Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Tsion Fekadu Mekonnen, entitled:
complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with
Examiner_________________________________Signature__________Date_______
Advisor__________________________________Signature__________Date_______
Advisor__________________________________Signature__________Date_______
___________________________________________
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis is conducted to assess seismic design practice and overall structural design
process of buildings designed in Addis Ababa. Design models were collected from
Addis Ababa City Administration and randomly selected ten models were assessed.
evaluate the models. The main objective of this thesis is assessing seismic design
configuration of structures for earthquake design, stiffness reduction, slab and column
design.
The findings of this research shows that in all the models the slab has been designed
as part of the lateral force resisting system, majority of models did not make stiffness
reduction for the slab section and reduce flexural and shear stiffness properties of
concrete and masonry element for sway frame. It is also found that fundamental
requirement and structural configuration of structures for earthquake design are not
fulfilled. In addition some of the models did not consider accidental eccentricity, P-∆
analysis and dynamic analysis as per code requirement. After making modification to
iii
these models as per Eurocode, it is found that there is a significant increase in column
and beam shear force and bending moment. This would imply that seismic design
practice and overall structural design of building designed in Addis Ababa are not up
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Above all I want to thank God for giving me the strength to complete this thesis work.
I would like to thank Female Scholarship for providing me the opportunity to study
I would like to deeply express my gratitude to Eyasu Ashenafi for his help in selection
of this thesis topic and support for completing this thesis work.
I would like to thank my colleges at MH Engineering and Daniel Taye for providing
I would like to thank Elias Tsga for his help in editing and finalizing the paper work.
Finally I would like to thank Addis Ababa City Administration for providing me
designed models. Without their help this work could have not been real.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
vi
3 RESULT ............................................................................................................... 34
3.1 Model 1:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof ............. 34
3.2 Model 2:- Ground +Mezzanine + 4 story+ Roof +Top Roof ........................ 56
vii
3.3 Model 3:- Three Basement + Ground + 16 story + Roof + Top Roof .......... 61
3.5 Model 5:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof ............. 69
viii
3.6 Model 6:- Basements + Ground + 7 story +Mezzanine floor + Roof ........... 72
3.7 Model 7:- Two Basement + Ground + 10 story + Roof + Roof Top ............ 75
ix
3.10 Model 10:- Two basement + Ground + Mezzanine + 13 story + Top roof ... 85
4 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 88
6 REFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 98
DECLARATION
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 (a) Seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per Gouin (1976) which was also used by
CPI-78 (b) Seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per ESCP-1:1983 (c) Seismic Zoning of
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 List of earthquakes and reported damages between 1979 to 2011 ................ 9
Table 2-5 Importance categories and important factors for buildings ......................... 26
Table 3-2 Percentage exceedance of re-entrant corners from the limit ....................... 36
Table 3-4 Percentage exceedance in setback on elevation of the building from the
limit .............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 3-10 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter. .................. 42
Table 3-11 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter..... 43
Table 3-13 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters. ................... 47
Table 3-14 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meters ... 48
Table 3-15 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
xii
Table 3-16 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
Table 3-17 Comparison for beam moment and Shear force for envelope X and Y in
KN-m ........................................................................................................................... 52
Table 3-18 Comparison for beam moment and shear force for envelope X and Y in
KN-m ........................................................................................................................... 54
diaphragm .................................................................................................................... 90
xiii
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS
Symbols Description
action
gravity
seismic zone
I Importance factor
β Response factor
xiv
spectrum
h Interstory height
E East
N North
W West
s Second
xv
ht Height
DL Dead Load
LL Live load
Combo Combination
Z Zone factor
S Soil parameter
E Modulus of Elasticity
xvi
mm millimeter
eccentricity
eccentricity
negative eccentricity
negative eccentricity
Bzmnt Basement
xvii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
enabling factors has had substantial impact in the transportation, energy, and water
dams, power-plants, highway roads, water reservoirs, and expansion of railways either
dams, and new cities. As things stand, the country's population is projected to reach a
populous countries on the planet. In addition to a multitude of other threats that this
population growth could bring, the issue of housing these additional 30 to 40 million
Ethiopians in the next few decades will pose a huge risk factor. In a recent paper, it
has been argued that 25 new cities with size equivalent to present Dire Dawa are
needed or the current 10 cities such as Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa will have to
become mega cities of 10 million or more to accommodate this growth. While these
denying regarding the need for housing these additional millions of citizens in the
already lie or will be in or in close proximity to the some of the most seismically
active regions of the country such as Afar Triangle, the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER),
1
and the Southern Most Rift (SMR) where well documented damage causing
earthquakes are common. A review of the engineering reports associated with some of
the largest and most expensive infrastructure projects in the country suggest that
seismicity of the region the severity of threats posed by seismic hazards on the safety
and serviceability of these structures is not well understood by the main stake-holders
building design checkers and, not infrequently, the engineering community itself as
well.[1]
Against this background, therefore, the need for preparing for this real and substantial
threat of seismic hazards in the country is pressing and requires attention at all levels.
Several fundamental problems still main before rationale seismic design is practiced
(i) There is growing evidence that the current building codes themselves are
inadequate, out-dated, and not stringent enough when compared to the level
(ii) Ambiguities that exist in this first legislation attempt that do not explicitly
address the seismicity of the country (Part Three-Design, Item 34 that reads
"buildings may not exhibit signs of structural failure during their life span
under normal loading") may give a ground for stakeholders to ignore seismic
effects because 'normal loadings' may arguably not include seismic loads, and
(iii) The mechanism for enforcing strict adherence through design checks at the
because it relies on design checkers who are neither well aware of the
2
Further, the legally mandated requirements and design review process do not
Therefore, ambiguities of the new building construction law coupled with the lack of
introduce a significant risk of endangering the useful life of these expensive projects
Most of the designers working at consulting offices are Bachelor degree holders and
seismic design is not given as independent course at this level. Instead it is given at
engineering.
Thus having mentioned the above problem it is pressing issue to assess the seismic
design practice of Ethiopia. There are many design office in Ethiopia and it is
difficult to get all data so the research will focus on assessing seismic design practice
3
1.2 Objective
The general objective of this thesis is to assess seismic design practice and the overall
The objective of the research was achieved in accordance with the method outlined
below.
I . Literature review: Ethiopia building codes and standards, Eurocode and literatures
II . Data analysis: Structural models from randomly selected design offices will be
collected and analyzed. These structural models are obtained from Addis Ababa
4
1.4 Limitations
This thesis is limited to building structures. Since almost all design offices are not
willing to give design models, the selection criteria is random and only data’s
available from Addis Ababa City Administration is used as input data. Due to time
constrain only 10 models are analyzed. The code used to assess the case studies is
5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
It is well established now that, due to its location right on some of the major tectonic
plates in the world, that is, the African and Arabian plates, earthquakes have been a
fact of life in Ethiopia for a very long time. The earliest record of such earthquake
dates as far back as A.D.1431 during the reign of Emperor Zara Yaqob. In the
20thcentury alone, a study done by Pierre Gouin suggests that as many as 15,000
tremors, strong enough to be felt by humans, had occurred in Ethiopia proper and the
Horn of Africa. A similar study by Fekadu Kebede indicated that there were a total of
active areas in the 20th century alone. The most significant earthquakes of the 20thand
21st centuries like the 1906 Langano earthquake, the1961 Kara Kore earthquake, the
1983 Wondo Genet earthquake, the 1985 Langano earthquake, the 1989 Dobigraben
earthquake in central Afar, the 1993 Adama earthquake, and the 2011 Hosanna
earthquake were all felt in some of the major cities in the country such as Addis
Ababa, Jimma, Adama and Hawassa. In addition to Gouin's book that describes the
earthquakes of 1906 and 1961 that shook Addis Ababa and caused wide spread panic,
vividly describes the effect of the 1906 Langano earthquake in Addis Ababa and
Intoto. In addition to these well documented seismic events starting from the 15th
century, a number of earthquakes have shaken the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER), and
the Southern Rift Valley of the country recently between 2005 and now bringing the
development activities increase in areas close and within the MER, the Afar Triangle
and the Southern Rift Valley of the country, it is expected that the damage on property
6
and loss of human life due to seismic hazard will increase very significantly. One of
the important observations is that newer buildings are experiencing damages under
In terms of the mechanism that gives rise to seismic hazard, the well accepted theory
suggests a simplified model that typically considers three distinct seismic zones in
Ethiopia proper. These are: the Afar Triangle seismic zone (which further consists of
the junction between Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Main Ethiopian Rift), the
Escarpment seismic zone (characterized by north south running faults associated with
some of the devastating earthquakes such as the 1961 magnitude 6.7 Kara Kore
earthquake) and the Ethiopia Rift System seismic zone (which links the Red Sea, Gulf
of Aden with East African Rift system through the Afar Triangle). [1]
exist, the structural damage to infrastructures in the vast part of this period was
obviously very low due to the extreme limitation of built-up environments in the
country. It is only, perhaps, starting from the 1950s and 1960s that one sees what
country, particularly in the seismic-prone areas. For the period between 1960 and
structures like buildings and bridges to some of the large and damaging earthquakes
such as Kara kore (1961) and Serdo (1969). With regard to infrastructural damages
from 1978 onward, there have been isolated reports of which some are unpublished.
Interestingly, this period coincides with a growth in built-up areas and infrastructure
in some of the seismically active areas, particularly MER and the Afar Triangle.
7
Areas where there were no infrastructure damages even under strong ground motions
such as the 6.3 intensity Chabbi Volcano earthquake of 1960 near the present day
Hawassa have now seen encroachment of built-up areas which have suffered damages
under recent but much less strong ground motions. Therefore, it has increasingly
earthquakes are on the rise in the country. A catalogue of these damages presented in
Table 2-1 particularly for the time period after 1978 is a first attempt in understanding
the pattern of damages observed so far and preparing the groundwork for predicting
the potential structural damages that could occur in the years to come. [1]
8
Table 2-1 List of earthquakes and reported damages between 1979 to 2011
9
10
11
The first seismic code for building in Ethiopia was introduced in 1980 (CP1-78). This
code defined four seismic codes regions (that is 0, 1, 2 and 4) with a return period of
100 years and 90% probability of not being exceeded. To each zone, a danger rating
was assigned with no, min, moderate and major corresponding to zones 0, 1, 2 and
4.The CP1-78 code dealt primarily with seismic zoning and determination of
equivalent static loads on structures and left actual a seismic design of structural
members (beams, columns, and shear walls) to the judgment of the engineer with
other established international building codes, primarily UBC, serving as a basis for a
Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete) for guidelines for concrete design.
the Ministry of Works and Urban Development. The seismic zoning was an
improvement over previous codes based on additional data obtained from newer
whole Ethiopian Building Code Standard (EBCS) that consisted of 10 volumes was
which was drafted by CEN (European Committee for Standardization). The seismic
provisions code, EBCS-8: 1995 (Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance), was
also predominantly based on ENV 1998:1994 Euro code8 Design Provisions for
Earthquake Resistance of Structures except the equivalent static load procedure which
still had the UBC influence. The use of the draft Euro code as a model was a
significant departure from earlier codes which used UBC as a model to a large extent.
