ICCBT2008

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To

Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO
M. I. Adiyanto*, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA
T. A. Majid, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA
S. S. Zaini, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA
ABSTRACT
Before the disaster of the century known as The Terrible Tsunami caused by heavy Sumatra
Andaman earthquake in December 2004, it can be said that no one in Malaysia care about
earthquake. Majority of Malaysian citizen does not worry to earthquake hazard. However,
after experienced several tremors in Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia due to earthquakes
occurred in Philippines and Indonesia, the question about ability of buildings in Malaysia to
withstand the tremors are rising up. This issue has become serious when several earthquakes
had occurred in Bukit Tinggi, Pahang in 2007. Since hospital is the most important place
during disaster to give humanitarian aid and medical treatment, it is important to make sure
that the hospital building can withstand the earthquake. The objective of this study is to make
comparisons of analysis and design of a 3-storey hospital building. Several cases of seismic
loads had been applied to the building separately to represent the different intensity of
earthquake between Malaysia and Indonesia. The results of analysis show that the same
building can withstand any intensity of earthquake. It mean that the building are suitable to
be built in any area located near the epicenter such as Indonesia, or at a distant from the
epicenter like Malaysia. The comparison of design due to all cases showed that the design for
building located near the epicenter need more steel reinforcement to resist the bending
moment.
Keywords: 3 Storey Hospital, Seismic Loads, STAADPRo Software.

*Correspondence Author: Mr. Mohd Irwan Adiyanto, Universiti Sains, Malaysia. Tel: +60175316653, Fax:
+6045996282. E-mail: irwano_07@yahoo.com

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

INTRODUCTION

Before the year of 2004, nobody concern about earthquake in Malaysia. This is because
Malaysia was lucky to be located outside the earthquake region and logically, it will be no
hazards for Malaysian due to the earthquake. However, after a great Asian Disaster of
tsunami on 26th December 2004 [1], followed by several earthquakes in 2005 until nowadays,
the safety of buildings in Malaysia subjected to seismic loading had become an issue. The
government, local authorities, structural engineers, architects, and other related professionals
now start to discuss about the relevant of building with consideration of seismic load in
Malaysia.
From 26th December 2004 until nowadays, so many earthquakes had occurred in South East
Asia especially in Indonesia and Philippines. The tsunami disaster on December 2004 [1] was
followed by tremor in Nias Island, Indonesia in March 2005 [2]. Then, the earthquake also
occurred in Jogjakarta in May 2006 before the disaster was come again in September 2007 in
Bengkulu. However, the epicenter of earthquakes was located outside Peninsular Malaysia
and the tremors not give any effect to buildings in Malaysia. But, a small scale of tremor then
was occurred in Bukit Tinggi, Malaysia in December 2007 [3]. Thus, a panic situation was
happened to the residents of Bukit Tinggi due to the unexpected disaster.
On 28th March 2005, a heavy earthquake at 8.7 Richter scale was occurred in Nias Island [2],
Indonesia (Figure 1). The tremor also was felt at several places in Peninsular Malaysia
especially Penang and Kuala Lumpur. Although that earthquake did not cause any Tsunami
wave, the shocking tragedy had killed more than 1000 people and caused damage to many
buildings in Gunung Sitoli, Nias. This also happened to the Gunung Sitoli General Hospital
which was also functioned as operation center to give medical treatment to the victims.
In this paper, the main focus is to analyze the bending moment, shear force, and inter-storey
drift of 3-storey hospital building due to different intensity of seismic load using STAAD Pro.
Then, to design a selected beam of 3-storey hospital building due to different intensity of
seismic load based on American Concrete Institute [4]. Finally, this paper had done the
comparison of design and detailing for the selected beam due to different intensity of seismic
load.

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
NORTH SUMATRA

NIAS ISLAND

Figure 1: Location of Nias Island (Google Earth)

378

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

M. I. Adiyanto et. al.

2.

METHOD AND BASIC THEORY

This paper contains several steps in order to achieve its objectives. The important steps are
simplification of floor plan, modeling using STAAD Pro software with different input of
seismic intensity, analysis of bending moment, shear force, and inter-storey drift. Then, the
design for a selected symmetrical beam had been done to compare the changes of steel
reinforcement required and provided due to different intensity of seismic load. The dead loads
and live loads are taken from BS6399:1997 [5] and seismic load will be determined by using
UBC 1994 equivalent lateral force procedure [6].
2.1 Determination of Seismic Load Intensity
The determination of seismic load intensity is based on equivalent static force procedure in
UBC 1994 [6].
Step 1: Determination of numerical coefficient, C:
C = 1.25 S / T2/3

(1)

Step 2: Determination of total seismic weight of the structure, W:

n

W = W X

(2)

i =1

Wx = WA + WB + WC +WD +Wequip

(3)

Figure 2: Tributary weight for seismic load calculation (UBC94)

Step 3: Determination of design base shear:
V = [Z I C / Rw] W

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

(4)

379

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

Step 4: Distribution of lateral force:

n

V = Ft + Fi

(5)

i =1

Fi = (V Ft )

wi hi

(6)

w h
i =1

2.2 Beam Design for Gravity Load

The beam design for selected beam under consideration of gravity load only is based on
Clause 3.4.4.4 in BS 8110: part 1:1997 [7].
Step 1: Area of steel reinforcement required:
K=

M
f CU bd 2

(7)

Z = d 0.5 + 0.25

0.9

M
AS =
0.95 f Y Z

(8)
(9)

Step 2: Checking for minimum and maximum reinforcement:

0.13 <

100AS
< 4.0
bd

(10)

2.3 Beam Design for Seismic Load

For case of combination between gravity and seismic load, the beam design is referred to
special provisions for seismic design as mentioned in chapter 21, American Concrete Institute
[4]. The steps of flexural reinforcement design are following several equations as shown
below:
Step 1: Area of steel reinforcement required:
AS =

Mu
fY j d

(11)

Step 2: Moment capacity checking:

380

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

M. I. Adiyanto et. al.

a=

AS FY
0.85 f 'C bW

(12)

Step 3: Checking for minimum and maximum reinforcement:

M p = AS f Y d

AS Pr ovided > AS

3.

min

3 f 'C

bW d ,

(13)

200bW d
fY

fY
A
= S < 0.025
bW d

(14)
(15)

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

In this paper, the observation about effect of different values of seismic load on bending
moment has been done to a selected beam in z-direction. A three span beam labeled as
member 575, 576, and 577 located at gridline F/1-F/6 has been chosen since the beam
supports widest floor area among other beams in z-direction. So, the beam will support the
highest distribution of dead load and live load compared to other beams in z-direction. Figure
3 shows the location of selected frame while Figure 4 shows the side elevation of selected
frame.

Figure 3: Location of selected frame in z-direction

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

381

576

110

3.5 m

575

577

123

135

146

3.5 m

SEISMIC LOAD
(Z-DIRECTION)

3.5 m

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

Ground level
5m

6m

5m

Figure 4: Side elevation of selected frame

3.1 Effect on Bending Moment for a Selected Beam in Z-Direction
Due to Different Values of Seismic Load

Bending moment (kN.m)

500
400
300
200
100
0
-100 0
-200
101

123

10

15

135

146

20

Section of beam (m)

Gravity load

Low seismic load

Medium seismic load

High seismic load

Figure 5: Comparison of bending moment diagram

for different intensity of seismic load
Figure 5 shows the comparison of bending moment diagram for different intensity of seismic
load applied to the structure. The comparison showed clearly that the values of bending
moment caused by high intensity of seismic load are highest compared to other intensities.
Table 1 below shows the comparison for the percentage of different for maximum bending
moment due to different intensity of seismic load. The changing of maximum bending
moment due to high seismic load applied compared to action of gravity load only is very high
up to 82.4 percent. The comparison of maximum moment then is presented graphically in
Figure 6.
382

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

M. I. Adiyanto et. al.

Table 1: Comparison of maximum bending moment value for selected

beam under various intensity of seismic load in Z-direction
Type of loading
Maximum moment (kN.m) Percentage of different (%)
Gravity load
205.160
0
Low seismic load
208.352
1.56
Medium seismic load
259.408
26.4
High seismic load
374.290
82.4

374.29

Maximum bending moment

(kN.m)

400
350
300

259.408

250

205.16

208.352

200
150
100
50
0
Type of loading

Gravity load

Low seismic load

Medium seismic load

High seismic load

Figure 6: Comparison of maximum bending moment due to various type of loading.

