1

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR

Kips
STORY BUILDING
By
Kalpesh Parikh
Pursuing Master of Science, Syracuse University

.
Term Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course requirement of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering in the Graduate School of Syracuse University
10th May 2010

Approved ______________________________
Professor Eric M. Lui
Grade___________________________________

Acknowledgment

My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Eric M. Lui, Assistant professor, for his continuous and constructive
advice and follow-up. His successive advisories and comments were the pillars in my every step during
the analysis process of the project. I am thankful to him for the fact that he has inspired and helped me to
know about the Dynamic & Earthquake Engineering.

Table of Content
S.N

Title

o.
Acknowledgement
Table of contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1
Introduction
Loads and Functions
2
Modeling and Analysis Description
3
Load Models
4
Analysis
5
Conclusions
6
References
7

Page
No

6
17
19
23
25
46
47

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Original Plan View of the Four Story Building
Figure 2 Elevation View of the Four Story Building (Y-Z axis)
Figure 3 Seattle Spectra (Response Spectrum Curve)
Figure 4 Comparison of Stiffness ratio for Model 2 and Model 3
Figure 5 Time History Spectra- LACCO NOR earthquake record (obtained using SAP 2000)
Figure 6 Showing Beam & Exterior Column Arrangement
Figure 7 Showing Beam & Interior Column Arrangement
Figure 8 Model with Dead load
Figure 9 Model with Live Load
Figure 10 Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 1
Figure 11 Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 1
Figure 12 Showing bending moment (at grid line 2) under Seattle Spectra-Model1
Figure 13 Showing Displacements under Seattle Spectra-Model 2
Figure 14 Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 2
Figure 15 Showing bending moment (at grid line 1) under Seattle Spectra-Model2
Figure 16 Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 3
Figure 17 Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 3
Figure 18 Showing bending moment (at grid line 1) under Seattle Spectra-Model3
Figure 19 Showing bending moment (at grid line 2) under Seattle Spectra-Model3
Figure 20 Comparison of Displacement for 3 different models
Figure 21 Showing displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4
Figure 22 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4
Figure 23 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4
Figure 24 Model 5 Showing Rubber Isolator.
Figure 25 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
Figure 26 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
Figure 27 Comparison of Joint Vs Base Shear under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
Figure 28 Layout of Link Element
Figure 29 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 1
Figure 30 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Function of Response Spectrum Function-IBC 2006
Table 2 : Calculation of Seismic Lateral Force
Table 3: Floor height description for model 2 and model 3
Table 4: Shear wall dimensioning
Table 5: Summary of Stiffness for Beams and Columns for Model 2 and Model 3(Soft Story):
Table 6: Effect of Stiffness due to soft story model (ht variation)
Table 6a: Summary of Dead Load (IBC, minimum design dead load (Table C3-1))
Table 7: Summary of Live Load (Obtained from the IBC minimum uniformly distributed live
load (Table 4-1) and shown below)
Table 8 : Comparison Tables and Result Obtained for 3 models
Table 9: Comparison Calculation for finding % reduction of displacement due to soft story
Table 10: Comparison of base reaction due to all 3 model & % reduction of base reaction
due to soft story
Table 11: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 1
Table 12: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 2
Table 13: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 3
Table 14: Comparison of effect of soft story in RSA
Table 15: Modal Periods and Frequencies for LACCO NOR earthquake-Model 4
Table 16: Base Reaction for LACCO Spectra-Model 5
Table 17: Modal period and frequencies-Model 5
Table 18: Comparison of Period of Model 4 & Model 5
Table 19: Comparison of Base Reaction of Model 4 & Model 5

1 Introduction
All real physical structures behave dynamically when subjected to loads or displacements. The
additional inertia forces, from Newtons second law, are equal to the mass times the acceleration.
If the loads or displacements are applied very slowly, the inertia forces can be neglected and a
static load analysis can be justified. Hence, dynamic analysis is a simple extension of static
analysis. In addition, all real structures potentially have an infinite number of displacements.
Therefore, the most critical phase of a structural analysis is to create a computer model with a
finite number of massless members and a finite number of node (joint) displacements that will
simulate the behavior of the real structure.
Therefore based on the complexity involved in the hand calculation an computer model is made
using SAP 2000 based on the model, simulate the behavior of the real structure under a dynamic
loading .To accomplish the good understanding of dynamic behavior I selected a four story
concrete building, located in Seattle, Washington (seismic zone 3) below are the plan showing
how the floor plan looks like for Stories 1 to 4.

Figure 1 Original Plan View of the Four Story Building

Figure 2 Elevation View of the Four Story Building (Y-Z axis)

Seismic weight at various floors:

For a Warehouse, the design load should include a minimum of 25% of the live load. No live
load is to be considered for roof. Hence, the effective weight at all floors, except at the roof will
be 140 0.25 125 171.25 Psf, and the effective weight for roof will be 140 psf. The Plan
area is 48 ft x 96ft = 4608 ft 2. Hence Seismic weights of various levels are: W 1 =
W2 = W3 = 1 st, 2nd & 3rd Story weight,
W1 = W2 = W3 = 4608 x 0.17125 = 789.1 Kips
Kip

& W4 = 4608 x 0.140 = 645.1

The total Seismic weight of the building is then W = 789.1 x 3 + 645.1 = 3012.4
Kip

Fundamental Period of Building:

T = Ct * hn3/4
Where:
Ct = 0.030 (for reinforcing concrete moment-resisting frame)
hn = 48 ft (total height of the building)
T = 0.030* 483/4 = 0.55 sec
Occupancy Importance Factor:
Warehouse (SUG) = I = 1 and Occupancy importance factor, IE = 1

8
TABLE 1: Function - Response
Spectrum -IBC2006
Period( sec)

Accel (in/sec^2)

26.1607612

0.076841

65.401903

0.384205

65.401903

0.6

41.8796098

0.8

31.4097154

25.127753

1.2

20.939821

1.4

17.9484088

1.6

15.7048416

1.8

13.9598592

12.5638926

2.5

10.0511012

Figure 3 Seattle Spectra (Response Spectrum Curve)

