Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO
M. I. Adiyanto*, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA T. A. Majid, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA S. S. Zaini, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA ABSTRACT Before the disaster of the century known as ‘The Terrible Tsunami’ caused by heavy Sumatra Andaman earthquake in December 2004, it can be said that no one in Malaysia care about earthquake. Majority of Malaysian citizen does not worry to earthquake hazard. However, after experienced several tremors in Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia due to earthquakes occurred in Philippines and Indonesia, the question about ability of buildings in Malaysia to withstand the tremors are rising up. This issue has become serious when several earthquakes had occurred in Bukit Tinggi, Pahang in 2007. Since hospital is the most important place during disaster to give humanitarian aid and medical treatment, it is important to make sure that the hospital building can withstand the earthquake. The objective of this study is to make comparisons of analysis and design of a 3-storey hospital building. Several cases of seismic loads had been applied to the building separately to represent the different intensity of earthquake between Malaysia and Indonesia. The results of analysis show that the same building can withstand any intensity of earthquake. It mean that the building are suitable to be built in any area located near the epicenter such as Indonesia, or at a distant from the epicenter like Malaysia. The comparison of design due to all cases showed that the design for building located near the epicenter need more steel reinforcement to resist the bending moment. Keywords: 3 Storey Hospital, Seismic Loads, STAADPRo Software.
*Correspondence Author: Mr. Mohd Irwan Adiyanto, Universiti Sains, Malaysia. Tel: +60175316653, Fax: +6045996282. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
ICCBT 2008 - C - (35) - pp377-388
This is because Malaysia was lucky to be located outside the earthquake region and logically. followed by several earthquakes in 2005 until nowadays. From 26th December 2004 until nowadays. The tremor also was felt at several places in Peninsular Malaysia especially Penang and Kuala Lumpur. a panic situation was happened to the residents of Bukit Tinggi due to the ‘unexpected’ disaster. But. a small scale of tremor then was occurred in Bukit Tinggi. In this paper. to design a selected beam of 3-storey hospital building due to different intensity of seismic load based on American Concrete Institute . The government.
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA NORTH SUMATRA
Figure 1: Location of Nias Island (Google Earth)
ICCBT 2008 . shear force.pp377-388
. nobody concern about earthquake in Malaysia. architects. and other related professionals now start to discuss about the relevant of building with consideration of seismic load in Malaysia. local authorities. Indonesia in March 2005 . Nias. the epicenter of earthquakes was located outside Peninsular Malaysia and the tremors not give any effect to buildings in Malaysia. This also happened to the Gunung Sitoli General Hospital which was also functioned as operation center to give medical treatment to the victims. so many earthquakes had occurred in South East Asia especially in Indonesia and Philippines. The tsunami disaster on December 2004  was followed by tremor in Nias Island. after a great ‘Asian Disaster’ of tsunami on 26th December 2004 .
Before the year of 2004. Finally. Although that earthquake did not cause any Tsunami wave.7 Richter scale was occurred in Nias Island . and inter-storey drift of 3-storey hospital building due to different intensity of seismic load using STAAD Pro. a heavy earthquake at 8. Then. Thus. structural engineers. However. Malaysia in December 2007 . the main focus is to analyze the bending moment. Indonesia (Figure 1).(35) . On 28th March 2005.C . it will be no hazards for Malaysian due to the earthquake. this paper had done the comparison of design and detailing for the selected beam due to different intensity of seismic load. the earthquake also occurred in Jogjakarta in May 2006 before the disaster was come again in September 2007 in Bengkulu. the shocking tragedy had killed more than 1000 people and caused damage to many buildings in Gunung Sitoli.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO. Then. the safety of buildings in Malaysia subjected to seismic loading had become an issue. However.
The dead loads and live loads are taken from BS6399:1997  and seismic load will be determined by using UBC 1994 equivalent lateral force procedure .1 Determination of Seismic Load Intensity The determination of seismic load intensity is based on equivalent static force procedure in UBC 1994 .(35) . the design for a selected symmetrical beam had been done to compare the changes of steel reinforcement required and provided due to different intensity of seismic load. 2. and inter-storey drift.M. C: C = 1. analysis of bending moment. modeling using STAAD Pro software with different input of seismic intensity. shear force.25 S / T2/3 Step 2: Determination of total seismic weight of the structure. I. METHOD AND BASIC THEORY
This paper contains several steps in order to achieve its objectives. al. Then. Step 1: Determination of numerical coefficient. W:
W = ∑W X
i =1 n
Wx = WA + WB + WC +WD +Wequip
Figure 2: Tributary weight for seismic load calculation (UBC94) Step 3: Determination of design base shear: V = [Z I C / Rw] W (4)
ICCBT 2008 .pp377-388
. 2. The important steps are simplification of floor plan.C . Adiyanto et.
