EVALUATION OF THE EC8 BEHAVIOUR FACTOR

USED FOR THE DESIGN OF IRREGULAR

SETBACK FRAMES
CIV3202 – INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

MAY 16, 2019

GIORGOS VOUVAKOS - 160151141
Supervisor: Dr Mihail Petkovski
Statement of Originality

I confirm that the enclosed material in this dissertation paper is all my own original work and that I
have:

• Referenced appropriately within the text and bibliography all sources and ideas from other
researchers.
• Referenced appropriately all figures that are not my own work
• Read and understood the University’s policy on plagiarism and any consequences that may
arise if plagiarism is detected in my work.
• Followed all academic practices of the University’s policy.
• The same identical text in the electronic submission and in this hard copy submission.

Name: Giorgos Vouvakos

Student Number: 160151141

Course Name: BEng Civil Engineering

Module code: CIV 3202

Signature: GV

Date: 16/05/2019

1
Abstract

This paper addresses the Eurocode 8 (EC8) behaviour factor q used for the design of reinforced
concrete frames, with setback irregularities. A two-part intensive parametric study is presented on
the analysis and evaluation of the seismic performance of two 6-storey moment resisting frames, one
having a 33.3% setback, while the other having a 66.6% setback, both setbacks located on the 2nd floor.
The 1st part of the study is the design of the two irregular frames using the provisions of 2004 Eurocode
8, for the high ductility class (DCH), same peak ground acceleration, ground conditions and material
properties. The design is performed by running a linear elastic, multi-modal response spectrum
analysis on the frames using the software DRAIN2DX, and the behaviour factor (q) was used to reduce
the forces obtained, to account for the inelastic response of the frames. The behaviour factor is
decreased by 20% according to EC8 for all irregular frames, to account for stress concentrations that
may be induced from the irregularity. For the 2nd part of the study an artificial earthquake was used
to perform a time history analysis on both frames using the software DRAIN2DX. Results obtained
from the time history analysis included inter-storey drifts; global and local member ductility demands;
plastic hinge evolution/distribution and energy dissipation. The seismic performance of the frames
was analysed using the data obtained from the time history analysis, on both global and local failure
criteria. It is concluded that inter-storey drifts for both frames are within the Life Safety (LS)
performance level requirement of FEMA 356. Storey displacement ductility demands of all floors in
both frames are well within the allowable capacity. Rotational ductility demands on the examined
structural members of both frames are within the allowable ductility capacities. Dissipation of the
input seismic energy in both frames happens mainly in the beams which is the main objective of EC8.
Lastly, numerous plastic hinges in columns are observed in the tower part of the building with the
larger setback but no structural frame problems are generated from this finding. It is concluded that
a single 20% reduction is adequate to for all the frames examined, however, conservative in the case
of the smaller setback building due to its excellent seismic performance. A redesigned frame of the
FRH-1 was examined as well to determine whether a 15% reduction in q factor, is still enough to
prevent the global or local failure of the frame. It is concluded that a 15% reduction on the q factor
of frame with smaller (33.3%) setback is more appropriate, whereas in the case of larger setbacks
(66.6%), a 20% reduction is more appropriate.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Statement of Originality …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Table of contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
List of figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
List of tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
List of symbols ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Chapter 1 – Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
1.1 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
1.2 Aim ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
1.3 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
1.4 Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Chapter 2 - Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
2.2 Literature review …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
2.3 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
13
Chapter 3 – Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
3.2 Linear analysis using DRAIN2DX …………………………………………………………………………….. 14
3.2.1. Model Formulation ……………………………………………………………………………… 15
3.2.2. Design Spectrum …………………………………………………………………………………. 18
3.2.3. Gravity load analysis ……………………………………………………………………………. 20
3.2.4. Spectrum analysis ……………………………………………………………………………….. 20
3.3 ULS structural member design ……………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3.3.1 Design of beams …………………………………………………………………………………… 22
3.3.2 Design of columns ………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Chapter 4 – Non-linear time history analysis using DRAIN2DX ……………………………………………………. 25
4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
4.2 Floor displacements and inter-storey drifts ……………………………………………………………. 25
4.3 Storey shear and ductility ………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
4.4 Plastic hinge evolution/distribution ……………………………………………………………………….. 33
4.5 Performance of structural members …………………………………………………….................... 35
4.5.1 Local ductility check of FRH-1 ……………………………………………………………….. 36
4.5.2 Local ductility check of FRH-2 ……………………………………………………………….. 40
4.6 Energy Dissipation …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43
Chapter 5 – Summary of analysis and results ……………………………………………………………………………… 45
Chapter 6 – Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52
6.1 Dissertation conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
6.2 Recommendations for future research …………………………………………………………………… 53
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
APPENDIX A – Input file of FRH-1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
APPENDIX B – Input file of FRH-2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61
APPENDIX C – Loading calculation sheet of FRH-1 ………………………………………………………………………. 66
APPENDIX D – Loading calculation sheet of FRH-2 ………………………………………………………………………. 68
APPENDIX E - Calculation sheet for ULS design of members of FRH-1 …………………………………………. 70
APPENDIX F - Calculation sheet for ULS design of members of FRH-2 …………………………………………. 72

3
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Criteria for regularity in elevation of setback buildings ……………………………………………. 8
2 Deflected shape of a general setback building …………………………………………………………. 11
3 Inter-storey drift ratios for 6 storey structures in Faridmher et al ……………………………. 12
4 Inter-storey drift ratios for DCH frames in Athanasiadou …………………………………………. 13
5 Nodal coordinates and structural member mapping for the FRH-1 frame ……………….. 16
6 Nodal coordinates and structural member mapping for the FRH-2 frame ……………….. 16
7 Column and Beams configuration for the FRH-1 frame ……………………………………………. 17
8 Column and Beams configuration for the FRH-2 frame ……………………………………………. 17
9 Design Spectrum for FRH-1 and FRH-2 …………………………………………………………………….. 20
10 Modes of vibration of frames FRH-1 & FRH-2 ………………………………………………………….. 21
11 Moment diagram on beam due to gravity loading …………………………………………………... 23
12 Moment diagram on beam due to earthquake cyclic loading ………………………………….. 23
13 Local capacity design ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
14 Artificial accelerogram used in the time history analysis ………………………………………….. 25
15 Time history of floor displacements of FRH-1 ………………………………………………………….. 25
16 Inter-storey drifts of FRH-1 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
17 Time history of floor displacements of FRH-2 ………………………………………………………….. 27
18 Inter-storey drifts of FRH-2 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
19 Maximum storey shear envelope of FRH-1 ………………………………………………………………. 28
20 Elastoplastic (bi-linear) model assumed in the time history analysis …………….............. 29
21 Bi linear model used to determine ductility demand of storey …………………………………. 29
22 Shear Force vs Storey drift of each floor for FRH-1 …………………………………………………... 30
23 Maximum storey shear envelope of FRH-2 ……………………………………………………………….. 31
24 Shear Force vs Storey drift of each floor for FRH-2 ……………………………………………………. 32
25 Ductile vs Brittle behaviour of a frame ……………………………………………………………………… 33
26 Plastic hinge distribution and evolution through time for FRH-1 ………………………………. 34
27 Plastic hinge distribution and evolution through time for FRH-2 ………………………………. 34
28 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 5 – Node 2050 (FRH-1) ………………………………………………. 37
29 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 8 – Node 3020 (FRH-1) ………………………………………………. 37
30 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 18 – Node 5040 (FRH-2) ……………………………………………… 37
31 Hysteretic behaviour of Column 22 FRH-1 ……………………………………………………………….. 38
32 Simplified and actual M-N interaction diagram of column 22 …………………………………… 39
33 Moment time history of column 22 of frame FRH-1 …………………………………………………. 40
34 Axial load time history of column 22 of frame FRH-1 …………………………………………………. 40
35 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 9 – Node 3030 (FRH-2) ……………………………………………….. 41
36 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 14 – Node 4050 (FRH-2) …………………………………………….. 41
37 Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 15 – Node 5030 (FRH-2) …………………………………………….. 42
38 Hysteretic behaviour of Column 19 FRH-2 ………………………………………………………………… 43
39 Work done time history of frame FRH-1 ……………………………………………………………………. 43
40 Static work of structural members of frame FRH-1 …………………………………………………… 44
41 Work done time history of frame FRH-2 …………………………………………………………………… 44
42 Static work of structural members of frame FRH-2 …………………………………………………… 45
43 Inter-storey drifts of frames FRH-1 and FRH-2 …………………………………………………………… 46
44 Maximum shear force envelopes for FRH-1 and FRH-2 …………………………………………….. 47
45 Shear force vs storey drifts of each floor for FRH-1 (left) and FRH-2 (right) ………………. 48
46 Percentages of input seismic energy dissipation in members of both frames …………… 50
47 Inter-storey drifts of redesigned FRH-1 frame ………………………………………………………….. 52

4
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Summary of research work performed on buildings with setback irregularities ………... 14
2 Column sections for the FRH-1 frame ……………………………………………………………………….. 18
3 Beam sections for the FRH-1 frame ………………………………………………………………………….. 18
4 Column sections for the FRH-2 frame ……………………………………………………………………….. 18
5 Beam sections for the FRH-2 frame ………………………………………………………………………….. 18
6 Expressions for design spectrum for horizontal Action ……………………………………………… 19
7 Basic value of behaviour factor (q0) for regular in elevation buildings ………………………. 20
8 Modal Response of FRH-1 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
9 Modal Response of FRH-2 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
10 Material properties of structural members ………………………………………………………………. 31
11 Storey ductility check for FRH-1 ………………………………………………………………………………… 29
12 Storey ductility check for FRH-2 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 31
13 Local ductility check for FRH-1 beams ………………………………………………………………………. 36
14 Local ductility check for FRH-2 frame ……………………………………………………………………….. 41
15 Local ductility check for FRH-1 and FRH-2 …………………………………………………………………. 50
16 Ductility demands on members of redesigned FRH-1 ……………………………………………….. 52

List of notations
EC8 Eurocode 8
q Behaviour factor
EC2 Eurocode 2
FRH-1 Frame with 33.3% setback
FRH-2 Frame with 66.6% setback
ERS Elastic Response Spectrum
qo Basic behaviour factor
DCH High Ductility Class
qd Design behaviour factor
DS Design Spectrum
PGA peak ground acceleration
IO immediate occupancy
LS life safety
k1 Initial stiffness
bc Column width
hc Column height
A Cross sectional Area
Iy 2nd Moment of Area
As Effective Shear Area
bw Beam width
hw Beam height
hf Slab height
bf Effective flange width
gk Permanent Loads
qk Variable loads
ψ2i Combination coefficient
φ Coefficient for variable action
Fck Compressive strength of concrete
EPScu Strain at ultimate strength of concrete

5
γc Safety factor of concrete
Fsy Yield strength of steel
EPSsy Strain at yield strength
γs Safety factor of steel reinforcement
ED,g Design effects due to gravity
Ed,e Design effects due to the earthquake
MedFT Design moment when the flange is in tension
MedFC Design moment when the flange is in compression
MRdFT Design moment resistance when the flange is in tension
MRdFC Design moment resistance when the flange is in compression
ΣMRC Sum of the resisting moments of the columns
ΣMRb Sum of the resisting moments of the beams
MRd Design moment resistance of column
dy Displacement at yield
dp Peak displacement
μδ Displacement ductility
μφ Curvature ductility
φy Rotation at yield points
φp Rotations at peak points
Vd Normalised axial force
Ned Design axial force

6
Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1. Background

In Europe, countries located in seismically active regions eg. Greece, Italy, Cyprus etc need to design
structures according to the current seismic code, i.e. Eurocode 8 (EC8). For buildings with low civil
importance (housing, offices etc.), EC8 aims to ensure that during an earthquake no lives are lost and
that damage in the structure is limited. The main provision of EC8 states that the design of a building
can be performed using a linear elastic analysis method and use the behaviour factor (q) to reduce the
forces obtained from the linear analysis. The reduction in the forces is to account for the energy
dissipation due to the building experiencing non-linear response from to the formation of plastic
hinges in the structural frame. However, it is important to emphasize that even though members can
form plastic hinges to account for energy dissipation, they are not allowed to fail. Additionally, one of
the main aspects of EC8 is to provide high ductility columns, so that most of the energy dissipation
takes place in the beams and not in the columns.

