RESPONSE

EVALUATION
Part 3 Izet MEHMETAJ

6/17/17 1
 4.6.1.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
4.6.2 Static Analysis
4.6.2.1 Equivalent Static Analysis
4.6.2.2 Pushover Analysis
4.6.3 Simplified Code Method
4.7 Performance Levels and Objectives
4.8 Output for Assessment
4.8.1 Actions
4.8.2 Deformations
4.9 Concluding Remarks

CONTENT
6/17/17 2
GENERAL
The analysis process, which leads to the evaluation of seismic actions and deformations,
invokes knowledge from several sub-disciplines in engineering.

To perform reliable seismic analyses of structural systems, a conceptual framework is

required.

Conceptual framework for seismic analysis of structures

6/17/17 3
Contd.
The topics discussed in this part are illustrated by an example
application consisting of a three-storey irregular reinforced concrete
(RC) frame.

6/17/17 4
4.6.1.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is an analysis method that can

be utilized to estimate structural capacity under earthquake
loading.

It provides a continuous picture of the system response, from

elasticity to yielding and finally to collapse.

The method constitutes subjecting a structural model to one or

more ground motion records, each scaled to multiple levels of
intensity. Many dynamic analyses are undertaken and the response
from these analyses is plotted versus the record intensity level.

6/17/17 5
 The steps for obtaining a single earthquake record IDA are:

a) Define a suitable earthquake record consistent with the design scenario;

b) Define a monotonic scaleable ground motion intensity measure;

c) Define a damage measure or structural state variable;

d) Define a set of scale factors to apply for the selected intensity measure in (b);

e) Scale the sample record in (a) to generate a set of records that will test the
structure throughout is response range, from elastic response to collapse ;

f) Perform response history analysis of the structural model subjected to the scaled
accelerogram at the lowest intensity measure;

g) Evaluate the damage measure in (c) corresponding to the scaled intensity

measure in (b); Contd.
h) Repeat steps to (f) to (g) for all the scaled intensity measures.
6/17/17 6
Contd.

Sample incremental dynamic analysis curves (IDA curves) for a

multi-storey building under four different earthquakes

6/17/17 7
Contd. 500

400

Max.Base Shear in x (kN)

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200
Max. Top Lateral Displacement in x (mm)

Montenegro 1979_ Ulcinj2 #1 Montenegro 1979_ Ulcinj2 #2

Montenegro 1979_ Herceg Novi #1
Friuli 1976_Tolmezzo #1
Imperial Valley 1940_El Centro #1
Kalamata_Prefecture #1
Loma Prieta 1989_Capitola #1
Imperial Valley 1979_Bonds Corner #1
Static pushover_positive
Montenegro 1979_ Herceg Novi #2
Friuli 1976_Tolmezzo #2
Imperial Valley 1940_El Centro #2
Kalamata_Prefecture #2
Loma Prieta 1989_Capitola #2
Imperial Valley 1979_Bonds Corner #2
Static pushover_negative

Static and dynamic pushover results for the SPEAR frame

6/17/17 8
4.6.2 Static Analysis
Static methods are generally used to assess the capacity or supply of the
structural system.

Static analysis may be viewed as a special case of dynamic analysis when

damping and inertia effects are zero or negligible.

The equation of static equilibrium for a lumped MDOF system is as

R F t
follows:

where R is the vector of restoring forces and F(t) the vector of the
applied earthquake loads.

6/17/17 9
4.6.2.1 Equivalent Static Analysis

It is assumed that the behavior is linear elastic, while geometrical

nonlinearities, can be accounted for implicitly.

The horizontal loads considered equivalent to the earthquake forces are

applied along the height of the structure and are combined with vertical loads.

Methods of structural analysis are used to solve the equilibrium equations for
a MDOF system.

This method of assessment provides approximate estimates of the

deformation of the structure up to the occurrence of significant inelasticity.

