i

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF 10-STOREY BUILDING:

A MODEL STRUCTURE SIMULATION

A Thesis Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
EARIST – Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

By:
MAILYN R. CAIGAS
WILVEN JOHN CORTES
JONATHAN CUISON
JEFFREY F. DELA TORRE
EDCEL R. DADOR
MARY MAY M. ROQUE
JEMMAY D. RUBITE

Faculty Proponent:
Engr. Bryan V. Bantayan

March 2017

1
 i

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Earth tremors can be felt from at hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter of

the earthquake. An earthquake is a phenomenon in which Earth’s surface shakes due

to the release of seismic energy from large blocks of the crust along a fault. Faults are

cracks in the crust. The point under the earth crust on the fault surface where the

process of earthquakes begins, it is the source of earthquake and it is termed as the

focus. Focus is the center from where Seismic waves radiates outward. The earthquake

resistance structures are designed based on the same factors. The factors are natural

frequency of the structure, damping factor, type of foundation, importance of the

building and ductility of the structure.

Over the last twenty years different methodologies and software tools for

seismic performance assessment have been developed under the framework of

Performance-based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) in order to achieve better

protection of built environment against earthquakes. Some of these methodologies are

already included in current regulatory documents, which still favouring the use of force-

based design procedures, which involve so-called design earthquake in conjunction with

the capacity design principles. Based on such design practice it cannot be claimed that

the seismic risk is controlled to such an extent that would be acceptable for all types of

structures and for all investors. However, the development at this stage offers the

2
 i

possibility to overcome shortcomings of the standards for earthquake-resistant design of

structures in order to achieve well-informed decision-making.

The processes of designing high-rise buildings have changed over the past

years. In the most recent years it is not unusual to model full three-dimensional finite

element models of the buildings. This due to the increased computational power and

more advanced software. However, these models produce huge amount of data and

results where possible errors are easily overlooked, especially if the model is big and

complex. If the engineers is not careful and have a lack of knowledge of structural

behavior and finite element modeling, it is easy to just accept the results without critical

thoughts. Furthermore, different ways of modeling have a big influence on the force and

stress distribution.

1.2 Background of the study

An earthquake is a sudden and transient motion of the earth’s surface.

According to geologists, the earth has suffered earthquakes for hundreds of millions of

years, even before humans came into existence. Because of the randomness, the lack

of visible causes, and their power of destructiveness, ancient civilizations believed

earthquakes to be supernatural phenomena – the curse of God. In terms of the

geological time scale, it is only recently (the middle of seventeenth century) that an

earthquake has been viewed as a natural phenomenon driven by the processes of the

earth as a planet. Thus subsequent work, especially in nineteenth century, led to

3
 i

tremendous progress on the instrumental side for the measurement of earthquake data.

Seismological data from many earthquakes were collected and analyzed to map and

understand the phenomena of earthquakes. These data were even used to resolve the

earth’s internal structure to a remarkable degree, which, in turn, helped towards the

development of different theories to explain the causes of earthquakes. While the body

of knowledge derived from the study of collected seismological data has helped in the

rational design of structures to withstand earthquakes, it has also revealed the uncertain

nature of future earthquakes for which such structures are to be designed. Therefore,

probabilistic concepts in dealing with earthquakes and earthquake resistant designs

have also emerged.

Both seismologists and earthquake engineers use the seismological data for

the understanding of an earthquake and its effects, but their aims are different.

Seismologists focus their attention on the global issues of earthquakes and are more

concerned with the geological aspects, including the prediction of earthquakes.

Earthquake engineers, on the other hand, are concerned mainly with the local effects of

earthquakes, which are capable of causing significant damage to structures. They

transform seismological data into a form which is more appropriate for the prediction of

damage to structures or, alternatively, the safe design of structures. However, there are

many topics in seismology that are of immediate engineering interest, especially in the

better understanding of seismological data and its use for seismic design of structures.

4
 i

At present people are facing problems of lad scarcity, cost of land. The

population explosion and advent of industrial revolution led to the exodus of people from

villages to urban areas i.e. construction of multi-storied buildings has become inevitable

both for schools, residential and as well as office purposes. The high raised structures

are not properly designed for the resistance of lateral forces. It may cause to the

complete failure of the structures. The total seismic base shear as experienced by a

building during an earthquake is dependent on its natural period, the seismic force

distribution is dependent on the distribution of stiffness and mass along the height.

Earthquakes are impossible to predict but, based on historical records, Metro

Manila's West Valley Fault is due for the Next Big One within our lifetimes. A possible

7.2-8 earthquake looms around the corner if the West Valley Fault along the eastern

side of Metro Manila cracks, Renato Solidum Jr., Philippine Institute of Volcanology and

Seismology (Phivolcs) director warns.

The fault has moved four times in the past 1,400 years. On average, it moves

every 400 years, “+/- 10 to 100 years, maybe”. The last time an earthquake occurred

along the West Valley fault was in 1658, around 355 years ago. “It can happen within

our generation or the next generation,” Solidum says.

The West Valley Fault that runs from the heights of Sierra Madre down to

Laguna. It crosses the eastern side of Quezon City, western side of Marikina, western

part of Pasig, eastern part of Makati, parts of Taguig, and Muntinlupa.

5
 i

The earthquake can occur anywhere along the West Valley Fault, including

Metro Manila. But a 7.2-8 magnitude earthquake can shake the ground even a hundred

kilometers away, which means that it can shake the whole of Metro Manila and its

surrounding provinces.

Solidum reiterates that weak, poorly designed, and poorly constructed

buildings far from the earthquake fault are still vulnerable to destruction.

Areas near the waters like Marikina Valley down to Manila de Ba-i, and the

coastal cities of Metro Manila are also more likely to experience stronger ground

shaking due to the softer ground they sit on.

There will be many aftershocks and this will last for a week or so. The

aftershocks may number hundreds or thousands but only structures already weakened

by the main earthquake will be further damaged. There will be landslides and, especially

near the fault, there will be permanent changes in the landscape as the quake ruptures

the ground.

Grounds can also be affected by liquefaction, a process where loose, sandy

sediments behave like liquid. It becomes weak. This can cause poorly designed or

constructed buildings and homes to subside or tilt, roads fissured, and water banks

broken.

The behavior of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its overall

shape, size and geometry, in addition to how the earthquake forces are carried to the

ground. The earthquake forces developed at different floor levels in a building need to

6
 i

be brought down along the height to the ground by the shortest path; any deviation or

discontinuity in this load transfer path results in poor performance of the building.

Buildings with vertical setbacks (like the hotel buildings with a few storey wider than the

rest) cause a sudden jump in earthquake forces at the level of discontinuity. Buildings

that have fewer columns or walls in a particular storey or with unusually tall storey tend

to damage or collapse which is initiated in that storey. Many buildings with an open

ground storey intended for parking collapsed or were severely damaged.

1.3 Statement of the problem

The objectives of this study are to analyze methods, codes, parameters and

guidelines used when performing calculations on high-rise buildings in regards to

deflections, resonance frequencies, accelerations and stability. However, there are

certain problems to be encountered. These are the following:

1. Is the design of 10-storey building can resist the “Big One” earthquake?

2. Does the analysis of the design stimulation achieve its strength requirements,

aesthetic and economical scheme?

7
 i

1.4 Scope and delimitations of the study

A stimulation analysis of 10-storey building consists of many stages and

factors and to evaluate. For concrete, no effects from creep, shrinkage or temperature

effects have been analyzed. The concrete have also been considered uncracked.

Furthermore, no design of element cross-sections have been made, hence, no time-

history analysis is performed.

1.5 Significance of the study

For Civil Engineering students/professional.

Urbanization is rapidly increasing in almost every city in the Philippines.

Huge infrastructure developmental plans have been laid by government and private

sector. However, from the point of view of seismic hazard prevailing in the country, “will

these building survive during future earthquakes?"

The structural study of new or existing structures aims to design or assess

the structures capacity to support the effects of the straining effects as applied external

loads, imposed movements, temperature, acceleration transmitted from supports.

8
 i

1.6 Conceptual Framework

INPUT

INITIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

PROCESS

MODELING STRUCTURE

OUTPUT

DESIGN ANALYSIS

Initial Design Considerations

The Feasibility Study aims to objectively and rationally expose the strengths

and weaknesses of the proposed venture. This is a study that examines the siting of

your project relevant to the topography and soil conditions. Consider the parameters to

be use in designing the building. A well-defined inelastic behavior where nonlinear

actions and members are clearly defined and all other members are designed to be

stronger than the elements designed to experience nonlinear behavior (Capacity Design

Approach).

9
 i

Modeling of Structures

The building’s structural and nonstructural systems and components remain

serviceable when subjected to frequent earthquakes (50% in 30 years).

Design and Analysis

The building has a very low probability of collapse during an extremely rare

event (2% in 50 years with deterministic cap).

10
 i

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of literature relevant to the study. The studies

were conducted in foreign country.

2.1 Foreign studies

Seismic analysis is a major tool in earthquake engineering which is used to

understand the response of buildings due to seismic excitations in a simpler manner. In

the past the buildings were designed just for gravity loads and seismic analysis is a

recent development. It is a part of structural analysis and a part of structural design

where earthquake is prevalent.

Mayuri D. Bhagwat et.al (2015) work for a dynamic analysis of G+12

multistoried practiced RCC building considering for Koyna and Bhuj earthquake is

carried out by time history analysis and response spectrum analysis and seismic

responses of such building are comparatively studied and modeled with the help of

ETABS software. Two time histories (i.e. Koyna and Bhuj) have been used to develop

different acceptable criteria (base shear, storey displacement, storey drifts).

In the study of HimanshuBansal et al (2012), the storey shear force was

found to be maximum for the first storey and it decreased to a minimum in the top storey

in all cases. It was found that mass irregular building frames experience larger base

11
 i

shear than similar regular building frames. The stiffness irregular building experienced

lesser base shear and has larger inter storey drifts.

According to Mohit Sharma et al (2014) study a G+30 storied regular

building. The static and dynamic analysis has done on computer with the help of

STAAD-Pro software using the parameters for the design as per the IS-1893- 2002-

Part-1 for the zones- 2 and 3. A. B. M.

Saiful Islam et al (2012), In this study analyses results show that isolation

system considerably reduce earthquake induced load on building. Furthermore, method

of analysis has been found to have considerable effect on the response of low to

medium rise buildings. Time history analysis shows significant less base shear than that

from response spectrum analysis. Also, less isolator displacement is obtained from time

history analysis than that from response spectrum analysis.

Similar variations pattern in Seismic responses such as base shear and

storey displacements with intensities V to X. From the study it is recommended that

analysis of multistoried RCC building using Time History method becomes necessary to

ensure safety against earthquake force according to A S Patil et al (2012) study.

Md. ArmanChowdhury et al (2015), study the regular and irregular and

irregular building with and without isolator are analyse. Installation of isolator in

buildings which increases the time period of the structure and due to this it reduces the

possibility of resonance of the structure. By providing isolator in building the cost

increases, but reinforcement requirement and material cost is reduced

12
 i

Shear walls, is considered as major earthquake resisting member. Structural

wall gives an effective bracing system and offer good potential for lateral load

resistance. So it is important to determine the seismic response of the wall or shear

wall. In this study main focus is to determine the location for the shear wall in multi

storey building based on the study of P. P. Chandurkar et al (2013).

Maison and Neuss,(1984), Members of ASCE have performed the computer

analysis of an existing forty four story steel frame high-rise Building to study the

influence of various modeling aspects on the predicted dynamic properties and

computed seismic response behaviors. The predicted dynamic properties are compared

to the building's true properties as previously determined from experimental testing. The

seismic response behaviors are computed using the response spectrum (Newmark and

ATC spectra) and equivalent static load methods.

Also, Maison and Ventura, (1991), Members of ASCE computed dynamic

properties and response behaviours OF THIRTEEN-STORY BUILDING and this result

are compared to the true values as determined from the recorded motions in the

building during two actual earthquakes and shown that state-of-practice design type

analytical models can predict the actual dynamic properties.

Arlekar, Jain &Murty , (1997) said that such features were highly undesirable

in buildings built in seismically active areas; this has been verified in numerous

experiences of strong shaking during the past earthquakes. They highlighted the

importance of explicitly recognizing the presence of the open first storey in the analysis

13
 i

of the building, involving stiffness balance of the open first storey and the storey above,

were proposed to reduce the irregularity introduced by the open first storey.

The study about responses of multi-story flexibly connected frames subjected

to earthquake excitations using a computer model were conducted by Awkar and Lui,

(1997). The model incorporates connection flexibility as well as geometrical and

material nonlinearities in the analyses and concluded that the study indicates that

connection flexibility tends to increase upper stories' inter-storey drifts but reduce base

shears and base overturning moments for multi-story frames.

Balsamoa, Colombo, Manfredi, Negro &Prota (2005) performed

pseudodynamic tests on an RC structure repaired with CFRP laminates. The

opportunities provided by the use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)

composites for the seismic repair of reinforced concrete (RC) structures were assessed

on a full-scale dual system subjected to pseudodynamic tests in the ELSA laboratory.

The aim of the CFRP repair was to recover the structural properties that the frame had

before the seismic actions by providing both columns and joints with more deformation

capacity. The repair was characterized by a selection of different fiber textures

depending on the main mechanism controlling each component. The driving principles

in the design of the CFRP repair and the outcomes of the experimental tests are

presented in the paper. Comparisons between original and repaired structures are

discussed in terms of global and local performance. In addition to the validation of the

proposed technique, the experimental results will represent a reference database for the

14
 i

development of design criteria for the seismic repair of RC frames using composite

materials.

Vasilopoulos and Beskos , (2006) performed rational and efficient seismic

design methodology for plane steel frames using advanced methods of analysis in the

framework of Eurocodes 8 and 3 . This design methodology employs an advanced finite

element method of analysis that takes into account geometrical and material

nonlinearities and member and frame imperfections. It can sufficiently capture the limit

states of displacements, strength, stability and damage of the structure.

Bardakis&Dritsos (2007) evaluated the American and European procedural

assumptions for the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing buildings via

pushover analyses. The FEMA and the Euro code-based GRECO procedures have

been followed in order to assess a four-storeyed bare framed building and a comparison

has been made with available experimental results.

Mortezaei et al (2009) recorded data from recent earthquakes which provided

evidence that ground motions in the near field of a rupturing fault differ from ordinary

ground motions, as they can contain a large energy, or ‘‘directivity” pulse. This pulse

can cause considerable damage during an earthquake, especially to structures with

natural periods close to those of the pulse. Failures of modern engineered structures

observed within the near-fault region in recent earthquakes have revealed the

vulnerability of existing RC buildings against pulse-type ground motions. This may be

due to the fact that these modern structures had been designed primarily using the

15
 i

design spectra of available standards, which have been developed using stochastic

processes with relatively long duration that characterizes more distant ground motions.

Many recently designed and constructed buildings may therefore require strengthening

in order to perform well when subjected to near-fault ground motions. Fiber Reinforced

Polymers are considered to be a viable alternative, due to their relatively easy and quick

installation, low life cycle costs and zero maintenance requirements.

Ozyigit (2009) performed free and forced in-plane and out-of-plane vibrations

of frames are investigated. The beam has a straight and a curved part and is of circular

cross section. A concentrated mass is also located at different points of the frame with

different mass ratios. FEM is used to analyze the problem.

Williams, Gardoni&Bracci (2009) studied the economic benefit of a given

retrofit procedure using the framework details. A parametric analysis was conducted to

determine how certain parameters affect the feasibility of a seismic retrofit. A case study

was performed for the example buildings in Memphis and San Francisco using a

modest retrofit procedure. The results of the parametric analysis and case study

advocate that, for most situations, a seismic retrofit of an existing building is more

financially viable in San Francisco than in Memphis.

Garcia et al (2010) tested a full-scale two-storey RC building with poor

detailing in the beam column joints on a shake table as part of the European research

project ECOLEADER. After the initial tests which damaged the structure, the frame was

strengthened using carbon fibre reinforced materials (CFRPs) and re-tested. This paper

16
 i

investigates analytically the efficiency of the strengthening technique at improving the

seismic behaviour of this frame structure. The experimental data from the initial shake

table tests are used to calibrate analytical models. To simulate deficient beam_column

joints, models of steel_concrete bond slip and bond-strength degradation under cyclic

loading were considered. The analytical models were used to assess the efficiency of

the CFRP rehabilitation using a set of medium to strong seismic records. The CFRP

strengthening intervention enhanced the behaviour of the substandard beam_column

joints, and resulted in substantial improvement of the seismic performance of the

damaged RC frame. It was shown that, after the CFRP intervention, the damaged

building would experience on average 65% less global damage compared to the original

structure if it was subjected to real earthquake excitations.

Niroomandi, Maheri, Maheri&Mahini (2010) retrofitted an eight-storey frame

strengthened previously with a steel bracing system with web- bonded CFRP.

Comparing the seismic performance of the FRP retrofitted frame at joints with that of the

steel X-braced retrofitting method, it was concluded that both retrofitting schemes have

comparable abilities to increase the ductility reduction factor and the over-strength

factor; the former comparing better on ductility and the latter on over-strength. The steel

bracing of the RC frame can be beneficial if a substantial increase in the stiffness and

the lateral load resisting capacity is required. Similarly, FRP retrofitting at joints can be

used in conjunction with FRP retrofitting of beams and columns to attain the desired

increases.

17
 i

2.3Brief history of seismic analyses

The earliest provisions for seismic resistance were the requirement to design

for a lateral force equal to a proportion of the building weight (applied at each floor

level). This approach was adopted in the appendix of the 1927 Uniform Building Code

(UBC), which was used on the west coast of the United States. It later became clear

that the dynamic properties of the structure affected the loads generated during an

earthquake. In the Los Angeles County Building Code of 1943 a provision to vary the

load based on the number of floor levels was adopted (based on research carried out at

Caltech in collaboration with Stanford University and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic

Survey, which started in 1937). The concept of "response spectra" was developed in the

1930s, but it wasn't until 1952 that a joint committee of the San Francisco Section of the

ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC)

proposed using the building period (the inverse of the frequency) to determine lateral

forces.

The University of California, Berkeley was an early base for computer-based

seismic analysis of structures, led by Professor Ray Clough (who coined the term finite

element). Students included Ed Wilson, who went on to write the program SAP in 1970,

an early "Finite Element Analysis" program.

Earthquake engineering has developed a lot since the early days, and some

of the more complex designs now use special earthquake protective elements either

just in the foundation (base isolation) or distributed throughout the structure. Analyzing

18
 i

these types of structures requires specialized explicit finite element computer code,

which divides time into very small slices and models the actual physics, much like

common video games often have "physics engines". Very large and complex buildings

can be modeled in this way (such as the Osaka International Convention Center).

2.4 Definition of terms

 Resonance occurs when the seismic waves pass through the earth material

producing a particular wavelength and this wavelength matches the buildings

period (wavelength).

 Big One Earthquakeis a hypothetical earthquake of magnitude ~8 or greater

that is expected to happen

 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computerized method for predicting how a

product reacts to real-world forces, vibration, heat, fluid flow, and other physical

effects. Finite element analysis shows whether a product will break, wear out,

or work the way it was designed.

 Parametersis a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that

defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.

 Seismic analysisis a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the

response of a building (or non-building) structure to earthquakes.

19
 i

 Earth Tremors is a slight earthquake.

 Tuff is a light, porous rock formed by consolidation of volcanic ash

 Design Response Spectrum is an elastic response spectrum for 5 % equivalent

viscous damping used to represent the dynamic effects of the design basis ground

motion for the design of structures.

 Story Drift is lateral displacement of one level.

20
 i

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research chapter presents the Design considerations and modal

generations of the structure.

3.1 Methodological framework

21
 i

Modeling of structure

The Building is 10 stories, 30 meters in height above the gradeline, 10 spans

both traverse and longitudinal framing with typical floor of 45 x 45 square meter. The

building structure is designed to be composed of open frames in addition to the shear

wall.

Columns and beams are typical, 700 mm x 700 mm and 700mm x 350mm at

the base to the 4th floor, 600mm x 600mm and 600mm x 300mm from 5 th floor to 7th floor

and 500mm x 500mm and 500 x 250mm from 8 th floor to roof deck respectively. Shear

wall was 300mm thick.

In order to study the effect of earthquake on a g+10 building a computer

aided designing software namely ETABS 2015 has been used. This software is very

fast as compared to manual designing.

In designing structure, consider the general specifications and parameters.

Structural design of foundation requires soil geotechnical (soil) investigation data i.e.

safe bearing capacity of soil, depth of water level below the ground. In table shows the

criteria used in the project.

22
 i

Codes and Specification:

National Structural Code of the Philipines 2010 Volume I (Buildings, Towers and other Vertical
Structures)
National Building Code of the
Philippines
Uniform Building Code UBC -
1997
American Concrete Institute ACI318-05M and
ACI318-08M

Loadings:
1. Dead
Load
Unit Weight of 24.00
= table 204-2
Concrete kN/m3
77.00
Unit Weight of Steel = table 204-1
kN/m3
Ceiling
= 0.20 kPa table 204-2
Finish
Floor Finish = 1.20 kPa table 204-2
150mm thick CHB
= 2.68 kPa table 204-2
Wall
100mm thick CHB
= 2.61 kPa table 204-2
Wall
Railings = 2.61 kPa table 205-2

2. Live Load
Elevato
= 2.66kN 206.3.1
r
Office = 2.5kPa table 205-1
Private
= 1.92 kPa table 205-1
Rooms
Storage 1.92kP
= table 205-1
Room a
Corridors above ground
= 4.79 kPa table 205-1
floor
Roof Deck = 1.92kP table 205-1

23
 i

a
4.79kP
Stair and Exit Ways = table 205-1
a
Restrooms = 1.90 kPa table 205-1
Roof Live
= 1.90 kPa table 205-1
Load

3. Wind
Load
Zone
= 2.00 table 207-1
Classification
Basic Wind Speed ,v = 200.00 kph table 207-1
Directionality
= 0.85 table 207-3
Factor ,kd
Topographic
= 1.00 205.7.1
Factor ,kzt
Importance Factor
= 1.00 table 207-3
,Iw
Building
= III table 207-3
Classification
Exposure
= B 207.5.6.3
Category

Velocity qz = 47.3 x 10-6kzkztkd

205.5.6.6
Pressure: V2Iw

"p = "qG"C" _"p" " − " "q" _"i" ("G" "C"

_"pi" )

4. Seismic Load
Zone = 0.40 table 208-3
Importance Factor , I = 1.50 table 208-1
Rw in X
= 8.50 table 208-11a
Direction
Rz in Z Direction = 8.50 table 208-11a

24
 i

Soil Profile Type = Sd table 208-7

Near Source
= 1.20 table 208-4
Factor ,Na
Near Source
= 1.60 table 208-5
Factor ,Nv
CT
= 0.0731 208.5.1.2
value
Seismic Source
= A table 208-6
Type
V = CvI W
RT
Load Combination
Allowable Strength
203.4.2
Design
DL + LL
DL + 0.75(LL +
WL)
DL + LL + E/1.4
Strength Design 203
1.4DL
1.2DL + 1.6LL +
0.5RL
1.2DL + 1.0LL +
1.0WL
1.2DL + 1.0LL+ 1.0E

Design Stresses
Allowable Compressive Strength of Concrete at 28
= 21.00 Mpa chapter 5
days ,f'c
Tensile Yield Strength of Steel
chapter 5
Reinforcement ,fy
12mm dia. &
= 276.00 Mpa
below
16mm dia. &
= 414.00 Mpa
above
Structural Steel
ASTM-A36 501.3.1a
Shapes
Allowable Soil Bearing = 300.00 Kpa table 304-1

25
 i

Capacity

FIGURE 3: FRAMING PLAN (TYPICAL 2ND FLOOR TO ROOFDECK

MODAL GENERATION

The supports at the base of the structure were also specified as fixed. The

structure was subjected to self-weight, dead load, live load values considering by the

specifications of NSCP section 204-206. The wind load values were generated by

ETABS considering the given wind intensities at different heights and strictly abiding by

the specifications of NSCP section 207. The Seismic load calculations of Static and

26
 i

Dynamic analysis were done following NSCP section 208. The figure shows the framing

plan and isometric view of the structure.

FIGURE 4: MODELING OF THE STRUCTURE

27
 i

Assigning of loads and meshing of slabs

Loads assigning will be done in the software, step by step to equally

distribute the masses. It was directly done in the computer program for the easiest way.

A mesh is a network of line elements and interconnecting nodes used to

model a structural system and numerically solve for its simulated behavior under

applied loading. First, computational techniques create an analytical model by

populating the material domain with a finite-element mesh in which each line element is

assigned mathematical attributes (axial, bending, shear, and torsional stiffness, etc.)

which simulate the material and geometric properties of the structural system. The

system is then restrained within boundary conditions and subjected to mechanical or

thermal loading. Numerical solution may then resolve structural stresses, strains, and

displacements.

28
 i

FIGURE 5: APPORTIONING OF LOADS

FIGURE 6: MESHING OF SLAB

Assigning of loads and load combinations

This part provides loading information as applied to the model. The design of

the 10-storey building consists of different loads considering the load specifications in

the National Building Code of the Philippines. The Figure shows the load combination.

29
 i

FIGURE 6: ASSIGNING LOAD COMBINATION

30
 i

Analysis and design of ETABS 2015

Structural analysis is mainly concerned with finding out the behavior of a

physical structure when subjected to force. In essence, all loads are dynamic, including

the self-weight of the structure because at some point in time these loads were not

there. The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static analysis on the basis

of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's

natural frequency. The load was applied sufficiently slowly, then inertia forces (Newton's

first law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis.

Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Dynamic

analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

To analyze, check the structure first. When error occurred, change the

section assign in the beam or column. Afterwards, the result of all the forces will be

generated.

31
 i

FIGURE 6: CHECKING ANALYSIS

FIGURE 7: AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM

32
 i

FIGURE 7: AXMOMENT DIAGRAM

FIGURE 7: TORSION DIAGRAM

33
 i

FIGURE 7: SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM

The design of concrete frames is seamlessly integrated within the

program. Initiation of the design process, along with control of various design

parameters, is accomplished using the Design list of options.All beam-column joints are

investigated for existing shear conditions.In the design of columns, the program

calculates the required longitudinal and shear reinforcement. The figure 8 shows the

property of the frames.

FIGURE 7: SECTION PROPERTY

34
 i

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

The present study aims to design a building which can resist the most

dangerous earthquake. The setting was located at Brgy. DilimanQuezon City, which is

one of the place affected by the west valley fault. The lot has an area of 69, 759 square

meters.

4.1 Result of Seismic Analysis

Response Spectrum Analysis was used in the seismic force design for

reinforcement determination for all the structural elements. The following tables are the

summary of the analysis results.

Table 2.2 - Response Spectrum Function - UBC 97

Period
Name Acceleration Damping Ca Cv
(sec)
Response
0 0.4 5 0.4 0.4
Spectrum
Response
0.08 1
Spectrum
Response
0.4 1
Spectrum
Response 0.6 0.666667

35
 i

Period
Name Acceleration Damping Ca Cv
(sec)
Spectrum
Response
0.8 0.5
Spectrum
Response
1 0.4
Spectrum
Response
1.2 0.333333
Spectrum
Response
1.4 0.285714
Spectrum
Response
1.6 0.25
Spectrum
Response
1.8 0.222222
Spectrum
Response
2 0.2
Spectrum
Response
2.5 0.16
Spectrum
Response
3 0.133333
Spectrum
Response
3.5 0.114286
Spectrum
Response
4 0.1
Spectrum
Response
4.5 0.088889
Spectrum
Response
5 0.08
Spectrum
Response
5.5 0.072727
Spectrum
Response
6 0.066667
Spectrum
Response
6.5 0.061538
Spectrum
Response
7 0.057143
Spectrum
Response
7.5 0.053333
Spectrum
Response
8 0.05
Spectrum

36
 i

Period
Name Acceleration Damping Ca Cv
(sec)
Response
8.5 0.047059
Spectrum
Response
9 0.044444
Spectrum
Response
9.5 0.042105
Spectrum
Response
10 0.04
Spectrum

Structure Results

Load and combinations were carried different result of base reaction, shear

and moment that acts through the column as shown in the table. The design result or

the largest force was determined in the envelope load combination which is needed for

the designing of foundations.

