1

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR STORY BUILDING

By
Kalpesh Parikh
Pursuing Master of Science, Syracuse University





Term Report


Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course requirement of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering in the Graduate School of Syracuse University

10
th
May 2010





Approved ______________________________
Professor Eric M. Lui

Grade___________________________________
2

Acknowledgment

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

















3

Table of Content
S.No. Title Page
No
Acknowledgement
Table of contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction 6
2 Loads and Functions 17
3 Modeling and Analysis Description 19
4 Load Models 23
5 Analysis 25
6 Conclusions 46
7 References 47

4

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

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










6

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

Figure 1 Original Plan View of the Four Story Building



7









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

Seismic weight at various floors:
For a Warehouse, the design load should include a minimum of 25% of the live load. No live
load is to be considered for roof. Hence, the effective weight at all floors, except at the roof will
be Psf, and the effective weight for roof will be 140 psf. The Plan area is 48 ft x
96ft = 4608 ft
2
. Hence Seismic weights of various levels are: W
1
= W
2
= W
3
= 1 st, 2
nd
& 3
rd
Story
weight,
W
1
= W
2
= W
3
= 4608 x 0.17125 = 789.1 Kips & W
4
= 4608 x 0.140 = 645.1 Kip
The total Seismic weight of the building is then W = 789.1 x 3 + 645.1 = 3012.4 Kip
Fundamental Period of Building:
T = C
t
* h
n
3/4

Where:
C
t
= 0.030 (for reinforcing concrete moment-resisting frame)
h
n
= 48 ft (total height of the building)

T = 0.030* 48
3/4
= 0.55 sec
Occupancy Importance Factor:
Warehouse (SUG) = I = 1 and Occupancy importance factor, I
E
= 1

140 0.25125 171.25
8


























TABLE 1: Function - Response Spectrum -IBC2006
Period( sec) Accel (in/sec^2)
0 26.1607612
0.076841 65.401903
0.384205 65.401903
0.6 41.8796098
0.8 31.4097154
1 25.127753
1.2 20.939821
1.4 17.9484088
1.6 15.7048416
1.8 13.9598592
2 12.5638926
2.5 10.0511012
3 8.3759284
3.5 7.1793764
4 6.2819302
4.5 5.583963
5 5.0255506
5.5 4.568697
6 4.1879642
6.5 3.8658032
7 3.5896882
7.5 3.3503778
8 3.1409812
8.5 2.7823054
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n


S
a

(
i
n
c
h
/
s
e
c
^
2
)

Period (sec)
Seattle Spectra for Zip
Code 94704
Seattle Spectra
Figure 3 Seattle Spectra (Response Spectrum Curve)
9

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

Results:
Short Period (T = 0.2 sec) S
s
= 3.046673g
Long Period (T = 1 sec) S
1
= 1.170548 g
Site Class = B for rock
Site coefficient = F
a
= 1 S
DS
= 2.031115
Site coefficient = F
v
= 1 S
D1
= 0.780365
Soil Modified Response Spectral Acceleration:
S
MS
= F
a
S
s
= 3.046673
S
M1
= F
v
S
1
= 1.170548
Design Response Spectral Acceleration:
S
DS
= 2* 3.046673 / 3 S
DS
= 2.031115 (Same as obtain from SAP 2000)
S
D1
= 2* 1.170548 / 3 S
D1
= 0.780365 (Same as obtain from SAP 2000)
Response Modification Factor:
R= 8 for Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (obtained using table 12.2-1
Design coefficient and factors for seismic force resisting system ASCE 7-05)
Seismic Design Category = D
Seismic Coefficient:
C
s
= S
DS*
I
E
/R = 0.253889
Check minimum value for C
s
:
C
s
0.044 * S
D1
* I
E
= 0.03433606 Good!
10

C
s
S1*0.5*I
E
/R = 0.073159 Good!
Then
C
s
= 0.253889

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

For, T = 0.55 sec > 0.5 sec
K = 1.025 (by Interpolation)
Table2 : Calculation of Seismic Lateral Force
Level

h
x
(ft)
W
x
(Kip)
h
x
k
(ft)
W
x
h
x
k
(Kip-ft)
F
x
(Kip)
V
x
(Kip)
M
x
(Kip-ft)
4 48 645.1 52.88 34113 274.25 274.25
3 36 781.1 39.37 30752 247.23 521.48 3291
2 24 781.1 25.98 20293 163.145 684.625 9548.76
1 12 781.1 12.77 9974 80.186 764.811 17764.26
95132 30604.02

Overturning Moment:
M
x
= (as calculated above in table)
= 1 (for top 10 story)
11


Story Drift and Lateral Displacement:
Both strength and stiffness need to be considered in the design of special moment frames.
According to ASCE 7, special moment frames are allowed to be designed for a force reduction
factor of R = 8. That is, they are allowed to be designed for a base shear equal to one-eighth of
the value obtained from an elastic response analysis. Moment frames are generally flexible
lateral systems; therefore, strength requirements may be controlled by the minimum base shear
equations of the code. Base shear calculations for long-period structures, has been checked and
may govern the strength requirements of special moment frames.
The allowable story drift,
a
= 0.025 h
x
= 3.6 inch