6/17/17 10
Contd.
The steps required to assess structures by equivalent static analysis are:

a) Assume a lateral load pattern distribution.

b) Apply the gravity and horizontal loads defined in (a) in a single
analysis.
c) Evaluate displacements and hence internal forces.
d) If scaled forces are used, the ensuing displacements also require
scaling.

6/17/17 11
4.6.2.2 Pushover Analysis

Static forces or displacements are distributed along the height of the

structure so as to simulate the inertia forces.

The forcing functions are increased in intensity and the pushover

analysis terminates when the ultimate capacity corresponding to a set
of ultimate limit states are attained.

conventional pushover: if the pattern of forcing function is kept

constant throughout the analysis.

adaptive pushover: if the pattern changes to account for variations in

the mode shapes of the structure in the inelastic range.

6/17/17 12
Conventional Pushover Analysis

Conventional pushover is an inelastic static analysis method in which the idealized representation
of the structure is subjected to constant gravity loads and to monotonically increasing lateral
force or displacement pattern of a constant shape .

The pushover analysis is a capacity estimation method under a set of functions that represent
inertial effects from the earthquake .

This method is capable of shedding light on design weaknesses that elastic analysis cannot
detect.

The pushover analysis solution commonly utilises an incremental-iterative solution of the static
equilibrium equations.

The results of pushover analysis are often expressed in terms of global base shear V base versus top
lateral displacements dtop

6/17/17 13
Contd.
500 500

400 400

Base Shear in y (kN)

Base Shear in x (kN)

300 300

200 200
c
Model #1 Model #1
Model #2 Model #2
100 Model #3 100 Model #3
Model #4 Model #4

0 0
-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Top Lateral Displacement in x (mm) Top Lateral Displacement in y (mm)

LABEL SLAB RIGID D IAPHRAGM RIGID LINKS @ COLUMN ENDS BEAM -COLUMN JOINT SHEAR
Model #1
Model #2
Model #3
Model #4

Capacity curves for the SPEAR frame: pushover along the x-direction (left) and y-direction (right)
6/17/17 14
Contd.
The steps required to perform pushover analysis are:

a) Apply the gravity loads in a single step;

b) Assume a lateral load pattern;

c) Select a controlling displacement node;

d) Determine the vertical distribution of lateral forces V i, if the displacement vector F has been selected in (b).
Conversely, determine the vertical displacement distribution F i;

e) Compute the incremental-iterative solution of the static equilibrium equations;

f) For structures that are not symmetric about a plan perpendicular to the applied loads, the lateral load or
displacement pattern should be applied in both positive and negative directions ;

g) Determine the base shear V base, top displacement d top, the storey shear Vi and storey drift d i;

h) Plot the system (Vbase versus d top) and the storey (Vi versus d i/hi) pushover curves.

6/17/17 15
Contd.
For both 2D and 3D analysis, at least two vertical distributions of lateral
forces or displacements should be employed since the actual dynamic
force distribution, which may be far from constant, is not known.

The uniform pattern, which is proportional to the total mass at each

floor, should be used along with the modal pattern.

The choice of at least two load distributions along the main axis of the
structure is a practical and viable solution to partly overcome the
limitations associated with using a static analysis method to solve an
inherently dynamic problem.

6/17/17 16
Adaptive Pushover Analysis

Adaptive pushover is a method by which possible changes to the distribution of

inertial forces, as shown for example in the figure below, can be taken into
account during static analysis.

