Full Theses

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF
BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT CODE OF PRACTICES

COMMONLY USED IN SRI LANKA
K.P.N. Prasanna
(118624N)
Degree of Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering Design
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
March 2016
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF
BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT CODE OF PRACTICES
COMMONLY USED IN SRI LANKA
K.P.N. Prasanna
(118624N)
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Engineering in Structural Engineering Design
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
March 2016
DECLARATION
I declare that this is my own work and this thesis does not incorporate without
acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a Degree or Diploma in any
other university or institute of higher learning and to the best of my knowledge and
believe it does not contain any material previously published or written by another
person except where the acknowledgement is made in the text.
Also I hereby grant the University of Moratuwa the non-exclusive right to reproduce
and distribute my thesis, in whole or in part, electronic or other medium. I retain the
right to use this content in whole or part in future works.
Signature: ………………………. Date: …...../…...…/…....…
The above candidate has carried out this research for the Degree of Masters in
Engineering in Structural Engineering Designs under my supervision.
Signature: ………………………. Date: …...../…...…/…....…
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are many people, who have contributed in making this research and the
accompanying thesis a reality, to whom I am very grateful.
Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. C.S.Lewangamage, senior

lecturer of the Department of Civil Engineering of University of Moratuwa and also
the supervisor of this research, for his constant support to complete this research
successfully. It is indeed his guidance, enthusiasm, constructive suggestions,
encouragements and invaluable assistance provided throughout the project duration
made this thesis possible.
My special thanks go to Prof. M.T.R. Jayasinghe, the former head of the Department
of Civil Engineering of University of Moratuwa for making me interested in the field
of seismology.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all other members of the academic and
non-academic staff of the Department of Civil Engineering of University of
Moratuwa, for their support extended towards me in various means to finalize this
project successfully.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to my family members and friends for

their assistance and encouragement given to me in completing this project.
ii
ABSTRACT
Earthquake threat has been identified by many countries and analysis and design
against seismic effects have therefore become almost a basic part of their structural
design process. Sri Lanka has also identified the importance of designing buildings
against seismic actions, specially due to recent incidents, which took place in and
around the Island. However, Sri Lanka does not have its own code of practice for
designing against seismic actions. Also there are not many established guidelines
available in the country for this purpose. As a result, when it is required to analyze
and design buildings against seismic actions, the engineers and scientists in the
country face difficulties, basically with which codes and guidelines to follow. It is
obvious that all of those codes are not equally suitable for conditions in Sri Lanka
and also will not give out similar results.
The aim of this research is to check the performance level that a building can achieve
when analyzed according to different codes of practice, which are commonly used in
Sri Lanka in seismic analysis. In this context, three codes of practice were
considered, taking into account their applicability over the others in Sri Lankan
context, namely the Australian code (AS1170.4-2007), the Indian code (IS 1893
(Part 1):2002) and the Euro code (BS EN-1998-1:2004). The recommendations
provided in the research, conducted by the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, aimed
at providing guidance on suitable analysis procedures for buildings in Sri Lanka,
based on the euro code were also inco-operated in the analysis.
First, the seismic analysis procedures outlined in those codes with respect to both
static and dynamic analysis were discussed in detail. Then, the analysis procedures
introduced in the respective codes of practice were compared and contrasted,
considering how they handle the major effects, characteristics of the structures and
geotechnical considerations etc.
In order to demonstrate the analysis procedures and to make a comparison on results,

three high-rise buildings, having floors between 10 to 20 were selected and analyzed
according to the guidelines provided in the three selected codes of practice
respectively. In this case, all the structures were analyzed for three different soil
conditions, which could be found in Sri Lanka. The computer software "ETABS" has
been used for finite element modeling of all the structures. Response Spectrum
Analysis (RSA) was used in all the dynamic analysis purposes. Equivalent static
analysis was also carried out as per requirements, established in particular codes of
practice.
According to the results obtained in the analysis, it has been found that, irrespective
of the code of practice, which has been used in the analysis, the structures have
achieved Immediate Occupancy Level (IOL)in all twenty seven cases, according to
FEMA356 standards. It was also found that the Indian code has given the highest
drift values in many occasions while the Euro code also has given very close or
sometimes similar drift values. In contrast, the Australian code has generally resulted
lowest drift values. Further, it has also been identified that the Euro code has given
the highest design base shear forces in all eighteen occasions. On the other hand, the
Indian code has given lowest design base shear force in many occasions. The
Australian code has also shown the lowest design base shear forces in few occasions.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of the study ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objevtives ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Arrangement of the report............................................................................................. 3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Analysis procedure as described in Euro code (EN 1998-1:2004) ................................ 6
2.1.1 Design seismic action ............................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Horizontal elastic response spectra ........................................................................ 8
2.1.3 Horizontal design response spectra ........................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Vertical component of the seismic action ............................................................ 11
2.1.5 Seismic analysis of buildings ............................................................................... 12
2.1.5.1 Seismic mass of the building ........................................................................ 12
2.1.5.2 Seismic load combination ............................................................................. 12
2.1.5.3 Structural Regularity ..................................................................................... 14
2.1.5.3.1 Criteria for regularity in plan .................................................................. 14
2.1.5.3.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation .......................................................... 14
2.1.5.4 Structural Analysis ........................................................................................ 15
2.1.5.4.1 Static lateral force method of analysis .................................................... 16
2.1.5.4.2 Modal response spectrum analysis......................................................... 16
2.1.5.5 Accidental torsional effects........................................................................... 17
2.1.5.6. Displacements and drift ............................................................................... 18
2.1.5.6.1 Displacement .......................................................................................... 18
2.1.5.6.2 Inter-storey drift ..................................................................................... 18
2.1.5.7 P-Δ effects..................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Analysis procedure as described in Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007)..................... 19
2.2.1 Design seismic action ........................................................................................... 19

iv
2.2.2 Horizontal elastic response spectra ...................................................................... 22
2.2.4.1 Seismic weight of the building ..................................................................... 23
2.2.4.2 Seismic Load Combination ........................................................................... 24
2.2.4.3 Structural Analysis ........................................................................................ 24
2.2.4.3.1 Equivalent Static Analysis ...................................................................... 24
2.2.4.3.2 Modal response spectrum analysis......................................................... 29
2.2.4.4 Earthquake design categories ....................................................................... 31
2.2.4.4.1 Earthquake design category I (EDC I) .................................................. 31
2.2.4.4.2 Earthquake design category II (EDC II) ............................................... 31
2.2.4.4.3 Earthquake design category III (EDC III) ............................................. 33
2.3 Analysis procedure as described in Indian code [IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002] ................. 34
2.3.1 Horizontal elastic response spectra ...................................................................... 34
2.3.3 Design horizontal seismic coefficient .................................................................. 35
2.3.4.1 Seismic weight of the building ..................................................................... 38
2.3.4.2 Structural Irregularity.................................................................................... 38
2.3.4.2.1 Plan irregularity ..................................................................................... 38
2.3.4.2.2 Vertical irregularity ................................................................................ 39
2.3.4.3 Structural Analysis ....................................................................................... 40
2.3.4.3.1 Static lateral force method of analysis .................................................... 41
2.3.4.3.2 Dynamic analysis - Response spectrum method ..................................... 42
2.3.4.4 Torsional effects............................................................................................ 43
2.3.4.5 Storey drift limitation .................................................................................... 44
2.4Comparison of analysis procedures as described in the Euro code, the Australian code
and the Indian code ............................................................................................................ 44
2.4.1 Sub-soil conditions .............................................................................................. 44
v
2.4.2 Structural regularity ............................................................................................. 45
2.4.3 Seismic hazard factor ........................................................................................... 45
2.4.4 Design base shear force ....................................................................................... 45
2.4.5 Accidental Torsional effect .................................................................................. 45
2.4.6 P-delta effects .................................................................................................... 46
2.5 Review over previous research studies ........................................................................ 46
3.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 49
4.0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO EURO CODE { EN 1998-1:2004} ............................ 51
4.1 BUILDING "A" ....................................................................................................... 51
4.1.1 Design seismic action .......................................................................................... 51
4.1.2 Methods of analysis .............................................................................................. 52
4.1.2.1Structural Model ............................................................................................. 53
4.1.2.2 Lateral force method of analysis .................................................................... 55
4.1.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic mass of the building ............................................ 55
4.1.2.2.2 Calculation of seismic base shear .......................................................... 55
4.1.2.2.3 Distribution of lateral forces ................................................................... 56
4.1.2.3 Modal response spectrum analysis................................................................ 57
4.1.2.3.1 General rules ........................................................................................... 57
4.1.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses ................................................................. 58
4.1.2.3.3 Torsional effects...................................................................................... 58
4.1.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacement ................................................................ 59
4.1.2.3.5 Inter-storey drift ...................................................................................... 61
4.1.2.3.6 P-Δ effects .............................................................................................. 63
4.2 BUILDING "B" ....................................................................................................... 65
4.2.1 Design seismic action ........................................................................................... 65
4.2.2 Method of analysis ............................................................................................... 66
4.2.2.1 Structural Model ........................................................................................... 67
4.2.2.2 Lateral force method of analysis ................................................................... 68
vi
4.2.2.2.2 Calculating seismic base shear............................................................... 68
4.2.2.2.3 Distribution of lateral forces ................................................................. 69
4.2.2.3.1 General rules .......................................................................................... 70
4.2.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses ................................................................. 70
4.2.2.3.3 Torsional effects..................................................................................... 71
4.2.2.3.4. Storey shear and displacement .............................................................. 72
4.2.2.3.5Inter-storey drift ....................................................................................... 73
4.2.2.3.6 P-Δ effects .............................................................................................. 75
4.3 BUILDING "C" ....................................................................................................... 77
4.3.2 Methods of analysis .............................................................................................. 79
4.3.2.1 Structural Model ............................................................................................ 79
4.3.2.2 Lateral force method of analysis ................................................................... 80
4.3.2.2.2 Calculating seismic base shear................................................................ 81
4.3.2.3 Modal response spectrum analysis................................................................. 83
4.3.2.3.1 General rules ........................................................................................... 83
4.3.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses .................................................................. 83
4.3.2.3.4. Storey shear and displacement ............................................................... 84
4.3.2.3.5. Inter-storey drift ..................................................................................... 85
4.3.2.3.6 P-Δ effects .............................................................................................. 87
5.0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN CODE { AS 1170.4-2007} .............. 89
5.1 BUILDING "A" ....................................................................................................... 89
5.1.2 Method of analysis ................................................................................................ 90
5.1.2.1 Structural Model ........................................................................................... 91
vii
5.1.2.2. Equivalent static analysis .............................................................................. 92
5.1.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic weight of the building.......................................... 93
5.1.2.2.2 Calculation of seismic base shear ........................................................... 93
5.1.2.3.1. General rules .......................................................................................... 96
5.1.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses .................................................................. 96
5.1.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacements ............................................................. 98
5.1.2.3.5 Storey drifts............................................................................................ 99
5.1.2.3.6 P-Δ effects ............................................................................................ 100
5.2 BUILDING "B" ..................................................................................................... 102
5.2.1 Design seismic action ......................................................................................... 102
5.2.2 Method of analysis .............................................................................................. 104
5.2.2.1 Structural Model .......................................................................................... 104
5.2.2.2. Equivalent static analysis ............................................................................ 105
5.2.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic weight of the building........................................ 106
5.2.2.2.2 Calculation of seismic base shear ......................................................... 106
5.2.2.2.3 Distribution of lateral forces ................................................................ 108
5.2.2.3 Modal response spectrum analysis............................................................... 108
5.2.2.3.1. General rules ........................................................................................ 108
5.2.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses ................................................................ 109
5.2.2.3.3 Torsional effects.................................................................................... 109
5.2.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacements ............................................................ 110
5.2.2.3.5 Storey drifts........................................................................................... 111
5.2.2.3.6 P-Δ effects ............................................................................................ 112
5.3 BUILDING "C" ......................................................................................................... 114
viii
5.3.2.1 Structural Model .......................................................................................... 116
5.3.2.2 Equivalent static analysis ............................................................................. 117
5.3.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic weight of the building........................................ 118
5.3.2.2.2 Calculating seismic base shear............................................................ 118
5.3.2.3 Modal response spectrum analysis.............................................................. 120
5.3.2.3.1.General rules ......................................................................................... 120
5.3.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacements ........................................................... 122
5.3.2.3.5 Storey drifts......................................................................................... 123
5.3.2.3.6 P-Δ effects ............................................................................................. 124
6 .0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO IS 1893(Part 1) : 2002 .............................................. 126
6.1 BUILDING "A" ....................................................................................................... 126
6.1.2 Method of analysis ............................................................................................. 127
6.1.2.1 Structural Model ......................................................................................... 127
6.1.2.2. Lateral force method (Static analysis) ........................................................ 129
6.1.2.2.1 Seismic weight of the building ............................................................. 130
6.1.2.2.2 Design seismic base shear ................................................................... 130
6.1.2.3.1. General rules ........................................................................................ 132
6.1.2.3.4 Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method....... 134
6.1.2.3.5 Storey displacement and drift ............................................................... 136
6.2 BUILDING "B" ........................................................................................................ 139
ix
6.2.2 Method of analysis ............................................................................................. 140
6.2.2.1 Structural Model ......................................................................................... 140
6.2.2.2.1 Seismic weight of the building ............................................................. 142
6.2.2.2.2 Design seismic base shear ..................................................................... 142
6.2.2.3.1 General rules ......................................................................................... 144
6.2.2.3.3 Torsional effects................................................................................... 145
6.2.2.3.4 Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method..... 146
6.3 BUILDING "C" ......................................................................................................... 150
6.3.2.1Structural Model ........................................................................................... 151
6.3.2.2.1 Seismic weight of the building ............................................................ 153
6.3.2.2.2 Design seismic base shear ..................................................................... 153
6.3.2.3.1. General rules ........................................................................................ 155
6.3.2.3.4 Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method....... 157
7.0 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE LEVEL OFBUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT

CODES OF PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 161
7.1 Comparison based on target performance level ......................................................... 161
x
7.2 Comparison based on higheststorey drift ratios ......................................................... 163
7.3 Comparison based on design base shear force ........................................................... 164
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 167
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 168
APPENDIX A : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - A ................................................... 170
A1. Eighteen storied residential apartment building........................................................ 170
A2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004 ..................................................... 179
A2.1Structural regularity ............................................................................................. 179
A2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan ........................................................................ 179
A2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii and radii of

gyration ................................................................................................................ 181
A2.1.2Criteria for regularity in elevation ................................................................ 184
APPENDIX B : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - B .................................................... 185
B.1. Fourteen storied residential apartment building ....................................................... 185
B2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004 ..................................................... 197
B2.1Structural regularity ............................................................................................. 197
B2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan ........................................................................ 197
B2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii and radii of

gyration ................................................................................................................ 199
B2.1.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation ............................................................... 200
APPENDIX C : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - C .................................................... 201
C1. Ten storied residential apartment building ................................................................ 201
C2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004 ..................................................... 205
C2.1Structural regularity ............................................................................................. 205
C2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan ........................................................................ 205
C2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii and radii of

gyration ................................................................................................................ 207
C2.1.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation ............................................................... 208
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table EN-1 : Classifications of buildings into important classes 7
Table EN-2 : Design peak ground acceleration values (ag) 8
Table EN-3 : Soil classification and parameters defining 9

horizontal elastic response spectra
Table EN-4 : Basic value of the behavior factor (q0) for systems 10
regular in elevation (EN 1998-1:2004/5.2.2.2
(Table 5.1))
Table EN-5 : Factor kw reflecting the prevailing failure mode (EN 11

1998-1:2004/5.2.2.2 (11)P)
Table EN-6 : Approximate values for multiplication factor 11

for buildings regular in plan (EN 1998-
1:2004/5.2.2.2 (5))
Table EN-7 : Recommended values of ψ factors in EN 13

1990/Table A1.1
Table EN-8 : Definitions of different categories A-E 13
Table EN-9 : Values of φ factors 14
Table EN-10 : Consequences of structural regularity on structural 15

model and the analysis method
Table AS-1 : Reference probability of exceedance 19
Table AS-2 : Classification of buildings in to important classes 20
Table AS- 3 : Selection of earthquake design categories 21
Table AS-4 : Probability factor kp 22
Table AS-5 : Equations for spectra 23
Table AS- 6 : Structural ductility factor (µ) and structural 27

performance factor (Sp) - Basic structures
xii
Table AS-7 : Value of Ks for structures not exceeding 15m 32
Table IS-1 : Soil classification and parameters defining 35

horizontal elastic response spectra
Table IS-2 : Zone factor, Z (Table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002) 36
Table IS-3 : Importance Factor, I (Table 6 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 36

2002)
Table IS-4 : Response reduction factor1) , R (Table 7 of IS 1893 37

(Part 1) : 2002)
Table IS-5 : Percentage of imposed load to be considered in 38

seismic weight calculation in (Table 8 of IS 1893
(Part 1) : 2002)
Table IS-6 : Consequences of structural regularity on structural 40

model and the analysis method
Table EA-1 : Total seismic mass of building A 55
Table EA-2 : Correction factor, λ for building A 56
Table EA-3 : Seismic base shear of building A 56
Table EA-4 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 57

level - Building A
Table EA-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 58

building A(Modal response spectrum analysis)
Table EA-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction 59
Table EA-7 : Storey shear forces of building A (Modal response 60

spectrum analysis method)
Table EA-8 : Design displacement (ds) of the test building at each 60

storey level (Modal response spectrum analysis
method)
Table EA-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 61

limitation requirement by modal response spectrum
analysis - Soft soil conditions
xiii
analysis – Medium soil conditions

analysis – Hard soil conditions
Table EA-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity 63

coefficient at each level of building A from modal
response spectrum analysis – Soft soil conditions.

response spectrum analysis – Medium soil
conditions

response spectrum analysis – Hard soil conditions
Table EB-1 : Total seismic mass of building B 68
Table EB-2 : Correction factor, λ for building B 69
Table EB-3 : Seismic base shear of building B 69
Table EB-4 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 70

level - Building B
Table EB-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 71

building B (Modal response spectrum analysis)
Table EB-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction 72
Table EB-7 : Storey shear forces of building B (Modal response 72

Table EB-8 : Design displacement (ds) of the test building at each 73

method)
Table EB-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 74
xiv


Table EB-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity 76

coefficient at each level of building B from modal
response spectrum analysis – Soft soil conditions

conditions

response spectrum analysis – Hard soil condition
Table EC-1: : Total seismic mass of building C 81
Table EC-2 : Correction factor, λ for building C 82
Table EC-3 : Seismic base shear of building C 82
Table EC-4 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 82

level - Building C
Table EC-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 83

building C (Modal response spectrum analysis)
Table EC-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction 84
Table EC-7 : Storey shear forces of building C (Modal response 84

Table EC-8 : Design displacement (ds) of the test building at each 85

xv
method)
Table EC-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 86



Table EC-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity 87

coefficient at each level of building C from modal
response spectrum analysis – Soft soil conditions.

conditions

response spectrum analysis – Hard soil conditions
Table AA-1 : Total seismic weight of building A 93
Table AA-2 : Design seismic base shear of building A (T1 from 94

modal analysis)
Table AA-3 : Design seismic base shear of building A (T1 from 94

eq. 6.2(7) of AS 1170.4-2007)
Table AA-4 : Design seismic base shear of building A 94
Table AA-5 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 95

level
Table AA-6 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 97

building A (Modal response spectrum analysis
xvi
Table AA-7 : Torsional moments - Building A 98
Table AA-8 : Storey shear forces of building A (Modal response 98

Table AA-9 : Design displacement (di) of the test building at each 99

method)
Table AA-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 100

analysis – Building A
Table AA-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at 101

each level of building A from modal response
spectrum analysis – Very soft soil conditions

spectrum analysis – Shallow soil conditions

spectrum analysis – Rock conditions
Table AB-1 : Total seismic weight of building B 106
Table AB-2 : Design seismic base shear of building B (T1 from 107
modal analysis)
Table AB-3 : Design seismic base shear of building B (T1 from eq. 107
6.2(7) of AS 1170.4-2007)
Table AB-4 : Design seismic base shear of building B 107
Table AB-5 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 108

level
Table AB-6 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 109

building B (Modal response spectrum analysis
Table AB-7 : Torsional moments - Building B 110
Table AB-8 : Storey shear forces of building B (Modal response 111
xvii
Table AB-9 : Design displacement (di) of the test building at each 111
method)
Table AB-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 112

analysis – Building B
Table AB-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at 113

each level of building B from modal response


Table AC-1 : Total seismic weight of building C 118
Table AC-2 : Design seismic base shear of building C (T1 from 119
modal analysis)
Table AC-3 : Design seismic base shear of building C (T1 from eq. 119
6.2(7) of AS 1170.4-2007)
Table AC-4 : Design seismic base shear of building C 119
Table AC-5 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey 120

level
Table AC-6 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of 121

building C (Modal response spectrum analysis
Table AC-7 : Torsional moments - Building C 122
Table AC-8 : Storey shear forces of building C (Modal response 122

Table AC-9 : Design displacement (di) of the test building at each 123
xviii
method)
Table AC-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 123

analysis – Building C
Table AC-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at 124

each level of building C from modal response


Table IA-1 : Seismic weight of building A 130
Table IA-2 : Design seismic base shear by static lateral force 131
method - Building A
Table IA-3 : Distribution of design seismic base shear at each 132

storey level - Building A
Table IA-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by 133

modal response spectrum analysis - Building A
Table IA-5 : Torsional moments - Building A 134
Table IA-6 : Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum 135

analysis method - Building A
Table IA-7 : Summary of base shear forces - Building A 135
Table IA-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response 135

spectrum analysis method - Building A
Table IA-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response 137

Table IA-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 137
xix
analysis – Building A
Table IA-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response 138

Table IA-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response 138

Table IB-1 : Seismic weight of building B 142
Table IB-2 : Design seismic base shear by static lateral force 143
method - Building B
Table IB-3 : Distribution of design seismic base shear at each 144

storey level - Building B
Table IB-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by 145

modal response spectrum analysis - Building B
Table IB-5 : Torsional moments - Building B 145
Table IB-6 : Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum 146

analysis method - Building B
Table IB-7 : Summary of base shear forces - Building B 146
Table IB-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response 147

spectrum analysis method - Building B
Table IB-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response 148