(where h
x
is the story height)
Stiffness Computation:
K
col
= 12*E*I / L
3
E
conc
= 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
L
Col
= 12-0
1
st
Story and 2
nd
Story Stiffness Computation:
a) Exterior Column : 12 x 20 I
extcol
= 8000 in
4

b) Interior Column : 12 x 24 I
intcol
= 13824 in
4

a) Exterior Column for First Story a) Exterior Column for Second Story
K
extcol.1
= 115.47 Kip/inch K
extcol.2
= 115.47 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for First Story b) Interior Column for Second Story
K
intcol.1
= 200 Kip/inch K
intcol.2
= 200 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: K
Total Col 1
= 18*115.47 + 9* 200 = 3878.46 Kip/inch
K
Total Col 2
= 18*115.47 + 9* 200 = 3878.46 Kip/inch
3
rd
Story and 4
th
Story Stiffness Computation:
a) Exterior Column : 12 x 16 I
extcol
= 4096 in
4

b) Interior Column : 12 x 20 I
intcol
= 8000 in
4


12

a) Exterior Column for Third Story a) Exterior Column for Forth Story
K
extcol.3
= 59.25 Kip/inch K
extcol.4
= 59.25 Kip/inch
b) Interior Column for Third Story b) Interior Column for Forth Story
K
intcol.3
= 115.47 Kip/inch K
intcol.4
= 115.47 Kip/inch

Total Stiffness: K
Total Col 3
= 18*59.25 + 9* 115.47 = 2105.73 Kip/inch
K
Total Col 4
= 18*59.25 + 9* 115.47 = 2105.73 Kip/inch
Beams Stiffness
K
beam
= 3*E*I / L
3
E
conc
= 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
L
beam
= 24-0
1
st
Story to 4
th
Story Stiffness Computation:
Beam Size: 20 x 20 I
beam
= 13333.33 in
4

K
beam
= 6.028 Kip/inch
Total Stiffness: K
Total Beam 1
= 42*6.028 = 253.176 Kip/inch
K
Total Beam 1
= K
Total Beam 2
= K
Total Beam 3
= K
Total Beam 4
= 253.176 Kip/inch
Material Properties
Rebar: Reinforcement for Beams and Columns
Type: A615Gr60 Fy = 60 Ksi
Weight per unit volume = 0.49 Kip/ft
3
Fu = 90 Ksi
Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 29000 Ksi
Concrete: Use for Beams, Columns, Floors and Wall
Concrete compressive Strength F
c

= 4000 Psi Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 3600 Ksi

LWC Shear Reduction Factor = 0.8

Weight per unit volume = 0.15 Kip/ft
3

13

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

Initial Shear Stiffness in each direction =

10 k/in


Shear Yield Force in each direction = 5 kips
Ratio of Post Yield Shear Stiffness to Initial shear stiffness =0.2
Soil Type :
Site is located in the Seattle, Washington as per IBC site class definition
Site Class : B
Soil Profile Name: Rock
Seismic Zone Factor :
The seismic zone factor z is computed by referring a Seismic zone map where seattle region
falls under Zone 3 , Z=0.3
Description about dimensioning Floors:
Floor Dimension: Rectangular plan 48-0 x 96-0 (same for each story 1 to 4). Please co-
ordinate with Plan Drawing. Floor slab used for the building is shell plate thin element of
thickness 10 inch both in membrane and bending.
Floor to Floor height:
Table 3: Floor height description for model 2 and model 3
Floor Model 2 (Story) ht in ft Model 3 (Soft Story) ht in ft
Ground-1
st
Floor 12-0 11-0
1
st
to 2
nd
Floor 12-0 11-0
2
nd
to 3
rd
Floor 12-0 11-0
3
rd
to 4
th
Floor 12-0 15-0

Shear Wall: Shear wall is being considered in Model 3. For that the material properties is being
changed from LWC to NWC. Thickness of the wall considered 12 thick. Its placement in
oriented by following 3-dimensional co-ordinate .To give revelation can be co-ordinate with
model and plan.
14

Table 4: Shear wall dimensioning
Name Size (ft) Start Co-ordinate(ft) End Co-ordinate(ft)
Wall Panel A-B 12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0 -48-0, 24-0, 48-0 -36-0, 24-0, 48-0
Wall Panel 1-2 12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0 -48-0, -24-0, 48-0 -48-0, 0-0, 48-0
Wall Panel H-J 12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0 48-0, - 24-0, 48-0 -36-0, -24-0, 48-0
Wall Panel 2-3 12-0 x 1-0 x 48-0 48-0, 0-0, 48-0 48-0, 24-0, 48-0

Stiffness Computation For Soft Story:
K
col
= 12*E*I / L
3
E
conc
= 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
L
Col
= 11-0 ( for 1 to 3
rd
Story) L
Col
= 12-0 ( for 4
th
Story)
1
st
Story and 2
nd
Story Stiffness Computation:
c) Exterior Column : 12 x 20 I
extcol
= 8000 in
4

d) Interior Column : 12 x 24 I
intcol
= 13824 in
4

c) Exterior Column for First Story c) Exterior Column for Second Story
K
extcol.1
= 150.26 Kip/inch K
extcol.2
= 150.26 Kip/inch
d) Interior Column for First Story d) Interior Column for Second Story
K
intcol.1
= 259.65 Kip/inch K
intcol.2
= 259.65 Kip/inch
Total Stiffness: K
Total Col 1
= 18*150.26+ 9* 259.65 = 5041.53 Kip/inch
K
Total Col 2
= 18*150.26 + 9* 259.65 = 5041.53 Kip/inch
3
rd
Story and 4
th
Story Stiffness Computation:
c) Exterior Column : 12 x 16 I
extcol
= 4096 in
4

d) Interior Column : 12 x 20 I
intcol
= 8000 in
4

c) Exterior Column for Third Story c) Exterior Column for Forth Story
K
extcol.3
= 76.93 Kip/inch K
extcol.4
= 30.34 Kip/inch
d) Interior Column for Third Story d) Interior Column for Forth Story
K
intcol.3
= 150.26. Kip/inch K
intcol.4
= 59.26 Kip/inch
15


