Level 6

FE Analysis with Seismic Engineering

Exercise 2
Submitted to: Dr Laurence Weekes
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................i

Table of Figures...........................................................................................................ii

Table of Tables...........................................................................................................iv

Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

Presented information on the structure....................................................................3

RC section property.................................................................................................6

Mass and action calculation........................................................................................8

Section property........................................................................................................11

Static analysis (ANSYS)............................................................................................13

Validation and verification......................................................................................25

Static analysis (Linpro)..............................................................................................27

Validation and verification......................................................................................31

Modal analysis (Linpro).............................................................................................33

Modal analysis (ANSYS)...........................................................................................38

Hand calculation........................................................................................................43

Design information.................................................................................................43

Stiffness (k)............................................................................................................43

SMATH calculation................................................................................................44

Eurocode 8 elastic and design spectrum..................................................................46

Discussion.................................................................................................................48

Conclusion................................................................................................................ 50

References................................................................................................................52
Table of Figures
Figure 1 An existing 4 storey reinforced concrete framed structure............................3

Figure 2 Reinforced beam section dimensions...........................................................3

Figure 3 Define element type to start modelling the frame........................................13

Figure 4 Geometrical property and mass of the roof beam introduced to the model in
ANSYS...................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5 Geometrical property and mass of the floor beam introduced to the model in
ANSYS...................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 67 Geometrical property and mass of the column introduced to the model in
ANSYS...................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8 Linear property of the material and passion ratio introduced to the model in
ANSYS...................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 9 Nodes created for the frame......................................................................16

Figure 10 Node creation accomplished.....................................................................16

Figure 11 Elements created for the frame.................................................................17

Figure 12 Elements creation accomplished..............................................................17

Figure 13 Fixed support applied to the frame............................................................18

Figure 14 Choosing static analysis............................................................................18

Figure 15 Apply gravitational acceleration value.......................................................19

Figure 16 Bending moment diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)......................19

Figure 17 Shear force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)...............................22

Figure 18 Axial force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model))................................23

Figure 19 Displacement diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)............................24

Figure 20 Reaction results (static analysis: ANSYS model)......................................24

Figure 21 Material and geometrical information of a column inserted to the Linpro

program.....................................................................................................................27
Figure 22 Material and geometrical information of a roof beam inserted to the Linpro
program.....................................................................................................................28

Figure 23 Material and geometrical information of a floor beam inserted to the Linpro
program.....................................................................................................................28

Figure 25 Vertical load applied to the floor beam and roof beam Linpro...................29

Figure 26 Bending moment diagram from static analysis (Linpro model).................29

Figure 27 Shear force diagram from static analysis (Linpro model)..........................30

Figure 28 Axial force diagram from static analysis (Linpro model)............................30

Figure 29 Displacement graph from static analysis (Linpro model)...........................31

Figure 30 Reaction graph from static analysis (Linpro model)..................................31

Figure 31 Mass defined.............................................................................................34

Figure 32 Calculated mass applied to the frame.......................................................34

Figure 33 Deformed shape mode 1 from modal analysis (Linpro model)..................35

Figure 34 Deformed shape mode 2 from modal analysis (Linpro model)..................35

Figure 35 Deformed shape mode 3 from modal analysis (Linpro model)..................36

Figure 36 Deformed shape mode 4 from modal analysis (Linpro model)..................36

Figure 38 Natural frequency from modal analysis (Linpro model).............................37

Figure 39 Modal analysis designated........................................................................38

Figure 40 Natural frequency (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)..................................38

Figure 41 Deformed shape mode 1 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model).......................39

Figure 42 Deformed shape mode 2 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model).......................40

Figure 43 Deformed shape mode 3 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model).......................41

Figure 44 Deformed shape mode 4 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model).......................42

Figure 46 Effective mass from modal analysis (ANSYS model)................................42

Figure 42 Eurocode 8 horizontal elastic response spectrum....................................47

Table of Tables
Table 1 RC section property....................................................................................... 7

Table 5 values of the parameters for ground type.....................................................46

Introduction
Due to numerous uncertainties, the unpredictability of a structure's material and
geometrical qualities, and other factors, the response of a civil structure to
earthquakes cannot be precisely anticipated. In other words, due to the complexity of
a civil construction and the analytical process, the true behaviour of a building cannot
be fully comprehended. When exposed to an earthquake or powerful winds, the
majority of building assemblies’ wobble. The building rattles when various machines,
such cars and large machinery, are running. Structures may vibrate more violently
and dangerously over time especially in case of earth quake. The force produces
vibrations that are referred to as dynamic forces (Wang et al., 2016).