Table IB-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 148

analysis – Building B
Table IB-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response 149

Table IB-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response 149

Table IC-1 : Seismic weight of building C 153
xx
Table IC-2 : Design seismic base shear by static lateral force 154
method - Building C
Table IC-3 : Distribution of design seismic base shear at each 155

storey level - Building C
Table IC-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by 156

modal response spectrum analysis - Building C
Table IC-5 : Torsional moments - Building C 157
Table IC-6 : Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum 157

analysis method - Building C
Table IC-7 : Summary of base shear forces - Building C 158
Table IC-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response 158

spectrum analysis method - Building C
Table IC-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response 159

Table IC-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage 159

analysis – Building C
Table IC-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response 160

Table IC-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response 160

Table 7.1.1 : Transient lateral drift at roof level of the three 162
structures
Table 7.1.2 : Code of practice for highest and lowest drift ratio at 162
roof level
Table 7.2.1 : Highest storey drift ratio at any storey level 163
Table 7.2.2 : Code of practice for maximum andminimum value 164

of highest storey drift ratio at any storey level
Table 7.3.1 : Design base shear force of the three structures 165
xxi
Table 7.3.2 : Code of practice for highest and lowest design base 165
shear force
Table A1 : Material properties used in the analysis 176
Table A2 : Design loads used in the analysis 176
Table A3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test 177

buildings
Table A4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load on the test 179

buildings
Table A5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from 179

modal analysis
Table A6 : Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of 181

gyration in each horizontal direction
Table A7 : Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction 182
Table A8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction 183
Table A9 : Radius of gyration 184
Table B1 : Material properties used in the analysis 190
Table B2 : Design loads used in the analysis 191
Table B3 : Approximate calculation of dead load of the test 192

building
Table B4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load of the test 197

buildings
Table B5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from 197

modal analysis
Table B6 : Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of 198

Table B7 : Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction 199
Table B8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction 199
Table B9 : Radius of gyration 200
xxii
Table C1 : Material properties used in the analysis 202
Table C2 : Design loads used in the analysis 202
Table C3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test 203

building
Table C4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load on the test 205

buildings
Table C5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from 205

modal analysis
Table C6 : Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of 206

Table C7 : Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction 207
Table C8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction 207
Table C9 : Radius of gyration 208
xxiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure EA-1 : Elastic response spectrum and design response 52

spectrum - Building A
Figure EA-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building A 54
Figure EB-1 : Elastic response spectrum and design response 66

spectrum - Building B
Figure EB-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building B 67
Figure EC-1 : Elastic response spectrum and design response 78

spectrum - Building C
Figure EC-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building C 80
Figure AA-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building A 92
Figure AB-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building B 105
Figure AC-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building C 117
Figure IA-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building A 129
Figure IB-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building B 141
Figure IC-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building B 152
Figure A1 : Plan View - Ground floor 171
Figure A2 : Plan View - First floor 171
Figure A3 : Plan View – 2nd to 4th floor 172
Figure A4 : Plan View – 5th floor 172
Figure A5 : Plan View – 6th to 16th floor 173
Figure A6 : Plan View – 17th floor 173
Figure A7 : Plan View – Roof floor 174
Figure A8 : Cross section A-A of the buildings 175
Figure B1 : Plan View - Ground floor 186
Figure B2 : Plan View - First floor 187
xxiv
Figure B3 : Plan View – 2nd to 13th floor 188
Figure B4 : Plan View – Roof floor 189
Figure B5 : Cross section A-A of the buildings 190
Figure C1 : Plan View - First Floor 201
Figure C2 : Plan View - Typical Floor 202
xxv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
It has now been realized that Sri Lanka can no longer be considered isolated from
seismic threat when the recent past events occurred in and around the island are
considered. Therefore, the higher authorities, scientists and engineers in the relevant
fields have taken the initiative to study the possible earthquakes in Sri Lanka and
their adverse effects [5].
Since, Sri Lanka is located at a reasonable distance from the Indo-Australian plate
boundary, it has not been facing a big threat against inter-plate type earthquakes.
Other than inter-plate earthquakes, that can happen at plate boundaries, intra-plate
earthquakes can also take place within the tectonic plates, causing significant
damages. Therefore, the scientists and engineers in the country have identified the
importance of designing structures against possible earthquakes, that can happen in
the future. However, in Sri Lanka, there is not much established guidelines available
for analysis and designing of buildings against seismic actions. The engineers and
scientists face difficulties basically with what code of practice to follow and how to
apply the other codes for Sri Lankan conditions.
Furthermore, dynamic analysis has become increasingly popular among many

countries and most of the seismic codes have specified that the dynamic analysis as
the preferred procedure for structural analysis, because of its superiority in reflecting
seismic response accurately, specially in tall buildings and irregular buildings.
One main nature of dynamic analysis is its high sensitivity to the characteristics of
ground motions selected and engineering assumptions made, which in turn are
dependent on the experience and judgment of the analyst. Studies in the past have
shown that distinctly different results could be obtained from analysis of the same
building conducted by different analysts. Therefore, dynamic analysis procedures
were regarded as unsafe, unless conducted by experienced and knowledgeable
engineers [7]. This reiterates the importance of explicit knowledge of the ground
condition of the location, validity of assumptions, availability of seismic data
particular to the location etc, when dealing with dynamic analysis.
1
Since there is no own code of practice for seismic analysis, the engineers of Sri
Lanka have to use one of available codes among many. But, it is clear that each of
these codes are not equally convenient and suitable to be applied in Sri Lankan
conditions and would not give same results after analysis. These codes are prepared
to suit with their geotechnical conditions, environment and structures. Therefore it is
very important and useful to make a detail discussion and study through these codes
to check the applicability of these codes for Sri Lankan conditions and to check
results through some analysis.
1.2 Scope of the study

Since, most of the buildings, which can be found in Sri Lanka are reinforced concrete
buildings, the research has been limited to reinforced concrete buildings only.
Further, very tall buildings are also not common in the country, except there are few
located in Colombo. Buildings of mid-height are common and can be found in
almost all the major cities in the Island. Therefore, the research to be more useful,
buildings between ten to twenty floor levels were selected. The analysis procedure
was also limited for linear methods only.
1.3 Objevtives
The main objectives of this research can be pointed out as,
* To discuss and compare the seismic analysis procedures described in the Australian
code (AS1170.4-2007), the Indian code (IS 1893 (Part 1):2002) and the Euro code
(EN 1998-1:2004).
* To demonstrate through case studies how to apply the static and dynamic seismic
analysis procedures described in selected codes to analyse buildings in Sri Lanka
under different geotechnical considerations.
* To compare the performance level that can be achieved through analysis against
three of these codes separately.
2
1.4 Methodology
Firstly, three main seismic analysis codes that are often used by Sri Lankan engineers
were identified, namely the Euro code, EC-8 (EN 1998-1:2004), the Australian code
(AS 1170.4-2007) and the Indian code (IS 1893 (Part 1):2002). In literature review
section, the analysis procedures that have been established in each of those codes
were then outlined in step by step.
To demonstrate the analysis procedures established in above codes of practice, three

reinforced concrete buildings of floors between ten to twenty were selected and
analysed according to the guidelines provided in respective codes of practice.
In order the results to be more fair and general, the analysis were repeated for
different geotechnical conditions, that can be commonly found in Sri Lanka.
Finally, the structural performance level, that has been reached, when analysed
according to different codes of practice were found and compared.
The methodology adopted in this study has been described in detail in Chapter 3.
1.5 Arrangement of the report

The remainder of the report is divided into the following sections.
Chapter 2- This chapter basically outlines the seismic analysis procedures

established in codes of practice that are commonly used in seismic analysis in Sri
Lanka, namely the Euro code (EN 1998-1:2004) with national guide lines developed
for seismic analysis of buildings in Sri Lanka by Disaster Management Centre
(DMC), Sri Lanka, the Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007) and the Indian code (IS
1893 (Part 1):2002.
At latter part of the chapter, it also compare and contrast the analysis procedure
described in each code of practice, how they have defined different parameters and
how they have considered different structural effects etc.
Chapter 3- This chapter basically describes the methodology adopted to achieve

objectives of the study.
It describes how the three codes of practice were selected for analysis.
3
It also explains the selection of buildings for analysis.
It further describes the soil categories that the analysis to be based on for Sri Lankan
conditions
Chapter 4- This chapter basically presents step by step calculations of seismic

analysis adopted according to the Euro code (EN1998-1:2004) for selected
reinforced concrete buildings.
It explains basic characteristics of ETABS computer models, developed to fulfill the

requirements established in the code.
It describes the implementation of static method of analysis to obtain base shear

force and steps to follow to distribute this force at each floor level.
It also describes in detail the procedure adopted to obtain seismic response quantities
dynamically by Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA).
It further demonstrate the established method to check the structure against damage
limitation requirements and against allowable inter-storey drift coefficient.
Chapter 5- In similar way as described in Chapter 4, The Chapter 5 basically

presents step by step calculations of seismic analysis adopted according to the
Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007) for selected reinforced concrete buildings.

requirements established in the code, the procedures described with respect to static
and dynamic(RSA) analysis to obtain response quantities and its vertical distribution
etc.
It further demonstrates the established method to check the structure against damage
limitation requirements and against allowable inter-storey drift coefficient.
Chapter 6- As similar in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, The Chapter 6 basically presents

step by step calculations of seismic analysis adopted according to the Indian code
(IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002) for selected reinforced concrete buildings.
4
requirements established in the code, the procedures described with respect to static
and dynamic(RSA) analysis to obtain response quantities and its vertical distribution
etc.
It further demonstrates the established method to check the structure against damage
limitation requirements.
Chapter 7 - This chapter basically provides a detail comparison of performance

levels achieved by buildings analysed with different codes of practice.
Chapter 8 - Conclusions made on analysis results and recommendations are

described in this chapter.
5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Analysis of structures for seismic effects has now become almost a basic part of the
structural design procedures almost all over the world. To achieve this purpose, some
countries have developed their own codes of practice and they therefore analyse and
design the structures accordingly. However, for countries those who do not have
their own codes of practice have to depend upon some other codes of practice which
can be used for their purposes with appropriate adjustments.
Sri Lanka also does not have its own code of practice for seismic analysis. This
chapter presents a detail analysis and discussion made on three codes of practice,
which are commonly used in seismic analysis in Sri Lanka, namely the Euro code
(EN 1998-1:2004) with national guidelines developed for seismic analysis of
buildings in Sri Lanka by Disaster Management Centre (DMC), Sri Lanka, the
Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007) and the Indian code (IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
Firstly the analysis procedures established in all three codes were out lined in brief,
highlighting how those codes are used in analysis process in Sri Lanka. Then those
three codes of practice were compared and contrasted under different criteria
considering how those codes have defined different parameters and how they have
proposed values for them etc, which is very important to find out the advantages and
disadvantages of adopting one code over the other.
2.1 Analysis procedure as described in Euro code (EN 1998-1:2004)

This section describes briefly the analysis procedure, which has been established in Euro
code. It should be also mentioned that the national guidelines developed for seismic
analysis of buildings in Sri Lanka by Disaster Management Centre (DMC), Sri Lanka
have also been inco-operated in the same section.
2.1.1 Design seismic action

The structures shall be designed to fulfill the two fundamental requirements; no-
collapse requirement and damage limitation requirement, as stated in EN 1998-
1:2004 (EC 8). The proposed peak ground acceleration values will represent the
seismic action for no-collapse requirement and they will be different for buildings of
different importance classes.
6
Table EN-1: Classification of buildings into important classes
Importance level Classification Examples

Buildings of minor importance Agricultural buildings, isolated structures, domestic structures
I for safety of public and other
property
Hotels, offices, apartment buildings of less than 10 storeys high,
Factories up to 4 storeys high
Buildings of low-moderate Car parking buildings, Shopping centres less than 10,000m 2 gross
II importance for safety of public area , Public assembly buildings for fewer than 100 persons
and other properties Emergency medical and other emergency facilities not designated as
post-disaster, Airport terminals, principal railway stations
Hotels, offices, apartment buildings over 10 storeys high, Factories

Buildings of significant and heavy machinery plants over 4 storeys high
III importance for safety of public
Shopping centres of over 10000m2 gross area excluding parking,
and other properties
Public assembly buildings for more than 100 persons
Pre-schools, Schools, colleges, universities, Major infrastructure

facilities, e.g. power stations, substations
Medical facilities for surgery and emergency treatment, Hospitals,

Buildings of greater importance
Fire and police stations, Ambulance facilities
IV with post disaster functions for
civil protection Buildings housing toxic or explosive substances in sufficient
quantities to be dangerous to the public if released
Extreme hazard facilities (Dams etc.)
The structures shall be classified into four categories (Table EN-1). The importance
class I includes the structures which does not require an explicit seismic
consideration in the design process. The importance class II, III and IV include the
structures identified as important during an earthquake event considering their
function, the consequences of failure and the economic aspects. Therefore,
importance class II, III and IV buildings shall be designed for seismic actions having
475, 1500 and 2500 year return periods respectively [5].
The design peak ground acceleration value for each category of buildings shall be
then calculated as
Where,
: Design peak ground acceleration
7
: Importance factor (Refer Table EN-2)
: Peak ground acceleration for 475 years return period seismic action
(Refer Table EN-2: Note)
Table EN-2 : Design peak ground acceleration values (ag)
Importance Class
I --
II 1
III 1.5
IV 1.8
Note: For Sri Lanka, the (reference) peak ground acceleration for475 year
return period shall be taken as 0.1g and is assumed same for the whole
country [5].
2.1.2 Horizontal elastic response spectra

It has been recommended that the horizontal elastic response spectra given in IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 to be used in the seismic analysis according to Euro code for
buildings in Sri Lanka [5], and expressed by
Where
: elastic response spectra
T : vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system
: lower limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch
: upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch
S : soil factor
The horizontal elastic response spectra are given for three types of soil classified
based on the Standard Penetration Test value (NSPT) [5]. Refer table EN-3 for the soil
classification and the corresponding parameters defining the elastic response spectra.
8
Table EN-3 :Soil classification and parameters defining horizontal elastic
response spectra
Soil Type NSPT S TB TC
I
>30 1 0.1 0.4
(Hard soil)
II
10-30 1.36 0.1 0.55
(Medium soil)
III
<10 1.67 0.1 0.67
(Soft soil)
2.1.3 Horizontal design response spectra
The design response spectrum for the seismic analysis of buildings shall be obtained
by reducing the elastic response spectra by the value of behavior factor (q) as
recommended in EC 8 and are given in the specific sections of the code. The design
response spectra shall be then given as
Where
: design horizontal response spectrum
q : behavior factor
T, TB, TC, S: as defined in Section 2.1.2 above
In selecting the behavior factors, the buildings of importance class II, III and IV shall
be considered as ductility class medium (DCM) or high (DCH).
The behavior factor (q) used in the reinforced concrete structures as given in EN
1998-1/5.2.2.2 is given by
≥1.5
Where
9
q: behavior factor
: basic value of the behavior factor (Refer Table EN-4)
: factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with
walls (Refer Table EN-5)
Table EN-4 :Basic value of the behavior factor (q0) for systems regular in
elevation (EN 1998-1:2004/5.2.2.2 (Table 5.1))
Structural Type1 DCM DCH

Frame system, dual system, coupled wall system
Uncoupled wall system 3.0
Torsionally flexible system 2.0 3.0
Inverted pendulum system 1.5 2.0
1. For the definition of each structural type refer EN 1998-1/5.2.2.1
2. For buildings which are not regular in elevation, the value of q 0 shall be reduced by 20%.
αu and α1 are defined in EN 1998-1/5.2.2.2 (4) as
α1: the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied in order to
first reach the flexural resistance in any member in the structure, while all other
design actions remain constant
αu: the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied, in order to
form plastic hinges in a number of sections sufficient for the development of
overall structural instability, while all other design actions remain constant (This
value may be obtained from a nonlinear static (pushover) global analysis)
In the absence of the calculated value of the multiplication factor as above,

EN 1998-1/ 5.2.2.2 (5) gives approximate values for buildings regular in plan (Refer
Table EN-6)
10
Table EN-5 : Factor kw reflecting the prevailing failure mode(EN 1998-
1:2004/5.2.2.2 (11)P)
Structural Type1 kw
Frame and frame-equivalent dual systems 1.00
Wall, wall-equivalent and Torsionally flexible systems
1. For definitions of structural types refer EN 1998-1/5.2.2.1

2. α0 is the prevailing aspect ratio of the walls of the structural system and if the aspect ratios hwi/lwi of all
walls i of a structural system do not significantly differ, the prevailing aspect ratio shall be determined as
(EN 1998-1/5.2.2.2 (12))
∑ ∑
Where
: height of the wall i
: length of the section of wall i
Table EN-6 : Approximate values for multiplication factor for buildings

regular in plan (EN 1998-1:2004/5.2.2.2 (5))
Structural Type
Frames or frame-equivalent dual systems
One-storey buildings 1.1
Multistory, one bay frames 1.2
Multistory, multi bay frames or frame-equivalent dual systems 1.3
Wall or wall-equivalent dual systems
Wall systems with only two uncoupled walls per horizontal direction 1.0
Other uncoupled wall systems 1.1
Wall-equivalent dual, or coupled wall systems 1.2
2.1.4 Vertical component of the seismic action

EN 1998-1: 2004/4.3.5.2 states that If than 0.25 g (2.5m/s²) the
vertical component of the seismic action should be taken into account in the cases
listed below.
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal structures members spanning 20m or

more;
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal cantilever components longer than 5m;
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal pre-stressed components;
- For beams supporting columns:
- In base-isolation systems;
11
It is recommended to use the vertical elastic response spectrum recommended in IS
1893-1:2002, where 2/3 of horizontal elastic response spectrum as vertical elastic
response spectra [5].
2.1.5 Seismic analysis of buildings

2.1.5.1 Seismic mass of the building
EN 1998-1: 2004/3.2.4 states that seismic mass of the building which is taken into
account in evaluating the inertial effects of the design seismic action is in the
following combination of actions.
∑ ∑
Where
: permanent load
: variable load
(EN 1998-1: 4.2.4)
: factor representing the quasi permanent value of the variable action
(EN 1990:2002 - Table EN-7)
φ : (EN 1998-1: Table 4.2- Refer Table EN-9)
2.1.5.2 Seismic load combination

The seismic load combination to be used in the analysis and design of buildings shall
be taken as the load combination given in EN 1990: Basis for designs
∑ ∑
Where,
G : permanent actions (self-weight and other dead loads)
A : design seismic action
Q : variable actions (live loads)
: factor representing the quasi permanent value of the variable action
(EN 1990:2002 - Table EN-7)
12
Table EN-7 : Recommended values of ψ factors in EN 1990/Table A1.1
Table EN-8 : Definitions of different categories A-E
13
Table EN-9 : Values of φ factors
Type of available action Storey φ

Roof 1.0
Categories A-C Storeys with correlated occupancies 0.8
Independently occupied storeys 0.5
Categories D-F and archives 1.0
2.1.5.3 Structural Regularity

The buildings shall be categorized as regular or irregular according to provisions
given in EN 1998-1: 2004/4.2.3.
2.1.5.3.1 Criteria for regularity in plan

The criteria for regularity in plan are described in EN 1998-1:2004/4.2.3.2. The
following conditions shall be checked in order to categorize the selected structure is
regular in plan.
o Lateral stiffness and the mass distribution shall be approximately symmetrical
in plan with respect to two orthogonal axes
o The plan configuration shall be compact.
o The slenderness λ = Lmax/Lminof the building in plan shall not be greater than
4.
o The structural eccentricity ec0 and the torsional radius, r (at each level and for
each direction of analysis) shall be
X-direction;
Y-direction;
For definitions of the centre of stiffness and of the torsional radius in multi storey
buildings refer "Manual for the seismic design of steel and concrete buildings to
Euro Code 8".
2.1.5.3.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation
A building must satisfy all the requirements given in Clause 4.2.3.3 of EN 1998-
1:2004 to be classified as regular in elevation. The requirements are briefed here as
follows.
14
o All the vertical load resisting elements shall continue uninterrupted from
foundation level to the top of the building or where set backs are present to
the top of the setback.
o Mass and stiffness shall either remain constant with height or reduce only
gradually without abrupt changes.
o In buildings with moment-resisting frames, the lateral resistance of each
storey (i.e. the seismic shear initiating failure within that storey, for the code-
specified distribution of seismic loads) shall not vary „disproportionately‟
between storeys.
o Buildings with setbacks (i.e. where the plan area suddenly reduces between
successive storeys) are generally irregular, but may be classified as regular if
additional condition defined in the EC 8 are satisfied.
2.1.5.4 Structural Analysis
Clause 4.3.3 of EN 1998-1: 2004 describes two types of linear-elastic analysis as

