University of Surrey,

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences

MEng and BEng programmes in Civil Engineering

ENGM054 - Earthquake Engineering

Structural Dynamics Coursework

Mark and Feedback Sheet SID: 6748398

Mark (/100)
weighting
Criteria Notes

Part A (i) – calculation of inertial lumped mass, effective The process is clear and correct. The process of deriving mass and stiffness
stiffness, mass matrix, stiffness matrix, characteristic matrix is missing The orthogonality properties has not been checked Not clear why 15 72
frequencies and mode shapes the weight of beams and columns are not considered.

Part A (ii) – FE model analysis and critical reflection on
differences between FE and lumped modal analysis
The process is clearly presented The numerical mode shapes should have
been normalised and only the horizontal shapes should have been used for
15 68
comparison. The critical analysis needed to reflect on how the complexity of the FE
model change the mode shape profiles and frequencies quantitatively.

Part A (iii) – response spectrum, generated artificial
acceleration, time history FE outputs and discussions
Clear account of assumptions made. The best output for this section is the ending
moment, axial and shear force envelops however the values are not quite legible.
17 68
It is not clear how the response spectrum for the generated acceleration compares
to the response spectrum used to generate the ground acceleration.

Only Acceleration Response spectrum is calculated and displacement

Part B (i,ii) – displacement design spectrum and factored
spectrum is missing. The checks for whether the direct approach for displacement 10 58
actions
spectrum is appropriate is missing.

The process is clearly presented. It is not very clear why the seismic inertial
Part B (iii) – seismic base shear and applicability condition
effects are not considered in the floor mass . Good reflection on the difference
checks, lateral distribution of seismic actions and pseudo- 15 75
between this model and part A iii however this should have also included the
static FE analysis
underlying principles of lateral force method.

The main checks have been conducted and clearly presented. Beam and column
Part B (iv, v) – design checks for first level beams and columns reinforcement summary would have been useful here. Some of the 20 78
geometrical checks seem to be missing.

The process is clearly presented. the checks should have been for each level.
Part B (iv) – p-delta checks and inner storey drift Also the calculation of Vtot and Ptot (for each level) is missing or how it relates to 8 70
part B iiii.

Total Mark 71