A Study On Performance of Existing Building Using Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame in Seismic Zone2A PDF

YANGON TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING

USING ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME
IN SEISMIC ZONE 2A
BY
MAUNG THIHA KYAW

H.C. 3 (APRIL 2005)
(M.E. THESIS)
JANUARY 2007
YANGON
A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING

USING ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME
IN SEISMIC ZONE 2A
MAUNG THIHA KYAW

H.C. 3 (APRIL 2005)
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIERMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
(CIVIL)
JANUARY 2007
YANGON
We certify that we have examined, and recommend to the University Steering

Committee for Post Graduate Studies for acceptance the thesis entitled "A STUDY
ON PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING USING ORDINARY
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME IN SEISMIC ZONE 2A" submitted by
Maung Thiha Kyaw, Roll No. H.C. 3 (April 2005) in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering.
Board of Examiners:
1. Dr. Khin Than Yu

Professor and Head ……………………….
Department of Civil Engineering, Y.T.U. (Chairman/Supervisor)
2. U Aung Than Win

Lecturer ……………………….
Department of Civil Engineering, W.Y.T.U. (Co-Supervisor)
3. U Myo Min Hlaing

Lecturer and Head ………………………..
Department of Civil Engineering, W.Y.T.U. (Member)
4. U Toe Toe Win

Lecturer ………………………..
Department of Civil Engineering, Y.T.U. (Member)
5. U Saw Htwe Zaw
Director ………………………..
ACECOMS, Satellite Centre (External Examiner)
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, the author would like to express his grateful thanks to his honourable
supervisor, Dr. Khin Than Yu, Professor and Head of Department of Civil
Engineering, Yangon Technological University, for her guidance and invaluable
suggestions throughout the preparation of this study.
The author also would like to express grateful thanks to his co-supervisor,
U Aung Than Win, Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Yangon
Technological University, for his invaluable helps, indispensable guidance, patient
and constructive suggestions.
The author is sincerely thankful to Daw Cho Cho, Associate Professor and
Deputy Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Yangon Technological University,
for her kind invaluable guidance, suggestions and kind help.
The author would like to express his heartfelt gratitude to the board of
examiners of this thesis.
Special thanks are also due to all his teachers of Civil Engineering Department
of Yangon Technological University for their invaluable teaching and careful
guidance.
The author would like to express his deepest gratitude to his parents for their
noble support, encouragement and their unique loving kindness to attain his
destination without any trouble.
Finally, thanks to all who helped him with necessary assistance for this study.
ii
ABSTRACT
Within previous decades, the seismic effects had not been considered when
designed and constructed the buildings. But now, due to the development of
technology and knowledge, the seismic effects had been taken into consideration in
design and construction of the structures.
This study deals with the building which was not considered the seismic
effects and is reviewed with subjected to moderate seismic forces to know the
performance of the building. In this study, twelve-storey reinforced concrete building
(ordinary moment-resisting frame) was considered to investigate the effects of
moderate earthquake but substructure analysis was not considered.
First, the three dimensional model was analysed and designed under gravity
load and wind load. And then, the same model was reanalysed with the effects of
moderate seismic forces (zone 2A). Repeated analyses for this structure were
considered for seismic forces (zone 2A) in both factored and unfactored load
conditions. For analysis and design of without seismic effect, ten load combinations
were considered and then twenty-six load combinations with seismic effects.
Finally, analysis results in main structural components such as axial force and
bending moments for columns, shear, torsion and bending moments for beams were
compared for the performance of ordinary moment-resisting frame under three
different types of analytical conditions described in above. Moreover, storey drifts,
storey displacement and storey shear were also compared in this study.
Structural analysis was carried out by using Extended Three Dimensional
Analysis of Building Systems (ETABS) version 8.4.8 software. Load assumptions and
combinations were considered according to the provisions of Uniform Building Code
– UBC (1997) and American Concrete Institute -ACI 318-99 respectively.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvi
CHAPTER TITLE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. General 1
1.2. Objectives of the Study 1
1.3. Scope of the Study 2
1.4. Data of Case Study 2
1.5. Outline of Thesis 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1. General 3
2.2. Seismic Damage 3
2.3. Correlation of Intensity, Magnitude and Acceleration 4
2.3.1. Peak Ground Acceleration 4
2.3.2. Richter Magnitude Scale 4
2.3.3. Intensity Scale 4
2.4. Seismic Risk Zone 5
2.5. Tall Building Behaviour During Earthquakes 6
2.6. Types of Structural Systems 7
2.7. Moment-Resisting Frame 7
2.8. Types of Moment-Resisting Frames 8
2.8.1. Special Moment-Resisting Frame 8
2.8.2. Intermediate Moment-Resisting Frame 8
2.8.3. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame 9
2.9. Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour 9
2.10. Columns 10
iv
2.10.1. Axial Compression 10

2.11. Static Analysis Procedure 11
2.12. Building Drift Caused by Lateral Forces 12
2.13. Overview of ETABS Software 13
3 PREPARATION FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 14
3.1. Design Parameters and Assumptions for Calculation 14
3.2. Loading 14
3.2.1. Gravity Loads 14
3.2.1.1. Dead load 15
3.2.1.2. Live load 15
3.2.2. Lateral Loads 15
3.2.2.1. Wind load 15
3.2.2.2. Earthquake load 17
3.2.3 Load Combinations 20
3.3. Grouping of Structural Components 21
3.4. Analysing 22
3.5. Analysis Output 22
3.5.1. Analysis Results for Columns 22
3.5.2. Analysis Results for Beams 22
3.5.3. Analysis Results for Storey Drifts, Storey
Displacement and Storey Shear 22
3.6. Concrete Frame Design 22
4 COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS RESULTS 23
4.1. General 23
4.2. Comparison of Storey Drifts 23
4.3. Comparison of Storey Displacements 25
4.4. Comparison of Storey Shear 26
4.5. Comparison of Critical Forces in Columns 27
4.5.1. Comparison of Axial Force for Columns 28
4.5.1.1. Comparison of axial force for corner
columns 28
4.5.1.2. Comparison of axial force for end
columns 29
v
4.5.1.3. Comparison of axial force for interior

columns 30
4.5.2. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for
Columns 34
4.5.2.1. Comparison of bending moment in x
direction for corner columns 34
direction for end columns 36
direction for interior columns 37
4.5.3. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for
Columns 41
4.5.3.1. Comparison of bending moment in y
direction for corner columns 41
direction for end columns 42
direction for interior columns 43
4.6. Comparison of Critical Forces in Beams 47
4.6.1. Comparison of Shear Force for Beams 47
4.6.1.1. Comparison of shear force for edge beams 47
4.6.1.2. Comparison of shear force for cantilever
beams 50
4.6.1.3. Comparison of shear force for interior
beams 52
4.6.2. Comparison of Torsion for Beams 56
4.6.2.1. Comparison of torsion for edge beams 56
4.6.2.2. Comparison of torsion for cantilever
beams 58
4.6.2.3. Comparison of torsion for interior
beams 60
4.6.3. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for
Beams 65
vi
4.6.3.1. Comparison of bending moment at support

for edge beams 65
for cantilever beams 67
for interior beams 69
4.6.4. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for
Beams 73
4.6.4.1. Comparison of bending moment at
midspan for edge beams 73
midspan for cantilever beams 75
midspan for interior beams 76
4.7. Comparison of Critical Forces for One Panel Continuous
Beam-Column Frame 81
4.7.1. Comparison of Critical Forces Differences for
Columns 81
4.7.2. Comparison of Critical Forces Differences for
Beams 82
4.8. Discussions on Comparisons 92
4.8.1. Comparison of Storey Drifts 92
4.8.2. Comparison of Storey Displacements 92
4.8.3. Comparison of Storey Shear 92
4.8.4. Comparison of Columns 92
4.8.4.1. Axial force 92
4.8.4.2. Bending moment in x direction 93
4.8.4.3. Bending moment in y direction 93
4.8.5. Comparison of Beams 94
4.8.5.1. Shear force 94
4.8.5.2. Torsion 94
4.8.5.3. Bending moment at support 95
4.8.5.4. Bending moment at midspan 95
vii
4.8.6. Comparison of Critical Forces for One Panel

Continuous Beam-Column Frame 96
4.8.7. Summarised Discussions on Comparisons 96
5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98
5.1. Discussions and Conclusions 98
5.2. Recommendations 099
REFERENCE LIST 100
APPENDICES 101
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1. Moment-Resisting Frame 8

2.2. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam under Increasing Load 10
3.1. Vertical Distribution of Design Base Shear 19
4.1. Comparison of Storey Drift in X-Direction 24
4.2. Comparison of Storey Drift in Y-Direction 24
4.3. Comparison of Storey Displacement - Ux 25
4.4. Comparison of Storey Displacement - Uy 26
4.5. Comparison of Storey Shear -Vx 27
4.6. Comparison of Storey Shear -Vy 27
4.7. Comparison of Axial Force for Corner Column, C70 28
4.10. Comparison of Axial Force for End Column, C55 29 15
4.11. Comparison of Axial Force for End Column, C69 30 15
4.12. Comparison of Axial Force for Interior Column, C42 30
4.20. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Corner Column,
C70 34
C41 35
ix

C58 35
4.23. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for End Column,
C55 36
4.24. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for End Column,
C69 36
4.25. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Interior Column,
C42 37
C44 37
C45 38
C46 38
C53 39
C54 39
C59 40
C60 40
4.33. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Corner Column,
C70 41
C41 41
C58 42
4.36. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for End Column,
C55 42
4.37. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for End Column,
C69 43
4.38. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Interior Column,
C42 43
x

C44 44
C45 44
C46 45
C53 45
C54 46
C59 46
C60 47
4.46. Comparison of Shear Force for Edge Beam - B10 48
4.50. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Beam - B270 50
4.51. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Beam - B273 50
4.52. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Edge Beam - B169 51
4.53. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Edge Beam - B166 51
4.54. Comparison of Shear Force for Interior Beam - B12 52
4.63. Comparison of Torsion for Edge Beam - B10 56
xi

4.67. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Beam - B270 58
4.68. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Beam - B273 59
4.69. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Edge Beam - B169 59
4.70. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Edge Beam - B166 60
4.71. Comparison of Torsion for Interior Beam - B12 60
4.80. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Edge Beam - B10 65
4.84. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Beam -
B270 67
4.85. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Beam -
B273 67
4.86. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Edge
Beam - B169 68
4.87. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Edge
Beam - B166 68
4.88. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Interior Beam - B12 69
xii

4.97. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Edge Beam - B10 73
4.101. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Cantilever Edge
Beam - B169 75
4.102. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Cantilever Edge
Beam - B166 76
4.103. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Interior Beam - B12 76
4.112. Comparison of Axial Force Differences for Columns from One Panel
Continuous Beam - Column Frame 81
4.113. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction Differences for
Columns from One Panel Continuous Beam - Column Frame 81
4.114. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction Differences for
Columns from One Panel Continuous Beam - Column Frame 82
4.115. Comparison of Shear Force Differences for Beams from One Panel
4.116. Comparison of Torsion Differences for Beams from One Panel
4.117. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support Differences for Beams
from One Panel Continuous Beam - Column Frame 83
4.118. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan Differences for Beams
from One Panel Continuous Beam - Column Frame 84
A.1. Three Dimensional View of Case Study Building 101
A.2. First Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan 102 55
xiii
A.3. Second Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan 103 000 55
A.4. Typical Floor (third to tenth floor) Level Beams and Columns
Structure Key Plan 104 000
A.5. Eleventh Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan View 105 55
A.6. Roof Level One Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan View 106
A.7. Concrete Design Sections of Ground Floor Plan View 107
A.8. Concrete Design Sections of First Floor Plan View 108
A.9. Concrete Design Sections of Second Floor Plan View 109
A.10. Concrete Design Sections of Third Floor to Eleventh Floor
Plan View 110
A.11. Concrete Design Sections of Roof Level One Plan View 111
A.12. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-1 and Elevation View-9 112
A.13. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-2 and Elevation View-8 113
A.14. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-3 114
A.19. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-3 119
A.20. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-7 120
A.21. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-I 121
A.22. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-J 122
A.23. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (SUPERDL) of First Floor Plan View 123
A.24. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (SUPERDL) of Third Floor Plan View 124
A.25. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (LIVE) of First Floor Plan View 125
A.26. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (LIVE) of Third Floor Plan View 126
A.27. Axial Force Diagram (COMB2) of Elevation View-E 127
A.28. Axial Force Diagram (COMB2) of Elevation View-7 128
A.29. Bending Moment in X Direction Diagram (COMB3) of Elevation
View-E 129 000
View-E 130 555
View-7 131 555
xiv

