OPEN ACCESS Journal of Applied Sciences

ISSN 1812-5654
DOI: 10.3923/jas.2019.495.503

Research Article
Comparative Study of Static and Response Spectrum Methods for
Seismic Analysis of Regular RC Buildings
Ahmed Yousef Alghuff, Samir Mohammed Shihada and Bassam A. Tayeh

Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine

Abstract
Background and Objective: The main idea in this paper is to study the static and dynamic analysis methods and compare their results
in order to determine the optimal conditions for application of each method. Materials and Methods: In this research, two structural
models are created using the ETABS (V16.1.2) program for regular R.C buildings with typical plans, the first model with a total height
of 75 m while the second model with a total height of 24 m. The buildings are analyzed using the static and dynamic methods under
ASCE7-10 and IBC 2015 provisions. Results: The results show that shear forces obtained using the response spectrum analysis as a
dynamic analysis in the X directions are less than those obtained using the equivalent static analysis by 35-60 and by 40-65% in the Y
direction for the high-rise building, while for the low-rise building is less by 25% in X direction and 22% in Y direction. The results also
show the bending moments in the X directions obtained using the response spectrum analysis are less than those obtained by using
the equivalent static analysis by 45-75 and by 30-65% in the Y direction for high-rise building, while for the low-rise building is less by
22% in X direction and 20% in Y direction. Conclusion: The results of displacements in the X directions obtained using the response
spectrum analysis are less than those obtained by using the equivalent static analysis by 70 and by 80% in the Y direction for the high-rise
building, while for the low-rise building is less by 35% in X direction and 38% in Y direction.

Key words: Equivalent static, response spectrum, regular buildings, base shear, displacements, bending moments

Citation: Ahmed Yousef Alghuff, Samir Mohammed Shihada and Bassam A. Tayeh, 2019. Comparative study of static and response spectrum methods
for seismic analysis of regular RC buildings. J. Applied Sci., 19: 495-503.

Corresponding Author: Bassam A. Tayeh, Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine
Tel: + 972-82644400 Fax: + 972-82644800

Copyright: © 2019 Ahmed Yousef Alghuff et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Competing Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files.
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019
INTRODUCTION
Structural analysis is basically used for determine the
behavior of a structure when subjected to loads. The load may
be load due to the weight of things such as people, furniture,
etc. or due to dynamic loads as wind, explosions and an
earthquake. Hence, it is necessary to take into consideration
the seismic load in the design of structures . 1
The seismic response of the building systems shows a
large dependence on the type of analysis method adopted. In
the past years, the analysis methods were confined to static
approach due to its simplicity. Static approach is based on
replacing concept of the inertia forces at various considerable
masses i.e., stories by equal horizontal forces that are
corresponding to the weight of the structure and its
acceleration. The combination of these concentrated forces
is present by a base shear at the structure s base . 2 forces and moments.
Nowadays the development of sophisticated computers
and analysis programs enabled the researchers to move
forward towards a more rational approach by simulating the
actual effect of earthquakes on the building models to obtain
the realistic seismic response, these methods are categorized
under dynamic analysis3.
Dynamic analysis describes and expects the structural
movement cases under the influence of dynamic loads.
This science is not based on observation and experience
only but is also dependent on logical analysis and complex
4
mathematical equation solving . The response spectrum
analysis is considered as one of the most important methods
of dynamic analysis which defined as the combination plot of
acceleration, velocity and displacement maximum response
for all single degree of freedom system to a specific ground
5
motion for a given damping ratio . This combination helps in
obtaining the maximum structural responses, which can be
used to obtain the lateral forces for earthquake resistance
structural design2.
Kumar et al. exposed a case study of earthquake analysis
6
of multi storied residential building. The study shows that
bending moment obtained from dynamic analysis are high
and the displacement values in static analysis also higher
comparable to dynamic analysis.
7
Mahmoud and Abdallah studied the response of
multi-story R.C building under equivalent static and dynamic
loads according to Egyptian code (2008). The study concluded
that the static analysis gives higher values for maximum
displacement especially in higher stories and it has been
found that a significant increase in the dynamic shear and
moment for higher stories.
496
Sharma and Maru8 studied the dynamic analysis of
multistoried regular building, where they showed that
the bending moment values in beams are 10-15%
higher for dynamic analysis. Displacement values are
17-28% higher in beams when dynamic analysis is
used.
Arvindreddy and Fernandes9 carried out seismic analysis
of RC regular and irregular frame structures. The study
showed that the results obtained from static analysis method
are lesser in term of story displacement values as compared to
response spectrum analysis.
Adhikari and Rajasekhar10 compared static and dynamic
seismic analysis of column sections in a building, the
comparison showed that the values of displacement for
dynamic analysis is 16% less than the static analysis
displacements. Also, the static analysis gives higher values for
Das and Guha11 compared the static and dynamic seismic
analysis of RC regular and irregular frame structures, the
comparison shows that the displacement obtained by static
analysis are higher than dynamic analysis for irregular
structures.
Kakpure and Mundhada1 compared the static and
dynamic analysis of multistoried building using ETABS
program. The comparison shows that the dynamic analysis is
economical in terms of bending moments, displacements and
axial loads.
The main aim of this paper is to study the static and
dynamic analysis and compare the results in order to
determine the optimal conditions for application of each case
using international code instead of regional standard as per
previous literature. This paper deal in particular the story
moment and story displacement in addition of story shear
which not been studied previously.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper studied two reinforced concrete multistory
buildings with typical rectangular in plan, 25 m long and
20.5 m wide as shown in Fig. 1, the high-rise model with
25 ribbed slabs as shown in Fig. 2a while the low-rise with
eight ribbed slabs as shown in Fig. 2b. The buildings are
with typical floor heights of 3 m. The buildings are intended
for residential use. The system adopted to resist the seismic
forces consists of elevator cores and shear walls X and Y
directions. Figure 3a, b shows the seismic parameters of the
models that used in ETABS program under ASCE7-10 and IBC
2015 provisions.
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

2500

13 14 15 16

M.B.4
M.B.3
M.B.1
500

W13 W14

M.B.6
M.B.5
M.B.2
11 12
W11 S.B.2 S.B.2 S.B.2 W12

M.B.6
M.B.4

M.B.5
M.B.3
M.B.2
M.B.1
500

W10
7 8 9 10
W8 W7 W8

2050
W5
M.B.1

M.B.2

M.B.6
M.B.5
M.B.3

M.B.4
500

W3 S.B.1 S.B.1 S.B.1 W4

M.B.2

M.B.5
M.B.3

M.B.4

M.B.6
W1 W2
M.B.1

1 2 3 4

475 500 500 500 475

Fig. 1: Regular multistory buildings plan

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2(a-b): Three-dimensional model in ETABS for (a) High-rise and (b) Low-rise building

497
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019
(a)

(b)

Fig. 3(a-b): ETABS seismic parameters of the model for (a) High-rise building and (b) Low-rise building under ASCE7-10 and IBC
2015 provisions

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Shear forces: The results show that for high-rise building the
shear forces in the X direction using the response spectrum
analysis (RS) are less than corresponding values obtained by
using the equivalent static analysis (ES) by 35% for the upper
stories and by 60% for the lower stories and in the Y direction
the results show that the shear forces using the response
spectrum analysis are less than corresponding values obtained
by using the equivalent static analysis of 40% for the upper

498
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

25 E.S 25 E.S
(a) (b)
24 R.S 24 R.S
23 Modified 23 Modified
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
Story number

Story number
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Story shear (KN) Story shear (KN)

Fig. 4(a-b): High-rise building story shears in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

8 (a) 8 (b)

E.S E.S
7 R.S 7 R.S
Modified Modified

6 6

5 5
Story number

Story number

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Story shear (KN) Story shear (KN)

Fig. 5(a-b): Low-rise building story shears in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

stories and 65% for lower stories as shown in Fig. 4a and b, analysis by 25% and in the Y direction the results show that
while for the low-rise building the shear forces in the X the shear forces using the response spectrum analysis are less
direction using the response spectrum analysis are less than than corresponding values obtained by using the equivalent
corresponding values obtained by using the equivalent static static analysis by 22% as shown in Fig. 5a and b.

499
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

25 (a) E.S 25 (b) E.S

24 R.S 24 R.S
23 Modified 23 Modified
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
Story number

Story number
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0

100000
10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000
Story moment (KN-M) Story moment (KN-M)

Fig. 6(a-b): High-rise building story moments in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

According to ASCE 7-10, where t he maximum scaled obtained by using the equivalent static analysis by 22%
base shear predicted by the dynamic analysis, Vi is and in the Y direction the results showed that the
less than 85% of the calculated base shear, V using bending moments using the response spectrum analysis
the equivalent lateral force procedure, the scaled are less than their corresponding values obtained by using
member forces shall be modified by multiplying them by the equivalent static analysis of 20% as shown in
0.85V/Vi. Fig. 7b and 7b.
After modifying the dynamics results based on ASCE 7-10
provisions, the story shears in the dynamic analysis are 15% Displacements: The results showed that for high-rise building
smaller than their corresponding values in the equivalent the displacements in X directions using the response
static analysis. spectrum analysis are less than their corresponding
values obtained using the equivalent static analysis by
Bending moments: The results showed that for high-rise 70% and in Y direction the results showed that the
building the bending moments in X directions using the displacement using response spectrum analysis are less
response spectrum analysis are less than their corresponding than corresponding values obtained by using the
values obtained using the equivalent static analysis by 45% for equivalent static analysis by 80% as shown in Fig. 8a and b,
the upper stories and by 75% for the lower stories and in Y while for the low-rise building the displacements in the
direction the results show that the bending moments using X directions using the response spectrum analysis are
response spectrum analysis are less than their corresponding less than corresponding values obtained by using the
values obtained using the equivalent static analysis by 30% equivalent static analysis by 35% and in the Y direction the
for the upper stories and by 65% for lower stories as shown results showed that the displacements using the response
in Fig. 6a and b, while for the low-rise building the spectrum analysis are less than corresponding values
bending moments in the X directions using the response obtained by using the equivalent static analysis of 38% as
spectrum analysis are less than their corresponding values shown in Fig. 9a and b.