It appears that there was no overriding technical basis for this departure. Further, the
12
adaptation of this 'draft' code before the Europeans themselves commented on it and
A commonality between all the three codes introduced in the country over the past 30
years is the choice of 100 years return-period in contrast with a 475 years return-
period which is adopted by most codes around the world. The main argument in favor
of this choice has been the relatively economical construction of structures designed
for a less powerful earthquake. In general, PGA (peak ground acceleration) values
corresponding to a return-period of 475 years are about twice those of 100 years
the country is a commendable effort, its legal enforcement was never codified by the
country's legal systems until 2009 when the Ethiopian Building Proclamation
624/2009 was introduced as a legal document that outlines the building regulations
and requirements, for use by local authorities to ensure building standards are
Gouin who used probabilistic approach is credited for the initial attempts in producing
the first seismic hazard map of Ethiopia as shown in Figure 2.1. Gouin's work also
served as a basis for the seismic zoning adopted by the ESCP-1:1983 building code of
Ethiopia (see Figure 2.1b). Since the production of Gouin’s seismic zoning maps,
quite a large number of destructive earthquakes have occurred in the country causing
damages both to property and human life. Further, destructive earthquakes that
occurred in the neighboring countries were not included in the production of the first
map in 1976. Subsequently, Kebede produced a new seismic hazard map of Ethiopia
and its northern neighboring countries to account for these additional earthquake
13
records. Unlike previous works, the seismic zoning of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa
reported by Kebede, Kebede and Asfaw also account for ground motion attenuation in
addition to newer data obtained from such sources as the US National Earthquake
Information Service (NEIS). The works of Kebede and Kebede and Asfaw served as a
basis for the seismic zoning adopted by the current Ethiopian building seismic code -
EBCS-8:1995 as shown in Figure 2.1c. Further, there have been other attempts on
seismic zoning of some of the country’s important economic regions such as the city
of Addis Ababa. The work of the RADIUS project is a notable example. There have
Ethiopia. [1]
A summary of the seismic zonings corresponding to each of these three codes are
given in Figure 2.1. Seismic Zoning of Ethiopia as per CP1-78, ESCP1- 83 and
EBCS-8:1985 all considered 4 seismic zones. The availability of relatively newer data
was credited for the changes in seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per EBCS-8: 1995
which considers some areas in MER to have the same zoning as the severest of the
Afar region. The nature and location of recent damage-causing earthquakes such as
expected to add further support for the need for further improving the current seismic
zoning to account for previously unknown and less understood faults as well as local
14
C
CPI-78 (b) Seismic
S zoniing of Ethioopia as per ESCP-1:198
E 83 (c) Seism
mic Zoning oof
E
Ethiopia as peer EBCS-8:11995. [1]
15
Substantial amount of new data has been accumulated from earthquakes that have
occurred in Ethiopia in the 90s as well as early parts of the current century that
suggest that the current seismic zonings adopted in the codes are incomplete,
inadequate, and non-cognizant of local site effects that could amplify earthquake
effects. Further, the inherent weakness and flaws of basing the country's code on a
'draft' European code that was not even reviewed and critiqued by the Europeans
themselves at that time add a lot of urgency on the call for the substantial review of
the current building code, EBCS-1995. In fact, the European code has not been
accepted 'as is' even by its member states like Italy who have added not insignificant
As stated earlier, the works of Fekadu Kebede and L.M. Asfaw served as a basis for
the seismic zoning adopted by the current Ethiopian building seismic code - EBCS-
probability of exceedance). Associated with this, there are at least three areas that
1. The effects of local site-conditions such as local fault lines and soil conditions for
at least the major population areas need to be considered. While preparing a detailed
one may be too prohibitive of an expense and beyond the means of the country, doing
so for major cities like Addis Ababa, Jimma, Adama, Hawassa, Mekelle, and Dire
Dawa may be a reasonable approach. Even in current practices, there have been
isolated attempts in performing such local site effects for some infrastructure projects
around the country. The inconsistencies of the current seismic zoning devoid of local
16
site-conditions becomes more apparent when considering the case of Addis Ababa
where areas such as Nefas Silk which is only 20 to 25 kilometers away from
DebreZeit (zone 4, α0=0.1) has the same seismic zone 2(α0=0.05) classification as
kilometers away from Nefas Silk and has no overriding geological dissimilarities with
the latter is classified as zone 3 with α0=0.07. Against this background, the work of
L.M. Asfaw's where he showed that there is significant geological and topographic
variation in different parts of Addis Ababa that had resulted in variations in the felt
intensities in past earthquakes adds another dimension to the argument .In general,
L.M. Asfaw's work suggests that the southwestern part of Addis Ababa mainly
consists of thick alluvium deposits whereas the northern part of the city has prominent
topographies (mountains) with thin soil cover. Both types of topographies are known
to increase felt intensities. Interestingly, L.M. Asfaw shows that, due to local site
effects, the felt intensities in Intoto area (seismic zone 2 according to EBCS-8:1995)
were higher than those in the southeast of the city towards Bole field (seismic zone 3).
Therefore, until a complete site specific zoning is available sometime in the future, it
is suggested that for consistency purposes as well as conservative designs the city of
Addis Ababa and its industrial surroundings adopt similar seismic zoning of at least
zone 3. This could be addressed, for example, by establishing the contour lines of
seismic zones near major metropolitan areas to be continuous with no jump in zones
2. The current code considers a return-period of 100 years only which effectively
reduces peak ground acceleration by almost half as compared to the commonly used
before, economic considerations were often cited as the main argument in favor of
17
this choice. However, this view needs a revisit in light of the current significant boom
foreseeable future despite some hiccups along the way as well as with regard to
continuity and compatibility of risk levels in the region and beyond. Does the cost-
saving in designing for lower seismic loads offset the risk of losing large investments
in these infrastructures due to large earthquakes with return periods of 200 to 475
years? While it may be argued that a return-period of 475 years may introduce a
sudden substantial jump in cost, that the level of investment going to these structures
Further, it is suggested that for large infrastructure projects such as dams, bridges,
codes as is done elsewhere, the tendency to use existing practice of 100 year return
period should also be discouraged and disallowed and the proposed use of 475 years
3. While the catalogue of earthquakes used for the current zoning extended up until
1990 only, the earthquakes that have occurred since then in the past 20 years have
some interesting aspects that could have a bearing on the current seismic zonings. A
good example is the 5.3 magnitude Sunday December 19, 2010 Hosanna earthquake
that injured as many as 26 students in Jimma and damaged buildings. While the
current seismic zoning puts Jimma in seismic one 1(with α0=0.03) and the city is at
least 100 kilometers away from the epicenter, the damage caused is surprising.
Interestingly, the city of Jimma had always felt the effect of past earthquakes in the
MER (Main Ethiopian Rift) and SMR (Southern Most Rift) including the Woito
earthquake swarm of October -December 1987 that rattled the city and its residents.
As development in the Jimma area expands, the damage from earthquakes centered in
18
the MER, SMR and beyond could cause more damages and this current classification
Buildings are designed by architects and engineers. Architects are responsible for the
size, shape and proportion of the 3D form of the building. Architectural configuration
determines the location, shape and approximate size of structural and nonstructural
resistance is accomplished through structural means, the architectural design and the
decision that create it, play a major role in determining the building’s seismic
performance. [5]
1. The aspect of seismic hazard shall be taken into consideration in the early stages of
→ Structural simplicity
19
Attributes Benefits
Low width-to-depth ratio Low torsional effects
Low height-to-base width/depth ratio Low overturning effects
Similar story heights Elimination of weak/soft story
Short spans Low unit stress and deformation
Symmetrical plan shape Elimination/reduction of torsion
Identical resistance on both axes Balanced resistance in all directions
Uniform plan/elevation stiffness Elimination of stress concentrations
Uniform plan/elevation resistance Elimination of stress concentrations
Uniform plan/elevation ductility High energy dissipation
Perimeter lateral resisting systems High torsional resistance potential
Redundancy High plastic redistribution
Direct load path, no cantilevers Elimination of stress concentration
2.6.2.1 General
For the purpose of seismic design, building structures are distinguished as regular and
design:
→ The structural model, which can be either a simplified planar or a spatial one,
→ The value of the behavior factor which can be either increased or decreased
20
2. The plan configuration is compact, that is it does not present divided shapes as H, I,
X, etc. The total dimension of re-entrant corner or recesses in one direction does not
exceed 25% of the overall external plan dimension of the building in the
corresponding direction.
3. The in-plan stiffness of the floor is sufficiently large in comparison with the lateral
stiffness of the vertical structural elements so that the deformation of the floor has a
smaller effect on the distribution of the forces among the vertical structural elements.
4. Under the seismic force distribution, applied with the accidental eccentricity at any
story, the maximum displacement in the direction of the seismic forces does not
21
1. All lateral load resisting systems, like cores, structural walls or frames, run without
interruption from their foundation to the top of the building or, when setback at
different heights are present, to the top of the relevant zone of the building.
2. Both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual stories remain constant or
reduced gradually, without abrupt changes, from the base to the top.
3. In framed building the ration of the actual story resistance to the resistance required
floor is not greater than 20% of the previous plan dimension in the direction of
b) In case of single setbacks within the lower 15% of the total height of the main
structural system, the setback is not greater than 50% of the previous plan
dimension (see Figure 2.2c). In that case the structure of the base zone within
resist at least 75% of the horizontal shear forces that would develop in that
c) In case the setbacks do not preserve symmetry, in each face of the sum of the
setbacks at all story is not greater than 30% of the plan dimension at the first
story, and the individual setbacks are not greater than 10% of the previous
22
2.7 Structu
ural analysiis accordingg to EBCS 8-1995
8
2.7.1 Moodeling
1. The model
m of thhe buildingss shall adeqquately repreesent the distribution
d oof
2. In gen
neral, the strructure may be considerred to consisst of a numbber of vertical
3. Whenn the floor diaphragms of the buildings are ssufficiently rigid in theeir
plane,, the masses and the mooments of innertia of eachh floor may be lumped at
the ceenter of gravvity, thus redducing the ddegrees of freeedoms to thhree per flooor
(two horizontal
h diisplacementss and a rotatiion about thee vertical axxis).
23
4. For buildings complying with the criteria for regularity in plan, the analysis
can be performed using two planar models, one for each main direction.
5. Infill wall which increase significantly the lateral stiffness of the building
masses and in the spatial variation of seismic motion, the calculated center of mass at
each floor i shall be considered displaced from its nominal location in each direction
by an additional eccentricity.
Where
action. [2]
building satisfying plan and elevation regularity and having fundamental periods of
vibration T1 in the two main directions less than 2 second. Dynamic analysis is
24
performed for building which are irregular and response is affected by contribution
Sd(T1)= αβγ………………………………………………………………………...(2.3)
α=αoI
Where αo is the bedrock acceleration ratio from the site and depends on the
seismic zone.
I=importance factor
Zone 4 3 2 1
αo 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03
25
.