I. Lateral force method of analysis (Static)
II. Modal response spectrum analysis (Dynamic)
a) The use of above two methods of analysis shall be decided based on the
structural characteristics of the building.
b) For the consequences of structural regularity on the structural analysis method
refer Table EN-10 (EN 1998-1:2004/ Table 4.1)
c) The criteria given in EN 1998-1: 2004/ 4.3.1 shall be considered in the structural
model used in the analysis
Table EN-10 : Consequences of structural regularity on structural model and

the analysis method
Regularity Allowed simplification Behavior factor
Plan Elevation Model Linear-elastic analysis (for linear analysis)
Yes Yes Planar Lateral Force Reference value
Yes No Planar Modal Decreased value
No Yes Spatial Lateral Force Reference value
No No Spatial Modal Decreased value
15
2.1.5.4.1 Static lateral force method of analysis
a) The static lateral force method of analysis is used for buildings only which
satisfy the requirements given in EN 1998-1:2004/4.3.3.2.1 (2).
b) The total seismic base shear of the building shall be determined by the following
expression (See EN 1998-1:2004/eq.4.5).
Where
Sd(T1): the spectral acceleration obtained from the design response spectrum
for the fundamental period of vibration T1.
m: the seismic mass of the building (Refer Clause 3.2.4 of EN 1998-
1:2004)
λ: correction factor as given in EN 1998-1:2004/ 4.3.3.2.2
T1: fundamental period of vibration of the building as given in EN 1998-
1:2004/4.3.3.2.1 (2), (3), (4) & (5).
c) The total horizontal load shall then be distributed over the height of the building.
Normally the distribution of lateral loads shall be done by making simple
assumption on the mode shape, that is, for regular buildings, the mode shape is a
straight line of which the displacement is directly proportional to the height
(fundamental mode of vibration). With this assumption, the force at storey level
Fk shall be determined as (EN 1998-1:2004/eq.4.10)
Where zi and zj represent the heights of the masses mi, mj above the level of
application of the seismic action.
2.1.5.4.2 Modal response spectrum analysis

a) This type of analysis is generally recommended to use for any building. The
followings are the important aspects that should be considered in the analysis
procedure in accordance with the code.
16
b) The response of all modes of vibration contribution significantly to the global
response shall be considered. The code specifies that, this requirement is taken to
be satisfied if
- The sum of the effective modal masses for modes taken into analysis
amounts to 90% of the total mass of the structure
- All modes with effective modal masses greater than 5% of the total mass
are taken
c) Combination of modal responses is an important step in the modal response
spectrum analysis. EN 1998-1:2004/4.3.3.3.2 recommends the “Complete
Quadratic Combination” (CQC) rule as an accurate procedure for this. The
results of the modal analysis in each direction are then combined by the
recommended methods as described in EN 1998-1:2004/4.3.3.5.1.
d) EC 8 recommends the accidental torsional effects to be taken into account in the
seismic analysis whenever a spatial model is used.
2.1.5.5 Accidental torsional effects

In order to account for uncertainties in the location of masses and in the special
variation of the seismic motion, as described in EN 1998-1:2004/4.3.2, the calculated
centre of mass at each floor level i shall be considered as being displaced from its
nominal location in each direction by an accidental eccentricity:
eai = ±0.05. Li
where
eai is the accidental eccentricity of storey mass i from its nominal location,
applied in the same direction at all floors;
Li is the floor-dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action.
Whenever a spatial model is used for analysis, as described in clause 4.3.3.3.3 of EN

1998-1:2004, the accidental torsional effects may be determined as the envelop of the
effects resulting from the application of static loadings, consisting of sets of torsional
moments Mai about the vertical axis of each storey i:
17
2.1.5.6. Displacements and drift
2.1.5.6.1 Displacement
As described in EN 1998-1:2004/4.3.4, in the case of a linear analysis the
displacement of a point of the structural system induced by the design seismic action
is calculated by the product of displacement behavior factor and the displacement of
the same point of the structural system as determined from the linear analysis.
2.1.5.6.2 Inter-storey drift

EN 1998-1:2004/4.4.2.2 (2) defines the design inter-storey drift (dr) as the difference
of the average lateral displacements (ds) at the top and bottom of the storey under
consideration.
According to clauses 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2 of EN 1998-1:2004, the inter-storey drift

(dr) should be limited in order to verify the damage limitation requirement given by
the following expression.
Where, reduction factor accounts for the lower return period to be considered in
damage limitation requirement and it is 0.4 for the buildings of importance class III
and IV and 0.5 for buildings of important class I and II (Clause 4.4.3.2 (2) of EN
1998-1:2001). The value of has three different figures, 0.005, 0.0075 and 0.01
depending on the type of non-structural elements in the building. The„h‟ is the height
of the storey.
2.1.5.7 P-Δ effects

The clause 4.4.2.2 (2) of EN 1998-1:2004 recommends that P-Δ effects need not be
taken into account if the value of inter storey drift sensitivity coefficient is less than
0.1. The inter storey drift sensitivity coefficient, θ is given by the expression below.
Where is inter-storey drift, h is the storey height, is the total seismic storey
shear and is the total gravity load at and above the storey considered in the
seismic design situation.
18
For the values of inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient between 0.1 and 0.2, the
code advices to multiply the seismic action effects obtained from the analysis by a
factor equal to 1/(1-θ). However, the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient shall not
exceed 0.3.
2.2 Analysis procedure as described in Australian code (AS 1170.4-

2007)
This section describes briefly the seismic analysis procedure, which has been established in
the Australian code under different sub sections as follows.

The structures shall be designed for a particular design working life (N), which
defined as the minimum number of years for which a structure or a structural element
is assumed in design to be used for its intended purpose with required maintenance
but without major structural repair being necessary. This is a "reference period"
according to AS/NZS 1170.0. it is a concept used to select the probability of
exceedance of different actions.
For ultimate limit states for structures of importance levels 1 to 4, the annual
probability of exceedance (P) for wind, snow and earthquake loads shall be
determined as,
P = Pref X (50/N)
where,
Pref = reference probability of exceedance for safety
N = design working life of the structure, in years
P = annual probability of exceedance
Table AS-1 :Reference probability of exceedance

Importance level Annual probability of the design event for safety
Wind Snow Earthquake
1 1/100 1/50 1/100
2 1/500 1/150 1/500
3 1/1000 1/250 1/1000
4 1/2000 1/500 1/2500
19
Table AS-2 :Classification of buildings into important classes
Importance
Comment Examples
level
Structures presenting a low Farm buildings, isolated structures, towers in rural situations
1 degree of hazard to life and Fences, masts, walls, in-ground swimming pools
other property
Hotels, offices, apartments less than 15 storeys high
Normal structures and Car parking buildings

2 structures not in other
Shopping centres less than 10,000m2 gross area
importance levels
Emergency medical and other emergency facilities not

designated as post-disaster Airport terminals, principal railway
stations, correctional institutions, schools, colleges, universities
Structures over 15 storeys high of the following types:
(a)Hotels and motels

Structures that as a whole
may contain people in crowds (b) Apartment buildings
3 or contents of high value to (c) Offices
the community or pose risks
to people in crowds Public assembly buildings of more than 1000m2
Public museums and art galleries of more than 1000m2
Shopping centres with covered malls with over 10000m2 gross

area excluding parking
Grandstands for more than 10 000 people
Major infrastructure facilities, e.g. power stations, substations
Air traffic control stations
Designated civilian emergency centres, medical emergency

facilities, emergency vehicle garages and their fuel supplies and
ambulance, fire and police stations, etc.
Structures with special post- Ancillary installations necessary for the operation of importance
4 level 4 structures (emergency power, phone, radio, etc.)
disaster functions
Medical facilities for surgery and emergency treatment,

Hospitals, Fire and police stations, Ambulance facilities
Buildings housing toxic or explosive substances in sufficient

quantities to be dangerous to the public if released
Extreme hazard facilities (Dams etc.)
Special structures Structures that have special functions or whose failure poses
(outside the scope of this catastrophic risk to a large area(e.g. 100 km2) ora large number
5 Standard-acceptable of people (e.g. 100 000)
probability of failure to be Dams, extreme hazard facilities
determined by special study)
20
The structures shall be classified into five important classes (Table AS-2). The
importance class 1 includes the structures, which does not require an explicit seismic
consideration in the design process and also the domestic structures that comply with
the definition given in appendix A and with the provisions of appendix A of the code
are deemed to satisfy the standard. All other structures identified as important during
an earthquake event considering their function, the consequences of failure and the
economic aspects. Therefore, importance class 2, 3 and 4structures shall be designed
for seismic actions having 500, 1000 and 2500 years return periods respectively.
The code AS 1170.4-2007 defines three earthquake design categories, category I, II

and III
Table AS- 3 : Selection of earthquake design categories
Importance (kpZ) for site sub-soil class Structure Earthquake

level, type of Ee or De Ce Be Ae height, hn design
structure (m) category
1 - - Not required
to be designed
for earthquake
actions
Domestic - Top of roof Refer to
structure ≤8.5 Appendix A
(housing) Top of roof Design as
>8.5 importance
level 2
2 ≤0.05 ≤0.08 ≤0.11 ≤0.14 ≤12 I
>12, <50 II
≥50 III
>0.05 to >0.08 to >0.11 to >0.14 to <50 II
≤0.08 ≤0.12 ≤0.17 ≤0.21 ≥50 III
>0.08 >0.12 >0.17 >0.21 <25 II
≥25 III
3 ≤0.08 ≤0.12 ≤0.17 ≤0.21 <50 II
≥50 III
>0.08 >0.12 >0.17 >0.21 <25 II
≥25 III
4 <12 II
≥12 III
Where,
kp : Probability factor (Refer Table AS-4)
21
: Hazard factor (Table 3.2 of AS 1170.4 provides different values for
"z" based on the location in Australia. However this can be taken as 0.1
for Sri Lanka)
Sub-soil classes have been defined in Clause 4.1.1 of AS 1170.4-2007 as,
(a) Class Ae- Strong rock
(b) Class Be- Rock
(c) Class Ce- Shallow soil
(d) Class De- Deep or soft soil
(e) Class Ee- Very soft soil
However, in this analysis, only three soil conditions were considered Be, Ce and Ee to
represent Sri Lankan conditions, loose soil, medium soil and hard soil.
Table AS-4 :Probability factor kp
Annual probability of exceedance Probability factor

p kp
1/2500 1.8
1/2000 1.7
1/1500 1.5
1/1000 1.3
1/800 1.25
1/500 1.0
1/250 0.75
1/200 0.7
1/100 0.5
1/50 0.35
1/25 0.25
1/20 0.20

AS 1170.4-2007 defines five different spectra under clause 6.4, based on site sub-soil
classes.
22
Table AS-5 : Equations for spectra
T Equation for spectra

(seconds) Ae Be Ce De Ee
Strong rock Rock Shallow soil Deep or soft soil Very soft soil
0<T≤0.1 0.8+15.5T 1.0+19.4T 1.3+23.8T 1.1+25.8T 1.1+25.8T
0.1<T≤1.5 0.704/Tbut≤2.35 0.88/Tbut≤2.94 1.25/Tbut≤3.68 1.98/Tbut≤3.68 3.08/Tbut≤3.68
T>1.5 1.056/T2 1.32/T2 1.874/T2 2.97/T2 4.62/T2

Clause 4.3.5.2 of EN 1998-1: 2004 states that If than 0.25 g (2.5 m/s²)
the vertical component of the seismic action should be taken into account in the cases
listed below.
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal structures members spanning 20m or

more;
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal cantilever components longer than 5m;
- For horizontal or nearly horizontal pre-stressed components;
- For beams supporting columns:
- In base-isolation systems;
It has been proposed to use recommendations provided in the Indian code, IS 1893
(Part 1):2002 for defining the vertical elastic spectra, which has been defined as 2/3
of the horizontal elastic spectra [5].

2.2.4.1 Seismic weight of the building
Clause 6.2.2 of AS1170.4-2007 states that seismic weight at each level which is
taken into account in evaluating the inertial effects of the design seismic action is in
the following combination of actions.
Wi = ∑ ∑
Where
Gi and Qi are summed between the mid-heights of adjacent storeys
= permanent action (self-weight or "dead load) at level i
= earthquake-imposed action combination factor
23
0.6 for storage applications
0.3 for all other applications
= imposed action for each occupancy class on level i
2.2.4.2 Seismic Load Combination

The seismic load combination to be used in ultimate limit state used in checking
strength has been given in Clause 4.2.2 of AS 1170.0-2007.
Ed =[G, Eu, ]
Where,
G : permanent actions (self-weight or"dead" action)
Eu :ultimate earthquake action
: combination factor for imposed action
Q : imposed action

AS 1170.4-2007 describes two types of linear-elastic analysis as
I. Equivalent static analysis (Static)
2.2.4.3.1 Equivalent Static Analysis

2.2.4.3.1.1 General
The procedure for equivalent static analysis is as follows:

(a) Decide on the form and material of the structure.
(b) Calculate KpZ using Section 3 of AS 1170.4-2007.
(c) Determine T1, Ch(T1), µand other structural properties.
(d) Determine the design action coefficients.
(e) Determine the seismic weight at each level (Wi).
(f) Calculate V using Clause 6.2 of AS 1170.4-2007.

24
(g) Calculate Fi using Clause 6.3 of AS 1170.4-2007.
(h) Apply the forces to the structure at the eccentricities specified in Clause 6.6 of
AS 1170.4-2007.
(i) Take P-delta effects into account as specified in Clause 6.7 of AS 1170.4-2007.
2.2.4.3.1.2 Horizontal equivalent Static forces
The set of equivalent static forces in the direction being considered shall be assumed
to act simultaneously at each level of the structure and shall be applied taking into
account the torsion effects as given in combination with other actions as specified in
AS/NZS 1170.0. (Refer Clause 6.2.1 of AS 1170.4-2007)
The horizontal equivalent static shear force (V) acting at the base of the structure
(base shear) in the direction being considered shall be calculated from the following
equations
V = Cd(T1)Wt (Refer AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.2(1) )
= [C(T1)Sp/µ]Wt (Refer AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.2(2)
= [KpZCh(T1)Sp/µ]Wt (Refer AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.2(3) )
Where
Cd(T1)=horizontal design action coefficient (value of the horizontal design
response spectrum at the fundamental natural period of the structure)
=C(T1)Sp/µ (Refer AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.2(4) )
C(T1) = value of the elastic hazard spectrum

=KpZCh(T1)(Refer AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.2(5) )
Ch(T1) = Value of the spectral shape factor for fundamental natural period of
the structure, as given in Clause 6.4 of AS 1170.4- 2007.
Wt = Seismic weight of the structure taken as the sum of Wi for all levels,
as given in Clause 6.2.2 of AS 1170.4-2007
25
Sp = Structural performance factor, as given in Clause 6.5 of AS 1170.4-
2007.
µ = Structural ductility factor, as given in Clause 6.5 of AS 1170.4-2007.
T1 = Fundamental natural period of the structure, as given in Clause 6.2.3 of
AS 1170.4-2007 as,
T1 = 1.25kthn0.75
where,
kt = 0.11 for moment-resisting steel frames
=0.075 for moment-resisting concrete frames
= 0.06 for eccentrically-braced steel frames
= 0.05 for all other structures
hn =height from the base of the structure to the uppermost seismic
weight or mass, in meters.
It should be noted that the base shear obtained using the fundamental structure period
(T1) determined by a rigorous structural analysis shall be not less than 80% of the
value obtained with T1 calculated using the above equation.
2.2.4.3.1.3 Vertical distribution of horizontal forces
The horizontal equivalent static design force (Fi) at each level (i) shall be obtained as
(AS 1170.4-2007/eq. 6.3(1))
Fi = kF,iV (Ref AS 1170.4-2007/eq 6.3(1) )
=∑ [KpZCh(T1) /]Wt (Ref AS 1170.4- 2007/eq 6.2(2)
Where
kfi(T1)=distribution factor for the ith level

Wi =seismic weight of the structure at the ith level, in kilonewtons
hi =height of level i above the base of the structure, in metres
26
k=exponent depend on the fundamental period of the structure (T1), which is
taken as-
1.0 when T1≤0.5;
2.0 when T1≥2.5; or
linearly interpolated between 1.0 and 2.0 for 0.5< T1<2.5
n=number of levels in a structure
The horizontal equivalent static earthquake shear force(Vi) at storey i is the sum of all
the horizontal forces at and above the ith level (Fi to Fn).
Table AS- 6 :Structural ductility factor (µ) and structural performance factor
(Sp) - Basic structures
Structural Description µ Sp Sp/ µ µ/ Sp

system
Steel Structures
Special moment-resisting frames (fully ductile) * 4 0.67 0.17 6
Immediate moment-resisting frames (moderately ductile) 3 0.67 0.22 4.5
Ordinary moment-resisting frames (limited ductile) 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Moderately ductile concentrically braced frames 3 0.67 0.22 4.5
Limited ductile concentrically braced frames 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Fully ductile eccentrically braced frames * 4 0.67 0.17 6
Other steel structures not defined above 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Concrete structures
Special moment-resisting frames (fully ductile) * 4 0.67 0.17 6
Immediate moment-resisting frames (moderately ductile) 3 0.67 0.22 4.5
Ordinary moment-resisting frames 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Ductile coupled walls (Fully ductile) * 4 0.67 0.17 6
Ductile partially coupled walls * 4 0.67 0.17 6
Ductile shear walls 3 0.67 0.22 4.5
Limited ductile shear walls 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Ordinary moment-resisting frames in combination with a limited 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
ductileconcrete
Other shear walls
structures not listed above 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Timber structures
Shear walls 3 0.67 0.22 4.5
Braced frames (with ductile connections) 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Moment-resisting frames 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Other wood or gypsum based seismic-force-resisting systems not 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Masonry structureslisted above
Close-spaced reinforced masonry † 2 0.77 0.38 2.6
Wide-spaced reinforced masonry † 1.5 0.77 0.5 2
Unreinforced masonry † 1.25 0.77 0.62 1.6
Other masonry structures not complying with AS 3700 1 0.77 0.77 1.3
27
*The design of structures with µ>3 is outside the scope of this standard (Refer clause
2.2)
† These values are taken from AS 3700
2.2.4.3.1.4 Torsional effects

For earthquake action determined in each direction shall be applied at position
calculated as ±0.1b from the nominal centre of mass, where b is the plan dimension
of the structure at right angles to the direction of the action as described in clause 6.6
of AS 1170.4-2007.
This±0.1beccentricity shall be applied in the same direction at all levels and
oriented to produce the most adverse torsion moment for the 100% and 30% loads.
2.2.4.3.1.5 Drift determination

Storey drifts shall be assessed for the two major axes of a structure considering
horizontal earthquake forces acting independently, but not simultaneously, in each
direction. The design drift (dst) shall be calculated as the difference of the deflections
(di) at the top and bottom of the storey under consideration.
di = dieµ/Sp
Where,
die : deflection at the ith level determined by an elastic analysis carried
out using the horizontal equivalent static earthquake forces (Fi).
2.2.4.3.1.6 P-delta effects

For the inter-storey stability coefficient (θ) calculated for each level, design for p-
delta effects shall be as follows ( Refer Clause 6.7.3.1 of AS 1170.4-2007),
(a) For θ≤0.1, P-delta effects need not be considered.
(b) For θ>0.2, the structure is potentially unstable and shall be re-designed.
(c) For 0.1<θ≤0.2, P-delta effects shall be calculated as described in Clause 6.7.3.2
of AS1170.4-2007.
28
∑ ( ∑ )
Where,
i = Level of the structure under consideration.
hsi= Inter-storey height of level i, measured from centre-line to centre-line of
the floors.
.
When P-delta effects need to be considered, the values of the horizontal earthquake
shear forces and moments, the resulting member forces and moments, and the storey
drifts shall be determined by,
(a) scaling the equivalent static forces and deflections by the factor (0.9/(1-θ))≥1.0
or.
(b) using a second-order analysis.
2.2.4.3.2 Modal response spectrum analysis

The earthquake ground motion shall be accounted for by using the method explained
below either (a) or (b)
a) Horizontal design response spectrum (Cd(T)), including the side hazard

spectrum and the effects of the structural response as follows (Refer AS
1170.4- 2007/7.2(a):
Cd(T) = C(T)Sp/µ
= KpZCh(T)Sp/µ
Where,
T = period of vibration appropriate to the mode of vibration of the structure

being considered
b) Site specific design response spectra developed for the specific site as described
in Clause 7.2(b) of AS 1170.4-2007.
29
c) Where design includes consideration of vertical earthquake actions, both upwards
and downwards directions shall be considered and the vertical design response
spectrum shall be as follows (Refer Clause 7.2(3) of AS 1170.4-2007)
Cvd(T) = Cv(Tv)Sp
= 0.5C(Tv)Sp
= 0.5KpZCh(Tv)Sp
Where,
Cv(Tv) = elastic site hazard spectrum for vertical loading for the vertical
period of vibration
d) The response of all modes of vibration contribution significantly to the global

response shall be considered. The code specifies that, this requirement is taken to
be satisfied if.
- In two-dimensional analysis, sufficient modes shall be included in the

analysis to ensure that at least 90% of the mass of the structure is
participating for the direction under consideration.
- In three-dimensional analysis, where structures are modeled so that modes

that are not those of the seismic-force-resisting system are considered, then
all modes not part of the seismic-force-resisting system shall be ignored,
Further, all modes with periods less than 5% of the fundamental natural
period of the structure may be ignored.
e) AS 1170.4-2007 recommends the accidental torsional effects to be taken into

account in the seismic analysis whenever a spatial model is used.
30
2.2.4.4 Earthquake design categories
Once the importance level, kp, Z, soil category and building height is known, the
earthquake design category of the structure can be found referring to table AS-3.
2.2.4.4.1 Earthquake design category I (EDC I)

The structures can be designed by applying equivalent static forces applied laterally
to the centre of mass at each level of the structure in combination with gravity
loads[G, Eu, ] as given below (AS 1170.4-2007/eq 5.3),
Fi = 0.1Wi
Where,
Wi = seismic weight of the structure at level i as given in Clause 6.2.2
a) Each of the major axes of the structure shall be considered separately.

b) Vertical earthquake actions and pounding need not be considered, except where
vertical actions apply to parts and components.
2.2.4.4.2 Earthquake design category II (EDC II)

The structural system shall be designed to resist the most critical action effect arising
from the application of the earthquake actions in any direction as given in Clause
5.4.2.1 of AS 1170.4-2007.
a) Except for structure components and footings that participate in resisting

horizontal earthquake forces in both major axes of the structure, this provision
shall be deemed to be satisfied by applying the horizontal forces in the direction
of each of the major axes of the structure and considering the effect for each
direction separately.
b) For structure components and footings that participate in resisting horizontal

earthquake forces in both major axes of the structure, the effects of the two
directions determined separately shall be added by taking 100% of the horizontal
earthquake forces for one direction and 30% in the perpendicular direction.
31
c) Forces shall be applied at the centre of mass of each floor except where offset
from the centre of mass is required for the consideration of torsion effects.
d) Earthquake forces shall be calculated using the equivalent static method for
structures exceeding 15m.
e) For structures not exceeding 15m, the earthquake forces shall be calculated and
applied according to Clause 5.4.2.3 of AS 1170.4-2007 and the minimum
horizontal static force to be applied simultaneously at each level for the given
direction is given by,
Fi = Ks[KpZSp/µ]Wi
Where,
Kp and Z are given in section 3 and Sp and µ are given in Clause 6.5 of AS
1170.4-2007
Ks = Factor to account for floor, as given in table 5.4 of AS 1170.4-2007
Wi = Seismic weight of the structure or component at level i
Table AS-7 :Value of Ks for structures not exceeding 15m
Total number Sub-soil class Ks factor

of stories Storey under consideration
5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
Ae 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.5
5 Be 3.1 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.6
Ce 4.4 3.5 2.6 1.7 0.9
De , Ee 6.1 4.9 3.6 2.5 1.2
Ae 2.7 2.0 1.4 0.6
4 Be 3.5 2.6 1.7 0.9
Ce 4.9 3.6 2.5 1.2
De , Ee 5.8 4.4 3.0 1.4
Ae 3.1 2.0 1.0
3 Be 3.9 2.6 1.3
Ce , De , Ee 5.5 3.6 1.8
Ae 3.1 1.6
2 Be 3.9 1.9
Ce , De , Ee 4.9 2.5
Ae 2.3
1 Be 3.0
Ce , De , Ee 3.6
32
a) Alternatively, dynamic analysis shall be used to find out design earthquake
actions according to Section 7 of AS 1170.4-2007.
b) Vertical earthquake actions need not be considered. For parts and components
refer Clause 5.4.6 and 8.1.3 of AS 1170.4-2007.
c) The inter-storey drift at the ultimate limit state shall not exceed1.5% of the storey
height of each level (Refer Clause 5.4.4 of AS 1170.4-2007).
2.2.4.4.3 Earthquake design category III (EDC III)

The structural system shall be designed to resist the most critical action effect arising
from the application of the earthquake actions in any direction as given in Clause
5.5.2.1 of AS 1170.4-2007.
a) Except for structure components and footings that participate in resisting

horizontal earthquake forces in both major axes of the structure, this provision
shall be deemed to be satisfied by applying the horizontal forces in the direction
of each of the major axes of the structure and considering the effect for each
direction separately.
b) For structure components and footings that participate in resisting horizontal

earthquake forces in both major axes of the structure, the effects of the two
directions determined separately shall be added by taking 100% of the horizontal
earthquake forces for one direction and 30% in the perpendicular direction.
c) Earthquake forces shall be calculated using the dynamic analysis method given in
Section 7 of AS 1170.4-2007.
d) Vertical earthquake actions need not be considered. For parts and components,
refer Clause 8.1.3 of AS 1170.4-2007.
e) The inter-storey drift at the ultimate limit state shall not exceed1.5% of the storey
height of each level (Refer Clause 5.5.4 of AS 1170.4-2007).
33
2.3 Analysis procedure as described in Indian code [IS 1893 (Part 1)
: 2002]
The design approach adopted in this standard is to ensure that structures possess at
least a minimum strength to withstand minor earthquakes (<Design Based
Earthquake, DBE), which occurs frequently, without damages; resist moderate
earthquakes (DBE) without significant structural damage though some non-structural
damage may occur; and aims that structures withstand a major earthquake
(Maximum Considered Earthquake, MCE) without collapse.

The IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 has defined the spectra, for 5 percent damping to be
used in seismic analysis as follows.
Where
: 5 percent spectra
T : natural period of the structure

: lower limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch
: upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch
S : soil factor
The horizontal elastic response spectra are given for three types of soil classified
based on the Standard Penetration Test value (NSPT). For the soil classification and
the corresponding parameters defining the elastic response spectra see Table 3.
34
Table IS-1: Soil classification and parameters defining horizontal elastic
response spectra
Soil Type NSPT S TB TC
I >30 1 0.1 0.4
(HardII soil) 10-30 1.36 0.1 0.55
III soil)
(Medium <10 1.67 0.1 0.67
(Soft soil)

Vertical acceleration shall be considered in structures as described in Clause 6.1.1 of
IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, for structures with large spans, those in which stability is a
criterion for design, or for overall stability analysis of structures. Reduction in
gravity force due to vertical component of ground motions can be particularly
detrimental in cases of pre-stressed horizontal members and of cantilevered
members.
The design acceleration spectrum vertical motions, when require, may be taken as
two-thirds of the design horizontal acceleration spectrum (See Clause 6.4.5 of IS
1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
2.3.3 Design horizontal seismic coefficient

The design horizontal seismic coefficient, Ah has been defined in IS 1893 (Part 1) :
2002 as follows,
Ah=
Where
Z : Zone factor given in table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, is for the
Maximum considered Earthquake(MCE) and service life of structure
in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator of Z is used so as to reduce
the maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) zone factor to the
factor for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
I : Importance factor, as defined in table 6 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002,

depending upon the functional use of the structures, characterized by
35
hazardous consequences of its failure, post-earthquake functional
needs, historical value, or economic importance.
R : Response reduction factor, as defined in table 7 of IS 1893 (Part 1) :

2002, depending on the perceived seismic damage performance of
the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations.
However, the ratio (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0
: Average response acceleration coefficient.
Table IS-2 :Zone factor, Z (Table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002)
II III IV V
Seismic Zone
Seismic Intensity Low Moderate Severe Very Severe
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
Table IS-3 : Importance Factor, I (Table 6 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002)
SI No. Structure Importance Factor

i) Important service and community 1.5
buildings, such as hospitals; schools;
monumental structures; emergency
buildings like telephone exchange,
television stations, radio stations,
railway stations, fire station buildings;
large community halls like cinemas,
assembly halls and subway stations,
power stations
ii) All other buildings 1.0
Notes:
1. The design engineer may choose values of importance factor I greater than
those mentioned above.
2. Buildings not covered in SI No. (i) and (ii) above may be designed for
higher value of I, depending on economy, strategy considerations like
multi-storey buildings having several residential units.
3. This does not apply to temporary structures.
36
Table IS-4 : Response reduction factor1), R (Table 7 of IS 1893 (Part 1) :
2002)
SI No. Lateral load resisting system R
Building Frame Systems
i) Ordinary RC moment-resisting frame (OMRF)2) 3.0
ii) Special RC moment-resisting frame (SMRF)3) 5.0
iii) Steel frame with
a) Concentric braces 4.0
b) Eccentric braces 5.0
iv) Steel moment-resisting frame designed as per SP 6 (6) 5.0
4)
Building with Shear Walls
v) Load bearing masonry wall buildings5)
a) Unreinforced 1.5
b) Reinforced with horizontal RC bands 2.5
c) Reinforced with horizontal RC bands and vertical bars at 3.0
corners of rooms and jambs of openings.
vi) Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls6) 3.0
7)
vii) Ductile shear walls 4.0
Building with Dual Systems8)
viii) Ordinary shear wall with OMRF 3.0
ix) Ordinary shear wall with SMRF 4.0
x) Ductile shear wall with OMRF 4.5
xi) Ductile shear wall with SMRF 5.0
(Note: Refer Table 7of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 for full details, which are described by
superscripts 1 to 8 )
*) Buildings with shear walls also include buildings having shear walls and frames,
but where;
a) frames are not designed to carry lateral loads, or
b) frames are designed to carry lateral loads but do not fulfill the requirements of '
dual systems '.
*) Buildings with dual systems consist of shear walls (or braced frames ) and
moment resisting frames such that;
a) the two systems are designed to resist the total design force in proportion to
their lateral stiffness considering the interaction of the dual system at all floor levels;
and
b) the moment resisting frames are designed to independently resist at least 25
percent of the design seismic base shear.
37
2.3.4.1 Seismic weight of the building
The seismic weight of a building shall be calculated as per Clause 7.43 of IS 1893
(Part 1) : 2002. The seismic weight of the whole building is the sum of the seismic
weights of all the floors. The seismic weight of each floor is its full dead load plus an
appropriate amount of imposed loads as given in table 8 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002.
Table IS-5 :Percentage of imposed load to be considered in seismic weight

calculation in (Table 8 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002)
Imposed uniformity distributed floor loads ( kN/ m2 ) Percentage of imposed load
Upto and including 3.0 25
Above 3.0 50
2.3.4.2 Structural Irregularity

A buildings shall be categorized as irregular, if atleast one of the conditions
described in table 4 and 5 of IS 1893-1:2002are applicable (Refer Clause 7.1 of IS
1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
2.3.4.2.1 Plan irregularity

A building shall be considered as irregular in plan, if atleast one of the conditions
described below is applicable (Refer Table 4 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
o Torsional irregularity:
Torsional irregularity to be considered to exist when the maximum
storey drift, computed with design eccentricity, at one end of the
structures transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of
the storey drifts at the two ends of the structure.
o Re-entrant corners:
Plan configuration of a structure and its lateral force resisting system
contain re-entrant corners, where both projections of the structure
beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15 percent of its plan
dimension in the given direction.
38
o Diaphragm discontinuity:
Diaphragm with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness,
including those having cut-out or open areas greater than 50percent of
the gross enclosed diaphragm area, or changes in effective diaphragm
stiffness of more than 50 percent from one storey to the next.
o Out-of-Plane Offsets:
Discontinuities in a lateral force resistance path, such as out-of-plane
offsets of vertical elements.
o Non-parallel System:
The vertical elements resisting the lateral force are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes or the lateral force
resisting elements.
2.3.4.2.2 Vertical irregularity

A building shall be considered as vertically irregular, if atleast one of the conditions
described below is applicable (Refer Table 5 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
o Stiffness irregularity:
(a) Soft storey:
A soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent
of that in the storey above or less than 80 percent of the average lateral
stiffness of the three storeys above.
(b) Extreme soft storey:
An extreme soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than
60 percent of that in the storey above or less than 70 percent of the
average stiffness of the three storeys above.
.
o Mass irregularity:
Mass irregularity shall be considered to exist where the seismic
weight of any storey is more than 200 percent of that of its adjacent
storeys. The irregularity need not be considered case of.
39
o Vertical geometric irregularity:
Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist where the

horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any storey
is more than 150 percent of that in its adjacent storey.
o In-Plane Discontinuity in vertical elements resisting lateral force:
A in-plane offset of the lateral force resisting elements greater than

the length of those elements.
o Discontinuity in capacity - Weak storey:
A weak storey is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than
80 percent of that in the storey above.

IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 describes two types of linear-elastic analysis as
I. Lateral force method of analysis (Static)
a) The use of above two methods of analysis shall be decided based on the structural
characteristics of the building.
b) For the consequences of structural regularity on the structural analysis method,
refer Table IS-6 (Clause 7.8.1of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002)
Table IS-6 :Consequences of structural regularity on structural model and the

analysis method
Regularity Building Height (m) Zone Analysis method

>40m IV, V Dynamic Analysis
Regular >90m II, III Dynamic Analysis
All other buildings Lateral Force Method
>12m IV, V Dynamic Analysis
Irregular >40m II, III Dynamic Analysis
All other buildings Lateral Force Method
40
Note-
For irregular buildings, lesser than 40min height in zones II and III, dynamic analysis, even
though not mandatory, is recommended in IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002.
2.3.4.3.1 Static lateral force method of analysis

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principal
direction shall be determined by the following expression (Refer Clause 7.5.3 of IS
1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
VB = AhW
Where
Ah: Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value using the fundamental
natural period Ta in the considered direction of vibration.
W: Seismic weight of the building.
2.3.4.3.1.1 Fundamental natural period
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration ( Ta), in seconds for

different types of buildings have been defined as follows (Refer Clause 7.6.1 of IS
1893 (Part 1) : 2002);
o For a moment-resisting frame building without brick infill panels may be

estimated as,
Ta= 0.075 h0.75for RC frame building
= 0.085 h0.75 for steel frame building and
o For all other buildings,
Where,
h = Height of the building, in m and
d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along
the considered direction of the lateral force.
41
2.3.4.3.1.2 Distribution of design force
The design base shear ( VB ) shall be distributed along the height of the building as
per the following expression ( Refer Clause 7.7.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002);
Where
Qi: Design lateral force at floor i,
W: Seismic weight of the floor i ,
hi: Height of floor i measured from base ,
n: Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the
masses are located.
2.3.4.3.2 Dynamic analysis - Response spectrum method
This type of analysis is generally recommended to use for any building. The following are
the important aspects that should be considered in the analysis procedure in accordance with
the code.
a) When the design base shear ( VB ), obtained by response spectrum analysis is

lesser than the base shear (̅̅̅̅), calculated using a fundamental period Ta,
where Ta is as per section 7.6 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, all the response
quantities shall be multiplied by ̅̅̅̅/VB.
b) The number of modes to be used in the analysis should be such that the sum
total of modal masses of all modes considered is at least 90 percent of the
total seismic mass correction beyond 33 percent. If modes with natural
frequency beyond 33HZ are to be considered, modal combination shall be
carried out only for modes up to 33HZ. The effect of higher modes shall be
42
included by considering missing mass correction following well established
procedures (Refer Clause 7.8.4.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
c) Combination of modal responses is an important step in the modal response

spectrum analysis. The Clause 7.8.4.4 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 recommends the
“Complete Quadratic Combination” (CQC) rule as an accurate procedure for this.
For buildings with regular or normally irregular plan configurations, the code IS
1893-1:2002allows to use a model as a system of masses lumped at the floor
levels with each mass having one degree of freedom, that of lateral displacement
in the direction under consideration(Refer Clause 7.8.4.5 of IS 1893 (Part 1) :
2002).
d) IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 recommends the accidental torsional effects to be taken

into account in the seismic analysis whenever a spatial model is used.
2.3.4.4 Torsional effects

Provision shall be made in all buildings for increase in shear forces on the lateral
force resisting elements resulting from the horizontal torsional moment arising due to
eccentricity between the centre of mass and centre of rigidity as described in Clause
7.9 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002. The design forces calculated are to be applied at the
centre of mass appropriately displaced so as to cause design eccentricity between the
displace centre of mass and centre of rigidity. However, negative torsional shear
shall be neglected.
The design eccentricity, edi to be used at floor i shall be taken as:
edi= {1.5 esi+ 0.05 bi}}
or {esi- 0.05 bi}
whichever of these gives the more severe affect in the shear of any frame where,
esi = Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between centre of
mass and centre of rigidity.
bi = Floor plan dimension of floor i, perpendicular to the direction of force.
43
2.3.4.5 Storey drift limitation
The storey drifts in any storey due to the minimum specified design lateral force,
with partial safety factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey height (Refer
Clause 7.11.1of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002).
For the purpose of displacement requirements only, it is permissible to use seismic

force obtained from the computed fundamental period (T) of the building without the
lower bound limit on design seismic force specified in Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893 (Part
1) : 2002.
There shall be no drift limit for single storey building which has been designed to
accommodate storey drift.
2.4Comparison of analysis procedures as described in the Euro code,

the Australian code and the Indian code
The sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have demonstrated the analysis procedures, which have
been described the Euro code, the Australian code and the Indian code respectively.
This section has been used to discuss and compare the analysis procedures, which
have been described in those codes of practice, the advantages and disadvantages
between them, how those codes have defined different parameters and their proposed
values for them and how those codes have considered different structural effects in
their analysis etc.
2.4.1 Sub-soil conditions

In defining the elastic response spectra, the Euro code and the Australian code have defined
it for five sub-soil conditions whereas the Indian code has defined the spectra only for three
sub-soil conditions.
The sub-soil types, defined in the Indian code seems to be more convenient to be applied in
Sri Lankan conditions, basically because of its simplicity in defining the sub-soil categories,
which does not require sophisticated soil tests in doing so.
44
2.4.2 Structural regularity
For the purpose of seismic design, building structures are categorized into being regular or
non-regular. However, the regularity has been considered in seismic design process by
different codes of practice in different ways.
The Australian code has considered all the buildings to be irregular since, the most of the
buildings in Australia are irregular.
The Indian code seems to address the irregularities by just requiring dynamic analysis.
However, the Euro code has considered the effect of a building being irregular in many
ways. In instance, the code recommends to use a reduced value for basic behavior factor,
for buildings, which are not regular in elevation.
2.4.3 Seismic hazard factor

According to the Euro code and the Australian codes of practice, the design seismic actions
have to be evaluated based upon Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), whereas the
Indian code recommends to use a reduced zone factor (Z/2) in evaluating seismic actions
representing the Design Base Earthquake (DBE) situation, which consequently gives lower
response values compared to two other codes of practice.
2.4.4 Design base shear force

Design base shear force can be determined either by static method or dynamic method of
analysis, according to three of the codes considered. As per the Euro code and the Australian
code, the design base shear forces can be determined by two of above methods
independently. However, the Indian code has defined a lower bound value for design base
shear force. As per the Indian code, when the design base shear ( VB ), obtained by
response spectrum analysis is lesser than the base shear (̅̅̅), calculated using static
method of analysis, then all the response quantities shall be multiplied by ̅̅̅/VB.
2.4.5 Accidental Torsional effect

In order to account for accidental torsional effect, the Euro code and the Indian code
recommend to apply the earthquake loads at a position 0.05b from the nominal centre of
mass whereas the Australian code recommends 0.1b from the nominal centre of mass, where
b is the plan dimension of the structure at right angle to the direction of action.
45
2.4.6 P-delta effects
The Euro code and the Australian code have described the way to determine the P-
delta effects in calculation based upon θ, the inter-storey sensitivity coefficient,
according to the Euro code and the inter-storey stability coefficient, according to the
Australian code. However, the Indian code does not provide such a method to
determine the P-delta effects in seismic design calculation.
2.5 Review over previous research studies

When going through the literature, it has been found that a number of researches have been
carried out in the similar area of study in different parts of the world. This section briefly
presents some of those important studies, explaining the objectives, the methodology they
have adopted and major findings through the results obtained etc.
In their research, Yogendra Singh [15] intended to compare the code provisions for seismic
analysis and design of ductile RC frame buildings. All current seismic design codes are
based on a prescriptive Forced-Based Design approach. In this approach, a linear elastic
analysis is performed and inelastic energy dissipation is considered indirectly through a
response reduction factor (or a behavior factor). Building codes define different ductile
classes and specify different response reduction factors based on the material, configuration
and detailing. Codes also differ specifying the effective stiffness of RC members, procedures
to estimate drift and allowable limits on drift. This research paper presents a comparative
study of different ductility classes and corresponding response reduction factors,
reinforcement detailing provisions and a case study of seismic performance of a ductile RC
frame building designed using four major codes ASCE7 (United States), EN 1998-1 (Euro),
NZS 1170.5 (New Zealand) and IS 1893 (India)
Based upon the results, as a conclusion, it states that the comparison of broad ductility
classes suggests significant variation in different codes. It also conclude that, it is not
possible to directly compare the response reduction factors for various ductility classes due
to the variation in provisions for reinforcement detailing and capacity design provisions. It
further states that the most of codes combine the effect of overstrength and ductility in a
single reduction factor, except for NZS 1170.5, which considers the overstrength separately
through a "structural performance factor".
This study also confirms that NZS 1170.5 results in the highest design base shear for a given
period, for almost all the cases considered in the study. The design base shear as per Euro
46
code 8 has become close to that of NZS 1170.5, while IS 1893 has resulted in lowest design
base shear force for a given hazard. Based upon the seismic performance of an eight storied
RC frame building, it has been noted that the inter storey drift ratio was greater than 2.5% for
DBE and, equal or greater 4% for MCE for most of the codes.
Pravin Ashok Shirule [14] has performed a parametric study on reinforced concrete
structural walls and moment resisting frame building representative of structural types, using
response spectrum method. The objective of this project was to investigate the differences
caused by the use of different codes in the dynamic analysis of multistoried RC building.
Here, the design spectra recommended by Indian Standard Code, IS 1893 (Part a) : 2002 and
two other codes, namely the Uniform Building Code and the Euro Code8 have been
considered for comparison.
To evaluate the seismic response of the buildings, elastic analysis has been performed by
using response spectrum method using the computer software SAP2000. Through this study,
it has concluded that the base shear using Indian code is higher in all the three buildings,
when compared to that of with other codes, which lead to overestimate the overturning
moments in the building.
The study further concludes that for the buildings, UBC code gives the maximum and IS
gives the minimum displacement values.
In another research, Surabhi A [17]has studied various researches, previously done by

others, which give more information about the static and dynamic analysis done on various
types of structures using various codes of practice to evaluate the seismic performance of
those structures. The parameters such as displacement, base shear, storey drift, time period,
axial and shear force and bending moment were studied. This work aimed at the comparison
of various provisions for earthquake analysis as given in Indian code, American code,
European code and in New Zealand code. In all the cases, computer modeling and response
spectrum analysis have been done with the help of ETABS-2015 software.
47
Based on analysis, it concludes that the buildings designed using Euro code perform better
comparing to the Indian code and the American code. It further suggests the requirement of
improvements for Indian and American codes in performance based design.
In the research conducted by Mehul J. Bhavsar [18], a comparative study has been done
based upon a seismic analysis performed for a RC building according to Indian standard and
Euro standard. The paper highlights the importance of doing such a study, because there is a
possibility that the International Standards may have more parameters that are not included
in Indian Standards. It further mention the importance of Euro code in developing country
like India, because most of the Gulf countries, which are having remarkable infrastructures
also follow Euro code.
In making the comparison, it has considered most of important criteria such as response
reduction factor, ductility classes, maximum storey displacements, drift limitations, base
shear, reactions and axial loads etc.
The paper concludes that the design base shear force obtained with IS 1893 was lower than
the design base shear force calculated using the Euro code, because of the high response
reduction factor, which has been used in analysis with Indian code.
48
3.0 METHODOLOGY
As described in the introduction chapter, firstly three main seismic analysis codes
that are often used by Sri Lankan engineers were identified, namely the Euro code,
EC-8 (EN 1998-1:2004), the Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007) and the Indian code
(IS 1893 (Part 1):2002). In literature review section, the analysis procedures that
have been established in each of those codes were outlined in step by step, discussing
the important parameters and how they are to be used in Sri Lankan conditions etc.
Since these codes have established their own analysis procedures and parameters
irrespective of other codes, it was very important to make a detail discussion over
their analysis procedures, how those codes have defined different parameters and
their proposed values and how those codes have considered different structural
effects in their analysis etc. The latter parts of the literature review chapter has been
used for this purpose.
The next task was to demonstrate through case studies how to apply the static and
dynamic seismic analysis procedures described in those codes to analyse buildings in
Sri Lanka under different geotechnical considerations. In order to achieve this
objective, three different reinforced concrete building structures were selected for
analysis namely, building "A", an eighteen storied residential apartment building,
building "B", a fourteen storied residential apartment building and building "C", a ten
storied residential apartment building.
Since it better represents the actual behavior of the structure, three dimensional
computer models of those buildings were developed with elements of actual sizes,
according to the guidelines provided in relevant sections of the particular codes of
practice. For all the modeling and analysis purposes, computer software "ETABS"
version 9.7 has been used.
The structures were then dynamically analysed for seismic effects as described in the
respective codes of practice. Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) was used for all
dynamic analysis purposes. Equivalent static analysis were also done as per
requirements, established in particular codes of practice.
49
In order the results to be more general, all of the above three buildings were analysed
for three different soil conditions, which can be commonly found in Sri Lanka,
namely soft soil, medium soil and hard soil. In this way, a total of twenty seven cases
were studied. A detail description of the analysis procedures have been presented in
the respective sections of the analysis chapter
Finally the output results, like drifts and base shear forces obtained under different
codes and soil conditions were studied to find out how they vary when moving
between different soil conditions and different codes of practice, which helped in
making final conclusion of the research.
50
4.0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO EURO CODE { EN 1998-
1:2004}
4.1 BUILDING "A"
Classification of building
Since this is an apartment building having more than 10 storeys, the structure is
categorized as importance level III (Table EN1)
Design peak ground acceleration
Since (Table EN-2) and
(Table EN-2)
The design peak ground acceleration value was then calculated as
(0.1g × 1.5) = 0.15g
Behavior factor (q)
This building has been designed for Ductility Class Medium (DCM) conditions. The
behavior factor, q for this building, according to Clause 5.2.2.2 of EN 1998-1:2004,
The structural type of the building has been considered as torsionally flexible system.
The for a torsionally flexible system, which is regular in elevation is given as,
(Table EN-4)
Since the selected building is irregular in elevation, 80% of the has to be used in
calculations, as described in appendix A-2.1.2.
For a torsionally flexible system,
= ≤ 1, but not less than 0.5 (Table EN-5)
And,
51
∑ ∑
0=9.96
Therefore,
= (1+9.96)/3
Therefore, can be taken as 1.0
Therefore,
q = (0.8×2× 1) = 1.6
Elastic response spectrum and design response spectrum for three different types of
soil conditions and are shown in figure EA-1.
2.5 Elastic Response Spectrum - Soft

soil
2 Elastic Response Spectrum -
Medium soil
Sa/g 1.5 Elastic Response Spectrum - Hard
Soil
1 Design Response Spectrum - Soft
Soil
0.5 Design Response Spectrum -