Total Stiffness: K
Total Col 3
= 18*76.93+ 9* 150.26 = 2737.08 Kip/inch
K
Total Col 4
= 18*30.34 + 9* 59.26 = 1079.46 Kip/inch
Beams Stiffness
K
beam
= 3*E*I / L
3
E
conc
= 3600 Ksi = modulus of elasticity of concrete
L
beam
= 24-0
1
st
Story to 4
th
Story Stiffness Computation:
Beam Size: 20 x 20 I
beam
= 13333.33 in
4

K
beam
= 6.028 Kip/inch
Total Stiffness: K
Total Beam 1
= 42*6.028 = 253.176 Kip/inch
K
Total Beam 1
= K
Total Beam 2
= K
Total Beam 3
= K
Total Beam 4
= 253.176 Kip/inch

Table 5: Summary of Stiffness for Beams and Columns for Model 2 and Model 3(Soft Story):
Floor Model 2 (Uniform ht Story) Model 3 (Soft Story)
No. K
Total Beam
K
Total Col
K
Total Beam
K
Total Col

1 253.176 3878.46 0.0653 253.176 5041.53 0.0502
2 253.176 3878.46 0.0653 253.176 5041.53 0.0502
3 253.176 2105.73 0.120 253.176 2737.08 0.0924
4 253.176 2105.73 0.120 253.176 1079.46 0.2345

Where, = K
Total Beam
/ K
Total Col
Remark: We can see because increase in ht at the 4
th
level the columns stiffness for each Floor
rearrange as shown below




16

Table 6: Effect of Stiffness due to soft story model (ht variation)
Floor Model 3 (Soft Story) compare with Model2
No. Comparison of stiffness (Model 3 compared to Model 2)
1 29.9879 % increase
2 29.9879 % increase
3 29.9879 % increase
4 48.73702% decrease


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








0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Floor
Stiffness of Beam/Stiffness of Column
Comparasion of Stiffness ratio for
2 Models
Uniform Ht. Story
Soft Story
17

2 Loads and Functions
This building is to be analyzed for dead, live, and earthquake functional load.
Dead load: Dead Loads are the weights of materials, equipments or components that remains
constant throughout the structure's life. In the project it includes weight of the materials and
components which are used for floor, ceiling, partitioning and roof..
Table 6a: Summary of Dead Load (IBC, minimum design dead load (Table C3-1))
Type Description Loads from IBC (psf)
Total load on each floor Dead load estimated due to
(floor slab, beam, half wt. of
the column above and below
the floor partion wall)
140

Live Load : Which is weight which is superimposed on, or temporarily attached to, a structure
(people, machinery and equipment, furniture, appliances, etc.).
Table 7: Summary of Live Load (Obtained from the IBC minimum uniformly distributed live
load (Table 4-1) and shown below)
Floors Description Uniform (psf)
1
st
, 2
nd
& 3
rd
Floor Warehouse 125 psf
Roof Warehouse 50 psf


Response-Spectrum Functions:

Design Spectra are not uneven curves; the spectra are intended to be the average of many
earthquakes. This approach allow us obtain an maximum value of Umax. For that reason to
obtain conservative study about earthquake analysis I selected IBC 2006 building code for
design spectra to obtain.

Where we can define, a response spectrum function is a series of digitized pairs of structural
period and corresponding pseudo-spectral acceleration values. Based on the function Response
Spectrum Curve is generated with respect of I/P data assigned to computer and we obtain an o/p
of digitized points of pseudo-acceleration response versus period of structure. As explained
above a I/P data was assigned to SAP 2000 software and we obtain o/p as shown in figure 3.

Time-History Functions:

The response history analysis is presented for an arbitrary structural configuration and very
handful for multi story building with a unsymmetrical plan. It is mainly devoted to a single
18

component of ground motion, typically one of the horizontal components. Combining the
structural response determined from such independent analysis for each excitation components
gives the response of linear system to multi-component excitation.

Based on that I picked up LACCO NOR File from SAP 2000 this is what we get as an I/P.

Figure 5: Time History Spectra- LACCO NOR earthquake record (obtained using SAP 2000)











-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Psuedo
acceleration
in/sec2
Time (s)
Time History Spectra- For LACCO
Time History Spectra- For
LACCO
19


3 Modeling and Analysis Description

Preparation of 5 models is performed and they are discussed as below:
1. Model 1 3-d four Story building without shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.
2. Model 2 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum
Analysis for the model.
3. Model 3 3-d four Story (soft story, 1.e. floor ht. variation was performed) building with
shear wall. And performed Response Spectrum Analysis for the model.
4. Model 4 3-d four Story building with shear wall. And performed Time History Analysis
for the model.
5. Model 5 3-d four Story building (here rubber isolator and mass slab is provided) with
shear wall. And performed Time History Analysis for the model.