β= / 2.5…………………………………………………………….. (2.4)
β is response factor
26
T1=C1H3\4…………………………………………………………………………. (2.5)
γ = γoKDKRKW ≤ 0.70……………………………………………………...(2.6)
KW-factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in strucutral system with wall
27
Structural type γo
Frame system 0.20
Dual wall Frame equiavalent 0.20
Wall equivalent, 0.20
with couple walls
Wall equivalent, 0.2
with uncouple walls
Wall system With coupled walls 0.2
With uncoupled walls 0.25
Core system 0.30
Inverted pendlum system 0.50
KD =1 for DC “H”
=2 for DC “L”
The factor KW reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural system with walls
28
Second order effect (P-∆ effect) need not be considered when the following
∗
θ= ≤ 0.10………………………………………………………....(2.7)
∗
Where
ds = de\γd…………………………………………………..………(2.8)
29
h= interstory height
the structure
dr ≤ 0.01h…………………………………………….…….(2.9)
dr ≤ 0.015h………………………………………..………(2.10)
where
h= building height
Frame member stiffness should reflect the degree of cracking and inelastic action
which has occurred along each member before yielding. Non-linearity arises from the
stress strain relation of the materials. The development of cracks in the concrete and
maximum load and bending moment induced in a column cannot readily be related to
the loads acting on the structure. The column rigidity depends on the axial load of the
moment variation along the length, the percentage reinforcement, the steel placement,
30
the strength of steel and concrete, and their critical strain values. However, in braced
frames the relative values of stiffness are important. Two usual assumptions are to use
gross EI values for all members or, to use half the gross EI of the beam stem for
beams and the gross EI for columns. For frames that are free to sway, a realistic
estimate of EI is desirable and should be used if 2nd order analysis are carried out. [4]
The stiffness’s appropriate for strength calculations must estimate the lateral
deflections accurately at the factored load level. They must be simple to apply,
because a frame consists of many cross sections, with differing reinforcement ratios
distributions are not known at the time the analysis is carried out. Using studies of the
flexural stiffness of beams with cracked and uncracked regions, MacGregor and Hage
recommended that the beam stiffness’s be taken as 0.4EcIg when carrying out a
second-order analysis. In ACI Code Section 10.10.4.1, this value has been multiplied
frame are influenced by the stiffness of all the members in the frame and by the
variable degree of cracking of these members. Thus, the EI used in the frame analysis
frame, the EI used in calculating must be for that column. This EI must reflect the
greater chance that a particular column will be more cracked, or weaker, than the
overall average; hence, this EI will tend to be smaller than the average EI for all the
columns acting together. ACI Code Section 10.10.4.1 gives this value multiplied by
0.875, EI=0.70EcIg or for this purpose. The value of EI for shear walls may be taken
equal to the value for beams in those parts of the structure where the wall is cracked
by flexure or shear and equal to the value for columns where the wall is uncracked. If
31
the factored moments and shears from an analysis based on for the walls indicate that
a portion of the wall will crack due to stresses reaching the modulus of rupture of the
wall concrete, the analysis should be repeated with for the cracked parts of the wall.
[4]
Thus based on studies Mac-Grigor recommends these two equations when carrying
EI beam= 0.35EcIg
EI column= 0.7EcIg
Euro code 8-2004 states unless a more accurate analysis of the cracked elements is
performed, the elastic flexural and shear stiffness properties of concrete and masonry
elements may be taken to be equal to one half of the corresponding stiffness of the
uncracked elements.
While modeling the structural system, if the slab is modeled as part of the lateral force
resisting system, the structure becomes very stiff and the load transferred to the main
structural elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. Normally floor
slabs are designed for the gravity loading only. During lateral load such as
earthquakes they act as diaphragms, i.e. the slab is required to connect all vertical
elements together and distribute the seismic forces to the lateral load resisting
systems. Therefore in the analysis model, either only the lateral force resisting
elements (beams, columns and walls) have to be considered, or else the stiffness of
the slabs have to be significantly reduced if the slabs are modeled together.
32
EBCS8 states that the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes considered
amount to at least 90% of the total mass of the structure. If this cannot be satisfied, the
If base shear determine from static analysis is greater than dynamic analysis, base
shear in the given direction must be scaled up according to EBCS 8. The base shear
must be increased in the corresponding direction by 100% for irregular building and
33
3 RESULT
The structural system of model one which is a mixed use building consists of solid
and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced
700x700mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 200mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 500x300mm and
700x300mm were used to support the roof system. Basement and Ground floor
Beams with dimension 300x600mm and floor beams of 500x300mm and 700x300mm
were used to stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential foundation
settlement. Roof for this building consists of ribbed slab of 300mm thickness. The
codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European Code
2-1992 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was
used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
5.7 and 6 meter along the long axis and 6.71, 6.55, 5.55, and 5.66 meter along the
short axis. The building has similar story height of 3.06 meter, unsymmetrical in plan
and elevation and has identical resistance in both direction which is moment resisting
34
3..1.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corners exxceed the lim
The mits. Table
3 shows lim
3-1 mit of re-enttrant corner.
T
Table 3-1 Lim
mit of re-en
ntrant corneers in meterr
35
In EBCS8-1995 the limit for individual set back that does not preserve symmetry
shall be less than 0.10 and for setback occurring above 0.15H, H is total height of the
36
building, shall be less than 0.20. But as it can be seen from table 3-3 all setbacks
Location Individual Set back that do not Set back occurring above
preserve symmetry 0.15H
Right side elevation 0.17 0.45
Front\rear elevation 0.13 0.28
Left side elevation 0.2,0.23,0.3 Within the limit
the limit
In model one the structure is configured properly except for unsymmetrical plan and
elevation shape, irregularity in plan and elevation and there is cantilever. Table 3-5
37
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
38
Lateral loading is a static seismic load (Earthquake load) which was found to be
significant thus considered. The following five load combinations are used.
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
Accidental eccentricity ratio of 5% is used by the software from auto seismic input
39
Direction X Y
Eccentricity Ratio 0.05 0.05
Period Calculated User Defined User Defined
User T 1.07 1.07
Top Story Upper roof Upper roof
Bottom Story Base Base
Rw 3.33 3.33
Z (zone factor) 0.07 0.07
S 1.2 1.2
I (importance factor) 1.2 1.2
TUsed 1.07 1.07
H= 42
T1 = 1.24
Behavioural
γ= γoKdKrKw factor
γ= 0.3 1/ γ= 3.33
S= 1.2
40
α= 0.084
Importance
Serviceability limit state and ultimate limit state is shown in table 3-10 and 3-11
respectively. Serviceability limit state is not satisfied from the first story to top roof.
Second order effect (P-∆) should be considered since the interstory drift sensitivity
coefficient (θ) exceeds 0.1as shown in table 3-11. Ultimate limit state is satisfied.
41
Table 3-10 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter.
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural Remark
Design Story
elastically behavioural system interstory
Story Building interstory drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift as a
ht ht drift limit
from assumed the design parameter
∆r=∆i-∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ seismic (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Upper
1.04 34.7 0.22510 0.3 0.75033 0.02200 0.0104 Not satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 0.21850 0.3 0.72833 0.07667 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
10 3.06 30.6 0.19550 0.3 0.65167 0.07500 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
9 3.06 27.54 0.17300 0.3 0.57667 0.07300 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
8 3.06 24.48 0.15110 0.3 0.50367 0.07367 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
7 3.06 21.42 0.12900 0.3 0.43000 0.07333 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
6 3.06 18.36 0.10700 0.3 0.35667 0.07133 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
5 3.06 15.3 0.08560 0.3 0.28533 0.08367 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
4 3.06 12.24 0.06050 0.3 0.20167 0.04233 0.0306 Not satisfied
rd
3 3.06 9.18 0.04780 0.3 0.15933 0.05767 0.0306 Not satisfied
nd
2 3.06 6.12 0.03050 0.3 0.10167 0.05000 0.0306 Not satisfied
st
1 3.06 3.06 0.01550 0.3 0.05167 0.03800 0.0306 Not satisfied
Ground 3.06 0 0.00410 0.3 0.01367 0.00967 0.0306 satisfied
st
1
3.06 -3.06 0.00120 0.3 0.00400 0.00267 0.0306 satisfied
basement
2nd
2 -6.12 0.00040 0.3 0.00133 0.00133 0.02 satisfied
basement
Base 0 -8.12
42
Table 3-11 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Total Total
factored unfactore Remark on
Design gravity d gravity interstory
Vx θ=
Story Story Building interstory load at load at θlimit drift
(story (Ptot*dr)
No ht ht drift and and ≤0.25 sensitivity
shear) /(Vtot/h)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 above the above the coefficient
story story (U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
Upper
1.04 34.7 1.04 636.95 489.96 453.9 0.02 0.25 Satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 3.06 3603.54 2771.95 917.3 0.08 0.25 Satisfied
th
10 3.06 30.6 3.06 9188.21 7067.85 1444 0.12 0.25 Satisfied
th
9 3.06 27.54 3.06 15145.00 11650.00 1980 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
th
8 3.06 24.48 3.06 21171.62 16285.86 2480 0.16 0.25 Satisfied
th
7 3.06 21.42 3.06 27205.19 20927.07 2930 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
th
6 3.06 18.36 3.06 33215.38 25550.29 3332 0.18 0.25 Satisfied
th
5 3.06 15.3 3.06 39907.82 30698.32 3692 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
th
4 3.06 12.24 3.06 48752.92 37502.25 4105 0.13 0.25 Satisfied
rd
3 3.06 9.18 3.06 53805.28 41388.68 4467 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
nd
2 3.06 6.12 3.06 66280.13 50984.72 4761 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
st
1 3.06 3.06 3.06 75416.24 58012.49 4998 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 3.06 0 3.06 83645.91 64343.01 5212 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
st
1
3.06 -3.06 3.06 92488.24 71144.80 5353 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
2nd
2 -6.12 -6.12 97313.26 74856.35 5382 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
Base 0 -8.12
43
3.1.3 Summary
Model one is not regular and unsymmetrical in plan and elevation thus dynamic
analysis should be considered. The designer has made dynamic analysis since the
structure is not regular in plan and elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a
fundamental period of 4.392 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 3.015 second
was found and for mode 3 a period of 2.363 second was found. Rigid diaphragms are
assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam, slab, wall and column section
which is EI beam= 0.26EcIg, EI slab= 0.26EcIg, EI wall= 0.26EcIg and EI column= 0.26EcIg
Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient exceeds 0.1 thus second order effect must be
considered. In model one second order effect is considered. In this paper work
Eurocode is used to analyze the models. Thus using stiffness modification factors as
per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting frame the result will be
compared. The slab is modeled as part of lateral force resisting system. But in the
modified model the slab will be designed for gravity load only. While transferring the
rib beam to the girder beam the model was unstable. Thus the stiffness of rib beam is
Accidental eccentricity ratio of 0.05% is used by the software from auto seismic input
data. The load combination used by the designer is only 5. There should be a
minimum of 9 load combination. But the designer did not consider load combination
44
The designer found in his/her statical calculation a fundamental period of 1.24 second
In the calculation of behavioural factor, Kr value of 1.25 should have been used
instead of 1, since the structure is not regular. But the designer took a value of 1 for Kr
considering the structure as regular. The selection of zone 3 for Addis Ababa is great
choice for conservative design. Response spectrum function of UBC 97 has been used
and seismic coefficient of Ca and Cv value of 0.4 has been used. The designer has
used Cv value of 0.4 which is not on UBC. Thus there is inconsistency between input
Minimum number of modes is not used. Thus in the modified model 18 modes must
be considered.
