CIVL509: NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

ASSIGNMENT 1: LINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF A 30-STOREY

BUILDING

Earthquake Ground Motion

Submitted by:

Name: Almutasem Bellah Alatoom Taikhum Vahanvaty

Student ID: 46512604 42239582

Date: 1st February, 2020

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................3

2. BASIC INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................3

3. MODELLING OF THE BUILDING IN ETABS ........................................................................................4

MODAL PERIOD OF THE STRUCTURE .....................................................................................................5

4. LOADS .........................................................................................................................................................5

1. DEAD LOAD ...........................................................................................................................................5

2. SNOW LOAD ..........................................................................................................................................5
3. SEISMIC LOAD ......................................................................................................................................5
5. RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................8

1. FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIODS .......................................................................................................8

2. SEISMIC BASE SHEARS .......................................................................................................................8
3. SHEAR & MOMENT DISTRIBUTION IN CORE WALLS ..................................................................8
4. SHEAR & MOMENT DISTRIBUTION IN COUPLING BEAMS ......................................................11
5. CORE ROTATION ................................................................................................................................12
 1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this assignment is to perform the seismic analysis of a 30-storey residential tower in Vancouver.
The static and dynamic response spectrum analysis is performed as per NBCC 2015 and the seismic design
forces for the core walls are presented.

The structure has been analyzed in CSI ETABS 2016. The lateral load resisting system consists of three C-
shaped cantilever reinforced concrete shear walls. The walls are considered as cantilever ductile shear walls (Ro
= 1.6, Rd = 3.5) in one direction and ductile coupled walls (Ro = 1.7, Rd = 4.0) in the other direction. The
gravity load resisting system consists of slabs and columns.

The gravity and seismic loading has been applied as per NBCC 2015 and information provided in the assignment
question.

This document aims to calculate the load applied on structure, under dead and seismic loading conditions and
their combined effects.

2. BASIC INFORMATION

The following design codes were used:

NBCC: 2015 National Building Code of Canada

CSA A23.3 - 14 CAC Concrete Design Handbook – 4th Edition

(Section 11.5 has been used as a reference throughout this report)

Material specifications:

Concrete grade for slabs: 35 MPa

Concrete grade for columns: 60 MPa

Concrete grade for coupling beams: 30 MPa

Concrete grade for basement walls: 35 MPa

Concrete grade for walls (from base to 10th storey): 45 MPa

Concrete grade for walls (from 11th storey to 20th storey): 35 MPa

Concrete grade for walls (from 20th storey to penthouse): 30 MPa

Concrete Density: 24kN/m3

 Seismic Parameters:

Soil Class: D

Importance Factor: 1.0

3. MODELLING OF THE BUILDING IN ETABS

A three dimensional model of the building is developed in ETABS 2016. The building has five levels below
grade and thirty stories above grade. A mechanical penthouse is added over the top storey.

The seismic force resisting system of the building consists of three C-shaped reinforced concrete shear
walls. The flanges of the walls are connected by coupling beams over the elevator door openings.

The shear walls are modelled as thin shells. One shell element has been modelled for each storey and no
further meshing has been carried out. Since there are 35 stories (below an above grade), each shell element
(for each floor) is supposed to be small enough compared to the total height of the wall to provide an
accurate analysis.

The columns are modelled as frame elements. The columns are kept pinned at each end to ensure that the
columns do not contribute to the lateral resistance of the building.

The coupling beams are modelled as beam frame elements. The beams are kept fixed at both edges.

The slabs are modelled as thin shell elements with auto-meshing. The slabs above grade are considered as
rigid while the slabs below grade are semi-rigid. We want the slabs above grade to act as a rigid diaphragm
and transfer all the lateral forces to the core. If the same philosophy were followed for the slabs below grade,
it would lead to the slabs transferring the lateral forces to the stiff basement walls. But since we want the
lateral force to be concentrated on the core, we define the slabs below grade as semi-rigid because.

The joint restraints at the base are considered pinned.

The stiffness modifiers used in the analysis are listed below:

1) Walls:

Modifiers f11 f22 f12 m11 m22 m12

Core walls 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.01
` Basement walls 0.8 0.8 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2

2) Coupling beams:
Modifiers As2 As3 I22 I33
Coupling beam 0.54 0.54 0.25 0.25
3) Slabs:

Modifiers f11 f22 f12 m11 m22 m12

Slabs above ground 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Slabs below ground 1 1 0.025 0.2 0.2 0.2

Modal period of the structure

The building was analyzed in ETABS to calculate the natural period of vibration of the structure. The
mass considered was the entire dead load (including self-weight of members, super imposed dead load
and cladding) + 25% of Snow load.

The lateral period of the structure in the direction of coupled shear walls was found to be 5.266 seconds,
while the lateral period in the cantilever shear wall direction has a period of 4.372 seconds.

4. LOADS

1. Dead Load

Self-weight Auto-generated in ETABS based on concrete density of 24 kN/m3

Super-imposed 0.72 kN/m2

dead load

Dead load due to 1.9 kN/m

cladding Total load due to cladding on each floor = 1.9 * perimeter of floor = 1.9 *
(25.9*4) = 196.84 kN
This load is distributed as an area load over the whole slab
Area load = 196.84 / (25.9^2) = 0.294 kN/m2
2. Snow Load

A uniform area load of 2.4 kN/m2 is applied on the topmost slab. The purpose of including snow load
is only to ensure the participation of the weight of snow in calculating the period of the building.
Hence a detailed snow load calculation has not been carried out.

3. Seismic Load

i. Equivalent Static Load

The equivalent static load has been applied in ETABS as per NBCC 2015 Clause 4.1.8.11.
As per Clause 4.1.8.11.3-(c) of NBCC 2015, the fundamental period of the building with shear walls
as lateral force resisting system can be estimated by.
Ta = 0.05*hw(3⁄4) = 0.05 * 90(3⁄4) = 1.461s
(hw = height of building above grade)
 For shear wall structures, the maximum natural period of the structure that should be used in
calculation of spectral acceleration can be estimates as per Clause 4.1.8.11.3-(d)-(iii)
T = 2 * Ta = 2 * 1.461 = 2.93seconds
Since this period is much smaller than the period calculated by our ETABS model, this period is used
for the equivalent static analysis.
The equivalent static load on each floor is calculated and applied on each floor in ETABS using the
Auto-lateral load feature. The period to be used in the calculation is user defined as 2.93 seconds
(calculated above).
The static load is applied from the foundation level to the top level i.e. at all floors above and below
grade.
ii. Response Spectrum Analysis
For a building located in Vancouver, City Hall and for 5% damping, the spectral acceleration values
for soil site class C as per Table C-3 of Appendix C of NBCC 2015 are shown below:
S(0.2) S(0.5) S(1.0) S(2.0) S(5.0) S(10.0) PGA
0.848 0.751 0.457 0.257 0.08 0.029 0.369

Since our building is located in site Class D, these values are multiplied by the site coefficient F(T)
obtained from Table 4.1.8.4:
F(0.2) F(0.5) F(1.0) F(2.0) F(5.0) F(10.0)
0.9586 1.1586 1.2686 1.3255 1.3824 1.3493

The above values of spectral acceleration are provided by the code in units of ‘g’. To convert these
values in units of mm/sec2 it is multiplied by a factor of 9810. These values are further divided by the
ductility and over-strength modification factors in that direction to get the design forces.

The ground accelerations in the ETABS analysis are applied at the foundation level of the structure.
The structure is very stiff below grade because of the long basement walls and the surrounding soil
which is not modelled in ETABS. Hence the earthquake is likely to be impacted to the structure at
some point between the foundation level and grade level. For this analysis, the seismic forces in the
core at grade level has been considered.

The fundamental period of the structure calculated by ETABS is used the response spectrum analysis.
Since this period is much higher than the max value allowed as per the Code, the response spectrum
loads are multiplied by a scale factor whose calculation is shown below:
 Source / Coupled wall Cantilever wall
Parameter
NBCC ref. direction direction

ETABS Seismic weight 267000.60 kN 267000.60 kN

ETABS Fundamental period from ETABS 5.26 seconds 4.372 seconds

Design base shear Vd
ETABS (from dynamic analysis from model)
3750.18 kN 5766.62 kN
(These are factored design values obtained
after dividing the elastic values with R)
Clause
Empirical period of the structure to be used 2 * 1.465 = 2 * 1.465 =
4.1.8.11.3-(d) in static analysis 2.93s 2.93s

Table C-3 Spectral acceleration @ Sa(2.93) 0.20213 0.20213

Table
Higher Mode Factor (Mv) 1.004 1.004
4.1.8.11

Table 4.1.8.5 Importance Factor 1.0 1.0

Clause
Min lateral earthquake force (V)
10621 kN 14691 kN
4.1.8.11 Equivalent static procedure
Clause
80% of V 8496.8 11752.8
4.1.8.12.8

Scaling factor (V/Vd) 2.266 2.038

5. RESULTS

1. Fundamental Time periods

With columns:

The fundamental period in the coupled wall (x) and cantilever direction (y) was found to be 5.266 s
and 4.372 s respectively. Over 90 % of the mass were made sure to contribute in calculating the
period specifically 97.9% and 96.8% in the x and y direction.

