International Journal of Structural Integrity

High-rise building subjected to excessive settlement of its foundation: a case study

Lan Lin Adel Hanna Anup Sinha Lucia Tirca
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lan Lin Adel Hanna Anup Sinha Lucia Tirca , (2017)," High-rise building subjected to excessive settlement of its foundation:
a case study ", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-05-2016-0019
Downloaded on: 04 March 2017, At: 05:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2017*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543096 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 High-rise Building Subjected to Excessive Settlement
of its Foundation-A Case Study

1. Introduction
In the literature several reports can be found dealing with soil-structure interaction problems,
little to none was found dealing with the respond of the structure to the differential settlement
of its foundation. While foundation settlement can be predicted at the design stage (Griffiths
and Fenton 2009; Mohamed et al. 2013), often excessive and uncalculated settlements may
occur during the lifespan of the structure. This is mainly due to changes in the loading and
environmental conditions, to include; new construction in the neighbouring area (Zhu et al.
2012; Anastasopoulos 2013; and Camos et al. 2014), deep excavation (Laefer et al. 2009; Son
and Cording 2011), excessive flooding, or earthquakes (Bray and Dashti 2014).
In design manuals, values for the allowable differential settlements were recommended for
certain types of structures (Meyerhof 1947; Zielinski et al. 1980; and Dulacska 1992). Hanna
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

et al. (1981) and Hanna (2003) examined the effect of differential settlement on high-rise
reinforced concrete buildings. They suggested a guideline for assuming the allowable
differential settlement for a given structure. Lin et al. (2015) investigated the performance of
a 10-storey reinforced concrete building subjected to a differential settlement of its foundation
of 25 mm. They reported that within the range assumed, the structure behaved elastically and
the differential settlement has significant effects on bending moment in the structure
members.
The current practice for the design of building structures in North America, as stipulated in
the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) (NRCC 2010), does not account for the
effects of the differential settlement of its foundation. However, design manuals propose an
allowable differential settlement of 0.75 inch (ACI 1992) for classic structures, which is
believed to be tolerated by the factor of safety of the structure.
It is then paramount for foundation and structure engineers to examine the consequences
and the remedy of excessive differential settlement on buildings (Boone 1996; Kim et al.
2011). It should be made clear that the higher the differential settlement, the lower the cost of
the foundation and the higher the additional stresses induced in the superstructure, and
accordingly, the higher the cost of the building and vice-versa. Given this, a trade-off between
the superstructure and its foundation during the design stage should be performed in order to
achieve the most economical design.

2. Model description
A 10-storey office building designed by Cimillia-Erkman (2009) was adopted for this study.
The building is located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which is in a moderate seismic hazard
zone. Figure 1 presents elevation and plan view of the building under examination. The
building is 24 m in both longitudinal and transverse directions, and has a storey height of 4.0
m built on isolated shallow footings. There are five frames in the longitudinal (designated 1 to
5) and transverse (designated A to E) directions. The spans in both directions are 6.0 m and
the floor system consists of a two-way slab supported by beams. The thickness of the slabs is
15cm. The lateral load resisting system of the building consists of reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frames (RC-MRF) in both directions.
The original building was designed in accordance with the 2005 edition of NBCC (NRCC
2005). For the purpose of this study, the design was modified according to the provisions of
the latest 2010 edition of NBCC (NRCC 2010). The structure was designed to resist a
superimposed dead load of 1.5 kPa at floors and 1.0 kPa at the roof, in addition to the self-
 weight of the structural members, as well as 2.4 kPa live load at typical floor and 1.0 kPa at
the roof. The structure was designed as a moderately ductile RC-MRF building for seismic
loads (i.e., Rd = 2.5, Ro = 1.4) in accordance with the 2005 NBCC. The parameters Rd and Ro
represent the ductility-related factor and over-strength related factor, respectively, for the
seismic design of buildings. The design base shear was calculated using the seismic design
spectrum for Ottawa for the probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. The foundation was
assumed to be on soil represented by site class C (shear wave velocity between 360 m/s and
750 m/s) according to NBCC. It should be noted that the seismic hazard values for Ottawa
given in 2005 NBCC were slightly higher than those given in 2010 NBCC for periods shorter
than 1.0 s. However, this small reduction in the seismic hazard values in 2010 NBCC will not
significantly affect the outcome of the structural design of the building. The compressive
strength of concrete fc' = 30 MPa, and the yield strength of reinforcement fy = 400 MPa were
used in the design. The sizes of the structural members and the reinforcement are given in
Table 1. Details of the structure design can be found in Cimillia-Erkman (2009).
It is equally important to mention herein that the 10 storeys building examined in this study
is a representative of the majority of concrete buildings in Canada. This besides the finding
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