As seen from table 3-12 the base shear determined using dynamic analysis is greater
than static analysis. Thus there is no need to scale up the base shear.
Load FX FY
EQXP -4.12E+03 8.38E-04
45
Rw value of 2.6
Considering 18 modes
Shear force and bending moment of beam and column of modified result will be
Table 3-13 and 3-14 shows that both service limit state and Ultimate limit state are
satisfied.
46
Table 3-13 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters.
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural Remark
Design story
elastically behavioural system interstory
Story Building interstory drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift as a
ht ht drift limit
from assumed the design parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ seismic (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Upper 1.04 34.70 0.0806 0.375 0.215 0.007 0.010 Satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 0.0778 0.375 0.207 0.017 0.031 Satisfied
47
Table 3-14 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in
meters
10th 3.06 30.60 0.022 -9598.27 -7383.28 -1149 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
9th 3.06 27.54 0.021 -15031.99 -11563.07 -1557 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
8th 3.06 24.48 0.022 -20454.44 -15734.18 -1931 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
7th 3.06 21.42 0.021 -25960.31 -19969.47 -2270 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
6th 3.06 18.36 0.021 -31568.06 -24283.12 -2573 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
5th 3.06 15.30 0.017 -37311.49 -28701.15 -2843 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
4th 3.06 12.24 0.019 -45303.52 -34848.86 -3168 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
3rd 3.06 9.18 0.017 -53396.46 -41074.20 -3453 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 3.06 6.12 0.015 -61241.06 -47108.51 -3683 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.06 3.06 0.011 -69829.66 -53715.12 -3869 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 3.06 0.00 0.003 -94033.27 -72333.28 -4011 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.06 -3.06 0.001 -84714.95 -65165.35 -4016 0.00 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
2nd 2.00 -6.12 0.000 -76446.12 -58804.71 -4124 0.00 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
Base 0.00 -8.12
48
Table 3-15 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
increase in M2
increase in M3
increase in V2
increase in V3
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
49
Table 3-16 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
M2
M3
V2
V3
0 28 119 329 65 184 185
Roof
1.38 30 13.9
2.76 -18 -85 383 -22 -101 351
1.38 18 15.5
2.76 -39 -115 196 -20 -93 376
Envelope X and Y
1.38 21 17.8
2.76 -36 -107 196 -22 -94 329
C42
1.38 10 6.24
2.76 -35 -101 186 -21 -87 312
1.38 29 29.8
2.76 -52 -131 153 -31 -112 260
1.38 -3 -0.4
2.76 1 -37 2475 -58 -146 151
0 -12 24 96 85 165 96
2nd
50
51
Table 3-17 Comparison for beam moment and Shear force for envelope X and Y
in KN-m
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
M3
V2
0.25 -94 -317 237 -121 -221 82
0.739 -83 -274 230 -78 -76 -3
1.228 -72 -211 193 -40 44 9
1.716 -61 -128 110 -7 128 1605
B23801
52
B23827
2.691 8 -32 300 47 174 272
3.159 31 28 -9 38 174 363
3.627 35 80 126 22 148 574
4.095 40 123 211 5 101 2127
4.564 41 156 284 -6 35 481
5.032 45 180 305 -24 -44 81
5.5 48 195 304 -45 -133 198
53
Table 3-18 Comparison for beam moment and shear force for envelope X and Y
in KN-m
increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
0.25 -244 -398 63 -201 -349 73
B25065
0.36 -242 -392 62 -175 -306 75
0 -222 -365 64 -174 -305 75
B25066
0.36 -214 -347 62 -96 -177 85
0 -195 -319 64 -95 -177 86
B25067
0.36 -186 -302 62 -27 -65 146
0 -166 -274 64 -26 -65 152
B25068
0.36 -158 -256 62 33 30 -7
0 -138 -228 65 33 30 -9
B25069
0.36 -130 -210 62 81 109 34
0 -101 -173 71 82 109 33
B25070
0.363 -92 -155 68 117 169 44
0 -73 -127 75 118 169 44
B25071
0.363 -64 -109 71 143 212 49
0 -44 -81 85 143 212 48
B25072
0.363 -35 -63 80 158 238 51
Envelope X and Y
54
As seen from the table above there is a significant increase in column and beam
moment and shear force after modification has been made for envelope X and Y.
55
The structural system of model two which is a mixed use building consists of solid
slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced concrete columns
200x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Retaining wall with 250mm
thickness was used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 250x400mm were used
to support the roof system. Basement and Ground floor Beams with dimension
250x400mm and floor beams of 250x400mm, 300x450 and 300x500mm were used to
stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof
The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
4 and 4.9 meters along x- axis and 4.8 along the y- axis. The building has similar story
height of 3meters, symmetrical plan and elevation and has identical resistance in both
56
3..2.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corner excceeds the lim
The mit.
M
Model two satisfy the reequirement for
f regularitty in elevatiion as stated
d in EBCS 88-
1995.
Inn model twoo the structural is configgured properrly except foor irregularitty in plan annd
thhere is cantillever.
E
EBCS 8-1995 response spectrum has been useed. On response spectruum case data
faactor is inseerted in response spectruum case in x and y- dirrection. Thee designer haas
used softwaree generated sseismic desiggn in which the softwaree will calcullate the periood
A
Accidental ecccentricity iss not taken inn to account in the design.
57
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked and its within the limit.
3.2.3 Summary
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan.
From dynamic analysis for mode1 a fundamental period of 1.915 second was found,
for mode 2 a period of 1.63 second was found and for mode 3 a period of 1.33 second
was found. For structures which are regular in elevation but not in plan and having a
fundamental period less than 2 second EBCS 8-1995 suggest to use static analysis.
This is the case for model two and the designer has made dynamic analysis. Rigid
diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The load combination used
by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider load combination for
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam and slab section which is EI beam and
slab= 0.26EcIg have been used. The columns are designed as sway frame but stiffness
reduction for column is not made in model two. Stiffness reduction should have been
used in sway column since second order analysis has been carried out. In this paper
Eurocode is used to analyze the models. Thus using stiffness modification factors as
per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting frame the result will be
compared. The slab is analyzed as membrane material so that it will not contribute to
As seen from table3-26 the base shear determined using dynamic analysis is less than
static analysis. Thus the base shear in the given direction must be scaled up according
58
to EBCS 8. The base shear must be increased in the corresponding direction by 100%
Load FX FY
EQXP -6.700E+02 2.268E-11
EQXN -6.700E+02 -1.296E-10
EQYP 6.8250E-10 -6.700E+02
EQYN 1.4420E-09 -6.700E+02
RSEQXP 4.1130E+02 1.5470E+01
RSEQYN 1.5470E+01 5.027E+02
RSEQXP 4.1130E+02 1.5470E+01
RSEQYP 1.5470E+01 5.027E+02
The designer used 3 modes and minimum number of modes is not used. It is satisfied
using 12 modes.
Considering 12 modes
59
Shear force and bending moment of beams and columns of modified result was
compared with the original one. The result shows that there is significant increase in
After modification, serviceability limit and ultimate limit state was checked and it’s
found that serviceability limit state is not satisfied for 1st and 2nd floor. Detail
60
3.3 Model 3:- Three Basement + Ground + 16 story + Roof + Top Roof
The structural system consists of mat and solid slab elements with a beam-column
900x900mm and 700x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls
with 250mm and 350mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with
size 500x300mm and 700x300mm were used to support the roof system. Basement
and Ground floor Beams with dimension 220x80mm and 500x300mm and floor
beams of 500x300mm, 600x300, 800x400 and 700x300mm were used to stabilize the
entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this
The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
3.95, 7.5, 4.5 and 5.5 meter along x- axis and 5.3, 7.5 and 6.8 meter along y- axis. The
building has story height of 2.5 meter from the base to 1st basement, 3.06 meter from
1st basement to ground floor, 3.74 meter from the ground floor to 6th floor and story
height of 3.4 meter till top roof. The structure has identical resistance in both
61
Figure 3.3
3 Three diimensional view
v of mod
del three
3..3.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corners exxceed the lim
The mits.
Inn EBCS8-19995 the limitt for individuual set back that doesn’tt preserve sy
ymmetry shaall
buuilding, shalll be less thaan 0.20. But all setbacks exceed the limit.
l
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and mass of the indivvidual story shall remain constant or
o
reeduced graddually withouut abrupt chhange from the But in the 9th
t base to the top [2].B
ellevation.
Inn model thrree the struccture is connfigured prooperly exceppt for non-u
uniform storry
height, there is
i cantileverr and irregulaarity in plan and elevatioon.
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
annd Cv value of 0.4 has been used. Thhe designer has used Cv value of 0.4
4 which is noot
62
on UBC. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted similar to model
one. But there is inconsistency between input data and data from codes.
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software. Base shear
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software. Accidental
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked. Serviceability limit
state is not satisfied from 2nd floor to roof terrace and ultimate limit state is satisfied.
3.3.3 Summary
Second order effect (P-∆) should be considered since interstory drift sensitivity
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam and slab EI beam, slab= 0.26EcIgis
used and for column section stiffness modification factor of 0.7 is used. The columns
should be designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam, slab= 0.5EcIgand EI column= 0.5EcIg
should be used in sway column since second order analysis has to be carried out as
per Eurocode.
The slab is modeled as shell element with stiffness reduction of 0.26EcIg. But in the
modified model the slab will be designed for gravity load only. The slab will be
analyzed as membrane.
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan and
elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of 4.2957 second
was found, for mode 2 a period of 2.7838 second was found and for mode 3 a period
of 2.1475 second was found. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that
63
the floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action.
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider
load combination for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. Detail
64
The structural system consists of ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame
was used. Circular reinforced concrete columns with diameter 400mm, 350mm,
300mm, 600mm, 550mm, and 500mmwere used to take up all the vertical loads.
Shear walls with 200mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with
size 500x300mm and 350x250mm were used to support the roof system. Basement
and Ground floor Beams with dimension 400x300mm and 500x300mm and floor
beams of 500x300mm, and 550x300 were used to stabilize the entire building loads
and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this building consists of solid
slab of 60mm thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard
(EBCS-1) and European Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by
the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and design of the building by
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
4.8, 5.5, 5.3, 3.35 and 5.45 meters along x- axis and 4.75, 5.8 and 5 meter along the y-
axis. The building has story height of 3 meter from the base to ground floor, 3.05
meter from ground to mezzanine floor, 2.9 meter from mezzanine floor to 1th floor,
3.1 meter from 1st floor to 3rd floor, 3 meter from 3rd floor to 9th floor, 2.85 meter from
9th floor to 10th floor and2.75 meter from 10th floor to 11th floor. The building has
identical resistance in both directions which is moment resisting frame and wall.
65
Figure 3.4
3 Three dimensional
d view of model four
3..4.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T
There m first to tentth floor and satisfies thee requiremennt
is a unniform open down from
Inn EBCS8-19
995 the limiit for indiviidual set bacck that doess not preserrve symmetrry
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and mass of the indivvidual story shall remain constant or
o
reeduced grad
dually withoout abrupt change
c from
m the base to
t the top [2].