1000

3.0% Drift
2.0% Drift
800
1.0% Drift
Base Shear (kN)

600
0.9% Drift Changes of the distribution of inertial forces in a regular
framed building (adaptive force distribution)
400

Initial
200

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Total Drift (%)

6/17/17 17
Contd.
The steps required to perform adaptive pushover analysis are:

Apply the gravity loads in a single step;

Perform an eigenvalue analysis of the structure at the current stiffness state;

Determine the modal participation factor Gj for the j-th mode;

Compute the modal storey forces at each floor level for the N modes deemed to satisfy mass participation of
at least 85%-90% of the total mass;

Perform a static pushover of the structure subjected to the storey forces computed in step (d) and
corresponding to each mode independently;

Estimate element and structure forces and displacements by means of SRSS combinations of each modal
quantity for the k-th step of analysis. Add the above quantities to the relevant quantity of the (k-1)th step;

Compare the values established in step (f) to the limiting values for the specified performance goals at both
local and global levels. Return to step (b) until the target performance is achieved.

6/17/17 18
4.6.3 Simplified Code Method
The simplified code method is intended to replace dynamic earthquake loading by
equivalent static loads acting horizontally.

The equivalent static load is expressed as a percentage of the total seismic weight of
the structure WEQ,t.

The basis of the method lies in modal decomposition of the response of MDOF systems.

The total horizontal force or base shear VB acting on a structure is given by:

VB C W EQ,t

where the total seismic weight WEQ,t includes the total dead loads and part of the live
loads.

6/17/17 19
Contd.
The effective modal weight W
i mode is given by:
of the i-th

L2i
Wi g
M i

L2i M i
where is the effective modal mass relative to the i-th

mode and g the acceleration of gravity. Note that:

N N

W
i 1
i WEQ,i WEQ,t
i 1

N
L2i N WEQ,i WEQ,t
and M
i 1

i 1 g

g
i

in which N denotes the total number of modes of vibrations, determined from eigenvalue
analysis.

6/17/17 20
 Different codes attempt to estimate the value of seismic base shear coefficient C such
that the obtained base shear VB, and its distribution over the structure represent a safe
yet economical upper bound to the earthquake load.

The evaluation of the seismic base shear coefficient is dependent mainly on the
following parameters:

Seismo-tectonic environment of the area;

Topography and soil condition of the site;

Dynamic characteristics of the structure;

Structural system, ductility and material used;

Importance of the structure;

Whereas (iii) and (iv) above are clearly linked, they are treated separately in codes,
with a degree of justification.

6/17/17 21
 The parameters listed above are considered in different ways in seismic codes:

The Zone Factor accounts for the anticipated seismic activity at the construction site.

The Site Factor represents the effect of the different foundation materials on the
strong-motion characteristics and the probability of high amplification or resonance.

The Response Modification or Behaviour Factor reflects the relative seismic

performance of different structural systems.

The Material Factor reflects the ability of the structural material to dissipate energy and
respond in a ductile manner.

The Importance Factor accounts for the importance of the building by decreasing the
probability of damage or collapse for important, environmentally-sensitive or
exceptionally heavily populated structures.

The Design Spectrum accounts for the coupling between structural periods of vibration
and earthquake characteristics as well as travel path.

6/17/17 22
 The fundamental period of vibration T of a structure is essential to compute
the base shear VB.

The importance of this dynamic response parameter is twofold: the site-

structure resonance and the design spectrum ordinate.

It is customary to check the period determined empirically through code-

based formulae by using Rayleighs method:

N 2 N
T 2 i i
W i i
g F
i 1 i 1

where Wi is the storey weight, Fi the force applied at the i-th storey and i the
corresponding lateral displacement.

6/17/17 23
 The distribution of seismic loads along the building height depends mainly on mass and stiffness
distributions and the building configuration in plan and elevation.

The contribution of higher modes in the dynamic response of the structure also affects the load
distribution.

A common expression for the seismic lateral force Fi at the i-th storey of a building structure is:

Wi H i
Fi VB N

W
j1
j Hj

where N it the total number of storeys, Wi and Wj are the weight of the i-th and j-th storeys,
respectively. Similarly, Hi and Hj are the heights from ground level to the i-th and j-th level,
respectively.

6/17/17 24
 The steps required to perform the simplified code procedure are:

a) Select the design earthquake spectrum;

b) Select the structural lateral force resisting system, material of construction and
hence select the response modification factor;
c) Scale the design spectrum by using the force reduction factor selected above;
d) Estimate the fundamental period of vibration of the structure T;
e) Compute the spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental period T, the
assumed value of structural damping and level of ductility (force reduction
factor);
f) Define the importance factor of the structure;
g) Compute the seismic weight WEQ,t of the structure;

h) Estimate the seismic coefficient C and hence compute the design base shear V B;

i) Distribute the total seismic shear VB computed in step (h) over the height of the
structure;
j) Perform a static structural analysis to evaluate the response quantities;
k) Scale the horizontal displacements computed in (j) by using an amplification
6/17/17 25
factor.
 Seismic design codes allow the use of the equivalent lateral force
procedure for relatively regular structures.

For irregular or long period structures, more refined dynamic analysis

methods such as modal spectral or inelastic response history analysis
should be used.

Static Analysis Dynamic Analysis

Type of ELF NSP RAS LRH NRH
Structure

Regular
Irregular

Methods of analysis recommended in seismic design codes and their applicability

Key: ELFA = Equivalent Lateral Force; NSP = Nonlinear Static Pushover;

RAS = Response Spectrum; LRH = Linear Response History; NRH = Nonlinear
Response History; = Applicable

6/17/17 26
 Nonlinearity
Analysis Type Input Mechanical Geometric Accuracy
Horizontal force
Equivalent Static Static distribution
Conventional Horizontal force/displacement
Pushover Static distribution

Modal Dynamic n.a.

Spectral Dynamic Spectrum
Response History Dynamic Earthquake *

Adaptive Pushover Dynamic Spectrum

Incremental Dynamic Dynamic Earthquake

Simplified Code Static / Dynamic Force distribution / spectrum

Comparisons between different types of analysis

Key: : n.a. = Not Applicable; * = Not applicable for linear time history; = Applicable;
= Low; = Medium; = High

6/17/17 27
 4.7 Performance Levels and Objectives
Performance objectives are defined by limit states (LSs), which may or may not be
structural, since the use of a structure can be impeded by non-structural issues.

In a broader socio-economic context, LSs may be related to repair costs that are in
excess of a desired amount, opportunity losses, or morbidity and mortality.

In structural earthquake engineering, narrowly defined structural LSs may be

strength, deformation or energy-related.

Numerous analytical approaches based on multiple LSs have been presented in the
literature. The seemingly different approaches exhibit common features.

6/17/17 28
 Performance assessment employing a three-level limit state format is the most
suitable means of assessing the earthquake response of structural systems.

These levels may be defined using terminology intended to be comprehensible

to stakeholders and risk managers as well as engineers and social scientists.

PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE SEISMIC

LEVEL OBJECTIVES CRITERIA HAZARD
PROB. PROB.
LIMIT STRUCTURAL SOCIO-
ENGINEERING TYPE EXCEEDENCE TYPE EVENT
STATE CHARACTERISTICS ECONOMIC
(in %) (in %)
Near
Nonstructural
Serviceability Stiffness Operational Elastic Pc1 in Nc1 yrs Frequent Ps1 in Ns1 yrs
Damage
Response
Moderate Limited Limited
Damage
Strength Structural Economic Inelastic Pc2 in Nc2 yrs Occasional Ps2 in Ns2 yrs
Control
Damage Loss Response
Severe Large
Collapse Life Loss
Ductility Structural Inelastic Pc3 in Nc3 yrs Rare Ps3 in Ns3 yrs
Prevention Prevention
Damage Response

Recommended three-level format for limit states of structural systems

 The objective of modern earthquake risk management includes both
engineering and socio-economic objectives; it is aimed at controlling the
risks to socially and economically acceptable levels.

The LSs for structural systems may be defined as follows:

Serviceability limit state (SL): The structure is only slightly

damaged;

Damage control limit state (DC): The structure is significantly

damaged, but still retains considerable strength and stiffness;

Collapse prevention limit state (CP): The structure is heavily

damaged, with very limited residual strength and stiffness.
 The above three limit state format yields four performance regions: from zero
to SL is continued operation, from SL to DC is repairable damage, from DC to
CP is irreparable damage and above CP is collapse.

For buildings and bridges, the selected time window is generally

Ns1=Ns2=Ns3=50 years;

The following values are assumed as return periods Tri:

Serviceability limit state: TR1 75 years, corresponding to a probability of

exceedance of 50% in 50 years;

Damage control limit state: TR2 475 years, corresponding to a probability

of exceedance of 10% in 50 years;

Collapse prevention limit state: TR3 2475 years, corresponding to a

probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years.
Conceptual correlation matrix to identify performance levels and their
consequences
 Structural assessment should be based on values of measurable physical parameters
that can be associated with engineering limit states and damage states.

Since earthquake-induced damage of building and bridge structures is generally

related to inelastic deformations, deformation-based damage indices are more
appropriate than force-based ones.

PERFORMANCE DAMAGE SEISMIC INTERSTOREY

LEVEL TYPE HAZARD DRIFT (d/h)
LIMIT STATE LEVEL TYPE PROB . EVENT (in %) VALUES (in %)

Serviceability Nonstructural Frequent 50% in 50 yrs 0.2 < d/h < 0.5

Moderate
Damage Control Structural Occasional 10% in 50 yrs 0.5 < d/h < 1.5

Severe
Collapse Prevention Rare 2% in 50 yrs 1.5 < d/h < 3.0
Structural

Commonly used values of inter-storey drifts for the seismic performance assessment of framed structures
 4.8 Output for Assessment
Output quantities are sub-divided into actions and deformations.

Local and global indicators are used for accurate and reliable assessment of
seismic response.

Local output parameters are required primarily to detect potential damage

localization and to evaluate the attainment of threshold values of stress and
strain in fibres at different performance levels.

Global response indicators are used to estimate the fundamental structural

response characteristics.

The evaluation of local and global parameters depends upon assumptions made
regarding the level of discretization adopted for the structure.

6/17/17 34
 Response
Indicators

Actions Energy Deformations

Local Global
Local Global Local Global Indicators Indicators
Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators

Strains
Stresses Forces
Damping Energy Hysteretic Energy

Normal (e) Shear (g)

Hysteretic loops

Normal (s) Shear (t) Roof Drift (dtop)

Displacements
Storey Drift (di)
Axial Forces (N)
Equivalent stress (seq)
Roof Accelerations (atop)
Accelerations
Torque (T)
Storey Accelerations (ai)
Storey Shears Storey Moments
(Vsx, Vsy) (Msx, Msy)
Shear forces Bending Moments Members
(Vx, Vy) (Mx, My) Rotations
Base Shears Base Moments
(VBx, VBy) (MBx, MBy) Connections

Response indicators used for structural assessment

6/17/17 35
 Hysteresis loops are useful for both action and deformation assessment
as well as energy absorbed and dissipated.

They are useful because they indicate the occurrence of stiffness and
strength degradation at different structural resolutions.

Insight into seismic behaviour may also be derived from the energy
balance between seismic input and energy absorbed.

Damping and hysteretic energy are response indicators which are

generally used to assess inelastic deformations in building and bridge
systems.

6/17/17 36
 Actions
Output for actions may be at the local or the global level.

Local actions generally include stress and strain outputs at Gauss points within FEs
of the discretized system.

Global indicators correspond to internal actions.

Moments, shear and axial forces should be assessed when performing three-
dimensional analysis.

In planar systems, output internal forces include only axial forces N, moment and
shear force.

Base and storey shear forces and moments may also be used to detect the
occurrence of both local and global LSs.