500
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

8 (a) E.S 8 (b) E.S

R.S R.S
Modified Modified
7 7

6 6

5 5
Story number

Story number
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000

Story moment (KN-M) Story moment (KN-M)

Fig. 7(a-b): Low-rise building story moments in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

25 25
(a) (b)
24 24
23 23
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
14
Story number

14
Story number

13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3 E.S
E.S
2 R.S 2 R.S
1 Modified 1 Modified
0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Story displacement (mm) Story displacement (mm)

Fig. 8(a-b): High-rise building story displacements in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

501
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

8 (a) 8 (b)
E.S E.S
R.S R.S
7 Modified 7 Modified

6 6

5 5
Story number

Story number
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Story displacemrnt (mm) Story displacemrnt (mm)

Fig. 9(a-b): Low-rise building story displacements in (a) X direction and (b) Y direction

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION C In case of low rise and regular building it is

C The high-rise building shear forces obtained using the
response spectrum analysis as a dynamic analysis in the
X directions are less than those obtained by using the
equivalent static analysis by 35-60 and by 40-65% in the
Y direction, while for the low-rise building is less by 25%
in X direction and 22% in Y direction
C The high-rise building bending moments in the X
directions obtained using the response spectrum analysis
are less than those obtained by using the equivalent
static analysis by 45-75 and by 30-65% in the Y direction,
while for the low-rise building is less by 22% in X direction
and 20% in Y direction
C The high-rise building displacements in the X directions
obtained using the response spectrum analysis are less
than those obtained by using the equivalent static
analysis by 70% and by 80% in the Y direction for the
high-rise building, while for the low-rise building is less by
35% in X direction and 38% in Y direction
C After modifying the dynamic result, according to
ASCE7-10 provisions, the story shears, bending moments
and displacement in the dynamic analysis are 15%
smaller than their corresponding values in the equivalent
static analysis
recommended to use the static approach
C Due to technological development and availability of
effective computers and software, dynamic seismic
analysis is recommended to use in high-rise buildings
where the results show that the static method is not
economical for those buildings
C For further research it recommended to compare the
seismic analysis methods in terms of building height, soil
profile, structural system and different analysis software
C It recommended to make a comparison of dynamic static
analysis using other building codes, especially that the
IBC, ASCE restricts the results obtained from the dynamic
analysis
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT
This study discovered the static and dynamic analysis
methods and compare their results in order to determine the
optimal conditions for application of each method. In this
research, two structural models are created using the ETABS
(V16.1.2) program for regular R.C buildings with typical plans.
This study will help the researchers to understand the
behavior of the static and dynamic analysis methods for R.C
buildings.

502
 J. Applied Sci., 19 (5): 495-503, 2019

REFERENCES 6. Kumar, E.P., A. Naresh, M. Nagajyothi and M. Rajasekhar, 2014.

1. Kakpure, G.G. and A.R. Mundhada, 2016. Comparative
study of static and dynamic seismic analysis of
multistoried RCC buildings by ETAB. Int. J. Eng. Res. Applic.,
7: 6-10.
2. Bagheri, B., E.S. Firoozabad and M. Yahyaei, 2012.
Comparative study of the static and dynamic analysis of
multi-storey irregular building. Int. J. Civil Environ. Eng.,
6: 1045-1049.
3. Gottala, A., K.S.N. Kishore and S. Yajdhani, 2015.
Comparative study of static and dynamic seismic
analysis of a multistoried building. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Eng.,
2: 173-183.
4. Ghosh, S.K. and P. Dasgupta, 2015. Seismic Design Using
Structural Dynamics Based on 2012 IBC/2015 IBC/ASCE 7-10.
Structures and Codes Institute, USA.
5. Edward, L.W., 2002. Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic
Analysis of Structures. 3rd Edn., Computers and Structures
Inc., Berkeley, USA., ISBN: 0-923907-00-9.
Earthquake analysis of multi storied residential building-A
case study. J. Eng. Res. Applic., 4: 59-64.
7. Mahmoud, S. and W. Abdallah, 2014. Response Analysis of
Multi-Storey RC Buildings under Equivalent Static and
Dynamic Loads According to Egyptian Code. Int. J. Civil Struct.
Eng. Res., 2: 79-88.
8. Sharma, M. and S. Maru, 2014. Dynamic analysis of
multistoried regular building. IOSR J. Mech. Civil Eng.,
11: 37-42.
9. Arvindreddy and R.J. Fernandes, 2015. Seismic analysis of RC
regular and irregular frame structures. Int. Res. J. Eng.
Technol., 2: 44-47.
10. Adhikari, S.K. and K. Rajasekhar, 2015. Comparative static and
dynamic study on seismic analysis of uniform and non
uniform column sections in a building. Int. J. Innovat. Res. Sci.
Eng. Technol., 4: 6830-6837.
11. Das, A. and P. Guha, 2016. Comparative study of the static and
dynamic seismic analysis of RC regular and irregular frame
structures. Int. J. Scient. Eng. Res., 7: 25-27.

503