Structural Dynamics
Structural Dynamics
___________________________________
A GRADUATE PROJECT
Presented to:
The Faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering and Technology
College of Engineering and Technology
MSU – Iligan Institute of Technology
Iligan City
___________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course of CE 225
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
May 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE…………….…………………………………………...……………... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………… ii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………. vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS……………………………………………………………. vii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….. 1
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………… 15
DRAWING PLANS…………………………………………………………………. 16
CALCULATIONS…………………………………………………………………... 19
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 51
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….. 52
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Seismic Importance Factors…………………………..…………… 4
2 Soil Profile Types…....…………………………………………….. 5
3 Seismic Zone Factors…………………………..………………….. 5
4 Seismic Source Types……………………………………………... 6
5 Near–Source Factor, Na …………………………………………... 7
6 Near–Source Factor, Nv …………………………………………... 7
7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca ……………….…………........................... 7
8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv ……………….…………........................... 8
Numerical Coefficient for Earthquake–Force–Resisting Structural
9 9
Systems…………………………………………………………….
10 Material Property Definition………………………………………. 18
11 Applied Loads……………………………………………………... 18
12 Summary of Structural Section Dimensions ……………………… 19
13 Seismic Properties…………………………………………………. 19
14 Roof Deck Load Computations……………………………………. 21
rd th
15 3 Floor–10 Floor Load Computations…………………………... 22
16 2 Floor Load Computations ……………………………………...
nd
23
17 Static Load Definitions (2nd Floor)……………………………….. 23
18 Static Load Definitions (3rd Floor–10th Floor)…………………… 24
19 Static Load Definitions (Roof Deck)……………………………… 24
20 Preliminary Results……………………………………………….. 27
21 Preliminary Data………………………………………………….. 27
22 Design Base Shear for Method A………………………………… 28
23 Additional Lateral Force at the Top………………………………. 28
24 Summary of Results………………………………………………. 28
25 Summary of Results of Method A………………………………… 30
26 Summary of Results of Method B…………………………………. 31
27 Design Base Shear for Method B………………………………….. 31
28 Additional Lateral Force at the Top……………………………….. 32
29 Summary of Results……………………………………………….. 32
30 Summary of Results for ETABS………………………………….. 34
31 Comparison of Different Methods………………………………… 35
32 Seismic Mass and Stiffness………………………………………... 38
33 Mass Matrix (kg)…………………………………………………... 39
iv
LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines. ……………...………. 6
2 Design Response Spectrum……..…………..……………………... 11
Magnitude of Earthquake based on PSHA DOST–PHIVOLCS
3 14
Seismicity Map …………..………………………………………...
4 Typical Floor Plan…………………………...…………………….. 15
5 Perspective Plan View……………………………………………... 15
6 Front Side View……………………………………………………. 16
7 Right Side View. ……………………….…………………………. 16
8 2–D Frame in ETABS………………..………….………………… 17
9 3–D Frame in ETABS………………..………….………………… 17
10 Fault–finder Application which shows the Near–source………….. 20
11 Summary of Results……………………………………………….. 29
12 Summary of Results……………………………………………….. 33
13 Lateral Story Force………………………………………………… 36
14 Story Shear………………………………………………………… 36
15 Story Drift…………………………………………………………. 37
16 Story Displacement……………………………………………….. 37
17 Lateral Story Force………………………………………………… 47
18 Story Shear………………………………………………………… 47
19 Story Drift…………………………………………………………. 48
20 Story Displacement………………………………………………... 48
21 Base Shear Comparison…………………………………………… 49
vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS
EQUATION PAGE
1 Design Base Shear.………………………………………………. 9
2 Maximum Design Base Shear ……..…………..………………… 9
3 Minimum Design Base Shear………..…………………………... 9
4 Minimum Design Base Shear………..…………………………... 9
5 Structural Period…………………………………………………. 9
6 Fundamental Period……………………………………………… 10
7 Total Lateral Force ……………………….……………………… 10
8 Top Lateral Force (Additional)……………..………….………… 10
9 Lateral Force at any Floor Level………………..………….……. 10
10 Eigen Value System Equation…………………………………… 13
11 Period…………………………………………………………….. 13
12 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
13 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
14 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
15 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
16 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
17 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
18 Lateral Force……………………………………………………... 14
19 Story Shear………………………………………………………. 14
20 Spectrum function……………………………………………….. 14
21 Spectrum function……………………………………………….. 14
22 Spectrum function……………………………………………….. 14
23 Spectrum function……………………………………………….. 14
10 Ultimate Load Combination……………………………………... 18
11 Ultimate Load Combination……………………………………... 18
12 Stiffness………………………………………………………….. 24
vii
INTRODUCTION
This paper investigates the effects of seismic load to a structure. The article
describes main methods of the definition and practical application of the seismic load based
on the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 similar to the Universal
Building Code (UBC) 97. A simple ten–storey, 3 bays concrete 2D–frame with fixed joints
was chosen. There was made a comparison of all methods using the same structure. There
are two commonly used procedures for specifying seismic design forces: the "Equivalent
Static Force Procedure" and "Dynamic Analysis (Modal Response Spectrum)".
