Al Maaref University

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering

Course Title: Wind & Earthquake

Course code: CIE 450

Instructor: Dr.Houssein Mouzannar

Students Name: Aya Akram Hsayki Zeinab Mahdi

ID: 10117039 10119012

Date of Submission: 24/May/2023

1
 Abstract
The earthquake ranks as one of the most destructive natural disasters recorded all over the world. It has
taken millions of lives and caused vast damages to infrastructures through the ages. Since the
earthquake forces are random in nature and unpredictable, the engineering tools are needed to be
sharpened for analyzing structures under the action of these forces. This report presents the comparison
of static and dynamic analysis of 3-4 RC multistory building models with different height in a certain
seismic zone. For the static analysis the IBC code is respected and the maps given during the lectures.
For the dynamic analysis the spectrum response acceleration Sa is determined according to ASCE/SEI7
Chapter 21. Then results are compared based on different parameters such as: Displacement, Story
Drift, Base Shear, Story Shear and Story Moment. Finally, a comparative study has been carried out
between static and dynamic analysis. The aim of this report is to perform static and dynamic analysis on
a building of 3-4 stories then compare the results. A small research on a topic is also presented.

Keywords: Equivalent lateral force; response spectrum; static analysis; dynamic analysis;
displacement; story drift; base shear.

2
3
 Table Of Figures
Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Figure 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
Figure 6…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
Figure 7…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
Figure 8…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

4
 Table Of Contact

Chapter 1 :Introduction and building description ……………………………………………………………………………5

Chapter 2 : Building seismic properties………………………………………………………………………………………….6

Chapter 3 : Dynamic Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Chapter 4 :Static Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

Chapter 5 :Comparison…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………13

Chapter 6: . Research :Concrete frame detailing

……………………………………………………………13
Chapter 7: conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………18

Chapter 8: References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

5
 Chapter 1 :Introduction and building description

1. Introduction :

1. Nowadays, it is very
popular for constructing
low to high-rise buildings
in the world due to
2. increasing population
that is required to resist
the lateral dynamic loads
caused by earthquake.
3. Earthquake effects are
more intense than wind
effects. From past intense
disaster, it can be
4. proved that many
structures are totally
6
 damaged because of
earthquakes, that is
natural and
5. unpredictable, which
gives intense ground
shaking. Therefore,
earthquake analysis and
design
6. are very important in
today’s world. There are
various types of
structural analysis used
to
7. analyse high-rise
buildings subjected to
seismic load such as
7
 Equivalent Lateral Force
(ELF)
8. procedure, Response
Spectrum (RS)
procedure, Time History
Analysis etc. In the
present
9. study, ELF & RS
procedures have been
carried out according to
ASCE7-1
Nowadays, it is very
popular for constructing low
to high-rise buildings in the
world due to

8
increasing population that
is required to resist the
lateral dynamic loads
caused by earthquake.
Earthquake effects are
more intense than wind
effects. From past intense
disaster, it can be
proved that many
structures are totally
damaged because of
earthquakes, that is natural
and
unpredictable, which gives
intense ground shaking.

9
Therefore, earthquake
analysis and design
are very important in
today’s world. There are
various types of structural
analysis used to
analyse high-rise buildings
subjected to seismic load
such as Equivalent Lateral
Force (ELF)
procedure, Response
Spectrum (RS) procedure,
Time History Analysis etc.
In the present

10
study, ELF & RS procedures
have been carried out
according to ASCE7-1
Nowadays, it is very popular for constructing low to high-rise buildings in the world due to increasing
population that is required to resist the lateral dynamic loads caused by earthquake. Earthquake effects
are more intense than wind effects. From past intense disaster, it can be proved that many structures
are totally damaged because of earthquakes, that is natural and unpredictable, which gives intense
ground shaking. Therefore, earthquake analysis and design are very important in today’s world. There
are various types of structural analysis used to analyze high-rise buildings subjected to seismic load such
as Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure, Response Spectrum (RS) procedure. In the present study,
ELF & RS procedures have been carried out according to ASCE7-10.

1.b. Building Description:

Figure 1: Building Model

The building is concrete shear wall office building consist of 4 stories with 4m height of each story

11
  The resisting system is building frame systems where ,the special reinforced shear walls, do not
carry vertical loads and the gravity loads are carried by frames, R = 6 and Cd = 5.
 It is located in Jounieh where the maximum considered earthquake ground motion Ss is 1.4g for
short periods 0.2s, 0.4g Sa for a l sec period
 wave velocity 1000m/sec
 The story weights are 6000KN for typical stories and 2500 kN for roof
 We have stiffness of all stories defined as K(x) = 60,000 KN/m.
 We have Damping Coefficient ξ=5%.
 TL = 12s

Chapter 2 : Building seismic properties

2. a. Building type according to risk categories:

Since the wave velocity is 1000m/s so the soil profile is type B.