View-7 132 555
A.33. Bending Moment in Y Direction Diagram (COMB9) of Elevation
View-E 133 555
View-E 134
View-7 135
View-7 136
A.37. Shear Force Diagram (COMB2) of First Floor Plan View 137
A.38. Shear Force Diagram (COMB20) of First Floor Plan View 138
A.39. Shear Force Diagram (COMB2) of Fifth Floor Plan View 139
A.40. Shear Force Diagram (COMB20) of Fifth Floor Plan View 140
A.41. Torsion Diagram (COMB5) of First Floor Plan View 141
A.42. Torsion Diagram (COMB22) of First Floor Plan View 142
A.43. Torsion Diagram (COMB5) of Fifth Floor Plan View 143
A.44. Torsion Diagram (COMB22) of Fifth Floor Plan View 144
A.45. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB4) of First Floor Plan View 145
A.46. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB19) of First Floor Plan View 146
A.47. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB4) of Fifth Floor Plan View 147
A.48. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB19) of Fifth Floor Plan View 148
A.49. Plan View of Beam and Column Labels 149
B.1. Front Elevation 150
B.2. Side Elevation 151
B.3. Ground Floor and First Floor Plan 152
B.4. Typical Floor (Third Floor to Tenth Floor) Plan 153
B.5. Eleventh Floor Plan 154
B.6. Roof Level One Plan 155
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1. Approximate Approximate Relationship between Mercalli Intensity

and Peak Ground Acceleration 5
2.2. Approximate Code Maximum Zone Acceleration and Magnitude 6
2.3. Effects of an Earthquake by Zone 6
2.4. UBC-1997 Storey Drift Limitations 13
4.1. Comparison of Storey Drifts without Earthquake and with
Earthquake 23
4.2. Comparison of Storey Displacements without Earthquake and
with Earthquake 25
4.3. Comparison of Storey Shear without Earthquake and with
Earthquake 26
4.4. Comparison of Critical Forces for Columns (One Panel) - Axial
Force 85
4.5. Comparison of Critical Forces for Columns (One Panel) - Bending
Moment in X Direction 86
4.6. Comparison of Critical Forces for Columns (One Panel) - Bending
Moment in Y Direction 87
4.7. Comparison of Critical Forces for Beams (One Panel) - Shear
Force 88
4.8. Comparison of Critical Forces for Beams (One Panel) - Torsion 89
4.9. Comparison of Critical Forces for Beams (One Panel) - Bending
Moment at Support 90
4.10. Comparison of Critical Forces for Beams (One Panel) - Bending
Moment at Midspan 91
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
a acceleration
A amplitude
Ast longitudinal steel area
Ag gross cross sectional area
Ce a factor that combines the effects of height, exposure and gust factor
Cq pressure coefficient which takes into consideration
Ca seismic response coefficient for Na
Cv seismic response coefficient for Nv
D.L dead load
E modulus of elasticity
f’c compressive strength of concrete, cylinder
Ft concentrated force at the top of the structure
fy yield strength of reinforcing steel
g acceleration of gravity
h storey height
hi height above base to level i
hn height above base to level n
hx height above base to level x
I seismic important factor depending on occupancy category
Iw wind important factor
L.L live load
M moment
M Ritcher magnitude
MM modified Mercalli scale
Na,Nv near-source factor
P design wind pressure
PGA peak ground acceleration
qs wind stagnation pressure at a standard height of 33 ft corresponding to the
50 years
xvii
R response modification factor or overstrength factor

T fundamental period of vibration
V total design lateral force or shear at the base
W total weight of the structure, total seismic dead load
W.L wind load
wi, wx portion of W located at or assigned to level i or x respectively
Δm maximum inelastic response displacement
Δs storey drift
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
In Myanmar, according to political, social and economical demands, bridges,
dams, hydropower plants, high-rise buildings etc., are designed and constructed
nowadays. With the growth of population, high-density living is increasingly adopted
as a solution to a problem of shelter. That is why most of the cities in Myanmar need
various types of high-rise building with safety, serviceability and servicing. In
Yangon area, many high-rise buildings are needed due to the rapid growth of
population. Within previous decades, the seismic effects had not been considered
when the buildings were designed and constructed. But now due to the availability of
referenced books and computer software, it is considered the earthquake effects on the
analysis and design of buildings.
In this study, building which was not considered seismic forces when designed
is reviewed with earthquake effects. To get a reliable analysis and design for high-rise
building, computer aided analysis may be fast and economical method. In this study,
12-storey residential reinforced concrete building is solved by using ETABS
(Extended Three dimensional Analysis on Building Systems) nonlinear version 8.4.8
software.
1.2. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To gain knowledge in analysis and design of moment-resisting frames.
2. To have better knowledge in effects of earthquake on building structures.
3. To study the behaviour of structural members in Ordinary Moment-Resisting
Frame.
4. To know the performance of Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame when
subjected to moderate seismic forces.
2
1.3. Scope of the Study

The scopes of the study to achieve the objectives are as follows:
1. Analysis and design of framing system will be carried out by using ETABS
nonlinear version 8.4.8.
2. Equivalent static loading is used for lateral loads (wind and earthquake
effects).
3. Equivalent static earthquake and wind loads are based on Uniform Building
Code (UBC) 1997.
4. Structural elements are designed according to ACI 318-99.
5. Structural analysis is considered only for linear elastic analysis and the study
was not extended to cases of inelastic material behaviour.
6. Comparison of forces in main structural components:
Column : Axial force and Bending Moment in two directions.
Beam : Shear Force, Torsion and Bending Moment at support
and midspan..
7. Comparison of storey drifts, storey displacements and storey shear.
1.4. Data of Case Study

In this study, 12-storey residential reinforced concrete building (ordinary
moment-resisting frame) is considered as a hypothetical model.
This building is located in seismic zone 2A. Maximum length and width of
building are 136 feet and 126 feet respectively. Height of building is 140 feet above
natural ground level.
1.5. Outlines of Thesis

There are five chapters in this thesis. Chapter one is introduction about this
study. In Chapter two, it explains about the literature review of moment resisting
frame and seismic design. Chapter three represents preparation of data for analysis
and design using ETABS software. In Chapter four, structural analysis, design results
and comparison of member forces are presented. Discussions, conclusions and
recommendations for further purposes are presented in the last Chapter. Books and
articles that were cited in this study are listed in references.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
Earthquakes result from the sudden movement of tectonic plates in the earth's
crust. The movement takes place at fault lines, and the energy released is transmitted
through the earth in the form of waves that causes ground motion many miles from
the epicenter. Regions adjacent to active fault lines are the most prone to experience
earthquake.
As the ground moves, inertia tends to keep structure in place, resulting in the
imposition of displacements and forces that can have catastrophic results. The purpose
of the seismic design is to proportion structures so that they can withstand the
displacements and the forces induced by the ground motion. Seismic design has
emphasised the effects of horizontal ground motion, because the horizontal
components of an earthquake usually exceed the vertical component and because
structures are usually much stiffer and stronger in response to vertical loads than they
are in response to horizontal loads.
2.2. Seismic Damage

Structural damage due to an earthquake is not solely a function of the
earthquake ground motion. The primary factors affecting the extent of damage are:
1. Earthquake characteristics such as peak ground acceleration, duration of
strong shaking, frequency content and length of fault rupture.
2. Site characteristics such as distance between the epicenter and structure,
geology between the epicenter and structure, soil conditions at the site, and
natural period of the site.
3. Structural characteristics such as natural period and damping of the structure,
age and construction method of the structure and seismic provisions (i.e.,
detailing) included in the design (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
4
2.3. Correlation of Intensity, Magnitude and Acceleration with Damage

Correlation of earthquake intensity, magnitude and acceleration with damage
are possible since many factors contribute to seismic behaviour and structural
performance.
2.3.1. Peak Ground Acceleration

The peak ground acceleration, PGA, is easily measured by a seismometer or
accelerometer and is one of the most important characteristics of an earthquake. The
PGA can be given in various units, including ft/sec2, in/sec2, or m/s2. However, it is
most common to specify the PGA in “g’s” (i.e, as a fraction or percent of gravitational
acceleration) (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
a ft / sec2
PGA = × 100% [U.S.] Equation 2.1
32.2
ain / sec 2
PGA = × 100% [U.S.] Equation 2.2
386
am / s2
PGA = × 100% [SI] Equation 2.3
9.81
2.3.2. Richter Magnitude Scale

The magnitude, M, of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm to base
ten of the amplitude recorded by a seismometer.
The Richter magnitude, M, is calculated from the maximum amplitude, A, of
the seismometer trace. A0 is the seismometer reading produced by an earthquake of
standard size (i.e, a calibration earthquake). Generally, A0 is 0.94 x 10-5 in (0.001
mm).
⎛ A ⎞
M = log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Equation 2.4
⎝ A0 ⎠
Richter magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions. The

magnitude of an earthquake depends on the length and breadth of the fault slip, as
well as on the amount of slip (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.3.3. Intensity Scale

The intensity of an earthquake is based on the damage and other observed
effects on people, buildings, and other features. Intensity varies from place to place
5
within the disturbed region. The Modified Mercalli scale consists of 12 increasing
levels of intensity (expressed as Roman numerals the initials MM) that range from
imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction. The lower numbers of the intensity
scale generally are based on the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The
higher numbers are based on observed structural damage. The numerals do not have a
mathematical basis and therefore are more meaningful to non-technical people than to
those in technical fields.
Although there are some empirical relationships, no exact correlations of
intensity, magnitude, and acceleration with damage are possible since many factors
contribute to seismic behaviour and structural performance.
However, within a geographical region with constituent design and
construction methods, fairly good correlation exists between structural performance
and ground acceleration, because the Mercalli intensity scale is based specially on
observed damage. Approximate relationship between modified Mercalli intensity and
peak ground acceleration are shown in Table 2.1 (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
Table 2.1. Approximate Relationship between Mercalli Intensity and Peak Ground
Acceleration
Modified Mercalli
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Intensity
IV 0.03 and below
V 0.03 ~ 0.08
VI 0.08 ~ 0.15
VII 0.15 ~ 0.25
VIII 0.25 ~ 0.45
IX 0.45 ~ 0.60
X 0.60 ~ 0.80
XI 0.80 ~ 0.90
XII 0.90 and above
Source: Lindeburg and Baradar (2001)
2.4. Seismic Risk Zone

There are several methods of evaluating the significance of the seismic risk
zones. One method is to correlate the zones with the approximate accelerations and
6
magnitudes, as shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Approximate Code Maximum Zone Acceleration and Magnitude
Zone Maximum Acceleration Maximum Magnitude

0 0.04g 4.3
1 0.075g 4.7
2A 0.15g 5.5
2B 0.20g 5.9
3 0.30g 6.6
4 0.40g 7.2
Another interpretation of the significance of the zones is to correlate them to

the effects of an earthquake and the Modified Mercalli intensity as shown in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Effects of an Earthquake by Zone
Zone Effect
0 No damage
Minor damage corresponding to MM intensities V and VI; distant
1 earthquake may damage structures with fundamental periods greater than
1.0 sec
2 Moderate damage corresponding to MM intensity VII
3 Major damage corresponding to MM intensity VIII
4 Major damage corresponding to MM intensity VIII and higher
2.5. Tall Building Behaviour During Earthquakes

The behaviour of tall building during an earthquake is a vibration problem.
The seismic motions of the ground do not damage a building by impact as does a
weaker’s ball, or by externally applied pressure such as wind, but rather by internally
generated internal forces caused by vibration of the building mass. An increase in the
mass has two undesirable affects on the earthquake design. First, it results in an
increase in the force, and second, it can cause buckling of vertical elements such as
7
columns and walls when the mass pushing down exerts its force on the member bent
or moved out of the plump by the lateral forces (Taranath 1998).
2.6. Types of Structural Systems

The Uniform Building Code (UBC)-1997 recognises seven major types of
structural systems capable of resisting lateral forces. These systems are as follows:
1. Bearing wall system
2. Building frame system
3. Moment-resisting frames
4. Dual systems
5. Cantilever column building systems
6. Shear wall frame interaction system
7. Undefined system (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.7. Moment-Resisting Frame

Moment-resisting frames resist forces in members and joints primarily by
flexure and rely on a frame to carry both vertical and lateral loads. Lateral loads are
carried primarily by flexure on the members and joints. Theoretically, joints are
completely rigid.
Moment-resisting frames counteract the horizontal forces of earthquake
through the bending strengths of the beams and columns connected rigidly at their
junctions with one another; of course, this bending is accompanied by shear forces.
Moment-resisting frames can be constructed of concrete, masonry or steel.
From an architectural standpoint, moment-resisting frames have positive and negative
implication.
1. Positive
They allow greater flexibility than shear walls and braced frames in the
functional planning of the building.
2. Negative
They exhibit greater deflections than shear walls and braced frames, so that
the detailing of non-structural elements becomes more problematic.
8
Figure 2.1. Moment-Resisting Frame System

Source: Structures and Codes Institute
2.8. Types of Moment-Resisting Frames

Moment-resisting frames are subdivided on the basis of seismic zones. There
are five types of moment-resisting frames:
1. Steel and concrete special moment-resisting frame (SMRF),
2. Masonry moment-resisting wall frame (MMRWF),
3. Concrete intermediate moment-resisting frame (IMRF),
4. Steel or concrete ordinary moment-resisting frame (OMRF), and
5. Special steel truss moment-resisting frame (STMRF).
These systems provide a sufficient degree of redundancy and have excellent
inelastic response capacities (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.8.1. Special Moment-Resisting Frame

A moment frame in which members and joints are capable of resisting forces
by flexure as well as along the axis of the members. Special moment-resisting frame
is specially detailed to provide ductile behaviour.
The special moment-resisting frame is appropriate in high seismic risk areas,
especially seismic zone 3 and 4 (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.8.2. Intermediate Moment-Resisting Frame

by flexure as well as along the axis of the members. Intermediate moment-resisting
frame is designed in accordance with section 1921.8 of UBC 1997.
9
The intermediate moment-resisting frame is appropriate in moderate seismic

risk areas, especially seismic zone 2 (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.8.3. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame

by flexure as well as along the axis of the members.
Ordinary moment-resisting frame is not met special detailing requirements for
ductile behaviour. The ordinary moment-resisting frame is appropriate in minimal
seismic risk areas, especially seismic zone 0 and 1 (Lindeburg and Baradar 2001).
2.9. Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour

Plain concrete beams are insufficient as flexural members because the tension
strength in bending is a small fraction of the compression bending. In consequence,
such beams fail on the tension side at low loads long before the strength of the
concrete on the compression side has been fully utilized. For this reason steel
reinforcing bars are placed on the tension side as close to the extreme tension fibre as
is compatible with proper fire and corrosion protection of the steel. In such a
reinforced concrete beam the tension caused by the bending moments is chiefly
resisted by the steel reinforcement, while the concrete alone is usually capable of
resisting the corresponding compression.
When the load on such a beam is gradually increased from zero to the
magnitude that will cause the beam to fail, several different stages of behaviour can
be clearly distinguished. At low loads, as long as the maximum tension stress in the
concrete is smaller than the modulus of rupture, the entire concrete is effective in
resisting stress, in compression on one side and in tension on the other side of the
neutral axis. In addition, the reinforcement, deforming the same amount as the
adjacent concrete, is also subject to tension stresses. The distribution of strains and
stresses in concrete and steel over the depth of the section is as shown in Figure
2.2(c). When the load is further increased, the tension strength of the concrete is soon
reached, and tension cracks develop. The general shape and distribution of these
cracks is also small that they are not objectionable from the viewpoint of either
corrosion protection or appearance. Evidently, in a cracked section that is in a cross
section located at a crack such as a-a in Figure 2.2(d), the concrete does not transmit
any tension stresses. The distribution of strains and stresses at or near a cracked
10
section is that shown in Figure 2.2(e). Figure 2.2(f) shows the distribution of stains
and stresses close to the ultimate load. Eventually the carrying capacity of the beam is
reached (Nilson 1997).
Figure 2.2. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam under Increasing Load

Source: Nilson (1997)
2.10. Column
Columns are defined as members that carry loads chiefly in compression.
Usually columns carrying bending moments as well, about one or both axes of the
cross section, and bending action may produce tensile forces over a part of the cross
section (Nilson 1997).
2.10.1. Axial Compression

Three types of reinforced concrete compression members in use are as
follows:
1. Members reinforced with longitudinal bars and lateral ties.
2. Members reinforced with longitudinal bars and continuous spirals.
3. Composite compression members reinforced longitudinally with structural
11
steel shapes, pipe, or tubing, with or without additional bars, and various types
of lateral reinforcement.
The main reinforcement in columns is longitudinal, parallel to the direction of
the load, and consists of bars arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular pattern. The
ratio of longitudinal steel area Ast to gross cross section Ag is in the range from 0.01 to
0.08 according to ACI Code. The lower limit is necessary to ensure resistance to
bending moment not accounted for in the analysis and to reduce the effects of creep
and shrinkage of the concrete under sustained compression. Ratios higher than 0.08
not only economical, but also would cause difficulty owing to congestion of the
reinforcement, particularly where the steel must be spliced. Generally, the larger
diameter bars are used to reduce placement costs and to avoid unnecessary
congestion.
Columns may be divided into two broad categories: short columns, for which
the strength is governed by the materials and the geometry of the cross section, and
slender columns, for which the strength may be significantly reduced by lateral
directions. Effective lateral bracing, which prevents relative lateral movement of the
two ends of a column, is commonly provided by shear walls, elevator and stair shafts,
diagonal bracing, or a combination of these. Although slender columns are more
common now because of the wider use of high strength materials and improved
methods of dimensioning members, it is still true that most columns in ordinary
practice can be considered short columns (Nilson 1997).
2.11. Static Analysis Procedure

There are two different approaches in seismic design. They are static analysis
and dynamic analysis procedures. Both of which are correct in their own ways. Static
deals with the equilibrium of bodies, that is, those that are either at rest or move with
a constant velocity. The static force procedure is also referred to as the equivalent
static lateral-force procedure. The UBC-97 provides the provisions for determining
base shear by the static lateral-force procedure. The structures considered for this
procedure are mainly regular structures.
The static method may be used for the buildings with the following
characteristics.
1. All structures, regular or irregular, in seismic zone 1 and occupancy categories
4 and 5 in seismic zone 2.
12
2. Regular structures under 240 feet in height with lateral force resistance
provided by systems listed in section 2.2 of this thesis.
3. Irregular structures not more than five stories or 65 feet in height
4. Structures with flexible upper portions supported on a rigid lower portion.
2.12. Building Drift Caused by Lateral Forces

A horizontal force applied to an object tends to push it sideways. If it is
unrestrained at its base, it slides in the direction of the applied force. With buildings,
sliding is counteracted by the frictional sliding resistance between the bottom of the
foundation and the soil and by the lateral bearing resistance of the soil against the
vertical faces of the foundation and the piles. Lateral forces acting above the
foundation push the superstructure sideways until the resistance of the structure
reaches an equilibrium with that force. The amount of horizontal displacement that
occurred is called drift. Drift causes stress in structural seismic elements and non-
structural elements because it forces them into deformed shapes.
Storey drift is the lateral displacement of one level of a structure relative to the
level above or below. In the UBC-1997, drift requirements are based on the strength
design method to conform with newly developed seismic base shear forces. Storey
drifts should be determined using the maximum inelastic response displacement, Δm,
which is defined as the maximum total drift or total stroey drift caused by the design
level earthquake.
Displacement includes both elastic and inelastic contributions to the
deformation. The UBC-1997 requires computation of seismic building drifts based on
the response that occurs during the design earthquake. Displacements Δs are computed
from elastic static analysis using the design seismic forces of the UBC-1997.
Δm = 0.7RΔs Equation 2.5
where Δm = maximum inelastic response displacement
Δs = design level response displacement
R = response modification factor
There are two main reasons to control drift. First, excessive movement in
upper storeys has strong adverse psychological and physical effects on occupants.
Second, it is difficult to ensure structural and architectural integrity with large amount
13
of drift. Excessive drift can be accompanied by large secondary bending moments and
inelastic behaviour. Three components of drift are:
1. column and girder bending and shear
2. joint rotation
3. frame bending
Table 2.4. UBC-1997 Storey Drift Limitations

Structure's Normal Period Calculated Storey Drift Using Δm
T < 0.7 sec Δm ≤ 0.25h
(short period structures) (2.5 % of storey height)
T ≥ 0.7 sec Δm ≤ 0.2h
(long period structures) (2.0 % of storey height)
Source: International Conference of Building Officials (1997)
2.13. Overview of ETABS Software

ETABS (Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems) is a
special purpose computer program developed specially for building systems. ETABS
is a versatile and powerful program with many functions. It can share data with other
software such as SAFE, SAP2000 and AutoCAD.
For buildings, ETABS provides automation and specialised options to make
the process of model creation, analyse and design fast and convenient. It provides
tools for laying out floor framing, columns, frames and walls, in either concrete or
steel, as well as technologies for generating automatically gravity and lateral loads,
seismic and wind loads according to the requirements of the selected building code. It
can also design steel frame, concrete frame, composite frame and so on. Moreover,
ETABS provides many analysis results such as bending moments, torsional moment,
shear force, axial force, support reactions and displacements of the structural
members.
CHAPTER 3
PREPARATION FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
3.1. Design Parameters and Assumptions for Calculation

Design parameters and assumptions for analysis and design of case study
reinforced concrete building are as follows:
1. Analysis property data
Unit weight of concrete = 150 pcf
Modulus of elasticity of concrete = 2850 x103 psi
Poisson's ratio = 0.2
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 5.5 x 10–6
2. Design property data
Compressive strength of concrete, f'c = 2500 psi
Yield strength of reinforcement, fy = 40000 psi
Shear strength of shear reinforcement, fys = 40000 psi
3.2. Loading
Loading on tall buildings differ from loading on low-rise building in its
accumulation into much larger structural forces, in the increased significance of wind
loading, and in the greater importance of dynamic effects.
There are three types of load considered in this structural analysis and design.
They are gravity loads that include dead load and live load, wind and earthquake
loads.
3.2.1. Gravity Loads

Dead loads are defined as gravity loads that will be accelerated laterally with
the structural frame under earthquake motion.
Live loads are defined as gravity loads that do not accelerate laterally at the
same rate as the structural frame when the structure undergoes earthquake motion.
15
3.2.1.1. Dead load

Data for dead load which are used in structural analysis are as follows:
Unit weight of concrete = 150 pcf
4½ inches thick brick wall weight = 50 psf
9 inches thick brick wall weight = 100 psf
Weight of glass area = 20 psf
Superimposed dead load = 20 psf
Elevator weight = 2 tons
3.2.1.2. Live load