Nowadays, multi-storey buildings are designed in many different shapes and sizes. This can be blamed
into modern architecture and the need for more functional and aesthetically pleasing buildings. This
leads to the existence of many forms of irregularities in both plan and elevation including stiffness;
mass and geometry. EC8 defines criteria for determining whether a building can be considered as
regular or irregular and assigns a 20% reduction in the behaviour factor for irregular buildings. This is
to account for stress concentrations that may be induced in structural members and to avoid the
formation of storey mechanisms. However, EC8 defines a single 20% reduction in the behaviour factor
for any type of plan and elevation irregularity, and there is no clear evidence in the literature review
on how this value for the reduction factor was determined.

When such irregular buildings are located in high seismicity regions, it is essential that the designer
understands all the issues that can occur due to the presence of irregularities, for the design to be
reliable and safe for the occupants. Additionally, reliable procedures and guidelines by the current
seismic codes are also essential, since, according to Athanasiadou C.J, Irregular configurations were
often considered as the major cause of failures in past earthquakes.

One of the most common form of irregularity encountered daily is setback irregularity (irregular in
elevation). A setback building is one which the plan area of one floor is smaller than the plan area of
the floor below, i.e. a step-like recession in the perimeter walls. For setback buildings, EC8 defines 4
criteria for determining whether a setback building needs to be considered as irregular or regular, as
shown in figure 1. In the case of irregular distribution of structural members i.e. columns, due to the

7
presence of setbacks, stress concentrations may develop in structural members due to the uneven
loading of the earthquake’s inertia forces.

Figure 1: Criteria for regularity in elevation of setback buildings. (BS EN 1998-1, section 4.2.3.3.)

1.2. Aim

The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether the approach of using a single 20% reduction in the
behaviour factor is appropriate for any length of setback present.

1.3. Objectives

The objectives of this project are:

• To analyse the seismic performance of irregular setback frames designed to EC8.

• To compare the seismic performance of setback buildings with different lengths of setback
present on the same floor.

8
 • To assess the effects of setbacks on the inter-storey drifts, plastic hinge distribution and
evolution, storey shear, ductility demands of structural members and energy dissipation of
the 2 buildings.
• To investigate if provisions of EC8 for the design of irregular in elevation buildings are reliable.
• To answer the question whether it would be more suitable for the behaviour factor to depend
on the length of the setback present.

1.4. Methodology

A two-part parametric study is performed on two irregular moment resisting 2D frames. The first part
is to design both frames by performing a multi modal response spectrum analysis using the provisions
of 2004 Eurocode 8 (EC8) and the 2004 Eurocode 2 (EC2) for the detailing of members. The second
part is to perform a time history analysis to evaluate the seismic performance of the frames and
compare with each other.

The two reinforced concrete frames are six-storey and are irregular in elevation according to criterion
b (figure 1), with setbacks present on the 2nd floor. Frame 1 (FRH-1) has a 33.3% setback, while frame
2 (FRH-2) has a 66.6% setback. For part 1 of the study, both buildings are designed using provisions of
the DCH (High Ductility Class) and the appropriate Elastic Response Spectrum (ERS) is generated using
the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) and ground conditions chosen. The basic behaviour factor
(qo) for both frames is determined using DCH guidance and since both FRH-1 and FRH-2 are irregular
in elevation, qo is reduced by 20% to obtain the design behaviour factor (qd). The ERS is reduced by
the design behaviour factor to generate the Design Spectrum (DS). The software DRAIN2DX is used
for both frames to run a gravity load analysis and with the use of the design spectrum, a response
spectrum analysis as well. The structural members of the frames are designed using the design effects
(due to gravity) obtained from the gravity load analysis and the design effects (due to seismic action)
obtained from the spectrum analysis.

For part 2 of the study, a non-linear time history analysis is performed using the software Drain2DX.
An artificial earthquake is used which is normalised to the design spectrum of the building to generate
an artificial excitation according to the given soil class and the design PGA. Results obtained from the
time history analysis include inter-storey drifts; global and local member ductility demands; plastic
hinge location and energy dissipation. These results will be used to analyse the performance of the
buildings and compare with each other to determine whether a single 20% reduction factor is
appropriated for both lengths of setbacks.

9
Chapter 2 - Literature review

2.1. Introduction

Several studies carried from the early 80s until present have been researching the effect of
irregularities on the seismic performance of buildings. The studies are mainly focused on the 2 types
of irregularities distinguished by EC8, which are plan and elevation irregularities. Even though there
is a large number of studies on multi-storey buildings with plan irregularities, the number of studies
on elevation irregularities, including setback irregularities is very limited. Recently, a few number of
researchers have grown their interest on the seismic behaviour of this specific type of irregular
buildings. Studies show that irregular setback buildings experience greater ductility demands
compared to their regular counterparts. This could be due to the non-uniform distribution of the
forces during the event of an earthquake, leading to stress concentrations on some structural
members.

2.2. Literature Review

During the analytical study of two structures (regular and irregular), Aranda (1984) compared the
ductility demands of different structural members throughout the building using earthquake
excitations on soft soil. He determined that that setback structure experience greater ductility
demands compared to the regular structure and that the increased ductility demand is concentrated
in the tower (top portion above setback) section of the structure. The findings of Aranda (1984) are
further backed up by the research performed by Humar and Wright (1977), were the seismic response
of steel setback and regular buildings, indicated that there is greater storey drift in the tower section
of the setback building compared to the regular one. Additionally, they concluded that the opposite
happens in the base part of the building i.e. greater inter-storey drifts at the base of the regular
building.

Duan and Chandler (1995) emphasized that both static and dynamic analysis as prescribed by EC8 are
insufficient to prevent the damage of structural members near the setback level. The researchers
pointed out that greater strength is required for the tower part of the building which can explain the
findings of Aranda (1984) and Humar & Wright (1977), greatest inter-storey drifts in the tower section
of the building. Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) performed a parametric study on six six-storey buildings
with varying degrees of setbacks, designed according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1988. The
buildings were firstly designed using the prescribed elastic modal analysis and their performance was
evaluated using an inelastic dynamic response software. Results show that the modal analysis

10
prescribed by UBC (same elastic analysis method used by EC8) is inappropriate, as it is inadequate to
prevent stress concentrations in structural members in the region of the setback level. Results show
that moments on the columns (marked with “>” in figure 2) below the setback level are much smaller
than the columns directly above, thus these columns are under strengthened leading to stress
concentrations. As shown in figure 2, the columns flex in single curvature or with a single inflection
point close to the top (close to the setback) and as a result smaller design forces are calculated at
these points which may cause the formation of plastic hinges on columns.

Figure 2: Deflected shape of a general setback building

Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) criticised building codes for distinguishing regular and irregular buildings
using a single statement (eg. 25% reduction in floor dimension at setback) as being inappropriate.
They also proposed a new static analysis that makes the design forces bigger in the tower section of
the building which should provide better seismic behaviour. On the experimental analysis performed
by Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) on a six storey RC building with a 50% setback, moderately increased
structural damage and inter-storey drifts are observed at the setback level.

Karavasilis et al. (2007) performed an analytical study on 120 moment resisting steel frames using 30
earthquake ground motions. The moment resisting frames had different geometries, some regular
whilst some irregular with changing degrees of setbacks. All frames were designed using provisions
of EC8 and EC3. They determined that different geometries have a vital effect in the distribution of
ductility demands. For tower like structures, maximum ductility demands are in the tower part of the
building and near the setback level. Similar findings to the above 2 research papers were drawn by
Faridmher et al (2014) as well. A variety of 6, 9 and 12 storey frames both regular and irregular in
elevation, were designed according to the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC 2009). All
frames were Moment Resisting RC frames, and the irregular frames were assigned with a variety of
setback configurations. 10 earthquake input motions were selected, matched to the soil conditions
and being compatible with the response spectrum of the IBC 2009. Results show that all regular
frames exhibit drift ratios within the allowable life safety (LS) performance level (2% drift) while many
irregular frames did not even satisfy the collapse prevention (CP) limiting drift of 4%. Figure 3 shows
the comparison in drift ratios between two setback buildings and their regular counterpart.

11
Figure 3: Inter-storey drift ratios for 6 storey structures in Faridmher et al (2014).

Furthermore, the results show that larger variations in inter-storey drifts are observed near the
setback levels of most irregular buildings, emphasizing the need for the structural members at the
setback level to be strengthened. Another major finding is that as the severity of the setback
increases, the number of structural members with unsatisfactory plastic hinge rotation increases.
Also, very strong rotations are mainly observed at the setback vicinity and required over
strengthening.

A number of researchers evaluated that design procedures for irregular setback buildings prescribed
by EC8 are successful and the designed buildings exhibit adequate seismic performance. Zeris et al.
(1992) designed 3 6-storey irregular RC frames with provisions of EC8 and the aim of the research was
to examine the accuracy of the behaviour factor (q) used for design. A non-linear time history analysis
using specific earthquake records was performed using the software DRAIN2D. By analysing local
ductility demands, inter-storey drift ratios etc. they concluded that the estimated behaviour factors
are higher than the design q factors, highlighting that the 20% reduction of the q factor is conservative.
Similar conclusions have been drawn by both Anagnwstopoulou et al. (2012) and Athanasiadou
(2007).

Anagnwstopoulou et al. (2012) developed a computer algorithm which was used to design 3-D RC
buildings according to EC8 and EC2. The 4 buildings designed were 6-storey, with 3 being regular with
different ground storey height and the fourth having 2 setbacks. Non-linear analysis results indicate
that the irregular frames exhibit the greatest inter-storey drifts on all floors compared to the regular
buildings. However, the estimated behaviour factors are higher than the ones used for the design, for
both regular and irregular frames, illustrating that for the case of irregular frames, EC8 is conservative
with the 20% penalty on the q factor.

Athanasiadou (2007) performed an analytical study on 3 10-storey RC frames designed with EC8
provisions. The 2 frames had different setback irregularities, whilst a 3rd regular frame was used as
reference. All 3 frames were designed for both DCM and DCH ductility classes using the same peak
ground acceleration (PGA). Both non-linear time history analysis and non-linear static push over

12
analysis were implemented using 8 records of past earthquakes in Greece, including some of the most
destructive earthquakes in Greece. Something that worth stating from the findings of Athanasiadou
(2007) is that push over analysis is less accurate than time-history analysis. As it can be seen in figure
4, pushover analysis overestimates the drift ratios of the irregular frames. This is because pushover
analysis is a static analysis and it is not possible to simulate the higher mode effects on the response
of the structure, and it is more significant in the case of irregular configurations.

Figure 4: Inter-storey drift ratios for DCH frames in Athanasiadou (2007).

Additionally, figure 4 shows that for all frames (regular and irregular), inter-storey drift ratios remain
below the 2% life safety (LS) performance level (as specified by FEMA 356 global-level performance
criteria) for both design (0.25g) and collapse prevention (0.5g) earthquakes. These results illustrate
the satisfactory performance of all frames examined and the reliability of EC8. Furthermore, by
examining the required to available hinge rotation ratios of both beams and columns, the satisfactory
performance of the all structural members is further emphasized due to the low required to available
ratios. Athanasiadou (2007) concluded that the strength of the irregular frames is more than 20%
higher compared to the regular frames, which is the EC8 penalty for irregular frames, indicating that
a lower strength reduction factor could have been implemented by EC8.

2.3. Conclusion
The above literature illustrates that building with different forms of irregularity exhibit different
ductility demands on structural members, due to uneven distribution of the earthquake’s forces
along the elevation of the building. For irregular buildings designed to provisions of EC8, all
researchers have concluded that their seismic behaviour is satisfactory, however, characterised EC8
for being very conservative. None of the researchers have conducted a study on buildings with
different length of setback on the same floor, therefore, further research is required to evaluate
whether a single 20% reduction in the behaviour factor is applicable for different lengths of
setbacks.