3

8.3759284

3.5

7.1793764

6.2819302

4.5

5.583963

5.0255506

5.5

4.568697

4.1879642

6.5

3.8658032

3.5896882

7.5

3.3503778

3.1409812

8.5

2.7823054

Mapped Response Spectral Acceleration: (Use of SAP 2000) as shown above spectra:
Computer I/P:
Code Selection: IBC 2006 (IBC 2010 not available)
Soil Class: B for rock
Damping: 0.05
Zip Code: 94704
Results:
Short Period (T = 0.2 sec)

Ss = 3.046673g

Long Period (T = 1 sec)

S1= 1.170548 g

Site Class = B for rock

Site coefficient = Fa = 1

SDS = 2.031115

Site coefficient = Fv = 1

SD1 = 0.780365

Soil Modified Response Spectral Acceleration:

SMS = Fa Ss = 3.046673
SM1 = Fv S1 = 1.170548
Design Response Spectral Acceleration:
SDS = 2* 3.046673 / 3

SDS = 2.031115 (Same as obtain from SAP 2000)

SD1 = 2* 1.170548 / 3

SD1 = 0.780365 (Same as obtain from SAP 2000)

Response Modification Factor:

R= 8 for Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (obtained using table 12.2-1
Design coefficient and factors for seismic force resisting system ASCE 7-05)
Seismic Design Category = D
Seismic Coefficient:
Cs = SDS*IE/R = 0.253889
Check minimum value for Cs :
Cs 0.044 * SD1 * IE = 0.03433606 Good!

10

Cs S1*0.5*IE/R = 0.073159 Good!

Then
Cs = 0.253889
Base Shear Force:
V = Cs * W
V= 0.253889 * 3012.4
V = 764.815 Kip
Where:
V = Seismic Base Shear.
Cs = Seismic Response Coefficient.
W = Seismic weight of the structure that includes the dead weight and any permanent loading
in this case it also includes 25% of live load as per IBC code provision
Vertical Force Distribution:
F=

V Wx h x k
Wi hi

For, T = 0.55 sec > 0.5 sec

K = 1.025 (by Interpolation)
Table2 : Calculation of Seismic Lateral Force
Level
4
3
2
1

hx
(ft)
48
36
24
12

30604.02
Overturning Moment:

Wx
(Kip)
645.1
781.1
781.1
781.1

hxk
(ft)
52.88
39.37
25.98
12.77

Wx hxk
(Kip-ft)
34113
30752
20293
9974
95132

Fx
(Kip)
274.25
247.23
163.145
80.186

Vx
(Kip)
274.25
521.48
684.625
764.811

Mx
(Kip-ft)
3291
9548.76
17764.26

11
M x = Fi hihx

(as calculated

above in table)

= 1 (for top 10 story)

Story Drift and Lateral Displacement:

Both strength and stiffness need to be considered in the design of special moment frames.
According to ASCE 7, special moment frames are allowed to be designed for a force reduction
factor of R = 8. That is, they are allowed to be designed for a base shear equal to one-eighth of
the value obtained from an elastic response analysis. Moment frames are generally flexible
lateral systems; therefore, strength requirements may be controlled by the minimum base shear
equations of the code. Base shear calculations for long-period structures, has been checked and
may govern the strength requirements of special moment frames.
The allowable story drift, a = 0.025 hx = 3.6 inch (where hx is the story height)
Stiffness Computation:
Kcol = 12*E*I / L3
Econc = 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
LCol = 12-0
1st Story and 2nd Story Stiffness Computation:
a) Exterior Column : 12 x 20
b) Interior Column : 12 x 24
a) Exterior Column for First Story
Kextcol.1= 115.47 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for First Story
Kintcol.1= 200 Kip/inch

Iextcol = 8000 in4

Iintcol = 13824 in4
a) Exterior Column for Second Story
Kextcol.2= 115.47 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for Second Story
Kintcol.2= 200 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: KTotal Col 1= 18*115.47 + 9* 200 = 3878.46 Kip/inch

KTotal Col 2= 18*115.47 + 9* 200 = 3878.46 Kip/inch

12

3rd Story and 4th Story Stiffness Computation:

Iextcol = 4096 in4
Iintcol = 8000 in4

a) Exterior Column : 12 x 16
b) Interior Column : 12 x 20

a) Exterior Column for Third Story

Kextcol.3= 59.25 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for Third Story

a) Exterior Column for Forth Story

Kextcol.4= 59.25 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for Forth Story

Kintcol.3= 115.47 Kip/inch

Kintcol.4= 115.47 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: KTotal Col 3= 18*59.25 + 9* 115.47 = 2105.73 Kip/inch

KTotal Col 4= 18*59.25 + 9* 115.47 = 2105.73 Kip/inch
Beams Stiffness
Kbeam= 3*E*I / L3
Econc = 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Lbeam = 24-0
1st Story to 4th Story Stiffness Computation:
Beam Size: 20 x 20

Ibeam = 13333.33 in4

Kbeam= 6.028 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: KTotal Beam 1= 42*6.028 = 253.176 Kip/inch
KTotal Beam 1= KTotal Beam 2= KTotal Beam 3= KTotal Beam 4= 253.176 Kip/inch
Material Properties
Rebar: Reinforcement for Beams and Columns
Type: A615Gr60
Weight per unit volume = 0.49 Kip/ft3
Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 29000 Ksi

Fy = 60 Ksi
Fu = 90 Ksi

13

Concrete: Use for Beams, Columns, Floors and Wall

Concrete compressive Strength Fc = 4000 Psi

Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 3600 Ksi

Weight per unit volume = 0.15 Kip/ft3

LWC Shear Reduction Factor = 0.8

***Use of light weight concete(LWC) is made for columns, beams & floors & Concrete use for
the Shear Walls use of Normal Weight concrete is made**
Rubber Isolator: Isolated Pad for Supports
Weight of each isolator pad = 32.2 lb (too small but mass of base slab is provided above it)
Vertical Axial Stiffness = 10000 k/in

Initial Shear Stiffness in each direction = 10 k/in

Shear Yield Force in each direction = 5 kips

Ratio of Post Yield Shear Stiffness to Initial shear stiffness =0.2
Soil Type :
Site is located in the Seattle, Washington as per IBC site class definition
Site Class : B
Soil Profile Name: Rock
Seismic Zone Factor :
The seismic zone factor z is computed by referring a Seismic zone map where seattle region
falls under Zone 3 , Z=0.3
Description about dimensioning Floors:
Floor Dimension: Rectangular plan 48-0 x 96-0 (same for each story 1 to 4). Please coordinate with Plan Drawing. Floor slab used for the building is shell plate thin element of
thickness 10 inch both in membrane and bending.
Floor to Floor height:
Table 3: Floor height description for model 2 and model 3
Floor
Ground-1st Floor
1st to 2nd Floor
2nd to 3rd Floor
3rd to 4th Floor