6/17/17 37
 Assuming that lateral force does not increase as the
displacement increases, weak storey behaviour occurs when
the capacity curve shows a descending branch. The ground
storey loses its strength ahead of the second or third storey
failure. Therefore the failure occurs at ground floor.
500 500

1st level 2nd level 3rd level 1st level 2nd level 3rd level

400 400
Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Top Lateral Displacement (mm) Top Lateral Displacement (mm)

Storey pushover curves: positive X-direction (left) and Y-direction (right) of the sample frame
(top displacement @ the centre column C3)

6/17/17 38
Deformations
Deformation parameters provide a better indicator of damage of structures
subjected to earthquakes than actions do.

Normal and shear strains, e and g respectively, can be obtained only from
detailed geometric discretizations of the structure.

Strain values are used to ascertain the likelihood of local buckling in steel or
composite sections and buckling of reinforcement bars in RC members.

For metal plates, it is necessary to determine shear strains to establish the

occurrence of shear yielding and buckling.

Normal strains are frequently employed to determine the occurrence of LSs,

such as steel yield and concrete crushing.

6/17/17 39
 30 600

20 400
Tension
10 200

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

0 0
-0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 -0.014 -0.010 -0.006 -0.002 0.002 0.006 0.010 0.014
-10 -200
Compression
-20 -400

-30
-600
Strain Strain

Hysteretic response of normal strains within RC sections discretized through fibre elements in
the model frame: confined concrete (left) and steel rebars (right)

Response deformation parameters, such as interstorey drifts,

may be used to determine the occurrence of different damage
states.

Excessive interstorey drifts are indicators of structural failure,

such as weak storeys in framed systems.
6/17/17 40
 200 200

150 1st level 2nd level 3rd level 150 1st level 2nd level 3rd level

Interstorey Drift in z (mm)

Interstorey Drift in z (mm)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150

-200 -200
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Interstorey drift time histories (top) @ column C3 of the SPEAR frame and deformed
shapes (bottom) at 4.64 sec of the 1986 Kalamata earthquake
6/17/17 41
 Final Project (continued)
- The RC building shown in figure is to be constructed close to an active fault.

- In the given table provides the dimension of the cross-sections of the structural
members. The characteristic concrete strength is 30 N/mm2 and the characteristic
yield strength is 420 N/ mm2 for both longitudinal and transverse steel.

Columns Beams

X-dir. X-dir. Slabs

Internal External Cut-of Z-dir.
(1st floor) (2-8th floors)

70 70 60 60 50 30 30 80 30 60 30 60 14

Member cross-sections

Sample structure

6/17/17 42
 Final Project
A construction site is at an epicentral distance of 8.0 km from a thrust
fault. A seismic hazard assessment for the site was carried out and a
design earthquake with magnitude M w = 7.65 and focal depth of 7.0 km
was obtained. A number of borings drilled at the site indicated that the
subsoil is rock with a shear wave velocity of 800 m/s.
The seismic hazard assessment recommended the following attenuation
relationship to derive the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the site:

log (PGA) 0.105 0.229 (M w 6) 0.778 log( R ) 0.162 G A 0.251 G B (1)

where the value of PGA is in g. The coefficients GA and GB can be

obtained from Table 2 as a function of the soil shear wave
velocity. The focal distance R should be computed using the
following relationship : 2
R d h
2 (2)

where d is the epicentral distance and h the focal depth (in

kms). Soil type Shear wave velocity (m/s) G G A B

Class A vs > 750 0 0

Class B 360 < vs 750 1 0
Class C vs 360 0 1

Values of coefficients G
 Final Project
- The elastic acceleration response spectrum derived in the seismic
hazard assessment is shown in below.

- A response modification factor of 8.0 and the PGA calculated

from eqn.(1) should be used to scale the elastic spectrum
given in figure below and derive the design spectrum.

5.00

4.00

Spectral Acceleration / PGA 3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Period (sec)

Elastic acceleration response spectrum

Final Project
- The distributed loads on beams are summarized in table below.
Twenty-five percent of the live loads should be considered in all
seismic design calculations.

Framing System Dead Load (kN/m) Live Load (kN/m)

External Frames (F1) 20 10

Internal Frames (F2) 30 15

Distributed loads on beams

- The concentrated loads to apply at the beam-column connections

are provided in table below.

Framing System Load at external col. (kN) Load at internal col. (kN) Load at cut-of col. (kN)

80 100 10
External Frames (F1)

Internal Frames (F2) 125 180 n.a.

Concentrated loads at beam-to-column connections

Final Project
- The elastic period of the structure may be estimated by the following:
T 0.073 h tot
3/4 (3)

where htot is the total height (in metres) from the foundation level.
- The design base shear (V) and the storey seismic forces (F i) can
be estimated by employing the relationships given below:
V CW (4)

h x Wx
Fi n
V (5)

W h
1
i i

where W is the total load (dead load and 25% of the live load); hi
and hx are the height from the foundation level to floor i and x; Wi
and Wx are the portion of the total gravity load W located at level i
or x; and n is the total number of stories. The seismic base shear
coefficient C is the spectral response acceleration (expressed in
g) obtained from the design spectrum multiplied by the
importance factor (I), which should be taken equal to 1.1 for this
building.
Final Project
It is required to:
1. Model the two lateral resisting systems in the X-direction (F1 and F2) using any finite element
program and distribute the gravity loads on the two frames;
2. Calculate the actions of frame F1 from gravity loads;
3. Calculate the total base shear and distribute it along the height for the two lateral resisting systems
F1 and F2;
4. Estimate the actions and deformations of frame F1 using the equivalent static force procedure.
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E c, is 26 KN/mm2 and Youngs modulus of steel E s is 200 KN/mm2.
Use 50% and 70% of the un-cracked stiffness of beams and columns, respectively, to estimate the
effective flexural stiffness;
5. Estimate the periods of vibration and plot the first three mode shapes of frame F1;
6. Estimate the actions and deformations of frame F1 using the response spectrum analysis procedure.
The response modification factor and the design PGA should be used to scale the elastic spectrum
given in Figure 2 to obtain the design spectrum for the analysis;
7. Use the earthquake record relative to the horizontal component of the Loma Prieta earthquake
(Northern California at Saratoga Aloha Ave., USA, 1989). Scale the record to the PGA derived from
the attenuation relationship for the construction site given in eqn.(1). Perform elastic response
history analysis for frame F1 using the scaled record. Modern seismic codes allow for a reduction in
base shear demand from elastic response history analysis by using the response modification factor
(q- or R-factor);
8. Compare the results of different elastic analysis procedures;
9. Inelastic pushover analyses were conducted using Zeus-NL (Elnashai et al., 2003) for the structure
using the following lateral force distributions:
Inverted triangular load (code-pattern);
Lateral load distributions calculated from combinations of the first three modes of vibration (multimodal
pattern);
Uniform lateral load distribution .
Final Project
The results from these analyses are provided in figure below. Comment on the
results obtained from the lateral force patterns considered in the inelastic static
analyses.
Compare the ultimate strength of the building estimated from the inverted
triangular load distribution and the design lateral force. Comment on the
difference between the actual and the design strengths.

(A) Static Pushover (code)

(B) Static Pushover (multimodal)

(C) Static Pushover (uniform)

(C) (B) (A)

12000

10000
Base Shear (kN)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 150 300 450 600
T op Disp. (mm)

Inelastic pushover analysis results for the entire structure in the X-direction
 4.9 Concluding Remarks

Earthquakes continue to exact a heavy toll on vulnerable communities and this

is unlikely to change significantly in the short term.

There is a very large body of literature on the subject of earthquakes in general,

and on earthquake engineering in particular.

It is hoped that this education-oriented text will prove to be a valuable addition

to the existing literature.

6/17/17 49
 THE END
Thank you!

6/17/17 50