[ But from
m
m
mezzanine to 2nd floor 4000x400mm column
c reducce to 300x4000mm colum
mn and finallly
inncrease to 3550x400mm.T
This change has been obbserved on ssix columns located at thhe
Inn model fouur the strucctural is connfigured prooperly exceppt for non-u
uniform storry
66
Response spectrum function of UBC 97 has been used and seismic coefficient of Ca
and Cv value of 0.4 has been used. The designer has used Cv value of 0.4 which is not
on UBC. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted similar to model
one. But there is inconsistency between input data and data from codes.
Static seismic load case which is UBC 97 is used by the software. Program calculated
period is used by the software. Seismic coefficient used as per code is adopted by the
software for soil type C and seismic zone factor of 0.4 is used which indicate that the
indicates that the building is ordinary building. An overstrength factor of 8.5 is used.
Near source factor is used as per code. Seismic source type B and distance to source
of 15 km was used.
Analysis result on the software shows that the strucuture is not stable. Thus the
analysis result can not be used to check seismic design process. Thus ultimate limit
3.4.3 Summary
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular in plan.
Stiffness reduction is not used for beam and column section. The slab is modeled as
Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. On the same floor level two
diaphragms are assigned. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at floor levels. Accidental
67
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer did not consider
The engineer who designed this building might not submit the final draft or he might
have made the design of the structure without checking the warning of the analysis
result on the software. Hopefully the second one might not be the case. This shows
the carelessness of the designer not to submit the final structural model. Due to this
appendices.
68
The structural system of model five which is apartment building consists of solid, flat
and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced
concrete column of 600x400mm and 200x250mm were used to take up all the vertical
loads. Shear walls with 200mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams
with size 200x400mm were used to support the roof system. Basement and Ground
floor beams with dimension 250x600mm and floor beams of 250x300mm and
200x400mm were used to stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential
foundation settlement. Roof for this building consists of solid slab of 150mm
thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and
software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and design of the building by
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
5 and 6 meter along x-axis and 5.9 meter along y-axis. The building has story height
of 3.23 meters from ground to 1st floor, 3.06 meter from 2nd to 8th floor, 3.23 meter
from 9th to 10th floor, 3.06 meter on 11th floor and 3 meter on lift roof. The structure
has identical resistance in both direction which is moment resisting frame and wall.
69
3..5.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structuree is not regullar in plan siince re-entraant corners eexceed the liimits stated in
The i
E
EBCS 8-1995
5.
A lateral looad resistingg systems, liike cores, sttructural waalls or framees, shall ruun
All
w
without interrruption from
m their founndation to the
t top of the
t building [2]. On thhis
m
model there are
a columns that start at the eighth floor
f and runn to ninth flooor which arre
Inn model five the structuure is configured propeerly except for varying story heighht,
R
Response C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
speectrum functtion of UBC
annd Cv value of 0.4 has been used. Thhe designer has used Cv value of 0.4
4 which is noot
onne. But theree is inconsistency betweeen input datta and data frrom codes.
70
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software .Base shear
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software. Accidental
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked and its within the limit.
3.5.3 Summary
The designer did not made dynamic analysis but the structure is not regular in plan
and elevation. Dynamic analysis should have been performed since the structure is
irregular.
Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. Same type of rigid
diaphragm is assigned for different story level. This is wrong modeling and different
diaphragms should have been assigned at different story levels since each story resist
in different way from the rest. This is due to difference in mass and stiffness at each
story level.
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column= 0.5EcIg
should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been carried
out. Stiffness reduction must be done for the slab since the slab as lateral force
resisting system.
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer did not consider
load combination for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. Detail
71
The structural system of model six consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a
500mm and 600mm and rectangular reinforced concrete column of 700x400mm and
300x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 200mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 400x250mm,
Basement and Ground floor Beams with dimension 400x250mm and floor beams of
entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this
building consists of solid slab of 200mm thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian
Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European Code 2-2004 almost similar to
EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
6 meter along x-axis and 5.5 and 6 meter along the y-axis. The building has uniform
story height of 3.06 meter from ground to the roof. The structure is Symmetrical in
plan and elevation, has identical resistance in both direction which is moment
72
3..6.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is regular inn plan and saatisfies the reequirement sstated in EBCS 8-1995.
The
T structuree is regular in
The i elevation and satisfiees the requirement statedd in EBCS 88-
1995.
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coefficient of Ca
C
onne. But theree is inconsistency betweeen input datta and data frrom codes.
w
which showss that it locaated on zonne 2, site cooefficient, S,, 1.2 is usedd, importancce
73
Design interstory drift and Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient calculation is not
done since the structural elements like columns and beams have failed and shear wall
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular in plan and
elevation.
3.6.3 Summary
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column, wall=
0.5EcIg should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been
carried out.
The slab is designed as part of lateral force resisting system. Thus stiffness reduction
A rigid diaphragm is not assigned at each story level thus the floors does not act as
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider
The model which is submitted is not final design since shear wall design is not
included and structural elements have failed. This shows the carelessness of
engineers. Since this model is already constructed it’s hard to say its final design. Due
to this result in-depth assessment could not be made. Detail calculation is shown in
the appendices.
74
3.7 Model 7:- Two Basement + Ground + 10 story + Roof + Roof Top
The structural system consists of solid slab elements with a beam-column frame
400x300mm and 400x250mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls
with 250mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size
500x250mm were used to support the two basements, ground and roof system. Floor
beams of 500x250mmand 600x400mm were used to stabilize the entire building loads
The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 2.1, 3, 4,
5.7 and 3 meter along x- axis and 1.28, 4.40 and 6.25meter along y- axis. The building
has story height of 2 meter from base to 1st basement, 2.2 meter from 2nd basement to
ground floor, 2.8 meter from the ground floor to top roof. The structure has identical
75
Figure 3.7
3 Three diimensional view
v of mod
del seven
3..7.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is regular inn plan and saatisfies the reequirement sstated in EBCS 8-1995.
The
A lateral load resisting systems, likke cores, strructural wallls or framess, run withouut
All
innterruption from
f their fooundation too the top of the buildingg[2]. But in this structurre
ellevation.
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
annd Cv value of 0.4 has been used. Thhe designer has used Cv value of 0.4
4 which is noot
onne. But theree is inconsistency betweeen input datta and data frrom codes.
76
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software .Base shear
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked and its within the limit.
3.7.3 Summary
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column, wall=
0.5EcIg should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been
carried out. The slab is designed as lateral force resisting system thus stiffness
The structure is regular but the designer has made dynamic analysis. The designer has
made dynamic analysis. From dynamic analysis for mode1 a fundamental period of
1.6933 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 1.6080 was found and for mode 3 a
Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The load combination used
by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider load combination for
earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. For lateral load combination,
combo1 must be multiplied by 0.75. But the designer made 0.9*combo 1. Detail
77
The structural system consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column
diameter 500mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 150mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Ground floor Beams with size
400x200mm, Floor beams with size 300x400mm, 300x300mm, and 500x300mm and
roof beam 300x200mm and 400x200mm were used to stabilize the entire building
The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 3, 4 and
8 meters along x- axis and 5and 6 meters along y- axis. The building has story height
of 3.6meter from the ground to 1stfloor, 2.3 meter from 1st to 7th floor, 3 meter from
the 7th floor to roof and 2.6 meter at top roof. The structure has identical resistance in
78
Figure 3.8
3 Three diimensional view of mod
del eight
3..8.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is regular inn plan and saatisfies the reequirement sstated in EBCS 8-1995.
The
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and the mass
m of the individual story
s remainn constant oor
Inn model eighht the structuure is configgured properrly except foor irregularity
y in elevatioon
U seismic loads Fx andd Fy are assiggned on the diaphragms at the centeer of mass annd
User
seeismic loadss used for moodel eight which is takenn from ETAB
BS.
79
Story Diaphragm Fx Fy Mz
Roof D8 281.64 281.64 0
5th D6 395.43 395.43 0
4th D5 328.21 328.21 0
3rd D4 260.95 260.95 0
2nd D3 205.03 205.03 0
1st D2 136.69 136.69 0
Ground D1 30.93 30.93 0
3.8.3 Summary
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column, wall=
0.5EcIg should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been
carried out. Stiffness reduction must be done since the slab is designed as lateral force
resisting system.
The load combination used in the design software is not on EBCS. Shear wall design
is not included in the design thus ULS and SLS is not checked.
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular. Rigid
diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. Detail calculation is shown
in the appendices.
80
The structural system consists of solid slab elements with a beam-column frame
up all the vertical loads. Beams with size 400x250mm were used to support the
ground floor system. Floor beams of 400x200mmwere used to stabilize the entire
The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 4.4 and
4.8 meter along x- axis and 3, 3.1 and 3.2 meter along y- axis. The building has story
height of 3.4 meter from the ground floor to first floor, 3.06 meter from first to roof
floor, 2.86 meter from the roof to top roof. The structure has identical resistance in
81
Figure 3.9
3 Three dimensional
d view of model nine
3..9.1.1 Plan
n regularity
A lateral load resisting systems, likke cores, strructural wallls or framess, run withouut
All
innterruption from
f their foundation
fo too the top off the buildinng[2]. But att the top rooof
thhere are two columns thaat start from roof and runn to top rooff. Thus the sttructure is noot
reegular in elev
vation.
Inn model nine the structuure is configgured properrly except foor irregularitty in plan annd
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
annd Cv value of 0.4 has beeen used whhich is taken from UBC 997. The desiigner has useed
82
spectrum is plotted similar to model one. But there is inconsistency between input
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software .Base shear
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software. Accidental
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked and its within the limit.
3.9.3 Summary
Stiffness reduction is not used for all structural elements thus using stiffness
modification factors as per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer did not consider
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan and
elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of 0.9201 second
was found, for mode 2 a period of 0.8474 second was found and for mode 3 a period
Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The base shear determined
using dynamic analysis is less than static analysis. Thus the base shear must be scaled
up according to EBCS 8.
83
EBCS8 states that the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes considered
amount to at least 90% of the total mass of the structure. It’s satisfied using 12 modes
Shear force and bending moment of beams and columns of modified result will be
compared with the original result. Both service limit state and ultimate limit state is
satisfied after modification has been made. There is increase in column and beam
moment and shear force in modified model. Detail calculation is shown in the
appendices.
84
3.10 Model 10:- Two basement + Ground + Mezzanine + 13 story + Top roof
The structural system consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column
the vertical loads. Beams with size 400x600mm and 300x500mm were used to
support second and first basement respectively. Ground floor beam of 300x500mm
and Floor beams of 800x300mm and 400x300mm were used to stabilize the entire
The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space
frame system.
6.5and 7 meter along x- axis and 5.5,6, 6.5 and 7meter along y- axis. The building has
story height 3 meter from the ground to roof. The structure has identical resistance in
85
Figure 3.10
3 Three dimensionaal view of model ten
3..10.1.1 Plan
n regularity
Inn EBCS8-19995 the limitt for individuual set back that doesn’tt preserve sy
ymmetry shaall
be less than or
o equal to 0.10
0 and graadual set baack shall be less than orr equal to 0.22.
B as seen in
But n table 3-844 setbacks exxceeds the liimit. Thus thhe structure is not regulaar
inn elevation.
