Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUMMARY
For a multitude of economic and societal considerations, high rise structures are on the increase. This in turn
promotes the use of high strength materials to reduce column size and construction times. Whereas design
guidance and engineering understanding of high strength RC structures under static loading is well-developed,
little work has been undertaken on the economics of whole buildings and their performance under earthquake
loading. In this paper, 10 buildings of 24 stories are designed and detailed according to modern seismic codes. The
buildings are all nominally equivalent, using a stiffness equivalence criterion and its derivatives. The cost of
construction is compared in terms of steel, concrete and formwork. The static inelastic response of the buildings is
also assessed, followed by a full nonlinear dynamic analysis of all buildings using three earthquake records at the
design acceleration and twice the design value. Comprehensive assessment of the static and dynamic results is
undertaken. It is concluded that the cost increase is mainly due to the steel, whilst significant member reductions
may be availed of by using high strength concrete. The behaviour of high strength concrete structures is not
inferior to that of normal strength materials. Indeed, it is observed that lower levels of overstrength can be
achieved in high strength materials than in their normal strength counterparts, mainly due to the over-
reinforcement of the latter to resist vertical forces. Recommendations on the use of equivalent cracked stiffness for
period calculation in design, and also effective periods for use in displacement-based design, are given. Copyright
1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. High rise buildings
The increasing reliance of employment on financial services is one of the reasons that lead to
increasing rural-to-urban migration which in turn lead to increased demand on land use in large cities.
Whereas in 1950 there were only 7 urban areas in the world with more than 5 million inhabitants, this
number rose to 34 in 1980 and is expected to rise further to 60 by the year 2000.1 Consequently, more
high rise structures are being constructed now than a decade or two ago. A secondary stimulus for
construction of high rise buildings is that of an engineering challenge, whereby the two targets of
boasting the longest bridge and the highest building have become serious considerations in the
conceptual design of landmark projects. Examples of such projects are the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge
linking Kobe City to Awaji Island (length 3910 m) and the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur (height
450 m). The historical development of building height is shown in Figure 1.
The need for higher buildings naturally leads to the conclusion that high strength construction
materials will be increasingly used in the future, in order to keep column sizes at manageable
* Correspondence to: Professor Amr. S. Elnashai, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College,
Imperial College Road, London, SW7 2BU, U.K.
dimensions and to make more effective use of floor areas, especially in the lower storeys of high rise
structures. Two other performance criteria lend weight to the argument for the use of high strength
concrete (HSC). Increased wind and traffic vibration susceptibility dictates that the modulus of
elasticity of the material should be as high as possible in order to limit small amplitude elastic
displacements. Moreover, the need for rapid construction requires early age strength gain, a feature
that may be offered readily by high strength concrete. The combined effect of the three above-
mentioned requirements renders high strength concrete economics rather appealing.
Modern seismic design codes require the designer to identify sources of energy absorption and
quantify their energy absorption capacity in a response range through which no collapse will occur.
Therefore, the fact that new construction materials may offer higher strength to the designer than
conventional ones should not be a comforting thought. It is their deformation characteristics that
should be carefully studied from an earthquake resistance viewpoint. Indeed, there is a real danger that
static concepts, where additional strength implies additional safety, would lead to an unquantifiable
increase in seismic risk for high rise buildings. The only means of controlling this risk is the
development of comprehensive seismic design guidance for high strength materials to at least mirror
the state of development of codes for conventional materials.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 173
40 MPa is considered high strength. However, in regions where 60 MPa concrete is used extensively,
strengths of around 80 to 140 MPa are considered high strength.2
An outstanding example of highly developed city centres resorting to high rise structures, using high
strength materials, is Chicago, Illinois, where the development of the use of high strength concrete
followed the trend indicated in Table I.
There are several outstanding examples of high rise buildings using high strength materials around
the world, both existing and under construction, or under consideration. In Seattle, Washington, the
Pacific First Centre (44 stories) and the Two Union Square (62 stories) employ concrete with
compressive strength of 115 MPa, mainly used for its high modulus of elasticity of 50 000 MPa. These
are extreme examples, and more commonly used high strength concrete mixes are represented by the
Two Prudential Plaza (281 m) and 311 South Wacker Drive (295 m), which use a mix with
compressive strength of 83 MPa. Another structure is under considerationthe Miglin-Beiter building
with a height of 610 m and concrete of 97 MPa compressive strength. Outside the U.S.A., the Petronas
Towers (450 m) employ concrete of compressive strength 80 MPa for the lower stories, whilst the BfG
building in Frankfurt (186 m) goes up to 85 MPa.
Development of high yield steel for general construction lagged behind that of concrete. Only in the
early 1990s has high yield steel been widely available mainly from Japanese steel manufacturers, with
yield strengths above 1000 MPa being tested and used.5 This has had an effect on high strength
materials construction economics, because the decrease in column dimensions would lead to an
increase in required steel area unless high yield steel is used.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
174 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
characteristics of the two materials are in stark contrast. This may be a consequence of the much-
reduced internal micro-cracking for high strength concrete, due to the similarity of the deformation
characteristics of the matrix and the aggregates. Indeed, the onset of unstable fracture propagation,
used to explain ordinary concrete response at high stress and the sudden increase in Poisson ratio, is
not noticeable for high strength concrete. In the transverse direction, the strain ratio is, from Figure 2,
nearly unity, contrasting with the stress ratio of 24 mentioned before. The implications for seismic
performance are rather grim. The material does not dilate appreciably, hence confinement is not
mobilized until a later stage in the stress history, and the loss in strength is sudden. It is therefore
possible that, all section characteristics being equivalent, an HSC section will have a lower curvature
ductility than the normal strength counterpart. However, there are doubts about this, arising from two
additional features of high strength concrete behaviour. Firstly, the level of axial stress on an HSC
member is significantly higher than in normal strength concrete. Hence, even if the dilation ratio is
less, the absolute value of lateral strain may be comparable. Secondly, stressstrain relationships for
high strength confined concrete are still under development, and the effectiveness of confining steel is
still very much debatable.
