i

NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC AND PUSH-OVER ANALYSIS OF AN AIR

TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

HOSSEIN MORAVEJ

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

i

√

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / POSTGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND

COPYRIGHT

I declare that this thesis is classified as:

CONFIDENTIAL (Contains Confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*

RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*

OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online open

access (full text)

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for

the purpose of research only.

3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic

exchange.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR

Date: Date:

Author’s full name : HOSSEIN MORAVEJ Date of birth :

20 SEPTEMBER 1985

Title :

NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC & PUSH-OVER ANALYSIS OF AN

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

Academic Session : 2013/2014 - 3

201209M10265 ASSOC.PROF.DR.SUHAIMI ABU BAKAR

Certified by:

AUGUST 2014 AUGUST 2014

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from

the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

ii

“I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in my

opinion this project report is sufficient in terms of scope

and quality for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Civil-Structure)”

Signature : ...............................................

Name of supervisor : ASSOC.PROF.DR.SUHAIMI ABU BAKAR

Date : AUGUST 2014

1

NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC AND PUSH-OVER ANALYSIS OF AN AIR TRAFFIC

CONTROL TOWER

HOSSEIN MORAVEJ

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Civil-Structure)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

AUGUST 2014

f

ii

I declare that this project report entitled “Non-Linear Dynamic & Push-Over

Analysis of an Air Traffic Control Tower” is the result of my own research except as

cited in the references. The project report has not been accepted for any degree and is

not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature : ……………………………

Name : HOSSEIN MORAVEJ

Date : AUGUST 2014

iii

I dedicate this dissertation to three beloved people, to my adored wife “ELNAZ”.

She helped me to find my way and inspired me to try for bright future. To my

precious parents who are the foundation for my life. I am really honored to have

them. Everything that I am now is because of them.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank God giving me the power to believe

in my passion and pursue my dreams. I could never have done this without the faith I

have in God, the Almighty. I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not

have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would

like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. First of all, I greatly appreciative of

my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suhaimi Abu Bakar, who has supported me to finish

my master project. I am highly indebted to him for his guidance and constant

supervision. My thanks and appreciations also go to Dr. Mohammadreza Vafaei, for

providing necessary information regarding the project and also for his support in

completing the project. Apart from that, I would like to express my sincere gratitude

to my wife for her inspiration, moral support and motivation. Last but not least, I

would like to thank my parents for their unconditional support, both financially and

emotionally throughout my degree. It became the vital encouragement for me to

accomplish this project.

v

ABSTRACT

Airport is one of the vital metropolitan organizations that should be endured

totally practicable during and after urban calamity such as seismic threat. Principally

different types of assistance from other cities could be needed for the sufferers, so the

high significance of airports cannot be neglected. Likewise, all airports require one

or more Air Traffic Control (ATC) towers which are compulsory to be serviceable.

Designers often apply linear structural analysis methods for most ATC towers.

However, this application may give not reliable results. The reason is that during an

earthquake, nonlinear response of ATC tower is very feasible. Since usual techniques

may face to a stark misguide from factual behavior of the structure for analyzing

such particular structure an accurate nonlinear analysis is strongly essential. This

study investigates the seismic behavior of Oroumieh ATC tower which is located in

Iran rises 30 meter above ground level using Non-linear static analysis (Push-Over

Method) and non-linear dynamic analysis (Time History Method). This also assesses

the effect of Near-Field (distance from fault to structure below 15 km) and Far-Field

earthquakes (distance from fault to structure above 15 km) on the seismic behavior of

the case study structure and compares the obtained results with the code-based

seismic design and concludes on the safety level of ATC towers designed based on

building codes. In this study, fifteen Far-field and fifteen Near-Field ground motion

records will be selected based on characteristics of the construction site. Nonlinear

analysis will be carried out with SAP2000 software. Concentration will be given to

the evaluation of code-based design of ATC towers and their capability in satisfying

the ATC tower’s safety during earthquakes. It is found that the effect of far-field

records are more critical than near-field. Besides that, time history results are higher

than linear analysis based on codes and push-over results are found in between linear

analysis and time-history analysis.

