SW1451 c003

Chapter 3
Analytical and design concepts

for earthquake engineering
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we will deal with some of the fundamental concepts pertaining to
earthquake engineering.
On completion of this chapter you should have an understanding of
Why earthquake happens in nature.

Essential engineering parameters, which affect the geo-technical and structural
aspect of a system under earthquake.
Basic concepts of dynamic analysis as applied to Earthquake engineering pertaining to buildings, and different types of industrial and infra-structural systems like
chimney, retaining wall, water tank, RCC and earth dams etc.
Have an understanding of different provisions of IS 1893 (2002) code.
Before reading this chapter we however feel that you should have following background as a pre-requisite.
1
2
Basic concepts in structural and soil dynamics as furnished in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
Also have some fundamental awareness of how earthquake can affect a structurefoundation system.
Earthquake is perhaps the most complex natural phenomenon which human being
is trying to understand, combat and harness, from the early history of mankind. In
spite of scientific study of the subject for the last 100 years or so, it is felt that we
are still in the infancy of our knowledge on the subject. The parameters affecting
this phenomenon are so large and varying and also covering different branches of
science, we can at best arrive at a simplified model of the problem amenable to human
perception and try to arrive at a solution which would in all probability survive this
natures assault with some limited damage, if ever the structure faces such vagary.
The basic objective of an earthquake resistant design is not to make the structure
fool proof but to limit its damage to the extent of minimizing the loss of human life
and property.
Though earthquake is a global phenomenon, yet there are some countries in
the world like USA, Japan, Turkey, India, Iran, Newzealand etc that are severely
affected by earthquakes leading to signicant loss of human life and properties, while
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
390 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
there are others whose geological characteristics are considered seismically inert like
United Kingdom, Gulf countries like Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar etc. which have no
signicant history of earthquakes.
Based on the above, it is evident that there are countries where significant research
and investigation have been carried out to develop procedures for earthquake resistant
design of structures. Countries like USA, Japan, India, Mexico etc have contributed
significantly on this issue.
3.1.1 Why do earthquakes happen in nature?

The topic itself can be subject matter of a complete book. A detailed discussion on
this is beyond the scope of this work, however as civil engineers to design structures,
which can withstand such calamity- some fundamental understanding on this issue is
essential.
As shown in Figure 3.1.1 the earth constitute of a central core, consisting of molten
magma which is undergoing continuous upheaval. While the outer core, which has
solidified in million of years forms the outer earth crust. The inner magma (the molten
core) is continuously creating a pressure on the outer core and trying to come out by
seeking some weaknesses in earth crust. Whenever it can come out it generates what
is known as a volcanic eruption. When it cannot, it tries to push the crust upward
thus creating folds and faults resulting in a source which stores a significant amount
of potential/strain energy.
As by law of nature, all systems in course of time try to achieve minimum state
of energy; these storehouses of potential energy keep on releasing their stored strain
energy as kinetic energy generating waves on surface of the outer crust which is commonly known as earthquake. It is said that Himalayan mountain range is one such
formation due to pressure of the inner magma. Deformation which the earth crust
underwent, due to formation of the mountain range, is still being adjusted naturally.
Earth Crust
Earth Core
Figure 3.1.1 Earth with its central core.
Molten Magma
Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering 391
It is for this reason, areas in its close proximity like Assam, Nepal and portions of
south China is often subjected to severe earthquakes.
There is also a phenomenon called seismotectonic movement otherwise known as
continental drift that generates earthquake at certain location of the earth. According
to this theory, the outer crust of earth is made up of undistorted plates of lithosphere.
These plates are in differential motion, and at places they move away from each other
where new plates are added from the interior of the earth while in places they collide
with each other.
All major earthquakes which mark the active zones of the earth closely follows the
plate boundaries and has been found to be a function of the movements of these plates
(Stevens 1980).
Human interference can also sometimes modify stresses on the earth surface to
trigger minor or even moderate earthquakes. In many mining areas tremors and shocks
results due to underground explosion in mines, causing damages to structures on
ground.
One of the classic cases of man made earthquake was Koyna Dam incident in 1967
in India, when pounding of large amount of water behind the dam resulted in an
earthquake causing extensive damage to surrounding (Chopra & Chakrabarti 1973).
3.1.2 Essential difference between systems subjected

to earthquake and vibration from machine
In Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) and Chapter 2 (Vol. 2) we had discussed in detail response
of machine foundation under dynamic loading. In machine foundations, unbalanced
force from the machine gets transmitted to ground via structure/foundation to the
soil media. In such cases normally a limited part of the soil is affected significantly.
Moreover the strain range induced in soil is usually limited to low strain range (usually
103 %). However in case of earthquake the phenomenon is quite different. In this
case when an earthquake shock is generated due to rupture of a fault within the earth
surface it generates waves within soil that induces a much larger strain (102 to 101 %)
for a major earthquake.
Shown in Figure 3.1.2, is a typical propagation of waves through the soil medium
and is usually a combination of four types of waves namely,
1
2
3
4
P-waves (body waves)

S-waves (body waves)
Rayleigh Waves (surface waves)
Love waves (surface waves)
The primary or P-waves are the fastest traveling of all waves and generally produce
longitudinal compression and extension within a soil medium. This wave can travel
both through soil and water and is the first one to arrive at a site. However soil being
relatively more resistant to compression and dilation, effect of its impact on ground
distortion is minimal.
The S-waves, also otherwise known as secondary or shear waves usually cause shear
deformation in the medium through which they propagate. The S-waves can usually
Time History response Velocity
0.1
19 . 4
18 . 4
17 . 3
16 . 2
15 . 1
14
13
11 . 9
10 . 8
9 .7 2
8 .6 4
7.56
6.48
4.32
5.4
3.42
2.16
-0.1
1.08
0
0
Velocity v(m/sec)
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
Time steps
Figure 3.1.2 Typical propagation of earthquake waves through surface.
propagate through soil only1 . It travels at a much slower speed through the ground
than primary waves and soil being weak in resisting shear deformation; it is found to
cause maximum damage to ground surface.
Rayleigh waves are surface waves which are found to produce ripples on surface
of the ground2 . These waves produce both horizontal and vertical movement of earth
surface as the waves travel away from the source.
Love waves are similar to S-waves and produces transverse shear deformation to
the ground.
These entire waves combine together to produce shock waves from which an engineer extracts value of the maximum ground acceleration (amax ) which is the major
parameter that governs his design.
Based on above it is apparent that mechanics of earthquake is opposite to dynamics
of machine foundation in the sense that here forces are transmitted from soil to the
structure. It is the shock within the ground which excites the structure and induces
inertial force in the system.
3.1.3 Some history of major earthquakes

around the world
A number of major earthquakes have been recorded that resulted in massive losses of
human lives and destructions of thousands of buildings and structures. Some of them
are cited in Table 3.1.1.
1 Since liquid have no shear resistance it cannot travel through water.

2 This is very much similar to ripples produced by a pebble dropped in a pond.
Table 3.1.1 Various Earthquakes & their casualities.

Name, Location & Year
Casualty
Calcutta, 1737
Destroyed 300 000 lives.
Portugal, Spain & Northern

Morocco, subjected to three
strong shocks in the afternoon
of Nov. 1, 1775
Devastated Lisbon, loss of life was heavy. The disaster was

more detrimental since the first shock was followed by a
colossal whirling wall of water sweeping everybody and
everything it met on its path.
The Alma-Ata earthquake, 1910
Demonstrated continuous vibrations, that lasted for 5 minutes.
Tokyo and Yokohama, Sept. 1, 1923 11 000 buildings were ruined, 59 000 houses burned
in Yokohama. Entire area of Tokyo was affected. Death
toll was 100 000, while 43 000 missing. 300 000 houses
were damaged.
Himalayan earthquake, 1950
One of the severest events recorded instrumentally.

Equivalent to the explosion of 100 000 A-bombs.
Mongolian earthquake,
December 4, 1956
Vast devastation, A mountain peak was split into two parts.

Part of mountain, 400 m high, collapsed and fell down a
precipice. A depression, up to 18 km in length and 800 m
in width, originated. Broad fissures, up to 20 m in width
appeared on the ground surface. One of these broke for
length of 250 km. The intensity of the earthquake
approached a force 11.
Alaskan earthquake, 1964
The most severe of all known seismic events. Intensity was

over 11.
Chile, 1960
The most violent earthquake of the 20th century. It affected

an area over 200 000 km2 and caused numerous landslides.
Latur and Osmanabad,

September 1993
Magnitude of earthquake was 6.3. Total of 7601 people lost

their lives in Latur and Osmanabad. Number of houses
destroyed in the earthquake was about 30 000.
Bhuj earthquake, 26 January 2001
Some historical structures that survived the 1819 (M = 7.7)

earthquake have been destroyed in the 2001 earthquake.
The death toll was 19 727 and the number of injured
166 000. Indications are that 600 000 people were left
homeless, with 348 000 houses destroyed and an additional
844 000 damaged. Magnitude was 7.6.
Liquefaction On 4 February liquefaction phenomenon
were reported by hydrologists and by local villagers, with
an indication that the flow was sufficient in some cases
to activate desert rivers that have been dry for more than
a century. Widespread liquefaction was confirmed by
SPOT imagery and by field observation (5 Feb.). Many mudvolcanoes in the Rann of Kachchh have dimensions of
hundreds of meters: one covers a 5 km diameter stretch of
the southern Rann with dark sand and mud. Numerous
ancient river channels have been illuminated by a pock
mark pattern of sand vents, and some have clearly flowed,
and breached their old channels.
3.1.4 Intensity
The severity of shaking of an earthquake as felt through damage is described as intensity at a certain place on an arbitrary scale. One such scale is Modied Mercalli Scale
(MMS). This is shown in Table 3.1.2.
Table 3.1.2 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.

Class of
earthquakes
Description
Not felt except by a few under specially favourable circumstances.
II
Felt by a few persons at rest, specially on upper floors of building; and delicately
suspended objects may swing.
III
Felt quite noticeably indoors; specially on upper floors of buildings but many people
do not recognize it as an earthquake; standing motor cars may rock slightly; and
vibration may be felt like the passing of a truck.
IV
During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by a few; at night some awakened,
dishes, windows, doors disturbed, walls make cracking sound, sensation like
heavy truck striking the building; and standing motor car rocked noticeably.
Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened; some dishes, windows etc. broken; a few
instances of cracked plasters; unstable objects overturned; disturbance of trees;
poles and other tall objects noticed sometimes and pendulum clocks may pop.
VI
Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors; some heavy furnitures moved; a
few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys; damage slight.
VII
Everybody runs outdoors, damage negligible in buildings of good design and

construction; slight to moderate in well built ordinary structures, considerable
in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken; noticed
by persons driving motor cars.
VIII
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial

buildings with partial collapse; very heavy in poorly built structures; panel walls
thrown out of framed structures; heavy furniture overturned; sand and mud
ejected in small amounts; changes in well water, and disturbs persons driving
motor cars.
IX
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed framed

structures thrown out of plumb; damage very heavy in substantial buildings with
partial collapse; buildings shifted off foundations; ground cracked conspicuously;
and underground pipes broken.
Some well built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and framed
structures with foundations destroyed; ground badly cracked; rails bent; land-slides
considerable from river banks and steep slopes; shifted sand and mud; and
water splashed over banks.
XI
Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing; bridge destroyed; broad fissures
in ground, underground pipe lines completely out of service; earth slumps and
landslips in soft ground; and rails bent greatly.
XII
Total damage; waves seen on ground surface; lines of sight and level distorted; and
objects thrown upward into the air.
3.1.5 Effect of earthquake on soil-foundation system

Having explained the primary source of disturbance is in the soil itself, it is important
to assess and know what could be the effects of an earthquake on the soil on which
a structure is built. For it should be understood that irrespective of how well an
earthquake resistant design is carried out for a structure if the ground supporting it
fails, the structure will invariably undergo significant damage and which at times could
even be catastrophic3 .
The major effect on soil affected by an earthquake can be classified as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
Liquefaction of soil
Settlement of foundation due to deep seated liquefaction failure
Reduction of bearing capacity
Ground Subsidence
Land Slides
Of all the phenomena defined above, liquefaction is perhaps the most important
factor that has caused major damage in many previous earthquakes, and unfortunately gets very little attention from structural engineers in a design office4 . Thus it is
important to understand what the phenomenon is and what are the methods available
to assess and mitigate it?
3.1.6 Liquefaction analysis

3.1.6.1
What is liquefaction?
Conceptually speaking liquefaction is very much akin to giving a rapid squeeze to a

sponge ball saturated with water. When the squeeze is applied, we observe that water
stored inside the sponge comes out and the sponge feels lighter as the water comes out.
For soil sample (especially when it is cohesionless) shear strength is given by the
expression
s = ( u) tan
(3.1.1)
where, s = shear strength of the soil; = overburden pressure of the soil sample; u =
in-situ pore pressure within the soil sample, and = angle of internal friction of the
soil sample.
When earthquake force acts on the soil sample it produces a rapid shock or a squeeze
on the soil body, by virtue of which there is a sudden increase in pore pressure. But
unlike the sponge ball the pore pressure cannot dissipate readily.
When force due to earthquake is significantly high (M 6.5) which also results
in ground shaking for a good amount of time the pore pressure increment becomes
sufficiently high such that it equals the overburden pressure and the soil looses its shear
3 Nigaata Earthquake (1964) in Japan was one of the primary example where a number of structures
underwent significant damages due to ground subsidence and liquefaction of soil.
4 Especially in India where in previous earthquakes a significant damage has been recorded due to this
phenomenon.
strength altogether (i.e. s = 0) and starts flowing like a liquid. This phenomenon is
otherwise known as liquefaction of soil.
When such phenomenon is observed during an earthquake soil collapses completely
and sand boils are observed in the ground. Even c- soils losses signicant part of
its strength resulting in bearing capacity failures of foundation and or signicant
settlement.
Liquefaction of soil has been observed in a number of earthquakes throughout the
world like Nigaata in Japan (1964), Kobe in Japan (1995), Dhubri and Koyna (1967)
earthquakes in India.
From the above discussion it is obvious that non-plastic cohesionless soils under
saturated condition are most susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake.
As SPT value has been extensively used to define the static engineering strength
of cohesionless soil consistently it was but natural that researchers tried to co-relate
SPT values of cohesion less sandy soil to liquefaction potential of soil samples due to
earthquake shocks. Pioneering research in this area was done by Seed et al. (1984)
who correlated the observed SPT values to cyclic resistance ratio which is one of the
major parameters used to define the liquefaction potential of a soil sample. We will
talk more about this later; first let us see how liquefaction is measured for a particular
soil sample.
The susceptibility of a soil sample undergoing liquefaction is measured by a term
called liquefaction potential, which is measured as a Factor of Safety (FS) against
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) to Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR). It is defined as
FS =
CRR
1.0
CSR
(3.1.2)
In other words (based on Equation (3.1.2)), if the factor of safety is less than or
equal to 1.0, the soil has very good possibility of undergoing liquefaction under an
earthquake, however if the value is greater than 1.0, the possibility of soil failure due
to liquefaction is remote.
Thus it is obvious that we need to first understand what does CSR and CRR stand
for. During earthquake soil under the influence of an earthquake will be subjected to
repetitive shear stress (known as cyclic shear stress) and it is estimated by the expression
CSR =

av
amax
v
r
=
0.65

v
g
v d
(3.1.3)
where, amax = maximum acceleration at the ground surface; v = total overburden

pressure at the design depth; v = effective overburden pressure at the design depth;
g = acceleration due to gravity, and, rd = stress reduction factor which varies with
depth and is given by
rd = 1.0 0.000765z
for z 9.15 m
(3.1.4a)
rd = 1.174 0.0267z
for 9.15 m z 23 m
(3.1.4b)
rd = 0.744 0.008z
rd = 0.5
for 23 m z 30 m
for z 30 m
(3.1.4c)
(3.1.4d)
For ease of electronic computation rd may also be expressed by the expression (Blake
et al. 2002)5

rd =
1.000 0.4113z0.5 + 0.04052z + 0.001753z1.5
1.000 0.4177z0.5 + 0.5729z 0.006205z1.5 + 0.001210z2
(3.1.5)
The maximum acceleration of the ground (amax ) is another factor, which needs
careful evaluation.
For practical design office purpose one of the expressions used to evaluate amax is
amax = 0.184 100.320M (D)0.8 g
(3.1.6)
where amax = maximum ground acceleration; M = expected moment magnitude of

earthquake, D = maximum epicenter distance in km, and g = acceleration due to
gravity @ 9.81 m/sec2 .
It may be noted that if more reliable observed earthquake data is available for the
site (predicting ground acceleration more accurately) it may well be used in lieu of the
above formula.
Having calculated the cyclic stress ratio based on the above expressions it is essential
to evaluate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) of the in-situ soil.
It is evident that the CRR value of the soil sample will depend on its in-situ strength.
Since Laboratory testing can be carried out under a better controlled environment,
one of the plausible methods which have been tried is to collect in-situ undisturbed
soil sample for evaluation of the parameter CRR in the laboratory.
However, one of the major difculties encountered in this case is that generally the
in-situ stress state cannot be established in the laboratory, and specimens of granular soil retrieved with typical drilling techniques are far too disturbed to yield any
meaningful results.
Only through very specialized sampling techniques such as ground freezing, sufciently undisturbed sample can be obtained, which again becomes prohibitively
expensive for all but most critical projects.
It is for this reason, co-relating the CRR value with field observed test data is still
the state of the art practice.
3.1.6.2
Co-Relation between CRR and SPT value
For calculation of CRR based on observed SPT value (No ), as a first step, the observed
SPT value is subjected to certain corrections is as expressed by
(N1 )60 = No (CN )(CE )(CB )(CR )(CS )
(3.1.7)
in which, No = measured SPT value at the site; CN = a correction factor for overburden pressure; CE = a correction factor for hammer energy ratio; CB = a correction
5 This formula was proposed as guidelines for analyzing and mitigating landslide hazards in California,
Southern California Earthquake Center, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Table 3.1.3 Correction factors to observed SPT values.
Factor
Equipment parameter
Term
Overburden pressure
Energy ratio
Independent of Equipment
Safety Hammer
Doughnut Hammer
3 to 4 m
4 to 6 m
6 to 10 m
10 to 30 m
>30 m
65 to 115 mm
150 mm
200 mm
Standard Sampler
Sampler without Liners
CN
CE
Rod length
Bore Hole Diameter

Sampling Method
CR
CB
CS
Correction factor

Pa
v
0.6 to 1.17
0.45 to 1.0
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.0
>1.0
1.0
1.05
1.15
1.0
1.2
In the table, Pa = atmospheric pressure or 100 kPa (100 kN/m2 ); v = effective overburden pressure at depth
of the standard penetration sample.
factor for borehole diameter; CR = a correction factor for rod length; CS = a correction factor for sampler with or without liners, and, (N1 )60 = corrected SPT value
with 60% hammer efciency.
The correction factors for various equipment parameters are as shown in
Table 3.1.3.
Having established the design SPT value (N1 )60 the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) is
given by the expression for clean sands (i.e. <5% contents) as
CRR =
a + by + cy2 + dy3
1 + ey + fy2 + gy3 + hy4
(3.1.8)
where, a = 0.048, b = 0.004721, c = 0.0006136, d = 1.673 105 , e = 0.1248,

f = 0.009578, g = 0.0003285, h = 3.714 106 , and y = (N1 )60 .
Equation (3.1.8) is valid for (N1 )60 less than 30. For clean granular soil having
N > 30 are far too dense to liquefy and are generally classed as non-liquefiable.
Another expression, which is used for clean sand base for computation of CRR is6
CRR7.5 =
1
(N1 )60
1
50
+
+
34 (N1 )60
135
200
[10 (N1 )60 + 45]2
where, CRR7.5 = the cyclic resistance ratio at earthquake magnitude of 7.5.
6 After Alan. F. Rauch at the University of Texas, 1998.
(3.1.9)
3.1.6.3
Inf luence of f ine contents on CRR value
While developing the original expression Seed et al. (1984) noted an apparent increase
of CRR value with an increase in fine contents. Whether this can be attributed to an
increase in resistance or decrease in penetration resistance is not clear.
However to cater to this, correction has been recommended to SPT values for the
influence of fine contents. Other grain characteristics like Plasticity index (PI) may
also affect the liquefaction resistance as well, however is not so well defined till date.
Hence, corrections based solely on fine contents are used and should be mellowed with
judgment and caution.
Seed et al. (1983) proposed corrections of (N1 )60 to an equivalent clean sand value
(N1 )60CS given by
(N1 )60CS = + (N1 )60
(3.1.10)
where and are determined from the following relationships as shown in

Table 3.1.4.
Table 3.1.4 Modification factor to SPT value based on fine contents.
Sl. No.
Values of and
Fine content
= 0
For FC 5%
2
3
4
5
6

1.76
190
FC2
=e
= 5.0
= 1.0

1.5
= 0.99 + FC
1000
= 1.2
5% FC 35%
FC 35%
For FC 5%
5% FC 35%
FC 35%
The above equations can now be used for routine liquefaction resistance calculation
for soil subjected to SPT at field.
3.1.6.4
Effect of earthquake magnitude on liquefaction resistance
The original study of the liquefaction potential was based on an earthquake magnitude of 7.5. To evaluate the potential of earthquake at other magnitudes, correction
factors were proposed that allows induced stress ratios for other magnitudes be
adjusted to a magnitude of 7.5 by dividing the stress ratios by the factors as shown in
Table 3.1.5. The magnitude scaling factor (MSF) as proposed in Table 3.1.5 based
on recent research is now believed to be very conservative for moderate size earthquake. A new set of MSF has now been proposed by Idriss where the MSF is defined
as function of Moment Magnitude and is given by
MSF =
102.24
M2.56
(3.1.11)

Table 3.1.5 Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970).
Sl. No.
Earthquake magnitude
Magnitude scaling factor
1
2
3
4
5
5.25
6
6.75
7.5
8.5
1.5
1.32
1.13
1.0
0.89
Table 3.1.6 Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by various investigators**.
Sl. No.
Magnitude
Seed and
Idriss (original)
(1970)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
1.43
1.32
1.19
1.08
1
0.94
0.89
Idriss
(1999)
2.2
1.76
1.44
1.19
1
0.84
0.72
Arango
3
2
1.6
1.25
1
0.75
2.2
1.65
1.4
1.1
1
0.85
Ambreseys
(1995)
Andrus &
Stokoe
2.86
2.2
1.69
1.3
1
0.67
0.44
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.25
1
0.8
0.65
** American Practice.
We furnish in Table 3.1.6, the data furnished by other researchers on the MSF value
varying with earthquake magnitude. The factor of safety against Liquefaction can now
be expressed as

FS =
CRR7.5
CSR

MSF
(3.1.12)
where CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for an earthquake magnitude 7.5.

Whatever has been discussed previously will now be further clarified by a suitable
problem, which covers the whole gamut of the above conditions.
Example 3.1.1
As shown in Figure 3.1.3, is a site soil profile which consists of 3.0 m of silty
clay underlain by 6 m of sand whose average SPT value is 13. The ground water
table is observed to be at a level of 1.0 meter below ground level. The dry density
of the silty clay is 18 kN/m3 , while that in saturated condition is 20 KN/m3 . The
saturated density of sand is 19.6 kN/m3 . Sieve analysis shows the sand to have
Fines content as 15%. Find the liquefaction potential when the site is considered
to be 150 km away from the epicentre having an earthquake moment magnitude
of 6.5? The SPT test was carried out by standard sampler with safety hammer &
having rod length of 6.0 m. The diameter of the bore hole was 150 mm.
Density of soil =18/m3
1.0m
GWL
2.0 m
Density of soil =20kN/m3

Average SPT Value=13
Saturated Density of soil=19.6 kN/m3
6.0 m
Figure 3.1.3 Soil Profile of a site with typical soil properties.
Solution:
Considering amax = 0.184 100.320M (D)0.8 g.
Here M
= 6.5 and D
= 150 km which gives, amax
=
0.184 100.320 6.5 (150)0.8 g = 0.4017 g.
Effective vertical stress at center of the sand layer is, v = 18 1.0 + 10 2 +
9.6 3 = 66.8 kN/m2 .
The gross vertical pressure at center of the sand layer, v = 18 1.0+20 2+
19.6 3 = 116.8 kN/m2 .
The depth below ground, where liquefaction potential is calculated is 1 + 2 +
3 = 6 m.
Thus z = 6.0 m < 9.15 m, which gives, rd = 1.0 0.000765z rd =
1.0 0.000765 6 = 0.9954.

amax
v
r , we have, CSR = 0.65
Considering, CSR = 0.65
g
v d

0.4017g
116.8
0.9954 = 0.4544
g
66.8
The corrected SPT value is given by
(N1 )60 = No (CN )(CE )(CB )(CR )(CS )

100
Here, No = 13, CN =
, CE = 1.0, CB = 0.85, CR = 1.05, CS = 1.0
66.8
100
Thus (N1 )60 = 13
1.0 0.85 1.05 1.0 = 14.2
66.8
For FC = 15% we have

=e
1.76
190
FC 2
=e
1.76
190
152
= 2.498;
and
= 0.99 +
FC1.5
1000
= 0.99 +
151.5
1000

= 1.048.
Thus corrected SPT value is given by (N1 )60CS = + (N1 )60

i.e. (N1 )60CS = 2.498 + 1.048 14.2 = 17.38 17 (say)
1
(N1 )60
50
1
Considering CRR7.5 =
+
+
34 (N1 )60
135
[10 (N1 )60 + 45]2 200
1
17
50
1
We have, CRR7.5 =
+
+
= 0.1808
34 17 135 [10 17 + 45]2
200
The Magnitude scaling factor is given by
MSF =
102.24
102.24
=
= 1.44;
M2.56
6.52.56
Thus, FS =
CRR7.5
CSR

MSF =
0.1808
0.4544

1.44 = 0.572 < 1.0.
Hence, as the factor of safety being less than 1.0, the soil has a high chance of
liquefaction during the earthquake.
3.1.6.5 Correlation between CRR and CPT value

Other than SPT, cone penetration test (CPT) is also used in field for evaluation of geotechnical engineering parameters. As such investigators have also tried to co-relate the
CPT value with CRR for evaluation of liquefaction potential. One of the advantages
with CPT being that since it is a continuous process; thin layers of soil that one can
miss by SPT will not be missed in this case.
As stated earlier, Equation (3.1.3) is used to determine the CSR value. The CRR
value is indirectly co-related to CPT by developing relationship between CPT and SPT
value.
As per Seed and Idriss
qc = 4 to 5 N
for clean sand, and
qc = 3.5 to 4.5 N
for silty sand
(3.1.13)
where, qc = the observed CPT value in MPa.

Once an equivalent SPT value is obtained from the observed qc , rest of the procedure
remains same as stated earlier. Murthy et al. (1991) has given the relationship which
can also be used to obtain equivalent SPT values from the observed cone penetration
values. This is given in Table 3.1.7.
Schmertmann (1978) presented a relationship between SPT and CPT values for
various types of soil [Table 3.1.8] which are also extensively used in the design offices
to determine equivalent SPT values from the observed CPT values.

Table 3.1.7 Relationship between relative density of fine sand, SPT, cone resistance and angle of
friction.
State of sand
Dr
qc (MPa)
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
<0.2
0.20.4
0.40.6
0.60.8
0.81.0
<4
410
1030
3050
>50
<2.0
24
412
1220
>20
<30
3035
3540
4045
>45
Table 3.1.8 Relationship between SPT, CPT values for different

types of soil after Schmertmann (1978).
Type of soil
qc /N
Sand and gravel mixture

Sand
Sandy silt
Clay-silt sand mixture
Insensitive clay
6
4
3
2
1.5
3.1.6.6
Liquefaction of clay
Normally clay is deemed non liquefiable. However based on experience of earthquake

in China it is now established that there are certain types of clay, which under shaking
do undergo liquefaction.
As a rule of thumb, a clay sample will be deemed liquefiable provided all of the
following criteria as mentioned below are complied with,
Weight of soil particles finer than 0.005 mm is less than 15% of the dry weight
of the soil.
The liquid limit (LL) of the soil is less than 35%.
The moisture content of the soil is less than 0.9 times the liquid limit of soil.
Clayey soil meeting not all of the above criteria are usually considered non
liqueable.
3.1.6.7
Settlement of foundation due to liquefaction failure
We had stated in our earlier section of liquefaction that during an earthquake, due to
shock there is a sudden increase in pore pressure that cannot dissipate immediately
resulting in lose of shear strength of soil. However, in course of time, this pore pressure
dissipates away towards the surface resulting in volumetric deformation of the ground.
Considering the above phenomenon and heterogeneous nature of soil, the soil may
undergo differential settlement which could be critical for building foundations and
underground lifelines.
A technique to estimate the ground settlement has been proposed by Ishihara and
Yoshimine (1992) wherein they developed a chart based on which the post liquefaction
volumetric strain is co-related to the FS value (CRR/CSR) and the SPT value as shown
in Fig. 3.1.4.
Figure 3.1.4 Curves for volumetric strain versus FS after Yoshimine (1992).
Based on above, once we know FS and SPT value, the volumetric strain is read off
from the curve and the settlement is obtained by multiplying this strain with the depth
of the soil.
The above is now further elaborated by a problem shown below.
Example 3.1.2
For the soil sample as described in Example 3.1.1 estimate the settlement of the
sandy layer considering all other boundary conditions remaining identical.
Solution:
From previous example we have seen FS =
0.1808
0.4544
1.44 = 0.572 < 1.0,
which shows that the soil can undergo liquefaction.

We has also seen that the corrected SPT value of the soil is N = 17.38 say 17.
Referring to Ishihara & Yoshimines chart we find volumetric strain = 2.0%.
2.0
Thus settlement of the sand layer of 6 m is = 100
6000 = 120 mm.
3.1.6.8
Reduction of bearing capacity of soil
Normally it is believed that earthquake has marginal effect on bearing capacity of soil.
As a matter of fact it is often a common practice and advised in many codes to increase
the allowable bearing capacity by 25%.
The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that normally when we find bearing
capacity of soil, we find out ultimate bearing capacity of soil. Dividing it by a factor
of safety we arrive at the allowable bearing capacity of soil. This is mostly as per the
general shear failure theory of soil, where Terzaghi, Meyerhof or Brinch Hansens
formula is used.
However in many cases and especially for cohesive soil, it is the settlement that
governs the design bearing capacity of soil.
Thus during an earthquake which is considered once in a lifetime phenomenon on
the structure, a lowering of the factor of safety on the bearing capacity is usually
deemed acceptable, and hence allowable bearing capacity is increased.
However it should be made clear that such increment is valid for a case when the
foundation is resting on
Crystalline rocks having no horizontal fragments or laminations;

Dense compacted sand having SPT value >30;
Stiff to very stiff clay with nominal plastic flow.
If the soil is otherwise made of fragmented rock, loose sand or soft plastic clay
sensitive to vibration this increased bearing capacity value should not be used7 .
In such cases there could be significant reduction in strength when the foundation can
undergo either a local shear failure (when the foundation punches through overlying
soil due to liquefaction of bottom layer) or undergo a general shear failure when there
is a significant change in soil property for which bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq , and
N undergo reduction resulting in a reduced bearing capacity.
3.1.6.9
Punching shear failure of soil
To understand how local shear failure can occur, let us consider the soil profile as
shown in Figure 3.1.5.
Let us consider the case of a foundation resting on the top layer of shallow clayey soil
which is non liquefiable, underlain by a layer of loose sand susceptible to liquefaction.
It is apparent from the figure that depth of the layer below the footing to the top of
liqueable sand layer is quite less and it might so happen that if bottom layer looses its
strength and the foundation is subjected to heavy load from superstructure, the foundation may punch through this thin layer of soil and collapse, causing serious damage
to the super-structure. Similar to a column punching through a RCC footing here the
whole foundation punches through the soil along the vertical dotted line to collapse.
7 Unfortunately many design engineers hardly give consideration to this and believes that this increase of
bearing capacity of foundation almost a sacrosanct issue.
Figure 3.1.5 Soil Profile of a site with foundation resting on top layer on non-liquefiable soil.
To prevent this happening we calculate a factor of safety (FS) expressed as

FS =
FS =
2(B + L)Z f
P
2Z f
P
for isolated footing, and,
for strip footing.
(3.1.14)
where, B = width of foundation in meter; L = length of foundation in meter; Z =

depth of soil layer from bottom of footing to the top of liquefiable soil, and f = shear
strength of un-liquefiable layer of soil in kN/m2 .
If the top layer of non liquefiable soil is cohesive in nature (clay) then the shear
strength is given by
f = Su ,
where Su = undrained shear strength of the soil.
(3.1.15a)
For c soil (undrained shear strength parameters) the shear strength is given by
f = c + h tan
(3.1.15b)
where h = horizontal total stress in kN/m2 ; for cohesive soil this is often assumed
as 0.5v .
For a non-liquefiable soil layer of cohesionless soil, the shear strength is given by
f = h tan = k0 v tan
h
(3.1.15c)
where
= effective horizontal stress in kN/m2 and is equal to the coefficient of
passive pressure at rest times the vertical effective stress v , and, = effective angle
of friction of the cohesionless soil.
We now show the application of the above based on a suitable problem as shown
in Example 3.1.3.
Example 3.1.3
Shown in Figure 3.1.5, is a footing of size 3 m 2 m placed on a stiff clayeysilt
layer of undrained shear strength Su = 50 kN/m2 and = 10 . The footing has
maximum load of 650 kN on it (including its own weight). The clay layer (3.0 m
deep) is underlain by a layer of loose sand 9.0 meter deep which is susceptible
to liquefaction. Find the factor of safety of the foundation under punching shear
failure. The foundation is resting at depth of 1.5 m below ground level. Unit
weight of soil of the top layer is 20 kN/m3 .
Solution:
As per the problem Z = 3.0 1.5 = 1.5 m; v = 20 1.5 = 30 kN/m2 .
Thus, h = 0.5 30 = 15 kN/m2 and f = 50 + 15 tan 10 = 52.64 kN/m2 .
The resistive force = 2(B + L) Zf = 2(3 + 2) 1.5 52.64 = 789.6 kN.
And, FS = 789.6/650 = 1.214. Considering the uncertainty in soil, FS = 1.2
could be a low value.
3.1.6.10
General shear failure capacity reduction

due to liquefaction
This phenomenon is generally observed in case of the soil supporting the foundation is
a stiff clay layer underlain by sandy layer susceptible to liquefaction. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundation based on general shear failure theory is given by Terzaghis
equation as
qult = cNc + qNq +
1
s BN
2
(3.1.16)
The first term cNc gives the strength of the soil due to its cohesive property. The
second term depicts the effect of overburden soil which goes on to increase the bearing
capacity of the soil and the last term 12 s BN gives the frictional strength of the soil
where the term N is a function of the friction angle .
For clayey soil, as = 0, it gives N = 0 and Nq = 1; For spread footing,
considering the aspect ratio (B/L) correction, we have
qult
qult

B
= cNc 1 + 0.3
+ Df , further modified to
L

B
+ Df .
= Su Nc 1 + 0.3
L
(3.1.17)
For shallow foundation near the ground as the second term has minimal effect, for
all practical purpose we can consider the equation to be

B
qult = Su Nc 1 + 0.3
L
(3.1.18)
For the bottom layer of liquefiable soil there is obviously a reduction in value of Nc
and this is usually function of the ratio of Z/B as given in Table 3.1.9.
Table 3.1.9 Reduction in value of Nc for Z/B ratio.
Z/B
Nc
0
0.25
0.5
1.0
1.5
0
0.7
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.5
where B = width of the foundation; Z = height of soil from

bottom of foundation to the top of liquefiable soil.
Example 3.1.4
For the example problem cited in Example 3.1.3, find the reduced bearing capacity of the foundation considering the top layer of soil as stiff clay of undrained
shear strength of 50 kN/m2 . All other parameters remain the same as the earlier
problem.
Solution:
Under unliquefied state the ultimate bearing capacity is given by

B
qult = Su Nc 1 + 0.3
+ Df
L

For = 0 Nc = 5.5, qult = 50 5.5 1 + 0.3 23 + 20 1.5 = 357.3 kN/m2 .
Considering foundation size as 2 m 3 m we have, Qult = 357.3 2 3 =
2143.5 kN
FS =
2143.5
= 3.3
650
When the bottom soil is liqueed considering, Z/B = 1.5/2.0 = 0.75,

referring to Table 3.1.8, reduced Nc value = 1.9.

Thus, qult = 50 1.9 1 + 0.3 23 + 20 1.5 = 144 kN/m2 Qult =
144 2 3 = 864 kN.
Thus, FS = 864
650 = 1.3, which is low and should preferably be about 1.5.
3.1.6.11
Ground subsidence due to earthquake
During an earthquake of major magnitude there are many cases of ground subsidence and land slides which have wrecked havoc on many structures and especially
underground services which may get severely damaged due to this.
In the San Francisco Bay Earthquake (1906), the major source of damage was the
fire which broke out as an aftermath of the earthquake and could not be contained
as most of the underground water pipe lines were severely damaged due to ground
subsidence and became non-functional.
The major reason for this subsidence is again deep seated liquefaction for which the
soil starts to flow and due to differential or non uniform flow can split apart a structure
built on it. Roads and pavements were observed to undergo extensive damage due
to subsidence and similar was a major observation in ChiChi earthquake in Taiwan
(1999). When the slope of the ground is less or equal to 6% the flow of soil is generally
defined as a lateral displacement of soil. When this slope is more than 6% the same is
know as a land slide.
A number of researches have been carried out to develop a mathematical model,
which would effectively predict the subsidence of the ground during a major earthquake. However, parametric functions being so many in numbers and uncertain that
there is yet a model which can be stated as unconditionally applicable.
The most used mathematical model for practical engineering purpose is one
empirical model by Bartlet & Youd (1992) developed based on historical data collected
from the six earthquakes in USA and two in Japan. They proposed two expressions
one for sites near steep banks with a free face, the other with sites having gently sloped
terrain.
For free faced condition
log DH = 16.3658 + 1.1782M 0.9275 log R 0.0133R + 0.6572 log W
+ 0.3483 log T15 + 4.5270 log(100 F15 ) 0.9224D5015
(3.1.19)
For sloped terrain condition

log DH = 15.7870 + 1.1782M 0.9275 log R 0.0133R + 0.4293 log S
+ 0.3483 log T15 + 4.5270 log(100 F15 ) 0.9224D5015
(3.1.20)
in which, DH = estimated average ground displacement in meters; D5015 =

average mean grain size of the liqueable layers included in T15 in mm; M = moment
magnitude of the earthquake; R = epicentral distance in kM; F15 = average fine content (passing ASTM 200 sieve) for the liqueable layer in% included in T15 ; T15 = the
cumulative thickness (in meter) of the saturated granular layer having blow count
<15; S = ground slope in percent, and, W = ratio of height (H) of the free face to the
distance (L) from the base of the free pace to point in question percent.
Example 3.1.5
Shown in Figure 3.1.6 is a site soil prole which consists of 3.0 m of clay underlain by 6 m of sand whose average SPT value is 13 which is susceptible to
earthquakes. The site consists of a canal owing across as shown in the figure
shown below.
The unit weight of the clay is 20 kN/m3 . The saturated unit weight of sand
is 19.6 kN/m3 . Sieve analysis shows the sand to have fines content as 15%.
The average grain size diameter of the sand layer is 0.032. A power house is
to be in built on this site located at distance of 30 meter from the canal bank.
The site is considered to be 50 km away from the epicentre having an earthquake
Moment magnitude of 6.75. Find the estimated movement of soil with this free
face condition.
30m
Unit weight of soil =20kN/m
3.0m
Average SPT Value=13

Saturated unit weight of soil=19.6 kN/m3
6.0m
Figure 3.1.6 Soil Profile of a site with typical soil properties.
Solution:
Here, R = 50 km; M = 6.75; W = H/L = 3/30 = 0.1 = 10%; T = 6 m, and,
D50 = 0.32.
Considering,
log DH = 16.3658 + 1.1782M 0.9275 log R 0.0133R + 0.6572 log W
+ 0.3483 log T15 + 4.5270 log(100 F15 ) 0.9224D5015 ,
we have
log DH = 16.3658 + 1.1782 6.75 0.9275 log 50 0.0133 50 + 0.6572

log 10 + 0.3483 log 6 + 4.5270 log(100 10) 0.9224 0.032
log DH = 16.3658 + 7.95285 1.576 0.665 + 0.6572 + 0.271 + 8.846
0.295 = 1.1751
which gives DH = 0.068 m.

Considering uncertainties this value can vary from half to double thus
estimated value is 0.034 m to 0.136 m.
3.1.6.12
Effect of earthquake on structures
From above discussion it is obvious that earthquake has a profound influence on soil,
and since a structure is built on this soil it do also affects its response.
Potential energy stored in earth faults are released due to its rupture and generates
kinetic energy in form of stress waves in soil which propagates as P- and S-waves on
the surface of earth and induces acceleration on structures and foundations built on
the surface of the earth.
Thus, as per Newtons law of motion the structure is subjected to force as a result of
its inertial mass, which it has to resist depending on its stiffness and ensure that stresses
and deformations induced in the structure and foundation are within safe limits.
Above in essence is the basic philosophy of earthquake resistant design. The analytical methods adapted for earthquake analysis for different class of structures and
foundations may be classied into following category:
Seismic coefficient method or equivalent static method

Response spectrum method or psuedo static analysis
Dynamic analysis which is further subdivided into:
Modal analysis
Time history analysis.
We, as a first step, would study in general the basic principles underlying the above
methods and finally see their application to different class of structures and foundations
like buildings, tall chimneys, elevated water tank, retaining walls, earth dams etc.
3.2 EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS
3.2.1 Seismic coeff icient method

This is an approach where the earthquake force is treated as an equivalent static force
based on the zonal classification of a country8 .
Though earthquake force in essence is dynamic in nature based on the potential
occurrence of earthquakes in a particular zone, the soil condition, the type of foundation, code recommends a certain percentage of weight of the structure which it is
expected to resist as lateral force.
It should be noted that this method is now obsolete in terms of latest code IS-1893
2002 and may only be used with caution just to get an idea about the extent of force it
may generate in a particular zone for a particular type of structure, and that too only
for cases where large number of human life is not endangered either due to direct or
indirect effect of earthquake.
Based on the seismic zoning, soil foundation system, importance factor etc we derive
a factor, h , which is given by
h = I0
(3.2.1)
where, = a coefcient depending on the soil foundation system as given in

Table 3.2.1, I = importance factor as furnished in Table 3.2.2, 0 = basic horizontal
seismic coefcient as given in Table 3.2.3.
Based on above having derived, the value of h , the base shear acting at the soil
foundation level, is given by
V = KCh W,
V = h W,
for multistoried frames or buildings and
for all other type of structures
(3.2.2)
where, V = base shear on the structure due to a given earthquake; K = a factor known
as the performance factor of the frame; C = a coefficient defining flexibility of the
structure with increase in number of storey, depending on fundamental time period.
The value of flexibility factor C versus time is as given in Figure 3.2.1.
The value of performance factor K for different type of framing is as given in
Table 3.2.4.
For calculation of time period (T), code has furnished some empirical formulas from
which T may be found out as follows:
For moment resisting frame without bracings or shear walls resisting lateral loads
T = 0.1n
(3.2.3)
here n = number of storey including basement.

8 It is presumed the reader has a copy of the earthquake code like IS-1893 (1984 and 2002) for cross
reference.

Table 3.2.1 Soil foundation factor for various soil foundation system as per IS-1893, 1984.
Type of soil
constituting
the foundation
Pile passing
through any
soil but resting
on rock
Piles on any
other soil
Rock or
hard soil
Medium soil
Soft soil
1.0
1.0
1.0
Not
applicable
1.0
1.2
Raft
foundations
Combined
or Isolated RCC
foundation
with tie beams
Isolated Fdn
without tie
beams
Well
foundations
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
Table 3.2.2 Value of importance factor I as per IS-1893, 1984.

Type of structure
Importance factor (I)
Dams (all types)

Containers of inflammable or poisonous gases or liquids
Important service and community structures such as hospitals, water
towers and tanks, schools important bridges, important power houses,
monumental structures, emergency buildings like telephone exchange
fire bridge, large assembly buildings like structures like cinemas,
assembly halls and subway stations
All others
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
Table 3.2.3 Basic seismic coefficient 0 as per IS-1893, 1984.
Zone classification
Seismic coefficient (0 )
V
IV
III
II
I
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
For all others

T=
0.09H
(3.2.4)
where, H = total height of the main structure in meters and, d = maximum base
dimension of building in meters in direction parallel to the applied seismic force.
The above formulations are valid only for buildings which are regular in shape and
have regular distribution of mass or stiffness both in horizontal and/or vertical plane.
The value of 0 @ 0.08 (Table 3.2.3) has been obtained for zone V based on observations of earthquake occurrence in that zone however the values for other has been
reduced proportionally, the basis of this reduction has never been very explicit.
Though the above method has now been made obsolete in the recent code (IS-18932002) but it still remains in practice in design offices to estimate preliminarily the
magnitude of earthquake force before a more detailed analysis is carried out.
Figure 3.2.1 Value of flexibility factor C as per IS-1893, 1984.

Table 3.2.4 Value of performance factor I as per IS-1893, 1984.
Structural framing system
Moment resistance (MR) frame with appropriate ductility
details as given in IS-4326
Frame as above with RC shear walls or steel bracing
members designed for ductility
Frame with either steel bracing members or plain or
nominally reinforced concrete infill panels
MR Frame as above in combination with masonry infill
Reinforced concrete framed buildings (Not covered by
1 or 2 above)
Value of performance factor K

1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.6
Example 3.2.1
An RCC building having frame layout is as shown in Figure 3.2.2. The transverse cross section of the frame is also shown in the figure. Given the following
loading and geometric dimensions of the various structural members calculate
the base shear on the building as per seismic coefcient method IS-1893 (1984)
considering zone IV. Consider soil foundation system as of medium stiffness.
Loadings
Live load on roof = 2 kN/m2

Live load on other floors = 4 kN/m2
Parapet wall on roof = 1.5 m all round
Internal Partition walls = 1 kN/m2
Floor finish = 1.5 kN/m2
Cement plaster on ceiling = 50 mm.
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Plan view of the frame

EL 116.4
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL102.0
Tie beam all round
EL 100.0
4.0
4.0
Transverse elevation of the frame
Figure 3.2.2 A four storied RCC frame.
Geometric properties (Dimensions in mm)
Column size = 300 600

Beam size in transverse direction = 300 450
Beam size in longitudinal direction = 300 600
Average thickness of water proofing on roof = 75 mm
All external walls 250 mm thick.
Material properties
Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3

Unit weight of brick = 20 kN/m3
Unit weight of cement plaster = 24 kN/m3
Grade of concrete = M25.
Seismic zone properties
Seismic zone = Zone IV

Soil type Medium stiff
Foundation type = Isolated footings with tie beams at 1.0 m below Ground
level.
Consider no live load on roof and 50% reduction in live load for other floors
during earthquake.
Solution:
Calculation of roof load (El 116.4)
Assume slab thickness = 125 mm;
Wt of slab = 0.125 24 8 25 = 600 kN; Live Load on roof = 2.0 24 8 =
384 kN;
Parapet wall (1.5 m high) = 1.5 0.25 2 (24 + 8) 20 = 480 kN;
Water proofing on roof = 0.075 24 8 24 = 345.6 kN;
Cement plaster on ceiling = 0.05 24 8 24 = 230.4 kN;
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN;
Wt of short beam = 0.3 (0.450 0.125) 8 5 25 = 97.5 kN;
Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 1.8 15 25 = 121.5 kN, and,
Total load on roof = 600 + 384 + 480 + 346 + 230 + 257 + 98 + 122 =
2517 kN.
Calculation of load on other floors (El 112.8 109.2 and 105.6)
Wt of slab = 0.125 24 8 25 = 600 kN; Live Load on floor =
4.0 24 8 = 768 kN
Wt of partition wall = 1.0 24 8 = 192 kN;
Load from external brick wall = (3.6 0.475) 0.25 48 20 +
(3.6 0.325) 0.25 16 20 = 1012 kN;
Cement plaster on ceiling = 0.05 24 8 24 = 230.4 kN; Flooring on slab =
1.5 24 8 = 288 kN;
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN;
Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 3.6 15 25 = 243 kN, and,
Total load on each floor = 600 + 768 + 192 + 1012 + 230 + 288 + 257 +
98 + 243 = 3688 kN.
Calculation of load on ground floor (El 102.0)
Load from external brick wall = (3.6 0.475) 0.25 48 20 +
(3.6 0.325) 0.25 16 20 = 1012 kN;
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN;

Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 2.8 15 25 = 189 kN, and,
Total load on ground floor = 1016 + 258 + 98 + 189 = 1561 kN.
Total load to be considered for earthquake
Load at roof level = 2517 384 = 2133 kN (Considering no live load on roof
during earthquake);
Load at EL 112.8 = 3688 768 + 0.5 768 = 3304 kN (Considering 50% live
load on each floor during earthquake);
Load at El 109.2 = 3304 kN (Same as other floor);
Load at El 104.6 = 1561 kN, and,
Total Weight = 2133 + 3 3304 + 1561 = 13606 kN.
Calculation of seismic coefficient
As stated in the theory above, ah = I0
For Seismic zone IV, 0 = 0.05
For medium stiff soil with isolated foundations connected by tie beam, = 1.0
For normal residential building importance factor I = 1.0
Thus, ah = 1.0 1.0 0.05 = 0.05
Considering T = 0.1n where n = number of storey, we have, T = 0.5 secs,
based on which as IS-1893 1984 flexibility factor C = 0.75.
Considering Moment resistant frame with ductile detailing, K = 1.0
And Vb = KCh W = 1.0 0.75 0.05 13606 = 510.225
= 510 kN
Thus, the total base shear acting on building for an earthquake force acting in
either transverse or longitudinal direction is = 510 KN9 .
3.2.2 Response spectrum method

This method has undergone almost a radical change compared to what is furnished in
IS-1893 2002 and that what was furnished in IS-1893 1984.
In the previous code (1984 version) it was observed that base shear developed based
on seismic coefficient method and that by response spectrum method were almost
matching or were very close for 5% damping in the system. However with the present
version (2002) this force is almost double to the previous version. This we believe
would significantly enhance the project cost of all projects to come in near future.
9 This is strictly not correct for we will see later that time period will vary in both direction based on its
stiffness and mass thus earthquake force will also vary accordingly. Moreover the force calculated herein
is the total force acting on the building considered as stick model.
Figure 3.2.3 Response Spectrum Curve Sa /g as per 1893 (1984).
3.2.2.1 Response spectrum method as per 1984 version

Though the 1984 version has been made obsolete however for historical reason and
also for comparison with the present code we present below the steps followed in this
method.
The 1984 version gave a set of curves representing the values Sa /g versus different
time period in seconds for different level of damping. The sets of curves are as shown
in Figure 3.2.3.
The curve as shown in Figure 3.2.3 is actually based on the curves generated by Housner based on his observations and average spectrum obtained using four earthquake
time histories.
Based on the response spectra curve as furnished in Figure 3.2.3 for a particular time
period of a structure, the corresponding Sa/g is obtained for a particular damping ratio.
Based on the zonal demarcation like I, II, III, IV etc. code gives a values of response
spectrum factor F0 10 based on which the coefcient of horizontal seismic force is
given by
h = IF0
Sa
g
(3.2.5)
Here and I are as already defined factors in the seismic coefficient method and
factor F0 is as defined in Table 3.2.5.
10 This is exactly 5 times the value of 0 as given for seismic coefficient method.

Table 3.2.5 Value of Seismic zone factor F0 as per IS-1893, 1984.
Zone classification
Seismic zone factor (F0 )
V
IV
III
II
I
0.40
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.05
Once the value of h is known the rest of the procedure remains same as that for
seismic coefficient method.
It may be noted that here that the time period may either be obtained based on
formulations as given in code or may be found out based on a detailed dynamic analysis
and forces are then obtained based on modal response technique11 .
We now explain the above procedure based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.2.2
For the building cited in Example 3.2.1, find the base shear as per response
spectrum technique based on IS-1893, 1984. Consider the site to be zone 4 with
medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the structure.
Solution:
Referring to Example 3.2.1 the time period of the building is given by
T = 0.1 n = 0.5 sec.
For 0.51 sec and 5% damping the Sa /g obtained from the curve as shown in
Fig. 8.2.4 is
Sa /g = 0.16
As stated previously in Example 3.2.1, = 1.0 and I = 1.0 and F0 = 0.25 as
per Table 3.1.6.
Thus
h = IF0
Sa
g
Or h = 1.0 1.0 0.25 0.16 = 0.04

As shown in Example 3.2.1, total weight of the structure W = 10310 kN
For T = 0.5 sec C = 0.75 K = 1.0.
11 This we are going to study in detail subsequently.
Thus considering
V = KCh W,
we have, V = 1.0 0.75 0.04 13606 = 408.18 kN = 408 kN.
3.2.2.2 Response spectrum method as per IS-1893 2002

As stated at the outset, the method has undergone a drastic modification with respect
to the present code. In lieu of the soil foundation factor () considered in the earlier
code, the latest version now defines the Sa /g curve for different type of soil starting
with rock to soft soil. Sa /g curve for various type of soil as per IS-1893 (2003) is
shown in Figure 3.2.4 for 5% damping.
Spectral Response as per IS -1893 2002
Spectral Acceleration
Coefficient (Sa/g)
3
2.5
2
Sa/g(Hard
soil/Rock)
1.5
Sa/g(Medium
soil)
1
0.5
Sa/g(Soft soil)
3.74
3.4
3.06
2.72
2.38
2.04
1.7
1.36
1.02
0.68
0.34
Time Period (secs)
Figure 3.2.4 Response Spectrum Curve Sa /g as per IS-1893 (2002).
Moreover as computer analysis has almost become a daily routine work in day to day
design office practice-where it is preferable to have digitised data of Sa /g for computer
input, the code now defines the Sa /g curve by direct formulas enabling one to furnish
numerical input for earthquake analysis by computer. The formulas suggested by code
for various types of soil as per Clause 6.4.4 of the code for 5% damping ratio are as
shown in Table 3.2.6:
The code has given factors based on which the values of Sa /g obtained above may
be modified for different damping ratio.
Typical Sa /g curve for soft soil with different damping ratio are shown in
Figure 3.2.5 while multiplication factors to be considered for different damping ratios
are furnished in Table 3.2.7.

Table 3.2.6 Expressions for Sa /g for different types of soil as per IS-1893 2002.
Type of soil
Value of Sa /g
Range
Rock or hard soil
1 + 15T
2.5
1.00/T
1 + 15T
2.5
1.36/T
1 + 15T
2.5
1.67/T
0.0 < T < 0.1

0.1 < T < 0.4
0.4 < T < 4.0
0.0 < T < 0.1
0.1 < T < 0.55
0.55 < T < 4.0
0.0 < T < 0.1
0.1 < T < 0.67
0.67 < T < 4.0
Medium soil
Soft soil
Spectral Acceleration Soft soil
Spectral acceleration
coefficients (Sa/g)
3
Sa/g(5%)
2 .5
Sa/g(7%)
Sa/g(10%)
1 .5
Sa/g(15%)
Sa/g(20%)
Sa/g(25%)
0 .5
Sa/g(30%)
3 .92
3 .64
3 .36
3 .08
2 .8
2 .52
2 .24
1 .96
1 .4
1 .68
1 .12
0 .84
0 .56
0 .28
Time period(secs)
Figure 3.2.5 Response Spectrum Curve Sa /g for soft soil as per IS-1893 (2002).
Table 3.2.7 Multiplying factors for obtaining values for other damping as per IS-1893 (2002).
Damping ratio (%)
Factors
0
3.2
2
1.4
5
1.0
7
0.9
10
0.8
15
0.7
20
0.6
25
0.55
30
0.5
Table 3.2.8 Seismic zone factor as per IS-1893 (2002).

Seismic zone
Seismic intensity
Z
II
Low
0.1
III
Moderate
0.16
IV
Severe
0.24
V
Very severe
0.36
The country unlike previously that was classified into 5 zones (zone I to V) in the
present code zone I has now been merged with zone II and the zones now constitute
of zone II to V only. The zone factors to be considered as per the present code are as
presented in Table 3.2.8.

Table 3.2.9 Response reduction factor R as per IS-1893 (2002).
Sl. No.
Lateral load resistant system
1
2
Ordinary moment resistant frame

Special Moment resisting frame specially detailed to
provide ductile behaviour
Steel Frame with
Concentric Bracing
Eccentric Bracing
Special moment resistant frame with ductile detailing
Buildings with shear walls
Load bearing Masonry wall buildings
Un-reinforced
Reinforced with horizontal RC band
Reinforced with horizontal RC band and vertical bars
at corners of rooms and jamb openings
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
Ductile shear walls
Buildings with Dual systems
Ordinary shear wall with OMRF
Ordinary shear wall with SMRF
Ductile shear wall with OMRF
Ductile shear wall with SMRF
3.0
3
3a
3b
4
5
5a
5b
5c
6
7
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
1.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
The importance factor, I has remained unchanged and as such the factors furnished
earlier in Table 3.2.2 still holds good.
To bring it in line with international practice followed by other countries12 , the
code has now introduced a new factor R which is known as the response reduction
factor and also called the ductility factor in many literatures. This is the property of a
body to dissipate energy by means of its ductile behaviour and may be generated by
means of special detailing13 .
The R factor for buildings is basically a function of the structural configuration of
the building like whether it is a Ordinary Moment Resistant frame (OMRF), special
moment resistant frame (SMRF) or has shear wall etc. The value of the response
reduction factor R for different types of structural system as defined in IS-1893 2002
is furnished in Table 3.2.9.
Based on the above data the design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure
is determined by the expression
Ah =
ZISa
2Rg
12 Especially UBC 1997, and NEHRP as followed in USA.

13 We will discuss more about this later.
(3.2.6a)
and the base shear is furnished by the expression

V = Ah W
(3.2.6b)
The empirical relation furnished by time period has also undergone some modications. As per the latest code the approximate fundamental time period in seconds for a
moment resistant frame without brick infill panels may be estimated by the empirical
expression
Ta = 0.075h0.75
Ta = 0.085h
0.75
for RCC frame building

for steel buildings
(3.2.7)
where, h = height of the building.

For all other buildings including moment resistant frame buildings with brick infill
panels is estimated from the formula as furnished in Equation (3.2.4).
Based on above we now solve a numerical problem to illustrate how base shear is
obtained as per latest IS-1893.
Example 3.2.3
For the building cited in Example 3.1.1, find the base shear as per response
spectrum technique based on IS-1893, 2002. Consider the site to be zone 4 with
medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the structure.
Solution:
Referring to Example 3.1.1, the time period of the building is given by
0.09h
T=
d
Here h = 16.4 meter and d = 8 m in transverse direction and d = 24 m in
long direction thus
0.09 16.4
= 0.5218 sec in short direction
8
0.09 16.4
= 0.3012 sec in long direction.
T=
24
T=
and
Thus based on the response spectrum curve Sa /g = 2.50 for both short and
long direction
As per IS-1893 2002 for Zone IV Z = 0.24
Considering SMRF with ductile detailing as per Table 3.2.9, R = 5.0.

Thus Ah =
0.24 1 2.5
ZISa
=
= 0.06
2Rg
25
As shown in Example 10.1 total weight of the structure W = 13606 kN

Thus considering, V = Ah W we have,
V = 0.06 13606 = 816.36 kN.
Thus based on the above three examples if we compare the base shear, for the
given building we have as follows:
Sl. No.
Code
Method
Base shear (kN)
IS-1893-1984
510
IS-1893-1984
Seismic
coefficient
method
Response
spectrum Method
IS-1893-2002
do
816
408
Remarks
Shear force value

very near to seismic
coefficient method
Shear force almost
double the value
of base as calculated
by IS-1893-1984
Comparison of base shear as per IS-1893 (1984) and IS-1893 2002.
3.2.3 Dynamic analysis under earthquake loading

To understand the basic concept, we start with system having single degree of freedom
and subsequently extend this to system having multi-degree of freedom.
As shown in Figure 3.2.6, a single bay portal is subjected to an earthquake force
for which the body moves through a distance ug at base and undergoes additional
deformation of ut at top.
We had shown earlier that under time dependent force the equation of motion is
given by
mu + cu + ku = 0
(3.2.8)
where m = mass of the system; c = damping of the system (usually represented by a

dash pot); k = stiffness of the system; u,
u,
u = acceleration, velocity and displacement
vectors, respectively.
As during the motion the body undergoes a rigid body motion in terms of ug , it does
not affect the stiffness and damping of the system, which are affected by ut only.
ut
X
ug
Figure 3.2.6 Single bay portal subjected to earthquake force.
Thus the above equation may represented as

m(u g + ut ) + cu t + kut = 0
(3.2.9)
From which we arrive at the expression

mu t + cu t + kut = mu g
or mu t + cu t + kut = Fe
(3.2.10)
where Fe = the earthquake force induced on the system and is equal to the mass of
the body times ground acceleration due to earthquake.
3.2.4 How do we evaluate the earthquake force?

Before we proceed further to analyse the above equation of equilibrium, it is essential to understand the nature and characteristics of earthquake force and how do we
evaluate it.
The earthquake force in essence is a transient force and acts on a body for a small
instant of time. In terms of Newtonian mechanics this can also be termed as an
impulsive force acting on a body.

According to the basic law of physics an impulse force is expressed as, F = F(t)dt.
This expression means a force F which is function of time is acting upon a body for a
very small duration of time dt and is normally defined as an impulse.
As,
F=m
dv
dt
we can write this as, Fdt = mdv.
is acting on a body, it will result in a sudden change in

Thus if an impulse force, F,
its velocity without significant change in its displacement.
For spring mass system under free vibration we had seen earlier that the displacement
is given by
x = A sin n t + B cos n t,
(3.2.11)
where A and B are integration constants and their magnitudes depend on the boundary
condition.
For boundary conditions at t = 0, velocity = v0 and displacement x = x0 , the above
expression can be written as
v0
x=
sin n t + x0 cos n t
n

where n =
k
m
(3.2.12)
Thus for the spring mass initially at rest and acted upon by an impulse force is
given by
x=
F
sin n t
mn
(3.2.13)
When considering damping for the system the free vibration equation is written as
x = AeDn t sin

1 D 2 n t +
(3.2.14)
Considering the impulse load the above can modified to

x=

F
eDn t sin 1 D2 n t
mn 1 D2
(3.2.15)
where D is the damping ratio of the system

While considering earthquake the above expression can be further reduced to the
expression
x=
n 1 D 2

eDn t sin 1 D2 n t
(3.2.16)
Under earthquake the shock induced on the ground is generally represented by

response spectra or velocity spectra. Moreover, as we are interested in the peak value
(or maximum force in the system) the above integral can effectively used to obtain
the peak velocity from which maximum displacement and acceleration are obtained
subsequently a shown here after.
We had seen earlier that equation of motion for the portal structure under
earthquake is given by the expression
mu t + cu t + kut = Fe
(3.2.17)
Dividing each term by m we have

u t +
c
k
Fe
u t + ut =
m
m
m
or u t + 2Dn n u t + n2 ut = u g
(3.2.18)
Since the force is impulsive in nature acting for duration of time (say), the
displacement ut can be represented by
ut =
1
1 D2
t
u g ( )eDn (t ) sin

1 D2 n (t )d
(3.2.19)
Differentiating the above we have

t

1
u t =
u g ( )eDn (t ) Dn sin 1 D2 n (t )d
n 1 D 2
0

2
+ n 1 D cos 1 D2 n (t ) d
(3.2.20)
Considering,
t
C1 =

u g ( )Dn t cos 1 D2 n d
and
t
C2 =

u g ( )eDn t sin 1 D2 n d ,
the velocity can be expressed as

eDn t
u t =
C1 D C2 1 D2 sin 1 D2 n t
1 2

+ C1 1 D2 + C2 D cos 1 D2 n t

eDn t
u t =
C12 + C22 sin
1 D 2 n t
1 D2
(3.2.21)
The velocity spectrum or the peak velocity is given by the maximum value of the
above

eDn t 2

2
C1 + C 2
i.e. Sv = u g =

1 D2
max
when the maximum displacement is given by

Sd =
Sv
n
and Sd =
Sa
n2
(3.2.22)
where Sa is the acceleration spectrum.

Thus the maximum force the system may experience is given by
Fmax = m2n Sd
(3.2.23)
It is obvious that that for response spectrum analysis the value Sa is function of the
time period or natural frequency of the system which is given by the expression

=
k
m
and T =
2
.
(3.2.24)
Certain type of structures can very well be modelled as systems with single degree
of freedom and the base force can be found out as follows:
Example 3.2.4
Shown in Figure 3.2.7 is an air cooler of weight 450 kN is supported on a
structure as shown. Determine the force on the system calculating time period
based on dynamic analysis. Consider the soil is medium stiff and the site is
in zone III. Consider 5% damping for the structure. For beams and columns
section properties are as follows I xx = 1268.6 cm4 , I yy = 568 cm4 and A =
78 cm2 , Area of the bracing members = 12 cm2 , Esteel = 2 108 kN/m2 .
Unit weight of column material = 78.5 kN/m3 What will be the force on the
frame based formulation as given in the code?
6500
6000
Figure 3.2.7 Structure supporting an air cooler.
3000
Solution:
For earthquake force in transverse direction
Stiffness of each column is given by K = 12EI/L3
Here I = 1268.6 cm4 = 1.2686 105 m4
E = 2 108 kN/m2 L = 6.5 m,
12 2 108 1.2686 105
= 110.86 kN/m
(4.5)3
4

Considering four columns
Ki = 4 110.86 = 443.46 kN/m
Thus,
K=
i=1
Weight of the air cooler = 450 kN

450
Mass of the air cooler =
= 45.87 kN-sec2 /m
9.81
7.8 103 78.5
Mass of each column =
= 0.0624 kN-sec2 /m
9.81
Considering 1/3rd weight of column contributing to top mass of 4 columns
4

mi =
i=1
0.0624 4
= 0.0832 kN sec2 /m
3
Weight of top beam = (6 + 3) 2 78.5 7.8 103 = 11 kN

11
Mass of beam =
= 1.123 kN-sec2 /m
9.81
Thus total mass = 45.87 + 0.0832 + 1.123= 47.07 kN-sec2 /m

m
47.07
Considering T = 2
we have, T = 2
= 2.04 sec.
K
443.46
for which as per IS-1893(2002), Sa /g = 0.666
ZISa
Considering Ah =
,
2Rg
where Z = 0.16 for zone III, I-1.0; Sa /g = 0.666 and R = 3.0,
0.16 1.0 0.666
we have, Ah =
= 0.0177
23
Thus Vh = 0.0177 47.07 9.81 = 8.20 kN.
For earthquake in longitudinal direction (i.e. in the direction of the braced bay)
Stiffness of per column (considered hinged at base, Figure 3.2.8)
3EI
3 2.0 108 5.68 106
=
= 12.41 KN/m
L3
(6.5)3
6.5
= tan1
= 65.22
3.0
=
6500
6000
Figure 3.2.8 Frame in longitudinal direction
Stiffness of each bracing
AE
L
cos2
1.2103 2.0108
6.5
cos2 65.22 =
6486 kN/m.
Thus total stiffness of the frame in longitudinal direction = 4 12.4 + 6486
4 = 25993.6 kN/m.

m
Considering T = 2
we have
K

T = 2
47.07
= 0.267
25993.6
for which as per IS-1893(2002), Sa /g = 2.5.
ZISa
, here Z = 0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 and R = 4.0 (for
2Rg
0.16 1.0 2.5
concentric bracing) we have, Ah =
= 0.05.
24
Considering Ah =
Thus Vh = 0.05 48.2 9.81 = 23.6 kN in longitudinal direction.

As per code for steel frame (vide Equation 3.2.9), Ta = 0.085 h0.75
Ta = 0.085 6.50.75 = 0.346 sec for which the value Sa /g = 2.5.
ZISa
here Z = 0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 and R = 4.0
2Rg
0.16 1.0 2.5
we have, Ah =
= 0.05.
24
Thus considering Ah =
Thus, the maximum force on the frame = 23.1 kN, this is same as we obtained
using the dynamic analysis.
3.2.5 Earthquake analysis of systems with

multi-degree of freedom
Before we delve into the detailed dynamic analysis of systems with multi-degree of
freedom under earthquake force (based on modal analysis or time history response),
we deal with a particular technique often used in practical engineering design where for
many buildings effect of fundamental time period is most pre-dominant. In such cases
higher mode participation vis-a-vis its effect being insignificant are ignored without
causing any significant errors.
3.2.5.1 Analysis based on assumed shape function
This is a technique in which a multi-degree freedom system is converted into an equivalent system having mass and stiffness of that of a single degree of freedom based on
an assumed shape function to find out the time period of a system.
To start with let us consider a stick model of a system having multi-degree of freedom
as shown in Figure 3.2.9.
The kinetic energy of the system is given by
T(t) =

n
1
y(z, t) 2
mi
2
t
(3.2.25)
i=1
We consider here,
y(z, t) = (z)(t)
(3.2.26)
where, (z) = admissible shape function which satisfies the boundary condition of
the system; (t) = generalized co-ordinate.
Mn
Kn
Displaced Shape(1st Mode)
M3
K3
M2
K2
M1
K1
Figure 3.2.9 A stick model having multi-degree of freedom.
Thus,
T(t) =
n
1
1
T(t) =
2
n
n

mi
j (z)j (t)
k (z) k (t)
i=1
j=1
n
n

j (t) k (t) mi
j=1 k=1
k=1
n

j (z) k (z)
(3.2.27)
i=1
from which we conclude that the generalized mass of the system is given by,

M = mi
n

j (z) k (z)
(3.2.28)
i=1
Thus for fundamental mode for j = k we have
M =
n

mi i2 (z)
(3.2.29)
i=1
Similarly potential energy is given by

1
ki [y(z, t)]2
2
n
V(t) =
(3.2.30)
i=1
where, = difference in the displacement between two adjacent level.

Hence,
n
n
n

1
ki
j (z)j (t)
k (z) k (t)
V (t) =
2
i=1
j=1
k=1

n
n
n

1
V(t) =
j (t) k (t) ki
j (z) k (z)
2
j=1 k=1
(3.2.31)
i=1
Thus for the fundamental mode, j = k, we have
K =
n

ki 2i (z)
(3.2.32)
i=1
Now knowing, T = 2

T = 2
M
K
m
K,
we have for this generalized case
(3.2.33)
From the above mathematical derivation it is obvious that if we know what could
be the assumed shape function correctly it is possible to arrive at the fundamental time
period of the system.
Based on the aspect ratio (H/D), Naeem (1989) has proposed the following shape
functions which may be considered for buildings modeled as stick having multi-degrees
of freedom.
Sl. No.
H/D
Shape function
H/D < 1.5
1.5 < H/D < 3
H/D > 3.0
x
sin
2H
x
H
x
1 cos
2H
where, H = height of the building; D = width of building in direction of the earthquake

force considered.
We will now solve the previous building problem (vide Example 3.2.1) to see how
base shear results differ with what we have calculated earlier.
Example 3.2.5
Refer the problem as shown in Example 3.2.1 calculate the time period of the
building based on assumed shape function method and calculate the base shear
in both transverse and longitudinal direction and find out the base shear based
on IS-1893-2002. Consider all other boundary conditions remains same as was
defined in the previous problem (Figure 3.2.10).
EL 116.4
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL102.0
Tie beam all round
EL 100.0
4.0
4.0
Figure 3.2.10 Transverse elevation of frame.
Solution:
Considering the frame as a stick model in transverse direction we have the model
as shown in Figure 3.2.11.
El-116.4
K1
EL-112.8
K2
El-109.2
K3
El-105.6
K4
EL-102.00
K5
EL-100.0
Figure 3.2.11 Stick model of the frame.
Dimension of column = 300 600

Moment of inertia of the column =
0.0054 m4
Stiffness of column = 12EI
H3
Here, Econc = 2.85 107 kN/m2
Ki =
1
300 6003 = 5400000000 mm4 =
12
12 2.85 107 0.0054

= 39583.33 KN/m
(3.6)3
For fteen column per level total stiffness Ki = 1539583.33 = 593750 kN/m
Thus, K1 = K2 = K3 = K4 = 593750 kN/m
12 2.85 107 0.0054
And K5 = 15
= 3462750
(2)3
16.4
Since H/D in transverse direction is =
= 2.05 < 3.0 thus shape function
8
considered is x/H
Level
Weight
Mass
2133
217.4
Stiffness
i
1.00
593750
3304
337.0
3304
337.0
3304
337.0
1561
159.12
593750
28737.5
205.03
0.219
0.561
593750
28476.84
106.06
0.22
0.341
593750
28737.5
39.18
0.22
0.121
28737.5
2.33
0.121
567.67
ki i2
217.4
0.22
0.780
3462750
mi i2
50698.12
165387.46

M
567.67
Considering
= 2
we have, T = 2
= 0.368 sec
K
165387.46
Based on response spectrum curve, Sa /g = 2.5
T
Considering all other parameters remaining constant, Ah =
ZISa
2Rg
0.24 1.0 2.5

= 0.06.
25
Base shear = 0.06 13606 = 816 kN, which is same as we got earlier, based
on method as suggested by the code.
For longitudinal direction, we have
Dimension of column = 300 600
1
Moment of inertia of the column =
600 3003 = 1350000000 mm4 =
12
0.00135 m4
12EI
Stiffness of column =
H3
Here, Econc = 2.85 107 kN/m2
Ki =
12 2.85 107 0.00135

= 9895.833 kN/m
(3.6)3
For fteen column per level total stiffness Ki = 15 9895.833 =

148437.5 kN/m
Thus K1 = K2 = K3 = K4 = 148437.5 kN/m
And K5 = 15
12 2.85 107 0.00135

= 865687.5 kN/m
(2)3
Since H/D in transverse direction is =

x
function is sin
2h
Level
Weight
Mass
Stiffness
2133
217.4
16.4
= 0.683 < 1.5 thus shape
24
i
1.00
148438
4
3304
337
3304
337
3304
337
1561
159.12
i
mi i2
217.4
0.059
0.941
148438
516.71
298.4
0.179
0.771
148438
4756.1
200.32
0.260
0.511
148438
10034.4
87.99
0.321
0.190
865688
ki i2
15295.2
5.744
0.190
809.85
31251.33
61853.74

M
809.85
Considering
= 2
we have, T = 2
= 0.7189 sec
K
61853.74
Based on response spectrum curve, Sa /g = 1.39
Considering all other parameters remaining constant

Ah =
ZISa
0.24 1.0 1.39
=
= 0.0334
2Rg
25
Thus, the base shear = 0.0334 13606 = 454 kN.

We see that when actual stiffness and mass distribution of the system is considered for calculation of the time period the base shear is in signicant variation
to that as to what has been considered in the code.
3.2.5.2 Dynamic analysis of systems having multi-degree

of freedom under earthquake forces
In this section we discuss the time history and modal analysis technique as applied to
earthquake. We had already discussed in detail the basic concepts underlying the same
in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) (basic concepts of structural dynamics) as applied to harmonic
forces.
The fundamental steps for earthquake analysis, essentially remains the same as that
of harmonic force except the fact that calculation of amplitude and interpretation of
forces in the system is different.
For a structural system having N degrees of freedom we have seen earlier in
Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) that the equation of motion is expressed as
+ [C]{X}
+ [K]{X} = {P(t)}
[M]{X}
(3.2.34)
were [M] = mass matrix of the system of size N N

[C] = damping matrix of size N N
[K] = stiffness matrix of size N N
{X},
{X} = acceleration, velocity, displacement vector of the system
{X},
Considering the displacement vector as {X} = [(x) ]{(t) } the eigen value of the
problem is given by
[K] [M]2 ][] = 0,
(3.2.35)
from which we find out the time period of the system for m number of significant
modes.
The different techniques to find out the eigenvalues for the above equation have
already been discussed in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
The equation of motion can now be expressed as
[M][]{ } + [C][]{ } + [K][]{ } = {P(t)}
(3.2.36)
Pre-multiplying the above by []T we have

[]T [M][]{ } + []T [C][]{ } + []T [K][]{ } = []T {P(t)}
(3.2.37)
Based on orthogonal property we had seen earlier that the above de-couples into
N number of equations expressed by
{n } + 2D{n } + 2 {n } =
[n ]T {P(t)}
[n ]T [M][]
(3.2.38)
For earthquake as the force induced in the system can be expressed as {P(t)} =
[M]{u g }, the above general equation can be modified into
{n } + 2D{n } + 2 {n } =
Ln {u g }
[n ]T [M][]
(3.2.39)
where, Ln = []T [M][I] here [I] is a unit column vector of dimension, N.

The solution of the above equation for nth mode at any time, t, is given by the
expression14
1
Ln
n (t) = T
n [M]n n
t
u g ( )eDn n (t ) sin n (t )d
(3.2.40)
The displacement for each mass i at time t is then obtained by superimposition of

all modes calculated at this time t and is given by
xi =
N

in n (t)
(3.2.41)
n=1
The earthquake force on the structure is then expressed in terms of the effective
acceleration
neff (t) = n2 n (t)
(3.2.42)
Considering f = k, we have, the earthquake force at any floor i at time is t is

given by
fin (t) = kin xin
or fin (t) = kin in n (t)
(3.2.43)
Since based on the eigen value expression, we have

k = m2
(3.2.44)
Substituting the value of k in terms of inertial force, we have

fin (t) = mi n2 in n (t)
(3.2.45)
Superimposing all modal contribution the earthquake force on the structure is

expressed as
f (t) = [M]n2 [](t)
14 This, we explained in the case of systems having single degree of freedom.
(3.2.46)
where [M] = mass matrix of the system of order N N; [] = relative amplitude

distribution of order N N; [2 ] = diagonal matrix of order N N having eigenvalues in the diagonal term.
Based on the above theory the entire history of displacement and force response
can be defined for any multi-degree of freedom system having calculated the modal
response amplitudes.
When the above theory is applied to response spectrum, as discussed earlier with
single degree of freedom the maximum response for the each mode is considered.
If the maximum value of n max of the Duhamel integral is considered, the maximum
displacement in that mode is given by
xn max = n n max = n
Ln
T
n [M]n
Svn
n
(3.2.47)
The maximum earthquake force in the structure is then given by

fn max = [M]n
Ln
San
n2 [M]n
(3.2.48)
where San , Svn are spectral velocity as furnished in the code.

The base shear which is the algebraic sum of all the force is given by
V0 (t) =
N

fn max (t) =
i=1
N

L2n
San
n M n
(3.2.49)
i=1
L2
The expression Mnn is usually called the effective modal mass of the system and when
divided by the total mass (represented in percentage), reflects the percentage of modal
mass responding to the earthquake force in each mode.
We now further illustrate the above theory by a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.2.6
Shown in Figure 3.2.12 is a three storied RCC frame subjected to earthquake in
zone IV having medium soil condition. The damping ratio for RCC considered
is 5%. Determine
The natural frequencies of the structure.

The eigen-vectors.
The acceleration, velocity and displacement as per IS-1893 2002 based on
response spectrum method.
Effective Modal mass participation for each mode.
The nodal displacement per mode.
The nodal shear force per mode.
Base shear for the three modes.
X3
X2
X1
Figure 3.2.12 A three story RCC Frame.
Here
1 K AC = K DB = 15000 kN/m M GH = 20 kN sec2 /m
2 K CE = K DF = 10000 kN/m M EF = 40 kN sec2 /m
3 K EG = K FH = 5000 kN/m M CD = 40 kN sec2 /m
Solution:
The free body diagram of the structure is as shown below in Figure 3.2.13:
k2(x2-x1)
k3(x3-x2)
m3x3
k3(x3-x2)
m1x1
m2x2
k2(x2-x1)
k1x1
Figure 3.2.13 Free body diagram at each floor.
Based on the free-body-diagram, for free vibration we have,

m3 x 3 + k3 (x3 x2 ) = 0
m2 x 2 + k2 (x2 x1 ) k3 (x3 x2 ) = 0
m1 x 1 + k1 x1 k2 (x2 x1 ) = 0
The above on simplification while writing in the matrix form gives
m1
0
0
0
m2
0

k1 + k2
k2
0 x 1
k2 + k3
0 x 2 + k2

0
k3
x 3
m3

0
x1
k3 x2 = 0

k3
x3
The above on substituting the values gives the following matrices.
50000 20000
[K] = 20000 30000
0
10000
0
10000
10000
40
and [M] =
40
20
Natural frequencies and modal values of the system
Applying any one of the methods for determination of eigen-values and

eigenvectors as cited in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) we have
1 = 156.93,
Thus,
2 = 750,
1 = 156.93 = 12.527 rad/sec, which implies T1 = 0.502 sec

2 = 750 = 27.386 rad/sec, which implies T2 = 0.229 sec
3 = 1593 = 39.913 rad/sec, which implies T3 = 0.157 sec
The corresponding eigenvectors are given as

For the first mode,
For second mode,
For third mode,
3 = 1593
{}T
1 = 0.314 0.686 1
{}T
2 = 0.5 0.5 1
{}T
3 = 1 0.686 0.314
The Matrix M n and Ln
The identity matrix is given by

[I]T = 1
For first mode

Mn1 = {}T
1 [M]{}1 = 0.314 0.686
40
1
0.314
0.686 = 42.772
40
20
Ln1 = {}T
1 [M]{I} = 0.314
40
0.686

1
1 = 60
40

20
1
For second mode
Mn2 = {}T
2 [M]{}2 = 0.5
40
1
0.5
0.5
0.5 = 40
40
20
1
Ln2 = {}T
2 [M]{I} = 0.5 0.5
40
40

1
1 = 20

20
1
Similarly for third mode

Mn3 = {}T
3 [M]{}3 = 60.802;
Ln3 = {}T
3 [M]{I} = 18.832
84.167
10
Thus
for three modes are given
=
this, when divided by
Mn
Mn
5.833
the total mass of the system (i.e. 40 + 40 + 20 = 100 kN), and multiplied by
100 we have
L2n
L2n
84.167
10
=
%
5.833
which represents the percentage mass participating in each mode.
Calculation of Acceleration and velocity based on IS 1893 (2002)
For the first mode, considering T1 = 0.502 sec

Sa
= 2.5
g
or Sa = 2.5 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2
Considering zone IV severe earthquake condition Z = 0.24 and considering

ductility factor R = 3.0 (for ordinary moment resisting frame)
0.24 24.525
= 0.981 m/sec2 ;
23
Sa
0.981
Sv (design) =
=
= 0.078 m/sec.
12.527
Sa (design) =
For the second mode, considering T2 = 0.229 sec

Sa
= 2.5
g
Sa = 2.5 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2
Considering Z = 0.24 as before ductility factor R = 3.0 (for ordinary moment

resisting frame)
Sa (design) =
0.24 24.525
= 0.981 m/sec2 ;
23
Sv (design) =
Sa
0.981
=
= 0.036 m/sec.
27.386
For third mode considering, T3 = 0.157 sec

Sa
= 2.5
g
Sa = 2.5 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2 .
Considering Z = 0.24 and R = 3.0, we have

Sa (design) =
0.24 24.525
= 0.981 m/sec2 ;
23
Sv (design) =
Sa
0.981
=
= 0.025 m/sec.
39.913
Thus based on above for the three modes, we have
0.981
{Sa } = 0.981 m/sec2
0.981
and
0.078
{Sv } = 0.036 m/sec
0.025
Calculation of displacement
The displacement in the first mode is given by (Equation 3.2.49)
2.752 103
0.314
0.078
60
Ln1 Sv1
= 6.017 103 m
= 0.686
= []
42.772 12.527
Mn1 1
1
8.769 103
The displacement in the second mode is given by
0.5 20
3.27 104
0.036
Ln2 Sv2
= 0.5
= 3.27 104 m
= []
Mn2 2
40
27.386
1
6.54 104
The displacement in the third mode is given by
1.00 18.832
1.907 104
0.025
Ln3 Sv3
= 0.686
= 1.309 104 m
= []
60.802 39.913
Mn3 3
0.314
5.986 105
The shear force per floor is given by
[V]i=n = [M]n
Ln
n Svn
Mn
Thus for the first mode we have
[V]i=1
40
=0
0
0
40
0
0 0.314
60
0 0.686
42.772
20
1
n=1
220.618
12.527 0.078 = 482.302 kN
351.46
For the second mode we have
[V]i=2
40
=0
0
0
40
0
9.81
0 0.5
20
0 0.5
27.3860.036 = 9.81 kN
9.81
20
1.0 n=2 40
Thus for the third mode we have
[V]i=3
40
=0
0
0
40
0
0 1.00
18.832
0 0.686
20
0.314 n=3 60.802
12.153
39.913 0.025 = 8.339 kN
1.907
Base shear per mode
The base shear per mode is given by

For the first mode, Vb = 221 + 482 + 351 = 1054 kN; the second Mode,
Vb = 9.8 + 9.8 9.8 = 9.8 kN; and for the third mode, Vb = 12 8 + 2 = 6 kN.
Thus,
1054
Vb = 9.8 kN
3.2.6 Modal combination of forces

Once the maximum response for each mode is obtained as described above, it is
essential to obtain the combined response of all modes. As the modal maxima may or
may not occur at the same time and nor have the same sign they cannot be combined
to give accurate total maximum response. The most convenient way to represent this
is to combine them based on probability basis.
Three techniques often used for modal combination of forces are
Absolute Sum Method (ABSSUM)

Square root of Sum Square (SRSS)
Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)
3.2.6.1
The absolute sum method (ABSSUM)
As the name suggests by this method the modal combination of all responses are
obtained by summing up the absolute values of the response without considering their
algebraic signs.
Thus, based on above
n =
n

|i |
i=1
(3.2.50)
where, |i | represents the absolute value of the responses, without consideration of

their algebraic sign.
This method though still in practice sometimes has been observed to give results
which are too conservative and is now a days only used in case of non-critical structure.
Use of this method for important and critical structures has almost been abolished.
3.2.6.2
The square root of sum square method (SRSS)
In this method the modal response are obtained by summing up the square of the
responses and taking its root and has been found to give a much better result
(Rosenblueth 1951).
This method is however valid only when the frequencies of the structure are widely
spaced. For structures having repeated roots or closely spaced roots, CQC is found to
be superior, however when eigen values are widely spaced SRSS and CQC converges
to almost identical results.
Thus based on the above we have,
$
% n
%
n = &
2i
(3.2.51)
i=1
3.2.6.3
The complete quadratic combination method (CQC)
In this method (Der Kiureghian 1981) the response of the system is obtained by the
expression
$
%
n
% n
n = &
i ij j
(3.2.52)
i=1 j=1
in which, n = number of modes being considered; i = response quantity in mode i;

j = response quantity in mode j, and, ij = Cross modal coefficient and is given by
ij =
3

8 Di Dj (Di + ij Dj )ij2
(1 ij2 )2 + 4Di Dj ij (1 + ij )2
(3.2.53)
where, Di = Modal damping ratio for mode i; Dj = modal damping ratio for mode j,
and, ij = frequency ratio (i /j ).
For normal seismic dynamic analysis the damping ratio is usually considered
constant for all modes when the above equation reduces to
3
ij =
8D2 (1 + ij )ij2
(1 ij2 )2 + 4D2 ij (1 + ij )2
(3.2.54)
Cross modal coefficient
Cross modal coefficient
1.2
2% DR
5% DR
0.8
7% DR
0.6
10% DR
15% DR
0.4
20%DR
0.2
25% DR
1.
94
1.
76
1.
58
1.
4
1.
22
1.
04
0.
86
0.
5
0.
68
0
Frequency Ratio
Figure 3.2.14 Variation of cross modal frequency for different frequency ratios.
The variation of the cross modal response with frequency ratio for various damping
ratio is as shown in Figure 3.2.14.
From the curve we make a very interesting observation. The cross modal ratio plays
a significant part in the magnitude when the frequency ratio varies between 0.88 to
1.14. For other frequencies (which are widely apart) they diminish rapidly and their
contribution is insignificant. In other words for widely space frequencies the CQC
method in effect converges to the SRSS method.
We now further elaborate the above theories based on a suitable example
Example 3.2.7
For a typical three storied frame, the natural frequencies calculated are 4.257,
8.66 and 14.382
rad sec respectively. The corresponding base shear estimated

330
are V b = 75 kN, find out the combined maximum base shear based on
33
Absolute sum method.

Square root of sum square method.
Complete quadratic combination method.
Consider 5% damping in all modes.
Solution:
Absolute sum method
As per this the base shear is given by

Vb = 330 + 75 + 33 = 438 kN.
Square root of sum square method
As per this the base shear is given by

Vb =

3302 + 752 + 332 = 340 kN
Complete quadratic combination method
As a first step we find out the values

ij = (i /j ) for the three modes which is as given below
Mode
1
2
3
1
2.034296
3.378436
0.49157
1
1.660739
0.295995
0.602142
1
Considering 5% damping as constant for all mode we have the cross modal
values as

3
8D2 1 + ij ij2
ij =

2
(1 ij2 )2 + 4D2 ij 1 + ij
Mode
1
2
3
1
0.025022
0.009162
0.0123
1
0.045746
0.002712
0.027546
1
Now considering Vb

n
i=1
n
j=1 i ij j ,
330
75 kN. and applying the equation, n =
=
33
we have base shear based on CQC expression as
Mode
1
2
3
108900
619.3049
99.77034
304.432
5625
113.2222
29.53152
2475
1089
Adding all the nine terms in the above table and taking square root we have
Vb =
119255.3 = 345.33 kN.
Thus it will be observed that based on CQC method base shear is 345 kN in
lieu of 340 kN based on SRSS method. Since the frequencies are widely spaced
the variation is only marginal about 1.56% only.
3.3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS UNDER EARTHQUAKE FORCE

Time history analysis under earthquake force is possibly the most comprehensive analysis one can undertake. However in spite of its rigorous mathematical basis15 , modal
response technique has still remained a more popular method in day to day design
office practice.
The reason underlying the same can be attributed primarily to lack of site accelerograms which is the basic input for such an analysis. Previously site specic ground
acceleration data available was few and far for which engineers always preferred to
use the modal response technique using the response spectrum curve which is available
in all codes of all countries having a specic earthquake code.
However in last thirty years there has been a significant technological advancement
based on which earthquake accelerograms are now almost globally available for all
major earthquakes. All major and minor tremors occurring around the World are now
being manned constantly.
This has signicantly enhanced our data base and in years to come for important
structures time history analysis would hopefully become a routine affair16 . We show
hereafter a typical acceleration spectrum for the famous El-Centro Earthquake in
Figure 3.3.1.
When an earthquake occurs anywhere in the world the seismic monitoring station
picks up the tremor signals and based on such data ground acceleration/velocity at
different time steps are obtained. This data is further used as input ground acceleration
for time history analysis of structure to be build at that site or at its close proximity.
The theory underlying the method remains the same as shown in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1)
except the fact that we had earlier solved the problem with the forcing function as
harmonic force which in case of earthquake is the ground acceleration, {ag }17 . Thus,
the basic equation of motion is
t+t } + [C]{X
t+t } + [K]{Xt+t } = {Rt+t }
[M]{X
(3.3.1)
15 Refer Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) where we have discussed the various techniques of time history analysis.
16 For Nuclear power plants time history response analysis is now mandatory for all class 1 type structures
like turbine building, reactor building, spent fuel chamber etc.
17 This is usually obtained as an input from the site based on observed data like the one as shown for the
El-Centro Earthquake.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Acceleration, g
0.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15
20
25
30
35
-0.1
-0.2
Time in seconds
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 3.3.1 Accelerogram of EL centro earthquake of May 18, 1940 NS component.
The term Rt+t is obtained by multiplying the ground acceleration data by the mass,
[M]. In other words, here Rt+t = [M]{ag }t+t at every time step, t + t.
Thus once the force Rt+t is known, rest of the procedure remains the same as what
has been described earlier in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
For instance the steps of Newmark- method gets slightly modified for earthquake
case as follows:
Steps for Newmark- method for earthquake analysis
Assemble the mass matrix, [M], damping matrix [C] and stiffness matrix [K].
Evaluate {X 0 } (This will be obtained from the accelerometer data of the site).
Select time step size t and parameters and where 0.50 and =
0.25(0.5 + )2 .
Calculate integration constant
1
1
1
, 2 =
, 3 =
1,
, 1 =
t
t
2
t 2

t
5 =
2 , 6 = t(1 ), 7 = t .
2
0 =
4 =
1,
(3.3.2)
Form the modified stiffness matrix as

= [K] + 0 [M] + 1 [C]
[K]
(3.3.3)
Calculate modified load at time t + t

t + 3 X
t}
t+t } = [M]{ag }t+t + [M]{0 Xt + 2 X
{R
t + 5 X
t}
+ [C]{1 Xt + 4 X
(3.3.4)
Solve for displacement vector
[K]{X
t+t } = {Rt+t }
(3.3.5)
Calculate the acceleration and velocity at time t + t

t } 3 {X
t}
t+t } = 0 {Xt+t Xt } 2 {X
{X
(3.3.6)
t+t } = {X
t } + 6 {X
t } + 7 {X
t+t }
{X
(3.3.7)
For the sake of brevity we now explain the above through a suitable numerical
problem.
Example 3.3.1
A frame foundation supporting a compressor is subjected to El-Centro
accelerogram as shown in Figure 3.3.1. The stiffness, mass and damping
(non-proportional) matrix are given. Determine the response of the machine
foundation based on the time history response.

200
[M] =
0

0
1000
and
7000
[C] =
2800
3000 1200
[K] =
1200 51000
2800
12300
Solution:
The displacement history is shown in tabular form for the first 10 steps at time
step of 0.02 seconds and the results of displacement and acceleration for node 2
and node 1 are finally shown graphically for 1566 steps in Figures 3.3.2 and 3.
Sl. No.
Displacement
at node 1
Velocity at
node 1
Acceleration
at node 1
Displacement
at node 2
Velocity at
node 2
Acceleration
at node 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
2.98 1006
1.18 1005
2.59 1005
4.98 1005
9.13 1005
1.50 1004
2.13 1004
2.66 1004
3.07 1004
0
2.98 1004
5.82 1004
8.35 1004
1.55 1003
2.59 1003
3.25 1003
3.06 1003
2.27 1003
1.80 1003
0
2.98 1002
1.36 1003
2.66 1002
4.53 1002
5.83 1002
7.55 1003
2.68 1002
5.15 1002
4.09 1003
0.00 10+00
3.24 1006
1.32 1005
2.99 1005
5.83 1005
1.07 1004
1.78 1004
2.57 1004
3.26 1004
3.80 1004
0
0.000324
0.000672
0.001001
0.001838
0.003077
0.003967
0.003899
0.003049
0.002377
0
0.032396
0.002417
0.030511
0.053184
0.07067
0.018316
0.02506
0.06
0.00713
Displacement(d2)
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
19.6
18.2
16.8
15.4
14
12.6
11.2
9.8
8.4
5.6
4.2
1.4
-1.00E-02
2.8
0.00E+00
0
Displacement(m)
3.00E-02
-2.00E-02
Time step(sec)
Figure 3.3.2 Displacement History at node 2.
4
2
-4
Time steps
Figure 3.3.3 Acceleration response at node 1.
19.8
18.5
17.2
15.8
14.5
13.2
11.9
10.6
9.24
7.92
5.28
3.96
2.64
1.32
-2
6.6
0
0
Acceleration at node 1
(m/sec2)
Acceleration(node 1)
This method as discussed earlier in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) is applicable on full matrix

when the mass, stiffness and damping matrix are all known. The technique is particularly suitable for cases, which has non-classical damping (where the matrix on
orthogonalization does not de-couple).
However for systems with large degree of freedom we rarely know the complete
damping matrix and we normally deal with the modal damping ratio usually defined
as a constant value for each mode for normal structural analysis.
For instance in case of analysis of 3D framed building structure we do not (or cannot)
define the damping matrix and the usual input is the modal damping ratio assumed
constant for all modes.
In such cases we can either form the Rayliegh damping coefficient and adapting
the method as stated in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) or proceed as mentioned hereafter.
As a first step we perform the usual eigen-value analysis and obtain the frequencies
and the eigen vectors.
Now knowing the modal damping ratio D (which is usually pre-defined) we decouple the equation into n number of equations (here n is the total numbers of
degree of freedom of the system) of the form
2
{i=1,n } + 2Di=1,n i = 1, n{i=1,n } + i=1,n
{i=1,n } = {u g }
(3.3.8)
For a given time history the above can be expressed as

2
{i=1,n } + 2Di=1,n i=1,n {i=1,n } + i=1,n
{i=1,n }

1
1 D2
t

u g ( )eDn (t ) Dn sin 1 D2 n (t )d

+ n 1 D2 cos 1 D2 n (t ) d
(3.3.9)
For each of this equation we perform the time history response either by integration of the Duhamel Integral or by numerical integration based on any one of the
methods as explained in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) and find out the values of the displacement, velocity and acceleration and finally do a modal combination to obtain the
response for the different mode.
n
In
t} =
1 [n ]{t } and acceleration {u
nsuch case the displacement {ut } =
[
]{
}.
t
1 n
The corresponding effective earthquake force is given by
{Vn (t)} = [M] {u t } .
(3.3.10)
The total modal force for all modes are given by

{Vn (t)} = [M] [] n2 {t }
(3.3.11)
For many large complex structures or finite element system with many degrees of
freedom even the above process could be time consuming and very laborious, fortunately for many such systems, it is the first few modes which contribute signicantly
to the inertial forces when the subsequent higher modes can be neglected without any
appreciable error.
In such case if for a system N N if J number of modes (J << N) are deemed to be
significant (which can very well be estimated from the modal mass participation). Then
the mass matrix [M]NN , stiffness matrix [K]NN and the damping matrix [C]NN
can well be crunched down to a matrix of order J J by the following operations
JJ = []JN [M]NN []NJ
[M]
JJ = []JN [K]NN []NJ
[K]
similarly,
and
JJ = []JN [C]NN []NJ .

[C]
(3.3.12)
JJ = modified stiffness matrix

JJ = modified mass matrix of size J J; [K]
were, [M]
of size J J; [C]JJ = modified damping matrix of size J J, and, []JN = the eigen
vector for the first J modes of the structure of size N N.
Once the modified matrix is known we can very well undertake a time history
analysis of this modified matrix and greatly reduce our computation time.
We now explain the above theory by a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.3.2
Shown in Figure 3.3.4 is a three-storied frame subjected to dynamic forces based
on EL-Centro Earthquake as shown in Figure 3.3.1. The damping ratio for the
structure is considered as 5%. Determine
G
X3
X2
X1
3000
3000
3000
A
( All dimensions are in mm )
Figure 3.3.4 Sketch diagram of three-storied space frame.
The fixed base natural frequencies of the structure.

The fixed base eigen vectors.
Displacement and shear force.
Let us take,
KAC = KDB = 1.5 103 kN/m;
KCE = KDF = 1.0 103 kN/m;
KEG = KFH = 0.75 103 kN/m;

MEF = 400 KN sec2 /m;
MGH = 200 kN sec2 /m;
MCD = 400 KN sec2 /m.
Solution:
The stiffness and mass matrix is given by
5000
[K] = 2000
0
2000
0
3500 1500
1500 1500
400
and
[M] =
400
200
Considering, [[K] [M][2 ]][] = [0]

1 = 1.281 rad/sec; 2 = 3.162 rad/s ec;
3 = 4.135 rad/sec.
Thus the time periods for the fixed base structure is given by
T1 = 4.97 sec,
T2 = 1.987 sec,
T3 = 1.52 sec .
The mode shapes or the eigen vectors and normalised eigen vectors are
1.00
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.9208 ;
[] = 2.1715
2.7816 1.50
0.719
0.01615
0.03244 0.0344512
0.03172
[i ] = 0.0350718 0.01622
0.04493
0.02433
0.02477
Considering the orthogonal equation
{i } + 2Di i {i } + 2 {i } = {ag }
we have the three equations as:
1 + 0.2811 + 1.6409611 = a g ;
3 + 0.41353 + 17.0983 = a g .
2 + 0.31622 + 9.998242 = 0;
Performing the time history analysis based on Wilson- method for input
accelerogram of El-Centro earthquake and combining the response based on the
equation, {X} = []{ }. We plot below the displacement and force history in
Figures 3.3.5 and 6.
Displacement History
0.05
0.04
0.03
Modal disp1
0.01
Modal disp2
28.9
31.1
26.6
24.4
20
Modal disp3
22.2
15.5
17.8
13.3
8.88
11.1
4.44
-0.01
6.66
0
2.22
Displacement(meter)
0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
Time steps(sec)
Figure 3.3.5 Displacement history of the frame for the three modes.
Modal shear response(kN)
400
Shear1
shear 2
31.1
28.9
26.6
24.4
22.2
20
17.8
15. 5
13. 3
11. 1
8.88
6.66
4.44
2.22
0
0
Force(kN)
200
shear 3
-200
-400
Time step(sec)
Figure 3.3.6 Modal shear history of the frame for the three modes.
It will be observed that the major contribution is from the fundamental mode,
the higher mode contribution is practically insignificant.
What has been explained above is the generic theory pertaining to earthquake
dynamic and pseudo-static analysis. Though the above has been explained with respect
to frames (or buildings) can be very easily be extended to a generic finite element
model with the underlying principle remaining the same be the analysis is done based
on response spectrum method or step by step integration.
We now show application of the above theories as applied to some special structures
which are important to society and industry, have got some unique features and require
some special analytical techniques.
3.3.1 Earthquake analysis of tall chimneys

and stack like structure
Tall chimneys and vertical self-supporting vessels are an important feature of power
and petrochemical industry. Damage to them during an earthquake can have a severe
consequence both in terms of economy and loss of human life.
While it is expected that a power plant remains functional after an earthquake,
which is essential to fight the aftermath of the disaster, leakage or damage of vertical
vessels in refinery or chemical plants containing flammable or toxic liquid can create
havoc to the environment and surrounding life18 .
Though the analysis herein is discussed in terms of tall chimneys can well be applied
for vertical self-supporting vessels also.
With ever growing demand for power, engineering industry is churning out power
plants of progressively higher capacity. To maintain the ecological balance as well as
limit the environmental pollution, chimneys emitting the spent flue gas are also getting higher and higher everyday. In India it is now mandatory that for all fossil fuel
power plants the height of chimneys be minimum 220 meter for 210 MW unit and
275 meter for 500 MW unit. While this though reduces the ground pollution concentration signicantly has posed new challenges to the structural engineers to come up
with a safe design of these tall chimneys especially under wind and earthquake, which
affects its behaviour signicantly. Unlike other tall structures the most dangerous thing
about chimney is that these structures are basically a cantilever structure having one
line of defence (the structures itself) and has practically no redundancy built in it. Thus
during an earthquake if any portion of it develops a hinge would invariably make the
system a mechanism with collapse being imminent.
It is for this knowing the dynamic behaviour of the same under an earthquake
loading is of primary importance.
Fortunately as these structures have uniform distribution of mass and stiffness are
more amenable to classical mathematical treatment; however one of the major controversies that remain with its behaviour is the level of damping to be considered in
the analysis.
While one school of thought prefers to use the standard damping ratio as used for
RCC (57%), the other school of thought is that since of its huge mass (due to its
self weight and lining) a major portion of the chimney remains under compression
even under wind and seismic loading and thus remains un-cracked. Since propagation
of cracking enhances the damping property of the system and does not occur in the
major portion of the chimney, a much lower damping ratio of say 2% should be a
18 Though the reason was different some of the readers may remember the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1980s in
India where huge number of people perished and got disabled for life due to leakage of toxic gas from
vessels in the plant of a multi-national Company.
Plan View
EI = constant
Figure 3.3.7 Typical multi- flue-chimney with its mathematical model.
more reasonable value. Unfortunately very little field observed instrumented data are
available to come to any decisive conclusion on this issue.
Chimneys, shown in Figure 3.3.7, are usually of two types
Multi-flue chimneys (used to cater to more than two power units at a time) having
uniform cross section.
Single flues (used to cater one or two units) usually having a tapered profile.
3.3.1.1
Analysis as proposed in IS-code
Before we start with the dynamic analysis of such tall structures we present herein the
method as proposed in IS Code:
As per IS code the time period of such chimneys considered as shown in Figure 3.3.4
are fixed at base and is given by
'
T = CT
WH
EAg
(3.3.13)
where, W = weight of chimney plus lining and all other accessories; H = height of
chimney above the base; E = modulus of elasticity of the structural shell; A = area of
cross section of the base; g = acceleration due to gravity; CT = constant which is a

Table 3.3.1
Slenderness ratio
CT
Cv
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 or more
14.4
21.2
29.6
38.4
47.2
56
65
73.8
82.8
1.8 (H/r)
1.02
1.12
1.19
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.39
1.43
1.47
1.50
function of the slenderness ratio; For circular section A = 2 rt; r = mean radius of
the shell and t = thickness of the shell.
The design base shear and moment for xed base is given by

z 0.5
z
z 4
V = Cv Ah W 1.1
;
+ 0.75
+ 0.9
H
H
H

0.5
z 4
0.4 z
M = Ah W H
+ 0.6
H
H
(3.3.14)
= height of
where, Cv = a coefficient which is a function of slenderness ratio; H
ZI
centre of gravity of the structure above base, and Ah = 2R , the seismic coefficient as
per code.
The values of Cv and CT are as furnished in Table 3.3.1.
IS code does not furnish any expression for the tip deflection.
3.3.1.2
Dynamic analysis of tall chimneys
We start with the analysis of a multi flue chimney of uniform cross section based on
Rayleigh Ritz technique to arrive at a closed form solution before extending the same
to a numerical solution for a tapered cantilever.
Since the outer core of a multi-flue chimney (usually termed as the wind shield) is
of uniform cross section we consider it as a cantilever beam fixed at base.
The free vibration equation of such beam is given by the expression (Hurty and
Rubenstein 1967),

EI
4w
z4
2
w
+ A
=0
t 2
(3.3.15)
here, E = elastic modulus of the beam material; I = moment of inertia of the beam;
= mass density of the beam material; A = area of cross section of the beam, and,
w = displacement of the beam and is a function of time and geometry and is depicted as
w(z, t) = Y(z) q(t)
(3.3.16)
Based on separation of variable technique the above partial differential equation

can be separated into two linear differential equation and one of which is
(
EI
d4Y
4 Y = 0
dz4
where 4 =
A2
EI
(3.3.17)
The generic solution to this equation is given by (Murray 1967)

Y = C1 sin z + C2 cos z + C3 sin hz + C4 cos hz
(3.3.18)
Imposing the four boundary conditions:

1
Y=0
dY
=0
dz
3
4
d3Y
dz
d2 Y
dz2
at z = 0;
at z = 0;
=0
at z = L;
=0
at z = L.
(3.3.19)
We have the shape function solution as

Ym = sin

m z
m z
m z
m z
sin h
m cos
cos h
H
H
H
H
Here m = number of modes 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . .

m = 1.875, 4.694, 7.855,
2m 1
.
2
For m = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . m, etc.
m =
sin m + sin hm
cos m + cos hm
We apply here the Rayliegh Ritz technique as described below.

(3.3.20)
For a conservative system if T is kinetic energy and V is the Potential energy of the
system then at any time t the energy equations may be written in the form
1
T(t) =
2
H
m(z)
0
here
y(z, t) =
n

y(z, t)
t
2
dz
(3.3.21)
i (z)qi (t)
(3.3.22)
i=1
where y (z, t) = displacement function; i (z) = admissible function, and, qi (t) =

generalized co-ordinate.
Substituting the above in the energy equation we have
T(t) =
1
2
H
m(z)
n

n

i (z)q i (t)
j (z)q j (t)dz
i=1
j=1

n
n
1
=
q i (t)q j (t) m(z) i (z) j (z)dz
2
i=1 j=1
(3.3.23)
from which we conclude that the mass coefficient has the form
H

mij = m(z) i (z) j (z)dz
for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . n
(3.3.24)
For potential energy V we have

1
V(t) =
2
H
0
2 y(z, t)
EI(z)
z2
2
dz
H

n
n
2 (z) d 2 (z)
1
d
j
i
dz,
=
q i (t)q j (t) EI(z)
2
dz2
dz2
i=1 j=1
(3.3.25)
from which we conclude that stiffness has the form

H
kij =
EI(z)
0
d 2 i (z) d 2 j (z)
dz2
dz2
dz
for i, j = 1, 2, 3. . . . . . n
(3.3.26)
Since a multi-flue stack is considered to have a constant EI the stiffness and mass
expression is given as
H
kij = EI
d 2 i (z) d 2 j (z)
dz2
dz2
A
and mij =
g
dz
H
i (z) j (z)dz
(3.3.27)
Considering the shape function as

i z
i z
i z
i z
sin h
i cos
cos h
H
H
H
H

j z
j z
j z
j z
j = sin
sin h
j cos
cos h
H
H
H
H
i = sin
and
(3.3.28)
The double derivative of the above is given by

i =
j =

2i
i z
i z
i z
i z
sin
cos
sin
h
+
+
cos
h
i
H
H
H
H
H2
2j
H2
sin
and
(3.3.29)
j z
j z
j z
j
sin h
+ j cos
+ cos h
H
H
H
H
Before performing the integration we change the above to generalized co-ordinate

dz
z
when d =
by considering, =
and as z 0, 0 and as z H, 1
H
H
based on above we can now express the double derivative as
f ( )i =
f ( )j =

2i
sin i sin hi + i (cos i + cos hi ) ,
2
H
and
(3.3.30)
2j
H2

sin j sin hj + j (cos j + cos hj )
Thus stiffness of the system can now be expressed as

kij =
1
EI2i 2j
H3
f ( )i f ( )j d
(3.3.31)
and mass of the system is given by

AH
mij =
g
1
f ( )i f ( )j d ,
where i = j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . m,
(3.3.32)
For most of the chimneys it is found that first three modes are sufficient to predict
the dynamic response, as modal mass participation is almost 100% by this.
Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix19 is given by
41
1
f ( )21 d
1
EI
2
2
[K]ij = 3 2 1 f ( )2 f ( )1 d
H
0
2 2 1
3 1 f ( )3 f ( )1 d
42
23 22
1
1
0
f2 ( )2 d
f ( )3 f ( )2 d
1

43 f ( )23 d
0
(3.3.33)
and the mass matrix is given by
1
( )21 d
0
1

AH
f ( )2 f ( )1 d
[M]ij =
g 0
1
f ( )3 f ( )1 d
1
1
f2 ( )2 d
f ( )3 f ( )2 d
1
0
f ( )23 d
(3.3.34)
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Simpsons 1/3rd rule between
the limits 1 to 0 when we have
[K]33
22.936
EI
0.002
= 3
H
0.006
0.002
468.044
0.11
0.006
0.11
3812.81
and the mass matrix is given by,
1.855
0
0
W
0
0.964
0
[M]33 =
g
0
0
1.002
(3.3.35)
(3.3.36)
where, W = total weight of the shell + internal slabs + brick linings.

Converting the above into standard eigen-value form of A = and applying the
generalized Jacobi technique20 we have
12.364
0
EIg
0
485.523
[] =
WH 3
0
0
0
0 and
3805
19 The stiffness and mass matrix is symmetric about is diagonal.

20 The technique has been worked in detail in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
(3.3.37)
Eigen vectors for the first three modes

3
1
f1(x)
f2(x)
1
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
6
0.
5
0.
4
0.
3
0.
1
-2
0.
2
-1
0
Eigenvectors
f3(x)
-3
Z/H
Figure 3.3.8 Eigen vectors for the first three modes.
the eigen vectors are given as
1.0
6
[] =
4.384 10
1.579 10
2.278 106
1
3.307 105
f1 ( )
3.437 105
f2 ( )
f3 ( )
1
8.528 107
(3.3.38)
The eigen vector plots for the first three modes are as shown in Figure 3.3.8. since
[] = 2 and T = 2
we have
1.787
[T] = 0
0
0
0.285
'
0
WH 3
0
EIg
0.102
Thus for the first three modes we have

Mode number
1
Time period (secs)

'
WH3
T1 = 1.787
EIg
'
WH3
T2 = 0.285
EIg
'
WH3
T2 = 0.102
EIg
(3.3.39)
3.3.1.3
Transformation to the format of IS-code
We have shown above that for fundamental mode the time period is given by
'
T1 = 1.787
WH 3
,
EIg
(3.3.40)
Now, considering I = Ar2 , where A = area of the stack at the base and r = radius
of gyration, the equation can be written in the format of
'
T1 = 1.787
WH
EAg
(3.3.41)
where = slenderness ratio of the stack @ H/r.

Considering, CT = 1.7873, we have
'
T1 = CT
WH
EAg
(3.3.42)
which is the same format as presented in the code. If we compare the values of CT as
furnished in code and as derived here it will be observed that code gives a higher value
of time period vis-a-vis what is presented here.
Since the accuracy of Rayleigh Ritz Method is dependent on the choice of the
assumed shape function it is evident that code had used a different shape function
then what has been presented herein21 .
The various values of CT as proposed by the present method and what has been
proposed in the code are as mentioned hereunder22 .
Slenderness ratio (H/r)
CT (as per IS code)
CT (1st Mode)
CT (2nd Mode)
CT (3rd Mode)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14.4
21.2
29.6
38.4
47.2
56
65
73.8
82.8
1.8 (H/r)
8.935
17.87
26.81
35.74
44.675
53.61
62.54
71.5
80.41
89.35
1.425
2.85
4.275
5.70
7.125
8.55
9.975
11.4
12.83
14.25
0.51
1.02
1.53
2.04
2.55
3.06
3.57
4.08
4.59
5.10
21 Present analysis would give slightly different (higher) values of moments and shears then what has been
proposed in the code.
22 IS-1893 does not propose any CT values for 2nd or 3rd mode.
Calculation of amplitude
In terms of response spectrum analysis displacement Sd is given by, Sd = Sa /2 .
Expressing it in terms of codal formulation, we may express it as
Sd = i
ZI Sa
2R 2
(3.3.43)
where, i = modal participation factor and is given by
n

i=1
mi i /
n

i=1
mi i2 .
For an element of length dz the above can be expressed as

i =
A H
g 0 i dz
A H 2
g 0 i dz
1
= 10
fi ( ) d
0 fi
( )2 d
(3.3.44)
in which, Z = zone coefficient; I = importance factor, and, R = ductility factor.

Integration of the mass participation factor within limits 1 to 0 for the first three
modes gives
Mode number
Mass participation factor (i )
1
2
3
0.575
0.442
0.254
ZI
Now considering, = 2R
, an IS code factor, we can write the time dependent
function of displacement as
Sd = i
Sa
2
(3.3.45)
Thus for the first mode, we have

Sd = 0.575
Sa1 WH 3
Sa1 WH 3
= 0.0465
12.364EIg
EIg
(3.3.46)
Let the complete function is given by, w(z, t) = (z) q(t), thus for this case
w(z, t) = 0.0465
Sa1 WH 3
[f1 ( ) + 4.384 106 f2 ( ) + 1.579 106 f3 ( )],
EIg
neglecting the influence of the second and third mode whose influence are negligible
we have
w(z, t) = 0.0465
Sa1 WH 3
[f 1 ( )]
EIg
(3.3.47)

2
For calculation of moment and shear we know that, EI ddzw2 = Mz , and hence,

1
Sa1
Mz = 0.0465(WH )
[21 f ( )]
g
H2

Sa1
= 0.163 (WH)
[f1 ( )]
g
Again considering, Vz =

Vz = 0.306W
Sa1
g
dMz
,
dz
(3.3.48)
we have
[f1 ( )]
(3.3.49)
Proceeding in identical manner for the second mode, we have
w(z, t) = 9.103 104
Sa2 WH 3
[ f2 ( )],
EIg
(3.3.50)
ignoring the influence of mode one and three as their influence are very small.
Mz = 9.103 10
= 2.005 10

WH
WH
Vz = 9.415 102 W
Sa2
g
Sa2
g
Sa2
g
[22 f2 ( )]
[f2 ( )]
and
[f2 ( )]
(3.3.51)
Similarly for the third mode, we have
w(z, t) = 6.675 105
Sa3 WH 3
[f 3 ( )]
EIg
Mz = 4.12 103 WH

Vz = 0.0323W
Sa2
g
Sa3
g
[f3 ( )],
[f3 ( )]
and
(3.3.52)
The above can thus be generalized along the height of the chimney as
Sai WH 3
,
EIg

Sai
M = (Coeff m) W H
,
g
wi ( , t) = (Coeff d)

and
V = (Coeff v)W
Sai
g

.
(3.3.53)
Here = z/H, the height ratio and i = number of mode. It will be observed
that once we know the values of coefficients within parenthesis for i = 1, 2, 3, we
can immediately find out the dynamic amplitude, shear and moments without going
through the elaborate process of dynamic analysis.
The coefficients for dynamic amplitude, moment and shears are as stated hereafter
= z/H Coeff d1 Coeff d2
Coeff d3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0.00000
0.44401
0.00001
0.41345
0.00003
0.38291
0.00006
0.35244
0.00008
0.32211
0.00010
0.29203
0.00010
0.26234
0.00009
0.23318
0.00007
0.20472
0.00004
0.17717
0.00000
0.15072
0.00003
0.12559
0.00006
0.10203
0.00008
0.08026
0.00009
0.06054
0.00007
0.04313
0.00005
0.02829
0.00001
0.01628
0.00004
0.00736
0.00009
0.00181
0.00015 0.00011
0.00000
0.00054
0.00212
0.00466
0.00809
0.01232
0.01729
0.02291
0.02911
0.03584
0.04300
0.05054
0.05840
0.06652
0.07483
0.08330
0.09188
0.10053
0.10922
0.11793
0.12664
0.00000
0.00005
0.00017
0.00034
0.00054
0.00075
0.00094
0.00110
0.00122
0.00128
0.00128
0.00120
0.00105
0.00084
0.00057
0.00024
0.00012
0.00052
0.00093
0.00136
0.00178
Coeff m1
Coeff m2
Coeff m3
Coeff v1
Coeff v2
Coeff v3
0.03938
0.02997
0.02063
0.01149
0.00276
0.00531
0.01248
0.01851
0.02320
0.02642
0.02809
0.02821
0.02689
0.02429
0.02068
0.01639
0.01180
0.00736
0.00356
0.00088
0.00015
0.00825
0.00502
0.00189
0.00095
0.00325
0.00479
0.00542
0.00509
0.00390
0.00204
0.00019
0.00244
0.00439
0.00575
0.00635
0.00614
0.00523
0.00387
0.00242
0.00136
0.00119
0.61200
0.61189
0.61112
0.60907
0.60518
0.59892
0.58982
0.57746
0.56144
0.54143
0.51713
0.48829
0.45470
0.41618
0.37259
0.32382
0.26979
0.21044
0.14574
0.07568
0.00024
0.18830
0.18793
0.18549
0.17947
0.16887
0.15328
0.13276
0.10786
0.07951
0.04899
0.01780
0.01241
0.03993
0.06308
0.08032
0.09027
0.09181
0.08409
0.06652
0.03877
0.00071
0.06460
0.06401
0.06040
0.05212
0.03896
0.02192
0.00290
0.01567
0.03129
0.04183
0.04589
0.04301
0.03382
0.01995
0.00380
0.01175
0.02373
0.02945
0.02674
0.01412
0.00933
We now elaborate the theory with a suitable numerical solution.

Example 3.3.3
A multi-Flue chimney has height of 220 m. Its estimated weight including lining
and internal slab is 175,000 kN. The diameter of the chimney at is 22.0 m having
average shell thickness of 650 mm. The chimney is situated in a place depicted
by zone IV as per IS-code resting on medium soil. Find the deflection, moment
and shear for first three modes and the maximum design moments and shears.
Consider grade of concrete used as M30 and damping ratio as 5% for the three
modes.
Solution:
Outside diameter of chimney = 22 m; Shell thickness = 650 mm, Inside diameter
of chimney = 20.7 m.
Youngs Modulus of concrete = 5700 30 103 = 31220186 kN/m2 .

Moment of Inertia at base =
Area of chimney at base =

4
22 20.74 = 2486.39 m4
64

2
22 20.72 = 43.59745 m2
4
I
220
= 29.18139.
= 7.552 m; Slenderness Ratio = 7.552
A
'
WH
Considering Time period = T1 = 1.787
for first mode, we have
EAg
Radius of gyration =

T1 = 1.787 29.18139
175000 220
= 2.8 sec .
31220186 43.59745 9.81
Similarly for the mode 2, we have

T2 = 0.285 29.18139
175000 220
31220186 43.59745 9.81
= 0.446 sec, givesSa /g = 2.5.

And for the mode 3, we have

T2 = 0.102 29.18139
175000 220
31220186 43.59745 9.81
= 0.1594 sec s, gives Sa /g = 2.5.

For Zone IV medium stiff soil as per IS-1893
Z = 0.24 I = 1.5 R = 2.0 =
0.24 1.5
= 0.09
22
Substituting the values of W, H, E, I, Sa /g and , and multiplying it by the

coefficients as furnished earlier we have
1
(m)
2
(m)
3
(m)
M1
(kN m)
M2
(kN m)
M3
(kN m)
V1
(kN)
V2
(kN)
V3
(kN)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0
4.9E-06
7.5E-05
0.00036
0.00109
0.00253
0.00498
0.00875
0.01413
0.0214
0.03082
0.04258
0.05685
0.07374
0.09334
0.11566
0.14071
0.16845
0.19883
0.23182
0.26735
0
1.2E-05
0.00016
0.00068
0.00173
0.00333
0.00529
0.00729
0.00893
0.00983
0.00974
0.00861
0.00664
0.00423
0.00192
0.00035
9.4E-05
0.00163
0.00524
0.01107
0.01911
0
7.97E-06
9.23E-05
0.00032
0.000648
0.000931
0.001015
0.00084
0.000491
0.000151
6.82E-07
0.00011
0.000398
0.000678
0.000767
0.0006
0.000276
2.37E-05
9.28E-05
0.000657
0.001775
327879
284303.7
243858.8
206595.1
172575.8
141858.9
114482.5
90452.24
69730.34
52228.61
37803.75
26256.23
17332.5
10730.79
6110.51
3105.154
1338.709
445.3734
92.42883
6.071341
0
12543.67
7265.948
3441.049
1067.111
61.55624
228.489
1260.757
2773.24
4358.467
5651.426
6388.65
6447.994
5859.733
4785.996
3472.652
2184.266
1137.157
447.2201
107.6952
8.071409
0
865.5315
320.4488
45.18539
11.61869
134.9782
292.6448
374.0941
330.6002
194.2332
53.75978
0.338409
73.71389
239.4717
409.8315
495.0058
454.2715
316.2084
156.1138
44.97968
3.881338
0
2823.571
2822.533
2815.416
2796.584
2760.962
2704.16
2622.622
2513.781
2376.22
2209.821
2015.894
1797.282
1558.446
1305.506
1046.263
790.1897
548.3924
333.5583
159.8887
43.02797
5.67E-05
1303.114
1297.935
1264.562
1183.756
1048.157
863.554
647.893
427.7108
232.5303
88.35721
11.71511
5.593723
58.30672
145.6543
236.0995
298.0526
307.9525
257.7331
160.4891
53.6873
1.04E-05
242.3699
237.9722
211.8813
157.8184
88.21899
27.95214
0.499664
14.16074
56.56307
101.0252
121.2799
106.0343
64.83385
21.74064
0.493604
9.901529
38.26835
60.66253
55.77621
24.17968
1.43E-05
The design values are obtained by the SRSS values of the three modes and are
as given here under
D(comb) m
Mcomb kN m
Vcomb kN
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0
1.55E-05
0.000203
0.000836
0.002147
0.004283
0.007337
0.011419
0.01672
0.023551
0.032319
0.043441
0.057237
0.073869
0.093362
0.115663
0.140709
0.168457
0.198904
0.23208
0.268037
328120
284396.7
243883
206597.9
172575.9
141859.4
114490.1
90495.35
69866.69
52533.5
38339.78
27036.49
18297.8
11756.85
7045.756
3823.528
1784.729
650.1806
148.8775
10.82006
0
3119.199
3115.759
3093.635
3040.899
2954.543
2838.836
2701.465
2549.947
2388.24
2213.893
2019.572
1800.416
1560.883
1313.786
1072.572
844.5906
630.1059
425.8726
233.3069
72.92729
5.94E-05
Bending Moment under earthquake
300000
M1
M2
200000
M3
Mcomb
100000
9
0.
75
0.
0.
45
0.
0.
0.
0
-100000
15
Momnet(kN.M)
400000
Z/H
Figure 3.3.9 Bending Moment diagram of the chimney.
Shear force(kN)
Shear force diagram for three modes

4000
V1
3000
V2
2000
V3
1000
Vcomb
9
0.
75
0.
0.
45
0.
0.
0.
15
Z/H
Figure 3.3.10 Shear force diagram of the chimney.
We show in Figs. 3.3.9 and 10, the Modal moments shear and SRSS values.
3.3.1.4 Analysis of single f lue tapered chimney

For single flue chimney due to thermodynamic reason and to enhance the exit velocity
of the flue gas23 , are usually provided with a tapered section as shown in Figure 3.3.11.
Besides the reason cited, the choice is also structurally reasonable for the moment and
shear increases from zero at top to maximum at base. Based on this the obvious
economic design be that which has a section minimum at top and maximum at base.
As the section has a varying profile (generally linear) the mathematical treatment
as shown for the multi-flue chimney with constant EI becomes complex for a closed
form solution except for the fundamental mode.
23 The flue gas needs sufficient exit velocity to reduce the ground level pollution concentration.
Variable EI
Figure 3.3.11 Single Flue Tapered Chimney and its mathematical model.
However this can very easily be solved by applying numerical techniques and arrive
at an accurate answer.
In case of tapered chimneys the numerical solution is preferable because though
in most of the cases the profile is linear however from stress point of view and also
to diminish the amplitude at the top, the profile usually has a number of transition
zones (i.e. the slope often changes at two or three positions thus have varying integral
functions with different limits).
Secondly the brick liner inside the chimney shell which reduces the temperature
differential across the chimney shell also undergoes change in thickness after a certain
level thus making the mass function discontinuous which surely makes the choice of
a numerical solution more attractive.
However one additional step on has to do in this case is to perform the eigen value
analysis which was already implicit in the calculation for chimneys with constant
sections.
The theory presented earlier can be modified for numerical analysis as follows:
As the moment of inertia of the section is varying the stiffness equation can be
expressed as
kij =
1
E2i 2j
H4
Iz (z)i (z)j dz
(3.3.54)
In which, Iz is moment of inertia considered to be varying at different height z.

where,

2i
i z
i z
i z
i z
sin
cos
sin
h
+
+
cos
h
i
H
H
H
H
H2
2
2

i z
i z
sin h
i = i2 F (z) and F (z) = i2 sin
H
H
H
H

i z
i z
+ cos h
+ i cos
H
H
i =
(3.3.55)
Thus the stiffness matrix can now be written as

[K]33
H 2
4
1 Iz F1 (z)dz
H
H
E
2
2
= 4 2 1 Iz F2 (z)F1 (z)dz
42 Iz F2 2 (z)dz
H
0
0
H
2 2 H
2
2

3 1 Iz F3 (z)F1 (z)dz 3 2 Iz F3 (z)F2 (z)dz
0
H

43 Iz F3 2 (z)dz
0
(3.3.56)
Similarly
Mass equation can now be written as
H
(c Ac + b Ab ) 12 (z)
0
H
1
[M]ij = (c Ac + b Ab ) 2 (z)1 (z)1

g
0
H
(c Ac + b Ab ) 3 (z)1 (z)
H
(c Ac + b Ab ) 22 (z)
H
(c Ac + b Ab ) 3 (z)2 (z)
H
(c Ac + b Ab ) 32 (z)
(3.3.57)
where, c = unit weight of concrete; b = unit weight of brick lining; Ac = area of
RCC shell at any height z, and Ab = area of Brick lining at any height z.
Each of the above term of the stiffness and mass matrix are to be obtained by
numerical integration between the limits 0-H. For numerical solution for and
following values are to be adopted.
Mode
1.875
1.362221
4.694
0.981868
7.855
1.000776105
After the stiffness and mass matrix are formed, an eigen values analysis needs to
performed based on the equation
[K] [M]2 = 0
(3.3.58)
Once the eigen values vis--vis time periods are known, the Sa /g values can be
obtained from the response curve as furnished in the codes.
The displacement amplitude is thus furnished by the equation
ZI Sa
(3.3.59)
Sd = i
2R 2
and the complete solution is given by the expression24
24 Here i remains same as the case with constant EI as show earlier.
wi (z, t) = i
ZI Sa
[ii ] Fi (z).
2R 2
(3.3.60)
Thus
w1 (z, t) = 1
ZI Sa1
[11 F1 (z) + 12 F2 (z) + 13 F3 (z)]
2R 12
w2 (z, t) = 2
ZI Sa2
[21 F1 (z) + 22 F2 (z) + 23 F3 (z)]
2R 22
w3 (z, t) = 3
ZI Sa3
[31 F1 (z) + 32 F2 (z) + 33 F3 (z)]
2R 32
and
(3.3.61)
where, [ii ] = eigen vector value for the mode I.

The moment and shear are then obtained from the equation
EI
d2w
= Mz
dz2
and EI
Sa1 EI
M1 (z, t) = 1
where, =
d3w
= Vz ,
dz3
which gives
[11 21 F1 (z) + 12 22 F2 (z) + 13 23 F3 (z)]
12 H 2
(3.3.62)
ZI
2R .
M2 (z, t) = 2
M3 (z, t) = 3
Sa2 EI
22 H 2
Sa3 EI
32 H 2
[21 21 F1 (z) + 22 22 F2 (z) + 23 23 F3 (z)]
and
[31 21 F1 (z) + 32 22 F2 (z) + 33 23 F3 (z)]
(3.3.63)
Considering EI ddzw3 = Vz ,
V1 (z, t) = 1
V2 (z, t) = 2
V3 (z, t) = 3
Sa1 EI
12 H 3
Sa2 EI
22 H 3
Sa3 EI
32 H 3
[11 31 F1 (z) + 12 32 F2 (z) + 13 33 F3 (z)]

[21 31 F1 (z) + 22 32 F2 (z) + 23 33 F3 (z)]
[31 31 F1 (z) + 32 32 F2 (z) + 33 33 F3 (z)]
and
(3.3.64)
where,

i z
i z
i z
i z
Fi (z) = cos

cos h
+ i sin
+ sin h
H
H
H
H
We explain the above with a suitable numerical example.
(3.3.65)
Example 3.3.4
A 220 m tall RCC chimney has properties as shown hereafter. Calculate the first
three fundamental time period and seismic response for seismic zone IV, with
site having medium soil.
The data for the chimney are given below:
Height of chimney = 220 m; Diameter of shell at bottom = 22 m; Shell
thickness at bottom = 650 mm; Diameter of shell at top = 5.0; Shell thickness at
top = 250 mm; Air gap between shell and lining = 100 mm althrough; Thickness
of brick lining = 150 mm from 220 to 150 m; Thickness of brick lining = 230 mm
from 150 to 25 m; unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3 ; Unit weight of brick =
22 kN/m3 ; Grade of concrete = M35; Zone coefficient = 0.24; Importance
factor = 1.5; R(Ductility factor) = 2.0.
Solution:
For the problem the earthquake factor =
ZI
0.24 1.5
=
= 0.09
2R
4
Econc = 31220185.78 kN/m2
Outside
diameter
Inside
diameter
Outside dia
lining
Inside dia
Lining
Area of
lining
Area of
concrete
Moment of
inertia
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
22
21.15
20.3
19.45
18.6
17.75
16.9
16.05
15.2
14.35
13.5
12.65
11.8
10.95
10.1
9.25
8.4
7.55
6.7
5.85
5
20.7
19.8925
19.085
18.2775
17.47
16.6625
15.855
15.0475
14.24
13.4325
12.625
11.8175
11.01
10.2025
9.395
8.5875
7.78
6.9725
6.165
5.3575
4.55
0
0
0
18.0775
17.27
16.4625
15.655
14.8475
14.04
13.2325
12.425
11.6175
10.81
10.0025
9.195
8.3875
7.58
6.7725
5.965
5.1575
4.35
0
0
0
17.6175
16.81
16.0025
15.195
14.3875
13.58
12.7725
11.965
11.1575
10.35
9.5425
8.895
8.0875
7.28
6.4725
5.665
4.8575
4.05
0
0
0
12.89600222
12.31252993
11.72905763
11.14558534
10.56211304
9.978640746
9.39516845
8.811696154
8.228223859
7.644751563
7.061279268
4.262355833
3.881830423
3.501305012
3.120779602
2.740254192
2.359728782
1.979203372
43.5974521
40.5351404
37.5834816
34.7424755
32.0121223
29.3924218
26.8833741
24.4849792
22.1972371
20.0201477
17.9537111
15.9979274
14.1527964
12.4183182
10.7944927
9.28132008
7.87880022
6.58693314
5.40571884
4.33515733
3.37524861
2486.389939
2135.781491
1823.567498
1546.84251
1302.815147
1088.808108
902.2581633
740.7161567
601.8470066
483.4297052
383.3573185
299.6369863
230.3899223
173.851414
128.3708229
92.41158428
64.55120714
43.48127451
28.00744321
17.04944393
9.641081217
Next we define the function fi ( ) for the first three modes and then multiplying
H
and integrating the expression m1 = (c Ac + b Ab ) 0 12 (z)dz etc. we obtain
mass matrix as shown hereafter.
f1 ( ) f2 ( )
f3 ( )
f1 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) f3 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f3 (x)
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.17
0.27
0.37
0.49
0.63
0.77
0.92
1.09
1.26
1.43
1.61
1.79
1.98
2.16
2.35
2.54
2.72
0.00
0.13
0.46
0.85
1.21
1.45
1.51
1.38
1.05
0.58
0.04
0.50
0.95
1.24
1.32
1.16
0.79
0.23
0.46
1.22
2.00
0.00
0.14
1.96
11.60
32.43
69.73
126.80
205.03
303.73
420.17
549.82
686.68
823.77
953.56
942.19
1019.18
1070.23
1091.06
1078.68
1031.49
949.38
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.37
0.59
0.82
1.03
1.21
1.34
1.41
1.40
1.32
1.16
0.92
0.62
0.27
0.14
0.57
1.03
1.49
1.96
0.00
0.59
7.81
42.86
110.18
215.60
352.36
504.71
650.94
767.47
833.09
832.57
759.11
615.44
364.48
150.83
74.41
288.90
472.15
607.65
684.29
114105.17 43303.49
0.00
2.51
31.09
158.35
374.36
666.56
979.13
1242.41
1395.06
1401.84
1262.32
1009.45
699.53
397.22
141.00
22.32
5.17
76.50
206.67
357.97
493.21
0.00
1.59
19.60
98.31
225.52
381.57
516.23
573.05
510.50
318.23
23.32
315.27
621.92
824.51
770.21
661.89
427.87
116.81
210.18
495.41
697.70
0.00
6.77
78.02
363.21
766.23
1179.70
1434.49
1410.63
1094.07
581.27
35.34
382.25
573.11
532.15
297.95
97.96
29.75
30.93
92.00
291.85
502.88
112513.56 4217.34
54348.47
0.00
18.25
195.82
833.10
1568.28
2087.90
2101.62
1601.62
858.02
241.03
0.99
144.75
469.53
712.92
629.62
429.85
171.06
12.51
40.95
237.94
512.74
136827.21
Integrating each of the above term by Simpsons 1/3rd rule25 and dividing
each of the above terms by g = 9.81 we have the mass matrix as
11631.5
[M] = 4414.2
429.997
4414.2
11469.27
5540
429.997
5540 kN-sec2 /m
13948
Again for stiffness matrix we show the functions fi ( ) as hereafter and
E2 2 1
applying the expression kij = Hi 4 j 0 Iz (z)i (z)j dz we have
f1 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) f3 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f3 (x)
z
0
11
22
33
44
55
2.72
1.96 2.00 3283.58
2.54
1.49 1.22 2445.70
2.35
1.03 0.46 1791.12
2.16
0.57 0.23 1287.15
1.98
0.14 0.79 905.58
1.79 0.27 1.16 622.12
14833.25
9030.09
4913.99
2136.53
395.01
576.65
67007.83
33341.16
13481.69
3546.40
172.30
534.50
42337.64
20605.66
6118.56
2422.39
6355.70
7091.03
191256.31
76080.79
16786.46
4020.89
2772.32
6572.75
545891.08
173607.84
20901.32
4558.87
44606.72
80825.06
(continued)
25 I = h/3[(y0 + 4(y1 + y3 + y5) + + yn 1 + 2)(y2 + y4 + + yn 2) + yn]
f1 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f1 (x) f2 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) f3 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f3 (x)
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
1.61
1.43
1.26
1.09
0.93
0.77
0.63
0.49
0.37
0.27
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.62
0.92
1.16
1.32
1.40
1.41
1.34
1.21
1.03
0.82
0.59
0.37
0.18
0.05
0.00
1.32
1.24
0.95
0.50
0.04
0.58
1.05
1.38
1.51
1.45
1.21
0.85
0.46
0.13
0.00
1008.36
1091.32
976.03
772.62
554.21
362.68
215.99
115.90
55.01
22.39
7.41
1.81
0.26
0.01
0.00
2443.96
4413.37
5635.75
5869.80
5261.92
4150.99
2900.50
1787.65
957.77
433.67
157.71
41.78
6.48
0.30
0.00
5968.29
4094.23
2238.81
818.80
43.83
421.35
474.44
368.52
225.67
110.94
42.45
11.59
1.83
0.08
0.00
14465.37
16557.31
12927.29
6220.62
416.12
4822.53
6371.21
5684.07
3929.12
2148.97
903.64
268.21
45.51
2.23
0.00
85618.10
62116.76
29652.64
6592.42
32.91
5602.72
13994.95
18073.30
16118.72
10648.68
5177.64
1721.86
319.55
16.79
0.00
1.1961 2.3089
10+05
10+05
1.3445
10+06
2.4450
10+05
2.3870
10+06
8.9746
10+06
416.04
269.86
169.03
101.70
58.37
31.69
16.08
7.51
3.16
1.16
0.35
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
Integrating each of the above term numerically by Simpsons 1/3rd rule we

have stiffness matrix as
1.1961 105
[K] = 2.3089 105
2.445 105
2.3089 105
1.3445 106
2.387 106
2.445 105
2.387 106
8.9746 106
Performing the eigen value analysis by any of the methods as shown in

Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) we have
(rad/sec)
T(sec)
6.382
76.771
664.385
2.53
8.76
25.77
2.48
0.717
0.244
Thus for T = 2.48 sec we have Sa /g = 0.548, for T = 0.717; Sa /g = 1.896

and for T = 0.244 Sa /g = 2.5.
The corresponding eigen vectors are given by
0.967
0.25
0.052
0.165
0.958
0.236
0.061
0.227
0.972
ZI Sa
[ii ]Fi (z) for the first three
2R 2
modes and performing an SRSS we have the deflection as
Now applying the expression wi (z, t) = i
d 1 (meter)
d 2 (meter)
d 3 (meter)
d (comb)
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
0
0.000251703
0.000966707
0.002091173
0.003590126
0.005461638
0.007748398
0.010542958
0.013984374
0.018245647
0.023513101
0.029960377
0.037720885
0.046863104
0.057373044
0.069147478
0.082000282
0.095682647
0.109916343
0.124437733
0.139049403
0
0.00013216
0.0005533
0.00129389
0.00236493
0.00374318
0.00535884
0.00708952
0.00876281
0.01016819
0.01107722
0.01126932
0.01055956
0.00882398
0.00601826
0.00218613
0.00254487
0.00798104
0.01389279
0.02005545
0.02629749
0
0.00012267
0.00041479
0.00076611
0.00107735
0.00126895
0.00128912
0.0011191
0.00077447
0.00030182
0.00022885
0.00073501
0.00113413
0.00135609
0.00135336
0.00110751
0.00063079
3.7726E-05
0.00084109
0.00171779
0.00261821
0
0.000309628
0.001188575
0.002575668
0.004431993
0.006741745
0.00950877
0.012754123
0.016521178
0.020889875
0.02599275
0.03201815
0.039187443
0.047705891
0.057703702
0.069190892
0.082042187
0.096014933
0.110794041
0.126055232
0.141538509
Again applying the expressions
Miz = i EIz
Sai
3

i2 H 2
i=1
i 2i Fi (z)
M1 (kN m)
M2 (kN m)
M3 (kN m)
M(comb)
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
3.6310+05
2.7510+05
2.0710+05
1.6010+05
1.3410+05
1.2510+05
1.2710+05
1.3310+05
1.3710+05
1.3610+05
1.2610+05
1.1010+05
8.9210+04
6.6610+04
4.5510+04
2.7910+04
1.5010+04
6.6710+03
2.2010+03
3.8110+02
0.0010+00
1.7410+05
1.7210+05
1.6310+05
1.4410+05
1.1310+05
7.3410+04
3.0010+04
1.1210+04
4.4710+04
6.7010+04
7.6910+04
7.5710+04
6.6310+04
5.2210+04
3.7010+04
2.3310+04
1.2710+04
5.7610+03
1.9210+03
3.3510+02
0.0010+00
1.9610+05
1.0110+05
2.9610+04
1.8010+04
4.4310+04
5.2910+04
4.8610+04
3.6610+04
2.1810+04
7.9610+03
2.6210+03
9.0310+03
1.1510+04
1.1010+04
8.7910+03
6.0110+03
3.4810+03
1.6410+03
5.6510+02
1.0110+02
0.0010+00
448077.79
340170.59
265471.40
215984.91
180701.73
154065.57
138948.07
138323.60
146038.98
151530.17
147996.14
133959.24
111706.12
85366.09
59278.77
36847.91
19963.65
8961.31
2979.07
517.31
0.00
Considering
Viz = i EIz
Sai
3

i2 H 3
i=1
i 3i Fi (z)
V 1 (kN)
V 2 (kN)
V 3 (kN)
V (comb)
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
3878.895
3227.414
2217.082
859.165
597.419
1856.457
2693.050
3008.120
2831.386
2289.459
1557.132
808.201
177.805
257.491
481.345
525.028
447.041
311.860
173.245
65.076
0.008
2420.965
1972.271
1129.664
97.013
41453.868
2636.536
3411.105
3670.259
3437.311
2834.863
2036.228
1216.009
511.899
4.045
287.389
390.325
360.932
262.670
149.620
57.113
0.011
7221.983
6144.799
4938.797
3591.885
2226.129
997.189
30.551
609.604
925.257
971.298
832.931
601.699
356.071
149.873
9.173
63.902
83.191
69.421
42.549
16.980
0.007
8.547710+03
7.215610+03
5.530210+03
3.694510+03
2.725110+03
3.375210+03
4.346210+03
4.784510+03
4.548410+03
3.771110+03
2.695310+03
1.579210+03
6.484210+02
2.979610+02
5.606910+02
6.573410+02
5.805510+02
4.136110+02
2.328310+02
8.823310+01
1.49231002
The Bending moment diagram is shown Figure 3.3.12.
Figure 3.3.12 Bending Moment diagram of tapered chimney.
0
22
Height z(m)
19
17
15
13
11
88
66
44
M1
M2
M3
M(comb)
22
5.00E+05
4.00E+05
3.00E+05
2.00E+05
1.00E+05
0.00E+00
-1.00E+05
-2.00E+05
-3.00E+05
Bending moment(kN-m)
Bending Moment Diagram
3.3.1.5
Computer analysis of tall chimneys
Many corporate houses have developed in-house computer program for analysis and
design of tall chimneys based on IS-4998 or ACI 307, CICIND etc. The seismic analysis
part however can also be done in generic finite element commercially available package
like GTSTRUDL, SAP 2000, STAAD PRO etc.
For dynamic analysis of tall chimneys normally a stick model with masses lumped
at convenient nodes sufce. The structural element constitutes of beam elements
with the mass of the shell and brick lining lumped at each end nodes i and j.
The computer
assembles the stiffness matrix based on the principle of finite element [K] = [B]T D[B]dz and forms the lumped mass matrix [M] which is diagonal
in nature. On formation of these elements it performs the eigen value analysis based
on the expression [K][] = [M][]2 = 0 and then perform the modal analysis based
on response spectrum method as explained earlier.
3.3.1.6
Discussion on factors affecting the dynamic analysis

of tall chimneys
The major factors which affect the dynamic response of tall chimneys under earthquake
are the code factors
Z (zone factor)
I (Importance factor)
R (Ductility factor)
While IS code recommends the value of Z for different zones, the importance factor
for chimney considering its slenderness requires special consideration while the usual
practice is to apply a factor of 1.5, however for zones which a more susceptible to earthquake (like zone IV and V) it is recommended (Wilson 2003) that importance factor
considered be 2.0. For structures of category 2(RCC Chimney) IS code recommend an
Importance factor of 1.75.
CICIND recommends ductility factor R = 1 for non ductile detailing and R = 2
when ductile detailing is to be adopted. IS-code recommends a value of R = 3.0 for
RCC Chimneys.
3.3.1.7
Do we consider soil structure interaction

for dynamic analysis of chimney?
This is a question which has plagued many engineers undertaking the task of design of
tall chimneys. While research papers (Ghosh and Batavyal 1985, Navarro 1992, Luco
1986) and code do recommend considering this, some assessments need to be made
whether it has any value addition in undertaking this complicated task.
Most of the tall chimneys are structurally flexible in nature and in all possibility have
its fixed base time period which would induce a base acceleration of the type k/T where
k varies with the nature of soil. Considering the soil as equivalent springs based on
Richart/Wolfs formulation and correcting the time for soil-structure interaction based
on the expression
$
(
)
%
%
2
Kx
h
k
1+
T = T &1 +
Kx
K
(3.3.66)
where, T = modied time period of the structure due to the soil stiffness; T =
time period of the fixed base structure; k = stiffness of the fixed base structure @
4 2 W/(gT 2 ); Kx , K = horizontal and rotational spring constant of the soil26 ; h =
effective height or inertial centroid of the system, and W = total weight of the structure.
It will be observed that in most of the cases the time period will further prolong
and which would reduce the value of Sa/g as given in code. While one may feel happy
that it would give a more economic design considering the attenuation of response,
however is not true in all cases specially for chimney like structures.
Firstly for such flexible structures vibrating during earthquake the acceleration at
the top portion of the chimney will be subjected to much higher acceleration then the
ground acceleration input we furnish in the analysis. Only if we do a time history
analysis it will be observed that the acceleration at top is indeed much more than the
input base acceleration.
Thus forces in reality could be more at top portion then what we observe considering
soil-structure interaction and further reducing the design moments and shears may not
always be a safe decision, even with the soil damping attenuating the responses further
at the higher mode.
UBC 97 tries to cater to this phenomenon by a provision of a ctitious force
Ve = 0.07 V.T for time period greater than 0.7 seconds. As IS code does not have this
provision, considering soil compliance may under rate the response on the top portion
of the structure. Moreover as the ductility-design for these types of chimneys is still not
well defined, it would perhaps be preferable to design it as a fixed base structure and
render a conservative design. Unless the structure is itself so rigid that one is reasonably sure that considering soil structure interaction can amplify the response instead
of attenuation.
It has however been observed that soil-structure interaction analysis plays a
critical role in aerodynamic response of such chimneys especially the along wind
response which shows amplication while considering the foundation compliance
effect (Sadhegpour & Chowdhury 2008).
3.3.1.8
Thus to sum it up. . . .
A chimney should preferably be designed as a fixed base cantilever.

Minimum three modes should be considered for dynamic analysis since the higher
mode at times can give higher response in terms of shears and moments.
If by three modes at least 90% mass participation is not there higher mode
participation needs to be considered.
26 Refer Chapter 2 (Vol. 2) for the expressions of Kx and K .
Consider damping ratio somewhere between 25%.

As the frequencies in most cases are widely spaced SRSS method of modal
combination would sufce.
If ground acceleration spectra for the particular site is available on may undertake
a time history analysis, when soil structure interaction can be considered.
In case codal spectrum is used for design, fixed base analysis is always preferable.
3.4 ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
3.4.1 Earthquake analysis of concrete dam

The topic of engineering of concrete dam can itself be a subject of a book. For dams
only of very large magnitude are built with concrete and obviously requires a detailed
analysis as the failure risk is far too catastrophic in nature. However based on the state
of art as present till date no concrete dam in the world has yet undergone a failure
(except some few cracks) due to earthquake though many of them has faced seismic
force as high as 1.0 g.
While we are writing this section, IS-1893 (2002) code is yet to come up with
procedural practice for earthquake analysis of concrete dams. As such, our discussion
and benchmarking herein will be based on IS-1893 (1984) which has been in practice
for last 20 years and based on which a number of dams have been built.
3.4.1.1
The IS-code method
Shown in Figure 3.4.1 is a typical concrete dam with water upstream. During an
earthquake it is usually assumed that the dam vibrates on its own thus generating
a force (W/g) a due to its inertia. It is also subjected to a hydrodynamic force due
to propagation of waves through the liquid see figure 3.4.1 that produces additional
force on the dam face over and above the hydrostatic force it sustains.
Water level
W a
g
Hydrodynamic
pressure
W
Figure 3.4.1 Typical concrete dam with water in upstream.
The earthquake dynamic analysis for a dam is based on certain simplifying

assumptions as stated hereunder
The water the dam supports is incompressible.

The dam is rigid and has the same motion throughout its body.
The dam and the reservoir motion is uncoupled and the interaction between them
is negligible for all practical purpose27 .
The code has also recommended to adapt seismic coefficient method for dam up to 100
meter high while response spectrum method with dynamic analysis (i.e. calculation of
time period and taking its effect) for dams that are greater than 100 m.
The seismic coefficient method is quite straightforward and does not require any
elaboration as the steps are same for building analysis except the fact that importance
factor to be considered should be as recommended by the code (for dams I = 3.0).
For response spectrum analysis IS-1893 (1984) code recommends to derive the
fundamental time period of concrete dam as
T = 5.55
H2
B
c
gEs
(3.4.1)
where, B = width of the dam base in m; H = height of the dam in m; c = unit weight
of material of dam in kg/m3 ; g = acceleration due to gravity @ 9.81 m/sec2 , and, Es =
modulus of elasticity of the material of the dam in kg/m2 .
However, the basis of derivation of this formula has not been elaborated either in
the code or in its explanatory manual28 .
Looking at the formula it appears that Eqn. (3.4.1) is derived by applying the
Rayleigh Ritz method to some assumed shape functions and considering the dam as a
cantilever beam having varying cross section. The code also does not give any value
of time periods for higher modes whose effects are perhaps considered as non-critical.
The base shear and moment for the dam is given by the expression
VB = 0.6 h W;
where h = IF 0
MB = 0.9 h W h
Sa
g
(3.4.2)
(3.4.3)
the notations in Eqn. (3.4.3) are as explained earlier in the section where we have
discussed on the code IS-1893 (1984).
27 This may not be true in all cases and could have significant effect. We will study this later on.
28 Except for note that this has been developed based on some research work carried out at University of
Roorkee India.
As per latest version of the code the seismic design coefficient can be taken as
h =
ZI Sa
2R g
(3.4.4)
where, W = weight of the concrete dam; h = height of the center of gravity of the
dam, above its base.
The value Sa /g is read from the chart and is a function of the time period of the dam
as mentioned in Equation (3.4.1).
For any horizontal section at a depth z below the top of dam the shear force Vz and
bending moment Mz may be obtained from the expression
Vz = Cv VB

and Mz = CM
MB
(3.4.5)
where the values of Coefficients CV and CM are as furnished in figure below.
Figure 3.4.2 Values of Cv and Cm along the height of dam.
Considering a concrete dam as massive where the weight plays a significant part in
its stability, it is evident that unlike other structures, the vertical mode of earthquake
acceleration plays a significant part in its stability and cannot be ignored.
As per IS code based on response spectrum the force due to vertical acceleration is
considered as 0.75 times the value of h at the top of the dam and reducing linearly
to zero at base.
3.4.1.2
Hydrodynamic pressure on dam from the reservoir
As wave propagates through the ground there is an instantaneous hydrodynamic

pressure (or suction) exerted on the dam over and above the hydrostatic pressure
it sustains.
6
0.
0.
5
0.
4
0.
0.
3
0.
2
0.
0.
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.
Value of Cs
z/H
Figure 3.4.3 Value of Cs with depth.
Based on the assumption that the water is incompressible the hydrodynamic pressure
at any depth z below the reservoir is determined by the expression
p = Cs h w h
(3.4.6)
where, p = hydrodynamic pressure of water; Cs = a coefficient which varies with

shape and depth; h = seismic design coefficient as explained in Equation 3.4.4. w =
unit weight of water, and h = height of water in the reservoir.
The variation of Cs with depth is given by the expression
Cm
Cs =
2

z
z
z
z
2
+
2
h
h
h
h
(3.4.7)
where Cm value varies (almost) linearly from a value of 0.735, when the vertical
upstream angle of the dam face varies from 0 degree (i.e. perfectly vertical), to a value
of 0.0, when this angle is 90 degree.
The variation of Cs with depth is shown in Figure 3.4.3. The values in graph
multiplied by the value Cm will give the value Cs .
The approximate values of Shear and Moment at depth z below the free surface is
given by the expression
Vz = 0.726 pz
and Mz = 0.299 pz2 .
(3.4.8)
where, p = hydrodynamic pressure is given in Equation (3.4.6).

3.4.1.3
Some comments and review of the IS-code method
The above method though has been in practice for quite some time, yet there are some
approximation and one assumption that is perhaps not conceptually correct.
Firstly, the value of time period as proposed in Equation (3.4.1) over estimates the
time period of a dam by about 25% and is not unique. The top width at crest has a
significant effect on the time period29 .
Secondly, while calculating the hydrodynamic pressure vide Equation (3.4.6) code
uses the value of h as obtained based on Equation (3.4.1).
This is in violation to the basic assumption made at the outset that the dam face
is rigid and the vibration of the two systems (dam and the fluid in the reservoir) is
uncoupled/independent.
In this case as per the above mentioned assumption the free field time period of
the fluid in the reservoir (assumed tending to infinity) in horizontal direction should
govern the value of h g rather than the time period of the dam whose stiffness is
considered as infinite in comparison to the fluid. The present assumption could lead
to a significant variation in end results in some cases.
3.4.2 A method for dynamic analysis of concrete dam

We present (Chowdhury & Dasgupta 2008) here a method wherein we have tried to
overcome a number of deficiencies as mentioned in the above IS-code method. The
salient feature of the method are summarized as hereafter
1
2
Calculation of time period of the dam having varying cross section for three modes
and studying the effect of the varying section on the time period.
Calculating the free field time period of the fluid in the reservoir and estimating
the hydrodynamic pressure assuming the dam wall to be perfectly rigid when the
two systems are not coupled.
A practical simplied approach considering fluid-structure interaction (for fundamental mode analysis) wherein we study the effect of hydrodynamic pressure on
the wall vis--vis the response of the dam when the dam is considered to have a
finite stiffness and the fluid is considered compressible.
How to model the fluid stiffness and mass when we carry out a finite element
analysis of the dam section considering fluid structure interaction.
3.4.2.1
Calculation of time period of the dam

having variable cross section
As shown in Figure 3.4.4, we show a dam of height H having base width B and top
width as Bt supporting water of height Hw . The dam is assumed to be resting on firm
ground (usually rock) and is considered to be fixed at base. Thus for mathematical
analysis the dam is considered as a cantilever flexural member (fixed at base free at
top) having varying width Bz where this variation is considered as linear with respect
to H.
29 This we are going to study in some detail subsequently.
Bt
a=
Hw
Figure 3.4.4 A dam supporting water in reservoir.
As derived in the case of the chimney, solving the fourth order differential equation
and differentiating the potential and kinetic energy of the system, the stiffness of the
dam can be expressed as
H
kij =
EI(z)
d 2 i (z) d 2 j (z)
dz2
dz2
dz
(3.4.9)
for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . n and the mass matrix is expressed as
c Az
mij =
g
H
i (z) j (z)dz .
(3.4.10)
For a cantilever beam the fourth order differential equation is

EI
4w
z4
2
w
+ A
=0
t 2
(3.4.11)
where, w(z) = i (z)q(t), and

i = sin

i z
i z
i z
i z
sin h
i cos
cos h
H
H
H
H
(3.4.12)
in which, i = 1.875, 4.694, 7.855, 2m1

2 for i = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . m, and
i =
sin i + sin hi
cos i + cos hi
(3.4.13)
Since the Moment of inertia and the area of the dam vary with depth. At any height
z from the bottom the moment of inertia at any height z is expressed as

z 3
Iz = I0 1 +
H
(3.4.14)
where, I0 = moment of inertia of the dam at base, and

Bt B
.
B
(3.4.15)
Similarly area at any height z is given by

z
Az = A0 1 +
H
(3.4.16)
Based on above the stiffness and mass equation gets modified to
kij = EI 0
and
H
1+
c A0
mij =
g
z 3 d 2 i (z) d 2 j (z)
dz
H
dz2
dz2
(3.4.17)
z
1+
i (z) j (z)dz
H
H
(3.4.18)
The double derivative of Equation (3.4.12) is given by

i =

2i
i z
i z
i z
i z
sin
sin
h
cos
+
+
cos
h
i
H
H
H
H
H2
and
(3.4.19)
To evaluate the stiffness and mass matrix in generic form by integration we change
the above to generalized co-ordinate by considering;
=
z
H
when d =
dz
and as z 0, 0 and as z H, 1
H
based on above we can now express the double derivative as

2i
sin i sin hi + i (cos i + cos hi )
2
H
2
= i2 f ( )i (say)
H
F ( )i =
(3.4.20)
(3.4.21)

1
EI0 2i 2j
kij =
H3
(1 + )3 f ( )i f ( )j d
(3.4.22)
and mass of the system is given by

A0 H
mij =
g
1
(1 + ) f ( )i f ( )j d ;
where, i = j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . , m
(3.4.23)
Thus, for the first three modes, the stiffness matrix is given by
[K]ij =
EI
H3
1
41 (1 + )3 f ( )21 d
Symmetrical
1
1

22 21 (1 + )3 f ( )2 f ( )1 d
42 (1 + )3 f2 ( )2 d
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4

3 1 (1 + ) f ( )3 f ( )1 d 3 2 (1 + ) f ( )3 f ( )2 d 3 (1 + ) f ( )3 d
0
(3.4.24)
and the mass matrix30 is given by
1
(1 + ) f ( )21 d
0
AH
1
[M]ij =
(1 + ) f ( )2 f ( )1 d
g 0
1
(1 + ) f ( )3 f ( )1 d
0
1
1
0
(1 + ) f2 ( )2 d
(1 + ) f ( )3 f ( )2 d
1
0
(1 + ) f ( )23 d
(3.4.25)
It is apparent that the values of the stiffness and mass matrix are dependent on the
parameter , which would surely influence these values. As an example we solve the
above for Bt /B = 0.1 (which is the most standard for concrete dams of about 100 m
high) i.e. the top width is 10% of base width for some space is normally kept at the
top of the dam for motor and pedestrian access, maintenance and inspection.
Thus, considering = 0.9, we have based on numerical integration between 1 to 0.
30 The matrix is symmetric about is diagonal.
The stiffness matrix is
[K]33
13.965
EI0
= 3 24.495
H
23.911
24.495
165.575
289.015
23.911
289.015
1.167 103
The mass matrix is given by
[M]33
0.509
c A0 H
0.185
=
g
0.025
0.185 0.025
0.449 0.169
0.169 0.522
generalized Jacobi technique, we have
21.62866
0
0
EI0 g
and the corresponding eigen0
255.8406
0
[] =
c A 0 H 4
0
0
2288.56
vectors are given as
0.986
[] = 0.167
0.020
have,
1.3509
[T] = 0
0
T
0.242 0.127
f1 ( )
0.945 0.169
f2 ( ) , since [] = 2 and T =
0.218 0.977
f3 ( )
0
0.3928
2
,
we
'
0
4
c A 0 H
0
EI 0 g
0.13135
Now, considering width of the dam as 1 m in the Y direction (perpendicular to the

plane of the paper),
A0 = B 1m2
and I0 = 1
B3 4
m .
12
Substituting the above, we have for the first three modes:

Mode number
1
2
3
Time period (secs)

2
c
T1 = 4.68 HB Eg

2
c
T2 = 1.36 HB Eg

2
c
T3 = 0.455 HB Eg

2
The above can be generalized to an expression, T1 = CT HB
c
.
Eg
We present here the values of CT for the first three modes for various values of Bt /B
Bt /B
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Eigen value
Natural frequency
(rad/sec)
Time period factor (CT ) in

form as presented in code
24.306
261.863
2348
21.62866
255.84
2288
19.807
257.77
2268
18.485
264.047
2270
17.477
273.01
2289
16.678
283.7957
2322
4.93011156
16.1821816
48.4561658
4.65066232
15.9949992
47.833043
4.45050559
16.0552172
47.6235236
4.29941857
16.2495231
47.644517
4.1805502
16.5230143
47.8434949
4.08387071
16.846237
48.1871352
4.41482756
1.34503449
0.44918107
4.68010595
1.36077483
0.45503257
4.89058871
1.355671
0.45703448
5.0624502
1.33946038
0.4568331
5.20639421
1.31728945
0.45493316
5.32964775
1.29201509
0.45168886
To substantiate further, we have also compared the fundamental natural frequency

of a tapered cantilever beam of various width ratio (Bt /B) derived by exact solution (Karnovsky & Lebed 2001) with the method as proposed above and compared
hereafter.
Bt /B
Proposed analysis
Exact solution
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
5.348832
4.650806
4.299419
4.083871
5.3151
4.6307
4.2925
4.0817
3.4.2.1.1
Comparison of natural frequency (rad/sec) proposed

and exact analysis
It is evident from above that the value of time period as given in code is over estimated31 . For even with Bt /B as 0.3 (which is very high) the time period coefcient is
5.33 in lieu of 5.55. While for a 10% crest width the error is of the order of (+)19%.
31 Though we agree that this may not have much effect on Sa /g finally in some cases.
3.4.2.2
Fundamental uncoupled amplitudes of vibration

of the dam
The maximum amplitude of vibration as per modal response analysis is expressed as

Sd = Sa /2 , thus based on provisions of code it may be further written as
Sd = i
where i =
Sa
2
(3.4.26)
n
i=1 mi i /
n
2
i=1 mi i
, 1
1
i =
for the present problem this is expressed as
(1 + ) fi ( )2 d
(1 + )fi ( )d
0
For a typical value of Bt /B = 0.1, the i values for the three modes are given as:
ZI
1 = 0.726, 2 = 0.771 and 2 = 0.432, = 2R
, and the code factors remain the
same as explained earlier.
The displacement along the height z is thus expressed as
w(z) = i
Sa
[11 f1 (z) + 12 f2 (z) + 13 f3 (z)]
2
(3.4.27)

where, fi (z) = sin Hi z sin h Hi z i cos Hi z cosh Hi z .

2
c
in which, CT = 4.68, 1.36, 0.455 etc. and also
Considering, T1 = CT HB Eg
considering, = 2/T, we have finally,
w(z) =
i CT2 Sa
c H 4 [11 f1 (z) + 12 f2 (z) + 13 f3 (z)]
4 2 B2 E g
(3.4.28)
where for Bt /B = 0.1, the displacement for fundamental mode may be expressed as
w(z) =
3.4.2.3
0.403i Sa
c H 4 [0.986f1 (z) 0.167f2 (z) + 0.020f3 (z)].
B2 E g
(3.4.29)
Dynamic Bending Moment and Shear force for the

fundamental mode
For a beam element the bending moment is given by

M(z) = EIz
d2w
,
dz2
(3.4.30)
for the present case, this may be expressed as

z 3 i C 2T H 4 c Sa d 2
M(z) = EI 0 1 +
(11 f1 (z) + 12 f2 (z) + 13 f3 (z))
H
g dz2
4 2 B2 E

i CT2 Sa
z 3
c BH 2 1 +
=
(11 21 f1 (z) + 12 22 f2 (z) + 13 23 f3 (z))
2
g
H
48
(3.4.31)
For Bt /B = 0.1, Equation (3.4.30) is expressed as

M(z) = 0.0335
Sa
g

z 3
c BH 2 1 +
H
(3.466f1 (z) 3.679f2 (z) + 1.234f3 (z))
(3.4.32)
Similarly, the shear force is written as

V(z) =
dM(z)
dz
i CT2
48 2

Sa
z 3
c BH 1 +
(11 31 f1 (z) + 12 32 f2 (z) + 13 33 f3 (z))
g
H
V(z) = 0.0335
i C 2T
48
Sa
g

z 3
c BH 1 +
H
(6.5f1 (z) 17.2712 f2 (z) + 9.693f3 (z))
(3.4.33)
The values of f (z) and f (z) are as given hereafter

Z/H
f1 (z)
f2 (z)
f3 (z)
f1 (Z)
f2 (Z)
f3 (Z)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2.72444111
1.9765624
1.2564103
0.62639921
0.17408595
0
1.96373508
0.13756457
1.1575438
1.3421761
0.5912631
0
2.001552
0.790419
0.948172
1.052816
1.209796
0
2
1.977702
1.834738
1.485855
0.881407
0.000284
2
1.793709
0.844848
0.423056
0.972256
0.000179
2
1.20662
0.966178
1.034407
0.79471
0.000486
3.4.2.4 Free f ield time period of the reservoir and the hydrodynamic
pressure from reservoir
In this section we determine the free field time period of the water extending to infinity
in horizontal direction and having a depth Hw as shown in Figure 3.4.4. As assumed
by the code we presume the dam wall is acting rigidly with respect to the fluid and the
fluid vibration remains uncoupled with respect to the vibration of the dam.
Since the dam profile is considered in two dimensions we start with two dimensional
propagation of wave due to earthquake through the water.
This is expressed as
1 2 w(x, z, t)
2 w(x, z, t) 2 w(x, z, t)
+
= 2
2
2
x
z
c
t 2
(3.4.34)

in which, c = velocity of sound in water and is expressed c = Bm /w , normally taken
as 1439 m/sec; where, Bm = bulk modulus of water (usually considered as 2.11 106
kN/m2 ), and w = mass density of water and w = displacement of fluid medium.
We will not solve this problem in detail here since we have already solved an identical problem having same boundary condition for estimation of dynamic pressure
due to earthquake on a rigid wall later under the topic of earth retaining structures
(Section 3.7.1).
Based on this analysis the fundamental frequency of the reservoir can be expressed
as 1 = c/(2Hw )(Hw = height of water in the reservoir).
Considering, T = 2/, we have, T = 4Hw /c and the eigenvector is expressed as
, where n = 1, 2, 3. . .; the number of modes.
(z) = cos (2n1)z
2H
Based on modal response technique, the maximum amplitude function can be
defined as
Sd =
Sa
2
(3.4.35)
where Sd = maximum displacement; Sa = acceleration which is the function of time

period 4Hw /c, and can be read off from normalized response given in the code.
Considering = ZI/2R a code factor depending on earthquake zone (low, moderate, severe etc.), Importance factor, ductility factor etc. (here R may be considered as
1.5 for un-reinforced concrete), we can write
w(z) = i
Sa
(z)
2
(3.4.36)
Now substituting the value of and using Bm = w c2 , we have

w(z) =
=
2
Sa Hw
z
4
cos
i
2H
2
c2
2
S a w H w
4
z
cos
i
2
Bm g
2H
where w = unit weight of water, i = modal mass participation factor =

g = acceleration due to gravity.
(3.4.37)

m
i 2i ,
mi i
and,
Thus, the modal participation factor can be considered as
i =
mi i /
H
1 H

z
w z cos2 z dz
mi i2 = w z cos
dz
2H
2H
0
The above on integration by parts gives, i =
Thus,
w(z) =
8
+2
32
S a w H 2
z
cos
2
B
2H
g
( + 2)
m
(3.4.39)
The deformation in fluid in z direction is given by [as z =

z =
(3.4.38)
w
z ]:
16
S a w H w
z
cos
( + 2)
Bm g
2H
(3.4.40)
Thus dynamic pressure is given by (considering 15% damping for fluid)

pdyn = Bm
u
12
S a w H w
z
=
sin
,
z
( + 2)
g
2H
(3.4.41)
the negative sign indicates that the pressure is acting on the dam. Here the factor 16
in Equation (3.4.40) is multiplied by a factor 0.75 as per IS-1893 (2002) to cater to
15% damping ratio.
The variation of pressure is as shown in Figure 3.4.5.
Based on above the pressure can be expressed as
pdyn = Coeff
Sa w Hw
g
(3.4.42)
z/H
Figure 3.4.5 Variation of hydrodynamic pressure with depth.
0.
8
0.
6
0.
4
0.
2
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
pressure coefficient
where the coefficients can be read from the graph in Figure 3.4.5.
dy
dz
dx
Y
X
Figure 3.4.6 An elastic elemental body in space.
Considering Vz =
Hw
0
pz dz, the shear force on the dam face is
Vdyn = 0.645pz z,
and the moment is given by
Mdyn = 0.4014pz z2
(3.4.43)
(3.4.44)
where, pz = pressure at any point z from top of the dam, and z = distance from top
of the dam.
3.4.2.5
A f luid-structure interaction model for earthquake

analysis of dam
In previous section we had proposed a technique for dynamic analysis where the
vibration is uncoupled. By this we mean the two vibrations are independent of each
other.
The stiffness of one system does not affect the stiffness of the other vis-a-vis the
frequency of each of the system is also mutually exclusive. In reality this is only an
idealization and the fluid and structure do have finite stiffness and vibrate in coupled
mode.
We present a here two practical easy to apply model based on which such fluid
structure interaction can be carried out. There are off course sophisticated finite element models available where the fluid and the structure could both be modeled in 2D
for a comprehensive analysis but is not without its lacunae.
Firstly such analysis is quite expensive and requires a significant large model for
problems such as dams. Moreover fluid elements having no shear strength and being
almost an incompressible medium often gives rise to numerical difficulty in arriving
at a meaningful solution. In the present model as proposed herein we use a simplified
lumped massspring based model.
3.4.2.6 Determination of the f luid spring and mass
We show in Figure 3.4.6, an elemental body in space of length dx, dy and dz.
For such a body under load, the strain energy equation as per theory of elasticity in
three dimensions is given by the expression
V=
G

e2
2
2
2
+ G x2 + y2 + z2 +
xy
+ yz
+ xz
2
2
(3.4.45)
If the body is a fluid medium then as G = 0, we have, V = (Bm e2 )/2 where,

Bm = bulk modulus of water, and e = x + y + z, thus
V=
Bm (x + y + z )2
2
(3.4.46)
For two dimensional case for a reservoir as x in horizontal direction, we have

x = 0, and hence,
V=
Bm (y + z )2
2
(3.4.47)
Similarly, since we are only considering unit width of the dam in the direction
perpendicular to the paper, the displacement is invariant in this direction which gives
y = 0 and we are finally left with
V=
Bm z2
Bm
=
2
2
w
z
2
(3.4.48)
Considering, w(z) = (z), q(t) one can have

V
w
= Bm
qr
z qr
w
z
V
i r
qi qr
= Bm
qr
z z
mf =
Kf =
Hw2
2g
Figure 3.4.7 Equivalent stiffness and lumped mass of the fluid element.
(3.4.49)
where, (z) = generalized shape function with respect to the x and z co-ordinates,
and q(t) = displacement function with respect to time in the generalized coordinate.
From which it can be proved that the stiffness and mass matrix can be written as
Hw
i r
Kir = Bm
dz
z z
w
and Mir =
g
Hw
i r dz
(3.4.50)
where K = stiffness matrix of the fluid medium; M = mass matrix of the fluid medium;
i and r are different modes 1, 2, 3. . .
K and M for the fundamental mode are given by
Hw
K11 = Bm
0
2
dz
and M11
w
=
g
Hw
()2 dz
(3.4.51)
and substituting it in
Considering the shape function as given in (z) = cos (2n1)z
2H w
Equation (3.4.50) and by integrating, we have
K11 =
2 Bm
8H w
and M11 =
w Hw
2g
It may be observed that the unit of the stiffness derived here is kN/m2 , which means
that the expression gives stiffness per unit area. Thus to determine the total stiffness
of the water in contact with dame face one has to multiply this by the contact area
which in this case is Hw x1.
2
This gives K11 = 8Bm kN/m per meter width.
H2
Similarly the effective mass is given by M11 = s2gw kN sec2 /m per meter width.

Considering, T = 2 M/K and substituting it in the above expression, one can
arrive at the same expression, T = 4Hw /c, as was derived earlier.
This shows that the stiffness and mass matrix formulation as represented here is
dimensionally correct.
Based on above as shown in Figure 3.4.7, we have managed to derive an equivalent stiffness and lumped mass of the fluid contained by the dam whose fundamental
frequency matches with the free field time period of the fluid continuum.
3.4.2.7
A semi-analytic model for f luid structure interaction
The spring element derived above is obtained per unit area this means this spring is
distributed on the surface of the dam.
The potential energy d of an element of depth dz, of the dam section and the fluid
shown in Figure 3.4.3, is then given by

E c Iz
d =
2
d2w
dz
2
+
Kf
2
w2
(3.4.52)
where, Ec = Youngs modulus of the concrete dam; Iz = moment of inertia of dam

B3
expressed 12
(1 + Hz )3 Kf = fluid stiffness; w = displacement of the fluid dam
system and may be written as [(z)q(t)].
The total potential energy over the height (H) of the dam is then given by

2
Hw
2 Bm
z 3 d 2 v
dz +
v2 dz
1+
H
16H w
dz2
H
Ec I0
=
2
(3.4.53)
Considering w(z, t) = (z)q(t), the stiffness expression becomes
Kij = Ec Io
H
Hw
i (z)j (z)dz
2 Bm
z 3
i (z) j (z)dz +
1+
H
8H w
(3.4.54)
Thus, for the fundamental mode, Equation (3.4.54) may be written as
K = Ec Io
H
Hw
(z)2 dz
2 Bm
z 3 2
(z) dz +
1+
H
8H w
(3.4.55)
It has been shown by Timoshenko that when a beam is supported by distributed

spring it only affects the natural frequency while the mode shape remains unaltered
with respect to that the original beam (i.e. in air), as such like in the case of the
uncoupled dynamic analysis carried out previously (where effect of water was ignored)
we consider
i = sin

i z
i z
i z
i z
sin
i cos
cos h
H
H
H
H
where, i = 1.875, 4.694, 7.855, 2m1

2 ; for i = 1, 2, 3. . .. . . m.
(3.4.56)
Thus, in natural co-ordinates, the stiffness expression can be expressed as

Ec I0 41
K=
H3
1
2 Bm
(1 + ) f ( ) d +
8
3
1
f ( )2 d
(3.4.57)
The above can be simplified to

1

Ec I0 41
(1 + )3 f ( )2 d + s f ( )2 d
K=
H3
(3.4.58)
where, s = 1.2
Bm
Ec
H
B
, a constant number.
Thus, K may be written as
K=
Ec I0 41
[I1 + s I2 ]
H3
(3.4.59)
1
1
where, I1 = 0 (1 + )f ( )2 d and I2 = 0 f ( )2 d .
Similarly the mass coefficient based on kinetic energy principle can be as expressed as
c A0
M=
g
H
Hw
(z)2 dz
z
w Hw
1+
(z)2 dz +
H
2g
(3.4.60)
The above in natural co-ordinate can now be expressed as

c A0 H
M=
g
1
2
w Hw
(1 + ) f ( ) d +
2g
1
f ( )2 d
(3.4.61)
This can be further expressed as
1

1
c A0 H
M=
(1 + ) f ( )2 d + m f ( )2 d
g
0
where, m =
1
5
Hw
H
2
H
B
, a constant number.
(3.4.62)
Thus, M may be expressed as

c A 0 H
M=
[I3 + m I2 ] ;
g
1
where, I3 =
(1 + )f ( )2 d
(3.4.63)

Now considering the expression, T = 2 M
K and substituting it in the above
expressions and after some simplication we have,
H2
T = 6.19
B
'
c CFS
Ec g
(3.4.64)
where, CFS is fluid-structure interaction coefficient given by CFS =

The amplitude of displacement is given by
w(z)max = i
where i =
i =
Sa
f1 ( )max
2
i=1 mi i /
at z = H.
2
i=1 mi i ,
I2 m + I3
.
I 2 s + I 1
(3.4.65)
for this particular case, the expression becomes
w Hw2 1
c A 0 H 1
0 (1 + )f ( )d + 2g
0 f ( )d
g

2
w H w 1
c A 0 H 1
2
2
0 (1 + ) f ( ) + 2g
0 f ( )
g
I4 + m I5
I 3 + m I2
(3.4.66)
Based on this the maximum displacement becomes

w(z)max = 1.01175 i
c CFS
B2 E c
Sa
g

H4
(3.4.67)
The moment and shear are thus given by

M = EI
Hence,
d2w
dz2
and V = EI
d3w
dz3
Mz = 0.2964 (1 + )3 c i C FS BH 2 (Sa /g)f ( )
Vz = 0.557 (1 + )3 c i C FS BH(Sa /g)f ( )
(3.4.68)
(3.4.69)
(3.4.70)
The values of f ( ) and f ( )are given Table 3.4.1.

The integral values I1 to I5 are as given hereafter for various Bt /B ratio are given in
Table 3.4.2.

Table 3.4.1
Z/H
Moment coefficients
Shear coefficient
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
0.725493
0.461163
0.229918
0.063898
0
1
0.988851
0.917369
0.742928
0.440703
0
Table 3.4.2 Values of integral constants for various Bt /B ratio.

Bt/B
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1.102
1.13
1.159
1.189
1.221
1.254
1.855
1.855
1.855
1.855
1.855
1.855
0.434
0.509
0.583
0.658
0.733
0.808
0.33
0.369
0.408
0.447
0.485
0.524
1.067
1.067
1.067
1.067
1.067
1.067
Table 3.4.3 Values stiffness (s) and mass ( m) parameter for dam.
H/B
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
s
m
0.300
0.293
0.244
0.273
0.195
0.254
0.154
0.234
0.118
0.215
0.089
0.195
0.065
0.176
0.045
0.156
0.030
0.137
0.019
0.117
0.011
0.098
Table 3.4.4 Values of fluid structure influence coefficient CFS .

Bt /B
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.589
0.624
0.656
0.688
0.718
0.746
0.605
0.642
0.676
0.709
0.741
0.770
0.618
0.656
0.692
0.727
0.760
0.791
0.626
0.667
0.704
0.741
0.775
0.807
0.630
0.672
0.712
0.750
0.785
0.818
0.628
0.672
0.714
0.753
0.790
0.824
0.621
0.668
0.710
0.751
0.789
0.825
0.610
0.657
0.702
0.744
0.783
0.820
0.593
0.642
0.688
0.732
0.772
0.810
0.572
0.623
0.670
0.715
0.756
0.795
0.548
0.600
0.648
0.694
0.736
0.776
Values of s and m are given in Table 3.4.3 for various H/B ratio. The coefficient
CFS the fluid structure coefficient is given in Table 3.4.4 for varying Bt /B and H/B
ratio. The modal mass participation i factors are as given in Table 3.4.5 for various
H/B and Bt /B ratio.
With the above tables now available it becomes quite simple to analyze the dam for
fluid structure interaction under earthquake force.
Intermediate values can be linearly interpolated without any significant error as the
variations as observed are not significant. The analysis can well be carried out by a
simple calculator or can very well be programmed in a spread sheet.

Table 3.4.5 Values of modal mass participation factor i .
Bt /B
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.657
0.648
0.640
0.632
0.625
0.619
0.661
0.650
0.642
0.634
0.626
0.620
0.664
0.653
0.644
0.636
0.628
0.622
0.668
0.656
0.647
0.638
0.630
0.623
0.672
0.659
0.649
0.640
0.631
0.624
0.676
0.663
0.652
0.642
0.633
0.626
0.681
0.667
0.655
0.645
0.635
0.627
0.686
0.671
0.658
0.648
0.637
0.629
0.692
0.675
0.662
0.650
0.639
0.631
0.699
0.680
0.666
0.654
0.642
0.633
0.706
0.686
0.670
0.657
0.645
0.635
A word regarding damping ratio of the system based on which Sa /g is to be chosen.

As per ICOLD (International Committee Of Large Dams) the damping values of the
concrete in a dam is low and would be around 25%.While based on study by Newmark and Roesenbleuth and also by Zangar (1953) water is usually found to have a
damping in the range of 15%. Thus as conservative estimate a value of 810% may
be chosen while selecting the value of Sa /g for a coupled model.
3.4.2.8
Lumped mass and stiffness approach for F luid-Structure

interaction
We now present herein a lumped mass model for the same analysis where the fluid and
the dam are coupled together. The reasons for choosing this model are as mentioned
hereunder:
Engineers working with structural dynamics are quite conversant with this
approach.
The model is simple and easy to work with in practical design situation.
It is particularly advantageous to use this model when over and above the fluid the
foundation interaction is also to be considered (soil-fluid-structure interaction).
For large dams it has been particularly observed that considering fluid as an incompressible medium and performing the analysis separately (as suggested by codes of
many countries including IS) the forces at times are in considerable variation to the
case when soil is considered in the analysis.
As such at least for economic reasons ICOLD recommends to use soil-fluid structure interaction wherever deemed feasible or perform a comprehensive Finite Element
analysis. As a prelude to such analysis the present model would give a very good estimate on how the loads are affecting the dam and whether it is worth such elaborate
analysis. In many of the cases the present analysis would sufce for a comprehensive interaction analysis where further sophistication may not be necessary. We have
already established previously that for a fluid medium extending to innity in horizontal direction of height Hw the equivalent spring stiffness and lumped mass can be
2 /2g, respectively. To couple this with the
expressed as Kf = 2 Bm /8 and Mf = w Hw
dam structure the most intuitive model would be to couple directly fluid stiffness to
the dam stiffness by static coupling which we are so conversant with. If we however
do this we would actually be grossly wrong!!
Ra=2W/3
L/3
2L/3
Rb=W/3
Figure 3.4.8 A simple supported beam supporting triangular load.
uf
mf =
wH w
6g
2
Kf =
us
ms =
Ks =
B m
BH
g
EB
12 H
I3
4
1
3 I1
Figure 3.4.9 Mathematical model for fluid structure interaction.
Housner et al. have shown that when an infinite fluid vibrates, a part of the fluid
mass get locked with the wall and vibrates in same phase as the wall (called convective
mass and the balance fluid vibrates on its own called the sloshing mass.
Now let us look at the mass expression it is obvious that the loading is triangular
(hydrostatic) in nature.
For a beam of span L having triangular load at as shown in Figure 3.4.8, it is
elementary to show that equivalent lumped mass at A is mL/3 and that at B is mL/6.
Here m is the mass per unit length and L the span. Since for the dam the base is
considered fixed the term ml/3 goes to the foundation and is not effective and the
active fluid participation is only ml/6. Thus based on this principle the mathematical
model for the dam and the fluid is expressed as in Figure 3.4.9.
3.4.2.9
Model for f luid-structure interaction of the dam

and reservoir
In the above mathematical it is thus assumed that two third of the weight of water
gets transfered to the dam foundation and one third of the water vibrates on its own
(sloshing mode). The free vibration equation of the coupled fluid structure system can
now be expressed as

ms
0
2 3
K + Kf
u s
+ s
mf
u
Kf
f
3
Kf
Kf
2 3
us
=0
uf
(3.4.71)
where, Ks = stiffness of the dam structure; Kf = stiffness of the fluid, Ms and Mf =

mass of the dam and the equivalent fluid respectively.
The eigen-solution of the above problem can now be carried out by the standard
expression

Ks + Kf ms 2
Kf
Kf
m
Kf 3f 2
2 3
us
=0
uf
(3.4.72)
It is evident from above that the frequency vis--vis the time period of the system
will get modified. Neither the fluid mode will have a frequency @ 4Hw /c nor the
2
fundamental time period of the structure will remain T1 = 4.68 HB c /gE for Bt /B =
0.1, say. The dynamic pressure and the response of the dam will now have to be
obtained based on this coupled frequency as derived above.
Let 1 2 be the two modified natural frequencies ofthe fluid and
structure and
11 12
;
let the corresponding eigen vectors be expressed as [] =
21 22
The displacement of the dam is then given by

ui = i
Here
Lni
Mni
Sai

(3.4.73)
i2
Mni = [i ]T [M] [i ]
and Lni = [i ]T [M] [I]
(3.4.74)
I is an identity matrix.
Thus, the maximum displacement for a particular mode is given by

ui = i
Lni
Mni
Sai
i2

f ( )
at 1.0
(3.4.75)
Once displacement are observed the maximum moment and shear for the two modes
are obtained from the expression
M = EI
Thus,
d2u
dz2
and V = EI
Mmax =
d3u
Ec I0 (1 + )3 21
umax
H2
(3.4.76)
dz3
and
Vmax =
Ec I0 (1 + )3 31
umax
H3
(3.4.77)
Displacement(mm)
Comparison of displacement Rigourous Vs

Lumped Mass approach
15
10
Disp. Analytic
solution
Disp. Lumped
Mass
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
z/H
Figure 3.4.10 Comparison of displacement analytical versus lumped mass approach.
The final design moments and shear are then
MR =

M12 + M22
and VR =

V12 + V22
(3.4.78)
Once the moment and shear are known they may be multiplied by the coefficients
given in the Table 3.4.1 to get the values along the height of the dam.
You might wonder how correct would be the result?
Just for comparison a 100 m high dam 70 m wide with Bt /B = 0.1 was analysed by
the rigorous semi-analytic method and the lumped mass approach, the displacement
plot is compared in Figure 3.4.10.
It can be observed that the values are in excellent agreement and gave almost same
results.
The method derived here is simple and practical. It does not need an elaborate
expensive analysis and can well be carried out in a spread sheet. This would give a far
more realistic result than what is suggested in IS-1893 (1984).
One major advantage now is that coupling the soil stiffness to consider the
foundation interaction effect becomes relatively simple.
3.4.2.10
Consideration of f luid- structure-foundation interaction
Having established the validity of the lumped mass model proposed above,
the model can be further extended to couple the soil stiffness as shown in
Figure 3.4.11.
Mf =
uf
2
wH w
6g
Kf =
Ms =
us
Ks =
2
Bm
8
BH
g
EB
12 H
Kx
I3
4
1
3
I1
Figure 3.4.11 Lumped mass stiffness model of dam.
3.4.2.11
Lumped mass stiffness model of dam with

soil-f luid-structure interaction
We had shown in Chapter 1 (Vol. 2) that the equivalent stiffness of the soil structure
system is given by
1
1
1
h 2
=
+
+
Ke
Ks
Kx
K
(3.4.79)
where, Ke = equivalent stiffness of the soil structure system; Ks = stiffness of dam as

derived earlier; Kx = lateral stiffness of the dam foundation; K = rocking stiffness of
foundation, and, h = center of gravity of the dam from bottom.
Based on above the equation of motion of free vibration gets modified to

ms
0
0
mf
3
2 3
K + Kf
u s
+ e
u f
Kf
Kf
Kf
2 3
us
=0
uf
(3.4.80)
The rest of the steps now remain same as previous. This shall be elaborated latter
by a suitable numerical example.
3.4.2.12
F inite element analysis of concrete dam
Finite element stress analysis of concrete dams is the most usual practice in industry.
As stated in Chapter 2 (Vol. 1) the first application of FEM in civil engineering was
carried out for concrete dam (Norfolk Dam analysis by Clough). Since then it has been
a common practice that the stress analysis for such dams are invariably carried out by
applying FEM software. This is quite justified considering most of the concrete dams
are massive in nature and, secondly in many cases a number of cooling water pipes
run through its cross-sections to control the heat of hydration during the setting of
concrete. The heat generated is significant in such cases and if not properly controlled
can result in thermal cracks. In many cases tunnels run through the sections that are
used to carry water pipes and also used for maintenance. Often one is interested to
know the stress concentration around such openings and ensure no cracks generate
around them.
Figure 3.4.12 shows a conceptual finite element model for a concrete dam. For
static analysis the problem is quite straightforward and does not pose any problem.
For uncoupled vibration analysis also, the solution is not complicated.
One does the eigen value and modal analysis for the dam only and applies the
hydrodynamic pressure as point loads on the surface of the dam and combines the
stresses generated by these load cases to finally arrive at the dynamic stresses induced
in the dam body.
However, for coupled fluid structure interaction, the analysis poses some difficulties
that are discussed as hereunder:
The reservoir in question is unbounded. As such to ensure that no waves are

reflected back from the finite element fluid boundary one has to take the boundary
significantly away from the dam. This greatly increases the model size and at times
can make the analysis quite laborious and expensive.
Fluid Poissons ratio is = 0.5, this at times makes the matrix singular and poses
severe difficulties in eigen value solutions in certain cases.
Majority of the Finite Element software that are used commercially for structural analysis (except ANSYS and NASTRAN) do not have fluid elements in
their library as such trying to simulate 2D fluid elements by using normal structural elements (mostly by trying to use a Poissons ratio of 0.49) does not
often work.
Thus if one has not developed a special purpose source code circumventing the
above mentioned problem the task is indeed difficult to carry out a complete fluid
structure interaction analysis based on normal finite element structural software that
are available in the market.
Free surface of water
Figure 3.4.12 Conceptual finite element model of a concrete dam.
Free surface of water
Fluid mass @ M /3
f
Fluid spring @
Bm /8
Figure 3.4.13 Conceptual finite element model of a concrete dam with fluid modeled as spring and
lumped mass.
We now propose a simple procedure based on which the above problem can well
be avoided and show how we can do such analysis while carrying out a FEA.
It was shown earlier that the reservoir fluid can effectively be represented by equivalent spring and lumped mass as furnished in Equation (3.4.51). These are in effect
stiffness and mass contribution per unit area. Thus if we multiply this value by the
effective contributing area for each node at wall-water surface we get an effective
spring contribution for each node along the depth of the dam. It is apparent that sum
of all such springs at each node must be equal to ( 2 Bm )/8.
For the mass distribution as explained earlier 2Mf /3 of the mass goes to foundation
can be ignored for dynamic analysis of the dam and the balance lumped mass Mf /3
can be connected to the top of the dam.
Based on above argument Figure 3.4.12 gets modified to Figure 3.4.13.
The problem has now simplified considerably. We do not have to worry about the
infinite fluid domain or about the numerical difficulties encountered in trying to model
a mock fluid in 2D. The spring and lumped mass adequately models the fluid and
coupled analysis for the dam can now be easily carried out in any of the commercially
available software like SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL, etc.
Example 3.4.1
A concrete dam of height 100 m, base width 70 m has top width of 7 m. The
maximum height of water it contains is 97.5 m. The dam is built on site of hard
rock and is in zone IV as per IS-1893 (2002). The grade of concrete used is M25.
Consider unit weight of water as 10 kN/m3 and that of concrete as 25 kN/m3 .
Bulk modulus of water (Bm ) = 2.11 106 kN/m2 . Shear wave velocity of
soil = 750 m/sec. Unit weight of soil = 19 kN/m3 . Perform Earthquake analysis
based on
The IS-code method.

Proposed dynamic analysis.
Dynamic analysis with fluid structure interaction.
Dynamic analysis with coupled soil fluid structure interaction considering
20% overall damping.
Solution:
For the dam being in zone IV:
As per IS-code Z = 0.24, I = 3.0, R = 1.5 (Assuming the dam to be
un-reinforced).
ZI
This gives = 2R
= 0.24.
IS-code method
2
The time period is given by, T = 5.55 HB
c
gEs .
Here, Ec = 28500000 kN/m2 , H = 100 m B = 70 m, c = 25 kN/m3 g =

9.81 m/sec2 .
This gives, T = 0.237 sec for which Sa /g for 5% damping = 2.5.
The weight of the dam, W = 70+7
2 100 1 25 = 96250 kN per meter
width
Thus base shear is given by, VB = 0.6h W VB = 0.6 (Sa /g) W =
34650 kN.
The base moment is given by, MB = 0.9h W h
Here h = 36.36 m from base; thus, Mb = 0.9 (Sa /g) W h =
1889811 kN m.
The Moment and shear force at various depth are given as
Z/H
Cm
Cs
Moment (kN m)
Shear (kN)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
0.675
0.35
0.15
0.05
0
1
0.875
0.65
0.4
0.18
0
1889811
1275622
661433.9
283471.7
94490.55
0
34650.00
30318.75
22522.5
13860
6237
0
The hydrodynamic pressure is given by, p = Cs h w h

Here as suggested in IS-1893, we take same h as that of dam i.e Sa /g = 2.5
for T = 0.237 sec.
The hydrodynamic pressure is given hereafter in a tabulated form as
Z/H
Cs
pdyn (kN/m2 )
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
0.3528
0.5292
0.645519
0.712875
0.735
0
206.388
309.582
377.6288
417.0319
429.975
Considering, Vz = 0.726p z and Mz = 0.299 p z2 .

The moments and shears are calculated at various depth as
Z/H
Moment
Shear
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.23 10+06
9.51 10+05
6.46 10+05
3.53 10+05
1.18 10+05
0.00 10+00
3.04 10+04
2.36 10+04
1.60 10+04
8.77 10+03
2.92 10+03
0.00 10+00
Thus total design moment (due to dam itself and hydrodynamic pressure) as
per IS code is
Z/H
Moment (IS-code)
Shear (IS-code)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3.12 10+06
2.23 10+06
1.31 10+06
6.37 10+05
2.12 10+05
0.00 10+00
6.51 10+04
5.39 10+04
3.86 10+04
2.26 10+04
9.16 10+03
0.00 10+00
Proposed dynamic analysis

2
Here Bt /B = 0.1, this gives, T = 4.68 HB
c
gEs .
Substituting the values, we have, T = 0.20 sec and that gives Sa /g = 2.5.
Corresponding eigen vectors for the first mode is
{}T = 0.986
0.167
0.020
Hence,

M(z) = 0.0335
Sa
g

z 3
c BH 2 1 +
H
(3.466f1 (z) 3.679f2 (z) + 1.234f3 (z))

where fi (z) =
2i
H2

sin Hi z sin h Hi z + i cos Hi z + cos h Hi z and = 0.9.
Similarly,
Sa
V(z) = 0.0335
g

z 3
c BH 1 +
(6.5f1 (z)
H
17.27f2 (z) + 9.693f3 (z))

Substituting the values, we have Dynamic Moments and Shears as follows
Z/H
Moment dynamic (kNm)
Shear Dynamic (kN)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.65 10+06
1.04 10+06
6.86 10+05
2.88 10+05
3.30 10+04
0.00 10+00
7.58 10+03
1.25 10+04
1.11 10+04
2.38 10+03
2.33 10+03
8.01 1004
We observe here a very interesting thing while the Bending moment is hardly
affected by the higher modes, the shear profile is significantly influenced by it.
The free field time period of fluid is given by T = 4Hc w where Bm = w c2 .
Substituting the value, w = 10/9.81 = 1.02 kN-sec2 /m, we have T =
0.27 sec.
Considering 15% damping for fluid we have Sa /g = 25 and taking Response
reduction factor32 R = 15, we have = 0.24.
12
S a w Hw
z
p =
sin
and considering Vdyn = 0.6455pz z
( + 2)
g
2H
Mdyn = 0.4014 pz z2 , we have
Z/H
Dynamic pressure
(kN/m2 )
Moment Proposed
Dynamic (kNm)
Shear Proposed
Dynamic (kN)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
134.2987
255.4514
351.5987
413.329
434.5999
1.69 10+06
1.29 10+06
8.22 10+05
3.98 10+05
1.05 10+05
0.00 10+00
2.71 10+04
2.06 10+04
1.32 10+04
6.38 10+03
1.68 10+03
0.00 10+00
Thus the total moments and shears due to proposed dynamic analysis and
hydrodynamic pressure is given by
Z/H
Moment proposed
dynamic (kN m)
Shear proposed
dynamic (kN)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3.34 10+06
2.33 10+06
1.51 10+06
6.86 10+05
1.38 10+05
0.00 10+00
3.47 10+04
3.31 10+04
2.43 10+04
4.00 10+03
6.58 10+02
8.01 1004
32 We have assume R = 1.5 considering the dam as unreinforced.
Response considering fluid structure interaction semi analytic approach

Though the method is analytic we will hardly use any analysis here, but would
refer extensively to the design tables furnished earlier.
Based on the tables furnished we have the following design parameters.
For H/B = 100/70 = 1.43, Bt /B = 0.1 Hw /B = 1.4
1 = 1.875, I1 = 1.13, I2 = 1.855, I3 = 0.509, I4 = 0.369, I5 = 1.067, m =
0.272, s = 0.259 and Cfs = 0.629;
Now considering
'
H 2 c CFS
T = 6.19
we have T = 0.21 secs Sa /g = 2.5
B
Ec g
m I5
Considering, i = II43 +
+m I2 , we have 1 = 0.65
The displacement thus in mm is given by
u(z)max = 1.01175i
c CFS
B2 Ec
Sa
g

H4
u(max) = 0.012 m
Ec I = 28500000 (70)3 /12 = 8.146 1011 kN/m2
E I (1+ )3 2
E I (1+ )3 3
1
1
Thus, considering Mmax = c 0 H 2
umax and Vmax = c 0 H 3
umax .
We have, Mmax = 3.469 106 kN/m2 and Vmax = 4.77 104 kN, at = 0
Multiplying by the coefficients furnished in the table, the variation with depth
is as shown hereunder: renewcommand
Z/H
Moment FSI
Shear FSI
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3.469 10+06
1.387 10+06
4.193 10+05
7.762 10+04
4.865 10+03
0.000 10+00
4.77 10+04
2.60 10+04
1.15 10+04
3.45 10+03
4.62 10+02
6.77 1003
Fluid structure interaction lumped mass model

In this case for the first mode the dam stiffness is given by
Ks =
EB3 41
I1 = 1.138 107 kN/m
12H 3
The fluid stiffness is given by

Kf =
2 Bm
= 2.603 106 kN/m
8
The mass of dam in first mode is given by

Ms =
BH
I3 = 9080 kN-sec2 /m
g
The mass of fluid is given by, mf =
2
w Hw
10 97.52
=
= 4845 kN-sec2 /m.
2g
2 9.81
The free vibration equation is

or
2 3
2 3
K + Kf Kf us
u s
1
+ s
=0
u f
uf
Kf
Kf
0
Mf
3

2 3
2 3
u s
1.398 107 2.603 106 us
9.08 103
0
+
=0
uf
0
1615 u f
2.603 106 2.603 106
Ms
On eigen value solution, we have

2
{} =
895.02
2256
{} =
29.917
47.502
3
rad/sec
The corresponding Eigen vectors are given as

0.445 0.40
[] =
1
1
The time period of the system33 is thus

2
{T} =
0.21
0.132
3
sec
Here for the first mode

Mn1 = [1 ]T [M1 ]
Here [1 ]T = [0.445, 1] and this gives Mn1 = 3411.
Ln1 = [1 ]T M[I] here I = [1, 1]T and this gives Ln1 = 5653.
33 Observe here that under uncoupled condition the time period of the dam was T = 0.20 sec
and that of fluid was T = 0.27 sec. this is now different. While this matches exactly with semianalytic method @0.21 sec.
L2n1 /Mn1 = 9369; thus percentage of modal mass participation (MMP) factor is
given by
MMP =
9369 100
= 87.603%
9080 + 1615
For T = 0.21 sec, Sa1 /g = 2.5, thus design acceleration is given by

Sa1 = 2.5 g = 2.5 0.24 9.81 = 5.886 m/sec2 .
Sv1 = Sa1 /1 = 0.197 m/sec.
Ln1
Mn1
Sv1
1
f ( ); at = 1.0 (i.e. z = H), f ( ) = 2.7242.

0.013
Substituting the values we have max =
m
0.030
Thus it is apparent that for the first mode, displacement of the dam is 13 mm
while that of the water is 30 mm34 .
Considering M = EI d 2 u/dz2 and V = EI d 3 u/dz3 we have
2
Mmax = EI0 12 max(struct) or Mmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)2 /
H
(70)2 ] 0.013 = 3.782 106 kN m at base and Vmax = 28500000
28580 [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] 0.013 = 7.091 104 kN. at base
Similarly for second mode
Thus max = 1
Mn2 = [2T M[2 ].

Here [2 ]T = [0.40, 1] and this gives Mn2 = 3068. Ln2 = [2 ]T M[I] and
this gives Ln2 = 2017. L2n1 /Mn1 = 1326; thus percentage of modal mass
participation (MMP) factor is given by
MMP =
1326 100
= 12.397%
9080 + 1615
For T = 0.132 sec, Sa2 /g = 2.5, thus design acceleration is given by Sa2 =
2.5 g = 2.5 0.24 9.81 = 5.886 m/sec2 . Sv2 = Sa2 /2 = 0.124 m/sec.

Thus
max = 2
Ln2
Mn2
Sv2
2

f ( )
at = 1.0 f ( ) = 2.7242.
34 It is to be noted that based on semi-analytic method the displacement obtained for the dam
is 12 mm thus variation with lumped mass model is of the order of 7% only.

1.869 103
m
4.672 103

Thus for the second mode, displacement of the dam is 1.8 mm while that of
the water is 4.6 mm.
Mmax = EI0
21
max(struct)
H2
Mmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)2 /(70)2 ] 1.869 103 = 5.351

105 kN m at base and Vmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] 1.869
103 = 1.003 104 kN m at base
The above now can multiplied by the coefficients given in design table to
obtain the values as shown hereunder
Z/H
Moment (1st mode)
Shear (1st mode)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3.78 10+06
1.51 10+06
4.57 10+05
8.46 10+04
5.30 10+03
0.00 10+00
7.09 10+04
3.87 10+04
1.71 10+04
5.13 10+03
6.86 10+02
1.01 1002
Soil fluid-structure interaction

In this case as calculated previously
Ks =
EB3 41
I1 = 1.138 107 kN/m
12H 3
and Kf =
2 Bm
= 2.603 106 kN/m.
8
Considering foundation contact area = 70 1 = 70 m2 , equivalent circular

footing radius is r = 4.72 m.
For rocking mode considering base moment of inertia of the dam as I = B3 /12
equivalent radius r = 13.812 m.

19
Dynamic shear modulus =
7502 = 1089450 kN/m2 .
9.81
Poissons ratio = 0.45
32G(1 )r
8Gr3
Kh =
= 2.662 107 kN/m; K =
= 1.392 1010 kN/m.
7 8
3 (1 )
h = 36.36 m from the base,
1
1
1
h2
=
+
+
Ke = 4.536 106 kN/m
Ke
Ks
Kh
K
The free vibration equation is

2 3
2 3
K + Kf Kf us
u s
1
+ e
=0
u f
uf
Kf
Kf
0
Mf
3

2 3
2 3
u s
9080
0
7.139 106 2.603 106 us
+
= 0.
uf
0
1651 u f
2.603 106 2.603 106
Ms
On eigen value solution we have

2
403.76
{} =
1994
20.094
{} =
44.667
3
rad/sec
The corresponding eigen vectors are given as

0.749
[] =
1
0.237
1

2
The time period of the
system35
3
0.313
is thus {T} =
sec.
0.141
Here for the first mode

Mn1 = [1 ]T M[1 ]
Here [1 ]T = [0.860, 1] and this gives Mn1 = 6716. Ln1 = [1 ]T M[I] here
I = [1, 1]T and this gives Ln1 = 8420. L2n1 /Mn1 = 10560; thus percentage of
modal mass participation (MMP) factor is given by
MMP =
9868 100
= 98.719%
9080 + 807.5
For T = 0.313 sec, Sa1 /g = 2.5 thus design acceleration is given by Sa1 =
0.6 2.5 g 0.6 2.5 0.24 9.81 = 3.532 m/sec2 considering 20% damping
of the soil.
Sv1 = Sa1 /1 = 0.176 m/sec.

Thus
max = 1
Ln1
Mn1
Sv1
1

f ( ); at = 1.0 (i.e. z = H), f ( ) = 2.7242.
35 Observe here that under uncoupled condition the time period of the dam was T = 0.199 sec and
of fluid was T = 0.27 sec. this is now different.

0.022
m
0.030
Thus for the first mode, displacement of the dam is 22 mm while that of the
water is 30 mm.
Considering M = EI d 2 u/dz2 and V = EI d3 u/dz3 , we have
Mmax = EI0
21
max (struct)
H2
Mmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)2 /(70)2 ] 0.022 = 6.413 106 kN

m at base and Vmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] 0.022 = 1.202
105 kN at base
Similarly for second mode
Mn2 = [2T [M2 ].
Here [2 ]T = [0.237, 1] and this gives Mn2 = 2126. Ln2 = [2 ]T M[I] and
this gives Ln2 = 539.81. L2n2 /Mn2 = 137.033; thus percentage of modal mass
participation (MMP) factor is given by
MMP =
137.033 100
= 1.281%
9080 + 807.5
For T = 0.141 sec, Sa2 /g = 2.5 thus design acceleration is given by

Sa2 = 0.625 g = 0.6 2.5 0.24 9.81 = 3.532 m/sec2 .
Sv2 = Sa2 /2 = 0.079 m/sec.

Ln2
Sv2
Thus max = 2
f ( )
Mn2
2
at = 1.0 f ( ) = 2.7242.

2.906 104
m
=
1.225 104

Substituting the values we have max
Thus for the second mode, displacement of the dam is 0.29 mm while that of
the water is 1.225 mm.
Mmax = EI 0
21
max (struct)
H2
or Mmax = 2850000028580[(1.875)2 /(70)2 ]2.906104 = 8323 kN m

at base and Vmax = 28500000 28580 [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] 2.906 104 =
1561 kN at base.
The above now can multiplied by the coefficients given in design table to
obtain the values hereunder
Z/H
Moment (1st mode)
Shear (1st mode)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
6.41 10+06
2.57 10+06
7.75 10+05
1.44 10+05
9.00 10+03
0.00 10+00
1.20 10+05
6.55 10+04
2.89 10+04
8.69 10+03
1.16 10+03
1.70 1002
The values computed above are now compared in Figs. 3.4.14 and 15.
Comparison of Bending Moment along Dam Height

7.00E+06
Moment (ISCode)
Moment9kN.m)
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
Moment dynamic
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
Moment FSI
2.00E+06
1.00E+06
Moment lumped
mass
0.00E+00
-1.00E+06
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Moment SFSI
z/H
Figure 3.4.14 Comparison of bending moment by various methods.
Comparison of Shear force
1.40E+05
Shear kN
1.20E+05
1.00E+05
Shear (IS code)
8.00E+04
Shear dynamic
6.00E+04
Shear FSI
4.00E+04
Shear lumped
2.00E+04
Shear SFSI
0.00E+00
-2.00E+04
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
z/H
Figure 3.4.15 Comparison of shear force by various methods.
3.5 ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS AND EMBANKMENTS
3.5.1 Dynamic earthquake analysis of earth dams

In countries like India, USA, Australia where a major part of the economy is largely
dependent on agriculture and consists of a number of rivers and canals, for the purpose
of irrigation and flood control (specially in rural areas) dams made out of natural earth
are very popular.
The system usually consists of carefully chosen natural soil with a clay core (to
control the seepage) and has been successfully utilized for effective utilization of water
stored thereby. We shall deal with the earthquake analysis of such dams in this section.
Unlike concrete dams, which are far more rigid, the behaviour of earth dams are
different under earthquake.
Though theoretically concrete dams also do not behave exactly as rigid structures
they are usually assumed to behave as rigid without much practical error. In such case
it is assumed that the motion at the base is same in all parts of the concrete dam. On the
contrary for earth dams the constituent material being much softer it mostly behaves
as flexible structure where the acceleration induced within the dam varies with height
and could be different at different points of the dam.
3.5.2 Mononobes method for analysis of earth dam

One of the earliest analyses of such earth dam was proposed by Mononobe (1936)
in his classic paper, considering the dam as an isosceles triangle having uniform mass
density. As width of the base of the dam is considered as far greater then the height
of the dam, it is assumed that the shear deformation is predominant and bending
deformation which is secondary in nature may be ignored.
With respect to Figure 3.5.1, for a strip dz, the horizontal shear force and the inertial
shear is given by

(az)dz
2X
t 2
s
dz
=
z
az
2X
t 2

=
s
z
(3.5.1)
where, X is the horizontal amplitude of displacement and s is the shear force.

The shear modulus36 of the soil medium is given by
G=
s/az
Shear stress
=
Shear strain
dX/dz
which gives, s = Gaz
Differentiating the above with respect to Z we have

X
2X
s
= Ga
+ Gaz 2
z
z
z
from which we have,
36 This is considered constant over the depth in this case.
dX
dz
(3.5.2)
Figure 3.5.1 Shear force in a triangular wedge shaped earth dam.
2X
X
2X
=
Ga
+
Gaz
z
t 2
z2
(3.5.3)
which is the basic equation of shear vibration of the triangular wedge.

For solution of the above equation considering, z = z H, where H is the height of
the dam, and considering, X = x(z ) sin t, we have
2X
= x2 sin t
t 2
X
1 x
sin t
=
z
H z
or
and
X
x
=
sin t
z
z
2X
1 2x
= 2
sin t
2
z
H z 2
and
(3.5.4)
Substituting the above in the basic equation of shear vibration, we have

2x
x
+ z 2
G

z
z

+ H 2 z x = 0
2
(3.5.5)
The above is the Bessels equation, whose solution is given by the expression

x = AJ 0

H
z
G
(3.5.6)
where, A is a constant and J0 is the Bessel function of the first kind and zero order.
Implementing the boundary condition at the base of the dam (z = 1), at x = 0, we
have

=0
(3.5.7)
J0 H
G
The above can be expanded as

H
G

1 0.0507
1
=n +
+ ,
4
4n 1
n

1 0.0507
vs
n = n +
H
4
4n 1
Considering, T = 2/n we have,
T=
where n = 1, 2, 3. . .
(3.5.8)
(3.5.9)
2H
vs n
1
4
0.0507
4n1
(3.5.10)
Thus, for the first three modes, we have time periods as shown in Table 3.5.1.
The IS-code only furnishes the first fundamental mode as mentioned above for the
calculation of time period.
We started the derivation of the time period equation based on the equilibrium of
the elemental strip given by

(az)dz
2X
t 2

=
s
dz
z
which gives maximum value of

Again considering, n =
gives,
2X
t 2
vs
H
2X
t 2

= x(0.767)2 2
max
2X
= x2 sin t
t 2
and
as (x2 )
1
4
0.0507
4n1
(3.5.11)
vs
, which
for n = 1; n = 0.767 H
vs2
H2
(3.5.12)
Substituting the value of x derived previously, we have

2X
t 2

max

v2
G
= AJ0 H
z 0.767
(0.767)2 2 s2
G
H
H
proportional to
(3.5.13)
vs2
J0 (0.767z );
H2
the numerical constants being considered within the constant proportionality.

Table 3.5.1 Time period of earthen dams for first
three modes.
Mode
Time period (sec)
1
2
3
2.607 H/vs
1.138 H/vs
0.726 H/vs

Table 3.5.2 Variation of acceleration along the height of the dam as per Mononobe.
z = z/H
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
Maximum acceleration , J0 (2.41z )
1.00
0.986
0.874
0.668
0.406
0.127
0.00
v2
For a particular dam as the Hs2 is a constant quantity, hence maximum acceleration
2
X
is proportional to J0 (2.41z ).
t 2
max
The value of J0 (2.41z ) for various values of z are as shown in Table 3.5.2.
The above values may be used to determine the inertial force at different heights of
the dam.
When resonance occurs the deformations would tend to infinite value without any
internal friction, however due to internal friction the maximum deflection is restricted
to a finite value.
Mononobe calculated the ratio of top and bottom deflection for G and and also
when the parameters vary linearly with depth. Considering linear variation with depth
the acceleration is expressed as

= 0
d0 d H z
1+
d
H

(3.5.14)
where is the acceleration at any depth z below top, 0 is the ground level acceleration and d0 is the maximum displacement at the top. The ratio of top and bottom
displacement came to 2.5 and 3.5 respectively from which Mononobe concluded that
maximum acceleration at the top may be 2.5 to 3.5 times the acceleration at the base.
3.5.3 Gazetas method for earth dam analysis

Gazetas (1982) developed solutions to the shear beam wave equation for the case where
the shear modulus value varies with the depth of the dam given by G(z) = Gav (z/H) ,
where Gav is the average shear modulus of material constituting the dam.
The nth natural frequency of the dam considering the dam to be triangular in shape
(i.e. h/H = 1) is given by
n =
vs n
(4 + )(2 ),
H 8
(3.5.15)
where vs = average shear wave velocity of the soil in the dam and n is a function
given below in Table 3.5.3 for the first three modes; h is the height of the dam to it s
crest, and H is full height of the triangle.
The mode shape for the nth natural frequency is given by
n (z) = (z/H)/2 Jq [n (z/H)1/2 ]
(3.5.16)

Table 3.5.3 Frequency coefficient for earth dam for first three modes
as per Gazetas (1982).
0
1/2
4/7
2/3
1
2.404
2.903
2.999
3.142
3.382
5.520
6.033
6.133
6.283
7.106
8.654
9.171
9.273
9.525
10.174
where Jq = Bessels function of the first kind of order q = /(2 ) and can be
evaluated from the expression
Jq (x) =
k=0
x
q+2k
(1)k
k! (q + k + 1) 2
(3.5.17)
where (x) is the gamma function and is given by the expression

(x) =
ex xn1 dx.
(3.5.18)
3.5.4 Makadisi and Seeds method for analysis

of earth dam
A simplied procedure proposed by Makadisi and Seed (1977) taking into consideration the strain dependent degradation of shear modulus and damping of soil possibly
remains the most popular method for dam analysis in design office and was developed
in similar line of Mononobes method as explained earlier.
Based on the shear beam equation as derived earlier they found the acceleration at
any level z as a function of time is given by
u(z,
t) =

2J0 (n z/H)
n=1
n J1 n
n Vn (t)
(3.5.19)
where, J0 , J1 = Bessel functionof first kind of order zero and one; n = the zero value
of frequency equation, J0 (H /G) = 0; n = natural frequency of the nth mode =
n Vs /H.
t
Vn (t) =
u g en n (t ) sin[dn (t )]d
(3.5.20)
where, dn = n 1 2 the damped natural frequency and n = critical damping

ratio.
Thus,
u(z,
t) =
n (z)n Vn (t)
(3.5.21)
n=1
where, n (z) =

2J0 (n z/H)
n=1
n J1 n
= modal participation factor.
Considering the first three modes of vibration, the corresponding values of n are
always 1 = 2.4, 5.52 and 3 = 8.65 which gives the first three natural three natural
frequencies as shown in Table 3.5.4.
At the crest of the dam (z = 0) the corresponding values of mode participation
factors n (0) for the first three modes are given in Table 3.5.5.
Thus the crest acceleration at each mode is given by
u(0,
t) =
n (0)n Vn (t)
(3.5.22)
n=1
when based on response spectrum analysis the maximum expected acceleration is

given by
u(0,
t) = n (0)San
(3.5.23)
Thus for the first three modes the maximum acceleration is given by
u 1 max = 1.6Sa1 ;
u 2 max = 1.06Sa2 ,
and
u 3 max = 0.86Sa3
Table 3.5.4 Natural frequencies for first three modes

for earth dams as per Makadis and Seed
(1977).
Mode
Frequency
1
2
3
1 = 2.4vs /H
2 = 5.52vs /H
3 = 8.65vs /H
Table 3.5.5 Modal participation factor for first three modes for earth
dams as per Makdisi and Seed (1977).
Mode
Modal participation factor
1
2
3
1 = 1.6
2 = 1.06
3 = 0.86
The maximum SRSS values of the acceleration is thus given by the expression
3

u n max =
(u n max)2
(3.5.24)
n=1
To estimate the strain compatible material properties an expression for the average
shear strain over the entire section should be determined. From the shear slice theory,
the expression for shear strain at any level in the dam is given by
(z, t) =

2J1 (n z/H)
n=1
Hn J1 (n )
Vn (t) =
H 2J1 (n z/H)
n Vn (t)
vs2
n2 J1 (n )
n=1
H
= 2
n (z)n Vn (t)
vs
(3.5.25)
n=1
2J (n Hz )
where n (z) = 12 J1 (
= shear mode participation factor.
n)
n
It is recommended that the contribution of higher modes being small it is sufficient
to consider the contribution of the first mode only over the entire depth of the dam
for calculation of the average shear strain.
Thus, the maximum average shear strain is obtained as
max (z) =
H
1 Sa1
vs2
(3.5.26)
It has been shown that the average value of the first factor is given by, 1avg = 0.3
Assuming an equivalent cyclic shear strain as approximately 65% of the average
shear strain
avg (max) = 0.65 0.3
H
Sa1
vs2
(3.5.27)
Having obtained a new value for the average shear strain a new set of modulus and
damping value can obtained from the expressions37
G=
Gmax
(1 +
r )
and
/r
Dc
=
Dm
1 + (/r )
(3.5.28)
The iterations are carried out till the values become constant with respect to the
earlier cycle. It has been observed that the system generally converges by 3 cycles.
37 For further explanation of how to modify the damping and shear modulus with respect to shear strain
refer Chapter 1 (Vol. 2) under the section titled Geo-technical Consideration for Dynamic Soil Structure
Interaction.
Water Line
W
Failure line
Figure 3.5.2 Slope failure of dam under earthquake force.
3.5.5 Calculation of seismic force in dam and its

stability
Once the modal acceleration and its SRSS values is obtained, for assessing the damage
incurred in a dam shown in Figure 3.5.2, the usual design office practice is to undertake
a pseudo-static analysis. For major damage observed in a dam is due to stability failure
specially on the upstream side.
To asses this, a slope stability analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the factor
of safety which should be more than unity under the seismic force in addition to all
other forces working on the dam.
For stability analysis, any standard method like Slip-Circle, Fellenius or Bishops
method38 may be applied which needs to be modified to cater for the applied seismic
force.
For instance the factor of safety (F) based on slip circle method is modified to:
n
F=
i=1

N U y T tan + ni=1 cS

n
i=1 T + y N
(3.5.29)
where, F = factor of safety; N = normal component of the weight of the soil; T =

tangential component of the weight of the soil; = friction angle resistance of soil;
c = cohesion of soil; S = width of segments of slices considered for analysis; y =
seismic acceleration coefficient (Sa /g) in the horizontal direction obtained from code
based on the fundamental time period as derived earlier, and U = force due to internal
Pore pressure within the dam.
3.6 ANALYSIS OF EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
3.6.1 Earthquake analysis of earth retaining structures

Retaining walls supporting earth make an important component in infra-structure
works like highways, roads, ports, bridge abutment etc.
It has not been uncommon that during post earthquake relief operations39 , relief
could not be sent in time, for damage to retaining wall itself has cut off the link
38 For details of these methods refer any standard text book on soil mechanics.
39 Specially in mountainous region.
road or tilting of the same has resulted in secondary collapse of bridge girders thus
making some part of relief area inaccessible thus compounding the problems of the
relief workers who have anyway a tough job to execute.
Thus, understanding the behaviour of such structures under earthquake load is
of paramount importance to civil engineers undertaking such tasks. It is important at
times that such structures remain functional even after a severe earthquake maintaining
the vital link among two places.
One of the earliest methods for earthquake analysis of such retaining wall has been
proposed by Mononobe (1926) and Okabe (1926) which still remain the backbone of
analysis in almost all design office and code of practice.
3.6.2 Mononobes method of analysis of retaining wall

Mononobe developed a pseudo static analysis for estimation of earth pressure on a
gravity type retaining wall during an earthquake.
He basically extended the original Coulombs theory to develop the soil pressure
behind a retaining wall (Figure 3.6.1) catering to the horizontal and vertical component
of the ground acceleration.
Coulomb (1776) derived the equation of active and passive earth pressure as
Pa =
KA =
1
KA H 2
2
and
Pp =
1
KP H 2 ,
2
where
(3.6.1)
cos2 ( )

1 2
sin(+) sin(i) 2
2
cos cos( + ) 1 + cos(+) cos(i)
= coefficient of active earth pressure, and

KP =
cos2 ( + )

1 2
sin(+) sin(+i) 2
cos2 cos( ) 1 cos()
cos(i)
= coefficient of passive earth pressure,

in which, = unit weight of soil; H = height of the retaining wall; = friction angle
of the soil; = angle of friction between the wall and soil; = angle subtended with
the back of the wall with vertical, and i = slope of soil with respect to the horizontal.
Mononobe and Okabe modified the above coefficient of earth pressure considering
the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficient earthquake force h and v to
KAE =
cos2 ( )

1 2
sin(+) sin(i) 2
cos cos2 cos( + + ) 1 + cos(++)
cos(i)
(3.6.2)
W
H
N
Pa
Fr
F
Figure 3.6.1 Mononobes force diagram for gravity type retaining wall under earthquake.
h
where, = tan1 1
similarly the coefcient of passive earth pressure under
v
earthquake is given by
KPE =
cos2 ( + )

1 2
sin(+) sin( +i) 2
2
cos cos cos( + ) 1 cos(+) cos(i)
(3.6.3)
Mononobes solution was based on the following assumptions:
The failure in soil takes place along the plane BC

The movement of the wall is sufficient to produce active plane
At failure full shear strength along the failure plane is mobilized
The soil mass behind the wall behaves a rigid body
h and v are maximum peak acceleration in horizontal and vertical direction.
It will be observed that in the above calculation no reference to time period is made,
which clearly shows the analysis to be pseudo static in nature.
The h and v values are considered as peak acceleration is quite justified in this
case because of the following two reasons.
8
1.
6
1.
4
1.
2
1.
8
0.
6
0.
4
0.
0.
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Sa/g
Response spectrum as per Japanese Code for Medium soil
Time period in second
Figure 3.6.2 Response spectrum for medium type soil as per Japanese code.
At the time when Mononobe worked out the solution, major retaining walls were
gravity type wall being massive was considered to be infinitely stiff i.e. have time
period T 0. This invariably makes the structure stiff attracting more force to it.
As per Japanese code (Figure 3.6.2), for time period up to nearly 0.8 second, it is
a practice to consider maximum acceleration on the structure.
Mononobe considered the dynamic pressure distribution as parabolic in nature and

for active case it was assumed that the force is acting at a height H/2 from the bottom
of the wall. While for passive case again considering a parabolic distribution the force
was assumed to be acting at a height of 2/3 H from the base of the wall.
The above procedure has almost universally dominated the design office practice
in almost all countries40 though characteristics of retaining wall have undergone
signicant change with advent of Reinforced Concrete structures.
While in the early thirties when Mononobe developed this theory almost all retaining
walls were either made of Masonry or plain concrete and were usually massive in
nature. It sustained its stability by its own weight. However with advancement in
design techniques in RCC, they have progressively become much thinner and fit for
the purpose, globally.
Presently, the common practice is to go for a cantilever retaining wall for a height
up to 6.0 meter beyond which engineers normally provide counterfort retaining wall
which would provide overall economy in design. The typical sketches of such walls
are as shown in Figure 3.6.3.
It is obvious from the above figure that present day retaining walls have become
much more flexible as such considering maximum acceleration as inducing the design
pressure may not be true in all cases. Moreover, considering its flexibility the time
period will surely play a dominant role in dynamic response of the system where a
pseudo static analysis only could become insufficient.
In-spite of the above limitation Mononobes pseudo static method is in extensive
use irrespective of whether the wall is a cantilever or a counterfort or if it is thin or
thick.
40 Including India where IS code follows the same procedure.
Cantil ever retaining wall
Counter fort retaining wall
Figure 3.6.3 Present day cantilever and counterfort retaining walls made of RCC.
Before we try tackle the above limitations as posed in Mononobes method we

describe herein other methods which are also in practice for evaluation of pressure
due to earthquake force.
3.6.3 Seed and Whitmans method

Seed and Whitman (1970) developed an expression which may also be used to determine the horizontal pseudo static force acting on a retaining wall. As per their
calculations the active earth pressure may be expressed as
PAE =
3 amax
s H 2
8 g
(3.6.4)
According to this work the location pseudo static force is assumed to act at height
of 0.6 H above the base of the structure.
3.6.4 Arangos method

Arango41 (1969) developed this method which is deemed practical and simple by
extending the Coulombs theory of static earth pressure. As mentioned previously the
41 Dr. Ignacio Arango is Head of the Geotechnical division of Bechtel San Francisco office. A Bechtel
fellow, who has contributed significantly in many areas of Geotechnical engineering specially in the area
of Liquefaction Potential of soil.
static pressure is expressed as

1
KA H 2
2
Pa =
where,
(3.6.5)
cos2 ( )

1 2

sin(+) sin(i) 2
cos2 cos( + ) 1 + cos(+)
cos(i)
KA =
The active earth pressure can be expressed in the form

Pa =
1 1
H 2 Ac ,
2 cos2
where, Ac =
(3.6.6)
cos2 ( )
= KA cos2

1 2
2
sin(+) sin(i)
cos( + ) 1 + cos(+)
cos(i)
Mononobes expression on the other hand is given by

1
H 2 (1 v )KAE
2
1
1
= H 2 (1 v )
Am
2
cos cos2
PAE =
where,
(3.6.7)
Am = KAE cos cos2

=
cos2 ( )

1 2
sin(+) sin( i) 2
cos( + + ) 1 + cos(++) cos(i)
Comparing Am and Ac it shows that Am can be determined from the solution for
Ac by redefining the slope of the back of wall as where, = + and i = i +
i) = KA (,
i) cos2 and
Thus, Am = Ac (,
PAE =
=
1
1
i) cos2
H 2 (1 v )
KA (,
2
cos cos2
1
i)F
H 2 (1 v )KA (,
2
where, F =
cos2
.
cos cos2
(3.6.8)
So far we have explained the various pseudo-static methods available for analysis
for retaining wall.
The first attempt to explain dynamic characteristics of such wall was proposed by
Steedman and Zeng (1990) based on a pseudo-dynamic method.
3.6.5 Steedman and Zengs method

For the fixed base cantilever as shown in Figure 3.6.4, if subjected to ground
acceleration ah the acceleration at depth z is given by

Hz
a(z, t) = ah sin t
vs
(3.6.9)
Considering the pressure on the wall is resulting from the triangular wedge only
being at a state of incipient failure, mass of a thin strip of depth dz within the soil
wedge is given by
m(z, t) =
(H z)
dz
g tan
where, is the unit weight of soil.
(3.6.10)
The total inertial force Ph acting on the wall can thus be expressed as
H
Ph (t) =
m(z)a(z, t) =
0
ah
[2 H cos + (sin sin t)]
4 2 g tan
(3.6.11)
is the vertically propagating shear wave length and = t H

in which, = v2
vs .
s
For a special case when the failed wedge act as a rigid block (i.e. vs ), we have
[Ph (max)]lim vs =
H 2 ah
a
= h W = y W
2g tan
g
(3.6.12)
The above can be stated to be equivalent force as assumed in the Mononobes

method.
Ph
Ps
= 45
/2
Figure 3.6.4 Force diagram of cantilever retaining wall as per Steedman and Zengs (1990) method.
The total static plus dynamic thrust can then be obtained by resolving the force in
the wedge and is given by
PAE =
Ph (t) cos( ) + W sin( )

cos( + )
(3.6.13)
The total earth pressure is obtained by differentiating above expression with respect
to z thus
pAE

PAE
z
h z cos ( )
sin( )
z
=
=
+
sin t
z
tan cos( + ) tan cos ( + )
vs
(3.6.14)
The first term in the above equation represents the static pressure acting at a height
of H/3 from base while the second term represents the dynamic pressure where the
thrust point is found to be varying with time and is given by
hd = H
2 2 H 2 cos + 2H sin 2 (cos cos t)

2H cos + (sin sin t)
(3.6.15)
For very low frequency motion the dynamic thrust is found to at H/3 (this is when
H/ is small and the backfill moves in the same phase). For higher frequency motions
the point of application is found to move higher up on the wall.
3.6.6 Dynamic analysis of RCC retaining wall

So far we have explained the various pseudo static and pseudo dynamic methods available for analysis of retaining walls under earthquake force. We have also explained
briefly some of the limitations of the pseudo-static method which is perhaps more
appropriate for gravity type of wall. We now present herein a procedure for dynamic
response of cantilever and counter fort type of retaining wall.
While studying the dynamic response of structure previously we had seen that the
acceleration it would be subjected to depends on the time period of the structure, then
considering a suitable damping ratio we can find out the earthquake response based
on code prescribed response spectrum.
Based on the above, we proceed to explain the investigation which has been carried
out by the present authors.
3.6.7 Dynamic analysis of cantilever and counterfort

retaining wall
This method applies standard modal response technique based on Rayleigh Ritz
Method to evaluate the dynamic response of the soil wall system (Chowdhury and
Dasgupta 2004). Though the response herein has been obtained based on IS-code
Possible Failure Line

H
Wall
= 45 / 2
D
X
Figure 3.6.5 Cantilever retaining wall with soil behind it.
(IS-1893 2002 to be specic) can very well be adapted to any international code
provided the response history of the site in question is available either directly or
as prescribed in the national code of practice (like UBC, Eurocode etc), We start with
a simple case of retaining wall (Figure 3.6.5) with soil prole as shown above. It is
assumed here like Mononobes case that
the soil profile under active case is at incipient failure when the failure line makes
angle = tan(45 + /2) as shown in the above figure.
Since soil profile is already under failed condition under static load, the soil will
not induce any stiffness in the overall dynamic response but will only contribute
to the inertial effect.
Since the cantilever wall is relatively thin the mass contribution of the wall itself
may be ignored compared to that of the soil. The wall thus contributes only to the
stiffness of the overall soil-structure system.
The retaining wall is fixed at the base and foundation compliance has been ignored
for the time being.
It will be observed that the assumptions made are identical to what Mononobe or
Steedman and Zang has assumed in their analysis. Based on the above assumption the
mass distribution of soil along the height of the wall is as shown hereafter.
As shown in Figure 3.6.6, is the mass distribution of the failed wedge ABD. For an
elemental strip dz in vertical direction mass distribution is given by
m(z) =
zdz
g tan
(3.6.16)
Z
A
m (z ) =
zdz
g tan
; = 45 +
Figure 3.6.6 Mass distribution of the failed soil wedge under active soil pressure.
For the analysis of time period as a first step, we develop the stiffness and equivalent
mass contributing to the dynamic response of the system.
For this we use the Rayleigh Ritz method to obtain the stiffness and mass of the
wall-soil system.
We had already shown earlier while deriving the time period of chimneys that for a
flexural beam the stiffness and mass matrix may be obtained from the expressions
L

mij = m(z) i (z) j (z)dz
for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . n
and,
L
kij =
EI(z)
0
d 2 i (z) d 2 j (z)
dz2
dz2
dz
for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . n
(3.6.17)
where m(z) is as defined above; E = Youngs modulus of the wall material, and I(z) =
Average moment of inertia of the wall.
Considering the wall as a cantilever flexural member the displacement y(z, t) can
represented trigonometrically by
Ym = sin

m z
m z
m z
m z
sin h
m cos
cos h
H
H
H
H
where, m = number of modes 1, 2, 3, . . . ; m = 1.875, 4.694,7.855,

m = 1, 2, 3 . . . m, and m =
sin m +sin hm
.
cos m +cos hm
(3.6.18)
2m1
2 ,
for
Thus for failure wedge of the soil, the mass contribution for an element dz for the
first mode is given by
H
[M]ij =
0
i (z) j (z)dz =
g tan
g tan
H
zii (z)j (z)dz
(3.6.19)
Considering, the shape function as

i z
i z
i z
i z
sin h
i cos
cos h
and
H
H
H
H

j z
j z
j z
j z
j = sin
sin h
j cos
cos h
.
H
H
H
H
i = sin
(3.6.20)
The double derivative of the above is given by

2i
i z
i z
i z
i z

sin
cos
sin
h
+
+
cos
h
i
H
H
H
H
H2
2

j
j z
j z
j z
j z

sin h
+ j cos
+ cos h
j = 2 sin
H
H
H
H
H
i =
and
(3.6.21)
Before performing the integration we change the above to generalized co-ordinate

by considering, = Hz when, d = dz
H and as z 0, 0 and as z H, 1.
Based on the above, we can now express the double derivative as

2i
sin i sin hi + i cos i + cos hi
H2
2j

f ( )j = 2 sin j sin hj + j cos j + cos hj
H
f ( )i =
and
(3.6.22)
kij =
1
EI2i 2j
H3
f ( )i f ( )j d
(3.6.23)
and, mass of the system is given by

H2
mij =
g tan
1
f ( )i f ( )j d
where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . .m.
(3.6.24)
where = unit weight of soil; g = acceleration due to gravity; E = Youngs modulus

of the wall material, and, I = moment of inertia of the wall.
Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix42 is given by
41
f ( )21 d
1
EI
[K]ij = 3 22 21 f ( )2 f ( )1 d
H
0
2 2 1
3 1 f ( )3 f ( )1 d
0
42
23 22
1
0
f2 ( )2 d
f ( )3 f ( )2 d
43
1
0
f ( )23 d
f ( )21 d
0
1
H2
f ( )2 f ( )1 d
[M]ij =
g tan
0
1
f ( )3 f ( )1 d
0
f2 ( )2 d
0
1
f ( )3 f ( )2 d
1
0
f ( )23 d
(3.6.25)
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Numerical analysis between
the limits 1 to 0 when we have
[K]33
22.936
EI
= 3 0.002
H
0.006
0.002
468.044
0.11
0.006
0.11
3812.81
[M]33
1.496 0.205
H2
0.205 0.573
=
g tan 0.028 0.188
0.028
0.188
0.533
(3.6.26)
generalized Jacobi technique43 we have
15.317
EIg tan
0
[] =
H5
0
0
846.507
0
0
0
8235
42 The matrix is symmetric about is diagonal.

43 The technique has been worked in detail in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
(3.6.27)
and the corresponding eigen vectors are given as
0.139 0.031 f1 ( )
0.989 0.353 f2 ( )
f3 ( )
0.046 0.935
1
[] = 6.833 103
1.161 104
since [] = 2 and T =
1.6049
[T] = 0
0
we have
0
0.2198
0

0
H5
0
EIg tan
0.0743
Considering moment of inertia of the wall as I =

can modify the fundamental time period as
5.556
0
0.761
[T] = 0
0
0
(3.6.28)
(3.6.29)
1 3
12 t
having one meter width we

0
H5
0
Et 3 g tan
0.257
(3.6.30)
Calculation of amplitude
In terms of response spectrum analysis maximum displacement amplitude Sd is given
by Sd = Sa2 , expressing the above in terms of codal formulation we may express it as
Sd = i
ZI Sa
2R 2
(3.6.31)
where, i = modal participation factor and is given by

H
1

*1
*H
mi i2 d = fi ( )d
fi ( )2 d
i = mi i d
0
(3.6.32)
in which, Z = zone coefficient; I = importance factor, and, R = ductility factor.

Integration of the mass participation factor within limits 1 to 0 for the first three
modes gives the values as shown in Table 3.6.1.
ZI
Now considering, = 2R
an IS-code factor we can write the time dependent
function of displacement as,
Sd = i
Sa
.
2
(3.6.33)
Thus, for the first mode, we have

Sd = 0.619
Sa1 H 5
1 EIg tan
(3.6.34)

Table 3.6.1 Modal participation factor for cantilever walls for the first
three modes.
Mode number
Mass participation factor (ki )
1
2
3
0.619
0.224
0.09
Substituting the value of = 15.317, calculated earlier, we have

Sd = 0.485
Sa1 H 5
(3.6.35)
Et 3 g tan
where t = the average thickness of the wall.

The complete displacement function is thus given by
w(z, t) = (z) q(t) and for first mode
w(z, t) = 0.5387
Sa1 H 5
[f1 ( ) 6.833 103 f2 ( ) + 1.161 104 f3 ( )]
Et 3 g tan
(3.6.36)
Ignoring the effect of second and third mode which is found very small
w(z, t) = 0.485
Sa1 H 5
Et 3 g tan
f1 ( )
(3.6.37)
Considering, EI ddzw2 = Mz , we get

M(z, t) = 0.0404
Sa1 H 3 2
[ f )];
g tan 1 1
V(z, t) = 0.0404
Sa1 H 2 3
[ f ( )]
g tan 1 1
(3.6.38)
The above can now be represented as

w(z, t) = Coeffdi
Sa1 H 5
Et 3 g tan
V(z, t) = Coeffvi
Sa1 H 2
g tan
M(z, t) = Coeffmi
Sa1 H 3
g tan
(3.6.39)
where, Coeffdi , Coeffmi and Coeffvi are the dynamic amplitude, moment and shear
coefficients for the first three mode (i = 1, 2, 3).

Table 3.6.2 Factors of dynamic amplitude moments and shears for cantilever retaining wall.
Z/H
coeff d1
coeff d2
coeff d3
Coeff m1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0.00000
0.00567
0.02216
0.04866
0.08437
0.12851
0.18029
0.23893
0.30367
0.37376
0.44849
0.52717
0.60913
0.69376
0.78050
0.86883
0.95829
1.04849
1.13913
1.22997
1.32086
0.00000
0.00016
0.00058
0.00117
0.00187
0.00260
0.00327
0.00384
0.00425
0.00446
0.00444
0.00418
0.00367
0.00293
0.00198
0.00085
0.00043
0.00180
0.00324
0.00472
0.00620
0.00000 0.38681
0.00002 0.36018
0.00006 0.33358
0.00011 0.30703
0.00016 0.28061
0.00019 0.25441
0.00020 0.22854
0.00018 0.20313
0.00014 0.17835
0.00008 0.15434
0.00001 0.13130
0.00006 0.10941
0.00012 0.08888
0.00016 0.06992
0.00017 0.05274
0.00015 0.03758
0.00010 0.02464
0.00002 0.01418
0.00008 0.00641
0.00019 0.00158
0.00030 0.00010
Coeff m2
Coeff m3
Coeff v1
Coeff v2
Coeff v3
0.01143
0.00870
0.00599
0.00333
0.00080
0.00154
0.00362
0.00537
0.00673
0.00767
0.00815
0.00819
0.00780
0.00705
0.00600
0.00476
0.00342
0.00214
0.00103
0.00026
0.00004
0.00135
0.00082
0.00031
0.00016
0.00053
0.00079
0.00089
0.00083
0.00064
0.00033
0.00003
0.00040
0.00072
0.00094
0.00104
0.00101
0.00086
0.00063
0.00040
0.00022
0.00020
0.53200
0.53190
0.53123
0.52945
0.52607
0.52063
0.51272
0.50197
0.48805
0.47065
0.44953
0.42447
0.39527
0.36178
0.32389
0.28149
0.23452
0.18293
0.12669
0.06578
0.00021
0.05400
0.05389
0.05320
0.05147
0.04843
0.04396
0.03807
0.03093
0.02280
0.01405
0.00510
0.00356
0.01145
0.01809
0.02303
0.02589
0.02633
0.02411
0.01908
0.01112
0.00020
0.01062
0.01052
0.00993
0.00857
0.00640
0.00360
0.00048
0.00258
0.00514
0.00688
0.00754
0.00707
0.00556
0.00328
0.00063
0.00193
0.00390
0.00484
0.00440
0.00232
0.00153
It will however be shown based on a numerical problem subsequently that moments

and shears developed in the wall for the higher modes (i = 2, 3, etc.) have insignificant
contribution i.e. their SRSS values almost same as the moment, shear and amplitude
values for the first mode.
Table 3.6.2 showing values of these coefficients are furnished for reference.
It is to be understood that once the time period and subsequent acceleration value
Sa /g is known from the code one has to only multiply the displacement, moment, and
shear expressions by the values in Table 3.6.2 to arrive at the dynamic design data
without resorting to any elaborate dynamic analysis.
Analysis for passive case
For passive case the analysis remains the same except the fact that the angle becomes
tan 45 /2 in lieu of what has been shown earlier.
We now explain the above theory based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.6.1
A retaining wall of height 5.8 m has top thickness of wall as 200 mm and
bottom thickness as 500 mm. The unit weight of soil it retains has a value of
22 kN/m3 . The angle of friction of soil is 28 . the unit weight of the concrete
wall is considered as 25 kN/m3 . Consider the wall is in zone IV as per IS-code
(1893, 2002) and is resting on Hard soil. Determine the earthquake force acting
on the wall.
Solution:
Based on the above theory,
Average thickness of wall = 200+500
= 350 mm; Unit weight of concrete =
2

25 kN/m3 ; Thus, Youngs modulus of concrete = 5700 fck 1000 kN/m2 =
2.85 107 kN/m2 .
Angle (active case) = 45 + 21 28 = 59 ; Angle (passive case) = 45 12
28 = 31 .
As per IS-code consider Importance factor as 1.0 and ductility factor as
R = 2.0.
ZI
Considering = 2R
we have, = 0.241.0
= 0.06
22
Now considering
5.556
[T] = 0
0
5.556
[T] = 0
0
0
0.761
0

0
H5
0
, we have
3 g tan
Et
0.238
0
0.724
0

0
22 5.85
0
which gives
7
2.85 10 0.353 9.81 tan 59
0.238
0.473
{T} = 0.065 secs, for active case for the first three modes.
0.022
Similarly for passive case considering = 31 degree, we have
5.567
[T] = 0
0
0
0.724

0
22 5.85
0
, which gives
7
2.85 10 0.353 9.81 tan 31
0.238
0.787
{T} = 0.108 sec for passive case
0.036
Corresponding to the time periods for the first three modes the Sa /g values for
active and passive case are shown hereafter. The values are obtained considering
7% damping for the RCC wall i.e. codal values scaled by a factor 0.9.
Mode
Sa /g (active case)
Sa /g (passive case)
m/sec 2
1
2
3
1.9
1.773
1.173
1.144
2.25
1.355
The displacement shear and moment factors are as shown below:

w(z, t) =
Sa H 5
,
Et 3 g tan
M(z, t) =
Sa1 H 3
g tan
and
V(z, t) =
Sa1 H 2
g tan
For the first three modes, we have
Mode
Amplitude coefficient
(active case)
Amplitude coefficient
(passive case)
1
2
3
0.00809
0.00755
0.00499
0.013499
0.02655
0.015992
Mode
Moment coefficient
(active case)
Moment coefficient
(passive case)
1
2
3
294.46
274.61
185.02
490.06
964.421
596.64
Mode
Shear coefficient
(active case)
Shear coefficient
(passive case)
1
2
3
50.768
47.345
31.9
84.493
166.279
102.87
Multiplying the above factors by the coefcients as furnished earlier in

Table 3.6.2, the dynamic displacement moment and shear for active and passive
case are obtained as shown below
Dynamic amplitude (mm), moment (kN m) and shear (kN) for active case
Z/H
D1
D2
D3
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.000
0.046
0.179
0.394
0.683
1.040
1.459
1.933
2.457
3.024
3.628
4.265
4.928
0.000
0.000 113.899 3.138 0.250 27.009 2.557 0.339
0.001
0.000 106.060 2.388 0.152 27.004 2.552 0.336
0.004
0.000 98.225 1.644 0.057 26.970 2.519 0.317
0.009
0.001 90.408 0.916
0.029 26.879 2.437 0.273
0.014
0.001 82.628 0.220
0.099 26.708 2.293 0.204
0.020
0.001 74.913
0.423
0.145 26.431 2.081 0.115
0.025
0.001 67.295
0.994
0.164 26.030 1.803 0.015
0.029
0.001 59.815
1.475
0.154 25.484 1.464
0.082
0.032
0.001 52.516
1.849
0.118 24.777 1.080
0.164
0.034
0.000 45.447
2.105
0.062 23.894 0.665
0.219
0.034
0.000 38.662
2.238 0.006 22.822 0.242
0.241
0.032
0.000 32.217
2.248 0.074 21.549
0.169
0.225
0.028 0.001 26.172
2.143 0.133 20.067
0.542
0.177
(continued)
M1
M2
M3
V1
V2
V3

Z/H
D1
D2
0.650
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
5.613
7.029
7.753
8.482
9.216
9.950
10.686
0.022 0.001 20.589

1.936
0.006 0.001 11.065
1.306
0.003
0.000 7.257
0.940
0.014
0.000 4.175
0.587
0.024
0.000 1.888
0.284
0.036
0.001 0.464
0.070
0.047
0.002
0.028 0.012
D3
M1
M2
M3
V1
V2
V3
0.175 18.367 0.857

0.105
0.186 14.291 1.226 0.062
0.159 11.906 1.247 0.124
0.117 9.287 1.142 0.154
0.074 6.432 0.903 0.140
0.041 3.340 0.526 0.074
0.036 0.010 0.010
0.049
Dynamic amplitude (mm), moment (kN m) and shear (kN) for passive case
Z/H
D1
D2
D3
M1
M2
M3
V1
V2
V3
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
0.000
0.077
0.299
0.657
1.139
1.735
2.434
3.226
4.100
5.046
6.055
7.117
8.223
9.366
10.537
11.729
12.937
14.155
15.378
16.605
17.832
0.000
0.004
0.016
0.032
0.051
0.070
0.088
0.104
0.115
0.121
0.120
0.113
0.099
0.079
0.053
0.023
0.012
0.049
0.088
0.127
0.167
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.005
189.559 11.020 0.807 44.954

8.980
1.092
176.512 8.388 0.491 44.946
8.962
1.082
163.473 5.773 0.185 44.889
8.846
1.021
150.463 3.215
0.093 44.739
8.559
0.881
137.515 0.773
0.318 44.453
8.054
0.659
124.675
1.486
0.469 43.993
7.310
0.371
111.997
3.491
0.530 43.325
6.332
0.049
99.548
5.179
0.498 42.417
5.144 0.265
87.401
6.493
0.381 41.240
3.792 0.529
75.637
7.393
0.200 39.770
2.336 0.707
64.345
7.860 0.018 37.986
0.849 0.776
53.618
7.896 0.239 35.867 0.592 0.727
43.557
7.525 0.430 33.400 1.904 0.572
34.265
6.799 0.563 30.570 3.009 0.337
25.847
5.788 0.621 27.368 3.830 0.064
18.414
4.586 0.601 23.786 4.305
0.199
12.077
3.302 0.512 19.817 4.379
0.401
6.948
2.061 0.379 15.458 4.010
0.498
3.142
0.996 0.237 10.705 3.172
0.452
0.772
0.248 0.133 5.559 1.849
0.239
0.047 0.041 0.116 0.017 0.034 0.158
If we compare the SRSS value with that of the first mode the values compared
as given hereafter.
Z/H
Moment (1st mode)
Moment (SRSS)
Shear first mode
Shear SRSS
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
189.559
176.512
163.473
150.463
137.515
124.675
111.997
99.548
189.881
176.712
163.575
150.497
137.518
124.685
112.053
99.684
44.954
44.946
44.889
44.739
44.453
43.993
43.325
42.417
45.855
45.843
45.764
45.559
45.181
44.598
43.785
42.728
(continued)

Z/H
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
Moment (1st mode)

87.401
75.637
64.345
53.618
43.557
34.265
25.847
18.414
12.077
6.948
3.142
0.772
0.047
Moment (SRSS)
87.642
75.997
64.823
54.197
44.205
34.937
26.495
18.986
12.531
7.258
3.305
0.822
0.132
Shear first mode
Shear SRSS
41.240
39.770
37.986
35.867
33.400
30.570
27.368
23.786
19.817
15.458
10.705
5.559
0.017
41.417
39.845
38.003
35.880
33.459
30.720
27.635
24.173
20.299
15.977
11.175
5.863
0.162
It is observed that the difference in the values are insignificant as such for these
type of structure performing a first mode analysis based on the fundamental time
period only should suffice for practical designs.
3.6.8 Some discussions on the above method

The method as shown above is an approximate method for evaluation of the time
period of the structure44 , however is far more realistic then considering a maximum
value of 0.9 2.5 = 2.25 m/sec2 , which would result in significant over design of the
retaining wall thus making it a more expensive proposal. Another major advantage
is that unlike the pseudo static or dynamic case one need not estimate the point of
application of this load, the moments and shear expression are directly derived from
the amplitude expression.
Based on the above numerical problem it is seen that fundamental time period
is the most signicant mode. Thus arriving at a closed form expressions for more
complex cases like soil sloped at an angle or a counter fort retaining wall where
the wall acts like a plate with appropriate boundary conditions become much
simpler45 .
3.6.9 Extension to the generic case of soil at a slope i

behind the wall
In this case, shown in Figure 3.6.7, we need to take the additional soil mass of the
triangle ABE converted it into a form so that it fits into the integration scheme we had
proposed. Thus for having same mass as triangle ABE we take en equivalent trapezium
44 We should remember that the integrations performed where based on numerical analysis and not a
closed form one as such errors due to truncation is surely to be expected.
45 This we will see subsequently as we take them up subsequently.
E
O
A
B
Figure 3.6.7 Retaining wall with soil sloped at an angle behind the wall.
ABEC equal to triangular area ABE, when equating the area of ABEC and triangle ABE
it can be proved that

cos sin i
AC = H( 1 + 1) where =
sin( i)
Now considering H = H + AC = H 1 +
H
[M]ij =
0
i (z)j (z)dz =
g tan
g tan
H 2
mij =
g tan
H
zii (z)j (z)dz
0
1
f ( )i f ( )j d
where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . m
in natural co-ordinate
H 2 (1 + )2
=
g tan
1
f ( )i f ( )j d
0
where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . .m.
(3.6.40)
Since we had seen earlier that the first mode analysis suffice for these type of structure
restricting the above expansion to the first mode, we have
1
H 2 (1 + )2
m1 =
g tan
f ( )21 d
and
EI41
k1 =
H3
f ( )2i d
(3.6.41)
0
2
,
Considering = 2 and T =
Fundamental time period as

[T] = 5.556(1 + )
1
we have
H5
(3.6.42)
Et 3 g tan
Based on above we can find out the fundamental time period of the system and
subsequently the expression Sa /g from the code for an appropriate damping of the
system.
It will be observed that for = 0 the time period value reduces to the fundamental
time period for the case where the soil plane is considered parallel to the base.
The modal mass participation is given by the expression
H
1 =
0
z
1 (z)dz/
g tan
1
1 =
H
0
z
2 dz
g tan 1
(3.6.43)
1
f12 dz
f1 ( )d z/
0
and remains the same as in the earlier case.
H (1+ )
Thus, for the fundamental mode, Sd = 0.619 Sa11EIg
tan .
Substituting the value of we have
5
Sd = 0.485
Sa1 H 5 (1 + )2
Et 3 g tan
(3.6.44)
the complete displacement function is thus given by

w(z, t) = (z) q(t)
which gives, w(z, t) = 0.485
M(z, t) = 0.0404
Sa1 H 3 (1 + )2 2
1 F1 ( )
g tan
V(z, t) = 0.0404
Sa1 H 2 (1 + )2 3
1 F1 ( )
g tan
Sa1 H 5 (1 + )2
Et 3 g tan
F1 ( )
where, the value 1 = 1.875

(3.6.45)
Plan view of counter fort retaining wall
Side view of the wall
Figure 3.6.8 Plan view and elevation of counterfort retaining wall.
The coefficients are as furnished in Table 3.6.2.
3.6.10 Dynamic analysis of counterfort

retaining wall
When retaining walls are more then 6.0 meter high normally for economic reason
counterforts are provided to reduce the moment in the supporting wall. In such cases
unlike cantilever, the wall does not behave as pure flexural member but behaves as
plate having three sides fixed and one side free.
To the best of our knowledge there exists no solution to this problem in terms of
earthquake induced dynamic force.
Present state of art is to develop the additional pressure based on Mononobes coefcient add it too the static pressure (hydrostatic in nature) and solve for the moments
and shears based on coefcients as furnished in IS-3370 Part IV or similar literature. In
other words neither the time period nor the spatial distribution of the load is accounted
for, considering its mode shape which again is a function of its boundary condition
like free, fixed etc.
For such walls when subjected to force due to an earthquake solutions have to
be sought based on plate vibration in lieu of beam vibration as shown previously
and the solution becomes downright tricky. However, since we have seen earlier
that it is fundamental mode which basically governs the design with a little bit of
intelligent mathematical manipulation it is not too difcult to arrive at the time
period vis-a-vis dynamic amplitude shear and moments for such type of retaining
wall.
A typical counterfort retaining wall is shown in Figure 3.6.8.
It is evident that the wall between the buttress in this case will behave as plate instead
of a beam having boundary condition of three sides continuous and one side free.
Shown in Figure 3.6.9, is the wall of a counterfort retaining wall of height H and
width b. Also, b is the dimension between the two consecutive counterforts. The failed
soil mass under active and passive pressure is shown by the triangular wedge which
contributes its inertial effect on the wall.
H
Fixed edge(typ.)
Figure 3.6.9 Wall with three edges fixed with soil mass under earthquake.
Here the displacement function of the wall can be represented by

w(z, y, t) =
n

i (z, y)qi (t)
(3.6.46)
i=1
The kinetic energy of the system is given by

1
T=
2
H b
0 0
w(z, y, t)
m(z, y)
t
2
Substituting the displacement function in above equation we have

1
T=
2
H b
m(z, y)
- n

i=1
0 0
n
n

. n

i (z, y)q i (t)
j (z, t)q j (t)
q i (t)q j (t)
i=1 j=1
H b
j=1
m(z, y)i (z, y)j (z, y)
0 0
From above we deduce that the mass coefficient is given by
H b
m(z, y)i (z, y)j (z, y) dy dz

mij =
0 0
for i, j = 1, 2, 3. . . . . . . n.
(3.6.47)
The strain energy equation of the plate is given by (Timoshenko and WoinowskyKrieger 1958)
1
V=
2
H b
0 0
2w 2w
D(z, y)
+
z2
y2
2w 2w
2(1 )
z2 y2
2w
zy
2 0
(3.6.48)
where, w(z, y, t) =
n

i (z, y)qi (t).
i=1
It can be proved based on Lagranges equation that on differentiation of the above

equation with respect to qj (t) the stiffness coefficient of an isotropic plate is given by
-
H b
Kij =
D
0 0
2 j
2 ii
+
z2
y2
2 j
2 i
+
y2
z2
2 i 2 j
(1 )
z2 y2
.
2 i 2 j
2
dy dz
zy zy
(3.6.49)
Et
where, D = 12(1
2 ) the flexural stiffness of thin plate; E = Youngs modulus of
concrete; t = thickness of the wall; = Poissons Ratio of concrete, and i , j =
mode shapes at different modes whose values have to be chosen for the appropriate
boundary condition and shall be a function of both z and y.
To select the appropriate mode shape let us imagine a thin strip of element in vertical
and horizontal direction and try to visualize how they will deflect under a dynamic
loading.
It is obvious that while vertical strip behaves as a cantilever beam, the horizontal
strip shall behave as a beam whose ends are fixed. Based on the above assumption the
shape function for the mode are considered as
(z, y) = F(z) F(y), where
(3.6.50)
z
z
z
z
sin h
z cos
cos h
H
H
H
H

3 y
3y
3 y
3 y
F(y) = sin
sin h
y cos
cos h
2b
2b
2b
2b
F(z) = sin
For first mode = 1.875

z =
sin + sin h
cos + cos h
and
y =
3
sin 3
2 sin h 2
3
cos 3
2 cos h 2
(3.6.51)
3.6.10.1
Calculation of mass coefficient
For first mode analysis as i (z, y) = j (z, y), we have

H b
m=
0 0
z
2 dy dz =
g tan
H b
0 0
z
F(z)2 F(y)2 dy dz,
g tan
(3.6.52)
where F(z) and F(y) are as defined above.

For ease of analysis we convert the integration basis from local to natural co-ordinate
when
H
b
( + 1) and y = ( + 1) which implies
2
2
b
H
dz = d and dy = d
2
2

( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
Thus, F( ) = sin
sin h
z cos
cos h
2
2
2
2

3( + 1)
3(+1)
3( + 1)
3(+1)
and F() = sin
sin h
y cos
cos h
.
4
4
4
4
z=
Substituting the above functions in mass equation, we have

1 1
m=
1 1
H2b
F( )2 F()2 dd
8g tan
(3.6.53)
the above can be further simplified to the expression

m=
H2b
C1
8g tan
(3.6.54)
1 1
F( )2 F()2 dd .
where, C1 =
1 1
3.6.10.2
Derivation of stiffness coefficient
For derivation of stiffness coefficient for the first mode as i (z, y) = j (z, y), we have
from the stiffness expression furnished above as
H b
K=
0 0
2
2
D
+ 2
2
z
y
2

2
2 2
2
dy dz
(1 ) 2 2 2 2
z y
zy
(3.6.55)
Using, (z, y) = F(z) F(y), we have

2
2
=
F(z)F(y)
= F(y)F(z)
z2
y2
and
2
F(z).
= F(y)
yz
Substituting the above in the stiffness equation and on expansion, we have

H b
K=
1
22 1
22
1
2
F(z)
D F(y)F(z)
+ F(z)F(y)
+ 2 F(y)F(z)F(y)
0 0
1
22
F(z)
+ 2(1 ) F(y)
(3.6.56)
where F(z) and F(y) are as defined previously.

For further derivation of the stiffness matrix it is essential to derive the first and
second derivatives of F(z) and F(y) and are as shown hereafter

z
z
z
z
sin h
z cos
cos h
H
H
H
H

z
z
z
z

F(z)
=
cos
cos h
+ z sin
+ sin h
H
H
H
H
H
F(z) = sin
2
z
z
z
z
F(z)
= 2 z cos
+ cos h
sin
sin h
.
H
H
H
H
H
Transforming the above in natural co-ordinate, we have
F( ) = sin

( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
sin h
z cos
cos h
2
2
2
2
= f ( ). say

) = cos ( + 1) cos h ( + 1) + z sin ( + 1) + sin h ( + 1)
F(
H
2
2
2
2

= f ( ), say
H

2
F( ) = z cos (1 + ) + cos h (1 + ) sin (1 + ) sin h (1 + )
2
2
2
2
H2
=
2
f ( ), say.
H2
Similarly for y direction on differentiation and transformation to natural co-ordinate

we have
F() = sin

3( + 1)
3( + 1)
3( + 1)
3( + 1)
sin h
y cos
cos h
= f ()
4
4
4
4

3
3( + 1)
3( + 1)
3( + 1)
3( + 1)
3
F()
=
cos
cos h
+ y sin
+ sin h
=
f ()
2b
4
4
4
4
2b

9 2
3(1 + )
3(1 + )
3(1 + )
3(1 + )
9 2
F()
=
cos
f ()
+
cos
h
sin
sin
h
=
y
2
4
4
4
4
4b
4b2
Substituting the above expressions in the stiffness equations, we have
1 1
1 1
4 1
2
2
1
DHb 4
81
2
2
K=
f ()f ( ) dd +
f ()f ( ) dd
4
H4
16b4
1 1
1 1
DHb 92 2
4
2b2 H 2
1
1
2
f ()f ( )f ()f ( ) dd
1 1
9(1 )2 2
+
2b2 H 2
1 1
22
f ()f ( )
(3.6.57)
1 1
Considering,
1 1
C2 =
1 1
[f ()f ( )] dd ;
C3 =
1 1
1
1 1
1
C4 =
[f ( )f ()]2 dd
[f ()f ( )f ()f ( )]dd

1 1
1 1
and
C5 =
[f ()f ( )]2 dd .
1 1
(3.6.58)
We have,
.
81 4
92 2
9(1 )2 2
4
C2 +
C3 +
C4 +
C5
H4
16b4
2b2 H 2
2H 2 b2
.
4 b
81 4 H
9 2 2
9(1 )
K=D
C4 +
C5
C2 +
C3 +
8Hb
8Hb
4H 3
64b3
DHb
K=
4
(3.6.59)
3.6.10.3
Derivation of the time period

Considering the time period as T = 2 m
K , substituting the value of m and k obtained
above, we have
3
4
4
T = 2 5
8Dg tan
H 2 bC1
4 b
C
4H 3 2
81 4 H
C3
64b3
9 2 2
C4
8Hb
9(1)2 2
C5
8Hb
Considering the value of D as given previously and considering H/b = r as the

aspect ratio the above on some manipulation and simplification may be expressed as

T = 2
12 H 5 (1 2 )
8Et 3 g tan (X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 )
(3.6.60)
where X1 , X2 , X3 , X4 are constants whose values are mentioned below.

It will be observed that here that the time period expression is very similar to the
what we got for beam except the fact that for plate element the aspect ratio (r) factor
in the denominator affect the equation including the Poissons ratio ().
3.6.10.4
The integration constants
The integration constants for C1 to C5 are solved numerically based on Simpsons

method and are furnished in Table 3.6.3 for reference.
Similarly the constants X1 , X2 , X3 , X4 is given by
X1 = 75.3121451,
X2 = 3.2405562,
X3 = 17.688041,
Table 3.6.3 Integration constants for time period calculation.

Coefficients
Integral function
1
C1
1 1
1
C2
C5
1 1
1
C4
1 1
1
C3
1 1
1 1
1 1
F( )2 F()2 dd
Value
12.444
[f ()f ( )]2 dd
7.716
[f ( )f ()]2 dd
7.60
[f ()f ( )f ()f ( )]dd

[f ()f ( )]2 dd
1.033
5.638
X4 = 1.91589362
3.6.10.5
Calculation of nodal forces under dynamic load
Once the time period is calculated and the response acceleration is obtained from
IS-1893, the shear force/or the nodal force is obtained from the expression

ZI
mi i
Sa
2R
n
Vi = i
where
(3.6.61)
i=1
1 =
n

mi i /
i=1
n

mi i2 is the modal mass participation factor
i=1
for the present plate problem it can be represented by

1
1 =
1 1
1
1 1
(1 + )f ( )f ()d d
(3.6.62)
(1 + )f 2 ()f 2 ( )dd
The above on integration gives a unique value of 1 = 0.423.

Substituting this
we have
value in the above equation,
ZI
Vi = 0.423 Sa ni=1 mi i , where = 2R
and the equation can be further transformed
into
0.423Sa H 2 b
Vi =
8g tan
1 1
(1 + )f ( )f ()d d.
(3.6.63)
1 1
In the above expression the term Sa /g is a function of the time period as derived
above. The above on integration will give the dynamic shear force.
However this is not required and the nodal forces can be found out for various values
of and for boundary +1 to 1 to obtain the nodal force coefcient. Once these
coefcients are known they can multiplied by the constant term to obtain dynamic
force imposed by the soil at various points of the plate. The summation of all these
force over the surface of the wall will give the total shear induced on the wall due to
the earthquake.
Thus,
Vi (z, y) =
0.423Sa H 2 b
( , )
8g tan
(3.6.64)
The values of ( , ) are as given in Figure 3.6.10, as coefficients on the plate.
a H b
These coefficients, when multiplied by the term 0.423S
, will give the nodal
8g tan
force at various points of the plate.
It will be interesting to note from the surface envelope generated below that as the
load coefficients are dependent on the assumed shape function there generic curve
2
-1
1 0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0 .44 1.44
2.56
3.40
0.0
3.72
0.2
3.42
0.4
2.60
0.6
1.48
0.47
0.8
1.0
0.0
2.89
2.65
2.02
1.153
0.365
1.98 8
1.50 7
0.863
0.27 3
0.8
0 0.342
1.12
1.98
2.64
0 0.255
0.84
1.48 5
1.98
0.547
1.06
1.407
1.54
1.41 7
1.074
0.614
0.194
0.6
0.4
0 0.18 2
2.16
0.2 0
0.12 1
0.399 0.70 7
0.941
1.03
0.94 8
0.71 9
0.411
0.13 0
0.0 0
0.074
0.24 5
0.43 4
0.578
0.632
0.58 1
0.441
0.253
0.07 9
-0.2 0
0.041
0.13 3
0.23 5
0.313
0.342
0.31 5
0.238
0.136
0.043
-0.4 0
0.02 0
0.060 0.10 4
0.134
0.152
0.14 0
0.10 6
0.061
0.01 9
-0.6 0
0.00 5
0.020
0.032
0.043
0.047
0.04 3
0.03 3
0.018
0.006
0.003 0.00 4
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.0007
- 0.8 0 0.000 7
-1.0 0
Figure 3.6.10 Load coefficients ( , ) for plates with three edge fixed and one edge free under.
follows the same shape as that of the assumed mode that is, it varies like a cantilever
in vertical direction and a beam fixed at edge in horizontal direction. This is surely
logical and is in variance to equivalent static load where hydrostatic force is profile is
assumed. The variation is more profound in horizontal direction for in normal analysis
this is considered as constant (like a rectangular shape) while in reality it is hyperbolic
in nature with zero at the edge and maximum at the centre.
Thus if the wall is spanning in one direction (i.e. a one way slab) when major
load spans horizontally along the shorter span, present state of art of arriving at
the Shear Force and Bending Moment could be signicantly in variation to the
reality.
Once the force are known it can be put directly as an input in a FEM analysis of a
plate subdivided up into meshes as shown in Figure 3.6.11 and applying the forces as
nodal loads we get the shear and bending moment in the wall.
Nodal Load function
4
3.5
3
2.5
f(P)
2
1.5
1
S11
0.5
S6
Width
S1
-1
- 0.6
- 0.2
0.2
0.6
Height
Figure 3.6.11 Surface envelope of nodal loads of counterfort wall under first mode.
Else the amplitude, dynamic moments and shear can be obtained by the method as
shown here after.
3.6.10.6
Calculation of dynamic amplitude
As shown at the outset the displacement is defined by

w(z, y, t) =
n

i (z, y)qi (t)
(3.6.65)
i=1
For structural systems under earthquake the dynamic amplitude can be calculated
from the expression
w(z, y) = i (zi yi )Sd
(3.6.66)
where, Sd = Sa2 ; Sa = acceleration spectrum and is a function of time period, and 2 =

square of the natural frequency.
Based on the codal provision the displacement spectrum can be expressed as
Sd =
Sa
2
(3.6.67)
Considering 2 =
2 =
4 2
,
T2
substituting equation of time period we have
8Dg tan (X1 r4 + X2 r2 + vX3 r2 + X4 )

H5
(3.6.68)
where D = flexural stiffness as expressed earlier.

Sd =
Sa H 5
8Dg tan (X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 )
(3.6.69)
i Sa H 5
F(z)F(y)
8Dg tan (X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 )
(3.6.70)
which gives,
w(z, y) =
where, F(z) and F(y) are as defined in Equation (3.6.51).

Considering (r) = X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 , a function of aspect ratio above
expression can be modified and written as
w(z, y) =
i Sa H 5
F(z)F(y)
8Dg tan (r)
(3.6.71)
Displacement function f(d) for r=2
4.000
3.000
f(d) 2.000
1.000
S8
0.000
-0.8
Height
-0.2
0.4
Width
S1
Figure 3.6.12 Amplitude function of wall for aspect ratio H/b = 2.

i Sa
Now considering, A = 8g
tan , a constant for a system for a particular mode.
Expression w(z, y) can now be expressed as
w(z, y) =
A F(z)F(y) 5
H
D (r)
(3.6.72)
It is thus observed that the dynamic amplitude w(z, y) is function of the flexural
stiffness of the plate, (r) the aspect ratio of the plate, and the shape function F(z)
and F(y).
Shown in Figure 3.6.12 is the displacement envelope of the plate with typical aspect
ratio of r = 2 and Poissons ratio of 0.25.
The coefficients are scaled to 1000. The values when multiplied by the term A (and
divided by 1000) will give the dynamic amplitude for the first mode.
3.6.10.7
Calculation of dynamic moments and shear
The bending moment of a thin plate is given the expression

.
.
2w
2w
2w
2w
Mz = D
+ 2 ; My = D
+ 2 ;
z2
y
y2
z
.
.
2w 2w
2w 2w
Qz = D
; Qy = D
+
+
z z2
y z2
y2
y2
-
(3.6.73)
A F(z)F(y) 5
H .
D (r)
Substituting the value of w(z, y) above we have
where, w(z, y) =
A
Mz =
(r)
.
2
9 2
F (z)F(y) +
F(z)F (y) H 5
H2
4b2
where F (z) and F (y) are as defined in previously in local and natural co-ordinates.
The above expression of Mz can be further modified to
.
A
9 2 r2
2

Mz =
F (z)F(y) +
F(z)F (y) H 3 .
(r)
4
(3.6.74)
From the above the expression we observe that moment varies as the cube of the
height and is a function of the basic shape function and their derivative, Poissons ratio
and the aspect ratio.
Shown in Figure 3.6.13 is a typical envelope for aspect ratio H/b = 2 and Poissons
ratio = 0.25.
Function f(Mz) for r=2
0.15
0.1
0.05
f(Mz)
0
-0.05
S7
-0.1
0.8
0.2
-0.4
-1
Width
S1
Height
Figure 3.6.13 Variation of dynamic moment in vertical (Z) direction for H/b = 2.
Similarly for y direction we have

.
A
9 2 r2
2

My =
F (z)F(y) +
F(z)F (y) H 3
(r)
4
(3.6.75)
where, substituting the values of z in either local and nodal co-ordinates moment
coefficient and envelope can be plotted.
We show in Figure 3.6.14 a typical envelope of Moment (My ) for aspect ratio
r(H/b) = 2 and Poissons ratio = 0.25.
Similarly for shear force in Z and Y direction can be expressed as
.
A
9 2 r2
3

Qz =
F (z)F(y) +
F (z)F (y) H 2 and
(r)
4
.
A
32 r
27 3 r3

Qy =
F (z)F (y) +
F(z)F (y) H 2
(r)
2
8
(3.6.76)
Looking at above expressions we see that the shear force varies as the square of the
height and is a function of the aspect ratio and the basic shape function.
The above procedure gives a comprehensive solution for walls with three side fixed
and one side free subjected to dynamic earth pressure under earthquake load where
the moments, shears and amplitude are dependent on the time period, geometry of the
wall, its boundary condition as well as the material and engineering property of the soil.
Function f(My) for r=2
0.6
0.4
0.2
f(My)
0
-0.2
S8
S1
Width
0.8
0.2
-0.4
-1
-0.4
Height
Figure 3.6.14 Variation of dynamic moment in vertical (Y) direction for H/b = 2.
3.6.11 Soil sloped at an angle i with horizontal
In this case like we did in cantilever wall let H = H + x = H 1 + , where

sin i 46
= cos
.
sin(i)
Thus the mass coefficient can now be considered as varying between, H to 0
H b
m=
0 0
z
F(z)2 F(y)2 dy dz
g tan
(3.6.77)
The above on transformation to natural co ordinate can be represented as

1 1
m=
1 1
H 2b
H 2 b(1 + )
F( )2 F()2 dd =
C1
8g tan
8g tan
(3.6.78)
The time period is thus given by

T = 2
12 H 5 (1 + )(1 2 )
8Et 3 g tan (X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 )
46 Refer to the figure we have drawn for the cantilever retaining wall with sloped soil surface.
(3.6.79)
It will be observed that for i = 0, = 0 the above equation converges to equation (for
time period with wall having soil parallel to the ground. The constants X1 , X2 , X3 , X4
remains same as mentioned earlier.
The modal mass participation factor shall remain same as earlier i.e.,
1 =
1
1
1 1 (1 + )f ( )f ()d d
1
1
2
2
1 1 (1 + )f ()f ( )dd
= 0.423
(3.6.80)
Thus the nodal load can now be expressed as
0.423Sa H 2b
Vi =
8g tan
=
1 1
(1 + )f ( )f ()d d
1 1
0.423Sa H 2 (1 + )b
8g tan
1 1
(1 + )f ( )f ()d d
(3.6.81)
1 1
Thus we see that the constant term is multiplied by an additional factor (1 + ) and
the integration constants ( , ) remain same as expressed earlier.
It may again be noted that for i = 0, = 0 when the above expression converges to
expression shear equation for the soil parallel to the ground.
From above we can safely deduce from mathematical similarity that for this case.
The term A as expressed in earlier can be now be expressed as
A=
i Sa (1 + )
8g tan
(3.6.82)
The rest of the steps remain same as explained earlier.

3.6.11.1
Design moments and shear coefficients
Observing the values of moments and shear as derived above it can be inferred that
they can be expressed in the form
M(z) = Coeffz
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 3 ;
8g tan
M(y) = Coeffy
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 3
8g tan
Q(z) = Coeffz
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 2 ;
8g tan
Q(y) = Coeffz
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 2 .
8g tan
The coefficients are furnished in Table 3.6.4 to 3.6.6

(3.6.83)
Table 3.6.4 Moment coefficients in vertical direction (Mz ).

Aspect ratio
H/b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1016
0.0877
0.0737
0.0601
0.0469
0.0345
0.0234
0.0139
0.0065
0.0017
0.0000
0.0548
0.0473
0.0398
0.0326
0.0256
0.0191
0.0133
0.0084
0.0046
0.0022
0.0015
0.0102
0.0089
0.0077
0.0067
0.0059
0.0052
0.0046
0.0043
0.0042
0.0044
0.0050
0.0273
0.0234
0.0192
0.0149
0.0106
0.0063
0.0022
0.0015
0.0046
0.0071
0.0088
0.0526
0.0452
0.0374
0.0295
0.0216
0.0139
0.0067
0.0003
0.0051
0.0092
0.0117
0.0618
0.0531
0.0440
0.0348
0.0255
0.0166
0.0083
0.0009
0.0053
0.0100
0.0128
0.0533
0.0457
0.0379
0.0303
0.0234
0.0176
0.0122
0.0073
0.0080
0.0005
0.0118
0.0285
0.0244
0.0201
0.0156
0.0111
0.0066
0.0024
0.0014
0.0046
0.0072
0.0089
0.0087
0.0076
0.0066
0.0058
0.0052
0.0047
0.0043
0.0042
0.0043
0.0045
0.0051
0.0530
0.0458
0.0386
0.0316
0.0248
0.0186
0.0129
0.0082
0.0046
0.0023
0.0016
0.0999
0.0861
0.0724
0.0590
0.0460
0.0339
0.0230
0.0136
0.0064
0.0017
0.0000
2.25
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0804
0.0694
0.0583
0.0475
0.0371
0.0273
0.0185
0.0110
0.0051
0.0013
0.0000
0.0433
0.0374
0.0315
0.0257
0.0202
0.0150
0.0104
0.0065
0.0035
0.0015
0.0009
0.0081
0.0070
0.0061
0.0052
0.0045
0.0038
0.0033
0.0029
0.0028
0.0028
0.0031
0.0216
0.0185
0.0153
0.0120
0.0087
0.0055
0.0024
0.0003
0.0026
0.0044
0.0055
0.0416
0.0358
0.0297
0.0236
0.0175
0.0117
0.0062
0.0014
0.0026
0.0056
0.0073
0.0489
0.0420
0.0350
0.0278
0.0207
0.0139
0.0076
0.0020
0.0027
0.0061
0.0080
0.0421
0.0362
0.0301
0.0242
0.0187
0.0140
0.0097
0.0058
0.0056
0.0005
0.0073
0.0225
0.0193
0.0160
0.0126
0.0091
0.0058
0.0026
0.0002
0.0026
0.0044
0.0056
0.0069
0.0060
0.0052
0.0045
0.0039
0.0034
0.0030
0.0028
0.0028
0.0029
0.0032
0.0420
0.0362
0.0305
0.0249
0.0196
0.0146
0.0101
0.0063
0.0034
0.0016
0.0010
0.0790
0.0681
0.0573
0.0467
0.0364
0.0268
0.0182
0.0108
0.0050
0.0013
0.0000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0652
0.0562
0.0473
0.0385
0.0301
0.0351
0.0303
0.0255
0.0208
0.0163
0.0066
0.0057
0.0049
0.0042
0.0035
0.0175
0.0150
0.0125
0.0099
0.0072
0.0338
0.0290
0.0242
0.0193
0.0145
0.0396
0.0341
0.0284
0.0227
0.0171
0.0342
0.0294
0.0245
0.0197
0.0153
0.0183
0.0157
0.0130
0.0103
0.0076
0.0056
0.0048
0.0042
0.0036
0.0030
0.0340
0.0293
0.0247
0.0202
0.0158
0.0641
0.0552
0.0465
0.0379
0.0295
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0221
0.0150
0.0089
0.0042
0.0011
0.0000
0.0121
0.0084
0.0052
0.0027
0.0011
0.0006
0.0029
0.0024
0.0021
0.0019
0.0019
0.0020
0.0047
0.0024
0.0003
0.0015
0.0028
0.0036
0.0098
0.0055
0.0018
0.0013
0.0036
0.0048
0.0117
0.0067
0.0023
0.0013
0.0039
0.0052
0.0114
0.0079
0.0047
0.0041
0.0005
0.0048
0.0050
0.0025
0.0003
0.0015
0.0028
0.0037
0.0026
0.0022
0.0020
0.0019
0.0019
0.0021
0.0118
0.0081
0.0050
0.0027
0.0011
0.0007
0.0217
0.0147
0.0087
0.0041
0.0011
0.0000
2.75
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0539
0.0465
0.0391
0.0319
0.0249
0.0183
0.0124
0.0074
0.0034
0.0009
0.0000
0.0291
0.0251
0.0211
0.0172
0.0135
0.0100
0.0069
0.0042
0.0022
0.0009
0.0004
0.0054
0.0047
0.0040
0.0034
0.0028
0.0023
0.0019
0.0016
0.0014
0.0013
0.0014
0.0145
0.0124
0.0103
0.0082
0.0061
0.0041
0.0022
0.0005
0.0009
0.0019
0.0025
0.0279
0.0240
0.0200
0.0160
0.0121
0.0084
0.0049
0.0019
0.0006
0.0024
0.0033
0.0328
0.0282
0.0235
0.0189
0.0143
0.0099
0.0059
0.0024
0.0005
0.0025
0.0036
0.0283
0.0243
0.0203
0.0164
0.0127
0.0095
0.0065
0.0039
0.0031
0.0004
0.0033
0.0151
0.0130
0.0108
0.0086
0.0064
0.0043
0.0023
0.0006
0.0008
0.0019
0.0025
0.0046
0.0040
0.0034
0.0029
0.0025
0.0020
0.0017
0.0015
0.0013
0.0013
0.0014
0.0281
0.0243
0.0204
0.0167
0.0131
0.0097
0.0067
0.0041
0.0021
0.0009
0.0005
0.0530
0.0457
0.0384
0.0313
0.0244
0.0180
0.0122
0.0072
0.0034
0.0009
0.0000
3.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0453
0.0391
0.0329
0.0268
0.0209
0.0154
0.0104
0.0062
0.0029
0.0008
0.0000
0.0244
0.0211
0.0177
0.0145
0.0113
0.0084
0.0058
0.0035
0.0018
0.0007
0.0003
0.0046
0.0040
0.0034
0.0028
0.0023
0.0019
0.0015
0.0012
0.0010
0.0009
0.0010
0.0122
0.0105
0.0087
0.0070
0.0052
0.0035
0.0020
0.0006
0.0005
0.0013
0.0017
0.0235
0.0202
0.0169
0.0135
0.0103
0.0072
0.0043
0.0018
0.0002
0.0016
0.0023
0.0276
0.0237
0.0198
0.0159
0.0121
0.0085
0.0052
0.0023
0.0001
0.0017
0.0025
0.0238
0.0204
0.0171
0.0138
0.0107
0.0080
0.0055
0.0032
0.0024
0.0004
0.0023
0.0127
0.0109
0.0091
0.0073
0.0055
0.0037
0.0021
0.0007
0.0005
0.0013
0.0018
0.0039
0.0034
0.0029
0.0024
0.0020
0.0017
0.0014
0.0011
0.0010
0.0009
0.0010
0.0236
0.0204
0.0172
0.0140
0.0110
0.0081
0.0056
0.0034
0.0017
0.0007
0.0003
0.0445
0.0384
0.0323
0.0263
0.0205
0.0151
0.0102
0.0061
0.0028
0.0007
0.0000
2.5
Table 3.6.5 Moment coefficients in horizontal direction (My ).

Aspect ratio
H/b
1.0
0.8
0.6
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.407
0.351
0.295
0.240
0.187
0.138
0.093
0.055
0.026
0.007
0.000
0.219
0.189
0.159
0.129
0.101
0.075
0.051
0.030
0.014
0.004
0.000
0.041
0.035
0.030
0.024
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.109
0.094
0.079
0.064
0.050
0.036
0.024
0.014
0.005
0.000
0.002
0.210
0.181
0.152
0.124
0.096
0.070
0.047
0.027
0.011
0.001
0.003
0.247
0.213
0.179
0.146
0.113
0.083
0.055
0.032
0.013
0.001
0.003
0.213
0.184
0.154
0.125
0.098
0.071
0.048
0.027
0.011
0.001
0.003
2.25
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.3217
0.2774
0.2334
0.1901
0.1483
0.1092
0.0739
0.0439
0.0205
0.0054
0.0000
0.1733
0.1495
0.1258
0.1025
0.0800
0.0589
0.0400
0.0238
0.0112
0.0031
0.0002
0.0324
0.0280
0.0236
0.0193
0.0151
0.0113
0.0078
0.0049
0.0026
0.0012
0.0008
0.0864
0.0744
0.0626
0.0508
0.0395
0.0289
0.0192
0.0110
0.0045
0.0003
0.0014
0.1665
0.1436
0.1207
0.0981
0.0764
0.0559
0.0374
0.0216
0.0093
0.0012
0.0018
0.1955
0.1686
0.1417
0.1153
0.0897
0.0657
0.0440
0.0255
0.0110
0.0016
0.0020
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2608
0.2249
0.1892
0.1541
0.1203
0.1405
0.1212
0.1020
0.0831
0.0648
0.0263
0.0227
0.0191
0.0156
0.0122
0.0700
0.0604
0.0507
0.0412
0.0321
0.1350
0.1164
0.0979
0.0796
0.0620
0.1585
0.1367
0.1149
0.0935
0.0728
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.114
0.098
0.083
0.067
0.052
0.038
0.025
0.014
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.021
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.212
0.183
0.154
0.125
0.098
0.072
0.049
0.029
0.014
0.004
0.000
0.399
0.344
0.290
0.236
0.184
0.136
0.092
0.055
0.026
0.007
0.000
0.1686
0.1454
0.1222
0.0994
0.0773
0.0566
0.0379
0.0219
0.0094
0.0012
0.0018
0.0902
0.0777
0.0653
0.0531
0.0413
0.0301
0.0201
0.0115
0.0047
0.0003
0.0014
0.0275
0.0237
0.0200
0.0163
0.0128
0.0096
0.0067
0.0042
0.0023
0.0011
0.0008
0.1678
0.1447
0.1218
0.0992
0.0774
0.0571
0.0387
0.0231
0.0109
0.0030
0.0003
0.3160
0.2726
0.2293
0.1867
0.1457
0.1073
0.0727
0.0431
0.0202
0.0053
0.0000
0.1367
0.1179
0.0991
0.0806
0.0628
0.0731
0.0630
0.0530
0.0431
0.0335
0.0223
0.0192
0.0162
0.0132
0.0104
0.1361
0.1173
0.0987
0.0804
0.0628
0.2562
0.2210
0.1859
0.1514
0.1182
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0885
0.0600
0.0356
0.0167
0.0044
0.0000
0.0478
0.0324
0.0193
0.0091
0.0025
0.0002
0.0091
0.0063
0.0039
0.0020
0.0009
0.0005
0.0235
0.0157
0.0090
0.0038
0.0004
0.0009
0.0454
0.0305
0.0177
0.0078
0.0012
0.0012
0.0534
0.0358
0.0209
0.0092
0.0015
0.0013
0.0460
0.0309
0.0179
0.0079
0.0013
0.0012
0.0245
0.0164
0.0094
0.0040
0.0004
0.0009
0.0077
0.0054
0.0033
0.0018
0.0008
0.0005
0.0463
0.0314
0.0187
0.0088
0.0024
0.0002
0.0870
0.0589
0.0350
0.0164
0.0043
0.0000
2.75
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.2157
0.1860
0.1565
0.1274
0.0995
0.0732
0.0496
0.0294
0.0138
0.0036
0.0000
0.1162
0.1002
0.0843
0.0687
0.0536
0.0395
0.0268
0.0159
0.0075
0.0020
0.0001
0.0217
0.0188
0.0158
0.0129
0.0101
0.0075
0.0052
0.0032
0.0016
0.0007
0.0003
0.0579
0.0499
0.0420
0.0341
0.0266
0.0194
0.0130
0.0075
0.0033
0.0004
0.0006
0.1116
0.0963
0.0809
0.0659
0.0513
0.0376
0.0253
0.0148
0.0065
0.0012
0.0008
0.1311
0.1130
0.0950
0.0773
0.0602
0.0442
0.0297
0.0174
0.0077
0.0014
0.0009
0.1130
0.0975
0.0820
0.0667
0.0519
0.0381
0.0256
0.0149
0.0066
0.0012
0.0008
0.0604
0.0521
0.0438
0.0356
0.0277
0.0203
0.0136
0.0079
0.0034
0.0005
0.0006
0.0184
0.0159
0.0134
0.0109
0.0086
0.0064
0.0044
0.0027
0.0014
0.0006
0.0004
0.1125
0.0970
0.0816
0.0665
0.0519
0.0382
0.0259
0.0154
0.0073
0.0020
0.0001
0.2119
0.1827
0.1537
0.1252
0.0977
0.0719
0.0487
0.0289
0.0135
0.0036
0.0000
3.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1813
0.1564
0.1315
0.1071
0.0836
0.0616
0.0417
0.0247
0.0116
0.0030
0.0000
0.0977
0.0843
0.0709
0.0577
0.0451
0.0332
0.0225
0.0134
0.0063
0.0017
0.0001
0.0183
0.0158
0.0133
0.0108
0.0085
0.0063
0.0043
0.0026
0.0013
0.0005
0.0002
0.0487
0.0420
0.0353
0.0287
0.0223
0.0164
0.0110
0.0064
0.0028
0.0004
0.0004
0.0939
0.0809
0.0681
0.0554
0.0431
0.0317
0.0213
0.0125
0.0056
0.0011
0.0006
0.1102
0.0950
0.0799
0.0650
0.0507
0.0372
0.0250
0.0147
0.0066
0.0013
0.0006
0.0950
0.0819
0.0689
0.0561
0.0437
0.0321
0.0216
0.0126
0.0056
0.0011
0.0006
0.0508
0.0438
0.0368
0.0300
0.0233
0.0171
0.0115
0.0067
0.0029
0.0005
0.0004
0.0155
0.0134
0.0112
0.0092
0.0072
0.0053
0.0037
0.0023
0.0012
0.0005
0.0003
0.0946
0.0816
0.0686
0.0559
0.0436
0.0321
0.0218
0.0130
0.0061
0.0017
0.0001
0.1781
0.1536
0.1292
0.1053
0.0821
0.0605
0.0410
0.0243
0.0114
0.0030
0.0000
2.5
Table 3.6.6 Shear coefficients in vertical direction (Qz ).

Aspect ratio
H/b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.5596
0.5588
0.5534
0.5393
0.5134
0.4728
0.4157
0.3406
0.2466
0.1331
0.0000
0.3016
0.3006
0.2973
0.2894
0.2751
0.2530
0.2221
0.1815
0.1308
0.0696
0.0021
0.0564
0.0547
0.0528
0.0502
0.0467
0.0419
0.0357
0.0278
0.0181
0.0066
0.0068
0.1502
0.1529
0.1539
0.1521
0.1468
0.1371
0.1227
0.1031
0.0781
0.0478
0.0121
0.2897
0.2931
0.2935
0.2890
0.2777
0.2583
0.2300
0.1918
0.1435
0.0850
0.0161
0.3401
0.3438
0.3441
0.3385
0.3251
0.3023
0.2688
0.2240
0.1673
0.0985
0.0176
0.2933
0.2967
0.2972
0.2925
0.2811
0.2615
0.2327
0.1941
0.1452
0.0859
0.0162
0.1569
0.1595
0.1605
0.1586
0.1530
0.1429
0.1278
0.1073
0.0812
0.0496
0.0123
0.0478
0.0460
0.0441
0.0418
0.0386
0.0344
0.0290
0.0223
0.0141
0.0044
0.0070
0.2920
0.2910
0.2877
0.2800
0.2662
0.2448
0.2149
0.1756
0.1264
0.0672
0.0022
0.5498
0.5490
0.5437
0.5299
0.5044
0.4646
0.4085
0.3347
0.2423
0.1308
0.0000
2.25
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.4428
0.4422
0.4379
0.4267
0.4062
0.3741
0.3289
0.2695
0.1951
0.1053
0.0000
0.2386
0.2380
0.2354
0.2292
0.2179
0.2005
0.1761
0.1440
0.1038
0.0555
0.0013
0.0446
0.0436
0.0423
0.0404
0.0378
0.0341
0.0292
0.0231
0.0155
0.0064
0.0043
0.1189
0.1205
0.1209
0.1192
0.1147
0.1068
0.0952
0.0796
0.0598
0.0358
0.0076
0.2292
0.2313
0.2311
0.2270
0.2177
0.2022
0.1795
0.1492
0.1109
0.0646
0.0100
0.2691
0.2714
0.2710
0.2661
0.2551
0.2367
0.2100
0.1744
0.1295
0.0750
0.0110
0.2321
0.2341
0.2339
0.2298
0.2204
0.2046
0.1817
0.1510
0.1123
0.0653
0.0101
0.1241
0.1258
0.1261
0.1243
0.1195
0.1113
0.0992
0.0829
0.0623
0.0372
0.0077
0.0378
0.0367
0.0354
0.0338
0.0314
0.0282
0.0241
0.0188
0.0123
0.0046
0.0044
0.2310
0.2304
0.2278
0.2218
0.2109
0.1940
0.1703
0.1393
0.1004
0.0536
0.0014
0.4351
0.4344
0.4302
0.4193
0.3991
0.3676
0.3232
0.2648
0.1917
0.1035
0.0000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.3590
0.3585
0.3550
0.3460
0.3293
0.1935
0.1930
0.1909
0.1859
0.1768
0.0362
0.0355
0.0346
0.0332
0.0311
0.0964
0.0974
0.0975
0.0959
0.0921
0.1858
0.1871
0.1867
0.1831
0.1754
0.2182
0.2196
0.2189
0.2147
0.2055
0.1882
0.1895
0.1890
0.1854
0.1775
0.1006
0.1017
0.1017
0.1000
0.0960
0.0306
0.0299
0.0290
0.0278
0.0260
0.1873
0.1868
0.1848
0.1800
0.1711
0.3527
0.3522
0.3488
0.3399
0.3236
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.3033
0.2667
0.2185
0.1582
0.0854
0.0000
0.1627
0.1429
0.1169
0.0844
0.0452
0.0009
0.0282
0.0243
0.0193
0.0132
0.0058
0.0028
0.0856
0.0761
0.0634
0.0474
0.0279
0.0050
0.1626
0.1441
0.1195
0.0884
0.0508
0.0066
0.1905
0.1687
0.1398
0.1033
0.0591
0.0072
0.1646
0.1459
0.1209
0.0895
0.0514
0.0066
0.0893
0.0794
0.0661
0.0493
0.0290
0.0050
0.0235
0.0201
0.0159
0.0107
0.0044
0.0029
0.1575
0.1383
0.1131
0.0816
0.0436
0.0009
0.2980
0.2620
0.2147
0.1554
0.0839
0.0000
2.75
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.2969
0.2965
0.2936
0.2861
0.2723
0.2508
0.2205
0.1807
0.1308
0.0706
0.0000
0.1600
0.1596
0.1579
0.1538
0.1463
0.1347
0.1183
0.0968
0.0699
0.0375
0.0006
0.0299
0.0294
0.0288
0.0277
0.0260
0.0237
0.0205
0.0164
0.0113
0.0052
0.0019
0.0797
0.0804
0.0803
0.0789
0.0756
0.0702
0.0623
0.0518
0.0385
0.0223
0.0034
0.1537
0.1545
0.1540
0.1509
0.1443
0.1337
0.1183
0.0979
0.0722
0.0411
0.0045
0.1804
0.1814
0.1806
0.1769
0.1692
0.1566
0.1386
0.1146
0.0844
0.0478
0.0049
0.1556
0.1565
0.1559
0.1527
0.1461
0.1353
0.1198
0.0991
0.0730
0.0415
0.0045
0.0832
0.0839
0.0838
0.0823
0.0789
0.0732
0.0650
0.0540
0.0401
0.0232
0.0034
0.0253
0.0248
0.0242
0.0232
0.0218
0.0197
0.0170
0.0135
0.0092
0.0041
0.0020
0.1549
0.1545
0.1529
0.1489
0.1416
0.1303
0.1145
0.0937
0.0676
0.0362
0.0006
0.2917
0.2913
0.2884
0.2811
0.2676
0.2465
0.2167
0.1775
0.1285
0.0694
0.0000
3.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.2496
0.2492
0.2468
0.2405
0.2289
0.2109
0.1854
0.1519
0.1100
0.0594
0.0000
0.1345
0.1342
0.1328
0.1294
0.1231
0.1133
0.0995
0.0815
0.0588
0.0316
0.0004
0.0252
0.0248
0.0243
0.0234
0.0221
0.0201
0.0175
0.0140
0.0097
0.0046
0.0014
0.0670
0.0675
0.0673
0.0660
0.0632
0.0586
0.0520
0.0431
0.0319
0.0183
0.0024
0.1292
0.1298
0.1292
0.1265
0.1209
0.1119
0.0989
0.0817
0.0601
0.0339
0.0032
0.1517
0.1523
0.1515
0.1483
0.1417
0.1311
0.1159
0.0957
0.0703
0.0396
0.0035
0.1308
0.1314
0.1308
0.1280
0.1224
0.1132
0.1001
0.0827
0.0608
0.0343
0.0032
0.0700
0.0704
0.0702
0.0689
0.0660
0.0612
0.0542
0.0449
0.0332
0.0191
0.0024
0.0213
0.0209
0.0205
0.0197
0.0185
0.0168
0.0145
0.0116
0.0080
0.0037
0.0014
0.1302
0.1299
0.1286
0.1252
0.1191
0.1096
0.0963
0.0788
0.0569
0.0305
0.0004
0.2452
0.2449
0.2425
0.2363
0.2249
0.2072
0.1822
0.1492
0.1080
0.0583
0.0000
2.5
Table 3.6.7 Shear coefficients in horizontal direction (Qy ).

Aspect ratio
H/b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
3.7646
3.2466
2.7311
2.2244
1.7359
1.2781
0.8654
0.5138
0.2404
0.0631
0.0000
3.7055
3.1947
2.6847
2.1820
1.6961
1.2394
0.8265
0.4733
0.1968
0.0148
0.0550
3.3533
2.8905
2.4278
1.9708
1.5285
1.1122
0.7351
0.4118
0.1579
0.0106
0.0776
2.5797
2.2235
1.8670
1.5146
1.1732
0.8517
0.5603
0.3101
0.1133
0.0180
0.0710
1.4184
1.2225
1.0263
0.8323
0.6444
0.4673
0.3067
0.1687
0.0601
0.0125
0.0421
0.0269
0.0232
0.0195
0.0158
0.0122
0.0089
0.0058
0.0032
0.0011
0.0002
0.0008
1.3690
1.1799
0.9906
0.8033
0.6219
0.4510
0.2960
0.1628
0.0579
0.0121
0.0407
2.5424
2.1913
1.8399
1.4926
1.1562
0.8393
0.5520
0.3055
0.1114
0.0180
0.0703
3.3319
2.8721
2.4122
1.9581
1.5185
1.1048
0.7301
0.4088
0.1564
0.0112
0.0778
3.6985
3.1886
2.6796
2.1776
1.6925
1.2366
0.8242
0.4715
0.1953
0.0134
0.0564
3.7640
3.2460
2.7305
2.2236
1.7351
1.2770
0.8640
0.5121
0.2385
0.0608
0.0027
2.25
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
3.3510
2.8899
2.4311
1.9800
1.5452
1.1377
0.7703
0.4573
0.2140
0.0562
0.0000
3.2984
2.8439
2.3904
1.9437
1.5121
1.1067
0.7404
0.4273
0.1826
0.0220
0.0386
2.9849
2.5733
2.1620
1.7562
1.3639
0.9949
0.6610
0.3751
0.1511
0.0030
0.0545
2.2963
1.9795
1.6627
1.3500
1.0474
0.7627
0.5048
0.2839
0.1104
0.0045
0.0499
1.2625
1.0883
0.9141
0.7420
0.5754
0.4186
0.2766
0.1548
0.0592
0.0043
0.0296
0.0239
0.0206
0.0173
0.0141
0.0109
0.0079
0.0052
0.0029
0.0011
0.0001
0.0006
1.2186
1.0504
0.8822
0.7161
0.5554
0.4040
0.2669
0.1494
0.0571
0.0042
0.0286
2.2631
1.9508
1.6386
1.3304
1.0322
0.7516
0.4974
0.2797
0.1087
0.0047
0.0494
2.9659
2.5568
2.1482
1.7450
1.3551
0.9884
0.6566
0.3724
0.1497
0.0025
0.0547
3.2922
2.8385
2.3859
1.9399
1.5090
1.1043
0.7385
0.4259
0.1815
0.0210
0.0397
3.3505
2.8894
2.4306
1.9794
1.5446
1.1369
0.7693
0.4562
0.2126
0.0546
0.0019
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
3.0187
2.6033
2.1900
1.7837
1.3920
2.9713
2.5620
2.1538
1.7518
1.3637
2.6889
2.3182
1.9482
1.5834
1.2308
2.0686
1.7833
1.4984
1.2173
0.9455
1.1373
0.9805
0.8237
0.6691
0.5195
0.0216
0.0186
0.0156
0.0127
0.0099
1.0978
0.9464
0.7951
0.6458
0.5014
2.0387
1.7575
1.4767
1.1997
0.9318
2.6718
2.3035
1.9357
1.5732
1.2228
2.9658
2.5572
2.1497
1.7484
1.3609
3.0182
2.6029
2.1896
1.7832
1.3915
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0249
0.6939
0.4120
0.1928
0.0506
0.0000
0.9992
0.6700
0.3889
0.1693
0.0255
0.0282
0.8994
0.5998
0.3435
0.1429
0.0108
0.0398
0.6900
0.4587
0.2608
0.1057
0.0033
0.0364
0.3788
0.2515
0.1425
0.0570
0.0005
0.0216
0.0072
0.0048
0.0027
0.0011
0.0000
0.0004
0.3656
0.2427
0.1375
0.0550
0.0004
0.0209
0.6799
0.4520
0.2569
0.1040
0.0031
0.0361
0.8936
0.5958
0.3410
0.1417
0.0104
0.0399
0.9971
0.6684
0.3877
0.1684
0.0248
0.0289
1.0243
0.6932
0.4111
0.1918
0.0494
0.0014
2.75
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.7460
2.3682
1.9922
1.6226
1.2663
0.9323
0.6313
0.3748
0.1754
0.0461
0.0000
2.7029
2.3306
1.9596
1.5942
1.2415
0.9105
0.6116
0.3564
0.1573
0.0271
0.0212
2.4460
2.1089
1.7726
1.4412
1.1211
0.8203
0.5485
0.3162
0.1345
0.0152
0.0299
1.8817
1.6223
1.3634
1.1081
0.8614
0.6296
0.4199
0.2406
0.1003
0.0079
0.0274
1.0346
0.8920
0.7495
0.6091
0.4734
0.3458
0.2304
0.1316
0.0543
0.0034
0.0162
0.0196
0.0169
0.0142
0.0116
0.0090
0.0066
0.0044
0.0025
0.0010
0.0001
0.0003
0.9986
0.8609
0.7235
0.5879
0.4569
0.3337
0.2223
0.1270
0.0524
0.0032
0.0157
1.8545
1.5989
1.3437
1.0921
0.8489
0.6204
0.4138
0.2371
0.0988
0.0077
0.0271
2.4304
2.0955
1.7613
1.4320
1.1138
0.8150
0.5449
0.3140
0.1334
0.0149
0.0300
2.6979
2.3263
1.9558
1.5911
1.2391
0.9086
0.6102
0.3553
0.1565
0.0265
0.0218
2.7456
2.3678
1.9918
1.6222
1.2658
0.9318
0.6307
0.3741
0.1746
0.0452
0.0010
3.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.5184
2.1718
1.8270
1.4880
1.1613
0.8550
0.5789
0.3437
0.1608
0.0422
0.0000
2.4788
2.1375
1.7973
1.4624
1.1393
0.8361
0.5623
0.3287
0.1465
0.0275
0.0163
2.2432
1.9342
1.6259
1.3223
1.0291
0.7538
0.5050
0.2925
0.1265
0.0177
0.0231
1.7257
1.4879
1.2506
1.0168
0.7909
0.5787
0.3870
0.2231
0.0949
0.0107
0.0211
0.9488
0.8181
0.6876
0.5589
0.4347
0.3179
0.2124
0.1221
0.0515
0.0051
0.0125
0.0180
0.0155
0.0130
0.0106
0.0082
0.0060
0.0040
0.0023
0.0010
0.0001
0.0002
0.9158
0.7896
0.6636
0.5395
0.4195
0.3068
0.2050
0.1178
0.0497
0.0049
0.0121
1.7008
1.4664
1.2325
1.0021
0.7795
0.5703
0.3813
0.2198
0.0935
0.0105
0.0209
2.2289
1.9218
1.6155
1.3138
1.0225
0.7489
0.5017
0.2905
0.1256
0.0174
0.0231
2.4742
2.1334
1.7939
1.4596
1.1371
0.8343
0.5610
0.3278
0.1459
0.0270
0.0168
2.5180
2.1715
1.8267
1.4877
1.1609
0.8546
0.5785
0.3432
0.1602
0.0415
0.0008
2.5
It will be observed from above that these coefficients are a function of the aspect
ratio of the slab. Normally the ratio of H/b for counterforts varies between 2 to 3.
We furnish below the coefficients for moments and shears for various values between
2 to 3 in increment of 0.2547 .
We now explain the above with a typical numerical problem.
Example 3.6.2
A counter fort retaining wall of height 7.5 m has counter forts spaced at 3.0 m.
The average thickness of the wall is 300 m having RCC grade as M25. The wall
is resting on hard soil in zone IV as per IS-1893-2002. Unit weight of the backfill
soil is 22 kN/m3 having friction angle of 28 . The soil is sloped to the horizontal
plane at angle I = 15o . Consider, Econc = 2.85 107 kN/m2 and Poissons
ratio of concrete as 0.3.
Determine the time period of the wall and find out the horizontal dynamic
moments and shears in the wall under active earth pressure?
Solution:
Here we have, = 28 ; i = 15 = 45 + 0.5 28 = 59 .
sin i
cos 59 sin 15
Considering, = cos
= 0.192, for the problem.
sin(i) =
sin 44

T = 2

= 2
12 H 5 (1 + )(1 2 )
+ X2 r2 + X3 r2 + X4 )
8Et 3 g tan (X1 r4
12 22 7.55 (1 + 0.192)(1 0.32 )

8 2.85 107 0.33 9.81 tan 59(75.3 2.54 3.25 2.52 + 17.68 0.3 2.52 + 1.72)
= 0.03 sec
Thus, Sga = 1 + 15T = 1.45, for hard soil; here, =

In the horizontal direction
M(y) = Coeffy
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 3
8g tan
ZI
2R
and Q(y) = Coeffy
0.241
4
= 0.06.
0.423 Sa
(1 + )H 2
8g tan
M(y) =
0.423 0.06 22 1.45 7.53 1.192

Coeff(y) = 30.58 Coeff(y)
8 9.81 tan 59
Q(y) =
0.423 0.06 22 1.45 7.52 1.192

Coeff(y) = 4.077 Coeff(y)
8 9.81 tan 59
47 Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated.
Thus, multiplying by the appropriate coefficient, we can have My and Qy as

given hereunder
Horizontal Moment M y
H/b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
7.975
6.878
5.786
4.712
3.678
2.708
1.833
1.088
0.509
0.134
0.000
4.298
3.706
3.118
2.540
1.983
1.461
0.990
0.589
0.278
0.076
0.005
0.804
0.694
0.584
0.477
0.374
0.278
0.192
0.119
0.063
0.027
0.016
2.141
1.846
1.551
1.261
0.981
0.718
0.479
0.276
0.117
0.012
0.028
4.128
3.560
2.993
2.434
1.895
1.389
0.932
0.542
0.237
0.038
0.037
4.847
4.180
3.514
2.859
2.226
1.632
1.096
0.638
0.281
0.047
0.040
4.180
3.604
3.030
2.465
1.919
1.407
0.944
0.549
0.240
0.038
0.037
2.235
1.927
1.620
1.317
1.024
0.749
0.501
0.289
0.122
0.013
0.028
0.681
0.587
0.495
0.404
0.318
0.237
0.164
0.102
0.055
0.025
0.016
4.161
3.588
3.019
2.459
1.920
1.414
0.959
0.571
0.269
0.074
0.005
7.836
6.757
5.685
4.630
3.613
2.660
1.801
1.069
0.500
0.131
0.000
Horizontal Shear Qy
H/b 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0 12.307 12.114 10.963 8.434 4.637 0.088 4.476 8.312 10.893 12.091 12.305
0.8 10.614 10.445 9.451 7.271 3.997 0.076 3.858 7.165 9.391 10.426 10.612
0.6 8.929 8.781 7.943 6.109 3.358 0.064 3.241 6.020 7.892 8.764 8.927
0.4 7.272 7.142 6.455 4.963 2.728 0.052 2.633 4.891 6.414 7.128 7.270
0.2 5.675 5.560 5.018 3.855 2.118 0.040 2.044 3.799 4.986 5.549 5.673
0.0 4.179 4.074 3.667 2.813 1.544 0.029 1.491 2.772 3.643 4.065 4.176
0.2 2.829 2.732 2.445 1.870 1.025 0.019 0.990 1.843 2.429 2.725 2.826
0.4 1.680 1.585 1.400 1.063 0.581 0.011 0.561 1.047 1.390 1.581 1.676
0.6 0.786 0.690 0.582 0.431 0.232 0.004 0.224 0.424 0.578 0.687 0.782
0.8 0.206 0.104 0.044 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.013 0.042 0.101 0.202
1.0
0.000
0.115
0.162 0.149 0.088 0.002 0.085 0.147 0.163 0.118 0.006
3.7 UNYIELDING EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
3.7.1 Earthquake Analysis of rigid walls when the soil

does not yield
In many cases when a retaining wall is sufficiently rigid, or a basement wall of a
building or an underground tank is restrained at top by a rigid slab, the wall becomes
unyielding as such the triangular profile of failure which usually generates during the
static case does not take place. During such case (under static loading) we design it for
a condition of earth pressure at rest.
Now we have a catch! Since the soil is not under incipient failed condition, the
assumption made for dynamic analysis of cantilever and counterfort retaining wall as
shown previously is not valid in this case (where we ignored the stiffness of the soil)
and a completely different approach has to be adopted to obtain its dynamic response.
The major problem it boils down to is what will be the dynamic pressure induced
on the wall in such case?
Building
a
Basement
BedRock
x
Figure 3.7.1 Schematic sketch of building with basement wall.
A procedure is proposed herein for evaluation of the same (Chowdhury and

Dasgupta 2007).
Shown in Figure 3.7.1, is a typical basement of a tall building (usually used for car
parking and sundry building services). The objective is to find the dynamic pressure
on the wall of the basement due to earthquake waves propagating through the soil
medium.
Normally for deep basement wall there will be built in intermediate floor slabs,
which make the wall sufficiently rigid due to which the soil in contact with the wall
does not yield and a plain strain condition prevails.
The soil medium and the basement is assumed to be resting on stiff soil considered
as the bedrock the level from which the ground acceleration propagates.
Let the depth of the basement is H and the soil medium in horizontal direction has
been considered having a finite dimension a, where lim a , is a reality.
Having defined the problem with basic conditions we can argue that for shear
waves propagating through the soil medium the wave propagation equation can be
represented by
2 u(x, z, t) 2 u(x, z, t)
1 2 u(x, z, t)
+
=
x2
z2
Vs2
t 2
(3.7.1)
where Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil medium; u(x, z, t) = the displacement
function and can be considered as u = H(x)Q(z)G(t); three independent functions.
Without getting into the details of theory of partial differential equation it can be
shown that Equation (3.7.1) can be broken up into three ordinary differential equations
of second order, given by (Kreyszig 2001)
d2G
+ 2 G = 0,
dt 2
where, = vs i
where i is a constant.
(3.7.2)
d 2 H(x)
+ k2 H(x) = 0, where, k is another constant.
dx2
d 2 Q(z)
+ p2 Q(z) = 0, where, p2 = i2 k2 .
dz2
(3.7.3)
(3.7.4)
The general solution of Eqns. (3.7.3) and (3.7.4) are given by

H(x) = A cos kx + B sin kx : Q(z) = C cos pz + D sin pz
(3.7.5)
We now impose the following boundary condition:

At x = 0, u = 0, or H(x) = 0, which implies A = 0.
At x = a (where a is very large), u = 0 or H(a) = 0 which implies, H(a) =
B sin ka = 0, implying,
k = m/a.
Thus,
Hm (x) = sin
(3.7.6)
m x
a
(3.7.7)
At the free surface i.e. the superstructure base interface we have,

dQ(z)
At z = 0, shear strain u
z = 0 or dz = 0, which implies D = 0.
At z = H, displacement, u = 0, i.e., Q(H) = 0 C cos pH = 0 cos pH = 0, which
implies,
p=
(2n 1)
.
2H
Q(z) = cos
and hence,
(3.7.8)
(2n 1)z
2H
(3.7.9)
Thus, the eigenvector of the problem can be established as

(x, z) = H(x)Q(z) = sin
m x
(2n 1) z
cos
a
2H
where, m, n = 1, 2, 3 . . .
For calculation of eigen values, we have, p2 = i2 k2 and = vs i

thus,
p2 =
2
k2
Vs2

or = vs p2 + k2 .
Substituting the value of p and k from Eqns. (3.7.8) and (3.7.6) we have

= vs
m2
(2n 1)2
+
.
a2
4H 2
(3.7.10)
For the fundamental mode, considering m, n = 1 and, lim a , we have

= = vs 0 +
1
vs
=
.
2
2H
4H
(3.7.11)
4H
Considering, T = 2
, we have, T = vs which is basically the free field time period
in one dimension for the site.
For lim a , we drop the first term of eigen function (in the x direction) in
Equation (3.7.10) to determine the displacement and pressure at wall face and consider
the eigen function as only
(z) = cos
(2n 1) z
2H
(3.7.12)
Based on modal response technique the maximum amplitude function can be

defined by
Sd = Sa /2
where Sd = maximum displacement, and Sa = acceleration which is the function
of time period, 4H/vs , and can be read off from the normalized response given in
the code.
ZI
Considering, = 2R
, the code factor, we can write, u(z) = i Sa2 (z).
Now substituting the value of from Equation (3.7.10), we have
u(z) =
4
Sa H 2
z
4
S a s H 2
z
cos
=
cos
i
i
2
2
2
2H
Gg
2H
vs
(3.7.13)
where G = vs2 ; s = unit weight

g = acceleration due to gravity, and i = modal
of soil;
mass participation factor = mi i / mi i2 .
The modal participation factor can thus be considered as

i =
mi i
mi i2
H
=
z
z cos
dz
2H
6 H
z cos2
0
The above, on integration by parts gives, i =

z
dz
2H
8
+2 .
(3.7.14)
The strain within the soil body is given by

xx =
u
= 0;
x
zz =
zz =
u
z
z
2
S a s H
which gives, zz = i
sin
Gg
2H
16
S a s H
z
sin
.
( + 2)
Gg
2H
(3.7.15)
The constitutive stress-strain relationship under plain strain condition is given by

1
xx
2G
zz =
(1 2)
xz
0
Thus,
xx =
1
0

0
xx
0 zz
12
xz
2
2G(1 )
2G
xx +
zz
1 2
1 2
As xx = 0, in this case we have, xx =

on the wall as
pdyn =
(3.7.16)
2G
12 zz ,
which gives the dynamic pressure
16
S a s H
z
2
sin
( + 2) 1 2
g
2H
(3.7.17)
Where, negative sign indicates that the pressure is acting in the direction of the wall.
pdyn =
32
S a s H
z

sin
( + 2)
g
2H
where v =
1 2
(3.7.18)
The above can be further simplified to

pdyn (z) = Coeff
Sa s H
,
g
(3.7.19)
where the coefficients may be read off for different values of Poissons ratio (0.25, 0.3
and 0.4) as shown in Figure 3.7.2.
3.7.2 Ostadans method

Ostadan (2004) conducted extensive study on the subject based on analysis carried
out in SASSI 2000 (Lysmer et al. 1999) with various soil properties and Poissons
ratio value and came with a normalized dynamic pressure coefficient curve given by
the expression
p(z) = 0.0015 + 5.05z 15.84z2 + 28.25z3 24.59z4 + 8.14z5 .
(3.7.20)
The above normalized pressure coefcient when compared with the analytical solution proposed in Equation 3.7.19 gives quite closely matched value as shown in
Figure 3.7.3.
Variation of dynamic coefficient of pressure with depth
Pressure coefficient
1.4
1.2
1
n=0.25
0.8
n=0.3
0.6
n=0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9
Z/H
Figure 3.7.2 Variation of dynamic pressure coefficient with depth.
1
0.8
Closed
form
Solution
0.6
0.4
0.2
8
0.
6
0.
4
0.
0.
0
-0.2
Pressure coefficient
1.2
Ostadan's
curve
Z/H
Figure 3.7.3 Comparison of normalized pressure on the wall. (Proposed & Ostadan)
Based on the above equation, Ostadan proposed a simplied method for determination of dynamic pressure on such unyielding walls whose steps are as mentioned
hereunder:
Perform free field soil column analysis and obtain the ground response at the
depth corresponding to the base of the wall in the free field. The response motion
in terms of acceleration response spectrum at 30% damping should be obtained.
The free field soil column analysis may be performed using Computer program like
SHAKE with input motion specified either at the ground surface or at the depth of
foundation base-mat. The choice for location of control motion is an important
Dynamic Pressure (psf)
2000
1500
Closed
form
1000
500
0
-500
Simplified
Method
0
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
Height in feet
Figure 3.7.4 Comparison of dynamic pressure for the 30 ft basement wall with Vs = 1000 ft/sec.
decision that needs to be made consistent with development of the design motion.
The location of input motion may significantly affect the dynamic response of the
building and seismic soil pressure amplitude.
Obtain total mass of the soil body, m = 0.5 H 2 v , for the present case
v = 2/[(1 )(2 )]0.5 , here is mass density of the soil and is Poissons
ratio.
Obtain the lateral seismic force from the product of the total mass obtained above
and the acceleration value of the free field response at the soil column obtained at
the depth of the bottom of the wall.
Obtain the maximum seismic soil pressure at the ground surface level by dividing
the lateral force obtained above by a factor 0.744 H (which actually the area under
curve for the equation furnished by him as mentioned above).
Obtain the pressure profile by multiplying the peak pressure from the above step
by the pressure distribution relationship as furnished earlier.
Ostadans method has been compared with analytical method proposed here48 for
a basement wall which is 30 feet deep having shear wave velocity of soil as 1000 ft/sec.
The density of soil considered as 125 lbs/ft3 .
The wall is considered to be in a zone subjected to severe earthquake where Z =
0.24, I = 1.2 and R = 2.0. The out come of the results are shown in Figure 3.7.4.
It will be observed that variation is not too wide and well within the acceptable limit
of civil engineering design.
3.8 EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF WATER TANKS
3.8.1 Analysis of water tanks under earthquake force

Water tanks resting on ground, underground or on staging at a height form an important part of infrastructure and township development. This is shown in Figure 3.8.1.
48 Personal communications with Dr. Ignacio Arango and Dr. Farhang Ostadan April 2005.
Figure 3.8.1 Typical overhead water tank modeled as an inverted pendulum.
Even in industrial sector like power, petrochemical industry it forms an important

ingredient of process engineering or fire ghting. As such in post earthquake scenario
many of the tanks storing water it becomes essential that they remain functional with
nominal damage.
In India water tanks resting on ground were usually given the reprieve of any
earthquake analysis not many years ago49 .
While overhead tanks were mostly treated as an inverted pendulum where the time
period is derived from the expression

T = 2
stat
g
where, stat =
W
K
(3.8.1)
where, W = weight of water in tank + weight of tank + 1/3rd wt of staging frame,

and, K = lateral stiffness of the frame.
And water tanks both resting on ground as well as overhead have found to have
undergone damage during earthquakes in India and abroad. In India the damage is
possibly due to the fact that the IS-code recommendation on the pressure induced on
the tank wall is incomplete.
IS-1893-1984 for instance only suggests the pressure coefficients for impulsive force
and does not cater to the convective or hydro-dynamic sloshing force, whose effect
could be significant, especially if the tank is shallow. Nor does the code have any
provision for calculation of the sloshing height for which if sufficient free board is not
kept could result in damage of the roof slab.
49 For most of the case it was observed that impulsive force suggested by IS-1893 1984 provided with
forces of small magnitude unless and until the tank was situated in a place where earthquake has a
severe intensity.
Sloshed liquid
Sloshing Mass
h
Impulsive
Mass
Sa
Figure 3.8.2 Typical cylindrical tank with liquid divided into impulsive and sloshing mass.
Connected by flexible spring to wall
hsl
Connected by rigid link to wall

hi
Figure 3.8.3 Typical mathematical model of water tank with liquid impulsive and sloshing mass.
It is unfortunate that code committee did not update this previously though superior
mathematical model for analysis of such liquid retaining vessel has been in existence
since 1957 (Housner 1957).
Before we delve into the details of such mathematical model for analysis of such
water tanks, let us see how the fluid behaves, when acceleration is induced at the base
of such tanks.
Let us consider a cylindrical vessel of diameter D containing liquid of height h
(Figure 3.8.2). When the vessel is subjected to an acceleration Sa at its base a part of
the liquid (called the impulsive mass) moves along with the container as a rigid body
at the bottom of the tank. Balance mass at the top of the tank acts in more flexible
manner and induces a convective or a sloshing force on the tank wall. What part of
the mass would act as an impulsive mass and sloshing mass depends50 upon the aspect
ratio h/D.
In simplistic mechanical analogy the above can be represented as shown in
Figure 3.8.3. Haroun and Housner (1981) derived the values of sloshing and impulsive
mass considering the wall of the tank as rigid and later derived the same for exible
wall.
50 The total impulsive and sloshing mass constitutes the full mass of liquid in the tank.
We will not go into details of the derivation of the same from the fundamentals,
which are given elsewhere (Housner 1963) but will deal with final results only, both for
circular and rectangular tanks which can be directly used for computation of pressure
in a tank either manually or through a computer.
In Table 3.8.1,
Table 3.8.1 Design parameters for dynamic analysis of tanks with fluids.
Sl. No.
9
10
Rectangular tank

L
tan h
3
Wi
H
=
L
W
3
H
3
hi = H (Excluding base pressure)
8
L
3
1
hi

H
=
L
H
8
2 tan h
3
H
Wi
=
W
R
3
H
R
3
H
tan h
3
H (Excluding base pressure)
8
R
3
hi
1
H

=
R
H
8
2 tan h
3
H
hi =
(Including base pressure)

Wi
Pi = Sa0
g

L
H
Wsl
= 0.527 tan h 1.58
W
H
L

H
cos h 1.58
1
hsl
L

=1
H
H
H
1.58 sin h 1.58
L
L
(Excluding base pressure)

H
cos h 1.58
2
hsl
L

=1
H
H
H
1.58 sin h 1.58
L
L

H
1.58
KS =
tan h 1.58
Wsl
L
L

H
Sa
h = 1.58 2 tan h 1.58
L
L

Wi
Pi = Sa0
g

Wsl
R
H
= 0.318 tan h 1.84
W
H
R

H
cos h 1.84
1
hsl
R

=1
H
H
H
1.84 sin h 1.84
R
R
(Excluding base pressure)

H
cos h 1.84
2.01
hsl
R

=1
H
H
H
1.84 sin h 1.84
R
R

H
1.84
tan h 1.84
KS =
Wsl
R
R

H
Sa
h = 1.534 2 tan h 1.84
R
R
Psl = Wsl h sin t
Psl = 1.2Wsl h sin t
0.527L cot h 1.58

11
Circular tank
dmax =
g
1
2 h L
H
L
dmax

H
0.408R cot h 1.84
R
=
g
1
2 h R
W = Total weight of liquid in the tank;

Wi = Weight of impulsive fluid assumed to fastened rigidly with the tank wall at
a height hi above the tank bottom;
hi = Height from the bottom of the tank where the impulsive force acts on the wall;
Pi = Impulsive force which acts on the tank wall;
Sao = Acceleration at zero time period to be considered = g (9.81 m/sec2 ) as per
IS-1893 2002;
Wsl = Sloshing weight of the fluid oscillating at the top part of the tank;
hsl = Height from the bottom of the tank where the sloshing force acts on the wall;
Ks = Equivalent spring stiffness of the sloshing fluid;
sl = Angular amplitude of free oscillation at the free fluid surface;
Psl = Sloshing force acting on the tank wall;
dmax = Sloshing Height of the liquid at free surface;
L = Half width of rectangular tank of width 2 L;
R = Radius of circular tank;
H = Height of fluid in the tank;

= natural frequency of the sloshing mass =
Ks g
Wsl .
The total moment acting on the base of the tank (when base pressure is included)
and on the wall (when base pressure is excluded) is given by
M = Pi hi + Psl hsl
(3.8.2)
Above is the original form in which Housner presented a solution to the problem
and has been the backbone of further research on this topic for next 30 years.
The basic assumption in Housners hypothesis which may not be always true (though
a conservative estimate) was the impulsive time period considered to be zero in his
analysis. The assumption was justified in the above case for Housner assumed the
tank to be infinitely rigid but in reality the tank could also be flexible when the time
period may have a finite value (albeit low compared to the sloshing time period).
Further researches by Veletsos & Young (1977) and Veletsos (1984) have defined
the impulsive time period when the wall is not rigid.
3.8.2 Impulsive time period for non rigid walls

Codes from different countries use different formulas for derivation of the time period.
We present here the most practical one which is easy to apply and amenable to
electronic computation.
Eurocode 8 (Part IV, 1998) suggests the formula proposed by Veletsos for circular
tank, which is given by

2

2R H
H
H
0.15
where, Ci = 0.01675
+ 0.46
(3.8.3)
Ti =
Ci E w t
R
R
Here R = radius of the tank; H = height of the fluid in tank; = mass density of
the fluid; Ew = Youngs modulus of the wall, and t = thickness of the wall. [See
Figure 3.8.4].
we
Hw
h
Figure 3.8.4 Load deflection diagram of tank wall.
For rectangular tank, formula proposed in Eurocode 8 is given by

Ti = 2 d/g
(3.8.4)
where d is deflection of the wall due to an equivalent uniformly distributed load of

we =
0.5W i + Ww
BH
(3.8.5)
where,
Wi = weight of the impulsive fluid;
Ww = weight of wall perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake force;
B = inside width of the tank;
H = height of fluid, and
we = equivalent udl acting on the wall.
To calculate d, following steps may be considered, c.g. of the u.d.l., we may be
calculated from the expression
0.5W i hi + Ww Hw
h =
0.5W i + Ww
(3.8.6)
In which, Hw = height of the wall, An equivalent concentrated load P may be

calculated from the expression, P = we H, where H = height of fluid in the tank.
The deflection at the level of fluid surface is thus given by
3
P(h)
3EI
where, I =
t3
12
(3.8.7)
It should be noted that the above is valid for tank walls which are free at top and
have an aspect ratio L/H > 2.0 i.e. it behaves as a one way slab. This may not be
valid for walls with other boundary conditions but is what is in vogue at present.
3.8.3 Sloshing time period of the vibrating f luid

The sloshing time period of the vibrating fluid for a circular tank may be obtained
from the expression

Tsl = 2
D/g

3.68 tan h 3.68H

D
(3.8.8)
where, D = diameter of the tank.

Similarly for rectangular tank,

Tsl = 2
2L/g

3.16 tan h 3.16H

2L
(3.8.9)
where, 2L = inside length of tank parallel to the direction of the earthquake.
3.8.4 Calculation of horizontal seismic force for tank

resting on ground
Once the time-period for the impulsive and sloshing modes is known the corresponding
accelerations may be obtained from the chart as furnished in the IS-code. The seismic
coefficient may then be obtained from expression
Ahi =
ZISai
2Rg
(3.8.10)
for impulsive force, and

[For RCC tank damping factor considered is usually 5% and for steel tank this is
considered as 2%, as such corresponding damping factor from the code should be
read].
Ahsl =
ZISasl
,
2Rg
(3.8.11)
for sloshing force where damping considered for fluid is normally 0.5%.
Here, Z = zone factor as explained earlier; I = importance factor, and R = ductility
factor.
The new IS-1893 (2002) is yet to arrive at the importance factor to be recommended
for liquid retaining structures; in absence of such data recommendations as followed
in UBC 97 may be followed:
For non important tanks consider, I = 1.0;
For tanks supplying water to public community or meant for fire ghting in important industry like power plant or petrochemical plants or containing liquid having
nominal hazard I = 1.25;
For tanks containing hazardous or toxic liquid higher importance factor between
I = 1.5 to 1.75 may be considered.
The assessment of ductility factor is far more complex as the basis of Sa /g as given in
UBC and that IS-1893 does not correspond one to one and a comparison of base shear
for similar structures has to be seen, which is obviously a topic of research. In absence
of such data presently, a conservative value of R between 1.5 and 2 may be used for
tanks resting on the ground. For overhead tanks similarly, a value of R = 1.21.3 may
be used for non ductile detailing and R = 22.2 may be used for tank frames with
ductile detailing.
3.8.5 Calculation of base shear for tanks resting

on ground
Once the seismic coefficients are known, the impulsive and sloshing shear force may
be obtained from
Vi = Ahi (W i + Ww + W r )
Vsl = Ahsl Wsl
and
(3.8.12)
where, Wi = weight of sloshing fluid; Ww = weight of wall, and Wr = weight of roof

coming on the wall.
The resultant shear may either be considered as
V = Vi + Vsl (Absolute sum)52
V=

Vi2 + Vsl2 (SRSS value).
(3.8.13)
3.8.6 Calculation of bending moment on the tank

wall resting on the ground
The bending moment for impulsive and sloshing force at the base of the wall is given by
Mi = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww Hw + W r Hr )
and
Msl = Ahsl Wsl hsl
(3.8.14)
where, hi = height of impulsive mass from the bottom of the tank as explained earlier;
Hw = height of the c.g. of the wall mass; Hr = height of the c.g. of the roof mass,
and
Hsl = height of the sloshing mass from the bottom of the tank.
In this case the height hi and hsl shall be calculated for the case Excluding base
pressure.
For moment in the base of the tank (i.e. the pressure induced in the soil) the same
expression as above may be used with exception that the height hi and hsl shall be
calculated for the case Including base pressure.
52 This is the recommendation of Euro code 8.
The resultant Moment can now be obtained based on expression

M = Mi + Msl (Absolute sum)
M=
Mi2 + Msl2 (SRSS value)
(3.8.15)
3.8.7 Calculation of sloshing height

In absence of any recommendation form IS code presently sloshing height may be
calculated based on Euro-code model
= 0.84 Ahsl L for rectangular tank,
= 0.84 Ahsl radius of tank for circular tank.
(3.8.16)
We now further elaborate the problem based on a suitable numerical example.
Example 3.8.1
A rectangular RCC fire water tank (Figure 3.8.5) is resting on ground having a
size of 7.5 m 7.5 m 6.5 m is constructed in a refinery site which is classified
as zone IV as per IS-1893 2002. The average thickness of wall is considered to
be 450 mm. Grade of concrete used for constructing the tank is M30. The tank
is covered by a roof slab which is simply supported on the four walls having
thickness of 200 mm. Nature of ground on which it is resting is considered hard.
Calculate the seismic force at the wall base and on the foundation.
500
6000
Figure 3.8.5 Elevation and plan view of the water tank with typical wall slab detail resting on
ground.
Solution:
Weight of water in tank = 7.5 7.5 6 10 = 3375 kN; Wt. of roof slab =
8 8 0.2 25 = 320 kN, and Wt. of one wall = 7.5 6.5 0.45 25 =
548 kN.
Here L = 0.5 7.5 = 3.75 m, and H = 6.0 m.
Based on Housners expressions, impulsive mass is given by,

L
tan h 3 H
Wi =
W,
L
3H
tan h 3 3.75
6
=
3375 = 2475.8 kN
3.75
3 6
L
3
1
3
H

= 3.342 m (IBP)
hi = H = 2.25 m (EBP)53 = H
8
8
2 tanh
3L
H
Sloshing mass is given by

L
H
Wsl = 0.527 tan h 1.58
W = 1097.6 kN.
H
L

cos h 1.58 H
L 1

H = 3.977 m (EBP);
hsl = 1
H
1.58 H
sin
h
1.58
L
L

cos h 1.58 H
L 2

H = 4.358 m (IBP)
hsl = 1
H
1.58 H
sin
h
1.58
L
L
Equivalent weight, we =
C.G. of the load, h =
0.5Wi +Ww
BH
0.5Wi hi +Ww Hw
0.5Wi +Ww
=
=
0.52476+548
7.56
= 39.7 kN/m2 .
0.524762.25+5483.25
0.52476 + 548
= 2.56 m.
Equivalent concentrated force P, P = we H 1 = 39.7 6 1 = 238 kN.
I=
t3
1 (0.45)3
=
= 7.59375 103 m4 ; Econc = 3.122 107 kN/m2 .
12
12
d=
3
P(h)
238 (2.56)3
= 5.614 103 m.
=
3EI
3 3.122 107 7.5938 103
53 Here EBP means excluding base pressure and IBP = Including base pressure.
Calculation of impulsive time period

Ti = 2
d
= 2
g
5.614 103
= 0.150 sec
9.81
For T = 0.150 sec, Sa /g = 2.5 as per IS-1893.

Calculation of sloshing time period
Considering, 2L = 7.5 m; H = 6 m; Tsl = 2
2L
g
3.16 tan h( 3.16H

)
2L
= 3.110 secs
which gives, Sa /g = 0.321, for the sloshing mode with 5% damping and it needs
to be multiplied by a factor of 2.98 to convert it into an equivalent acceleration
with 0.5% damping for the fluid.
For zone IV consider Z = 0.24 and I = 1.25, thus
Ahi =
ZISai
,
2Rg
for impulsive force
0.24 1.25 2.5

= 0.1875,
22
ZISasl
=
, for sloshing mode
2Rg
=
Ahsl
Ahsl =
and
0.24 1.25 0.321

2.98 = 0.072
22
(Mulitpiled by a factor 2.98 to cater to 0.5% of damping for fluid).

Calculation of Base Shear
Weight of roof = 320 kN, so assume 1/4th of the weight coming on each wall.
Hence,
Vi = Ahi (Wi + Ww + Wr ) = 0.1875 (2476 + 548 +
1
320) = 582 kN,
4
for impulsive force.

Vsl = Ahsl Wsl = 0.072 1098 = 79 kN
for sloshing force.

Thus resultant shear is given by, V = Vi2 + Vsl2 = 587 kN.
Calculation of Bending Moment at base of wall
Mi = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww Hw + W r Hr ) = 0.1875 (2476 2.25 + 548 3.25 +
80 6.6) = 1478 kN m, for impulsive mode
Msl = Ahsl Wsl hsl = 0.072 1098 3.977 = 314.40 kN m, for sloshing
mode.

Resultant Moment, M = Mi2 + Msl2 = 1511 kN m.
Calculation of Bending Moment at foundation
Mi = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww Hw + Wr Hr ) = 0.1875 (2476 3.342 + 548 3.25 +

80 6.6) = 1984 kN m, for the impulsive mode.
Msl = Ahsl Wsl hsl = 0.072 1098 4.358 = 344.52 kN m, for the sloshing
mode.

Resultant Moment, M = Mi2 + Msl2 = 2013 kN m
Calculation of sloshing height
= 0.84 Ahsl L = 0.84 0.072 3.75 1000 = 227 mm, less than the
free board of 500 mm provided.
3.9 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR OVERHEAD TANKS UNDER

EARTHQUAKE
3.9.1 Earthquake Analysis for overhead tanks

Water served to communities for daily use and even for industrial purpose in many
cases is stored in overhead tanks, so that it can be distributed under adequate pressure.
Thus in a post earthquake scenario it is essential that they remain serviceable to serve
the community and also mitigate secondary damages like fire.
Overhead water tanks come in different shapes like rectangular, Intze type, conoids
etc supported on frames constituting of beam columns or single circular shaft etc. as
shown Figure 3.9.1.
Figure 3.9.1 Typical overhead water tank with its staging system modeled as two mass system.
In this case also the liquid in the tank may be considered as a two mass lumped
system like the case of tank resting on ground constituting of impulsive and sloshing
mass. The impulsive and the sloshing mode may be treated as two uncoupled system
where the impulsive mass of the fluid as obtained by the Housners expression may be
added to the tank mass and 1/3rd of that of the staging and whose dynamic response
may be obtained from the expression

T = 2
Wi + Wt + 13 Ws
gKs
(3.9.1)
where, Wi = weight of impulsive fluid; Wt = weight of the tank; Ws = weight of the

staging, and Ks = stiffness of the staging frame.
The sloshing time period may be obtained from the expression

T = 2
Wsl
gKsl
(3.9.2)
where, Wsl is the sloshing mass as per Housners expression and Ksl is the fluid stiffness,
given by

Ksl H
H
= 0.83266 tan h2 1.58
W
L
(3.9.3)
else they can be obtained from the graph as shown in Figure 3.9.2.
Impulsive,Sloshing mass and stiffness Ratio
1.2
Design Ratio
1
0.8
Wi/W
0.6
Ws/W
0.4
KsH/W
0.2
8
2.
5
2.
2
2.
9
1.
6
1.
3
1.
7
0.
4
0.
0.
L/H
Figure 3.9.2 Impulsive, sloshing mass and stiffness parameters for rectangular tank with different L/H.
In the above analysis everything is fine except the fact that the staging stiffness needs
to be evaluated. The easiest way it can be done is by modeling the frame in a computer
analysis program like STAAD-Pro, SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL, etc. and apply a unit load
at center of mass of the tank and the water and find out the deflection at the base of
the tank (top of staging).
Knowing the deflection the stiffness value Ks may be obtained from the relationship,
P = Ks d
(3.9.4a)
where, d is the deflection and P is the applied load. Else, for a regular frames the
stiffness may be obtained from the formula
Ks =
12nEI
(3.9.4b)
jL3
where n is the number of coulumns in the frame and j is the number of storey and
L is the height of column per storey.
Once the time periods are established as per Equation (3.9.1) the calculation becomes
quite straight forward.
The shear force at the top of the frame, shown in Figure 3.9.3, is given by
Vi = Ahi (W i + WT +
1
W )
3 fr
and Vsl = Ahsl Wsl
(3.9.5)
where, Wi = weight of impulsive fluid; WT = weight of the tank; Wfr = weight of the
frame, and Wsl = weight of sloshing fluid.
Unit Load acting at the cg of tank+water
Rigid Links(Typical)
Nodes(typical)
Beam elements(typical)
Figure 3.9.3 Typical computer model for staging for determing the deflection/stifness of the frame.
And,
A=
ZI Sa
2R g
(3.9.6)
In which, Sa = the accelerations due to impulsive and sloshing mode time periods
as calculated above.
The resultantant shear at the top of the frame is given by
V=

Vi2 + Vsl2
(3.9.7)
The overturning moment in impulsive mode at the base of staging is thus given by

1
Wi hi + Hst + WT + Wst Hcg
3
Mi = Ahi
(3.9.8)
where, hi = impulsive height of the fluid as per Housners expression considering the
Including base pressure case, Hst = height of the staging frame, and Hcg = height
from the base of staging to the c.g. of the tank + fluid.
The overturning moment in sloshing mode at the base of staging is thus given by
Msl = Ahsl Wsl (hsl + Hst )
(3.9.9)
where, hsl = sloshing height of the fluid as per Housners expression considering the
Including base pressure case.
Impulsive, sloshing and stiffness ratio for

circular tank
1.2
Design Ratio
1
0.8
Ws/W
0.6
KsH/W
0.4
Wi/W
0.2
8
2.
5
2.
9
1.
2.
2
6
1.
3
1.
7
0.
4
0.
0.
Radius/Height
Figure 3.9.4 Impulsive, sloshing mass and stiffness parameters for circular tank with different R/H.
For circular tank the steps remain exactly same except the stiffness value which gets
modified to

H
Ksl H
2
= 0.58512 tan h 1.84
.
(3.9.10)
W
R
The sloshing design parameters can also be obtained form the graph as furnished in
Figure 3.9.4.
3.9.2 Hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall and base

Other then knowing the overturning moement at the base of the tank and the maximum moment in the wall for big tanks, it is essential that we know the hydrodynamic
pressure on the wall and the base of the tank, without which curtailment of reinforcement in the wall is not possible. The hydrodynamic distribution of pressure in the tank
is given in the following.
3.9.3 Hydrodynamic pressure for circular tank

The impulsive pressure is given by
phi (dyn) = i (z)Ahi gH cos
(3.9.11)

2
D
tanh 0.866 H
, in which, = mass density of the
where, i = 0.866 1 Hz
liquid; = circumferential angle, and z = vertical distance of a point from the bottom
of the tank wall. Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure in vertical dirfection on a strip of
length b is given by

sin h 0.866 xh

pvi (dyn) = 0.866Ahi gH

cos h 0.866 bh
(3.9.12)
The sloshing pressure for circular tank wall is given by

1
psi (dyn) = s (z)Asi gD 1 cos2 cos
3
(3.9.13)
cos h(3.674 z )
where, s = 0.5625 cos h 3.674 HD .
(
D)
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by
pvs (dyn) = sv Ahs gD

where, sv = 1.125
x
D
4
3
(3.9.14)
x 3
D
sec h 3.674 H
D .
where, x = horizontal distance of a point on base of tank in the direction of seismic

force from the center of tank.
3.9.4 Hydrodynamic pressure for rectangular tank

For rectangular tank the impulsive pressure is given by
phi (dyn) = i (z)Ahi gH
(3.9.15)
2
where, i = 0.866 1 Hz
tan h 0.866 2L
H , in which
Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure in vertical dirfection on the base slab is given by
pvi (dyn) = 0.866Ahi gH
sin h(0.866 xh )
cos h(0.866 2L
)
h
(3.9.16)
The sloshing pressure on tank wall is given by

psi (dyn) = s (z)Asi g (2L)
(3.9.17)
cos h(3.162 z )
where, s = 0.4165 cos h 3.674 2L
H .
(
2L )
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by
pvs (dyn) = sv Ahs g (2L)

where, sv = 1.25
x
2L
4
3

x 3
2L
(3.9.18)

H
sec h 3.162 2L
.
3.9.5 Effect of vertical ground acceleration

Vertical gorund acceleration increases the effective weight of liquid which induces
additional pressure on the tank wall. The distribution of this pressure is taken as
similar to that of hydrostatic force.
Hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall due to vertical acceleration may be taken as
pvw =
2
A gH (1 z/H)
3 h
where, Ah =
1.25ZI
R
(3.9.19)
as per IS-code
3.9.6 Pressure due to inertia of the wall

Pressure due to inertia of the wall itsdelf may be taken as
pmw (dyn) = Ahi t w g
(3.9.20)
where, t = average thickness of the wall, and w = mass density of the tank wall.
3.9.7 Maximum design dynamic pressure

The maximum dynamic design pressure may be obtained by taking the SRSS value of
the above pressures and be expressed as
pdes (dyn) =
(phi + pmw )2 + p2si + p2vw
(3.9.21)
Example 3.9.1
Shown in Figure 3.9.5 is an elevated rectangular water tank of capacity 500 m3
resting on medium soil which is classified as falling in a zone of IV as per IS
Code. Grade of concrete used is M25. Based on dynamic analysis find out the
overturning moment on the top of the foundation. Shear at top of staging, and
hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall and base. Code to be used is IS 18932002. Col size 600 600, beam size 500 750.
9000
250(typ)
6350
750(typ)
4250(typ)
4450
4450
4450
20,000
4450
Plan view of column
Figure 3.9.5
Solution:
Capacity of water tank = 500 m3 ; Weight of water in tank = 500 10 =
5000 kN, and Height of water = 500/81 = 6.17 = 6.2 m (say).
Calculation of weight of tank
Weight of roof slab (150 mm thick) = 9.5 9.5 0.15 25 = 338.4 kN54
Weight of side wall = 9.25 4 6.35 0.25 25 = 1468.4 kN
Weight of bottom slab(350 mm thk) = 9.5 9.5 0.35 25 = 789.7 kN.
Thus weight of empty tank = 338.4 + 1468.4 + 789.7 = 2596.5 kN.
Calculation of weight of staging
Height of staging = 20 m.
Size of column = 600 600.
Thus weight of 9# of column = 20 0.6 0.6 9 25 = 1620 kN.
Length of peripherial beam = 35.6 = 36 meter(app).
Size of beam = 500 750 mm2 .
Weight of peripherial beams = 36 0.5 0.75 25 4 (levels) = 1350 kN.
Length of internal beams = 18 m (app).
Weight of internal beams = 18 4 (levels) 0.5 0.75 25 = 675 kN.
Total weight of staging = 1620 + 1350 + 675 = 3645 kN.
Calculation of impulsive weight of water.
As per Housner

L
tan
h
3H
Wi
=
L
W
3H
Here, L = 4.5 m, H = 6.2 m, W = 5000 kN; thus, Wi = 5000
3381 kN.
Calcualtion of sloshing weight of water

Wsl
L
H
= 0.527 tan h 1.58
W
H
L

4.5
6.2
Wsl = 5000 0.527
tan h 1.58
= 1864 kN
6.2
4.5
54 Unite Weight of concrete considered as 25 kN/m3 .
0.8503
1.257
Calculation of column stiffness

Kcol =
12nEI
jL3
Here, Ec = 2.85 107 kN/mm2 ; I = (1/12) 0.6 0.63 = 0.0108 m4

EI = 307800 kN/m2 .
Here, n = 9, and j = 4 and height of column, L = 5 m, and we have,
Kcol =
12nEI
12 9 307800
=
= 66485 kN/m.
3
jL
4 53
Calculation of impulsive time period

T = 2
Wi + Wt + 13 Ws
= 2
gKs
3381 + 2597 + 13 3645

= 0.6598 sec.
9.81 66485
For soil of medium strength, we have

Sa /g = 1.36/T = 1.36/0.66 = 2.06 m/sec2 for 5% damping.
Considering 7% damping for RCC design Sa /g is multiplied by a factor 0.9,
as per IS-1893 2002
Sa/g = 2.06 0.9 = 1.855 m/sec2 .
For zone IV, Z = 0.24; Importance factor = 1.5 (say), and R = 1.5, for non
ductile frame.
Ahi =
ZI Sa
0.24 1.5
=
1.855 = 0.2226
2R g
2 1.5
Thus, impulsive shear at base slab level of the tank

Vhi = 0.2226 (3381 + 2597 + 1/3 3645) = 1626 kN.
Calculation of sloshing time period

Tsl = 2
2L
g
3.16 tan h
3.16H
2L
and substituting the value of H = 6.2 m and L = 4.5 m as stated above, we have,
Tsl = 3.43 secs.
Considering,
Sa
g s
1.36
T
= 0.3965 m/sec2 for 5% damping.
Considering, the fluid damping as 0.5% as per IS-18932002, the above value
gets modified to

Sa
g

= 0.3965 2.98 = 1.18 m/sec2 .
s
ZI Sa
0.241.5
Thus, Ahs = 2R
g = 21.5 1.18 = 0.1416
Thus sloshing shear at base slab level of the tank
Vhi = 0.1416 1864 = 264 kN (Wsl = 1864 kN, the sloshing weight of water)
Thus, total shear acting at bottom of the tanks (top of staging) =
(1626)2 + (264)2 = 1647 kN.
Overturning moment at the base of the staging
hi
=
H
L

3H
L
1
tan h
3
;
2
H
8
4.5
3 6.1 x6.2
6.2

hi =
= 3.80 m;
8
2 tan h
3 4.5
6.1
2597 23.30 + 3645

3 10
= 19.06 m.
2597 + 1215

1
Mi = Ahi Wi hi + Hst + WT + Wst Hcg
3
Hcg =
Mi = 0.2226 (3381 (3.80 + 20) + (2597 +
1
3645) 19.06)
3
= 34086 kN m
For the sloshing mode

H
cos
h
1.58
L 2
hsl

=1
H
H
1.58 H
L sin h 1.58 L
Substituting the values H = 6.2 m and L = 4.5 m, we have, hsl = 4.586 m

Thus, Msl = Ahsl Wsl (hsl + Hst ) = 0.1416 1864 (4.586 + 20) =
6489 kN m.
Thus, the resultant overturning moment is given by
M=

340862 + 64892 = 34698 kN . m
Calculation of hydrodynamic pressure

Based on the Equation 3.9.21 hydrodynamic pressure on wall for various cases are
furnished hereafter
z/H
Impulsive
pressure on wall
Sloshing pressure
wall
Presure due to
vertical acceleration
Pressure due
wall inertia
Resultant design
pressure(kN/m2 )
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
10.21798
10.1158
9.809262
9.298363
8.583104
7.663486
6.539508
5.21117
3.678473
1.941416
2.27E-15
1.02172 1018
3.91873 1017
3.00498 1015
2.30469 1013
1.7676 1011
1.35567 1009
1.03974 1007
7.97436 1006
0.000611599
0.046906968
3.5975604
9.76
8.784
7.808
6.832
5.856
4.88
3.904
2.928
1.952
0.976
1.08E-15
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
15.18307
14.49346
13.67087
12.70428
11.58468
10.30475
8.858648
7.241974
5.452368
3.493355
3.864919
Similarly in vertical direction hydrodynamic pressure on base slab is
X/2L
Sloshing pressure in
vertical direction
Impulsive pressure in
vertical direction
Design pressure
(kN/m2 )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0
0.183688
0.36369
0.53632
0.697892
0.84472
0.973117
1.079398
1.159877
1.210868
1.228683
0
0.58238833
1.167154385
1.756685596
2.35338885
2.959700315
3.578095387
4.211098795
4.861294911
5.531338298
6.223964552
0
0.61067
1.222506
1.836732
2.454688
3.077885
3.708062
4.347235
4.99775
5.662323
6.344084
3.10 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

We are almost through with this chapter and take this opportunity to pacify those
hardened professionals whom we had perhaps bored to stupor with double integrals,
partial differentials and hyperbolic trigonometric functions.
Before we start with this topic, we would like to point out that perhaps we could
make the reader realize that it is not a very easy subject to grasp. It requires competence
in multifaceted subject like engineering geology, soil dynamics, structural dynamics,
fluid dynamics and finally applied mathematics which is not a very easy thing to
achieve in a nutshell. It is for this, specialists from different field convene together
to pool their knowledge and experience to develop a unified design policy which is
otherwise known as the code of practice. 55
55 And violations of the same, in the name of economy or financial budget is not uncommon.
A professional engineer undertaking a design is usually guided by three things
Cost involved
Engineering and construction schedule
Sociological importance of the structure in hand.
To what sophistication an analysis should be carried out depends a lot on the budget
the client has the engineering and construction schedule he has to meet and social
outcry it would create in case the structure undergoes damage during an earthquake.
For instance a commercial building or a hotel sustaining damage during an earthquake without collapse would cause a much lesser furor then a reactor building or
a heavy water container undergoing even a minor crack during an earthquake. For
radiation effects emanating from those cracks could have a catastrophic effect on the
surrounding and would possibly result in complete shut down of the plant till such
cracks are rectied. This would possibly result in power shortage in an area for months
and could result in a huge revenue loss for industries dependent on such power.
Chemical plants storing toxic and hazardous material if undergoes damage can again
have deadly consequence on the surrounding and can ravage the ecological balance so
badly that it could take years to restore the same.
Public building like hospitals, town halls, schools where people mostly take refuge
in the post earthquake scenario must remain functional for relief work to be effectively
carried out.
People could surely argue that whats the big deal? As the code suggests we take a
higher importance factor and design it for a higher force. It is indubitable a fact that
the argument do have some substance in it.
But it has been seen in many cases that though the force induced in the structure was
possibly lesser then expected, structures have undergone a spectacular failure while
there are structures which was subjected to a far higher force then it was designed for
and yet it has survived the shock with only minor damages.
Reasons attributing to such spectacular failures have been very simple.
The structures were inherently planned poorly making them generically weak
under earthquake force56
And last but not the least improper detailing causing improper stress dissipation
path resulting in considerable damage to the structure.
We would like to re-emphasise at this point that irrespective of the most sophisticated
analysis one undertakes the most advanced software one may use if the same is not
followed up with well conceived structural arrangement and proper detailing can still
result in collapse.
On the other hand, analysis of structures based on simple seismic coefcient method
and plane frame analysis carried out by simple portal method, but detailed properly
and having robust structural conguration has been found to survive severest of the
shock.
56 Like irregular geometry in plan causing additional torsion not catered to properly etc.
One of the major limitations a civil engineer faces specially in the building industry is
that in many of the major buildings during conceptual stage he has very little control
on selection of material and planning of the functional space for this is principally
controlled by the architects57 . But how well the structure will behave under earthquake
depends a lot on these decisions. If the architect concerned does not have appreciation
of the problems earthquake could create, may lead to a situation of impassewhen in
extreme case can even result in replacement of the project civil engineer58 .
While it is surely not the job of a structural engineer to put spanner in every aspiring
wheel an architect could conjure, yet if he sees something that could seriously mar the
performance of the building should be pointed out clearly if possible with comparative numbers enabling an architect to make a quantitative assessment of the issue.
The bottom line is that it is necessary to have an unbiased continuous and an open
dialogue between the architect and the engineer to arrive at the most optimal shape
and configuration which is structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing.
During planning stage of structure at a location susceptible to severe earthquake if
some fundamental rules are followed and adhered to much of the risk of a collapse can
surely be significantly mitigated. We discuss a few of the important ones hereafter
Avoid the fundamental period of the building to be near the free field site of the
motion, equating the two as shown in Chapter 1 (Vol. 2) one can arrive at the
critical height of the building which an architect could be made aware to suppress
the seismic excitation of the building.
Avoid irregular geometry in plan these creates additional force. If not properly
taken care off can lead to significant damage of the building. We explain this
point with an example.
Shown in Figure 3.10.1 is a typical plan view of a school building with a playground59 . It is obvious that shear center of such building will be along the chain
dotted line as shown in the figure. Thus an earthquake force acting on the building
would act along this line and would invariably create additional torsion in the building
which if not properly catered for could result in severe cracking at the junction.
Now the point remains is that does this functional concept be rejected at the outset
citing it is dangerous?
For wearing an architects hat one can envisage a number of functional advantage
with this type of configuration as a school building. So, what are the other options a
structural engineer is left with? He can surely under take a detailed dynamic analysis
of such building and cater to the additional torsion or can simply do the following:
The trick is simple break up the building into three regular modules as shown
in Figure 3.10.2 by providing construction joints as shown which surely makes the
57 Not to mention, those mafias (with high level political nexus) who in the name of promoters today
control almost everything in building industry and have polluted the complete work ethics of the building
industry in India.
58 If the firm concerned is primarily an architectural firm.
59 A common feature one observes in many public schools in England and Germany, playground in front
is usually called a quadrangle.
Figure 3.10.1 Typical plan of a school building.
Construction joint
(Typ.)
Figure 3.10.2 Plan of a school building with construction joint.
configuration much simpler to handle while the functional configuration conceived by

the architect can still be maintained 60 .
Avoid rapid change in stiffness in vertical direction.
This is a common problem faced in many congested urban area where due to lack
of space the ground floor is completely kept open for the cars to park while the top
portion constitute of residential or office complex with usual curtain walls as shown
in Figure 3.10.3.
In such cases, the top portion of the building having higher stiffness would possibly
have a low time period which shows the structure is quite stiff. This would thus attract
a significant force which when gets transferred to the foundation, suddenly finds a level
which has a much poorer stiffness then rest of the building and if the members are not
sturdy enough to transfer this shear force would invariably result in a failure at the
column beam junction as marked as the weak zone.
60 A similar situation can happen in a pipe rack configuration too where due to process requirement and
pipe stress limitations the configuration cannot be changed. Again opting for a separation joint will do
the trick in such case.
Weakest link
Figure 3.10.3 Typical office building with open space for car parking in ground floor.
Figure 3.10.4 Office building with open shear wall and access cut-out.
It can well be envisaged that while we cannot reject the option61 , yet try to arrive at a
solution which would make the building safe against earthquake. The easiest solution
would to provide one bay with a shear wall which would be stiff enough to absorb
the load as shown in Figure 3.10.4.
We had just cited a few examples to give some idea. All international codes including
IS-1893 (2002) has come up with do and donts in term of building planning and should
be adhered to as much as practicable.
Detailing is another aspect that needs to be given proper attention. Ductile detailing
as such is gaining importance more and more to attenuate the effect of earthquake
force. IS code has developed a special code, IS-13920 for the same which should be
adhered to. Ductility is an important aspect which safe guards a structure by dissipating
the energy induced in the body due to seismic force by cracking thus preventing a total
collapse. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this book and interested reader
may refer to a number of excellent reference like Park & Pauley 1975, Dowrick 2002.
61 For doing so might result in a rejection of the building plan itself citing provisions have not been kept
for adequate parking space and the client does not have budget to provide a basement parking.
A word or two for the rookies. . . . . .

In eagerness to carry out a clever and sophisticated analysis it is not uncommon to
see freshmen start with an elaborate computer model at the outset and finally get lost in
maze of numbers loosing sight of the basic issue as to how the structure is behaving in
general. Whether there is an inherent flaw in the arrangement that generates additional
forces in one part of the system or not etc.
Study the plan carefully, if required seek help of more experienced people and discuss. Always start with a simple model like a stick model or a simple plane frame
model to have a first feel of the system behavior before launching into a more detailed
and elaborate analysis we can assure you this will eliminate a number of erroneous
design decisions vis-a-vis re-work at later stage of the project when cost implication
in terms of schedule can be more severe.
3.10.1 Epilogue
We are almost at the end of the road, for readers seeking more information on the
subject we would encourage him to read the literatures mentioned at the end of the
chapter. Read them, if you are really interested in this topic we can assure you that you
will enjoy them immensely. Considering this is not a handbook our intention is not to
work out design problems in completeness enabling one to follow them blindly. The
purpose was to provide you with the basic essence of the phenomena and encourage
you to understand the fundamental mechanics behind it.
Finally a word of apology, to the bridge engineers for not having addressed -such
an interesting topic.
The reasons were basically the following:
Bridge engineering being a topic by itself would significantly increase the volume of
this book62 , finally private bridges in India is a rare commodity and most of the bridges
and flyovers are controlled based on legislation of IRC63 and guidelines prescribed by
MOST64 .
Even though detailed dynamic analysis is possible for such bridges however, as per
Indian practice, most of the dynamic loads coming on the bridges due to moving
vehicles or earthquake are catered for based on dynamic load factor or pseudo static
methods. Applying too much sophistication in their analysis may be construed as a
rude intrusion in their all is fine world of slumber and may not be approved by
the legislative body. In USA bridge codes put forward by AASHTO65 have regular
provisions for design of bridges under dynamic earthquake loading are not officially
recognized in the country. Till such modifications are brought about by IRC and
MOST we thought it prudent not to venture in this otherwise a very interesting subject.
62
63
64
65
The intenion has never been to make international weightlifters out of the reader.
Indian Road Congress.
Ministry of Surface Transport of India.
American Authority of state highway official.

SW1451 c003

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SW1451 c003

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter 3

Analytical and design concepts

Why earthquake happens in nature.

390 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications

3.1.1 Why do earthquakes happen in nature?

Figure 3.1.1 Earth with its central core.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering 391

3.1.2 Essential difference between systems subjected

P-waves (body waves)

392 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications

Time History response Velocity

Figure 3.1.2 Typical propagation of earthquake waves through surface.

3.1.3 Some history of major earthquakes

1 Since liquid have no shear resistance it cannot travel through water.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Table 3.1.1 Various Earthquakes & their casualities.

Destroyed 300 000 lives.

Portugal, Spain & Northern

Devastated Lisbon, loss of life was heavy. The disaster was

The Alma-Ata earthquake, 1910

Demonstrated continuous vibrations, that lasted for 5 minutes.

One of the severest events recorded instrumentally.

Vast devastation, A mountain peak was split into two parts.

Alaskan earthquake, 1964

The most severe of all known seismic events. Intensity was

The most violent earthquake of the 20th century. It affected

Latur and Osmanabad,

Magnitude of earthquake was 6.3. Total of 7601 people lost

Bhuj earthquake, 26 January 2001

Some historical structures that survived the 1819 (M = 7.7)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

394 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications

Table 3.1.2 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.

Not felt except by a few under specially favourable circumstances.

Everybody runs outdoors, damage negligible in buildings of good design and

Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial

Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed framed

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering 395

3.1.5 Effect of earthquake on soil-foundation system

3.1.6 Liquefaction analysis

Conceptually speaking liquefaction is very much akin to giving a rapid squeeze to a

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

396 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications

where, amax = maximum acceleration at the ground surface; v = total overburden

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering 397

1.000 0.4113z0.5 + 0.04052z + 0.001753z1.5

1.000 0.4177z0.5 + 0.5729z 0.006205z1.5 + 0.001210z2

where amax = maximum ground acceleration; M = expected moment magnitude of

Co-Relation between CRR and SPT value

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

398 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications

Bore Hole Diameter

where, a = 0.048, b = 0.004721, c = 0.0006136, d = 1.673 105 , e = 0.1248,

where, CRR7.5 = the cyclic resistance ratio at earthquake magnitude of 7.5.

6 After Alan. F. Rauch at the University of Texas, 1998.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering 399

Inf luence of f ine contents on CRR value

where and are determined from the following relationships as shown in

Effect of earthquake magnitude on liquefaction resistance