap between

construction and design industry with the research
community in Pakistan.
 Q&A
 Questions from the audience

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION