Anda di halaman 1dari 97

Seismic Design of Multi-storey Buildings:

IS-1893 vs. Eurocode-8

Structural Analysis Methods

Abdelghani Meslem, PhD & Dominik Lang, PhD


Department of Earthquakes and the Environment
NORSAR, Kjeller, Norway
IS-1893-1:2002 - NE 1998-1:2004

IS 1893-1:
2002 IS-1893 Provisions
Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures
Part 1: General provisions and buildings

EN 1998-1:
2004
Eurocode-8 Provisions
Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Table of contents
IS 1893-1:2002 vs. EN 1998-1:2004
IS 1893-1: Dynamic Characteristics
2002
Seismic Masses
Fundamental Natural Period
Methods of analysis
Design Lateral Force Method
Modal Response Spectrum Method
Linear Time History Method
EN 1998-1:
2004 Components of seismic action
Accidental/Torsional Effects
Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)
Select and Scale Earthquake Records
Contribution of Joint Regions

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Dynamic Characteristics: Seismic Masses
IS 1893-1:2002
 the seismic weight of each floor (k) is its full Dead Load (DL) plus appropriate amount of
Imposed Load (IL).
 IS 1893-1: 2002, 7.4
 DLk + ILk

 the seismic weight of the whole building is the sum of the seismic weights of all the floors.

 ∑k (DLk + ILk )
DL + IL

Percentage of imposed load (IL) to be considered in seismic


weight calculation (IS-1893-1:2002, Table 8)

Imposed Uniformity Distributed Percentage of


Floor Loads (kN/m2) Load
Up to and icluding 3,0 25
Above 3,0 50

 the imposed load shall also be considered for roof.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Dynamic Characteristics: Seismic Masses
EN 1998-1:2004

 composed of permanent and participating live loads

Gk + ∑i (ΨEi  QKi)  EN 1998-1:2004, 3.2.4

with: ΨEi - combination coefficient for variable action


Ψ2i - occupancy type coefficient
φ - load type coefficient

 ΨEi = φ  Ψ2i

Storey φ Occupancy type Ψ2

Roof 1.00 Residential, office 0.30

storeys with correlated occupancies 0.80 Public, commercial (shops), parking 0.60

Interdependently occupied storeys 0.50 Roof with snow 0.20

Archives 1.00 Archives, libraries, staircases 0.80

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Dynamic Characteristics: Fundamental Natural Period
IS 1893-1:2002

 for moment-resisting frame building without brick infill panels:

Ta  0 ,075  H 0.75 for RC frame building


 0 ,085  H 0.75 for steel frame building

H: Height of building, in m. This excludes the basement stories, where basement walls are
connected with the ground floor deck or fitted between the building columns. But it
includes the basement stories, when they are not so connected.

 Approximate Ta, in seconds, of all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame


buildings with brick infill panels, may be estimated by the empirical expression:

0,09
Ta  H
d

d: Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction
of the lateral force.
 IS 1893-1: 2002, 7.6
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Dynamic Characteristics: Fundamental Natural Period
EN 1998-1:2004

 based on any equation coming from structural mechanics (e.g. Rayleigh method)
 for building heights H  40 m :

T1  C t  H0.75 with: Ct - structural coefficient


H - building height (in [m]) from foundation or
top of a rigid basement
 Ct = 0.085 for moment-resistant steel frames
0.075 for moment-resistant concrete frames and eccentrically braced steel frames
0.050 for all other structures
Ct = 0.075 / √Ac for building with concrete or masonry shear walls
with Ac:


Ac   Ai  (0.2  (lwi /H)2 ) 
with: Ac - total effective area of the shear walls in the first storey (in [m2])
Ai - effective cross-sectional area of shear wall i (in [m2])
lwi - length of shear wall i parallel to applied forces

 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Modeling Specifications: Planar (2D) & Spatial (3D)
 if regular in plan, planar (2D) models may be used for each direction X and Y

Regularity
Model type
Plan Elevation
● ●
planar (2D)
● ○
○ ●
spatial (3D)
○ ○

Ideally, the building should be modelled as three-dimensional. In some cases the


analyst may wish to use two-dimensional (planar) in order to reduce the calculation
effort. However, this later may be acceptable for buildings with regular geometries
where the response in each orthogonal direction is independent and torsional
response is not significant.

Regular/Irregular Configurations  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.1


 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.2.3

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Modeling Specifications: Masses Lumped System
 if floor diaphrams are rigid in plane, masses and moments of inertia may be lumped at the
centre of gravity  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.1

 A floor diaphragm shall be considered rigid if horizontal displacements at


any point do not exceed more than 10 % of the rigid diaphragm
assumption.  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.1

 A floor diaphragm shall be considered to be flexible, if it deforms such that


the maximum lateral displacement measured from the chord of the deformed
shape at any point of the diaphragm is more than 1,5 times the average
displacement of the entire diaphragm.  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.7.2

m4 m4
k


m3 m3
k
m2 m2
m1 k
m1
k*
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Modeling Specifications: Masses Lumped System

 Buildings with regular, or nominally irregular plan configurations may be modeled as a


system of masses lumped at the floor levels.  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4.5

m4 m4
k


m3 m3
k
m2 m2
m1 k
m1
k*
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Methods of Analysis
Analysis methods specified in IS 1893-1:2002 and EN 1998-1:2004

low complexity
of computation

(1) Design Lateral Force Method  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.7


 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2

(2) Response Spectrum Method  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4


 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

(3) Linear Time History Method  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.3


 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

high complexity
of computation

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method

 Buildings shall be deisgned and constructed to resist the effects of design lateral force
as a MINIMUM  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.5

This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to represent the effect of
earthquake ground motion, typically defined by a seismic design response spectrum.

