A Internship Report on

E-TABS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Submitted by
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Under the Guidance of
Internal Supervisor
NAME OF THE INTERNAL GUIDE
Designation, Dept. of Civil Engineering

External Supervisor
NAME OF THE EXTERNAL GUIDE, M.Tech.
Name of the company and its location.

Department of Civil Engineering

SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE
(AUTONOMOUS)
(Affiliated To JNTUA, Ananthapuramu, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Accredited by NBA and NAAC 'A')
SreeSainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517102
 SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE
(AUTONOMOUS)
(Affiliated To JNTUA, Ananthapuramu, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Accredited by NBA and NAAC 'A')
SreeSainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati– 517102

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Certificate
This is to certify that the internshipreport entitled
E-TABS
is the bonafide work done and submitted by

xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
in the Department of Civil Engineering, SreeVidyanikethan Engineering College, A.Rangampet, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil
Engineering during the academic year 2019-2020.

Internal Supervisor External Supervisor

Name of the internal guide Name of the external guide
Professor and BOS Chairman Designation,
Name of the company, locationLtd., Chennai.

Head of the Department

Name of the HoD
Designation
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Successful completion of any project work during internship cannot be done without proper guidance and
encouragement of many people, this acknowledgement transcends the reality. Hence, we express our
deep sense of gratitude to all those who have directly or indirectly helped in completion of thisseminar
report.
It gives us an immense pleasure to express our gratitude to our external supervisorNAME OF THE
GUIDE, Project Manager, Keller Ground Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, for his esteemed guidance and
able supervision during internship.
We are deeply indebted to our internal supervisorNAME OF THE GUIDE, Professor, Department of
Civil Engineering for his valuable guidance, constant encouragement and constructive criticism
throughout the course of internship. We are really fortunate to associate ourselves with such an advising
and helping guide in every possible way, at all stages.
We would like to express our sincere thanks toNAME OF THE HOD, Designation and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering for his support during the internship.
We profusely thankDr. P. C. KRISHNAMACHARY, Principal, SVECfor his continuous support and
encouragement. We are pleased to express heartfelt thanks to our Faculty of Civil Engineering for their
moral support and good wishes.
We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the engineers and staff of NAME OF THE
COMPANY AND ITS COMPLETE ADDRESSfor their cooperation and support to complete our
internship.
Finally, I would thank my parents and my team members for their support without which this would not
have been completed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 ABSTRACT

Now a days, Geosynthetics plays important role in field of geotechnical engineering due to its versatile
properties now a days it importance is more. One of the application of Geosynthetics is acting as
reinforcement. In Geosynthetics, geogrid application is to reinforce the soil. Due to presence of
reinforcement in soil stability the analysis can complicated to two different materials having different
stiffness. So equilibrium equations cannot be used to solve this complex analysis.so we prefer to go for
finite difference approach which is useful to solve ordinary differential equations. One of failure which
this complex soil faces is pullout failure, in which applied load on reinforcement is less than pull out
resistance of complex system. In analysing many researchers assume the direction of the forces acting on
reinforcement as axial, some researchers take tangential directions to get accuracy in solving the value of
load under the given conditions.
Many of software did analysis by assuming the direction of tensile force axially but this lead to inaccurate
results, why because failure surface always intersect the reinforcement obliquely, it can be practically visualised
in laboratory. So we need to improve our theories to get optimal results and exact prediction of failure. Then we
design the lab models for different parameters i.e. analytical study based on theory available on oblique pull out
resistance. And we did the laboratory experiment on the oblique pull out resistance in embankments which is
made up of red soil over clayey soil which is major cases studies has done. Finally we compare our lab model
results with analytical values which we have obtain using programming in the method of finite difference
approach which is more popular in case complex analysis.
Keywords: write relevant 3 to 5 words in alphabetical order
 .

SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE

SUBMITTED BY :

SUBMITTED TO:

Table of Contents
TITLE: DESIGNING A 4-STORY COMERCIAL BUILDING USING ETABS...........................................................1
➢ 1.0 Introduction:.....................................................................................................................................1
➢ 1.1 Types of Seismic Analysis:................................................................................................................1
➢ 1.2 Equivalent static analysis:................................................................................................................1
➢ 2.0 Problem Statement:.........................................................................................................................1
➢ 2.1 Objectives:........................................................................................................................................2
➢ 3.0 METHODOLOGY:..............................................................................................................................3
➢ 3.1 Material and Geometry:...................................................................................................................3
➢ 3.2 Soil type, Zone location:...................................................................................................................3
➢ 3.3 Types of Loads Used:........................................................................................................................3
➢ 3.4 Input Parameters used for calculation of Base shear in ETABS:......................................................4
➢ 4.0 Analysis and Data Processing:..........................................................................................................5
➢ 4.1 ETABS ANALYIS RESULTS:..................................................................................................................5
➢ 4.2 COMPARISON WITH MANUAL CALCULATION:.................................................................................7
➢ 5. DESIGN OF REINFORCED BEAM AND COLUMNS:.............................................................................11
➢ 5.1 3D FRAME DESIGN:.........................................................................................................................11
➢ 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:.......................................................................................15
➢ REFERENCES:........................................................................................................................................16
➢ ASSISMENT AVALUTION CRITERIA:......................................................................................................17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Material and cross-section of concrete -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Table 2: Loads, Zone, and Soil type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
Table 3: parameters used for equivalent lateral force calculation. -------------------------------------------------- 4
Table 4: Story forces and story displacement from ETABS analysis -------------------------------------------------- 5
Table 5: Story shear and Moments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Table 6: Story Stiffness ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Table 7: Story Mass from ETABS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Table 8: This table shows the Results obtained from ETABS ---------------------------------------------------------- 8
Table 9: Comparison of ETABS Results with manual calculation between Story Forces, Story
Displacement, and Inter-Story Drift Ratio ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
Table 10: Comparison of ETABS Results with manual calculation between Overturning Moments --------9
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: 3D View of the 4-storey building ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Plain and Elevation View of the Building ....................................................................................... 2
Figure 3: Simplified model as a 4 SDOF ........................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4: Stories Forces graphs .................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Stories Stiffness comparison graphs .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Story Displacement ...................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Story Moments ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 8: Story Shears ................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 9: Story Drift ratio ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 10: This figure shows members which failed the design check ....................................................... 11
Figure 11: figure shows the 3D render view of building with shear walls at the core of the building. ...... 12 Figure
12: Figure shows that all members passed the design check after insertion of shear wall of
thickness 300mm. ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure
13: Figure shows the design combo 1.............................................................................................. 14
Figure 14: Figure shows the maximum shear force in beam and column member. .................................. 14
Figure 15: Figure shows the Maximum bending moment beam and column. ........................................... 14
Figure 16: Reinforcement Area for beams and columns ............................................................................ 15
 TITLE: DESIGNING A 4-STORY COMERCIAL BUILDING USING ETABS

➢ 1.0 Introduction:
Earthquake analysis or seismic analysis is a part of structural analysis and is the calculation of how a
structure will respond during an event of earthquake. Earthquake causes shaking of the ground. So, any
structure resting on it will experience movement at its base. Although the base of the structure moves
with the ground, the roof tends to remain in its original position. This tendency to continue to stay in
the previous position is known as inertia. But the roof is also dragged because it is connected to the
columns. In a building, since columns are flexible, the motion of the roof is different from that of the
base due to the back-and-forth movement of the ground. This creates a lateral load on the building and
a shear force at the base, as if these forces were being applied in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is
necessary to evaluate these forces in order to design the structure capable of resisting these loads.

➢ 1.1 Types of Seismic Analysis:

There are six types of seismic analysis namely:
1) Equivalent static analysis
2) Response spectrum analysis
3) Linear dynamic analysis
4) Nonlinear static analysis
5) Nonlinear dynamic analysis
6) Time history method

➢ 1.2 Equivalent static analysis:

The equivalent static lateral force method is a simplified technique to substitute the effect of
dynamic loading of an expected earthquake by a static force distributed laterally on a structure for
design purposes. The total applied seismic force, V is generally evaluated in two horizontal
directions parallel to the main axes of the building. It assumes that the building responds in its
fundamental lateral mode. For this to be true, the building must be low rise and must be fairly
symmetric to avoid torsional movement during ground motions. The structure must be able to resist
effects caused by seismic forces in either direction, but not in both directions simultaneously.