13
Table 1: Summary of research work performed on buildings with setback irregularities
S. No Name of Researcher
1 Humar and Wright
2 Aranda G R
4 Shahrooz and Moehle
5 Zeris et al.
6 Duan and Chandler
7 Athanasiadou
8 Karavasilis et al.
Anagnwstopoulou et
9 2012
al.
10 Faridmher et al
Year of Number of
Key Parameters
Publish Storeys
• Regular and irregular
1977 N/A
(setback) steel MRF
• Regular and irregular
(setback) frames
1984 N/A
• Earthquake motions on
soft soil
• Analytical study on 6
RC setback buildings
with varying degrees of
1990 setback 6 reduction consider as
• Experimental study on
RC building with 50%
setback
• 3 irregular RC frames
1992 with varying 1st storey 6
height
• Regular and irregular
1995
(setback) RC MRF
• 3 RC MR frames,1
regular and 2 with
different severity of
irregularity.
2007 10
• DCM & DCH
• 8 earthquake records
used from Greece
• PGA = 0.25g and 0.25g
• Parametric study on
2007 3,6,9,12
120 MR steel frames
• 4 buildings, 3 regular
with varying 1st storey
6 the 20% penalty on the q
height and 1 irregular
having 2 setbacks.
• Regular and Irregular
2014 6,9,12
MR RC frames
14
Main conclusions
• Tower section exhibits
greater storey drifts than
the regular frame
• Base section exhibits
lower inter-storey drift
than the regular one
• Setback structure
exhibits greater ductility
demands.
• Ductility demands higher
in tower section of
building
• Multi modal analysis
inadequate to prevent
stress concentrations
• Single statement of 25%
irregular inappropriate.
• Increased structural
damage and inter-storey
drifts at setback level
• EC8 20% reduction of the
q factor is conservative.
• Static and dynamic
analysis not enough to
N/A
prevent damage of
members near setback
• Pushover analysis
overestimates the drift
ratios of the irregular
frames
• Strength of the irregular
frames is more than 20%
higher compared to the
regular frames (penalty
on q factor conservative)
• Different geometries
have a vital effect in the
distribution of ductility
demands
• EC8 is conservative with
factor.
• Many irregular frames
did not satisfy the
collapse prevention (CP)
limiting drift of 4%.
• As the severity of the
setback increases, the
number of structural
members with
unsatisfactory plastic
hinge rotation increases
Chapter 3 – Methodology
3.1. Introduction

Old seismic design code provisions lead to the creation of very strong structures that remained
undamaged during the event of an earthquake. A very strong structure will behave linearly elastic
during an earthquake which prevents any damages in the building. A linear elastic structure may
promote dynamic amplification since there is no energy dissipation and may lead to the possible
collapse of the building due to the forces being amplified to extreme values with each earthquake
cyclic loading. Newer codes, including the current European seismic code (EC8), provide the structure
with enough ductility and strength to avoid the collapse of the building during a strong earthquake
excitation. A ductile building during an earthquake will result to the earthquake energy being
dissipated by the formation of plastic hinges in the frame. As a result, the overall response of the
building is safer, leading to a more reliable design. The ductility of the building is an important aspect
of EC8 that was considered throughout the design and analysis of the 2 frames studied.

3.2. Linear analysis using DRAIN2DX

EC8 states that the design of a building can be performed using a multi modal response spectrum
analysis and use the behaviour factor (q) to reduce the forces obtained from this linear analysis. The
reduction in the forces is to account for the energy dissipation due to the building experiencing non-
linear (ductile) response due to the formation of plastic hinges in the structural frame. The two 2D
frames addressed in this paper were designed using the following procedure:

A. Create two 2D models of the frames in the software DRAIN2DX

A.1. Assign nodal coordinates and map all nodes by defining structural elements
A.2. Define different cross sections for beams and columns with properties.
A.3. Calculate gravity loads and assign them to nodal loads and nodal masses
B. Generate Design spectrum for given parameters
C. Run gravity load analysis to obtain gravity loads ED,g on each element.
D. Run spectrum analysis to obtain earthquake loads ED,e on each element.
E. Perform ultimate Limit State verification (ED,g + ED,e ≤ RD )
E.1. Adopt reinforcement for beams using the combined gravity ED,g and earthquake forces ED,e
E.2. Adopt reinforcement for columns using the capacity design method (strong column/weak
beam hierarchy)

15
3.2.1. Model formulation

For the purpose of this research paper, two 2D irregular reinforced concrete moment resisting frames
(MRF) are designed according to the provisions of the high ductility class (DCH) of EC8. The two frames
are 6-storey and 6-bay, with the one frame (FRH-1) having a 33.3% setback and the other (FRH-2) a
66.6% setback, with both setbacks located on the 2nd floor. Both frames do not satisfy criterion b of
the elevation regularity criteria as specifies by EC8, as shown in figure 1, therefore considered as
irregular. For irregular frames, a 20% reduction in the behaviour factor is implemented by EC8.

A.1. Nodal coordinates and structural member mapping.

The nodal coordinates, support conditions and the mapping of all nodes using structural elements
were set in the input file of each frame, to set the geometry and dimensions of each 2D frame. The
node, column and beam numbering used are indicated in figures 5 & 6, for the FRH-1 and FRH-2 frames
respectively. Refer to Appendices A and B for the input files used in DRAIN2DX.

Figure 5: Nodal coordinates and structural member mapping for the FRH-1 frame.

Figure 6: Nodal coordinates and structural member mapping for the FRH-2 frame.

16
A.2. Geometrical and material properties of Structural members

Following the mapping of nodes using structural members, column and beam configurations are
specified in this step. Column and beam sizing were based on precedents and previous research
papers. It Is important to note that the sizing of columns is gradually decreasing from the centre of
the base going outwards and upwards, avoiding sudden decrease in stiffness between consecutive
floors, improving the seismic performance of the frames. Additionally, the effective flange width of
each beam was calculated depending on the sizing of the columns and the location of the beam
(spanning into interior or exterior columns) as specified by EC8 (section 5.4.3.1). The column and
beam configuration for the FRH-1 and FRH-2 frames are indicated in figures 7 & 8 respectively, while
their geometrical data are given in tables 2 -5. Initial stiffness (k1) of C30/37 concrete is assumed to
be 1600 kN/cm2 and the ratio between initial/after yielding stiffness assumed to be 0.01.

Figure 7: Column and Beams configuration for the FRH-1 frame (units in mm).

Figure 8: Column and Beams configuration for the FRH-2 frame (units in mm).

17
 bc (column hc (column A (cross sectional Iy (2nd Moment of As (Effective Shear
cs
width) height) Area) Area) Area)
1 55 55 3025 762552 2511
2 50 50 2500 520833 2075
3 45 45 2025 341720 1681
4 40 40 1600 213330 1328
Table 2: Column sections for the FRH-1 frame (units in cm).

bf (effective A (cross
bw (Beam hw (Beam hf (slab Iy (2nd Moment As (Effective
cs flange sectional
width) height) height) of Area) Shear Area)
width) Area)
1 35 40 20 171 4820 1194692 2100
2 35 40 20 214 5680 1278770 2100
3 35 40 20 215 5700 1280526 2100
4 30 40 20 171 4620 1073480 1800
5 30 40 20 211 5420 1141552 1800
6 30 40 20 166 4520 1063941 1800
7 30 40 20 209 5380 1138441 1800
8 25 40 20 164 4280 932386 1500
9 25 40 20 206 5120 994885 1500
10 25 40 20 163 4260 930732 1500
11 25 40 20 205 5100 993529 1500
12 35 40 20 170 4800 1192500 2100
Table 3: Beam sections for the FRH-1 frame (units in cm).

bc (column hc (column A (cross sectional Iy (2nd Moment of As (Effective Shear

cs
width) height) Area) Area) Area)
1 55 55 3025 762552 2511
2 50 50 2500 520833 2075
3 45 45 2025 341720 1681
Table 4: Column sections for the FRH-2 frame (units in cm).

bf (effective A (cross
bw (Beam hw (Beam hf (slab Iy (2nd Moment As (Effective
cs flange sectional
width) height) height) of Area) Shear Area)
width) Area)
1 35 40 20 171 4820 1194692 2100
2 35 40 20 214 5680 1278770 2100
3 35 40 20 215 5700 1280526 2100
4 35 40 20 174 4880 1201191 2100
5 30 40 20 172 4640 1075356 1800
6 30 40 20 169 4580 1069697 1800
7 25 40 20 168 4360 938911 1500
8 35 40 20 170 4800 1192500 2100
9 35 40 20 213 5660 1277006 2100
Table 5: Beam sections for the FRH-2 frame (units in cm).

18
A.3. Floor loadings

Other than the permanent loading from the Self-weight of beams, columns and slabs, the following
loadings were considered during the Nodal Mass loading calculations.

Permanent Loads (gk):

• Top floor (roof) finishes = 1 kN/m2

• Other floor finishes = 0.5 kN/m2

Variable loads (qk):

• Top floor (roof) = 1 kN/m2

• Other floors = 2.5 kN/m2

A combination coefficient ψEi is applied to all variable loads, and it is computed using ψEi = φψ2i , where
ψ2i is a combination coefficient specified by EN 1990:2002 and taken as ψ2 = 0.3 for residential
buildings and φ is a coefficient taken as φ = 1 for roof and φ = 0.8 for all other floors. Refer to
Appendices C and D for all loading calculations.

3.2.2. Design Spectrum

EC8 defines the horizontal Elastic Response Spectra (ERS) depending upon the ground types. A
reduced response spectrum (Design spectrum) is also defined in EC8 using the expressions shown in
table 6. The design spectrum is basically the ERS factored by the behaviour factor.

Table 6: Expressions for design spectrum for horizontal earthquake action.

For buildings which are regular in plan and elevation, the basic value of the behaviour factor (qo )
should be chosen on the basis of the type of structural system according to table 7.

19
Table 7: Basic value of behaviour factor (q0) for regular in elevation buildings. (EC8 Section 5.2.2.2. Table
5.1)

The multiplication factor au/a1 for multi-storey and multi-bay framed structures should be taken as
au/a1 = 1.3, as defined in EC8 section 5.2.2.2.

For building determined as irregular in elevation according to figure 1, the basic behaviour factor must
be reduced by 20% according to EC8. Therefore, the design behaviour factor (qd) for both buildings is
calculated to be:

𝑎𝑎𝑢𝑢
𝑞𝑞𝑑𝑑 = 0.8 ∗ 𝑞𝑞0 = 0.8 ∗ 4.5 ∗ = 0.8 ∗ 4.5 ∗ 1.3 = 4.68
𝑎𝑎1

Both frames FRH-1 and FRH-2 are designed for ground type B (very dense sand or gravel or stiff clay)
and PGA = 0.42g, which gives the Design Spectrum (DS) shown in figure 9, by factoring the elastic
response spectrum by the design q factor.

Figure 9: Design Spectrum for FRH-1 and FRH-2

20
3.2.3. Gravity load analysis

A gravity load analysis is performed to obtain design effects due to gravity (ED,g) using the gravity load
combination: ED,g = ΣGk + Σψ2Qk . It is important to note that the φ coefficient is not present in the
gravity load combination. Refer to Appendices E and F for the table of results of Moments, Shear
Forces and Axial Loading due to gravity on the structural members obtained from the gravity load
analysis.

3.2.4. Spectrum Analysis

A spectrum analysis is performed to obtain the design effects due to the earthquake (Ed,e) using the
earthquake loading combination for each mode: ED,ei = ΣGk + Σφψ2 Qk . The maximum value of ED,e is
calculated using the square root of sum of squares (SRSS) principal:

𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷,𝑒𝑒 = �� 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷,𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 2

Refer to Appendices E and F for the table of results of Moment, Shear Force and Axial Loading due to
the earthquake on the structural members obtained from the design spectrum analysis. Figure 10
shows the shapes of the first 5 modes of vibration of frames FRH-1 and FRH-2.

Figure 10: Modes of vibration of frames FRH-1 & FRH-2

21
As it can be seen on tables 8 and 9, the fundamental (natural) periods of the frames FRH-1 and FRH-
2, are 1.083s and 0.927s respectively. A strange fact observed here is that the stiffer frame FRH-1
(smaller setback) has a higher natural period than the less stiff FRH-2. A stiffer frame is less flexible,
and its natural period should be smaller. This strange observation can be explained by noticing that
the FRH-2 frame has a smaller mass due to the larger setback, therefore the rate of reduction in mass
is greater than the rate of reduction of stiffness, leading to lower natural period for FRH-2.