Criteria :
 shall be applied to buildings whose response is principally dominated by the 1st mode:

 4  TC
T1    EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2
2,0 sec

 and that are regular in elevation

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method

 Buildings shall be deisgned and constructed to resist the effects of design lateral force
as a MINIMUM  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.5

This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to represent the effect of
earthquake ground motion, typically defined by a seismic design response spectrum.

Criteria (cont'd):
 and that are regular in elevation

Regularity Allowed simplification


Plan Elevation in modeling
● ● planar
○ ● spatial

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method

Steps:
Step 1: the design lateral force shall first be computed for the building as a whole
Step 2: this deisgn lateral force shall then be distributed to the various floor levels
Step 3: the overall design seismic force thus obtained at each floor level, shall
then be distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements depending on
the floor diaphgram action

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method
IS 1893-1:2002
Design base shear VB :
 Total design lateral force shall be determined for each horizontal VB
direction by the following expresssion:

VB  Ah  W  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.5

with: Ah - design horizontal seismic coefficient for the structure, using the fundamental period Ta
W- seismic weight of the building.

Z  I Sa
Ah    IS 1893-1:2002, 6.4.2
2 R g
Z = seismic zone factor (given in Table 2 Clause 6.4.2);
I = importance factor depending upon the functional use of the structure (given in Table 6 Clause 6.4.2 );
R = response reduction factor depending on the perceived seismic damage performance of the structure
(given in Table 7 Clause 6.4.2);
Sa/g = average response acceleration coefficient.  IS 1893-1: 2002, 6.4.1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method
IS 1893-1:2002
Calculation of average acceleration coefficient at T=Ta:
 IS 1893-1: 2002, 6.4.1
Horizontal components of the seismic action:
For rocky, or hard soil sites
1  15  T 0,00 ≤ T ≤ 0,10
Sa 
  2 ,50 0,10 ≤ T ≤ 0,40
g 
 1,00 T 0,40 ≤ T ≤ 4,00

For medium soil sites


1  15  T 0,00 ≤ T ≤ 0,10
Sa 
  2 ,50 0,10 ≤ T ≤ 0,55
g 
 1,36 T 0,55 ≤ T ≤ 4,00
For the purpose of determining seismic forces,
For soft soil sites
the country is classified into four seismic zones
1  15  T 0,00 ≤ T ≤ 0,10
The design acceleration spectrum for vertical
Sa 
  2 ,50 0,10 ≤ T ≤ 0,67 motions, when required, may be taken as two-
g 
 1,67 T 0,67 ≤ T ≤ 4,00 thirds of the design horizontal acceleration
spectrum.
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(1) Design Lateral Force Method
IS 1893-1:2002
Calculation of average acceleration coefficient at T=Ta:
 IS 1893-1: 2002, 6.4.1

For rocky, or hard soil sites


1  15  Ta 0,00 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,10
Sa 
  2,50 0,10 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,40
g 
 1,00 Ta 0,40 ≤ Ta ≤ 4,00
For medium soil sites
1  15  Ta 0,00 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,10
Sa 
  2,50 0,10 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,55
g  Ta
 1,36 Ta 0,55 ≤ Ta ≤ 4,00
For soft soil sites Example: 4-story building
1  15  Ta 0,00 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,10 For medium soil site (Soil Type II)
Sa 
  2,50 0,10 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,67
g  Ta = 0,4 sec → 0,10 ≤ Ta ≤ 0,55
 1,67 Ta 0,67 ≤ Ta ≤ 4,00
→ Sa/g = 2,5
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(1) Design Lateral Force Method
IS 1893-1:2002

Vertical distribution of base shear to different floor levels:


 calculation of horizontal design forces Qi to all storey levels can be done as per the
following expression
h3 Q3 W3

Wi  hi2 h2 Q2 W2
Qi  VB  n  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.7
W j  h j 2
j 1
h1 Q1 W1

Qi = design lateral force at floor i;


Wi = seismic weight of floor i;
hi = height of floor i measured from base; and
n = number of storeys in the building (the number of levels ayt which the masses are located).

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method
EN 1998-1:2004

Base shear force Fb :


 shall be calculated for each horizontal direction

Fb  Sd (T1 )  m    EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2 Fb

with:
Sd (T1) = ordinate of the design spectrum at T1
M= total mass of the building
= correction factor = 0.85 if T1  2TC and the building has more than 2 storeys.
Otherwise  = 1.0

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method
EN 1998-1:2004
Calculation of design spectral acceleration Sa,d :
 dependent on soil class and behavior factor q
 EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2

 2 T 2.5 2 
for 0 ≤ T1 ≤ TB : S a ,d ( T1 )  a g  S    1  (  )
 3 TB q 3 

Spectral acceleration Sa,d


q=1
2.5
for TB ≤ T1 ≤ TC : S a ,d ( T1 )  a g  S  q=2
q
q=4
2.5  TC 
for TC ≤ T1 ≤ TD : S a ,d ( T1 )  a g  S   
q  T1 
TB TC T1 TD
Period T [sec]
2.5  TC  TD 
for TD ≤ T1 ≤ 4 s : S a ,d ( T1 )  a g  S   2 
q  T1 

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral Force Method
EN 1998-1:2004
Distribution of horizontal seismic forces:
 calculation of horizontal forces Fi to all storey levels can be done by two ways

Type A (dependent on height of masses): z3 F3 m3

z m z2 F2 m2
Fi  Fb  i i  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2
 z j  mj z1 F1 m1

with: zi  height of the respective mass i

Type B (dependent on absolute horizontal displacement of masses): m3


F3 s3
s m m2
Fi  Fb  i i  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2 F2 s2
 s j  mj m1
s1
F1
with: si  lateral displacement of mass i in the 1st mode

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral force Nethod: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 1

m3
3-story RC frame building (residential use) m2
3 x 3.5 m
m1
1. Seismic masses:

Gk + ∑i (ΨEi  QKi) Ground type C

residential use → ΨEi = φ  Ψ2i = 0.8  0.3 = 0.24

Level G [kN] Q [kN] G+ Ψ  Q [kN] Mass mi [tons]


3 260 120 289 29.44
Units:
2 350 140 384 39.10
1 750 300 822 83.79
1kN  1000N
kg  m
Total seismic mass m 152.33 1N  1
s2

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(1) Design Lateral force Method: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 1
2. Base shear force Fb :
- fundamental period:
(with Ct = 0.075 for RC frames) → T1 = Ct  H 0.75 = 0.075  10.5 0.75 = 0.44 s

- design spectral acceleration:


residential use → γI = 1.0
ground motion agR = 0.3 g → ag = agR  I = 2.943 m/s2
behavior factor q = 4.0 → Sa,d = ag  S  2.5/q = 2.12 m/s2
Spectral acceleration Sa

TB T1 TC TD
Period T [sec]
- base shear force Fb:
(since T1 < 2  TC →  = 0.85) → Fb = Sa,d (T1)  m   = 2.12  152.33  0.85 = 274 kN
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(1) Design Lateral force Method: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 1
3. Load distribution and moment calculation: F3 m3

F2 m2
z m
Fi  Fb  i i
 z j  mj F1 m1

Level Height z [m] Mass mk [tons] zk  mk [mtons] Force Fk [kN] Moment = Fk  zk [kNm]
3 10.5 29.44 309.12 96.68 1015.1
2 7.0 39.10 273.70 85.60 599.2
1 3.5 83.79 293.27 91.72 321.0
Totals 152.33 876.09 274.0 1935.3

4. Effective height of the resultant lateral force: m3


Fres
m2
M res 1935.3 heff
heff    7.06 m m1
Fres 274.0 Mres

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method

This approach permits the multiple modes of response of a building to be taken into
account.
 the Response spectrum method shall be performed using the design spectum, or by a site-
specific design spectrum mentioned.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Criteria:  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4

 shall be performed for the following buildings:


• Regular buildings – those greater than 40 m in height in Zone IV and V, and those
greater than 90 m in height in Zones II and III.
• Irregular buildings – all framed buildings heigher than 12 m in Zones IV and V, and
those greater than 40 m in height in Zones II and III.

 the resulted design base shear (VB) shall be compared with a base shear (𝑉𝐵) calculated
using a fundamental period TB.
• Where VB is less than 𝑉𝐵 , all the response quantities (e.g. Member forces,
displacements, story forces, story shears and base reactions) shall be multiplied by
𝑉𝐵 /VB.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Criteria (cont'd):  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4

 the number of modes to be used in the analysis should be such that:

The sum total of modal masses 90 % of the total seismic mass and
of all modes considered ≥ missing mass correction beyond 33 %

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Criteria:  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

Regularity Allowed simplification


Plan Elevation Model
● ○ planar
○ ○ spatial

 shall be applied if the criteria for analysis method (1) are not Fb
fulfilled, this means if:

 4  TC
T1   1st mode
2,0 sec

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Criteria (cont'd):  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

 response of all modes shall be considered that contribute significantly to the global
building response (i.e., important for buildings of a certain height)
 those modes shall be considered for which:
(1) the sum of the modal masses is at least 90% of the total mi ≥ 0.9  mtot
building mass
or
(2) the modal mass is larger than 5% of the total building mass mi ≥ 0.05  mtot

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Criteria (cont'd):  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

 if the '90%' and the '5%' criteria is not fulfilled (e.g. for buildings prone to torsional
effects), those modes shall be considered for which:
k ≥ 3  √n
and
Tk ≤ 0.20 s

with: k - number of modes taken into account


n - story number (from above foundation to top)
Tk - period of vibration of mode k
n=4 Mode shape: 1 2 3 4
Example: 4-story building
k ≥ 3  √4 = 6
 and
T12 = 0.002 s ≤ 0.20 s
→ six modes shall be
considered !!

Period Tk : 0.27 s 0.23 s 0.16 s 0.02 s

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Obtain natural periods, mode shapes & modal participating factors:
undamped free vibration analysis of the entire building to obtain natural periods
and mode shapes for the modes of vibration that need to be considered;
 Differential equation:
M u  C u  K u  0

 m1 0 0 0  c11 .. .. c1n   k 11 .. .. k 1n 
     
 0 m2 0 0
C  
.. c22 .. ..   .. k 22 .. .. 
 with: M   K  
0 0 m3 0  .. .. c 33 ..  .. .. k 33 .. 
     
 0 0 0 m  c .. .. cnn  k 
 i  n1  n1 .. .. k nn 

Assumption: [C] = zero matrix ! – Undamped system M u  C u  K u  0

 modal segmentation: K   2  M  0 =>   km

 derive circular frequencies i / periods Ti and mode shapes i

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response Spectrum method
Obtain natural periods, mode shapes & modal participating factors:
n,1
Given: - circular frequencies i / periods Ti   j,1 
  j+1,1
- mode shapes i 1    j1,1  j,1
 
 n,1 

T1
Modal participation factor of mode k:

n n

W j   j ,i m
j 1
j   j ,i
Pi 
j 1
i 
W j   j ,i 
n n
2
m
j 1
j   j2,i
j 1

 IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis
Example 1.1 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.1
Effective masses
Mode. T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
 building response 1 0.398 0 52.1 0
2 0.316 52 0.7 0
’purely ’ translational 3 0.264 8 0.7 0
4 0.19 0 0 39.2
5 0.17 0.5 0 1.4
6 0.137 0 0 2.6
7 0.136 0 0 6
8 0.134 0 0 0
9 0.129 0 0.6 7
10 0.124 0 0 0
11 0.118 0 3.7 4.7
12 0.116 0 28.5 0
13 0.113 0 3.8 2.8
14 0.11 0 0 0
15 0.105 14.1 0 0
16 0.104 5.5 0 0
17 0.103 8.5 1.9 0
18 0.098 0 0 1.6
19 0.096 0.6 0 0
20 0.096 0 0 0
21 0.095 0 0 0
22 0 1 0 2.5
23 0.092 3.5 0 0
24 0.092 2.6 0 0
25 0.09 0 0 0
26 0.088 0 0 0
 first eigenmode is 27
28
0.086
0.084
0
0
0
0
0
4.4
translational 29
30
0.081
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.1 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.1
Effective masses
Mode. T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
 response of all modes 1 0.398 0 52.1 0
2 0.316 52 0.7 0
shall be considered 3 0.264 8 0.7 0
4 0.19 0 0 39.2
that contribute 5 0.17 0.5 0 1.4
6 0.137 0 0 2.6
significantly to the 7 0.136 0 0 6
8 0.134 0 0 0
global building 9 0.129 0 0.6 7
10 0.124 0 0 0
response 11 0.118 0 3.7 4.7
12 0.116 0 28.5 0
13 0.113 0 3.8 2.8
14 0.11 0 0 0
15 0.105 14.1 0 0
16 0.104 5.5 0 0
17 0.103 8.5 1.9 0
18 0.098 0 0 1.6
19 0.096 0.6 0 0
20 0.096 0 0 0
21 0.095 0 0 0
22 0 1 0 2.5
23 0.092 3.5 0 0
24 0.092 2.6 0 0
25 0.09 0 0 0
26 0.088 0 0 0
27 0.086 0 0 0
28 0.084 0 0 4.4
29 0.081 0 0 0
30 0.08 0 0 1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.1 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.1
Effective masses
Mode. T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
 those modes shall be 1 0.398 0 52.1 0
2 0.316 52 0.7 0
considered for which: 3 0.264 8 0.7 0
4 0.19 0 0 39.2
5 0.17 0.5 0 1.4
6 0.137 0 0 2.6
mi ≥ 0.9  mtot 7 0.136 0 0 6
8 0.134 0 0 0
9 0.129 0 0.6 7
10 0.124 0 0 0
or 11 0.118 0 3.7 4.7
12 0.116 0 28.5 0
13 0.113 0 3.8 2.8
mi ≥ 0.05  mtot 14 0.11 0 0 0
15 0.105 14.1 0 0
16 0.104 5.5 0 0
17 0.103 8.5 1.9 0
18 0.098 0 0 1.6
19 0.096 0.6 0 0
20 0.096 0 0 0
21 0.095 0 0 0
22 0 1 0 2.5
23 0.092 3.5 0 0
24 0.092 2.6 0 0
25 0.09 0 0 0
26 0.088 0 0 0
27 0.086 0 0 0
28 0.084 0 0 4.4
29 0.081 0 0 0
30 0.08 0 0 1
Sum  91.6 90.0
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.2 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.2
Effective masses
Mode T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
1 0.302 1.7 2 0
 building strongly prone 2 0.183 0 0.5 12.6
3 0.15 0 55.3 0.9
to torsional response 4 0.144 0 2.6 0
5 0.142 0 11.6 3.2
6 0.14 0 0 0
7 0.138 0 5 13.1
8 0.131 0 0 0
9 0.123 0 0 0
10 0.122 0 0 0
11 0.118 0 0 0
12 0.117 0 0 1.2
13 0.114 0 0.8 10.7
14 0.111 11 0 1.7
15 0.11 4.3 0 0
16 0.109 53.2 0 0.8
17 0.106 0.8 0 0
18 0.1 7 0 0
19 0.096 0 0 0
20 0.095 0 0 0.5
21 0.094 0 0 1
22 0.093 0 0 0
23 0.092 0 0 0
24 0.087 0 0 0
25 0.084 0 0 0
26 0.083 0 0 0
27 0.082 0 0 0
28 0.078 0 0 0
 first eigenmode is 29 0.077 0 0 2.9
30 0.077 0 0 1.8
torsional: … … … … …

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.2 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.2
Effective masses
Mode T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
1 0.302 1.7 2 0
 response of all modes shall be 2 0.183 0 0.5 12.6
3 0.15 0 55.3 0.9
considered that contribute 4 0.144 0 2.6 0
5 0.142 0 11.6 3.2
significantly to the global 6 0.14 0 0 0
7 0.138 0 5 13.1
building response 8 0.131 0 0 0
9 0.123 0 0 0
10 0.122 0 0 0
11 0.118 0 0 0
12 0.117 0 0 1.2
13 0.114 0 0.8 10.7
14 0.111 11 0 1.7
15 0.11 4.3 0 0
16 0.109 53.2 0 0.8
17 0.106 0.8 0 0
18 0.1 7 0 0
19 0.096 0 0 0
20 0.095 0 0 0.5
21 0.094 0 0 1
22 0.093 0 0 0
23 0.092 0 0 0
24 0.087 0 0 0
25 0.084 0 0 0
26 0.083 0 0 0
27 0.082 0 0 0
28 0.078 0 0 0
29 0.077 0 0 2.9
30 0.077 0 0 1.8
… … … … …

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.2 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.2
Effective masses
Mode T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
1 0.302 1.7 2 0
 those modes shall be 2 0.183 0 0.5 12.6
3 0.15 0 55.3 0.9
considered for which: 4 0.144 0 2.6 0
5 0.142 0 11.6 3.2
6 0.14 0 0 0
7 0.138 0 5 13.1
mi ≥ 0.9  mtot 8 0.131 0 0 0
9 0.123 0 0 0
10 0.122 0 0 0
11 0.118 0 0 0
or 12 0.117 0 0 1.2
13 0.114 0 0.8 10.7
14 0.111 11 0 1.7
mi ≥ 0.05  mtot 15 0.11 4.3 0 0
16 0.109 53.2 0 0.8
17 0.106 0.8 0 0
18 0.1 7 0 0
19 0.096 0 0 0
20 0.095 0 0 0.5
21 0.094 0 0 1
22 0.093 0 0 0
23 0.092 0 0 0
24 0.087 0 0 0
25 0.084 0 0 0
26 0.083 0 0 0
27 0.082 0 0 0
28 0.078 0 0 0
29 0.077 0 0 2.9
30 0.077 0 0 1.8
… … … … …
Sum  77.2 76.5
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Example 1.2 - Modal analysis results: Tutorial 2.2
Effective masses
Mode T mx' my' mz'
[-] [s] [%] [%] [%]
1 0.302 1.7 2 0
 since both criteria are 2 0.183 0 0.5 12.6
3 0.15 0 55.3 0.9
not fulfilled, those 4 0.144 0 2.6 0
5 0.142 0 11.6 3.2
modes shall be 6 0.14 0 0 0
7 0.138 0 5 13.1
considered for which: 8 0.131 0 0 0
9 0.123 0 0 0
10 0.122 0 0 0

k ≥ 3  √n 11
12
0.118
0.117
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
13 0.114 0 0.8 10.7
and 14 0.111 11 0 1.7
15 0.11 4.3 0 0
Tk ≤ 0.20 sec 16 0.109 53.2 0 0.8
17 0.106 0.8 0 0
18 0.1 7 0 0
 k ≥ 3  √4 = 6 modes 19
20
0.096
0.095
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
21 0.094 0 0 1
22 0.093 0 0 0
23 0.092 0 0 0
24 0.087 0 0 0
25 0.084 0 0 0
26 0.083 0 0 0
27 0.082 0 0 0
28 0.078 0 0 0
29 0.077 0 0 2.9
30 0.077 0 0 1.8
… … … … …

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.1 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Masses Seismic...G + 0.3 ∙ Q

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.1 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Number of Modes

select the number of


modes to be considered
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.1 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Run Model Analysis

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.1 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Deformed shape....

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.1 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Modal Information....

first torsional
mode is 3rd

Σ = 0,90 0,98

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.2 – 3-Story RC Dual System

first eigenmode
is torsional

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response Spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
SAP2000
Example 2.2 – 3-Story RC Dual System

first eigenmode is
torsional

Σ = 0,83 0,74
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Modal Response spectrum method

Steps:
Step 1: for each mode of vibration, a response is read from the design spectrum,
based on the modal frequency and the modal mass, for each floor;

Step 3: modal combination of the resulted peak response quantities (e.g.


displacements, story forces, story shears and base reactions) to obtain the
total response of the structure (total response at each floor).

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
 IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4
Procedure:
Mode shape i: 1 2
3 n,1 n,2 n,3

j+1,1 j+1,2 j+1,3


j,1 j,2 j,3

 Design spectral accelerations Sa(Ti )/g for each mode i :

Spectral acceleration Sa
Sa,d (T1)

Sa,d (T2)
 Design seismic coefficient for each mode i: Sa.d (T3)

Z  I S a Ti 
Ai  
2 R g T1 T2 T3
Period T [sec]

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
Procedure:
 Design lateral force at each floor in each mode – the peak lateral force (Q j,i) at floor j in
mode i is given by:

Q j ,i  Ai   j ,i  Pi  W j  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4

Qn,1 Qn,2 Qn,3

Q j+1,1 Q j+1,2 Q j+1,3

Q j,1 Q j,2 Q j,3

W  i ik
where Pk  n
i 1

Wi  ik 
2

i 1
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
Procedure:
 Story shear forces in each mode – the peak shear force (Vj,i) acting in story j in mode i is
given by:
n
V j ,i  Q
j i 1
j ,i  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4

 Story shear forces due to all modes considered– the peak story shear force (Vj) in story j
due to all modes considered is obtained by combining those due to each mode

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
Procedure:
Modal Combination
 the peak response quantities (e.g. Member forces, displacements, story forces,
story shears and base reactions) shall be combined as per Complete Quadratic
Combination (CQC) method (here the modes are assumed to be closely-spaced):

r r
    
i 1 j 1
i ij j  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.7

r Number of modes being considered,


 ij Cross-modal coefficient,
i Response quantity in mode i (including sign),
j Response quantity in mode j (including sing),

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
Procedure:
Modal Combination
 the If the buildings does not have closely-spaced modes, then the peak response
quantities due to all modes considered shall be combined using the following
expresssion:
r
   
2
k  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.7
k 1

Lateral Forces at each Story due to all modes considered


 Lateral forces at each story due to all modes considered – the design lateral forces, Froof
and Fj, at roof and at floor j:

Froof  Vroof
 IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4
F j  V j  V j 1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
IS 1893-1:2002
Procedure:
 Story shear forces in each mode – the peak shear force (Vj,i) acting in story j in mode i is
given by:
n
V j ,i  Q
j i 1
j ,i  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4

 Story shear forces due to all modes considered– the peak story shear force (Vj) in story j
due to all modes considered is obtained by combining those due to each mode

 Lateral forces at each story due to all modes considered – the design lateral forces, Froof
and Fj, at roof and at floor j:

Froof  Vroof
 IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4
F j  V j  V j 1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum method
EN 1998-1:2004  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3
Procedure:
Mode shape i: 1 2
3 n,1 n,2 n,3

j+1,1 j+1,2 j+1,3


j,1 j,2 j,3

 Design spectral accelerations Sa(Ti )/g for each mode i :

Spectral acceleration Sa
Sa,d (T1)

Sa,d (T2)
Sa.d (T3)

T1 T2 T3
Period T [sec]
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Modal Response spectrum method
EN 1998-1:2004
Procedure:
Fj,i  m j   j,i   i  S a,d (Ti )  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.3

Mode shape i: 1 2
3 n,1 n,2 n,3

j+1,1 j+1,2 j+1,3


j,1 j,2 j,3

Fn,1 Fn,2 Fn,3

Fj+1,1 Fj+1,2 Fj+1,3

Fj,1 Fj,2 Fj,3

n
 resulting shear forces Fb,m : Fb ,m  i1
Fb2,m ,i

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
3-story RC frame building (residential use)
behavior factor q = 4
ground motion: agR = 0.3 g m3 = m
residential use: γI = 1.0 h k3 = k
structural parameters: m2 = 1.5m
h k2 = 2k
E = 2.1  108 kN/m2 I = 2.679  10-5 m4 m1 = 2m
h = 3.0 m k = 12  EI/h3 h k1 = 3k
m = 50 tons = 50 kNs2/m

1. Setting up the differential equation of motion:

M u  C u  K u  0 if [C] = 0 : M u  K u  0

 m1 0 0  2 0 0  k1  k2  k2 0   5 2 0 
       
M   0 m2 0   m   0 1.5 0  K    k 2 k 2  k 3  k3   k    2 3  1
 0 0 m3  0 0 1  0  k3 k 3   0 1 1 
     

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
2. Modal segmentation:

K   2  M  0  5k  2m 2  2k 0


 2k 3k  1.5m 2 k  0
0 k k  m 2

3. Modal circular frequencies ωi and periods Ti :


1 = 4.19 s-1 → T1 = 1.50 sec
2 = 8.97 s-1 → T2 = 0.70 sec
3 = 13.3 s-1 → T3 = 0.47 sec

4. Eigenmodes:

 0.30    0.676   2.47 


     
1    0.644  2     0.601  3     2.57 
 1.00   1.00   1.00 
     

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
5. Modal participation factors i :

m 
j1
j j ,i
i
i  n

Mi*
m 
j1
j
2
j ,i

1 = 100  0.3 + 75  0.644 + 50  1.0 = 128.3 kNs2/m


2 = –100  0.676 – 75  0.601 + 50  1.0 = -62.7 kNs2/m
3 = 100  2.47 – 75  2.57 + 50  1.0 = 104.3 kNs2/m

M1* = 100  0.32 + 75  0.6442 + 50  1.02 = 90.0 kNs2/m


M2* = 100  0.6762 + 75  0.6012 + 50  1.02 = 122.8 kNs2/m
M3* = 100  2.472 + 75  2.572 + 50  1.02 = 1155.0 kNs2/m

→ 1 = 128.3 / 90.0 = 1.426


→ 2 = -62.7 / 122.8 = –0.511
→ 3 = 104.3 / 1155.0 = 0.090

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
6. Design spectral accelerations Sa(Ti ) for each mode i :

2.5  TC  2.5  0.6 


T1 = 1.50 sec : Sa,d (T)  ag  S      (2.943  1.0)  1.15    0.846 m / s 2

q  T1  4.0  1.50 

Check: Sa,d (T) = 0.846 m/s2 ≥ β ∙ ag = 0.20 ∙ 2.943 = 0.5886 m/s2

2.5  TC  2.5  0.6 


T2 = 0.70 sec : Sa,d (T)  ag  S      (2.943  1.0)  1.15      1.813 m / s2
q  T1  4.0  0.7 

Check: Sa,d (T) = 1.813 m/s2 ≥ β ∙ ag = 0.20 ∙ 2.943 = 0.5886 m/s2

2.5 2.5
T3 = 0.47 sec : Sa,d (T)  ag  S   (2.943  1.0)  1.15   2.115 m / s2
q 4.0

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
5. Lateral story loads Fj,i :

Fj,i  m j   j,i   i  S a,d (Ti )


F3,1= 60.3

F1,1 = 100  0.30  1.426  0.846 = 36.2 kN F2,1 = 58.3


F2,1 = 75  0.644  1.426  0.846 = 58.3 kN
F3,1 = 50  1.00  1.426  0.846 = 60.3 kN F1,1 = 36.2

F3,2 = –46.3

F1,2 = 100  (–0.676)  (–0.511)  1.813 = 62.6 kN F2,2 = 41.8


F2,2 = 75  (–0.601)  (–0.511)  1.813 = 41.8 kN
F1,2 = 62.6
F3,2 = 50  1.00  (–0.511)  1.813 = –46.3 kN

F3,3 = 9.5

F1,3 = 100  2.47  0.090  2.115 = 47.0 kN F2,3 = –36.7

F2,3 = 75  (–2.57)  0.090  2.115 = –36.7 kN


F1,3 = 47.0
F3,3 = 50  1.00  0.090  2.115 = 9.5 kN
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(2) Response spectrum analysis: EN 1998-1:2004
Tutorial 2.3
5. Maximum shear forces Fb :

60.3 -46.3 9.5 76.6

118.6 -4.5 -27.2  121.7

154.8 58.1 19.8 166.5

n
Fb ,m  F
i1
2
b ,m ,i

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Response Spectrum to be used

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Response Spectrum to be used

Acceleration is in g unit

we can move the cursor on


the grave to obtain the
coordinartes at any point

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Load case to include the Response Spectrum Analysis

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define Load case to include the Response Spectrum Analysis

A number of ways to combine modes given direction including CQC, SRSS,..and others...
Response spectrum will be applied as an acceleration in U1 (UX) direction using the
previously defined curve EC-8-B

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Run Analysis

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Display Base Reactions for the Response Spectrum (RS) case

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Moments, Shear Forces, Axial Forces...for the Response Spectrum (RS) case

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(2) Modal Response spectrum analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Moments, Shear Forces, Axial Forces...for the Response Spectrum (RS) case

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(3) Linear time history analysis

 Linear time history method of analysis, when used, shall be based on an appropriate
ground motion and shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics.

 The result of a response spectrum analysis using the response spectrum from a ground
motion is typically different from that which would be calculated directly from a linear
dynamic analysis using that ground motion directly, since phase information is lost in
the process of generating the response spectrum.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(3) Linear time history analysis
IS 1893-1:2002
 shall be performed for the following buildings:
• Regular buildings – those greater than 40 m in height in Zone IV and V, and those
greater than 90 m in height in Zones II and III.
• Irregular buildings – all framed buildings heigher than 12 m in Zones IV and V, and
those greater than 40 m in height in Zones II and III.

 the resulted design base shear (VB) shall be compared with a base shear (𝑉𝐵) calculated
using a fundamental period TB.
• Where VB is less than 𝑉𝐵 , all the response quantities (e.g. Member forces,
displacements, story forces, story shears and base reactions) shall be multiplied by
𝑉𝐵 /VB.

 IS 1893-1:2002, 7.8.4
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
(3) Linear time history analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define ground motion to be used Linear Time History analysis in UX direction (LTH_UX)

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(3) Linear time history analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define ground motion to be used Linear Time History analysis in UX direction (LTH_UX)

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


(3) Linear time history analysis
SAP2000
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System
 Define ground motion to be used Linear Time History analysis in UX direction (LTH_UX)

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Combination of effects of seismic action
When the analysis is conducted the actions of the orthogonal components of
ground motions shall be combined using approximate equations.

a) Horizontal components:
Step 1: Compute the structural response of the structure under each
component separately

- Analysis in Y direction - – Analysis in X direction –


Compute Ey Compute Ex

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Combination of effects of seismic action: ISN 1893-1:2002
Load factors for design of steel structures:
 IS 1893-1:2002, 6.3
The following combination shall be accounted for:

1) 1,7  DL  IL


2) 1,7  DL  EL 
3) 1,3  DL  IL  EL 

Load factors for design of reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures:
The following combination shall be accounted for:
1) 1,5  DL  IL
2) 1,2  DL  IL  EL 
3) 1,5  DL  EL 
4) 0,9  DL  1,5  EL

The terms DL, IL, and EL stand for the response quantities due to Dead Load,
Imposed Load and Earthquake Load.
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Combination of effects of seismic action: ISN 1893-1:2002
Design horizontal earthquake load :  IS 1893-1:2002, 6.3

 When the lateral load resisting elements are oriented along orthogonal horizontal
direction, the structure shall be designed for the effects due to full design earthquake
load in one horizontal direction at time.

Example:
Case of steel building, and where
lateral load resisting elements are
oriented along UX direction. The
building should be deisgned for:
1) 1,7  DL  IL
2) 1,7  DL  EL x 
3) 1,3  DL  IL  EL x 

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Combination of effects of seismic action: ISN 1893-1:2002
Design horizontal earthquake load :  IS 1893-1:2002, 6.3

 When the lateral load resisting elements are not oriented along orthogonal horizontal
direction, the structure shall be designed for the effects due to full design earthquake
load in one horizontal direction PLUS 30% of the design earthquake load in the other
direction
Example:
Case of steel building, and where
lateral load resisting elements are not
oriented along UX direction. The
building should be deisgned for:
1) 1,7  DL  IL

2) 1,7  DL  EL x  0,3  EL y 
3) 1,3  DL  IL  EL x  0,3  EL y 

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Combination of effects of seismic action: ISN 1893-1:2002
Combination for two or three component motion:

 When responses from the three earthquake components are to be considered, the
responses due to each component may be combined using the assumption that when
response from one component are 30% of their maximum.

 The response due earthquake force (EL) is the maximum of the following three cases:

1)  ELx  0.3EL y  0.3ELz


2)  0.3ELx  EL y  0.3ELz
3)  0.3ELx  0.3EL y  ELz

 Alternatively, the response (EL) due to the combined effect of the three components
can be obtained on the basis of Square Root of the sum of the Square (SRSS):

EL  ELx 2  ELy 2  ELz 2


 IS 1893-1:2002, 6.3
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Combination of effects of seismic action: EN 1998-1:2004

a) Horizontal components:  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.5

Step 2: Combine the response quantities using SRSS method:

E  E2x  E2y

Alternatively, the response quantities can be combined as:

E  Ex  0.3E y
E  E y  0.3Ex

Exception:
For buildings satisfying the regularity criteria in plan and in which walls
or independent bracing systems in the two main horizontal directions
are the only primary seismic elements, the seismic action may be
assumed to act separately and without combinations.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Combination of effects of seismic action: EN 1998-1:2004
b) Vertical components:  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.5

If avg is greater than 0.25g, the vertical of the seismic action should be taken
into account for the following cases:
• for horizontal or nearly horizontal structural members spanning 20 m or more.
• for horizontal or nearly horizontal cantilever components longer than 5 m.
• for horizontal or nearly horizontal pre-stressed components
• for beams supporting columns
• in base-isolated structures