In the equivalent static force procedure, the inertial forces are specified as static
forces using empirical formulas. The empirical formulas do not explicitly account for the
"dynamic characteristics" of the particular structure being designed or analyzed ( (Di Julio
Jr., 2011). The formulas were, however, developed to adequately represent the dynamic
behavior of what are called "regular" structures, which have a reasonably uniform
distribution of mass and stiffness. For such structures, the equivalent static force procedure
is most often adequate. Structures that do not fit into this category are termed "irregular".
Common irregularities include large floor–to–floor variation in mass or center of mass and
soft stories. Such structures violate the assumptions on which the empirical formulas, used
in the equivalent static force procedure, are based. Therefore, its use may lead to erroneous
results. In these cases, a dynamic analysis should be used to specify and distribute the
seismic design forces.
The actual time history record is required in order to perform the seismic dynamic
analysis and design of a structure to be built at a particular location however it is not
possible to have such records at each and every location. Further, the seismic analysis of
structures cannot be carried out simply based on the peak value of the ground acceleration
as the response of the structure depend upon the frequency content of ground motion and
its own dynamic properties. To overcome the above difficulties, earthquake response
spectrum is the most popular tool in the seismic analysis of structures (Ahmad & Najar,
2016).
Response spectra are curves plotted between maximum response of SDOF system
and estimation of maximum responses subjected to specified earthquake ground motion
and its time period (or frequency). Response spectrum can be interpreted as the locus of
maximum response of a SDOF system for given damping ratio (Ahmad & Najar, 2016).
1
Response spectra thus helps in obtaining the peak structural responses under linear range,
which can be used for obtaining lateral forces developed in structure due to earthquake thus
facilitates in earthquake–resistant design of structures. Usually response of a SDOF system
is determined by time domain or frequency domain analysis, and for a given time period of
system, maximum response is picked (Ahmad & Najar, 2016).
2
NSCP 2015 CODE REQUIREMENTS
(SECTION 208: EARTHQUAKE LOADS)
Presented herein are the succeeding earthquake provisions that is primarily used to
design seismic–resistant structures to safeguard against major structural damage that may
lead to loss of life and property. These provisions are not intended to assure zero-damage
to structures nor maintain their functionality after a severe earthquake.
The symbols and notations provided in this sub section is just portion of the original
sub section provided in NSCP 2015 Manual (see section 208.3) which deemed significant
in the analysis procedure.
3
near–source factor used in determination of Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related
𝑁𝑣 = to both proximity of the building or structure to known faults with
magnitudes as set forth in Tables 2.4 and 2.6
numerical coefficient representative of the inherent over-strength and
𝑅 = global ductility capacity of lateral-force-resisting systems of concrete, as
set forth in Table2.9
𝑆𝐴,𝐵,𝐶,𝐷,𝐸 = soil profile types as set forth in Table 2.2
elastic fundamental period of vibration of the structure in the direction
𝑇 =
under consideration, (seconds)
𝑉 = base shear given by Equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,2.4 or 2.6
𝑉𝑥 = the design storey shear in Storey x
the total seismic dead load of the structure defined in section 208.5.2.1 of
𝑊 =
the code
𝑤𝑖 , 𝑤𝑥 = the portion of W located at or assigned to Level ior x, respectively
𝑍 = seismic zone factor as given in Table 2.3
*The limitation of Ip for panel connections in Section 208. 7.2.3 shall be 1.0 for the entire connector
4
208.4.3 Site Geology and Soil Characteristics
Each site shall be assigned a soil profile type based on properly substantiated
geotechnical data using the site categorization procedure set forth in Section
208.4.3.1.1 and Table 208–2.