Discussion about Modeling and Analysis I/p:

1. Rectangular 3-d frame of 96-0 x 48-0 x 48-0 was generated.
2. Material: Concrete was defined for the building except shear wall material of concrete
used is NWC and for shear wall
3. Frame Properties: Beams and columns were grouped into
i. Beam
ii. External Column 1
st
level & 2
nd
level
iii. External Column 3
rd
level & 4
th
level
iv. Internal Column 1
st
level & 2
nd
level
v. Internal Column 3
rd
level & 4
th
level


Figure 6 Showing Beam & Exterior Column Arrangement
20




Figure7 Showing Beam & Interior Column Arrangement

4. Frame Meshing was at joints and at intersection with frame
5. Area Section was defined
Advantage: Shell element has it own local co-ordinate system. The shell element always
activates all 6 Degree of freedom at each connected joints. Results for internal forces
and moments are good.
i. Floor: Plate thin shell element was defined reason the plate bending behavior
includes twoway, out-of plane. Plate rotational stiffness components and a
translation stiffness component in the direction normal to the plane of the
element. By default it neglects shearing deformation and it is recommended to
use plate structure for floor slab.
ii. Shear wall: Use of Shell thin element. reason why we use this because when we
compute an analysis to RSA if we provide thin panel element then the peak value
of the shear stress will be good estimation of the damage index (For story drift
calculation)
6. Assigned Joints Constraints: Assigning of diaphragm constraint causes all of its
constraint joint to move together as a planar diaphragm which is rigid against membrane
deformation. Concrete floors which has very high in- plane stiffness. Hence diaphragm
reduces error in plane stiffness in floor.
7. Assign joint restraints at base level Z = 0 for all model fixed support except for Model
5link/support properties Isolator are provided.
8. Assigning area loads uniform shell, defining loads as shown in table mentioning dead
load and live load.
21

9. Define Functions: For Model 1 to 3 we analyzed using Response Spectrum IBC 2006
and for Model 4 & 5 we analyzed using Lacco Time History Function. As we have
discuss how we obtain spectra using SAP 2000. These loads are used for applying ground
accelerations in response-spectrum analyses and are used as starting load vectors for Ritz-
vector analysis. Here the acceleration load is computed for each joint and element and
summed over the whole structure. Acceleration load for the analysis are transformed
from global co-ordinate system to local co-ordinate system.
10. Addition of Load Cases: Spectra generated from function will now be added to the load
cases Model 1 to 3 - Response Spectrum I BC 2006 - Spectra generated Seattle
Spectra Now we select CQC method of modal combination because it is the most
conservative method that is used to estimate a peak value displacement or force within a
structure This approach assumes that the maximum modal values for all modes occurs at
the same point in time.CQC method takes into account the statistical coupling between
closely Space mode caused by modal damping. Key thing is if damping is zero it
degenerates to SRSS method.
11. For Directional combination SRSS method is better because for each displacement force
or stress quantity in the structure, modal combination produces single positive results for
each direction of acceleration the value for a given response combine to produce single
positive results. SRSS methods combine the response for different direction of loading.
12. Now assigning the Seattle spectra in X (U
1
) and Y (U
2
) direction here lot of study has
been conducted about assigning the earthquake motion from all possible direction.
Orthogonal effects in spectral analysis: The member in the structure should be designed
for 100% of prescribed seismic forces in one direction plus 30% of prescribed forces in
perpendicular direction. Here it can be reasonable to assume that motion that takes place
during an earthquake has one principal direction or during a finite period of time when
maximum when maximum ground acceleration occurs, a principal direction exists. But
exact nature of 3dimensional wave propagation is not known. Based on the assumption,
we can conclude that a structure must resist a major earthquake motion of magnitude of
X for all possible angles and at the same point in time resist earthquake motion at
90 degree to the angle .
For the Model with RSA I have tested with 100% of IBC 2006 called Seattle Spectra
in Y-(U
2
) direction and 30% of IBC 2006 called Seattle Spectra in X-(U
1
) direction.
The Model is also tested vice versa and notice the difference in displacement.
For a structure of importance and estimate over conservative analysis we can
multiply by the factor safety to the spectra so that it reads out analysis for higher values
and give more conservative results then needed.
13. Modal Load Case Modification here we have to decide what modes we have to put for
the analysis no. of modes are not arbitrary it depends on D.O.F but we for this building
we have many D.O.F we dont want to put the many nos of D.O.F it is trail to try with
20 and 30 and see the Modal participating mass ratios if it reaches to 95% then it will be
22

reasonable analysis to accept with it. Even the importance of mentioning Types of mode
area there are 2 modes of area. Eigenvector Analysis and Ritz vector Analysis it
important to know which gives better results. Eigen vector analysis determine the
undamped free vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the structure, but lot of research
have been conducted the natural free vibration mode shapes are not the best basis for a
mode superposition analysis of structures subjected to dynamic loads. Ritz vectors yield
more accurate results than eigenvector. Because ritz vectors gives better results because
taking into account the spatial distribution of dynamic loading. Knowing this we can
proceed with applying accelerated load in global co-ordinate system in X-direction and
Y-direction.
14. Model 4 &5 analysis I/p explanation the Lacco Time History data obtained from SAP
2000 file it is just a record of single earthquake the data obtained it is applied to the
structure using local co-ordinate, here the orthogonality will not come in role, the
importance of time history analysis which super cedes the RSA the input of Lacco Time
History data assigned , for SAP 2000 it is possible to perform a large amount of dynamic
analyses at various angles of input where we can check all points for critical earthquake
direction. Here In Model 5 in co-operated the non linear analysis, because the advantage
compare to RSA we have that we can perform non linear analysis in THA. RSA has
limitation in nonlinear analysis
15. Model 5, to perform non linear analysis Here new load case is defined in the name of
Grav this is restricted to the dead load only the manner in which applied was selected
RAMPTH Function it is pattern of function applied to the structure. This is the initial
condition use when Lacco Time History Non linear analysis is performed .Here Modal
damping is modified for 1
st
three modes. Only difference in Modal load case we add Link
so that it specify the results for the isolator. Isolator is an Link/Support element.
16. Run Analysis is performed to interpreted the results