vi

ABSTRAK

Lapangan Terbang adalah salah satu organisasi metropolitan penting yang

perlu benar-benar dipertahan dengan praktik semasa dan selepas bencana bandar

seperti ancaman seismik atau gempa bumi. Serta-merta selepas berlakunya gerakan

tanah, tekanan seismik bertambah dengan pesat. Secara asasnya, pelbagai jenis

bantuan daripada bandar-bandar lain boleh diperlukan untuk mangsa, jadi

kepentingan yang tinggi lapangan terbang tidak boleh diabaikan. Begitu juga, semua

lapangan terbang memerlukan satu atau lebih menara Kawalan Trafik Udara (ATC)

yang wajib untuk diselenggara. Pereka bentuk sering menggunakan kaedah analisis

struktur linear untuk kebanyakan menara ATC, walaubagaimanapun andaian ini

masih meragukan. Justeru, respon tak linear menara ATC ketika berlaku gempa bumi

adalah amat penting dan praktikal. Berdasarkan kenyataan di atas, analisis tak linear

yang tepat adalah sangat penting memandangkan teknik biasa bagi analisis struktur

tertentu boleh membawa kepada penyimpangan yang jelas daripada tingkah laku

sebenar struktur tersebut. Kajian ini mengkaji tingkah laku seismik menara

Oroumieh ATC yang terletak di Iran dengan ketinggian 30 meter di atas permukaan

tanah menggunakan analisis statik tak linear (kaedah tolak-atas) dan analisis dinamik

tak linear (kaedah Sejarah Masa). Kajian ini juga menilai kesan-kesan gempa

lapangan dekat dan lapangan jauh ke atas tingkah laku seismik struktur kajian kes

dan membandingkan keputusan yang diperolehi dengan reka bentuk berdasarkan kod

seismik dan membuat kesimpulan pada tahap keselamatan menara ATC direka

berdasarkan kod bangunan. Dalam kajian ini, rekod pergerakan tanah bagi lima belas

lapangan dekat dan lima belas lapangan jauh akan dipilih berdasarkan ciri-ciri tapak

pembinaan. Analisis tak linear dilakukan menggunakan perisian SAP2000. Tumpuan

akan diberikan kepada penilaian reka bentuk berdasarkan kod-menara ATC dan

keupayaan mereka memenuhi keselamatan menara ATC semasa gempa bumi.

Adalah ditemui bahawa kesan rekod lapangan jauh adalah lebih kritikal berbanding

kesan lapangan dekat. Di samping itu juga, keputusan sejarah masa adalah lebih

tinggi berbanding analisis linear yang berdasarkan kod dan keputusan tolak-atas

adalah ditemui di antara analisis linear dan analisis sejarah masa.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES xv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of Study 3