For under-reinforced members, the first clear departure from linearity of the momentcurvature plot
is close to the yield of tensile steel. Therefore, steel stressstrain behaviour is central to the evaluation
of ductility capacities. Most existing high yield steel reinforcing bars have no distinct yield point, as
shown in Figure 3. Also, in most cases, the ratio between ultimate and yield stress (stress ratio), for an
implied yield point of HYS, is lower for the latter than for conventional bars.
There are two implications of the above observations from a seismic design point of view. Firstly,
allocating a yield value to HSC/HYS sections is even more arbitrary than for conventional materials.
Secondly, as a consequence of the low stress ratio, plastic hinge lengths for high strength materials will
tend to be shorter than otherwise, thus deflection ductility will be lower for the same level of curvature
ductility. This conclusion is in contrast to several experimental studies in which it was reported that
HSC/HYS members can achieve ductility values comparable to conventional reinforced concrete (e.g.
Morita and Shiohara,5 Razvi and Saatcioglu7). In the latter studies, the conclusion was based on tests
of members under axial loads, or eccentric loads. Whilst such studies are valuable, they are not strictly
applicable to the earthquake response of buildings, where the axial load on columns does not
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 175
necessarily increase in sympathy with the transverse load. Hence, only tests on members subjected to
constant axial load and increased, and varying, transverse displacement-controlled loading furnish
conclusions relevant to seismic design. Therefore, in the authors opinion, adequate ductility of high
strength materials, comparable to conventional ones, is by no means a settled issue, mainly because of
the role played by the extent of the plastic hinge (localization of inelastic deformations).
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
176 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
strain limit of 0003 is still applicable. Likewise, the equation for minimum steel ratio as given in the
1995 edition of the ACI building code already accounts for the increased tensile strength of higher
strength concrete and can be used without modification.
In the calculation of deflection, changes are needed in the expressions for modulus of elasticity. As
explained earlier, the code expression overestimates the modulus of elasticity for concrete strengths
exceeding 40 MPa. The procedure for calculation of long term deflections also needs modification.
This is to allow for the inclusion of the lower creep coefficient and diminished effectiveness of
compression reinforcement in high strength concrete beams.
Whereas several research projects have been concerned with the experimental behaviour of
reinforced concrete members with high strength concrete and high yield steel, very few have applied
loading and boundary conditions relevant to earthquake response. Furthermore, none of the previous
projects addressed the range of concrete compressive strength, longitudinal steel yield stress,
transverse steel yield stress and confining steel spacing comprehensively. It is, though, noted that such
early studies were most valuable in establishing trends and alerting designers to serious issues which
may affect seismic safety. In Table II, the ranges covered by tests conducted by various researchers are
presented. The light shading indicates testing under axial force only (including eccentric loading),
whilst the darker shade indicates combined axial-flexural loads. Blank areas were not previously
tested.
fy (MPa)
fc (MPa) 300500 500700 700900 9001100 >1100
6080 a,c,d,f,l,m, d d m
80100 c,k,l,r k,p k
100120 b,c,d,j,q,r b,d,p d
>120 b,r b
fy (MPa)
fc (MPa) 300500 500700 700900 9001100 >1100
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 177
500 35
50
500 785 50
70
1300 50
70
500 35
50
685 785 50
70
1300 50
70
500 35
50
70 100 130 785 785 50
70
1300 50
70
500 35
50
900 785 50
70
1300 50
70
500 35
50
1300 785 50
70
1300 50
70
With regard to confining steel characteristics and spacing tested, as identified from the published
literature, these are indicated in Table III.
It is clear from the above that there are considerable gaps in testing results of relevance to seismic
response, which requires attention prior to attempting to derive comprehensive design guidance. This
is further emphasized by the observation that some of the above tests were conducted under eccentric
axial load to represent combined axialflexural testing. Notwithstanding other objectives that the
researchers may have had in mind, this type of testing is considered by the authors to be not strictly
relevant for seismic assessment purposes. There are several behavioural considerations supporting the
latter statement, amongst which is that levels of axial load at maximum moment are so high that the
mobilized confining stresses are rather unrealistic and unrepresentative of the seismic response of
structures. A comprehensive testing programme on beamcolumn members was recently completed at
Imperial College (Elnashai et al.,26 Goodfellow27), with the range of test parameters summarized in
Table IV.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
178 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Tests on 92 members with concrete strength varying between 60 and 130 MPa, steel yield strength
between 500 and 1300 MPa with two stirrup spacing and two axial load levels under cyclic and
monotonic transverse loading have been completed. The results are still being processed. However,
one of the early interesting observations is that, in contrast to most of the observations in the literature,
hoops are rather lightly stressed and therefore there is no justification for the use of high yield steel as
confining reinforcement.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 179
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
180 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
As a means of obtaining a set of realistic equivalent structures using different grades of concrete,
the equivalent stiffness criterion is suggested herein.
1=4
E0
b1 b0 1
E1
1=4
E0
h1 h0 2
E1
where
b0, h0, E0 are the width, height and modulus of elasticity of the original section,
b1, h1, E1 are the width, height and modulus of elasticity of the equivalent section.