Mode No. 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s) 1.083 0.419 0.257 0.176 0.137
Frequency (Hz) 0.923 2.385 3.892 5.684 7.296
Damping 4.11% 4.27% 5.83% 7.99% 10.02%
Table 8: Modal Response of FRH-1

Mode No. 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s) 0.927 0.396 0.241 0.155 0.129
Frequency (Hz) 1.078 2.524 4.149 6.456 7.767
Damping 3.90% 4.39% 6.13% 8.95% 10.62%
Table 9: Modal Response of FRH-2

3.3. ULS structural member design

For each structural element, two types of design effects are obtained from the gravity and spectrum
analysis i.e. design effects due to gravity ED,g and design effects due to the earthquake ED,e. A critical
step involved during the design of the frames, is to combine these effects together to calculate the
worst-case effects, which will be used for the design of the members. Table 10 summarises the
material properties assumed for the design of the structural members.

Concrete Properties Steel Reinforcement Properties

Fck (MPa) Compressive strength 35 Fsy (MPa) Yield strength 460
Ec (GPa) Initial Stiffness (k1) 16 Es (GPa) Modulus of Elasticity 200
EPScu (%) Strain at ultimate 0.0035 EPSsy (%) Strain at yield 0.002
strength strength
γc Safety factor of concrete 1.5 γs Safety factor of steel 1.15
reinforcement
Table 10: Material properties of structural members

3.3.1. Design of beams

Figures 11 shows the bending moment diagram on a general fixed beam due to gravity. Figure 12
shows the bending moment diagram generated on a fixed beam due to the earthquake effect. Due

22
to the cyclic loading of the earthquake, the bending moment diagram of the earthquake can alternate
from the positive to the negative axis, therefore, can have 2 configurations as indicated in figure 12.

Figure 11: Moment diagram on beam due to gravity loading.

Figure 12: Moment diagram on beam due to earthquake cyclic loading.

The design moment (MedFT) when the flange is in tension (at supports) can be taken as:

𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = max(𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖,𝑔𝑔 + 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖,𝑒𝑒 ; 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗,𝑔𝑔 + 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗,𝑒𝑒 )

And the design moment (MedFC) when the flange is in compression (midspan) can be approximated:

𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 0.6 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

Therefore, the moment resistances of a beam can be approximated using the following equations:

𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 1.1 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 1.1 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

Where 1.1 is simply a 10% overstrength. This method is used for determining the resistance values of
the beam elements rather than calculating the resistance of each beam by adding reinforcement to
the section, because a similar overstrength factor is required for both buildings. This will ensure that
the latter comparison of the seismic performance of the two frames using the history analysis will be
more reliable. The above equations where used to calculate the moment resistance values of all
beams of the frames FRH1 and FRH-2, refer to Appendices E and F for the calculation sheets used.

23
3.3.2. Design of columns

For the design of the columns, the local capacity design was implemented using the equation:

𝛴𝛴𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ≥ 1.3 ∗ 𝛴𝛴𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

where ΣMRC is the sum of the resisting moments of the columns at a node (column-beam connection)
and ΣMRb is the sum of the resisting moments of the beams at that node as shown in figure 13 and can
be calculated using the following equations.

𝛴𝛴𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 0.45 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅,𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶2 + 0.55 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅,𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶1

𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = max(𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵1+𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵2 ; 𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵2+𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵1 )

Figure 13: Local capacity design (Strong column – weak beam)

For each column the MRd,req is calculated using the above principal, and using M-N diagrams
sufficient reinforcement is chosen. It is important to note that The Mrd,req must be checked on both
axial load combinations (to account for the cyclic behaviour of the earthquake):

𝑁𝑁1 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 + 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁

𝑁𝑁2 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 − 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁

24
Chapter 4 – Non-linear time history analysis using DRAIN2DX
4.1. Introduction
The seismic performance of the buildings is assessed by performing a time history analysis using the
software DRAIN2DX. A time history analysis is a dynamic step by step analysis, where the response of
the building is analysed using a dynamic input which varies over time. The dynamic input can be either
from actual records of past earthquakes or it can be an artificial earthquake. The dynamic input used
for the time history analysis performed in this paper, is an artificial accelerogram normalised to the
design spectrum of the frames to generate an artificial excitation according to the given soil class and
the design PGA (0.42g). The input is given as a ground acceleration time history, as shown in figure
14.

Figure 14: Artificial earthquake used in the time history analysis.

4.2. Floor displacements and inter-storey drifts

The first step in the assessment of the seismic performance of the 2 frames is to check their global
deformations. Figures 15 summarises the time history of floor displacement of the frame FRH-1. The
maximum floor displacement occurs at roof level of FRH-1 and its value is 13.87 cm.

Figure 15: Time history of floor displacements of FRH-1.

25
Figure 16 summarises the inter-storey drifts (Δx/h) of frame FRH-1. As seen in this figure, very low
inter-storey drifts are observed with the maximum value being 2.88cm (0.85%). These values show
excellent global displacement performance of frame FRH-1 since it does not only satisfy the life safety
(LS) but also the immediate occupancy (IO) performance level requirement, as specified by FEMA 356
global-level performance criteria, which agrees with the findings of Athanasiadou (2007). Also, figure
16 shows that the frame FRH1 experiences a uniform distribution of inter-storey drifts along the height
of the building with the greatest inter-storey drifts located at the vicinity of the setback.

Figure 16: Inter-storey drifts of FRH-1

Figures 17 summarises the time history of floor displacement of the frame FRH-2. The maximum floor
displacement occurs at roof level of FRH-2 and its value is 15.19 cm. As seen in figure 17, the FRH-2
frame experiences residual deformation of the whole frame at the end of the earthquake. The
maximum residual deformation is 2.68 cm which can be considered as nothing catastrophic compared
to the height of the frame which is 20.4 m (0.001% of the overall height). However, the presence of
residual deformation can be a good indication of plastic hinges developing in the columns of the frame
which will be examined later in this paper. Looking at figure 18, low inter-storey drifts are observed
for frame FRH-2, with the highest value being 3.63cm (1.07%). Even though this value exceeds the
immediate occupancy performance level, it is well below the Life Safety requirement which is the one
indicating insufficient seismic performance. These values indicate the satisfactory global
displacement performance of the frame FRH-2. Additionally, a non-uniform inter-storey drift
distribution along the elevation of the frame can be observed with a very sudden increase in inter-
storey drifts occurring just above the location of the setback. This can be explained due to the sudden
decrease of stiffness due to the presence of a very large (66.6%) setback. Lastly, larger inter-storey
drifts can be observed in the tower part of the frame compared to the base.

26
Figure 17: Time history of floor displacements of FRH-2.

Figure 18: Inter-storey drifts of FRH-2.

4.3. Storey Shear and ductility

Shown in figure 19 are the maximum shear forces at each floor for the frame FRH-1. The shear force
at each level was calculated by summing up all the shear forces at the bottom (‘I’) of all the columns
of that storey. As illustrated in figure 19, the frame FRH-1 experiences a very uniform distribution of
its shear forces along its elevation, indicating the satisfactory performance of the building.

27
Figure 19: Maximum storey shear envelope of FRH-1

In the time history analysis performed in this paper, a model for the Moment-Rotation and Force-
displacement diagram for the hysteretic behaviour of RC members was established. Figure 20 shows
the elastoplastic (bi-linear) model assumed for the time history analysis performed. Three main
parameters are specified by this model which are: initial stiffness (k1), post yield stiffness (k2=rk1),
displacement at yield (dy) and peak displacement (dp). To verify that the whole structures possess
enough ductility to withstand the seismic excitation and avoid global failure, the required
displacement ductility (μδ,req) of each floor must be verified that it is less than the available
displacement ductility (μδ), where:

𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝
𝜇𝜇𝛿𝛿,𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 =
𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦

𝜇𝜇𝛿𝛿 = 𝑞𝑞 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐

𝜇𝜇𝛿𝛿 = 1 + (𝑞𝑞 − 1) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇1 ≤ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐

Since T1 = 1.08 s (FRH-1) and T1 = 0.93 s (FRH-2) > Tc = 0.5 s, μδ = 4.68.

Figure 20 shows the procedure used to determine the stiffness and ductility demand of the 2nd floor
of the FRH-1 frame. A bi-linear diagram is drawn to match the shear force – displacement graph of
the storey, to obtain the displacement at the yield and peak point for both the negative and positive
direction. The maximum absolute value of the ductility demand of either the positive or negative
direction is used to perform the storey ductility check as shown in table 11. The same procedure was
performed on all floors of both frames to obtain the data in tables 11 and 12.

28
Figure 20: Elastoplastic (bi-linear) model assumed in the time history analysis.

Table 11 shows the results of the storey ductility check performed on frame FRH-1. Figure 22 shows
the hysteretic behaviour of each floor of the frame FRH-1, which was obtained by plotting the Shear
Force versus drift of each individual floor. The displacements at yield and ultimate point where
determined using the graphs on figure 22 for each floor of the frame FRH-1, and they were used to
calculate the required ductility of each floor and compared with the available ductility. As indicated
in table 11, all floors possess enough displacement ductility, illustrating the satisfactory performance
of FRH-1 in terms of storey ductility.

Storey Floor Stiffness dy (displacement at yield dp (displacement μδ,req Is μδ ≥

K1, kN/cm point), cm at peak point), cm μδ,req
Base 1525 1 2.5 2.5 YES
1 980 1.6 3 1.88 YES
2 740 1.7 3.3 1.94 YES
3 600 1.4 4.2 3 YES
4 500 1 3.7 3.7 YES
5 380 1.6 2,5 1.56 YES
Table 11: Storey ductility check for FRH-1.

Figure 21: Bi linear model used to determine ductility demand of storey.

29
Figure 22: Shear Force vs Storey drift of each floor for FRH-1.

30
Figure 23 shows that frame FRH-2 experiences a sudden decrease in the storey shear force just above
the setback level leading to an uneven distribution of the shear forces along the elevation of the
building. This can be attributed to the fact that there is a sudden decrease in the storey stiffness
between levels 2 and 3, due to the presence of the large setback, leading to the uneven distribution
of the earthquake’s forces.

Figure 23: Maximum storey shear envelope of FRH-2

Table 12 shows the results of the storey ductility check performed on frame FRH-2. Figure 24 shows
the hysteretic behaviour of each floor of the frame FRH-2, which was obtained by plotting the Shear
Force versus Displacement of each individual floor. The displacements at yield and ultimate point
where determined using the graphs in figure 24 for each floor of the frame FRH-2, and they were used
to calculate the required ductility of each floor and compared with the available ductility. Something
worth noticing is the sudden reduction in storey stiffness at the setback level, which can be attributed
to the large reduction in the number of columns. The 2nd floor has only 3 columns, compared to the
1st floor which has 7 columns. As indicated in table 12, all floors possess enough displacement
ductility, illustrating the satisfactory performance of the frame FRH-2.

Storey Floor Stiffness K1, dy (displacement du (displacement μδ,req Is μδ ≥

kN/cm at yield point), cm at ultimate point), μδ,req
cm
Base 1500 1.2 2.3 1.9 YES
1 1000 1.5 2.3 1.5 YES
2 550 1.5 3.5 2.3 YES
3 400 2 4.9 2.5 YES
4 310 1.6 4.1 2.6 YES
5 250 1.4 2.5 1.8 YES
Table 12: Storey ductility check for FRH-2.

31
Figure 24: Shear Force vs Storey drift of each floor for FRH-2.

32
4.4. Plastic hinge evolution/distribution

The best method to investigate the global ductility of the frames is to analyse the distribution and
evolution of the hinges. The aim of EC8 is to design buildings that can sustain a substantial amount of
plastic deformations i.e. the building maintains a ductile behaviour during an earthquake. Such ductile
response is achieved when plastic hinges are formed randomly at beams on different floors as
indicated in figure 25. Even if all structural members behave in a ductile manner, the overall building
will behave in a brittle manner if all hinges occur at the same time on a given floor. A soft storey
plastic mechanism may be developed if plastic hinges form in all columns on the same floor (as shown
in figure 25), which can lead to the collapse of the building, a situation that needs to be prevented.

