Objective

The objective of our project was to analyse and design a structure based on moment
resisting configuration while applying seismic loads using 2 approaches; the ELF and modal
response approaches. The results of these two methods would then be compared.
Furthermore, we also replaced one external bay in each direction with concentric bracing of
HSS sections at the perimeter and assessed the effect it had on our results.
Methodology
For the methodology, first the material selection was done and loads were calculated. The
preliminary sections were selected on the bases of the those applied loads. ELF analysis &
Modal analysis was performed and the sections were revised. The structure was designed
using those revise sections and the results were compared. This is just a vague description
of what we did, we will elaborate on these points moving forth.
Description of structure
The structure we analysed was a G+5 story residential building, located in Kashmir. It has
four spans of 20ft in x direction and five span of 30ft in y direction. All levels have a equal
height of 12 ft. Only the external frames are to be designed as moment resisting frames.
Here you can see the framing plan, the exterior columns are taken as moment resisting
frames while the interior columns are considered for gravitational forces only.
Material
The materials we selected were A36 steel with yield strength of 36 ksi since it is readily
available in Pakistan. The cylindrical strength of concrete to be used in slab was taken as 4
ksi. You can see these properties were defined in Etabs.
Deisgn philosophy
The design of steel structure was carried out using load resistance factor design, which also
considers the non-linear plastic material properties. In this method the laods are multiplied
bla bla bla
Design criteria
The design criteria was setup to define the minimum requirements the structure must meet.
The limiting guidelines of AISC-360 and AISC 341 that are following LRFD methodology were
adopted. The application of seismic was via ASCE 7-10 for given location using ground acc
values. In analysis phase the member sizes will be used based on initial assumptions and will
later on be revised during the iterative design phase. The factored loads will be defined in
load combinations for both gravitational and seismic loads. And the structure members will
be designed based on maximum governing forces.
Model
The analysis software plays an important role to carry out accurate calculations and design
of the strucutre. We created the finite element model using ETabs 2016. Etabs is a special
purpose analysis & design software specially developed for building systems. It has a user
friendly interface, it uses power numerical methods and the design procedures are based on
various international design codes.
Limitations
The limitations in our etabs model was that foundation can not be modelled hence only
super structural analysis and design is possible. Beams and columns are modelled as line
elements that account for centreline only. The steel and concrete composite sections can
not be considered hence its is conservative to design steel beams. Floor diaphragm was
assigned as rigid as rcc slab was used.
Applied Loads
As you can see these were the applied loads. bla bla bla
Seismic load
The seismic load is dependent on some of the structural properties such as the weight of the
structure, the stifness of the building and the time period (which requires modal analysis).
Hence for these parameters we need to prepare a preliminary model.
Slab design
3 slabs with different support conditions were designed using excel sheet.
This is a screenshot of the excel sheet used for interior slab design. It has all edges
continuous and the required slab thickness we get is 7.78 inches. Similarly this is a screnshot
of exterior slab, which gave us a thickness of 8 inches. You can see the screenshot of corner
slab design which gave the highest required slab thickness of 8.38 inches. Hence a slab
thickness of 9 inch was used.
Steel column
To get an idea about from which section we should start out analysis with, we did a
preliminary design for beams and columns. Force on exterior and interior column was
calculated based on gravity loads only using catchment area method. The governing combo
was applied and the preliminary column sizes were assumed based on maximum Pu for each
story and then they were designed using excel sheets. This is a table showing the gravity
load calculation acting on each story. Using 1.2d + 1.6l combination we get the max pu for
each story level. You can see for this load on story x the spreadsheet gave us a list of 10
lightest sections which are within the stress ratio limit. These sections would be later on
assigned in ETABS autoselect list and allow the program to decide the approriate member
sizes. This was done for all columns on each floor.
Preliminary beam design
In beam design we took a conservatinve approach and designed them based on maximum
tributary area. You can see for W24x207 section we got a stress ratio of 0.96. So we can
start analyzing our structure using this or more heavier sections.
ELF
The equivalent lateral method is essentially a simplified static approach that distributes part
of seismic force to every floor level. As a result, static forces are generated and applied to
members which can resist lateral loads. It treats the structure as vertical cantilever, fixed at
base and vibrating in its first mode.
The advantage of using this method is that this type of analysis is simple to perform, it is not
as complex as response time history analysis. Therefore it does not require as much
processing time and computing power as compared with response time history analysis.
Load parameters
Since the data availaible or kashmir was for UBC 97 zoning values, the response spectra
from ubc 97 and asce 7-10 was compared. By comparing them we can compute Sds as 2.5 of
Ca and Sd1 as equal to Cv.
Since kashmir lies in zone 3 and we assume soil profile as stiff we can get CA and Cv values
using UBC 97. bla bla bla
Load Patterns
The load patterns were defined in ETABS. The seimic force in x and y direction was defined
using the parameters discussed earlier. Inititally minimum eccentricity of 5% was taken since
the structure is regular and we are assuming there are no torsion irregularities present. Ss
and S1 values were interpollated to get the respective Sds and Sd1 values we calculated
above.
Modal case
Modal case was defined using eigen method. The maximum no. of modes was taken as 3
times the no. of stories.
P delta effects were defined, dl taken as 1.2 and ll taken as 0.5.
This is a 3d view of the model prepared. This is a typical story plan view.
MRF
Since only the external frames were to be designed as moment resisting frames, the bases
of interior columns were assigned pin restraints. And the internal beams were made simply
supported to avoid transfering moments to interior columns.
This is a 3d view in ETABS after the hinges were assigned. This is a typical plan view after the
hinges were assigned.

Now my colleague will further alaborate on modal analysis.