Preliminary analysis and design of the framewall structure (configuration described in Section 31
below) has shown that most of the main lateral force resisting elements of the higher strength concrete
structures have minimum reinforcement. On the other hand, the structure designed with normal
strength concrete has many elements that are quite heavily reinforced. Indeed, strength governed the
design of the normal strength structure. From practical design considerations, further reduction in the
size of sections in high strength concrete structures is still possible, as long as code drift requirements
are satisfied. This is explained further below.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 181
sections for high strength concrete structures. This criterion involves reducing the stiffness of the
members proportionally until the limiting drift of 002/R w is reached. This entails an iterative process
of reducing the size of the members, applying the appropriate loads and then analysing the structure
until the drift limit is reached. A drift of 002/R w is the code limit beyond which P-delta effects are
deemed to be significant.
The underlying hypothesis of this criterion is that serviceability considerations rather than strength
will govern the design of high strength high rise concrete structures. Indeed, it was noted by Ghosh and
Saatcioglu6 that it is quite common for a structural engineer to consider and specify high strength
concrete for its stiffness rather than for its strength.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
182 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Table VI. Member sizes based on the equivalent stiffness criterion (mm)
Table VII. Member sizes based on the reduced stiffness criterion (mm)
columns and shear wall change every eight storeys. The concrete strength and modulus of elasticity for
the different model structures is given in Table V.
The member sizes of the basic model structure fc0 = 35 MPa) and the corresponding equivalent high
strength concrete structures based on the equivalent stiffness criterion are given in Table VI. It should
be noted that the criterion was applied consistently to all the sections used in the building. The length
of the shear wall also changes because the criterion maintains a constant width-to-depth (b/h) ratio.
Indeed, if the length of the wall is held constant, the section that will give an equivalent stiffness will
have a width that is smaller than the practical minimum dimension of about 300 mm.
Further reduction in member size is attained using the reduced stiffness criterion. Table VII shows
the member sizes for these structures. A slight deviation from the constant width-to-length ratio of the
shear wall is allowed here to be able to maintain a realistic minimum wall thickness of 300 mm. The
reference code of the structures obtained using the reduced stiffness criterion is suffixed with an R.
Another scenario that is considered here is the possibility of using only one grade of steel throughout
a structure. This might be a consideration in cases where ease of construction is important. This
minimizes confusion due to the use of different steel grades for reinforcing bars of the same size on
site. To this end, a subset of structure, with the same dimension and reinforcing steel as the three model
structures with reduced stiffness, is included for inelastic analysis using one grade of steel (highest
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 183
fy (MPa)
Model f'c (MPa) Beams Columns Shear Wall Hoops Remarks
steel grade in the particular structure) throughout. The reference code of these structures is suffixed
with an RS.
U 14DL 17LL 3
U 14DL LL EQ 4
U 09DL EQ 5
The program SAP9038 was used to perform the 2D elastic analysis of the different structures. SAP90
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
184 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
is a general structural analysis program evolved from the SAP series of programs developed at the
University of California, Berkeley. Based on the results of the analysis, detailed design was performed
using spreadsheet programming.
. The total base shear to which the dynamic lateral forces is scaled to about 3% of the total weight.
This is the code minimum base shear.
. P-delta effects need not be considered because the drift is below the 002/R w limit set by the code.
. The choice of the grade of steel with the different grades of high strength concrete was validated
by the results of the design. Most of the beams are within the steel ratio limit set by the code.
. The strong-column weak-beam provision of the code did not govern the design of the columns
because all the columns are part of exterior joints, hence the capacity of two columns combined is
compared with a single beam.
. Consistent with the preliminary analysis, the columns and shear wall of the high strength concrete
model structures have minimal reinforcement. The increase in concrete strength has more than
compensated for the decrease in section size.
. The shear stress level in the columns and shear wall is relatively low. The design of the sections at
the lower levels was governed by axial load.
. In the design of the shear wall for model structure N35 (normal strength concrete), the amount of
steel required was governed by the requirement to limit the axial stress. This resulted in heavy
steel reinforcement in the shear wall of the lower half of the structure.
. As the strength of concrete increases, the amount of confinement steel required in the shear wall
boundary elements increases substantially. The UBC equation for confinement is a function of the
size of the boundary element, the strength of concrete and the yield strength of steel. In many
instances, the number of vertical bars in the boundary element was governed by the need to use
more confining ties.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 185
different grade of concrete in the floor system on the column strength. For buildings built in high
seismic hazard regions, this practice of using different grades of material for the columns and the floor
system can be a source of potential problems. In addition to the likelihood of confusion during
construction, the effect of having different materials around the beamcolumn joint might have
adverse consequences on its seismic performance. Further research on this should be undertaken to
confirm the acceptability of this practice.
From the point of view of the cost of raw materials, the use of high strength concrete in beams and
slabs might not be as effective as for columns. The primary advantage of having high strength concrete
beams is the savings in dead load due to reduced section dimension.21 However, Schmidt and
Hoffman32 pointed out that the additional reinforcement required might offset the savings achieved
from reducing the section sizes. However, the indirect benefits of having a shallower beam section can
be quite significant. For a specified headroom, a shallower beam results in a lower storey height. This
translates into savings in the amount of concrete due to reduction in the overall height of the building.
In addition, the amount of exterior cladding required, which is usually a large portion of the total cost
of a building, is reduced. Lower storey height can also yield savings from the reduced area of finishes
required and the shorter runs of utility lines and HVAC ducts.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
186 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
especially difficult to determine since the concrete suppliers surveyed were reluctant to give price
information without prior knowledge of project requirements.
The price of the materials used in this cost analysis were based on sources from different
geographical locations. This limitation should be taken into consideration when interpreting the
results. The unit cost of the high strength concrete were taken from the literature4 and updated using
the US Bureau of Labour Statistics producers price index for concrete. The cost of high yield steel
was based on the prevailing prices of commercially available grades in Japan (M. Iwata, private
communication). For the formwork and normal grade of steel and concrete, unit costs were based on
the prices in the CESMM3 Price Database41 and adjusted for inflation. However, since the volumes of
the separate ingredients are given above, the total cost comparison can be readily updated.