Seismic desig
gn
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
annd Cv value of 0.4 has beeen used whhich is taken from UBC 997. The desiigner has useed
Cv value of 0.4
0 which is not on UBC
C. Thus theree is inconsisstency betweeen input data
86
and data from codes. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software. Base shear
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software. Accidental
3.10.2 Summary
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure has fundamental period
greater than 2 second. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of
2.8908 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 2.6656 second was found and for
Stiffness reduction is not used for the structural elements thus stiffness reduction must
be used as per Eurocode. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the
floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The
load combination used by the designer is only 5. Detail calculation is shown in the
appendices.
87
4 DISCUSSION
In this research design models were collected from Addis Ababa city administration
and ten models were randomly selected. These models were assessed for
requirement of earthquake design (S.L.S and U.L.S), use of stiffness reduction and P-
design and slab design. Modification was made as per code requirement and modified
result was compared with original data. Eurocode, which is similar to EBCS, was
Designing the building as moment resisting frame and designing the slab for
Modification was done for all the models. But warning was shown on the analysis
result. Due to this limitation, three representative models were selected and modified.
The original models can be classified in to three representative groups. These are
those which used stiffness reduction for all structural members, those which used
stiffness reduction for all structural members except the column and those which did
not use stiffness reduction for all structural members. These are model 1, 2 and 9.
88
Result of these models was compared for shear force and bending moment for column
While modeling the structural system, 60% of the models did not use stiffness
reduction for the slab and the slab is modeled as part of the lateral force resisting
system. This makes the structure very stiff and the load transferred to the main
structural elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. The rest 40%
used stiffness reduction (EI slab=0.26EcIg) and modeled the slab as lateral force
resisting system. As seen in table 4-1 80% of the models are sway frame. In sway
frame stiffness reduction must be made for beam and column sections. But out of this
80%,5 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for column and 4 of the models
Type of frame
Model Beam Column Slab Wall
Sway Non-sway
Model 1 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg yes
Model 2 0.26EcIg not used 0.26EcIg not used yes
Model 3 0.26EcIg 0.7EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg yes
Model 4 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 5 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 6 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 7 0.26EcIg 0.7EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg yes
Model 8 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 9 not used not used not used No wall yes
Model 10 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 5 was irregular in plan and elevation but dynamic analysis was not made. Thus
10% of the models did not make dynamic analysis for irregular structure.70% of the
89
models has considered accidental eccentricity while the rest 30% did not consider
accidental eccentricity. This means that uncertainity in the location of massess and in
the spatial variation of the seismic motion is not taken in to consideration in the
design.90% of the models have assigned rigid diaphragm while the rest 10% did not
assign rigid diaphragm. Out of the 90%, two of them didn’t assign rigid diaphragm at
each story level. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors
act as horizontal diaphragms and act together to resist the horizontal action. When
floor diaphragms of the buildings are sufficiently rigid in their plane, the mass and the
moment of inertia of each floor may be lumped at the center of gravity, thus reducing
the degree of freedom per floor ( two horizontal displacement and a rotation above the
diaphragm
90
70% of the models satisfy U.L.S and 50% of the models satisfy S.L.S. 30% of the
models have design problems such as unstable design and failure of structural
design.
Statical calculation was available for model one and two. Thus ductility class was
taken from the report. The rest of the models ductility class medium is assumed.
In structural configuration 30% of the models used varying story heights which
resulted in soft story. 100% of the models have cantilever which resulted in stress
the models didn’t scale up the base shear and didn’t use the minimum number of
91
modes.100% of the models have short span, low height to base width, identical
helps in lowering unit stress and deformation, lowering overturning effect, balancing
respectively.
100 % of models didn’t consider load combination for earthquake in the negative
direction and eccentricity. For lateral load combination, combo1 must be multiplied
For all models except model two and eight, Response spectrum function of UBC 97
and UBC 94 has been used and seismic coefficient of Ca and Cv value of 0.4 has been
used as shown in table 4-4. On UBC 1997 table 16-R, there is no seismic coefficient
of 0.4.The designer has used Cv value of 0.4 which is not on UBC. Thus there is
92
sensitivity coefficient (θ) exceeds 0.10. Model 3 must make P-∆ analysis since θ
Type of frame
Model Sway Non-sway θlimit (0.1) P-∆ analysis Remark
Model 1 yes Not satisfied Made
Model 2 yes Satisfied Made
Model 3 yes Not satisfied Not made P-∆ must be made
Model 4 yes Not checked unstable design
Model 5 yes Satisfied Made
failure in structural
Model 6 yes Not checked elements
Model 7 yes Satisfied Made
Model 8 yes Not checked shear wall design not done
Model 9 yes Satisfied Not made
Model 10 yes Satisfied Made
Load combination as per Eurocode is used. After modification was done S.L.S and
U.L.S is satisfied.
93
The column and beam moment and shear force was compared. As seen from unit
three the result shows that there is increase in column and beam moment and shear
force after modification has been done. This is due to the fact that stiffness
modification was not used and when the slab is designed as part of the lateral resisting
system the structure becomes very stiff and the load transferred to the main structural
elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. Thus while modeling,
the slab must be designed only for gravity load and stiffness modification factor must
be used.
94
The following conclusion and recommendation can be made from the previous
assessment
1. 10% of the models did not made dynamic analysis for plan and elevation
irregularity while the rest 90% have made dynamic analysis for irregular
structures.
2. 70% of the models have considered accidental eccentricity while the rest 30%
location of massess and in the spatial variation of the seismic motion is not
3. 70% of the models satisfy U.L.S and 50% of the models satisfy S.L.S. The rest
30% of the model has design problem as unstable design and failure of
structural element.
4. 20% of the models are non-sway frames while the rest 80% are sway frames.
In sway frame stiffness reduction must be made for beam and column
sections. But out of this 80%, 5 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for
column section and 4 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for beam
section.
5. In 10% of the models, θ exceeds 0.1 and did not make P -∆ analysis.
6. While modeling the structural system, 100% of the models have designed the
slab as part of the lateral force resisting system.60% of the models did not use
stiffness reduction for the slab. This makes the structure very stiff and the load
relatively very small. Therefore in the analysis model, either only the lateral
95
else the stiffness of the slabs have to be significantly reduced if the slabs are
modeled together.
7. 100% of the models didn’t take the minimum number of modes and scaling
8. 60% of the models did not use any stiffness reduction for the structural
members. After modification has been made, there is increase in column and
beam moment and shear force. This shows that the columns and the beams are
under designed.
9. 30% of the models used stiffness reduction for all structural members. After
modification has been made to these models, the result was increase in column
10. 10% of the models used stiffness reduction for the entire structural member
11. It was found 20% of the models doesn’t fulfill fundamental requirement of
earthquake.
12. It is possible to conclude that seismic design practice and structural design
13. It is recommended to design the slab for gravity load only rather than deigning
structural elements.
96
6 REFERENCE
3. Ali, M. A. (2006). How high could buildings made of ribbed or flat slab
edition):Prentice Hall,Inc.
97
APPENDICES
98
First floor 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction
Third floor 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction
99
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
100
101
Table A-7 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meter
Displacemen
Building t of a point of
Displaceme
drift the structural Design
nt Story
elastically system interstory
Story Buildin behavioral drift Remark
Story computed induced by drift
ht g ht factor, γd limit (S.L.S)
from the design ∆r=∆i -∆i-
assumed ≤0.01h
ETABS seismic 1
equal to γ
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Water tank 1.5 22 0.0394 0.5 0.079 0.008 0.015 satisfied
102
Table A-8 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Total Total
factored unfactore Design
θ=
gravity d gravity interstory Vx θlimit
Stor Buildin (Ptot*dr) Remark
Story No load at load at drift (story ≤
y ht g ht / (U.L.S)
and above and above ∆r=∆i - shear) 0.25
(Vtot/h)
the story the story ∆i-1
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
Water 0.008 23.82 0.051
1.5 22 283.72 218.25 0.25 satisfied
tank
Roof 3 20.5 660.98 508.45 0.007 69.42 0.016 0.25 satisfied
Ground 2.5 2.5 9797.39 7536.45 0.003 763.00 0.010 0.25 satisfied
Base
103
Table A-9 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters after
Modification
Building Displacement of
drift Displacement a point of the Remark