The analysis for determining the effects of the vertical component of the
seismic action may be based on a partial model of the structure, which
includes the aforementioned elements.
The effects of 2 horizontal and vertical components will be combined by:
E  Ex  0.3E y  0.3Ez
E  0.3Ex  E y  0.3Ez
E  0.3Ex  0.3E y  Ez
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Accidental/Torsional Effects

Torsional effects created in a simple building configuration: Torsion is occuring


because a uniformly distributed force is not resisted by a uniformly distributed lateral
resistant.
A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014
Accidental/Torsional Effects
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Dual System
Modal Participating Mass Ratios

Mode 1 Mode 1
UX = 0,08906 UX = 0,144
UY = 0,15627 UY = 0
RZ = 0,54874 RZ = 0,61726

Mode 1 Mode 1
UX = 0 UX = 0,73509
UY = 0 UY = 0
RZ = 0,7735 RZ = 0

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Accidental/Torsional Effects
IS 1893-1:2002
 the design eccentricity, edi to be used at floor i shall be taken as:

1,5  esi  0,05  bi


edi    IS 1893-1:2002, 7.9
or esi  0,05  bi

bi - Floor plan dimension of floor i, perpendicular to seismic action;

esi – Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between centre of mass and centre of
rigidity. y

M di  edi  Qi , j

Qi,j - lateral force acting on story i in direction j direction of edi


bi
seismic action x
Mdi - torsional moment applied at story i about M
its vertical axis z
z x

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Accidental/Torsional Effects
IS 1893-1:2002

Irregular Buildings  IS 1893-1:2002, 7.9


m4
In case of highly irregular buildings modeled as a system of
m3
lumped masses at the floor levels (with each mass having
one degree of freedom), additive shears will be m2
superimposed for a statically applied eccentricity of ±0,05bi,
with respect to the centre of rigidity. m1

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Accidental/Torsional Effects
EN 1998-1:2004
 to account for torsional effects predominantly depends on the model type (planar or spatial)

(1) Spatial models (3D):  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.2

displace the theoretical center of mass M at story i by an accidental eccentricity eai


for both directions of seismic motion/general building axes j of the structural
model
y
eai,j = 0.05 ∙ Li

Li - floor dimension (length, width)


perpendicular to seismic action
direction of eai, y
Ly
seismic action x
M
Mai = eai,j ∙ Fi,j
z x
Fi,j - lateral force acting on story i in direction j
Mai - torsional moment applied at story i about its vertical axis z

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Accidental/Torsional Effects
EN 1998-1:2004
 to account for torsional effects predominantly depends on the model type (planar or spatial)

(2) Planar models (2D):  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.3.3.2.4

→ theoretically, torsion cannot be considered in planar models


→ to overcome this, action effects for each individual lateral force-resisting element are
increased by a factor d :
x Ly
x
Fi  d  Fi  (1  0.6  )  Fi direction of M
Le seismic action

→ if two planar models are used:


(1) increase accidental eccentricity eai by a factor of 2 or
(2) double the factor d, so that: x
Fi  d  Fi  (1  1.2  )  Fi
Le

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)

 Structures in real life are flexible and can exhibit large


lateral displacements in unusual circumstances. The lateral
displacements can be caused by wind or seismically
induced inertial forces.

 Gravity loading will influence structural response under


significant lateral displacement.

 P-Δ may contribute to loss of lateral resistance, ratcheting


of residual deformations, and dynamic instability.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)
EN 1998-1:2004

 Second-order effects (P-∆ effects) need not be taken into account if the following
condition is fulfilled in all storeys:

Ptot  d r  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.4.2.2


  0,10
Vtot  h

 = is the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient;

Ptot = is the total gravity load at and above the storey considered in the seismic design
situation;
= is the design interstorey drift, evaluated as the difference of the average lateral
dr displacements ds at the top and bottom of the storey under consideration and
calculated in accordance with Chapter 4.3.4;
Vtot = is the total seismic storey shear; and

h = is the interstorey height.

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)
EN 1998-1:2004

 Second-order effects (P-∆ effects) need not be taken into account if the following
condition is fulfilled in all storeys:

Ptot  d r  EN 1998-1:2004, 4.4.2.2


  0,10
Vtot  h

 If 0,1 < θ≤0,2, the second-order effects may approximately be taken into account by
multiplying the relevant seismic action effects by a factor equal to 1/(1 - θ).

 value of the coefficient θ shall not exceed 0,3

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)
Use P-Delta in SAP2000

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Second-order Effects (P-Δ effects)

To mitigate second-order effects:


two-story X-bracing or zipper columns are recommended

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Select and Scale Earthquake Records
EN 1998-1:2004
The suite of recorded or simulated/artificial accelerograms should observe the
following rules:
• A minimum of 3 accelerograms should be used;
• The duration of the accelerograms shall be consistent with the magnitude
and the other relevant features of the seismic event underlying the
establishment of ag;
• The values are scaled to the value of ag.S for the zone under consideration;
• in the range of periods between 0,2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental
period of the structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be
applied;
• no value of the mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, calculated from all time
histories, should be less than 90% of the corresponding value of the 5%
damping elastic response spectrum;

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Select and Scale Earthquake Records
EN 1998-1:2004
The parameters (that have the most influence on ground motion spectral shape)
that need to be considered in selecting records :

• Magnitude range of anticipated significant event;


• Distance range of the site from the causative fault;
• Site Condition (i.e. looking at the average shear velocity);
• Basin effect (if basin exists)

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Contribution of Joint Regions

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Contribution of Joint Regions
SAP2000 – 3-Story RC Frame System

not considered

considered

A. Meslem & D. Lang © NORSAR – Kjeller (Norway) 2014


Abdelghani Meslem, PhD
NORSAR, Kjeller
abdelghani.meslem@norsar.no
Phone: (+47) 974 10 740
Web: www.norsar.no