Medium Soil
0 Design Response Spectrum- Hard

Soil
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
T(S)
Figure EA-1 : Elastic response spectrum and design response spectrum -

Building A
4.1.2 Methods of analysis

A modal response spectrum analysis has been performed on a three dimensional
structural model of the building. However, a static lateral force method of analysis
52
was also performed in order to obtain the horizontal force acting on each storey,
which was used to determine accidental torsional effects as described in section
2.1.5.5.
All the computer analysis were performed with the ETABs software (CSI 2002.
ETABS Integrated Building Design Software, Computers and Structures Inc.
Berkley).
4.1.2.1Structural Model
The EN 1998-1:2004 recommends using a spatial model as the preference method
for all type of buildings(Clause 4.3.1of EN 1998-1:2004). On account of that, for the
test building a three dimensional (spatial) model was developed.
In this study, the building has been considered to have no significant structural effect
from the masonry infill walls on its behavior when subjected to seismic load. The
reinforced concrete frame wall system was considered as the only lateral load
resisting system in the building and therefore, the presence of masonry infill walls
were neglected in the model. However, their weight was considered in the
calculation of seismic weight of the building.
It is required that the model should fulfill all the requirements specified in the code.
The basic characteristics of the model of the test building considering the
requirements in the code are as follows.
o Column and beam elements were modeled as line elements whereas the
floor slabs and concrete walls were modeled as shell elements.
o Unreinforced masonry infill walls were not included in the model
assuming that they have no contribution to the stiffness or the lateral
strength of the building, but the weight of those walls were applied to the
model.
o The elements were modeled with the actual sizes such that they adequately
represent the distribution of stiffness and mass of the building.
o The cracked elements were considered in the analysis according to Clause
4.3.1(6) of EN 1998-1: 2004.The elastic flexural and shear properties of
the cracked sections were taken to be equal to one-half of the
53
corresponding stiffness of the un-cracked elements (EN 1998-1:
2004/4.3.1 (7)).
o Torsional stiffness of the cracked section was set equal to 10% of the
torsional stiffness of the un-cracked section.
o Frames were connected by means of rigid diaphragms in horizontal plane
at each floor level.
o The accidental torsional effects were considered by applying torsional
moments about vertical axis.
Figure EA-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of Building A
54
4.1.2.2 Lateral force method of analysis
The lateral force method of analysis has been carried out in three main steps as
follows.
a) Estimating the self-weight and seismic masses of the building

b) Calculating the seismic base shear in relevant directions
c) Distribution of lateral forces and moments
4.1.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic mass of the building
As described in section 2.1.5.1, the seismic mass of the building was taken as the
following combination of dead load and the variable loads as,
∑Gk,j+ ∑Ʊ E,iQk,I
Table EA-1 : Total seismic mass of building A
4.1.2.2.2 Calculation of seismic base shear
As described in section 2.1.5.4.1, the seismic base shear force for each horizontal
direction was determined by the following equation,
where,
T1: The fundamental period of the building – Refer table A5
55
: The value of the ordinate of the design response
spectrum, corresponding to the fundamental period T1 of the
building for different soil conditions – Refer figure EA-1
m: The seismic mass of the building - Refer table EA-1
λ : The correction factor, λ can be determined according to

clause 4.3.3.2.2 of EN 1998-1: 2004.
The values of λ for three different soil conditions are shown in table EA-2.
The base shear forces for each horizontal direction, Fb for three soil conditions are
shown in Table EA-3.
Table EA-2: Correction factor, λ for building A
Table EA-3:Seismic base shear of building A
4.1.2.2.3 Distribution of lateral forces
The seismic base shear (Fb) was distributed at each storey level by using the
following expression as shown in section 2.1.5.4.1(C),
The distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table EA-4.
56
Table EA-4 :Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level - Building A
4.1.2.3 Modal response spectrum analysis

4.1.2.3.1 General rules
The general rules recommended for this type of analysis, as described in clause
4.3.3.3 of EN 11998-1:2004 were followed in the case of the test building and are
given as follows.
o Modal response spectrum analysis is performed independently for the

ground excitation in two horizontal directions, excluding the vertical
direction since the in vertical direction is less than 0.25 g (2.5m/s²).
o Design spectrum for ductility class medium is used in the test building.
o For the combination of different modes, the “Complete Quadratic
Combination (CQC) rule was used(Clause 4.3.3.3.2 of EN 1998-1:2004).
o The results of the modal analysis in both directions were combined by the
SRSS rule as described in clause 4.3.3.5.1ofEN 1998-1:2004.
o The load combinations were considered according to clause 3.2.4 of EN
1998-1:2004.
o The accidental torsional effects was considered by means of torsional
moments about the vertical axis according to clause 4.3.3.3.3 of EN 1998-
1: 2004.
57
4.1.2.3.2 Periods and effective masses
In the modal response spectrum analysis, 12 modes of vibration were taken into
account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal direction to exceed 90%
of the total mass of the structure.
The basic properties of the models are summarized in Table EA-5.
Table EA-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of building A

(Modal response spectrum analysis)
4.1.2.3.3 Torsional effects

As described in section 2.1.5.5, the accidental torsional effect was considered by
means of torsional moments ( and ) applying about the vertical axis at each
storey, i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets of torsional moments
( and ) were added to the combined (SRSS) results of the seismic actions
in both horizontal directions.
The horizontal forces ( and ) for three soil conditions were obtained from the
lateral force method of analysis. The calculation of torsional moments at each storey
level is shown in Table EA-6.
58
Table EA-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction
4.1.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacement
In the case of test building, the storey shear forces and the displacement of the centre
of mass of each floor level of the building were obtained by performing response
spectrum analysis for the system. The design displacement values for three different
soil conditions were calculated according to section 2.1.5.6.
Storey shear forces and displacement of the centre of mass of each floor level of the
building are shown in table EA-7 and EA-8 respectively.
59
Table EA-7 : Storey shear forces of building A (Modal response spectrum analysis
method)
Table EA-8 : displacement (ds) of the test building at each storey level (Modal
response spectrum analysis method)
60
4.1.2.3.5 Inter-storey drift
The inter-storey drift (dr) was evaluated as described in section 2.1.5.6.2, considering
the difference of the lateral displacements (ds) in centre of mass (CM) at the top and
bottom of the storey, obtained by response spectrum analysis.
The inter-storey drift (dr) was then checked for damage limitation requirement given
by the following equation ,
Since the structure is of importance level III, the value was selected to 0.4.
All parameters for the verification of the damage limitation requirement for response
spectrum analysis are listed in tables EA-9, EA-10 and EA-11 for soft, medium and
hard soil conditions respectively.
Table EA-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Soft soil
conditions
61
requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Medium soil
conditions

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Hard soil
conditions
62
4.1.2.3.6 P-Δ effects
As described in section 2.1.5.7, the P-Δ effects was checked according to the
equation given as,
Where,
Ptot: Is the total gravity load, including appropriate amount of imposed load at
and above the storey considered in the seismic design situation – From table
EA-1.
dr: Is the inter-storey drift – From table EA-9, EA-10, EA-11 as appropriately
for particular soil type.
Vtot: Is the total seismic storey shear from response spectrum analysis.
h : Floor to floor height.
The calculation of the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient from modal response
spectrum analysis are shown in Table EA-12, EA-13 and EA-14 for soft, medium
and hard soil conditions respectively.
Table EA-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient at each

level of building A from modal response spectrum analysis – Soft
soil conditions.
63
level of building A from modal response spectrum analysis –
Medium soil conditions

level of building A from modal response spectrum analysis –
Hard soil conditions
64
4.2 BUILDING "B"
Since this is an apartment building having more than 10 storeys, the structure has
been categorized as importance level III (Table EN-1)

(Table EN-2)
The design peak ground acceleration value was then calculated as,
(0.1g × 1.5) = 0.15g
Behavior factor (q)

(Table EN-4)
Since the selected building is irregular in elevation, 80% of the has to be used in
calculations, as described in appendix A-2.1.2.
And,
∑ ∑
0=17.28
65
Therefore,
= (1+17.28)/3
Therefore,
q = (0.8×2× 1) = 1.6
soil conditions and are shown in figure EB-1.

soil
Medium soil
Sa/g 1.5 Elastic Response Spectrum - Hard
Soil
Soil

Medium Soil

Soil
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
T(S)
Figure EB-1:Elastic response spectrum and design response spectrum

-Building B
4.2.2 Method of analysis

2.1.5.5.
66
Berkley).
4.2.2.1 Structural Model

The EC 8 recommends using a spatial model as the preference method for all type of
buildings(Clause 4.3.1of EN 1998-1:2004). On account of that, for the test building a
three dimensional (spatial) model was developed. The computer model of this
building was created in a similar way as described in section 4.1.2.1, in case of
building A.
Figure EB-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of building B

67
As described in section 4.1.2.2, the method of analysis has been carried out in three
main steps as follows.
Table EB-1 : Total seismic mass of building B
4.2.2.2.2 Calculating seismic base shear
T1: The fundamental period of the building – Refer table B5

building for different soil conditions – Refer figure EB-1
68
m: The seismic mass of the building - Refer table EB-1
λ : The correction factor,λ can be determined according to

clause 4.3.3.2.2 of EN 1998-1: 2004. The values of λ for three
different soil conditions are shown in table EB-2.
The base shear force for each horizontal directions for three
soil conditions are shown in Table EB-3.
Table EB-2 : Correction factor, λ for building B
Table EB-3 : Seismic base shear of building B

The seismic base shear (Fb) was distributed at each storey
level by using the following expression as shown in section
2.1.5.4.1(C),
Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table EB-4.
69
Table EB-4 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level - Building B

4.3.3.3 of EN 11998-1:2004 were followed in the case of the test building in a
similar way as in building A, which is described in section 4.1.2.3.1.

In the modal response spectrum analysis, 12 modes of vibration were taken in to
account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal directions to exceed 90%
The basic properties of the models are summarized in Table EB-5.
70
Table EB-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of building B

storey, i. Tthe envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets of torsional
moments ( and ) were added to the combined (SRSS) results of the
seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
level is shown in Table EB-6.
71
Table EB-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction
4.2.2.3.4. Storey shear and displacement

building are shown in table EB-7 and EB-8 only.
Table EB-7 : Storey shear forces of building B (Modal response spectrum

analysis Method)
72
Table EB-8 : Design displacement (ds) of the test building at each storey level
(Modal response spectrum analysis method)
4.2.2.3.5Inter-storey drift
The inter-storey drift (dr) was then checked for damage limitation requirement given by the
following equation ,
spectrum analysis are listed in tables EB-9, EB-10 and EB-11 for soft, medium and hard soil
conditions respectively.
73
Table EB-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation
conditions

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Medium
soil conditions
74
requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Hard soil
conditions
equation given as,
Where,
EB-1.
dr: Is the inter-storey drift – From table EB-9, EB-10, EB-11 as appropriately
spectrum analysis are shown in Table EB-12, EB-13 and EB-14 for soft, medium and
75
Table EB-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient at each
level of building B from modal response spectrum analysis – Soft
soil conditions.

level of building B from modal response spectrum analysis –
Medium soil conditions.
76
level of building B from modal response spectrum analysis –
Hard soil conditions.
4.3 BUILDING "C"

Since this is an apartment building having 10 storeys, the structure has been
categorized as importance level III (Table EN1).

(Table EN-2)
The design peak ground acceleration value was then calculated as
(0.1g × 1.5) = 0.15g
Behavior factor (q)

77
(Table EN-4)
And,
∑ ∑
0=9.96
Therefore,
= (1+9.96)/3
Therefore,
q = (2× 1) = 2.0
soil conditions and are shown in figure EC-1.

soil
Medium soil
Sa /g 1.5 Elastic Response Spectrum - Hard
Soil
Soil

Medium Soil

Soil
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
T (S)
Figure EC-1 : Elastic response spectrum and design response spectrum -

Building C
78
4.3.2 Methods of analysis
2.1.5.5.
Berkley).

The EC 8 recommends using a spatial model as the preference method for all type of
buildings(Clause 4.3.1of EN 1998-1:2004). On account of that, for the test building a
three dimensional (spatial) model was developed. The computer model of this
building was created in a similar way as described in section 4.1.2.1, in case of
building A.
79
Figure EC-2 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of the building C

As described in section 2.1.5.4.1, the method of analysis has been carried out in three
main steps as follows.
80
Table EC-1 : Total seismic mass of building C

T1: The fundamental period of the building – Refer table C5

building for different soil conditions – Refer figure EC-1
m: The seismic mass of the building - Refer table EC-1
λ : The correction factor,λ can be determined according to

clause 4.3.3.2.2 of EN 1998-1: 2004. The values of λ for three
different soil conditions are shown in table EC-2.
The base shear force for each horizontal directions for three
soil conditions are shown in Table EC-3.
81
Table EC-2 : Correction factor, λ for building C
Table EC-3 : Seismic base shear of building C

The seismic base shear (Fb) was distributed at each storey level by using the
following expression as shown in section 2.1.5.4.1(C),
Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table EC-4.
Table EC-4 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level - Building C
82
4.3.3.3 of EN 11998-1:2004 were followed in the case of the test building in a
similar way as in building A, which is described in section 4.1.2.3.1.

In the modal response spectrum analysis, 15 modes of vibration were taken in to
account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal directions to exceeds 90%
The basic properties of the models are summarized in Table EC-5.
Table EC-5 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of building C


storey, i. Tthe envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets of torsional
moments ( and ) were added to the combined (SRSS) results of the
seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
83
level is shown in Table EC-6.
Table EC-6 : Torsional moments at each horizontal direction
4.3.2.3.4. Storey shear and displacement
building are shown in table EC-7 and EC-8 only.
Table EC-7 : Storey shear forces of building C (Modal response spectrum

analysis Method)
84
Table EC-8 : Design displacement (ds) of the test building at each storey level
4.3.2.3.5. Inter-storey drift
The inter-storey drift (dr) was then checked for damage limitation requirement given
by the following equation ,
spectrum analysis are listed in tables EC-9, EC-10 and EC-11 for soft, medium and hard soil
conditions respectively.
85
Table EC-9 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation
conditions

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Medium
soil conditions

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Hard soil
conditions
86
equation given as,
Where,
EC-1.
dr: Is the inter-storey drift – From table EC-9, EC-10, EC-11 as appropriately
spectrum analysis are shown in Table EC-12, EC-13 and EC-14 for soft, medium and
Table EC-12 : Calculation of inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient at each

level of building C from modal response spectrum analysis – Soft
soil conditions.
87
level of building C from modal response spectrum analysis –
Medium soil conditions.

level of building C from modal response spectrum analysis –
Hard soil conditions.
88
5.0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN CODE { AS
1170.4-2007}
5.1 BUILDING "A"
The selected building is an eighteen storied reinforced concrete apartment building,
which includes aground floor and seventeen above floors. The basic descriptions and
calculations of this structure are described in appendix A.
This is an apartment building having more than 15 storeys. Therefore the building is
categorized as Importance level 3 (Table AS-2)
Reference probability of exceedance

Annual probability of the design event for safety for earthquake condition for Importance
level 3 =1/1000 (Table AS-1)
Probability factor, kp
For annual probability of exceedance = 1/1000, kp=1.3(Table AS-4)
Hazard factor, Z
The hazard factor, Z for different locations in Australia is given in table 3.2 of AS
1170.4-2007. However, for Sri Lankan conditions, it was considered to be 0.1
throughout the country.
Sub-soil class
For very soft soil conditions, sub-soil class = Ee
For shallow soil condition, sub-soil class = Ce
For rock condition, sub-soil class = Be
Selection of earthquake design category
89
Importance level: 3
Structure height, hn : 71.2m
kpZ = 1.3 x 0.1 = 0.13
Therefore, according to table AS-3, the building shall be designed for earthquake design
categories based on sub-soil classes as follows III (EDC III).
Sub-soil class Ee : Earthquake Design Category III (EDCIII)
Sub-soil class Ce : Earthquake Design Category III (EDCIII)
Sub-soil class Be : Earthquake Design Category III (EDCIII)
Horizontal design response spectrum Cd(T)
Cd(T) = C(T)Sp/µ (Equation 6.2(4) of AS 1170.4:2007)
= KpZCh(T)Sp/µ (Equation 6.2(5) of AS 1170.4:2007)
For a structure consists of ordinary moment-resisting frames in combination with a

limited ductile shear walls,
Sp/µ = 0.38 (Table AS-6)
Cd(T) = 0.13 X 0.38 X Ch(T)
Cd(T) = 0.0494 Ch(T)

The code recommends to use dynamic analysis to calculate earthquake forces
(Clause 5.5.2.2 of AS 1170.4-2007) without considering vertical earthquake actions,
except parts and components. Therefore, in this research, a modal response spectrum
analysis was performed on a three dimensional structural model of the building.
However, equivalent static analysis was also performed in order to obtain the
horizontal force acting on each storey, which has been used to determine accidental
torsional effects as described in section 6.6 of AS 1170.4-2007.
90
A three dimensional mathematical model was used in this analysis since it could
represent the special distribution of the mass and the stiffness of the structure
adequately.
In this study, the building was considered to have no significant structural effect
were not considered in making the model. However, their weight was considered in
the calculation of seismic weight of the building.
It was required that the model should fulfill all the requirements specified in the
code. The basic characteristics of the model of the test building considering the
o Column and beam elements were modeled as line elements

whereas the floor slabs and concrete walls were modeled as
shell elements.
o The elements were modeled with the actual sizes such that
they adequately represent the distribution of stiffness and mass
of the building.
o Even though it is not specifically discussed about the influence
of cracked sections in AS 1170.4:2007, this influence was
reflected in the model by multiplying the moment of inertia
and shear area of the un-cracked sections by 0.5 in order to
take the elastic flexural and shear properties one-half of those
corresponding to un-cracked elements. Torsional stiffness of
the cracked sections was set equal to 10% of the torsional
stiffness of the un-cracked sections.
o Frames were connected by means of rigid diaphragms in
horizontal plane at each floor level.
o The accidental torsional effect was considered by applying
torsional moments about vertical axis as described in Clause
6.6 of AS 1170.4-2007.
91
Figure AA-1: Three dimensional (spatial) model of building A
5.1.2.2. Equivalent static analysis
Equivalent static analysis can be carried out in three main steps as follows.
a). Estimating the self-weight and seismic weight of the building
92
b). Calculating the seismic base shear in relevant directions
c). Distribution of lateral forces at different floor levels.
5.1.2.2.1 Estimation of seismic weight of the building

As described in section 2.2.4.1 the seismic weight of the building can be found by
Wi = ∑ ∑
Table AA-1 : Total seismic weight of building A

The seismic base shear force for each horizontal direction was determined by the
expression given in Clause 6.2.1 of AS 1170.4-2007.
V = Cd(T1)Wt
Cd(T1) = 0.0494Ch(T1) (From section 5.1.1)
V = 0.0494Ch(T1)Wt
T1: The fundamental period of the building
From modal analysis - Refer Table A5
From eq.6.2(7) of AS 1170.4-2007 - When kt= 0.05and

hn= 71.2 m
T1= 1.53 S
93
Ch(T1): The values of the spectral shape factors are obtained
from table 6.4 of AS 1170.4:2007.
Wt : The seismic weight of the building - Refer table AA-1
The base shear forces for each horizontal direction, based on T1 calculated according
to both of above methods are shown in Table AA-2 and AA-3.Base shear forces
calculated using T1, obtained from modal analysis were then checked weather they
exceed 80% of the base shear values obtained with T1 calculated using the above
equation. Base shear forces of the structure, after the comparison are shown in Table
AA-4.
Table AA-2 : Design seismic base shear of building A (T1 from modal analysis)
Table AA-3 : Design seismic base shear of building A (T1 from eq. 6.2(7) of AS
1170.4-2007)
Table AA-4 : Design seismic base shear of building A
94
The seismic base shear (V) was then distributed at each storey level by using the
following expression as shown in 2.2.4.3.1.3,
Fi = kF,iV (Refer AS 1170.4: 2007/eq 6.3(1) )
=∑ [KpZCh(T1) /]Wt (Refer AS 1170.4: 2007/eq 6.2(2)
The values for k in X direction (kx) and in Y direction (ky) were calculated
according to Clause 6.3 of AS 1170.4-2002, as follows.
k=exponent depend on the fundamental period of the structure (T1), which is taken
as-
1.0 when T1≤0.5;
2.0 when T1≥2.5; or
linearly interpolated between 1.0 and 2.0 for 0.5< T1<2.5
The distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table AA-5
Table AA-5 : Distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level
95
5.1.2.3.1. General rules
The general rules recommended for this type of analysis were followed in the case of
the test building and are given as follows.
o Modal response spectrum analysis was performed independently for the
ground excitation in two horizontal directions.
Combination (CQC) rule was used.
SRSS rule.
o The load combinations were considered according to Clause 4.2.2 of AS
1170.0; 2002.
o The accidental torsional effect was considered by means of torsional
moments about the vertical axis according to Clauses 7.4.4.1 and 6.6 of
AS 1170.4-2007.

In modal response spectrum analysis, adequate modes of vibrations has been taken in
to account as described in Clause 7.4.2 of AS1170.4-2007.
The basic modal properties are summarized in Table AA-6.
96
Table AA-6 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of building A
(Modal response spectrum analysis

As described in section 2.2.4.3.1.4, the accidental torsional effect has been
considered by means of torsional moments ( and ), applying about the
vertical axis at each storey, i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets
of torsional moments ( and ) was then added to the combined (SRSS)
results of the seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
lateral force method of analysis. The calculations of torsional moments at each storey
level are listed in tables AA-7 for very soft soil, shallow soil and rock conditions.
97
Table AA-7 : Torsional moments - Building A
5.1.2.3.4 Storey shear and displacements

soil conditions were calculated according to section 2.2.4.3.1.5
building are shown in table AA-8 and AA-9 respectively.
Table AA-8: Storey shear forces of building A (Modal response spectrum

analysis method)
98
Table AA-9: Design displacement (di) of the test building at each storey level
5.1.2.3.5 Storey drifts

The design drift(dst) at each floor levels of the structure were evaluated as described
in section 2.2.4.3.1.5 considering the difference of the deflections (di) in centre of
mass (CM) at the top and bottom of the storey, obtained by response spectrum
analysis.
The inter-storey drift (dst) at each floor levels were then checked against the
maximum allowable value for damage limitation requirement, given as 1.5% of the
storey height(h) according to clause 5.5.4 of AS 1170.4-2007.
All parameters for the verification of the damage limitation requirement obtained by
response spectrum analysis for different soil conditions are listed in Table AA-10.
99
Table AA-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation
requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Building A

As described in section 2.2.4.3.1.6, the P-Δ effects was checked according to the
following equation,
∑ ( ∑ )
Where,
dst: The design storey drift – From table AA-8, as appropriately for particular
soil type.
Wj: Seismic weight of the structure or component at level j in kilo Newton –

From table AA-1.
hsi: Inter-storey height of level i, measured from centre-line to centre-line of

the floors.
µ: Structural ductility factor - From table AS-6.
Fj: Horizontal dynamic force at the jth level, obtained from response
spectrum analysis - From table AA-8 as appropriately.
100
The calculation procedure related to inter-storey stability coefficient for three
different ground conditions are listed in table AA-11, AA-12 and AA-13.
Table AA-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at each level of

building A from modal response spectrum analysis – Very soft
soil conditions

building A from modal response spectrum analysis – Shallow soil
conditions
101
building A from modal response spectrum analysis – Rock
conditions
5.2 BUILDING "B"

The selected building is a fourteen storied reinforced concrete apartment building,
which includes a ground floor and thirteen above floors. The basic descriptions and
calculations of this structure are described in appendix B.

Since this is an apartment building having less than 15 storeys, the building has been

Annual probability of the design event for safety for earthquake condition for Importance
level 2 =1/500 (Table AS-1)
102
Hazard factor, Z
Sub-soil class
For very soft soil condition, sub-soil class = Ee
For shallow soil condition, sub-soil class = Ce
Importance level: 2
Structure height, hn : 46.3m< 50m
kpZ = 1.0 x 0.1 = 0.1
categories based on sub-soil classes as follows.
Sub-soil class Ce : Earthquake Design Category II (EDCII)
Sub-soil class Be : Earthquake Design Category II (EDCII)

103
Cd(T) = 0.1 X 0.38 X Ch(T)
Cd(T) = 0.038 Ch(T)

To calculate earthquake forces,the code recommends to use either equivalent static
analysis or dynamic analysis for EDC II structures and only dynamic analysis for
EDC III structures (Clause 5.4.2.2 and 5.5.2.2 of AS 1170.4-2007). The vertical
earthquake actions are not required to be considered, except parts and components.
Therefore, in this research, a modal response spectrum analysis was performed on a
three dimensional structural model of the building. However, equivalent static
analysis was also performed in order to obtain the horizontal force acting on each
storey, which has been used to determine accidental torsional effects as described in
section 6.6 of AS 1170.4-2007.

A three dimensional mathematical model has been used in this analysis since it can
represents the special distribution of the mass and the stiffness of the structure
adequately. The model was created to fulfill all the requirements specified in the
code as described in section 5.1.2.1 in case of building A.
104
Figure AB-1: Three dimensional (spatial) model of building B

105
Wi = ∑ ∑
Table AB-1 : Total seismic weight of building B

The seismic base shear force for each horizontal direction was determined by the
expression given in Clause 6.2.1 of AS 1170.4:2002.
V = Cd(T1)Wt
V = 0.0494Ch(T1)Wt
T1: The fundamental period of vibration of the building

hn= 46.3 m
T1= 1.11 S
106
from table 6.4 of AS 1170.4:2007.
Wt : The seismic weight of the building - Refer table AB-1
The base shear forces for each horizontal direction, based on T1 calculated according
to both of above methods are shown in Table AB-2 and AB-3.Base shear forces
AB-4.
Table AB-2 : Design seismic base shear of building B (T1 from modal analysis)
Table AB-3 : Design seismic base shear of building B (T1 from eq. 6.2(7) of AS
1170.4-2007)
Table AB-4 : Design seismic base shear of building B
107
according to Clause 6.3 of AS 1170.4-2002, as described in section 5.1.2.2.3, in case
of building A.
The distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table AB-5
Table AB-5:Distribution of seismic base shear - Building B

108
SRSS rule.
1170.0; 2002.
AS 1170.4-2007.

In the modal response spectrum analysis, adequate modes of vibrations were taken in
to account described in Clause 7.4.2 of AS1170.4-2007.
The basic modal properties are summarized in Table AB-6.
Table AB-6 :Periods and effective modal mass participation of building B

As described in section 2.2.4.3.1.4, the accidental torsional effect has been

considered by means of torsional moments ( and ), applying about the
vertical axis at each storey, i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets
109
of torsional moments ( and ) was then added to the combined (SRSS)
results of the seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
levels are listed in tables AB-7 for very soft soil, shallow soil and rock conditions
respectively.
Table AB-7 : Torsional moments - Building B
soil conditions were calculated according to section 2.2.4.3.1.5
building are shown in table AB-8 and AB-9 respectively.
110
Table AB-8: Storey shear forces of building B (Modal response spectrum
analysis method)
Table AB-9: Design displacement (di) of the test building at each storey level
The design drift(dst) at each floor levels of the structure were evaluated similar way
in building A, as described in section 5.1.2.3.5, considering the difference of the
deflections (di) in centre of mass (CM) at the top and bottom of the storey, obtained
by response spectrum analysis.
111
All parameters for the verification of the damage limitation requirement obtained by
response spectrum analysis for different soil conditions are listed in Table AB-10.
Table AB-10: Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Building B
As described in section 5.1.2.3.6 for building A, the P-Δ effects in building B was
checked according to the following equation,
∑ ( ∑ )
Where,
dst: The design storey drift – From table AB-8, as appropriately for particular
soil type.

From table AB-1.

the floors.
spectrum analysis - From table AB-8as appropriately.
112
The calculation procedure related to inter-storey stability coefficient(θ) for three
different ground conditions are listed in table AB-11, AB-12 and AB-13.
Table AB-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at each level of

building B from modal response spectrum analysis – Very soft
soil conditions
Table AB-12 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at each level of

building B from modal response spectrum analysis – Shallow
soil conditions
113
Table AB-13 :Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at each level of
building B from modal response spectrum analysis – Rock
conditions
5.3 BUILDING "C"

The selected building is a 10 storied reinforced concrete apartment building, which
includes a ground floor and 9 floors above. The basic descriptions and calculations
of this structure are described in appendix C.
Since this is an apartment building having less than 15 storeys, the building has been

Annual probability of the design event for safety for earthquake condition for
Importance level 2 =1/500 (Table AS-1)
114
Hazard factor, Z
Sub-soil class
For verysoft soil conditions, sub-soil class = Ee
For Shallow soil condition, sub-soil class = Ce
Importance level: 2
Structure height, hn : 31.46m< 50m
kpZ = 1.0 x 0.1 = 0.1
categories based on sub-soil classes as follows.
Sub-soil class Ce : Earthquake Design Category II (EDCII)
Sub-soil class Be : Earthquake Design Category II (EDCII)

115
Cd(T) = 0.1 X 0.38 X Ch(T)
Cd(T) = 0.038 Ch(T)

To calculate earthquake forces, the code recommends to use either equivalent static
analysis or dynamic analysis for EDCII structures and only dynamic analysis for
EDCIII structures (Clause 5.4.2.2 and 5.5.2.2 of AS 1170.4-2007). The vertical
earthquake actions are not required to be considered, except parts and components.
Therefore, in this research, a modal response spectrum analysis was performed on a
three dimensional structural model of the building. However, equivalent static
analysis was also performed in order to obtain the horizontal force acting on each
storey, which has been used to determine accidental torsional effects as described in
section 6.6 of AS 1170.4-2007.

A three dimensional mathematical model has been used in this analysis since it can
represents the special distribution of the mass and the stiffness of the structure
adequately. The model was created to fulfill all the requirements specified in the
code as described in section 5.1.2.1 in case of building A.
116
Figure AC-1: Three dimensional (spatial) model of building C
5.3.2.2 Equivalent static analysis
a). Estimating the self-weight and seismic masses of the building
c). Distribution of lateral forces and moments
117
Wi = ∑ ∑
Table AC-1 : Total seismic weight of building C

The seismic base shear force for each horizontal direction is determined by the
expression given in Clause 6.2.1 of AS 1170.4:2002.
V = Cd(T1)Wt
V = 0.038Ch(T1)Wt
T1: The fundamental period of vibration of the building

hn= 31.46 m
T1= 0.83 S

from table 6.4 of AS 1170.4:2007.
118
Wt : The seismic weight of the building - Refer table AC-1
The base shear force for each horizontal direction, based on T1 calculated according
to both of above methods are shown in Table AC-2 and AC-3.Base shear forces
AC-4.
Table AC-2 : Design seismic base shear of building C (T1 from modal analysis)
Table AC-3 : Design seismic base shear of building C (T1 from eq. 6.2(7) of AS
1170.4-2007)
Table AC-4 : Design seismic base shear of building C

119
according to Clause 6.3 of AS 1170.4-2002, as described in section 5.1.2.2.3, in case
of building A.
The distribution of seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table AC-5
Table AC-5 : Distribution of seismic base shear - Building C

5.3.2.3.1.General rules
SRSS rule.
1170.0; 2002.
AS 1170.4-2007.
120
In the modal response spectrum analysis, adequate modes of vibrations were taken in
to account described in Clause 7.4.2 of AS1170.4-2007.
The basic modal properties are summarized in Table AC-6.
Table AC-6 : Periods and effective modal mass participation of building C

Similar in building A, as described in section 5.1.2.3.3, the accidental torsional

effect has been considered by means of torsional moments ( and ), applying
about the vertical axis at each storey, i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the
four sets of torsional moments ( and ) was then added to the combined
(SRSS) results of the seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
levels are listed in tables AC-7 for very soft soil, shallow soil and rock conditions
respectively.
121
Table AC-7 : Torsional moments - Building C
building are shown in table AC-8 and AC-9 respectively.
Table AC-8 : Storey shear forces of building C (Modal response spectrum

analysis method)
122
Table AC-9:Design displacement (di) of the test building at each storey level
The design drift(dst) at each floor levels of the structure were evaluated similar way
in building A, as described in section 5.1.2.3.5, considering the difference of the
deflections (di) in centre of mass (CM) at the top and bottom of the storey, obtained
by response spectrum analysis.
spectrum analysis for different soil conditions are listed in Table AC-10.
Table AC-10: Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis - Building C
123
As described in section 5.1.2.3.6 for building A, the P-Δ effects in building C was
checked according to the following equation,
∑ ( ∑ )
Where,
dst: The design storey drift – From table AC-8, as appropriately for particular
soil type.

From table AC-1.

the floors.
spectrum analysis - From table AC-8 as appropriately.
The calculation procedure related to inter-storey stability coefficient(θ) for three

different ground conditions are listed in table AC-11, AC-12 and AC-13.
Table AC-11 : Calculation of inter-storey stability coefficient at each level of

building C from modal response spectrum analysis – Very soft
soil conditions
124
building C from modal response spectrum analysis – Shallow
soil conditions

building C from modal response spectrum analysis – Rock
conditions
125
6 .0 ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO IS 1893(Part 1) : 2002
6.1 BUILDING "A"
The selected building is an eighteen storied reinforced concrete apartment building,
which includes a Ground floor and seventeen above floors. The basic descriptions
and calculations of this structure are described in appendix A.

Zone factor, Z
The zone factor, Z for different zones in India is given in table 2 of IS1893 (Part 1) :
2002. However, the value of this factor has been considered as 0.1 for all areas in Sri
Lanka, which also satisfy the requirement established for zone II.
Importance factor, I
This is an apartment building having 18 storeys. Therefore, according to note 2 of
table 6 of IS 1893 (Part1) :2002, the important factor has been selected as 1.5.
Response reduction factor, R

Considering that the structure consists of ordinary shear wall and ordinary moment
resisting frames, referring to table 7 of IS 1893 (Part1) :2002, the value of R was
selected as 3.0.
Average response acceleration coefficient, Sa/g

The value for Sa/g for different soil conditions can be taken from figure 2 of IS 1893
(Part1) :2002, based on the natural period of vibration of the structure.
Design horizontal seismic coefficient (Ah)

Ah=
Substituting the values for Z, I and R, as described above,
Ah = 0.025 Sa/g
Structural Regularity
Clause 7.1 of IS 1893-1:2002 defines the criteria to be satisfied in order a building to

be considered as regular. Accordingly, a building shall be considered irregular, if any
126
of the conditions given in table 4 and 5 IS 1893-1:2002 are not satisfied. In case of
the investigated building, as mentioned under the description of the project in
appendix A, some of columns shift at fifth floor slab level. Therefore, the building
was considered as irregular.

Since the selected building is irregular and its height is more than 40m and located in
an area similar to zone II, the design seismic forces were obtained by performing
dynamic analysis, as described in section 7.8.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002. Therefore
a modal response spectrum analysis has been performed on a three dimensional
has also been performed since the base shear force obtained by dynamic analysis
has to be compared against that of calculated by static lateral force method. The
shear forces, calculated by static lateral force method were also used to determine
the accidental torsional moments, which were assigned in the model as specified in
the code.

A three dimensional mathematical model was used in this analysis since it can
adequately.
It is required that the model should fulfill all the requirements specified in the code.
The basic characteristics of the model of the test building considering the
o Column and beam elements are modeled as line elements whereas the
floor slabs and concrete walls are modeled as shell elements.
127
o The elements were modeled with the actual sizes such that they
adequately represent the distribution of stiffness and mass of the
building.
o Even though it is not specifically discussed about the influence of
cracked sections in IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, this influence was
reflected in the model by multiplying the moment of inertia and shear
area of the un-cracked sections by 0.5 in order to take the elastic
flexural and shear properties one-half of those corresponding to un-
cracked elements. Torsional stiffness of the cracked sections were set
equal to 10% of the torsional stiffness of the un-cracked sections.
o Frames are connected by means of rigid diaphragms in horizontal
plane at each floor level.
o The accidental torsional effects were considered by applying torsional
moments about vertical axis as described in Clause 7.9 of IS 1893
(Part 1) : 2002.
128
Figure IA-1: Three dimensional (spatial) model of building A
6.1.2.2. Lateral force method (Static analysis)
Analysis according to lateral force method can be carried out in three main steps as
follows.
a). Estimating the self-weight and seismic weight of the building
c). Distribution of lateral forces at each floor level.
129
6.1.2.2.1 Seismic weight of the building
The seismic weight of the building was calculated considering both the dead load and
the variable loads as described in section 2.3.4.1.
Table IA-1 : Seismic weight of building A
6.1.2.2.2 Design seismic base shear

The total design seismic base shear (VB) for each horizontal direction has been
determined by the expression given in Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 as,
VB = AhW
Where
W: Seismic weight of the building - Refer table IA-1.
natural period Ta in the considered direction of vibration, which was
calculated in 6.1.1 as 0.025 Sa/g, where Sa/g can be found from figure
IA-1, with respect to fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in
the relevant direction
Fundamental period of vibration
The fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) has been obtained by model analysis
performed on the three dimensional computer model of the building.
130
The design base shear force acting in each horizontal direction is shown in table IA-
2.
Table IA-2 :Design seismic base shear by static lateral force method - Building
A

The design base shear ( VB ) was then distributed along the height of the building as
per the following expression ( Refer IS 1893-1:2002/7.7.1);
Where
Wi: Seismic weight of the floor i - From table IA-1,
masses are located
The distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in Table
IA-3
131
Table IA-3: Distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level -
Building A

The general rules recommended for this type of analysis were followed in case of the
test building and are given as follows.
o Modal response spectrum analysis has been performed independently
for the ground excitation in two horizontal directions. The excitation
in vertical direction was not consider since the structure does not have
large span beams, pre-stress components or cantilever projections.
o The acceleration spectrum defined in Clause 6.4.2 of IS 1893-1:2002
was used for the test building.
Combination (CQC) rule was used
o The results of the modal analysis in both directions were combined by
the SRSS rule.
moments applying about the vertical axis.
132
In the modal response spectrum analysis, adequate number of modes of vibration
were taken in to account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal directions
to exceeds 90% of the total mass of the structure as given in Clause 7.8.4.2 of IS
1893-1:2002.
The basic modal properties are summarized in Table IA-4.
Table IA-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by modal response
spectrum analysis - Building A

The accidental eccentricity was taken as 5% of the floor dimension perpendicular to
the direction of the seismic action, and as described in clause 7.9.2 of IS
1893-1:2002.
The accidental torsional effect was considered by means of torsional moments

( and ) applied about the vertical axis at each storey,i. The envelop of the
effects resulting from the four sets of torsional moments ( and ) was then
added to the combined (SRSS) results of the seismic actions in both horizontal
directions.
133
levels are listed in tables IA-5 for soft, medium and hard soil conditions
respectively.
Table IA-5 : Torsional moments - Building A
6.1.2.3.4 Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis

method
Storey shear forces were obtained by performing modal response spectrum analysis for
the test building for three different soil conditions and they are listed in table IA-6.
When the design base shear ( VB ), obtained by response spectrum analysis is lesser
than the base shear (̅̅̅), obtained by equivalent static method, then, as per section
7.6 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, the response quantities like storey shear forces and
displacements were multiplied by ̅̅̅/VB. The summary of base shear forces obtained
by static and dynamic analysis methods are listed in IA-7 and storey shear forces
after modification are listed in table IA-8.
134
Table IA-6 : Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method -
Building A
Table IA-7: Summary of base shear forces - Building A
Table IA-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis
method - Building A
135
6.1.2.3.5 Storey displacement and drift
In case of test building, the displacement of the centre of mass (CM) of each floor
level of the building was obtained by performing response spectrum analysis for the
system. The drift(dr) at each floor levels of the structure was evaluated considering
the difference of the deflections (d) in centre of mass (CM) at the top and bottom of
the storey.
As described in section 7.11.1of IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002, for the purpose of

displacement requirements, it is not required to check the design seismic forces
against lower bound limit, as defined in section 7.8.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002.
Therefore the displacement values obtained from response spectrum analysis were
used in calculating storey drifts without any modification. The inter-storey drift (dr)
at each floor levels were then checked against the maximum allowable value for
damage limitation requirement, given as 0.004 times the storey height(h) according
to clause 7.11.1of IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002.
The displacement values at each storey for soft, medium and hard soil conditions are
listed in table IA-9 and all the parameters for the verification of the damage
limitation requirement for response spectrum analysis are listed in Table IA-10. The
displacement values after modifications are also listed in table IA-11. The
displacement values listed, in Table IA-9 were then adjusted by multiplying by 2R to
obtain the displacement values at ultimate limit state at Maximum Considered Earth
Quake (MCE) situation. The adjusted displacement values are listed in Table IA-12.
136
Table IA-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response spectrum analysis
method - Building A
Table IA-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Building A
137
Table IA-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response spectrum
Table IA-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response spectrum

138
6.2 BUILDING "B"
The selected building is a fourteen storied reinforced concrete apartment building,
which includes a Ground floor and thirteen above floors. The basic descriptions and
calculations of this structure are described in appendix B.

Zone factor, Z
table 6 of IS 1893 (Part1) :2002, the important factor was selected as 1.5.

selected as 3.0.

