In partial fulfillment of the requirements of MCE 612 Structural Dynamics

Design and Analysis of Three Story Building under El Centro, 1940

Earthquake

● Member Design using EQ loads using Response Spectrum Analysis

(NSCP 2015 208.5.3.4.2)
● Plot D-V-A Response Spectra for damping ratio of 0%, 2%, 5% and
10% using Newmark’s Method
● Determine the equivalent static lateral force of the assigned
earthquake using SRSS and CQC Modal Combination Rules

Submitted by:
Eric Quincy Giancarlo Salazar
MSCE - STRE

Submitted to:
Engr. Nophi Biton, MSCE

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY PLEDGE

As a student of the University of San Carlos, I recognize the importance of personal integrity in all aspects of life and
work. I commit myself to truthfulness, honor and responsibility, by which I earn the respect of others. I support the
development of good character and commit myself to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity as an important
aspect of personal integrity.

My commitment involves maintaining academic integrity in the making of this written report.
 ABSTRACT

Reinforced Concrete members of a three-storey frame subject to dead loads and equivalent lateral seismic loads,
determined from Response Spectrum Analysis (NSCP 2015 208.5.4.3.2), were designed with regard to the specifications
of the NSCP 2015. Modal analysis was carried out to determine the mode shapes of the structure with masses equal and
lumped at each of its levels. Structural analysis was carried out using STAAD.Pro to determine member forces,
considering the recommended load combinations of the NSCP 2015.

Columns, designed according to maximum axial forces, shear forces, and moments, were found to be 600 x 600 mm
having 6 - 35 mm diameter longitudinal bars and beams, designed according to maximum axial forces, shear forces, and
moments were designed to be 400 x 500 mm having 3 - 35 mm diameter longitudinal bars for top and bottom faces of the
beam, considering moment reversal.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

A 3-storey Residential building frame, situated on soft soil and in Zone 4, as shown in Figure 1, was subjected to dead
loads and equivalent lateral seismic loads.

Fig. 1 3-storey residential building frame

The mass at each level was to be assumed as equal and lumped. It was idealized as a Linear SDOF model when carrying
out modal analysis for the determination of the equivalent lateral seismics loads applied to the structure when member
forces were determined. Members were also designed.

Assumptions:
Material Properties:
● Concrete compressive strength 28 MPa
● Concrete unit weight 24 kN/cu. m.
● Steel yield strength (longitudinal) 414 MPa
● Steel yield strength (transverse) 276 MPa
● Longitudinal reinforcement bar diameter 35 mm
 ● Transverse reinforcement bar diameter 12 mm

Member Dimensions:
● Columns 600 mm x 600 mm
● Beams 400 mm x 500 mm

The masses at each level were calculated in the following manner:

The stiffnesses are calculated in the following manner:

For modal analysis, a mass matrix, m, was set-up and idealized as lumped masses on each level of the discretized
structure. A stiffness matrix, k, was also set-up for the discretized structure.

Fig. 2 Mass matrix and stiffness matrix

Governing Differential Equation
Assuming the body is in free vibration and neglecting damping for the purpose of finding natural modes of vibration, the
governing differential equation for the problem is as follows:
(Eq. 1)
For the governing differential equation, the following boundary conditions have to be satisfied at t = 0,

The solution that satisfies the boundary conditions is

Where: Shape function, ϕn

Modal coordinate, q n (t)
NSCP Load Combinations
The Load Combinations used are as follows:
● 1.4 DL
● 1.2 DL + 1.0 E
 ● 0.9 DL + 1.0 E
Static ELF Method
This is the method of determination of equivalent static lateral forces without having to do dynamic modal analysis
recommended by the NSCP 2015. The following assumptions are made for the application of the method:
● Profile Type: SE
● Seismic Zone: 4
● Seismic Source Type: A
● Distance to source: 5
● Type of Frame: Concrete
● System Coefficient,R: 8.5
● Amplification Factor: 3
 DISCUSSION OF THE DERIVATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL
Equation 1 is derived from Newton’s Second Law of Motion applied on an idealized one-storey frame subjected to an
externally applied dynamic force, p(t).

Fig. 3 Idealized one-storey frame (Chopra, 2012)

Creating a free-body diagram of the idealized frame and applying D’Alembert’s Principle,

Fig. 4 FBD of Idealized one-storey frame (Chopra, 2012)

Summing up forces in the x-direction and taking forces going to the right as positive,

Where: Restoring elastic force, fs = ku

Damping force, fd = cú
Applied dynamic force, p
Inertia force = mü

Rearranging variables and substituting values,

Taking c = 0 and p(t) = 0,

Mode Shapes
To determine the assumed shape function of the system, we consider the free vibration of an idealized two-storey shear
frame with damping,

Fig. 5 (a) Two-storey shear frame, (b) Deflected shapes at time instants a, b and c (Chopra, 2012)

In (b) of figure 5, curve a shows the initial deflection of the idealized structure. The resulting motion of the two masses is
plotted in figure 6 as a function of time.
 Fig. 6 Modal coordinates and displacement history (Chopra, 2012)
It is evident in Fig. 6 that the modal coordinates and displacement history of the lumped masses on level 1 and 2 is rather
irregular, this is due to damping. An undamped structure would undergo simple harmonic motion without change of
deflected shape, given it is initiated by appropriate distributions of displacements in the DOFs (degrees of freedom) shown
in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 Free vibration of an undamped system in its first natural mode (Chopra, 2012)

The initial deflected shape, a, is called the natural mode of vibration of the system, ϕn . From the natural mode of
vibration of the system, the natural period of vibration, Tn, may be determined from the following formula:

The modal coordinates of the system may be described by the simple harmonic function

Where: An and Bn are constants to be determined from initial conditions

Thus,
where ω n and ϕn are not known.
From this solution and combining with the equation , the matrix eigenvalue problem is determined, as
shown below:
This eigenvalue problem is used to determine ω n and ϕn . This is rewritten as . For the acquisition of
non-trivial solutions,

When ω n 2 is determined, ϕn can be determined. ϕn is only a multiplicative factor, it is not the actual value of the
displacement of the structure. As such, the mode may be normalized so that it’s largest element is unity. We thus assume
the coordinate of the shape function at the topmost node to be 1, ϕn (10.5) = 1

Fig. 8 Example of Normalized Mode

The sample matrix process for such an endeavor is given below.
 Fig. 9 Example of Modal Analysis
Equivalent Lateral Forces (Dynamic Method)
Having determined the mode shapes, the equation of dynamic equilibrium of the generalized SDOF system is most
conveniently formulated by the principle of virtual displacements wherein a system in equilibrium and subjected to virtual
displacements has external virtual work congruent to internal virtual work.

