Structural Analysis G+2

structural Analysis
29/5/2019
 BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

The residential building is a multistoried building. The design of the building is a sequential and
iterative process. It has been gone through the provided architectural drawing so as the basic
structural system is worked out as accordingly. The scope of the work is to perform structural
analysis and design of this building and to generate municipal drawing with bar bending schedule.
The effort has been made to analyze and generate design sheets and drawings.

The basic aim of the structural design is to build a structure, which is safe, fulfilling the intended
purpose during its estimated life span (50 years), economical in terms of initial and maintenance
cost, durable and also maintaining a good aesthetic appearance. A building is considered to be
structurally sound, if the individual elements and the building as a whole satisfy the criteria for
strength, stability and serviceability and in seismic areas additional criteria for ductility and energy
absorption capabilities. The overall building must be strong enough to transfer all loads through the
structure to the ground without collapsing or losing structural integrity by rupture of the material at
the critical sections, by transformation of the whole or parts into mechanisms or by instability. This
strength criterion is valid for all loads that will normally be applied to the building during its
lifetime. The concern is needed for the structure to have structural integrity. For load transfer
mechanism, loads applied in the buildings are transferred from slab to beam, beam to column and
from column to safely to foundation. In high risk seismic areas, structures should be ductile and
capable of dissipating energy through inelastic actions.

Earthquakes occur due to the vibration of the earth’s surface caused by waves originating from a
source of disturbance inside the earth mass. The cause of vibration may be volcanic eruption,
tectonic activity, landslides, rock falls or even manmade explosions. Although, they last for few
seconds only, they may be the most destructive ones.

During an earthquake, ground motion occurs in a random fashion in all directions. These ground
motions cause structures to vibrate and induce inertial forces on them. Thus structure located in such
locations need to be suitably designed and detailed so as to counteract these forces. During the
shaking event, the level of damage should be such that it can be economically repaired. The main
philosophy of seismic design is, therefore, to obtain a no collapse structure rather than no damage
structure.

Thus, the philosophy of seismic design can be summarized as follows:

1. Resist minor earthquakes without damage.
2. Resist moderate earthquake with minor structural and some non-structural damage.
3. Resist major catastrophic earthquakes without collapse.
The structures are generally designed for much lower seismic forces than what it may actually
experience during its life time. Since the structure is expected to undergo damage in the event of a
severe shaking, reliance is placed on the inelastic response of the structure beyond yield.

Therefore, structures have to be ductile and capable of dissipating energy through inelastic actions.
Ductility can be achieved by avoiding brittle modes of failures. Brittle modes of failures include,
shear and bond failure. Thus, structures should be designed on Weak beam-Strong column
philosophy.

For the lateral load cases, wind load also has to be considered. But in our case, the height to width
ratio of the structure did not exceed 2, so a wind analysis is not required according to the code.

Project information

Owner: Mr.Satya Narayan Bhusal

Building type: Residential

Location: DEVCHULI MUNCIPALITY 13(DALDALE)

Plinth area: 967.5sq.m.

Structural Analysis done By: Er.Bikram Raj Gyawali.

NEC -11609
SCOPE OF WORK

The proper scope of work can be summarized as follows:

• Structural analysis and design of Residential Building.

• Structural Drafting and detailing of structural members

SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The seismic design philosophy has various implications listed below

a) The structures are designed for much lower seismic force than what it may actually
sustain during its lifetime corresponding to the maximum shaking intensity
experienced or forecast at the site. Therefore, philosophically the seismic design is
very different from designs for other effects such as gravity loads on the structure to
ever exceed the design gravity loads.

b) The level of earthquake protection to a structure must account for consequences of

damage for instance.

I) After a major earthquake, the essential services (e.g. electricity, hospitals, and
buildings) are needed for post-earthquake management and relief. Hence, such
facilities need higher level of earthquake protection than is provided to ordinary
buildings.
II) Facilities such as dams and nuclear power plants, if damaged in an earthquake,
can cause catastrophe. Hence, these facilities need maximum level of protection.

SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDING

In order to achieve the above philosophy, seismic design of building attempts to building in the
following four attributes in them.

a) A minimum strength
b) Reasonable stiffness
c) Good ductility and
d) Simple and regular configuration

GEOMETRY OF BUILDING
The building is purely proposed as residential building. From the available architectural drawing, the
plan area of the building is 967.5 sqft. The geometrical properties of the structure included a
maximum length spanning 35’-10” and a maximum width of 27’-0”. The building comprised of
(G+2) storeys with 10’-0” floor height.

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

With due consideration of functional, architectural and economical aspects, a Ductile Moment
Resisting Reinforced Concrete Frame has been considered as an appropriate structural system for
this building. The structural system consist plinth beam, Slab beams and columns. Building has 3
frames towards east-west direction and 4 frames towards north-south direction. External wall
consists of 230 mm thick chimney made brick masonry wall. Internal wall consists of 115 mm thick
chimney made brick. The brick walls are considered as non-load. The foundation system consists of
isolated and combined foundation. The floor system consists of 127 mm thick solid slabs and
150mm thick slabs for staircase.

ASSUMPTIONS

The structural design of any structures can be entirely dependent upon the individual designer. For
our case, following assumptions has been made while performing the structural analysis and design:

• Centre line dimensions are followed for analysis and design.

• For analysis purpose, the beams are assumed to be rectangular so as to distribute slightly
larger moment in columns. In practice a beam that fulfills requirement of flanged section in
design, behaves in between a rectangular and a flanged section for moment distribution.

• For stiffening compression member, effective length factor has been taken as 1.5. This shall
be checked in final calculation.

• Floor diaphragm are considered in every level for the rigid floor action.
• For beams, insertion points are used for the beam to get leveled with top of the slab rather
centrally.

• The main beams rest centrally on columns to avoid local eccentricity.

• The following three loading conditions are considered a) dead load b) live load c) 1.5 dead
load + 1.5 live load. Since the design is carried out using limit state design load factor of 1.5 is
used. The live load on the slab is assumed as 2 KN/m^2 for rooms and 3kN/m2 for balcony
and staircase. Moreover, the floor finish is taken as 1 KN/m^2.
• In addition, the wall load assuming the self-weight of masonry as 19.2 KN/m^3 is taken as
12.1170 KN/m for full brick wall (230mm thick) with 20% reduction due to openings.

• The slab is assumed to be 5” thick, floor main beams are taken as 230mm x 304.8mm and the
concrete columns are assumed to be 304.8mm x 304.8mm.

• Since the building is an residential building, during seismic analysis, the importance factor is
taken as 1.0
• For lateral load, since wind load is not so significant in the region where the site is located but
in contrary very risky in terms of seismic conditions, seismic loads are dominant. And herein,
equivalent lateral loads are taken into consideration using seismic coefficient method.

METHODOLOGY

Preliminary dimensioning of structural members has been done on the basis of provided architectural
drawing. A finite element (FEM) based software, Structural Analysis Program ETABS 2015 is used
for a 3D modeling and analysis. For the analysis of building, beams and columns are modeled with
two nodded frame elements whereas slabs are modeled with three to four nodded thin shell area
element provided in the software.

The modeling is accompanied with different loadings like dead, live, earthquake, with the several
code combinations and the final analysis output is extracted in Microsoft excel workbook and the
design was carried out from the ETABS 2015 design at the critical sections of structural elements.
Lateral load analysis is done with the help of seismic coefficient method for the earthquake load
(auto-seismic which has been compared with manually calculated respective seismic weights floor-
wise and lateral load distribution).

The following six steps are used in the Finite element analysis of any structure.
 Idealize the structure into a number of elements
 Develop the element stiffness matrix using constitutive law.
 Assemble the element stiffness to form global stiffness matrix using compatibility and
equilibrium.
 Apply necessary boundary conditions
 Solve the equations [K]{r}={R} where [K] is the structural stiffness matrix, {r} –
generalized displacements and {R} – generalized forces.
 Knowing the displacements solve for elemental stresses.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Concrete: Density = 24.4KN/m^3

Modulus of Elasticity = 5000*sqrt(fck) MPa
Grade of Concrete (fck) = 20MPa; Poisson's ratio = 0.3
Grade of Concrete (fck) = 20MPa
Steel: Density = 78.5KN/m^3
Modulus of Elasticity = 2E5 MPa
Grade of Steel
Main rebar = 500MPa
Stirrups = 500MPa
Poisson's ratio = 0.3
Density of Brick = 19.2KN/m^3
LOAD CASES AND COMBINATIONS

TYPES OF LOADINGS
a) Dead Loads
Dead loads include the self-weight of the structure and all other permanent loads such as partitions,
floor finish, etc, which are fixed in position and invariable with time. Dead loads are calculated
based on IS 875 Part I; 1987. While including in software, the load with self-multiplier will be
incorporated directly with the help of their sizes, thicknesses and material properties and
selfmultiplier having 0 should be separately assigned.