(35) .4.9 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ M AS = 0.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.pp377-388
Step 4: Distribution of lateral force:
V = Ft + ∑ Fi
i =1 n
Fi = (V − Ft )
i =1 i
2.4.5 + ⎜ 0.4 in BS 8110: part 1:1997 .25 − ⎟⎥ 0.13 < 100AS < 4. The steps of flexural reinforcement design are following several equations as shown below: Step 1: Area of steel reinforcement required:
AS = Mu φ fY j d
Step 2: Moment capacity checking:
ICCBT 2008 .95 f Y Z
Step 2: Checking for minimum and maximum reinforcement:
0.3 Beam Design for Seismic Load For case of combination between gravity and seismic load. the beam design is referred to special provisions for seismic design as mentioned in chapter 21. American Concrete Institute . Step 1: Area of steel reinforcement required:
K= M f CU bd 2
(7) (8) (9)
⎡ K ⎞⎤ ⎛ Z = d ⎢0.C .2 Beam Design for Gravity Load The beam design for selected beam under consideration of gravity load only is based on Clause 3.0 bd
al. Adiyanto et.(35) .
Figure 3: Location of selected frame in z-direction
ICCBT 2008 . 576. and 577 located at gridline F/1-F/6 has been chosen since the beam supports widest floor area among other beams in z-direction. A three span beam labeled as member 575.85 f 'C bW
a⎞ ⎛ 2⎠ ⎝ Step 3: Checking for minimum and maximum reinforcement:
φM p = φ AS f Y ⎜ d − ⎟
AS Pr ovided > AS
fY A ρ = S < 0. the beam will support the highest distribution of dead load and live load compared to other beams in z-direction. Figure 3 shows the location of selected frame while Figure 4 shows the side elevation of selected frame.C .025 bW d
3 f 'C
bW d .
a= AS FY 0.pp377-388
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
In this paper. the observation about effect of different values of seismic load on bending moment has been done to a selected beam in z-direction.
200bW d fY
382 ICCBT 2008 .4 percent. Table 1 below shows the comparison for the percentage of different for maximum bending moment due to different intensity of seismic load.pp377-388
3. The comparison of maximum moment then is presented graphically in Figure 6.5 m
. The changing of maximum bending moment due to high seismic load applied compared to action of gravity load only is very high up to 82.C .1 Effect on Bending Moment for a Selected Beam in Z-Direction Due to Different Values of Seismic Load
500 Bending moment (kN.(35) .5 m
3.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO.
SEISMIC LOAD (Z-DIRECTION)
575 110 123
577 135 146
Ground level 5m 6m 5m
Figure 4: Side elevation of selected frame 3.m) 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 -200 101 5 10 15 20
Section of beam (m)
Gravity load Medium seismic load
Low seismic load High seismic load
Figure 5: Comparison of bending moment diagram for different intensity of seismic load Figure 5 shows the comparison of bending moment diagram for different intensity of seismic load applied to the structure. The comparison showed clearly that the values of bending moment caused by high intensity of seismic load are highest compared to other intensities.
400 Maximum bending moment (kN.4 High seismic load 374.160 0 Low seismic load 208. al.408
374.408 26. I.16 208.(35) .pp377-388
.290 82.m) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Type of loading Gravity load Low seismic load Medium seismic load 205.M.2 Effect on Shear Force for a Selected Beam in Z-Direction Due to Different Values of Seismic Load
300 200 Shear force (kN) 100 0 -100 -200 -300 Section of beam (m) Gravity load Medium seismic load Low seismic load High seismic load 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 7: Shear force diagram for each type of loading
ICCBT 2008 .C .
3.56 Medium seismic load 259.
Table 1: Comparison of maximum bending moment value for selected beam under various intensity of seismic load in Z-direction Type of loading Maximum moment (kN.352 1.m) Percentage of different (%) Gravity load 205.29
High seismic load
Figure 6: Comparison of maximum bending moment due to various type of loading. Adiyanto et.352 259.
the inter-storey drift index can be defined as: Inter-storey drift index = maximum deflection at a particular storey Storey height (16)
In accordance with UBC 1997 code.055 230. T is less than 0.59 5.C .055
Maximum shear (kN) 227.(35) .2 percent. The comparison showed clearly that the values of shear force caused by high intensity of seismic load are highest compared to other intensities.236 257.656 227. for the building with fundamental period.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO. The comparison of maximum shear then is presented graphically in Figure 8.056
Percentage of different (%) 0 1.656 240.025 times the storey height.
Figure 7 shows the comparison of shear force diagram for different intensity of seismic load applied to the structure.3 Inter-storey Drift Index Checking Inter-storey drift is the lateral displacement of one level of a multi-storey structure relative to the lower level.2
.7 seconds or greater. the inelastic drift are limited to a maximum 0. Table 2: Comparison of maximum shear force value for selected beam under various intensity of seismic load in Z-direction Type of loading Gravity load Low seismic load Medium seismic load High seismic load
260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 215 210 Type of loading Gravity load Low seismic load Medium seismic load High seismic load 240.81 13. According to Smith and Coull .7 seconds. The changing of maximum shear force due to high seismic load applied compared to action of gravity load only is high up to 13. For a building with natural periods 0. Table 2 below shows the comparison for the percentage of different for maximum shear force due to different intensity of seismic load.056
Figure 8: Comparison of maximum shear force due to various type of loading.
3. the limitation for inter-storey drift is
Maximum shear force (kN)
ICCBT 2008 .236 230.
0093 0.0ELZ 1.0083 0. (x(x(xh/40 (cm) direction) direction) direction) 1.0LL 1. Table 3: Inter-storey drift in x-direction at particular storey under various seismic load values Inter-storey drift at particular storey (cm) Gravity Low Medium High load seismic seismic seismic Inter-storey drift load load load Level limit. At the same level.75 Table 4: Inter-storey drift in z-direction at particular storey under various seismic load values Inter-storey drift at particular storey (cm) Gravity Low Medium High load seismic seismic seismic Inter-storey load load load Level drift limit.0DL + + + + 1.5967 1. This result mean that the horizontal movement of columns joint are below the limitation and acceptable for design purposes even for high seismic load. From Table 3 and Table 4.1954 0.0515 8. the limitation for inter-storey drift is 8.C .0ELZ 1.5241 1.0DL 1.8766 2.0142 0.6989 1.9144 8. al.43 second.0113 0.1944 0. 0.0DL + + + + 1. the value of inter-storey drift is 385
ICCBT 2008 . Adiyanto et. the inter-storey drift at particular level due to action of different type of loading are not exceeding the inter-storey drift limit.(35) .0LL 1.0DL 1.8767 3.0ELZ 1.72 8.75 1 0.0152 0.0LL + + + 1.0142 0.0LL 1.7619 8.4722 0.0LL 1. I. (z(z(zh/40 (cm) direction) direction) direction) 1.4844 1. Since the value of period.M.1534 8.0ELZ 1.0DL 1.0DL 1.5612 8.pp377-388
.2828 2. T in this study was 0.0LL 1.75 1 0.5800 3.75
Table 3 and Table 4 represent the result for inter-storey drift at particular level in x-direction and z-direction respectively.0DL 1. it can be observed that the inter-storey drift for each level are different due to type of loading applied.020 times the storey height.3532 4.0DL 1.0ELZ 3 0.0LL 1.0ELZ 3 0.75 2 0. For both table.75 2 0.0LL + + + 1.75 cm.
the comparison on beam design also using the same beam.4 Comparison of a Beam Design Due to Different Type of Loading Applied. Hence. The cross section area of steel required for high seismic load is the highest among all cases. the lateral displacement for both x and z direction at the roof level are smaller relative to the third level of the building. The maximum inter-storey drift was occurred at first level for all cases of seismic load and for both x and z direction. it is now the same result for inter-storey drift. middle span.
ICCBT 2008 . the comparison of beam design are based on three different section that are the exterior support. middle span. and interior support The comparison of beam design in term of size of section and bending reinforcement are tabulated in Table 5. the value of bending moment as discussed before is used for design purposes. In this study. middle span. The inter-storey drift then decreased until the top level.1534 cm and 4.
Exterior support Middle span Interior support
Figure 9: Location of exterior support. So.72 cm respectively.
increase start from gravity load. and interior support of the beam. Since maximum displacement of each level cause by the action of high seismic load to the building. and interior support are shown in Figure 9. and followed by the high seismic load.C . Maximum value of inter-storey drift in x and z-direction is 3. As well as the analysis for bending moment.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO. The location of exterior support. From that table. medium seismic load.
3. middle span.(35) . and interior support.pp377-388
. low seismic load. it can be observed clearly that the area of steel reinforcement required is increase directly with the value of maximum moment for exterior support. This is due to smaller value of seismic load act on roof joint compared to the lower joints for all cases of seismic load.