23

4 Load Model






Figure 8: Model with dead load
(We can see on left hand side color band Load applied to the Floors 140 psf)

140
psf
Roof
24



Figure 9: Model with Live Load
(We can see on left hand side color band Load applied to the Floors 125psf
And 50 psf to the roof)


















50 psf 125 psf
25

5 Analysis

Response Spectrum Analysis Results: To perform analysis for Seattle Spectra generated using
IBC 2006 by SAP. Model1, Model2, Model3 have been tested using spectra and results are
obtained.

1. Damping: In all three model damping ratio was assigned to 0.05 during an I/P of
generation of spectra, No advance damping was defined for the model.
2. Accelerations: For each mode acceleration are printed in local co-ordinate system, so
when we proceed for reading results in this project it identified by the symbol U
1
Acc
And U2

Acc.(this value are the acceleration for each mode are the actual values
interpolated at the modal period from the spectra curve.)
3. Modal Amplitude: The response spectrum modal amplitude give the multipliers of the
mode shapes that contribute to the displaced shape for the each direction of acceleration
load. In the result it is identified as U1
AMP
& U2
AMP
.
4. Displacement: Noted the Joint displacement at point A,B & C for each floor ( Refer the
plan drawing) for the Model1, Model2 & Model3 under the application of seismic
spectra. In the result it is identified as U
1
& U
2

5. Shear Force and Bending Moment: For the Model1, Model2 & Model3 forces and
moment were noted under a Seattle spectra
6. Base reaction: For the models base reaction are noted , which says the total forces and
moment about the global origin required of the supports (restraint and spring) to resist
the inertia forces due to response spectrum loading. In the result they are identified as as
in the gloabal co-ordinate Fx, Fy, Mx & My)

Modal Analysis Results: To perform analysis for Acclerated load applied in Ux and Uy and
look for Modal participation mass ratio. The idea behind the modal analysis is to decouple vector

1. Period (T) in sec which identified in the results which represent the period of a mode for
complete system.
2. Eigen value is obtained for each mode Identified in the results as
2
in rads/sec
3. Modal Mass was seen in the result as an unity..
4. Modal Stiffness was seen as modal eigenvalue.
5. Modal Load applied in Ux and Uy there dynamic participation was checked.
6. Modal Participating Mass ratios were checked that it reaches to 99% of Cumulative sums
of participating mass ratio for all modes). In the result it is identified Sum of Ux and
Sum of Uy.



26

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



Figure10: Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 1





Figure11: Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 1
U1
1.752
Maximum value Shear force was
noticed at base level Int Col 1&2
V
u
Dynamic due to Seattle Spectra
Should be considered for the
design
27







Figure12: Showing bending moment (at grid line 2) under Seattle Spectra-
Model1
















`Area of interest
strong columns
needed (Playing with
reinforcement
criterion good idea
to see the change in
behavior)
28

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





Figure13: Showing Displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 2





Figure14: Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 2
U
2

1.19
Maximum value
Shear force was
noticed at top level
Int Col 3&4
V Dynamic due to
Seattle Spectra
Should be
considered for the
design

29




Figure15: Showing bending moment (at grid line 1) under Seattle
Spectra-Model2


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



Figure 16 Showing displacement under Seattle Spectra-Model 3

Maximum Moment in
beam was noticed
adjacent to the wall
U
2
1.138
30


Figure17 Showing shear force under Seattle Spectra- Model 3




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





Maximum
Shear force
was noticed
At Int Col. 3
Maximum
Moment in
beam was
noticed
adjacent to
the wall

31







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


Table 8: Comparison Tables and Result Obtained for 3 models

TABLE: Response Spectrum Modal
Information Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Floo
r
Join
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
in U1 in U2 in U1 in U2 in U1 in U2
Nos Nos inch inch Inch inch inch inch
1 122 0.435 2.8177 0.1305 0.167 0.1075 0.1418
1 127 0.435 2.8177 0.1305 0.167 0.1075 0.1418
1 132 0.435 2.8177 0.1305 0.167 0.1075 0.1418
2 123 0.8847 5.6134 0.3869 0.466 0.3197 0.3926
2 128 0.8847 5.6134 0.3869 0.466 0.3197 0.3926
2 133 0.8847 5.6134 0.3869 0.466 0.3197 0.3926
3 124 1.4362 8.0379 0.7005 0.8264 0.591 0.6992
Maximum
Moment was
Noticed in Int
.Col.4
Maximum
Moment was
noticed in Beam
at 3
rd
floor

32

Floo
r
Join
t Displacment Displacment
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t
Displacemen
t

in U1 in U2 in U1 in U2 in U1 in U2
Nos Nos inch inch Inch inch inch inch
4 125 1.7516 9.4159 1.0139 1.1917 0.9912 1.138
4 130 1.7516 9.4159 1.0139 1.1917 0.9912 1.138
4 135 1.7516 9.4159 1.0139 1.1917 0.9912 1.138