Model 2 (Story) ht in ft
12-0
12-0
12-0
12-0

Model 3 (Soft Story) ht in ft

11-0
11-0
11-0
15-0

14

Shear Wall: Shear wall is being considered in Model 3. For that the material properties is being
changed from LWC to NWC. Thickness of the wall considered 12 thick. Its placement in
oriented by following 3-dimensional co-ordinate .To give revelation can be co-ordinate with
model and plan.
Table 4: Shear wall dimensioning
Name
Wall Panel A-B
Wall Panel 1-2
Wall Panel H-J
Wall Panel 2-3

Size (ft)
12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0
12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0
12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0
12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0

Start Co-ordinate(ft)
-48-0, 24-0, 48-0
-48-0, -24-0, 48-0
48-0, - 24-0, 48-0
48-0, 0-0, 48-0

End Co-ordinate(ft)
-36-0, 24-0, 48-0
-48-0, 0-0, 48-0
-36-0, -24-0, 48-0
48-0, 24-0, 48-0

Stiffness Computation For Soft Story:

Kcol = 12*E*I / L3
Econc = 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
LCol = 11-0 ( for 1 to 3rd Story)

LCol = 12-0 ( for 4th Story)

1st Story and 2nd Story Stiffness Computation:

c) Exterior Column : 12 x 20
d) Interior Column : 12 x 24
c) Exterior Column for First Story
Kextcol.1= 150.26 Kip/inch
d) Interior Column for First Story
Kintcol.1= 259.65 Kip/inch

Iextcol = 8000 in4

Iintcol = 13824 in4
c) Exterior Column for Second Story
Kextcol.2= 150.26 Kip/inch
d) Interior Column for Second Story
Kintcol.2= 259.65

Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: KTotal Col 1= 18*150.26+ 9* 259.65 = 5041.53 Kip/inch

KTotal Col 2= 18*150.26 + 9* 259.65 = 5041.53 Kip/inch
3rd Story and 4th Story Stiffness Computation:
c) Exterior Column : 12 x 16
d) Interior Column : 12 x 20
c) Exterior Column for Third Story
Kextcol.3= 76.93 Kip/inch

Iextcol = 4096 in4

Iintcol = 8000 in4
c) Exterior Column for Forth Story
Kextcol.4= 30.34 Kip/inch

15

d) Interior Column for Third Story

d) Interior Column for Forth Story

Kintcol.3= 150.26. Kip/inch

Kintcol.4= 59.26 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: KTotal Col 3= 18*76.93+ 9* 150.26 = 2737.08 Kip/inch

KTotal Col 4= 18*30.34 + 9* 59.26 = 1079.46 Kip/inch
Beams Stiffness
Kbeam= 3*E*I / L3
Econc = 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Lbeam = 24-0
1st Story to 4th Story Stiffness Computation:
Ibeam = 13333.33 in4

Beam Size: 20 x 20
Kbeam= 6.028 Kip/inch
Total Stiffness: KTotal Beam 1= 42*6.028 = 253.176 Kip/inch

KTotal Beam 1= KTotal Beam 2= KTotal Beam 3= KTotal Beam 4= 253.176 Kip/inch

Table 5: Summary of Stiffness for Beams and Columns for Model 2 and Model 3(Soft Story):
Floor
No.
1
2
3
4

Model 2 (Uniform ht Story)

KTotal Beam
KTotal Col

253.176
3878.46
0.0653
253.176
3878.46
0.0653
253.176
2105.73
0.120
253.176
2105.73
0.120

Model 3 (Soft Story)

KTotal Beam
KTotal Col

253.176
5041.53
0.0502
253.176
5041.53
0.0502
253.176
2737.08
0.0924
253.176
1079.46
0.2345

Where, = KTotal Beam / KTotal Col

Remark: We can see because increase in ht at the 4 th level the columns stiffness for each Floor
rearrange as shown below

16

Table 6: Effect of Stiffness due to soft story model (ht variation)

Floor
No.

Model 3 (Soft Story) compare with Model2

Comparison of stiffness (Model 3 compared to Model 2)

1
2
3
4

29.9879 % increase
29.9879 % increase
29.9879 % increase
48.73702% decrease

Figure 4: Comparison of Stiffness ratio for Model 2 and Model 3

Comparasion of Stiffness ratio for

2 Models
5
4
3

Uniform Ht. Story

Floor 2

Soft Story

1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Stiffness of Beam/Stiffness of Column

0.25

17

2 Loads and Functions

This building is to be analyzed for dead, live, and earthquake functional load.
Dead load: Dead Loads are the weights of materials, equipments or components that remains
constant throughout the structure's life. In the project it includes weight of the materials and
components which are used for floor, ceiling, partitioning and roof..
Table 6a: Summary of Dead Load (IBC, minimum design dead load (Table C3-1))
Type
Total load on each floor

Description
Loads from IBC (psf)
Dead load estimated due to
140
(floor slab, beam, half wt. of
the column above and below
the floor partion wall)

Live Load : Which is weight which is superimposed on, or temporarily attached to, a structure
(people, machinery and equipment, furniture, appliances, etc.).
Table 7: Summary of Live Load (Obtained from the IBC minimum uniformly distributed live
load (Table 4-1) and shown below)
Floors
Description
Uniform (psf)
1st , 2nd & 3rd Floor
Warehouse
125 psf
Roof
Warehouse
50 psf
Response-Spectrum Functions:
Design Spectra are not uneven curves; the spectra are intended to be the average of many
earthquakes. This approach allow us obtain an maximum value of Umax. For that reason to
obtain conservative study about earthquake analysis I selected IBC 2006 building code for
design spectra to obtain.
Where we can define, a response spectrum function is a series of digitized pairs of structural
period and corresponding pseudo-spectral acceleration values. Based on the function Response
Spectrum Curve is generated with respect of I/P data assigned to computer and we obtain an o/p
of digitized points of pseudo-acceleration response versus period of structure. As explained
above a I/P data was assigned to SAP 2000 software and we obtain o/p as shown in figure 3.
Time-History Functions:

18

The response history analysis is presented for an arbitrary structural configuration and very
handful for multi story building with a unsymmetrical plan. It is mainly devoted to a single
component of ground motion, typically one of the horizontal components. Combining the
structural response determined from such independent analysis for each excitation components
gives the response of linear system to multi-component excitation.
Based on that I picked up LACCO NOR File from SAP 2000 this is what we get as an I/P.
Figure 5: Time History Spectra- LACCO NOR earthquake record (obtained using SAP 2000)

Time History Spectra- For LACCO

10
8
6
4
Psuedo
acceleration
in/sec2

Time History Spectra- For LACCO

0
0

10

20

30

-2
-4
-6
-8
Time (s)

40

50

60

70

19

3 Modeling and Analysis Description

Preparation of 5 models is performed and they are discussed as below:
1. Model 1 3-d four Story building without shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.
2. Model 2 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.
3. Model 3 3-d four Story (soft story, 1.e. floor ht. variation was performed) building with
shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum Analysis for the model.
4. Model 4 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Time History Analysis
for the model.
5. Model 5 3-d four Story building (here rubber isolator and mass slab is provided) with
shear wall. And performed Time History Analysis for the model.
Discussion about Modeling and Analysis I/p:
1. Rectangular 3-d frame of 96-0 x 48-0 x 48-0 was generated.
2. Material: Concrete was defined for the building except shear wall material of concrete
used is NWC and for shear wall
3. Frame Properties: Beams and columns were grouped into
i.
Beam
ii.
External Column 1st level & 2nd level
iii.
External Column 3rd level & 4th level
iv. Internal Column 1st level & 2nd level
v. Internal Column 3rd level & 4th level

20

Figure 6 Showing Beam & Exterior Column Arrangement

Figure7 Showing Beam & Interior Column Arrangement

4. Frame Meshing was at joints and at intersection with frame
5. Area Section was defined
Advantage: Shell element has it own local co-ordinate system. The shell element always
activates all 6 Degree of freedom at each connected joints. Results for internal forces
and moments are good.
i.
Floor: Plate thin shell element was defined reason the plate bending behavior
includes twoway, out-of plane. Plate rotational stiffness components and a
translation stiffness component in the direction normal to the plane of the

21

element. By default it neglects shearing deformation and it is recommended to

use plate structure for floor slab.
ii.
Shear wall: Use of Shell thin element. reason why we use this because when we
compute an analysis to RSA if we provide thin panel element then the peak value
of the shear stress will be good estimation of the damage index (For story drift
calculation)
6.
Assigned Joints Constraints: Assigning of diaphragm constraint causes all of its
constraint joint to move together as a planar diaphragm which is rigid against membrane
deformation. Concrete floors which has very high in- plane stiffness. Hence diaphragm
reduces error in plane stiffness in floor.
7. Assign joint restraints at base level Z = 0 for all model fixed support except for Model
5link/support properties Isolator are provided.
8. Assigning area loads uniform shell, defining loads as shown in table mentioning dead
load and live load.
9. Define Functions: For Model 1 to 3 we analyzed using Response Spectrum IBC 2006
and for Model 4 & 5 we analyzed using Lacco Time History Function. As we have
discuss how we obtain spectra using SAP 2000. These loads are used for applying ground
accelerations in response-spectrum analyses and are used as starting load vectors for Ritzvector analysis. Here the acceleration load is computed for each joint and element and
summed over the whole structure. Acceleration load for the analysis are transformed from
global co-ordinate system to local co-ordinate system.
10. Addition of Load Cases: Spectra generated from function will now be added to the load
cases Model 1 to 3 - Response Spectrum IBC 2006 - Spectra generated Seattle
Spectra Now we select CQC method of modal combination because it is the most
conservative method that is used to estimate a peak value displacement or force within a
structure This approach assumes that the maximum modal values for all modes occurs at
the same point in time.CQC method takes into account the statistical coupling between
closely Space mode caused by modal damping. Key thing is if damping is zero it
degenerates to SRSS method.
11. For Directional combination SRSS method is better because for each displacement force
or stress quantity in the structure, modal combination produces single positive results for
each direction of acceleration the value for a given response combine to produce single
positive results. SRSS methods combine the response for different direction of loading.
12. Now assigning the Seattle spectra in X (U 1) and Y (U2) direction here lot of study has
been conducted about assigning the earthquake motion from all possible direction.
Orthogonal effects in spectral analysis: The member in the structure should be designed
for 100% of prescribed seismic forces in one direction plus 30% of prescribed forces in
perpendicular direction. Here it can be reasonable to assume that motion that takes place
during an earthquake has one principal direction or during a finite period of time when
maximum when maximum ground acceleration occurs, a principal direction exists. But
exact nature of 3dimensional wave propagation is not known. Based on the assumption,

22

we can conclude that a structure must resist a major earthquake motion of magnitude of
X for all possible angles and at the same point in time resist earthquake motion at
90 degree to the angle .
For the Model with RSA I have tested with 100% of IBC 2006 called Seattle Spectra
in Y-(U2) direction and 30% of IBC 2006 called Seattle Spectra in X-(U1) direction.
The Model is also tested vice versa and notice the difference in displacement.
For a structure of importance and estimate over conservative analysis we can
multiply by the factor safety to the spectra so that it reads out analysis for higher values
and give more conservative results then needed.
13. Modal Load Case Modification here we have to decide what modes we have to put for
the analysis no. of modes are not arbitrary it depends on D.O.F but we for this building
we have many D.O.F we dont want to put the many nos of D.O.F it is trail to try with
20 and 30 and see the Modal participating mass ratios if it reaches to 95% then it will be
reasonable analysis to accept with it. Even the importance of mentioning Types of mode
area there are 2 modes of area. Eigenvector Analysis and Ritz vector Analysis it
important to know which gives better results. Eigen vector analysis determine the
undamped free vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the structure, but lot of research
have been conducted the natural free vibration mode shapes are not the best basis for a
mode superposition analysis of structures subjected to dynamic loads. Ritz vectors yield
more accurate results than eigenvector. Because ritz vectors gives better results because
taking into account the spatial distribution of dynamic loading. Knowing this we can
proceed with applying accelerated load in global co-ordinate system in X-direction and
Y-direction.
14. Model 4 &5 analysis I/p explanation the Lacco Time History data obtained from SAP
2000 file it is just a record of single earthquake the data obtained it is applied to the
structure using local co-ordinate, here the orthogonality will not come in role, the
importance of time history analysis which super cedes the RSA the input of Lacco Time
History data assigned , for SAP 2000 it is possible to perform a large amount of dynamic
analyses at various angles of input where we can check all points for critical earthquake
direction. Here In Model 5 in co-operated the non linear analysis, because the advantage
compare to RSA we have that we can perform non linear analysis in THA. RSA has
limitation in nonlinear analysis
15. Model 5, to perform non linear analysis Here new load case is defined in the name of
Grav this is restricted to the dead load only the manner in which applied was selected
RAMPTH Function it is pattern of function applied to the structure. This is the initial
condition use when Lacco Time History Non linear analysis is performed .Here Modal
damping is modified for 1st three modes. Only difference in Modal load case we add Link
so that it specify the results for the isolator. Isolator is an Link/Support element.
16. Run Analysis is performed to interpreted the results