3.2 Effect on Shear Force for a Selected Beam in Z-Direction

Due to Different Values of Seismic Load
300
Shear force (kN)

200
100
0
-100

10

15

20

-200
-300
Section of beam (m)
Gravity load

Low seismic load

Medium seismic load

High seismic load

Figure 7: Shear force diagram for each type of loading

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

383

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

Figure 7 shows the comparison of shear force diagram for different intensity of seismic load
applied to the structure. The comparison showed clearly that the values of shear force caused
by high intensity of seismic load are highest compared to other intensities. Table 2 below
shows the comparison for the percentage of different for maximum shear force due to
different intensity of seismic load. The changing of maximum shear force due to high seismic
load applied compared to action of gravity load only is high up to 13.2 percent. The
comparison of maximum shear then is presented graphically in Figure 8.
Table 2: Comparison of maximum shear force value for selected
beam under various intensity of seismic load in Z-direction

Maximum shear force (kN)

Type of loading
Gravity load
Low seismic load
Medium seismic load
High seismic load

Maximum shear (kN)

227.055
230.656
240.236
257.056

Percentage of different (%)

0
1.59
5.81
13.2
257.056

260
255
250
245
240
235
230
225

240.236
230.656
227.055

220
215
210
Type of loading

Gravity load

Low seismic load

Medium seismic load

High seismic load

Figure 8: Comparison of maximum shear force due to various type of loading.

3.3 Inter-storey Drift Index Checking

Inter-storey drift is the lateral displacement of one level of a multi-storey structure relative to
the lower level. According to Smith and Coull [8], the inter-storey drift index can be defined
as:
Inter-storey drift index = maximum deflection at a particular storey
Storey height

(16)

In accordance with UBC 1997 code, for the building with fundamental period, T is less than
0.7 seconds, the inelastic drift are limited to a maximum 0.025 times the storey height. For a
building with natural periods 0.7 seconds or greater, the limitation for inter-storey drift is

384

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

M. I. Adiyanto et. al.

0.020 times the storey height. Since the value of period, T in this study was 0.43 second, the
limitation for inter-storey drift is 8.75 cm.
Table 3: Inter-storey drift in x-direction at particular storey under various seismic
load values
Inter-storey drift at particular storey (cm)
Gravity
Low
Medium
High
load
seismic
seismic
seismic
Inter-storey drift
load
load
load
Level
limit,
(x(x(xh/40 (cm)
direction)
direction)
direction)
1.0DL
1.0DL
1.0DL
1.0DL
+
+
+
+
1.0LL
1.0LL
1.0LL
1.0LL
+
+
+
1.0ELZ
1.0ELZ
1.0ELZ
3
0.0152
0.1954
0.4722
0.9144
8.75
2
0.0142
0.4844
1.2828
2.5612
8.75
1
0.0113
0.5967
1.5800
3.1534
8.75
Table 4: Inter-storey drift in z-direction at particular storey under various
seismic load values
Inter-storey drift at particular storey (cm)
Gravity
Low
Medium
High
load
seismic
seismic
seismic
Inter-storey
load
load
load
Level
drift limit,
(z(z(zh/40 (cm)
direction)
direction)
direction)
1.0DL
1.0DL
1.0DL
1.0DL
+
+
+
+
1.0LL
1.0LL
1.0LL
1.0LL
+
+
+
1.0ELZ
1.0ELZ
1.0ELZ
3
0.0093
0.1944
0.5241
1.0515
8.75
2
0.0083
0.6989
1.8767
3.7619
8.75
1
0.0142
0.8766
2.3532
4.72
8.75

Table 3 and Table 4 represent the result for inter-storey drift at particular level in x-direction
and z-direction respectively. For both table, the inter-storey drift at particular level due to
action of different type of loading are not exceeding the inter-storey drift limit. This result
mean that the horizontal movement of columns joint are below the limitation and acceptable
for design purposes even for high seismic load.
From Table 3 and Table 4, it can be observed that the inter-storey drift for each level are
different due to type of loading applied. At the same level, the value of inter-storey drift is

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

385

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

increase start from gravity load, low seismic load, medium seismic load, and followed by the
high seismic load. Since maximum displacement of each level cause by the action of high
seismic load to the building, it is now the same result for inter-storey drift. Maximum value of
inter-storey drift in x and z-direction is 3.1534 cm and 4.72 cm respectively. The maximum
inter-storey drift was occurred at first level for all cases of seismic load and for both x and z
direction. The inter-storey drift then decreased until the top level. So, the lateral displacement
for both x and z direction at the roof level are smaller relative to the third level of the building.
This is due to smaller value of seismic load act on roof joint compared to the lower joints for
all cases of seismic load.

3.4 Comparison of a Beam Design Due to Different Type of Loading Applied.

As well as the analysis for bending moment, the comparison on beam design also using the
same beam. Hence, the value of bending moment as discussed before is used for design
purposes. In this study, the comparison of beam design are based on three different section
that are the exterior support, middle span, and interior support of the beam. The location of
exterior support, middle span, and interior support are shown in Figure 9.

110

123
5m

135
6m

146
5m

Exterior support
Middle span
Interior support

Figure 9: Location of exterior support, middle span, and interior support

The comparison of beam design in term of size of section and bending reinforcement are
tabulated in Table 5. From that table, it can be observed clearly that the area of steel
reinforcement required is increase directly with the value of maximum moment for exterior
support, middle span, and interior support. The cross section area of steel required for high
seismic load is the highest among all cases.