Design Story
elastically behavioural structural system interstory
Story Story Building interstory drift
computed factor, γd induced by the drift as a
No ht ht drift limit
from assumed design seismic parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ action (S.L.S)
(de) (ds)=de/γd
Water
tank 1.5 22 0.097 0.5 0.1932 0.001 0.015 satisfied
104
Table A-10 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in
Total
factored Total Remark on
Design gravity unfactored interstory
Vx θ=
Story Building interstory load at gravity θlimit drift
Story No (story (Ptot*dr)/
ht ht drift and load at and ≤0.25 sensitivity
shear) (Vtot/h)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 above the above the coefficient
story story (Ptotal) (U.L.S)
(Ptotal)
Water tank 1.5 22 -0.015 -553.74 -425.95 -79.57 -0.07 0.25 Satisfied
Roof 3 20.5 0.011 -1526.36 -1174.12 -146.5 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Fourth 3 17.5 0.021 -1539.34 -1184.11 -353.4 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Third 3 14.5 0.032 -2518.58 -1937.37 -523.4 0.05 0.25 Satisfied
Second 3 11.5 0.040 -3504.70 -2695.92 -658.5 0.07 0.25 Satisfied
First 3 8.5 0.037 -4536.22 -3489.40 -758.9 0.07 0.25 Satisfied
Mezzanine 3 5.5 0.023 -5617.12 -4320.86 -823.1 0.05 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 2.5 2.5 0.001 -5947.85 -4575.27 329.3 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
Base
105
Table A-11 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for envelope X in
KN-m
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in M3
Percentage increase in V2
Percentage increase in V3
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
water tank 0 20 19 -7 14 18 34
water tank 0.6 49 33 -33 55 40 -27 -9 -4 -52 -8 -1 -92
water tank 1.2 -36 -27 -24 -25 -20 -20
Roof 0 -1 -15 1200 23 -9 -59
Roof 1.3 15 -4 -72 -2 -7 317 3 -6 106 3 -4 28
Roof 2.7 17 3 -81 18 2 -91
Fourth 0 18 -25 35 35 -24 -31
Fourth 1.3 29 -15 -49 14 -16 11 -1 -4 495 -3 -5 88
Fourth 2.6 20 17 -19 31 14 -55
Third 0 37 -30 -17 51 -28 -44
Third 1.3 34 -19 -44 26 -20 -23 2 -5 122 4 -5 21
Envelope X
106
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
Percentage increase in
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
M2
M3
V2
V3
Roof 0 42 32 -24 -24 -20 -15
Roof 1.325 -9 -12 29 22 16 -27 13 10 -20 -5 -5 -11
Roof 2.65 -8 -11 48 22 11 -50
Fourth 0 49 42 -13 -17 -30 75
Fourth 1.3 -6 -19 232 35 29 -17 5 5 -3 2 -5 134
Fourth 2.6 -29 -33 10 49 21 -58
Third 0 57 41 -28 -3 -30 1083
Third 1.3 3 -20 488 39 27 -31 7 6 -18 -1 -4 275
Third 2.6 -26 -29 10 61 22 -63
Envelope X
107
Table A-12 Comparison for Column moment and shear force for envelope Y in
KN-m
Percentage increase in M3
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in V2
Percentage increase in V3
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
108
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in M3
Percentage increase in V2
Percentage increase in V3
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
109
Table A-13 Comparison of Beam moment and shear force for envelope X in KN-m
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
increase
increase
V2 original
Beam
in M3
Story
in V2
Load
0.15 -67 -70 5 -25 -36 45
0.55 -58 -62 7 0 -9 2877
0.95 -50 -49 -1 22 13 -40
0.95 -22 -49 124 25 13 -47
1.37 -14 -31 125 32 30 -6
1.79 -1 -7 419 36 38 6
B961
2.21 21 22 1 39 35 -11
2.63 30 46 50 31 21 -33
3.05 39 65 64 19 -3 -86
3.05 91 65 -29 17 -3 -84
3.45 99 77 -22 -11 -31 182
3.85 108 85 -21 -42 -64 52
0.15 -90 -129 44 -50 -80 61
0.44 -84 -121 44 -28 -43 55
0.73 -57 -108 91 0 -10 3787
0.73 -53 -108 104 4 -10 140
1.15 -44 -84 89 24 31 26
1.57 -35 -54 52 41 60 46
Envelope X
2.41 -1 11 667 51 78 53
B966
2.83 16 43 169 48 66 39
2.83 31 43 40 47 66 41
3.19 39 71 84 40 46 15
3.55 46 98 113 30 15 -49
3.55 73 98 34 27 15 -45
3.95 80 124 55 9 -30 234
4.35 87 145 66 -12 -84 591
4.75 142 157 11 -68 -144 111
0.15 -96 -213 122 -64 -174 171
0.61 -87 -198 127 -26 -79 201
1.07 -78 -170 117 8 6 -25
1.53 -45 -129 189 35 75 113
1.99 -34 -76 120 55 123 124
B976
110
Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
V2
M3
0.15 -63 -116 83 -25 -91 268
0.63 -54 -105 94 0 -38 44501
1.10 -46 -88 93 21 8 -62
1.58 -24 -63 168 37 44 21
2.05 -13 -32 140 46 67 47
2.53 16 7 -58 46 73 58
B971
3.00 49 42 -14 51 61 20
3.48 59 70 18 41 35 -16
3.95 69 90 30 26 -4 -86
3.95 97 90 -7 25 -4 -85
4.30 104 101 -3 5 -37 616
4.65 112 108 -3 -17 -74 336
0.15 -61 -116 90 -25 -103 311
0.62 -54 -106 98 -5 -51 988
1.09 -46 -89 93 13 -4 -67
1.56 -29 -65 121 29 32 9
2.04 4 -33 819 41 55 36
Envelope X
2.51 13 5 -64 43 62 46
B975
Second
2.98 39 40 1 41 52 27
3.45 48 68 40 35 26 -24
3.45 63 68 8 34 26 -22
3.85 70 86 23 23 -5 -79
4.25 98 99 1 -6 -42 583
4.65 104 107 4 -21 -83 301
0.15 -56 -120 114 -17 -100 479
0.64 -50 -109 121 -1 -43 5728
1.13 -29 -91 210 28 6 -78
1.63 -10 -65 583 39 45 16
2.12 -1 -31 2263 41 69 69
2.61 29 9 -70 43 75 75
B977
3.10 37 44 18 42 61 47
3.10 49 44 -12 41 61 48
3.45 57 64 13 34 42 23
3.80 64 80 25 25 17 -31
3.80 78 80 3 23 17 -26
4.23 87 95 9 7 -20 207
4.65 96 104 8 -14 -63 360
111
Table A-14 Comparison of Beam moment and shear force for envelope Y in KN-
m
Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
V2
M3
0.15 -75 -70 -6 -35 -36 4
0.55 -66 -62 -6 -6 -9 43
0.95 -58 -49 -14 18 13 -28
0.95 -25 -49 94 22 13 -39
1.37 -17 -31 80 31 30 -1
1.79 -4 -7 80 38 38 2
B961
2.41 -5 11 143 50 78 56
B966
2.83 13 43 223 48 66 39
2.83 27 43 59 47 66 42
3.19 35 71 104 38 46 20
3.55 42 98 131 27 15 -43
3.55 67 98 46 24 15 -37
3.95 75 124 67 4 -30 728
4.35 82 145 78 -19 -84 333
4.75 132 157 19 -81 -144 78
0.15 -103 -213 106 -75 -174 133
0.61 -94 -198 109 -34 -79 134
1.07 -86 -170 98 4 6 66
1.53 -48 -129 167 33 75 129
1.99 -38 -76 99 54 123 127
B976
112
Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
M3
V2
0.15 -59 -116 95 -18 -91 415
0.625 -50 -105 109 5 -38 628
1.1 -42 -88 111 25 8 -68
1.575 -21 -63 202 39 44 14
2.05 -11 -32 200 47 67 44
2.525 18 7 -64 47 73 57
B971
3 52 42 -19 53 61 16
3.475 62 70 12 44 35 -22
3.95 72 90 25 31 -4 -88
3.95 101 90 -10 29 -4 -88
4.3 108 101 -6 11 -37 232
4.65 115 108 -6 -10 -74 670
0.15 -58 -116 102 -18 -103 462
0.621 -50 -106 111 1 -51 5863
1.093 -43 -89 108 17 -4 -75
1.564 -26 -65 144 32 32 -1
2.036 6 -33 444 41 55 34
Envelope Y
2.507 15 5 -70 43 62 45
B975
Second
2.979 42 40 -5 42 52 22
3.45 51 68 33 37 26 -30
3.45 66 68 3 36 26 -28
3.85 73 86 18 26 -5 -82
4.25 102 99 -3 0 -42 18970
4.65 108 107 0 -14 -83 506
0.15 -52 -120 129 -10 -100 885
0.642 -34 -109 218 20 -43 115
1.133 -26 -91 247 32 6 -80
1.625 -7 -65 874 41 45 10
2.117 2 -31 1966 42 69 65
2.608 32 9 -72 44 75 70
B977
3.1 40 44 10 44 61 39
3.1 52 44 -16 44 61 40
3.45 59 64 7 38 42 13
3.8 67 80 20 29 17 -41
3.8 82 80 -2 27 17 -37
4.225 91 95 5 13 -20 62
4.65 99 104 4 -6 -63 938
113
114
115
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No
Regular elevation No
Column design
Non- Sway
Frame type frame
P-∆ analysis Not Considered
116
1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL+
1 Combo 1 ------ -
1.3wall static load
117
Table A-23 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter
Displacement
Building
of a point of
drift Displacement Remark
the structural Design story
elastically behavioural inter story
Story Building system inter story drift
Story No computed factor, γd drift as a
ht ht induced by the drift limit
from assumed parameter
design seismic ∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ (S.L.S)
action
(de)
( ds)=de/γd
118
Table A-24 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit statein meter
Total Remark
Total
unfactored On
factored Design
gravity Vx θ= interstory
Story Building gravity interstory θlimit
Story No load at (story (Ptot*dr)/ drift
ht ht load at and drift ≤0.25
and above shear) (Vtot/h) sensitivity
above the ∆r=∆i -∆i-1
the story coefficient
story (Ptotal)
(Ptotal) (U.L.S)
Roof 3.4 63.24 -2101.37 -1616.44 0.018 -145.76 0.06 0.25 Satisfied
Roof 0.051 Satisfied
terrace 3.4 59.84 -7223.63 -5556.64 -609.31 0.14 0.25
16th 3.4 56.44 -11760.37 -9046.44 0.053 -1027.4 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
15th 3.4 53.04 -16884.07 -12987.75 0.055 -1464.5 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
14th 3.4 49.64 -22787.40 -17528.77 0.058 -1882.1 0.16 0.25 Satisfied
13th 3.4 46.24 -28687.82 -22067.55 0.061 -2280.2 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
12th 3.4 42.84 -34587.87 -26606.05 0.063 -2655.5 0.19 0.25 Satisfied
11th 3.4 39.44 -40488.53 -31145.02 0.066 -3007.8 0.20 0.25 Satisfied
10th 3.4 36.04 -46233.42 -35564.17 0.068 -3333.8 0.21 0.25 Satisfied
9th 3.4 32.64 -52337.49 -40259.61 0.069 -3641.1 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
8th 3.4 29.24 -58427.01 -44943.85 0.070 -3933 0.24 0.25 Satisfied
7th 3.74 25.84 -64552.01 -49655.39 0.070 -4201.4 0.22 0.25 Satisfied
6th 3.74 22.44 -70832.23 -54486.33 0.075 -4450.9 0.25 0.25 Satisfied
5th 3.74 18.7 -78555.56 -60427.35 0.071 -4769.8 0.24 0.25 Satisfied
4th 3.74 14.96 -85868.40 -66052.62 0.065 -5037.3 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
3rd 3.74 11.22 -93138.18 -71644.75 0.057 -5269.4 0.21 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 3.74 7.48 -100442.02 -77263.09 0.046 -5465.4 0.18 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.74 3.74 -107079.14 -82368.57 0.029 -5607.4 0.11 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 4.25 0 -103387.39 -79528.76 0.017 -5795.1 0.06 0.25 Satisfied
1st
0.003
basement 3.06 -4.25 -106438.80 -81876.00 -5896 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
nd
2 0.003
basement 3.06 -7.31 -111038.02 -85413.86 -5952.4 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
rd
3
basement 3.06 -10.37
Base 2.5 -12.87
119
Regular elevation No
120
Column design
Non- Sway
Frame type frame
P-∆ analysis Not Considered
1.3*DL+
1 Combo 1 1.6*LL+ 1.3PD ------
static load
121
122
Regular elevation No
123
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
124
Table A-37 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural design Remark
design
elastically behavioural system story inter story
Story Building interstory
Story No computed factor, induced by drift drift as a
ht ht drift
from γd assumed the design limit parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1
ETABS equal to γ seismic ≤0.01h (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
125
Table A-38 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Total Total
Remark on
factored unfactored
Design θlimit interstory
gravity gravity Vx θ=
Story Building inter drift
Story No load at and load at (story (Ptot*dr)/
ht ht story ≤0.25 sensitivity