Figure 20: Comparison of Displacement for 3 different models



0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Floors
Displacement in inch
Comparision of Displacement for 3 different models
seattle spectra x-dirn displacement model1
seattle spectra-y dirn displacement-model 1
seattle spectra x- dirn displacement model2
seattle spectra y dirn displacement model2
seattle spectra x-dirn displacement-soft story
seattle spectra Y-dirn displacement-soft story
33

Table 9: Comparison Calculation for finding % reduction of displacement
due to soft story

Comparison Calculation
Floor
Comparison of
U1
Model 2 &3
Comparison of U2
Model 2 &3
% Displacement
Reduction in U1 due
to
soft story
% Displacement
Reduction in U2 due
to
soft story
Nos inch inch % %
1 0.023 0.0252 17.62452107 15.08982036
2 0.0672 0.0734 17.36882915 15.75107296
3 0.1095 0.1272 15.63169165 15.39206196
4 0.0227 0.0537 2.238879574 4.50616766

Table 10: Comparison of base reaction due to all 3 model & % reduction of base reaction
due to soft story

TABLE: Base
Reactions Comparison table
OutputCase GlobalFX GlobalFY GlobalMX GlobalMY
Text Kip Kip Kip-in Kip-in
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 1 1336.864 2800.527 1126741.653 561191.13
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 2 1954.772 6424.492 2865226.938 844083.04
SEATTLE
SPECTRA
ANALYSIS
Model 3 1883.922 6250.226 2720878 794093.6
Difference (Model2 -
Model 3) 70.85 174.266 144348.938 49989.437
Reduction in (%)
base shear for soft
story on comparison
of model 2 3.624464 2.712526 5.037958288 5.9223364







34

Table 11: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 1

Response Spectrum Analysis Model 1

Mode Period CircFreq Eigenvalue U1Acc U2Acc U1Amp U2Amp
Unitless Sec ()rad/sec rad2/sec2 in/sec2 in/sec2 in in
1 0.959617 6.5476 42.871 95.026 316.754 3.19E-17 21.44683
2 0.758166 8.2873 68.68 120.959 403.196 2.25E-16 3.97E-14
3 0.575054 10.926 119.38 160.556 535.185 3.822136
-7.00E-
17
4 0.33584 18.709 350.02 235.447 784.823 3.98E-18 2.250856
5 0.273242 22.995 528.77 235.447 784.823
-2.30E-
17 4.24E-17
6 0.211691 29.681 880.95 235.447 784.823 -0.30296 6.82E-18
7 0.208873 30.081 904.89 235.447 784.823 1.19E-17 0.4261
8 0.169113 37.154 1380.4 235.447 784.823 5.65E-18 7.87E-17
9 0.163768 38.366 1472 235.447 784.823
-1.00E-
17 0.168688
10 0.135146 46.492 2161.5 235.447 784.823 -0.05127 9.50E-18


Table 12: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 2

Response Spectrum Analysis Model 2

StepNum Period CircFreq Eigenvalue U1Acc U2Acc U1Amp U2Amp
Unitless Sec rad/sec rad2/sec2 in/sec2 in/sec2 in in
1 0.353912 17.754 315.19 235.447 784.823 2.109278 -0.09369
2 0.211951 29.645 878.8 235.447 784.823 0.011517 2.515816
3 0.154698 40.616 1649.6 235.447 784.823
-1.00E-
16 1.50E-15
4 0.088961 70.629 4988.4 235.447 784.823 0.069433 -0.00171
5 0.075264 83.482 6969.2 232.548 775.159 0.00206 -0.00549
6 0.065681 95.663 9151.4 214.929 716.43 0.000214 -0.00599
7 0.063453 99.021 9805.2 210.833 702.777 -0.00042 0.013416
8 0.062264 100.91 10183 208.648 695.494 -0.00076 -0.0018
9 0.057624 109.04 11889 200.118 667.06 0.000308 -0.01643
10 0.054874 114.5 13111 195.062 650.205 -0.00019 -0.07391




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

System is
Stiff hence
reduction is
noticed in
natural
period

35

Table 13: Response Spectrum Analysis Model 3

Response Spectrum Analysis Model 3

StepNum Period CircFreq Eigenvalue U1Acc U2Acc U1Amp U2Amp
Unitless Sec rad/sec rad2/sec2 in/sec2 in/sec2 in in
1 0.346101 18.154 329.58 235.447 784.823 1.96549 -0.08366
2 0.205136 30.629 938.16 235.447 784.823 0.010074 2.313225
3 0.150421 41.771 1744.8 235.447 784.823 9.40E-18 7.71E-15
4 0.093568 67.151 4509.3 235.447 784.823 0.081621 -0.00178
5 0.0735 85.486 7307.8 229.304 764.348 0.000886 -0.00533
6 0.063909 98.315 9665.9 211.671 705.571 -0.00014 0.006343
7 0.062567 100.42 10085 209.205 697.349 0.000228 -0.01629
8 0.060883 103.2 10651 206.108 687.028 0.000352 0.00447
9 0.057078 110.08 12118 199.114 663.713 0.000086 -0.07213
10 0.056205 111.79 12497 197.509 658.364 -0.00026 -0.04667

Table 14: Comparison of effect of soft story in RSA

Floor Model 3 (Soft
Story)
Displacement
Reduction
Displacement
Reduction
Base Reactions
No. Comparison of
stiffness increase in
stiffness in Model 3
%
Displacement
Reduction in
U1
due to
soft story
%
Displacement
Reduction in
U2
due to
soft story
Reduction in (%) base shear for soft story on
comparison of model 2
% % % (Fx) % (Fy) % (Mx) % (My) %
1 29.9879 % increase 17.62452107 15.08982036
3.62446362 2.7125258 5.0379583 5.92233641
2 29.9879 % increase 17.36882915 15.75107296
3 29.9879 % increase 15.63169165 15.39206196
4 48.73702%decrease 2.238879574 4.50616766