23

4 Load Model

Roof

24

140
psf

Figure 8: Model with dead load

(We can see on left hand side color band Load applied to the Floors 140 psf)

25

125 psf

50 psf

Figure 9: Model with Live Load

(We can see on left hand side color band Load applied to the Floors 125psf
And 50 psf to the roof)

26

5 Analysis
Response Spectrum Analysis Results: To perform analysis for Seattle Spectra generated using
IBC 2006 by SAP. Model1, Model2, Model3 have been tested using spectra and results are
obtained.
1. Damping: In all three model damping ratio was assigned to 0.05 during an I/P of
generation of spectra, No advance damping was defined for the model.
2. Accelerations: For each mode acceleration are printed in local co-ordinate system, so
when we proceed for reading results in this project it identified by the symbol U1 Acc
And U2 Acc.(this value are the acceleration for each mode are the actual values
interpolated at the modal period from the spectra curve.)
3. Modal Amplitude: The response spectrum modal amplitude give the multipliers of the
mode shapes that contribute to the displaced shape for the each direction of acceleration
load. In the result it is identified as U1AMP & U2AMP.
4. Displacement: Noted the Joint displacement at point A,B & C for each floor ( Refer the
plan drawing) for the Model1, Model2 & Model3 under the application of seismic
spectra. In the result it is identified as U1 & U2
5. Shear Force and Bending Moment: For the Model1, Model2 & Model3 forces and
moment were noted under a Seattle spectra
6. Base reaction: For the models base reaction are noted , which says the total forces and
moment about the global origin required of the supports (restraint and spring) to resist
the inertia forces due to response spectrum loading. In the result they are identified as as
in the gloabal co-ordinate Fx, Fy, Mx & My)
Modal Analysis Results: To perform analysis for Acclerated load applied in Ux and Uy and
look for Modal participation mass ratio. The idea behind the modal analysis is to decouple vector
1. Period (T) in sec which identified in the results which represent the period of a mode for
complete system.
2. Eigen value is obtained for each mode Identified in the results as 2 in rads/sec
3. Modal Mass was seen in the result as an unity..
4. Modal Stiffness was seen as modal eigenvalue.
5. Modal Load applied in Ux and Uy there dynamic participation was checked.
6. Modal Participating Mass ratios were checked that it reaches to 99% of Cumulative sums
of participating mass ratio for all modes). In the result it is identified Sum of Ux and
Sum of Uy.

27

Model 1 3-D Four Story building without shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.

U1
1.752

Figure10: Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 1

Maximum value Shear force

was noticed at base level Int
Col 1&2
Vu Dynamic due to Seattle
Spectra
Should be considered for the
design

28

Figure11: Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 1

Figure12: Showing bending moment (at grid line 2) under Seattle SpectraModel1
`Area of interest
strong columns
needed (Playing
with
reinforcement
criterion good
idea to see the
change in
behavior)

29

Model 2 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.

U2
1.19

Figure13: Showing Displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 2

Maximum value
Shear force was
noticed at top
level Int Col 3&4
V Dynamic due
to Seattle
Spectra
Should be
considered for
the design

Figure14: Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 2

30

Maximum
Moment in beam
was noticed
adjacent to the

Figure15: Showing bending moment (at grid line 1) under Seattle

Spectra-Model2

Model 3 3-d four Story (soft story, 1.e. floor ht. variation was performed ) building with shear
wall. And performed Response Spectrum Analysis for the model.

U2 1.138

Figure 16 Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 3

31

Maximum
Shear
force was
noticed
At Int Col.

Figure17 Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 3

Maximum
Moment in
beam was
noticed
adjacent to
the wall

Figure18: Showing bending moment (at grid line 1) under Seattle Spectra-Model3

32

Maximum
Moment was
Noticed in
Int .Col.4

Maximum
Moment was
noticed in
Beam at 3rd
floor

Figure19: Showing bending moment (at grid line 2) under Seattle Spectra-Model3

Table 8: Comparison Tables and Result Obtained for 3 models

TABLE: Response Spectrum Modal
Information Model 1
Displacemen Displacemen
t
t
Floo Join
r
t
in U1
in U2

Model 2
Displacemen Displacemen
t
t

Model 3
Displacemen Displacemen
t
t

in U1

in U2

in U1

in U2

Nos

Nos

inch

inch

Inch

inch

inch

inch

122

0.435

2.8177

0.1305

0.167

0.1075

0.1418

127

0.435

2.8177

0.1305

0.167

0.1075

0.1418

132

0.435

2.8177

0.1305

0.167

0.1075

0.1418

123

0.8847

5.6134

0.3869

0.466

0.3197

0.3926

128

0.8847

5.6134

0.3869

0.466

0.3197

0.3926

133

0.8847

5.6134

0.3869

0.466

0.3197

0.3926

3
Floo
r

124
Join
t

1.4362

8.0379

Displacment

Displacment

0.7005
Displacemen
t

0.8264
Displacemen
t

0.591
Displacemen
t

0.6992
Displacemen
t

33

in U1

in U2

in U1

in U2

in U1

in U2

Nos

Nos

inch

inch

Inch

inch

inch

inch

125

1.7516

9.4159

1.0139

1.1917

0.9912

1.138

130

1.7516

9.4159

1.0139

1.1917

0.9912

1.138

135

1.7516

9.4159

1.0139

1.1917

0.9912

1.138

Comparision of Displacement for 3 different models

4.5

seattle spectra x-dirn displacement model1

4
seattle spectra-y dirn displacement-model 1

3.5
3

seattle spectra x- dirn displacement model2

2.5
Floors

2
seattle spectra y dirn displacement model2
1.5
1
seattle spectra x-dirn displacement-soft story
0.5
0
0