Seismic hazard characteristics for the site shall be established based on the
seismic zone and proximity of the site to active seismic sources, site soil profile
characteristics and the structure's importance factor.
The Philippine archipelago is divided into two seismic zones only. Zone 2
covers the provinces of Palawan (except Busuanga), Sulu and Tawi–Tawi while the
rest of the country is under Zone 4 as shown in Figure 208-1. Each structure shall
be assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accordance with Table 208-3
ZONE 2 4
Z 0.20 0.40
5
Figure 1 (Figure 208–1) Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines
6
208.4.4.3 Seismic Zone 4 Near–Source Factor
In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned near–source factors in
accordance with Tables 208–5 and 208–6 based on the Seismic Source Type as set
forth in Section 208.4.4.2.
7
Table 8 (Table 208–8) Seismic Coefficient, Cv
Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16 0.32Nv
SB 0.20 0.40Nv
SC 0.32 0.56Nv
SD 0.40 0.64Nv
SE 0.64 0.96Nv
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic
SF site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients
208.4.10.2 Determination of R
8
208.5.2 Static Force Procedure
𝐶𝑣 𝐼
𝑉𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 1)
𝑅𝑇
The total design base shear need not exceed the following:
2.5𝐶𝑎 𝐼
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 2)
𝑅
The total design base shear shall not be less than the following:
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than the
following:
0.8𝑍𝑁𝑣 𝐼
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 4)
𝑅
A. Method A
where:
𝐶𝑡 = 0.0853 for steel moment − resisting frames
9
B. Method B
The fundamental period T may be calculated using the structural properties and
deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
analysis. The analysis shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section
208.6.2. The value of T from Method B shall not exceed a value of 30 percent greater
than the value of T obtained from Method A in Seismic Zone 4, and 40 percent in
Seismic Zone 2. The fundamental period T may be computed by using equation 6:
∑𝑛 𝑤𝑖 𝛿𝑖2
𝑇 = 2𝜋√ 𝑖=1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 6)
𝑔 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝛿𝑖
The total force shall be distributed over the height of the structure in conformance
with equations 7, 8 and 9 in the absence of a more rigorous procedure.
𝑛
𝑉 = 𝐹𝑡 + ∑ 𝐹𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 7)
𝑖=1
The concentrated force Ft at the top, which is in addition to Fn, shall be determined
from the equation:
𝐹𝑡 = 0.07𝑇𝑉 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 8)
The value of T used for the purpose of calculating Ft shall be the period that
corresponds with the design base shear as computed using Equation 208–4. Ft need not
exceed 0. 25V and may be considered as zero where T is 0.7s or less. The remaining portion
of the base shear shall be distributed over the height of the structure, including Level n,
according to the following equation:
(𝑉 − 𝐹𝑡 )𝑤𝑥 ℎ𝑥
𝐹𝑥 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 9)
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ℎ𝑖
10
208.5.3 Dynamic Analysis Procedure
Dynamic analyses procedures, when used, shall conform to the criteria established in
this section. The analysis shall be based on an appropriate ground motion representation
and shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics.
Structures that are designed in accordance with this section shall comply with all
other applicable requirements of these provisions.
An elastic dynamic analysis of a structure utilizing the peak dynamic response of all
modes having a significant contribution to total structural response. Peak modal responses
are calculated using the ordinates of the appropriate response spectrum curve which
11
correspond to the modal periods. Maximum modal contributions are combined in a
statistical manner to obtain an approximate total structural response.
The ground motion representation shall be in accordance with Section 208.5.3.2. The
corresponding response parameters, including forces, moments and displacements, shall be
denoted as Elastic Response Parameters. Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced in
accordance with Section 208.5.3.5.4.
The base shear for a given direction, determined using dynamic analysis must not be
less than the value obtained by the equivalent lateral force method of Section 208.5.2 (Static
Force Procedure). In this case, all corresponding response parameters are adjusted
proportionately.
The requirement of Section 208.5.3.4.1 that all significant modes be included may be
satisfied by demonstrating that for the modes considered, at least 90 percent of the
participating mass of the structure is included in the calculation of response for each
principal horizontal direction.