➢ 2.0 Problem Statement:

As structural engineers, we are tasked with designing a 4-story commercial structure in Peshawar and
performing a seismic analysis using the equivalent lateral force approach. The building has RC-moment
resisting frame (SMRF) as its basic lateral load resisting system. There are no horizontal or vertical

1
irregularities in the building's rectangular plan, which is the same throughout its four levels. The
following figures show the 3D View, building's elevation, and plan view of the building.
The seismic analysis and design of regular RC building can be performed using different analysis
methods. Among them, equivalent lateral static load method is a common tool to analyze the structures
using codes-based equations of UBC-97 or BCP-2007. To compare the results with manual calculation
different FEM software packages have implemented these equations. The task has been designed to
check the manual calculation in comparison of FEM software and to design the specific building for the
lateral loads. The base shear and its distribution from both manual and FEM must be in range with each
other for different site zone factors.

➢ 2.1 Objectives:
• Comparison of manual calculation and FEM method for the seismic analysis of RC building using code
based equivalent lateral static force procedure for different site zone factor.

Figure 1: 3D View of the 4-storey building

Figure 2: Plain and Elevation View of the Building

2
 ➢ 3.0 METHODOLOGY:
A simplified model of this building was created for the purpose of dynamic analysis as shown. It will
presumably act as an idealized shear building. We are solely concerned with this building's seismic
response in the longer (X) direction. According to the Figure, the building's simplified model for the
dynamic analysis in the X direction can be represented as a 4-story 2D frame with lumped mass and
lumped stiffness for each story. The building is fixed at the base. We have to Perform the seismic
analysis and design the building according to UBC-97 or ASCE 7-16 or BCP-2007. The following loads are
applied on the building.

➢ 3.1 Material and Geometry:

Table 1: Material and cross-section of concrete

Figure 3: Simplified model as a 4 SDOF

The concrete strength and section properties are shown in the figure above.

➢ 3.2 Soil type, Zone location:

As the building is in Peshawar, which comes under zone 2B on the hazard assessment map, therefore
according to UBC-1997 we have zone factor 0.2 for Zone 2B.

➢ 3.3 Types of Loads Used:

The following types of loads are used

3
1)Dead load (DL):

Dead loads are defined as the loads that are relatively constant over time, including the weight of the
structure itself and immovable objects such as walls, floor finish, etc. Dead loads are also known as
permanent or static loads. But here we are only required to design the frame for self-weight as a dead
load for the design of the building, so we use that.

2)Live load (LL):

Live loads, or imposed loads are loads of temporary or short duration or of a moving load.

3)Earthquake load (EQ):

Earthquake load is load due to the inertia force produced in the building because of seismic excitations.

Also, we asked to design the building against the load combination of 1.2D+1.6LL+0.25EQ
Table 2: Loads, Zone, and Soil type

➢ 3.4 Input Parameters used for calculation of Base shear in ETABS:

As we have been asked to use the load combination of 1.2(Dead Load), 1.6(Live Load) and 0.25(Seismic
Load). By using this load combination in ETABS, the following results are computed. The following input
parameters are being used in ETABS for base shear calculation.

4
 Table 3: parameters used for equivalent lateral force calculation.
Soil Profile Type Sc
Zone Factor Z 0.2
Ground Response Ca 0.32
Coefficient
Ground Response Cv 0.24
Coefficient
Overstrength Factor R 8.5
Impotance Factor I 1
Seismic Source Type B
Distance to Source 15 km
Near Source Factor Na 1
Near Source Factor Nv 1

➢ 4.0 Analysis and Data Processing:

After defining all the parameters of the model as discussed above, run the model. After the analysis is
complete check the local and global results. In our case we will only focus on the story level response or
the Global response. So now go to display and click on story response plots, to graphically check the
story responses for all load cases which we defined.