1.2.1 Situation of the ATC tower 6

1.3 Problem Statement 7

1.4 Objectives of Study 7

1.5 Scope and Limitations of Study 8

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Earthquake Categories 9

2.3 Measuring Earthquakes 10

2.4 Target Building Performance Levels 11

viii

2.4.1 Structural Performance Levels and Ranges 11

2.4.2 Nonstructural Performance Levels 13

2.4.3 Designation of Target Building Performance Levels 14

2.5 ATC Tower 15

2.6 Reinforced Concrete Wall’s behavior 20

2.7 Structural Analysis 21

2.7.1 The Iranian earthquake Code (2800) 23

2.7.2 Equivalent Static Method based on UBC97 24

2.7.3 Free Vibration for Single degree Of Freedom

(SDOF) 24

2.7.4 Free Vibration Multi Degree of Freedom

(MDOF) system 26

2.7.5 Response Spectrum Method 26

2.7.6 Nonlinear Static Analysis (Push-Over) 29

2.7.7 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (Time-History) 31

2.8 Near-Field & Far-Field ground motion 33

2.9 Ground motion Record & Record Scaling 35

3 METHODOLOGY 38

3.1 Introduction 38

3.2 Flowchart of Methodology 39

3.3 Finite Element Modeling 40

3.4 Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum Analysis 41

3.5 Push-Over Analysis 44

3.6 Nonlinear Material properties 45

3.7 Push-Over load cases 51

3.8 Time-History Analysis 54

3.9 Time-History load case 56

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 58

4.1 Introduction 58

4.2 Comparison between Equivalent Static and

Response Spectrum 58

4.3 Comparison between Near-Field and

ix

Far-Field time-history analyses 60

4.4 Performance Point based on Push-Over analysis 62

4.5 Comparison among all analysis results 64

4.6 Distribution of Storey Shear along the height 66

4.7 Storey Shear resisted by each structural system 69

4.8 Comparison between effect of Near-Field and

Far-Field ground motions on ATC tower 71

5 CONCLUSION 74

5.1 Conclusion 74

REFERENCES 76

Appendices A 80-85

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 ATC tower’s samples (Aviation, 2014) 2

1.2 Types of faults based on sense of movement.(Roberts, 2002) 3

1.3 The focus and epicenter of an earthquake.(Roberts, 2002)

4

1.4 The nature of P-waves, S-waves, and surface waves (After

Bolt 1988. Earthquakes. W.H. Freeman: New York)

5

1.5 A seismogram.(The first arrivals of the P-waves and S-

wave) (Roberts, 2002)

6

1.6 Situation of the ATC tower in Iran (West Azerbaijan

Province. 2014)

6

2.1 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges. (FEMA

356,2000)

14

2.2 San Carlos airport traffic control tower (ATCT) in San

Carlos, California (Wilcoski and Heymsfield, 2002)

19

2.3 (SDOF) Free Vibration (Erduran) 25

2.4 Displacement vs. Time for Harmonic motion of an

undamped system (Erduran)

25

2.5 Modal shapes of Free Vibration for (MDOF) system

(Erduran)

26

2.6 Response Spectrum Method (Erduran) 27

2.7 Storey Shear in modal shape based on Response Spectrum

Method (Erduran)

28

xi

2.8 Force-Displacement curve (ATC, 1996) 30

2.9 Reduced response spectrum diagram (ATC, 1996) 31

3.1 Flowchart of Methodology 39

3.2 Finite Element model of ATC tower 40

3.3 Seismic Resistance Systems of ATC tower (a) Steel Frame

(b) Internal Shear Wall (c) External Shear wall

41

3.4 Linear Static parameters defined in the software 42

3.5 5% damped response spectrum of construction site defined

in the software

43

3.6 Response spectrum parameters defined in the software 44

3.7 Nonlinear properties of concrete shear wall 45

3.8 Takeda hysteresis curve for concrete (Midas Civil, 2014) 46

3.9 Material properties for concrete 46

3.10 Stress-Strain curve for concrete 47

3.11 Material properties for rebar 47

3.12 Stress-Strain curve for rebar 48

3.13 Hinge’s properties for beam based on FEMA356 (FEMA

356, 2000)

49

3.14 Hinge’s properties for column based on FEMA356 (FEMA

356, 2000)

49

3.15 Hinge property for beam defined in the software 50

3.16 Hinge property for column defined in the software 50

3.17 Push dead load case defined in the software 51

3.18 Diaphragm defined for each level 52

3.19 Push-Over load case “Spectrum type” defined in the

software.