Table 3.1 - Base Reactions

Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ X Y Z
Case/Combo kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m m m m
245821. -
Dead 0 0 5531733 0 0 0 0
1495 5527628
100212. -
Live 0 0 2254491 0 0 0 0
2002 2254775
-
1.176E- 460784.
seismic x 20477.4 0 0 -610102 0 0 0
06 5123
312
-
610102. -5.961E-
seismic y 0 20477.4 0 -460519 0 0 0
2957 06
312
windload 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windload 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-
1.209E- 460821.
seismic drift 1 20477.4 0 0 -621439 0 0 0
06 8473
312
37
 i

Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ X Y Z
Case/Combo kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m m m m
-
624720. -6.129E-
seismic drift 2 0 20477.4 0 -460534 0 0 0
2783 06
312
Response
17546.3 16707.0 450839. 464314. 592736.
Spectrum 0 0 0 0
94 688 2655 9119 7161
Max
-
589970. 1327615 -5.646E-
1.4DL 0 0 1326630 0 0 0
7587 9 07
8
-
591854. 1331795 -5.62E-
DL+LL 0 0 1331003 0 0 0
4991 7 07
1
-
DL 641960. 1444520 -6.078E-
0 0 1443741 0 0 0
+.75(LL+WL) 5992 2 07
8
DL+LL - -
591854. 1331795 329131.
+SEISMICX/ 14626.7 0 1374581 0 0 0
4991 7 7945
1.4 366 8
DL+LL - -
591854. 1375375
+SEISMICY/ 0 14627.0 1331003 -328948 0 0 0
4991 3
1.4 291 1
DL+LL -
591854. 1394267 460821.
+SEISMIC 0 0 1331003 0 0 0
4991 7 8473
DRIFT Max 1
DL+LL - - -
591854. 1331795
+SEISMIC 20477.4 20477.4 1393147 -460534 0 0 0
4991 7
DRIFT Min 312 312 0
-
1.2DL+1.6LL 628341. 1413837 -5.921E-
0 0 1413199 0 0 0
+.5RL 5744 7 07
4
1.2DL+LL 395197. -
0 0 8892570 0 0 0 0
+WL Max 5795 8887928
1.2DL+LL 395197. -
0 0 8892570 0 0 0 0
+WL Min 5795 8887928
- -
1.2DL+LL 641018. 1442430 460784.
20477.4 0 1502565 0 0 0
+SEISMIC X 729 3 5123
312 9
1.2DL+LL 0 - 641018. 1503440 - -460519 0 0 0

38
 i

Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ X Y Z
Case/Combo kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m m m m
20477.4 1441555
+SEISMIC Y 729 6
312 7
1.2DL+1.6LL
- - -
+WL+SEISMI 701146. 1701182 461087.
20477.4 20477.4 1637852 0 0 0
CX+SEISMIC 0491 0 7251
312 312 4
Y
1.2DL+1.6LL
- - -
+WL+SEISMI 701146. 1638710
40954.8 40954.8 1699996 -460268 0 0 0
CX+SEISMIC 0491 0
624 623 3
Y
ENVELOPE 701146. 1701182 - 461087.
0 0 0 0 0
Max 0491 0 5527628 7251
- - -
ENVELOPE 245821.
40954.8 40954.8 5531733 1699996 -460534 0 0 0
Min 1495
624 623 3

In structural engineering, modal analysis uses the overall mass and stiffness

of a structure to find the various periods at which it will naturally resonate. These

periods of vibration are very important to note in earthquake engineering, as it is

imperative that a building's natural frequency does not match the frequency of expected

earthquakes in the region in which the building is to be constructed. If a structure's

natural frequency matches an earthquake's frequency, the structure may continue to

resonate and experience structural damage. The response spectrum modal information

of the building was presented in the table.

Table 3.8 - Modal Load Participation Ratios

39
 i

Dynam
Item Static
Case Item ic
Type %
%
Acceler
Modal UX 100 99.95
ation
Acceler
Modal UY 100 99.93
ation
Acceler
Modal UZ 0 0
ation

Table 3.2 - Response Spectrum Modal Information

U1 U2 U3
U1 U2 U3
Moda Perio Dam Acceler Acceler Acceler
Response Mod Ampli Ampli Ampli
l d ping ation ation ation
Spectrum Case e tude tude tude
case sec Ratio mm/se mm/se mm/se
mm mm mm
c² c² c²
-
Response 24.57
Modal 1 4.506 0.05 297.16 297.16 0 5244. 0
Spectrum 5
904
Response 15.93 15979
Modal 2 2.64 0.05 510.5 510.5 0 0
Spectrum 5 .218
-
Response 14327
Modal 3 2.443 0.05 550.64 550.64 0 12.53 0
Spectrum .259
7
Response 246.0
Modal 4 1.13 0.05 1193.49 1193.49 0 -2.74 0
Spectrum 02
Response 1542.
Modal 5 0.856 0.05 1580.35 1580.35 0 0.705 0
Spectrum 438
Response 1499.
Modal 6 0.744 0.05 1828.91 1828.91 0 -0.327 0
Spectrum 917
-
Response
Modal 7 0.534 0.05 2599.51 2599.51 0 47.22 0.275 0
Spectrum
9
Response 225.5
Modal 8 0.38 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.09 0
Spectrum 45
Response 174.7
Modal 9 0.336 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.039 0
Spectrum 54
Response 17.18
Modal 10 0.32 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.191 0
Spectrum 2
Response Modal 11 0.227 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 7.806 0.047 0

40
 i

U1 U2 U3
U1 U2 U3
Moda Perio Dam Acceler Acceler Acceler
Response Mod Ampli Ampli Ampli
l d ping ation ation ation
Spectrum Case e tude tude tude
case sec Ratio mm/se mm/se mm/se
mm mm mm
c² c² c²
Spectrum
Response
Modal 12 0.225 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -2.325 -0.136 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 13 0.223 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.061 35.55 0
Spectrum
4
-
Response
Modal 14 0.215 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 26.88 0.079 0
Spectrum
3
Response
Modal 15 0.167 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -7.4 -0.048 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 16 0.163 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.913 -1.237 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 17 0.163 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.154 9.217 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 18 0.134 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 1.932 0.014 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 19 0.128 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.004 -2.242 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 20 0.126 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.287 -0.024 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 21 0.12 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.798 0.000 0
Spectrum
4609
Response
Modal 22 0.111 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.45 0.003 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 23 0.107 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.000 -0.12 0
Spectrum
2998
-
Response
Modal 24 0.103 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -1.609 0.000 0
Spectrum
3758
Response
Modal 25 0.102 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.054 0.005 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 26 0.1 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.001 -1.698 0
Spectrum

41
 i

U1 U2 U3
U1 U2 U3
Moda Perio Dam Acceler Acceler Acceler
Response Mod Ampli Ampli Ampli
l d ping ation ation ation
Spectrum Case e tude tude tude
case sec Ratio mm/se mm/se mm/se
mm mm mm
c² c² c²
Response 0.000
Modal 27 0.096 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.322 0
Spectrum 3251
Response 0.000
Modal 28 0.095 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.228 0
Spectrum 4209
Response
Modal 29 0.093 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.153 -0.002 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 30 0.092 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.296 0.000 0
Spectrum
1571
Response
Modal 31 0.091 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.001 -0.076 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 32 0.09 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.226 0.003 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 33 0.089 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.017 -0.003 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 34 0.089 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.001 0.331 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 35 0.089 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.185 -0.001 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 36 0.087 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.14 0.000 0
Spectrum
4916
Response 0.000
Modal 37 0.087 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.021 0
Spectrum 4041
Response
Modal 38 0.087 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.001 0.167 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 39 0.086 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.073 0.001 0
Spectrum
Response 0.000
Modal 40 0.086 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.038 0
Spectrum 3959
Response 0.000
Modal 41 0.085 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.232 0
Spectrum 2386
Response
Modal 42 0.083 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.29 0.001 0
Spectrum
Response 0.000
Modal 43 0.083 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.401 0
Spectrum 4726

42
 i

U1 U2 U3
U1 U2 U3
Moda Perio Dam Acceler Acceler Acceler
Response Mod Ampli Ampli Ampli
l d ping ation ation ation
Spectrum Case e tude tude tude
case sec Ratio mm/se mm/se mm/se
mm mm mm
c² c² c²
Response
Modal 44 0.082 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.12 -0.004 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 45 0.081 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 -0.006 -0.001 0
Spectrum
-
Response
Modal 46 0.081 0.05 3346.82 3346.82 0 0.000 0.381 0
Spectrum
15
Response
Modal 47 0.077 0.05 3281.17 3281.17 0 -0.308 -0.001 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 48 0.077 0.05 3274.19 3274.19 0 -0.252 0.001 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 49 0.074 0.05 3200.56 3200.56 0 -0.016 -0.123 0
Spectrum
Response
Modal 50 0.074 0.05 3188.93 3188.93 0 0.099 -0.062 0
Spectrum

Every load cases or combination have a data result apropos to the total

lateral displacement that occurs in a single story of the 10-storey building. During an

earthquake, large lateral forces can be imposed on structures; both the 1997 UBC (the

basis of the 2001 California Building Code) and ASCE 7-02 (which is based on NEHRP)

require that the designer assess the effects of this deformation on both structural and

nonstructural elements. In terms of seismic design, lateral deflection and drift can affect

both the structural elements that are part of the lateral force resisting system and

structural elements that are not part of the lateral force resisting system. In terms of the

lateral force resisting system, when the lateral forces are placed on the structure, the

structure responds and moves due to those forces. Consequently, there is a relationship

43
 i

between the lateral force resisting system and its movement under lateral loads; this

relationship can be analyzed by hand or by computer.

