Articles, Principles

Scaling of Base Shear in ETABS

Seismic base shear computed from modal response spectrum
analysis should be scaled to a minimum percentage of the static
base shear.
September 1, 2020 by CCStruct

      


This post presents the procedure in scaling of base shear in ETABS. It is assumed that you
are already aware of the principles of response spectrum analysis and are using CSI ETABS
as your analysis tool.

UBC-97 and ASCE 7-05 or later require that the base shear calculated using modal response
spectrum dynamic analysis should exceed or match a certain percentage of the static base
shear calculated using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure (static analysis). The
requirements of ASCE 7-05 are implemented in this example. For completeness, relevant
steps on how to set up the spectrum cases in ETABS are presented.

STEP 1:
An ETABS model should already be available for the project.

3D view of sample ETABS model

STEP 2:
Declare the static load cases in x- and y-direction. In this example, these are designated as 
EQX and EQY respectively.
The seismic parameters are project specific dependent on seismicity of the region, the
underlying soil class and type of building structure. Eccentricity in seismic loading will not
be considered for the static cases since the base shear obtained from EQX and EQY cases
would only be used for base shear scaling and not for design, i.e. seismic design will only
use the forces from dynamic analysis.

STEP 3:
Define the Response Spectrum function. The parameters you input here should match the
static case seismic parameters.


 

STEP 4:
Define the mass source to be used in the seismic analysis specific to the project criteria. For
example, you might include 25% of the occupancy live load as part of the mass source.


 
STEP 5:
Define the P-delta parameters based on project specific criteria or standard practice.
Usually, the factors of the gravity load component of the governing seismic load
combination is used. For example, if the load combination includes 1.2 DEAD + 1.0 LIVE +
1.0 EARTHQUAKE, and deem that the gravity component of this combination would
produce the highest P-delta effect, you would input:

STEP 6:
Set up the modal case which must include vibration in both x- and y-direction. There should
be sufficient number of modes to achieve at such that at least 90% total mass participation
(ASCE 7-05 Section 12.9.1). In this example, Ritz method is used with 16 modes analyzed.


STEP 7:
Add two Response Spectrum cases in U1 and U2 horizontal direction. In this example,
SPECX and SPECY are defined respectively.


The response spectra is to be multiplied g/R*I (ASCE 7-05 Section 12.9.2), hence an initial
scale should be entered for each response spectrum case. Note that by defining an initial
scale as a factor of g, the results obtained from the response spectrum analysis would be a
force value, e.g. in kN unit.

Sample calculation of initial scale computation:

Scale,initial = 9806.65 mm/s^2 / 5.0 * 1.0 = 1961


The adopted method for modal combination is CQC while the directional combination is
SRSS.

STEP 8:
Create a load combination that combines the response from each direction SPECX and
SPECY. Two methods are commonly used:

Method 1) 100% from one direction + 30% from the other direction
Method 2) Square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) of the effect from each direction.

The SRSS method of combination will be used in this example. This is declared as SPECXY in
the ETABS load combination definition.

For complex or irregular structures which do not have clearly defined orthogonal
directions, it may be unclear as to how the orientation of response-
spectrum analysis should be applied. In the paper entitled Orthogonal Effects in
RSA , Dr. Wilson explains that combined directional effects may be accounted for
more effectively by using an alternative method in which the SRSS combination of
two 100-percent spectra analyses is applied in any direction, or along either
orthogonal axis.
— CSI Knowledge Base


Scale values of 1.0 are applied for each case. This can be adjusted later in the load
combination of SPECXY after the analysis has been completed. If a higher scale factor is
necessary to satisfy code requirements, this can be applied in the combination without
having to rerun the dynamic analysis. This can save hours or even days of computer
analysis time in case of a huge model!

NOTE: If Method 1 combination is preferred, the “Absolute Add” combination type

should be selected:

Combination using Absolute Add for Method 1

STEP 9:
If you have completed STEPS 1-8, you should be able to run the analysis. After the analysis is
completed, click on Display > Show Tables

 Select Analysis > Results > Modal Results > Modal Participating Mass Ratios
and Analysis > Results > Structure Results > Story Forces check boxes.