Ah=
Ah = 0.025 Sa/g
Structural Regularity
Clause 7.1 of IS 1893-1:2002 defines the criteria to be satisfied in order a building to

be considered as regular. Accordingly, a building shall be considered irregular, if any
139
of the conditions given in table 4 and 5 IS 1893-1:2002 are not satisfied. In case of
the investigated building, as mentioned under the description of the project in
appendix B, some of columns shift at first floor slab level. Therefore, the building
was considered as irregular.

Since the selected building is irregular and its height is more than 40 m and located
in an area similar to zone II, the design seismic forces were obtained by performing
dynamic analysis, as described in section 7.8.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002. Therefore
a modal response spectrum analysis has been performed on a three dimensional
the code.

adequately.
As described in section 6.1.2.1 in case of building A, the model for this building was
also developed fulfilling all the requirements specified in the code.
140
Figure IB-1 : Three dimensional (spatial) model of building B
As described in section 6.1.2.2, the analysis according to lateral force method can be
carried out in three main steps as follows.
a) Estimating the self-weight and seismic weight of the building

c) Distribution of lateral forces at each floor level.
141
Table IB-1 : Seismic weight of building B

The total design seismic base shear (VB) for each horizontal direction was determined
by the expression given in Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 as,
VB = AhW
Where
W: Seismic weight of the building - Refer table IB-1.
IB-1 with respect to fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in
performed on the three dimensional computer model of the building,
142
The design base shear force acting in each horizontal direction is shown in table IB-
2.
Table IB-2: Design seismic base shear by equivalent static method - Building B

Where
Wi: Seismic weight of the floor i - From table IB-1,
masses are located
The distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in table
IB-3
143
Table IB-3: Distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level -
Building B

As described in section 6.1.2.3.1 in case of building A, the general rules
recommended for this type of analysis were followed in case of the test building as
well.

In the modal response spectrum analysis, adequate number of modes of vibration are
taken in to account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal directions
exceeds 90% of the total mass of the structure as given in Clause 7.8.4.2 of IS 1893-
1:2002.
The basic modal properties are summarized in table IB-4.
144
Table IB-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by modal response
spectrum analysis - Building B

As described in section 6.1.2.3.3 in case of building A, the accidental torsional effect
was considered by means of torsional moments ( and ) applied about the
vertical axis at each storey,i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets of
torsional moments ( and ) was then added to the combined (SRSS) results
of the seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
levels are listed in tables IB-5 for soft, medium and hard soil conditions
respectively.
Table IB-5 : Torsional moments - Building B
145
method
the test building for three different soil conditions and they are listed in table IB-6.
by static and dynamic analysis methods are listed in IB-7 and storey shear forces
after modification are listed in table IB-8.
.
Table IB-6: Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method -
Building B
Table IB-7 : Summary of base shear forces - Building B
146
Table IB-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis
method - Building B
the storey.

listed in table IB-9 and all the parameters for the verification of the damage
limitation requirement for response spectrum analysis are listed in Table IB-10. The
displacement values after modifications are also listed in table IB-11.The
displacement values, listed in Table IB-9 were then adjusted, multiplying by 2R to
147
Quake (MCE) situation. The adjusted displacement values are listed in Table IB-12.
Table IB-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response spectrum analysis

method - Building B
Table IB-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Building B
148
Table IB-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response spectrum
Table IB-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response spectrum

149
6.3 BUILDING "C"
includes a ground floor and 9 floors above. The basic descriptions and calculations
of this structure are described in appendix C.
Zone factor, Z
table 6 of IS 1893 (Part1) :2002, the important factor was selected as 1.5.

selected as 3.0.

Ah=
Ah = 0.025 Sa/g
150
The height of the selected building is nearly 40m. It is located in an area similar to
zone II. The design seismic forces were obtained by performing dynamic analysis.
the code.
6.3.2.1Structural Model
adequately.
As described in section 6.1.2.1 in case of building A, the model for this building was
also developed fulfilling all the requirements specified in the code.
151
Figure IC-1: Three dimensional (spatial) model of building C

As described in section 6.1.2.2, the analysis according to lateral force method can be
carried out in three main steps as follows.
a) Estimating the self-weight and seismic weight of the building

c) Distribution of lateral forces at each floor level.
152
Table IC-1 : Seismic weight of building C

Similar to building A, as described in section 6.1.2.2, the total design seismic base
shear (VB) for each horizontal direction was determined by the expression given in
Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 as,
VB = AhW
Where
W: Seismic weight of the building - Refer table IC-1.
IC-1 with respect to fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in
performed on the three dimensional computer model of the building.
153
The design base shear force acting in each horizontal direction is shown in table IC-
2.
Table IC-2 : Design seismic base shear by equivalent static method - Building C

Where
Wi: Seismic weight of the floor i - From table IC-1,
masses are located
The distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level is shown in table
IC-3
154
Table IC-3 : Distribution of design seismic base shear at each storey level -
Building C
As described in section 6.1.2.3.1 in case of building A, the general rules

recommended for this type of analysis were followed in case of the test building as
well.

In the modal response spectrum analysis, adequate number of modes of vibration are
taken in to account as the sum of the modal masses in each horizontal directions
exceeds 90% of the total mass of the structure as given in Clause 7.8.4.2 of IS 1893-
1:2002.
The basic modal properties are summarized in table IC-4.
155
Table IC-4 : Periods and effective modal mass participation by modal response
spectrum analysis - Building C

As described in section 6.1.2.3.3 in case of building A, the accidental torsional effect
was considered by means of torsional moments ( and ) applied about the
vertical axis at each storey,i. The envelop of the effects resulting from the four sets of
torsional moments ( and ) was then added to the combined (SRSS) results
of the seismic actions in both horizontal directions.
levels are listed in tables IC-5 for soft, medium and hard soil conditions
respectively.
156
Table IC-5 : Torsional moments - Building C

method
the test building for three different soil conditions and they are listed in table IC-6.
by static and dynamic analysis methods are listed in IC-7 and storey shear forces
after modification are listed in table IC-8.
Table IC-6 : Storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis method -
Building C
157
Table IC-7 : Summary of base shear forces - Building C
Table IC-8 : Modified storey shear forces by modal response spectrum analysis
method - Building C

the storey.

listed in table IC-9 and all the parameters for the verification of the damage
158
limitation requirement for response spectrum analysis are listed in Table IC-10. The
displacement values after modifications are also listed in table IC-11.The
displacement values, listed in Table IC-9 were then adjusted, multiplying by 2R to
Quake (MCE) situation. The adjusted displacement values are listed in Table IC-12.
Table IC-9 : Storey displacement (d) by modal response spectrum analysis

method - Building C
Table IC-10 : Parameters defining the criteria for damage limitation

requirement by modal response spectrum analysis – Building C
159
Table IC-11 : Modified storey displacements by modal response spectrum
Table IC-12 : Adjusted storey displacements by modal response spectrum

160
7.0 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE LEVEL
OFBUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT CODES OF PRACTICE
As described in analysis chapters, the selected three structures have been analysed as
per three different codes of practice. In order to be more general, the structures were
analysed for three different soil conditions, which can be commonly found in the
country. In this way, totally 27 cases were analysed. The output of those analysis
were tabulated in respective subsection of the analysis chapter.
This chapter presents a detail comparison and study on analysis output. The output
values were compared under different criteria to find out possible varying patterns.
7.1 Comparison based on target performance level
The structural performance of a building can be identified by its target structural

performance level. The FEMA 356 (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in
United States (US) has defined minimum drift limits to be maintained in order to
achieve different target performance levels. Therefore the percentage drift at roof
level of the three structures were calculated and tabulated as below to find out the
target performance level which has been achieved by the structure under different
codes of practice and different possible soil conditions respectively.
161
Table 7.1.1- Transient lateral drift at roof level of the three structures
According to the results obtained and presented in Table 7.1.1, it can be clearly
identified that in all twenty seven cases, the transient lateral drift at roof level has
been maintained below 1%, which is the minimum drift to be maintained by a
structure to achieve Immediate Occupancy Level (IOL), according to FEMA356
standards.
Based on values from Table 7.1.1, Table 7.1.2 has been prepared to determine the
code of practice, which has given the maximum and the minimum values of the
transient drift at roof level.
Table 7.1.2Code of practice for highest and lowest drift ratioat roof level
162
According to the above table, for all three buildings, except in soft/very soft soil
conditions, most of times, the highest drift ratio at roof level have been achieved,
when they were analysed according only to Indian code (10 out of 18 occasions). At
three occasions, both the Euro code and the Indian code have given highest values.In
case of soft/very soft soil conditions, most of times (5 out of 6 occasions), the
Australian code has given the highest drift values. The possible reason may be that,
when analysing according to Australian code, to be more conservative, the "Very soft
soil" condition was adopted instead of "Soft soil" condition, which was the soil
condition adopted in the analysis according to Euro code and the Indian code.
Generally, it can be also noted that, in most of cases (13 out of 18 occasions), the
lowest drift values have been achieved, when they were analysed according to the
Australiancode.
7.2 Comparison based on higheststorey drift ratios
The highest drift ratio at individual floor levels is an important parameter to be considered
in finding out the performance of a structure. The Table 7.2.1 presents the highest drift ratios
achieved when the structures were analysed according to different codes of practice under
different soil conditions.
Table 7.2.1 - Higheststorey drift ratio at any storey level
163
code of practice, which has given the maximum and the minimum values of the
highest storey drift ratio at roof level.
Table 7.2.2 - Code of practice for maximum and minimum value of highest
storey drift ratio at any storey level
The distribution of highest drift ratio at individual floor levels also follows almost the
same pattern as lateral drift at roof level of the structures, which has been described
in section 7.1.
According to the above table, for all three buildings, except in soft/very soft soil
conditions, most of times, the highest drift ratio at any floor level have been
achieved, when they were analysed according only to Indian code (10 out of 18
occasions). Only at one occasion the Euro code only has given highest drift ratio. At
two occasions, both the Euro code and the Indian code have given highest values. In
case of soft/very soft soil conditions, most of times (5 out of 6 occasions), the
Australian code has given the highest drift values..
Generally, it can be also noted that, in most of cases (13 out of 18 occasions), the
lowest drift values have been achieved, when they were analysed according to the
Australian code.
7.3 Comparison based on design base shear force
The design base shear is also an important parameter, that can be used as a basis for
a comparison of analysis results. The design base shear forces obtained by each
analysis case are presented in Table 7.3.1
164
Table 7.3.1- Design base shear force of the three structures
code of practice, which has given the highest and the lowest values of the design
base shear force.
Table 7.3.2 - Code of practice for highest and lowest design base shear force
According to the results presented in Table 7.3.2, it can be clearly stated that the
Euro code has given the highest design base shear values at all eighteen occasions.
165
Further, the Indian code has given lowest base shear values at many occasions (12
out of 18 occasions). The reason seems to be that, the Indian code recommends to
use a reduced zone factor (Z/2) to represent Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), which
tends to give lower response quantities consequently ( Refer Clause 6.4.2 of IS 1893
(Part1) :2002).
166
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to Table 7.1.1 in previous chapter, it can be clearly concluded that, in all
twenty seven cases, irrespective of the code of practice, which has been used in
analysis procedure, the structures have achieved Immediate Occupancy Level (IOL),
according to FEMA356 standards.
Referring to Tables 7.1.1,7.1.2, 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, Generally, it can be also concluded
that the Indian code has given highest drift values at many occasions while the Euro
code also has caused in very close or sometimes similar drift values as in case of
Indian code. The Australian code has generally caused in giving lowest drift values.
As per Table 7.3.2, it can be clearly concluded that the Euro code has given the
highest design base shear values at all eighteen occasions.Further,it has been noted
that the Indian code has given lowest base shear values at many occasions. The
reason for Indian code to produced lower design base shear forces at many occasions
is mainly because it allows to use reduced values for zone factor, Z to represent
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) instead of Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE). .
When the three codes of practice are compared, it has been noted that overall, the
Euro code has describe the whole analysis process in detail and has considered the
structural effects in many ways, like in case of regularity. The one who follows the
code may feel it is easy to do so and also get much confident about his work. This
will give many benefits, specially for beginners, who do not have an explicit
knowledge at the start.
Another very important feature in Euro code is that, adopting nationally developed
guidelines in analysis process is much easier with it.
Considering all above, as the main conclusion, it can be recommended to adopt the
Euro code with recommendations provided by the research " Developing national
guidelines for seismic analysis and design of (Engineered) buildings in Sri Lanka
"conducted by the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, for seismic analysis and
design process of buildings in Sri Lanka.
167
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1998-1:2004 Euro Code 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance,

Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
[2] AS 1170.1-1989 Australian Standard: SAA Loading Code, Part 1: Dead and
live loads and load combinations.
[3] AS 1170.4-2007 Australian Standard: Structural design actions, Part 4:

Earthquake actions in Australia.
[4] IS 1893(Part 1) : 2002 Indian Stan Standard: Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures, Part 1: General provisions and buildings (Fifth
Revision).
[5] C.S. Lewangamage and H.G.S.R. Kularathna, " Developing national

guidelines for seismic analysis and design of (Engineered) buildings in Sri
Lanka ".
[6] C.S. Lewangamage and H.G.S.R. Kularathna, "An Approach to Seismic

Analysis of (Engineered) Buildings in Sri Lanka", Journal-"ENGINEER",
Vol.XLVIII, No.01, pp.[39-48], 2015, Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka.
[7] Murat Saatcioglu and JagMohan Humar, "Dynamic analysis of buildings for
earthquake resistant design".
[8] Sudhir K Jain, " Review of Indian seismic code IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002.
[9] Mistumasa Midorikawa, IzuruOkawa, MasanoriIiba and Masaomi

Teshigawara, "Performance-Based seismic Design Code For Buildings in
Japan".
[10] R. weller, " AS 1170.4 Earthquake actions in Australia-Worked examples".
[11] Anil K. Chopra, "Dynamic of structures; theory and application to earthquake

engineering.
168
[12] K.S. Vipin, P. Anbazhagan and T.G. Sitharam , "Estimation of peak ground
acceleration for South India with local site effects: Probabilistic approach".
[13] Richard Fenwick, David Lau and Barry Davidson, "A comparison of the
seismic design requirements in the New Zealand loading standard with other
major design codes".
[14] Pravin Ashok Shirule and Bharti V. Mahajan "Response Spectrum Analysis
of Asymmetrical Building"
[15] Yogendra Singh, Vijay Namdev and Dominic H. Lang "A comparative Study
of Code Provisions for Ductile RC Buildings".
[16] P.P.Tapkire and Saeed J.Birajdar "Comparative study of High Rise Building
using Indian Standards and Euro Standards under Seismic Forces".
[17] Surabhi A. Bambal and M.A. Banarase "Review on Comparative Study on

Analysis and Design of Multistoried Structure using Different Codes".
[18] Mehul J. Bhavsar, Kavita N. Choksi, Sejal K. Bhatt and Shrenik K. Shah "
Comparative Study of typical R.C. building using INDIAN STANDARDS
and EURU STANDARDS under seismic forces".
169
APPENDIX A : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - A
A1. Eighteen storied residential apartment building
As the first case study, the selected building is a 18 storied reinforced concrete
apartment building, which includes a ground floor and 17 above ground floors,
where the ground floor up to fourth floor were used for parking purposes. Typical
floor plan and a schematic cross section showing the dimension of the building in
plan and elevation are given in Fig. A1 and A2 respectively. The total height of the
building above the ground level is 71.2m and the plan dimension are29.49m x
19.38m
The main structural system consists of concrete frames and shear walls, whereas
unreinforced masonry walls are used as partition walls.
At fifth floor level, the columns located at grid C1 and E1 on grid 1 have moved
along grid 1 and the columns at grid A3, C1 and E1 on grid 8 have been shifted along
grid 8 and also the columns grid H and K on grid 3 have been moved to grid 2. All
the columns then continued up to roof level. Similarly, the shear walls located
between grid E1 to H on grid 1 and C1 to J on grid 8 terminates at 5th floor level.
Also the shear wall between grids D1 to F1 have been moved from grid 3 to 2 from
the fifth floor onwards.
The structure has been designed with C30 concrete, except the columns from ground
floor up to sixth floor slab level, where C40 concrete was used.
All analysis were performed with the ETABS software (CSI 2002 ETABS Integrated
Building Design Software, Computers & Structures Inc. Berkeley) on a three
dimensional (spatial) mathematical model.
170
Figure A1: Plan View - Ground floor
Figure A2: Plan View - First floor

171
Figure A3: Plan View – 2nd to 4th floor
Figure A4: Plan View – 5th floor

172
Figure A5: Plan View – 6th to 16th floor
Figure A6: Plan View – 17th floor

173
Figure A7: Plan View – Roof floor
174
Figure A8: Cross section A-A of the buildings
175
Table A1 :Material properties used in the analysis
Material Properties
Strength Density
Material Modulus of elasticity (kN/mm2)
(N/mm2) (kN/m3)
Concrete (C30) 30 24 26
Concrete (C40) 40 24 28
Steel 460 - -
Masonry - 22 -
Table A2 : Design loads used in the analysis
Live Load
From first floor up to fourth floor 3.0 kN/m2
From fifth floor up to roof floor 2.0 kN/m2
Superimposed Dead Load

Finishes -From first floor up to fourth floor 2.4 kN/m2
Finishes -From fifth floor up to seventeenth floor 1.5 kN/m2
Finishes –Roof floor 2.4 kN/m2
Masonry walls-From first floor up to fourth floor 1.0 kN/m2
Masonry walls-From fifth floor up to seventeenth floor 2.5 kN/m2
176
Table A3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test buildings
177
Table A3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test buildings (Contd.)
178
Table A4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load on the test buildings
Imposed Load
Storey Area (m2) Load (kN/m2) Weight (kN) Total (kN)
Roof 405.09 2 811 811
Storey 17 405.09 2 811 811
Storey 7-16 405.09 2 811 8110
Storey 6 405.09 2 811 811
Storey 5 405.09 2 811 811
Storey 4 408.76 3 1227 1227
Storey 2-3 408.76 3 1227 2454
Storey 1 408.76 3 1227 1227
Total Imposed Load (kN) 16,262
Table A5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from modal analysis
Mode Fundamental period (T1)
Translation in y-dir 1.64 (s)
Translation in x-dir 1.32(s)
A2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004

A2.1Structural regularity
A2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan
EN 1998-1: 2004
Clause 4.2.3.2 Criteria for regularity in plan
o With respect to lateral stiffness and mass distribution, the building

structure shall be approximately symmetrical in plan with respect to two
orthogonal axes.
The building is approximately symmetrical in plan with respect to the
lateral stiffness and the mass distribution in both X and Y directions.

179
The rectangular plan shape of the building fulfills the criteria of compact
plan configuration.
o The in-plan stiffness of the building shall be sufficiently large in

comparison with the lateral stiffness of the vertical structural elements
The in-situ concrete floor slab of thickness 125mm, 150mm, 165mm and
175mm, connected to the lateral load resisting system proves that the
lateral stiffness of the building is large in comparison with the vertical
stiffness of the test building.
o The slenderness of the building (λ = Lmax/Lmin) shall not be higher than

4.0.
The slenderness of the building amounts to λ = 1.52 (29.49m/19.38m)
which can be considered as satisfied.
o The structural eccentricity
Refer Table A6
o The torsional radius shall be larger than the radius of the gyration of the
floor mass in plan
According to Table A6, the selected building does not fulfill this requirement. The
building was considered as torsionally flexible.
180
Table A6 :Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of gyration in each
horizontal direction
Level Direction X Direction Y

eo,x 0.3rx rx ls eo,y 0.3ry ry ls
Storey 1 0.0049 0.281 0.9368 10.19 0.2246 0.2231 0.7435 10.19
Storey 2 0.0109 0.4108 1.3692 10.19 0.2449 0.3097 1.0322 10.19
Storey 3 0.0195 0.5346 1.7819 10.19 0.2711 0.3934 1.3112 10.19
Storey 4 0.0409 0.7747 2.5822 10.19 0.4263 0.5606 1.8686 10.19
Storey 5 0.0619 0.8217 2.7389 10.19 0.3355 0.6007 2.0022 10.19
Storey 6 0.0605 0.9009 3.0029 10.19 0.3625 0.6894 2.2979 10.19
Storey 7 0.0574 0.9804 3.2681 10.19 0.3686 0.7841 2.6138 10.19
Storey 8 0.0559 1.0566 3.5219 10.19 0.3702 0.8745 2.915 10.19
Storey 9 0.0544 1.1294 3.7646 10.19 0.3734 0.9596 3.1988 10.19
Storey 10 0.0529 1.1989 3.9963 10.19 0.3757 1.0397 3.4658 10.19
Storey 11 0.0514 1.2652 4.2173 10.19 0.3778 1.1151 3.7169 10.19
Storey 12 0.05 1.3286 4.4285 10.19 0.3795 1.1859 3.9531 10.19
Storey 13 0.0486 1.389 4.6301 10.19 0.3809 1.2527 4.1755 10.19
Storey 14 0.0473 1.4469 4.8231 10.19 0.3819 1.3156 4.3853 10.19
Storey 15 0.0461 1.5024 5.0079 10.19 0.3828 1.375 4.5834 10.19
Storey 16 0.0449 1.5562 5.1872 10.19 0.3829 1.4318 4.7728 10.19
Storey 17 0.0579 1.8271 6.0903 10.19 0.4825 1.688 5.6265 10.19
Roof 0.0228 1.271 4.2365 10.19 0.2835 1.1818 3.9394 10.19
A2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii

and radii of gyration
Structural eccentricities and torsional radii are calculated using the methods given in
manual for the seismic design of steel and concrete buildings to Euro Code 8 [2].
Structural eccentricity (e0x and e0y) is the distance between the centre of mass and the
centre of stiffness in two orthogonal axes X and Y. The torsional radii rx (ry) is
defined as the square root of the ratio of the torsional stiffness to the lateral stiffness
in Y (X) direction.
A2.1.1.1.1 Structural eccentricity
The structural eccentricity of level i is calculated using the equations;