52

3.20 Push-Over load case “Uniform type” defined in the

software

53

xii

3.21 PEER Ground Motion Database for gathering and scaling

earthquake records (University of California, 2011)

54

3.22 Records gathered and scaled based on response spectrum of

construction site and code properties (University of

California, 2011)

55

3.23 Time-History far-field record was defined in the software 56

3.24 Time-history load case is defined in the software for each

Time-history record

57

4.1 Overturning Moment along the height in Response

Spectrum and Equivalent Static analysis

59

4.2 Storey Shear along the height in Response Spectrum and

Equivalent Static analysis

59

4.3 Storey Drift along the height in Response Spectrum and

Equivalent Static analysis

60

4.4 Storey Shear along the height in Far-Field and Near-Field

Time-History Analysis

61

4.5 Overturning Moment along the height in Far-Field and

Near-Field Time-History Analysis

61

4.6 Storey Drift along the height in Far-Field and Near-Field

Time-History Analysis

62

4.7 Performance Point obtained based on Push-Over Analysis

in Spectrum method

63

4.8 Performance Point obtained based on Push-Over Analysis

in Uniform method)

63

4.9 Storey Shear along the height among all analysis methods 64

4.10 Overturning Moment along the height among all analysis

methods

64

4.11 Storey Drift along the height among all analysis methods 65

4.12 Distribution of Storey shear along the height in Equivalent

Static Analysis

66

4.13 Distribution of Storey shear along the height in Response

Spectrum Analysis

67

xiii

4.14 Distribution of Storey shear along the height in Near-Field

Time-History Analysis

67

4.15 Distribution of Storey shear along the height in Far-Field

Time-History Analysis

68

4.16 Distribution of Storey shear along the height in Push-Over

Analysis

68

4.17 Storey Shear resisted by Steel Frame 69

4.18 Storey Shear resisted by External Shear Wall 70

4.19 Storey Shear resisted by Internal Shear Wall 70

4.20 Deformed Steel Frame based on Near-Field Tome-History

analysis

71

4.21 Deformed Steel Frame based on Far-Field Tome-History

analysis

72

4.22 Stress Diagram (Kg/cm2) based on Near-Field Time-

History Analysis in (a) External Shear Wall (b) Internal

Shear Wall (down) (c) Internal Shear Wall (up)

73

4.23 Stress Diagram (Kg/cm2) based on Far-Field Time-History

Analysis in (a) External Shear Wall (b) Internal Shear Wall

(down) (c) Internal Shear Wall (up)

73

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATC - Air Traffic Control

SDOF - Single Degree Of Freedom

MDOF - Multi Degree Of Freedom

PBSD - Performance Based Seismic Design

MMS - Moment Magnitude Scale

IO - Immediate Occupancy

LS - Life Safety

CP - Collapse Prevention

DC - Damage Control

RC - Reinforced Concrete

NSP - Nonlinear Static Processes

PBEE Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research

PBRA Peak Bed Rock Acceleration

ATC Applied Technology Council

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A PEER Ground Motion Database Procedure 85

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Amongst the natural phenomena that have concerned human kind,

earthquakes are doubtless the most irritating ones. The happening of earthquakes has

been unpredictable and this makes them especially dreaded by the common residents

because they feel there is no way to guarantee an effective preparedness. The most

dreaded effects of earthquake are failures of structures because they are not only

usually indicate human victims but also signify vast damages for individuals as well

as for the public. The essential goals of any structural design are safety, serviceability

and economy. Attaining these goals for design in seismic zone is especially

important and difficult. Ambiguity and unpredictability of time, situation and

features of an earthquake event will attack a community increase the overall

difficulty. In addition, lack of knowledge and ability to approximation the

performance of constructed facilities make it difficult to achieve the above declared

objectives.

Airport is one of the vital metropolitan organizations that should be endured

totally practicable during and after urban disaster such as seismic hazard.

Immediately after ground motion carriage requests develop tremendously.

2

Particularly different kinds of supports from other cities could be required for the

victims, so the high significance of airports cannot be neglected (Roark, Turner and

Gould, 2000). Moreover, each airport needs one or more Air Traffic Control towers

which are needed to be functional, it is shown in Figure 1.1 requires. Each enter to or

exit from airport monitoring staff in controller tower to be available if not

catastrophe is more likely, such as ATC tower of Seattle-Tacoma airport in Alaska,

Jakarta Airport in Indonesia and Bam Airport in Iran. Designers often use linear

structural analysis software for most ATC towers, but this assumption may be not

realistic. Besides that, since during an earthquake nonlinear behavior of ATC tower

is very probable, the finite element software applied in analysis of the structure must

be capable to do nonlinear analysis. According to what stated above, since usual

techniques may face to a severe mislead from actual behavior of the structure for

analyzing such specific structure an accurate nonlinear analysis is strongly required

(Eshgi and Farrokhi, 2003).