given in Rouhani (2015) in which the response of the same type of the building is very
similar. Furthermore, Hanna (2003) reported that the additional stresses due to the differential
settlement of the foundation was mainly concentrated in the members up to the 7th floor while
very minor effects were observed in the upper floors. Given this, a building with a storey
higher than 10 was not selected for the investigation.

3. Numerical model
A three-dimensional finite element model was developed for the structure under consideration
using the program SAP2000 (CSI 2013), in which beams and columns were modelled as
'beam' elements while slabs as 'shell' elements. In total, the model consisted of 2650 beam
elements, 5760 shell elements, and 6275 joints. The connections between beams and columns
were assumed to be rigid, and the columns were assumed to be fully fixed with its foundation.
The length of the rigid joint was taken as either half depth of the beam or half width of the
column depending on the location of the joint, and axial deformations were only considered
for the columns. The dead and live loads were applied as uniform load over the entire
floor/roof area. The cross-sectional area, moment of inertia, and torsional constant of each
element were determined based on the geometrical properties given. In order to take into
account the effect of concrete cracking, the moment of inertia of the beams and columns was
reduced to 0.35Ig and 0.70Ig, respectively, according to the CSA A23.3 (2006), where Ig
represents the moment of inertia of the gross section.
For the purpose of this study, inelastic deformations were assumed to occur at the ends of
the beam and column elements where plastic hinges can be formed. Each plastic hinge is
modeled as a discrete point hinge having its length as 5% of the span length for hinges in
beams, and 5% of the storey height for hinges in columns (Paulay and Priestley 1992). The
nonlinear behavior of hinges was represented by a force-deformation (i.e., moment-rotation)
curve following FEMA 356 (2000) and ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2014). Figure 2 presents a typical
force vs. deformation curve as given in FEMA 356. In this figure, point A corresponds to the
unloaded condition; point B represents the yielding of the steel bars; point C corresponds to
the ultimate capacity of the member, where its strength is equivalent to the nominal strength;
and point D represents the residual strength. Furthermore, the slope between points B and C is
taken as 0 to 10% of the initial slope of line AB; line CD corresponds to the initial failure of
the member, which might be due to shear failure or spalling of the unconfined concrete
material. Point E represents the total failure, at which the member reaches its deformation
limit. It is reported herein that the deformation in this study was represented by rotation, and
 the plastic rotations used to define points C, D, and E in Fig. 2 were based on the Guidelines
given in FEMA 356 (2000) and ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2014).

4. Analysis results
In this investigation, a prescribed 75 mm settlement was assigned to the foundation of the
center column (i.e., Joint C3 in Fig.1), which represents the most critical case for the building
(Lin et al. 2014, 2015). It should be noted that this settlement is about four times the
allowable settlement specified in the current ACI. Nonlinear static pushover analysis was then
performed to determine the stresses induced in the structural elements to include: vertical
displacements of columns, axial forces in columns, bending moments in beams. Shear forces
in beams were not considered in this investigation because the settlement has very light effect
based on the findings given in Lin et al. (2014, 2015).