The peak member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base
reactions for each mode shall be combined by recognized methods. When three-
dimensional models are used for analysis, modal interaction effects shall be considered
when combining modal maxima.
The ground motion producing lateral response and design seismic forces may be
assumed to act non-concurrently in the direction of each principal axis of the structure,
except as required by Section 208.7.2.
Seismic dead load, W, is the total dead load and applicable portions of other loads
listed below.
12
1. In storage and warehouse occupancies, a minimum of 25 percent of the floor live
load shall be applicable,
2. Where a partition load is used in the floor design, a load of not less than 0.5 kN/m2
shall be included.
3. Total weight of permanent equipment shall be included.
Modal Characteristics
The main objective of modal characteristics is to determine the eigenvalue (𝝀) and
modal shapes (𝝓𝒌 ). To achieve such, mass matrix [M] and stiffness matrix [K] shall be
established.
𝑚1 0 0 … 0
0 𝑚2 0 … 0
𝑀= 0 0 𝑚3 0 0
⋮ ⋮ 0 ⋱ ⋮
[0 0 0 … 𝑚𝑛 ]
𝑘1 + 𝑘2 −𝑘2 0 0 0
−𝑘2 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 −𝑘3 0 0
𝐾= 0 −𝑘3 𝑘3 + 𝑘4 −𝑘4 0
0 0 −𝑘4 ⋱ ⋮
[ 0 0 0 … 𝑘𝑛 ]
where given matrices play important part in setting up the following system,
2𝜋
𝑇𝑘 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 11)
𝜔𝑘
𝐿𝑘
𝛤𝑘 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 15)
𝑀𝑘
13
Modal Responses
Lateral story forces for each mode, Qik, can be computed using Equation 18. Moreover,
story shear, Vik, can be computed using Equation 19
Pseudo-Spectral Acceleration, SA
The spectrum is defined by three functions of modal period, 𝑻𝒌 , shown in the following
equations:
where,
𝐶𝑣
𝑇𝑠 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 23)
2.5𝐶𝑎
14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project being subjected to comparative seismic analysis is situated in Western part
of Mindanao, particularly, Brgy. San Pablo, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur. This paper
aims to showcase a simple apartment with Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames that is
structurally design as safer than safe, as it is the most concerning issues to structures
nowadays when earthquake hits. Thus, the structural designer uses both static and dynamic
analysis in performing analysis and design. The project soon to rise which is limited up to
ten floors with 2–bays only, positioned at a distance 1.1 km from a near source earthquake
shown in Figure 3. The soil bearing in the area is approximately 120 kPa.
Dumingag,
Zamboanga Del Sur
15
DRAWING PLANS
All drawings presented herein are output from three different software, namely;
computer–aided design (CAD) 2018, sketchup 2017 and ETABS 2016.
16
Figure 6 Front Side View Figure 7 Right Side View
17
9 @ 3.6 m
4.5 m
18
CALCUATIONS
Material Properties
This project requires structural analysis and designing for all major components
before subjecting to seismic analysis to ensure that the structural members are adequate to
carry such applied loads. Satisfying the requirements, ETABS 2016 was utilized in this
project to generate appropriate design for the framing system. Simple load combinations
for stress check is limited only to the following:
19
The analysis conducted is not an optimization procedure, thus, the dimensions resulted
from software generation can be reduced technically. Initial input is given and the rest was
for the software to generate the reinforcement that will satisfy the requirements. Since the
cross section of the structural member is the main concern of this project, Table 12 presents
the Summary of Structural Section Dimensions.
After the generated results, the structure is ready for seismic analysis. All
provisions used thereafter are based on NSCP 2015 manual.
20
11
1.111km
21
Load Computations
The structure has similar storey all throughout, which in turn gives a uniform floor
area and the total length of beam of all the storey equivalent to A = 192 m2, Lperimeter=84m,
and Lwall=62m.