The unit cost of the different materials is tabulated in Table X. All the prices are in-place unit costs.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 187
The cost of labour and plant/equipment time are included in the prices. For the reinforcing bars and
formwork, an extra component that accounts for material wastage is included in the price. The rental
cost for the shoring equipment is included in the cost of the formwork.
It is noteworthy that the price of high yield steel is double that of grade 415 steel, while the cost of
the 80 Mpa high strength concrete is only about 18% more than 35 MPa concrete.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
188 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Table XI. Total cost of the structures and percentage savings relative to N35
Cost in US$
Rebars
Savings*
Model Concrete Formwork Gr.415 Gr.600 Gr.700 Gr.800 Total (%)
* Savings are relative to the cost of N35 (-ve means higher cost).
formwork remains relatively stable. The cost of the steel reinforcement is almost the same for all the
high strength concrete structures and is substantially less than that for the normal strength concrete
structure. The group designed using the reduced stiffness criterion seems to be the most economical.
The cost of concrete components increases with increasing concrete strength but is generally less than
that for normal strength concrete structures. The cost of formwork, as in the previous group, remains
approximately the same, while the cost of the steel component shows a slight increase with increasing
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 189
Table XII. Percentage savings relative to N35 with reduced HYS prices
Model N35 N80 N100 N120 N80R N100R N120R N80RS N100RS N120RS
Savings (%) 000 808 535 099 1770 1299 657 1185 622 114
concrete strength. Structures using only one grade of steel appear to be the least economically viable.
This is not surprising considering the large difference in cost between normal and high yield steel. As
steel technology improves and demand increases, reduction in the price of high yield steel is expected.
Table XII shows the relative savings that can be attained with the use of high strength concrete, if the
cost of high yield steel is reduced by 30%. These figures contrast with those shown in Table XI.
At this cost level, it is noticeable that even the structures using only one grade of steel become
economically feasible. Moreover, the use of high strength concrete at this price level can result in
substantial savings. This suggests that the cost effectiveness of a high strength structure depends to a
large extent on the cost component attributable to the steel reinforcement.
Contrary to conclusions of Schmidt and Hoffman32 for high strength concrete columns, it appears
that the optimum concrete strength is not necessarily the highest strength available. The concrete
strength that will give the most cost-effective structure is the one that can allow for the largest
reduction in the cost of the steel component, while having the least increase in the cost of the concrete
component. The optimum concrete strength depends on the relative cost of the different grades of
concrete and steel.
The results of this cost analysis also serve to show that substantial cost savings can still be attained,
even with the use of high strength concrete in the beams and slabs where they are less effective. The
key to having an economical high strength concrete structure is the proper choice of the concrete and
steel combination to use.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
190 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
for soil class B (firm soil) of the Eurocode 8, which is distinct to the soil class assumed in the design.
The difference is higher amplification in the long period range, hence the records are conservative.
The static pushover analysis involves subjecting a structure to a proportionally increasing lateral
load, until the ultimate limit state of the structure is reached, while controlling the top displacement. In
this study, the response of the structures at the yield and ultimate limit state is investigated. There are a
number of proposals for the definition of the yield limit state (YLS). The yield point of the structure
defined based on an equivalent elasto-plastic system with reduced stiffness, evaluated as a secant
through 75% of the maximum, is adapted for this study. This definition is graphically illustrated in
Figure 9. On the other hand, the ultimate limit state (ULS) is based on a global criterion of the
attainment of 3% interstorey drift. At this level of drift, it is generally accepted that structures would
have suffered major structural and non-structural damage. Further refinement of the limit states is not
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 191
Model N35 N80 N100 N120 N80R N100R N120R N80RS N100RS N120RS
Dy 644 398 405 417 636 768 896 649 791 938
Du 1880 2100 2100 2120 2140 2080 2120 2120 2060 2120
necessary since the primary objective is to compare the different structures. Table XIII summarizes the
yield and ultimate displacement for all buildings.
The displacement defining the ULS averages about 2100 mm. This is equivalent to 27% of the total
height of the building. Figure 10 shows the forcedisplacement curve for the normal strength and the
equivalent stiffness structures. It is noticeable that the initial stiffness of the structures is the same. This
feature is also exhibited in the reduced stiffness structure, thus validating the equivalence criteria used.
This also confirms that imposing equivalent stiffnesses at the member level will give a structure with
the same overall stiffness.
Plastic hinging, as referred to in this study, is defined as having a strain at the outermost layer of
steel reinforcement exceeding the yield strain of the material. A typical hinging pattern of an HSC
structure at the ULS is shown in Figure 11. Analysis of the plastic hinge formation under a static load
has shown that inelasticity develops mostly in the beams of the structures. This is in good agreement
with the code principle of having energy dissipation concentrated in the beam. For this type of loading,
the columns appear to be well protected from hinging. This is consistent with the code strong-column
weak-beam principle.
The level of overstrength is defined here as the ratio of the capacity of the structure, based on the
static pushover analysis, to the code-defined design base shear. The calculated overstrength for the
different structures is given in Table XIV.
All of the structures, except N35, have overstrengths in the range of 4 to 5. The higher level of
overstrength in the normal strength structure is attributable to the large amounts of steel reinforcement
in the lower storey shear walls, which were provided to resist the axial force. This steel provides
considerable flexural resistance under transverse load.