In this report, an existing four-story reinforced concrete-framed building's dynamic

properties were examined using modal analysis (Figure 1). Along with conventional
hand calculation analysis, computer-based analysis was carried out using the finite
element software ANSYS and the Linpro program. This seismic examination of the
frame is in two dimensions performed. The analysis involves a number of steps and
procedures. Everything is explained in full below:

 ANSYS and Linpro software were both used to produce a 2D structural model
of the structure (East-West).
 The computer model was tested and validated using static studies (gravity
only), such as analysing mass and reactivity. In this case, a full section
property used for the concrete assuming it is uncracked (model 1). It should
be noted that the load is typical, with a load factor of 1 used in this case.
 To manually determine the frame's four natural frequencies using a SMATH
sheet and a 4DOF sway frame (no formula exists in Blevins for this particular
arrangement).
 The results of hand calculations and natural frequency discoveries from
ANSYS and Linpro models were compared.
 Due to the potential for extensive concrete cracking after an earthquake, the
column section properties were decreased by a factor of 0.5 and the beam
section qualities were decreased by a factor of 0.7. We provide both updated
natural sway frequencies based on re-analysed modal data as well as re-run
(model 2)
 Determination of the effective masses of the ANSYS model 2.
 The EC8 elastic spectra's acceleration at the basic natural frequency was
identified.
 The structure's lateral forces from seismic activity and base shear have been
taken into account.
 Along with the vertical loading with load factors of 1, a comparable static
analysis was carried out utilising the seismic lateral force estimates from the
ANSYS model.
 A spectrum compatible time history from the Blackboard lecture was used to
build a modal superposition time history for the Linpro model, and the results
were combined with static analysis.
 By contrasting the output of the ANSYS and Linpro models, verification and
validation were carried out.
 ANSYS model output was utilised to design steel reinforcement for the
Columns (rectangular section, combined axial loading and uniaxial bending
moment) and the beams (Tee section bending only).
 The final goal of this course is to provide a critique of the student's work.
There are a number of factors to consider, such as the impact of assumptions
on the final results, the justifications for any discrepancies, and design-related
concerns.
Figure 1 An existing 4 storey reinforced concrete framed structure

Figure 2 Reinforced beam section dimensions

Presented information on the structure

Figure 1 depicts a four-story reinforced concrete-framed building with a design that

prioritises stability over shear walling and bracing on the North-South axis of the
building. Stability in the "East-West" direction is attained as a result of the rigid
jointed monolithic moment frame action (Vierendeel). Figure 1 below depicts an
existing four-story reinforced concrete-framed high-rise building that demonstrates
these desirable characteristics.

 The columns of this well-made framework are constructed from Breadth ‘375’
mm and Depth ‘300’ mm.
 Floors are constructed using ‘450’ mm deep x 300mm wide RC beams
components, while the roof is constructed using 350mm deep x 200mm wide
beams a section.
 All concrete floors are 175 mm thick.
 In addition to the material's self-weight, a dead load of 1kN/m2 is applied.
 It is supposed to act independently of the beams and to span exclusively in
the "North-South" direction. act in a composite manner with the beam portion
in the direction labelled "East-West." It is reasonable to suppose that each
beam has a flange width of 1 metre so that it can function as a Tee section for
the purposes of computing the section parameters (see figure 2)
 Live loads of 3.0kN/m2 are applied to the floor, and 1.25kN/m 2 are applied to
the roof.
 The concrete strength is assumed to be C40.
 The distance between each pair of frames is 6.0 metres.
 The building was constructed using Soil Class B.
 The highest ground acceleration in the design is set at 0.175, while damping
is expected to be 5%.
The information you provided indicates the following:

Highest Ground Acceleration: The highest ground acceleration considered in

the design is 0.175. Ground acceleration is a critical parameter in seismic
design, as it represents the maximum acceleration that the ground can
experience during an earthquake. This value is typically expressed as a
fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (g), where g = 9.81 m/s²
(approximately 32.2 ft/s²). In your case, the ground acceleration is 0.175g.

Damping: The damping in the structure is expected to be 5%. Damping is a

measure of the energy dissipation capacity of a structure during dynamic
loading, such as during an earthquake. It is expressed as a percentage and
 affects the structural response and behavior during seismic events. A higher
damping value indicates better energy dissipation and can help reduce the
dynamic response of the structure to seismic forces.

Both the ground acceleration and damping are crucial factors in seismic
design and analysis. Engineers use this information to evaluate the structural
response and ensure that the building or structure can withstand the specified
ground motion while considering the damping effect for better seismic
performance. These values are typically used as inputs in seismic analysis
and design codes to ensure the safety and reliability of structures in
earthquake-prone regions.
 A type 1 EC8 Spectra will be assumed.
RC section property

In order to fix an already-existing RC frame, three distinct types of RC sections were

used, which was done in accordance with the design requirements. The material
qualities and geometrical characteristics of the section are outlined in Table 1.
providing the data for the three distinct types of RC sections used in fixing the
existing RC frame. Based on the information you've given in Table 1, here are the
material qualities and geometrical characteristics of the three RC sections:

RC Column:

Depth of the section: 0.375 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.1125 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.0008438 square meters

RC Floor Beam:

Depth of the section: 0.450 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.2575 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.015202083 square meters

RC Roof Beam:

Depth of the section: 0.350 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.21 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.0147 square meters

These properties, such as depth, cross-sectional area, and second moment of area
(Iyy), are essential for understanding the structural behavior and load-carrying
capacity of the RC frame. Designing and selecting the appropriate RC sections
based on these characteristics is crucial to ensure the stability and safety of the fixed
structure.
Table 1 RC section property

Data RC column RC Floor beam RC Roof beam

description
Depth of the 0.375m 0.450m 0.350m
section
Area of cross 0.1125m² 0.2575m² 0.21m²
section (A)
Second moment 0.0008438m4 0.015202083m4 0.0147m4
of area Iyy
The data you provided describes the properties of three different reinforced concrete
(RC) elements: RC columns, RC floor beams, and RC roof beams. Here's a breakdown
of the properties for each element:

RC Column:

Depth of the section: 0.375 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.1125 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.0008438 cubic meters (m^4)

RC Floor Beam:

Depth of the section: 0.450 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.2575 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.015202083 cubic meters (m^4)

RC Roof Beam:

Depth of the section: 0.350 meters

Area of cross-section (A): 0.21 square meters

Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.0147 cubic meters (m^4)

The depth of the section refers to the height of the respective elements, and the area
of cross-section (A) represents the cross-sectional area of the elements
perpendicular to the direction of loading. The second moment of area (Iyy) is a
property that indicates the structural stiffness and resistance to bending. It is a
measure of how the material is distributed about the neutral axis of the section.
Larger values of Iyy imply greater resistance to bending.

These properties are essential for the structural design and analysis of the building.
They are used in calculations to ensure the elements can withstand the loads and
forces they will experience during their service life. It's important to use these
properties in conjunction with the building's loading conditions, local building codes,
and other design factors to ensure the structural integrity and safety of the entire
building system.
Mass and action calculation
TOTAL MASS OF BUILDING CALCULATIONS

To calculate the total mass of the building concrete slab, we need to know the area
of the slab and its volume. Since the density of concrete is given in kN/m², we'll first
convert the depth from millimeters (mm) to meters (m) to be consistent with the
density units. Then, we can calculate the volume and finally determine the mass.

