Esteem Seminar

Welcome!
Slides by the Esteem team
Half-day Seminar on :
ESTEEM 10 Preview (Seismic Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis and
Design According to EC8 Malaysia NA)
and ESTEEM 9.5 Feature Highlights
Programme for the Day

Time Topics
09:00am - 10:30am Theory, concept & bench-marking of Seismic Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis
10:30am - 11:00am Tea Break
11:00am - 11:45am Applications and demonstration of Seismic Modal Response
Spectrum Analysis, design and detailing
11:45am - 12:30pm ESTEEM 9.5 (New Release) features highlight &
demonstration
12:30pm - 01:00pm Question & Answer
01:00pm Seminar ends, followed by lunch
Programme Outline
Session 1 - Theory, concept & bench-marking of Seismic Modal Response
Spectrum Analysis
Types of seismic analysis (Capabilities and Limitations)
More in depth theory of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (mRSA)
Modal Analysis (Comparing Eigen Method vs Ritz Method)
Esteem software mRSA benchmarked against OpenSees and other commercial
software (OCS)
Line Element
Shell Element
High Rise Wall-Frame-Slab Diaphragm Building
Esteem demo of modal analysis (periods, effective mass, etc)
Response Spectrum (Displacement and Acceleration)
Modal combination using SRSS and CQC
Directional full load combination of 81 cases
Esteem software design output benchmarked against OCS
Esteem demo of mRSA results (member forces of individual/combined mode)
Programme Outline
Session 2 - Applications and demonstration of Seismic Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis, design and detailing
Lateral resisting systems
Moment Resisting Frames
Shear wall
Diagonal bracing elements
Diaphragm design
Rigid, semi-rigid and flexible
Design actions
Ductility and Capacity Design
Design and Detailing requirements for DCL, DCM and DCH
Design Tips (Seismic resistant layout, vertical continuity, parameter settings,
etc)
Programme Outline
Session 3 - ESTEEM 9.5 (New Release) features highlight &

demonstration
Session 4 Questions and Answers
Models
Cantilever Column Shear Wall
Single Storey High-rise building

model model
Types of seismic analysis
Material / Analysis Static Dynamic
Linear material Lateral Force Method Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

Time History Analysis
Non Linear Material Push Over Non-Linear Time History Analysis

Theory
Seismic equation
+ + =
Where ,
m is the mass
c is the damping
k is the stiffness
is the acceleration
is the velocity
u is the displacement
P(t) inertia force
Ref: Earthquake Engineering Page 147 Fig. 9.1

Linear/Non-linear Time History Analysis
(THA/nTHA)
Most accurate
Very time consuming
Ref: Seismic Design of Buildings to EC8

Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (mRSA)

Considers the higher modes
Uses modal analysis and response spectrum
Does not consider material non-linearity
Member forces is directionless
Lateral Force Method (LFM)

Approximates the fundamental mode
Member forces have direction
Gives a conservative global response

Base shear is distributed based only on mass and height
Push Over
To model failure mechanism
To obtain overstrength factors
Video Demo
Presenting
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Combines modal analysis and response spectrum
Modal Analysis
Periods 2 = 0 =2/
Eigen Vectors
Pp 521, eq 13.2.2
Mass participation
Pp 523, eq 13.2.9a
Benchmarking Modal Analysis High Rise
Cantilever column Shear Wall

Result Benchmarking : Cantilever Column

Input properties: Formula:
Column size : 500x500mm K=
3

Column length : 2 meter T = 2 /(k/m)
Ecd : 27364 N/mm2 m = M /2 (Lumped Mass)
m = 33M / 140 (Consistent Mass)
Column length, L = 2000 mm

Concrete density, p = 25 kN/m3
Young's modulus, E = 27364 N/mm2
Second moment of area, I = 5208333333 mm4
bh^3/12
Stiffness, k = 53445312.5 N/m
3EI/L^3
Mass, m = 637 kg
M/2
Consistent Mass, m2 300 kg
=
33M / 140
Result Benchmarking : Cantilever Column

Manual Calculation Lumped Mass, MCLM
Period, T = 0.0217 s
2*/k/m)
Manual Calculation Consistent Mass, MCCM
Period, T = 0.0149 s
2*/k/m)
Modal Period Comparison

Period (s)
Mode
Esteem OCS MCLM MCCM
1 0.0217 0.0222 0.0217 0.0149
2 0.0217 0.0222 0.0217 0.0149
3 0.0027 0.0027
Result Benchmarking : Shell Element
Input properties:
Wall thickness : 150mm Wall length : 3 meter
Wall height : 3 meter Ecd : 27364 N/mm2
Esteem 9-nodes Esteem mixed mesh OCS 4 nodes OCS mixed mesh

Mode Period Comparison
Period
Mode Esteem OCS
Esteem 9 nodes mixed mesh OpenSees 9 nodes OpenSees 4 nodes OCS 4 nodes mixed mesh
1 0.1099 0.1115 0.10227 0.11443 0.16019 0.11529
2 0.0414 0.44 0.04148 0.04542 0.09973 0.04803
3 0.0235 0.0181 0.0081 0.00689 0.01093 0.02039
4 0.0168 0.0143 0.00526 0.00331 0.00418 0.01783
5 0.0135 0.0123 0.00349 0.00194 0.00391 0.01450
6 0.0113 0.0086 0.00261 0.00154 0.00331 0.00907
7 0.0082 0.0072 0.00259 0.00851
8 0.0037 0.0064 0.00253 0.00848
9 0.0033 0.006 0.00225 0.00797

Modal Participating Mass Ratio Comparison
Esteem 9 nodes Esteem 9 mixed mesh OCS 4 nodes OCS mixed mesh
Mode
UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%)
1 0.00 74.01 0.00 0.00 63.27 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 65.18 0.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00 18.93 0.00 67.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.68 0.00
4 0.00 23.64 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.63 0.00 6.64 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
6 0.00 0.06 0.00 66.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.37 0.00 0.06 0.00
7 76.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 65.71 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 82.48 0.00 6.87 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.00
9 22.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.78 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 14.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00
High rise : 30 Storey Model

Input properties:
30 storey model
Floor height : 3000 mm
Slab thickness: 125 mm
Beam size : 250 mm x 500 mm
Wall thickness : 250 mm
Column size: 300 mm x 300 mm
Ecd : 27364 N/mm2

Periods and Mass Participation between ESTEEM and OCS
Esteem Eigen OCS Esteem Ritz
Mode
Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%)
1 6.0142 79.81 0 0 5.8012 80.24 0 0 6.0142 79.81 0 0
2 2.8728 0 69.75 0 2.7222 0 67.51 0 2.8728 0 69.75 0
3 1.9922 9.77 0 0 2.0459 0 0 0 1.9922 9.77 0 0
4 1.173 3.45 0 0 1.9135 10.06 0 0 1.173 3.45 0 0
5 0.8309 1.8 0 0 1.1140 3.39 0 0 0.8309 1.8 0 0
6 0.7855 0 13.93 0 0.7845 1.69 0 0 0.7855 0 13.93 0
7 0.6395 1.1 0 0 0.6847 0 17.58 0 0.6395 1.1 0 0
8 0.5273 0 0 0 0.6020 1.01 0 0 0.5172 0.73 0 0
9 0.5172 0.74 0 0 0.5511 0 0 0 0.515 0 0.02 0.02
10 0.4315 0.53 0 0 0.4864 0.67 0 0 0.4314 0.53 0 0
11 0.3832 0 0 59.74 0.4062 0.48 0 0 0.383 0 0.01 59.45
12 0.3696 0 5.19 0 0.3832 0 0 61.04 0.3661 0.06 4.5 0.11
13 0.3682 0.4 0 0 0.3463 0.40 0 0 0.2947 0.6 0.01 0
14 0.3533 0 0 0 0.3181 0 4.89 0 0.2179 0.06 2.12 0.32
15 0.3195 0.32 0 0 0.2841 0.50 0 0 0.1764 0 0 22.13
16 0.2809 0.26 0 0 0.2763 0 0.16 0 0.1261 0.04 1.12 3.66
17 0.2772 0 0.09 0 0.2192 0.01 0 0 0.0612 0 0.95 5.84
C. Eff.
99.02 91.93 81.38 97.98 92.41 91.53 97.98 92.41 91.53
Mass
Eigen vs. Load Dependent Ritz

Ritz analysis is FAST
LDR is at least 3 times faster than Eigenvalue
Ritz analysis is PARSIMONIOUS
Unimportant modes aren't generated, see next slide:
Periods and Mass Participation Directional Ritz (X) vs Directionless Eigen

Mode Esteem Eigen OCS Esteem Ritz (X)
Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%) Period (T) UX (%) UY (%) UZ (%)
1 6.0142 79.81 0 0 5.8012 80.24 0 0 6.0142 79.81 0 0
2 2.8728 0 69.75 0 2.7222 0 67.51 0 1.9921 9.77 0 0
3 1.9922 9.77 0 0 2.0459 0 0 0 1.1561 3.93 0 0
4 1.173 3.45 0 0 1.9135 10.06 0 0 0.6206 4.28 0 0
C. Eff.
93.03 69.75 0 90.30 67.51 0 97.79 0 0
mass
Modal Analysis Demo in Esteem

Response Spectrum
Ground motion record applied to multiple single degree of freedom
model, each with different periods
Pre-calculates the maximum response from multiple time history
analysis
Mass-damper-spring system
Response Spectrum
Effect of damping on response spectra
Ref: Seismic Design of Buildings to EC8

Peninsular Malaysia Response Spectrum
Ref : Malaysia National Annex to MS EN 1998-1: 2015, EC8 (draft)

Sabah, Malaysia Response Spectrum
Ref : Malaysia National Annex to MS EN 1998-1: 2015, EC8 (draft)

Modal Analysis and Response Spectrum
Modal Analysis Gives eigen Response Spectrum Gives Response Distribution
values and vectors Acceleration/Displacement using eigen vectors
Eigen =
values, 2
Period, =2/ {}
=

= 2 ( )
Eigen
vectors,
Deformed
shape/Response
distribution
Modal Response - Mode 1
{}
= =

= 2 ( ) Or


Modal Combination (SRSS)

Cl. 4.3.3.3.2 Combination of modal responses
Cl. 4.3.3.3.2(1) Two vibration mode independent of each other
0.9
(1) above satisfied then Cl. 4.3.3.3.2 (2) (SRSS)

where is seismic action effect under consideration
is seismic action effect due to vibration mode i
Cl. 4.3.3.3.2(3): (1) not satisfy, use Complete Quadratic Combination
(CQC)
Mode Combination (CQC)
+ +
Advantage of CQC over SRSS

SRSS works well for periods that are well separated
SRSS does not consider the coupling effect between different
periodsnot accurate when frequencies are closely spaced.
SRSS might underestimate the correct response of the
structure
CQC considers the coupling contribution, does not
underestimate the correct response
When to do mode combination?

ALWAYS do at the final stage of the analysis.
Response direction is lost after mode combination
Right: Displacement -> Stress-> combined stress
Wrong: Displacement -> combined displacement-> stress
Accidental Eccentricity
To account for imperfections in the distribution of mass
2 Methods applying a torsion and shifting the mass
Directional Combination
Modal and Directional Combinations
Combination of actions (EN1990 cl. 6.4.3)
ULS: cl. 6.4.3.4 Combinations of actions for seismic design conditions
= , ; ; ; 2, , 1 ; 1 (6.12a)
Combination in { } can be expressed as
1 , " + "" + " " + " 2, , (6.12b)
Directional Comb. including Accidental Torsion Effects (cl. 4.3.2)
= 0.05
EN1998 cl. 4.3.3.5: Combination of the effects of the components
of the seismic action (2b) SRSS OR (3) using 100% + 30% rule
cl. 4.3.3.5.1 Horizontal components of the seismic action
EEdx + 0.30 EEdy
0.30 EEdx + EEdy
cl. 4.3.3.5.2 Vertical components of the seismic action
If avg > 0.25g (2.5 m/s2) and 4.3.3.5.2(1)
EEdx + 0.30 Eedy + 0.30 EEdz
0.30 EEdx + Eedy + 0.30 Eedz
0.30 EEdx + 0.30 Eedy + EEdz
64 combinations for seismic
Member force Benchmarking

Forces for combined modes with OCS
Member force benchmarking

Input properties:
Single storey model
Floor height : 3000 mm
Beam size : 300 mm x 500 mm
Slab thickness: 125 mm
Column sizes: 300 mm x 300 mm
Column (2,B): 800 mm x 800 mm
Ecd : 27364 N/mm2

Maximum Displacements Benchmarking
ESTEEM
OCS
Member force benchmarking (Individual Load Case)

Example:
Load Case: Individual load case, Ex
Results Description: Moment Y-Y (kNm)
ESTEEM OCS
Member force benchmarking (Load Combination)
LFM vs Response Spectrum

LFM(correction Response
F= 0.85) Spectrum
Period(s) 0.85 0.85
Bottom Column 1157.03 1133.30

moment (kNm)
Bottom column 111.20 105.97

shear(kN)
Total base shear 444.80 428.88
(kN)
Shear force(kN) Response

Shear force(kN) LFM
Spectrum
Member Forces Demo in Esteem

Session 2
Applications and demonstration of Seismic Modal Response Spectrum
Analysis, design and detailing
Lateral resisting systems
Shear wall
Diagonal bracing elements
Diaphragm design
Design actions
Ductility and Capacity Design
Design and Detailing requirements for DCL, DCM and DCH
Design Tips (Seismic resistant layout, vertical continuity, parameter settings,
etc)
Lateral Resisting Systems

Wall
Diagonal element
Moment Resisting Frames (MRF)
Flexible
Large displacements
Shear walls
Rigid
Small displacements
Diagonal bracing
Most efficient use of materials
Dual systems
Diaphragm to enforce
displacement compatibility
Diaphragm
Ties the structure together
Enforces displacement compatibility
mRSA forces will underestimate forces in lower stories
Diagram from NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3

Slab Diaphragm
EN1998 cl. 4.4.2.5 Resistance of horizontal diaphragms
Cl. 4.4.2.5(2) Overstrength factor, d = 1.3 (for brittle failure
mode, eg. Shear in concrete diaphragm), 1.1 (ductile failure
mode) MAL EC8: Same
Cl. 5.10 Provisions for concrete diaphragms
cl. 5.10(1) Solid R.C. slab may serve as diaphragm (thk
70mm) & reinforced in BOTH horizontal directions with min.
reinforcement specified in EN1992
Diaphragm Components
Collector bar - Transferring force from diaphragm to wall
Distributor bar - Transferring force from transfer wall to diaphragm
Tension Chord - Resist tension force within diaphragm
Compression Chord - Resist compressive force within diaphragm
Diagram from NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3

Result Benchmarking : Centre Mass and Rigidity

To visualise behaviour of structure
Centre Mass (7426, 4188) Centre Rigidity (3314, 3946)
Result Benchmarking : Centre Mass and Rigidity
Centre Mass and Rigidity Comparison
Esteem OCS Difference (%)
Centre Mass X 7426.27 7315.96 1.51
Centre Mass Y 4187.61 4079.11 2.66
Centre Rigidity X 3313.65 3497.44 5.25
Centre Rigidity Y 3945.76 3945.06 0.02

Slab Contour Cut Demo in Esteem

Design and Detailing requirement
for DCL, DCM and DCH
Cl. 5.4 Design for DCM
Cl. 5.5 Design for DCH
Design and Detailing requirement

for DCL, DCM and DCH
Cl. 5.2.1 Ductility Class (DCL, DCM and DCH)
(NA to MAL Draft) Cl. 3.2.1(4) - The whole of Malaysia is
classified as "Low Seismicity"
Cl. 5.3 Design to EN1992-1-1
5.3.1 DCL without any additional requirement other
than those 5.3.2 only for low seismicity cases
5.3.2 Primary Seismic Elements (4.2.2) Reinforced Steel of class B
and C in EN1992 Table C.1 shall be used
Ductility
Behaviour factor q (force reduction factor)
q = 1 linear behaviour under design seismic load
q > 1 inelastic behaviour allowed by proper designated plastic hinge
q <= 1.5 (Cl. 5.3.3 for DCL regardless structural system and regularity in
elevation) Refer
DCM and DCH cl. 5.2.2.2 q = qokw 1.5 (EC8 EQ. 5.1) EC8 cl.
Structural Type DCM DCH 5.2.2.2(11)
Frame system, dual system, coupled wall 3.0 u/1 4.0 u/1
system
Uncoupled wall system 3.0 4.0 u/1
Torsional flexible system 2.0 3.0
Inverted pendulum system 1.5 2.0
Table 5.1: Basic value of the behavior factor, qo for system regular in elevation
Capacity Design
Ductile failure rather than brittle failure
Plastic hinge preferably in beams rather than in columns
Design secondary members for overstrength of yielding
members
Factors influence Overstrength of R/C