Data for live load which are used in structural analysis are as follows:
Live load on residential area = 40 psf
Live load on office area = 50 psf
Live load on commercial area = 100 psf
Live load on lobby area = 100 psf
Live load on stair = 100 psf
Live load on car parking = 60 psf
Live load on drive way = 250 psf
Live load on roof = 20 psf
3.2.2. Lateral Loads

There are certain loads that are almost always applied horizontally, and these
must often be considered in structural analysis and design. Such loads are called
lateral loads. Some kinds of lateral loads that are important for structures are wind
load and earthquake load.
.
3.2.2.1. Wind load
In designing for wind, the UBC-97 suggested that
1. Wind shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction.
2. No reduction in wind pressure shall be taken for the shielding effect of
adjacent structures.
3. Structures sensitive to dynamic effects, such as building with a height to width
ratio greater than five, structures sensitive to wind excited oscillations, such as
vortex shedding or icing, and buildings over 400 feet in height, shall be, and
16
any structure may be, designed in accordance with approved national

standards.
The forces exerted by winds on buildings increase dramatically with the
increased in building heights. For building of up to about 10 stories and of typical
proportion, the design is rarely affected by wind load. Above this height, however, the
increase in size of structural member to account for wind loading, incurs a cost
premium that increase progressively with height.
In designing for wind, three types of exposure are considered and the
characteristics of these are as follows:
1. Exposure B has terrain with buildings, forest or surface irregularities, covering
at least 20 percent of the ground level area extending 1 mile or more form the
site.
2. Exposure C has terrain that is flat and generally open, extending ½ mile or
more from the site in any full quadrant.
3. Exposure D represents the most severe exposure in areas with basic wind
speed of 80 miles per hour (mph) or greater and has terrain that is flat and
unobstructed facing large bodies of water over 1 mile or more in width relative
to any quadrant of building site. Exposure D extends inland from the shoreline
¼ mile or 10 times the building height whichever is greater.
Required data used for calculation of wind loads are:
Exposure type =B
Effective height for wind load = 140 feet
Basic wind velocity = 80 mph
The design wind pressure of building for any height is obtained from the
formula that is considered in UBC-97.
P = CeCqqsIw Equation 3.1
where, P = design wind pressure
Ce = combined height, exposure and gust factor coefficient
Cq = pressure coefficient for the structure or portion of structure under
consideration
Iw = importance factor
17
3.2.2.2. Earthquake load

Earthquake load consists of the inertial forces of the building mass that results
from the shaking of its foundation by a seismic disturbance. Other severe earthquake
forces may exist, such as those due to land sliding, subsidence, active faulting below
the foundation, or liquefaction of the local subgrade as a result of vibration. Whereas
earthquakes occur, their intensity is relative inversely proportion to their frequency of
occurrence; severe earthquakes are rare, moderate ones more often, and minor ones
are relatively frequent.
To estimate the seismic loading two general approaches are used; which take
into account the property of the structure and the past records of earthquake in the
region. The first approach, termed the equivalent lateral force procedure and the
second is modal analysis procedure. The later is more complex and longer than the
first.
In the first approach, two steps are included:
1. Determination of design base shear
The UBC (1997) states that structure shall be design to resist a minimum total
lateral seismic load V, which shall be assumed to act no concurrently in orthogonal
directions parallel to the main axes of the structure, where V is computed from the
formula,
CvI
V= W Equation 3.2
RT
The total design base shear need not exceeding the following.
CaI
V = 2 .5 W Equation 3.3
R
The total design base shear shall not be less than the following.
V = 0.11CaIW Equation 3.4
where, V = total design lateral force or shear as at the base
W = total seismic dead load
Cv = seismic response coefficient represents acceleration response
at 1.0 sec. period
Ca = seismic response coefficient represents effective peak acceleration
at grade
18
I = important factor depends on occupancy categories

According to UBC (1997), for all buildings, the value of T may be computed
from the following:
T = Ct (hn ) ¾ Equation 3.5
where, T = elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the structures
in the direction under consideration
hn = height of structure in feet above base level
Ct = 0.035 for steel moment resisting-frames
Ct = 0.030 for reinforced concrete moment resisting-frames and
eccentrically braced frames
Ct = 0.020 for all other buildings
2. Distribution of total base shear UBC (1997)

In deciding on an appropriate distribution for the horizontal load, the
following factors are considered.
(a) the effective load at a floor level is equal to the product of the mass assigned
to that floor and the horizontal acceleration at that level.
(b) the maximum acceleration at any level of the structure in the fundamental
mode is proportional to its horizontal displacement in that mode.
(c) the fundamental mode for regular structure, consisting of shear walls and
frames, is approximately linear from the base.
The total design base shear, V, is distributed over the height of the structure in
conformance with Equations 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and distributed according to Figure 3.1.
n
V = Ft + ∑F
i =1
i Equation 3.6
where, Ft = concentrated force applied at the top of the structure

Ft = 0.7 TV ≤ 0.25 V for T > 0.7 sec Equation 3.7
Ft = 0 for T ≤ 0.7 sec
The remaining portion of the base shear is distributed over the height of the
structure, including top level, n, according to the expression
(V-Ft) wx hx
Fx = n Equation 3.8
∑wh
i =1
i i
19
where, wi, wx = portion of W located at or assigned to level i or x respectively

hi, hx = height above the base to level i or x respectively
The storey shear, Vx, at any storey, is the sum of the top force, Ft, and the
forces Fx, above that storey.
n
Vx = Ft + ∑F
i=x
x Equation 3.9
where, Vx = design storey shear in storey x

Ft = top force
Fx = design seismic force applied to level x
Figure 3.1. Vertical Distribution of Design Base Shear

Source: Structures and Codes Institute
Data for earthquake loading are as follows:

Seismic Zone = 2A
Zone Factor, Z = 0.15
Structural System = Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame
Soil Type = SD
Importance Factor, I =1
Response Modification Factor, R = 3.5
Ct (Reinforced Concrete Frame) = 0.030
Seismic Coefficient, Ca = 0.22
Seismic Coefficient, Cv = 0.32
20
3.2.3. Load Combinations

According to ACI 318-99, the 26 design load combinations, which used in this
study, are as follows:
1. COMB1 1.4 D.L
2. COMB2 1.4 D.L + 1.7 L.L
3. COMB3 1.05 D.L + 1.275 L.L + 1.275 WINX
4. COMB4 1.05 D.L + 1.275 L.L - 1.275 WINX
5. COMB5 1.05 D.L + 1.275 L.L + 1.275 WINY
6. COMB6 1.05 D.L + 1.275 L.L - 1.275 WINY
7. COMB7 0.9 D.L + 1.3 WINX
8. COMB8 0.9 D.L - 1.3 WINX
9. COMB9 0.9 D.L + 1.3 WINY
10. COMB10 0.9 D.L - 1.3 WINY
11. COMB11 1.05 D.L + 1.28 L.L + EQX
12. COMB12 1.05 D.L + 1.28 L.L - EQX
13. COMB13 1.05 D.L + 1.28 L.L + EQY
14. COMB14 1.05 D.L + 1.28 L.L - EQY
15. COMB15 0.9 D.L + 1.02 EQX
16. COMB16 0.9 D.L - 1.02 EQX
17. COMB17 0.9 D.L + 1.02 EQY
18. COMB18 0.9 D.L - 1.02 EQY
19. COMB19 1.16 D.L + 1.28 L.L + EQX
20. COMB20 1.16 D.L + 1.28 L.L - EQX
21. COMB21 1.16 D.L + 1.28 L.L + EQY
22. COMB22 1.16 D.L + 1.28 L.L - EQY
23. COMB23 0.79 D.L + 1.02 EQX
24. COMB24 0.79 D.L - 1.02 EQX
25. COMB25 0.79 D.L + 1.02 EQY
26. COMB26 0.79 D.L - 1.02 EQY
To know the performance of the ordinary moment-resisting frame, 18

unfactored load combinations were also considered.
1. UCOMB1 D.L
2. UCOMB2 D.L + L.L
21
3. UCOMB3 D.L + L.L + WINX

4. UCOMB4 D.L + L.L - WINX
5. UCOMB5 D.L + L.L + WINY
6. UCOMB6 D.L + L.L - WINY
7. UCOMB7 D.L + WINX
8. UCOMB8 D.L - WINX
9. UCOMB9 D.L + WINY
10. UCOMB10 D.L - WINY
11. UCOMB11 D.L + L.L + EQX
12. UCOMB12 D.L + L.L - EQX
13. UCOMB13 D.L + L.L + EQY
14. UCOMB14 D.L + L.L - EQY
15. UCOMB15 D.L + EQX
16. UCOMB16 D.L - EQX
17. UCOMB17 D.L + EQY
18. UCOMB18 D.L - EQY
where, D.L = dead load

L.L = live load
WINX = wind load in x direction
WINY = wind load in y direction
EQX = earthquake load in x direction
EQY = earthquake load in y direction
In this study, 10 load combinations (COMB1 to COMB 10) were considered

for without seismic effect. With seismic effect, 26 load combinations (COMB1 to
COMB 26) were considered.
3.3. Grouping of Structural Components

For analysis and design purposes, members were divided into groups of
similar behaviour. For columns, there were three groups; corner, end and interior in
each storey. For beams, there were also three groups, edge, cantilever and interior.
22
3.4. Analysing
After applying loads on structure, models were ready to analyse. Linear static
analysis was performed in this study.
3.5. Analysis Output

3.5.1. Analysis Results for Columns
When analysis was finished, the frame forces for each column specified in
modeling mode were obtained. The column forces are axial force, bending moment in
x-direction and y-direction. These results were collected to excel spreadsheets and
extracted maximum values. With these results the graphs were drawn. Moreover,
compare the results for the ordinary moment-resisting frame without and with seismic
effects.
3.5.2. Analysis Results for Beams

Same as columns, the beam forces were obtained in analysis output mode.
These results were collected to excel and compared the maximum value at the critical
sections of the beams.
3.5.3. Analysis Results for Storey Displacements, Storey Drifts and Storey Shear
Displacements, storey drifts and storey shear were obtained from ETABS
software and collected to excel and then made the comparison of results.
3.6. Concrete Frame Design

In the design of concrete frame, in general, the program calculates and reports
the required areas of steel for flexure and shear based on the axial force, bending
moments, shear, load combination factors and other criteria.
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
4.1. General
Effects of earthquake loads on ordinary moment-resisting frame were
compared using the results of analysis and design. First of all, the analysis results
were compared. The items that are considered in the comparison are column and
beam forces, storey displacement, storey drifts and storey shear.
The axial force, bending moments for x-direction and y-direction are
considered for columns. Also for beams, bending moments, shear and torsional
moment are considered.
4.2. Comparison of Storey Drifts

Comparison of storey drifts were considered the points at which the junction
of beam and column. Among these points, the maximum drifts occurred were
compared in this study.
Comparison of storey drifts without seismic and with seismic are shown in
Table 4.1, Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2.
Discussions on comparison are presented in section 4.8 of this study.
Table 4.1. Comparison of Storey Drifts without Earthquake and with Earthquake
Drift X Drift Y Drift
Height
Storey Without Difference Without Difference Limit
(ft.) EQX EQY
EQ (%) EQ (%) (0.02h)
Roof 11 0.0924 1.2230 1224 0.1735 0.9883 470 2.6400
11F 11 0.1428 1.5158 961 0.1896 1.4666 673 2.6400
10F 11 0.2038 1.9708 867 0.2264 2.0200 792 2.6400
9F 11 0.2281 2.0977 820 0.2313 2.1482 829 2.6400
8F 11 0.2494 2.2111 787 0.2430 2.2631 831 2.6400
7F 11 0.2712 2.3211 756 0.2626 2.4196 821 2.6400
6F 11 0.2989 2.4637 724 0.2766 2.5088 807 2.6400
5F 11 0.3212 2.5360 690 0.2911 2.5980 793 2.6400
5F 11 0.3212 2.5360 690 0.2911 2.5980 793 2.6400
24
Table 4.1. - Continued