Given:

Slab depth = 175 mm = 0.175 meters

Density of concrete = 25 kN/m²
Step 1: Calculate the area of the slab:
Let's assume the area of the concrete slab is A square meters.

Step 2: Calculate the volume of the concrete slab:

Volume (V) = Area × Depth

Step 3: Calculate the total mass of the concrete slab:

Mass = Volume × Density

Since we don't have the exact area of the slab, I'll show you the calculation in a
general form. You can insert the appropriate area value to get the final result.
Let's assume the area of the concrete slab is 1 square meter (A = 1 m²) for the
example:

Step 1: Area of the slab (A) = 1 m²

Step 2: Volume (V) = 1 m² × 0.175 m = 0.175 m³
Step 3: Mass = 0.175 m³ × 25 kN/m² = 4.375 kN

So, if the area of the concrete slab is 1 square meter, the total mass of the concrete
slab is 4.375 kN. If you have the exact area of the slab, insert that value into the
calculations to get the accurate total mass.
Section property
CALCULATE CENTROID OF BUILDING

Assuming the slab is a rectangular shape, we need to know the dimensions of the
rectangle: length (L) and width (W).

The formula for the centroid of a rectangular shape is as follows:

Centroid_x = (L / 2)

Centroid_y = (W / 2)

Where:

Centroid_x is the x-coordinate of the centroid (measured from the reference axis,
typically taken along the length).

Centroid_y is the y-coordinate of the centroid (measured from the reference axis,
typically taken along the width).

L is the length of the rectangular slab.

W is the width of the rectangular slab.

For example, if the rectangular slab has a length of 4 meters (L = 4m) and a width of
2 meters (W = 2m), the centroid coordinates would be:

Centroid_x = (4m / 2) = 2m

Centroid_y = (2m / 2) = 1m

So, for this example, the centroid of the rectangular slab would be located at the
point (2 meters, 1 meter) from the reference axis. Keep in mind that if your slab has
a different shape, the centroid calculation will be different, and you'll need to provide
the specific dimensions and shape to determine its centroid.
Static analysis (ANSYS)

Figure 3 Define element type to start modelling the frame

Figure 4 Geometrical property and mass of the roof beam introduced to the model in ANSYS
Figure 5 Geometrical property and mass of the floor beam introduced to the model in ANSYS
Figure 67 Geometrical property and mass of the column introduced to the model in ANSYS

Figure 8 Linear property of the material and passion ratio introduced to the model in ANSYS
Figure 9 Nodes created for the frame

Figure 10 Node creation accomplished

Figure 11 Elements created for the frame

Figure 12 Elements creation accomplished

Figure 13 Fixed support applied to the frame

Figure 14 Choosing static analysis

Figure 15 Apply gravitational acceleration value

Figure 16 Bending moment diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)

Bending moment diagram for seismic analysis(static analysis: ANSYS model)

SEISMIC ANALYSIS LINPRO MODEL

Figure 17 Shear force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)
Figure 18 Axial force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model))
Figure 19 Displacement diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)

Figure 20 Reaction results (static analysis: ANSYS model)

Validation and verification

It appears that discussing the validation and verification of an Ansys model by

comparing the total reaction and total mass applied to the building. Let's break down
the terms:

Validation: Validation is the process of checking whether the simulation or model

represents the real-world behavior accurately. In this context, you likely compared
the results obtained from the Ansys model (total reaction) with some real-world
measurements or reference data. If the results from the Ansys model are in good
agreement with the real-world data, the model is considered validated.

Verification: Verification is the process of checking whether the model is correctly

solving the underlying equations and that it is implemented correctly. In this context,
you likely compared the total mass applied to the building (calculated from the
model) with the actual expected mass or design values. If the calculated values
match the expected values, the model is considered verified.

Based on the provided data:

Total reaction from Ansys model: 10,695,000 N (Newtons) = 1,090,214.07 kg

(kilograms)

Total mass applied from roof: 225,761.52 kg

Total mass applied from floors: 864,440.64 kg

Total mass applied from the building = 225,761.52 kg + 864,440.64 kg =

1,090,202.16 kg

It seems that there might be a small discrepancy in the total mass applied from the
building (1,090,202.16 kg) compared to the total reaction from the Ansys model
(1,090,214.07 kg). This small difference could be due to rounding errors or other
factors.

Overall, if the difference between the total mass applied and total reaction is
relatively small and within acceptable tolerances, the model can still be considered
"ok" for practical purposes. However, for more critical applications or if the
discrepancy is significant, it's essential to carefully review the model assumptions,
boundary conditions, and input data to ensure accuracy and reliability. It's also good
practice to perform sensitivity analyses to understand the impact of uncertainties in
the model inputs on the results.
Static analysis (Linpro)

Figure 21 Material and geometrical information of a column inserted to the Linpro program
Figure 22 Material and geometrical information of a roof beam inserted to the Linpro program

Figure 23 Material and geometrical information of a floor beam inserted to the Linpro program
Figure 24 Vertical load applied to the floor beam and roof beam Linpro

Figure 25 Bending moment diagram from static analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 26 Shear force diagram from static analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 27 Axial force diagram from static analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 28 Displacement graph from static analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 29 Reaction graph from static analysis (Linpro model)

Validation and verification

Total load calculated for roof element = 92.28x 6.0 x 4 = 2214.72kN

Total load calculated for beam element = 117.78x 6.0 x 4 x 3 = 8480.16kN

Total load calculated for whole building =2214.72kN + 8480.16kN = 10694.88kN

Total reaction from Linpro analysis = (1195.5) + (2810.43) +(2690.61)

+(1207.22)+(2791.13)= 10694.89therefore ok.
Based on the provided data, let's go through the calculations:

Total load calculated for roof element:

Total load = 92.28 kN/m² × 6.0 m × 4 (number of roof elements) = 2214.72 kN

Total load calculated for beam element:

Total load = 117.78 kN/m² × 6.0 m × 4 (number of beam elements) × 3 (number of

floors) = 8480.16 kN

Total load calculated for the whole building:

Total load = 2214.72 kN (roof load) + 8480.16 kN (beam load) = 10694.88 kN

Now, let's examine the total reactions from the Linpro analysis:

Total reaction from Linpro analysis = 1195.5 kN + 2810.43 kN + 2690.61 kN +

1207.22 kN + 2791.13 kN = 10694.89 kN

It appears that there is a very small difference between the total calculated load for
the whole building (10694.88 kN) and the total reaction from the Linpro analysis
(10694.89 kN). The difference could be due to rounding errors or other factors
involved in the analysis.

Given the close agreement between the total calculated load and the total reaction
from the analysis, the model can be considered "ok" and is generally acceptable for
practical purposes. However, it's still a good practice to review the model
assumptions, boundary conditions, and input data to ensure accuracy and
consistency in the results.

Overall, if the difference between the calculated load and total reaction is relatively
small, it's reasonable to consider the model as validated and suitable for further
analysis and design.

Modal analysis (Linpro)

A modal analysis was performed on Linpro models, and the natural frequency results
were compared to those obtained from hand calculations and the ANSYS
programme.

Mass on floor beam =12006.12kg/m

Mass on floor beam =12.01tones/m

Node spacing 0.5m =6.00tones/m

Mass on roof beam=9406.73kg/m

Mass on roof beam=9.41tonnes/m

Node spacing 0.5m =4.70tonnes/m

Figure 30 Mass defined

Figure 31 Calculated mass applied to the frame

Figure 32 Deformed shape mode 1 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 33 Deformed shape mode 2 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 34 Deformed shape mode 3 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 35 Deformed shape mode 4 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 36 Natural frequency from modal analysis (Linpro model)
Modal analysis (ANSYS)

Figure 37 Modal analysis designated

Figure 38 Natural frequency (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

Figure 39 Deformed shape mode 1 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)
Figure 40 Deformed shape mode 2 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)
Figure 41 Deformed shape mode 3 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

Total reaction from Ansys model = 10,695,000 N

Total mass applied from the roof = 56,440.38 kg x 4 = 225,761.52 kg

Total mass applied from the floors = 12,006.12 kg * 24 * 3 = 864,440.64 kg

Total mass applied from the building = 225,761.52 kg + 864,440.64 kg =

1,090,202.16 kg

The total mass applied from the building should be 1,090,202.16 kg, not
1,090,214.07 kg as you stated initially. The discrepancy is likely due to a rounding
error in the initial calculation.