The external virtual work is due to forces acting through the virtual displacements,

Considering the fictitious inertia forces, derivative of D’Alembert’s principle, taken with the total acceleration of the
system,

Substituting,

The internal virtual work is due to internal bending moments, , acting through the curvature associated with
virtual displacements,
From the bending-curvature relationship,

Substituting,

We obtain from ,

Substituting into the equations for external and internal virtual work,

Equating,

Where:

For a non-trivial solution of the equation and for the solution to be valid for every virtual displacement,

Dividing both sides by m ,

where
Applied to a Lumped-Mass System,

Regarding Response Spectrum Analysis, the equivalent lateral forces associated with floor displacements, and the floor
displacements, themselves, are given by,

The base shear of the system is given by

Newmark-Beta (1/6) Method
A family of time-stepping methods were developed by N. M. Newmark in 1959. However, the original form of the
equations are iterative. The appropriate form of the governing equation applicable to numerical methods of linear systems
is as follows,

Where üi+1 may be in terms of úi+1 and úi+1 may be expressed in terms of ui+1 ,

When these equations are substituted into the governing equation,

Where:

When both variables are determined,

Afterwards, the values of üi+1 and úi+1 may be determined. In light of the data provided for the report, the excitation is
ground acceleration. Therefore, pi shall be replaced by -m ügi .

Response History
The implementation of the numerical method is necessary to determine the deformation response history. The deformation
history of the system is related to the internal forces of the system. It should also be noted that the deformation response,
u(t), of an SDOF system depends solely on the natural vibration period of the system and the damping ratio,as evident in
the formula shown below.

From the deformation response history, it is possible to determine the pseudo-velocity, V, and pseudo-acceleration, A,
response spectra.

The pseudo-velocity, V, although having the same units, is not equal to the relative velocity, ú . The pseudo-velocity is
related to the peak value of the strain energy, E so , stored in the system during the earthquake.
The pseudo-acceleration, A, is related to the base shear, Vbo, and equivalent static force, fso, of the system based on
D’Alembert’s principle.

Fig. 10 Equivalent lateral force (Chopra, 2012)

Combined D-V-A Spectrum
Since the pseudo-velocity and the pseudo-acceleration is derivative of the deformation response history, all spectra contain
the practically same information. However, each spectrum provides unique physically meaningful quantities. Therefore, it
is beneficial to present the information in one logarithmic-tripartite graph.

Fig. 11 Example of a Combined D-V-A Spectrum (Chopra, 2012)

Construction of the Combined D-V-A Spectrum

Fig. 12 Construction of Combined D-V-A Spectrum flowchart

Modal Combination Rules
Two modal combination rules were required of the project:
● Square-root-of-sum-of-squares (SRSS)
This modal combination rule provides excellent response estimates with well-separated natural
frequencies. It involves squaring the response in each mode, summing them up and taking the square root.

● Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)

This modal combination rule is applicable to a wider class of structures as it overcomes the limitations of
the SRSS rule.

Vi =
√ [ ] T
{λi } ρij {λi }

Where: correlation coefficient, for constant damping ratio

ωi
β= ωn
{λi } = {f n . . . . f 1 }
Member Design
Reinforced Concrete Members were designed with respect to the NSCP 2015 specifications. Created spreadsheets were
used.
IMPLEMENTATION, RESULTS and
DISCUSSION
 k ≔ 581736.6611 kN/m
m1 ≔ 744.096 kN k1 ≔ k kN/m
m2 ≔ 744.096 kN k2 ≔ k kN/m
m3 ≔ 744.096 kN k3 ≔ k kN/m

Lumped Mass

⎡m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 744.096 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ≔ ⎢ 0 m 0 ⎥ → ⎢ 0 744.096 0
⎥
2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ ⎢
⎣ 0 0 744.096 ⎥⎦
⎣ 3⎦

Direct Stiffness

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ 581736.6611 -581736.6611 0 ⎤

⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ ≔ ⎢ -k k + k -k2 ⎥ → ⎢ -581736.6611 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6
-581736.6611 ⎥
1 1 2
⎢ 0 ⎥
-k2 k2 + k3 ⎦ ⎢
⎣ 0 -581736.6611 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6 ⎥⎦
⎣

Eigenvalue Equation

⎡⎣ ϕ ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠ ＝ ⎡⎣ 0 ⎤⎦

⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠ ＝ 0
Let E ＝ ⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥
E ＝ ⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ＝ 0
⎢ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ ⎣ 3⎦

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ -744.096 ⋅ ω 2 + 581736.6611 -581736.6611 0

⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢
E ≔ ⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ → ⎢ -581736.6611
2
-744.096 ⋅ ω + 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6
... -581736.6611
⎢ 0 ⎢
-k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ 2
⎣ ⎣ 3⎦ ⎣ 0 -581736.6611 -744.096 ⋅ ω + 1.163473

B ≔ det ⎛⎝E⎞⎠ → 12 4 8 6 15 2 ...