Figure 10. Forcedisplacement curve for N35, N80, N100 and N120
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
192 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Figure 11. Typical plastic hinge formation of HSC at ULS under static loading
Model N35 N80 N100 N120 N80R N100R N120R N80RS N100RS N120RS
Over-strength 629 451 447 442 420 467 493 425 477 510
For each of the ten structures, dynamic analysis was performed with three artificial records scaled to
the design ground acceleration (PGA) and twice the design PGA, corresponding to 04 and 08g,
respectively. As a measure of global response characteristics, the displacement and total base shear
time-history and the interstorey drift ratio from the analyses are examined. For the purposes of
discussion, N80, N100 and N120 constitute group E (based on the equivalent stiffness criterion),
N80R, N100R and N120R group R (based on the reduced stiffness criterion) and N80RS, N100RS and
N120RS group RS (based on the reduced stiffness criterion with one steel grade only).
It was observed that for buildings in the same group and subjected to the same input motion, the
shape of the displacement and base shear time-history was similar. This suggests that structures in the
same group responded in a fairly similar manner, confirming the effectiveness of the criteria developed
for generating the structures. To illustrate the point, the top displacement and base shear time-history
of the R structures is shown in Figure 12. A summary of the maximum top displacement of the
different structures is given in Table XV.
The maximum top displacement of the structures within the same group shows a slight increase as
the concrete strength increases. This is consistent with the loaddisplacement curves generated under
static loading. The higher strength concrete experiences slightly more softening beyond a certain strain
in the initial ascending branch of the curve. This is partially attributable to the cracking of the concrete
cover. The size of the cover is constant in all the structures, but the sizes of the members decrease with
increasing concrete strength. The ratio of the cover to the total depth of the structural member is
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 193
Figure 12. Displacement and base shear time history of R-structures subjected to EC8-108g
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
194 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
therefore larger in the higher strength concrete structures. In all instances, the maximum top
displacement of structures in the R and RS groups is greater than that for structures of the same
concrete strengths in group E. This is expected because of the higher overall stiffness of the structures
in group E. The top displacement of the normal strength concrete structure N35 is comparable with the
maximum values for the structures in group E.
The interstorey drift ratio is the basis for the global failure criterion defined earlier. A sample of the
plot of distribution of maximum drift ratio along the height of the structure is shown in Figure XIII.
It is observed that the maximum drift ratio generally increases with height. It is important to note
that the maximum drift ratio at all floor levels does not necessarily occur at the same instant; as such,
Figure 13. Distribution of maximum drift ratio along a typical HSC structure
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 195
the graph shown is not a profile of the displaced shape of the structure. The largest absolute value of the
maximum drift ratio that occurred along the height of the different structures is given in Table XVI.
It is noted from Table XVI that the use of different input motion yields a slightly different maximum
storey drift ratio. At a PGA of 08g, all the structures are still within the limiting drift ratio of 3%. It is
observed that although N35 has a higher level of overstrength, based on static pushover analysis, its
maximum drift ratio similar to that of the structures in group E is already near the 3% limit. This
indicates that higher mode response has a significant effect.
The plastic hinges formed in the different structures show that the number of column hinges
generally increases with increasing concrete strength. This is attributable to the higher strain levels in
the steel due to the increase in strength and modulus of elasticity of the concrete used. Although the
strong-column weak-beam provision of the code was satisfied in the design, the 120 MPa concrete
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
196 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
structures in group R show substantially more hinging in the columns (Figure 14). The use of high
yield steel in the beams and normal grade steel in the columns of the R structures has an adverse effect
in terms of an increased number of column hinges. The structures in group RS, which used high yield
steel in the columns, had a few column hinges even at high levels of loading. On the other hand, the
spread of inelasticity in the shear wall is unaffected by the change in concrete strength. The use of
normal grade steel with high strength concrete does not cause any undesirable consequences in the
wall. For the beams, at twice the design PGA, yielding has occurred in almost all cases. This is
expected and desirable at this level of loading.
Difference in the characteristics of the input motion did not have an evident effect on the location of
plastic hinges in the structures. However, this does not give a conclusive indication that the local
response was not affected by the characteristics of the record. To verify probable local effects, the
curvature ductility demand of a number of beams at different locations in the structure was calculated.
There are various definitions of yield curvature, such as that of Paulay and Priestley,45 the yield
curvature to be 133 times the curvature at first yield. In the absence of a more rigorous analysis, this
definition was adopted for this study. The maximum curvature ductility demand in the beams of the
structure divided according to the criterion used in generating the structure are shown in Table XVII.
It is interesting to note that the maximum curvature ductility demand occurred in the normal
strength concrete structure and the equivalent stiffness HSC structures. The ductility demand at a PGA
of 08g is already on the high side, but is within the achievable ductility capacity of properly designed
and detailed members. For the R and RS structures, the ductility demand is significantly less compared
with those of group E. This is partially due to the definition of the yield curvature. Since the R and RS
group structures use high yield steel in the beams, the strain that defined yield is much higher
compared with normal strength steel, hence a higher yield curvature and consequently a lower ductility
demand was observed.
Examination of the calculated ductility demand in the beams did not show any particular trend or
pattern, except for the consistently large difference in values mentioned above between E structures
and R and RS structures. The maximum values given in Table XVII did not occur at the same point nor
at the same instant. However, it is noticeable that many of the larger values occurred in the upper third
portion of the structure (higher mode effects). The variation in ductility demand, using different input
motion, is large. This indicates that in terms of local response the choice of input motion does have a
significant effect.