4.1 Structural responses

Nonlinear pushover analysis was conducted first by applying dead load (DL) gradually on all
the floors and roof, until it reached the design value. Then, the column at joint C3 at the first
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

floor started to slowly move downward (pushdown) until it reached a settlement of 75 mm.
Figure 3 presents a schematic sketch of the propagation of the plastic hinges of Frame 3
(Fig. 1) during the progressive increase of the column settlement (pushover). It was found in
the study that the plastic hinges started to form in the beams on the first floor when the
settlement reached 39 mm. Then, the plastic hinges are spread to higher floors progressively
due to the increase of the settlement as shown in the figure. At the settlement of 55 mm, the
first plastic hinge was formed in the column on the first floor, while the plastic hinges had
reached the beams on the 9th floor. With the increase of the settlement, the inelastic
deformation was mainly concentrated in the column on the ground. Based on the results from
the pushover analysis, it can be reported that the deformation in beams remained within the
region defined by line BC in Fig. 2, while the deformation in columns was switched from the
region defined by line BC to that defined by line CD in Fig. 2 at the settlement higher than 60
mm. Furthermore, the plastic hinges were developed first in beams then in columns. Such
observation is expected as the building was originally designed to resist seismic loads.
Accordingly, the columns are stronger than beams as the result of satisfying the requirements
for the seismic design in accordance with NBCC.
In order to investigate the nonlinearity in beams due to the excessive settlement, the
rotational ductility of the plastic hinges was calculated at each step of the pushover analysis.
Figure 4 presents the results of this analysis along the height of the building corresponding to
the settlements of 55 mm and 75 mm, respectively. It can be noted that all the floors yielded
in both cases as the ductility was larger than 1.0. Moreover, the ductility of the 1st floor is the
largest among the 10 floors considered due to the significant inelastic deformation
occurred in the 1st floor. This observation was expected as the moment induced by the load
due to settlement (SL) on the 1st floor was relatively larger than on other floors. In addition,
yielding of the center column on the 1st story contributes to a larger ductility of the beams on
the 1st floor. It should be noted that the ductility of the roof is larger than that of the 9th floor
as shown in Fig. 4, which was due to the fact that the cross section and the reinforcement ratio
of the beams on the roof are smaller than on the 9th floor as given in Table 1. This further
leads to the relatively small moment in the beam on the roof, which was about 50% of that on
the 1st to 9th floor.
It is of interest to note that the average ductility of the beam corresponding to the
settlement of 75 mm was about 1.6. This ductility is smaller than that due to the seismic load,
which is around 2.6. Such finding indicates that seismic resistance considered in the design of
the building is beneficial for the structure to carry additional load due to differential
 settlement of its foundation.
Figure 5 presents the vertical displacements of the central column at Joint C3 (Fig. 1) in
the 1st, 6th and 10th floors due to SL. The results in the figure show that significant inelastic
response occurs during the settling of the foundation. It should be noted herein that the
settlement at the intersection on the curve (i.e., 26.3 mm) represents the settlement when the
column on the 1st storey yields, which is slightly higher than the allowable settlement of 0.75
inch specified in the current ACI design manual. This is due to the fact that yielding of the
column occurs as a result of the relatively larger axial force and bending moment induced in
the column at the 1st floor by SL. It can also be noted that SL generates relatively large
vertical displacement on the column at the 1st floor, and smaller displacement at the roof at a
ratio of about 1.3.
Figure 6 presents the axial force induced by SL in the center column in the selected floors.
The trend is similar to that for the vertical displacement in the column, i.e., nonlinear behavior
was observed during the pushover analysis, and the yielding took place at the settlement of
26.3 mm. Furthermore, the tensile force generated by SL in the column in the 10th floor is
relatively small, as compared to the significant force developed in the column in the 1st floor.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