➢ 4.1 ETABS ANALYIS RESULTS:

Select the load case combo as UBC1997 ELF (Equivalent lateral earth force) in the X-direction, let’s first
check the story forces. So, we can see the forces that the software calculates as shown in Table 4, for
applying to the model for this analysis procedure. These are the automatically lateral forces which
represent the future earthquake forces according to UBC97.

5
 Table 4: Story forces and story displacement from ETABS analysis

Story STORY FORCES STORY

Numbe DISPLACEMENT
r

KN N mm
1 0 0 0
2 100.1777 100177.7 8.675
3 200.3553 200355.3 16.291
4 300.533 300533 22.162
5 383.9695 383969.5 25.541

So now if we go to the story shear, we can see the distribution of shear along the story height. So, from
Table 5, we can see that the base shear is 985.035 KN. This number is calculated and then distributed as
forces along the height of the building in this procedure, and we can see from Table 4, that the sum of
the story forces is equal to the 985.035 KN which is the base shear, we take the values in tabular form
and then sum it to know the base shear. We will verify it in our excel sheet when will compare these
numbers from ETABS with our manual calculation.

So now let’s check some other responses, for example let’s check the maximum story displacement.
From Table 4, we can see the maximum story displacement, since the load that we applied is only in
xdirection, therefore the y-responses are all zero. We can see that the maximum displacement here for
our case is 25.54mm at story number 4, Similarly we can check the maximum story drift, we can see that
the maximum story drift is at story number 2 which is 0.0021 that means 0.21 percent. We can also
check the overturning moments and since the applied forces are in x-direction, the overturning will be
the moments of y-direction. So here the base overturning moment is 11753.5 KN-m as shown in
Table 5. So, we will compare these numbers with our manual calculation also.

Table 5: Story shear and Moments

Story STORY SHEAR (KN) N STORY
Number MOMENT
S
1 -383.9695 383969.5 KN-m N-m
2 -684.5024 684502.4 -11753.5 141041523.6
3 -884.8578 884857.8 -7813.32 93759823.2
4 -985.0354 985035.4 -4273.89 51286651.2
5 0 0 -1535.88 18430533.6
0 0

6
Now let’s check the story stiffness and that story stiffness is automatically calculated by ETABS, so we
can see in table 6, that the story stiffness is almost similar for story number 2 up to story number 4, but
the very first story has a high stiffness value, as usual. We will find these stories stiffness with our
approximation manual methods, and we will compare this story stiffness with our calculation, letter in
this study.

Table 6: Story Stiffness

Comparison of Story Stiffnesses

Story Manual ETABS ETABS %
No. Stiffness Difference
N/mm KN/mm N/m
0 0 0 0 0
1 81402.02449 2094.6412 2094641.2 96.11
2 69098.51239 1608.0244 1608024.4 95.70
3 69098.51239 1576.8 1576800 95.62
4 69098.51239 1565.2434 1565243.4 95.59

➢ 4.2 COMPARISON WITH MANUAL CALCULATION:

Now for manual calculation we use the excel sheet, the link to which is given in the references. Here we
will apply the UBC97 Equivalent lateral force procedure to the same 4-story building and we will
perform the manual calculation for this application.

So, for example lets quickly check the inputs, we have the seismic weight of the building and this weight
we take it from ETABS, In ETABS this can be obtained by defining diaphragm to all floors and then go to
table and in table section go to analysis, then results and finally click on center of mass and rigidity.

7
 Table 7: Story Mass from ETABS
Story Story Masses Elevation wxh
No
kg m

From ETABSS N-m

0 0 0 0

1 460094.3 4 18035696.56

2 460094.3 8 36071393.12

3 460094.3 12 54107089.68

4 440872.14 16 69128751.55

All the other factors like Soil profile type, Zone factors, over strength factor, Importance factors and
Ground response spectrum coefficients are obtained from UBC97 Code, and they are presented as
shown in the figure.

Now put these values in the formula below to find the total base shear for the building.