22
Table 15 3rd Floor–10th Floor Load Computations
Applied Loads Computation Results
Dead Load (DL)
Slab (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(192𝑚2 )(0.125𝑚) 576 𝑘𝑁
Column (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.6𝑚)(0.6𝑚)(3.6)(9) 279.936 𝑘𝑁
Beam (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.60𝑚)(0.80𝑚)(84𝑚) 976.68 𝑘𝑁
Ceiling (Suspended) (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
MEP (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
Floor Finish (Tile) (1.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 211.2 𝑘𝑁
Interior Partitions (1.00𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 192 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟐, 𝟐𝟕𝟒. 𝟐𝟏𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Super Imposed Dead Load
Masonry (2.98𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(3.6𝑚)(62) 665.136 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟔𝟔𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Live Load
Residential 1.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
A minimum of 25% LL reduction is required based on Section
208.6. This project considers 30% LL reduction.
TOTAL 𝟏𝟎𝟗. 𝟒𝟒 𝒌𝑵
23
Table 16 2nd Floor Load Computations
Applied Loads Computation Results
Dead Load (DL)
Slab (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(192𝑚2 )(0.125𝑚) 576 𝑘𝑁
Column (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.6𝑚)2 (2.25 + 1.8)(9) 314.928 𝑘𝑁
Beam (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.60𝑚)(0.80𝑚)(84𝑚) 976.68 𝑘𝑁
Ceiling (Suspended) (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
MEP (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
Floor Finish (Tile) (1.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 211.2 𝑘𝑁
Interior Partitions (1.00𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 192 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟐, 𝟑𝟎𝟗. 𝟐𝟎𝟖 𝒌𝑵
Super Imposed Dead Load
Masonry (2.98𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(3.6𝑚)(62) 665.136 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟔𝟔𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Live Load
Residential 1.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
A minimum of 25% LL reduction is required based on Section
208.6. This project considers 30% LL reduction.
TOTAL 𝟏𝟎𝟗. 𝟒𝟒 𝒌𝑵
24
Table 18 Static Load Definitions (3rd Floor–10th Floor)
Live Load 0 0
Storey Stiffness
From structural analysis, the stiffness for each floor is then calculated using Eq. 1 2.
12𝐸𝐼
𝑘= … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 12)
𝐿3
𝑛 = 9 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠
Modulus of Elasticity, E
f′c = 28 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Ec = 24,870 MPa
Moment of Inertia, I
(600mm)(600 mm)3
Ic = = 1.08𝑥1010 𝑚𝑚4
12
25
Height of Storey Columns, L1
𝐿1 = 4,500 𝑚𝑚
𝐿2−𝑅𝐷 = 3,600 𝑚𝑚
26
CALCULATIONS
(Static Force Analysis)
METHOD A
27
Structural Period
3
𝑇 = (𝑐𝑡 )(ℎ𝑛 )4
3
𝑇 = 0.0731(36.9)4 = 1.094427889 𝑠𝑒𝑐
28
Shear Force Distribution Lateral Force
798.276 kN
706.330 kN
546.634 kN
480.375 kN
414.116 kN
347.858 kN
281.599 kN
215.341 kN
149.082 kN
83.803 kN
4023.414 kN
29
Table 25 Summary of Results of Method A
Drifti
Story Level wi (kN) ki (kN/m) Vi (kN) fi (kN) δi (m)
(m)
30
CALCULATIONS
METHOD B
Structural Period
𝑇 = 0.9935 𝑠
31
Table 28 Additional Lateral Force at the Top
Top Lateral Force Units
Ft (T < 0.7) 0.00 kN
Ft (0.7<T < 3.6) 308.234 kN
Ft (T < 3.6) 1108.068 kN
Ft (final) 308.234 kN
32
Shear Force Distribution Lateral Force
805.535 kN
794.283 kN
614.701 kN
540.192 kN
465.683 kN
391.174 kN
316.664 kN
242.155 kN
167.646 kN
94.239 kN
4432.271 kN
33
CALCULATIONS
ETABS
34
Table 31 Comparison of Different Methods
Presented in this section are the series of graphical comparison of different methods
for static analysis concerning lateral story force, story shear, story drift, and story
displacement.
35
Lateral Story Force
10
6
Story
5 Method A
4
Method B
3
ETABS
2
0
0.000 150.000 300.000 450.000 600.000 750.000 900.000
Force (kN)
Story Shear
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
Method A
4
3 Method B
2
ETABS
1
0
0.000 750.000 1500.000 2250.000 3000.000 3750.000 4500.000 5250.000
Shear (kN)
36
Story Drift
10
9
8 Method A
7
Method B
6
Story
5 ETABS
4
3
2
1
0
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000
Drift (mm)
Story Displacement
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5 Method A
4
Method B
3
2 ETABS
1
0
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
Drift (mm)
37
CALCULATIONS
All values presented herein are output of excel calculations and ETABS generation
complying all requirements provided by the code (NSCP 2015).