―1.6104764485924974075 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω - 4.11990222938996736 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω - 1.5108908398664450335 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω + 1.9686989144556627632 ⋅ 10
17

⎡ω ⎤
⎡ -34.866 ⎤
⎢ 1⎥
ω solve , ω ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2⎥
⎢ 12.444 ⎥
⎢ω ⎥ float , 5 ⎢ -50.384 ⎥
⎢ 3 ⎥ ≔ B ――― →⎢
⎢ ω4 ⎥ -12.444 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
ω5 ⎢ 34.866 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 50.384 ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ ω6 ⎥⎦

ω1 = -34.866 ω2 = 12.444 ω3 = -50.384

| π| | π| | π|
Therefore, T1 ≔ |2 ――
| = 0.18 sec T2 ≔ |2 ――
| = 0.505 sec T3 ≔ |2 ――| = 0.125 sec
| ω1 || | ω2 || | ω |
| | | 3|

Analysis of Mode Shapes:

 Analysis of Mode Shapes:

⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 1n ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ϕ2n ⎥ ⎢ v2n ⎥ ⎡ 1 ⎤
ϕn ＝ ⎢ ＝ ＝⎢ ⎥ ＝ vn
ϕ3n ⎥ ⎢ v3n ⎥ ⎣ v0n ⎦
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ϕNn ⎥⎦ ⎣ vNn ⎦
⎛⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞ ⋅ v ＝ 0
⎝ n ⎠ n

⎡ E ⎛⎝n⎞⎠ E ⎛⎝n⎞⎠ ⎤ ⎡
1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ 11 ⎛ ⎞ 10 ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ ⋅ ⎢ ⎥＝⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ Eo1 ⎝n⎠ Eoo ⎝n⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ v0n ⎦ ⎣ Oo ⎦

⎡ 1 ⎤
vn ＝ ⎢ ⎛ ⎞ -1
⎥
⎢⎣ -⎛⎝Eoo ⎝n⎠⎞⎠ ⋅ Eo1 ⎝n⎠ ⎥⎦
⎛ ⎞

⎛⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ m 0 0 ⎤⎞ ⎡ E E E ⎤
1
1 ⎜ ⎢ ⎥ 2
⎢ 1 ⎥⎟ ⎢ 11 12 13 ⎥
E ＝ ―⋅ ⎜⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥⎟ ＝ ⎢ E21 E22 E23 ⎥
k 1 ⎜⎢ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥⎟ ⎢ E E E ⎥
⎝⎣ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 3 ⎦⎠ ⎣ 31 32 33 ⎦

⎛⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ m 0 0 ⎤⎞ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 1.0 -1.0

1
1 ⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥⎟ ⎢
E ≔ ―⋅ ⎜⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m 2 0 ⎥⎟ → ⎢ -1.0 -0.001279094218667
k1 ⎜⎢ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥⎟ ⎢⎣
⎝⎣ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 3 ⎦⎠ 0 -1.0

⎡E E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 1.0 -1.0

11 12 13 ⎢
⎢ ⎥ 2
⎢ E21 E22 E23 ⎥ ≔ E → ⎢ -1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896
... ⋅ω +2
⎢E E E ⎥ ⎢ 0 -1.0
⎣ 31 32 33 ⎦ ⎣
For ω1 :
ω ≔ ω1 = -34.866

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ...

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0

⎡ -0.55503759242745794375 -1.2470386395680406301 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ -1.2470386395680406301 -0.55503759242745794375 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ -0.555 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ -1.247 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 21 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ11 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ31 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 11 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ1 ≔ ⎢ ϕ21 ⎥ = ⎢ -0.555 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ -1.247 ⎥⎦
⎣ 31 ⎦
For ω2 :
ω ≔ ω2 = 12.444

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ...

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0

⎡ 0.80194571587570119548 0.44504863960083603119 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.44504863960083603119 0.80194571587570119548 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ 0.802 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.445 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 22 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ12 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ32 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡1 ⎤
⎢ 12 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ2 ≔ ⎢ ϕ22 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.802 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0.445 ⎥⎦
⎣ 32 ⎦
 For ω3 :
ω ≔ ω3 = -50.384

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ... ⎤

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢ ⎥=
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0 ⎦

⎡ -2.2464672840967243004 1.801437650364856747 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1.801437650364856747 -2.2464672840967243004 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ -2.246 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1.801 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 23 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ13 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ33 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 13 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ3 ≔ ⎢ ϕ23 ⎥ = ⎢ -2.246 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 1.801 ⎥⎦
⎣ 33 ⎦
Considering that the soil is a soft soil, the soil type, according to NSCP Table 208 -
2, the soil type is SE. Therefore, the seismic coefficents, according to NSCP 208.4.4.4
are
Ca ＝ 0.44 Na Cv ＝ 0.96 Nv
Assuming Seismic source type is A and source is 5km away,

Na ≔ 1.2 Nv ≔ 1.6 NSCP 208.4.4.3

Ca ≔ 0.44 Na = 0.528
Cv ≔ 0.96 Nv = 1.536

Determining the Spectral Acceleration from Fig. 208 - 3 (NSCP 2015 208.5.3.2),
Cv
Ts ≔ ――― = 1.164
2.5 Ca T1 T2 T3
―= 0.155 ―= 0.434 ―= 0.107
Ts Ts Ts

2.5 Ca = 1.32 2.5 Ca = 1.32 2.5 Ca = 1.32

Mode Shapes
Equivalent Static Lateral Forces (According to NSCP 2015)
Static Method

Dynamic Modal Analysis Method

The difference between the dynamic analysis method and the static ELF method are not significantly far apart. It is
evident that the base shear of the dynamic analysis method is smaller by only 3.1%.
Member Design
Based on the structural analysis by STAAD.Pro, the following design loads were used for member design of the most
stressed members.

Columns
Member 1.4 DL 1.2 DL + 1.0 E 0.9 DL + 1.0 E

Force Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment,
kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m

1 893.468 40.015 45.841 609.314 67.928 261.121 417.857 76.502 270.945

7 1712.329 0 0 1467.711 131.604 334.734 1100.783 131.604 334.734

15 893.468 40.015 45.841 922.345 136.525 339.706 730.888 127.95 329.883

Beams
Member Axial Shear Moment

6 100 kN 289.94 kN 364.33 kN-m

The bottom-most columns, as they were the most-stressed, were designed as 600mm x 600mm in dimension with 6 - 35
mm diameter longitudinal steel bars and 12 mm diameter transverse reinforcement detailed 1 @ 50 mm, 7 @ 100 mm, rest
@ 150 mm. All columns were checked and proved to be safe to withstand the applied loads. All other columns will follow
the same reinforcement details.
Only member 6 was picked to be designed as it was the most stressed. The beam was designed as 400 mm x 500 mm in
dimension with 3 - 35 mm diameter longitudinal steel bars for both positive and negative reinforcement and 12 mm
diameter transverse reinforcement detailed at 1 @ 50 mm, 9 @ 115 mm, rest at 220 mm.

The following are the design spreadsheets of the columns, followed by the design spreadsheet of the beams. The design
spreadsheets are in the following order:
● Columns
○ 1.4 DL
■ Member 1
■ Member 7
■ Member 15
○ 1.2 DL + 1.0 E
■ Member 1
■ Member 7
■ Member 15
○ 0.9 DL + 1.0 E
■ Member 1
■ Member 7
■ Member 15
● Beams
Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 893.468 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 45.841 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
893.468
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
893.468
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 40.015 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317443.1 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -176.9979 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 1712.329 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 0 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 3
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1712.329

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1712.329

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 0 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317490.2 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -176.9716 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 893.468 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 45.841 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
893.468
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
893.468
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 40.015 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317443.1 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -176.9979 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 609.314 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 261.121 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

609.314
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

609.314
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 67.928 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317410.2 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.0162 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 1467.711 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 334.734 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 3
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1467.711

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1467.711

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 131.604 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317335.3 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.058 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 922.345 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 339.706 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
922.345
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
922.345
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 136.525 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317329.5 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.0612 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 417.857 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 270.945 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

417.857
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

417.857
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 76.502 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317400.2 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.0218 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 1100.783 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 334.734 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 3
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 586.732725 528.059453 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1100.783
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000
1100.783
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 131.604 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317335.3 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.058 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Interaction Diagram, Rectangular Column
Design Parameters:
fc' 28 MPa E 200000 MPa fv 276 Mpa
fy 414 MPa φ ties 12 mm Conc. Cover 25 mm
φ long. Bars 35 mm εc 0.003 εy 0.00207
φ mid layers 35 mm Number of Layers 4 β1 0.85
P 730.888 kN Sample Layer Distribution Note: Layers are always evenly spaced
Mx 329.883 kN.m
My 0 kN.m

Member Properties:
Column Width:
b 600 mm
d 600 mm
Number of reinforcement
X Y
Layer 1 3 2
Layer 2 0 0
Layer 3 0 0
Layer 4 3 2
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9

Determining points on the Interaction Diagram

X-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments
Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8635.0495 5612.7822 582.466277 378.60308 Zero Tension
Point C 3917.9166 2546.6458 1224.62505 796.00628 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 1115.74349 1004.16914 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 769.851341 692.866207 Strain limit for Beams

Y-AXIS Pno, kN φPno, kN Mno, kN-m φMno, kN-m Comments

Point A 10820.498 5626.6592 0 0 Pure Axial Load
Point B 8184.2996 5319.7948 497.552851 323.409353 Zero Tension
Point C 3519.6019 2287.7412 1126.83879 732.445216 Balanced Failure
Point D 2482.9796 2234.6817 920.170981 828.153883 Tensile-Controlled Limit
Point E 0 0 574.278834 516.850951 Strain limit for Beams
0 0 0 0
3917.917 1224.625 2482.9796 1115.74349
0 0 0 0
3519.602 1126.8388 2482.9796 920.170981
Interaction Diagram (X - AXIS)
Nominal Ultimate
Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit
12000
Column Load X

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

730.888
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Interaction Diagram (Y - AXIS)

Nominal Ultimate Compression-controlled limit Tension-controlled limit Column Load Y
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

730.888
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 127.95 kN
Shear capacity, φVc 269866.63 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 317490.16 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 -317339.6 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Spacing of transversely supported flexural reinforcing bars shall not exceed 350 mm
Area of stirrups, Required number of transverse rebars
x-axis reqd? additional bars reqd! y-axis reqd? additional bars reqd!
Input number of rebars desired x - axis 3 y-axis 3
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Avx 339.29201 mm^2
Required spacing, 𝐴 𝑓𝑑 -177.0556 mm
𝑠=
𝑉
Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 468.22297 mm
𝑠=
𝑏
Length of confinement 600 mm
Clear span 3500 mm
Hoop spacing at confined zone 100 mm
Number of ties within confinement zone n 7

Hoop spacing outside confined zone 150 mm

Design of Beams fc' 28 Mpa dia. agg 18.75 mm
Diameter of barsMain 35 mm Shear 12 mm
fy 414 Mpa fy 276 Mpa
Common Design parameters:
Strength Ratio, 𝑚 = 𝑓𝑦
.85𝑓𝑐′
Required Bending coefficent, 𝜌𝑚
𝑅𝑢 = 𝜌𝑓𝑦(1 − )
2
Minimum flexural reinforcement ratio 𝑓𝑐′
𝜌 =
4𝑓𝑦
Beta 𝛽 = 0.85 𝑖𝑓 𝑓𝑐 < 30, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 0.85 − .008(𝑓𝑐 − 30) Beta 0.85
Balanced Steel Ratio, 𝑓𝑐′ 600
𝜌 = 𝛽
𝑓𝑦 600 + 𝑓𝑦
Maximum Steel Reinforcement, 𝜌 = 0.75𝜌
Elasticity of Concrete, Ec 24870.06 Mpa
𝐸 = 4700 𝑓𝑐′
Rupture modulus of Concrete, fr 3.704052 Mpa
𝑓 = 0.7 𝑓𝑐′
Modular ratio, 𝐸𝑠 n 8.041797
𝑛=
𝐸𝑐
fy m pb pmax pmin Ru
414 17.39496 0.034017 0.025512 0.003195 8.218462
276 11.59664 0.059063 0.044297 0.004793 9.085781
Interior Beam
Beam Dimensions
Width 400 mm
Height 500 mm
Concrete Cover 25 mm
Effective Depth 457.5 mm

Factored Moments
Positive Max Left End Moment 364.33 kN.m
Negative Max Midspan Moment 121.186 kN.m
Positive Max Right End Moment 364.33 kN.m
Negative steel at left end
Checking if Doubly-Rreinforced or Singly Reinforced:
𝑀𝑢 < 𝑅𝑢𝜑𝑏𝑑 Mu 364.33 kN.m Ruφbd^2 619.2632 kN.m
Analyze as SRB
Moment Resistance Coefficient, 𝑀𝑢 4.835153 Mpa
𝑅𝑢 =
𝜑𝑏𝑑
Steel ratio, 1 2𝑅 𝑚 p 0.013193
𝜌= 1− 1− Okay
𝑚 𝑓𝑦
Use p 0.013193
Steel area, 𝐴𝑠 = 𝜌𝑏𝑑 As 2414.309 mm^2
Area of steel bars, 𝜋 Ab 962.1128 mm^2
𝐴𝑏 = 𝑑
4
 4
Number of bars, 𝐴𝑠 n 2.509382
𝑛=
𝐴𝑏
Therefore use 3 35 mm diameter main bars
Clear spacing 110.5 mm Min Clear Spacing 50 mm
Positive Steel Midspan
Checking if Doubly-Rreinforced or Singly Reinforced:
𝑀𝑢 < 𝑅𝑢𝜑𝑏𝑑 Mu 121.186 kN.m Ruφbd^2 619.2632 kN.m
Analyze as SRB
Moment Resistance Coefficient, 𝑀𝑢 1.608303 Mpa
𝑅𝑢 =
𝜑𝑏𝑑
Steel ratio, 1 2𝑅 𝑚 p 0.004026
𝜌= 1− 1− Okay
𝑚 𝑓𝑦
Use p 0.004026
Steel area, 𝐴𝑠 = 𝜌𝑏𝑑 As 736.7114 mm^2
Area of steel bars, 𝜋 Ab 962.1128 mm^2
𝐴𝑏 = 𝑑
4
Number of bars, 𝐴𝑠 n 0.765723
𝑛=
𝐴𝑏
Therefore use 3 35 mm diameter main bars
Clear spacing 110.5 mm Min Clear Spacing 50 mm
Negative steel at right end
Checking if Doubly-Rreinforced or Singly Reinforced:
𝑀𝑢 < 𝑅𝑢𝜑𝑏𝑑 Mu 364.33 kN.m Ruφbd^2 619.2632 kN.m
Analyze as SRB
Moment Resistance Coefficient, 𝑀𝑢 4.835153 Mpa
𝑅𝑢 =
𝜑𝑏𝑑
Steel ratio, 1 2𝑅 𝑚 p 0.013193
𝜌= 1− 1− Okay
𝑚 𝑓𝑦
Use p 0.013193
Steel area, 𝐴𝑠 = 𝜌𝑏𝑑 As 2414.309 mm^2
Area of steel bars, 𝜋 Ab 962.1128 mm^2
𝐴𝑏 = 𝑑
4
Number of bars, 𝐴𝑠 n 2.509382
𝑛=
𝐴𝑏
Therefore use 3 35 mm diameter main bars
Clear spacing 110.5 mm Min Clear Spacing 50 mm
Design for Shear
Input Design Shear 289.94 kN Note: This is max shear
Input beam length 5.3 m

Design Shear, 289.94 kN

Shear capacity, φVc 137.1822 kN
𝜑𝑉 = 𝜑 𝑓 𝑏𝑑; 𝜑 = 0.85
Shear limits, Vc 161.3908 kN
Excess Shear, 𝑉 179.7151 kN
𝑉 = −𝑉
𝜑
Area of stirrups, 𝐴𝑣 = 𝑑 *2 Av 226.1947 mm^2
assuming U-stirrups
 Required spacing, 158.9272 mm
𝑠=

Maximum spacing, 3𝐴 𝑓 𝑑 228.75 mm

𝑠= 𝑜𝑟
𝑏 2
Seismic Provision
Confinement zone 1000 mm from face of column
Maximum spacing 114.375 mm
Required spacing at sections for economical distribution at
x Vu Use Vu Vs Use Vs s Use s n say 0.000
0.05 309.445 309.445 202.662 202.662 228.75 50.000 1 1 50.000
1 221.740 221.740 260.871 260.871 228.75 115.000 8.26087 9 1085.000
1.4 184.811 184.811 217.425 217.425 228.75 220.000 1.818182 2 1525.000
2.1 120.850 0.000 0.000 0.000 #DIV/0! 220.000 3.181818 3 2185.000
2.65 64.792 0.000 0.000 0.000 #DIV/0! 220.000 Rest Rest
Newmark’s Method

The figure above is the sample computation of Newmark’s method to determine the deformation response history of the
given EQ.

It should be noted that, due to the given data, the full computation is trivial to show in the report as they contain over 1000
time-steps.
Response Spectra
Data:
Newmark’s method was carried out for several time periods and 0%, 2%, 5% and 10% damping. It is evident in the
spectra that the largest peak pseudo-velocities and pseudo-accelerations occur at smaller natural periods of vibration while
relative displacements are smallest at smaller natural periods of vibration.

Oddly, when the natural period is 2 secs, the graphs peak and dip at 3 secs. Furthermore, the coordinates are roughly the
same, regardless of damping ratio, at that point.
Combined D-V-A Spectrum

The peak displacements, pseudo-velocities, and pseudo-accelerations were determined and plotted out in DPlot. The
corresponding graph is the result of the process.
Equivalent Static Lateral Force of El Centro (1940)
EQ
 k ≔ 581736.6611 kN/m
m1 ≔ 744.096 kN k1 ≔ k kN/m
m2 ≔ 744.096 kN k2 ≔ k kN/m
m3 ≔ 744.096 kN k3 ≔ k kN/m

Lumped Mass

⎡m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 744.096 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ≔ ⎢ 0 m 0 ⎥ → ⎢ 0 744.096 0
⎥
2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ ⎢
⎣ 0 0 744.096 ⎥⎦
⎣ 3⎦

Direct Stiffness

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ 581736.6611 -581736.6611 0 ⎤

⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ ≔ ⎢ -k k + k -k2 ⎥ → ⎢ -581736.6611 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6
-581736.6611 ⎥
1 1 2
⎢ 0 ⎥
-k2 k2 + k3 ⎦ ⎢
⎣ 0 -581736.6611 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6 ⎥⎦
⎣

Eigenvalue Equation

⎡⎣ ϕ ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠ ＝ ⎡⎣ 0 ⎤⎦

⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠ ＝ 0
Let E ＝ ⎛⎝⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞⎠

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥
E ＝ ⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ＝ 0
⎢ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ ⎣ 3⎦

⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ -744.096 ⋅ ω 2 + 581736.6611 -581736.6611 0

⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢
E ≔ ⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ → ⎢ -581736.6611
2
-744.096 ⋅ ω + 1.1634733222 ⋅ 10
6
...
-581736.6611
⎢ 0 ⎢
-k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ 2
⎣ ⎣ 3⎦ ⎣ 0 -581736.6611 -744.096 ⋅ ω + 1.163473

B ≔ det ⎛⎝E⎞⎠ → 12 4 8 6 15 2 ...