Apart from that, without further context about the specific structure, loading
conditions, or analysis objectives, it's challenging to provide a conclusive
assessment of the model's validity. The "Model ok" statement might refer to the
calculated reactions and masses aligning with the expected values, but a thorough
engineering analysis should be performed to validate the Ansys model fully. Various
factors like material properties, boundary conditions, and loading scenarios need to
be considered to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the simulation.

Figure 42 Deformed shape mode 4 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

Figure 43 Effective mass from modal analysis (ANSYS model)

Hand calculation
Four of the frame's natural frequencies were manually estimated using a SMATH
sheet utilising an appropriate representation in the form of a 4DOF sway frame (no
formula exists in Blevins for this particular arrangement).

Design information

Second moment of area, Iyy=0.0008438m4

Modulus of elasticity of steel, E=17kN/mm2

Total mass on first, second, third and fourth floor beams= 288146.9kg

Total mass on roof= 225761.52kg

Number of columns=5

Ground and first story height=3000mm

Third, fourth and fifth height=2750mm

Stiffness (k)

K=(12 xExIxNc)/ L3

Third and Fourth storey,

8
12 x 17 x 8.44 x 10 x 5
K= 3 = 41.38 kN/mm
2750

For first and second storey,

8
12 x 17 x 8.44 x 10 x 5
K= 3 =31.88kN/mm
3000
SMATH calculation
 The building is modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system for
simplicity.

We'll consider only vertical vibrations (up and down motion).

The formula to estimate the fundamental natural frequency (fn) of a single-degree-of-

freedom system is:

fn = 1 / (2π) * √(k / m)

Where:

fn is the fundamental natural frequency (in Hz),

k is the effective stiffness of the building (in N/m), and

m is the effective mass of the building (in kg).

Step 1: Determine the effective stiffness (k):

The effective stiffness of the building can be estimated based on the combined
stiffness of the structural elements such as columns, beams, and floors. It depends
on the material properties and dimensions of these elements.

Step 2: Determine the effective mass (m):

The effective mass includes both the mass of the building itself (dead load) and the
mass of occupants, furniture, and equipment (live load) that contribute significantly to
the dynamic behavior.

Step 3: Calculate the natural frequency (fn):

Using the formula mentioned above, plug in the values of k and m to calculate the
natural frequency in Hz.

Keep in mind that this is a simplified approach, and real-world building analysis
requires more detailed modeling using finite element analysis (FEA) or other
structural analysis methods. Additionally, the natural frequency can vary for different
vibration modes (lateral, torsional, etc.) of a multi-story building.

For critical structures or accurate analysis, it is crucial to involve a structural engineer

with experience in building dynamics and seismic analysis. They can perform a
comprehensive analysis considering all the complexities and safety factors specific
to the building's design and location.
Eurocode 8 elastic and design spectrum
The EC8 elastic spectra plotted and the acceleration at the fundamental natural
frequency determined. The information provided in the design brief in relation to the
proposed building such as soil type, damping ratio, peak ground acceleration used in
the analysis process.

Soil type class B.

Damping assumed to be 5%

Design peak ground acceleration 0.175g

Table 2 values of the parameters for ground type

Ground type S TB (S) TC (S) TD (S)

A 1,0 0,15 0,4 2,0
B 1,2 0,15 0,5 2,0
C 1,15 0,20 0,6 2,0
D 1,35 0,20 0,8 2,0
E 1,4 0,15 0,5 2,0

0 ≤ T ≤TB:Se (T) =a.g.s[1+T/TB (2.5.ɳ-1)]

TB ≤ T ≤ Tc: Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5.ɳ

Tc ≤ T ≤ TD:Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5. ɳ. (Tc/T)