seattle spectra Y-dirn displacement-soft story

2
3
4
5
6
7

Displacement in inch

Figure 20: Comparison of Displacement for 3 different models

Table 9: Comparison Calculation for finding % reduction of displacement

due to soft story

10

34

Comparison Calculation
Comparison of U2
Model 2 &3

% Displacement
Reduction in U1 due
to
soft story

% Displacement
Reduction in U2 due
to
soft story

inch

inch

0.023

0.0252

17.62452107

15.08982036

0.0672

0.0734

17.36882915

15.75107296

0.1095

0.1272

15.63169165

15.39206196

0.0227

0.0537

2.238879574

4.50616766

Floo
r

Comparison of
U1
Model 2 &3

Nos

Table 10: Comparison of base reaction due to all 3 model & % reduction of base reaction
due to soft story
TABLE: Base
Reactions
OutputCase
Text
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 1
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 2
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 3
Difference
(Model2 -Model
3)
Reduction in (%)
base shear for soft
story on
comparison of
model 2

GlobalF
X
Kip

Comparison table
GlobalF GlobalM
Y
X
Kip
Kip-in

GlobalM
Y
Kip-in

1336.86
4

2800.52
7

1126741.6
53

561191.1
3

1954.77
2

6424.49
2

2865226.9
38

844083.0
4

1883.92
2

6250.22
6

2720878

794093.6

70.85

174.266

144348.93
8

49989.43
7

3.62446
4

2.71252
6

5.0379582
88

5.922336
4

Table 11: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 1

35

Response Spectrum Analysis

Model 1
Mod Perio
CircFr Eigenv
e
d
eq
alue
Unitl
()rad/ rad2/se
ess
Sec
sec
c2
0.959
1
617 6.5476
42.871
0.758
2
166 8.2873
68.68

0.575
054
0.335
84

0.273
242

U1Ac
c
in/sec
2
95.02
6
120.9
59

U2Ac
c
in/sec
2
316.7
54
403.1
96

U1Am
p

U2Am
p

in
3.19E17
2.25E16

535.1
85
784.8
23

3.822
136
3.98E18
2.30E17
0.302
96
1.19E17
5.65E18
1.00E17
0.051
27

in
21.44
683
3.97E14
7.00E17
2.250
856

10.926

119.38

18.709

350.02

160.5
56
235.4
47

22.995

528.77

235.4
47

784.8
23

29.681

880.95

30.081

904.89

37.154

1380.4

235.4
47
235.4
47
235.4
47

784.8
23
784.8
23
784.8
23

0.211
691
0.208
873
0.169
113

0.163
768

38.366

1472

235.4
47

784.8
23

10

0.135
146

46.492

2161.5

235.4
47

784.8
23

6
7

System
is not
Stiff
hence
higher
value is
noticed
in
natural
period

4.24E17
6.82E18
0.426
1
7.87E17
0.168
688
9.50E18

Table 12: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 2

Response Spectrum Analysis
Model 2
StepN Perio CircF Eigenv
um
d
req
alue
Unitles
rad/s rad2/se
s
Sec
ec
c2
1
2

0.353
912
0.211
951

17.75
4
29.64
5

315.19
878.8

U1Ac
c
in/sec
2

U2Ac
c
in/sec
2

U1Am
p

U2Am
p

in

in

235.4
47
235.4
47

784.8
23
784.8
23

2.109
278
0.011
517

0.093
69
2.515
816

System
is Stiff
hence
reductio
n is
noticed
in
natural
period

36

1649.6

235.4
47

784.8
23

1.00E16

70.62
9

4988.4

235.4
47

784.8
23

0.069
433

0.075
264

83.48
2

6969.2

232.5
48

775.1
59

0.002
06

0.065
681

95.66
3

9151.4

214.9
29

716.4
3

0.063
453

99.02
1

9805.2

210.8
33

702.7
77

0.062
264

100.9
1

10183

208.6
48

695.4
94

0.000
214
0.000
42
0.000
76

0.057
624

109.0
4

11889

200.1
18

667.0
6

10

0.054
874

13111

195.0
62

650.2
05

0.154
698

40.61
6

0.088
961

114.5

0.000
308
0.000
19

1.50E15
0.001
71
0.005
49
0.005
99
0.013
416
0.001
8
0.016
43
0.073
91

Table 13: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 3

Response Spectrum Analysis
Model 3
StepN Perio CircF Eigenv
um
d
req
alue
Unitles
rad/s rad2/se
s
Sec
ec
c2

0.346
101
0.205
136
0.150
421

18.15
4
30.62
9
41.77
1

4
5

0.093
568
0.073

67.15
1
85.48

1
2

U1Ac
c
in/sec
2

U2Ac
c
in/sec
2

U1Am
p

U2Am
p

in

1744.8

235.4
47
235.4
47
235.4
47

784.8
23
784.8
23
784.8
23

1.965
49
0.010
074
9.40E18

4509.3
7307.8

235.4
47
229.3

784.8
23
764.3

0.081
621
0.000

in
0.083
66
2.313
225
7.71E15
0.001
78
-

329.58
938.16

System
is very
stiff
hence
reductio
n is
noticed
in
natural

37

0.063
909

98.31
5

9665.9

100.4
2

10085

0.062
567
0.060
883

103.2

0.057
078

110.0
8

10

0.056
205

111.7
9

6
7

04

48

211.6
71

705.5
71

886
0.000
14

10651

209.2
05
206.1
08

697.3
49
687.0
28

0.000
228
0.000
352

12118

199.1
14

663.7
13

12497

197.5
09

658.3
64

0.000
086
0.000
26

0.005
33
0.006
343
0.016
29
0.004
47
0.072
13
0.046
67

Table 14: Comparison of effect of soft story in RSA

Floor
No.