Figure 1.1 ATC tower’s samples (Aviation, 2014)

3

1.2 Background of Study

An earthquake is defined as “a sudden motion or trembling in the Earth

caused by the abrupt release of strain energy on a fault.” A fault is a break in the

Earth’s crust on which rupture occurs or has occurred in the past. Faults are classified

according to the type of rupture that occurs on them, it is shown in Figure 1.2.

Motion on a normal fault is predominantly vertical and is caused by tension or

extension. The block overlying the fault (the “hanging-wall block” in fault lingo)

moves down relative to the block beneath the fault (the “footwall block”). Motion on

a reverse fault also is predominantly vertical, but it is caused by compression, and the

hanging wall block is pushed up relative to the footwall block.

Figure 1.2 Types of faults based on sense of movement.(Roberts, 2002)

Strike-slip faults are characterized by horizontal motion, and material is

displaced either to the right or to the left relative to material on the opposite side of

the fault. An earthquake is caused by the sudden release of elastic (recoverable)

strain that gradually builds up on a fault over time. Strain accumulation may occur

4

over just a few decades, such as on a major fault system like the San Andreas Fault,

or over thousands of years on slower-moving faults. In general terms, a fault ruptures

when the amount of strain exceeds the strength of the rocks, but the actual triggering

mechanism or process is not well known. The energy of the resulting earthquake

depends on the amount of strain built up, the strength of the rocks along the fault,

and the dimensions of the rupture area. Rupture begins at a single point on the fault

surface, known as the earthquake’s focus, but it spreads rapidly. The largest

earthquakes may break a fault or faults over several hundred kilometers. When

newspapers report the occurrence of an earthquake, the location they cite usually is

the earthquake’s epicenter. The epicenter is the point on the surface directly above

the earthquake’s focus; it is shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 The focus and epicenter of an earthquake.(Roberts, 2002)

Perhaps the most important aspect of earthquakes, at least to people near the

epicenter, is shaking. Shaking is the result of seismic waves that are transmitted to or

along the Earth’s surface. Rupture on a fault causes seismic waves, similar to the

way a thrown stone causes ripples on the surface of a pond. There are three main

types of seismic waves, and they are categorized by their type of motion it is shown

in Figure 1.4. P-waves are compressional, so that particles displaced by the waves

move forward and back parallel to the direction the wave propagates. S-waves are

shear waves, in which particles move perpendicular to the propagations direction.

5

There are two types of surface waves (Love waves and Rayleigh waves), involving

either shearing or elliptical motion.

Figure 1.4 The nature of P-waves, S-waves, and surface waves(After Bolt,

1988. Earthquakes. W.H. Freeman: New York)

An important detail about the different types of seismic waves is that each

type travels at a different speed. P-waves travel the fastest, S-waves not as fast and

surface waves more slowly. In fact, the “P” in “P-wave” stands for “primary”

because they are the first waves to arrive after an earthquake. The “S” in “S-wave”

stands for “secondary” because they arrive after the P-waves. The different travel

times of seismic waves are the key to locating the epicenters of earthquakes, the lag

time is the interval between P- and S- wave arrivals, it is shown in Figure 1.5.

6

Figure 1.5 A seismogram.(The first arrivals of the P-waves and S-waves) (Roberts,

2002)

1.2.1 Situation of the ATC tower

This ATC tower is placed in Oroumieh Airport, Azarbaijan Gharbi, Iran. It is

shown in Figure 1.6. The height of the tower is about 30 m from ground level, the

soil class is type 3 and PGA=0.3g.