386

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

M. I. Adiyanto et. al.

From Table 5, the flexural reinforcements provided for interior support are highest compared
to flexural reinforcement provided for exterior support and middle span of the beam. This is
due to the value of bending moment are highest at interior support compared to other section
for all cases of loading. However, the section of beam is remaining same for all cases by using
200 mm for width and 600 mm for height. The cross section areas of steel reinforcements
provided are higher than required.

Table 5: Comparison of beam design due to different type of loading applied

Interior support
(top reinf)

Middle span
(bottom reinf)

Exterior support
(top reinf)

Section

Design parameter

5.0

Gravity
load

Low
seismic
load

Medium
seismic
load

High
seismic
load

Size of section (mm2)

Maximum moment
(kN.m)
Bending reinforcement
As required (mm2)
As provided (mm2)
Size of section (mm2)

200 x 600
39.757

200 x 600
88.889

200 x 600
187.238

200 x 600
344.752

2Y12
175
226
200 x 600

2Y20
438.7
628
200 x 600

3Y20
922.6
942
200 x 600

4Y25
1690
1964
200 x 600

Maximum moment
(kN.m)
Bending reinforcement
As required (mm2)
As provided (mm2)
Size of section (mm2)
Maximum moment
(kN.m)
Bending reinforcement

135.543

137.754

137.754

137.754

4Y16
637
804
200 x 600
205.160

4Y16
677.42
804
200 x 600
208.352

4Y16
677.42
804
200 x 600
260.420

3Y20
677.42
942
200 x 600
374.290

4Y20

4Y20

3Y25

1060
1256

1026
1256

1277.4
1473

3Y25 +
2Y20
1838.7
2101

As required (mm2)
As provided (mm2)

CONCLUSION

In this paper, it is observed that the values of seismic load in this study are higher where the
coefficient for importance factor was taken as 1.25 for hospital building. So, the value of
shear base, V is higher than residential buildings by 20 percent. Since the height of that
hospital is just 10.5 meter, so the time period of loading, T is short and less than 7.0 second.
Thus, the value of Ft is equal to zero. In this case, Ft was not applied at the top of the building.
So, seismic loads act on roof level was less than the lower level.
The value of bending moment at any reference points at the beam is differ due to different
type of loading applied to the beam and joint. From the analysis, the value of bending
ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388

387

Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.

moment at all supports are increase from gravity load to low, medium, and high seismic load
applied. For bending moment at each middle span of the beam, no dramatic change occurred
due to different type of loading applied. However, no dramatic change for bending moment at
any section of the beam due to low seismic load applied compared to gravity load only.
From the analysis of shear force, it had been observed that the value of shear force in any
reference points at the beam is differ due to different type of loading applied to the beam and
joint. From the analysis, the value of shear forces at all supports are increase from gravity
load to low, medium, and high seismic load applied. In can be concluded that higher load will
produce higher bending moment and shear force.
In term of inter-storey drift checking, the inter-storey drift limit for both x and z direction is
8.75 cm. At the same level, the value of inter-storey drift is increase start from gravity load,
low seismic load, medium seismic load, and followed by the high seismic load. Maximum
value of inter-storey drift in x and z-direction is 3.1534 cm and 4.72 cm respectively. Since
the limit of inter-storey drift was not exceeded for all cases of loading, hence the low rise
hospital building can withstand any type of seismic load.
The beam design for all cases of loading are satisfy with 200 mm x 600 mm rectangular
section. However, the cross sectional area of steel reinforcement required for bending are
differ due to different type of loading. High seismic load requires the highest cross sectional
area of steel reinforcement compared to other loads. Hence, the material costs to build the
building near the epicenter are higher than in a distant location from epicenter.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks the School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia
(USM).

REFERENCES
[1]. Tsunami, 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake,
available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_tsunami
[2]. Nias Earthquake, 2005 Sumatra Earthquake,
available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sumatra_earthquake
[3]. Malaysian Meteorological Services, Ministry of Science technology and Innovation,
available from: http://www.kjc.gov.my
[4]. American Concrete Institute: Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05).
[5]. BS 6399: Part 1:1996: Loading for building, Part 1, Code of practice for dead and
imposed load.
[6]. 1994 Uniform Building Code, Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (Static Method)
[7] BS 8110: Part 1: 1997. Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for design and
construction.
[8] Smith, B.S. and Coull, A. (1991). Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design, John
Wiley & Sons, INC, Canada.

388

ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388