Model 3 (Soft
Story)
Comparison of
stiffness increase in
stiffness in Model 3

Displacement
Reduction
%
Displacement
Reduction in
U1
due to
soft story
%

Displacement
Reduction
%
Displacement
Reduction in
U2
due to
soft story
%

29.9879 % increase

17.62452107

15.08982036

29.9879 % increase

17.36882915

15.75107296

29.9879 % increase

15.63169165

15.39206196

48.73702%decrease

2.238879574

4.50616766

Base Reactions
Reduction in (%) base shear for soft story on
comparison of model 2

(Fx) %

(Fy) %

(Mx) %

(My) %

3.62446362

2.712525
8

5.037958
3

5.92233641

Interpretation:
1. Discussion about displacement comparison Model 1 with Model 2 and 3 we can see
clearly from the graph (fig. 20) where displacements for Model 1 is very high for U1 and
U2 . The reason is very simple that the provision of shear wall was made in Model 2 and
3 which was oriented in all direction as can be seen from the model. It provides building
with seismic resistance. So provision of shear wall is one of the seismic resistant
structures.
2. For member force for Model 1 we can see from (fig. 11 & 12) when analyzing for
complete building the maximum Shear force and Bending Moment was noticed in the
grid line 2 of plan (the strong columns and resistant to seismic is needed at the interior
column at first floor.)

38

3. When comparing the displacement Model 2 with 3 from (fig. 20 and Table 14) we can
notice that due to increase of stiffness in floor 1, 2 & 3 there is a reduction in
displacement in the floors. But when there is a decrease of stiffness in floor 4 there is a
reduction in displacement in the 4th floors but now the reduction of displacement is less
compare to the floor 1, 2 & 3.Overall soft story can achieve reduction in displacement if
stiffness is rearrange in the building.
4. When comparing the base reaction in global direction for Model 2 with 3, we can notice
that reduction of base reaction in Model 3 (Table 14 shows the value). So we can say to
resist the inertia forces due to Response spectrum is less for the soft story.
5. Warily studies was performed for the member forces for Model 2 with 3(refer fig. 14, fig
15, fig 17, fig 18 & fig 19) where comment are listed by noticing the Mu Seattle & Vu Seattle.
Based on the maximum value and use of some conservative reinforcing pattern should be
adopted. For the model I have consider #9 longitudinal bars and #4 Confinement bars and
confinement ties (for Beams and Columns)
i.
The ductile frame joint based on the high seismic study (there are standard
guidelines available to adopt in high seismic region)
ii.
Requirement of the boundary members should be adopted
iii.
Seismic Hooks, Cross tie and hoops can be provided
iv. To design for Frame Flexural Members should be adopted
v. Transverse Confinement in the Flexural member should be adopted.
vi.
Providing a Bond Beam.
(Information obtain from Michael R Lindeburg, Seismic Design of Building Structure)
6. Study of Modal Analysis for an ndof we have n no. of mode for the project we dont
need n no. of modes to evaluate results for all three model for all 3 model the result were
obtain for 10 modes modal participating mass ratios reaches to 98% and modal load
participation factor reaches 100% of what we applied (i.e. Seattle Spectra) in both U 1 and
U2 .So result are complete
7. When comparing Model 1,2 and 3 result for each mode shape was check for correctness
when we look to structural o/p of the SAP 2000, looking for Modal Participation factor
in which I obtained for each mode .
i.
Modal Mass is an Unity (speaking in terms of theoretical terms Modal mass
matrix is an identity matrix)
ii.
Modal Stiffness for each mode was obtained as (natural frequency ) 2 equal to
eigenvalue which is tabulated in (eigenvalue- table 11,12 &13)
8. Comparing period for all 3 model we can see model 1 has very high period compare to
model 2 and 3. When we compare Model 1 period with theoretical period based on IBC
2006. We can say theoretical period are very approximate value design cannot be
performed based on theoretical basis. Comparing Model 2 with Model 3. Reduction in
period is notice for each mode by mode comparison.
9. Modal Amplitude obtain from (table 11,12 &13) identified as U1AMP & U2AMP are the
multiplier of the mode shapes that has contribute to displaced shape. We can notice from

39

the table clearly that U2 Amp contribution is very high for Model 1 because it does not have
resistive wall in the model. For Comparing Model 2 with Model 3 U2 Amp contribution is
high for Model 2 compare to Model 3.
10. Analysis was performed by now changing 30% of IBC 2006 in Y-direction & 100% of
IBC 2006 in X-direction. The Displacement result where lower. The control direction of
loading is 100% of IBC 2006 in Y-direction and 30% of IBC 2006 in X-directions

Model 4 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Time History Analysis for
the model.

Maximum Joint
Displacement
at Joint 90 U 1 3.557542

Maximum Joint
Displacement
at Joint 10 U 2 3.2059

Figure 21 Showing displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4

40

Figure 22 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4

(U2 displacement is at 9.62 sec 0.4741 inch)

Figure 23 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4

(U1 displacement is at 7.31 sec 0.9826 inch)

41

Table 15: Modal Periods and Frequencies for LACCO NOR earthquake-Model 4
TABLE: Modal
Periods And
Frequencies
StepNum
Unitless
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Period
Sec
0.353912
0.211951
0.154698
0.088961
0.075264
0.065681
0.063453
0.062264
0.057624
0.054874
0.0511
0.050546
0.044782
0.041648
0.040872

CircFreq
rad/sec
17.754
29.645
40.616
70.629
83.482
95.663
99.021
100.91
109.04
114.5
122.96
124.31
140.3
150.86
153.73

Eigenvalue
rad2/sec2
315.19
878.8
1649.6
4988.4
6969.2
9151.4
9805.2
10183
11889
13111
15119
15452
19685
22760
23633

Table 16: Base Reaction for LACCO Spectra-Model 5

TABLE:
Base
Reactions
OutputCase
Text
LACCO
SPECTRA

CaseType
Text
LinModHis
t

GlobalFX
Kip
1802.357

GlobalFY
Kip
2499.414

GlobalMX
Kip-in
1128363.4
25

GlobalMY
Kip-in
798825.40
9

42

Model 5 3-d four Story building ( here rubber isolator and mass slab is provided) with shear
wall. And performed Time History Analysis for the model.

Rubber
Isolator
Provided

Figure 24 Model 5 Showing Rubber Isolator.