Behaviour factor (also termed response modification factor) is an important parameter in force-
based seismic design. It may be viewed as a global measure of force reduction due to inelastic effects.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 197
Table XVIII. Calculated collapse PGA, yield PGA and behaviour factor
ac (g) ay (g) q
Model EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
N35 0841 0950 0902 0150 0150 0150 561 633 601
N80 0870 0982 0871 0107 0107 0107 813 918 814
N100 0868 0954 0847 0106 0106 0106 819 900 799
N120 0893 0970 0869 0105 0105 0105 850 924 828
N80R 0934 0864 0980 0100 0100 0100 934 864 980
N100R 0958 0911 0898 0111 0111 0111 863 821 809
N120R 0984 0939 0876 0117 0117 0117 841 803 749
N80RS 0963 0901 0980 0101 0101 0101 953 892 970
N100RS 0959 0918 0869 0114 0114 0114 841 805 762
N120RS 0997 0958 0853 0121 0121 0121 824 792 705
It may be estimated analytically from the equation (e.g. Elnashai and Broderick,46 amongst others)
ac
q 6
ay
where
ac is the peak ground acceleration at collapse
ay is the peak ground acceleration at yield
For each structure, determining the intensity of the ground motion at yield and collapse involves a
number of inelastic analyses. This requires a considerable amount of computational time and effort.
Based on the analysis with the records scaled to 08g, it is noticeable that at this acceleration level most
of the structures are already near the global ultimate limit state. Subsequent analysis has shown that
calculating the collapse acceleration using direct proportionality gives reasonably close values
compared with those obtained from repetitive analyses. On the other hand, the yield acceleration can
be defined using the design loads with due consideration to the available overstrength as follows:
ad OS
ay 7
R w 14
where
ad is the design peak ground acceleration
R w is the behaviour factor used in the design
OS is the calculated overstrength based on static pushover analysis
The coefficient 14 in the denominator accounts for the load factor on the design base shear in UBC.
The calculated overstrength shown in Table XIV is based on the unfactored design base shear. The
values of the calculated peak ground acceleration at yield and at collapse using the three different input
motion is given in Table XVIII.
In assessing the results given in Table XVIII, it should be noted that behaviour factors determined
analytically are highly dependent on the definition of the yield and ultimate criteria and the choice of
the input motion used in the analysis. For the purposes of this study, these calculated values are used as
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
198 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
a comparative parameter to give some insight into the relative energy dissipation and redistribution
capacity of the different structures.
Of all the structures considered, the normal strength structure has the lowest behaviour factor. This
is attributable to its having a much larger level of overstrength compared with the other structures. The
extra steel reinforcement provided for gravity loading in the normal strength concrete has apparently
affected its energy dissipation capacity. Its yield acceleration is much greater than that of the other
structures, while the collapse acceleration is similar to that of others. The degree of overstrength in a
structure affects the yield acceleration more than the collapse acceleration. The behaviour factor for
the structures in group E is almost constant. On the other hand, the behaviour factor generally
decreases with increasing concrete strength for both R and RS structures (with very few exceptions).
Comparison of the calculated behaviour factors suggest that in terms of structural ability to respond in
the inelastic range, 80 MPa concrete is the most effective for the given structural configuration.
Figure 15. Fourier amplitude spectra for N35 with EC8-1: (a) 04g; (b) 08g
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 199
04g 08g
Model Mode EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3 EC8-1 EC8-2 EC8-3
modes of vibration. The inelastic periods corresponding to the fundamental and second mode of
vibration, for all the different structures, are indicated in Table XIX.
The inelastic periods of the structures within the same group are almost the same. As expected, the
structures in the R and RS groups have slightly longer periods. Variation of the inelastic period due to
the difference in input motion are as much as 30%. To compare the inelastic with the design periods,
the first and second mode periods obtained from the SAP90 analysis are given in Table XX.
It should be noted that in the SAP90 analysis (eigenvalue analysis), the stiffness of the members was
calculated based on 50% of the gross section stiffness. Interestingly, the periods are in good agreement
with the inelastic periods at a design PGA of 04g. This partially validates the code recommendation of
using a percentage of the gross section stiffness in determining the design period of the structure. It
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
200 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
Table XXI. Ratio of the second mode to the first mode spectral amplitude
appears that it is possible to determine the inelastic periods of the structure by means of a much simpler
eigenvalue analysis, using appropriate member section stiffness. Further parametric studies should be
performed to correlate the percentage of the gross section stiffness to use, design acceleration and
inelastic periods for different structural systems.
The relative contribution of the different modes of response depends on both the characteristics of
the structure and the input motion. To examine the relative contribution of the first and second mode
response, the amplitude of the Fourier spectra at these periods is compared. The ratio of the spectral
amplitude at the second mode period to the amplitude at the fundamental mode period is given in Table
XXI.
There is no noticeable trend in the ratio of the spectral amplitude of the second mode to the first
mode response. The most evident observation is that the second mode response predominates in almost
all instances. However, the fundamental mode response should not be discounted considering the
relatively significant contribution.
The results of this part of the analysis have some implications on displacement-based design. It was
indicated in Bommer and Elnashai47 that based on the current catalogue of earthquake records, reliable
displacement spectra can be derived only up to a period of three seconds. This apparently might cause
some problems for applications in high rise structures, whose fundamental period might exceed three
seconds. However, based on the results of this study, it appears that the predominant mode of response
of the high rise frame-wall structure considered is the second mode. If the second mode period is taken
as the effective period for displacement-based design, then there is no complication with the limit in
the period range of the displacement spectra. On the other hand, if the contribution of the fundamental
mode, which is relatively significant, is to be considered together with the second mode period in
deriving an effective period, then a procedure of relative weighting has to be developed.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the seismic performance and cost effectiveness of high rise high strength RC buildings is
investigated. Based on the analyses performed, the following conclusions are supported by the results.
. The cost effectiveness of a structure depends to a large extent on the cost component attributable
to the steel reinforcement. Those structures using a large amount of expensive high yield steel
prove to be the least competitive in terms of cost. With the current prices of high yield steel, its use
should be limited to cases where the use of normal grade steel is not possible. However, a price
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 201
reduction in high yield steel of about 30% from current levels will make even structures that uses
only one grade of steel economically viable.
. Contrary to some of the studies performed on columns subjected to pure axial load, the optimum
concrete strength that will give the most economical structure is not necessarily the highest
concrete strength available. The concrete strength that can reduce the cost of the steel component,
while at the same time limit the cost of the concrete component, will result in the most cost
effective structure. The optimum concrete strength depends on the relative prices of the different
grades of concrete and steel.
. In light of the common practice of using high strength concrete only in the columns of a structure,
it was shown that the use of high strength concrete in the beams and slabs, where they are less
effective, can still furnish substantial cost savings. Excepting any detrimental effect on seismic
performance that might be observed in the future, using just one grade of concrete in both the
columns and beams of a structure has the added advantage of eliminating the additional
construction procedure required by the code.
. Under static loading, high strength concrete structures have stable loaddisplacement curves. The
shape of the curve is similar to that of normal strength concrete structures. For this type of loading,
inelasticity developed mostly in the beams. The columns appear to be well protected from hinging
by capacity design regulations.
. The level of overstrength in high strength concrete structures, calculated based on static pushover
analysis, is less than that of a normal strength structure. In a normal strength structure, the
additional steel reinforcement required to resist high axial loads provides extra lateral load
capacity, thus increasing overstrength.
. At the global level, based on the three response parameters examined (top displacement, base
shear and maximum interstorey drift ratio), the performance of high strength concrete structures
compares favourably with that of the equivalent normal strength concrete structure. There were no
indications that a properly designed high strength structure would behave any differently from the
equivalent normal strength structure.
. The choice of the grade of steel to use with high strength concrete is very important. Results from
dynamic analysis indicate that using normal grade steel for concrete strengths of up to 80 MPa is
adequate. Beyond 80 MPa, the use of normal grade steel with high strength concrete resulted in
significantly more hinging in the columns. The use of high yield steel in beams and normal grade
steel in columns should also be avoided.
. The maximum curvature ductility demand at the design and twice the design earthquake is 373
and 715, respectively. These are well within the achievable ductility capacity of seismically
designed and detailed members. Moreover, the use of high yield steel with high strength concrete
significantly reduced the ductility demand on the members to about 163 and 383.
. The use of different input motion, generated and scaled to fit the code design spectra, does not
have a significant effect on the global response parameter studied. The differences are well within
the limits of tolerances acceptable for seismic design and analysis. However, in terms of local
response, as in the case of the curvature ductility demand on the structural members, caution
should be exercised in assessing the results for design or analytical purposes. These parameters
appear to be highly dependent on the input motion used for the analysis.
. The calculated behaviour factors suggest that 80 MPa concrete is the optimum concrete strength
for the given structural configuration, in terms of energy dissipation capacity. In general, higher
strength concrete structures have a larger behaviour factor compared with a normal strength
structure.
. For both normal and high strength concrete structures, the inelastic period at the design PGA can
be estimated using the much simpler eigenvalue analysis. Using a member stiffness corresponding
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
202 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
to 50% of the gross section stiffness, the periods obtained from eigenvalue analysis were in good
agreement with the inelastic periods.
. The equivalent and reduced stiffness criteria are effective bases for comparing structures using
different grades of material. The results of the analysis have verified that structures generated
using the same criterion behave similarly. The shape of the loaddisplacement curves, the hinging
pattern and the response characteristic of structures from the same group were consistently
similar.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by several colleagues in terms of support for
the early work on high strength materials at Imperial College, funded by the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC). The initial proposal for funding submitted to ESPRC
was actively supported by the following: Professor P. E. Pinto (University of Rome), Dr E. C.
Carvalho (National Laboratory, Lisbon), Professor T. P. Tassios (National Technical University of
Athens), Professor H. Gulvanessian (Building Research Establishment), Professor G. Somerville
(British Cement Association) and Mr J. Whitley (British Steel).
REFERENCES
1. P. K. Mehta and P. J. M. Montiero, Concrete-Structure Properties and Materials, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, NJ,
U.S.A., 1993.
2. ACI Committee 363, State-of-the-art report on high strength concrete, ACI Report 363R-92, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1992.
3. CEB-FIP, High strength concretestate of the art report, Bulletin dinformation No. 197, London, 1990.
4. E. G. Nawy, Fundamentals of High Strength High Performance Concrete, Longman, UK, 1996.
5. S. Morita and H. Shiohara, Development of high strength mild steel deformed bars for high performance
reinforced structural members, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico,
1996, Paper No. 1742.
6. S. K. Ghosh and M. Saatcioglu, High performance concreteductility and seismic behaviour, S. P. Shah and
S. H. Ahmad (eds), High Performance Concretes and Applications, Edward Arnold, 1994 pp. 237312.
7. S. R. Razvi and M. Saatcioglu, Behaviour of high-strength concrete columns confined with circular spirals,
10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, 1994, pp. 16431648.
8. ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318R-95/318RM-95,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1995.
9. S. H. Ahmad and S. P. Shah, Stressstrain curves for concrete confined by spiral reinforcement, ACI Journal,
79 (46), 484490 (1982).
10. A. Al-Hussaini, P. E. Regan, H.-Y. Xue and K.-E. Ramdane, The behaviour of high strength concrete
columns under axial load, Third International Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer,
Norway, 1993, pp. 8390.
11. L. Bjerkeli, A. Tomaszewicz and J. J. Jensen, Deformation properties and ductility of high-strength concrete,
High Strength ConcreteSecond Int. Symp., ACI SP 121, 1990, pp. 215238.
12. T. Nagashima, S. Sugano, H. Kimura and A. Ichikawa, Monotonic axial compression test on ultra-high-
strength concrete tied columns, 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp.