The dead load considered for the ETABS 2015 analysis is as follows:

a.230mm thick wall load : 12.117kN/m

b.115mm thick wall load : 7.9kN/m
c.Parapet wall load : 2.5kN/m
d.Floor finish : 1 kN/m2

b) Live Loads
Live loads include movable or moving loads without acceleration. This includes movable partitions,
furniture, equipments, people, vehicles, stored materials, etc. Live loads are calculated based on IS
875 Part II; 1987

The live load considered for the ETABS 2015 analysis is as follows:

a.Rooms (Dinning Room, Kitchen room etc.) : 3kN/m2

 b.Balcony, staircase : 3kN/m2
c.Roof (accessible) : 1kN/m2
d.Roof (non accessible) : 1kN/m2
Earthquake loads
Since the building is located in highly earthquake prone zone, it is important to consider the lateral
earthquake load rather than wind load. For the analysis, seismic coefficient method is used in which
equivalent static loads are used to simulate the earthquake ground motions. The building is classified
as a residential building

Calculation of Base Shear

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principal direction shall be
determined by the following expression: where

Vb= AhW, Where

Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value as per 6.4.2, using the fundamental natural
period T, as per 7.6 in the considered direction of vibration, and Seismic weight of the building as
per 7.4.2.

Importance Factor (I): From Table 6 in IS 1893 Part I: 2002, an importance factor of 1.0 has been
chosen for this building.

Zoning Factor (Z): Seismic Zoning factor has been chosen as per Table 2 in IS 1893 Part I: 2002,
its value is 0.36 with very severe seismic intensity zone.

Response Reduction Factor (R): Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic
damage performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations. However, the
ratio (I/R ) shall not be greater than 1.0 ( Table 7). The values of R for buildings are givenin Table 7.

Soil profile type: The Site is classified as sub soil category of Sub soil Type II
 Figur -2: 3D Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5 percent damping (IS 1893 Part 1:
2002)

Load cases are the independent loadings for which the structure is explicitly analyzed.
Earthquake forces occur in random fashion in all directions. For buildings whose lateral load
resisting elements are oriented in two principal directions, it is usually sufficient to analyze in
these to principal directions (X and Y direction) separately one at a time. Thus, the load cases
adopted are as follows:

i.Dead Load (DL)

ii. Live Load (LL)
iii. Earthquake load in X direction (Eqx)
iv. Earthquake load in Y direction (Eqy)

LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations are the loadings formed by the linear combination of the independent loading
conditions. The different load cases have been combined as per Clause 6.3.1.2 of IS 1893 Part II;
2002. The load combinations are as follows:

1) 1.5 DL + 1.5 LL
2) 1.2 (DL+LL+Eqx)
3) 1.2 (DL+LL-Eqx)
 4) 1.2 (DL+LL+Eqy)
5) 1.2 (DL+LL-Eqy)
6) 1.5(DL+Eqx)
7) 1.5(DL-Eqx)
8) 1.5(DL+Eqy)
9) 1.5(DL-Eqy)
10) 0.9DL+1.5Eqx
11) 0.9DL-1.5Eqx
12) 0.9DL+1.5Eqy

13) 13)0.9DL-1.5Eqy

c)Wind load
Since probability of occurrence of earthquake load and wind load simultaneously is very low,
there is no need to consider wind load as the structure is designed for earthquake resistance.

MODELING OF BUILDING

The building has been modeled in Etabs 2015. The modeling of the structural geometry begins
with the generation of joints, each with a unique identification number. The sequence of generation
of joints and that of members is an important process as this will help organizing the work better and
will be helpful in automation of the work.

We want in earthquake construction the beam column joints to be rigid and do not fail. So taking
this into account while modeling the structure; the joints can be assigned a rigid end factor between 0
and 1. In the given problem, the moment resisting joints have been considered to have full rigidity
i.e. rigid end factor is taken to be 1.

Next, the model is completed by connection the joints with frame members i.e. beams and
columns. All the columns and primary beams have been modeled. The modeling of the infill has also
been excluded because the code renders the masonry infill as non-structural components. Although,
their weight, acting as line load on the beams, has been taken into account.

Etabs 2015 version 7.4 and older ones don’t support automatic computation of slab loads directly to
beams. For example, a rectangular panel will have a triangular load distribution on shorter beams
and a trapezoidal load on longer beams. But Etabs 2015 distributes the slab load equally to the four
joints and not on the beams. To overcome this problem, a program was used. This program takes the
st5ructural geometry of the building from Etabs 2015 and using user defined input files for slab
loads distributes the loads onto the beams supporting the slabs.

(a)Seismic weight calculations and distribution of total horizontal load to different floor level.
The seismic weights are calculated in a manner similar to gravity loads. The loads of columns
and walls in any storey shall be equally distributed to the floors above and below storey. Zero
live load is taken on terrace, 25% on other floors (IS:1893(Part I):2002, clause 7.4). the seismic
weight of floor is the lump weight, which act at the respective floor level at the center of mass of
floor.

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

The analysis has been carried out using a standard software package ETABS 2015 based on finite
element method (FEM). The software is capable of carrying out a three dimensional analysis. It is
windows based software. It has a user friendly graphical input and output interface. It can account
for the rigid zones at the beam - column junction. It has a capability to create a special joint at any
grid intersection. A full 3D finite element model using frame elements has been created using
ETABS 2015.

A three dimensional Linear elastic analysis has been carried out. A model based on Rigid Diaphragm
Concept has been considered. This is done by defining a diaphragm in each floor level and assigning
all these joint constraints at this level by a diaphragm constraint.

Fig-3: Use of Diaphragm Constraint to model a Rigid Floor Slab

The structure is assumed to be fixed at the basement level. Below plinth beams raft foundation has
been provided since the axial load in centrally located column has significant values and to
incorporate these values with sufficient bearing area, the areas were lapped, hence the raft
foundation was proposed. The stiffness contribution of brick walls on the structure has been ignored
and the building has been modeled as a “Bare Frame” with no infill wall panels. The flange effect of
the slab has been neglected. The beams have been modeled as rectangular beams.

The seismic forces determined by seismic analysis can be checked with the lateral load applied
automatically by using IS 1893: 2002 in ETABS 2015. As the lateral load is applied in any direction,
it will act through center of mass. To counter this force, resisting force is acted on center of rigidity.
If the center of mass and stiffness doesn't coincide, the torsion will be generated by the applied force
and eccentricity. Hence, the lateral force and extra torsion will be acting about center of rigidity.

Figure -4: Application of Seismic Force at Floor Level

Calculation of design seismic forces

After calculating Base shear (as mentioned in previous section), the horizontal seismic force is
distributed at each level i according to the following equation:

Fi = V Wi hi2/ ∑ Wi hi^2
The effort has been made to reduce the eccentricity wrt to center of mass and center of rigidity. So, it
is calculated manually which obviously didn't coincide due to the plan irregularity of the building.
According to FEMA 310, the allowable eccentricity can be limited to 20% of perpendicular
dimension of the building. In this case, the eccentricities are well below this value. Even though,
iterations were made in the sizes of columns and shear walls to the reduced eccentricities. After
analyzing the model in ETABS 2015, modal analysis is performed in which 15 modes are taken into
consideration with Ritz vector. Total mass participation of more than 90% was obtained in the first
15 modes, so as we can say the building is somehow regular. But the first mode is a torsional type.
To avoid this torsion in first mode, lots of iterations is done. The best solution is to replace life core
shear walls by masonry walls. Moreover, least number of additional walls is added where required.
DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL MEMBER

Design of structural elements has been carried out as per IS 456: 2000 Design Templates and tables
have been developed in MS Excel. Extensive use of Design aids SP 16 has been made. Moreover, IS
13920: 1993 has been used frequently for the ductile detailing purpose.

BEAMS
Longitudinal Reinforcement in beams are calculated based on the critical moments and are picked up
from the envelopes of bending moment diagrams. Top Steel is provided as per maximum computed
area of steel. Bottom steel is provided for maximum value out of compression steel for top steel, half
of tension steel of top steel and bottom tension steel. Spacing of lateral ties is as per ductility
requirements.

The reinforcement required in the beam section is calculated from the ETABS 2015 output and is
illustrated in the given structural drawing.

COLUMNS
Longitudinal reinforcement in columns has been calculated for axial force – bending moment
corresponding to critical load combination. Symmetrical arrangement of reinforcement has
been adopted. The spacing of lateral ties is as per ductility requirements.

The reinforcement required in the column section is calculated from the ETABS 2015 output and is
illustrated in the given structural drawing.

SLAB
The depth of slab is governed by deflection criteria. The thickness of the slab works out to be
127mm. Design has been carried out as per moment coefficient method outlined in IS 456: 2000.

Cantilever slab is provided at east and west side of the building. The design calculation for the
cantilever slab is included in Annex-III of this report. Provide 10mmɸ@150mm c/c as main bars
And 10mmɸ@150mm c/c as distribution bars

FOUNDATION
The foundation sizes are entirely dependent on vertical loads and allowable bearing capacity of the
soil. Since the vertical loads are significant isolated footing is proposed for the building. The depth
of the foundation is 5’ below the ground level.

IS1893 2002 Auto Seismic Load Calculation

This calculation presents the automatically generated lateral seismic loads for load pattern Ex
according to IS1893 2002, as calculated by ETABS.
Direction and Eccentricity
Direction = X
Structural Period
User Period T =0.489 sec
Factors and Coefficients

Seismic Zone Factor, Z [IS Table 2] Z=0.36

Response Reduction Factor, R [IS Table 7] R=5
Importance Factor, I [IS Table 6] I=1
Site Type [IS Table 1] = III

Seismic Response
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Sa /g [IS S a 1.67 Sa
6.4.5] = =1.67
g T g

Equivalent Lateral Forces

 Sa
ZI
Seismic Coefficient, Ah [IS 6.4.2] g
Ah =
2R

Calculated Base Shear

Period
W Vb
Direction Used
(kN) (kN)
(sec)
X 0.489 1575.5375 141.7984

Applied Story Forces

 Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir
m kN kN
Staircase
13.1064 24.4574 0
Cover
Story3 10.668 73.6966 0
Story2 7.62 34.9155 0
Story1 4.572 8.7289 0
Plinth
1.524 0 0
Level
Base 0 0 0
IS1893 2002 Auto Seismic Load Calculation

This calculation presents the automatically generated lateral seismic loads for load pattern Ey according
to IS1893 2002, as calculated by ETABS.
Direction and Eccentricity

Direction = Y
Structural Period

Period Calculation Method = User Specified

User Period T =0.489 sec

Factors and Coefficients

Seismic Zone Factor, Z [IS Table 2] Z=0.36

Response Reduction Factor, R [IS Table 7] R=5
Importance Factor, I [IS Table 6] I =1
Site Type [IS Table 1] = II

Seismic Response

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Sa /g Sa Sa

[IS 6.4.5]
=2.5 =2.5
g g

Equivalent Lateral Forces

Sa
ZI
Seismic Coefficient, Ah [IS 6.4.2] g
Ah =
2R

Calculated Base Shear

Period
W Vb
Direction Used
(kN) (kN)
(sec)
Y 0.489 1575.5375 141.7984
Applied Story Forces

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

m kN kN
Staircase
13.1064 0 24.4574
Cover
Story3 10.668 0 73.6966
Story2 7.62 0 34.9155
Story1 4.572 0 8.7289
Plinth
1.524 0 0
Level
Base 0 0 0
1 Structure Data

This chapter provides model geometry information, including items such as story levels, point coordinates, and
element connectivity.

1.1 Story Data

Table 1.1 - Story Data

Height Elevation Master Splice
Name Similar To
mm mm Story Story
Staircase
2438.4 13106.4 No None No
Cover
Story3 3048 10668 No None No
Story2 3048 7620 No Plinth Level No
Story1 3048 4572 No Plinth Level No
Plinth Level 1524 1524 Yes None No
Base 0 0 No None No

2 Loads

This chapter provides loading information as applied to the model.

2.1 Load Patterns

Table 2.1 - Load Patterns

Self
Name Type Weight Auto Load
Multiplier
Dead Dead 1
Live Live 0
Superimpose
outer wall 0
d Dead
Superimpose
inner wall 0
d Dead
Superimpose
parapet 0
d Dead
staircase Superimpose
0
load d Dead
Superimpose
floor finish 0
d Dead
Live roof Roof Live 0
Reducible
Live load >3 0
Live
Reducible
Live floor 0
Live
IS1893
EQX Seismic 0
2002
IS1893
EQY Seismic 0
2002

2.2 Load Case Table 2.2 - Load Cases - Summary

Name Type
Dead Linear Static
Live Linear Static
outer wall Linear Static
 Name Type
inner wall Linear Static
parapet Linear Static
staircase
Linear Static
load
floor finish Linear Static
Live roof Linear Static
Live load >3 Linear Static
Live floor Linear Static
EQX Linear Static
EQY Linear Static

3 Analysis Results

This chapter provides analysis results. Table 2.2.1 - Base Reactions

Load
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ X Y Z
Case/Com
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m m m m
bo
Dead 0 0 1736.6928 7341.5069 -9439.0154 0 0 0 0
outer wall 0 0 1123.7252 4401.2434 -5566.9081 0 0 0 0
inner wall 0 0 442.1225 1958.0493 -1987.1194 0 0 0 0
parapet 0 0 68.1228 316.1781 -218.4174 0 0 0 0
staircase
0 0 177.6313 532.3967 -1646.73 0 0 0 0
load
floor finish 0 0 311.556 1379.33 -1590.0951 0 0 0 0
Live roof 0 0 144.0624 612.3236 -668.8071 0 0 0 0
Live floor 0 0 303.1534 1281.7226 -1476.936 0 0 0 0
EQX -141.7984 0 0 0 -1412.7085 570.2816 0 0 0
EQY 0 -141.7984 0 1412.7085 0 -835.4396 0 0 0
DCon1 0 0 5789.776 23893.0566 -30672.4281 0 0 0 0
DCon2 0 0 6244.506 25815.6405 -32887.832 0 0 0 0
DCon3 -170.1581 0 4995.6048 20652.5124 -28005.5158 684.3379 0 0 0
DCon4 170.1581 0 4995.6048 20652.5124 -24615.0154 -684.3379 0 0 0
DCon5 0 -170.1581 4995.6048 22347.7626 -26310.2656 -1002.5275 0 0 0
DCon6 0 170.1581 4995.6048 18957.2622 -26310.2656 1002.5275 0 0 0
DCon7 -212.6976 0 5789.776 23893.0566 -32791.4908 855.4224 0 0 0
DCon8 212.6976 0 5789.776 23893.0566 -28553.3654 -855.4224 0 0 0
DCon9 0 -212.6976 5789.776 26012.1193 -30672.4281 -1253.1593 0 0 0
DCon10 0 212.6976 5789.776 21773.9939 -30672.4281 1253.1593 0 0 0
DCon11 -212.6976 0 3473.8656 14335.834 -20522.5196 855.4224 0 0 0
DCon12 212.6976 0 3473.8656 14335.834 -16284.3941 -855.4224 0 0 0
DCon13 0 -212.6976 3473.8656 16454.8967 -18403.4569 -1253.1593 0 0 0
DCon14 0 212.6976 3473.8656 12216.7712 -18403.4569 1253.1593 0 0 0

Structure Results

Table 3.2 - Centers of Mass and Rigidity

 Cumulati Cumulati
Diaphrag Mass X Mass Y XCM YCM XCCM YCCM XCR YCR
Story ve X ve Y
m kg kg m m m m m m
kg kg
Story1 D1 51294.15 51294.15 5.1522 4.3693 51294.15 51294.15 5.1522 4.3693 5.6 4.1708
Story2 D2 51294.15 51294.15 5.1522 4.3693 51294.15 51294.15 5.1522 4.3693 5.5674 4.2075
Story3 D3 48118.82 48118.82 5.2084 4.339 48118.82 48118.82 5.2084 4.339 5.5652 4.2165
Staircase
D4 9952.98 9952.98 9.2706 2.4458 9952.98 9952.98 9.2706 2.4458 7.5451 3.2139
Cover

Story Response - Maximum Story Displacement

Summary Description

This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.

Input Data

Name StoryResp3
Display Type Max story displ Story Range All Stories
Load Case EQX Top Story Staircase Cover
Output Type Not Applicable Bottom Story Base

Plot
Tabulated Plot Coordinates
Story Response Values
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Y-Dir
m mm mm
Staircase Cover 13.1064 Top 13.3 0.6
Story3 10.668 Top 11.9 0.7
Story2 7.62 Top 9.1 0.5
Story1 4.572 Top 5.4 0.2
Plinth Level 1.524 Top 1 3.333E-02
Base 0 Top 0 0

Story Response - Maximum Story Displacement

Summary Description
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.

Input Data

Name StoryResp2
Display Type Max story displ Story Range All Stories
Load Case EQY Top Story Staircase Cover
Output Type Not Applicable Bottom Story Base

Plot
Tabulated Plot Coordinates
Story Response Values
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Y-Dir
m mm mm
Staircase Cover 13.1064 Top 0.9 15.5
Story3 10.668 Top 0.8 14
Story2 7.62 Top 0.5 10.6
Story1 4.572 Top 0.3 6.2
Plinth Level 1.524 Top 4.705E-02 1.1
Base 0 Top 0 0

3.4.1,Fig1 – plain
3.4,Fig1 – Renforcement Extracted
Rebar %
Axial force diagram and Bending moment diagram
Table 3.5 - Story Stiffness
Stiffness Stiffness
Load Shear X Drift X Shear Y Drift Y
Story X Y
Case kN mm kN mm
kN/m kN/m
Stair Top Ex 0 0.453 0 0 0.002 1.188E-05
Story3 Ex 106.9841 2.911 36753.79 0 0.016 0
Story2 Ex 192.236 4.944 38881.226 0 0.031 0
Story1 Ex 213.5489 5.78 36947.495 0 0.037 0
Plinth Ex 213.5489 1.228 173864.503 0 0.008 0
Stair Top Ey 0 0.018 0 0 0.337 0
Story3 Ey 0 0.167 0 105.7577 2.919 36230.604
Story2 Ey 0 0.206 0 190.0323 4.966 38268.605
Story1 Ey 0 0.188 0 211.1009 5.778 36537.398
Plinth Ey 0 0.048 0 211.1009 1.223 172607.619

3.3 Modal Results

Table 3.6 - Modal Periods and Frequencies

Circular
Frequenc Eigenvalu
Period Frequenc
Case Mode y e
sec y
cyc/sec rad²/sec²
rad/sec
Modal 1 0.63 1.588 9.9766 99.5326
Modal 2 0.596 1.679 10.5506 111.316
Modal 3 0.538 1.859 11.6799 136.4209
Modal 4 0.193 5.193 32.6313 1064.8027
Modal 5 0.185 5.403 33.9468 1152.3844
Modal 6 0.167 5.998 37.6895 1420.5015
Modal 7 0.111 9.025 56.7039 3215.3376
Modal 8 0.107 9.378 58.9263 3472.3119
Modal 9 0.095 10.57 66.4151 4410.9677
Modal 10 0.091 11.019 69.2327 4793.1692
Modal 11 0.087 11.512 72.3321 5231.9344
Modal 12 0.074 13.472 84.6488 7165.4273