TD ≤ T ≤ 4 second: Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5. ɳ. (Tc x Td/T2)

a.g=9.81x0.175= 1.717m/s2

ɳ=√ (10/(5+ ε ))=√ (10/(5+ 5))=1 ≥ 0.55

S 0 =a.g.s[1+0/TB (2.5.ɳ-1)] =1.717 x1.20 x [1+0/0.15x (2.5x1-1)] =2.06m/s-2

S 1 =a.g.s.2,5.ɳ = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1) = 5.150 m/s-2

S 2 =ag.s.25.ɳ .Tc/0.5 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x 0.5/0.5) = 5.15 m/s-2

S 3 =ag.s.2,5. ɳ .Tc.TD/22 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x (0.5 x2/4) = 1.288m/s-2

S 4 =ag.s.25. ɳ .Tc.TD/42 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x (0.5x2/16) = 0.322m/s-2

Figure 44 Eurocode 8 horizontal elastic response spectrum
Discussion
Using ANSYS and Linpro, a 2D structural model of the building was produced that is
suitable for its East-West orientation. Based on the design information in the brief,
the mass and loads acting on the structure were manually calculated, added to the
model as vertical loads and static analysis, and then finished by a third party. The
computer model was tested and validated using static analysis like mean checking
load reactions and other methods. The models from ANSYS and Linpro were
validated and verified. A modal analysis was conducted after extensive application of
the ANSYS and Linpro models. The modal forms of the four natural frequencies that
were identified using the computer analysis technique are displayed below. Since
both techniques used the same factors in the analysis process, such as the material
property of the steel element and the steel element's modulus elasticity, the results
from Linpro ANSYS and ANSYS are relatively close to one another. The findings
were more reliable and had some slight fluctuation since ANSYS took into account
more sectional properties, such as section depth as Poison ratio and depth of the
sections. A appropriate representation in the form of a 4DOF sway frame was used,
and in addition to the representation, the four natural frequencies of the frame were
manually determined using a SMATH sheet. It is anticipated that the results obtained
using this approach will be more accurate because elements of the material
properties were taken into account in both the Linpro and ANSYS simulations.
Because it enables the Engineer to use the poison's ratio, material qualities, and
actual constants in his calculations, the use of ANSYS software in subsequent
construction projects has been advised. Effective masses are calculated using the
modal analysis software package, which is required to calculate the influence of
seismic activity.

The EC8 elastic spectra of this structure have been displayed, and the acceleration
at the fundamental natural frequency has been determined. This acceleration has
been used to calculate the base shear and distribution of seismic lateral forces on it.
The effective masses have been calculated using the ANSYS model and applied to
the fundamental natural frequency. Model Creation: A 2D structural model of the
building was created using ANSYS and Linpro, specifically tailored for its East-West
orientation.
Manual Load Calculation: Mass and loads acting on the structure were manually
calculated based on the design information from the brief. These loads were then
added to the model as vertical loads for static analysis.

Validation and Verification: The computer model was tested, validated, and verified
using static analysis and other means. The models from ANSYS and Linpro were
compared and found to be relatively close to one another, ensuring their reliability.

Modal Analysis: Modal analysis was conducted using both ANSYS and Linpro
models to identify the natural frequencies of the structure. The results were further
validated by manually determining the four natural frequencies using a SMATH
sheet.

Importance of Sectional Properties: ANSYS took into account more sectional

properties, such as section depth and Poisson's ratio, which improved the accuracy
of the results compared to Linpro.

Use of ANSYS Software: Due to its consideration of material properties and

additional sectional properties, the use of ANSYS software has been recommended
for subsequent construction projects.

Effective Masses and Seismic Activity: Effective masses were calculated using the
modal analysis software to assess the influence of seismic activity on the structure.

EC8 Elastic Spectra: The EC8 elastic spectra of the structure were analyzed, and
the acceleration at the fundamental natural frequency was determined. This
acceleration was used to calculate base shear and the distribution of seismic lateral
forces.
In conclusion, the combination of ANSYS and Linpro software, along with manual
calculations, allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the building's structural
behavior, including natural frequencies and the effects of seismic activity. The use of
ANSYS, with its consideration of material and sectional properties, has proven to be
valuable in achieving more accurate results and is recommended for future
construction projects. The overall analysis provides crucial insights into the behavior
and safety of the structure, especially in earthquake-prone regions.

Conclusion
This exercise's completion led to the conclusion of several probes. For instance, the
hand calculation approach, the finite element software ANSYS and Linpro, and the
finite element software ANSYS and Linpro were all used to analyse the dynamic
behaviour of the frame. Variations in the natural frequency results were found, as
was previously mentioned in the previous section, and these variances were
connected to the underlying presumptions of the techniques. For instance, ANSYS
accounts for column mass, beam stiffness, and Poisson ratio, but the manual
calculation approach ignores these variables. According to the graph, natural
frequency falls as mass increases due to the relationship between mass and
stiffness. Another advantage of stiffness is that it will cause a structure's inherent
frequency to increase as stiffness increases. The stiffness of the structural
components can be used by ANSYS and Linpro by taking into consideration
geometrical information about the section, such as the second moment of area,
section depths, and cross-sectional area. Based on the second moment of area and
the base of the height of the floor level, the stiffness of the structure is calculated
manually. Height causes the building's flexibility to increase, which lowers the
structure's natural frequency.

Knowing a structure's dynamic behaviour is essential to lowering the risk of fatalities

and averting economic disaster, which is crucial in earthquake-prone locations. In
order to analyse and validate the data, it is crucial to apply a variety of approaches
during the analytical process. A state-of-the-art method for forecasting seismic
activity known as Eurocode 8 has been developed over a number of years. The
codes depend on the calculation of peak ground acceleration and ground condition,
which are both challenging to measure precisely, leading to uncertainty at all times.
When the seismic activities were applied to the frame, moments and forces
increased significantly, and the steel sections' capability was found to be insufficient.
As a result, it is impossible to ignore the impact of seismic activity on a structure
when it is being designed. The variations in the natural frequency results were
observed and linked to the underlying assumptions and parameters used in each
method.

Here are some key points from the provided text:

Analysis Methods: The exercise involved utilizing different analysis methods, such as
hand calculations, ANSYS, and Linpro, to study the dynamic behavior of the frame.
Each method had its own set of assumptions and input parameters, leading to
variations in the results.

ANSYS Considerations: ANSYS takes into account column mass, beam stiffness,
and Poisson ratio, which can significantly influence the natural frequency of the
structure. However, the manual calculation approach used in the exercise did not
consider these variables, leading to different results.

Effect of Mass and Stiffness: The relationship between mass and stiffness affects the
natural frequency of the structure. As mass increases, the natural frequency
decreases, and vice versa. Increased stiffness also leads to a higher natural
frequency.

Importance of Structural Stiffness: The stiffness of structural components, which is

determined by geometrical information such as the second moment of area, section
depths, and cross-sectional area, plays a vital role in determining the natural
frequency.

Impact of Height: The height of the structure affects its flexibility, and taller structures
tend to have lower natural frequencies.

Importance of Analyzing Dynamic Behavior: Understanding the dynamic behavior of

a structure is crucial, especially in earthquake-prone areas, to reduce the risk of
fatalities and economic losses.

Uncertainty in Seismic Analysis: Seismic analysis, such as the Eurocode 8 method,

involves calculating peak ground acceleration and ground conditions, which can be
challenging and uncertain.

Impact of Seismic Activity on Design: Seismic activities can significantly increase

moments and forces acting on the structure, and it is essential to consider their
effects during the design process to ensure the structure's safety.

In summary, the exercise highlights the significance of using different analytical

methods to study the dynamic behavior of structures and the importance of
considering various parameters, such as mass, stiffness, and seismic activity, during
the design process to ensure structural safety in earthquake-prone regions.

References
Wang, T., Celik, O., Catbas, F.N. and Zhang, L.M., 2016. A frequency and spatial
domain decomposition method for operational strain modal analysis and its
application. Engineering Structures, 114, pp.104-112.