Select the “Modal Participating Mass Ratios” table. Verify that both “Sum UX” and “Sum UY”
have achieved at least 90% participation. If not, increase the number of modes then rerun
the analysis. For our example, 100% participation has been achieved.


Select the “Story Forces” table. Right-click on any part of the table and choose “Export to
Excel”

STEP 10:
With the data exported in Excel, filter the data by clicking Data > Filter

The base shear will be scaled from the base of the structure, therefore select the lowest
level only. In our example, Story1.


Filter the Load Case/Combo by selecting EQX, EQY, SPECX Max, and SPECY Max.

Finally, filter Location to display the Bottom forces only. The Excel table should now look like
as shown:

Create a formula at the end of each row to calculate the resultant shear:

SQRT(VX^2 + VY^2)


Get the ratio between dynamic and static base shear. In this example,

Ratio,x = VSPECX/VEQX = 1804.166/1037.666

Ratio,x = 1.739
Ratio,y = VSPECY/VEQY = 1744.864/1037.666
Ratio,y = 1.682

The ratio should be greater than the minimum prescribed by the code. Based on ASCE 7-05
Section 12.9.4, the ratio should be more than 85%. Since both Ratio,x and Ratio,y are
greater than 0.85, there is no need to further adjust the scales, e.g. keep SPECX=1 and
SPECY=1 under the load combination SPECXY.

Create other seismic load combinations in ETABS and make use of the pre-combined
SPECXY load combination. For example, the ASCE 7-05 combination


1.2 DEAD + 1.0 EQ + 1.0 LIVE
can be defined in ETABS as shown:

Notice how we used the combined effect SPECXY instead of SPECX or SPECY individually.
This reduces the total number of seismic combinations we would need to define in ETABS.
ASCE 7-05 also requires us to include the vertical component of the earthquake force in the
combination (not shown in this simple example).

STEP11:
What if the ratio between dynamic and static base shear is less than 0.85? Let’s consider the
following data derived from another theoretical ETABS analysis.

V,EQX = 10800 kN
V,EQY = 10800 kN
V,SPECX = 9850 kN
V,SPECY = 7830 kN

Ratio,x = 9850/10800 = 0.912 > 0.85, ok (don't reduce scale!)

Ratio,y = 7830/10800 = 0.725 < 0.85, scale up!

Scale,SPECX = 1.0
Scale,SPECY = 0.85/0.725 = 1.172

This means that we need to scale up the factors as follows :


 Plot of story shear against building height depicting scaled and unscaled base shear.

The above diagram shows the original unscaled dynamic story shear (red lines) and the
scaled up dynamic story shear (green lines). In this example, it can be seen that the shear
force distribution for each corresponding story is lower in the dynamic analysis procedure
as compared with the static analysis procedure. This is generally the case, therefore most
structural designers prefer to apply dynamic seismic analysis which could result to more 
economical design.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS:

1 comment newest  Sign up

Start a conversation ...

Abo Yahya 2 years ago

great explanation continue deeply my question is there and difference between this scale factor and scale fa
tor when we are showing the results of analysis plot function that units find in two axis X&Y?

 Share  Vote  R

Terms of use - Privacy - Report a bug powered by

FEATURED POSTS

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Calculator

BY CCSTRUCT | APRIL 15, 2021


 Concrete Corbel Design to ACI 318-14
BY CCSTRUCT | JANUARY 1, 2021

Rebar Development Length Calculator to ACI 318

BY CCSTRUCT | DECEMBER 2, 2020

The Best Steel Connection Design Software

BY CCSTRUCT | OCTOBER 1, 2020

CATEGORIES

Articles (3)
Principles (2)
Software (1)
Web Calculations (5)
Analysis (1)
Handy Tools (1)
Reinforced Concrete (3)


Copyright © Structural Calc 2020. All Rights Reserved.