2. b. Seismic coefficient :

Fa and Fv are values of site coefficients :

12
 Figure 2 :site coefficient Fa

Sine Ss=1.4 and soil type B, then Fa=1 ,,so the maximum considered earthquake response accelerations
for short periods: S MS=Fa∗Ss =1*1.4 =1.4

Figure 3: Site Coefficient Fv

S1=0.4 and site class B, then Fv=1 ,so maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations
for a 1sec period: S M 1=Fv∗S 1 = 1*0.4 =0.4

2. c. Seismic Importance factor : I

Figure 4: Risk Category

It is office building then it is Standard Occupancy (Risk category II) so I=1

13
 Chapter 3 : Dynamic Analysis
3. a. Dynamic Model :

3.b.-Dynamic Equilibrium

∑ F=m× a
 K 1 X 1- K 2 (X 2−X 1)=m1 w2 X 1
 K 2 (X 2−X 1)- K 3 ( X 3−X 2)=m2 w2 X 2
 K 3 ( X 3−X 2)- K 4 (X 4−X 3)=m3 w2 X 3
 K 4 (X 4−X 3)=m4 w 2 X 4

Subtitue values of m and K , then the matix will be

X1 X2 X3 X4
X1 0
120000−602 w ² −60000 0 0
X2 0
−60000 120000−602 w ² −60000 0 =
X3 0
0 −60000 120000−602 w ² −60000
X4 0
0 0 −60000 60000−251 W ²

W1=12.2rad/s

W3=14.4 rad/s

W2=14.9 rad/s

14
W4: 15 rad/s

3. c. Mode shape factor :

Xi
∅= , take in first story ∅ =1
X1

Take X1=1 then X2=1.5 ,X3=1.645 ,X4=2.232

√∑ m× ∅ ²=602 ×1 ²+602 ×1.5 ²+ 602× 1.645 ²+251× 2.23 2 ² =69.5 t

Dividing each unnormalized mode shape factor into mode factor :

Theta 1=0.01

Theta 2=0.02

Theta 3=0.023

Theta 4=0.032

3.d.Partctipation factor

τ =∑ m× ∅ =0.01 ×602+0.02 ×602+ 0.023× 602+205 ×0.032=38.466

3.e.Story Drift and Shear :

Total Drift Story drift m Story shear Floor forces

X1 1.5384 1.5384 92.304 91.696
X2 3.07 X2-x1=1.5316 184.2 25.8
X3 3.5 X3-x2=0.43 210 85.38
X4 4.923 X4-x3:1.423 295.38 295.38

3.f.Base shear

V=∑ Floor forces=F 1+ F 2+ F 3+ F 4 =498.256KN

15
 Chapter 4 : Static Analysis

1)Calculate Natural period: T(a) = Ct *(hn)^x = 0.0488*(4+4+4+4)^0.75 = 0.39s.

2)Risk Catogary :Office building Risk 2 Ie=1.

3) Site Class :V=1000m/s and 760m/s < 1000m/s < 1500m/s  soil class B.

4)Fa=1 and Fv=1 Sms=Fa * Ss = 1.4g

 Sm1=Fv*S1 = 0.4g.

5) Design Acceleration

2
S DS= S MS = 2/3(1.4)=0.933
3
2
S D 1= S M 1=2/3(0.4)=0.266
3
6)Seismic design Category:

S1=0.4<0.75

For short period  class D.

For 1-sec period  class D.

7)Seismic Design Coefficient:

S DS
C s= 0.933
Sesmic base shear coefficnet : R = =0.1555
6
I
Check the min and max:

S1<0.6 , so : C s,min =max(0.044 S DS I ,0.01)

So C s,min=0.044*0.933*1=0.04

SD 1
0.266
T<T(L) , then : C smax,= R= =0.11
T× 0.39 ×6
I

16
Cs>Cs,max then take Cs=Cs,max=0.11

8) Design Base Shear:

V=Cs*W = 0.11*20500KN=2255KN

9) Story Forces :

Level Height(m) Weight(KN) Height*Weight Cvx Fx = (Cvx)*Vb

(KN.m) (KN)

4 16 2500 40,000 5/23 490.22

3 12 6000 72,000 9/23 882.39
2 8 6000 48,000 6/23 588.26
1 4 6000 24,000 3/23 294.13
Total - 20500 184,000 1 2255.0

10)Shear Forces

V4=F4=490.22 KN

V3=F4+F3=1372.61 KN

V2=F2+F3+F4=1960.87N

V1=F1+F2+F3+F4=2255 KN

10) Distributing shear Forces on Story 1

17
Rigidities : R1 = R4 = 1.577.

R2 = R3 = 0.714.