Interpretation:

1. Discussion about displacement comparison Model 1 with Model 2 and 3 we can see
clearly from the graph (fig. 20) where displacements for Model 1 is very high for U
1
and
U
2
. The reason is very simple that the provision of shear wall was made in Model 2 and 3
which was oriented in all direction as can be seen from the model. It provides building
with seismic resistance. So provision of shear wall is one of the seismic resistant
structures.
System is
very stiff
hence
reduction is
noticed in
natural
period
36

2. For member force for Model 1 we can see from (fig. 11 & 12) when analyzing for
complete building the maximum Shear force and Bending Moment was noticed in the
grid line 2 of plan (the strong columns and resistant to seismic is needed at the interior
column at first floor.)
3. When comparing the displacement Model 2 with 3 from (fig. 20 and Table 14) we can
notice that due to increase of stiffness in floor 1, 2 & 3 there is a reduction in
displacement in the floors. But when there is a decrease of stiffness in floor 4 there is a
reduction in displacement in the 4
th
floors but now the reduction of displacement is less
compare to the floor 1, 2 & 3.Overall soft story can achieve reduction in displacement if
stiffness is rearrange in the building.
4. When comparing the base reaction in global direction for Model 2 with 3, we can notice
that reduction of base reaction in Model 3 (Table 14 shows the value). So we can say to
resist the inertia forces due to Response spectrum is less for the soft story.
5. Warily studies was performed for the member forces for Model 2 with 3(refer fig. 14, fig
15, fig 17, fig 18 & fig 19) where comment are listed by noticing the M
u Seattle
& V
u Seattle
.
Based on the maximum value and use of some conservative reinforcing pattern should be
adopted. For the model I have consider #9 longitudinal bars and #4 Confinement bars and
confinement ties (for Beams and Columns)
i. The ductile frame joint based on the high seismic study (there are standard
guidelines available to adopt in high seismic region)
ii. Requirement of the boundary members should be adopted
iii. Seismic Hooks, Cross tie and hoops can be provided
iv. To design for Frame Flexural Members should be adopted
v. Transverse Confinement in the Flexural member should be adopted.
vi. Providing a Bond Beam.
(Information obtain from Michael R Lindeburg, Seismic Design of Building Structure)
6. Study of Modal Analysis for an ndof we have n no. of mode for the project we dont
need n no. of modes to evaluate results for all three model for all 3 model the result were
obtain for 10 modes modal participating mass ratios reaches to 98% and modal load
participation factor reaches 100% of what we applied (i.e. Seattle Spectra) in both U
1
and
U
2
.So result are complete
7. When comparing Model 1,2 and 3 result for each mode shape was check for correctness
when we look to structural o/p of the SAP 2000, looking for Modal Participation factor
in which I obtained for each mode .
i. Modal Mass is an Unity (speaking in terms of theoretical terms Modal mass
matrix is an identity matrix)
ii. Modal Stiffness for each mode was obtained as (natural frequency )
2
equal to
eigenvalue which is tabulated in (eigenvalue- table 11,12 &13)
8. Comparing period for all 3 model we can see model 1 has very high period compare to
model 2 and 3. When we compare Model 1 period with theoretical period based on IBC
37

2006. We can say theoretical period are very approximate value design cannot be
performed based on theoretical basis. Comparing Model 2 with Model 3. Reduction in
period is notice for each mode by mode comparison.
9. Modal Amplitude obtain from (table 11,12 &13) identified as U
1AMP
& U
2AMP
are the
multiplier of the mode shapes that has contribute to displaced shape. We can notice from
the table clearly that U
2 Amp
contribution is very high for Model 1 because it does not
have resistive wall in the model. For Comparing Model 2 with Model 3 U
2 Amp

contribution is high for Model 2 compare to Model 3.
10. Analysis was performed by now changing 30% of IBC 2006 in Y-direction & 100% of
IBC 2006 in X-direction. The Displacement result where lower. The control direction of
loading is 100% of IBC 2006 in Y-direction and 30% of IBC 2006 in X-directions


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






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



Maximum Joint Displacement
at Joint 10 U
2
3.2059 inch

Maximum Joint Displacement
at Joint 90 U
1
3.557542 inch

38




Figure 22 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4
(U
2
displacement is at 9.62 sec 0.4741 inch)



39

Figure 23 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 4
(U1 displacement is at 7.31 sec 0.9826 inch)
Table 15: Modal Periods and Frequencies for LACCO NOR earthquake-Model 4

TABLE: Modal Periods
And Frequencies
StepNum Period CircFreq Eigenvalue
Unitless Sec rad/sec rad2/sec2
1 0.353912 17.754 315.19
2 0.211951 29.645 878.8
3 0.154698 40.616 1649.6
4 0.088961 70.629 4988.4
5 0.075264 83.482 6969.2
6 0.065681 95.663 9151.4
7 0.063453 99.021 9805.2
8 0.062264 100.91 10183
9 0.057624 109.04 11889
10 0.054874 114.5 13111
11 0.0511 122.96 15119
12 0.050546 124.31 15452
13 0.044782 140.3 19685
14 0.041648 150.86 22760
15 0.040872 153.73 23633

Table 16: Base Reaction for LACCO Spectra-Model 5

TABLE: Base
Reactions
OutputCase CaseType GlobalFX GlobalFY GlobalMX GlobalMY
Text Text Kip Kip Kip-in Kip-in
LACCO SPECTRA LinModHist 1802.357 2499.414 1128363.425 798825.409






40



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

Figure 24 Model 5 Showing Rubber Isolator.