Figure 25: Ductile vs Brittle behaviour of a frame. (CIV4445 Lecture notes, Dr Mihail Petkovski)

Figure 26 shows the distribution and evolution of plastic hinges through time in response to the
earthquake for frame FRH-1. The distribution of plastic hinges through time can be considered
excellent, with hinges developing throughout the frame in a variety of floors, at different time
intervals. The hierarchy of structural members is satisfied with most hinging observed in the beams
off the frame rather than the columns, which is the main aim of EC8, avoiding any brittle failure of the
frame. No column hinging is observed to take place before almost all beams develop plastic hinges on
both ends which illustrates the conservatism of EC8 of designing very high ductility columns using the
local design capacity rule. Similar conclusions were drawn by both Athanasiadou (2007) and
Anagnwstopoulou et al. (2012).

33
Figure 26: Plastic hinge distribution and evolution through time for FRH-1.

Figure 27: Plastic hinge distribution and evolution through time for FRH-2.

34
Figure 27 summarises the distribution and evolution of plastic hinges through time of the frame FRH-
2. In comparison to the FRH-1 frame, a larger number of plastic hinges tend to develop within 3
seconds of the earthquake while most hinges formed are concentrated in the tower part of the frame
however, the distribution of plastic hinges through time can be considered as satisfactory. However,
an increase in the number of plastic hinges formed in columns can be observed, especially at the level
of the setback. All columns on the 2nd floor (setback level) form plastic hinges, but as seen in figure
17, only the bottom part of the columns (except column 17) yields, therefore, no storey mechanism is
formed. The presence of column hinges explains the result of the residual displacement of the floors
of the FRH-2 frame as shown in figure 17. The hierarchy of structural members is mostly satisfied
avoiding any brittle failure of the frame from the creation of storey mechanisms, although some
columns develop plastic hinges. Any plastic hinging of columns is checked using the local ductility
demand of the member later in this paper to ensure those columns have enough ductility to avoid
failure.

4.5. Performance of structural members

Due to time limitation, only the performance of selected structural elements will be evaluated by
determining the local curvature ductility demand of the element and evaluate it against the curvature
ductility (μφ) requirement of EC8. Elements that develop plastic hinges very early in the earthquake
or beams in floors with large inter-storey drift will most probably be the most critical elements that
may fail; therefore, their ductility demand must be checked so that it meets the requirements of EC8.
Additionally, an investigation will be performed to evaluate the performance of columns which
develop plastic hinges to evaluate whether the presence of plastic hinges may cause problems to the
stability of the frame. This will be more critical for the FRH-2 frame, where several columns develop
plastic hinges, with most hinging observed in the tower section of the frame.

The required curvature ductility factor (μφ,req) must be verified that it is less than the available
curvature ductility (μφ) for the selected structural members, where (according to EC8, section 5.2.3.4):

𝜑𝜑𝑝𝑝
𝜇𝜇𝜑𝜑,𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 =
𝜑𝜑𝑦𝑦

𝜇𝜇𝜑𝜑 = 2 ∗ 𝑞𝑞𝑜𝑜 − 1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐

𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐
𝜇𝜇𝜑𝜑 = 1 + (2 ∗ 𝑞𝑞𝑜𝑜 − 1) ∗ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇1 ≤ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐
𝑇𝑇1

Where qo is the basic behaviour factor, qo = 5.85.

Since T1 = 1.08 s (FRH-1) and T1 = 0.93 s (FRH-2) > Tc = 0.5 s, μφ = 2 * 5.85 -1 = 10.7.

35
4.5.1. Local ductility check of FRH-1

For the frame FRH-1, the largest inter-storey drifts according to figure 16 occur between the base and
3rd floor, and by looking at the hinge distribution through time on figure 26, ductility demands at the
connections between Beam 5 – node 2050 and Beam 10 – node 3040 (refer to figure 5) could be the
most critical. Additionally, beam 18 develops a plastic hinge the earliest of all at 2.02s, therefore, the
capacity at the connection with node 5040 will also be checked. Lastly, the ductility demand of column
22 (refer to figure 5) needs to be checked due to the presence of plastic hinges on both ends.

Performance of beams

Figure 28-30 show the hysteretic behaviours οf the selected beam elements. The graphs are obtained
by plotting the Moment at the appropriate end of the beam against the rotation R of the node that
end is attached to. For example, for beam 5, the moment of the ‘I’ end is plotted against the rotation
‘R’ of node 2050. The rotation at yield points (φy) and the rotations at peak points (φp) are determined
from the graph as indicated on each figure and are used to calculate the curvature ductility demand
of that element. It is important to note that the absolute values from both sides of the graph are used
to obtain the combination between φy and φp which gives the highest ductility demand.

Table 13 summarises the data extracted from the graphs in figures 28-30. A similar procedure as in
section 4.3 was used, however in this case, since the plots show Moment vs rotation, the bi-linear
model was used to obtain the rotations at yield and peak. As it can be seen, all beams under
investigation pass the local ductility check. All available to plastic hinge rotation ratios are quite low
(below 0.6), indicating the good seismic performance of the beams in terms of ductility and the overall
satisfactory performance of the frame.

φy1 (rotation φy2 (rotation φp1 (rotation φp2 (rotation

Ratio Is μφ ≥
Beam at yield point at yield point at peak point at peak point μφ,req
μφ,req/ μφ μφ,req
1), rad 2), rad 1), rad 2), rad
5 1.5 2.5 6.9 4 4.6 0.43 YES

8 1.5 2.5 6.6 4 4.4 0.41 YES

18 3.0 1.8 8.9 11.3 6.3 0.59 YES

Table 13: Local ductility check for FRH-1 beams.

36
Figure 28: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 5 – Node 2050 (FRH-1)

Figure 29: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 8 – Node 3020 (FRH-1)

Figure 30: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 18 – Node 5040 (FRH-2)

37
Performance of columns

As noticed earlier in this study, a few columns in the FRH-1 frame form plastic hinges. It is essential
to examine the ductility demand of this columns and assess whether it can cause a problem to the
overall integrity of the frame. Additionally, a small study is performed to evaluate why there are
plastic hinges forming in columns, even though the column is designed using the local capacity rule.
Column 22 is chosen to be analysed, not only due to the presence of hinges on both the top and
bottom of the column, but also due to the bottom hinge being formed a few fractions of a second
after the formation of hinges in the adjacent beams.

Figure 31 shows the hysteric response of the column 22, by plotting the moment at the bottom of the
column and the rotation of node 4040. The curvature ductility factor is found to be 2.46. The required
to available ductility ratio is calculated to be 0.23, therefore, it can be concluded that the formation
of the hinges on this column do not lead to the failure of the column.

Also, another check required, is that the normalised axial force should be satisfied by the following
equation:

𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑑 = ≤ 0.55
𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

Looking at the bottom columns that have the highest axial force, column 3, Ned = 1966 kN

1966000
𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑑 = = 0.278 ≤ 0.55 OK
550∗550∗35∗0.667

Figure 31: Hysteretic behaviour of Column 22 FRH-1.

38
Figures 33 and 34 shows the moment time history and axial load time history on column 22
respectively. At the time of formation of the bottom plastic hinge (3.77 s), the moment at the bottom
of the column (Mi) is 611 kNm and the axial load on the column is 975 kN. The Mrd value of column
22 that was obtained using the EC8 capacity rule is 514 kNm, indicating that the column was under
designed in terms of Moment resistance. Also looking at the axial loads calculated using the combined
gravity analysis and spectrum analysis, the design axial load on the column is 1016 kN, which
compared to the result from the time history, there is a small difference. Results form the response
spectrum analysis indicated zero axial load due to the earthquake on column 22, however, time history
analysis indicates that the earthquake induces a 42 kN negative axial load which was not detected by
the response spectrum analysis. Looking at the moments at the node at the time of the formation of
the plastic hinge, column 22 takes 76% of the moment generated by the adjacent beams. This strongly
emphasizes a drawback of the local capacity rule, because the design does not guaranty that the
bottom and top column will experience the moments they were designed for during the earthquake
(one may experience a larger moment than the other).

Figure 32 shows the simplified (used in time history analysis) and the actual moment axial load (M-N)
interaction diagram of column 22, showing that the combination of moment and axial load from the
time history analysis lies on or barely outside of the curve on the simplified diagram, which lead to the
yielding of the column. If the actual M-N diagram was used, the column would have not yielded in the
first place. This also illustrates a drawback of the use of the simplified M-N interaction diagram.

Figure 32: Simplified and actual M-N interaction diagram of column 22.

39
Figure 33: Moment time history of column 22 of frame FRH-1.

Figure 34: Axial load time history of column 22 of frame FRH-1.

4.5.2. Local ductility check of FRH-2

For the frame FRH-2, according to figure 18 the largest inter-storey drift is experienced between the
3rd and 4th floor, therefore, beam 15 will be assessed in terms of ductility demand. Rotations on outer
beams are expected to be higher, since there are no beams on the other side to minimise node
rotation, thus the connection of beam 15 with the outer node (5030) will be the one to be assessed.
Also due to the presence of the severe setback on the 2nd floor, the beams on that floor (according to
figure 27) undergo yielding first at 1.91 s, therefore, the ductility demand of beam 9 will also be
evaluated. Beam 14, is also in the vicinity of the setback, and at a location where a lot of plastic hinges
are observed in the columns, thus it’s ductility demand will also be verified it meets the requirements
of EC8.

The ductility demand of column 17 (refer to figure 6) needs to be checked due to the presence of
plastic hinges on both ends, with the bottom hinge being formed very early at 2.79s. It worths stating
that all columns at the level of the setback (including column 17) develop plastic hinges, therefore,
one of these columns will be investigated i.e. column 17.

40
Performance of beams

Figures 35-37 show the hysteretic behaviours οf the selected beam elements and the data extracted
from these graphs are summarised in table 14. As seen in table 14, all selected elements pass the
ductility requirements of EC8 with ductility ratios being small (less than 0.5), illustrating the
satisfactory seismic performance of the FRH-2 frame in terms of local ductility.

φy1 (rotation φy2 (rotation φp1 (rotation φp2 (rotation

Ratio Is μφ ≥
Beam at yield point at yield point at peak point at peak point μφ,req
μφ,req/ μφ μφ,req
1), rad 2), rad 1), rad 2), rad
9 1.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 3.7 0.34 YES
14 4 2.5 11 11.5 4.6 0.43 YES
15 2.6 3.9 13 12.2 5 0.47 YES

Table 14: Local ductility check for FRH-2 frame.

Figure 35: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 9 – Node 3030 (FRH-2)

Figure 36: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 14 – Node 4050 (FRH-2)

41
Figure 37: Hysteretic behaviour of Beam 15 – Node 5030 (FRH-2)

Performance of columns

Frame FRH-2 experiences many plastic hinging in columns, especially in the tower part of the frame
as shown in figure 27. To determine whether the hinges formed in the columns in the tower section
may have a possible effect on the overall performance of the frame, the ductility demand of one of
these columns will be evaluated. Column 19 is chosen as plastic hinges are formed on both ends of
the column within the first 5 s of the earthquake. Also, column 19 of FRH-2 frame is at the same
geometrical location with column 22 in the FRH-1 frame, therefore a comparison between the ductility
demands of these 2 columns can be performed.

Figure 38 shows the hysteretic behaviour of column 19 of frame FRH-2 and it is used to calculate the
curvature ductility demand, which is calculated to be 3.7. The required to available ductility ratio is
calculated to be 0.34, indicating that the column even though it has yielded it is far from failing, thus
no structural problems are caused.

The normalised axial force check is performed on column 4, Ned = 1900 kN

1900000
𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑑 = = 0.269 ≤ 0.55
550 ∗ 550 ∗ 35 ∗ 0.667

Check okay.

42
Figure 38: Hysteretic behaviour of Column 19 FRH-2.

4.6. Energy dissipation

Figure 39 summarises the input seismic energy dissipated in the frame FRH-1 during the earthquake.
As it can be seen, the inelastic behaviour of the frame (static) results to higher dissipation of energy
than the work done by viscous damping. Figure 40 shows how much of the total dissipated energy in
the frame comes from the inelastic behaviour of the beams and columns, illustrating that in the frame
FRH-1 almost all the static energy, is due to work done by the plastic hinging of the beams. These
figures verify that FRH-1 is designed correctly as a very ductile frame, and it can dissipate the
earthquake’s energy mostly from the plastic hinging of beams and not in columns. This emphasizes
the satisfactory performance of the frame designed to EC8 since the main aim of the code, is for the
dissipation of the energy to take place mostly in the beams.