44
 i

FIGURE 8: STOREY DISPLACEMENT FOR MODAL CASE

FIGURE 8: STOREY DISPLACEMENT FOR LOAD ENVELOPE

Table 3.3 - Story Drifts

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
roofdeck Dead Y 0.000117 13 25 45 40
roofdeck Live Y 3.7E-05 11 20 45 40
roofdeck seismic x X 0.004418 43 23 22.5 40
roofdeck seismic y Y 0.004028 42 22 22.5 40
roofdeck seismic drift 1 X 0.004725 43 23 22.5 40
roofdeck seismic drift 2 Y 0.004394 42 22 22.5 40
roofdeck Response Spectrum Max X 0.003345 42 22 22.5 40
roofdeck Response Spectrum Max Y 0.002912 43 23 22.5 40
roofdeck 1.4DL Y 0.000281 13 25 45 40
roofdeck DL+LL Y 0.000271 13 25 45 40
roofdeck DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.00029 13 25 45 40
roofdeck DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003157 43 23 22.5 40
roofdeck DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.002648 42 22 22.5 40
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
roofdeck X 0.004727 43 23 22.5 40
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
roofdeck Y 0.004165 42 22 22.5 40
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
roofdeck Y 0.000346 1 0 45 40
Min
roofdeck 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000277 13 25 45 40
roofdeck 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 0.000178 13 25 45 40
roofdeck 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 0.000178 13 25 45 40
roofdeck 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.00442 43 23 22.5 40

45
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
roofdeck 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.003778 42 22 22.5 40
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
roofdeck X 0.009144 42 22 22.5 40
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
roofdeck Y 0.008257 43 23 22.5 40
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
roofdeck X 0.00442 42 22 22.5 40
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
roofdeck Y 0.003975 43 23 22.5 40
CX
roofdeck ENVELOPE Max X 0.009144 42 22 22.5 40
roofdeck ENVELOPE Max Y 0.008257 43 23 22.5 40
roofdeck ENVELOPE Min X 0.000103 3 45 0 40
roofdeck ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000348 42 22 22.5 40
Story10 Dead Y 9.6E-05 3 45 0 37
Story10 Live Y 2.9E-05 12 20 0 37
Story10 seismic x X 0.00436 43 23 22.5 37
Story10 seismic y Y 0.004181 27 0 25 37
Story10 seismic drift 1 X 0.004629 43 23 22.5 37
Story10 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004547 27 0 25 37
Story10 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003725 11 20 45 37
Story10 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003119 28 45 25 37
Story10 1.4DL Y 0.000232 3 45 0 37
Story10 DL+LL Y 0.000221 18 35 0 37
Story10 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000235 18 35 0 37
Story10 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003116 42 22 22.5 37
Story10 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.002782 1 0 45 37
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story10 X 0.004631 42 22 22.5 37
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story10 Y 0.004341 1 0 45 37
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story10 Y 0.000377 4 0 0 37
Min
Story10 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000223 18 35 0 37
Story10 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 0.000144 18 35 0 37
Story10 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 0.000144 18 35 0 37
Story10 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004362 42 22 22.5 37
Story10 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.003957 1 0 45 37
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story10 CX X 0.008993 42 22 22.5 37
+SEISMICY
Story10 1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI Y 0.008595 22 45 40 37

46
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story10 CX X 0.004364 42 22 22.5 37
+SEISMICY
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story10 CX Y 0.004215 2 45 45 37
+SEISMICY
Story10 ENVELOPE Max X 0.008993 42 22 22.5 37
Story10 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.008595 22 45 40 37
Story10 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000377 4 0 0 37
Story9 Dead Y 8E-05 2 45 45 34
Story9 Live Y 2.5E-05 7 10 45 34
Story9 seismic x X 0.004744 4 0 0 34
Story9 seismic y Y 0.004541 1 0 45 34
Story9 seismic drift 1 X 0.004991 4 0 0 34
Story9 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004861 1 0 45 34
Story9 Response Spectrum Max X 0.0041 1 0 45 34
Story9 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003467 1 0 45 34
Story9 1.4DL Y 0.000191 2 45 45 34
Story9 DL+LL Y 0.000184 2 45 45 34
Story9 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000196 2 45 45 34
Story9 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003392 4 0 0 34
Story9 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003068 4 0 0 34
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story9 X 0.004994 4 0 0 34
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story9 Y 0.004685 4 0 0 34
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story9 Y 0.00049 35 0 5 34
Min
Story9 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000187 2 45 45 34
Story9 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 0.00012 2 45 45 34
Story9 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 0.00012 2 45 45 34
Story9 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004748 4 0 0 34
Story9 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.00435 4 0 0 34
Story9 1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI X 0.009752 3 45 0 34
CX
+SEISMICY
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story9 CX Y 0.009457 3 45 0 34
+SEISMICY

47
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story9 CX X 0.004788 3 45 0 34
+SEISMICY
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story9 CX Y 0.004918 3 45 0 34
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Min
Story9 ENVELOPE Max X 0.009752 3 45 0 34
Story9 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.009457 3 45 0 34
Story9 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.00049 35 0 5 34
Story8 Dead Y 6.6E-05 20 40 0 31
Story8 Live Y 2.4E-05 8 10 0 31
Story8 seismic x X 0.004729 14 25 0 31
Story8 seismic y Y 0.004582 27 0 25 31
Story8 seismic drift 1 X 0.004922 14 25 0 31
Story8 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004839 27 0 25 31
Story8 Response Spectrum Max X 0.004084 11 20 45 31
Story8 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003499 23 0 35 31
Story8 1.4DL Y 0.000159 20 40 0 31
Story8 DL+LL Y 0.000157 20 40 0 31
Story8 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000169 18 35 0 31
Story8 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003383 3 45 0 31
Story8 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003131 21 0 40 31
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story8 X 0.004925 3 45 0 31
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story8 Y 0.004696 21 0 40 31
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story8 Y 0.000447 4 0 0 31
Min
Story8 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000164 18 35 0 31
Story8 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 0.000104 18 35 0 31
Story8 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 0.000104 18 35 0 31
Story8 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004733 3 45 0 31
Story8 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004427 21 0 40 31
Story8 1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI X 0.009661 20 40 0 31
CX
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story8 CX Y 0.009501 32 45 15 31
+SEISMICY
Story8 1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI X 0.00475 20 40 0 31

48
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story8 Y 0.004965 34 45 10 31
CX
Story8 ENVELOPE Max X 0.009661 20 40 0 31
Story8 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.009501 32 45 15 31
Story8 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000447 4 0 0 31
Story7 Dead Y 5.3E-05 13 25 45 28
Story7 Live Y 2.2E-05 11 20 45 28
Story7 seismic x X 0.004225 3 45 0 28
Story7 seismic y Y 0.004362 42 22 22.5 28
Story7 seismic drift 1 X 0.004357 3 45 0 28
Story7 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004558 42 22 22.5 28
Story7 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003684 2 45 45 28
Story7 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003232 42 22 22.5 28
Story7 1.4DL Y 0.000127 13 25 45 28
Story7 DL+LL Y 0.000128 13 25 45 28
Story7 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000139 13 25 45 28
Story7 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003029 4 0 0 28
Story7 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.002998 42 22 22.5 28
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story7 X 0.004368 4 0 0 28
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story7 Y 0.00444 42 22 22.5 28
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story7 Y 0.00033 1 0 45 28
Min
Story7 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000136 11 20 45 28
Story7 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 8.6E-05 11 20 45 28
Story7 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 8.6E-05 11 20 45 28
Story7 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004236 4 0 0 28
Story7 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004234 42 22 22.5 28
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story7 CX X 0.008606 4 0 0 28
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
Story7 1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI Y 0.008784 42 22 22.5 28
CX
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story7 X 0.004262 4 0 0 28
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story7 Y 0.00445 2 45 45 28
CX
Story7 ENVELOPE Max X 0.008606 4 0 0 28
49
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
Story7 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.008784 42 22 22.5 28
Story7 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000334 1 0 45 28
Story6 Dead Y 4.4E-05 3 45 0 25
Story6 Live Y 1.9E-05 6 5 0 25
Story6 seismic x X 0.004448 6 5 0 25
Story6 seismic y Y 0.00448 21 0 40 25
Story6 seismic drift 1 X 0.004557 6 5 0 25
Story6 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004625 21 0 40 25
Story6 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003874 11 20 45 25
Story6 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003407 21 0 40 25
Story6 1.4DL Y 0.000106 3 45 0 25
Story6 DL+LL Y 0.000107 6 5 0 25
Story6 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000117 6 5 0 25
Story6 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003181 20 40 0 25
Story6 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003097 1 0 45 25
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story6 X 0.004561 20 40 0 25
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story6 Y 0.004522 1 0 45 25
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story6 Y 0.000281 35 0 5 25
Min
Story6 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000115 6 5 0 25
Story6 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 7.2E-05 6 5 0 25
Story6 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 7.2E-05 6 5 0 25
Story6 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004453 20 40 0 25
Story6 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004368 1 0 45 25
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story6 X 0.00903 20 40 0 25
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story6 CX Y 0.009136 36 45 5 25
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story6 X 0.004493 3 45 0 25
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story6 Y 0.00469 34 45 10 25
CX
Story6 ENVELOPE Max X 0.00903 20 40 0 25
Story6 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.009136 36 45 5 25
Story6 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.00029 35 0 5 25
Story5 Dead Y 3.8E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 Live Y 1.8E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 seismic x X 0.004224 8 10 0 22

50
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
Story5 seismic y Y 0.004369 21 0 40 22
Story5 seismic drift 1 X 0.004303 8 10 0 22
Story5 seismic drift 2 Y 0.00447 21 0 40 22
Story5 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003677 11 20 45 22
Story5 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003327 22 45 40 22
Story5 1.4DL Y 9.1E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 DL+LL Y 9.4E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 0.000103 8 10 0 22
Story5 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003025 3 45 0 22
Story5 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003038 1 0 45 22
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story5 X 0.004309 20 40 0 22
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story5 Y 0.004387 21 0 40 22
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story5 Y 0.000231 33 0 10 22
Min
Story5 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 0.000102 8 10 0 22
Story5 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 6.4E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 6.4E-05 8 10 0 22
Story5 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004232 20 40 0 22
Story5 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004279 21 0 40 22
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story5 X 0.008556 20 40 0 22
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story5 CX Y 0.008859 30 45 20 22
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story5 X 0.004276 20 40 0 22
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story5 Y 0.004535 32 45 15 22
CX
Story5 ENVELOPE Max X 0.008556 20 40 0 22
Story5 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.008859 30 45 20 22
Story5 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000242 33 0 10 22
Story4 Dead Y 3E-05 13 25 45 19
Story4 Live Y 1.5E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 seismic x X 0.00405 43 23 22.5 19
Story4 seismic y Y 0.004295 41 22.5 22.5 19
Story4 seismic drift 1 X 0.004109 43 23 22.5 19
Story4 seismic drift 2 Y 0.004362 41 22.5 22.5 19
Story4 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003044 15 30 45 19
Story4 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003236 41 22.5 22.5 19

51
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
Story4 1.4DL Y 7.2E-05 13 25 45 19
Story4 DL+LL Y 7.5E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 8.3E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.002895 42 22 22.5 19
Story4 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003001 41 22.5 22.5 19
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story4 X 0.004111 42 22 22.5 19
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story4 Y 0.004295 41 22.5 22.5 19
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story4 Y 0.00035 1 0 45 19
Min
Story4 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 8.3E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 5.1E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 5.1E-05 11 20 45 19
Story4 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004052 42 22 22.5 19
Story4 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004223 41 22.5 22.5 19
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story4 X 0.008166 42 22 22.5 19
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story4 CX Y 0.008656 43 23 22.5 19
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story4 X 0.004061 42 22 22.5 19
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story4 CX Y 0.00438 43 23 22.5 19
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Min
Story4 ENVELOPE Max X 0.008166 42 22 22.5 19
Story4 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.008656 43 23 22.5 19
Story4 ENVELOPE Min X 9.2E-05 3 45 0 19
Story4 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000359 1 0 45 19
Story3 Dead Y 2.6E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 Live Y 1.4E-05 11 20 45 16
Story3 seismic x X 0.004631 43 23 22.5 16
Story3 seismic y Y 0.005042 41 22.5 22.5 16
Story3 seismic drift 1 X 0.004675 43 23 22.5 16
Story3 seismic drift 2 Y 0.005088 41 22.5 22.5 16
Story3 Response Spectrum Max X 0.003384 42 22 22.5 16
Story3 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.003882 41 22.5 22.5 16
Story3 1.4DL Y 6.3E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 DL+LL Y 6.7E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 7.4E-05 13 25 45 16

52
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
Story3 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.003309 43 23 22.5 16
Story3 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003545 41 22.5 22.5 16
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story3 X 0.004676 43 23 22.5 16
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story3 Y 0.005032 41 22.5 22.5 16
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story3 Y 0.000651 21 0 40 16
Min
Story3 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 7.5E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 4.6E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 4.6E-05 13 25 45 16
Story3 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.004632 43 23 22.5 16
Story3 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.004981 41 22.5 22.5 16
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story3 CX X 0.009318 42 22 22.5 16
+SEISMICY+DRIFT Max
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story3 Y 0.010212 43 23 22.5 16
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story3 X 0.004655 42 22 22.5 16
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story3 Y 0.005281 43 23 22.5 16
CX
Story3 ENVELOPE Max X 0.009318 42 22 22.5 16
Story3 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.010212 43 23 22.5 16
Story3 ENVELOPE Min X 0.000194 7 10 45 16
Story3 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.000658 21 0 40 16
Story2 Dead Y 3.6E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 Live Y 1.8E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 seismic x X 0.00564 41 22.5 22.5 13
Story2 seismic y Y 0.006253 40 22.5 25 13
Story2 seismic drift 1 X 0.005674 41 22.5 22.5 13
Story2 seismic drift 2 Y 0.006288 40 22.5 25 13
Story2 Response Spectrum Max X 0.004021 41 22.5 22.5 13
Story2 Response Spectrum Max Y 0.004911 40 22.5 25 13
Story2 1.4DL Y 8.6E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 DL+LL Y 9E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 9.9E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.004029 41 22.5 22.5 13
Story2 DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.004414 40 22.5 25 13
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story2 X 0.005674 41 22.5 22.5 13
Max

53
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story2 Y 0.006236 40 22.5 25 13
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story2 X 0.000153 7 10 45 13
Min
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
Story2 Y 0.001155 31 0 15 13
Min
Story2 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 9.9E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 6.1E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 6.1E-05 13 25 45 13
Story2 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.00564 41 22.5 22.5 13
Story2 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.006196 40 22.5 25 13
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story2 X 0.011337 43 23 22.5 13
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story2 Y 0.012481 45 25 22.5 13
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story2 X 0.005725 43 23 22.5 13
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
Story2 Y 0.007269 46 24.5 22.5 13
CX
Story2 ENVELOPE Max X 0.011337 43 23 22.5 13
Story2 ENVELOPE Max Y 0.012481 45 25 22.5 13
Story2 ENVELOPE Min X 0.000147 17 35 45 13
Story2 ENVELOPE Min Y 0.001159 31 0 15 13
pstorey Dead Y 1.6E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey Live Y 1E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey seismic x X 0.009033 12 20 0 10
pstorey seismic y Y 0.005256 27 0 25 10
pstorey seismic drift 1 X 0.009049 12 20 0 10
pstorey seismic drift 2 Y 0.005277 27 0 25 10
pstorey Response Spectrum Max X 0.004782 13 25 45 10
pstorey Response Spectrum Max Y 0.004998 26 45 30 10
pstorey 1.4DL Y 3.9E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey DL+LL Y 4.2E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey DL+.75(LL+WL) Y 4.7E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey DL+LL+SEISMICX/1.4 X 0.006455 18 35 0 10
pstorey DL+LL+SEISMICY/1.4 Y 0.003732 21 0 40 10
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
pstorey X 0.009051 16 30 0 10
Max
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
pstorey Y 0.005253 23 0 35 10
Max
pstorey DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT X 6E-05 4 0 0 10

54
 i

Directi Lab X Y Z
Story Load Case/Combo Drift
on el m m m
Min
DL+LL+SEISMIC DRIFT
pstorey Y 0.004222 4 0 0 10
Min
pstorey 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5RL Y 4.7E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey 1.2DL+LL+WL Max Y 2.9E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey 1.2DL+LL+WL Min Y 2.9E-05 18 35 0 10
pstorey 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC X X 0.009035 16 30 0 10
pstorey 1.2DL+LL+SEISMIC Y Y 0.005231 23 0 35 10
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
pstorey X 0.018087 18 35 0 10
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
pstorey Y 0.014621 32 45 15 10
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
pstorey X 0.009057 3 45 0 10
CX
1.2DL+1.6LL+WL+SEISMI
pstorey Y 0.01356 34 45 10 10
CX
pstorey ENVELOPE Max X 0.018087 18 35 0 10
pstorey ENVELOPE Max Y 0.014621 32 45 15 10
pstorey ENVELOPE Min Y 0.004232 4 0 0 10

55
 i

Table 3.5 - Story Stiffness

Shear Stiffnes Shear Stiffnes
Drift X Drift Y
Story Load Case X sX Y sY
mm mm
kN kN/m kN kN/m
4609.9 392530.
roofdeck seismic x 11.744 0 0.146 0
022 748
7079.7 563539.
Story10 seismic x 12.563 0 0.184 0
213 543
9349.8 696701.
Story9 seismic x 13.42 0 0.421 0
124 493
11420. 854144.
Story8 seismic x 13.37 0 0.417 0
0824 557
13361. 1102432
Story7 seismic x 12.12 0 0.302 0
0814 .987
15114. 1185606
Story6 seismic x 12.748 0 0.264 0
0292 .662
16657. 1361020
Story5 seismic x 12.239 0 0.219 0
9107 .249
18055. 1656636
Story4 seismic x 10.899 0 0.422 0
3531 .929
19246. 1806520
Story3 seismic x 10.654 0 0.897 0
8354 .286
20214. 2012988
Story2 seismic x 10.042 0 1.717 0
5999 .261
20477. 424713.
pstorey seismic x 48.215 0 20.97 0
4312 22
4609.9 408853.
roofdeck seismic y 0 0.115 0 11.275
022 421
7079.7 567560.
Story10 seismic y 0 0.008 0 12.474
213 799
9349.8 701145.
Story9 seismic y 0 0.059 0 13.335
124 94
11420. 846182.
Story8 seismic y 0 0.032 0 13.496
0824 796
13361. 1042059
Story7 seismic y 0 0.035 0 12.822
0814 .542
Story6 seismic y 0 0.049 0 15114. 13.129 1151156

56
 i

Shear Stiffnes Shear Stiffnes

Drift X Drift Y
Story Load Case X sX Y sY
mm mm
kN kN/m kN kN/m
0292 .477
16657. 1298090
Story5 seismic y 0 0.047 0 12.833
9107 .135
18055. 1490159
Story4 seismic y 0 0.154 0 12.116
3531 .288
19246. 1537424
Story3 seismic y 0 0.312 0 12.519
8354 .006
20214. 1570215
Story2 seismic y 0 0.215 0 12.874
5998 .149
20477. 463934.
pstorey seismic y 0 0.251 0 44.139
4312 853
Response 3237.1 396513. 2953.0 365538.
roofdeck 8.164 8.079
Spectrum 954 424 312 171
Response 6387.7 667879. 5726.6 622528.
Story10 9.564 9.199
Spectrum 151 63 809 843
Response 8560.5 813250. 7682.2 767645.
Story9 10.526 10.008
Spectrum 539 097 778 466
Response 10042. 959216. 9180.7 904407.
Story8 10.469 10.151
Spectrum 0772 894 107 82
Response 11215. 1191629 10520. 1099260
Story7 9.412 9.571
Spectrum 3291 .243 6228 .869
Response 12280. 1239901 11765. 1192804
Story6 9.904 9.864
Spectrum 2497 .305 8714 .195
Response 13273. 1410889 12868. 1331180
Story5 9.408 9.667
Spectrum 7818 .489 3632 .126
Response 14342. 1845171 13933. 1514246
Story4 7.773 9.202
Spectrum 7649 .785 6738 .352
Response 15580. 2002936 15049. 1555082
Story3 7.779 9.677
Spectrum 1945 .725 2987 .662
Response 17014. 2090184 16268. 1588402
Story2 8.14 10.242
Spectrum 8864 .399 5147 .818
Response 17546. 500983. 16707. 426660.
pstorey 35.024 39.158
Spectrum 394 536 0688 423

Modal Results

57
 i

Table 3.6 - Modal Periods and Frequencies

Circular Eigenva
Freque
Period Freque lue
Case Mode ncy
sec ncy rad²/sec
cyc/sec
rad/sec ²
Modal 1 4.506 0.222 1.3945 1.9447
Modal 2 2.64 0.379 2.38 5.6644
Modal 3 2.443 0.409 2.5715 6.6126
Modal 4 1.13 0.885 5.5594 30.907
Modal 5 0.856 1.169 7.3435 53.9273
Modal 6 0.744 1.344 8.4424 71.2736
138.458
Modal 7 0.534 1.873 11.7668
6
273.765
Modal 8 0.38 2.633 16.5459
6
349.385
Modal 9 0.336 2.975 18.6919
7
385.766
Modal 10 0.32 3.126 19.6409
1
764.998
Modal 11 0.227 4.402 27.6586
7
779.227
Modal 12 0.225 4.443 27.9147
9
791.531
Modal 13 0.223 4.478 28.1342
6
857.548
Modal 14 0.215 4.661 29.2839
9
1422.48
Modal 15 0.167 6.003 37.7159
81
1481.95
Modal 16 0.163 6.127 38.4961
29
1485.23
Modal 17 0.163 6.134 38.5388
7
2210.49
Modal 18 0.134 7.483 47.0159
44
2411.85
Modal 19 0.128 7.816 49.1107
75
2487.23
Modal 20 0.126 7.937 49.8722
43
2742.35
Modal 21 0.12 8.335 52.3675
74

58
 i

Circular Eigenva
Freque
Period Freque lue
Case Mode ncy
sec ncy rad²/sec
cyc/sec
rad/sec ²
3205.15
Modal 22 0.111 9.01 56.6141
57
3466.58
Modal 23 0.107 9.371 58.8777
1
3706.63
Modal 24 0.103 9.69 60.8822
87
3810.35
Modal 25 0.102 9.824 61.7281
75
3950.09
Modal 26 0.1 10.003 62.8498
45
4262.77
Modal 27 0.096 10.391 65.2899
26
Modal 28 0.095 10.581 66.484 4420.12
4540.29
Modal 29 0.093 10.724 67.3817
76
4679.26
Modal 30 0.092 10.887 68.4052
96
4814.60
Modal 31 0.091 11.043 69.3874
92
4901.13
Modal 32 0.09 11.142 70.0081
53
4974.60
Modal 33 0.089 11.225 70.5309
8
4981.17
Modal 34 0.089 11.233 70.5774
29
5029.21
Modal 35 0.089 11.287 70.9169
33
Modal 36 0.087 11.45 71.9444 5175.99
5221.81
Modal 37 0.087 11.501 72.2621
58
Modal 38 0.087 11.539 72.5028 5256.66
5303.87
Modal 39 0.086 11.591 72.8277
06
5349.66
Modal 40 0.086 11.641 73.1414
28
5416.68
Modal 41 0.085 11.714 73.5982
84

59
 i

Circular Eigenva
Freque
Period Freque lue
Case Mode ncy
sec ncy rad²/sec
cyc/sec
rad/sec ²
5701.47
Modal 42 0.083 12.017 75.5081
14
5749.65
Modal 43 0.083 12.068 75.8265
33
5901.36
Modal 44 0.082 12.226 76.8204
75
6010.45
Modal 45 0.081 12.339 77.5271
47
6064.93
Modal 46 0.081 12.395 77.8777
8
6592.49
Modal 47 0.077 12.922 81.1942
4
6640.17
Modal 48 0.077 12.969 81.4873
98
7175.75
Modal 49 0.074 13.482 84.7098
13
Modal 50 0.074 13.567 85.2419 7266.19

Table 3.7 - Modal Participating Mass Ratios (Part 1 of 2)

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY Sum UZ
sec
7.461E- 7.461E-
Modal 1 4.506 0.034 0 0.034 0
07 07
9.018E-
Modal 2 2.64 0.9068 0 0.034 0.9068 0
07
6.539E-
Modal 3 2.443 0.8539 0 0.8879 0.9068 0
07
Modal 4 1.13 0.0012 0 0 0.8891 0.9068 0

60
 i

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY Sum UZ
sec
Modal 5 0.856 0 0.0799 0 0.8891 0.9867 0
Modal 6 0.744 0.0986 0 0 0.9876 0.9867 0
Modal 7 0.534 0.0002 0 0 0.9878 0.9867 0
Modal 8 0.38 0 0.0098 0 0.9878 0.9965 0
Modal 9 0.336 0.0096 0 0 0.9974 0.9965 0
Modal 10 0.32 0.0001 0 0 0.9975 0.9965 0
Modal 11 0.227 0.0001 0 0 0.9976 0.9965 0
8.453E-
Modal 12 0.225 0 0 0.9976 0.9965 0
06
Modal 13 0.223 0 0.002 0 0.9976 0.9986 0
Modal 14 0.215 0.0014 0 0 0.999 0.9986 0
Modal 15 0.167 0.0003 0 0 0.9993 0.9986 0
Modal 16 0.163 4.71E-06 8.66E-06 0 0.9993 0.9986 0
Modal 17 0.163 0 0.0005 0 0.9993 0.9991 0
4.696E-
Modal 18 0.134 0 0 0.9993 0.9991 0
05
Modal 19 0.128 0 0.0001 0 0.9993 0.9992 0
1.312E-
Modal 20 0.126 0 0 0.9993 0.9992 0
06
1.234E-
Modal 21 0.12 0 0 0.9994 0.9992 0
05
5.349E-
Modal 22 0.111 0 0 0.9994 0.9992 0
06
Modal 23 0.107 0 0 0 0.9994 0.9992 0
Modal 24 0.103 0.0001 0 0 0.9995 0.9992 0
Modal 25 0.102 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9992 0
Modal 26 0.1 0 0.0001 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
4.855E-
Modal 27 0.096 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 28 0.095 2.62E-06 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
1.247E-
Modal 29 0.093 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
4.927E-
Modal 30 0.092 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 31 0.091 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
3.153E-
Modal 32 0.09 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 33 0.089 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
6.996E-
Modal 34 0.089 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
2.226E-
Modal 35 0.089 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
1.361E-
Modal 36 0.087 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 37 0.087 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
1.977E-
Modal 38 0.087 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 39 0.086 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
Modal 40 0.086 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0

61
 i

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY Sum UZ
sec
4.056E-
Modal 41 0.085 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
7.042E-
Modal 42 0.083 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
1.366E-
Modal 43 0.083 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
05
1.282E-
Modal 44 0.082 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
Modal 45 0.081 0 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
1.378E-
Modal 46 0.081 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
05
1.107E-
Modal 47 0.077 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
05
7.508E-
Modal 48 0.077 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
2.197E-
Modal 49 0.074 0 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06
1.474E- 5.752E-
Modal 50 0.074 0 0.9995 0.9993 0
06 07

Table 3.7 - Modal Participating Mass Ratios (Part 2 of 2)

Case Mode RX RY RZ Sum RXSum RY Sum RZ
Modal 1 0 0.0009 0.9568 0 0.0009 0.9568
Modal 2 0.1246 0 0 0.1246 0.0009 0.9568
Modal 3 0 0.1455 0.0311 0.1246 0.1464 0.988
6.532E-
Modal 4 0.0341 0.0071 0.1246 0.1805 0.9951
07
Modal 5 0.7589 0 0 0.8835 0.1805 0.9951
Modal 6 0 0.7106 0.0035 0.8835 0.8911 0.9985
Modal 7 0 0.003 0.0007 0.8835 0.8941 0.9992
Modal 8 0.0786 0 0 0.962 0.8941 0.9992
Modal 9 0 0.0742 0.0003 0.962 0.9683 0.9995
Modal 10 0 0.0022 0.0002 0.962 0.9705 0.9997
5.584E-
Modal 11 0 0.0011 0.962 0.9716 0.9997
06
Modal 12 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.962 0.9717 0.9998

62
 i

Case Mode RX RY RZ Sum RXSum RY Sum RZ

Modal 13 0.026 0 0 0.988 0.9717 0.9998
3.668E-
Modal 14 0 0.019 0.988 0.9907 0.9998
05
8.961E-
Modal 15 0 0.0034 0.988 0.9941 0.9998
06
4.651E-
Modal 16 0.0001 0.0001 0.9881 0.9942 0.9999
05
3.566E- 7.89E-
Modal 17 0.005 0.9931 0.9942 0.9999
06 07
1.459E-
Modal 18 0 0.0017 0.9931 0.9959 0.9999
06
Modal 19 0.002 0 0 0.9951 0.9959 0.9999
2.834E- 3.068E-
Modal 20 0 0.9951 0.996 0.9999
05 05
Modal 21 0 0.0001 0 0.9951 0.996 0.9999
Modal 22 0 0.0002 0 0.9951 0.9963 0.9999
Modal 23 0.0001 0 0 0.9952 0.9963 0.9999
1.479E-
Modal 24 0 0.0005 0.9952 0.9968 0.9999
06
7.494E- 1.616E-
Modal 25 0 0.9952 0.9968 0.9999
06 05
Modal 26 0.0007 0 0 0.9959 0.9968 0.9999
2.687E-
Modal 27 0 0 0.9959 0.9968 0.9999
05
9.216E-
Modal 28 0 0 0.9959 0.9968 0.9999
06
Modal 29 0 0.0001 0 0.9959 0.997 0.9999
4.268E-
Modal 30 0 0 0.9959 0.997 0.9999
05
2.832E-
Modal 31 0 0 0.9959 0.997 0.9999
05
2.833E-
Modal 32 0 0 0.9959 0.997 0.9999
05
9.451E-
Modal 33 0 0 0.9959 0.997 0.9999
07
Modal 34 0.0001 0 0 0.996 0.997 0.9999
9.198E-
Modal 35 0 0 0.996 0.997 0.9999
06
4.841E- 2.018E-
Modal 36 0 0.996 0.997 0.9999
06 06
7.964E-
Modal 37 0 0 0.996 0.997 0.9999
07
6.861E-
Modal 38 0 0 0.996 0.997 0.9999
06

63
 i

Case Mode RX RY RZ Sum RXSum RY Sum RZ

5.801E- 8.663E-
Modal 39 0 0.996 0.9971 1
06 06
3.067E- 9.424E-
Modal 40 0 0.996 0.9971 1
06 06
1.366E-
Modal 41 0 0 0.996 0.9971 1
05
2.125E-
Modal 42 0 0 0.996 0.9971 1
05
Modal 43 0 0.0001 0 0.996 0.9971 1
Modal 44 0 0.0001 0 0.996 0.9972 1
Modal 45 0 0 0 0.996 0.9972 1
1.513E-
Modal 46 0 0 0.9961 0.9972 1
05
Modal 47 0 0.0001 0 0.9961 0.9972 1
Modal 48 0 4E-05 0 0.9961 0.9973 1
9.917E-
Modal 49 0 0 0.9961 0.9973 1
06
2.65E- 3.961E-
Modal 50 0 0.9961 0.9973 1
06 06

Table 3.9 - Modal Direction Factors

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ RZ
sec
Modal 1 4.506 0.034 0 0 0.966
Modal 2 2.64 0 1 0 0
Modal 3 2.443 0.966 0 0 0.034
Modal 4 1.13 0.039 0 0 0.961
Modal 5 0.856 0 1 0 0
Modal 6 0.744 0.958 0 0 0.042
Modal 7 0.534 0.037 0 0 0.963
Modal 8 0.38 0 1 0 0
Modal 9 0.336 0.952 0 0 0.048
Modal 10 0.32 0.041 0 0 0.959
Modal 11 0.227 0.899 0 0 0.101
Modal 12 0.225 0.033 0 0 0.967
Modal 13 0.223 0 1 0 0
Modal 14 0.215 0.958 0 0 0.042
Modal 15 0.167 0.955 0 0 0.045
Modal 16 0.163 0.04 0.019 0 0.942

64
 i

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ RZ
sec
Modal 17 0.163 0.001 0.983 0 0.016
Modal 18 0.134 0.956 0 0 0.044
Modal 19 0.128 0 1 0 0
Modal 20 0.126 0.048 0 0 0.952
Modal 21 0.12 0.344 0 0 0.656
Modal 22 0.111 0.954 0 0 0.046
Modal 23 0.107 0 1 0 0
Modal 24 0.103 0.259 0 0 0.741
Modal 25 0.102 0.062 0 0 0.938
Modal 26 0.1 0 1 0 0
Modal 27 0.096 0.001 0 0 0.999
Modal 28 0.095 0.652 0 0 0.348
Modal 29 0.093 0.956 0 0 0.044
Modal 30 0.092 0.049 0 0 0.951
Modal 31 0.091 0 1 0 0
Modal 32 0.09 0.004 0 0 0.996
Modal 33 0.089 0.011 0 0 0.989
Modal 34 0.089 0 0.999 0 0.001
Modal 35 0.089 0.005 0 0 0.995
Modal 36 0.087 0.002 0 0 0.998
Modal 37 0.087 0.034 0 0 0.966
Modal 38 0.087 0 0.992 0 0.008
Modal 39 0.086 0.071 0 0 0.929
Modal 40 0.086 0.011 0 0 0.989
Modal 41 0.085 0.305 0 0 0.695
Modal 42 0.083 0.783 0 0 0.217
Modal 43 0.083 0.833 0 0 0.167
Modal 44 0.082 0.932 0 0 0.068
Modal 45 0.081 0.663 0.001 0 0.335
Modal 46 0.081 0 1 0 0
Modal 47 0.077 0.749 0 0 0.251
Modal 48 0.077 0.601 0 0 0.399
Modal 49 0.074 0.007 0.987 0 0.006
Modal 50 0.074 0.622 0.326 0 0.051

65
 i

66
 i

67
 i

68
 i

69
 i

70
 i

71
 i

72
 i

73
 i

74
 i

75
 i

76
 i

77
 i

78
 i

79
 i

80
 i

81
 i

82
 i

83
 i

84
 i

85
 i

86
 i

87
 i

88
 i

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter covers the study’s summary of simulation findings/ results, the

conclusion derived and the recommendations for further research.

5.1 Summary

As the starting point to an approach of seismic analysis of a 10-storey

building, large scale model framings were loaded with lateral and axial forces. In the

testing procedures, large story drift 1/100 up to 1/20 deflection angle were forced in

order to observed actual behavior of the structure during a severe earthquake. It was

recognized that as deformability and ductility of the column were multiplied by those of

beams, availability of ductility of the framing was made more than 5 meters.

The basis of the experiments, vibration model with the degrading stiffness

was established for the dynamic response analysis. As a result, all members were

found to remain within yielding at the earthquake with a magnitude 6.5 below.

The maximum stiffness requirement against the most dangerous earthquake

or the big one along X and Y was about 1986703.5 kN/m and 1524257.4 kN/m

respectively. As for the residual story drift about 9/500 of deflection angle was the

largest.

89
 i

Concrete Structural elements are designed in accordance with the

provisions of the American. Concrete Institute; Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete, ACI-318.A minimum of specified compressive strength at 28 days

(fc) of 28 Mpa (4,000 psi) was used in the design of all concrete.

5.2 Conclusion/s

The earthquake’s damaging effects of 10-storey reinforced concrete

commercial building can be minimized through a thorough technical interpretation of

data using software analysis. Detailed member capacities in terms of NSCP & NBCP as

well as the overall behavior of the buildings were achieved based on the detail modal

response spectrum analysis results. Strengthening of the building’s overall capacity as

well as the individual member was designed successfully based on the latest

engineering standards, guidelines and regulations. It was found to be imperative to

employmodal response spectrum analysis for all the buildings with vertical and

horizontal irregularities so as to establish its reliable structural response under seismic

actions. As we use ETAB SOFTWARE, we can conclude that our design is safe to a

response under seismic actions.

90
 i

5.3 Recommendation/s

We, the researchers therefore recommend to have a comparison of this

study by using other software or to use more conventional way.

We also recommend that the widening of the span can be more than 5

meters because of the available strength of the ductility.

And we also recommend that if they will study a simulation analysis of a

multi-storey building like a 10-storey they will consider the stage, factors and some

evaluations for time history analysis performed Time histories of the structural response

to a given input are obtained as a result. In response spectrum analyses the time

evolution of response cannot be computed but can be stimulated. This methodology for

stimulating strong ground motion based on seismic hazard that we use can be used as

recommendation for the earthquake resistant design of structures.

91
 i

Paragraph about modal & frequency?

modal response spectrum analysis, the

current practice presents the investigations on the

structural response subject to the seismic actions and

proposes respective repair and strengthening

methodologies.

OK mai..Sege.tulogkamuna

About sa diagram yunanggagawinkopag nag piso net ako ...Peroyung table excel..
Bakamamaya pang umaga.kasina Kay welvinyungmga
table..sabiniyakasisiyanadawbahala dun..Peromamayagawinkonalang kung
pagkatapuskosa diagram.

Paragraph about design of rebars?

Designing of rebars is one of the important procedures in design. Rebars is one of those
will resist the vertical and lateral forces acting on a structure and strengthening of the
building.

7:49AM

Dikomabuksansa phone koyungmga excel napinasamosakin di kaya ng phone ko.

Chat Conversation End

Sent from Messenger

92