(Rotation of the storey i about vertical axes due to static load (Fy,i) in
Y direction) / (rotation of the floor due to torsional moment (Mi) about
the vertical axis)
(Rotation of the storey i about vertical axes due to static load (Fx,i) in
X direction) / (`rotation of the floor due to torsional moment (Mi)
about the vertical axis)
181
In order to determine the structural eccentricity using the method above, computer
analysis of the spatial model of the building is performed. In this analysis, static
loads, Fix,Fiy and Miof same magnitude are applied at the centre of mass of floor level
i and the rotations of floors about vertical axis, Rz,i, due to each static load cases are
obtained. The results obtained from the computer analysis for the test building
including the eccentricities in both directions X and Y at tech floor level are shown
in Table A2.
Table A7 :Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction
Level Fix=Fiy=Mi Rz,i(Fx) Rz,i(Fy) Rz,i(Mi) eo,y eo,x

Storey 1 106 1.294 0.0282 5.7613 0.2246 0.0049
Storey 2 106 1.4297 0.0634 5.8385 0.2449 0.0109
Storey 3 106 1.5862 0.114 5.8514 0.2711 0.0195
Storey 4 106 1.7486 0.1679 4.1018 0.4263 0.0409
Storey 5 106 1.9628 0.3624 5.8505 0.3355 0.0619
Storey 6 106 2.1578 0.35998 5.952 0.3625 0.0605
Storey 7 106 2.2066 0.3433 5.9857 0.3686 0.0574
Storey 8 106 2.2284 0.3366 6.0193 0.3702 0.0559
Storey 9 106 2.2589 0.3291 6.0502 0.3734 0.0544
Storey 10 106 2.2837 0.3213 6.0785 0.3757 0.0529
Storey 11 106 2.3063 0.3138 6.1041 0.3778 0.0514
Storey 12 106 2.3248 0.3062 6.1267 0.3795 0.05
Storey 13 106 2.3409 0.2988 6.1465 0.3809 0.0486
Storey 14 106 2.3538 0.2916 6.1633 0.3819 0.0473
Storey 15 106 2.3648 0.2845 6.1774 0.3828 0.0461
Storey 16 106 2.3682 0.2774 6.1844 0.3829 0.0449
Storey 17 106 2.3128 0.2774 4.7931 0.4825 0.0579
Roof 106 3.0682 0.2472 10.8244 0.2835 0.0228
A2.1.1.1.2 Torsional radius
The torsional radius rx (ry) is defined as the square root of the ratio of torsional
stiffness (KM) to the lateral stiffness in one direction Ky (Kx). It can be calculated
from the computer analysis using the expression;
rx (ry) =
(A.3)
182
The values correspond to each parameter in the above expression obtained from the
computer analysis are given in Table A1.3. The torsional radii, rx and ry are also
given in the table.
Table A8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction
level Fix=Fiy=Mi Ux,i Uy,i Rz,i(Mi) rx ry

Storey 1 106 3.1852 5.0556 5.7613 0.9368 0.7435
Storey 2 106 6.2204 10.9462 5.8385 1.3692 1.0322
Storey 3 106 10.0607 18.5799 5.8514 1.7819 1.3112
Storey 4 106 14.3227 27.3488 4.1018 2.5822 1.8686
Storey 5 106 23.4534 43.8868 5.8505 2.7389 2.0022
Storey 6 106 31.429 53.6723 5.952 3.0029 2.2979
Storey 7 106 40.8953 63.9312 5.9857 3.2681 2.6138
Storey 8 106 51.1469 74.6623 6.0193 3.5219 2.915
Storey 9 106 61.9073 85.7442 6.0502 3.7646 3.1988
Storey 10 106 73.0138 97.0741 6.0785 3.9963 3.4658
Storey 11 106 84.3298 108.567 6.1041 4.2173 3.7169
Storey 12 106 95.7432 120.153 6.1267 4.4285 3.9531
Storey 13 106 107.1642 131.77 6.1465 4.6301 4.1755
Storey 14 106 118.523 143.373 6.1633 4.8231 4.3853
Storey 15 106 129.7709 154.926 6.1774 5.0079 4.5834
Storey 16 106 140.8766 166.406 6.1844 5.1872 4.7728
Storey 17 106 151.7357 177.787 4.7931 6.0903 5.6265
Roof 106 167.9795 194.274 10.8244 4.2365 3.9394
A2.1.1.1.3. Radius of gyration of the floor mass in plan (lx and ly)
The radius of gyration is defined as the square root of the ratio of the polar moment
of inertia to the mass, the polar moment of inertia being calculated about the centre
of mass. The manual for the seismic design of steel and concrete building to Euro
code 8 gives an expression for the radius of gyration (ls) applied to a rectangular
building of side lengths of l and b, and a uniform mass distribution as,
(A.4)
For the test building, the radius of gyration is calculated as shown in Table A9.
183
Table A9 :Radius of gyration
Level l (m) b (m) ls

Storey 1 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 2 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 3 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 4 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 5 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 6 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 7 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 8 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 9 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 10 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 11 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 12 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 13 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 14 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 15 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 16 29.49 19.38 10.19
Storey 17 29.49 19.38 10.19
Roof 29.49 19.38 10.19
A2.1.2Criteria for regularity in elevation

EN 1998-1: 2004
Clause 4.2.3.3
In the case of investigated building, as mentioned under the description of the

project, some of columns and shear walls terminates or shifts at fifth floor level. In
order the building to be regular, all lateral load resisting system should run without
interruption from foundation to the top. Since this requirement was not fulfilled, the
building was considered as irregular in elevation.
Overall, the building was considered as torsionally fleixible
184
APPENDIX B : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - B
B.1. Fourteen storied residential apartment building
includes the ground floor and 13 above ground floors. Typical floor plan and a
schematic cross section showing the dimension of the building in plan and elevation
are given in Fig. B1 and B2 respectively. The total height of the building above the
ground level is 46.3m and the plan dimension are 44.3m x 20.6m
The main structural system consists of concrete frame with shear walls, whereas
unreinforced masonry walls are used as partition walls.
At first floor level, the columns located at grid B‟-1, B‟-2, B, B‟4 and B,-5 move on
to grids B-1, B-2, B-4 and B-5 .
The structure has been designed with C30 concrete.
All analysis were performed with the ETABS software (CSI 2002 ETABS Integrated
185
Figure B1: Plan View - Ground floor
186
Figure B2 : Plan View - First floor
187
Figure B3 : Plan View – 2nd to 13th floor
188
Figure B4 : Plan View – Roof floor
189
Figure B5 : Cross section A-A of the buildings
Table B1 : Material properties used in the analysis
Material Properties
Strength Density
(N/mm2) (kN/m3)
Concrete (C30) 30 24 26
Concrete (C40) 40 24 28
Steel 460 - -
Masonry - 22 -
190
Table B2 : Design loads used in the analysis
Live Load
From first floor up to roof floor 2.0 kN/m2
th
Finishes -From first floor up to 13 floor 1.5 kN/m2
Masonry walls-From first floor up to thirteenth floor 2.5 kN/m2
191
Table B3 : Approximate calculation of dead load of the test building
192
Table B3 : Approximate calculation of dead load of the test building (Contd.)
193
194
195
196
Table B4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load of the test buildings
Storey Area (m2) Load (kN/m2) Weight (kN) Total (kN)

Roof 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 13 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 12 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 11 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 8-10 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 5478
Storey 7 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 5-6 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 3652
Storey 4 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Storey 2-3 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 3652
Storey 1 44.3 x 20.6 2 1826 1826
Table B5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from modal analysis

Translation in y-dir 1.59 (s)
Translation in x-dir 1.44(s)
B2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004

B2.1Structural regularity
B2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan
EN 1998-1: 2004

orthogonal axes.

plan configuration.

197
The in-situ concrete floor slab of thickness 150mmconnected to the lateral
load resisting system proves that the lateral stiffness of the building is
large in comparison with the vertical stiffness of the test building.

4.0.
The slenderness of the building amounts to λ = 2.15 (44.3/20.6m) which
can be considered as satisfied.
Refer Table B6
floor mass in plan
According to Table B6, the selected building does not fulfill this requirement. The
building was considered as torsionally flexible.
Table B6 : Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of gyration in each


Storey 1 1.2912 4.9487 16.4955 14.1 0.2494 3.9207 13.0689 14.1
Storey 2 1.3322 4.8081 16.0271 14.1 0.2534 3.8673 12.891 14.1
Storey 3 1.3656 4.6968 15.656 14.1 0.2567 3.8257 12.7524 14.1
Storey 4 1.3994 4.5887 15.2957 14.1 0.2607 3.7866 12.622 14.1
Storey 5 1.4353 4.482 14.9401 14.1 0.2655 3.7474 12.4913 14.1
Storey 6 1.4707 4.3763 14.5875 14.1 0.2704 3.7085 12.3615 14.1
Storey 7 1.5059 4.2714 14.238 14.1 0.276 3.6701 12.2337 14.1
Storey 8 1.5393 4.1648 13.8826 14.1 0.2823 3.6302 12.1005 14.1
Storey 9 1.5731 4.0538 13.5127 14.1 0.2897 3.5852 11.9507 14.1
Storey 10 1.6056 3.9378 13.126 14.1 0.2974 3.535 11.7833 14.1
Storey 11 1.6352 3.8135 12.7115 14.1 0.3064 3.4748 11.5827 14.1
Storey 12 1.6712 3.6785 12.2615 14.1 0.3183 3.3899 11.2995 14.1
Storey 13 1.7019 3.5287 11.7623 14.1 0.3321 3.272 10.9068 14.1
Roof 1.7405 3.3389 11.1296 14.1 0.3435 3.0541 10.1802 14.1
198
B2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii
Structural eccentricities and torsional radii are calculated using the same method as
described in A2.1.1.1 under the building A. The results are tabulated as below.
Table B7 : Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction

Roof 106 0.1163 0.6021 0.4663 0.2494 1.2912
Storey 13 106 0.1139 0.5987 0.4494 0.2534 1.3322
Storey 12 106 0.1113 0.592 0.4335 0.2567 1.3656
Storey 11 106 0.1079 0.5792 0.4139 0.2607 1.3994
Storey 10 106 0.1038 0.5612 0.3910 0.2655 1.4353
Storey 9 106 0.0984 0.5352 0.3639 0.2704 1.4707
Storey 8 106 0.0917 0.5004 0.3323 0.276 1.5059
Storey 7 106 0.0837 0.4564 0.2965 0.2823 1.5393
Storey 6 106 0.0745 0.4046 0.2572 0.2897 1.5731
Storey 5 106 0.0638 0.3444 0.2145 0.2974 1.6056
Storey 4 106 0.0519 0.277 0.1694 0.3064 1.6352
Storey 3 106 0.0395 0.2074 0.1241 0.3183 1.6712
Storey 2 106 0.0264 0.1353 0.0795 0.3321 1.7019
Storey 1 106 0.0135 0.0684 0.0393 0.3435 1.7405
Table B8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction
Level Fix=Fiy=Mi Ux,i Uy,i Rz,i(Mi) rx ry

Roof 106 79.6421 126.8809 0.4663 16.4955 13.0689
Storey 13 106 74.6807 115.4358 0.4494 16.0271 12.891
Storey 12 106 70.4974 106.2549 0.4335 15.656 12.7524
Storey 11 106 65.9404 96.8351 0.4139 15.2957 12.622
Storey 10 106 61.0086 87.2732 0.3910 14.9401 12.4913
Storey 9 106 55.6067 77.4363 0.3639 14.5875 12.3615
Storey 8 106 49.7329 67.3638 0.3323 14.238 12.2337
Storey 7 106 43.4145 57.1436 0.2965 13.8826 12.1005
Storey 6 106 36.7331 46.9626 0.2572 13.5127 11.9507
Storey 5 106 29.7825 36.9567 0.2145 13.126 11.7833
Storey 4 106 22.7264 27.3721 0.1694 12.7115 11.5827
Storey 3 106 15.8448 18.6578 0.1241 12.2615 11.2995
Storey 2 106 9.4571 10.9989 0.0795 11.7623 10.9068
Storey 1 106 4.0729 4.8680 0.0393 11.1296 10.1802
199
Table B9 : Radius of gyration

Roof 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 13 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 12 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 11 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 10 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 9 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 8 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 7 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 6 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 5 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 4 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 3 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 2 44.3 20.6 14.1
Storey 1 44.3 20.6 14.1
B2.1.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation

EN 1998-1: 2004
Clause 4.2.3.3
In the case of investigated building, as mentioned under the description of the

project, some of columns discontinue at the first floor level. In order the building to
be regular, all lateral load resisting system should run without interruption from
foundation to the top. Since this requirement was not fulfilled, the building was
considered as irregular in elevation.
Overall, the building was considered as torsionally flexible.
200
APPENDIX C : BASIC DETAILS OF BUILDING - C
C1. Ten storied residential apartment building
includes the ground floor and 9 above ground floors. Typical floor plan and a
schematic cross section showing the dimension of the building in plan and elevation
are given in Fig. C1 and C2 respectively. The total height of the building above the
ground level is 31.46m and the plan dimensions are 41.3m x 25.6m
The main structural system consists of concrete frame shear walls, whereas
unreinforced masonry walls are used as partition walls..
The structure has been designed with C25 concrete.
All analysis was performed with the ETABS software (CSI 2002 ETABS Integrated
Figure C1: Plan View - First Floor
201
Figure C2: Plan View - Typical Floor
Table C1 :Material properties used in the analysis
Strength Density
(N/mm2) (kN/m3)
Concrete (C25) 25 24 24
Steel 460 - -
Masonry - 22 -
Table C2 : Design loads used in the analysis
Live Load
From first floor up to roof floor 2.0 kN/m2
th
Finishes -From first floor up to 9 floor 1.5 kN/m2
th
Masonry walls-From first floor up to 9 floor 2.5 kN/m2
202
Table C3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test building
203
Table C3 : Approximate calculation of dead load on the test building (Contd.)
204
Table C4 : Approximate calculation of imposed load on the test buildings
Storey Area (m2) Load Weight (kN) Total (kN)

2
(kN/m )
Roof 729.6 2 1460 1460
Storey 9 729.6 2 1526 1526
Storey 8 762.68 2 1526 1526
Storey 7 762.68 2 1526 1526
Storey 4-6 762.68 2 1526 4578
Storey 3 762.68 2 1526 1526
Storey 2 762.68 2 1526 1526
Storey 1 762.68 2 1526 1526
Table C5 : Fundamental period of vibration obtained from modal analysis

Translation in X-dir 3.05 (s)
Translation in Y-dir 1.01 (s)
C2. Basic calculations according to EN 1998-1:2004

C2.1Structural regularity
C2.1.1Criteria for regularity in plan
EN 1998-1: 2004

orthogonal axes.

plan configuration.
205
The in-situ concrete floor slab of thickness 125mmconnected to the lateral
load resisting system proves that the lateral stiffness of the building is
large in comparison with the vertical stiffness of the test building.

4.0.
The slenderness of the building amounts to λ = 1.61 (41.3/25.6m) which
can be considered as satisfied.
Refer Table C6
floor mass in plan
According to Table C6, the selected building does not fulfill this requirement. The
building was considered as torsionally fleixible
Table C6 :Structural eccentricity, torsional radius and radii of gyration in each

Roof 0.365 3.2948 10.9826 14.03 0.3146 8.7865 29.2882 14.03
Storey 9 0.3519 3.2876 10.9585 14.03 0.3146 9.2198 30.7326 14.03
Storey 8 0.3391 3.2785 10.9283 14.03 0.3135 9.6897 32.2989 14.03
Storey 7 0.3268 3.2691 10.8969 14.03 0.3119 10.2332 34.1106 14.03
Storey 6 0.3149 3.2571 10.8569 14.03 0.3093 10.9355 36.4518 14.03
Storey 5 0.3033 3.2458 10.8192 14.03 0.3072 11.8557 39.5191 14.03
Storey 4 0.292 3.2319 10.773 14.03 0.3046 13.1144 43.7145 14.03
Storey 3 0.2798 3.2191 10.7304 14.03 0.3045 14.9894 49.9648 14.03
Storey 2 0.2665 3.2006 10.6685 14.03 0.3061 18.1378 60.4592 14.03
Storey 1 0.2545 3.1743 10.581 14.03 0.2909 24.1001 80.3335 14.03
206
C2.1.1.1 Determining the structural eccentricities, torsional radii
Structural eccentricities and torsional radii have been calculated using the same
method as described in A2.1.1.1 under the building A. The results are tabulated as
below.
Table C7 : Structural eccentricity in each horizontal direction

Roof 106 0.0916 0.1063 0.2912 0.3146 0.365
6
Storey 9 10 0.0817 0.0914 0.2597 0.3146 0.3519
6
Storey 8 10 0.0713 0.0771 0.2274 0.3135 0.3391
6
Storey 7 10 0.0606 0.0635 0.1943 0.3119 0.3268
Storey 6 106 0.0498 0.0507 0.1610 0.3093 0.3149
6
Storey 5 10 0.0392 0.0387 0.1276 0.3072 0.3033
6
Storey 4 10 0.029 0.0278 0.0952 0.3046 0.292
6
Storey 3 10 0.0197 0.0181 0.0647 0.3045 0.2798
Storey 2 106 0.0116 0.0101 0.0379 0.3061 0.2665
6
Storey 1 10 0.0048 0.0042 0.0165 0.2909 0.2545
Table C8 : Torsional radii in each horizontal direction
Level Fix=Fiy=Mi Ux,i Uy,i Rz,i(Mi) rx ry

6
Roof 10 249.7916 35.1237 0.2912 10.9826 29.2882
Storey 9 106 245.2849 31.1870 0.2597 10.9585 30.7326
6
Storey 8 10 237.2274 27.1578 0.2274 10.9283 32.2989
6
Storey 7 10 226.075 23.0716 0.1943 10.8969 34.1106
Storey 6 106 213.9256 18.9773 0.1610 10.8569 36.4518
6
Storey 5 10 199.2801 14.9361 0.1276 10.8192 39.5191
6
Storey 4 10 181.923 11.0487 0.0952 10.773 43.7145
6
Storey 3 10 161.5221 7.4497 0.0647 10.7304 49.9648
Storey 2 106 138.5365 4.3137 0.0379 10.6685 60.4592
6
Storey 1 10 106.4824 1.8473 0.0165 10.581 80.3335
207
Table C9 : Radius of gyration

Roof 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 9 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 8 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 7 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 6 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 5 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 4 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 3 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 2 41.3 25.6 14.03
Storey 1 41.3 25.6 14.03
C2.1.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation

EN 1998-1: 2004
Clause 4.2.3.3
In this building, all the lateral load resisting system run without interruption from
foundation to the top. Also both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual
storeys remain constant or reduced gradually. Further, the ratio of the actual storey
resistance to the resistance required by the analysis do not vary disproportionately
between adjacent storeys. Since these requirements have been fulfilled in the case of
investigated building, the building was considered as regular in elevation.
Overall, the building was considered as torsionally fleixible.
208

Full Theses

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Theses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Theses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF

BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT CODE OF PRACTICES

Degree of Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering Design

Department of Civil Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Signature: ………………………. Date: …...../…...…/…....…

Signature: ………………………. Date: …...../…...…/…....…

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. C.S.Lewangamage, senior

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to my family members and friends for

In order to demonstrate the analysis procedures and to make a comparison on results,

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of the study ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Objevtives ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Arrangement of the report............................................................................................. 3

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Analysis procedure as described in Euro code (EN 1998-1:2004) ................................ 6

2.1.1 Design seismic action ............................................................................................. 6

2.1.2 Horizontal elastic response spectra ........................................................................ 8

2.1.3 Horizontal design response spectra ........................................................................ 9

2.1.4 Vertical component of the seismic action ............................................................ 11

2.1.5 Seismic analysis of buildings ............................................................................... 12

2.1.5.1 Seismic mass of the building ........................................................................ 12

2.1.5.2 Seismic load combination ............................................................................. 12

2.1.5.3 Structural Regularity ..................................................................................... 14

2.1.5.3.1 Criteria for regularity in plan .................................................................. 14

2.1.5.3.2 Criteria for regularity in elevation .......................................................... 14

2.1.5.4 Structural Analysis ........................................................................................ 15

2.1.5.4.1 Static lateral force method of analysis .................................................... 16

2.1.5.4.2 Modal response spectrum analysis......................................................... 16

2.1.5.5 Accidental torsional effects........................................................................... 17

2.1.5.6. Displacements and drift ............................................................................... 18

2.1.5.6.1 Displacement .......................................................................................... 18

2.1.5.6.2 Inter-storey drift ..................................................................................... 18

2.1.5.7 P-Δ effects..................................................................................................... 18

2.2 Analysis procedure as described in Australian code (AS 1170.4-2007)..................... 19

2.2.1 Design seismic action ........................................................................................... 19

2.2.3 Vertical component of the seismic action ............................................................ 23

2.2.4 Seismic analysis of buildings ............................................................................... 23

2.2.4.1 Seismic weight of the building ..................................................................... 23

2.2.4.2 Seismic Load Combination ........................................................................... 24

2.2.4.3 Structural Analysis ........................................................................................ 24

2.2.4.3.1 Equivalent Static Analysis ...................................................................... 24

2.2.4.3.2 Modal response spectrum analysis......................................................... 29

2.2.4.4 Earthquake design categories ....................................................................... 31

2.2.4.4.1 Earthquake design category I (EDC I) .................................................. 31

2.2.4.4.2 Earthquake design category II (EDC II) ............................................... 31

2.2.4.4.3 Earthquake design category III (EDC III) ............................................. 33

2.3.1 Horizontal elastic response spectra ...................................................................... 34

2.3.2 Vertical component of the seismic action ............................................................ 35

2.3.3 Design horizontal seismic coefficient .................................................................. 35

2.3.4 Seismic analysis of buildings ............................................................................... 38

2.3.4.1 Seismic weight of the building ..................................................................... 38

2.3.4.2 Structural Irregularity.................................................................................... 38

2.3.4.2.1 Plan irregularity ..................................................................................... 38

2.3.4.2.2 Vertical irregularity ................................................................................ 39

2.3.4.3 Structural Analysis ....................................................................................... 40