V base = 2255 = V1.

So V11 = (R1/ R1+R2+R3) * V1 = 1183.40599KN.

V12 = (R2/ R1+R2+R3) * V1 = 535.8KN.

V13 = (R3/ R1+R2+R3) * V1 = 535.8KN.

V14=1183.405

V11+V12+V13 +V14= 3438.411 KN

11) Overturning Moment :

At story 1 : (OTM) 1 = ∑ (FxHx) = F4H4+F3H3 + F2H2 + F1H1 = 24314.8KN/m

13) Elastic Story Drift

Kx = 60,000 KN/m.

Vi= Ki * Δei  Δei = Vi/Ki.

Δe1 = 2255/60,000 = 37.58 mm.

Δe2 = 32.68 mm.

Δe3 = 22.8 mm.

18
 Δe4=8.1 mm

14) Inelastic Story Drift compared to IBC measures:

Δ1 inelastic = (Cd* Δe1)/ Ie = 92.75 mm<400mm. OK.

Δ2inelastic = (Cd* Δe2)/ Ie = 163.4mm < 400 mm. OK.

Δ3 inelastic = (Cd* Δe3)/ Ie = 114 mm < 400 mm. OK,

Δ4 inelastic = (Cd* Δe4)/ Ie = 40.5mm < 400 mm. OK,

IBC:

Max allowable inelastic drift = 0.025h = 0.025 * 16000mm = 400mm..

Chapter 5 :Comparison Between Static Analysis and Dynamic Analysis

For dynamic analysis, max elastic Drift = {x1 =1.5384, 1.423,..)

For Static analysis, max elastic Drift = {37mm, 32mm, …}.
As we can see there is a big difference between both analysis with respect to the drift, but both cases
follower the respected measures.
For dynamic analysis, the Base shear was 498KN, while Base shear in static analysis was 2255N.
 Vb dynamic < Vb static, a big difference .

Chapter 6 : Research /Concrete frame detailing

 Introduction

Robustness of structures became important in structural design, aiming for preventing

disproportionate collapse as a consequence to initial damage and leading to collapse resistant
structures. In this paper some accepted and common parameters in structural design are

19
 examined. Focus on the effects of varying reinforcement and detailing of reinforced concrete
beams and frames on the structural functionality of the frame after a column removal as a result
of an extreme event. By ensuring facilities for alternative load paths development and avoiding
progressive collapse. Among these effects: curtailing the longitudinal flexural tension
reinforcement along beams, redistribution of moments at beam column joints, increasing
moments and reinforcement at spans and decreasing them at beam column joints, lap length in
supporting regions with a view to facilitate reinforcement functionality in compression for usual
cases and for full functionality in tension after support (column) removal, The use of closed links
for shear reinforcement instead of bent-up bars and concrete confinement.

 LONGITUDINAL FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN ALONG

BEAMS
Longitudinal Flexural Tension Reinforcement:
Large effort is invested in designing curtailing of the longitudinal flexural tension reinforcement
along beams according to design codes recommendations, see Figure 1 from EC2 for instance,
following-up and concerning to resist the acting tensile force envelope.

Figure 5: Curtailment of longitudinal reinforcement Euro Code 2

20
 Apparently this investment in longitudinal reinforcement curtailment along beams according to
design codes recommendations is unnecessary and even essential to avoid it in order to increase
the robustness of structures and to prevent progressive collapse. For example, in case of loss of
internal support (column removal in the building as a result of an unusual event) resulting in
doubling the length of the functioning span, and to increasing demand for bottom
reinforcement amount at span.

When the full amount of reinforcement required at midspan is continued to the supports
(straight bars) with sufficient anchorage length at supports, the reinforcement amount
functioning in tension as bottom reinforcement at intermediate support after support absence
will be significantly greater.

This can increase the robustness of the structure considerably. For instance, in case of sufficient
anchoring at supports, the full amount of reinforcement required at midspan compared to the
case of only half of the amount of reinforcement required at midspan is anchored at supports
and the second half is stopped because of curtailment, would double the robustness and the
flexural resistance of the beam at a ratio of two at least.

Longitudinal Flexural Compression Reinforcement

Longitudinal flexural compression reinforcement is essential for increasing the robustness and
the flexural resistance, as indicated in the previous section, in the event of a serious incident and
support elimination. The contribution of compression reinforcement to increase section capacity
in flexure is known and proven. So the goal is to enable reinforcement given along the beam, for
any purpose it is calculated and intended, transmitting compressive forces, in any event leading
it to function as compression reinforcement, by ensuring reinforcement continuity, through
supplying adequate lap length. Reinforcement bars given under minimal requirements included
in this category. In addition, compression reinforcement has an important role in the
development of alternative static schemes after an exceptional event.

