The Evaluation of Nonlinear Seismic Demands of RC Shear Wall Buildings Using a Modified Response Spectrum Analysis Procedure

  • Fawad Ahmed NajamEmail author
  • Pennung Warnitchai
Conference paper
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 47)


In the standard Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedure, the elastic force demands of all significant vibration modes are first combined and then reduced by a response modification factor (R) to get the inelastic design demands. Recent studies, however, have shown that it may not be appropriate to reduce the demand contributions of higher vibration modes by the same factor. In this study, a modified RSA procedure based on equivalent linearization concept is presented. The underlying assumptions are that the nonlinear seismic demands can be approximately obtained by summing up the individual modal responses, and that the responses of each vibration mode can be approximately represented by those of an equivalent linear SDF system. Using three high-rise buildings with RC shear walls (20-, 33- and 44-story high), the accuracy of this procedure is examined. The modified RSA procedure is found to provide reasonably accurate demand estimations for all case study buildings.


Response spectrum analysis Response modification factor Nonlinear model RC shear wall Equivalent linear system High-rise buildings 


  1. Ahmed M, Warnitchai P (2012) The cause of unproportionately large higher mode contributions in the inelastic seismic responses of high-rise core-wall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(15):2195–2214Google Scholar
  2. ASCE 7-05 (2006) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VaGoogle Scholar
  3. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CSI (2006) Perform 3D, version 4. Computers and Structures, Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. CSI (2011) ETABS nonlinear v9.7.4, version 9.7.4. Computers and Structures, Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Eible J, Keintzel E (1988) Seismic shear forces in RC cantilever walls. In: Proceeding of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. VI, Tokyo, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. Eurocode EC 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA 356 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCOY E, Mendis R (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthq Eng 10(Special Issue 1):67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klemencic R, Fry A, Hooper JD, Morgen BG (2007) Performance based design of ductile concrete core wall buildings – issues to consider before detail analysis. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 16:599–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin YY, Miranda E (2009) Evaluation of equivalent linear methods for estimating target displacements of existing structures. Eng Struct 31(12):3080–3089. ISSN 0141-0296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu T, Zordan T, Briseghella B, Zhang Q (2014) Evaluation of equivalent linearization analysis methods for seismically isolated buildings characterized by SDOF systems. Eng Struct 59(2014):619–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mehmood T, Warnitchai P, Ahmed M, Qureshi MI (2016a) Alternative approach to compute shear amplification in high-rise reinforced concrete core wall buildings using uncoupled modal response history analysis procedure. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 26.
  14. Mehmood T, Warnitchai P, Suwansaya P (2016b) Uncoupled modal response history analysis procedure for seismic evaluation of tall buildings. J Earthq Eng, 2016 (Accepted)Google Scholar
  15. Paret TF, Sasaki KK, Eilbeck DH, Freeman SA (1996) Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects. In: Proceeding of the 11th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, paper 966Google Scholar
  16. Priestley MJN (2003) Does capacity design do the job? An examination of higher mode effects in cantilever walls. Bull NZ Nat Soc Earthq Eng 36(4)Google Scholar
  17. Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF (1998) Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP)—a method to identify the effect of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Zekioglu A, Wilford M, Jin L, Melek M (2007) Case study using the Los Angeles tall buildings structural guidelines: 40-storey concrete core wall building. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 16:583–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE)National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)IslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.School of Engineering and TechnologyAsian Institute of TechnologyKhlong NuengThailand

Personalised recommendations