above the and above shear) (Vtot/h)
drift coefficient
story the story
∆r=∆i - (U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
∆i-1
Lift roof 3 41.76 -595.60 -458.15 -0.003 -28.38 0.02 0.25 satisfied
Roof 3.06 38.76 -6859.80 -5276.77 0.003 -329.42 0.02 0.25 satisfied
10th 3.23 35.7 -15890.04 -12223.11 0.004 -771.08 0.02 0.25 satisfied
9th 3.23 32.47 -27128.92 -20868.40 0.005 -1306.03 0.03 0.25 satisfied
8th 3.06 29.24 -38925.12 -29942.40 0.007 -1765.75 0.04 0.25 satisfied
7th 3.06 26.18 -48578.02 -37367.71 0.009 -2128.14 0.05 0.25 satisfied
6th 3.06 23.12 -58152.99 -44733.07 0.010 -2451.68 0.06 0.25 satisfied
5th 3.06 20.06 -67805.88 -52158.37 0.012 -2738.07 0.07 0.25 satisfied
4th 3.06 17 -77522.96 -59633.05 0.012 -2988.18 0.08 0.25 satisfied
3rd 3.06 13.94 -87155.40 -67042.62 0.013 -3198.27 0.09 0.25 satisfied
2nd 3.06 10.88 -96872.53 -74517.33 0.012 -3371.87 0.09 0.25 satisfied
1st 3.23 7.82 -105639.45 -81261.12 0.011 -3494.55 0.08 0.25 satisfied
Ground 4.59 4.59 -113891.08 -87608.52 0.011 -3579.19 0.06 0.25 satisfied
Basement 3 0 -115058.62 -88506.63 0.003 -3593.67 0.02 0.25 satisfied
Base -3
126
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
127
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical Loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
128
Redundancy yes
Regular elevation No
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
129
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical Loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL+
1 Combo 1 ------
1.3wall static load
130
Displaceme
Building nt of a point
drift Displaceme of the
Design Story Remark
elasticall nt structural
interstor drift interstory
Story No Stor Buildin y behavioural system
y drift limit drift as a
y ht g ht compute factor, γd induced by
∆r=∆i- ≤0.01 parameter
d from assumed the design
∆i-1 h (S.L.S)
ETABS equal to γ seismic
(de) action
(ds)=de/γd
Top roof 2.8 32.2 0.0296 0.5 0.059 0.008 0.028 satisfied
roof 1.4 29.4 0.0271 0.5 0.052 0.003 0.014 satisfied
10th ' 1.4 28 0.0258 0.5 0.049 0.003 0.014 satisfied
10th 1.4 26.6 0.0245 0.5 0.046 0.003 0.014 satisfied
9th' 1.4 25.2 0.0232 0.5 0.044 0.003 0.014 satisfied
9th 1.4 23.8 0.0219 0.5 0.041 0.003 0.014 satisfied
8th' 1.4 22.4 0.0206 0.5 0.039 0.003 0.014 satisfied
8th 1.4 21 0.0193 0.5 0.036 0.003 0.014 satisfied
7th' 1.4 19.6 0.0180 0.5 0.033 0.003 0.014 satisfied
7th 1.4 18.2 0.0166 0.5 0.031 0.003 0.014 satisfied
6th' 1.4 16.8 0.0153 0.5 0.028 0.003 0.014 satisfied
6th 1.4 15.4 0.0140 0.5 0.025 0.003 0.014 satisfied
5th' 1.4 14 0.0127 0.5 0.023 0.002 0.014 satisfied
5th 1.4 12.6 0.0114 0.5 0.020 0.002 0.014 satisfied
4th' 1.4 11.2 0.0102 0.5 0.018 0.002 0.014 satisfied
4th 1.4 9.8 0.0090 0.5 0.016 0.002 0.014 satisfied
3rd' 1.4 8.4 0.0079 0.5 0.014 0.002 0.014 satisfied
3rd 1.4 7 0.0068 0.5 0.011 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd' 1.4 5.6 0.0057 0.5 0.009 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd 1.4 4.2 0.0047 0.5 0.008 0.002 0.014 satisfied
1st' 1.4 2.8 0.0038 0.5 0.006 0.002 0.014 satisfied
1st' 1.4 1.4 0.0030 0.5 0.004 0.001 0.014 satisfied
ground' 1.4 0 0.0022 0.5 0.003 0.001 0.014 satisfied
ground 1.4 -1.4 0.0016 0.5 0.002 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd
1.4 -2.8 0.0009 0.5 0.000 0.000 0.014 satisfied
basement
basement 2.2 -5 0.0000 0.5 0.000 0.000 0.022 satisfied
base 2 -7
131
Table A-48 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Remark on
Design
Total factored Total unfactored Vx interstory drift
interstory θ=
Story gravity load at gravity load at and θlimit sensitivity
Story No Building ht drift Ptot*dr/
ht and above the above the story (story ≤0.25 coefficient
(Vtot/h)
story(Ptotal) (Ptotal) shear)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1
(U.L.S)
top roof 2.8 32.2 -897.03 -690.02 0.008 -31.17 0.060 0.25 Satisfied
roof 1.4 29.4 -2985.64 -2296.65 0.003 -148.07 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
10th ' 1.4 28 -3713.51 -2856.55 0.003 -181.92 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
10th 1.4 26.6 -5564.15 -4280.12 0.003 -280.52 0.028 0.25 Satisfied
9th' 1.4 25.2 -6279.57 -4830.44 0.003 -313.92 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
9th 1.4 23.8 -8138.43 -6260.33 0.003 -401.48 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
8th' 1.4 22.4 -8847.07 -6805.44 0.003 -434.82 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
7th' 1.4 19.6 -11415.06 -8780.82 0.003 -544.60 0.030 0.25 Satisfied
7th 1.4 18.2 -13306.71 -10235.93 0.003 -612.95 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
6th' 1.4 16.8 -13981.03 -10754.64 0.003 -643.28 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
6th 1.4 15.4 -15881.25 -12216.35 0.003 -723.19 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
5th 1.4 12.6 -18035.85 -13873.73 0.002 -696.94 0.034 0.25 Satisfied
4th' 1.4 11.2 -19056.39 -14658.76 0.002 -807.31 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
4th 1.4 9.8 -20632.08 -15870.83 0.002 -765.69 0.033 0.25 Satisfied
3rd' 1.4 8.4 -21623.63 -16633.56 0.002 -872.66 0.030 0.25 Satisfied
2nd' 1.4 5.6 -24193.1 -18610.08 0.002 -926.90 0.026 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 1.4 4.2 -25828.5 -19868.08 0.002 -883.50 0.026 0.25 Satisfied
1st' 1.4 2.8 -26782.76 -20602.12 0.002 -970.15 0.024 0.25 Satisfied
1st' 1.4 1.4 -28455.24 -21888.65 0.001 -995.67 0.019 0.25 Satisfied
ground 1.4 -1.4 -32661.49 -25124.22 0.002 -1035.60 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
2nd
1.4 -2.8 -34042.79 -26186.76 0.000 -1043.40 0.000 0.25
basement Satisfied
base 2 -7
132
Redundancy yes
Regular elevation No
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
133
1.3*DL+
1 Combo 1 ------ -
1.6*LL
2 Combo 2 DL +LL -
134
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No
Regular elevation No
135
Column design
Frame type
Non- Sway frame
P-∆ analysis
Not Considered
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical Loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
6. Combo 6 DL + LL ----- -
136
Table A-59 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural
Design story Remark inter
elastically behavioural system
Story Building interstory drift story drift as
Story computed factor, γd induced by
ht ht drift limit a parameter
from assumed the design
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h (S.L.S)
ETABS equal to γ seismic
(de) action
(ds)=de/γd
Water
2.86 17.44 0.0175 0.5 0.035 0.003 0.0286 satisfied
tank
Roof 3.06 14.58 0.0158 0.5 0.032 0.005 0.0306 satisfied
3rd 3.06 11.52 0.0133 0.5 0.027 0.007 0.0306 satisfied
2nd 3.06 8.46 0.0100 0.5 0.020 0.008 0.0306 satisfied
1st 3.4 5.4 0.0062 0.5 0.012 0.009 0.0340 satisfied
Ground 2 2 0.0019 0.5 0.004 0.004 0.0200 satisfied
Base 2 0
Table A-60 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter for modified
model
Displacement
Building
of a point of
drift Displacement Remark
the structural Design Story
elastically behavioural inter story
Building system interstory drift
Story No Story ht computed factor, γd drift as a
ht induced by drift ∆r=∆i limit
from assumed parameter
the design -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ (S.L.S)
seismic action
(de)
(ds)=de/γd
Water 2.86 17.44 0.0783 0.5 0.1566 0.016 0.029 satisfied
tank
Roof 3.06 14.58 0.0705 0.5 0.141 0.019 0.031 satisfied
137
Table A-61 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
for modified model
Total Total
Remark on
factored unfactored
Design θ= interstory
gravity gravity Vx
Story Building interstory (Ptot*dr)/ drift
Story No load at load at (story θlimit
ht ht drift (Vtot/h) sensitivity
and above and above shear) ≤0.25
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 coefficient
the story the story
(U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
138
Table A-62 Comparison for Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
KN-m
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in M3
Percentage increase in V2
Percentage increase in V3
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
139
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in M3
Percentage increase in V2
Percentage increase in V3
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
140
Table A-63 Comparison of Beam shear force and moment for combination one in
KN-m
increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
B13 2 12 46 269 17 29 72
B13 2.45 34 81 141 9 0 -95
B13 2.9 50 112 125 -15 -43 183
B28 0.2 -37 -58 58 -27 -40 47
B28 0.667 -36 -49 38 -16 -15 -10
B28 1.133 -18 -34 93 3 5 76
B28 1.6 -3 -14 360 10 16 64
B28 2.067 -1.4 7 383 11 18 63
B28 2.533 12 22 82 7 11 48
B28 3 13 31 135 4 -2 -54
B60 0.2 -3 -29 780 -1 -10 1075
B60 0.6 -2 -24 1285 0.1 0 -100
141
increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
B5 0.1 -77 -208 170 -26 -79 208
B5 0.561 -66 -174 162 2 9 315
B5 1.944 -5 -9 99 51 146 186
B5 2.406 7 54 638 50 135 169
B5 2.867 19 118 508 44 96 115
B5 3.328 72 175 143 4 28 587
B5 3.789 82 222 170 -24 -64 166
Envelope X and Y
142
Redundancy yes
Regular elevation No
143
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical Loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
6. Combo 6 DL + LL -----
144
Table A-70 Design interstory drift limit for serviceability limit state in meter
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural Remark
Story
elastically behavioural system Interstory inter story
Story Building drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift drift as a
ht ht limit
from assumed the design ∆r=∆i -∆i-1 parameter
≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ seismic (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Roof 3 48 0.0746 0.5 0.1492 0.02 0.03 satisfied
13th 3 45 0.0853 0.5 0.1706 0.01 0.03 satisfied
12th 3 42 0.0818 0.5 0.1636 0.01 0.03 satisfied
11th 3 39 0.0775 0.5 0.155 0.01 0.03 satisfied
10th 3 36 0.0728 0.5 0.1456 0.01 0.03 satisfied
9th 3 33 0.0676 0.5 0.1352 0.01 0.03 satisfied
8th 3 30 0.0618 0.5 0.1236 0.01 0.03 satisfied
7th 3 27 0.0553 0.5 0.1106 0.01 0.03 satisfied
6th 3 24 0.0487 0.5 0.0974 0.01 0.03 satisfied
5th 3 21 0.0418 0.5 0.0836 0.01 0.03 satisfied
4thmezz 3 18 0.0348 0.5 0.0696 0.01 0.03 satisfied
4th 3 15 0.0303 0.5 0.0606 0.01 0.03 satisfied
3rd 3 12 0.0248 0.5 0.0496 0.01 0.03 satisfied
2nd 3 9 0.0193 0.5 0.0386 0.01 0.03 satisfied
mezz 3 6 0.0140 0.5 0.028 0.01 0.03 satisfied
1st 3 3 0.0091 0.5 0.0182 0.01 0.03 satisfied
Ground 3 0 0.0053 0.5 0.0106 0.01 0.03 satisfied
145
146
147
DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
university, and that all the sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly
acknowledged.
SIGNATURE:
DATE: