MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF MULTISTOREY

BUILDINGS
Yogendra Singh
Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee

INTRODUCTION
A number of mathematical models are available with varying degree of
sophistication required in the analysis. Earlier research was centred on developing
hand calculation methods based on simplified assumptions and understanding of
the overall behaviour of the structure. However, nowadays, the computer
hardware and software for analysis of structures is widely available, stress is on
the more sophisticated mathematical modelling. The hand calculation methods
are not being discussed here and mathematical modelling suited to computer
analysis is presented.
It should be noted that the actual structure and its behaviour at the micro level is
very complex it is not possible to model each and every detail of the structure,
what so ever being the sophistication of the computer software. The mathematical
modelling of the structure is based on certain simplifying assumptions and the
understanding of the overall behaviour of the structure. Therefore, caution is
required to interpret the output of the computer software and the user should
have a sound knowledge of the behaviour of the structure.
Although, general purpose software are available and a single mathematical
model of the structure is possible for vertical and lateral loads, usually different
models are used for vertical loads and lateral loads, as the behaviour of the
structure is different under the two types of loads.
1. Frame-Shear Wall Buildings
A frame building can be modelled as an assemblage of skeleton frame members.
Each member has three actions: (i) Axial deformation, (ii) Bending, and (iii) Shear
Deformation. Shear deformations are usually ignored in frame members with
smaller depth to width ratio. However in case of shear walls and frame members
with high depth to width ratio, the shear deformations are considerable and can
not be ignored.
Modelling of Frame Members
Member of a space frame has six degrees of freedom per node as shown in Fig. 1,
where Xm , Ym and Zm are the Member reference axes.

Modelling and Analysis / 1

Fig. 1 Frame Member

2
1

Fig. 2 Wide-Column Element for Modelling of Shear Wall

Modelling of Shear wall

There are two alternative approaches for modelling of shear walls. A shear wall
can be modelled using plane stress elements, if these are available in the library of
the analysis software. It has been seen that usually a storey high segment of shear
wall, modelled using 2x2 grid yields satisfactory results.
Alternatively a shear wall may be modelled as a wide column. The stiffness
matrix of the wide column should account for the shear deformations. The
stiffness matrix for the wide-column element shown in Fig. 2 is given by Equation
1.

Modelling and Analysis / 2

 EA
L

12 EI
0
L3

6 EI

1 0
L2
S

(1 ) EA
0

L
12 EI
0
3

6 EI
0
L2

(4 )

EI
L

0
6 EI
L2
EI
(2 )
L

0
EA
L

0
0

12 EI
L3
6 EI
2
L

6 EI
2

L
EI
(4 )
L

(1)

where,

12 EI
, and
L2 GAR

G is shear modulus of elasticity, and AR is the effective shear area.

Modelling of Finite Size of Joints and Offsets
In case of frame-shear wall buildings and buildings with wide columns and/or
deep beams the size of the joints is not negligible as shown in Fig. 3(a). The
beam/column member can be replaced by a linear member with rigid ends as
shown in Fig. 3(b). The rigid end portions are having infinite stiffness. The
stiffness of the member with rigid ends can be obtained as

S H T S H

(2)

Where, S is given by Equation (2) and H is given as

0
1 dL 0
0 1 0
0
H
0 0 1 bL

1
0 0 0

(3)

This transformation can be implemented commercial structural analysis and

design software through Offsets command. Alternatively a rigid beam element
may be connected between the structural node (usually defined at the centre line

Modelling and Analysis / 3

of a column/shear wall and the end node of the member to be simulated with an
offset/rigid end.

Fig. 3 (a) Beam Member with Finite Size of Joints

A'

A
aL

B'
cL

B
bL

Fig. 3 (b) Modelling of Beam Member with Finite Size of Joints

Fig. 4 Modelling of a Coupled Shear Wall

Effective Stiffness of RC Sections

Under seismic loading, RC members are expected to yield to dissipate energy
imparted to the structure. This results in significant cracking of the members.

Modelling and Analysis / 4

Reliable estimation of effective/cracked stiffness of RC members under seismic

loading is a crucial issue, not only in nonlinear analysis but also in traditional
Force-Based Design (FBD) followed in design codes, as the dynamic
characteristics (period of vibration and deflected shape) and hence spectral
acceleration and design forces depend on the estimated stiffness. In Performance
Based Design (PBD), the damage (indicated by displacement, interstorey-drifts,
and plastic rotations in members) in the structure is largely governed by the
realistic choice of effective stiffness. A widely varied opinion on the issue of
magnitude and about the parameters governing the effective stiffness, exists
among the research fraternity as well as in design codes (Kumar and Singh 2010).
Researchers discovered that effective stiffness of RC members depends not only
on the axial load (ASCE/SEI-41 Supplement-1 2007) but also on the reinforcement
ratio, eccentricity ratio, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement (NZS3101:Part-1 2006; Elwood and Eberhard 2009), bond slip of reinforcement bars
(Elwood and Eberhard 2009), and shear span of the member. Consideration of all
of these parameters in analysis makes the design process cumbersome and
iterative. Considering the uncertainty in estimation of effective stiffness of RC
members, Indian Standard (BIS (2002)), US American (ASCE-7 (2010)) and New
Zealand standard (NZS-1170.5 2004) recommend a capping on the design period
of buildings, ensuring design for a minimum base shear as a safeguard against
unrealistic stiffness estimates.
The design codes differ significantly on the issue of effective stiffness of RC
members. Eurocode-8 (2004) specifies 50% reduced gross moment of inertia to be
considered as effective for all RC elements while ACI 318 (2008) recommends 35%
and 70% of gross moment of inertia to be considered as effective for beams and
columns, without any consideration for degree of axial loading, and no
recommendation has been made for effective stiffness of beam-column joints
(ACI-352R-02 2002). However, it is to be kept in mind that the stiffness
recommendations of (ACI 318 2008) do not deal with seismic loading and have
been primarily developed to account for the buckling of columns. FEMA-356
(2000)/ASCE-41 (2007) considers the effect of axial loading on the effective
stiffness of columns and recommends effective stiffness of RC members
considering flexure, shear and axial action. Elwood and Eberhard (2006) revealed
that FEMA-356 (2000)/ASCE-41 (2007) guidelines can significantly overestimate
the stiffness of columns with low axial loads, mainly because of the inadequate
consideration of flexibility resulting from slip of the longitudinal reinforcement
from adjacent beam-column joints (Elwood and Eberhard 2009) and proposed a
more refined three component approach for estimating effective stiffness
considering flexure, slip, and shear. Using the three component approach, Kumar
and Singh (Kumar and Singh 2010) developed a model for realistic stiffness of RC
members for the range of parameters, commonly found in the Indian RC frame
buildings. At low axial forces, the model yields results close to the ASCE/SEI-41
Supplement-1 (2007). Table 1 summarizes the different effective stiffness models
of RC members in various design standards/documents.

Modelling and Analysis / 5

Modelling of Beam-Column Joints

Beamcolumn joints, particularly in frames not designed for earthquake actions,
have been damaged in past earthquakes. Behavior of beam-column joints in
Table-1 Overview of effective stiffness models for RC members, considered in the study

RC Member
Non-prestressed
Beam
Columns with design
gravity loads
0.5Agfc
Columns with design
gravity loads
0.3Agfc
Columns with design
gravity loads
0.1Agfc or with
tension

Eurocode8 (2004)

ACI 318
(2005,
2008)

FEMA-356
(2000)/ ASCE41 (2007)

ASCE/SEI-41
Supplement-1
(2007)

0.35EcIg

0.5EcIg

0.3EcIg

0.7EcIg

0.7EcIg

0.5EcIg

Linear
interpolation

0.3EcIg

0.5EcIg
0.7EcIg

Beam-column joint
M c 0.8
with
Mb

Rigid beam end

zones with the
column flexibility
extending to the
joint centerline

Beam-column joint
with
M c 1.2
0.8
Mb

Rigid column end

zones with the
beam flexibility
extending to the
joint centerline

Beam-column joint
M c 1.2
with
Mb

Rigid

50% of the end

zones of both
beam and column
within the joint
extents are rigid

where, Ec is Modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ig is moment of inertia of gross concrete section, Ag is

gross cross sectional area, fc is compressive strength of concrete, Mc and Mb are nominal flexural
strength of column and beam, respectively.

frames subjected to lateral loading is a complex phenomenon, as a number of

parameters affect the strength of the joints. Further, there is significant difference
in the mechanism of shear resistance in case of exterior and interior beam-column
joints. Shear strength of beam-column joints is mainly influenced by compressive
strength of concrete, joint aspect ratio, amount of longitudinal reinforcement in
beams connected to the joint, and axial force in column. Numerous studies have
been carried out in the last decade to evaluate shear strength of the

Modelling and Analysis / 6

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 5 Beam-column Joint Model as per ASCE/SEI-41 Supplement-1 (2007) for Effective
Stiffness, when Ratio of Flexural Strength of Columns and Beams Framing into Joint is: (a)
0.8, (b) in between 0.8 and 1.2, and (c) greater than 1.2.

Modelling and Analysis / 7

RC beam-column joints and several models of exterior and interior joints have
been proposed. Table 2 provides the overview of the shear strength models of RC
beam-column joints considered in the present study. Considering uncertainties
regarding role of transverse reinforcement in failure mechanism of joints, the joint
shear strength models prescribed in some of the codes/documents, viz., FEMA356 (2000); (ACI-352R-02 2002); Eurocode-8 (2004), assume that the internal forces
in the joint are to be transferred by diagonal compression strut of concrete core
alone. The model proposed by Hegger et al. (2003) considers the maximum
number of parameters influencing the shear strength of joints, including the role
of transverse reinforcement, and is applicable for all types of joints.
Unlike, the joint strength models of Eurocode-8 (2004), ACI-352R-02 (2002) and
FEMA-356 (2000), the model in NZS-3101:Part1 (2006) requires considerable
amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint to transfer the tensile forces and
therefore not applicable to the non-ductile gravity designed buildings, where no
transverse reinforcement is provided in the joint region. Indian Standard IS 13920
provides some detailing guidelines for beam-column joints, but does not provide
any model for estimation of joint shear strength.
Table-2 Overview of shear strength models of RC beam-column joints

Model reference

Interior Joint

Exterior Joint

FEMA-356 (2000)

Vn j f c' b j hc

Park and
Mosalam (2012)

Vn j 0.083 f c' b j hc

Hegger et al.
(2003)

Vn j 0.25 f c' b j hc

V nj 1 2 3 0 .25 f c' b j h c

Eurocode-8
(2004)

P
Ag f c'

f c'
1
Vnj 0.4 f 1
b j hc

f'
250
0.61 c
250

80% of interior strength

'
c

where, is nominal strength coefficient based on joint geometry and amount

of transverse reinforcement; 1, 2, 3, are coefficients to account for anchorage
efficiency in beam reinforcement, axial force in column, and slenderness of
joint, respectively; bj is effective width and hc is depth of joint.
Modelling of Coupled Shear Walls
The coupled shear walls can be easily modelled on the available computer
software as frames, in which the two shear walls are modelled as wide columns
along the centre line and the beams are having rigid arms at the ends with lengths
equal to half the width of shear walls (Fig. 5). The Frame-Shear wall can also be
modelled in a similar manner with shear wall replaced by a wide column and the
beams joining the frames with shear walls having rigid arm at the end joining the

Modelling and Analysis / 8

shear wall. The length of the rigid arm is again equal to half the width of the shear
wall.
Modelling of In-fills
Masonry in-fills is the frame buildings can be modelled as diagonal members as
shown in Fig. 6. The equivalent width of the diagonal member is given as
a 0.175(h) 0.4 r

(4)

Where,

E m t Sin 2
4 E c I c h'

(5)

h = Column height between centre lines of beams

h = Height of in-fill panel
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of frame material, i.e. Concrete
Em = Modulus of elasticity of in-fill material
Ic = Moment of inertia of columns
r = Diagonal length of infill panel
t = Thickness of in-fill panel and equivalent diagonal member
= Angle in radians, whose tangent is equal to height to length
aspect ratio of the in-fill

Fig. 6 Modelling of In-fill Panels

Equivalent Plane Frame Modelling

Any building can be modelled a space frame structure. However, if a building is
symmetric about both axes it can be modelled as equivalent plane frames in both
the directions. Fig. 7(a) shows a building plan symmetric about both the axes. The

Modelling and Analysis / 9

equivalent plane frame models in X and Y directions are shown in Figs. 7(b) and
7(c), respectively. In a RC building, the floor slab is very rigid in its plane and
results in the equal displacement of all the frames in a direction and distributes
the applied lateral forces in the proportion of the stiffness of the frames. In the
equivalent plane frame model, the rigid floor action is modelled by rigid link
members interconnecting different frames. These members are truss elements
with high axial stiffness. To avoid the axial shortening of beams, these can also be
assigned high axial stiffness.
If all the frames of a building are identical in any of the directions, they will share
equal load in that direction. In such case the building can be modelled as a single
frame in that direction, with all the loads and mass of the building divided by the
number of the frames.
Y

C1

C4

C2

C3

C7

C5

C8

C6

C9

C10

C11

C12

Fig. 7 (a) Symmetric Building Plan

Rigid Link Members

C1

C4

C7 C10 C2

C5

C8 C11 C3

C6

C9 C12

Fig. 7 (b) Equivalent Plane-frame Model in X-direction

Modelling and Analysis / 10

Rigid Link Members

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9 C10

C11

C12

Fig. 7 (c) Equivalent Plane-frame Model in Y-direction

Space Frame Modelling with Rigid Floor Transformation

Any building can be modelled as a space frame with six degrees of freedom at
each node. It is important to model the high in-plane rigidity of floor and roof
slab, as whole of the floor vibrates and deflects as a rigid body. In the absence of
this modelling, each node vibrating independently can lead to erroneous vibration
characteristics. In the absence of the rigid floor modelling, the distribution of
lateral forces among different frames will not take place and there will be error in
member forces. The error will be more pronounced in case of buildings having
large variation in column stiffness, and in asymmetric buildings.
The rigid floor action can be modelled by assigning three common degrees of
freedom to all the nodes at a floor. As shown in Fig. 8, these are translations in the
two directions and rotation about a common axis.

u1
u2
U2

u3
y

U3

U1
x

Fig. 8 Floor and Node Degrees of Freedom

Modelling and Analysis / 11

The transformation matrix B relating the nodal degrees of freedom u1, u2, u3
with the floor degrees of freedom U1, U2, U3 can be written as
cos
B sin
0

sin
cos
0

x sin y cos
x cos y sin

(6)

Where,
x and y are the distances of the node from origin of the assumed axes
system for the floor and is the angle between the nodal axes system and
the assumed axes system for the floor.
In an available space frame software without rigid floor transformation, the rigid
floor modelling can be done by introducing fictitious diagonal tie members
connecting columns in the plane of each floor, as shown in Fig. 9. The tie members
are assigned a higher axial stiffness (say about 1000 times of column axial
stiffness), accordingly the columns are also assigned a high axial stiffness.
Y

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

Fig. 9 Rigid Floor Modelling using Rigid Tie Members

2. Tubular Buildings
Tubular buildings can be modelled as a space frame. However, the large number
of nodes in a tubular building make the space frame analysis time-consuming and
uneconomical. The equivalent plane frame methodology can be used to model the
tubular buildings.
In tubular buildings, there is a transfer of vertical shear at the joint of the web
beams with the flange beams. This can be modelled by fictitious shear transfer
members at each floor level. Further advantage of symmetry can be taken and
only a quarter of the tube need to be modelled. Fig. 10 shows the equivalent plane
frame model for a framed tube building.

Modelling and Analysis / 12

Fig. 10 Equivalent Plane Frame Model of a Framed Tube Building

In a multi-cell tube building the vertical shear transfer takes place at every joint of
the web frames with flange frames as shown in Fig. 11. Further, there is a transfer
of horizontal shear between parallel frames, i.e. between various web frames and
between various flange frame.

Modelling and Analysis / 13

Fig. 11 Equivalent Plane Frame Model for Multi-Cell Tube Buildings

3. Flat-Slab Buildings
In modelling of flat-slab buildings, the crucial action to be simulated is transfer of
a fraction of moments through torsion and leakage moment from loaded panel to
unloaded panel. To simulate this kind of behaviour, several modeling
methodologies have been developed. Cano and Klinger (1988) mention different
types of modeling approaches for analyzing flat slab structure. These approaches
are:

Modelling and Analysis / 14

I) Finite element approach

II) Equivalent frame approach
A) Effective beam width procedure
B) Transverse torsional member procedure
a) ACI equivalent frame method
b) Extended equivalent column method
c) Extended equivalent slab method
d) Explicit transverse torsional member method
In FE approach flat slab behavior is modeled using finite element mainly plate
bending element or shell element. Large number of elements is required for
meshing to obtain good results. This approach increases the cost of analysis for
large structures. To overcome the problems with finite element approach,
equivalent frame approach was developed. In this method 3-D structures are
represented by two independent sets of planer frames crossing each other
generally at right angle.
A) Effective beam width procedure
Effective beam width procedure was developed to analyze two-way slab system.
It can also be used for analysis of flat slab or flat plate structures. When a slabcolumn joint is subjected to rotation, slab rotation along the transverse direction
does not remain constant. Rotation of the slab near the connection is more as
compared to the distant portion of the slab [Fig. 12]. The slab is modeled in a
simplified manner using slab-beam member having width equal to some fraction
( ) of slab panel width ( l2 ). The value of will be such that effective beam
subjected to uniform rotation will cause the same amount of moment as for the
actual slab subjected to varying oration.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 12 Concept of effective beam width model [Hwang and Moehle, 2000]: (a) slab-column
element; (b) effective beam-column element

Modelling and Analysis / 15

Several methodologies are proposed for calculating the effective width of slab.
Grossman (1997) summarizes three different methodologies for calculating the
equivalent width of slab-beam members.
B) Transverse torsional member procedure
In flat slab-column connections, a fraction of unbalanced moments are transferred
through flexure and remaining portion is transferred through torsion.
Transferring of moments by means of torsion is modeled using transverse
torsional members. These members are modeled as rigid except for torsion.
a) ACI equivalent frame method
This method subdivides the three dimensional structures into a series of planer
frames, centered on column lines in longitudinal as well as in transverse direction.
Load transfer system in this method involves three distinct interconnected
elements:
i) Slab-beam member (Ks)
ii) Column (Kc)
i) Torsional member (Kt)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Modelling and Analysis / 16

Fig. 13 Member configuration assumed in ACI equivalent frame method [Cano and Klinger,
1988]: (a) Definition of equivalent frame; (b) Members of 3-D structure, Detail A; (c) Members of
ACIEFM, Detail A

Slab beam member is supported on equivalent column (Kec), which represents the
flexibility of both column and torsional member. Stiffness of the equivalent
column section is calculated as

K ec

1
1

Kc Kt

(7)

b) Extended equivalent column method

In extended equivalent frame [Fig. 14] method slab is represented by beam
element. Arrangement of column elements incorporate the column flexibility and
torsional flexibility of attached torsional members.

Kc
Ks
Kt
Kc
Fig. 14 Extended Equivalent column method [Cano and Klinger, 1988]

c) Extended equivalent beam method

In extended equivalent beam [Fig. 15] method column is modeled directly. Slab
flexibility and torsional flexibility of attached torsional members are incorporated
by arrangement of slab-beam elements.
Both extended equivalent methods, developed by Vanderbilt, represent the flatslab system by planer frames, which can be analyzed conventionally. Both
methods include the effect of torsional flexibility under lateral and gravity load.

Modelling and Analysis / 17

Kt

Ks

Kc
Fig. 15 Extended Equivalent beam method [Cano and Klinger, 1988]

C) Explicit transverse torsional member method

Cano and Klinger (1988) proposed explicit transverse torsional member method to
overcome the drawbacks of other methods. Two slab-beam members having half
stiffness of slab-beam member stiffness is used and they are connected indirectly
to column through two explicit transverse torsional members as shown in Fig. 16.
This method permits moment leakage and torsional flexibility of slab. Resulting
frame is non-planer. Transverse torsional member length can be arbitrary, but
torsional stiffness should be independent of length of torsional member.
Considering arbitrary length L of torsional member, torsional rigidity GJ is
calculated so that

GJ K t L

(8)

Where, G is the shearing modulus of member material.

Advantages of explicit transverse torsional member method are
1. Structural modeling is very simple, require very few hand calculations.
2. Computed member action on slab and transverse torsional member can
directly used for design of slabs and spandrels.
3. This method can be used directly for analysis of 3-D model under gravity
load as well as lateral load.
4. Single model can be used to calculate action in all members under many
load combinations.

Column

Torsional element
Equivalent beam
b

Modelling and Analysis / 18

Fig. 16 3-D equivalent frame model using explicit transverse torsional member method
[Cano and Klinger, 1988]

Park et al. (2009) analyzed a two storey flat slab building using finite element
modeling under gravity load and lateral load separately. From the results of this
analysis they observed that torsional behavior of the building are different in two
different load types. Under gravity load, rotation increased with increase in the
distance from the column face where as in case of lateral load, the maximum
rotation occurs at column face and it decreases as distance from the column face
increases. They also observed that differences in moment variation for gravity
load and lateral load. They found triangular moment variation for gravity loading
and uniform moment variation for lateral load. From these observations they
proposed a modified method for analyzing flat slab structures subjected to lateral
load, termed as modified equivalent frame method (MEFM).
Considering the uniform moments distribution under lateral load they developed
an expression to calculate the stiffness of torsional element as

Kt

6 EC

l 2 1 c2 l 2

(9)

ANALYSIS FOR VERTICAL LOADS

A building is subjected to two types of vertical loads: (i) Dead Load, and (ii) Live
Load. There is a basic difference in the application of the two types of loads. The
live load is applied when the basic structure of the building is complete and it is
resisted simultaneously on whole of the building. On the other hand the dead
load builds up sequentially as the construction of the building proceeds and it is
resisted by only the portion of the building completed at that stage. Dead load of a
lower storey does not cause any force in the upper storeys, as the deformation due
to dead load of the storey have already taken place before the construction of
upper storeys. Accordingly two types of analysis, namely, Simultaneous Analysis
and Sequential Analysis are required for Live Load and Dead Load, respectively.
Generally, the available software do not take in to account the sequential nature of
application of the Dead Load. The loading is applied simultaneously on whole of
the structure. This type of analysis can be used for low-rise buildings, in which
the differential column shortening is negligible. But, in case of tall buildings a
sequential analysis must be performed for dead load.
In the sequential analysis, analysis of an N storey building is considered as
analysis of N substructures of varying number of storeys from 1 to N (Fig. 17).
The member forces of different substructures are superimposed to get the
member forces of the building under dead load.
Fig. 18 shows the percentage error in the beam end moments of a typical building
analysed using Simultaneous Analysis Method and the Conventional Analysis

Modelling and Analysis / 19

Method, in which the axial deformations of columns are altogether ignored and
each floor may be analysed independently as a substructure. It can be seen from
the figure that the conventional analysis method underestimates the beam end
moments, while the simultaneous analysis method highly overestimates the beam
end moments in most part of the building. In the lower portion of the building,
the simultaneous analysis procedure also results in the underestimated beam end
forces.

Fig. 17 Sequential Analysis of an N Storey Building

Fig. 18 Percentage Error in the Beam End Moments due to

Conventional and Simultaneous Analysis

ANALYSIS FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS

Earthquake results in horizontal and vertical forces on structures due to inertia
effects. Out of these, horizontal forces are generally more critical for the stability
of the structure. The effect of earthquake is similar to effect of acceleration (or

Modelling and Analysis / 20

deceleration) on a passenger standing in a moving bus. When the bus starts

moving suddenly, the passenger feels that somebody has pushed him backward.
Similarly when the bus stops suddenly the passenger experiences a push in the
forward direction. Earthquake motion consists of a series of accelerations and
decelerations, which result an imaginary forces, continuously changing its
direction (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19 Effect of variable ground acceleration

The magnitude of the resulting force on structures is generally much higher than
the forces for which the structures are generally designed. This causes yielding of
the structure. To estimate the behaviour of the structure under a real earthquake
motion, a Non-linear Dynamic Analysis is required. Such an analysis is very
complex and requires good understanding of the non-linear behaviour of
structures under cyclic loads. Therefore, several simplified procedures have been
developed. These procedures can be classified into Static and Dynamic; and
Linear and Non-Linear Procedures. Out of these, the simplest procedure is Linear
Static Procedure which is also called Equivalent Static Load Method. Another
popular method is Linear Dynamic Method using Response Spectrum, which is
also termed as Mode Superposition method. These two methods are explained in
the present Chapter, with the help of examples.

FACTORS AFFECTING EARTHQUAKE FORCES

The effective earthquake force on a structure depends on the following factors:
(i) Ground motion: Ground motion is the most important parameter governing
the earthquake forces on a structure. It has two important aspects severity of
ground shaking expressed in terms of amplitude or peak ground acceleration of
the motion, and frequency content of ground motion. There is another important
aspect of the ground motion, which affects its damage potential. It is duration of
the ground motion. The current design practice does not take this into account.
The ground motion parameters at a site can be assessed using a site specific
analysis considering the effect of various earthquake sources in the vicinity of the
site and the local soil and topographic conditions; The code IS:1893 gives the
average ground shaking parameters for a Seismic Zone.
The code gives the amplitude of expected ground motion in terms of a Zone
Factor (Z), as shown in Table-3. This is defined as Zero Period Acceleration (ZPA)

Modelling and Analysis / 21

or Effective Peak Ground Acceleration (EPGA), which is the peak acceleration of a

very rigid building (having time period almost zero). The code gives the values of
EPGA for two levels of earthquakes Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
and Design Basis Earthquake. Although IS:1893 does not mention the probability
of occurrence of these earthquake, MCE is a rare earthquake which corresponds to
a return period of about 2,500 years or a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
This is also considered as a theoretical upper limit on the level of ground shaking
in an area. The DBE is a relatively frequent earthquake having a return period of
about 500 years and a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The relationship
between EPGA for DBE and MCE can be expressed as:

EPGAMCE Z ; EPGADBE Z / 2

(10)

The code gives the expected frequency content of the ground motion in the form
of response spectra. The frequency content of ground motion at a site depends a
lot on the type of the soil at the site. Soft soil tends to amplify the low frequencies.
That means that the response of the structures having low frequency (or longer
time periods) will be more on soft soil. The same effect is considered in the
response spectrum (Fig. 20) recommended by the code. The code recommends
higher spectral accelerations for structures with longer periods on soft soil.
Table-3 Zone Factor, Z

Seismic
Zone

II

III

IV

Seismic
Intensity

Low
(MSK VI)

Moderate
(MSK VI)

Severe
(MSK VII)

Very Severe
(MSK VIII)

Zone Factor,

0.10

0.16

0.24

0.36

Modelling and Analysis / 22

Fig. 20 Response spectra for different soil conditions

(ii) Time period of structure: It is clear from Fig. 1 that the spectral acceleration
and hence the earthquake force on the structure depends on the time period of the
structure. The structures having their frequency matching with the predominant
frequency of the earthquake having quasi-resonance situation and attract very
high force. This is represented by the peak of the response spectrum. As per
IS:1893 this peak corresponds to the time period range from 0.1 sec to 0.4 sec for
hard soil/rock and from 0.1 sec to 0.67 sec for soft soil. The structures having time
periods smaller and larger than this range attract much smaller force.
The time period of a structure depends on its stiffness and mass. It can be
estimated using a mathematical modelling of the structure and solving an Eigenvalue problem. However, to simplify the calculation and based on the
measurements on existing structures code has suggested following empirical
formulae for calculation of time periods of structures:
For RC frame buildings without masonry infills

Ta 0.075h 0.75

(11)

For Steel frame buildings without masonry infills

Ta 0.085h 0.75

(12)

For frame buildings with masonry infills, masonry buildings

and all other buildings

Modelling and Analysis / 23

Ta

0.09h

(13)

Where, h is the height of the building above base level and d is base
dimension of the building at plinth level in the direction of consideration.
In case of basements with basement walls connected with the ground floor
deck or connected with the columns, the basement storeys are not included
in h.
(iii) Damping of structure: Damping of the structure is the property which causes
dissipation of the energy and results in reduction of effective earthquake force on
the structure. It is expressed as Damping Ratio or percentage. Damping depends
on the material of construction and level of strains developed in the material. It is
generally taken as 2%, 5% and 10% for Steel Structures, RC Structures and
Masonry Structures, respectively. IS:1893 gives factors (Table-4) to be multiplied
with the design response spectrum to take into account the effect of damping. The
response spectrum given in the code and shown in Fig. 14 is for 5% damping.
Therefore, as shown in Table-4, the multiplication factor for damping ratios more
5% is greater than 1.0 while for damping ratios less than 5% it is smaller than 1.0.

Table-4 Multiplication factors for damping

Damping
(%)

10

15

20

25

30

Factor

3.20

1.40

1.00

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.55

0.5

(iv) Ductility of Structure: As explained in earlier Chapters, ductility of structure

is the property which results in dissipation of energy due to hysteresis. Larger is
the capacity of the structure to deform plastically without collapse, more is the
resulting ductility and the energy dissipation. This has the effect similar to that of
damping and results in reduction of effective earthquake forces.
Ductility depends primarily on the material of construction and the structural
configuration. Steel buildings have much higher ductility than Masonry or
concrete buildings. Irregular buildings have low capacity to deform plastically
without collapse and hence, low ductility. In RC buildings, ductility depends on
the reinforcement detailing. The buildings detailed as per IS:13920 have higher
ductility and therefore need to be designed for lower forces.
The code takes into account the effect of ductility through Response Reduction
Factor, R. Steel buildings have higher response reduction factor than Masonry
Buildings. Within steel buildings, eccentrically braced buildings have more
ductility and hence higher reduction factor than concentrically braced buildings.

Modelling and Analysis / 24

Similarly, in RC properly detailed frame buildings (SMRF) have higher reduction

factor than ordinary RC Frame (OMRF) buildings.
(iv) Importance of Structure: The general design philosophy of the code is that
the structure should not have any structural damage for minor earthquakes
(<DBE), which are frequent; it should resist moderate earthquake (DBE) without
significant structural damage; and it should resist the major earthquake (MCE),
which is rare, without collapse. However, the structure may get badly damaged
and may be unusable after MCE level earthquake. This performance is acceptable
for common buildings, but for buildings with Pos-Earthquake Importance, this
may not be acceptable performance and a better performance is desirable. For,
example, it is expected that a hospital building should not have any significant
damage and it should be fully functional, even after the MCE level of earthquake.
Similarly, schools and other public buildings which have to serve as the shelters
for homeless after a major earthquake should be fit for this purpose. Special care
is to be taken for hazardous buildings, which pose the danger of release of
poisonous gases, radiation or any other hazardous material. The code suggests
that such buildings should be designed for higher forces. An Importance factor, I
is defined in the code for such buildings, which is used to multiply with the
design earthquake force. Code specifies that for important service and community
buildings, such as hospitals, schools, monumental structures, emergency
buildings like telephone exchange, television stations, radio stations, railway
stations, fire station buildings, large community halls like cinemas, assembly
halls, subway stations and power stations, the Importance factor should be taken
as 1.5, while for other common types of buildings, it may taken as 1.0.
WHERE DOES THE EARTHQUAKE FORCE ACT?
As described earlier, earthquake force is an inertia force. It acts on each mass
particle of the structure and acts throughout the structure. It is proportional to the
mass and acceleration. In a real structure, the mass is distributed throughout the
structure, but for sake of convenience, we assume the mass to be lumped at
certain points. In case of buildings, the floors are generally rigid in their plane and
it can be assumed that all the points on a floor of a symmetric building move
together with same displacement and acceleration. On the other hand, the
acceleration increases along the height of the building and different floors have
different acceleration. Therefore, it is convenient to assume that the mass of the
building is lumped at the centre of its floors and it can be assumed that the
earthquake forces are acting at these masses. Fig. 21 shows such a simplification of
a building.
Q3

Q2

M3

M2

Modelling and Analysis / 25

Q1

M1

Vb
Fig. 21 Lumping of masses in a building

As shown in the Fig., the mass of the half of the storey above and half of the
storey below is lumped at a floor level. The force, Qi acting at a floor level is
proportional to the lumped mass and the acceleration. The earthquake force is
increasing along the height of the building, as the acceleration at floor levels is
increasing. The total earthquake force on the building is expressed in terms of
base shear, Vb, which is equal to sum of all the floor loads, Qi.
N

Vb Qi

(14)

i 1

Where, N is the number of storeys.

CALCULATION OF EARTHQUAKE FORCES
As described in earlier Chapters, a multi-storey building has several modes of
vibration. The time period of vibration in each mode is different. The deflection
and distribution of floor loads along height depends on the mode shape in each
mode. Two methods are available for calculation of earthquake force on the
structure.
Equivalent Static Load Method
This method is based on the assumption that whole of the seismic mass of the
structure vibrates with a single time period calculated using the empirical
formulae given above. This method does not require dynamic analysis of the
structure and it is termed as Equivalent Static Load Anbalysis. The total
earthquake force acting on a building, expressed as Base Shear, Vb can be
expressed in terms of the factors describes above,

Vb AhW

(15)

Where

Ah

Z I Sa
2 R g

(16)

Modelling and Analysis / 26

And
W= Seismic weight of the building, which consists of Dead Load and a
N

portion of Live Load, W M i g

i 1

g = Acceleration due to gravity, and all other parameters are as describe

above.

The calculated base shear is distributed along the height of the height of the building, as

Qi

M i hi2
N

M
j 1

(17)

Vb
2
j

Modal Analysis
This method is based on the dynamic analysis of structure. First, a free vibration
analysis (solution of Eigen-problem) is performed to determine the time periods,
Ti and mode shapes i of the structure in different modes. Then the floor loads in
jth mode can be obtained as:

Qi j

j M j A j

(18)

Where, j is the jth mode participation factor, given as

N

M i
Tj M j
T
j

M
i 1
N

M
i 1

( i ) j

( )

(19)
2
i j

And mass matrix,

M 1

M2

...

MN

(20)

The base shear in jth mode can be obtained as

Modelling and Analysis / 27

Vb j Qi j

M *j A j

i 1

(21)

Where M *j is the effective mass participating in jth mode, given as

M *j

M i ( i ) j
i 1

M
i 1

(22)

( )

2
i j

And
Aj

Z I Sa

2 R g

(23)

The response in various modes, including the base shear, can be combined using
CQC combination, to get the total response or the total base shear as,

Vb

V V
b i

i 1 j 1

ij

(24)

Where

ij

8 2 1 1.5

2 2

4 2 1

(25)

is damping ratio and is frequency ratio, j i

Alternatively, for a building with well separated modes, the total base shear can
be obtained using SRSS combination, as

Vb

V
i 1

2
j

(26)

EXAMPLES

Modelling and Analysis / 28

Example of a 4 storey RC Building has been presented. The building has been analysed
using both Equivalent Static Load Method and Modal Analysis. Comparison of the results
of Equivalent Static Load Method and Modal Analysis, gives a good insight into the two
calculation methods.

Figs. 22-24 show the plan and elevation of the 4 storey RC frame building.

X
Fig. 22 Plan of RC Example Building

3m

3m

3m

3m

Fig. 23 Longitudinal Elevation of RC Example Building

Modelling and Analysis / 29

3m

3m

3m

3m

Fig. 24 Transverse Elevation of RC Example Building

Without Infills/ Bare Frame

Tx Ty 0.075 x4 x3

0.75

0.48 sec

The time Period is same in both the direction. Therefore, for hard soil/rock

A A
h x

h y

0.24 1
1
x
2 5 0.48

0.05

The seismic weight, W is equal to the sum of Dead Load and 25% of Live Load.
For simplicity in this example it can be approximately assumed to be equal to 1
T/m2. Therefore total seismic weight

W 1x15 x 20 x 4 1200 T 12000 kN

Vb x Vb y 0.05 x12000 600 kN
The base shear is to be distributed along the height as floor loads, as per eqn. 14.
The calculations are shown in the Table-5.
Table-5 Calculation of floor loads for bare frame RC building

Floor No.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Mi
(T)
300
300
300
300

hi
(m)
3
6
9
12

Mihi2
2700
10800
24300
43200
81000

Qi
(kN)
20
80
180
320
600

Modelling and Analysis / 30

Infilled Frame

Tx

Ty

0.094 x3.0

4 x5

0.094 x3

0.24 sec

0.27 sec

3x5

From the response spectrum it can be seen that both these time periods lie in the
constant spectral acceleration range of the response spectrum. Therefore,

A A
h x

h y

0.24 1
x 2.5 0.06
2 5

The seismic weight, W is equal to the sum of Dead Load and 25% of Live Load.
For simplicity in this example it can be approximately assumed to be equal to 1
T/m2. Therefore total seismic weight

W 1x15 x 20 x 4 1200 T

Vb x Vb y

12000 kN

0.06 x12000 720 kN

The base shear is to be distributed along the height as floor loads, as per eqn. 14.
The calculations are shown in the Table-6.

Table-6 Calculation of floor loads for bare frame RC building

Floor No.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Mi
(T)
300
300
300
300

hi
(m)
3
6
9
12

Mihi2
2700
10800
24300
43200
81000

Qi
(kN)
24
96
216
384
720

REFERENCES
1. ACI 318. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI
318M-08). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.

Modelling and Analysis / 31

2. ACI 352R-02. 2002. Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in

Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures. Detroit, Michigan, American Concrete Institute.
3. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp.
4. ACI Committee 442, Response of Buildings to Lateral Forces, Mark Fintel, Chairman, ACI
Journal, Proceedings, V. 68, No. 2, June 1971, pp 81-106.
5. ASCE/SEI-41 Supplement-1. 2007. Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions. Reston,
Virginia, American Society of Civil Engineers
6. Cano, M. T., and Klingner, R. E. (1988). "Comparison of Analysis Procedures for Two-Way
Slabs." ACI Structural Journal, 85(6), 597608.
7. Chandra, L., Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A. K. Free Vibrations of Asymmetric Tall Buildings,
Int. J. of Structures, June 1993, pp. 62-72.
8. Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O. 2006. Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Vol. No. 2006-1, PEER Research Digest. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
University of California-Barkeler, CA.
9. Eurocode-8. 2004. BS EN 1998-1: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance- Part 1:
General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, Belgium, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN).
10. FEMA-356. 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
Washington, DC, U. S. A., Federal Emergency Management Agency.
11. Fintel, M. Ductile Shear Walls in Earthquake-Resistant Multistorey Buildings, ACI Journal,
Proceedings, V. 71, No. 6, June 1974.
12. Fintel, M. ed., Handbook of Concrete Engineering, 1985, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York.
13. Grossman, J.S., Verification of Proposed Design Methodologies for Effective Width of Slabs
in Slab-Column Frames, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 2, March-April 1997, pp. 181195.
14. Hegger, J., Sherif, A., and Roeser, W. 2003. Nonseismic Design of Beam-Column Joints. ACI
Structural Journal, 100 (5):654-664.
15. Hwang, S., and Moehle, J. P. (2000). "Models for Laterally Loaded Slab-Column Frames."
ACI Structural Journal, 97(2), 345353.
16. Hwang, S., and Moehle, J. P. (2000). "Vertical and Lateral Load Tests of Nine-Panel Flat-Plate
Frame." ACI Structural Journal, 97(1), 193204.
17. IS : 875 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
18. Iyenger, S.H. Tall Building Systems for the Next Centuary, Structures in the New
Millennium, P.K.K. Lee, ed., Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Structures in the
New Millenium, 1997, Hong Kong.
19. Khan, F.R and Sbarounis, J.A. Interaction of Shear Walls and Frames, Proc. ASCE, V. 90,
ST3, June 1964, pp. 286-335.
20. Khan, F.R. Optimization of Building Structures, Proc. Structural Engineering Conference,
1966, University of Illinois, Chicago.
21. Khan, F.R. and Amin, A.R. Analysis and Design of Framed Tube Structures for Tall
Buildings, SP36, 1973, ACI, Detroit.

Modelling and Analysis / 32

22. Khan, F.R. Design of Highrise Buildings, AISC/ASCE Conferences, 1965, University of
Illinois, Chicago.
23. Khan, M.A., Singh, Y., Geol, R., and Nagpal, A.K. Sequential Effects in Vertical Load
Analysis of Framed Buildings: Development of Design Charts, Proc. International Conf. on
New Challenges for Civil Engineers of Developing Countries in the 21st Century, Jamia Millia
Islamia, New Delhi, 1996, pp. 139-143.
24. Kumar, R., and Singh, Y. Stiffness of RC Frame Members for Seismic Analysis, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 107, No. 5, September - October 2010, pp. 607-615.
25. NZS-1170.5. 2004. Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions-New Zealand.
Wellington, Standards Association of New Zealand.
26. NZS-3101:Part1. 2006. Concrete Structures Standard, Part 1, Design of Concrete
Structures. Wellington, New Zealand, Standards Association of New Zealand.
27. NZS-4230. 2004. Design of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Structures. Wellington, New
Zealand, Standards Association of New Zealand.
Part 1 Dead Loads, Part 2 Imposed Loads, Part 3 Wind loads, Part 4 Snow Loads
28. Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A.K. Behaviour and Analysis Techniques of Tubular Buildings,
Structural Dynamic Systems Computational Techniques and Optimization - Techniques in
buildings and Bridges, C.T. Leondes, ed., Gordon and Breah International series in
Engineering, Technology and Applied Science, Vol. 11, 1999.
29. Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A.K. Negative Shear Lag in Framed-Tube Buildings, J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 120 (11), Nov. 1994, pp. 3105-3121.
30. Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A.K. Secondary Web-Flange Interaction in Framed-Tube Buildings,
Int. J. of Structural design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 2 (4), Dec. 1993, pp. 325-331.
31. Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A.K. Two Stage Condensation Procedure for Free Vibration
Characteristics of Framed-Tube Buildings, Int. J. of Structural Design of Tall Buildings, Vol.
3 (1), March 1994, pp. 37-49.
32. Singh, Y. and Nagpal, A.K. Two Stage Solution of Framed-Tube Buildings, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 50 (5), 1994, pp. 655-663.
33. Singh, Y. and. Nagpal, A.K Two Stage Gravity Load Analysis of Framed-Tube Buildings,
Int. J. of Structural Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 3 (1), March 1994, pp.65-83.
34. Singh, Y., Goel, R. and Nagpal, A.K. Analysis of Framed Buildings under Sequential
Vertical Load, National Seminar on High-Rise Structures, Allahabad, 1995. pp. 13-21 (II).
35. Singh, Y.and Nagpal, A.K. Closure of the discussions on the paper Negative Shear Lag in
Framed-Tube Buildings, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 122(6), June 1996, pp. 712-713.
36. Smith, C.S. and Carter, C. A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames, Proc. Inst. of Civ. Eng.
(London), V. 44, Sept. 1969.
37. Taranath, B.S. Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings, 1988, McGraw Hill Book
Co., New York.
38. Vijayan, P., Nagpal, A.K., and Singh, Y. A Reduction Procedure for Load Distribution in
Asymmetric Tall Buildings, Computers and Structures, Vol. 56, No. 4, 1995, pp. 615-624.

Modelling and Analysis / 33