42 804 200 x 600 208.42 804 200 x 600 260. it is observed that the values of seismic load in this study are higher where the coefficient for importance factor was taken as 1.7 2101
Size of section (mm2) Maximum moment (kN. the value of shear base. Adiyanto et. V is higher than residential buildings by 20 percent.0 second. So. the flexural reinforcements provided for interior support are highest compared to flexural reinforcement provided for exterior support and middle span of the beam.889 2Y20 438. This is due to the value of bending moment are highest at interior support compared to other section for all cases of loading. Thus.757 2Y12 175 226 200 x 600 135. the section of beam is remaining same for all cases by using 200 mm for width and 600 mm for height.352 4Y20 1026 1256 Medium seismic load 200 x 600 187.C . In this case. From the analysis.m) Bending reinforcement As required (mm2) As provided (mm2)
5. T is short and less than 7.M.(35) . the value of bending
ICCBT 2008 . al.754 3Y20 677.754 4Y16 677. seismic loads act on roof level was less than the lower level.6 942 200 x 600 137.4 1473 High seismic load 200 x 600 344.m) Bending reinforcement As required (mm2) As provided (mm2) Size of section (mm2) Maximum moment (kN.
Table 5: Comparison of beam design due to different type of loading applied Section Design parameter Gravity load 200 x 600 39. so the time period of loading. However.5 meter. Since the height of that hospital is just 10.m) Bending reinforcement As required (mm2) As provided (mm2) Size of section (mm2) Maximum moment (kN.pp377-388
Interior support (top reinf)
Middle span (bottom reinf)
Exterior support (top reinf)
. Ft was not applied at the top of the building.42 942 200 x 600 374. The cross section areas of steel reinforcements provided are higher than required. So.160 4Y20 1060 1256 Low seismic load 200 x 600 88.754 4Y16 677.7 628 200 x 600 137.543 4Y16 637 804 200 x 600 205. the value of Ft is equal to zero.752 4Y25 1690 1964 200 x 600 137.25 for hospital building.238 3Y20 922. From Table 5. I.420 3Y25 1277. The value of bending moment at any reference points at the beam is differ due to different type of loading applied to the beam and joint.0
In this paper.290 3Y25 + 2Y20 1838.
medium seismic load. hence the low rise hospital building can withstand any type of seismic load.S. available from: http://en. medium. . (1991). and followed by the high seismic load. Structural use of concrete. no dramatic change occurred due to different type of loading applied. no dramatic change for bending moment at any section of the beam due to low seismic load applied compared to gravity load only.
REFERENCES . 2005 Sumatra Earthquake. Nias Earthquake. 1994 Uniform Building Code. Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (Static Method)  BS 8110: Part 1: 1997.wikipedia.
ICCBT 2008 . available from: http://www. BS 6399: Part 1:1996: Loading for building.pp377-388
. and Coull. medium. A. In term of inter-storey drift checking. Hence. In can be concluded that higher load will produce higher bending moment and shear force.(35) . 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. However. Maximum value of inter-storey drift in x and z-direction is 3. High seismic load requires the highest cross sectional area of steel reinforcement compared to other loads.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thanks the School of Civil Engineering. the value of inter-storey drift is increase start from gravity load. available from: http://en. and high seismic load applied. Tsunami.my . and high seismic load applied. “Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design”.C . the material costs to build the building near the epicenter are higher than in a distant location from epicenter.wikipedia. From the analysis of shear force. Part 1. the inter-storey drift limit for both x and z direction is 8. Since the limit of inter-storey drift was not exceeded for all cases of loading. From the analysis. At the same level. Code of practice for design and construction. the value of shear forces at all supports are increase from gravity load to low.72 cm respectively. Code of practice for dead and imposed load. B. Malaysian Meteorological Services. Canada. INC.kjc. Ministry of Science technology and Innovation.gov.
moment at all supports are increase from gravity load to low. John Wiley & Sons.org/wiki/2005_Sumatra_earthquake . the cross sectional area of steel reinforcement required for bending are differ due to different type of loading. it had been observed that the value of shear force in any reference points at the beam is differ due to different type of loading applied to the beam and joint. American Concrete Institute: Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05). .org/wiki/2004_tsunami .  Smith.Analysis and Design of 3 Storey Hospital Structure Subjected To Seismic Load Using STAAD PRO. Part 1. However. The beam design for all cases of loading are satisfy with 200 mm x 600 mm rectangular section.1534 cm and 4. For bending moment at each middle span of the beam.75 cm. low seismic load.