Evaluation of the adequacy of the response spectrum analysis for the seismic analysis of moment-resisting and concentrically-braced buildings according to the seismic design codes

Document Type : Research Article


sahand university


According to the seismic design codes, the response spectrum analysis (RSA) method can be used for the seismic analysis of tall buildings since it can consider the effect of higher modes. In addition, the nonlinear time history analysis is the most accurate method of evaluating the seismic responses of structures. Consequently, the present study investigates the accuracy of the RSA method by comparing the seismic responses computed by the RSA with the nonlinear time history analysis. To this end, six 3D structures with 4-, 10- and 20-story heights are investigated in this paper. The lateral load-resisting systems of the structures include special steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) and concentrically braced frames (CBFs). To conduct the nonlinear time history analyses, four sets of ground motion records including three groups of near-fault records with different characteristics and one set of far-fault records are used. The near-fault ground motion sets include forward directivity, fling step and no pulse characteristics. All sets comprise seven seismic ground motion records. The results indicate that the seismic responses obtained by the RSA, are mostly underestimated and non-conservative in comparison with those from the nonlinear time history analysis. In general, the more the height of the structure, the larger the error in the seismic responses derived from the RSA. Also, the largest error in the RSA relative to the rigorous time history analysis occurs in the case of the near-fault ground motions with the fling-step effect.


Main Subjects

[1] A.K. Gupta, J.-W. Jaw, Coupled response spectrum analysis of secondary systems using uncoupled modal properties, Nuclear engineering and design, 92(1) (1986) 61-68.
[2] R. Klemencic, J.A. Fry, J.D. Hooper, B.G. Morgen, Performance‐based design of ductile concrete core wall buildings—issues to consider before detailed analysis, The structural design of tall and special buildings, 16(5) (2007) 599-614.
[3] H.P. Tuan, Seismic design considerations for tall buildings, MS thesis, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy, 2008.
[4] H. Fan, Q. Li, A.Y. Tuan, L. Xu, Seismic analysis of the world’s tallest building, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(5) (2009) 1206-1215.
[5] Q. Khan, Evaluation of effects of response spectrum analysis on height of building,  (2010).
[6] A. Munir, P. Warnitchai, The cause of unproportionately large higher mode contributions in the inelastic seismic responses of high‐rise core‐wall buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(15) (2012) 2195-2214.
[7] F. De Luca, L. Lombardi, EC8 design through linear time history analysis versus response spectrum analysis–Is it an enhancement for PBEE, in:  16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE, 2017.
[8] E. Brunesi, R. Nascimbene, L. Casagrande, Seismic analysis of high-rise mega-braced frame-core buildings, Engineering Structures, 115 (2016) 1-17.
[9] K. Leng, C. Chintanapakdee, T. Hayashikawa, Seismic Shear Forces in Shear Walls of a Medium-Rise Building Designed by Response Spectrum Analysis, Engineering Journal, 18(4) (2014) 73-95.
[10] A. Zekioglu, M. Willford, L. Jin, M. Melek, Case study using the Los Angeles tall buildings structural design council guidelines: 40‐storey concrete core wall building, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 16(5) (2007) 583-597.
[11] D.-H. Jun, H.-G. Kang, Nonlinear Response Analysis of Multistory Buildings Subjected to Synthetic Motions Compatible with Design Spectrum.
[12] D. Cancellara, F. De Angelis, Dynamic assessment of base isolation systems for irregular in plan structures: Response spectrum analysis vs nonlinear analysis, Composite Structures, 215 (2019) 98-115.
[13] S. Li, L.-l. Xie, Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering, Acta Seismologica Sinica, 20(1) (2007) 105-114.
[14] C. Lu, Research on near-fault problems in earthquake engineering, TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering, 10(5) (2012) 1033-1039.
[15] J.D. Bray, A. Rodriguez-Marek, Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 24(11) (2004) 815-828.
[16] S.U. Sigurðsson, Near-fault ground motions and structural design issues, 2010.
[17] M. Poursha, F. Khoshnoudian, A. Moghadam, Assessment of modal pushover analysis and conventional nonlinear static procedure with load distributions of federal emergency management agency for high‐rise buildings, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 19(3) (2010) 291-308.
[18] T.M. Nahhas, A comparison of IBC with 1997 UBC for modal response spectrum analysis in standard-occupancy buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 10(1) (2011) 99-113.
[19] ASCE/SEI7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2016.
[20] ANSI/AISC 360-16, Specification for structural steel buildings, 2016.
[21] Computers and Structures Incorporated (CSI), SAP 2000 NL, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., 2018.
[22] ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013.
[23] C.-M. Uang, Establishing R (or R w) and C d factors for building seismic provisions, Journal of structural Engineering, 117(1) (1991) 19-28.
[24] INBC.2800, Standard No. 2800: Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Iranian national building code, Tehran, Iran;,  (2014).