Series of tables are presented in this section and figures are also presented thereafter.
38
Table 33 Mass Matrix (kg)
305,083 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208,257
39
Table 35 Summary of Preliminary Result
Mode Eigenvalue Frequency Period
Mode 1 41.02 6.41 0.9810
Mode 2 371.66 19.28 0.3259
Mode 3 1,032.30 32.13 0.1956
Mode 4 1,987.26 44.58 0.1409
Mode 5 3,155.22 56.17 0.1119
Mode 6 4,422.13 66.50 0.0945
Mode 7 5,659.45 75.23 0.0835
Mode 8 6,742.68 82.11 0.0765
Mode 9 7,570.01 87.01 0.0722
Mode 10 8,078.70 89.88 0.0699
40
Table 37 Modal Characteristics
Mode L (kg) M (kg) Γ Effective Weight (kN) Participation of Mass (%)
Mode 1 2,095,608.51 1,673,908.92 1.2519 25750.0921 89.67984398
Mode 2 -604,158.62 1,639,461.72 -0.3685 2185.198946 7.610392218
Mode 3 290,619.26 1,613,600.85 0.1801 513.7395345 1.789200641
Mode 4 -163,806.16 1,620,803.41 -0.1011 162.4876677 0.565895789
Mode 5 101,466.02 1,671,455.69 0.0607 60.4556241 0.210548798
Mode 6 -67,093.28 1,786,533.45 -0.0376 24.73074355 0.086129759
Mode 7 46,540.84 2,025,352.92 0.0230 10.49682574 0.036557294
Mode 8 -33,599.71 2,570,695.12 -0.0131 4.310333125 0.015011597
Mode 9 25,402.71 4,173,370.81 0.0061 1.517620901 0.005285418
Mode 10 -20,719.86 12,935,206.77 -0.0016 0.325754473 0.001134505
41
Table 39 Modal Lateral Story Forces (kN)
Floor Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Mode 10
Roof Deck 3,339.01 -1,242.86 607.44 -322.13 170.46 -96.95 56.03 -30.68 13.94 -3.62
10 4,767.80 -1,575.41 575.36 -155.94 -14.03 67.54 -72.66 55.89 -31.00 8.94
9 4,606.52 -1,067.45 -16.75 304.78 -253.38 130.60 -27.03 -26.56 31.62 -11.91
8 4,353.59 -367.10 -600.48 471.79 -105.03 -86.41 92.78 -22.17 -21.83 13.90
7 4,014.06 399.41 -883.61 184.13 204.03 -118.11 -42.05 54.71 4.86 -14.74
6 3,594.66 1,093.94 -724.39 -280.98 200.91 103.48 -61.48 -47.30 13.71 14.37
5 3,103.76 1,591.30 -202.54 -475.30 -109.62 103.16 87.82 5.36 -27.76 -12.81
4 2,551.10 1,801.85 420.70 -211.57 -252.42 -118.38 -3.91 40.50 32.69 10.21
3 1,947.69 1,687.64 833.34 256.05 -8.99 -86.06 -84.91 -56.78 -26.86 -6.76
2 1,320.99 1,284.27 838.61 482.56 251.13 132.36 67.92 31.98 12.34 2.79
42
CQC PARAMETERS
43
Table 43 Tabulated Comparison of Lateral Force and Shear
MANUAL ETABS
Floor SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN)
Roof Deck 3,634.45 3,634.45 3,614.28 3,614.28 2,981.10 2,981.10 2,955.64 2,955.64
10 8,678.55 5,044.10 8,645.53 5,031.25 6,762.26 3,781.15 6,719.96 3,764.32
9 13,346.87 4,668.33 13,312.72 4,667.19 9,890.65 3,128.39 9,851.98 3,132.02
8 17,601.69 4,254.81 17,571.41 4,258.69 12,491.29 2,600.64 12,461.49 2,609.52
7 21,438.34 3,836.65 21,414.20 3,842.79 14,689.15 2,197.87 14,667.10 2,205.60
6 24,853.04 3,414.71 24,836.44 3,422.24 16,589.29 1,900.13 16,577.58 1,910.48
5 27,833.53 2,980.48 27,825.65 2,989.21 18,280.92 1,691.63 18,280.15 1,702.57
4 30,352.64 2,519.12 30,354.92 2,529.27 19,766.97 1,486.05 19,776.76 1,496.61