Figure 1.6 Situation of the ATC tower in Iran (West Azerbaijan Province. 2014)

7

1.3 Problem Statement

The seismic design and performance of ATC towers have been challenging

matters for structural engineers. On one side, their seismic performance level is

remarkably higher than normal buildings due to the major role that they play in

catastrophe rescue after a seismic incident. On the other side, the lack of exact

guidelines and procedures for the seismic assessment and design of ATC towers

results in the improper usage of current building codes. For example, some building

codes, such as the (ASCE, 2010), consider the seismic design of non-building

structures; however, since ATC towers have dynamic behavior that do not totally

satisfy the classification of non-building structures existing in most building codes,

application of code-based procedure may not be reliable for seismic design of such

important structures. This problem is deliberated until present time, so more research

is required to propose special procedures for seismic design and performance

assessments of ATC towers.

1.4 Objectives of Study

There are total of three objectives to be achieved upon the completion of this

project with SAP2000 software. The objectives of this study are:

(i) To study the effect of far-field earthquake records on the seismic behavior of

a dual seismic resistance system ATC tower

(ii) To study the effect of the effect of Near-field earthquake records on the

seismic behavior of a dual seismic resistance system ATC tower

(iii)To compare the code-base seismic design parameters with those obtained

from nonlinear time-history and push-over analysis.

8

1.5 Scope and Limitations of Study

i. This study only includes seismic behavior of ATC tower located in Oromueh,

Iran. The height of the tower is almost 30 m and has steel moment resistance

frame supported by concrete shear walls.

ii. This study does not include any experimental investigation

iii. Two series of fifteen (15) Near-Field records and fifteen (15) Far-Field

records will be gathered and used to perform nonlinear time history analyses.

76

REFERENCES

Abe, Katsuyuki. (1974). Fault parameters determined by near-and far-field data: The

Wakasa Bay earthquake of March 26, 1963. Bulletin of the Seismological

Society of America, 64(5), 1369-1382.

Aviation, Solar Solve. (2014). Sun Protection for Air Traffic Control Towers. from

http://www.solasolv.com/air-traffic-control-tower-sunscreens.php

Çavdar, Özlem, & Bayraktar, Alemdar. (2013). Pushover and nonlinear time history

analysis evaluation of a RC building collapsed during the Van (Turkey)

earthquake on October 23, 2011. Natural Hazards, 1-17.

Deierlein, Gregory G, Reinhorn, Andrei M, & Willford, Michael R. (2010).

Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design. NEHRP Seismic Design

Technical Brief No, 4.

Dhakal, Rajesh P, Singh, Sandip, & Mander, John B. (2007). Effectiveness of

earthquake selection and scaling method in New Zealand.

Fisco, NR, & Adeli, H. (2011). Smart structures: part I—active and semi-active

control. Scientia Iranica, 18(3), 275-284.

Galal, K, & El-Sokkary, H. (2008). Advancement in modeling of RC shear walls.

Paper presented at the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Beijing, China.

Ghosh, Barnali, & Bhattacharya, Subhamoy. (2008). Selection of appropriate input

motion for foundation design in seismic areas. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing,

China.

Goto, Reina. (2012). Seismic performance of a bridge subjected to far-field ground

motions by a Mw 9.0 earthquake and near-field ground motions by a Mw 6.9

earthquake. KTH.

77

Huang, Kai, & Kuang, JS. (2010). On the applicability of pushover analysis for

seismic evaluation of medium‐ and high‐ rise buildings. The Structural

Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 19(5), 573-588.

Humar, JagMohan, & Mahgoub, Mohamed A. (2003). Determination of seismic

design forces by equivalent static load method. Canadian Journal of Civil

Engineering, 30(2), 287-307.

Kalkan, Erol, & Chopra, Anil K. (2010). Practical guidelines to select and scale

earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. US

Geological Survey Open-File Report, 1068(2010), 126.

Kalkan, Erol, & Kunnath, Sashi K. (2004). Method of modal combinations for

pushover analysis of buildings. Paper presented at the Proc. Of the 13 th

World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.

Kanamori, Hiroo, & Brodsky, Emily E. (2004). The physics of earthquakes. Reports

on Progress in Physics, 67(8), 1429.

Kokot, Seweryn, Anthoine, Armelle, Negro, Paolo, & Solomos, George. (2012).

Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building

for progressive collapse. Engineering Structures, 40, 205-217.

Lu, Xilin, Su, Ningfen, & Zhou, Ying. (2011). Nonlinear time history analysis of a

super‐ tall building with setbacks in elevation. The Structural Design of Tall

and Special Buildings.

Magna, CE, & Kunnath, SK. Simulation of Nonlinear Seismic Response of

Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls.

Malaga-Qhuquitaype, C, Bommer, J, Pinho, R, & Stafford, P. (2008). Selection and

scaling of ground-motion records for nonlinear response-history analysis

based on equivalent SDOF systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

14 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, on CDROM, Beijing,

China.

Masoudi, Mostafa, Eshghi, Sassan, & Ghafory-Ashtiany, Mohsen. (2012).

Evaluation of response modification factor (< i> R</i>) of elevated concrete

tanks. Engineering Structures, 39, 199-209.

Muthukumar, Susendar, & Sabelli, Rafael. Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Round

Concrete Tower with a Post-Tensioned Self-Centering System.

Paknahad, Masoud, Noorzaei, Jamaloddin, Jaafar, Mohd Saleh, & Thanoon, Waleed

A. (2008). Non-linear Soil Structure Interaction of Shear Wall System with

78

Super Element. Paper presented at the The 12th International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in

Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October, 2008 Goa, India.

Seismology, National Research Council . Committee on. (1969). Seismology:

Responsibilites and Requirements of a Growing Science: Summary and

recommendations (Vol. 2): National Academies.

Shahrouzi, Mohsen, & Sazjini, Mohammad. (2012). Refined harmony search for

optimal scaling and selection of accelerograms. Scientia Iranica, 19(2), 218-

224.

Sharma, Akanshu, Reddy, GR, Vaze, KK, & Eligehausen, R. (2013). Pushover

experiment and analysis of a full scale non-seismically detailed RC structure.

Engineering Structures, 46, 218-233.

Sigurðsson, Sigurður Unnar. (2010). Near-fault ground motions and structural design

issues. MSc-Thesis, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavik

University.

Snaebjörnsson, JTh, Sigbjörnsson, Ragnar, & Ólafsson, Símon. (2004). Modelling of

earthquake response spectra for strike-slip earthquakes in the near-and far-

field. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the13th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering.

Stafford, Peter J, & Bommer, Julian J. (2010). Theoretical Consistency of Common

Record Selection Strategies in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (pp. 49-58):

Springer.

Trifunac, Mihailo D. (2009). The nature of site response during earthquakes Coupled

Site and Soil-Structure Interaction Effects with Application to Seismic Risk

Mitigation (pp. 3-31): Springer.

ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE

Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston, VA:American Society of Civil Engineers.

ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (ATC-40)

Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

Chen, X., Li, J., & Cheang, J. (2010). Seismic performance analysis of Wenchuan

hospital structure with viscous dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and

Special Buildings, 19(4), 397–419.

79

Computers and Structures, Inc. (2007). ETABS-Version 9.1.6: Extended 3D

nonlinear analysis of building systems software. Berkeley, CA: Computer and

Structures, Inc

FEMA (2000). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

buildings (FEMA 356).Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management

Agency.

Hancock, J., Bommer, J.J., & Stafford, P.J. (2008). Numbers of scaled and matched

accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses. Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(14), 1585–1607.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, PEER (2009). NGA database.

Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Roark, M., Turner, K.Z., & Gould, P. (2000). Seismic vulnerability of airport

facilities, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, New

Zealand. 30 January-4 February, 2000, paper No. 3.

Villaverde, R. (2009). Fundamental concept of earthquake engineering. New York:

CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group