Figure 25 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
(U
2
displacement very little difference between each floor displacement)

Rubber
Isolator
Provided
41



Figure 26 Comparison of Joint displacement under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
(U
1
displacement is very high)



Figure 27 Comparison of Joint Vs Base Shear under LACCO NOR earthquake record-Model 5
(U
1
displacement is very high)


42

Table 17: Modal period and frequencies-Model 5

TABLE: Modal Periods
And Frequencies
StepNum Period CircFreq Eigenvalue
Unitless Sec rad/sec rad2/sec2
1
12.20939
0.51462 0.26483
2 12.20847 0.51466 0.26487
3 11.91553 0.52731 0.27806
4 0.332325 18.907 357.46
5 0.311778 20.153 406.13
6 0.239744 26.208 686.85
7 0.168803 37.222 1385.5
8 0.158349 39.679 1574.4
9 0.135287 46.443 2157
10 0.132027 47.59 2264.8
11 0.125196 50.187 2518.7
12 0.122749 51.187 2620.1
13 0.121475 51.724 2675.4
14 0.105582 59.51 3541.5
15 0.102957 61.028 3724.4

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

Comparison of Periods
Mode
Period
Isolator
(Tb)
Period
Fixed
(Tf) (Tb/Tf)
Unitless Sec Sec
1
12.20939
0.353912
34.49838
2 12.20847 0.211951 57.60045
3 11.91553 0.154698 77.02447
4 0.332325 0.088961 3.735626
5 0.311778 0.075264 4.142459
6 0.239744 0.065681 3.650127
7 0.168803 0.063453 2.660284
8 0.158349 0.062264 2.543187
9 0.135287 0.057624 2.347754
10 0.132027 0.054874 2.406003
11 0.125196 0.0511 2.45002
Natural
Period is
very high
43

Mode
Period
Isolator
(Tb)
Period
Fixed
(Tf) (Tb/Tf)
12 0.122749 0.050546 2.428461
13 0.121475 0.044782 2.712585
14 0.105582 0.041648 2.535104
15 0.102957 0.040872 2.519011


Figure 28 Layout of Link Element




Figure 29 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 1
Figure 29 and Figure 30 shows the plot of Isolator deformation
44




Figure 30 Isolator Deformations Model 5-Link Set 2

Table 19: Comparison of Base Reaction of Model 4 & Model 5

TABLE: Base Reactions
OutputCase GlobalFX GlobalFY GlobalMX GlobalMY
Text Kip Kip Kip-in Kip-in
LAC-Model 4 1802.357 2499.414 1128363 798825.4
LAC-Model 5 0 106.819 28316.15 1124.768
% Reduction of Base
Reaction due to isolator addition 100 95.72624 97.49051 99.8592

Interpretation:

1. When comparative study done between Model 4 & Model 5 , Base Isolation lengthen the
period the fundamental vibration of the structure which can be seen from (table 17 and
table 18) and because of isolator provision in Model 5 reduces the pseudo acceleration
for the mode.
2. In Model 5 the first vibration mode of isolated structure involves deformation in the
isolator link element. The structure is moving as a rigid body on the top of the isolator.
3. From fig. 21 we can see that maximum displacement (U
2
& U
1
) in the structure occurs at
different time. From fig. 22 & 23 we can see the difference of displacement in each story.
Now at same point we study for model 5 (fig. 25 & 26) we can see there is no difference
in the displacement at each level, the effect of isolator is that structure is moving as a
rigid body on the top of the isolator.
4. From fig 29 & 30 we can see clearly deformation in the isolator is very high.
5. When comparing the Model 4 & Model 5 for base reaction we can see the inertia force
required to resist the structure from LACCO Nor earthquake record is less for Model 5
45

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





































46

6 Conclusions

1. After vigilant assessment we can distinguish that for concrete structures, additional
development work is required to develop a completely rational method. As we can see
that RSA assessment is restricted to linear analysis as RSA analysis have one of the
limitation it does not perform nonlinear analysis. When looking to the Model 1, 2 & 3
Model 3 is preferable compare to other 1 & 2, reason is because if we know were to put
what size of columns and beams. (if we work out with right Math work for assembling
stiffness & rearrangement we can achieve reduction in the displacement due to pseudo
ground acceleration)
2. To obtain rational design forces for the concrete member it will be good idea to analyze
the structure 3 or 4 earthquake record using time history analysis as they can furnish the
design forces required for the critical area. The forces obtain in Model 1, 2,& 3 would be
an good approximation for V
dynamic
& M
dynamic
but it will be always be good idea to scale
out higher value then what we obtain.
3. Time history analysis performed for Model 4 & 5 reduction in base shear was achieved
significantly, due to addition of isolator. Hence effectiveness of reduction of earthquake
induced forces in a model 5 was achieved by provision of isolator.
4. If System is very stiff there will be reduction in the natural period, which can be noticed a
in the Period comparison for Model 1, 2& 3. For a Model3 it is very stiff system so we
can say it is mass sensitive so if we want change in behavior of the system we have to
look at the mass and based on that we can achieve the changes in the system (Tuned mass
system would be an good recommendation)

47

References

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