3 32,363.02 2,010.38 32,377.52 2,022.60 20,992.47 1,225.50 21,019.16 1,242.40
2 33,803.78 1,440.76 33,833.41 1,455.89 21,811.09 818.62 21,857.27 838.11
33,803.78 0.00 33,833.41 0.00 21,811.09 0 21,857.27 0
44
Table 44 Tabulated Comparison of Drift and Displacement
MANUAL ETABS
Floor SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm)
Roof Deck 5.85 395.86 5.81 395.71 24.548 621.55 24.458 621.226
10 13.96 390.01 13.91 389.90 37.062 598.419 36.917 598.154
9 21.47 376.05 21.41 375.99 48.299 564.165 48.152 563.991
8 28.31 354.59 28.26 354.58 57.459 519.327 57.337 519.259
7 34.48 326.28 34.44 326.32 64.786 465.247 64.694 465.286
6 39.97 291.80 39.95 291.88 70.598 403.27 70.544 403.407
5 44.77 251.82 44.75 251.93 75.18 334.658 75.166 334.873
4 48.82 207.06 48.82 207.18 78.607 260.64 78.635 260.904
3 52.05 158.24 52.07 158.36 81.738 182.538 81.826 182.799
2 106.19 106.19 106.28 106.28 100.878 100.94 101.061 101.123
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45
Table 46 Base Shear Comparison of Static Analysis and Dynamic Analysis
Base Shear Comparison
Dynamic Analysis
Static Analysis
Floor Manual ETABS
Method A Method B ETABS SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Roof Deck 798.2764088 805.5348629 645.9179 427.5822291 425.2090692 350.7180235 347.7218471
10 1504.606002 1599.817514 1094.722 1021.005586 1017.121384 795.5594941 790.5833765
9 2051.239752 2214.518791 1495.0068 1570.220559 1566.202382 1163.605882 1159.056106
8 2531.614865 2754.710823 1846.7722 2070.786659 2067.225232 1469.563188 1466.058094
7 2945.731341 3220.393609 2150.0182 2522.157112 2519.31805 1728.135812 1725.540988
6 3293.589182 3611.567149 2404.7449 2923.887552 2921.934289 1951.680635 1950.303
5 3575.188386 3928.231443 2610.9522 3274.532573 3273.606021 2150.696141 2150.605894
4 3790.528954 4170.386492 2768.6401 3570.899301 3571.166801 2325.525376 2326.677835
3 3939.610885 4338.032295 2877.8087 3807.414033 3809.120132 2469.701871 2472.842624
2 4023.41433 4432.27105 2939.1756 3976.91574 3980.401463 2566.010176 2571.443741
Base 4023.41433 4432.27105 2939.1756 3976.91574 3980.401463 2566.010176 2571.443741
Ratio (at least 90% provided by NSCP 2015) 0.578938009 (need to be adjusted)
The ratio of the minimum dynamic base shear to the maximum static base shear in this project is approximately 57% which in turn does not
comply with the given requirements provided by NSCP 2015 which is 90%. The value of the ratio dictates that the structure needs to be adjusted
in order to comply the code requirement. However, this paper conducts an assessment only, thus, the project need not to be adjusted.
The series of figures presented below show that the manual calculation differs greatly in ETABS generated value both SRSS and CQC.
However , the values of SRSS compared CQC methods are more likely the same not just in manual calculation but also in ETABS results.