Table 8: This table shows the Results obtained from ETABS

➢ Outputs
Approximate Time Period T 0.58505949 sec
Seismic Base Shear Cs 0.04826055
Coefficient
Seismic Base Shear V 862200.387 N
Max. Seismic Base Shear Vmax 1681461.74 N
Min. Seismic Base Shear Vmin 628866.689 N
Min. Seismic Base Shear Vmin 336292.347 N
Z=0.4
Add. Concentrated Force Ft 35310.6965 N
at Top
Minimum Ft (Check) Min 215550.097 N

8
 Ft

After finding the total base shear of the building, now distribute this base shear along the height of the
building by using the formula. Now after distributing the base shear forces at each story, we can see
from table 9, that the forces from ETABS and manual calculation are almost same.

Similarly for finding the displacement value we need the total stiffness matrix which we obtained
through approximate methods, and the procedure of which is explained in the excel file attached in the
references.

After that to find the inter story drift ratio, simply dividing the difference of the two stories displacement
by the difference in the height between those two stories. Similarly compare these values with the
ETABS values and we can see that there is slightly more difference between the two and this is because
we use only the approximate method for finding the total structure stiffness matrix.

Now once the story forces are known we can convert it into story shears, which will be the sum of forces
from bottom to that story for which we are calculation the shear. At the end we will also have to
compare the story moments, this is calculated by multiplying the story forces with the elevation of that
story.
Table 9: Comparison of ETABS Results with manual calculation between Story Forces, Story Displacement, and Inter-Story Drift
Ratio
Story Story Forces Story Inter-story Drift
Level Displacements Ratios
Manual ETABSS ETABSS Manual ETABSS Manual ETABSS
N KN N mm mm
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 84094. 100.1777 100177.7 4.2255 8.675 1.056375 0.002169
3
3 168189 200.3553 200355.3 7.98636 16.291 0.940215 0.001904
4 252283 300.533 300533 9.31318 22.162 0.331705 0.001468
5 322324 383.9695 383969.5 6.98894 25.541 -0.58106 0.000845

9
Table 10: Comparison of ETABS Results with manual calculation between Story Shears and Story Overturning Moments
Stor Story Shears Story Moments
y
Leve
l
Manual ETABS ETABS Manual ETABS ETABSS
S S S
N KN N N-m KN-m N-m
826889. - 383969. 986646 - 141041523.
1 7 383.969 5 3 11753.5 6
5
742795. - 684502. 655890 - 93759823.
2 4 684.502 4 4 7813.3 2
4 2
574606. - 884857. 358772 - 51286651.
3 8 884.857 8 2 4273.8 2
8 9
322323. - 985035. 128929 - 18430533.
4 8 985.035 4 5 1535.8 6
4 8
5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Now after making these tables in Excel, we plot these in Excel to see their deviation along the height of
each story. Now the first graph is about the story stiffness, the one line shows the manual, and the
other line shows the ETABS calculations as shown in figure 5, we can see that there is small miss match
from

10
 Figure 5: Stories Stiffness comparison graphs Figure 4: Stories Forces graphs

story number 2 to story number 4 but there is a big miss match between story number 1, this is due to
the reason that we use only the approximate methods for stiffness calculation.

From figure 4, we can see that the story forces from ETABS and manual calculations are almost
matching, as we can see that there is almost a linear relation between the two graphs.

The same applies for story displacement and story drift ration, there are some errors, but the errors can
be within the acceptable range. Similarly for story shear and Moment the ETABS and manual
calculations are almost matching.

11
 Figure 9: Story Drift ratio

Figure 8: Story Shears

Figure 6: Story Displacement Figure 7: Story Moments

➢ 5. DESIGN OF REINFORCED BEAM AND COLUMNS:

➢ 5.1 3D FRAME DESIGN:

First of all by analyzing and designing the 3D frame many of the members are fail, I tried many trial
sections, increasing the material properties to an accurate design, by doing this many of the members of
3D frame get passed the design check but some of them still failed the design check, even on section of

12
(450 by 450)mm for column and (450 by 600)mm of beam the member were failed, and at that case the
strength of concrete that I kept for design was 32 MPa and that for steel was 420 MPa.

Figure 10: This figure shows members which failed the design check

After using the section size of 600 by 900 for beam and 600 by 600 for column, most of the upper stories
frame members passed the design check but still the middle members of bottom and first story failed
the design check. Still all the bottom story columns are overstressed. So, we have three choices to
increase the strength of these columns.