Drift X Drift Y Drift
Height
Storey Limit
(ft.) Without EQX Difference Without
EQY
Difference
EQ (%) EQ (%) (0.02h)
4F 11 0.3342 2.5164 653 0.3006 2.6455 780 2.6400
3F 11 0.3312 2.3807 619 0.2996 2.6112 771 2.6400
2F 14 0.4141 2.8565 590 0.3761 3.2536 765 3.3600
1F 14 0.3330 2.2393 573 0.3011 2.5872 759 3.3600
GF 10 0.0995 0.6622 566 0.0897 0.7678 756 2.4000
Base 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000
Storey Drift -X Comparison

4.0
3.0
Drift X (in.)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Base
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
Floor with EQ
Drift Limit
Figure 4.1. Comparison of Storey Drift in X Direction without Earthquake and with
Earthquake
Storey Drift-Y Comparison

4.0
3.0
Drift Y (in.)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Base
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
Floor
with EQ
Drift Limit
Figure 4.2. Comparison of Storey Drift in Y Direction without Earthquake and with
Earthquake
25
4.3. Comparison of Storey Displacements

Comparison of storey displacements was considered the points at which the
maximum the displacement occurred. Comparison of storey displacements without
seismic and with seismic are shown in Table 4.2, Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4.
Table 4.2. Comparison of Storey Displacements without Earthquake and with

Earthquake
Displacement, Ux Displacement, Uy
Height
Storey Without Difference Without Difference
(ft.) EQX EQY
EQ (%) EQ (%)
Roof 11 1.3550 11.0181 713 1.3311 11.5420 767
11F 11 1.3173 10.5189 699 1.2603 11.1386 784
10F 11 1.2590 9.9002 686 1.1829 10.5400 791
9F 11 1.1758 9.0958 674 1.0905 9.7155 791
8F 11 1.0827 8.2396 661 0.9961 8.8387 787
7F 11 0.9809 7.3371 648 0.8969 7.9150 782
6F 11 0.8702 6.3897 634 0.7897 6.9274 777
5F 11 0.7482 5.3841 620 0.6768 5.9034 772
4F 11 0.6171 4.3490 605 0.5580 4.8430 768
3F 11 0.4807 3.3219 591 0.4353 3.7632 765
2F 14 0.3455 2.3502 580 0.3130 2.6974 762
1F 14 0.1765 1.1843 571 0.1595 1.3694 759
GF 10 0.0406 0.2703 566 0.0366 0.3134 756
Base 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0
Storey Displacement, Ux Comparison

12.0
10.0
8.0
Ux (in.)
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Base
1st
without EQ
Floor with EQ
Figure 4.3. Comparison of Storey Displacement - Ux without Earthquake and

with Earthquake
26
Storey Displacement,Uy Comparison

12.0
10.0
8.0
Uy (in.)
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
2nd
3rd
Ground
Base
1st
without EQ
Floor with EQ
Figure 4.4. Comparison of Storey Displacement - Uy without Earthquake and with

Earthquake
4.4. Comparison of Storey Shear

Comparison of storey shear without seismic and with seismic for each storey
are shown in Table 4.3, Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6.
Table 4.3. Comparison of Storey Shear without Earthquake and with Earthquake
Vx (kips) Vy (kips)
Storey Without Difference Without Difference
EQX EQY
EQ (%) EQ (%)
RF 34 326.6 861 37.4 326.6 773
11.F 62.8 602.3 859 67.1 602.3 798
10.F 94.7 890.9 841 95.4 890.9 834
9.F 126.6 1156.9 814 123.7 1156.9 835
8.F 157.5 1400.6 789 151.1 1400.6 827
7.F 188.3 1622.0 761 178.4 1622.0 809
6.F 217.8 1820.5 736 204.5 1820.5 790
5.F 247.2 1995.2 707 230.7 1995.2 765
4.F 275.3 2145.1 679 255.6 2145.1 739
3.F 301.7 2269.2 652 279 2269.2 713
2.F 334.9 2392.6 614 309.2 2392.6 674
1.F 372.5 2468.2 563 344 2468.2 618
G.F 391.3 2485.7 535 361.5 2485.7 588
27
Storey Shear Vx Comparison

2500
2000
Vx (kips)
1500
1000
500
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
Floor without EQ
with EQ
Figure 4.5. Comparison of Storey Shear - Vx without Earthquake and with Earthquake
Storey Shear Vy Comparison

2500
2000
Vy (kips)
1500
1000
500
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
Floor without EQ
with EQ
Figure 4.6. Comparison of Storey Shear -Vy without Earthquake and with Earthquake
4.5. Comparison of Critical Forces in Columns

Comparison of critical forces in columns includes axial force and bending
moments in two directions without seismic and with seismic effects for three groups
of column.
28
4.5.1. Comparison of Axial Force for Columns

Comparison axial force for column includes corner, end and interior columns.
4.5.1.1. Comparison of axial force for corner column

Comparisons of axial forces for corner columns are shown in Figure 4.7 to
Figure 4.9.
Axial Force Comparison for Corner Column - C70

1000
Axial Force (kips)
800
600
400
200
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
wo EQ
Floor with EQ (facto red)
with EQ (unfacto red)
Figure 4.7. Comparison of Axial Force for Corner Column, C70, between without
Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and with Earthquake
(unfactored load)
1000
Axial Force (kips)
800
600
400
200
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
(unfactored load)
29
Axial Force (kips) 1000

800
600
400
200
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
wo EQ
(unfactored load)
4.5.1.2. Comparison of axial force for end column

Comparisons of axial forces for end columns are shown in Figure 4.10 to
Figure 4.11.
Axial Force Comparison for End Column - C55
1200
Axial Force (kips)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10th
11th
Roof
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor with EQ (unfactored)
Figure 4.10. Comparison of Axial Force for End Column, C55, between without
(unfactored load)
30
Axial Force Comparison for End Column - C69
1200
1000
Axial Force (kips
800
600
400
200
0
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
2nd
3rd
Ground
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Floor
Figure 4.11. Comparison of Axial Force for End Column, C69, between without
(unfactored load)
4.5.1.3. Comparison of axial force for interior column

Comparisons of axial forces for end columns are shown in Figure 4.12 to
Figure 4.19.
Axial Force Comparison for Interior Column - C42
1200
1000
Axial Force (kips
800
600
400
200
0
Ground
3rd
2nd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Floor with EQ (unfacto red)
Figure 4.12. Comparison of Axial Force for Interior Column, C42, between without
(unfactored load)
31
1200
1000
Axial Force (kips
800
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
1500
1200
Axial Force (kips
900
600
300
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
32
1600
1200
Axial Force (kips
800
400
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
1500
1200
Axial Force (kips
900
600
300
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
33
1500
1200
Axial Force (kips
900
600
300
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
1500
1200
Axial Force (kips
900
600
300
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
34
1500
Axial Force (k ips)
1200
900
600
300
0
Ground
2nd
Roof
3rd
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
(unfactored load)
4.5.2. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Columns

Comparison bending moments for column includes corner, end and interior
columns.
4.5.2.1. Comparison of bending moments in x direction for corner column

Comparisons of bending moments in x direction for corner columns are shown
in Figure 4.20 to Figure 4.22.
M3 Comparison for Corner Column - C70
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
wo EQ
Floor with EQ (factored)
with EQ (unfactored)
Figure 4.20. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Corner Column,

C70, between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and
with Earthquake (unfactored load)
35
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
2nd
3rd
Ground
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor

1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
2nd
3rd
Ground
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

36
4.5.2.2. Comparison of bending moments in x direction for end column

Comparisons of bending moments in x direction for end columns are shown in
Figure 4.23 to Figure 4.24.
M3 Comparison for End Column - C55
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.23. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for End Column,C55,

between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and with
Earthquake (unfactored load)
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.24. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for End Column,C69,

37
4.5.2.3. Comparison of bending moments in x direction for interior column

Comparisons of bending moments in x direction for interior columns are
shown in Figure 4.25 to Figure 4.32.
M3 Comparison for Interior Column - C42
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.25. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Interior Column,

1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor

38
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

39
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)

40
1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

1000
800
M3 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor

41
4.5.3. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Columns

Comparison bending moments for column includes corner, end and interior
columns.
4.5.3.1. Comparison of bending moments in y direction for corner column

Comparisons of bending moments in y direction for corner columns are shown
in Figure 4.33 to Figure 4.35.
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
wo EQ
Figure 4.33. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Corner Column,

1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
wo EQ

42
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
10th
11th
Roof
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

4.5.3.2. Comparison of bending moments in y direction for end column

Comparisons of bending moments in y direction for end columns are shown in
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
Figure 4.36. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for End Column, C55,
between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and
43

1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
Figure 4.37. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for End Column,C69,

4.5.3.3. Comparison of bending moments in y direction for interior column

Comparisons of bending moments in y direction for end columns are shown in
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.38. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Interior Column,

44
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

45
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
3rd
2nd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (factored)

1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
3rd
2nd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)

46
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)

1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
10th
11th
Roof
1st
wo EQ
with EQ (facto red)

47
1000
800
M2 (kips-ft)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)

4.6. Comparison of Critical Forces in Beams

Comparison of critical forces in beams includes shear force, torsion and
bending moments in at support and mid span without seismic and with seismic effects
for three groups of beams.
4.6.1. Comparison of Shear Force for Beams

Comparison shear force for beams includes edge, cantilever and interior
beams.
4.6.1.1. Comparison of shear force for edge beams

Comparisons of shear force for edge beams are shown in Figure 4.46 to
Figure 4.49.
48
Shear Force Comparison for Edge Beam - B10
100
75
Shear Force (kips)
50
25
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.46. Comparison of Shear Force for Edge Beam - B10, between without
(unfactored load)
100
75
Shear Force (kips)
50
25
0
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.47. Comparison of Shear Force for Edge Beam – B77, between without
(unfactored load)
49
100
75
Shear Force (kips)
50
25
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
75
Shear Force (kips)
50
25
0
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
50
4.6.1.2. Comparison of shear force for cantilever beams

Comparisons of shear force for cantilever beams are shown in Figure 4.50 to
Figure 4.53.
Shear Force Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B270
20
Shear Force (kips)
15
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.50. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Beam B270, between without
(unfactored load)
Shear Force Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B273

20
Shear Force (kips)
15
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.51. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Beam B273, between
without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and with
51
Shear Force Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam - B169

20
15
Shear Force (kips)
10
0
Ground
3rd
2nd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.52. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Edge Beam B169, between
Shear Force Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam - B166
20
Shear Force (kips)
15
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.53. Comparison of Shear Force for Cantilever Edge Beam B166, between
52
4.6.1.3. Comparison of shear force for interior beams

Comparisons of shear force for interior beams are shown in Figure 4.54 to
Figure 4.62.
Shear Force Comparison for Interior Beam - B12

100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
Figure 4.54. Comparison of Shear Force for Interior Beam B12, between without
(unfactored load)
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
(unfactored load)
53
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
54
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
55
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Shear Force (kips)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
(unfactored load)
56
100
Shear Force (kip s)
80
60
40
20
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
4.6.2. Comparison of Torsion for Beams

Comparison of torsion for beams includes edge, cantilever and interior beams.
4.6.2.1. Comparison of torsion for edge beams

Comparisons of torsion for edge beams are shown in Figure 4.63 to Figure
4.66.
Torsion Comparison for Edge Beam - B10

100
Torsion (kips-ft)
75
50
25
0
10th
11th
Roof
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.63. Comparison of Torsion for Edge Beam B10, between without
(unfactored load)
57
100
75
Torsion (kips-ft)
50
25
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
100
75
Torsion (kips-ft)
50
25
0
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
58
100
Torsion (kips-ft)
75
50
25
10th
11th
Roof
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
4.6.2.2. Comparison of torsion for cantilever beams