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

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY Sum UZ
sec
Modal 1 0.63 2.262E-05 0.8716 0 2.262E-05 0.8716 0
Modal 2 0.596 0.8717 0.0001 0 0.8718 0.8717 0
Modal 3 0.538 0.0036 0.0021 0 0.8753 0.8738 0
Modal 4 0.193 0.0005 0.0626 0 0.8758 0.9364 0
Modal 5 0.185 0.0618 0.0004 0 0.9376 0.9368 0
Modal 6 0.167 0.0004 0.0013 0 0.9381 0.9381 0
Modal 7 0.111 0.004 0.0056 0 0.942 0.9437 0
Modal 8 0.107 0.0053 0.0038 0 0.9473 0.9475 0
Modal 9 0.095 0 0.0012 0 0.9473 0.9487 0
Modal 10 0.091 0.0009 0.001 0 0.9482 0.9496 0
Modal 11 0.087 0.0021 0.0009 0 0.9503 0.9505 0
Modal 12 0.074 0.0001 0.0004 0 0.9504 0.9509 0
 Table 3.8 - Modal Participating Mass Ratios (Part 2 of 2)
Case Mode RX RY RZ Sum RX Sum RY Sum RZ
Modal 1 0.1415 1.053E-05 0.0014 0.1415 1.053E-05 0.0014
Modal 2 8.741E-06 0.1389 0.0029 0.1416 0.1389 0.0043
Modal 3 0.0094 0.0009 0.86 0.151 0.1399 0.8643
Modal 4 0.602 0.0048 0.002 0.753 0.1447 0.8663
Modal 5 0.0033 0.6145 0.0011 0.7563 0.7592 0.8674
Modal 6 0.007 0.0036 0.0617 0.7633 0.7628 0.9291
Modal 7 0.0097 0.0068 0.0008 0.773 0.7696 0.9299
Modal 8 0.0067 0.0088 0.0017 0.7797 0.7784 0.9316
Modal 9 0.005 1.304E-05 0.0089 0.7847 0.7784 0.9406
Modal 10 0.0036 0.0033 0.0003 0.7884 0.7818 0.9409
Modal 11 0.0041 0.0107 0.0004 0.7925 0.7924 0.9413
Modal 12 0.0031 0.0014 0.0025 0.7956 0.7938 0.9438

Table 3.9 - Modal Load Participation Ratios

Static Dynamic
Case Item Type Item
% %
Modal Acceleration UX 99.98 95.04
Modal Acceleration UY 99.99 95.09
Modal Acceleration UZ 0 0

Table 3.10 - Modal Direction Factors

Period
Case Mode UX UY UZ RZ
sec
Modal 1 0.63 0 0.999 0 0.001
Modal 2 0.596 0.997 0 0 0.002
Modal 3 0.538 0.02 0.08 0 0.9
Modal 4 0.193 0.008 0.966 0 0.026
Modal 5 0.185 0.983 0.005 0 0.012
Modal 6 0.167 0.03 0.156 0 0.814
Modal 7 0.111 0.438 0.521 0 0.041
Modal 8 0.107 0.519 0.312 0 0.169
Modal 9 0.095 0.021 0.404 0 0.575
Modal 10 0.091 0.162 0.161 0 0.678
Modal 11 0.087 0.73 0.208 0 0.062
Modal 12 0.074 0.094 0.186 0 0.72
REFERENCES

• IS 875 Part I; Design Loads (Dead Load based on Materials)

• IS 875 Part II; Design Load (Live/Imposed Load)
• IS 1893 Part I: 2002; Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
• IS 456:2000; Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice
• SP: 16-1980; Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS: 456-1978
• SP: 34-1987; Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement Detailing
• Pillai, S. U., Menon, D.; Reinforced Concrete Design, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Company Ltd, New Delhi, 1998.

• Sinha, S. N.; Reinforced Concrete Design, Second Edition, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Company Ltd, New Delhi, 1996

• Varghese, P. C.; Limit State Design of Reinforced Concrete, Prentice Hall of India
Private Ltd, New Delhi, 1999.

• Jain, A. K.; Reinforced Concrete, Limit State Design, Fifth Edition, Nem Chand and
Bros, Roorkee, 1999

• Rosenblueth, E. (Ed.); Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures, Pentech Press, London,

1980.

• Stratta, J.L.; Manual of Seismic Design, Pearson Education, 1987.

• Jain, S. K., Murthy, C. V. R.; A Short Course on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings, Lecture Notes, Kathmandu, December 1997.

• CEB; Seismic Design of Concrete Structures, Comite Euro-Internaional du Beton (CEB),

Gower Technical Press Ltd., England, 1987.

• Varyani, U. H.; Structural Design of Multi – Storied Buildings, Second Edition, South
Asian Publishers Private Ltd., New Delhi, 2002.