It should also be noted that section compressive reinforcement reduces the compression
transmitted to the concrete and reduces the developing strains in concrete as a result, and
therefore contributing positively by increasing the essential ductility at critical areas.

21
 Figure 6 : Longitudinal Flexural Compression
Reinforcement

Anchorage of Bottom Reinforcement at Intermediate Supports

The anchorage lengths of bottom reinforcement at intermediate supports recommended by design
codes, for small financial investment of not significant additional anchorage length it is possible to
increase and raise the reinforced concrete beam robustness level and as a result the structural
robustness significantly.

Figure 7 : anchors

CONCRETE CONFINEMENT
Inherent ductility and continuity of the structure allow the development of alternative static
schemes for load redistribution and transfer after a catastrophic event occurring and increase
structural robustness and earthquake resistance.

22
 Improving ductility of reinforced concrete elements is possible through two main factors: first
reducing the pressure transmitted to the concrete, thereby reducing the concrete strains. This
can be achieved through the longitudinal flexural compression reinforcement as explained in
section 2.2 above. The second factor is through the confinement of concrete and improving the
ratio of stress - strain in concrete raising and upgrading concrete constitutive relationship.
Confinement can be achieved by adequately closed links.

Consideration for confinement of concrete by closed links and longitudinal bars can be taken
into account according to the model and the expressions described in EuroCode2.

Figure 8:CONCRETE CONFINEMENT

DIMENSIONING OF BEAMS, COLUMNS AND BEAM COLUMN JOINTS

Common design philosophy for reducing the risk of chain reaction of failures, preventing
progressive collapse and increasing robustness of structures is preparing alternate paths for
transferring the load in the event of a catastrophic event in the early stages of structural design.
One principle is bridging over areas with high probability of failure, for example for the failure of
a supporting column on the ground floor.

On the ground floor there is a higher probability of extreme events and failures. Increasing the
dimensions of the beams at first floor slab level and increasing their rigidity over than necessary

23
by other design requirements will allow formation of bridging operation over zones that might
be injured on the ground floor such as eliminating supporting columns.

Chapter 7 : Conclusion

Some accepted and common parameters in structural design were examined from the
perspective of robustness of structures, enabling people safety and avoiding human life injury in
the event of abnormal loads and preventing progressive collapse. The following conclusions
regarding reinforcement and detailing of reinforced concrete beams and frames were drawn.
 Design codes recommendations for curtailing of the longitudinal flexural tension
reinforcement along beams should be cancelled. Instead, the full amount of reinforcement
required at midspan should be continued to the supports keeping reinforcement continuity by
means of full lapped bars.
 The requirements for anchorage of bottom reinforcement at intermediate supports should be
replaced by full lap length, for facilitating reinforcement functionality in compression for usual
cases and for full functionality in tension in case of support removal, providing alternative load
paths and enabling redistribution of forces.
 Full lapped bars of bottom reinforcement at intermediate supports, facilitating reinforcement
functionality in compression, as mentioned above, decreases concrete stresses and strains in
compression and increases the ductility in these regions.

24
 Chapter 8 : REFERENCES

Faber, M., H., Narasimhan, H., Sorensen, J., D., Vrouwenvelder, A. and Chryssanthopoulos, M.,
K. (May 30-31, 2011). COST Action TU0601. Robustness of Structures: Proceedings of the Final
Conference. Prague, Czech Republic.

Euro code 2, part 1-1. (2004). Design of concrete structures, General rules and rules for
buildings, The European Standard EN 1992-1-1:2004 & British Standards Institute BSi.

Faber, M., H., Narasimhan, H. (2011). COST Action TU0601 – Robustness of structures: A
summary. http://www.cost-tu0601.ethz.ch/final_deliverables.html.

Gerard Canisius, T., D. (2011). Structural robustness design for practising engineers. COST Action
TU0601 – Robustness of Structures. http://www.cost-tu0601.ethz.ch/final_deliverables.html.

Kontogiannis, A. and Charmpis, D., C. (May 30-31, 2011). The cost of satisfying structural design
requirements on progressive collapse resistance.

25
COST Action TU0601. Robustness of Structures: Proceedings of the Final Conference. Prague,
Czech Republic. Sorensen, J., D. (2011). Theoretical framework on structural robustness. COST
Action TU0601 – Robustness of Structures.
http://www.cost-tu0601.ethz.ch/final_deliverables.html.

26