A. Increase the dimension of bottom story columns and

beams.
OR

13
 B. Use of higher grade of concrete and steel.
OR
C. Insert Shear walls at bottom and first story.
OR
D. And finally, use of diagonal struts as energy dissipators or dampers.

The choice of these procedures depends on using all these options and then deciding the best
strengthening technique, keeping in view the economy of the overall structure.

For now, I used option number three that is, I insert shear wall at all the four faces at the core of the
building, because from previous studies the optimum place for the shear wall is the core of the building.
I use a shear wall of thickness 300mm.

Figure 11: figure shows the 3D render view of building with shear walls at the core of the building.

And now after inserting the shear wall all the members passed the design check and are safe against the
earthquake as shown in figure 12, even by using beam and cross section sizes of (400 by 400) mm. Also
the strength of concrete and steel for this case are 30MPa and 420 MPa. The manual calculation is being
attached in A4 sheets and we can see that both the manual and ETABS calculated area of steel are
approximately similar.

14
 Figure 12: Figure shows that all members passed the design check after insertion of shear wall of thickness 300mm.

5.2 COMPARISON OF 2D FRAME DESIGN WITH MANUAL

CALCULATIONS:
The frame in the x-direction is analyzed using the load combo 1, which is Combination of
1.2DL+1.6LL+0.25EQx. After that the maximum moments in the frame can be seen in figure 15. The

15
ETABS gives us the reinforcement as shown and we will compare these with our manual calculations.

The maximum moments and shear force developed in the bottom story members, which are shown in
the figure above. The Positive bending moment is 15.14 KN-m while the negative bending moments are
-45 KN-m and 39.7 KN-m. Both the maximum Bending moments and shear forces are circled in figure 14
and figure 15.

Figure 13: Figure shows the design combo 1.

16
Figure 15: Figure shows the Maximum bending moment beam and column. Figure 14: Figure
shows the
maximum shear
force in beam and
column member.

Figure 16: Reinforcement Area for beams and columns

17
 ➢ 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following are the main points of this study.

1) The preparation of this project has provided an excellent opportunity to emerge us in

analyzing a multistory building for seismic loads.
2) This project has given an opportunity to re-collect and co-ordinate the methods of
analysis and engineering principles.
3) Analysis was done by using ETABSS software and manually as per UBC 1997. The
lateral load to stories obtained in both the cases is approximately the same.
4) By using ETABSS software the analysis work can be completed within the stipulated
time.

Future recommendations for this study should be focused on.

1. The difference in ETABS and manual calculation are mostly due to the
approximate method use to find the stiffnesses and this can be minimized by
using more sophisticated methods, more accurate methods to accurately
estimate the stiffness of a particular story.
2. In manual calculation or ETABS automatic calculation, we did not consider the
nonlinear response, that is, the story displacement are not multiplied with the
factor of 0.7 times the R value, which is meant for the amplification of these
displacements to calculate the maximum displacement in the design earth quake
corresponding to inelastic values, so these calculation are only done for the
elastic displacement and if you want to report the inelastic displacements which
are expected during a design earth quake then you to amplify these
displacements with a factor which is equal to 0.7 R according to the UBC97.
3. As we use shear walls as a strengthening technique, all the others strengthening
mechanism and methods should be investigated and will compare to select the
most suitable out of them.
4. Economic study should be done to select the most efficient method of
strengthening in economy point of view.
➢ REFERENCES:

1. An ACI Standard Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
19) Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318R-19).
2. 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 2–1 Volume 2 Chapters 1 through 15 are printed
in Volume 1 of the Uniform Building Code.

18
 3. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE® 2006 A.
4. Bourahla, N. (2013). Equivalent Static Analysis of Structures Subjected to Seismic
Actions. In:
Beer, M., Kougioumtzoglou, I., Patelli, E., Au, IK. (eds) Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering.
5. CEP-EQ (M.MANSOOR KHAN).xlsx (https://fawadnajam.com/)
6. https://pec.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Building-Code-of-Pakistan-
Seismic-Provisions2007.zip

19