―1.6104764485924974075 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω - 4.11990222938996736 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω - 1.5108908398664450335 ⋅ 10 ⋅ ω + 1.9686989144556627632 ⋅ 10
17

⎡ω ⎤
⎡ -34.866 ⎤
⎢ 1⎥
⎢ ω2 ⎥ solve , ω ⎢ 12.444 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ω ⎥ float , 5 ⎢ -50.384 ⎥
⎢ 3 ⎥ ≔ B ――― →⎢
⎢ ω4 ⎥ -12.444 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 34.866
ω
⎢ 5⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 50.384 ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ ω6 ⎥⎦
ω1 = -34.866 ω2 = 12.444 ω3 = -50.384
| π | | π | | π |
Therefore, T1 ≔ |2 ――
| = 0.18 sec T2 ≔ |2 ――
| = 0.505 sec T3 ≔ |2 ――| = 0.125 sec
| ω1 | | ω2 | | ω3 |

Analysis of Mode Shapes:

 Analysis of Mode Shapes:
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 1n ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ϕ2n ⎥ ⎢ v2n ⎥ ⎡ 1 ⎤
ϕn ＝ ⎢ ＝ ＝⎢ ⎥ ＝ vn
ϕ3n ⎥ ⎢ v3n ⎥ ⎣ v0n ⎦
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ϕNn ⎥⎦ ⎣ vNn ⎦
⎛⎡⎣ K ⎤⎦ - ω 2 ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦⎞ ⋅ v ＝ 0
⎝ n ⎠ n

⎡ E ⎛⎝n⎞⎠ E ⎛⎝n⎞⎠ ⎤ ⎡
1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ 11 ⎛ ⎞ 10 ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ ⋅ ⎢ ⎥＝⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ Eo1 ⎝n⎠ Eoo ⎝n⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ v0n ⎦ ⎣ Oo ⎦

⎡ 1 ⎤
vn ＝ ⎢ ⎛ ⎞ -1
⎥
⎢⎣ -⎛⎝Eoo ⎝n⎠⎞⎠ ⋅ Eo1 ⎝n⎠ ⎥⎦
⎛ ⎞

⎛⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ m 0 0 ⎤⎞
1
1 ⎜ ⎢ ⎥ 2
⎢ 1 ⎥⎟ 1
E ＝ ―⋅ ⎜⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥⎟ ＝ ―⋅ 0
k 1 ⎜⎢ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥⎟ k 1
⎝⎣ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 3 ⎦⎠

⎛⎡ k -k1 0 ⎤ ⎡ m 0 0 ⎤⎞ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 1.0 -1.0

1
1 ⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥⎟ ⎢
E ≔ ―⋅ ⎜⎢ -k1 k1 + k2 -k2 ⎥ - ω 2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m 2 0 ⎥⎟ → ⎢ -1.0 -0.001279094218667
...
k1 ⎜⎢ ⎢ 0 0 m ⎥⎟ ⎢⎣
⎝⎣ 0 -k2 k2 + k3 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 3 ⎦⎠ 0 -1.0

⎡E E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 1.0 -1.0

11 12 13 ⎢
⎢ ⎥ 2
⎢ E21 E22 E23 ⎥ ≔ E → ⎢ -1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896
... ⋅ω +2
⎢E E E ⎥ ⎢ 0 -1.0
⎣ 31 32 33 ⎦ ⎣
For ω1 :
ω ≔ ||ω1|| = 34.866

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ...

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0

⎡ -0.55503759242745794375 -1.2470386395680406301 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ -1.2470386395680406301 -0.55503759242745794375 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ -0.555 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ -1.247 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 21 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ11 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ31 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 11 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ1 ≔ ⎢ ϕ21 ⎥ = ⎢ -0.555 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ -1.247 ⎥⎦
⎣ 31 ⎦
For ω2 :
ω ≔ ||ω2|| = 12.444

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ...

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0

⎡ 0.80194571587570119548 0.44504863960083603119 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.44504863960083603119 0.80194571587570119548 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ 0.802 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.445 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 22 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ12 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ32 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡1 ⎤
⎢ 12 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ2 ≔ ⎢ ϕ22 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.802 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0.445 ⎥⎦
⎣ 32 ⎦
 For ω3 :
ω ≔ ||ω3|| = 50.384

⎡ E E ⎤ ⎡ -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω 2 + 2.0 -1.0 ... ⎤

Eoo ≔ ⎢ 22 23 ⎥ → ⎢ ⎥=
⎢⎣ E32 E33 ⎥⎦ ⎣
2
-1.0 -0.0012790942186675949896 ⋅ ω + 2.0 ⎦

⎡ -2.2464672840967243004 1.801437650364856747 ⎤
Eoo -1 → ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1.801437650364856747 -2.2464672840967243004 ⎦
⎡ E ⎤ ⎡ -1.0 ⎤
21
Eo1 ≔ ⎢ ⎥→⎢ ⎥
E
⎢⎣ 31 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

⎡ -2.246 ⎤
v0n ≔ -Eoo -1 ⋅ Eo1 = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1.801 ⎦

⎡ϕ ⎤
⎢ 23 ⎥ ≔ v0n ϕ13 ≔ 1
⎢⎣ ϕ33 ⎥⎦
⎡ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 13 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
ϕ3 ≔ ⎢ ϕ23 ⎥ = ⎢ -2.246 ⎥
⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 1.801 ⎥⎦
⎣ 33 ⎦