29832988
13. H. Muguruma, M. Nishiyama and F. Watanabe, Stressstrain curve model for concrete with a wide range of
compressive strength, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway,
1993, pp. 314321.
14. D. Cusson and P. Paultre, Experimental study of high strength concrete columns confined by rectangular
ties, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 136145.
15. S. R. Razvi and M. Saatcioglu, Confinement of high-strength concrete columns for seismic applications,
11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1855.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
HIGH STRENGTH RC BUILDINGS 203
16. Y. P. Sun, T. Oba, F. S. Tian and T. Ikeda, Confinement effects of transverse hoops in high-strength
concrete, 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1363.
17. A. Azizinamini and S. Kuska, Flexural capacity of high strength concrete columns, Third Int. Conf. on
Utilisation of High Strength Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 9197.
18. H. Kimura, S. Sugano and T. Nagashima, Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns using ultra-high-
strength concrete under high axial load, Fourth Int. Symp. on Utilisation of High Strength/High Performance
Concrete, Paris, 1996, Paper no. 184.
19. B. Li, R. Park and H. Tanaka, Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete members and frames constructed
from high strength concrete, Research Report 94-5, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1994.
20. H. Tanaka, Y. Sato, R. Park and N. Kani, High-strength concrete columns with longitudinal reinforcement of
mixed grades, Proc. ACI Int. Conf. on High Performance Concrete, Singapore, 1994, pp. 391411.
21. S. Sugano, Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns which used ultra-high-strength concrete, 11th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1383.
22. O. Bayrak and S. A. Sheikh, Confinement requirements for high strength concrete columns, 11th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 463.
23. D. Galeota and M. M. Giammatteo, Seismic resistance of high strength concrete columns, 11th World Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, Paper no. 1390.
24. H. Muguruma and F. Watanabe, Ductility improvements of high-strength concrete columns with lateral
confinement, High Strength ConcreteSecond Int. Symp., 1990, SP-121, pp. 4760.
25. M. Nishiyama, I. Fukushima, F. Watanabe and H. Muguruma, Axial loading tests on high strength concrete
prisms confined with ordinary and high strength steel, Third Int. Conf. on Utilisation of High Strength
Concrete, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993, pp. 322329.
26. A. S. Elnashai, R. G. C. Goddfellow and P. S. Chana, Flexural ductility of high strength reinforced concrete
structures, Proc. Second JapanUK Workshop on Implications of Recent Earthquake on Seismic Risk, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Japan, 1998, pp. 145157.
27. R. Goodfellow, Ductility of RC members with high strength materials, Ph.D. thesis, University of London,
1998, submitted, September 1999.
28. I. Kateinas, Seismic response of R/C structures made with high strength material, MSc Dissertation, Imperial
College, September 1997.
29. A. S. Elnashai, Earthquake resistance of high strength reinforced concrete buildings, in E. Booth (ed.),
Seismic Design Practice into the Next Century, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998, pp. 314.
30. ICBO, Uniform Building Code1994 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California, U.S.A., 1994.
31. B. A. Izzuddin, and A. S. Elnashai, ADAPTICa Program for adaptive large displacement elasto-plastic
dynamic analysis of steel and composite frames, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering
Report No. 89/7, Imperial College, 1989.
32. W. Schmidt and E. S. Hoffman, 9000 psi Concretewhy? why not?, ASCE Civil Engineering J. 45 (5), 52
55 (1975).
33. J. Moreno and J. Zils, Optimisation of high rise concrete buildings, ACI SP-97, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, U.S.A., 1985, pp. 2592.
34. G. J. Smith and F. N. Rad, Economic advantages of high strength concretes in columns, Concrete Int. Design
& Construction, 11 (4), 3743 (1989).
35. J. Webb, High strength concrete: economics, design and ductility, Concrete Int. Design & Construction, 15
(1), pp. 2732 (1993).
36. H. G. Russell, High performance concretestructural design considerations and applications, S. P. Shah and
S. H. Ahmad (eds), High Performance Concretes and Applications, Edward Arnold, 1994, pp. 313340.
37. SEAOC Seismology Committee, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, 6th edn,
Structural Engineers Association of California, U.S.A., 1996.
38. E. L. Wilson and A. Habibullah, SAP90 Users Manual, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.,
1989.
39. B. T. Laogan and A. S. Elnashai, Seismic performance and costbenefit assessment of high rise high strength
concrete buildings, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. 98/8, Imperial College,
November 1998.
40. A. C. Bianchini, E. Woods and C. Kesler, Effect of floor concrete strength on column strength, Proc ACI J.
56 (11), 11491169 (1960).
41. E. S. Harris, (ed.), CESMM3 Price Database, Telford, London, 1996.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)
204 B. T. LAOGAN AND A. S. ELNASHAI
42. J. E. Martinez-Rueda and A. S. Elnashai, Confined concrete model under cyclic load, Materials & Structures
J, 30 (April), 139147 (1997).
43. A. S. Elnashai and B. A. Izzuddin, Modelling of material non-linearities in steel structures subjected to
transient dynamic loading, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 22, 509532 (1993).
44. E. C. Carvalho and E. Coelho (eds), Numerical investigation on the seismic response of reinforced concrete
frame designed in accordance to Eurocode 8, Report No. 7, ECOEST-PREC8, European Commission (HCM
Programme), 1998.
45. T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley,
New York, 1992.
46. A. S. Elnashai and B. M. Broderick Seismic response of composite frames2: Calculation of behaviour
factors, Engineering Structures, 18 (9), 707723 (1995).
47. J. J. Bommer and A. S. Elnashai, Parameterised displacement spectra for seismic design, Engineering
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. 98/7, Imperial College, August 1998.
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 8, 171204 (1999)