Figure 39: Work done time history of frame FRH-1

43
Figure 40: Static work of structural members of frame FRH-1

Figure 41 shows the energy time history in the frame FRH-2 during the earthquake. As illustrated in
this figure, more energy is dissipated from the inelastic behaviour of the structural members, than the
one from viscous damping. Figure 42 shows how much of the static energy in structural members,
comes from work done in beams and columns. Clearly most of the energy is dissipated from the
inelastic behaviour of the beams, but also, some energy is dissipated from the hinging of columns.
Satisfactory performance is observed, since the main aim of EC8, is most of the energy to be dissipated
from the yielding of beams, rather than the yielding of columns.

Figure 41: Work done time history of frame FRH-2

44
Figure 42: Static work of structural members of frame FRH-2

Chapter 5 – Summary of analysis and results

For both FRH-1 and FRH-2 frames, the same procedures of design and analysis have been used so that
the results act as a reliable base for the evaluation of the q factor used. When designing all structural
members, where possible, similar overstrength factors have been implemented. By ensuring all
parameters for both buildings are the same or very similar, any differences in the seismic performance
of the 2 frames can be blamed onto the degree of the setback present.

For assessing the possible failure of the frames, both global and local failure criteria have been
implemented as illustrated in section 4 of this paper. Global failure is assumed to occur when there is
a storey failure, which is assessed using the following criteria:

• Inter storey drifts exceeding the 3% Collapse Prevention performance level, as specified by
FEMA 356.
• Storey displacement ductility demand exceeding the available capacity, as specified by EC8.
• Presence of a storey mechanism, from the formation of plastic hinges in the top and bottom
of all columns on the same storey.

Whereas, local failure is assumed to occur if any R/C member rotation ductility demand exceeds its
available capacity, as specified by EC8. Therefore, it is essential to state that from the analysis
performed on both frames, none of the frames exhibit global or local failure.

Displacements and inter-storey drifts

Both frames exhibit similar maximum floor displacements, with the maximum displacements
occurring at the top floors of both frames, 13.87 cm for FRH-1 and 15.19 cm for FRH-2. A small
difference of 1.32 cm in top floor displacement is observed, with the frame having the largest setback

45
(FRH-2) experiencing 9.5% higher maximum floor displacement. Also, FRH-2 exhibits a slightly inferior
global displacement performance due to the presence of residual deformation of the whole frame at
the end of the earthquake, which is not observed on the FRH-1 frame. Figure 43 summarises the inter-
storey drifts (Δx/h) of the frames FRH-1 and FRH-2. As seen in this figure, both frames exhibit very
low inter-storey drifts with the maximum value being 2.88cm (0.85%) for the FRH-1 and 3.63 cm
(1.07%) on the FRH-2 frame. These values show satisfactory performance of both frames since they
both satisfy the life safety performance criteria of 2%.

Also, figure 43 shows that the frame with the smallest setback (FRH1) experiences a uniform
distribution of inter-storey drifts along the height of the building in comparison with the FRH-2, where
there is a sudden increase in inter-storey drift above the location of the setback. This indicates that
as the length of the setback increases, a more irregular distribution of inter-storey drift is caused.
Additionally, for the FRH-1 frame, larger inter-storey drifts are observed at the tower part of the
frame, however, the frame with the smallest setback, experiences greatest inter-storey drifts at the
vicinity of the setback. Even though both frames show very good performance and satisfy EC8
requirements, it can be concluded that FRH-2 exhibits inferior seismic performance in terms of global
displacements, due to the uneven distribution of inter-storey drifts and the residual deformation of
the frame at the end of the earthquake. This indicates that a larger setback can have an effect in the
seismic performance of the frame.

Figure 43: Inter-storey drifts of frames FRH-1 and FRH-2

46
Storey shear and ductility

Figure 44 summarises the maximum shear forces at each storey of the frames FRH-1 and FRH-2. This
figure indicates the very uniform distribution of the shear forces along its elevation for the frame FRH-
1, while for FRH-2, a sudden decrease is observed at the setback level, leading to an uneven
distribution of the shear forces along its elevation. This is further illustrated using figure 45, where
the hysteretic behaviour of each floor of each frame is plotted against the inter-storey drift, and as
seen in this figure, there is a sudden change in the storey hysteretic behaviour of the frame FRH-2. In
comparison where there is a very smooth and even change in the hysteretic behaviour of the frame
FRH-1. Indicating that the increase in the setback leads to an uneven distribution of the earthquake’s
forces leading to some storeys exhibiting greater ductility demands than others. However, even
though there is uneven distribution of storey shear forces and stiffness observed, the global-storey
ductility checks on all floors of both frames, are well within the ductility capacity requirements. This
illustrates the satisfactory performance of both frames designed to EC8 in terms of storey ductility but
indicates an inferior performance of the frame with the largest setback due to the large and sudden
decrease in storey stiffness at the setback level which is not observed in the frame with the smaller
setback.

Figure 44: Maximum shear force envelopes for FRH-1 and FRH-2

47
Figure 45: Shear force vs storey drifts of each floor for FRH-1 (left) and FRH-2 (right)

48
Plastic hinge evolution/distribution

Both frames exhibit satisfactory evolution and distribution of plastic hinges, with hinges developing
mostly in the beams of both frames and at a variety of floors through time, avoiding any brittle failures.
No storey mechanisms are observed in both frames indicating the satisfactory performance of the
frames, since no global failure occurs. However, it can be noticed that for the FRH-2 frame there is a
large increase in the number of columns developing plastic hinges compared to FRH-1, which explains
the residual deformation of the FRH-2. Since a larger number of plastic hinges in columns are observed
in the FRH-2 frame, especially in the tower part of the frame, compared to the frame with the smaller
setback, it can be concluded that the larger the setback, the grater the increase in stress concentration
in columns above the setback level. Even though there is an increase in columns yielding, no potential
problems in the integrity of the frame is caused.

Performance of structural members.

The ductility demand of selected elements on floors with the largest inter-storey drifts on both frames
was determined and checked against the available capacity as defined in EC8. As seen in table 15,
which summarises the results of section 4.3, all beams checked have enough rotational ductility,
therefore, the performance of the beams in both frames in terms of rotational ductility is considered
as satisfactory. There is no clear indication whether the increase in setback leads to greater ductility
demands in beams, since, only a few elements were examined due to the time limitation.

The ductility check was also performed on one column of each frame that has developed plastic
hinges, to evaluate whether the formation of plastic hinges may cause a problem to the stability and
overall performance of the frame. It is concluded that for both frames, the columns that have yielded
possess enough ductility indicating satisfactory ductility performance of the columns as well. The
above results indicate the successful approach of EC8 using the local capacity design method,
however, indicating the conservatism of EC8 by incorporating very high ductility columns in the
frames.

The required to available ductility ratio is calculated to be 0.23 for the column 22 in the FRH-1 frame,
while for column 19 in the FRH-2 frame, the ratio is found to be 0.34. The higher required ductility of
the column for the FRH-2 frame shows that, the higher the setback, the larger the work done by the
columns in dissipating the input seismic energy.

Lastly, the normalised axial force on all columns should satisfy the equation given in section 4.3. The
check was performed on one column that was considered as critical for each frame. Results indicate
satisfactory performance of the columns examined for both frames.

49
 Frame Structural Member Ratio Check ok?
μφ,req/ μφ
Beam 5 0.43 YES
Beam 8 0.41 YES
FRH-1
Beam 18 0.59 YES
Column 22 0.23 YES
Beam 9 0.34 YES
Beam 14 0.43 YES
FRH-2
Beam 15 0.47 YES
Column 19 0.34 YES
Table 15: Local ductility check for FRH-1 and FRH-2

Energy dissipation

Figure 46 shows the percentages of the input seismic energy being dissipated in columns and beams,
of both frames. As it can be seen in this figure, for the frame with the smaller setback (FRH-1) the
percentage of energy being dissipated in the beams is higher than for the FRH-2 frame, with the values
being 95.98% and 91.17% respectively. The 4.81% increase in the energy being dissipated in columns
rather than in the beams of the FRH-2 compared to FRH-1, demonstrates that as the severity of the
setback increases, larger stresses are experienced by the columns. This observation agrees with the
results obtained earlier, of more plastic hinges being formed in columns of the FRH-2 frame compared
to the FRH-1 frame and the higher ductility demand to available ratio of columns in the FRH-2 frame.
For both frames, results indicate very satisfactory seismic performance, since the main aim of the code
is for the largest dissipation to take place in the beams of the frames and not in the columns) and it is
true for both frames (more than 90% of the input energy is dissipated in the beams).

Figure 46: Percentages of input seismic energy dissipation in members of both frames.

50
Looking at the results of frame FRH-2, FRH-2 exhibits satisfactory seismic performance and this
illustrate that the 20% reduction in q factor is adequate for the design of a building with a very large
(66.6%) setback. Due to the presence of increased plastic hinges in columns, residual deformation of
the frame and the uneven distribution of inter-storey drifts the and since the performance is within
the limits of EC8, the reduction in q factor for the frame FRH-2 is not examined further whether a
lower value would be more suitable. Similar findings about the conservatism of EC8 of using a larger
penalty on the behaviour factor for setback frames are also concluded by Athanasiadou (2007),
Karavasilis et al. (1992) and Anagnostopoulou et al. (2012)

Redesign of frame FRH-1

In the case of the frame with the smaller setback, FRH-1, which exhibits excellent seismic performance,
with all results indicating the conservatism of EC8, the time history analysis was performed again to
indicate whether a 15% rather than the provided 20% reduction in q factor is still within the limits of
EC8. The time history analysis was performed by reducing the moment resistance values of all
structural members by 5%. Since overstrength on members and the value of the q factor are directly
related, a 5% decrease in the moment resistances of all members, is the same as 5 % reduction in the
q factor i.e. a change of the overall reduction factor on the q factor from 20% to 15%. Results from
the time history analysis performed using a 5% reduction in the resistances of the structural members
are analysed in the proceeding part of this section.

The first check made in the results of the redesigned frame, was the global failure criteria. The
redesigned frame passes the global failure criteria check, since results indicate:

• very uniform distribution of hinges throughout the frame in different time intervals.
• Column hinging is observed in some parts of the frame but no dramatic increase in their
number compared to the initial time history analysis of frame FRH-1.
• No storey mechanisms are created

As seen in figure 47, inter-storey drifts are still quite low with all values being within the immediate
occupancy performance level requirement even with the 15% reduction in the q factor, also, a very
uniform distribution of inter-storey drifts through elevation can be observed. Results show the
satisfactory performance of the redesigned frame. Table 16 summarises the ductility demands on
selected structural members of the redesigned frame FRH-1. Ductility demands to ductility capacity
ratios of members examined are still within the limits of EC8. Looking at the energy dissipation of the
redesigned frame, 94.8% of the dissipation takes place in the beams of the frame, while only 5.2% of
the energy dissipation takes place in the columns. Results indicate very satisfactory seismic

51
performance, since the main aim of the code is for the largest dissipation to take place in the beams
of the frames and not in the columns.

Figure 47: Inter-storey drifts of redesigned FRH-1

φy2
φy1 (rotation φp1 (rotation φp2 (rotation
Structural (rotation at Ratio Is μφ ≥
at yield at peak point at peak point μφ,req
member yield point μφ,req/ μφ μφ,req
point 1), rad 1), rad 2), rad
2), rad
Column 22 2.9 2.1 8.0 7.0 3.3 0.31 YES
Beam 8 1.2 2.4 6.9 4.3 5.8 0.53 YES
Beam 18 3 1.9 8.7 11.4 6 0.56 YES
Table 16: Ductility demands on members of redesigned FRH-1

Chapter 6 – Conclusion
6.1. Dissertation Conclusion

In an effort to evaluate the whether a single 20% reduction in the behaviour factor is applicable for
different lengths of setback, a 2-part analytical study was performed on 2D irregular setback frames.
Two 6-storey moment resisting RC frames were designed with the provisions of the 2004 Eurocode 8
and their seismic performance was evaluated using an artificial earthquake by the means of a time
history analysis using the software DRAIN2DX.