Determining Modal Participation factor, Γ

Determining Modal Participation factor, Γ
⎡1⎤
L T T ⎢ ⎥
Γ＝― where L ＝ ϕ mι and M ＝ ϕ mϕ ι≔⎢1⎥
M ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦
For Γ1 : ⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
L1 ≔ ϕ1 ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ι = -596.822
T

⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦
⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
M1 ≔ ϕ1 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ϕ1 = 2.13 ⋅ 10 3
T

⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦

L1
Γ1 ≔ ―― = -0.28
M1
For Γ2 : ⎡m 0
1 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
L2 ≔ ϕ2 T ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ι = 1.672 ⋅ 10 3
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦
⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
M2 ≔ ϕ2 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ϕ2 = 1.37 ⋅ 10 3
T

⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦

L2
Γ2 ≔ ―― = 1.22
M2
For Γ3 : ⎡m 0
1 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
L3 ≔ ϕ3 T ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ι = 412.951
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦
⎡m 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥
M3 ≔ ϕ3 ⋅ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⋅ ϕ3 = 6.914 ⋅ 10 3
T

⎢ 0 0 m ⎥
⎣ 3⎦

L3
Γ3 ≔ ―― = 0.06
M3

Determining elastic forces,

Determining elastic forces,
⎡ f ⎤ ＝ Γ ⋅ ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡ ϕ ⎤ ⋅ A Ai is the pseudo-acceleration
⎣ i⎦ i ⎣ i⎦ i
determined from the deformation
For Mode 1: A1 ≔ 0.334887816 response history, u(t)
Let x1 = ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦ y1 = Γi ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦
⎡ m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 744.096 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 11 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
x1 ≔ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⎢ ϕ21 ⎥ = ⎢ -413.001 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ ⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ -927.916 ⎥⎦
⎣ 3 ⎦ ⎣ 31 ⎦
⎡ 208.448 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
y1 ≔ abs ⎛⎝Γ1⎞⎠ x1 = ⎢ -115.696 ⎥
⎢⎣ -259.942 ⎥⎦
⎡ 69.807 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
f1 ≔ y1 ⋅ A1 = ⎢ -38.745 ⎥
⎢⎣ -87.052 ⎥⎦

For Mode 2: A2 ≔ 0.156434182

Let x2 = ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦ y2= Γi ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦
⎡ m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 744.096 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 12 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
x2 ≔ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⎢ ϕ22 ⎥ = ⎢ 596.725 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ ⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 331.159 ⎥⎦
⎣ 3 ⎦ ⎣ 32 ⎦
⎡ 908.1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
y2 ≔ abs ⎛⎝Γ2⎞⎠ x2 = ⎢ 728.247 ⎥
⎢⎣ 404.148 ⎥⎦
⎡ 142.058 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
f2 ≔ y2 ⋅ A2 = ⎢ 113.923 ⎥
⎢⎣ 63.223 ⎥⎦

For Mode 3: A3 ≔ 0.34427004

Let x3 = ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦ y3 = Γi ⎡⎣ M ⎤⎦ ⋅ ⎡⎣ ϕi ⎤⎦
⎡ m 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ ϕ ⎤ ⎡ 744.096 ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 13 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
x3 ≔ ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥ ⎢ ϕ23 ⎥ = ⎢ -1.672 ⋅ 10 3 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m ⎥ ⎢ ϕ ⎥ ⎢⎣ 1.34 ⋅ 10 3 ⎥⎦
⎣ 3 ⎦ ⎣ 33 ⎦
⎡ 44.443 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
y3 ≔ abs ⎛⎝Γ3⎞⎠ x3 = ⎢ -99.839 ⎥
⎢⎣ 80.061 ⎥⎦
⎡ 15.3 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
f3 ≔ y3 ⋅ A3 = ⎢ -34.372 ⎥
⎢⎣ 27.562 ⎥⎦

Modal Combinations
 f3 ≔ y3 ⋅ A3 = ⎢ -34.372 ⎥
⎢⎣ 27.562 ⎥⎦

Modal Combinations
Square-Root-Sum-Square Rule (SRSS)

⎡ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 2 ⎤
⎢ f10 , 0 + f20 , 0 + f30 , 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ 159.02 ⎤
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
FSRSS ≔ ⎢ f1 2
+ f2
2
+ f3
2
⎥ = ⎢ 125.144 ⎥
⎢ 1,0 1,0 1,0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ ⎢
⎣ 111.062 ⎥⎦
2 2 2 ⎥
⎢ f12 , 0 + f22 , 0 + f32 , 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) Rule

⎡ |ω | |ω | |ω | ⎤
| 1| | 1| | 1|
⎢ ―― ―――― ⎥
⎢ ||ω1|| ||ω2|| ||ω3|| ⎥
⎢ | | | | | | ⎥ ⎡1 2.802 0.692 ⎤
| ω 2| | ω 2| | ω 2| ⎢ ⎥
β ≔ ⎢ ―――――― ⎥ = 0.357 1
⎢ 0.247 ⎥ ξ ≔ 0.05
⎢ ||ω || ||ω || ||ω || ⎥
⎢ 1 2 3
⎥ ⎢⎣ 1.445 4.049 1 ⎥⎦
|ω | |ω | |ω |
⎢ | 3| | 3| | 3| ⎥
⎢ ―― ――――
| | | | | |⎥
⎣ |ω1| |ω2| |ω3| ⎦