Considering the fact that large tensile force is developed in the column at the ground level, it
may be necessary to consider the uplift force in the design of foundation.
Figures 7a-7b present the bending moments developed by SL at the left and right ends of
beam BC of Frame 3 (Fig. 1). Due to the symmetry of the building, the results shown in Fig. 7
are also representative of beam CD of Frame 3, and beams 23 and 34 of Frame C (Fig. 1).
These beams are the most affected beams due to the settlement of the center column as
reported in Lin et al. (2015). It can be seen in the figure that SL generates positive moment at
the right end section of beam BC, while it generates negative moment on the left end section.
In average, the ratio of the positive to the negative moments due to SL was about 1.3. The
results presented in the figure also show that SL induces larger moment in the beam on the
first floor, and smaller moment on the roof. Similar to the observations of the vertical
displacement and axial force in the columns, nonlinear response was also observed for the
bending moment at the settlement of 26.3 mm.
In order to investigate the potential failure of the structural members due to the settlement
of the foundation, in this study the Demand/Capacity Ratio (DCR) of the members affected
by the foundation settlement was calculated using the following equation,

DCR = D/C

Where,
D = Demand (in terms of axial force, shear force and bending moment)
due to external loading
C = Capacity calculated based on the section property

The demand due to the load combination DL+SL was computed for beams in the affected
area of Frame 3, which represent the most critical members. The definition of the load
combination used in the study is similar to that for the case of earthquake specified in NBCC
(2010). Moreover, it was also used in this study as a lower bound of the loads applied on the
structure since live load was not taken into account.
The computed DCRs for axial and shear forces were much smaller than those for the
moment, which imply these responses are not critical during the excessive settlement of the
center column. Therefore, only the DCR for moment in beams was used to assess the
potential failure of the structural elements in the study. It is necessary to mention that the
moment DCR for columns was not examined because the building was originally designed to
 satisfy the criterion "strong column-weak beam" for the seismic loading. Therefore, the DCRs
of columns are extremely smaller than those of beams.
Figure 8 presents the DCRs for the moment for beams BC and CD of Frame 3
corresponding to the settlement of 75 mm assigned to the center column at Joint C3. It can be
seen in the figure that all the DCRs are less than 1.0, which indicate that the settlement will
not cause beams to fail. This is because the bending moment due to SL was significantly
reduced due to the formation of the plastic hinges in the beam as shown in Fig. 3.

4.2 Proposed elastic design procedure due to settlement

Based on the results of the present investigation, it can be reported that beams undergo
significant inelastic response due to the large settlement. Therefore, elastic design is not
appropriate for the design of buildings subjected to excessive settlement, which is beyond the
recommended values given in the codes (e.g., 0.75 inch in ACI).
In order to take into account the effects of the nonlinearity of beams and columns due to
settlement during the design stage, a force reduction factor, Rs, which is defined as the ratio of
the elastic moment to the inelastic moment due to SL, was introduced. Based on the results of
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

the present investigation, it was found that the value for Rs, for the settlement of 75 mm for
the beams on the 1st, 6th, and 10th floors was the same, which is about 2.85. Therefore,
preliminary factors of 2.0 and 3.0 are proposed for use to reduce the moment from the elastic
analysis for the settlements of 50 mm and 75 mm, respectively, for a building similar to the
one presented in this study.

5. Conclusions
This study is intended to alert both foundation and structure engineers for the significant
effects of differential settlements of the foundation on the structures. Buildings which are
potential to excessive differential settlement of its foundation due to poor soil condition or
possible loading and environmental changes in the area, may use higher factor of safety than
those recommended in the design manuals for classic buildings. The following is concluded:

1. Based on the results of the present investigation and the published data in the literature, it
can be reported that the threshold of the differential settlement during which the building
performs elastically is about 25 mm, beyond which, significant inelastic deformations are
observed. Accordingly, elastic design is not applicable for structures subjected to excessive
settlement.
2. During the nonlinear pushover analysis, it was noted that plastic hinges are formed first in
the beams followed by columns depending on the relative stiffness between these two
components.
3. Plastic hinges in beams are developed progressively from first floor to the higher floors.
Accordingly, differential foundation settlement will induce more stresses in the members in
the lower floors than those in higher floors. While for columns plastic hinges are
concentrated in the first floor.
4. The demand capacity ratio of the beams in lower floors is larger than those in higher floors.
Thus, a relatively higher factor of safety may be recommended for the design of the lowers
floors and reduces gradually for the higher floors.
5. Structural members designed with sufficient ductility (e.g., seismic load resistance) will
provide additional resistance to excessive differential settlement of its foundation.
Accordingly it will delay the damage or catastrophic failure of the building.
6. Force reduction factors of 2.0 and 3.0 are proposed to reduce the elastic response (i.e.,
 moment) for the differential settlements in the range of 50 mm to 75 mm for the building
examined.

References
AASHTO. (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA.
ACI. (1992). Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete – ACI 318-89. American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Anastasopulos, I. (2013). "Building damage during nearby construction: forensic analysis",
Engineering Failure analysis, 34: 252-267.
ASCE/SEI 7-05. (2014). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Boone, S.J. (1996). "Ground-movement-related building damage", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 122(11): 886-896.
Bray, J., and Dashti, S. (2014). "Liquefaction-induced building movement", Bulletin of
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

Earthquake Engineering, 12(3): 1129-1156.

Camos, C., Molins, C., and Arnau, O. (2014). "Case study of damage on masonry buildings
produced by tunneling induced settlement", International Journal of Architectural
Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration, 8(4): 602-625.
Cimillia-Erkmen, S. (2009). Analysis and design of earthquake resistant FRP reinforced
concrete buildings. Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
Computers and Structures Inc. (2013). SAP2000 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis
and Design, V15, Berkeley, California.
CSA. (2006). CSA Standard A23.3-04, Code for the Design of Concrete Structures for
Buildings, 3rd Edition. Canadian Standards Association, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dulacska, E. (1992). Soil Settlement Effects on Buildings. Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
FEMA 356. (2000). Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, SAC Joint Venture, USA.
Griffiths, D., and Fenton, G. (2009). "Probabilistic settlement analysis by stochastic and
random finite-element methods", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 135(11): 1629-1637.
Hanna, A.M. (2003). "Interactions between Superstructure and Substructure of buildings for
achieving economical building design", International Journal for Housing Science and
its Application, 27(3): 171-178.
Hanna, A.M., Douglass, M.M., and Jeyasingham, B. (1981). "Allowable differential
settlements for rigid frame structures", Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Fredericton.
Kim, Y., Gajan, S., and Saafi, M. (2011). "Settlement rehabilitation of a 35-year old building:
case study integrated with analysis and implementation", Practice and Periodical
Structure Design and Construction, 16(4): 215-222.
Laefer, D., Ceribasi, S., Long, J., and Cording, E. (2009). "Predicting RC frame response to
excavation-induced settlement", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 135(11): 1605-1609.
Lin, L., Hanna, A., Sinha, A., and Tirca, L. (2015). "Structural response to differential
settlement of its foundations", Journal of Civil Engineering Reserach, 5(3): 55-69.
Lin, L., Sinha, A., Tirca, L., and Hanna, A. (2014). "Stresses induced in concrete frame
structure due to differential settlement of its foundation", Proceedings of the Annual
 Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Halifax.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1947). "The settlement analysis of building frames", Structural Engineering,
25(9): 369-409.
Mohamed, M.O., Vanapalli, S.K., Saatcioglu, M. (2013). "Generalized Schmertmann
Equation for settlement estimation of shallow footings in saturated and unsaturated
sands", Geomechanics Engineering, An International Journal, 5(4): 343-362.
NRCC. (2010). National Building Code of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
NRCC. (2005). National Building Code of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.N.J. (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Rouhani, F. (2015). Developing a Plastic Hinge Model for RC Beams Prone to Progressive
Collapse. M.A.Sc thesis, Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Son, M., and Cording, E. (2011). "Response of buildings with differential structural types to
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