Satisfactory seismic performance is concluded for all frames studied, however, the frame with the
larger setback, exhibited inferior but still adequate performance in some of the criteria examined,

52
compared to the frame FRH-1. It has been found that all inter-storey drifts remain quite low and
within the Life Safety (LS) performance level requirement of FEMA 356, however, the frame with the
larger setback experiences a slightly non-uniform distribution of inter-storey drifts, but all well within
the allowable limits. For both frames there is satisfactory performance in terms of hinge distribution,
although, FRH-2 experiences more hinging of columns, however, no structural frame integrity
problems are caused from this finding. Rotational ductility demands on the examined structural
members of both frames are within the allowable ductility capacities. Storey displacement ductility
demands of all floors in both frames are well within the allowable capacity. Dissipation of the input
seismic energy in both frames happens mainly in the beams which is the main objective of EC8.

It can be concluded that a single 20% reduction is adequate for all the frames examined. However,
due to the excellent performance of the frame with the smaller setback, it can be argued that the 20%
reduction, even though it is adequate, it is conservative, thus EC8 could have used a smaller penalty
for smaller setback frames. Also, it can be concluded that the 20% reduction in q factor is more
adequate for the design of a building with a very large (66.6%) setback. A redesigned frame of the
FRH-1 was examined as well to determine whether a 15% reduction in q factor, is still enough to
prevent the global or local failure of the frame. All results indicate that a 15% reduction on the q
factor on a frame with a smaller (in this case 33.3%) setback, exhibits a very good seismic performance
according to the criteria of EC8, therefore, a 15% reduction is still adequate in the presence of small
setback.

6.2. Recommendations for future research

In this paper only 2 irregular frame configurations have been examined to evaluate the 20% in
reduction factor. A more intensive research can be performed in future, on several multi-storey
irregular frames with different length of setbacks located at different floor levels. A clearer conclusion
can be drawn since as illustrated in the literature review, different configurations of irregularities
result to varying seismic performance. Due to time limitation, ductility demand of only selected
elements was evaluated and shear forces in structural members were not considered in the local
failure checks. For the final conclusions to be more reliable, all structural members must be checked
in a future research project so that all aspects of local failure are examined. Also, in the time history
analysis performed, only a single earthquake excitation was used. Using actual earthquake records of
different past earthquakes, will analyse the buildings at different excitations, thereafter results can be
more precise and reliable.

53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aranda, G.R. (1984), Ductility Demands for R/C Frame Irregular in Elevation, In Proc. of the Eighth
World Conf. on Earthquake Engg., San Francisco, U.S.A., Vol. 4, 1984, pp 559–566.

Athanassiadou, C. (2008). Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in

elevation. Engineering Structures, 30(5), pp.1250-1261.

EC8. European Committee for Standardization. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.

Anagnwstopoulou V, Zeris C and Karayiannis C (2012). Evaluation of the q factors of irregular RC

buildings designed to EC8. Proceedings, Fifteenth World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.

De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2007). A review of research on seismic behaviour of irregular

building structures since 2002. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), pp.285-308.

Duan, X. and Chandler, A. (1995). Seismic torsional response and design procedures for a class of
setback frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 24(5), pp.761-777.

Faridmehr, I., Hanim Osman, M., Bin Md. Tahir, M., Amin Azimi, M. and Hodjati, R. (2014). Seismic
Assessment of RC Frames with Setbacks. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
2(3), pp.89-101.

Humar, J. L., & Wright, E. W. (1977). Earthquake response of steel-framed multistorey buildings with
set-backs. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 5(1), pp. 15–39.

Karavasilis, T., Bazeos, N. and Beskos, D. (2008). Seismic response of plane steel MRF with
setbacks: Estimation of inelastic deformation demands. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
64(6), pp.644-654.

Shahrooz, B. and Moehle, J. (1990). Seismic Response and Design of Setback Buildings. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 116(5), pp.1423-1439.

Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V. and Saini, B. (2012). Review of different Structural irregularities in
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 39(5), pp.538-563.

Zeris, C.A., Tassios, P.T., Lu, Y. and Zhang, G.F. (1992). Influence of Irregularity on the q Factor of
RC Frames. Proceedings, Tenth World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.

Petkovski M. (2019). CIV6445/4445: DESIGN OF EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURES

Lecture Notes

54
APPENDIX A: Input file for FRH-1
! name: use 6 characters
! name exec controls
gvouva 0101
*NODECOORDS
! node x-ccord z-ccord
C 1010 0. 0.
C 1020 640. 0.
C 1030 1280. 0.
C 1040 1920. 0.
C 1050 2560. 0.
C 1060 3200. 0.
C 1070 3840. 0.
!
C 2010 0. 340.
C 2020 640. 340.
C 2030 1280. 340.
C 2040 1920. 340.
C 2050 2560. 340.
C 2060 3200. 340.
C 2070 3840. 340.
!
C 3010 0. 680.
C 3020 640. 680.
C 3030 1280. 680.
C 3040 1920. 680.
C 3050 2560. 680.
C 3060 3200. 680.
C 3070 3840. 680.
!
C 4020 640. 1020.
C 4030 1280. 1020.
C 4040 1920. 1020.
C 4050 2560. 1020.
C 4060 3200. 1020.
!
C 5020 640. 1360.
C 5030 1280. 1360.
C 5040 1920. 1360.
C 5050 2560. 1360.
C 5060 3200. 1360.
!
C 6020 640. 1700.
C 6030 1280. 1700.
C 6040 1920. 1700.
C 6050 2560. 1700.
C 6060 3200. 1700.
!
C 7020 640. 2040.
C 7030 1280. 2040.
C 7040 1920. 2040.

55
C 7050 2560. 2040.
C 7060 3200. 2040.
!
!
!
*RESTRAINTS
! fixed-end supports at foundations
! xzr n1 n2 dn
S 111 1010 1070 10
!
!
*SLAVING
! xzr master slave1 slave2 dn
S 100 2010 2020 2070 10
S 100 3010 3020 3070 10
S 100 4020 4030 4060 10
S 100 5020 5030 5060 10
S 100 6020 6030 6060 10
S 100 7020 7030 7060 10
!
!
*MASSES
! nodal masses in kN/(cm/s^2)
! xzr m n1 n2 dn conversion alpha
S 100 0.32859 7030 7050 10 1.0 0.33484
S 100 0.16891 7020 7060 40
!
S 100 0.33029 6040 6040 0
S 100 0.32823 6030 6050 20
S 100 0.17312 6020 6060 40
!
S 100 0.33877 5040 5040 0
S 100 0.33671 5030 5050 20
S 100 0.18680 5020 5060 40
!
S 100 0.34974 4040 4040 0
S 100 0.33877 4030 4050 20
S 100 0.18886 4020 4060 40
!
S 100 0.34973 3040 3040 0
S 100 0.34746 3030 3050 20
S 100 0.34976 3020 3060 40
S 100 0.18965 3010 3070 60
!
S 100 0.34974 2030 2050 10
S 100 0.34746 2020 2060 40
S 100 0.19591 2010 2070 60
!
!
*ELEMENTGROUP (1: columns)
! Elem

56
! Type C1 C2 beta group title
2 1 0 0.00421 GROUP 1: COLUMNS
! Control Information
! Nst Nrz Ny
4 0 7
! Stiffness Types (1-Nst); note: number of lines must be equal to Nst (line above).
! CS Ec k2 Ac Ic kii kjj kij As mu osh
1 1600. 0.010 3025. 762552. 4. 4. 2. 2511. 0.15 0.01
2 1600. 0.010 2500. 520833. 4. 4. 2. 2075. 0.15 0.01
3 1600. 0.010 2025. 341719. 4. 4. 2. 1681. 0.15 0.01
4 1600. 0.010 1600. 213330. 4. 4. 2. 1328. 0.15 0.01
!
!
!
! Yield Types (1-Ny); Note: Number of lines must be equal to Ny (see above)
! iY typ My+ My- Pyc Pyt rM+ rPc+ rM- rPc-
1 3 54596. 54596. 13162. 2573. 1.77 0.22 1.77 0.22
2 3 37661. 37661. 10714. 1964. 1.83 0.23 1.83 0.23
3 3 48549. 48549. 11323. 2574. 1.65 0.22 1.65 0.22
4 3 49090. 49090. 8658. 1571. 1.85 0.23 1.85 0.23
5 3 55864. 55864. 9051. 1964. 1.69 0.22 1.69 0.22
6 3 65485. 65485. 9661. 2574. 1.54 0.20 1.54 0.20
7 3 38616. 38616. 7171. 1571. 1.70 0.22 1.70 0.22
!
!
! Element Generation: COLUMNS
! ic Ni Nj dN s e Yi Yj
1 1010 2010 1000 2 0 2 2
2 1020 2020 1000 1 0 1 1
3 1030 2030 1000 1 0 1 1
4 1040 2040 1000 1 0 1 1
5 1050 2050 1000 1 0 1 1
6 1060 2060 1000 1 0 1 1
7 1070 2070 1000 2 0 2 2
!
8 2010 3010 1000 2 0 2 2
9 2020 3020 1000 2 0 3 3
10 2030 3030 1000 1 0 1 1
11 2040 3040 1000 1 0 1 1
12 2050 3050 1000 1 0 1 1
13 2060 3060 1000 2 0 3 3
14 2070 3070 1000 2 0 2 2
!
15 3020 4020 1000 2 0 2 2
16 3030 4030 1000 2 0 3 3
17 3040 4040 1000 1 0 1 1
18 3050 4050 1000 2 0 3 3
19 3060 4060 1000 2 0 2 2
!
20 4020 5020 1000 3 0 5 5
21 4030 5030 1000 2 0 3 3

57
 22 4040 5040 1000 1 0 3 3
23 4050 5050 1000 2 0 3 3
24 4060 5060 1000 3 0 5 5
!
25 5020 6020 1000 3 0 5 5
26 5030 6030 1000 3 0 6 6
27 5040 6040 1000 2 0 3 3
28 5050 6050 1000 3 0 6 6
29 5060 6060 1000 3 0 5 5
!
30 6020 7020 1000 4 0 7 7
31 6030 7030 1000 3 0 4 4
32 6040 7040 1000 3 0 4 4
33 6050 7050 1000 3 0 4 4
34 6060 7060 1000 4 0 7 7
!
!
*ELEMENTGROUP (2: beams)
! Elem
! Type C1 C2 beta group title
2 1 0 0.00421 BEAMS
! Control Information
! Nst Nrz Ny
12 0 7
! Stiffness Types (1-Nst)
! BS Ec k2 Ab Ib kii kjj kij As mu osh
1 1600. 0.010 4820. 1194692. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
2 1600. 0.010 5680. 1278770. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
3 1600. 0.010 5700. 1280526. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
4 1600. 0.010 4620. 1073480. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
5 1600. 0.010 5420. 1141552. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
6 1600. 0.010 4420. 1063941. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
7 1600. 0.010 5380. 1138441. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
8 1600. 0.010 4280. 932386. 4. 4. 2. 1500. 0.15 0.01
9 1600. 0.010 5120. 994885. 4. 4. 2. 1500. 0.15 0.01
10 1600. 0.010 4260. 930732. 4. 4. 2. 1500. 0.15 0.01
11 1600. 0.010 5100. 993529. 4. 4. 2. 1500. 0.15 0.01
12 1600. 0.010 4800. 1192500. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
!
!
! Yield Types (1-Ny)
! iY typ My+ My-
1 1 46000. 27600.
2 1 43000. 25800.
3 1 48000. 28800.
4 1 50000. 30000.
5 1 45000. 27000.
6 1 39000. 23400.
7 1 30500. 18300.
!
! element generation: BEAMS

58
! ib Ni Nj dN s e Yi Yj
1 2010 2020 10 1 0 1 1
2 2020 2030 10 2 0 2 2
3 2030 2040 10 3 0 1 1
4 2040 2050 10 3 0 1 1
5 2050 2060 10 2 0 2 2
6 2060 2070 10 1 0 1 1
!
7 3010 3020 10 12 0 1 1
8 3020 3030 10 1 0 2 2
9 3030 3040 10 2 0 3 3
10 3040 3050 10 2 0 3 3
11 3050 3060 10 1 0 2 2
12 3060 3070 10 12 0 1 1
!
13 4020 4030 10 4 0 4 4
14 4030 4040 10 5 0 4 4
15 4040 4050 10 5 0 4 4
16 4050 4060 10 4 0 4 4
!
17 5020 5030 10 6 0 5 5
18 5030 5040 10 7 0 5 5
19 5040 5050 10 7 0 5 5
20 5050 5060 10 6 0 5 5
!
21 6020 6030 10 8 0 6 6
22 6030 6040 10 9 0 6 6
23 6040 6050 10 9 0 6 6
24 6050 6060 10 8 0 6 6
!
25 7020 7030 10 10 0 7 7
26 7030 7040 10 11 0 7 7
27 7040 7050 10 11 0 7 7
28 7050 7060 10 10 0 7 7
!
*RESULTS
! Nodal Response
! print n1 n2 dn
!NSD 001 3020 3020 0
!NSA 001 2040 7040 1000
! Elem Response: Columns
E 001 1 22 22 0
! Elem Response: Beams
E 001 2 8 8 0
!
*NODALOAD
ALLL Permanent+Variable
! Px Pz M N1 N2 dN
S 0.0 -322.35 0.0 7030 7050 10
S 0.0 -165.70 0.0 7020 7060 40
!

59
S 0.0 -330.73 0.0 6040 6040 0
S 0.0 -328.71 0.0 6030 6050 20
S 0.0 -173.19 0.0 6020 6060 40
!
S 0.0 -339.05 0.0 5040 5040 0
S 0.0 -337.03 0.0 5030 5050 20
S 0.0 -186.61 0.0 5020 5060 40
!
S 0.0 -347.01 0.0 4040 4040 0
S 0.0 -339.05 0.0 4030 4050 20
S 0.0 -188.63 0.0 4020 4060 40
!
S 0.0 -349.81 0.0 3040 3040 0
S 0.0 -347.58 0.0 3030 3050 20
S 0.0 -346.47 0.0 3020 3060 40
S 0.0 -186.05 0.0 3010 3070 60
!
S 0.0 -349.81 0.0 2030 2050 10
S 0.0 -347.58 0.0 2020 2060 40
S 0.0 -195.55 0.0 2010 2070 60
!
*ELEMLOAD
!LoadName................................. Comment
BEAM Beam Load 1#
!Ngroup..N_load_sets
G0002 5
!
! LSN Kc LLRF Pi Vi Mi Pj Vj Mj
1 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15979. 0. 0. 15979.
2 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15829. 0. 0. 15829.
3 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15680. 0. 0. 15680.
4 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15799. 0. 0. 15799.
5 1 1.0 0.0 0. -16098. 0. 0. 16098.
!
!
!1stE: first element in series; 2ndE: second element in series;
! dN: element increment; LSN: load set number; SC scaling factor
!
!1stE 2ndE dN LSN SC
1 6 1 1 1.0
7 7 0 5 1.0
8 11 1 1 1.0
12 12 0 5 1.0
13 20 1 2 1.0
21 24 1 3 1.0
25 28 1 4 1.0
! leave blanc line below

60
APPENDIX B: Input file for FRH-2

! name: use 6 characters

! name exec controls
gvouv2 0101
*NODECOORDS
! node x-ccord z-ccord
C 1010 0. 0.
C 1020 640. 0.
C 1030 1280. 0.
C 1040 1920. 0.
C 1050 2560. 0.
C 1060 3200. 0.
C 1070 3840. 0.
!
C 2010 0. 340.
C 2020 640. 340.
C 2030 1280. 340.
C 2040 1920. 340.
C 2050 2560. 340.
C 2060 3200. 340.
C 2070 3840. 340.
!
C 3010 0. 680.
C 3020 640. 680.
C 3030 1280. 680.
C 3040 1920. 680.
C 3050 2560. 680.
C 3060 3200. 680.
C 3070 3840. 680.
!
C 4030 1280. 1020.
C 4040 1920. 1020.
C 4050 2560. 1020.
!
C 5030 1280. 1360.
C 5040 1920. 1360.
C 5050 2560. 1360.
!
C 6030 1280. 1700.
C 6040 1920. 1700.
C 6050 2560. 1700.
!
C 7030 1280. 2040.
C 7040 1920. 2040.
C 7050 2560. 2040.
!
*RESTRAINTS
! fixed-end supports at foundations
! xzr n1 n2 dn
S 111 1010 1070 10

61
*SLAVING
! xzr master slave1 slave2 dn
S 100 2010 2020 2070 10
S 100 3010 3020 3070 10
S 100 4030 4040 4050 10
S 100 5030 5040 5050 10
S 100 6030 6040 6050 10
S 100 7030 7040 7050 10
!
*MASSES
! nodal masses in kN/(cm/s^2)
! xzr m n1 n2 dn conversion alpha
S 100 0.33065 7040 7040 0 1.0 0.33484
S 100 0.17760 7030 7050 20
!
S 100 0.33877 6040 6040 0
S 100 0.18886 6030 6050 20
!
S 100 0.34104 5040 5040 0
S 100 0.19092 5030 5050 20
!
S 100 0.34974 4040 4040 0
S 100 0.19819 4030 4050 20
!
S 100 0.34974 3040 3040 0
S 100 0.35430 3030 3050 20
S 100 0.34349 3020 3060 40
S 100 0.18964 3010 3070 60
!
S 100 0.34974 2030 2050 10
S 100 0.34746 2020 2060 40
S 100 0.19591 2010 2070 60
!
*ELEMENTGROUP (1: columns)
! Elem
! Type C1 C2 beta group title
2 1 0 0.00421 GROUP 1: COLUMNS
! Control Information
! Nst Nrz Ny
3 0 7
! Stiffness Types (1-Nst); note: number of lines must be equal to Nst (line above).
! CS Ec k2 Ac Ic kii kjj kij As mu osh
1 1600. 0.010 3025. 762552. 4. 4. 2. 2511. 0.15 0.01
2 1600. 0.010 2500. 520833. 4. 4. 2. 2075. 0.15 0.01
3 1600. 0.010 2025. 341719. 4. 4. 2. 1681. 0.15 0.01
! Yield Types (1-Ny); Note: Number of lines must be equal to Ny (see above)
! iY typ My+ My- Pyc Pyt rM+ rPc+ rM- rPc-
1 3 50750. 50750. 12551. 1964. 1.93 0.24 1.93 0.24
2 3 65514. 65514. 13161. 1574. 1.77 0.22 1.77 0.22
3 3 48549. 48549. 11323. 2574. 1.65 0.22 1.65 0.22
4 3 60623. 60623. 11966. 3217. 1.53 0.20 1.53 0.20

62
 5 3 37661. 37661. 10714. 1964. 1.83 0.23 1.83 0.23
6 3 33036. 33036. 9051. 1964. 1.69 0.22 1.69 0.22
7 3 42292. 42292. 12551. 1964. 1.93 0.24 1.93 0.24
!
! Element Generation: COLUMNS
! ic Ni Nj dN s e Yi Yj
1 1010 2010 1000 2 0 3 3
2 1020 2020 1000 1 0 1 1
3 1030 2030 1000 1 0 1 1
4 1040 2040 1000 1 0 1 1
5 1050 2050 1000 1 0 1 1
6 1060 2060 1000 1 0 1 1
7 1070 2070 1000 2 0 3 3
!
8 2010 3010 1000 2 0 3 3
9 2020 3020 1000 2 0 3 3
10 2030 3030 1000 1 0 1 1
11 2040 3040 1000 1 0 1 1
12 2050 3050 1000 1 0 1 1
13 2060 3060 1000 2 0 3 3
14 2070 3070 1000 2 0 3 3
!
15 3030 4030 1000 1 0 7 7
16 3040 4040 1000 1 0 2 2
17 3050 4050 1000 1 0 7 7
!
18 4030 5030 1000 2 0 3 3
19 4040 5040 1000 1 0 2 2
20 4050 5050 1000 2 0 3 3
!
21 5030 6030 1000 2 0 5 5
22 5040 6040 1000 2 0 4 4
23 5050 6050 1000 2 0 5 5
!
24 6030 7030 1000 3 0 6 6
25 6040 7040 1000 2 0 5 5
26 6050 7050 1000 3 0 6 6
!
*ELEMENTGROUP (2: beams)
! Elem
! Type C1 C2 beta group title
2 1 0 0.00421 BEAMS
! Control Information
! Nst Nrz Ny
9 0 7
! Stiffness Types (1-Nst)
! BS Ec k2 Ab Ib kii kjj kij As mu osh
1 1600. 0.010 4820. 1194692. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
2 1600. 0.010 5680. 1278770. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
3 1600. 0.010 5700. 1280526. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
4 1600. 0.010 4880. 1201191. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01

63
 5 1600. 0.010 4640. 1075356. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
6 1600. 0.010 4580. 1069697. 4. 4. 2. 1800. 0.15 0.01
7 1600. 0.010 4360. 938911. 4. 4. 2. 1500. 0.15 0.01
8 1600. 0.010 4800. 1192500. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
9 1600. 0.010 5660. 1277006. 4. 4. 2. 2100. 0.15 0.01
!
! Yield Types (1-Ny)
! iY typ My+ My-
1 1 41000. 24600.
2 1 45000. 27000.
3 1 60000. 36000.
4 1 55000. 33000.
5 1 48000. 28800.
6 1 36000. 21600.
7 1 31000. 18600.
!
! element generation: BEAMS
! ib Ni Nj dN s e Yi Yj
1 2010 2020 10 1 0 1 1
2 2020 2030 10 2 0 1 1
3 2030 2040 10 3 0 1 1
4 2040 2050 10 3 0 1 1
5 2050 2060 10 2 0 1 1
6 2060 2070 10 1 0 1 1
!
7 3010 3020 10 8 0 7 7
8 3020 3030 10 9 0 1 1
9 3030 3040 10 3 0 2 2
10 3040 3050 10 3 0 2 2
11 3050 3060 10 9 0 1 1
12 3060 3070 10 8 0 7 7
!
13 4030 4040 10 4 0 3 3
14 4040 4050 10 4 0 3 3
!
15 5030 5040 10 5 0 4 4
16 5040 5050 10 5 0 4 4
!
17 6030 6040 10 6 0 5 5
18 6040 6050 10 6 0 5 5
!
19 7030 7040 10 7 0 6 6
20 7040 7050 10 7 0 6 6
!
*RESULTS
! Nodal Response
! print n1 n2 dn
!NSD 001 4040 4040 0
!NSA 001 2030 7030 1000
! Elem Response: Columns
E 001 1 15 26 1

64
! Elem Response: Beams
!E 001 2 15 15 0
!
*NODALOAD
ALLL Permanent+Variable
! Px Pz M N1 N2 dN
S 0.0 -324.37 0.0 7040 7040 0
S 0.0 -174.23 0.0 7030 7050 20
!
S 0.0 -339.05 0.0 6040 6040 0
S 0.0 -188.63 0.0 6030 6050 20
!
S 0.0 -341.28 0.0 5040 5040 0
S 0.0 -190.65 0.0 5030 5050 20
!
S 0.0 -349.81 0.0 4040 4040 0
S 0.0 -197.78 0.0 4030 4050 20
!
S 0.0 -349.81 0.0 3040 3040 0
S 0.0 -350.93 0.0 3030 3050 20
S 0.0 -336.97 0.0 3020 3060 40
S 0.0 -186.05 0.0 3010 3070 60
!
S 0.0 -349.81 0.0 2030 2050 10
S 0.0 -347.58 0.0 2020 2060 40
S 0.0 -195.55 0.0 2010 2070 60
!
*ELEMLOAD
!LoadName................................. Comment
BEAM Beam Load 1#
!Ngroup..N_load_sets
G0002 4
!
! LSN Kc LLRF Pi Vi Mi Pj Vj Mj
1 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15979. 0. 0. 15979.
2 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15829. 0. 0. 15829.
3 1 1.0 0.0 0. -15799. 0. 0. 15799.
4 1 1.0 0.0 0. -16098. 0. 0. 16098.
!
!1stE: first element in series; 2ndE: second element in series;
! dN: element increment; LSN: load set number; SC scaling factor
!
!1stE 2ndE dN LSN SC
1 6 1 1 1.0
7 8 1 4 1.0
9 10 1 1 1.0
11 12 1 4 1.0
13 14 1 1 1.0
15 18 1 2 1.0
19 20 1 3 1.0
! leave blanc line below

65
APPENDIX C – Loading calculation sheet of FRH-1

66
67
APPENDIX D - Loading calculation sheet of FRH-2

68
69
APPENDIX E – Calculation sheet for ULS design of members of FRH-1

70
71
APPENDIX F - Calculation sheet for ULS design of members of FRH-2

72
73