Figure 25 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5

(U2 displacement very little difference between each floor displacement)

43

Figure 26 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5

(U1 displacement is very high)

Figure 27 Comparison of Joint Vs Base Shear under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
(U1 displacement is very high)

44

Table 17: Modal period and frequencies-Model 5

TABLE: Modal
Periods And
Frequencies
StepNum
Unitless
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Natural
Period is
very
high
Period
Sec
12.20939
12.20847
11.91553
0.332325
0.311778
0.239744
0.168803
0.158349
0.135287
0.132027
0.125196
0.122749
0.121475
0.105582
0.102957

CircFreq
rad/sec
0.51462
0.51466
0.52731
18.907
20.153
26.208
37.222
39.679
46.443
47.59
50.187
51.187
51.724
59.51
61.028

Eigenvalue
rad2/sec2
0.26483
0.26487
0.27806
357.46
406.13
686.85
1385.5
1574.4
2157
2264.8
2518.7
2620.1
2675.4
3541.5
3724.4

Table 18: Comparison of Period of Model 4 & Model 5

Comparison of Periods

Mode
Unitless
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mode

Period
Isolator
(Tb)
Sec
12.20939
12.20847
11.91553
0.332325
0.311778
0.239744
0.168803
0.158349
0.135287
0.132027
0.125196
Period

Period
Fixed
(Tf)
Sec
0.353912
0.211951
0.154698
0.088961
0.075264
0.065681
0.063453
0.062264
0.057624
0.054874
0.0511
Period

(Tb/Tf)
34.49838
57.60045
77.02447
3.735626
4.142459
3.650127
2.660284
2.543187
2.347754
2.406003
2.45002
(Tb/Tf)

45

12
13
14
15

Isolator
(Tb)
0.122749
0.121475
0.105582
0.102957

Fixed
(Tf)
0.050546
0.044782
0.041648
0.040872

Figure 28 Layout of Link Element

Figure 29 and Figure 30 shows the plot of Isolator deformation

Figure 29 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 1

2.428461
2.712585
2.535104
2.519011

46

Figure 30 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 2

Table 19: Comparison of Base Reaction of Model 4 & Model 5
TABLE: Base Reactions
OutputCase
Text
LAC-Model 4
LAC-Model 5
% Reduction of Base
Reaction due to isolator
addition

GlobalFX
Kip
1802.357
0

GlobalFY
Kip
2499.414
106.819

GlobalMX
Kip-in
1128363
28316.15

GlobalMY
Kip-in
798825.4
1124.768

100

95.72624

97.49051

99.8592

Interpretation:
1. When comparative study done between Model 4 & Model 5 , Base Isolation lengthen the
period the fundamental vibration of the structure which can be seen from (table 17 and
table 18) and because of isolator provision in Model 5 reduces the pseudo acceleration
for the mode.
2. In Model 5 the first vibration mode of isolated structure involves deformation in the
isolator link element. The structure is moving as a rigid body on the top of the isolator.
3. From fig. 21 we can see that maximum displacement (U 2 & U1) in the structure occurs at
different time. From fig. 22 & 23 we can see the difference of displacement in each story.
Now at same point we study for model 5 (fig. 25 & 26) we can see there is no difference
in the displacement at each level, the effect of isolator is that structure is moving as a
rigid body on the top of the isolator.
4. From fig 29 & 30 we can see clearly deformation in the isolator is very high.
5. When comparing the Model 4 & Model 5 for base reaction we can see the inertia force
required to resist the structure from LACCO Nor earthquake record is less for Model 5

47

as we can make out from comparison table 19 were we can see that due to provision isolator to
the building the reduction of the earthquake forces imparted to the structure. It is no surprise that
reduction in base shear is a pink in health for Structure.

48

6 Conclusions
1. After vigilant assessment we can distinguish that for concrete structures, additional
development work is required to develop a completely rational method. As we can see
that RSA assessment is restricted to linear analysis as RSA analysis have one of the
limitation it does not perform nonlinear analysis. When looking to the Model 1, 2 & 3
Model 3 is preferable compare to other 1 & 2, reason is because if we know were to put
what size of columns and beams. (if we work out with right Math work for assembling
stiffness & rearrangement we can achieve reduction in the displacement due to pseudo
ground acceleration)
2. To obtain rational design forces for the concrete member it will be good idea to analyze
the structure 3 or 4 earthquake record using time history analysis as they can furnish the
design forces required for the critical area. The forces obtain in Model 1, 2,& 3 would be
an good approximation for V dynamic & M dynamic but it will be always be good idea to scale
out higher value then what we obtain.
3.

Time history analysis performed for Model 4 & 5 reduction in base shear was achieved
significantly, due to addition of isolator. Hence effectiveness of reduction of earthquake
induced forces in a model 5 was achieved by provision of isolator.

4. If System is very stiff there will be reduction in the natural period, which can be noticed a
in the Period comparison for Model 1, 2& 3. For a Model3 it is very stiff system so we
can say it is mass sensitive so if we want change in behavior of the system we have to
look at the mass and based on that we can achieve the changes in the system (Tuned mass
system would be an good recommendation)

49

References

1. Anil K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures- Theory and Applications to Earthquake

engineering, Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, ISBN 0-13-156174 (Obtained from The TISCH
Library at Tufts University).
2. Mario Paz, Structural Dynamics- Theory and Computation, 5th edition, Kluwer
Academic Publisher, Boston, ISBN 1-4020-7667-3 ( Obtained from Lehigh University)
3. Ajaya Kumar Gupta, Response Spectrum Method In Seismic Analysis and Design of
Structures CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN 0-8493-8628-4 (Obtained from Union
College)
4. W.F.Chen & E.M.Lui, Earthquake Engineering for Structural Design, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, ISBN 0-8493-7234-8 (Obtained from New York State Library)
5. CSI- Introductory Tutorial & Reference Manual for SAP 2000-Linear and Nonlinear
Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three- Dimensional Structures, Berkeley CA
6. Michael R. Lindeburg & Majid Baradar, Seismic Design of Building Structures,
Professional Publications Inc, Belmont, CA, ISBN 1-888577-52-5 (Obtained from
Library CECIL C TYRRELL)
7. International building Code 2006- ISBN 1-58001-251-5 (Obtained from Syracuse
University-Civil & Environmental Department)
8. Edward L. Wilson, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures- A
physical approach with Earthquake Engineering (Obtained from Website)
9. SAP 2000 Software- Syracuse University Civil Engineering Computer Lab.