excavation-induced ground settlement", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 137(4): 323-333.
Zhu, M., Gary, T., and Bachus, R. (2012). "Assessment of a building settlement and the
litigation process-a case study", Proceedings of the 6th Congress on Forensic
Engineering, San Francisco.
Zielinski, Z.A., Hanna, A.M. and Gallaccio, J. (1980). "Foundation settlement of multistory
structures", Proceedings of the CIB Symposium V on Construction of Multistory
Structures under Extreme Conditions, Madrid.
 (a)
(b)
A B C D E

4
10@4.0m

4@6.0m
Joint C3
3

1
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

4@6.0m
4@6.0m

Figure 1. Building configuration, (a) Elevation; (b) Plan

Q
Qy

C
B
1.0

D E

A
θ or ∆

Figure 2. Force-deformation curve adopted from FEMA 356 (2000)

 (a) (b)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. Locations of plastic hinges of Frame 3 during pushover analysis: (a) Settlement = 39 mm; (b)
Settlement = 47 mm; (c) Settlement = 54 mm; (d) Settlement = 55 mm
 (a)
10
9
8
7
Storey No.

6
5
4
3
2
1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Rotational ductility
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

(b)
10
9
8
Storey No.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Rotational ductility
Figure 4. Rotational ductility of beams: (a) Settlement = 55 mm; (b) Settlement = 70 mm
 0.03
1st storey
6th storey
0.025 10th storey
Displacement (mm)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Settlement of foundation (mm)

Figure 5. Vertical displacements of columns on typical storeys

3000
1st storey
2500 6th storey
10th storey
Axial force (kN)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Settlement of foundation (mm)

Figure 6. Axial forces in columns on typical storeys

 (a)
0
-10
-20
-30
Moment (kN·m)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80 1st floor
-90 6th floor
10th floor
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

Settlement of foundation (mm)

(b)
100
1st floor
90
6th floor
80 10th floor
70
Moment (kN·m)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Settlement of foundation (mm)

Figure 7. Bending moments in beam BC of Frame 3 on typical floors:

(a) Left end section, (b) Right end section
 0.61 0.61
0.38 0.38

0.47 0.47
0.38 0.38

0.47 0.47
0.39 0.39

0.48 0.48
0.41 0.41

0.49 0.49
0.44 0.44
10@4.0m

0.54 0.54
0.61 0.61

0.56 0.56
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

0.66 0.66

0.59 0.59
0.72 0.72

0.62 0.62
0.79 0.79

0.63 0.63
0.85 0.85

4@6.0m

Figure 8. Moment demand capacity ratios of beams of Frame 3

 Table 1 Longitudinal reinforcement in beams and columns of the building
Exterior columns Interior columns Beams
Storey
Frame Size Size Floor Size
No. Reinf. Reinf. Reinforcement
(mm) (mm) No. (mm)
Top: 3No.25
Interior 1-5 400x400 8No.25 500x500 12No.25 1-5 300x450
Bot: 2No.20
(Frames
Top: 3No.25
2, 3, 4; 6-9 400x400 8No.20 500x500 12No.20 6-9 300x450
B, C, D) Bot: 2No.20
Top: 3No.20
10 400x400 8No.20 500x500 12No.20 10 300x400
Bot: 2No.15
Top: 3No.25
1-5 350x350 8No.25 400x400 8No.25 1-5 300x500
Exterior Bot: 2No.20
Downloaded by Fudan University At 05:34 04 March 2017 (PT)

(Frames Top: 3No.25

6-9 350x350 8No.20 400x400 8No.20 6-9 300x450
1, 5; Bot: 2No.20
A, E) Top: 3No.20
10 350x350 8No.20 400x400 8No.20 10 300x400
Bot: 2No.15