Comparisons of torsion for cantilever beams are shown in Figure 4.67 to
Figure 4.70.
Torsion Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B270

50
40
Torsion (kips-ft
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.67. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Beam B270, between without
(unfactored load)
59
Torsion Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B273
50
40
Torsion (kips-ft
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.68. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Beam B273, between without
(unfactored load)
Torsion Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam - B169
50
40
Torsion (kips-ft
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.69. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Edge Beam B169, between
60
Torsion Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam - B166

50
40
Torsion (kips-ft
30
20
10
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.70. Comparison of Torsion for Cantilever Edge Beam B166, between
4.6.2.3. Comparison of torsion for interior beams

Comparisons of torsion for interior beams are shown in Figure 4.71 to
Figure 4.79.
Torsion Comparison for Interior Beam - B12

100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.71. Comparison of Torsion for Interior Beam B12, between without
(unfactored load)
61
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
62
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
63
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
64
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
100
80
Torsion (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
(unfactored load)
65
4.6.3. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Beams

Comparison Bending Moment at Support for beams includes edge, cantilever
and interior beams.
4.6.3.1. Comparison of bending moment at support for edge beams

Comparisons of bending moment at support for edge beams are shown in
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Edge Beam - B10

300
250
M3 (kips-ft)
200
150
100
50
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
Figure 4.80. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Edge Beam B10,

300
250
M3 (kips-ft)
200
150
100
50
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
66

300
250
200
M3 (kips-ft)
150
100
50
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)

300
250
200
M3 (kips-ft)
150
100
50
0
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
67
4.6.3.2. Comparison of bending moment at support for cantilever beams

Comparisons of bending moment at support for cantilever beams are shown in
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B270

50
40
M3 (kips-ft)
30
20
10
10th
11th
Roof
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.84. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Beam B270,
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Cantilever Beam - B273

50
40
M3 (kips-ft)
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.85. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Beam B273,
68
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam -

B169
50
40
M3 (kips-ft)
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.86. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Edge Beam
B169, between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam -

B166
50
40
M3 (kips-ft)
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.87. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Cantilever Edge Beam
B166, between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored load) and
69
4.6.3.3. Comparison of bending moment at support for interior beams

Comparisons of bending moment at support for interior beams are shown in
Bending Moment at Support Comparison for Interior Beam - B12

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
10th
11th
Roof
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.88. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Interior Beam B12,

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
70

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
0
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
71

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
72

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
73

500
400
M3 (kips-ft)
300
200
100
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Floor
4.6.4. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Beams

Comparison Bending Moment at midspan for beams includes edge, cantilever
and interior beams.
4.6.4.1. Comparison of bending moment at midspan for edge beams

Comparisons of bending moment at midspan for edge beams are shown in
Bending Moment at Midspan Comparison for Edge Beam - B10

100
75
M3 (kips-ft)
50
25
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
Figure 4.97. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Edge Beam B10,
74

100
75
M3 (kips-ft)
50
25
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)

100
75
M3 (kips-ft)
50
25
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
75

100
75
M3 (kips-ft)
50
25
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor
4.6.4.2. Comparison of bending moment at midspan for cantilever edge beams

Comparisons of bending moment at midspan for cantilever edge beams are
shown in Figure 4.101 to Figure 4.102.
Bending Moment at Midspan Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam -

B169
20
15
M3 (kips-ft)
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Figure 4.101. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Cantilever Edge

Beam B169, between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored
load) and with Earthquake (unfactored load)
76
Bending Moment at Midspan Comparison for Cantilever Edge Beam -

B166
20
15
M3 (kips-ft)
10
10th
11th
Roof
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.102. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Cantilever Edge

Beam B166, between without Earthquake, with Earthquake (factored
load) and with Earthquake (unfactored load)
4.6.4.3. Comparison of bending moment at midspan for interior beams

Comparisons of bending moment at midspan for interior beams are shown in
Bending Moment at Midspan Comparison for Interior Beam - B12

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Figure 4.103. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan for Interior Beam B12,
77

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
Floor

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
78

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Floor
79

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
10th
11th
Roof
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
witho ut EQ
with EQ (facto red)
Floor

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
80
100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
Ground
2nd
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (facto red)

100
80
M3 (kips-ft)
60
40
20
0
10th
11th
Roof
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
2nd
3rd
1st
without EQ
with EQ (factored)
81
4.7. Comparison of Critical Forces for One Panel Continuous Beam-Column

Frame
Comparisons of critical forces for columns and beams, which are continuous
frame in choosing one panel, are shown in the following Figure 4.112 to Figure 4.118
and Table 4.4 to Table 4.10.
4.7.1. Comparison of Critical Force Differences for Column

Comparison of critical force differences for columns from one panel
continuous beam-column frame are shown in Figure 4.112 to Figure 4.114.
Compariosn of Axial Force Differences for Columns
50
40
Differences (%)
30
20
10
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
C54 C41
Floor
C55 C42
Figure 4.112. Comparison of Axial Force Differences for Columns from One Panel
Continuous Beam-Column Frame
Compariosn of Bending Moment in X Direction Differences for Columns

1000
800
Differences (%)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
Roof
1st
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
C54 C41
Floor C55 C42
Figure 4.113. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction Differences for

Columns from One Panel Continuous Beam-Column Frame
82
Compariosn of Bending Moment in Y Direction Differences for Columns

1000
800
600
Differences (%)
400
200
10th
11th
Roof
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Ground
1st
C54 C41
Floor C55 C42
Figure 4.114. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction Differences for

Columns from One Panel Continuous Beam-Column Frame
4.7.2. Comparison of Critical Force Differences for Beams

Comparison of critical force differences for beams from one panel continuous
beam-column frame are shown in Figure 4.115 to Figure 4.118.
Comparison of Torsion Differences for Beams
1200
1000
800
Differences (%)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
B11 B60
Floor B51 B10
Figure 4.115. Comparison of Shear Force Differences for Beams from One Panel
83
Comparison of Torsion Differences for Beams
1200
1000
800
Differences (%)
600
400
200
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
B11 B60
Floor B51 B10
Figure 4.116. Comparison of Torsion Differences for Beams from One Panel
Comparison of Bending Moment at Support Differences for Beams
500
400
300
Differences (%)
200
100
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
B11 B60
Floor B51 B10
Figure 4.117. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support Differences for Beams

from One Panel Continuous Beam-Column Frame
84
Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan Differences for Beams

500
400
300
Differences (%)
200
100
0
Ground
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Roof
1st
B11 B60
Floor B51 B10
Figure 4.118. Comparison of Bending Moment at Midspan Differences for Beams

from One Panel Continuous Beam-Column Frame
85
Table 4.4.
86
Table 4.5.
87
Table 4.6.
88
Table 4.7.
89
Table 4.8.
90
Table 4.9.
91
Table 4.10.
92
4.8. Discussions on Comparisons

The comparisons of responses and critical forces of structure are shown in
above articles by graphically without and with seismic effects for factored and
unfactored load conditions. Detailed discussions are described in below with referred
to those above comparison graphs.
4.8.1. Comparison of Storey Drifts

It is inevitable that tall buildings subjected to earthquake are more or less
prone to sway which is technically defined as drift. This drift tends to create failure of
member and deteriorate comfort of the occupants.
From the comparison of results, storey drifts due to without seismic effect is
increased to minimum of 470 percent and maximum of 1224 percent when considered
with seismic effect. Although the storey drifts in the case study building are increased
due to earthquake loads, most of them are still below the allowable limits. But only
one floor, 4th floor (52 feet above ground level), exceeds the allowable limit about
0.21 percent.
4.8.2. Comparison of Storey Displacements

From Table 4.2, Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4, comparative study for the
differences of storey displacements is as follow:
Storey displacement due to without seismic force is increased to minimum of
566 percent and maximum of 791 percent when considered with seismic effects.
4.8.3. Comparison of Storey Shear

From Table 4.3, Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6, the storey shear due to without
seismic force is increased to minimum of 535 percent and maximum of 861 percent
when considered with seismic effects.
4.8.4. Comparison of Columns

Comparison of columns includes axial force, bending moment in x and y
directions without seismic and with seismic effects for three groups of column.
4.8.4.1. Axial force

For corner columns, axial forces due to seismic effect under zone 2A are
93
increased to minimum one percent and maximum 28 percent for factored load
conditions. Axial force increments are high at the middle floors.
For end columns, axial force due to seismic forces is minimum one percent
and maximum eight percent higher than that of without seismic forces for factored
load conditions. For unfactored load conditions, axial force is not increased in these
columns.
For interior columns, axial forces without and with seismic effects are not
different for factored load conditions.
4.8.4.2. Bending moment in x direction

For corner columns, bending moment in x direction without seismic effects is
increased to minimum nine percent and maximum 671 percent when considered with
seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load conditions. For these columns,
increment is high at the bottom storeys.
For end columns, bending moment in x direction without seismic effects is
increased to minimum 32 percent and maximum 603 percent when considered with
seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load conditions.
For interior columns, bending moment in x direction without seismic effects is
From the comparison graphs, the shapes of moment increment curves are
similar for both factored and unfactored load conditions.
4.8.4.3. Bending moment in y direction

For corner columns, bending moment in y direction without seismic effects is
seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load conditions. For these columns,
increment is high at the bottom storeys.
For end columns, bending moment in y direction without seismic effects is
For interior columns, bending moment in y direction without seismic effects is
94
From the comparison graphs, the shapes of moment increment curves are
similar for both factored and unfactored load conditions.
4.8.5. Comparison of Beams

Comparison of beams includes shear force, torsional moment, bending at
support and midspan without seismic and with seismic effects for three groups of
beams.
.
4.8.5.1. Shear force
For edge beams, shear force without seismic effects is increased to minimum
one percent and maximum 403 percent when considered the seismic effects for
factored load conditions. For these beams, increased percentage is high at the middle
storeys and low at the top storeys.
For cantilever beams, shear force without seismic effects is increased to
minimum one percent and maximum seven percent when considered the seismic
effects. Also for cantilever edge beams, shear force increased to minimum three
percent and maximum 69 percent when considered the seismic effects.
For interior beams, shear force without seismic effects is increased to
minimum one percent and maximum 226 percent when considered the seismic effects
for factored load conditions. For these beams, shear increment percent is high at the
middle storeys.
4.8.5.2. Torsion
For edge beams, torsion without seismic effects is increased to minimum 14
percent and maximum 445 percent when considered the seismic effects under zone
2A for factored load conditions.
For cantilever beams, torsion without seismic effects is increased to minimum
74 percent and maximum 492 percent when considered the seismic effects. For these
beams, torsion increment is high at the middle storeys. From the comparison graph,
torsion curve is gradually decreased to top storeys. Also for cantilever edge beams,
torsion increased to minimum 18 percent and maximum 375 percent when considered
the seismic effects. For these beams, increment percentage is high, but the magnitude
of torsion without and with seismic are not so large.
For interior beams, torsion without seismic effects is increased to minimum 16
95
percent and maximum 686 percent when considered the seismic effects for factored
load conditions. For these beams, torsion increment percentage is high at the middle
storeys.
From the comparison graph, torsion with seismic effects for unfactored load
conditions curve lied close to the factored load conditions for all of the beams
mentioned above.
4.8.5.3. Bending moment at support

For edge beams, negative bending moment at support without seismic effects
is increased to minimum 25 percent at the top storeys and maximum 509 percent at
the middle storeys when considered the seismic effects under zone 2A for factored
load conditions. Positive bending moment at support without seismic effects is
increased mostly at the middle storeys and increased percentage is high in these
storeys.
For cantilever beams, negative bending moments at support without seismic
effects are not different when considered the seismic effects for factored load
conditions. Also for cantilever edge beams, negative bending moment at support is
increased to minimum 22 percent and maximum 245 percent when considered the
seismic effects.
For interior beams, negative bending moment at support without seismic
effects is increased to minimum 17 percent and maximum 365 percent when
considered the seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load conditions. From
comparison graph, negative bending moment at support increment percentage is high
at the middle storeys. Positive bending moment at support without seismic effects is
increased mostly at the middle storeys and percent increment is high in these storeys.
4.8.5.4. Bending moment at midspan

For edge beams, positive bending moment at midspan without seismic effects
is not different when considered the seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load
conditions except for ground floor beams.
For cantilever edge beams, positive bending moments at midspan without
seismic effects is increased to minimum two percent and maximum 30 percent when
considered the seismic effects under zone 2A for factored load conditions.
For interior beams, positive bending moments at midspan without and with
96
seismic effects under zone 2A are nor different for factored load conditions except for
ground floor beams. For ground floor beams, bending moment at midspan increased
to minimum 177 percent and maximum 350 percent when considered seismic for
factored load conditions.
4.8.6. Comparison of Critical Forces for One Panel Continuous Beam-Column Frame
Comparison of critical forces for four columns and four beams in one panel
are important for determining force increments and changing deformation when
subjected to moderate seismic forces.
Axial forces of column are found to increase to maximum 22 percent at the
corner column and also increased to maximum five percent in end column. But axial
forces of interior column are not increased in this one panel continuous beam-column
frame. Bending moments in x direction of columns are increased to minimum 174
percent and maximum 485 percent. Bending moment in y-direction of interior and
end columns are increased to minimum 464 percent and maximum 663 percent at the
lower and middle storeys. Also bending moment in y-direction of corner column
increased to minimum 210 percent and maximum 559 percent at the lower and middle
stories.
Bending moment at support of beams increased to maximum 460 percent at
the middle stories. Bending moments at midspan of beams are not increased except at
the ground floor beams which increased to maximum 270 percent.
Torsion had increased to maximum 441 percent at the middle stories. Shear
force also increased to maximum 200 percent except the ground floor beams. At
ground floor beam, shear force increased about 250 percent.
4.8.7. Summarised Discussions on Comparisons

From the comparative study for the existing building which was designed
without consideration for seismic effects and then subjected to moderate seismic
forces in zone 2A, it was found that the followings:
1. Force increments in the columns are greater than that of in the beams.
2. The most critical force for column is bending moment in this study.
3. The most critical force for beams is bending moment in this study.
4. Most critical forces are found at middle storeys for beams and bottom
storeys for columns.
97
5. Storey drift increments are large but most of the drifts are within the
allowable limit and only one floor exceeds the allowable limit about 0.21
percent.
It is found that the force and force increments are large mostly at the bottom
and middle storeys. Thus initial damage will be begun at the middle and bottom
storeys.
Table 4.4. Comparison of Critical Force for Columns (One Panel) – Axial Force (kips)
Interior Column, C54 Corner Column, C41 End Column, C55 Interior Column, C42
Storey Without Without Without Diff: Without
With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ With EQ Diff: (%)
EQ EQ EQ (%) EQ
Roof 90.8 90.6 0 32.9 33.4 2 60.8 59.7 -2 55.5 55.5 0
11th Floor 197.7 197.4 0 97.8 98.5 1 149.5 148 -1 141.5 141.6 0
10th Floor 302.9 302.6 0 160.6 161.1 0 233.8 232.6 -1 226.1 226.1 0
9th Floor 409.3 409 0 224.3 228.1 2 317.5 316.4 0 310.9 310.9 0
8th Floor 517 516.6 0 287.7 303.4 5 402.4 401.4 0 396.5 396.5 0
7th Floor 625.9 625.6 0 352 384.1 9 488.8 487.9 0 482.2 482.1 0
6th Floor 736.4 736 0 417.6 470.8 13 576.6 578.8 0 568.9 568.8 0
5th Floor 848.3 848 0 482.9 561.5 16 666.5 680.2 2 655.8 655.7 0
4th Floor 961.7 961.4 0 549.5 656.9 20 756.4 782.6 3 744.9 744.8 0
3rd Floor 1074.6 1074.3 0 617.5 753.6 22 848.6 887.7 5 835.9 835.8 0
2nd Floor 1193.5 1193.1 0 709.5 828.9 17 949.3 975.7 3 938.8 938.8 0
1st Floor 1304.3 1303.9 0 811.4 909.5 12 1047.9 1054.3 1 1033.1 1033.1 0
G Floor 1327.4 1327.1 0 830.1 925.6 12 1067.5 1072.1 0 1053 1052.9 0
Table 4.5. Comparison of Critical Force for Columns (One Panel) – Bending Moment in X Direction (kips-ft)
EQ EQ EQ (%) EQ
Roof 13.8 53.9 291 23 31.7 38 39.4 51.9 32 17.7 54.2 206
11th Floor 23.5 98.1 317 37.7 68.9 83 32.1 74.3 131 32.4 102.2 215
10th Floor 32.1 142.2 343 30 79.0 163 38 105.4 177 32.3 120.2 272
9th Floor 39.2 186.0 374 39.4 108.0 174 34.2 103.3 202 42.9 157.9 268
8th Floor 43.5 207.1 376 35.8 108.6 203 38.3 118.4 209 53.2 208.8 292
7th Floor 50.1 247.3 394 39.5 121.8 208 41.9 138.3 230 59 232.3 294
6th Floor 54.7 291.7 433 45 138.6 208 43.8 147.8 237 69 272.8 295
5th Floor 60.8 291.7 380 43.8 146.3 234 50 174.9 250 68 279.4 311
4th Floor 70.2 345.5 392 42.5 146.8 245 44.8 157.7 252 73.3 311.4 325
3rd Floor 71.7 340.4 375 84 282.8 237 82.8 296.0 257 94.2 350.0 272
2nd Floor 74.6 390.5 423 69.2 287.8 316 75.8 333.3 340 98.4 366.7 273
1st Floor 97.7 564.9 478 71.2 376.9 429 82.7 454.3 449 90.9 470.5 418
G Floor 138.6 808.2 483 87.9 496.9 465 112.6 627.4 457 111.9 654.3 485
Table 4.6. Comparison of Critical Force for Columns (One Panel) – Bending Moment in Y Direction (kips-ft)
EQ EQ EQ (%) EQ
Roof 6.6 54.6 727 17.9 26.3 47 12 48.5 304 10.7 50.8 375
11th Floor 9.1 81.1 791 28.4 58.0 104 16.3 72.3 344 11.9 78.6 561
10th Floor 18.3 141.3 672 23.6 61.2 159 25.2 139.6 454 15.7 91.5 483
9th Floor 25.8 177.3 587 32.7 101.5 210 24.7 147.3 496 23.2 135.3 483
8th Floor 30.9 212.8 589 30.3 100.0 230 29.5 192.7 553 29.3 170.8 483
7th Floor 33.9 231.1 582 34.9 120.7 246 34.7 225.1 549 33.6 195.3 481
6th Floor 38.8 296.0 663 41.6 149.9 260 37 240.4 550 42.1 246.0 484
5th Floor 48.2 296.0 514 39.9 151.0 278 48.5 313.0 545 41.9 242.6 479
4th Floor 54.3 354.4 553 47.6 199.2 318 57.3 364.0 535 49.2 272.1 453
3rd Floor 52.1 318.5 511 60.8 336.6 454 57.7 400.8 595 50.7 303.1 498
2nd Floor 76 428.3 464 40.4 266.1 559 44.5 318.2 615 58.6 332.3 467
1st Floor 101.6 577.9 469 68.1 340.9 401 80.6 401.9 399 84 478.7 470
G Floor 148.4 839.6 466 103.5 456.7 341 137.4 602.3 338 114 647.6 468
Table 4.7. Comparison of Critical Force for Beams (One Panel) – Shear Force (kips)
Interior Beam, B11 Interior Beam, B60 Interior Beam, B51 Edge Beam, B10
Storey Without Diff: Without Without Without
With EQ With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%)
EQ (%) EQ EQ EQ
Roof 22.5 22.4 0 11.6 12.7 9 7.9 10.2 29 10.3 10.4 1
11th Floor 30.2 31.9 6 20.3 26.6 31 17.3 22.6 31 24.5 26.4 8
10th Floor 31.3 36.8 18 18.4 27.9 52 14.9 25.3 70 24.9 30.2 21
9th Floor 31 41 32 18.3 32.4 77 14.9 29.8 100 24.7 33.3 35
8th Floor 30.9 44.3 43 18.3 37.7 106 14.9 33.2 123 24.6 37 50
7th Floor 31 47.8 54 18.1 41.6 130 14.8 37.7 155 24.6 39.9 62
6th Floor 31 50.9 64 18 45.2 151 15.3 41.9 174 24.4 42.4 74
5th Floor 31 53 71 18.3 47.8 161 15.8 46 191 24.5 44.4 81
4th Floor 31 54.3 75 18.9 49.2 160 16.3 48.9 200 24.4 45.9 88
3rd Floor 29.9 54.6 83 19.2 49.3 157 16.3 48.7 199 24.3 46.8 93
2nd Floor 30.8 52.6 71 19.1 47.9 151 16.2 42.8 164 30.1 52.4 74
1st Floor 25.2 44 75 16.9 42.5 151 16.8 37.4 123 26.1 44.3 70
G Floor 4.5 16 256 4.5 19.2 327 4.7 16.8 257 4.6 16.2 252
Table 4.8. Comparison of Critical Force for Beams (One Panel) – Torsion (kips-ft)
EQ (%) EQ EQ EQ
Roof 7.2 11.2 56 1.2 2.5 108 1.7 3.1 82 8.4 9.6 14
11th Floor 2.9 11.2 286 7.7 13.5 75 4 7.1 78 12.9 18.3 42
10th Floor 6.7 23.5 251 6.5 16.1 148 3.8 9.5 150 12.6 23.6 87
9th Floor 6.8 29.5 334 6.8 21.1 210 3.7 10 170 12.5 29 132
8th Floor 7.2 35.9 399 8 24.3 204 3.9 11.3 190 12.7 32.8 158
7th Floor 8.3 43.6 425 9 28.7 219 4.4 13.4 205 13.4 37.7 181
6th Floor 9.4 50.1 433 9.8 32.2 229 4.5 14.5 222 14.2 42 196
5th Floor 10.5 56.8 441 10.3 34.5 235 4.8 15.3 219 14.7 44.5 203
4th Floor 11.3 61.1 441 10.9 36.5 235 4.8 15.3 219 15.3 46.1 201
3rd Floor 11.5 60.2 423 11.4 37.8 232 4.8 15.3 219 15.8 47 197
2nd Floor 11.3 53 369 11 36.3 230 7.2 26.9 274 11.9 50.5 324
1st Floor 6.7 37.6 461 5 23.5 370 5.2 24.1 363 7.2 37 414
G Floor 0.2 1.3 550 0.1 0.2 100 0 0.1 0.1 1.3 1200
Table 4.9. Comparison of Critical Force for Beams (One Panel) – Bending Moment at Support (kips-ft)
EQ (%) EQ EQ EQ
Roof 86.6 86.2 0 28.1 42.6 52 23.9 33.0 38 32.4 47.2 46
11th Floor 94 129.2 37 52.6 112.1 113 49.6 85.2 72 69.7 117.9 69
10th Floor 99.8 184.5 85 45.9 120.5 163 51.8 114.0 120 76.6 156.8 105
9th Floor 99.5 208.7 110 48.1 146.2 204 54.6 142.1 160 75.7 183.9 143
8th Floor 98.2 229.2 133 51.7 172.6 234 55.1 163.0 196 78.3 208.3 166
7th Floor 99.7 255.1 156 54.2 194.1 258 52.9 181.1 242 81 228.1 182
6th Floor 102.9 274.0 166 56.5 212 275 50.1 203.6 306 85.1 248.4 192
5th Floor 104.9 285.9 173 59.2 225.3 281 46.5 222.4 378 88.4 264.0 199
4th Floor 107.1 293.7 174 61 230.3 278 44.3 236.2 433 89.8 273.0 204
3rd Floor 108 295.8 174 61.8 229.8 272 41.7 233.7 460 91.5 278.6 204
2nd Floor 102.9 280.8 173 62 225 263 39.7 196.2 394 99.2 272.8 175
1st Floor 86.6 244.1 182 54.9 197.6 260 36.8 171.2 365 90.1 244.8 172
G Floor 27 127.1 371 22.3 115.8 419 22.6 101.7 350 27.6 130.9 374
Table 4.10. Comparison of Critical Force for Beams (One Panel) – Bending Moment at Midspan (kips-ft)
Storey Without Without Without
Without EQ With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%) With EQ Diff: (%)
EQ EQ EQ
Roof 50.8 50.3 -1 21.9 21.9 0 19.9 20.1 1 22.8 22.8 0
11th Floor 78.4 78.1 0 38.3 38.3 0 32.5 32.5 0 67.4 67.4 0
10th Floor 77.5 77.5 0 35.1 35.1 0 28.6 28.6 0 65.2 65.2 0
9th Floor 75.9 75.9 0 34.9 34.9 0 28 29.7 6 63.5 63.5 0
8th Floor 74.6 74.6 0 34.6 34.6 0 27.3 28.9 6 61.2 61.2 0
7th Floor 73.4 73.4 0 34.4 34.4 0 26.7 26.7 0 59.8 59.8 0
6th Floor 72.7 72.7 0 34.2 34.2 0 25.9 26.1 1 58 58.0 0
5th Floor 72.3 72.3 0 34.2 34.2 0 25.7 25.7 0 57.5 57.5 0
4th Floor 71.9 71.9 0 34.2 34.2 0 25.5 25.5 0 57.1 57.1 0
3rd Floor 71.6 71.6 0 34.2 34.2 0 25.2 25.9 3 56 56.0 0
2nd Floor 71.4 71.4 0 33.5 33.5 0 25.3 25.3 0 69.4 69.4 0
1st Floor 60 60.0 0 31.3 31.3 0 31.3 31.3 0 62.8 62.8 0
G Floor 6.1 16.9 177 4.7 17.4 270 4.9 15.6 218 6 18.1 202
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Discussions and Conclusions

In this study of performance of ordinary moment-resisting frame in seismic
zone 2A, structural analysis and design are carried out by using ETABS software. In
making structural analysis, it is necessary to know at the outset the cross-sectional
dimensions of the members. At first, preliminary member sizes are assumed and then
analysed as ordinary moment-resisting frame with gravity and wind loads. If
necessary, the assumed cross-sections are modified and repeated the analysis until
getting the adequate member sizes.
Finally, the ordinary moment-resisting frame was reanalysed with seismic
loads under UBC zone 2A for both factored and unfactored load conditions. But the
ordinary moment-resisting frame was not redesigned.
Storey drift increments are large for both cases but most of the drifts are
within the allowable limit and only one floor exceeds the allowable limit about 0.21
percent.
For columns, axial force increases largely at the corner columns, but there is
only a little increase in end columns and there is not increase at the interior columns.
For beams, increase percent for torsion is high but the magnitudes are not so
large. Torsional moment increases largely in cantilever beams but shear force is not
increase in those beams. Secondly, shear force increase percent is high at the ground
floor beams. Positive bending moment at midspan for beams is not increase in beams
but that is only increases in ground floor beams.
From the comparative study for Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame without
and with seismic effects, the most critical force for columns is bending moment. Also
for beams, the most critical force is bending moment in interior beams. Between these
of column and beam, more critical force is found in column at the bottom storeys. It is
found that the force and force increments are large mostly at the middle and bottom
storeys. Thus from this study, it may be stated that damage will be initiated at those
99
storeys.
Although percent increments for critical forces are large, the magnitudes of
forces are negligible for some cases. Moreover, the problem may become the less
serious owing to selection practice of to be constructable design.
Only linear elastic responses and equivalent static linear analysis are
considered in this study. If further study will be conducted by using nonlinear elastic
analysis, it may get more suitable solutions.
5.2. Recommendations
On the basis of this study, the following recommendations are done.
1. Further research should be conducted for better understanding about the
behaviour of the building (ordinary moment-resisting frame) under higher
and lower earthquake intensities.
2. Further study should be conducted by using nonlinear elastic analysis and
P-delta effect using the cracked transformed sections.
3. Further study should be conducted by using pushover analysis to know the
failure sequence.
4. Series of research should be conducted for resulting the complete picture
of the problem.
REFERENCE LIST
Fanella, D.A., Mushi, J.A., and Rabbat, B.G. 1999. Notes on ACI-318-99 Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. 7th ed. U.S.A.: Portland Cement
Association.
Fanella, D.A., and Mushi, J.A. Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake and
Wind Forces. U.S.A.: Portland Cement Association.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. "Structural Engineering

Provisions." Uniform Building Code UBC (1997). U.S.A.: International
Conference of Building Officials.
Lindeburg, M.R., and Baradar, M. 2001. Seismic Design of Building Structures.

8th ed. U.S.A.: Professional Publications, Inc.
Nilson, A.H. 1997. Design of Concrete Structures. 12th ed. Singapore. McGraw Hill
Co. Inc.
Structures and Codes Institute. No Date. Code Master. December 2006

<http:// www.skgoshassociates.com>
Taranath, B.S. 1998. Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings. McGraw Hill
Book Company-Singapore
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
STRUCTURAL KEY PLAN, DESIGN SECTIONS AND
RESULTS FROM ETABS
Figure A.1. Three Dimensional View of Case Study Building

102
Figure A.2. First Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan
103
Figure A.3. Second Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan
104
Figure A.4. Typical Floor (third to tenth floor) Level Beams and Columns Structure
Key Plan
105
Figure A.5. Eleventh Floor Level Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan View
106
Figure A.6. Roof Level One Beams and Columns Structure Key Plan View
107
Figure A.7. Concrete Design Sections of Ground Floor Plan View

108
Figure A.8. Concrete Design Sections of First Floor Plan View

109
Figure A.9. Concrete Design Sections of Second Floor Plan View

110
Figure A.10. Concrete Design Sections of Third Floor to Eleventh Floor Plan View
111
Figure A.11. Concrete Design Sections of Roof Level One Plan View
112
Figure A.12. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-1 and Elevation View-9
113
Figure A.13. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-2 and Elevation

View-8
114
Figure A.14. Concrete Design Sections of Elevation View-3

115

116

117

118

119
Figure A.19. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-3 (lb-ft Units)
120
Figure A.20. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-7 (lb-ft Units)
121
Figure A.21. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-I (lb-ft Units)
122
Figure A.22. Frame Span Loads (WALL) of Elevation View-J (lb-ft Units)
123
Figure A.23. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (SUPERDL) of First Floor Plan View
(lb-ft Units)
124
Figure A.24. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (SUPERDL) of Third Floor Plan View
(lb-ft Units)
125
Figure A.25. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (LIVE) of First Floor Plan View
(lb-ft Units)
126
Figure A.26. Uniform Loads GRAVITY (LIVE) of Third Floor Plan View
(lb-ft Units)
127
Figure A.27. Axial Force Diagram (COMB2) of Elevation View-E (kip-ft Units)
128
Figure A.28. Axial Force Diagram (COMB2) of Elevation View-7 (kip-ft Units)
129
Figure A.29. Bending Moment in X Direction Diagram (COMB3) of Elevation

View-E (kip-ft Units)
130

131

View-7 (kip-ft Units)
132

133
Figure A.33. Bending Moment in Y Direction Diagram (COMB9) of Elevation

134

135

136

137
Figure A.37. Shear Force Diagram (COMB2) of First Floor Plan View (kip-ft Units)
138
Figure A.38. Shear Force Diagram (COMB20) of First Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
139
Figure A.39. Shear Force Diagram (COMB2) of Fifth Floor Plan View(kip-ft Units)
140
Figure A.40. Shear Force Diagram (COMB20) of Fifth Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
141
Figure A.41. Torsion Diagram (COMB5) of First Floor Plan View (kip-ft Units)
142
Figure A.42. Torsion Diagram (COMB22) of First Floor Plan View (kip-ft Units)
143
Figure A.43. Torsion Diagram (COMB5) of Fifth Floor Plan View (kip-ft Units)
144
Figure A.44. Torsion Diagram (COMB22) of Fifth Floor Plan View (kip-ft Units)
145
Figure A.45. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB4) of First Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
146
Figure A.46. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB19) of First Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
147
Figure A.47. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB4) of Fifth Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
148
Figure A.48. Bending Moment Diagram (COMB19) of Fifth Floor Plan View
(kip-ft Units)
149
Figure A.49. Plan View of Beam and Column Labels

APPENDIX B
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
Figure B.1. Front Elevation

151
Figure B.2. Side Elevation

152
Figure B.3. Ground Floor and First Floor Plan

153
Figure B.4. Typical Floor (Third Floor to Tenth Floor) Plan

154
Figure B.5. Eleventh Floor Plan

155
Figure B.6. Roof Level One Plan

A Study On Performance of Existing Building Using Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame in Seismic Zone2A PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study On Performance of Existing Building Using Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame in Seismic Zone2A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YANGON TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING

MAUNG THIHA KYAW

A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING

MAUNG THIHA KYAW

We certify that we have examined, and recommend to the University Steering

1. Dr. Khin Than Yu

2. U Aung Than Win

3. U Myo Min Hlaing

4. U Toe Toe Win

2.10.1. Axial Compression 10

4.5.1.3. Comparison of axial force for interior

4.6.3.1. Comparison of bending moment at support

4.8.6. Comparison of Critical Forces for One Panel

2.1. Moment-Resisting Frame 8

4.22. Comparison of Bending Moment in X Direction for Corner Column,

4.39. Comparison of Bending Moment in Y Direction for Interior Column,

4.66. Comparison of Torsion for Edge Beam - B16 58

4.96. Comparison of Bending Moment at Support for Interior Beam - B60 73

A.32. Bending Moment in X Direction Diagram (COMB15) of Elevation

2.1. Approximate Approximate Relationship between Mercalli Intensity

R response modification factor or overstrength factor

1.2. Objectives of the Study

1.3. Scope of the Study

1.4. Data of Case Study

1.5. Outlines of Thesis

2.2. Seismic Damage

2.3. Correlation of Intensity, Magnitude and Acceleration with Damage

2.3.1. Peak Ground Acceleration

2.3.2. Richter Magnitude Scale

Richter magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions. The

2.3.3. Intensity Scale

2.4. Seismic Risk Zone

magnitudes, as shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. Approximate Code Maximum Zone Acceleration and Magnitude

Zone Maximum Acceleration Maximum Magnitude

Another interpretation of the significance of the zones is to correlate them to

Table 2.3. Effects of an Earthquake by Zone

2.5. Tall Building Behaviour During Earthquakes

2.6. Types of Structural Systems

2.7. Moment-Resisting Frame

Figure 2.1. Moment-Resisting Frame System

2.8. Types of Moment-Resisting Frames

2.8.1. Special Moment-Resisting Frame

2.8.2. Intermediate Moment-Resisting Frame

The intermediate moment-resisting frame is appropriate in moderate seismic

2.8.3. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame

2.9. Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour

Figure 2.2. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam under Increasing Load

2.10.1. Axial Compression

2.11. Static Analysis Procedure

2.12. Building Drift Caused by Lateral Forces

Table 2.4. UBC-1997 Storey Drift Limitations

2.13. Overview of ETABS Software

3.1. Design Parameters and Assumptions for Calculation

3.2.1. Gravity Loads

3.2.1.1. Dead load

3.2.1.2. Live load

3.2.2. Lateral Loads

any structure may be, designed in accordance with approved national

3.2.2.2. Earthquake load

I = important factor depends on occupancy categories