Without columns:

The fundamental period in the coupled wall and cantilever direction was found to be 5.238 s and
4.329 s. This is a slight change from the periods with columns in the structure. This means that since
the columns are pinned at both ends they do not contribute to the lateral stiffness of the structure.

2. Seismic Base shears

Coupling wall direction Cantilever wall direction

Static Base Shear 10621.0 kN 14691.0 kN

Dynamic Base Shear
3750.18 kN 5766.62 kN
(before scaling)
Dynamic Base Shear
8497.9 kN 11752.4 kN
(after scaling)

3. Shear & moment distribution in core walls

The core shear walls would be designed for the following values:

Coupling wall direction Cantilever wall direction

Shear 8497.9 kN 11752.4 kN

Moment 398338.2 kN-m 243685.4 kN-m

The loads are shown for two cases:

Ex & Ey: The equivalent static load as per NBCC 2015
ERSx & ERSy : The dynamic response spectral load

The shear and moment distribution in the coupled wall direction is shown below:
 V3
100

Ex
80 ERSX

60
Elevation (m)

40

20

0
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

-20
Shear (KN)

Figure 1 : Shear distribution in coupled wall direction

M3
100
Ey

ESRY
80

60
Elevation (m)

40

20

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000

-20
Moment (KNm)

Figure 2: Moment distribution in coupled wall direction

The distribution in the cantilever wall direction is shown below:

V2
100 Ey

80 ERSY

60
Elevation (m)

40

20

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

-20
Shear (KN)

Figure 3: Shear distribution in cantilever wall direction

M2
100

80

60
Elevation (m)

40 Ex
ERSX
20

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000

-20
Moment (KNm)

Figure 4: Moment distribution in cantilever wall direction

4. Shear & moment distribution in coupling beams

100
V2 - coupling beam
Ex
80
Ey

ESRX
60
Elevation (m)

ESRY
40

20

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

-20
Moment (KNm)

Figure 5: Shear distribution in coupling beams

M3 - coupling beam
100

Ex
80
Ey

60 ESRX
Elevation (m)

ESRY
40

20

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

-20
Moment (KNm)

Figure 6: Moment distribution in coupling beams

5. Core rotation

Inelastic rotational demand at base is defined in CSA A23.3-14 in clause 21.5.7.2 as:

(∆𝑓 𝑅𝑜 𝑅𝑑 − ∆𝑓 𝛾𝑤 )
𝜃𝑖𝑑 =
𝑙
(ℎ𝑤 − 2𝑤 )

Where ∆𝑓 : 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑠)

𝑅𝑜 : 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

𝑅𝑑 : 𝐷𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

𝛾𝑤 : 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

ℎ𝑤 : 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙

𝑙𝑤 : 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙

 Coupling-walls direction:
∆𝑓 = 1053.9 𝑚𝑚; 𝑅𝑑 = 4; 𝑅𝑜 = 1.7; ℎ𝑤 = 106400 𝑚𝑚 ; 𝑙𝑤 = 7720 𝑚𝑚

As for the wall over-strength factor, we don’t have enough information to calculate, thus it will be
taken as 1.3, which is the minimum value set by the code for the wall over-strength factor, and this
would be considered conservative.

(1053.9 ∗ 4 ∗ 1.7 − 1053.9 ∗ 1.3)

𝜃𝑖𝑑 = = 0.0565 > 0.003 → 𝑂𝐾
7720
(106400 − 2 )

 Cantilever-walls direction:

∆𝑓 = 918.1 𝑚𝑚; 𝑅𝑑 = 3.5; 𝑅𝑜 = 1.6; 𝛾𝑤 = 1.3; ℎ𝑤 = 106400 𝑚𝑚 ; 𝑙𝑤 = 8940 𝑚𝑚

(918.1 ∗ 3.5 ∗ 1.6 − 918.1 ∗ 1.3)

𝜃𝑖𝑑 = = 0.0387 > 0.003 → 𝑂𝐾
8940
(106400 − )
2