46
Story Lateral Force
10
6
Story
4 Manual SRSS
Manual CQC
3
ETABS SRSS
2
ETABS CQC
1
0
0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00
Force (kN)
Story Shear
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
Manual SRSS
4 Manual CQC
3 ETABS SRSS
2 ETABS CQC
1
0
0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00
Shear (kN)
47
Story Drift
10
9
Manual SRSS
8
Manual CQC
7 ETABS SRSS
6 ETABS CQC
Story
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Drift (mm)
Story Displacement
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
4 Manual SRSS
3 Manual CQC
2 ETABS SRSS
1 ETABS CQC
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00
Displacement (mm)
48
Base Shear Comparison
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
49
CONCLUSIONS
Static analysis comparing Method A and Method B, the period of the structure does
not differ in large number, in fact it differs at approximately 1 second only, and its responses
in terms of lateral forces, shear distribution, drift, and displacement are very close enough,
but mathematically, Method B is more conservative compared to Method, since it gives the
largest value of all the responses, but not economically good when implemented. However,
comparing these manual calculations to computer –generated calculations using ETABS,
it does differ significantly at a wide range, ETABS gives smaller values of the responses.
In this connection, manual calculations are generally conservative than ETABS but it does
not conclude the accuracy of both.
Dynamic analysis comparing SRSS and CQC, both methods gives result that are
almost equal, thus, insignificant difference has seen with these methods of all the responses
calculated and proved from the graphs presented in the previous section. Likewise, the
responses also of the computer –generated calculations using ETABS give the same
judgement, of which values are almost equal that even it cannot be compared in the graphs
presented above. However, comparing manual and computer –generated calculations, an
unacceptable difference has seen which can easily be seen in the graphs. Moreover, the
difference does not correlate again with how accurate these methods are.
Finally, it is the designer’s choice already on what methods and procedures to use in
analyzing and designing structures, specifically, seismic analysis as it is proved in this
paper that there is significant difference in calculating manually and automatically in all
part of the seismic responses. Thus, better understand the theory behind computer–
generated software to easily trace the difference.
50
REFERENCES
Ahmad, B., & Najar, A. (2016). Comparative Seismic Analysis of EL Centro and Japan
Earthquakes using Response Spectra Method. International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology, 6.
ASEP. (2015). National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 ed. Manila: ASEP.
Caterino, N., & Cosenza, E. (2013). Approximate Methods to Evaluate Storey Stiffness
and Interstory Drift of RC Buildings in Seismic Area. Journal in Structural
Engineering & Mechanics, 245.
Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (1995). Dynamics of Structures. Berkeley, CA: Computers
and Structures.
Di Julio Jr., R. M. (2011). Linear Static Seismic Lateral Force Procedures. In R. M. Jr.,
Linear Static Seismic Lateral Force Procedures (pp. 247-273). Northridge.
51
APPENDICES
52
ETABS 2016 16.0.0 License #*183JEGXCZEEZ5PG
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Display Type Auto lateral loads to stories Story Range All Stories
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Force, kN
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
-3.00 -2.70 -2.40 -2.10 -1.80 -1.50 -1.20 -0.90 -0.60 -0.30 0.00 E+3
Force, kN
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Max X-Dir Min Y-Dir Max Y-Dir Min
m kN kN kN kN
Story10 36.9 Top 0 -645.9179 0 -634.0001
Bottom 0 -645.9179 0 -634.0001
Story9 33.3 Top 0 -1094.722 0 -1067.2331
Bottom 0 -1094.722 0 -1067.2331
Story8 29.7 Top 0 -1495.0068 0 -1453.63
Bottom 0 -1495.0068 0 -1453.63
Story7 26.1 Top 0 -1846.7722 0 -1793.191
Bottom 0 -1846.7722 0 -1793.191
Story6 22.5 Top 0 -2150.0182 0 -2085.9159
Bottom 0 -2150.0182 0 -2085.9159
Story5 18.9 Top 0 -2404.7448 0 -2331.8049
Bottom 0 -2404.7448 0 -2331.8049
Story4 15.3 Top 0 -2610.9521 0 -2530.8579
Bottom 0 -2610.9521 0 -2530.8579
Story3 11.7 Top 0 -2768.6401 0 -2683.0748
Bottom 0 -2768.6401 0 -2683.0748
Story2 8.1 Top 0 -2877.8086 0 -2788.4558
Bottom 0 -2877.8086 0 -2788.4558
Story1 4.5 Top 0 -2939.1756 0 -2847.6937
Bottom 0 -2939.1756 0 -2847.6937
Base 0 Top 0 0 0 0
Bottom 0 0 0 0
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00 E-3
Drift, Unitless
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement, mm
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 E+3
Force, kN
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 E+3
Force, kN
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 E-3
Drift, Unitless
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 E-3
Drift, Unitless
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Displacement, mm
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Displacement, mm