⎡ 3
―
3
―
3
―
⎤
⎢ 2 ⎛ ⎞ 2 2 2 ⎥
8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β ⎛ ⎞
2 2
⎢ 8 ξ 1+β β 8 ξ 1+β β ⎥
⎜⎝ 0 , 0⎟
⎠ 0,0 ⎜⎝ 0 , 1⎟
⎠ 0,1 ⎜⎝ 0 , 2⎟
⎠ 0,2
⎢ ―――――――――――― ―――――――――――― ―――――――――――― ⎥
⎢ ⎛ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞
2⎞ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜1 - β0 , 0 ⎟ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ β0 , 0 ⋅ ⎛1 + β0 , 0⎞ ⎟
2
⎜⎝ ⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎟ ⎥
⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ⎠ 0,1 ⎜ 0 , 1⎟ 0,2 ⎜ 0 , 2⎟
⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 0,1 ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ 0,2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎥
3 3 3
⎢ ― ― ― ⎥
2 2 2
8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β 8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β 8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β
⎢ 2 2 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎜⎝ 1 , 0⎟
⎠ 1,0 ⎜⎝ 1 , 1⎟
⎠ 1,1 ⎜⎝ 1 , 2⎟
⎠ 1,2 ⎥
ρ ≔ ⎢ ―――――――――――― ―――――――――――― ―――――――――――― ⎥
2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞
⎢ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜⎝ 1,0 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 1 , 0 ⎜
⎝ 1 , 0 ⎟
⎠ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 1,1 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 1 , 1 ⎜
⎝ 1 , 1 ⎟
⎠ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 1,2 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 1,2 ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎥
1 , 2⎟
⎢ 3 3 3 ⎥
⎢ ―
2
―
2
―
2
⎥
8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β 8 ξ ⎛1 + β ⎞ β
2 2 2 ⎛ ⎞
⎢ 8 ξ 1+β β ⎥
⎢ ―――――――――――― ⎜⎝ 2 , 0⎟
⎠ 2,0 ⎜⎝ 2 , 1⎟
⎠ 2,1 ⎜⎝ 2 , 2⎟
⎠ 2 , 2
―――――――――――― ―――――――――――― ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ 2⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎛1 - β 2 ⎞ + ⎜4 ⋅ ξ 2 β ⋅ ⎛1 + β ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎜⎝ 2,0 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 2,0 ⎜ ⎝ 2 , 0⎟ ⎠ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2,1 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 2,1 ⎜
⎝ 2 , 1⎟
⎠ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2,2 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 2,2 ⎜ ⎝ 2 , 2⎟
⎠ ⎠ ⎦

⎡1 0.008 0.067 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
ρ = ⎢ 0.008 1 0.003 ⎥
⎢⎣ 0.067 0.003 1 ⎥⎦

λ1 ≔ ⎡ f 1 f2 f3 ⎤ λ2 ≔ ⎡ f 1 f2 f3 ⎤ λ3 ≔ ⎡ f 1 f2 f3 ⎤
⎢⎣ 0,0 0,0 0,0⎥
⎦ ⎢⎣ 1,0 1,0 1,0⎥
⎦ ⎢⎣ 2,0 2,0 2,0⎥
⎦

FCQC3 ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
λ1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ λ1 T = 159.984

FCQC2 ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
λ2 ⋅ ρ ⋅ λ2 T = 125.481

FCQC1 ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
λ3 ⋅ ρ ⋅ λ3 T = 109.284
The resulting lateral forces, from SRSS or CQC, are oddly larger than the Equivalent Static Lateral Forces
determined from the normalized design spectra in the NSCP 2015 code. This could be a product of human error
in the encoding of the procedure. However, it is to be noted that the reporter is perplexed as to why and how this
is possible as proper procedure was followed.

It is suspected that this is the product of closely spaced natural periods of vibration. However, it is stated by
Chopra (2012) that the CQC modal combination rule is supposed to be more applicable to a wider range of
structures.

Based on results obtained, the equivalent static lateral forces from the procedure in the code is significantly
smaller than the forces obtained by modal analysis.

Level Code-specified, kN Dynamic modal analysis, kN

SRSS CQC

3 144.8515 159.02 159.984

2 115.5609 125.144 125.481

1 75.64357 111.062 109.284

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS

Addressing the problems raised in the project,

● Member design using Response History Analysis (NSCP 2015)

The following dimensions and details are typical of all columns and beams.
Member Dimensions Longitudinal Bars Confinement

Column 600 mm x 600 mm 6 - 35 mm dia. 1 @ 50 mm, 7 @ 100

mm, rest @ 150 mm

Beams 400 mm x 500 mm 3 - 35 mm dia. (positive 1 @ 50 mm, 9 @ 115

and negative bars) mm, rest at 220 mm.

● Determine and plot the displacement, pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration response spectra for a damping
ratio of 0%, 2%, 5%, and 10% of an SDOF system. Limit the natural period of vibration to 5.0 sec. Use
Newmark’s Method. Use the assigned earthquake record

Numerically determining the response history analysis is computationally rigorous, even for a Linear
system, it is reflected by the reporter that non-linear MDOF systems are even more rigorous. It should be
noted that the reporter has a deeper appreciation for structural dynamic analyses, especially for very tall
structures.
 ● Determine the equivalent static lateral force of the assigned earthquake record. Use SRSS and CQC for modal
combination rule. Check if the sections designed in item number 1 will still satisfy the new earthquake demands.

Based on the results, sections designed in number 1 will satisfy the new earthquake demands. This is
partly due to the fact that the sections were overdesigned by the reporter. The increase in the forces are
negligible.

Results from part 1:

Columns
Member 1.4 DL 1.2 DL + 1.0 E 0.9 DL + 1.0 E

Force Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment,
kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m

1 893.468 40.015 45.841 609.314 67.928 261.121 417.857 76.502 270.945

7 1712.329 0 0 1467.711 131.604 334.734 1100.783 131.604 334.734

15 893.468 40.015 45.841 922.345 136.525 339.706 730.888 127.95 329.883

Beams
Member Axial Shear Moment

6 100 kN 289.94 kN 364.33 kN-m

Results from part 3:

Columns
Member 1.4 DL 1.2 DL + 1.0 E 0.9 DL + 1.0 E

Force Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment, Axial, Shear, Moment,
kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m kN kN kN-m

1 893.468 40.015 45.841 590.725 85.966 308.907 499.267 94.54 318.73

7 1712.329 0 0 1467.711 154.221 388.179 1100.783 154.221 388.179

15 893.468 40.015 45.841 940.935 154.562 387.491 749.478 145.988 377.668

Beams
Member Axial Shear Moment

6 61.2 kN 291 kN 386 kN-m

It should be noted, however, that the reporter is rather perplexed as to the outcome of his calculations and
suspects that something is amiss, considering that the design spectra in the Code is already normalized,
according to past earthquake data. It is recommended that the output be looked into.