Building
AsProv on-site vs AsReq in design calculation
Conservative assumption in modeling (assumed flange width of
beam supporting slabs vs actual slab contribution in beam
flexural resistance
Actual material yielding strength vs characteristic strength
assumed in design
Non-structural elements contribution in resisting seismic
forces
Column Moment Capacity Design
Ref: Eurocode-Compliant Seismic Analysis and

Design of R/C Buildings Page 230 Flowchart 3.14b
Beam
DCM
Normal beam Cl. 5.4.3.1.2(1) : the critical regions for beams are from the beam end section up to a
distance
lcr = hw
where hw is the beam depth
Beam supporting transfer column cl.5.4.3.1.2 (2): the critical regions for beams supporting transfer
columns is from the beam end section at transfer column surface up to a distance,
lcr = 2 hw
where hw is the beam depth, at both sides of the transfer column
DCH
Normal Beam cl.5.5.3.1.3 (1): the critical regions for beams is from the beam end section up to a
distance
lcr = 1.5 hw
where hw is the beam depth
Beam supporting transfer column cl.5.5.3.1.3 (2), the critical regions for beams supporting transfer
columns is following cl.5.4.3.1.2(2) which is from the beam end section at transfer column surface up
to a distance
lcr = 2 hw
where hw is the beam depth, at both sides of the transfer column
Column
DCM
Cl. 5.4.3.2.2 (4) Absence of more precise information
lcr = max{hc ; lcl / 6; 0.45}
where;
hc is the largest cross-sectional dimension of the column (in meters); and
lcl is the clear length of the column (in meters).
Cl. 5.4.3.2.2 (5): lcl/hc < 3, entire column being a critical region
At least one intermediate bar shall be provided between corner bars along each
column side, to ensure the integrity of the beam-column joints
Within the critical regions of the primary seismic columns, hoops and cross-ties, of at
least 6 mm in diameter, shall be provided at a spacing such that a minimum ductility is
ensured and local buckling of longitudinal bars is prevented. The hoop pattern shall
be such that the cross-section benefits from the tri-axial stress conditions produced
by the hoops.
Column
DCH
Cl. 5.5.3.2.2(4) Absence of more precise information
lcr = max{ 1.5hc ; lcl / 6; 0.6}
where;
hc is the largest cross-sectional dimension of the column (in meters);
and
lcl is the clear length of the column (in meters)
Cl. 5.5.3.2.2 (5): lcl/hc < 3, entire column being a critical region
At least one intermediate bar shall be provided between corner bars along
each column side, to ensure the integrity of the beam-column joints.
RC Wall
DCM
According to Clause 5.4.3.4.2 (1) the critical region height, hcr above the base of the
wall is obtained from the maximum of the following:
lw
hw/6
where
lw = wall length
hw = total height of the wall above the foundation
But, the critical region height, hcr should be less than the following:
hcr 2 lw
hcr hs, for n 6 stories
hcr 2 hs, for n 7 stories
where
hs = clear story height for the current floor
n = number of stories
RC-Wall
DCH
According to Clause 5.5.3.4.5, the critical region height, hcr above the base of
the wall is obtained from Clause 5.4.3.4.2(1), the maximum of the following:
lw
hw/6
where
lw = wall length
hw = total height of the wall above the foundation
But, the critical region height, hcr should be less than the following:
hcr 2 lw
hcr hs, for n 6 stories
hcr 2 hs, for n 7 stories
where
hs = clear story height for the current floor
n = number of stories
Design output consider ductility class

Seismic Design & Detailing Demo in Esteem

Analysis & Design tips

Keep the layout simple and regular to Use one type of system in a
avoid stress concentrations certain direction
Use seismic joints
Have vertical continuity
Account for rigid non-

structural elements
Place lateral resisting

systems at the edge
and distribute it
uniformly to reduce
rotations
Use Ritz analysis

Number of modes to
include (for Ritz) 2
x sqrt(story level)
Acknowledgements
Thank you all for coming!
Esteem team for making awesome slides
References
Anil K. Chopra (2012) Dynamics of Structures
Jack P. Moehle: Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete
Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors
Ahmed Y. Elghazouli (2009) Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8
Y-X. Hu, S-C Liu, W. Dong (1996) Earthquake Engineering
Structural Dynamics for Structural Engineers: Gary C. Hart & Kevin Wong
Eurocodes
Malaysia National Annex to MS EN 1998-1: 2015, EC8 (draft)
Questions
Why is the first mode from a modal analysis not necessary the fundamental
mode in a certain direction?
Why are the forces and displacements from a modal response spectrum
analysis always positive?
What is the advantage of Load Dependent Ritz analysis over Eigen analysis
What does accidental eccentricity do?
According to Eurocode, what is the least number of seismic load
combinations possible?
According to Eurocode 8, do we need to consider vertical seismic action in
Malaysia?
For Ductility Class Low, based on Eurocode 8, what is the only additional
requirement for reinforced concrete design?
What is the goal of capacity design?
What is pushover analysis used for?
Questions
How are modal response spectrum analysis and lateral force method
related?
How is a response spectrum created?
How is modal analysis used in conjunction with response spectrum?
What factors influences the forces on a structure during a seismic event?
What lateral bracing system is the most efficient?
What is the difference between SRSS and CQC?
Is it possible to not use results from a time history analysis when doing
seismic design?
In a beam-sway failure, does the column yield?

Esteem Seminar

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione 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

Esteem Seminar

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Welcome!

Slides by the Esteem team

Programme for the Day

Session 3 - ESTEEM 9.5 (New Release) features highlight &

Single Storey High-rise building

Linear material Lateral Force Method Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

Non Linear Material Push Over Non-Linear Time History Analysis

Ref: Earthquake Engineering Page 147 Fig. 9.1

Ref: Seismic Design of Buildings to EC8

Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (mRSA)

Lateral Force Method (LFM)

Gives a conservative global response

Cantilever column Shear Wall

Result Benchmarking : Cantilever Column

Column length, L = 2000 mm

Result Benchmarking : Cantilever Column

Modal Period Comparison

Result Benchmarking : Shell Element

Result Benchmarking : Shell Element

High rise : 30 Storey Model

Ecd : 27364 N/mm2

Eigen vs. Load Dependent Ritz

Periods and Mass Participation Directional Ritz (X) vs Directionless Eigen

Modal Analysis Demo in Esteem

Ref: Seismic Design of Buildings to EC8

Peninsular Malaysia Response Spectrum

Ref : Malaysia National Annex to MS EN 1998-1: 2015, EC8 (draft)

Sabah, Malaysia Response Spectrum

Ref : Malaysia National Annex to MS EN 1998-1: 2015, EC8 (draft)

Modal Response - Mode 1

Modal Response - Mode 2

Modal Response - Mode 3

Modal Combination (SRSS)

(1) above satisfied then Cl. 4.3.3.3.2 (2) (SRSS)

Mode Combination (CQC)

Advantage of CQC over SRSS

When to do mode combination?

Member force Benchmarking

Member force benchmarking

Ecd : 27364 N/mm2

Maximum Displacements Benchmarking

Member force benchmarking (Individual Load Case)

LFM vs Response Spectrum

Period(s) 0.85 0.85

Bottom Column 1157.03 1133.30

Bottom column 111.20 105.97

Shear force(kN) Response

Member Forces Demo in Esteem

Lateral Resisting Systems

Moment Resisting Frames (MRF)

Diagram from NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3

Diagram from NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3

Result Benchmarking : Centre Mass and Rigidity

Result Benchmarking : Centre Mass and Rigidity

Centre Mass and Rigidity Comparison

Esteem OCS Difference (%)

Centre Mass X 7426.27 7315.96 1.51

Centre Mass Y 4187.61 4079.11 2.66

Centre Rigidity X 3313.65 3497.44 5.25

Centre Rigidity Y 3945.76 3945.06 0.02

Slab Contour Cut Demo in Esteem

Design and Detailing requirement

Factors influence Overstrength of R/C