Final Draft PDF

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Tsion Fekadu Mekonnen, entitled:
Assessment of Seismic Design Practice and Overall Structural Design Process of
Buildings Designed in Addis Ababa and submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Degree of Master of Science (Structural Engineering)
complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with
respect to originality and quality.
Signed by the Examining Committee:
Examiner_________________________________Signature__________Date_______
Examiner________________________________ Signature __________Date_______
Advisor__________________________________Signature__________Date_______
Advisor__________________________________Signature__________Date_______
___________________________________________
Chair of Department or Graduate Program Coordinator
ii

ABSTRACT
Assessment of Seismic Design Practice and Overall Structural Design Process of
Buildings Designed in Addis Ababa.
Tsion Fekadu Mekonnen
Addis Ababa University, 2015
This thesis is conducted to assess seismic design practice and overall structural design
process of buildings designed in Addis Ababa. Design models were collected from
Addis Ababa City Administration and randomly selected ten models were assessed.
Eurocode, which is similar to Ethiopian Building Code and Standard, is used to
evaluate the models. The main objective of this thesis is assessing seismic design
practice at different consulting offices, consideration of dynamic analysis for irregular
structure, fulfillment of fundamental requirements for earthquake design, structural
configuration of structures for earthquake design, stiffness reduction, slab and column
design.
The findings of this research shows that in all the models the slab has been designed
as part of the lateral force resisting system, majority of models did not make stiffness
reduction for the slab section and reduce flexural and shear stiffness properties of
concrete and masonry element for sway frame. It is also found that fundamental
requirement and structural configuration of structures for earthquake design are not
fulfilled. In addition some of the models did not consider accidental eccentricity, P-∆
analysis and dynamic analysis as per code requirement. After making modification to
iii

these models as per Eurocode, it is found that there is a significant increase in column
and beam shear force and bending moment. This would imply that seismic design
practice and overall structural design of building designed in Addis Ababa are not up
to the code requirement.
Keywords: Seismic Design; Dynamic Analysis; P-∆ Analysis; Stiffness Reduction;
Fundamental Requirement of Earthquake Design
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Above all I want to thank God for giving me the strength to complete this thesis work.
My deepest gratitude then extends to my beloved families for always standing by my
side and their support.
I would like to thank Female Scholarship for providing me the opportunity to study
MSc in Structural Engineering and sponsoring me throughout my study.
I would like to deeply express my gratitude to Eyasu Ashenafi for his help in selection
of this thesis topic and support for completing this thesis work.
My deepest gratitude extends to my advisor Dr-Ing.Adil Zekaria for his
encouragement and guidance throughout this thesis work.
I would like to thank my colleges at MH Engineering and Daniel Taye for providing
me information and data which brought this thesis in to picture.
I would like to thank Elias Tsga for his help in editing and finalizing the paper work.
Finally I would like to thank Addis Ababa City Administration for providing me
designed models. Without their help this work could have not been real.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objective ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Materials and Methods .................................................................................... 4
1.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 6
2.1 Review of Historical Records of Earthquake in Ethiopia ............................... 6
2.2 Review of Seismic Mechanisms and Seismicity in Ethiopia .......................... 7
2.3 Review of Response of Built-up Structures to Seismic Events in Ethiopia .... 7
2.4 Background and current state of code-required seismic design in Ethiopia . 12
2.4.1 Ethiopian Building Standard Codes ....................................................... 12
2.4.2 Seismic Zoning ...................................................................................... 13
2.5 Deficiencies in current code and proposed revisions .................................... 16
2.5.1 Seismic Zoning and Peak ground acceleration (PGA) .......................... 16
2.6 Characteristics of earthquake resistant buildings .......................................... 19
2.6.1 Basic principle of conceptual of design ................................................. 19
2.6.2 Structural regularity ............................................................................... 20
2.6.2.1 General ............................................................................................... 20
2.6.2.2 Criteria for regularity in plan according to EBCS 8-1995 ................. 21
2.6.2.3 Criteria for regularity in Elevation according to EBCS 8-1995 ......... 22
vi

2.7 Structural analysis according to EBCS 8-1995 ............................................. 23
2.7.1 Modeling ................................................................................................ 23
2.7.2 Accidental eccentricity........................................................................... 24
2.7.3 Method of analysis ................................................................................. 24
2.7.3.1 Equivalent static analysis according to EBCS 8-1995 ....................... 25
2.8 Safety verifications ........................................................................................ 29
2.8.1 Ultimate limit state ................................................................................. 29
2.8.2 Seviceability limit state .......................................................................... 30
2.8.3 Combination of actions .......................................................................... 30
2.9 Frame member stiffness ................................................................................ 30
2.10 Slab modeling ................................................................................................ 32
2.11 Number of modes considered ........................................................................ 33
2.12 Scaling factor for base shear ......................................................................... 33
3 RESULT ............................................................................................................... 34
3.1 Model 1:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof ............. 34
3.1.1 Structural configuration ......................................................................... 34
3.1.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 35
3.1.1.2 Elevation regularity ............................................................................ 36
3.1.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 39
3.1.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 44
3.2 Model 2:- Ground +Mezzanine + 4 story+ Roof +Top Roof ........................ 56
vii

3.2.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 57
3.2.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 57
3.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 58
3.3 Model 3:- Three Basement + Ground + 16 story + Roof + Top Roof .......... 61
3.3.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 62
3.3.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 62
3.3.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 63
3.4 Model 4:- Two Basement + Ground +Mezzanine + 11 story ....................... 65
3.4.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 66
3.4.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 67
3.4.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 67
3.5 Model 5:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof ............. 69
3.5.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 70
viii

3.5.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 70
3.5.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 71
3.6 Model 6:- Basements + Ground + 7 story +Mezzanine floor + Roof ........... 72
3.6.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 73
3.6.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 73
3.6.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 74
3.7 Model 7:- Two Basement + Ground + 10 story + Roof + Roof Top ............ 75
3.7.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 76
3.7.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 76
3.7.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 77
3.8 Model 8:- Ground + 7 story + Roof + Roof Top........................................... 78
3.8.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 79
3.8.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 79
3.8.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 80
3.9 Model 9:- Ground + 3 story + Roof + Top roof ............................................ 81
ix

3.9.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 82
3.9.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 82
3.9.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 83
3.10 Model 10:- Two basement + Ground + Mezzanine + 13 story + Top roof ... 85
3.10.1.1 Plan regularity................................................................................. 86
3.10.1.2 Elevation regularity ........................................................................ 86
3.10.2 Summary ................................................................................................ 87
4 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 88
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................... 95
6 REFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 98
Appendix A- Detail Calculation for Each Model..................................................... 99
Appendix-B Sample Architectural Drawings ........................................................ 147
DECLARATION
x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 (a) Seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per Gouin (1976) which was also used by
CPI-78 (b) Seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per ESCP-1:1983 (c) Seismic Zoning of
Ethiopia as per EBCS-8:1995. [1] ............................................................................... 15
Figure 2.2 Criteria for regularity of setbacks ............................................................... 23
Figure 3.1 Three dimensional view of model one ....................................................... 35
Figure 3.2 Three dimensional view of model two ....................................................... 57
Figure 3.3 Three dimensional view of model three ..................................................... 62
Figure 3.4 Three dimensional view of model four ...................................................... 66
Figure 3.5 Three dimensional view of model five ....................................................... 70
Figure 3.6 Three dimensional view of model six ........................................................ 73
Figure 3.7 Three dimensional view of model seven .................................................... 76
Figure 3.8 Three dimensional view of model eight ..................................................... 79
Figure 3.9 Three dimensional view of model nine ...................................................... 82
Figure 3.10 Three dimensional view of model ten ...................................................... 86
xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 List of earthquakes and reported damages between 1979 to 2011 ................ 9
Table 2-2 Optimal structural configuration [5] ............................................................ 20
Table 2-3 Consequences of structural Regularity on Seismic Design ......................... 21
Table 2-4 Bedrock acceleration ration αo .................................................................... 25
Table 2-5 Importance categories and important factors for buildings ......................... 26
Table 2-6 Site coefficient ............................................................................................. 26
Table 2-7 Basic value γo of behaviour factor ............................................................... 28
Table 3-1 Limit of re-entrant corners in meter ............................................................ 35
Table 3-2 Percentage exceedance of re-entrant corners from the limit ....................... 36
Table 3-3 Setback on elevation of the building in meter ............................................. 37
Table 3-4 Percentage exceedance in setback on elevation of the building from the
limit .............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 3-5 Summery of structural configuration of model one .................................... 38
Table 3-6 Stiffness reduction factor ............................................................................. 38
Table 3-7 Column design ............................................................................................. 38
Table 3-8 Load combination ........................................................................................ 39
Table 3-9 Auto seismic input data using UBC 94 ....................................................... 40
Table 3-10 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter. .................. 42
Table 3-11 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter..... 43
Table 3-12 Total reactive force at the origin. .............................................................. 45
Table 3-13 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters. ................... 47
Table 3-14 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meters ... 48
Table 3-15 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
KN-m for C106 ............................................................................................................ 49
xii

KN-m for C42 .............................................................................................................. 50
Table 3-17 Comparison for beam moment and Shear force for envelope X and Y in
KN-m ........................................................................................................................... 52
Table 3-18 Comparison for beam moment and shear force for envelope X and Y in
KN-m ........................................................................................................................... 54
Table 3-19 Total reactive force at the origin ............................................................... 59
Table 3-20 Seismic loads ............................................................................................. 80
Table 4-1 Summary of stiffness modification factor ................................................... 89
Table 4-2 Summery of regularity, dynamic analysis, Accidental eccentricity and
diaphragm .................................................................................................................... 90
Table 4-3 Summery of fundamental requirement for earthquake design .................... 91
Table 4-4 Response spectrum function used ............................................................... 92
Table 4-5 Summary of P-∆ analysis ............................................................................ 93
Table 4-6 Modified S.L.S and U.L.S ........................................................................... 94
xiii

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS
Symbols Description
eij Accidental eccentricity of story mass i from its nominal
location, applied in the same direction at all floors
Li Floor-dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic
action
Fb Base shear force
Sd (T1) Design spectrum normalized by the acceleration of gravity
T1 Fundamental period of vibration
W Seismic dead load
α Ratio of the design bedrock acceleration to the acceleration of
gravity
αo Bedrock acceleration ratio from the site and depends on the
seismic zone
I Importance factor
β Response factor
Vs Shear wave velocity
H Height of the building above the base in meter
γo Basic value of the behaviour factor
KD Factor reflecting the ductility class
xiv

KR Factor reflecting the structural regularity in elevation
KW Factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in strucutral
system with wall.
θ Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient
θ limit Design interstory drift sensativity coefficient
Ptot Total gravity load at and above the story considered
dr Design interstory drift, evaluated as the difference of the
average lateral displacement at the top and bottun of the story
ds Displacement of a point induced by the design seismic action
γd Displacement behavior factor, assumed equal to γ
de Displacement of the same point of the structural system, as
determined by a linear analysis based on the design response
spectrum
Vtot Total seismic story shear
h Interstory height
E East
N North
W West
s Second
S.L.S Service limit state
U.L.S Ultimate limit state
xv

ht Height
EQXP Earthquake in the x- direction along positive eccentricity
EQYP Earthquake in the y- direction along positive eccentricity
EQXN Earthquake in the x- direction along negative eccentricity
EQYN Earthquake in the y- direction along negative eccentricity
DL Dead Load
LL Live load
Combo Combination
αo The prevailing aspect ratio of the wall i of a structural system
Z Zone factor
S Soil parameter
DC”H” Ductility class high
DC”M” Ductility class medium
DC”L” Ductility class low
E Modulus of Elasticity
Ec Modulus of Elasticity of concrete
Ig Gross moment of inertia
Ib Moment of inertia of beam
Ic Moment of inertia of column
xvi

UBC Uniform building code
ACI America Code Institute
EBCS Ethiopian building code and standard
mm millimeter
RSEQXP Earthquake response spectrum in the X-direction along positive
eccentricity
RSEQYP Earthquake response spectrum in the Y-direction along positive
eccentricity
RSEQXN Earthquake response spectrum in the X-direction along
negative eccentricity
RSEQYN Earthquake response spectrum in the Y-direction along
negative eccentricity
Bzmnt Basement
xvii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The current economic expansion in Ethiopia which seems to be driven by a number of
enabling factors has had substantial impact in the transportation, energy, and water
supply sectors with a growing number of large-scale infrastructure projects such as
dams, power-plants, highway roads, water reservoirs, and expansion of railways either
coming online or entering construction phase. Furthermore, pressure from other
natural developments, the staggering population growth of the country being a
primary one, continue to force rapid implementation of large-scale engineering
infrastructure works such as mass-housing, water supply reservoirs, power-plants,
dams, and new cities. As things stand, the country's population is projected to reach a
staggering 120 million by 2025 positioning Ethiopia to be among the top 10 to 15
populous countries on the planet. In addition to a multitude of other threats that this
population growth could bring, the issue of housing these additional 30 to 40 million
Ethiopians in the next few decades will pose a huge risk factor. In a recent paper, it
has been argued that 25 new cities with size equivalent to present Dire Dawa are
needed or the current 10 cities such as Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa will have to
become mega cities of 10 million or more to accommodate this growth. While these
projections regarding urbanization may be a little bit on the high-side, there is no
denying regarding the need for housing these additional millions of citizens in the
next several decades. [1]
Interestingly, however, a substantial amount of these large infrastructure works
already lie or will be in or in close proximity to the some of the most seismically
active regions of the country such as Afar Triangle, the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER),
1

and the Southern Most Rift (SMR) where well documented damage causing
earthquakes are common. A review of the engineering reports associated with some of
the largest and most expensive infrastructure projects in the country suggest that
despite the presence of a substantial amount of published literature on the significant
seismicity of the region the severity of threats posed by seismic hazards on the safety
and serviceability of these structures is not well understood by the main stake-holders
such as policy-makers, insurance companies, real-estate developers, capital investors,
building design checkers and, not infrequently, the engineering community itself as
well.[1]
Against this background, therefore, the need for preparing for this real and substantial
threat of seismic hazards in the country is pressing and requires attention at all levels.
Several fundamental problems still main before rationale seismic design is practiced
well in the country. These are:
(i) There is growing evidence that the current building codes themselves are
inadequate, out-dated, and not stringent enough when compared to the level
of seismic risks associated with the country,
(ii) Ambiguities that exist in this first legislation attempt that do not explicitly
address the seismicity of the country (Part Three-Design, Item 34 that reads
"buildings may not exhibit signs of structural failure during their life span
under normal loading") may give a ground for stakeholders to ignore seismic
effects because 'normal loadings' may arguably not include seismic loads, and
(iii) The mechanism for enforcing strict adherence through design checks at the
municipality offices (as opposed to external peer review system) is inadequate
because it relies on design checkers who are neither well aware of the
seismicity of the country nor well-trained in seismic design to start with.
2

Further, the legally mandated requirements and design review process do not
apply to public and government large-scale infrastructures (dams, railway
structures, electrical transmission structures) which actually are the sources of
some of the major concerns. [1]
Therefore, ambiguities of the new building construction law coupled with the lack of
awareness and mechanism for truly enforcing code requirements continue to
introduce a significant risk of endangering the useful life of these expensive projects
as well as human life. [1]
Most of the designers working at consulting offices are Bachelor degree holders and
seismic design is not given as independent course at this level. Instead it is given at
Masters Level as earthquake engineering course explicitly. This might be taken as a
problem in seismic design practice of Ethiopia since it is hard to get enough
awareness about seismic design without knowing in depth about earthquake
engineering.
Thus having mentioned the above problem it is pressing issue to assess the seismic
design practice of Ethiopia. There are many design office in Ethiopia and it is
difficult to get all data so the research will focus on assessing seismic design practice
of building structures at selected design offices of Addis Ababa.
3

1.2 Objective
The general objective of this thesis is to assess seismic design practice and the overall
structural design process of building designed in Addis Ababa.
The specific objectives are
 Assessing seismic design practice of building structures
 Assessing consideration of dynamic analysis for irregular structure
 Assessing fulfillment of fundamental requirements for earthquake design
(ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state).
 Assessing structural configuration of structures for earthquake design
 Assessing stiffness reduction for structural elements
 Slab and column design
1.3 Materials and Methods
The objective of the research was achieved in accordance with the method outlined
below.
I . Literature review: Ethiopia building codes and standards, Eurocode and literatures
on history of earthquake in Ethiopia shall be reviewed.
II . Data analysis: Structural models from randomly selected design offices will be
collected and analyzed. These structural models are obtained from Addis Ababa
City Administration. Since design models are not submitted to City
Administration anymore, randomly selected design offices are assessed. In this
thesis ten models are analyzed.
4

1.4 Limitations
This thesis is limited to building structures. Since almost all design offices are not
willing to give design models, the selection criteria is random and only data’s
available from Addis Ababa City Administration is used as input data. Due to time
constrain only 10 models are analyzed. The code used to assess the case studies is
Eurocode 8:2004 which is similar to EBCS8:1995.
5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Review of Historical Records of Earthquake in Ethiopia
It is well established now that, due to its location right on some of the major tectonic
plates in the world, that is, the African and Arabian plates, earthquakes have been a
fact of life in Ethiopia for a very long time. The earliest record of such earthquake
dates as far back as A.D.1431 during the reign of Emperor Zara Yaqob. In the
20thcentury alone, a study done by Pierre Gouin suggests that as many as 15,000
tremors, strong enough to be felt by humans, had occurred in Ethiopia proper and the
Horn of Africa. A similar study by Fekadu Kebede indicated that there were a total of
16 recorded earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 and higher in some of Ethiopia’s seismic
active areas in the 20th century alone. The most significant earthquakes of the 20thand
21st centuries like the 1906 Langano earthquake, the1961 Kara Kore earthquake, the
1983 Wondo Genet earthquake, the 1985 Langano earthquake, the 1989 Dobigraben
earthquake in central Afar, the 1993 Adama earthquake, and the 2011 Hosanna
earthquake were all felt in some of the major cities in the country such as Addis
Ababa, Jimma, Adama and Hawassa. In addition to Gouin's book that describes the
earthquakes of 1906 and 1961 that shook Addis Ababa and caused wide spread panic,
a recently published Amharic biography of Bladen GetaMersie Hazen Wolde Qirqos
vividly describes the effect of the 1906 Langano earthquake in Addis Ababa and
Intoto. In addition to these well documented seismic events starting from the 15th
century, a number of earthquakes have shaken the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER), and
the Southern Rift Valley of the country recently between 2005 and now bringing the
danger of seismic hazard to the forefront. As built up environments and human
development activities increase in areas close and within the MER, the Afar Triangle
and the Southern Rift Valley of the country, it is expected that the damage on property
6

and loss of human life due to seismic hazard will increase very significantly. One of
the important observations is that newer buildings are experiencing damages under
these relatively moderate earthquakes of magnitude around 5.0. [1]
2.2 Review of Seismic Mechanisms and Seismicity in Ethiopia
In terms of the mechanism that gives rise to seismic hazard, the well accepted theory
suggests a simplified model that typically considers three distinct seismic zones in
Ethiopia proper. These are: the Afar Triangle seismic zone (which further consists of
the junction between Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Main Ethiopian Rift), the
Escarpment seismic zone (characterized by north south running faults associated with
some of the devastating earthquakes such as the 1961 magnitude 6.7 Kara Kore
earthquake) and the Ethiopia Rift System seismic zone (which links the Red Sea, Gulf
of Aden with East African Rift system through the Afar Triangle). [1]
2.3 Review of Response of Built-up Structures to Seismic Events in Ethiopia
As discussed above, while an extensive amount of earthquake records on Ethiopia
exist, the structural damage to infrastructures in the vast part of this period was
obviously very low due to the extreme limitation of built-up environments in the
country. It is only, perhaps, starting from the 1950s and 1960s that one sees what
could be characterized as noticeable building and infrastructure activity in the
country, particularly in the seismic-prone areas. For the period between 1960 and
1978, Gouin’s work provides a wealth of information on the response of built-up
structures like buildings and bridges to some of the large and damaging earthquakes
such as Kara kore (1961) and Serdo (1969). With regard to infrastructural damages
from 1978 onward, there have been isolated reports of which some are unpublished.
Interestingly, this period coincides with a growth in built-up areas and infrastructure
in some of the seismically active areas, particularly MER and the Afar Triangle.
7

Areas where there were no infrastructure damages even under strong ground motions
such as the 6.3 intensity Chabbi Volcano earthquake of 1960 near the present day
Hawassa have now seen encroachment of built-up areas which have suffered damages
under recent but much less strong ground motions. Therefore, it has increasingly
become clear that structural damages to buildings and infrastructure due to
earthquakes are on the rise in the country. A catalogue of these damages presented in
Table 2-1 particularly for the time period after 1978 is a first attempt in understanding
the pattern of damages observed so far and preparing the groundwork for predicting
the potential structural damages that could occur in the years to come. [1]
8

Table 2-1 List of earthquakes and reported damages between 1979 to 2011
Earthquake Intensity Year STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

Akaki Magnitude 4.1 1979(28 July) Cracks in poorly built masonry structures.
8.85N 38.7E Intensity VII
near epicenter
8.9N 39.9E 5.1 1981 Cracks in masonry buildings in AwaraMelka town,
(February 7) north of the Fentale volcanic center
7.03N 38.6E 5.1 1983 Rock slides and damage and destruction of
masonry buildings in Wendogenet, east of Lake
Hawassa.
Well-built single-story building cracked at the
Forestry Institute.
Large boulders dislodged, plaster fallen off
walls, electric poles thrown down.
Hawassa 5.3 1983 Damage to steel frames in Hawassa.
Damage to Wetera Abo Church in Wondo
Genet (1983 earthquake, masonry building with
irregular vertical and horizontal stiffness. Damage
seems to occur where there is stiffness
discontinuity).
11.37N 1984 High-rise buildings shaken. Mortgage Bank
38.7E (April 10) Building in Kazanchis.
Near Lake
Hayk.
8.95N 1984 Concrete building in Piazza shaken
39.95E (August24)
8.3N 38.52E 5.1 1985 Strongly felt in Lake Langano camp, central MER.
Oitu Bay Cracks in buildings in resort area hotels
(Langano)
9.47N (4.8), 105 Km 1985 Panic in high-rise buildings in Addis Ababa.
39.61E away (October )
Langano
5.4 1987(October Already weakened hollow block building
9

28) collapsed, strongly felt – Arba Minch.

Panic – No damage in Jimma.
Students knocked against one another in
classroom, poorly built house collapsed in Sawla.
Hamer and 5.3 – 6.2 1987
Gofa magnitude. (October7-28) Details given separately for Hawassa, Jima and
Earthquake Arba Minch.
Swarm
5.3 1987 Light-sleepers woken. No structural damage in
(October 7) Hawassa.
Poorly built structures cracked, many woken up,
birds Shaken-off trees.
8.9N 40E 4.9 1989 Cracks in buildings in the town of Metehara,
northern MER.
Felt like passing truck by many, shaking beds.
DobiGraben 1989 Several bridges damaged.
(afar)
Mekelle 5.3 1989(April Felt by many causing some panic.
13)
Dichotto 5.8 1989(August Dining people thrown-off table, masonry house
20) collapsed, landslides killed 4 people and 300
cattle, 6 bridges destroyed in Dichotto.
Soddo 5.0 1989 Widespread panic, broken windows and some
6.84N (June 8) injured in
37.88E Soddo.
8.1N 38.7E 5.1 1990 Minor damage in towns at the western escarpment,
i.e., at Silti and Butajira, West of Zway town.
8.3N 39.3E 5.0 1993 Collapse of several adobe buildings in Nazareth
Nazareth town northern MER.
Felt as far as DebreZeit and Addis Ababa.
7.2N 38.4W 5.0 1995 Cracks in flour factory building at Hawassa town.
Mekelle 5.2 2002 Buildings shaken in the city of Mekelle
(August 10)
10

Afar 2005 Fumes as hot as 400 oC shoot up from some of

Triangle September 26 them; the sound of bubbling magma and the smell
of sulfur rise from others. The larger crevices are
dozens of meters deep and several hundred meters
long. Traces of recent volcanic eruptions are also
visible. This was followed by a week-long series
of earthquakes. During the months that followed,
hundreds of further crevices opened up in the
ground, spreading across an area of 345 square
miles.
Ankober 5.0 2009 Earthquake strikes near Ankober Town and was
September 19 widely felt in Addis especially by residents who
live on multistory buildings.
Hosanna 5.3 2010 Damage sustained by reinforced concrete frame
(December dormitory building at Jimma University with in-
20) filled walls at where as many as 26 students were
injured. Structural damage to slab and column
joint. Damage to many building in Hosanna
Ethio-Somali 6.1 2011 Buildings shaken in Dire Dawa, Jijiga, and
border (March 3) Somalian towns.
Abosto/ 5.0 2011 Damage to unreinforced cinder-block cladded
YirgaAlem (March 9) timber building. 100 houses were destroyed and 2
people were
injured in this earthquake
Hosanna 5.2 November Damage of infill walls in medium rise buildings.
24,2011
11

2.4 Background and current state of code-required seismic design in Ethiopia
2.4.1 Ethiopian Building Standard Codes
The first seismic code for building in Ethiopia was introduced in 1980 (CP1-78). This
code defined four seismic codes regions (that is 0, 1, 2 and 4) with a return period of
100 years and 90% probability of not being exceeded. To each zone, a danger rating
was assigned with no, min, moderate and major corresponding to zones 0, 1, 2 and
4.The CP1-78 code dealt primarily with seismic zoning and determination of
equivalent static loads on structures and left actual a seismic design of structural
members (beams, columns, and shear walls) to the judgment of the engineer with
other established international building codes, primarily UBC, serving as a basis for a
seismic design. ESCP1-83 has a separate code (ESCP-2:1983 - Ethiopian Standard
Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete) for guidelines for concrete design.
These were followed by a substantial change introduced in 1995 as EBCS-1995 by
the Ministry of Works and Urban Development. The seismic zoning was an
improvement over previous codes based on additional data obtained from newer
earthquake records inside Ethiopia as well as neighboring countries. However, the
whole Ethiopian Building Code Standard (EBCS) that consisted of 10 volumes was
predominantly based on the European Pre-Standard (experimental) code (ENV 1998)
which was drafted by CEN (European Committee for Standardization). The seismic
provisions code, EBCS-8: 1995 (Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance), was
also predominantly based on ENV 1998:1994 Euro code8 Design Provisions for
Earthquake Resistance of Structures except the equivalent static load procedure which
still had the UBC influence. The use of the draft Euro code as a model was a
significant departure from earlier codes which used UBC as a model to a large extent.
It appears that there was no overriding technical basis for this departure. Further, the
12

adaptation of this 'draft' code before the Europeans themselves commented on it and
approved an improved version as a standing code causes a number of significant
inconsistencies and controversies. [1]
A commonality between all the three codes introduced in the country over the past 30
years is the choice of 100 years return-period in contrast with a 475 years return-
period which is adopted by most codes around the world. The main argument in favor
of this choice has been the relatively economical construction of structures designed
for a less powerful earthquake. In general, PGA (peak ground acceleration) values
corresponding to a return-period of 475 years are about twice those of 100 years
return-period. While the existence of history of three generation of seismic codes in
the country is a commendable effort, its legal enforcement was never codified by the
country's legal systems until 2009 when the Ethiopian Building Proclamation
624/2009 was introduced as a legal document that outlines the building regulations
and requirements, for use by local authorities to ensure building standards are
maintained in their jurisdiction. [1]
2.4.2 Seismic Zoning
Gouin who used probabilistic approach is credited for the initial attempts in producing
the first seismic hazard map of Ethiopia as shown in Figure 2.1. Gouin's work also
served as a basis for the seismic zoning adopted by the ESCP-1:1983 building code of
Ethiopia (see Figure 2.1b). Since the production of Gouin’s seismic zoning maps,
quite a large number of destructive earthquakes have occurred in the country causing
damages both to property and human life. Further, destructive earthquakes that
occurred in the neighboring countries were not included in the production of the first
map in 1976. Subsequently, Kebede produced a new seismic hazard map of Ethiopia
and its northern neighboring countries to account for these additional earthquake
13

records. Unlike previous works, the seismic zoning of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa
reported by Kebede, Kebede and Asfaw also account for ground motion attenuation in
addition to newer data obtained from such sources as the US National Earthquake
Information Service (NEIS). The works of Kebede and Kebede and Asfaw served as a
basis for the seismic zoning adopted by the current Ethiopian building seismic code -
EBCS-8:1995 as shown in Figure 2.1c. Further, there have been other attempts on
seismic zoning of some of the country’s important economic regions such as the city
of Addis Ababa. The work of the RADIUS project is a notable example. There have
been additional studies that are continually shaping understanding of seismicity in
Ethiopia. [1]
A summary of the seismic zonings corresponding to each of these three codes are
given in Figure 2.1. Seismic Zoning of Ethiopia as per CP1-78, ESCP1- 83 and
EBCS-8:1985 all considered 4 seismic zones. The availability of relatively newer data
was credited for the changes in seismic zoning of Ethiopia as per EBCS-8: 1995
which considers some areas in MER to have the same zoning as the severest of the
Afar region. The nature and location of recent damage-causing earthquakes such as
the December 2010 Hosanna and March 2011 Aboso/YirgaAlem earthquakes is
expected to add further support for the need for further improving the current seismic
zoning to account for previously unknown and less understood faults as well as local
site conditions. [1]
14

Figure 2.1 (a)) Seismic zooning of Ethiiopia as per G

Gouin (19766) which wass also used bby
C
CPI-78 (b) Seismic
S zoniing of Ethioopia as per ESCP-1:198
E 83 (c) Seism
mic Zoning oof
E
Ethiopia as peer EBCS-8:11995. [1]
15

2.5 Deficiencies in current code and proposed revisions
Substantial amount of new data has been accumulated from earthquakes that have
occurred in Ethiopia in the 90s as well as early parts of the current century that
suggest that the current seismic zonings adopted in the codes are incomplete,
inadequate, and non-cognizant of local site effects that could amplify earthquake
effects. Further, the inherent weakness and flaws of basing the country's code on a
'draft' European code that was not even reviewed and critiqued by the Europeans
themselves at that time add a lot of urgency on the call for the substantial review of
the current building code, EBCS-1995. In fact, the European code has not been
accepted 'as is' even by its member states like Italy who have added not insignificant
modifications for national uses. [1]
2.5.1 Seismic Zoning and Peak ground acceleration (PGA)
As stated earlier, the works of Fekadu Kebede and L.M. Asfaw served as a basis for
the seismic zoning adopted by the current Ethiopian building seismic code - EBCS-
8:1995 (with a return-period of 100 years which corresponds to 0.01 annual
probability of exceedance). Associated with this, there are at least three areas that
offer an opportunity to improve the usefulness as well as address some of the
inadequacies of the current seismic zoning. [1]
1. The effects of local site-conditions such as local fault lines and soil conditions for
at least the major population areas need to be considered. While preparing a detailed
one may be too prohibitive of an expense and beyond the means of the country, doing
so for major cities like Addis Ababa, Jimma, Adama, Hawassa, Mekelle, and Dire
Dawa may be a reasonable approach. Even in current practices, there have been
isolated attempts in performing such local site effects for some infrastructure projects
around the country. The inconsistencies of the current seismic zoning devoid of local
16

site-conditions becomes more apparent when considering the case of Addis Ababa
where areas such as Nefas Silk which is only 20 to 25 kilometers away from
DebreZeit (zone 4, α0=0.1) has the same seismic zone 2(α0=0.05) classification as
Intoto and its mountainous surroundings. Interestingly, Akaki which is only 5 or so
kilometers away from Nefas Silk and has no overriding geological dissimilarities with
the latter is classified as zone 3 with α0=0.07. Against this background, the work of
L.M. Asfaw's where he showed that there is significant geological and topographic
variation in different parts of Addis Ababa that had resulted in variations in the felt
intensities in past earthquakes adds another dimension to the argument .In general,
L.M. Asfaw's work suggests that the southwestern part of Addis Ababa mainly
consists of thick alluvium deposits whereas the northern part of the city has prominent
topographies (mountains) with thin soil cover. Both types of topographies are known
to increase felt intensities. Interestingly, L.M. Asfaw shows that, due to local site
effects, the felt intensities in Intoto area (seismic zone 2 according to EBCS-8:1995)
were higher than those in the southeast of the city towards Bole field (seismic zone 3).
Therefore, until a complete site specific zoning is available sometime in the future, it
is suggested that for consistency purposes as well as conservative designs the city of
Addis Ababa and its industrial surroundings adopt similar seismic zoning of at least
zone 3. This could be addressed, for example, by establishing the contour lines of
seismic zones near major metropolitan areas to be continuous with no jump in zones
giving continuity in seismic zoning. [1]
2. The current code considers a return-period of 100 years only which effectively
reduces peak ground acceleration by almost half as compared to the commonly used
475 years return-period (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). As discussed
before, economic considerations were often cited as the main argument in favor of
17

this choice. However, this view needs a revisit in light of the current significant boom
in construction activities across the country which is expected to continue in the
foreseeable future despite some hiccups along the way as well as with regard to
continuity and compatibility of risk levels in the region and beyond. Does the cost-
saving in designing for lower seismic loads offset the risk of losing large investments
in these infrastructures due to large earthquakes with return periods of 200 to 475
years? While it may be argued that a return-period of 475 years may introduce a
sudden substantial jump in cost, that the level of investment going to these structures
is substantially high enough to warrant consideration of 475 year return period.
Further, it is suggested that for large infrastructure projects such as dams, bridges,
power plants, railway structures these structures should be mandated by specialized
codes as is done elsewhere, the tendency to use existing practice of 100 year return
period should also be discouraged and disallowed and the proposed use of 475 years
of return period should also be extended to these specialized codes. [1]
3. While the catalogue of earthquakes used for the current zoning extended up until
1990 only, the earthquakes that have occurred since then in the past 20 years have
some interesting aspects that could have a bearing on the current seismic zonings. A
good example is the 5.3 magnitude Sunday December 19, 2010 Hosanna earthquake
that injured as many as 26 students in Jimma and damaged buildings. While the
current seismic zoning puts Jimma in seismic one 1(with α0=0.03) and the city is at
least 100 kilometers away from the epicenter, the damage caused is surprising.
Interestingly, the city of Jimma had always felt the effect of past earthquakes in the
MER (Main Ethiopian Rift) and SMR (Southern Most Rift) including the Woito
earthquake swarm of October -December 1987 that rattled the city and its residents.
As development in the Jimma area expands, the damage from earthquakes centered in
18

the MER, SMR and beyond could cause more damages and this current classification
of this city of increasing commercial importance as seismic zone 1 and α0=0.03 is
non-conservative and hard to support. [1]
2.6 Characteristics of earthquake resistant buildings
Buildings are designed by architects and engineers. Architects are responsible for the
architectural configuration of buildings at the start. Configuration has to do with the
size, shape and proportion of the 3D form of the building. Architectural configuration
determines the location, shape and approximate size of structural and nonstructural
elements of the building. Any architectural design should incorporate effective
seismic design to minimize earthquake hazards. While the provision of earthquake
resistance is accomplished through structural means, the architectural design and the
decision that create it, play a major role in determining the building’s seismic
performance. [5]
2.6.1 Basic principle of conceptual of design
1. The aspect of seismic hazard shall be taken into consideration in the early stages of
the conceptual design of the building. [2]
2. The guiding principles governing this conceptual design hazard are
→ Structural simplicity
→ Uniformity and symmetry
→ Bidirectional resistance and stiffness
→ Torsional resistance and stiffness
→ Diaphragmatic action at story level
→ Adequate foundation .[2]
19

Table 2-2 Optimal structural configuration [5]
Attributes Benefits
Low width-to-depth ratio Low torsional effects
Low height-to-base width/depth ratio Low overturning effects
Similar story heights Elimination of weak/soft story
Short spans Low unit stress and deformation
Symmetrical plan shape Elimination/reduction of torsion
Identical resistance on both axes Balanced resistance in all directions
Uniform plan/elevation stiffness Elimination of stress concentrations
Uniform plan/elevation resistance Elimination of stress concentrations
Uniform plan/elevation ductility High energy dissipation
Perimeter lateral resisting systems High torsional resistance potential
Redundancy High plastic redistribution
Direct load path, no cantilevers Elimination of stress concentration
2.6.2 Structural regularity
2.6.2.1 General
For the purpose of seismic design, building structures are distinguished as regular and
non-regular. This distinction has implication on the following aspect of seismic
design:
→ The structural model, which can be either a simplified planar or a spatial one,
→ The method of analysis, which can be either a static or dynamic
→ The value of the behavior factor which can be either increased or decreased
depending on the type of non-regularity in elevation
→ Geometric non- regularity exceeding the limits
→ Non-regular distribution of over strength in elevation exceeding the limits
20

With regard to the implications of structural regularity on the design, separate
consideration is given to the regularity characteristics of the building in plan and
elevation, according to table 2-3. [2]
Table 2-3 Consequences of structural Regularity on Seismic Design
Regularity Allowed simplification Behavior factor

plan Elevation Modal Analysis
Yes Yes Planar Static* Basic
Yes No Planar Static* Increased
No Yes Spatial Static* Basic
No No Spatial Dynamic Increased
*For T1<2s
2.6.2.2 Criteria for regularity in plan according to EBCS 8-1995
1. The building structure is approximately symmetrical in plan with respect to two
orthogonal directions, in what concerns lateral stiffness and mass distribution.
2. The plan configuration is compact, that is it does not present divided shapes as H, I,
X, etc. The total dimension of re-entrant corner or recesses in one direction does not
exceed 25% of the overall external plan dimension of the building in the
corresponding direction.
3. The in-plan stiffness of the floor is sufficiently large in comparison with the lateral
stiffness of the vertical structural elements so that the deformation of the floor has a
smaller effect on the distribution of the forces among the vertical structural elements.
4. Under the seismic force distribution, applied with the accidental eccentricity at any
story, the maximum displacement in the direction of the seismic forces does not
exceed the average story displacement by more than 20%.
21

2.6.2.3 Criteria for regularity in Elevation according to EBCS 8-1995
1. All lateral load resisting systems, like cores, structural walls or frames, run without
interruption from their foundation to the top of the building or, when setback at
different heights are present, to the top of the relevant zone of the building.
2. Both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual stories remain constant or
reduced gradually, without abrupt changes, from the base to the top.
3. In framed building the ration of the actual story resistance to the resistance required
by the analysis should not vary disproportionately between adjacent stories.
4. When setbacks are present, the following additional provisions apply
a) In case of gradual setbacks preserving axial symmetry, the setbacks at any
floor is not greater than 20% of the previous plan dimension in the direction of
the setback.(see Figure 2.2a and 2.2b)
b) In case of single setbacks within the lower 15% of the total height of the main
structural system, the setback is not greater than 50% of the previous plan
dimension (see Figure 2.2c). In that case the structure of the base zone within
the vertically projected perimeter of the upper stories shall be designed to
resist at least 75% of the horizontal shear forces that would develop in that
zone in a similar building without the base enlargement.
c) In case the setbacks do not preserve symmetry, in each face of the sum of the
setbacks at all story is not greater than 30% of the plan dimension at the first
story, and the individual setbacks are not greater than 10% of the previous
plan dimension.(see Figure 2.2d)
22

Figurre 2.2 Criterria for regullarity of settbacks
2.7 Structu
ural analysiis accordingg to EBCS 8-1995
8
2.7.1 Moodeling
1. The model
m of thhe buildingss shall adeqquately repreesent the distribution
d oof
stiffneess and masss so that all significant deformation

d shapes and inertia forcees
are prroperly accouunted for unnder the seism

mic action coonsidered.
2. In gen
neral, the strructure may be considerred to consisst of a numbber of vertical
and laateral load reesisting systeems, connectted by horizoontal diaphrragms.
3. Whenn the floor diaphragms of the buildings are ssufficiently rigid in theeir
plane,, the masses and the mooments of innertia of eachh floor may be lumped at
the ceenter of gravvity, thus redducing the ddegrees of freeedoms to thhree per flooor
(two horizontal
h diisplacementss and a rotatiion about thee vertical axxis).
23

4. For buildings complying with the criteria for regularity in plan, the analysis
can be performed using two planar models, one for each main direction.
5. Infill wall which increase significantly the lateral stiffness of the building
should be taken in to account.
6. The deformability of the foundation soil shall be considered in the model
whenever it may have an adverse influence on the structural response.
2.7.2 Accidental eccentricity
In addition to the actual eccentricity, in order to cover uncertainties in the location of
masses and in the spatial variation of seismic motion, the calculated center of mass at
each floor i shall be considered displaced from its nominal location in each direction
by an additional eccentricity.
eij= ± 0.05 Li……………………………………………………………………………………………………………(2.1)
Where
eij: -accidental eccentricity of story mass i from its nominal location,
applied in the same direction at all floors
Li:-floor-dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic
action. [2]
2.7.3 Method of analysis
Depending on the structural characteristics of the building either static or dynamic
analysis is made. Static analysis is made to buildings whose response is not
significantly affected by contribution from higher modes of vibration which is for
building satisfying plan and elevation regularity and having fundamental periods of
vibration T1 in the two main directions less than 2 second. Dynamic analysis is
24

performed for building which are irregular and response is affected by contribution
from higher modes of vibration. [2]
2.7.3.1 Equivalent static analysis according to EBCS 8-1995
Base shear force, Fb=Sd (T1) W…………………………………………………..(2.2)
Sd (T1):- is the design spectrum normalized by the acceleration of gravity
T1:- fundamental period of vibration
W: - seismic dead load
Sd(T1)= αβγ………………………………………………………………………...(2.3)
α is the ratio of the design bedrock acceleration to the acceleration of gravity
α=αoI
Where αo is the bedrock acceleration ratio from the site and depends on the
seismic zone.
I=importance factor
Table 2-4 Bedrock acceleration ration αo
Zone 4 3 2 1
αo 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03
25

Table 2-5 Importance categories and important factors for buildings
Importance Buildings Importance

category factor
I Building whose integrity during earthquakes is of vital importance 1.4
for civil protection example hospital, fire stations, power plants, etc.
II Building whose seismic resistance is of importance in view of the 1.2
consequences associated with a collapse, example schools, assembly
halls, cultural institutions, etc.
III Ordinary buildings, not belonging to other categories 1.0
IV Buildings of minor importance for public safety, example agricultural 0.8
buildings, etc.
.
β= / 2.5…………………………………………………………….. (2.4)
β is response factor
Where S is site coefficient depending on soil type
Table 2-6 Site coefficient
Subsoil class description Site coefficient

A Rock vs ≥ 800 m\s in the top 5 meter and stiff clay 1.0
deposit vs ≥ 400 m\s at 10 meter depth
B Medium dense sand, gravel or medium stiff clays 1.2
vs ≥ 200 m\s at 10 meter depth
C Loose cohesion less soil deposit with or without 1.5
some soft cohesive layers
vs< 200m\s in the upper most 20 meter
26

T1=C1H3\4…………………………………………………………………………. (2.5)
T1:-fundamental period of buildings, in seconds,
H: - height of the building above the base in meter
C1 = 0.085 for steel moment resisting frames
=0.075 for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame and
eccentrically braced steel frame
=0.050 for all other buildings
behavioural factor γ according to EBCS 8-1995
γ = γoKDKRKW ≤ 0.70……………………………………………………...(2.6)
where γo -basic value of the behaviour factor
KD-factor reflecting the ductility class
KR-factor reflecting the structural regularity in elevation
KW-factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in strucutral system with wall
27

Table 2-7 Basic value γo of behaviour factor
Structural type γo
Frame system 0.20
Dual wall Frame equiavalent 0.20
Wall equivalent, 0.20
with couple walls
Wall equivalent, 0.2
with uncouple walls
Wall system With coupled walls 0.2
With uncoupled walls 0.25
Core system 0.30
Inverted pendlum system 0.50
The factor KD reflecting the ductility class shall be taken as follows
KD =1 for DC “H”
=1.5 for DC “M”
=2 for DC “L”
The factor KR reflecting the regularity in elevation shall be taken as follows
KR=1 for regular structure
=1.25 for non regular structure
The factor KW reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural system with walls
shall be taken as follows
28

KW =1 for frame and frame equivalent dual systems
= (2.5-0.5αo) for wall, wall equivalent systems
≥ 1 and core systems
Where αo is the prevailing aspect ratio of the wall i of a structural system
2.8 Safety verifications
2.8.1 Ultimate limit state
Second order effect (P-∆ effect) need not be considered when the following
condition is fulfilled in all storey.[2]
∗
θ= ≤ 0.10………………………………………………………....(2.7)
∗
Where
θ= interstory drift sensitivity coefficient
Ptot= total gravity load at and above the story considered
dr=design interstory drift, evaluated as the difference of the average lateral
displacement at the top and bottun of the story
ds = de\γd…………………………………………………..………(2.8)
Where ds=dr displacement of a point induced by the design seismic action
γd =displacement behavior factor, assumed equal to g
de =displacement of the same point of the structural system, as
determined by a linear analysis based on the design response spectrum.
Vtot = total seismic story shear
29

h= interstory height
θ shall not exceed 0.25.
2.8.2 Seviceability limit state
Limit on design interstorey drift shall be [2]
a) For building having non structural elements of brittle material attached to
the structure
dr ≤ 0.01h…………………………………………….…….(2.9)
For building having non- strucutral elememts fixed in a way as not to
interfere with the structural deformation
dr ≤ 0.015h………………………………………..………(2.10)
where
dr= design interstorey drift
h= building height
2.8.3 Combination of actions
Combination of actions as per Eurocode 1990-2002 is used and combination
coefficient for variable action EN 1998-1:2003 has been used.
2.9 Frame member stiffness
Frame member stiffness should reflect the degree of cracking and inelastic action
which has occurred along each member before yielding. Non-linearity arises from the
stress strain relation of the materials. The development of cracks in the concrete and
secondary load-deflection (slenderness) effects lead to a situation in which the
maximum load and bending moment induced in a column cannot readily be related to
the loads acting on the structure. The column rigidity depends on the axial load of the
moment variation along the length, the percentage reinforcement, the steel placement,
30

the strength of steel and concrete, and their critical strain values. However, in braced
frames the relative values of stiffness are important. Two usual assumptions are to use
gross EI values for all members or, to use half the gross EI of the beam stem for
beams and the gross EI for columns. For frames that are free to sway, a realistic
estimate of EI is desirable and should be used if 2nd order analysis are carried out. [4]
The stiffness’s appropriate for strength calculations must estimate the lateral
deflections accurately at the factored load level. They must be simple to apply,
because a frame consists of many cross sections, with differing reinforcement ratios
and differing degrees of cracking. Furthermore, the reinforcement amounts and
distributions are not known at the time the analysis is carried out. Using studies of the
flexural stiffness of beams with cracked and uncracked regions, MacGregor and Hage
recommended that the beam stiffness’s be taken as 0.4EcIg when carrying out a
second-order analysis. In ACI Code Section 10.10.4.1, this value has been multiplied
by a stiffness-reduction factor of 0.875, giving I = 0.35Ig. Two levels of behavior
must be distinguished in selecting the EI of columns. The lateral deflections of the
frame are influenced by the stiffness of all the members in the frame and by the
variable degree of cracking of these members. Thus, the EI used in the frame analysis
should be an average value. On the other hand, in designing an individual column in a
frame, the EI used in calculating must be for that column. This EI must reflect the
greater chance that a particular column will be more cracked, or weaker, than the
overall average; hence, this EI will tend to be smaller than the average EI for all the
columns acting together. ACI Code Section 10.10.4.1 gives this value multiplied by
0.875, EI=0.70EcIg or for this purpose. The value of EI for shear walls may be taken
equal to the value for beams in those parts of the structure where the wall is cracked
by flexure or shear and equal to the value for columns where the wall is uncracked. If
31

the factored moments and shears from an analysis based on for the walls indicate that
a portion of the wall will crack due to stresses reaching the modulus of rupture of the
wall concrete, the analysis should be repeated with for the cracked parts of the wall.
[4]
Thus based on studies Mac-Grigor recommends these two equations when carrying
out second order analysis.
EI beam= 0.35EcIg
EI column= 0.7EcIg
Euro code 8-2004 states unless a more accurate analysis of the cracked elements is
performed, the elastic flexural and shear stiffness properties of concrete and masonry
elements may be taken to be equal to one half of the corresponding stiffness of the
uncracked elements.
2.10 Slab modeling
While modeling the structural system, if the slab is modeled as part of the lateral force
resisting system, the structure becomes very stiff and the load transferred to the main
structural elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. Normally floor
slabs are designed for the gravity loading only. During lateral load such as
earthquakes they act as diaphragms, i.e. the slab is required to connect all vertical
elements together and distribute the seismic forces to the lateral load resisting
systems. Therefore in the analysis model, either only the lateral force resisting
elements (beams, columns and walls) have to be considered, or else the stiffness of
the slabs have to be significantly reduced if the slabs are modeled together.
32

2.11 Number of modes considered
EBCS8 states that the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes considered
amount to at least 90% of the total mass of the structure. If this cannot be satisfied, the
minimum number of K of modes to be considered in a spatial analysis should satisfy
K ≥ 3√n and Tk< 0.2sec……………………………………….. (2.11)
Where n-number of story above ground,
K-numbers of modes considered
Tk-period of vibration of mode k
2.12 Scaling factor for base shear
If base shear determine from static analysis is greater than dynamic analysis, base
shear in the given direction must be scaled up according to EBCS 8. The base shear
must be increased in the corresponding direction by 100% for irregular building and
90% for regular building.
33

3 RESULT
3.1 Model 1:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof
The structural system of model one which is a mixed use building consists of solid
and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced
concrete columns with dimensions of 400×400mm, 500x500mm, 600x600mm and
700x700mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 200mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 500x300mm and
700x300mm were used to support the roof system. Basement and Ground floor
Beams with dimension 300x600mm and floor beams of 500x300mm and 700x300mm
were used to stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential foundation
settlement. Roof for this building consists of ribbed slab of 300mm thickness. The
codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European Code
2-1992 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was
used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
3.1.1 Structural configuration
The architectural layout of the building is configured with uniform column spacing of
5.7 and 6 meter along the long axis and 6.71, 6.55, 5.55, and 5.66 meter along the
short axis. The building has similar story height of 3.06 meter, unsymmetrical in plan
and elevation and has identical resistance in both direction which is moment resisting
frame and wall.
34

Figure 3.1 Three dimensional

d l view of moodel one
3..1.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corners exxceed the lim
The mits. Table
3 shows lim
3-1 mit of re-enttrant corner.
T
Table 3-1 Lim
mit of re-en
ntrant corneers in meterr
Re-entraant Limitt of Re-eentrant L

Limit of
Locationn corner in
i re-entrrant cornner in re-entrant Remark
x- cornerr in y-dirrection coorner in
directioon x-direcction y-ddirection
1st floor 4.51 6.799 133.5 7.875 N
Not regular in
i plan in y-ddirection
2ndfloor 4.51 6.799 133.5 7.875 N
Not regular in
3rdfloor 4.51 6.799 133.5 7.875 N
Not regular in
4th floor 10.11 5.544 1
12 7.875 N
Not regular in plan in x and y-
ddirection
5th floor 10.11 6.344 1
12 6.34 N
ddirection
6th floor 10.11 6.344 1
12 6.34 N
ddirection
35

7th floor 10.11 6.34 12 6.34 Not regular in plan in x and y-

direction
direction
direction
th
10 floor 13.41 5.54 6 6.34 Not regular in plan in x-direction
Roof 10.11 5.54 6 5.27 Not regular in plan in x and y
direction
Table 3-2 Percentage exceedance of re-entrant corners from the limit
Location X-direction Y-direction

1st floor Within the limit 71.4%
2nd floor Within the limit 71.4%
3rd floor Within the limit 71.4%
4th floor 82.3% 52.4%
5th floor 59.3% 89.3%
6th floor 59.3% 89.3%
7th floor 59.3% 89.3%
8th floor 59.3% 89.3%
9th floor 59.3% 89.3%
10th floor 142% Within the limit
Roof 82.3% 13.8%
3.1.1.2 Elevation regularity
In EBCS8-1995 the limit for individual set back that does not preserve symmetry
shall be less than 0.10 and for setback occurring above 0.15H, H is total height of the
36

building, shall be less than 0.20. But as it can be seen from table 3-3 all setbacks
exceeds the limit. Thus the structure is not regular in elevation.
Table 3-3 Setback on elevation of the building in meter
Location Individual Set back that do not Set back occurring above
preserve symmetry 0.15H
Right side elevation 0.17 0.45
Front\rear elevation 0.13 0.28
Left side elevation 0.2,0.23,0.3 Within the limit
Table 3-4 Percentage exceedance in setback on elevation of the building from
the limit
Location Individual Set back that Set back occurring

do not preserve above 0.15H
symmetry
Right side elevation 70% 125%
Front\rear elevation 30% 40%
Left side elevation 100%,130%,200% Within the limit
In model one the structure is configured properly except for unsymmetrical plan and
elevation shape, irregularity in plan and elevation and there is cantilever. Table 3-5
summarizes structural configuration of model one.
37

Table 3-5 Summery of structural configuration of model one
Symmetrical elevation shape No

Similar story heights Uniform story height of 3.06meter
Short spans Yes
Symmetrical plan shape NO
Identical resistance on both axes Yes
Uniform plan/elevation stiffness Yes
Uniform plan/elevation resistance Yes
Uniform plan/elevation ductility Yes
Perimeter lateral resisting systems Yes
Redundancy Yes
Direct load path, no cantilevers No
Regular plan No
Regular elevation No
Ductility class Medium( from statical calculation)
Table 3-6 Stiffness reduction factor
Structural element Stiffness reduction

Beam 0.26EcIg
Column 0.26 EcIg
Slab 0.26 EcIg
Wall 0.26 EcIg
Table 3-7 Column design
Column design
Frame type Sway frame
P-∆ analysis Considered
38

3.1.2 Seismic design
Lateral loading is a static seismic load (Earthquake load) which was found to be
significant thus considered. The following five load combinations are used.
Table 3-8 Load combination
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
1 Combo1 1.3*DL + 1.6*LL
Eccentricity ratio of 0.05 used by

2 Combo2 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQx
software

3 Combo3 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQx
software

4 Combo4 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQy
software

5 Combo5 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQy
software
Accidental eccentricity ratio of 5% is used by the software from auto seismic input
data. Table3-9 shows auto seismic data taken from ETABS.
39

Table 3-9 Auto seismic input data using UBC 94
Direction X Y
Eccentricity Ratio 0.05 0.05
Period Calculated User Defined User Defined
User T 1.07 1.07
Top Story Upper roof Upper roof
Bottom Story Base Base
Rw 3.33 3.33
Z (zone factor) 0.07 0.07
S 1.2 1.2
I (importance factor) 1.2 1.2
TUsed 1.07 1.07
Coefficients for lateral load analysis
T1 = C1H3/4 Equation 2.3 on EBCS 8-1995
C1= 0.075 For reinforced concrete moment resisting frames.
H= 42
T1 = 1.24
Behavioural
γ= γoKdKrKw factor
γo= 0.2 Frame system
Kd = 1.5 For DC "M"
Kr = 1 For regular structures
Kw= 1 For frame and frame equivalent dual systems
γ= 0.3 1/ γ= 3.33
αo= 0.07 (Location is Addis Ababa, zone 3)
S= 1.2
40

α= 0.084
Importance
factor 1.2 EBCS-8
Seismic design process
Serviceability limit state and ultimate limit state is shown in table 3-10 and 3-11
respectively. Serviceability limit state is not satisfied from the first story to top roof.
Second order effect (P-∆) should be considered since the interstory drift sensitivity
coefficient (θ) exceeds 0.1as shown in table 3-11. Ultimate limit state is satisfied.
41

Table 3-10 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter.
Displacement
Building of a point of
drift Displacement the structural Remark
Design Story
elastically behavioural system interstory
Story Building interstory drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift as a
ht ht drift limit
from assumed the design parameter
∆r=∆i-∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ seismic (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Upper
1.04 34.7 0.22510 0.3 0.75033 0.02200 0.0104 Not satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 0.21850 0.3 0.72833 0.07667 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
10 3.06 30.6 0.19550 0.3 0.65167 0.07500 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
9 3.06 27.54 0.17300 0.3 0.57667 0.07300 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
8 3.06 24.48 0.15110 0.3 0.50367 0.07367 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
7 3.06 21.42 0.12900 0.3 0.43000 0.07333 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
6 3.06 18.36 0.10700 0.3 0.35667 0.07133 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
5 3.06 15.3 0.08560 0.3 0.28533 0.08367 0.0306 Not satisfied
th
4 3.06 12.24 0.06050 0.3 0.20167 0.04233 0.0306 Not satisfied
rd
3 3.06 9.18 0.04780 0.3 0.15933 0.05767 0.0306 Not satisfied
nd
2 3.06 6.12 0.03050 0.3 0.10167 0.05000 0.0306 Not satisfied
st
1 3.06 3.06 0.01550 0.3 0.05167 0.03800 0.0306 Not satisfied
Ground 3.06 0 0.00410 0.3 0.01367 0.00967 0.0306 satisfied
st
1
3.06 -3.06 0.00120 0.3 0.00400 0.00267 0.0306 satisfied
basement
2nd
2 -6.12 0.00040 0.3 0.00133 0.00133 0.02 satisfied
basement
Base 0 -8.12
42

Table 3-11 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Total Total
factored unfactore Remark on
Design gravity d gravity interstory
Vx θ=
Story Story Building interstory load at load at θlimit drift
(story (Ptot*dr)
No ht ht drift and and ≤0.25 sensitivity
shear) /(Vtot/h)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 above the above the coefficient
story story (U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
Upper
1.04 34.7 1.04 636.95 489.96 453.9 0.02 0.25 Satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 3.06 3603.54 2771.95 917.3 0.08 0.25 Satisfied
th
10 3.06 30.6 3.06 9188.21 7067.85 1444 0.12 0.25 Satisfied
th
9 3.06 27.54 3.06 15145.00 11650.00 1980 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
th
8 3.06 24.48 3.06 21171.62 16285.86 2480 0.16 0.25 Satisfied
th
7 3.06 21.42 3.06 27205.19 20927.07 2930 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
th
6 3.06 18.36 3.06 33215.38 25550.29 3332 0.18 0.25 Satisfied
th
5 3.06 15.3 3.06 39907.82 30698.32 3692 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
th
4 3.06 12.24 3.06 48752.92 37502.25 4105 0.13 0.25 Satisfied
rd
3 3.06 9.18 3.06 53805.28 41388.68 4467 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
nd
2 3.06 6.12 3.06 66280.13 50984.72 4761 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
st
1 3.06 3.06 3.06 75416.24 58012.49 4998 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 3.06 0 3.06 83645.91 64343.01 5212 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
st
1
3.06 -3.06 3.06 92488.24 71144.80 5353 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
2nd
2 -6.12 -6.12 97313.26 74856.35 5382 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
Base 0 -8.12
43

3.1.3 Summary
Model one is not regular and unsymmetrical in plan and elevation thus dynamic
analysis should be considered. The designer has made dynamic analysis since the
structure is not regular in plan and elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a
fundamental period of 4.392 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 3.015 second
was found and for mode 3 a period of 2.363 second was found. Rigid diaphragms are
assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act
together to resist the horizontal action.
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam, slab, wall and column section
which is EI beam= 0.26EcIg, EI slab= 0.26EcIg, EI wall= 0.26EcIg and EI column= 0.26EcIg
have been used. The columns are designed as sway frame.
Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient exceeds 0.1 thus second order effect must be
considered. In model one second order effect is considered. In this paper work
Eurocode is used to analyze the models. Thus using stiffness modification factors as
per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting frame the result will be
compared. The slab is modeled as part of lateral force resisting system. But in the
modified model the slab will be designed for gravity load only. While transferring the
rib beam to the girder beam the model was unstable. Thus the stiffness of rib beam is
significantly reduced and analysis is done.
Accidental eccentricity ratio of 0.05% is used by the software from auto seismic input
data. The load combination used by the designer is only 5. There should be a
minimum of 9 load combination. But the designer did not consider load combination
for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity.
44

The designer found in his/her statical calculation a fundamental period of 1.24 second
but used 1.07 second in design software.
In the calculation of behavioural factor, Kr value of 1.25 should have been used
instead of 1, since the structure is not regular. But the designer took a value of 1 for Kr
considering the structure as regular. The selection of zone 3 for Addis Ababa is great
choice for conservative design. Response spectrum function of UBC 97 has been used
and seismic coefficient of Ca and Cv value of 0.4 has been used. The designer has
used Cv value of 0.4 which is not on UBC. Thus there is inconsistency between input
data and data from codes.
Minimum number of modes is not used. Thus in the modified model 18 modes must
be considered.
As seen from table 3-12 the base shear determined using dynamic analysis is greater
than static analysis. Thus there is no need to scale up the base shear.
Table 3-12 Total reactive force at the origin.
Load FX FY
EQXP -4.12E+03 8.38E-04
EQYP 1.53E-05 -4.12E+03
EQXN -4.12E+03 9.73E-04
EQYN 1.44E-05 -4.12E+03
RSEQXP 4.70E+03 9.44E+02
RSEQYP 1.14E+03 3.53E+02
RSEQXN 1.14E+03 3.53E+02
RSEQYN 4.70E+03 9.44E+02
45

Result of modified data with
 Stiffness reduction as per Eurocode
 Rw value of 2.6
 Fundamental period of 1.24 second
 Designing the building as moment resisting frame
 Designing the slab for gravity loads
 Using load combinations as per Eurocode
 Considering 18 modes
 Using response spectrum function of EBCS 8 is shown below.
Shear force and bending moment of beam and column of modified result will be
compared with the original one.
Table 3-13 and 3-14 shows that both service limit state and Ultimate limit state are
satisfied.
46

Table 3-13 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters.
Displacement
Design story
elastically behavioural system interstory
Story Building interstory drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift as a
ht ht drift limit
from assumed the design parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Upper 1.04 34.70 0.0806 0.375 0.215 0.007 0.010 Satisfied
roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 0.0778 0.375 0.207 0.017 0.031 Satisfied
10th 3.06 30.60 0.0713 0.375 0.190 0.022 0.031 Satisfied
9th 3.06 27.54 0.0630 0.375 0.168 0.021 0.031 Satisfied
8th 3.06 24.48 0.0550 0.375 0.147 0.022 0.031 Satisfied
7th 3.06 21.42 0.0469 0.375 0.125 0.021 0.031 Satisfied
6th 3.06 18.36 0.0390 0.375 0.104 0.021 0.031 Satisfied
5th 3.06 15.30 0.0312 0.375 0.083 0.017 0.031 Satisfied
4th 3.06 12.24 0.0248 0.375 0.066 0.019 0.031 Satisfied
3rd 3.06 9.18 0.0178 0.375 0.047 0.017 0.031 Satisfied
2nd 3.06 6.12 0.0114 0.375 0.030 0.015 0.031 Satisfied
1st 3.06 3.06 0.0058 0.375 0.015 0.011 0.031 Satisfied
Ground 3.06 0.00 0.0016 0.375 0.004 0.003 0.031 Satisfied
1st 3.06 -3.06 0.0005 0.375 0.001 0.001 Satisfied

0.031
basement
2nd 2.00 -6.12 0.0001 0.375 0.000 0.000 Satisfied
0.020
basement
Base 0.00 -8.12
47

Table 3-14 Interstory drift sensativity coefficient for ultimate limit state in
meters
Total Total Remark

Design factored unfactored on
interstor gravity gravity Vx θ= interstory
Story Story Building θ limit
y drift load at and load at and (story (Ptot*dr)/ drift
No ht ht ≤0.25
∆r=∆i - above the above the shear) (Vtot/h) sensitivity
∆i-1 story story coefficient
(Ptotal) (Ptotal) (U.L.S)
Upper 1.04 34.70 0.007 -291.45 -224.19 -398.8 0.00 0.25 Satisfied
Roof
Roof 3.06 33.66 0.017 -4688.39 -3606.45 -757.8 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
10th 3.06 30.60 0.022 -9598.27 -7383.28 -1149 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
9th 3.06 27.54 0.021 -15031.99 -11563.07 -1557 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
8th 3.06 24.48 0.022 -20454.44 -15734.18 -1931 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
7th 3.06 21.42 0.021 -25960.31 -19969.47 -2270 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
6th 3.06 18.36 0.021 -31568.06 -24283.12 -2573 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
5th 3.06 15.30 0.017 -37311.49 -28701.15 -2843 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
4th 3.06 12.24 0.019 -45303.52 -34848.86 -3168 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
3rd 3.06 9.18 0.017 -53396.46 -41074.20 -3453 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 3.06 6.12 0.015 -61241.06 -47108.51 -3683 0.04 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.06 3.06 0.011 -69829.66 -53715.12 -3869 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 3.06 0.00 0.003 -94033.27 -72333.28 -4011 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.06 -3.06 0.001 -84714.95 -65165.35 -4016 0.00 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
2nd 2.00 -6.12 0.000 -76446.12 -58804.71 -4124 0.00 0.25 Satisfied
bzmnt
Base 0.00 -8.12
48

KN-m for C106
increase in M2
increase in M3
increase in V2
increase in V3
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
0 78 46 -41 300 363 21

Roof
1.4 215 265 23 67 48 -27 -14 -21 50 2 -3 25

2.8 -106 -88 -17 -295 -369 25
0 105 65 -38 178 230 29
10th
1.4 102 134 32 74 45 -39 2 2.4 11 38 45 19

2.8 -100 -60 -40 -104 -141 35
0 79 40 -50 197 252 28
1.4 131 167 28 47 19 -60 14 14 -2 16 21 32
9th
2.8 -52 -13 -75 -166 -211 27

0 71 32 -55 185 239 29
1.4 120 156 29 46 18 -61 9 7.9 -8 18 23 29
8th
2.8 -54 -16 -70 -150 -193 29

0 63 26 -59 194 253 30
1.4 123 161 31 40 13 -67 9 8.8 3 23 30 30
7th
2.8 -46 -8.6 -81 -150 -195 30

0 46 22 -53 141 186 32
1.4 100 133 33 32 12 -63 5 8.5 83 0 1 360
6th
2.8 -37 -5.4 -86 -141 -185 31

0 55 24 -55 212 268 26
Envelope X and Y
1.4 139 180 29 35 6.4 -82 10 20 101 18 18 -1

5th
2.8 -35 16 -55 -176 -232 31

C106
0 12 -30 146 177 215 22

1.4 118 146 24 10 -20 91 4 4.2 7 12 13 8
4th
2.8 -5 38 722 -154 -190 24

0 15 -31 107 204 259 27
1.4 123 157 27 19 -7 -63 -5 -15 183 32 42 28
3rd
2.8 -25 2.5 -90 -142 -178 26

0 -2 -18 655 97 127 31
2nd
1.4 82 109 33 9 -3 -70 -10 -7.3 -25 -20 -26 31

2.8 -16 3.7 -77 -136 -179 32
0 -4 -129 3390 70 176 150
1.4 36 90 152 14 -38 179 -20 -75 269 20 51 160
1st
2.8 -35 -16 -55 -33 -77 135

0 205 -133 -35 50 209 316
Bzmnt 1 Ground
1.3 42 168 304 110 -84 -24 66 -25 -62 -4 -8 92

2.6 -76 84 11 -58 -225 286
0 72 -15 -79 12 19 62
1.2 -38 18 -52 8 -6 -24
3 21 532 88 -26 -70
2.5 -145 51 -65 4 -32 673
0 -10 7.9 -22 8 -2 -72
Bzmnt 2
0.7 15 -5 -66 -18 19 2 3 -5.1 89 -2 1 -46
1.4 16 -18 17 -13 5 -62
49

KN-m for C42
Percentage increase in
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
M2
M3
V2
V3
0 28 119 329 65 184 185
Roof
1.38 52 146 179 -19 15 -20 55 100 83 -9 -19 105

2.76 80 79 -2 -83 -221 168
0 82 192 134 26 121 364
10th
1.38 11 71 529 70 148 111 -15 -13 -18 8 20.7 159

2.76 -112 -217 94 -10 -80 672
0 47 144 209 31 129 319
16 80 388 24 84 248 15 103 4 229
9th
1.38 30 13.9
2.76 -18 -85 383 -22 -101 351
0 52 149 189 30 123 310

14 74 416 34 97 184 7 165 5 184
8th
1.38 18 15.5
2.76 -39 -115 196 -20 -93 376
0 53 148 179 35 129 269

16 76 363 35 95 175 9 139 7 163
7th
Envelope X and Y
1.38 21 17.8
2.76 -36 -107 196 -22 -94 329
C42
0 43 120 182 26 99.2 287

12 62 404 32 84 167 4 160 2 165
6th
1.38 10 6.24
2.76 -35 -101 186 -21 -87 312
0 95 187 97 85 170 101

37 97 159 58 121 109 22 28 28 8
6th
1.38 29 29.8
2.76 -52 -131 153 -31 -112 260
0 5 50 836 82 191 133

46 105 130 23 55 139 -19 -21 14 189
4th
1.38 -15 40.9

2.76 -41 -79 91 -55 -111 103
0 1 32 2744 64 146 126

40 101 150 6 33 435 1 102 3 -87
3rd
1.38 -3 -0.4
2.76 1 -37 2475 -58 -146 151
0 -12 24 96 85 165 96
2nd
1.38 43 88 107 7 36 388 -15 -15 1 22 39.1 80
2.76 -17 -54 222 -43 -90 108
50

0 -30 -64 115 51 182 254

37 114 210 -1 0.6 -33 -25 140 -4 353
1st
1.38 -59 20.2

2.76 -17 -51 192 -60 -143 139
0 -3 1 -77 4 246 6589

Ground
1.28 -12 144 1061 8 17 111 -12 -21 70 19 59.9 219
2.56 -21 -41 94 33 -128 290
0 2 1 -46 4 67.9 1578

Bzmnt 1
1.23 -3 -2 -27 7 -11 60

-2 63 2772 4 2.7 -30
-8 -30 9 845
2.46 -5 -90
0 -1 -3 192 6 5.26 -13
Bzmnt 2
0.7 0 -3 740 -1 0.81 10

10 6.3 -34 -1 -1 -44
0 411 -7 -51
1.4 -2 -3.7
51

Table 3-17 Comparison for beam moment and Shear force for envelope X and Y
in KN-m
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
M3
V2
0.25 -94 -317 237 -121 -221 82
0.739 -83 -274 230 -78 -76 -3
1.228 -72 -211 193 -40 44 9
1.716 -61 -128 110 -7 128 1605
B23801
2.205 -50 -26 -49 20 166 741

2.694 -39 81 107 42 152 264
3.183 -28 168 494 58 90 55
3.671 -17 235 1254 69 -10 -86
4.16 -6 282 4296 75 -137 82
0.35 -71 -579 714 -68 -563 729
0.838 -60 -532 784 -36 -291 711
1.325 -49 -466 845 -9 -47 413
1.813 -38 -379 888 12 159 1214
2.3 -27 -272 893 28 319 1032
Envelope X and Y
2.788 -17 -146 783 39 422 985

B23802
BASEMENT 1
3.275 -6 -2 -57 44 458 935

3.763 5 141 2526 44 424 857
4.25 16 268 1542 39 324 729
4.738 27 374 1274 28 166 485
5.225 38 461 1108 12 -38 206
5.713 49 528 975 -9 -280 3079
6.2 60 574 857 -35 -549 1451
0.35 -39 -415 964 -2 -312 18473
0.83 -28 -369 1207 14 -123 749
1.31 -17 -304 1639 25 40 56
1.79 -7 -220 3162 31 166 431
2.27 4 -116 2761 32 247 675
B23803
2.75 15 8 -48 27 274 900

3.23 26 131 412 18 240 1255
3.71 36 235 547 3 151 5224
4.19 47 320 578 -17 17 1
4.67 58 385 565 -42 -152 260
5.15 69 431 527 -73 -349 380
52

0.35 -38 -224 491 17 -171 922

0.818 -35 -204 486 29 -70 139
1.286 -32 -175 451 41 19 -54
1.755 0 -136 80106 50 92 83
2.223 4 -89 2166 49 145 193
B23827
2.691 8 -32 300 47 174 272
3.159 31 28 -9 38 174 363
3.627 35 80 126 22 148 574
4.095 40 123 211 5 101 2127
4.564 41 156 284 -6 35 481
5.032 45 180 305 -24 -44 81
5.5 48 195 304 -45 -133 198
53

Table 3-18 Comparison for beam moment and shear force for envelope X and Y
in KN-m
increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
0.25 -244 -398 63 -201 -349 73
B25065
0.36 -242 -392 62 -175 -306 75
0 -222 -365 64 -174 -305 75
B25066
0.36 -214 -347 62 -96 -177 85
0 -195 -319 64 -95 -177 86
B25067
0.36 -186 -302 62 -27 -65 146
0 -166 -274 64 -26 -65 152
B25068
0.36 -158 -256 62 33 30 -7
0 -138 -228 65 33 30 -9
B25069
0.36 -130 -210 62 81 109 34
0 -101 -173 71 82 109 33
B25070
0.363 -92 -155 68 117 169 44
0 -73 -127 75 118 169 44
B25071
0.363 -64 -109 71 143 212 49
0 -44 -81 85 143 212 48
B25072
0.363 -35 -63 80 158 238 51
Envelope X and Y
0 -5 -26 376 158 239 51

B25073
NINTH
0.372 3 -8 121 158 245 55

0 24 21 -12 159 245 54
B25074
0.372 33 39 20 148 234 58
0 53 68 28 148 234 57
B25075
0.372 62 86 39 127 205 61
0 82 114 39 127 205 61
B25076
0.372 91 133 46 95 159 68
0 111 161 44 95 159 68
B25077
0.372 120 179 49 52 96 86
0 151 217 43 51 96 86
B25078
0.36 160 234 47 -5 14 216
0 180 263 46 -5 14 196
B25079
0.36 189 280 48 -71 -83 17
0 209 308 48 -72 -84 17
B25540
0.36 218 326 50 -148 -198 33
0 238 354 49 -149 -198 33
B25541
0.36 247 372 51 -236 -328 39
0 267 400 50 -236 -329 39
B25542
0.002 267 400 50 -236 -329 39
54

As seen from the table above there is a significant increase in column and beam
moment and shear force after modification has been made for envelope X and Y.
Envelope X and Y are governing combination for earthquake.
55

3.2 Model 2:- Ground +Mezzanine + 4 story+ Roof +Top Roof
The structural system of model two which is a mixed use building consists of solid
slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced concrete columns
with dimensions of 300×300mm, 400x400mm, and rectangular column of
200x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Retaining wall with 250mm
thickness was used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 250x400mm were used
to support the roof system. Basement and Ground floor Beams with dimension
250x400mm and floor beams of 250x400mm, 300x450 and 300x500mm were used to
stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof
for this building consists of solid slab of 150mm thickness.
The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European
Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame
system.
4 and 4.9 meters along x- axis and 4.8 along the y- axis. The building has similar story
height of 3meters, symmetrical plan and elevation and has identical resistance in both
directions which is moment resisting frame.
56


d l view of moodel two
3..2.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corner excceeds the lim
The mit.
3..2.1.2 Elevvation regulaarity
M
Model two satisfy the reequirement for
f regularitty in elevatiion as stated
d in EBCS 88-
1995.
Inn model twoo the structural is configgured properrly except foor irregularitty in plan annd
thhere is cantillever.
3.2.2 Seiismic design

n
E
EBCS 8-1995 response spectrum has been useed. On response spectruum case data
sccaling factorr was used by

b taking Adddis Ababa as
a zone 2. Sccaling factorr is calculateed
ass αo *acceleeration of gravity

g whicch is equal to 0.05*0.9981=0.4905. This scalinng
faactor is inseerted in response spectruum case in x and y- dirrection. Thee designer haas
used softwaree generated sseismic desiggn in which the softwaree will calcullate the periood
annd all the modes

m afterr inserting scaling
s factoor on respoonse spectruum case datta.
A
Accidental ecccentricity iss not taken inn to account in the design.
57

Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked and its within the limit.
3.2.3 Summary
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan.
From dynamic analysis for mode1 a fundamental period of 1.915 second was found,
for mode 2 a period of 1.63 second was found and for mode 3 a period of 1.33 second
was found. For structures which are regular in elevation but not in plan and having a
fundamental period less than 2 second EBCS 8-1995 suggest to use static analysis.
This is the case for model two and the designer has made dynamic analysis. Rigid
diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The load combination used
by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider load combination for
earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity.
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam and slab section which is EI beam and
slab= 0.26EcIg have been used. The columns are designed as sway frame but stiffness
reduction for column is not made in model two. Stiffness reduction should have been
used in sway column since second order analysis has been carried out. In this paper
Eurocode is used to analyze the models. Thus using stiffness modification factors as
per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting frame the result will be
compared. The slab is analyzed as membrane material so that it will not contribute to
any lateral resisting system.
As seen from table3-26 the base shear determined using dynamic analysis is less than
static analysis. Thus the base shear in the given direction must be scaled up according
58

to EBCS 8. The base shear must be increased in the corresponding direction by 100%
for irregular building and 90% for regular building.
Table 3-19 Total reactive force at the origin
Load FX FY
EQXP -6.700E+02 2.268E-11
EQXN -6.700E+02 -1.296E-10
EQYP 6.8250E-10 -6.700E+02
EQYN 1.4420E-09 -6.700E+02
RSEQXP 4.1130E+02 1.5470E+01
RSEQYN 1.5470E+01 5.027E+02
RSEQXP 4.1130E+02 1.5470E+01
RSEQYP 1.5470E+01 5.027E+02
The designer used 3 modes and minimum number of modes is not used. It is satisfied
using 12 modes.
 Considering accidental eccentricity
 Scaling up the base shear
 Designing the building as frame system
 Considering 12 modes
59

Shear force and bending moment of beams and columns of modified result was
compared with the original one. The result shows that there is significant increase in
Column and beam bending moment and shear force.
After modification, serviceability limit and ultimate limit state was checked and it’s
found that serviceability limit state is not satisfied for 1st and 2nd floor. Detail
calculation is shown in appendices.
60

3.3 Model 3:- Three Basement + Ground + 16 story + Roof + Top Roof
The structural system consists of mat and solid slab elements with a beam-column
frame system. Square reinforced concrete columns with dimensions of 800×800mm,
900x900mm and 700x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls
with 250mm and 350mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with
size 500x300mm and 700x300mm were used to support the roof system. Basement
and Ground floor Beams with dimension 220x80mm and 500x300mm and floor
beams of 500x300mm, 600x300, 800x400 and 700x300mm were used to stabilize the
entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this
building consists of solid slab of 170mm thickness.
The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European
system.
3.95, 7.5, 4.5 and 5.5 meter along x- axis and 5.3, 7.5 and 6.8 meter along y- axis. The
building has story height of 2.5 meter from the base to 1st basement, 3.06 meter from
1st basement to ground floor, 3.74 meter from the ground floor to 6th floor and story
height of 3.4 meter till top roof. The structure has identical resistance in both
directions which is moment resisting frame and wall.
61

Figure 3.3
3 Three diimensional view
v of mod
del three
3..3.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is not regular in plan sinnce re-entrannt corners exxceed the lim
The mits.
Inn EBCS8-19995 the limitt for individuual set back that doesn’tt preserve sy
ymmetry shaall
be less than 0.10 and foor setback occurring

o abbove 0.15H, H is total height of thhe
buuilding, shalll be less thaan 0.20. But all setbacks exceed the limit.
l
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and mass of the indivvidual story shall remain constant or
o
reeduced graddually withouut abrupt chhange from the But in the 9th
t base to the top [2].B
flloor 900x9000mm colum

mn reduce to
t 700x400m
mm columnn and finallyy increase to
t
800x800mm column at all

a the colum
mns above itt. Thus the sstructure is not
n regular iin
ellevation.
Inn model thrree the struccture is connfigured prooperly exceppt for non-u
uniform storry
height, there is
i cantileverr and irregulaarity in plan and elevatioon.

n
R
Response speectrum functtion of UBC
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
annd Cv value of 0.4 has been used. Thhe designer has used Cv value of 0.4
4 which is noot
62

on UBC. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted similar to model
one. But there is inconsistency between input data and data from codes.
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software. Base shear
coefficient which is equal to α*β*γ is calculated using EBCE-8(1995) equation 1.1
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software. Accidental
eccentricity is not taken in to consideration.
Sesimic design process
Ultimate limite state and serviceabilty limit state are checked. Serviceability limit
state is not satisfied from 2nd floor to roof terrace and ultimate limit state is satisfied.
3.3.3 Summary
Second order effect (P-∆) should be considered since interstory drift sensitivity
coefficient exceeds 0.1.
Concrete material with reduced stiffness for beam and slab EI beam, slab= 0.26EcIgis
used and for column section stiffness modification factor of 0.7 is used. The columns
should be designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam, slab= 0.5EcIgand EI column= 0.5EcIg
should be used in sway column since second order analysis has to be carried out as
per Eurocode.
The slab is modeled as shell element with stiffness reduction of 0.26EcIg. But in the
modified model the slab will be designed for gravity load only. The slab will be
analyzed as membrane.
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan and
elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of 4.2957 second
was found, for mode 2 a period of 2.7838 second was found and for mode 3 a period
of 2.1475 second was found. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that
63

the floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action.
Accidental eccentricity is not taken in to account in the design.
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider
load combination for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. Detail
calculation is shown in the appendices.
64

3.4 Model 4:- Two Basement + Ground +Mezzanine + 11 story
The structural system consists of ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame
system. Reinforced concrete column dimensions
600×600mm,400x400mm,300x400mm, 400x350mm, 300x300mm, 550x600mm,
500x600mm,300x500mm, 450x550mm,400x500mm,300x500mm,and 300x350mm
was used. Circular reinforced concrete columns with diameter 400mm, 350mm,
300mm, 600mm, 550mm, and 500mmwere used to take up all the vertical loads.
Shear walls with 200mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with
size 500x300mm and 350x250mm were used to support the roof system. Basement
and Ground floor Beams with dimension 400x300mm and 500x300mm and floor
beams of 500x300mm, and 550x300 were used to stabilize the entire building loads
and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this building consists of solid
slab of 60mm thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard
(EBCS-1) and European Code 2-2004 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by
the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and design of the building by
modeling as a 3-D space frame system.
4.8, 5.5, 5.3, 3.35 and 5.45 meters along x- axis and 4.75, 5.8 and 5 meter along the y-
axis. The building has story height of 3 meter from the base to ground floor, 3.05
meter from ground to mezzanine floor, 2.9 meter from mezzanine floor to 1th floor,
3.1 meter from 1st floor to 3rd floor, 3 meter from 3rd floor to 9th floor, 2.85 meter from
9th floor to 10th floor and2.75 meter from 10th floor to 11th floor. The building has
identical resistance in both directions which is moment resisting frame and wall.
65

Figure 3.4
3 Three dimensional
d view of model four
3..4.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T
There m first to tentth floor and satisfies thee requiremennt
is a unniform open down from
foor plan regullarity stated on EBCS 8--1995.
Inn EBCS8-19
995 the limiit for indiviidual set bacck that doess not preserrve symmetrry
shhall be less than

t 0.10. Buut setbacks exceed
e the liimit.
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and mass of the indivvidual story shall remain constant or
o
reeduced grad
dually withoout abrupt change
c from
m the base to
t the top [2].
[ But from
m
m
mezzanine to 2nd floor 4000x400mm column
c reducce to 300x4000mm colum
mn and finallly
inncrease to 3550x400mm.T
This change has been obbserved on ssix columns located at thhe
coorner of the structure. Thhus the struccture is not regular

r in eleevation.
Inn model fouur the strucctural is connfigured prooperly exceppt for non-u
uniform storry
height; there is cantileverr and irregulaarity in elevaation.
66

3.4.2 Seismic design
Response spectrum function of UBC 97 has been used and seismic coefficient of Ca
and Cv value of 0.4 has been used. The designer has used Cv value of 0.4 which is not
on UBC. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted similar to model
one. But there is inconsistency between input data and data from codes.
Static seismic load case which is UBC 97 is used by the software. Program calculated
period is used by the software. Seismic coefficient used as per code is adopted by the
software for soil type C and seismic zone factor of 0.4 is used which indicate that the
building is located in highly seismic activity. Importance factor of 1 is used which
indicates that the building is ordinary building. An overstrength factor of 8.5 is used.
Near source factor is used as per code. Seismic source type B and distance to source
of 15 km was used.
Analysis result on the software shows that the strucuture is not stable. Thus the
analysis result can not be used to check seismic design process. Thus ultimate limit
state and serviceabiltity limit state is not checked.
3.4.3 Summary
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular in plan.
Stiffness reduction is not used for beam and column section. The slab is modeled as
part of lateral resisting system.
Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. On the same floor level two
diaphragms are assigned. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at floor levels. Accidental
eccentricity is not taken in to account.
67

The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer did not consider
load combination for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity.
The engineer who designed this building might not submit the final draft or he might
have made the design of the structure without checking the warning of the analysis
result on the software. Hopefully the second one might not be the case. This shows
the carelessness of the designer not to submit the final structural model. Due to this
result in-depth assessment couldn’t be made. Detail calculation is shown in the
appendices.
68

3.5 Model 5:-Two basements + Ground + 10 story +Roof + Top Roof
The structural system of model five which is apartment building consists of solid, flat
and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column frame system. Square reinforced
concrete columns with dimensions of 400×400mm and rectangular reinforced
concrete column of 600x400mm and 200x250mm were used to take up all the vertical
loads. Shear walls with 200mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams
with size 200x400mm were used to support the roof system. Basement and Ground
floor beams with dimension 250x600mm and floor beams of 250x300mm and
200x400mm were used to stabilize the entire building loads and to resist differential
foundation settlement. Roof for this building consists of solid slab of 150mm
thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and
European Code 2-1992 almost similar to EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the
software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and design of the building by
modeling as a 3-D space frame system.
5 and 6 meter along x-axis and 5.9 meter along y-axis. The building has story height
of 3.23 meters from ground to 1st floor, 3.06 meter from 2nd to 8th floor, 3.23 meter
from 9th to 10th floor, 3.06 meter on 11th floor and 3 meter on lift roof. The structure
has identical resistance in both direction which is moment resisting frame and wall.
69


d l view of moodel five
3..5.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structuree is not regullar in plan siince re-entraant corners eexceed the liimits stated in
The i
E
EBCS 8-1995
5.
A lateral looad resistingg systems, liike cores, sttructural waalls or framees, shall ruun
All
w
without interrruption from
m their founndation to the
t top of the
t building [2]. On thhis
m
model there are
a columns that start at the eighth floor
f and runn to ninth flooor which arre
suupported by beam on thee eighth flooor. Thus the structure

s is nnot regular inn elevation.
Inn model five the structuure is configured propeerly except for varying story heighht,
thhere is cantillever and irreegularity in plan

p and eleevation.

n
R
Response C 97 has beeen used and seismic coeefficient of Ca
speectrum functtion of UBC
4 which is noot
onn UBC. Usinng this seism

mic coefficieent responsee spectrum iss plotted sim
milar to model
onne. But theree is inconsistency betweeen input datta and data frrom codes.
70

Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software .Base shear
eccentricity ratio of 0.05 is used.
3.5.3 Summary
The designer did not made dynamic analysis but the structure is not regular in plan
and elevation. Dynamic analysis should have been performed since the structure is
irregular.
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. Same type of rigid
diaphragm is assigned for different story level. This is wrong modeling and different
diaphragms should have been assigned at different story levels since each story resist
in different way from the rest. This is due to difference in mass and stiffness at each
story level.
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column= 0.5EcIg
should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been carried
out. Stiffness reduction must be done for the slab since the slab as lateral force
resisting system.
load combination for earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. Detail
71

3.6 Model 6:- Basements + Ground + 7 story +Mezzanine floor + Roof
The structural system of model six consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a
beam-column frame system. Circular reinforced concrete columns with diameter
500mm and 600mm and rectangular reinforced concrete column of 700x400mm and
300x400mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 200mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size 400x250mm,
300x300mm, 800x350mm and 300x200mmwere used to support the roof system.
Basement and Ground floor Beams with dimension 400x250mm and floor beams of
300x600mm, 400x250mm, 800x250mm and 300x300mm were used to stabilize the
entire building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement. Roof for this
building consists of solid slab of 200mm thickness. The codes used are Ethiopian
Building Code and Standard (EBCS-1) and European Code 2-2004 almost similar to
EBCS-2(1995) (as used by the software).ETABS 9.0.4 was used for the analysis and
design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space frame system.
6 meter along x-axis and 5.5 and 6 meter along the y-axis. The building has uniform
story height of 3.06 meter from ground to the roof. The structure is Symmetrical in
plan and elevation, has identical resistance in both direction which is moment
resisting frame and wall and is regular in plan and elevation.
72


d l view of moodel six
3..6.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure is regular inn plan and saatisfies the reequirement sstated in EBCS 8-1995.
The
T structuree is regular in
The i elevation and satisfiees the requirement statedd in EBCS 88-
1995.
Inn model six the

t structuree is configureed properly except that there
t is cantiilever.

n
R
C 97 has beeen used and seismic coefficient of Ca
C
annd Cv value of 0.4 has bbeen used. The

T designer has used Cv value of 0.44 which is noot

milar to model
Static seismicc load case which

w is userr defined is used
u by the ssoftware. Th
he time periood
iss program calculated

c w
which is 0.0331 second, seismic zonne factor of 0.05 is useed
w
which showss that it locaated on zonne 2, site cooefficient, S,, 1.2 is usedd, importancce
faactor of 1 is used and numerical coefficient,

c Rw, value of 2 is used
d. Accidental
ecccentricity raatio of 0.05 is used.
73

Design interstory drift and Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient calculation is not
done since the structural elements like columns and beams have failed and shear wall
deign is not made in the model.
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular in plan and
elevation.
3.6.3 Summary
The columns are designed as sway frame. Thus EI beam= 0.5EcIg and EI column, wall=
0.5EcIg should have been used in sway column since second order analysis has been
carried out.
The slab is designed as part of lateral force resisting system. Thus stiffness reduction
must be made for the slab section.
A rigid diaphragm is not assigned at each story level thus the floors does not act as
horizontal diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action.
The load combination used by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider
The model which is submitted is not final design since shear wall design is not
included and structural elements have failed. This shows the carelessness of
engineers. Since this model is already constructed it’s hard to say its final design. Due
to this result in-depth assessment could not be made. Detail calculation is shown in
the appendices.
74

3.7 Model 7:- Two Basement + Ground + 10 story + Roof + Roof Top
The structural system consists of solid slab elements with a beam-column frame
system. Reinforced concrete columns with dimensions of 800×500mm, 700x400mm,
400x300mm and 400x250mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls
with 250mm thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Beams with size
500x250mm were used to support the two basements, ground and roof system. Floor
beams of 500x250mmand 600x400mm were used to stabilize the entire building loads
and to resist differential foundation settlement.
The codes used are Ethiopian Building and Code Standard (EBCS-1) and European
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 2.1, 3, 4,
5.7 and 3 meter along x- axis and 1.28, 4.40 and 6.25meter along y- axis. The building
has story height of 2 meter from base to 1st basement, 2.2 meter from 2nd basement to
ground floor, 2.8 meter from the ground floor to top roof. The structure has identical
resistance in both directions which is moment resisting frame and wall.
75

Figure 3.7
3 Three diimensional view
v of mod
del seven
3..7.1.1 Plan
n regularity
The
A lateral load resisting systems, likke cores, strructural wallls or framess, run withouut
All
innterruption from
f their fooundation too the top of the buildingg[2]. But in this structurre
thhere is conttinues interrruption of columns. Thus

T the struucture is not regular iin
ellevation.
Inn model sev

ven the struucture is connfigured prooperly exceppt for irreguularity of thhe
sttructure in ellevation andd there is canntilever.

n
R
4 which is noot

milar to model
76

coefficient which is equal to α*β*γ is calculated using EBCS8-1995 (equation 1.1)
and building height exponent of 1 is used as input data on design software.
3.7.3 Summary
carried out. The slab is designed as lateral force resisting system thus stiffness
reduction must be used for the slab.
The structure is regular but the designer has made dynamic analysis. The designer has
made dynamic analysis. From dynamic analysis for mode1 a fundamental period of
1.6933 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 1.6080 was found and for mode 3 a
period of 0.9304 second was found.
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The load combination used
by the designer is only 5. The designer didn’t consider load combination for
earthquake in the negative direction and eccentricity. For lateral load combination,
combo1 must be multiplied by 0.75. But the designer made 0.9*combo 1. Detail
77

3.8 Model 8:- Ground + 7 story + Roof + Roof Top
The structural system consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column
frame system. Reinforced concrete columns with dimensions of 300×600mm,
350x350mm, 300x300mm, 250x250mm and circular reinforced concrete column of
diameter 500mm were used to take up all the vertical loads. Shear walls with 150mm
thickness were used to resist lateral loadings. Ground floor Beams with size
400x200mm, Floor beams with size 300x400mm, 300x300mm, and 500x300mm and
roof beam 300x200mm and 400x200mm were used to stabilize the entire building
loads and to resist differential foundation settlement.
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 3, 4 and
8 meters along x- axis and 5and 6 meters along y- axis. The building has story height
of 3.6meter from the ground to 1stfloor, 2.3 meter from 1st to 7th floor, 3 meter from
the 7th floor to roof and 2.6 meter at top roof. The structure has identical resistance in
both directions which is moment resisting frame and wall.
78

Figure 3.8
3 Three diimensional view of mod
del eight
3..8.1.1 Plan
n regularity
The
B
Both the lateeral stiffnesss and the mass
m of the individual story
s remainn constant oor
reeduced graddually, withoout abrupt chhange, from

m the base too the top [2]]. But on thhis
sttructure therre is abrupt change inn column dimension.

d S
Some colum
mn dimensioon
inncrease and then decrease in dimennsion. Some columns inccrease in dim

mension from
m
thhe ground to top floors. Thus

T the struucture is nott regular in elevation.
e
Inn model eighht the structuure is configgured properrly except foor irregularity
y in elevatioon
annd there is cantilever.

n
U seismic loads Fx andd Fy are assiggned on the diaphragms at the centeer of mass annd
User
acccidental ecccentricity raatio of 0.05 was

w used in X and Y dirrection. Tablle 3-71 show
ws
seeismic loadss used for moodel eight which is takenn from ETAB
BS.
79

Table 3-20 Seismic loads
Story Diaphragm Fx Fy Mz
Roof D8 281.64 281.64 0
5th D6 395.43 395.43 0
4th D5 328.21 328.21 0
3rd D4 260.95 260.95 0
2nd D3 205.03 205.03 0
1st D2 136.69 136.69 0
Ground D1 30.93 30.93 0
3.8.3 Summary
carried out. Stiffness reduction must be done since the slab is designed as lateral force
resisting system.
The load combination used in the design software is not on EBCS. Shear wall design
is not included in the design thus ULS and SLS is not checked.
The designer didn’t made dynamic analysis since the structure is regular. Rigid
diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors act as horizontal
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. Detail calculation is shown
in the appendices.
80

3.9 Model 9:- Ground + 3 story + Roof + Top roof
The structural system consists of solid slab elements with a beam-column frame
system. Reinforced concrete columns with dimensions 400×200mmwere used to take
up all the vertical loads. Beams with size 400x250mm were used to support the
ground floor system. Floor beams of 400x200mmwere used to stabilize the entire
building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement.
system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 4.4 and
4.8 meter along x- axis and 3, 3.1 and 3.2 meter along y- axis. The building has story
height of 3.4 meter from the ground floor to first floor, 3.06 meter from first to roof
floor, 2.86 meter from the roof to top roof. The structure has identical resistance in
both directions which is moment resisting frame.
81

Figure 3.9
3 Three dimensional
d view of model nine
3..9.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structuree is not regullar in plan siince re-entraant corners exceed

The e the liimits as stateed
inn EBCS 8-19

995. There iss irregular oppen down.
A lateral load resisting systems, likke cores, strructural wallls or framess, run withouut
All
innterruption from
f their foundation
fo too the top off the buildinng[2]. But att the top rooof
thhere are two columns thaat start from roof and runn to top rooff. Thus the sttructure is noot
reegular in elev
vation.
Inn model nine the structuure is configgured properrly except foor irregularitty in plan annd
ellevation, varrying story height

h and thhere is cantileever.

n
R
annd Cv value of 0.4 has beeen used whhich is taken from UBC 997. The desiigner has useed
Cv value of 0.4 which is not on UBC. Usinng this seism

mic coefficiient responsse
82

spectrum is plotted similar to model one. But there is inconsistency between input
data and data from codes.
coefficient which is equal to α*β*γ is calculated using EBCE 8- 1995(equation 1.1)
eccentricity is taken in to account in the design.
3.9.3 Summary
Stiffness reduction is not used for all structural elements thus using stiffness
modification factors as per Eurocode and analyzing the structure as moment resisting
frame the result will be compared.
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure is not regular in plan and
elevation. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of 0.9201 second
was found, for mode 2 a period of 0.8474 second was found and for mode 3 a period
of 0.6394 second was found.
diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The base shear determined
using dynamic analysis is less than static analysis. Thus the base shear must be scaled
up according to EBCS 8.
83

EBCS8 states that the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes considered
amount to at least 90% of the total mass of the structure. It’s satisfied using 12 modes
 Scaling up the base shear
 Designing the building as frame system
 Designing the slab for gravity loads
 Using response spectrum function of EBCS 8 is shown below.
Shear force and bending moment of beams and columns of modified result will be
compared with the original result. Both service limit state and ultimate limit state is
satisfied after modification has been made. There is increase in column and beam
moment and shear force in modified model. Detail calculation is shown in the
appendices.
84

3.10 Model 10:- Two basement + Ground + Mezzanine + 13 story + Top roof
The structural system consists of solid and ribbed slab elements with a beam-column
frame system. Reinforced concrete columns with dimensions of
400×400mm,600×600mm, 700×700mm and 800×800mm, were used to take up all
the vertical loads. Beams with size 400x600mm and 300x500mm were used to
support second and first basement respectively. Ground floor beam of 300x500mm
and Floor beams of 800x300mm and 400x300mm were used to stabilize the entire
building loads and to resist differential foundation settlement.
was used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D space
frame system.
The architectural layout of the building is configured with column spacing of 6,
6.5and 7 meter along x- axis and 5.5,6, 6.5 and 7meter along y- axis. The building has
story height 3 meter from the ground to roof. The structure has identical resistance in
both directions which is moment resisting frame.
85

Figure 3.10
3 Three dimensionaal view of model ten
3..10.1.1 Plan
n regularity
T structure fulfills the requirement

The r BCS 8-1995.
for plan reggularity in EB
Inn EBCS8-19995 the limitt for individuual set back that doesn’tt preserve sy
ymmetry shaall
be less than or
o equal to 0.10
0 and graadual set baack shall be less than orr equal to 0.22.
B as seen in
But n table 3-844 setbacks exxceeds the liimit. Thus thhe structure is not regulaar
inn elevation.
Inn model tenn the struccture is connfigured prooperly for irregularity

i in elevationn,
unnsymmetricaal plan shapee and there is

i cantilever..
Seismic desig
gn
R
annd Cv value of 0.4 has beeen used whhich is taken from UBC 997. The desiigner has useed
Cv value of 0.4
0 which is not on UBC
C. Thus theree is inconsisstency betweeen input data
86

and data from codes. Using this seismic coefficient response spectrum is plotted
similar to model one.
Static seismic load case which is user defined is used by the software. Base shear
eccentricity of 0.05 is used in the design.
Servicibility limit state ultimate limit state are satisfied.
3.10.2 Summary
The designer has made dynamic analysis since the structure has fundamental period
greater than 2 second. From dynamic analysis for mode 1 a fundamental period of
2.8908 second was found, for mode 2 a period of 2.6656 second was found and for
mode 3 a period of 1.8293 second was found.
Stiffness reduction is not used for the structural elements thus stiffness reduction must
be used as per Eurocode. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the
floors act as horizontal diaphragm and act together to resist the horizontal action. The
load combination used by the designer is only 5. Detail calculation is shown in the
appendices.
87

4 DISCUSSION
In this research design models were collected from Addis Ababa city administration
and ten models were randomly selected. These models were assessed for
consideration of dynamic analysis for irregular structures, fulfillment of fundamental
requirement of earthquake design (S.L.S and U.L.S), use of stiffness reduction and P-
∆ analysis for sway frames, structural configuration of structures for earthquake
design and slab design. Modification was made as per code requirement and modified
result was compared with original data. Eurocode, which is similar to EBCS, was
used to compare the result. These modifications are
 Using Stiffness reduction as per Eurocode
 Designing the building as moment resisting frame and designing the slab for
gravity loads only
 Considering minimum number of modes
 Scaling up the base shear as per EBCS 8
 Using response spectrum function of EBCS 8
 Considering accidental eccentricity
 Making dynamic analysis for irregular structures
 Assigning diaphragm at each story level
Modification was done for all the models. But warning was shown on the analysis
result. Due to this limitation, three representative models were selected and modified.
The original models can be classified in to three representative groups. These are
those which used stiffness reduction for all structural members, those which used
stiffness reduction for all structural members except the column and those which did
not use stiffness reduction for all structural members. These are model 1, 2 and 9.
88

Result of these models was compared for shear force and bending moment for column
and beams. Summary of the result is discussed below.
While modeling the structural system, 60% of the models did not use stiffness
reduction for the slab and the slab is modeled as part of the lateral force resisting
system. This makes the structure very stiff and the load transferred to the main
structural elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. The rest 40%
used stiffness reduction (EI slab=0.26EcIg) and modeled the slab as lateral force
resisting system. As seen in table 4-1 80% of the models are sway frame. In sway
frame stiffness reduction must be made for beam and column sections. But out of this
80%,5 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for column and 4 of the models
didn’t use stiffness reduction for beam section.
Table 4-1 Summary of stiffness modification factor
Type of frame
Model Beam Column Slab Wall
Sway Non-sway
Model 1 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg 0.26EcIg yes
Model 2 0.26EcIg not used 0.26EcIg not used yes
Model 4 not used not used not used not used yes
Model 9 not used not used not used No wall yes
Model 5 was irregular in plan and elevation but dynamic analysis was not made. Thus
10% of the models did not make dynamic analysis for irregular structure.70% of the
89

models has considered accidental eccentricity while the rest 30% did not consider
accidental eccentricity. This means that uncertainity in the location of massess and in
the spatial variation of the seismic motion is not taken in to consideration in the
design.90% of the models have assigned rigid diaphragm while the rest 10% did not
assign rigid diaphragm. Out of the 90%, two of them didn’t assign rigid diaphragm at
each story level. Rigid diaphragms are assigned at each story level so that the floors
act as horizontal diaphragms and act together to resist the horizontal action. When
floor diaphragms of the buildings are sufficiently rigid in their plane, the mass and the
moment of inertia of each floor may be lumped at the center of gravity, thus reducing
the degree of freedom per floor ( two horizontal displacement and a rotation above the
vertical axis)[2].Table 4-2 summarizes the above discussion.
Table 4-2 Summery of regularity, dynamic analysis, Accidental eccentricity and
diaphragm
Regularity Dynamic Accidental

Model Diaphragm
Plan Elevation analysis eccentricity
Model 1 No No made used used
Model 2 No Yes made not used used
Model 3 No No made not used used
Two diaphragms on the
Model 4 yes No not made not used
same floor
same diaphragm for
Model 5 No No not made used
different story
Model 6 yes Yes not made used not assigned
Model 7 yes No made used used
Model 8 yes No not made used used
Model 9 No No made used used
Model 10 yes No made used used
90

70% of the models satisfy U.L.S and 50% of the models satisfy S.L.S. 30% of the
models have design problems such as unstable design and failure of structural
element. Table 4-3 summarizes fulfillment of fundamental requirement for earthquake
design.
Table 4-3 Summery of fundamental requirement for earthquake design
Fundamental requirement for earthquake design

Model
S.L.S(∆) U.L.S(θ) Remark

Model 1 Not satisfied Satisfied S.L.S not satisfied
Model 2 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
Model 3 Not satisfied Satisfied S.L.S not satisfied
Model 4 undone undone Unstable design
Model 6 undone undone failed structures
Shear wall design not
Model 8
undone undone done
Statical calculation was available for model one and two. Thus ductility class was
taken from the report. The rest of the models ductility class medium is assumed.
In structural configuration 30% of the models used varying story heights which
resulted in soft story. 100% of the models have cantilever which resulted in stress
concentration.20% of the models were unsymmetrical in elevation and 10% of the
models were unsymmetrical in plan which resulted in concentration of stress. 100% of
the models didn’t scale up the base shear and didn’t use the minimum number of
91

modes.100% of the models have short span, low height to base width, identical
resistance in both axes, uniform plan/elevation stiffness and resistance, uniform
plan/elevation ductility, perimeter lateral resisting system and redundancy which
helps in lowering unit stress and deformation, lowering overturning effect, balancing
resistance in all direction, elimination of stress concentration, increasing energy
dissipation, increasing torsional resistance potential and plastic redistribution
respectively.
100 % of models didn’t consider load combination for earthquake in the negative
direction and eccentricity. For lateral load combination, combo1 must be multiplied
by 0.75. But the designer made 0.9*comb1 in model 7.
For all models except model two and eight, Response spectrum function of UBC 97
and UBC 94 has been used and seismic coefficient of Ca and Cv value of 0.4 has been
used as shown in table 4-4. On UBC 1997 table 16-R, there is no seismic coefficient
of 0.4.The designer has used Cv value of 0.4 which is not on UBC. Thus there is
inconsistency between input data and data from cods used.
Table 4-4 Response spectrum function used
Model Response spectrum function

Model 1 UBC 94
Model 2 EBCS-8
Model 3 UBC 97
Model 4 UBC 97
Model 5 UBC 97
Model 6 UBC 97
Model 7 UBC 97
Model 8 User defined loads used
Model 9 UBC 97
Model 10 UBC 97
92

EBCS 8 recommends considering second order effect (P-∆) if interstory drift
sensitivity coefficient (θ) exceeds 0.10. Model 3 must make P-∆ analysis since θ
exceeds the limit.
Table 4-5 Summary of P-∆ analysis
Type of frame
Model Sway Non-sway θlimit (0.1) P-∆ analysis Remark
Model 1 yes Not satisfied Made
Model 2 yes Satisfied Made
Model 3 yes Not satisfied Not made P-∆ must be made
Model 4 yes Not checked unstable design
failure in structural
Model 6 yes Not checked elements
Model 8 yes Not checked shear wall design not done
Model 9 yes Satisfied Not made
Load combination as per Eurocode is used. After modification was done S.L.S and
U.L.S is satisfied.
93

Table 4-6 Modified S.L.S and U.L.S
Fundamental requirement for earthquake

Model design
S.L.S U.L.S
Model 1 Satisfied Satisfied
The column and beam moment and shear force was compared. As seen from unit
three the result shows that there is increase in column and beam moment and shear
force after modification has been done. This is due to the fact that stiffness
modification was not used and when the slab is designed as part of the lateral resisting
system the structure becomes very stiff and the load transferred to the main structural
elements (beam and column) would be relatively very small. Thus while modeling,
the slab must be designed only for gravity load and stiffness modification factor must
be used.
94

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The following conclusion and recommendation can be made from the previous
assessment
1. 10% of the models did not made dynamic analysis for plan and elevation
irregularity while the rest 90% have made dynamic analysis for irregular
structures.
2. 70% of the models have considered accidental eccentricity while the rest 30%
didn’t consider accidental eccentricity. This means that uncertainity in the
location of massess and in the spatial variation of the seismic motion is not
taken in to consideration in the design.
3. 70% of the models satisfy U.L.S and 50% of the models satisfy S.L.S. The rest
30% of the model has design problem as unstable design and failure of
structural element.
4. 20% of the models are non-sway frames while the rest 80% are sway frames.
In sway frame stiffness reduction must be made for beam and column
sections. But out of this 80%, 5 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for
column section and 4 of the models didn’t use stiffness reduction for beam
section.
5. In 10% of the models, θ exceeds 0.1 and did not make P -∆ analysis.
6. While modeling the structural system, 100% of the models have designed the
slab as part of the lateral force resisting system.60% of the models did not use
stiffness reduction for the slab. This makes the structure very stiff and the load
transferred to the main structural elements (beam and column) would be
relatively very small. Therefore in the analysis model, either only the lateral
force resisting elements (beams, columns and walls) have to be considered, or
95

else the stiffness of the slabs have to be significantly reduced if the slabs are
modeled together.
7. 100% of the models didn’t take the minimum number of modes and scaling
up of the base shear.
8. 60% of the models did not use any stiffness reduction for the structural
members. After modification has been made, there is increase in column and
beam moment and shear force. This shows that the columns and the beams are
under designed.
9. 30% of the models used stiffness reduction for all structural members. After
modification has been made to these models, the result was increase in column
and beam moment and shear force.
10. 10% of the models used stiffness reduction for the entire structural member
except the column. In these models, it is found that there is an increase in
beam moment and shear force.
11. It was found 20% of the models doesn’t fulfill fundamental requirement of
earthquake.
12. It is possible to conclude that seismic design practice and structural design
process needs revision in the country.
13. It is recommended to design the slab for gravity load only rather than deigning
as lateral force resisting system and to make stiffness modification for
structural elements.
14. It is further recommended to assess seismic design practice and overall
structural design process on a large number of various structures like bridges,
steel structures and composite structures so as to make amendment on the
current design practice.
96

6 REFERENCE
1.Samule Kinde, S. E. (2011). Notes and proposed guidelines on updated sesimic
codes in Ethiopia. Journalof EEA .
2. Ministry of works and urban Development. (1995). Design of structures for
eartquake resistance, Ethiopia building code standard. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3. Ali, M. A. (2006). How high could buildings made of ribbed or flat slab
construction withiout shear walls be built. Thesis of A.A.I.T .
4. Macgregor, J.G.(1997). Reinforced concrete mechanics and design.(3RD
edition):Prentice Hall,Inc.
97

APPENDICES
98

Appendix A- Detail Calculation for Each Model
A-1 Calculation for model one
Table A-1 Limit for Re-entrant corner in meter
Re-entrant Limit of Re-entrant Limit of

corner in corner in
Location re-entrant re-entrant Remark
x- corner in y- corner in
direction direction
x- y-
direction direction
First floor 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction
Second 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction

floor
Third floor 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction
Fourth 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.9 Not regular in plan in x-direction

floor
Table A-2 Percentage exceedance of re-entrant corner from the limit
First floor 3% Within the limit
Second floor 3% Within the limit
Third floor 3% Within the limit
Fourth floor 3% Within the limit
99

Table A-3 Summery of structural configuration of model two
Symmetrical elevation shape Yes
Similar story heights uniform room height of 3 meter
Short spans yes
Symmetrical plan shape yes
Identical resistance on both axes yes
Uniform plan/elevation stiffness yes
Uniform plan/elevation resistance yes
Uniform plan/elevation ductility yes
Perimeter lateral resisting systems yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No
Regular elevation Yes
Table A-4 Stiffness reduction factor

Beam 0.26EcIg
Column Not used
Slab 0.26 EcIg
Wall Not used
Table A-5 Column design
Column design
100

Table A-6 Load combination
Combinatio Lateral Eccentricit

No. Vertical loading
n name loading y for EQ
1.3*DL + 1.6*LL+ wall static

1 Combo 1 ------ -
load
2 Combo 2 (0.75xCombo 1) +RSEQx -
3 Combo 3 (0.75xCombo 1) -RSEQx -
4 Combo 4 (0.75xCombo 1) +RSEQy -
5 Combo 5 (0.75xCombo 1) -RSEQy -
6. Combo 6 DL + LL +0.769 wall static load ----- -
101

Table A-7 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meter
Displacemen
Building t of a point of
Displaceme
drift the structural Design
nt Story
elastically system interstory
Story Buildin behavioral drift Remark
Story computed induced by drift
ht g ht factor, γd limit (S.L.S)
from the design ∆r=∆i -∆i-
assumed ≤0.01h
ETABS seismic 1
equal to γ
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Water tank 1.5 22 0.0394 0.5 0.079 0.008 0.015 satisfied
Roof 3 20.5 0.0436 0.5 0.087 0.007 0.030 satisfied
Fourth 3 17.5 0.0403 0.5 0.081 0.011 0.030 satisfied
Third 3 14.5 0.0348 0.5 0.070 0.016 0.030 satisfied
Second 3 11.5 0.0268 0.5 0.054 0.020 0.030 satisfied
First 3 8.5 0.0168 0.5 0.034 0.018 0.030 satisfied
Mezzanine 3 5.5 0.008 0.5 0.016 0.013 0.030 satisfied
Ground 2.5 2.5 0.0013 0.5 0.003 0.003 0.025 satisfied

Base
102

Table A-8 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in meter
Total Total
factored unfactore Design
θ=
gravity d gravity interstory Vx θlimit
Stor Buildin (Ptot*dr) Remark
Story No load at load at drift (story ≤
y ht g ht / (U.L.S)
and above and above ∆r=∆i - shear) 0.25
(Vtot/h)
the story the story ∆i-1
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
Water 0.008 23.82 0.051
1.5 22 283.72 218.25 0.25 satisfied
tank
Roof 3 20.5 660.98 508.45 0.007 69.42 0.016 0.25 satisfied
Fourth 3 17.5 2396.85 1843.73 0.011 222.3 0.030 0.25 satisfied
Third 3 14.5 4114.8 3165.23 0.016 352.53 0.048 0.25 satisfied
Second 3 11.5 5837.55 4490.42 0.020 452.24 0.066 0.25 satisfied
First 3 8.5 7605 5850.00 0.018 514.21 0.067 0.25 satisfied
Mezzanine 3 5.5 9454.11 7272.39 0.013 541.47 0.060 0.25 satisfied
Ground 2.5 2.5 9797.39 7536.45 0.003 763.00 0.010 0.25 satisfied
Base
103

Table A-9 Design interstory drift for servicibility limit state in meters after
Modification
Building Displacement of
drift Displacement a point of the Remark
Design Story
elastically behavioural structural system interstory
Story Story Building interstory drift
computed factor, γd induced by the drift as a
No ht ht drift limit
from assumed design seismic parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ action (S.L.S)
(de) (ds)=de/γd
Water
tank 1.5 22 0.097 0.5 0.1932 0.001 0.015 satisfied
3 20.5 0.097 0.5 0.1938 0.013 0.03 satisfied

Roof
3 17.5 0.090 0.5 0.1808 0.025 0.03 satisfied
Fourth
3 14.5 0.078 0.5 0.156 0.037 0.03 satisfied
Third
3 11.5 0.059 0.5 0.1188 0.047 0.03 Not satisfied
Second
3 8.5 0.036 0.5 0.0714 0.043 0.03 Not satisfied
First
3 5.5 0.014 0.5 0.028 0.026 0.03 satisfied
Mezz
2.5 2.5 0.001 0.5 0.0016 0.002 0.025 satisfied
Ground
Base
104

Table A-10 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit state in
meters after Modification
Total
factored Total Remark on
Design gravity unfactored interstory
Vx θ=
Story Building interstory load at gravity θlimit drift
Story No (story (Ptot*dr)/
ht ht drift and load at and ≤0.25 sensitivity
shear) (Vtot/h)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 above the above the coefficient
story story (Ptotal) (U.L.S)
(Ptotal)
Water tank 1.5 22 -0.015 -553.74 -425.95 -79.57 -0.07 0.25 Satisfied
Roof 3 20.5 0.011 -1526.36 -1174.12 -146.5 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Fourth 3 17.5 0.021 -1539.34 -1184.11 -353.4 0.03 0.25 Satisfied
Third 3 14.5 0.032 -2518.58 -1937.37 -523.4 0.05 0.25 Satisfied
Second 3 11.5 0.040 -3504.70 -2695.92 -658.5 0.07 0.25 Satisfied
First 3 8.5 0.037 -4536.22 -3489.40 -758.9 0.07 0.25 Satisfied
Mezzanine 3 5.5 0.023 -5617.12 -4320.86 -823.1 0.05 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 2.5 2.5 0.001 -5947.85 -4575.27 329.3 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
Base
105

Table A-11 Comparison of Column moment and shear force for envelope X in
KN-m
Percentage increase in M2
Percentage increase in V2
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
water tank 0 20 19 -7 14 18 34
water tank 0.6 49 33 -33 55 40 -27 -9 -4 -52 -8 -1 -92
water tank 1.2 -36 -27 -24 -25 -20 -20
Roof 0 -1 -15 1200 23 -9 -59
Roof 1.3 15 -4 -72 -2 -7 317 3 -6 106 3 -4 28
Roof 2.7 17 3 -81 18 2 -91
Fourth 0 18 -25 35 35 -24 -31
Fourth 1.3 29 -15 -49 14 -16 11 -1 -4 495 -3 -5 88
Fourth 2.6 20 17 -19 31 14 -55
Third 0 37 -30 -17 51 -28 -44
Third 1.3 34 -19 -44 26 -20 -23 2 -5 122 4 -5 21
Envelope X
Third 2.6 35 20 -41 58 20 -66

C63
Second 0 47 -19 -59 56 -24 -57

Second 1.3 37 -17 -55 30 -15 -51 6 0 -96 3 -3 14
Second 2.6 41 19 -54 63 18 -71
First 0 66 -61 -8 108 -19 -83
First 1.3 63 -15 -76 40 -42 6 13 -7 -47 20 -1 -97
First 2.6 65 47 -27 82 17 -79
Mezzanine 0 70 -12 -82 161 25 -84
Mezzanine 1.3 64 7 -89 33 -13 -60 25 5 -80 73 15 -79
Mezzanine 2.6 18 22 28 13 4 -66
Ground 0 13 4 -71 19 -2 -88
Ground 1.1 34 -4 -89 33 6 -82 16 -2 -85 47 2 -96
Ground 2.1 39 -9 -78 88 6 -94
106

M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
M2
M3
V2
V3
Roof 0 42 32 -24 -24 -20 -15
Roof 1.325 -9 -12 29 22 16 -27 13 10 -20 -5 -5 -11
Roof 2.65 -8 -11 48 22 11 -50
Fourth 0 49 42 -13 -17 -30 75
Fourth 1.3 -6 -19 232 35 29 -17 5 5 -3 2 -5 134
Fourth 2.6 -29 -33 10 49 21 -58
Third 0 57 41 -28 -3 -30 1083
Third 1.3 3 -20 488 39 27 -31 7 6 -18 -1 -4 275
Third 2.6 -26 -29 10 61 22 -63
Envelope X
Second 0 41 30 -25 23 -24 7

C57
Second 1.3 15 -17 12 31 23 -28 3 1 -61 2 -3 61

Second 2.6 -22 -29 27 62 19 -69
First 0 70 48 -31 27 -26 -5
First 1.3 12 -16 36 49 35 -30 6 3 -47 10 -5 -48
First 2.6 -29 -42 42 61 16 -74
Mezzanine 0 58 13 -78 135 12 -91
Mezzanine 1.3 46 0 -100 35 18 -49 13 -10 -19 74 12 -84
Mezzanine 2.6 -30 -33 11 15 11 -25
Ground 0 57 1 -97 26 -6 -77
Ground 1.05 17 -9 -47 45 2 -96 13 -1 -95 67 3 -95
Ground 2.1 10 -3 -73 108 13 -88
107

Table A-12 Comparison for Column moment and shear force for envelope Y in
KN-m
M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
water tank 0 23 19 -19 13 18 46

water tank 0.6 45 33 -26 60 40 -33 -9 -4 -50 -10 -1 -94
water tank 1.2 -33 -27 -16 -29 -20 -32
Roof 0 8 -15 89 13 -9 -28
Roof 1.3 8 -4 -48 4 -7 97 4 -6 39 3 -4 51
Roof 2.7 22 3 -85 9 2 -82
Fourth 0 27 -25 -10 16 -24 53
Fourth 1.3 15 -15 2 20 -16 -22 1 -4 630 -3 -5 70
Fourth 2.6 28 17 -40 11 14 31
Third 0 50 -30 -39 19 -28 52
Third 1.3 12 -19 56 35 -20 -43 4 -5 44 1 -5 248
ENVY
Third 2.6 46 20 -55 31 20 -36

C63
Second 0 62 -19 -69 23 -24 6

Second 1.3 15 -17 15 40 -15 -63 7 0 -97 1 -3 149
Second 2.6 54 19 -65 33 18 -44
First 0 94 -61 -35 40 -19 -54
First 1.3 23 -15 -34 57 -42 -26 17 -7 -61 7 -1 -91
First 2.6 84 47 -43 40 17 -57
Mezzanine 0 103 -12 -88 85 25 -70
Mezzanine 1.3 36 7 -80 48 -13 -72 39 5 -87 37 15 -59
Mezzanine 2.6 24 22 -6 13 4 -67
Ground 0 19 4 -80 40 -2 -94
Ground 1.1 16 -4 -77 46 6 -87 22 -2 -89 35 2 -95
Ground 2.1 59 -9 -86 43 6 -87
108

M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
Roof 0 52 32 -39 -23 -20 -11

Roof 1.325 -10 -12 17 29 16 -45 13 10 -22 -6 -5 -24
Roof 2.65 2 -11 518 19 11 -43
Fourth 0 57 42 -25 -22 -30 33
Fourth 1.3 -11 -19 71 42 29 -32 7 5 -26 0 -5 1966
Fourth 2.6 -18 -33 85 40 21 -48
Third 0 69 41 -41 -13 -30 129
Third 1.3 -5 -20 302 50 27 -47 10 6 -37 -2 -4 138
Third 2.6 -7 -29 286 49 22 -54
Envelope Y
Second 0 66 30 -54 8 -24 194

Second C57 1.3 5 -17 245 49 23 -54 2 1 -37 1 -3 175
Second 2.6 0 -29 113992 50 19 -62
First 0 91 48 -47 2 -26 1137
First 1.3 -2 -16 746 62 35 -44 9 3 -63 4 -5 39
First 2.6 -14 -42 204 50 16 -68
Mezzanine 0 144 13 -91 91 12 -86
Mezzanine 1.3 31 0 -100 71 18 -75 51 -10 -79 50 12 -76
Mezzanine 2.6 -31 -33 6 21 11 -47
Ground 0 33 1 -96 43 -6 -86
Ground 1.05 3 -9 204 54 2 -96 45 -1 -99 59 3 -94
Ground 2.1 70 -3 -96 78 13 -83
109

Table A-13 Comparison of Beam moment and shear force for envelope X in KN-m
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
M3 original
increase
increase
V2 original
Beam
in M3
Story
in V2
Load
0.15 -67 -70 5 -25 -36 45
0.55 -58 -62 7 0 -9 2877
0.95 -50 -49 -1 22 13 -40
0.95 -22 -49 124 25 13 -47
1.37 -14 -31 125 32 30 -6
1.79 -1 -7 419 36 38 6
B961
2.21 21 22 1 39 35 -11
2.63 30 46 50 31 21 -33
3.05 39 65 64 19 -3 -86
3.05 91 65 -29 17 -3 -84
3.45 99 77 -22 -11 -31 182
3.85 108 85 -21 -42 -64 52
0.15 -90 -129 44 -50 -80 61
0.44 -84 -121 44 -28 -43 55
0.73 -57 -108 91 0 -10 3787
0.73 -53 -108 104 4 -10 140
1.15 -44 -84 89 24 31 26
1.57 -35 -54 52 41 60 46
Envelope X
1.99 -10 -21 108 48 76 57

Fourth
2.41 -1 11 667 51 78 53
B966
2.83 16 43 169 48 66 39
2.83 31 43 40 47 66 41
3.19 39 71 84 40 46 15
3.55 46 98 113 30 15 -49
3.55 73 98 34 27 15 -45
3.95 80 124 55 9 -30 234
4.35 87 145 66 -12 -84 591
4.75 142 157 11 -68 -144 111
0.15 -96 -213 122 -64 -174 171
0.61 -87 -198 127 -26 -79 201
1.07 -78 -170 117 8 6 -25
1.53 -45 -129 189 35 75 113
1.99 -34 -76 120 55 123 124
B976
2.45 2 -9 402 60 143 138

2.91 12 57 368 62 131 111
3.37 55 111 102 44 92 111
3.83 65 151 132 21 32 51
4.29 133 179 35 -25 -45 80
4.75 141 194 37 -72 -131 82
110

Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
V2
M3
0.15 -63 -116 83 -25 -91 268
0.63 -54 -105 94 0 -38 44501
1.10 -46 -88 93 21 8 -62
1.58 -24 -63 168 37 44 21
2.05 -13 -32 140 46 67 47
2.53 16 7 -58 46 73 58
B971
3.00 49 42 -14 51 61 20
3.48 59 70 18 41 35 -16
3.95 69 90 30 26 -4 -86
3.95 97 90 -7 25 -4 -85
4.30 104 101 -3 5 -37 616
4.65 112 108 -3 -17 -74 336
0.15 -61 -116 90 -25 -103 311
0.62 -54 -106 98 -5 -51 988
1.09 -46 -89 93 13 -4 -67
1.56 -29 -65 121 29 32 9
2.04 4 -33 819 41 55 36
Envelope X
2.51 13 5 -64 43 62 46
B975
Second
2.98 39 40 1 41 52 27
3.45 48 68 40 35 26 -24
3.45 63 68 8 34 26 -22
3.85 70 86 23 23 -5 -79
4.25 98 99 1 -6 -42 583
4.65 104 107 4 -21 -83 301
0.15 -56 -120 114 -17 -100 479
0.64 -50 -109 121 -1 -43 5728
1.13 -29 -91 210 28 6 -78
1.63 -10 -65 583 39 45 16
2.12 -1 -31 2263 41 69 69
2.61 29 9 -70 43 75 75
B977
3.10 37 44 18 42 61 47
3.10 49 44 -12 41 61 48
3.45 57 64 13 34 42 23
3.80 64 80 25 25 17 -31
3.80 78 80 3 23 17 -26
4.23 87 95 9 7 -20 207
4.65 96 104 8 -14 -63 360
111

Table A-14 Comparison of Beam moment and shear force for envelope Y in KN-
m
Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
V2
M3
0.15 -75 -70 -6 -35 -36 4
0.55 -66 -62 -6 -6 -9 43
0.95 -58 -49 -14 18 13 -28
0.95 -25 -49 94 22 13 -39
1.37 -17 -31 80 31 30 -1
1.79 -4 -7 80 38 38 2
B961
2.21 5 22 306 40 35 -12

2.63 30 46 53 31 21 -32
3.05 39 65 66 18 -3 -85
3.05 89 65 -28 15 -3 -83
3.45 98 77 -21 -16 -31 97
3.85 106 85 -20 -48 -64 32
0.15 -95 -129 35 -61 -80 31
0.44 -90 -121 35 -37 -43 15
0.73 -61 -108 77 -8 -10 22
0.73 -57 -108 89 -3 -10 193
1.15 -48 -84 73 19 31 64
1.57 -40 -54 36 37 60 61
Envelope Y
1.99 -13 -21 60 46 76 65

Fourth
2.41 -5 11 143 50 78 56
B966
2.83 13 43 223 48 66 39
2.83 27 43 59 47 66 42
3.19 35 71 104 38 46 20
3.55 42 98 131 27 15 -43
3.55 67 98 46 24 15 -37
3.95 75 124 67 4 -30 728
4.35 82 145 78 -19 -84 333
4.75 132 157 19 -81 -144 78
0.15 -103 -213 106 -75 -174 133
0.61 -94 -198 109 -34 -79 134
1.07 -86 -170 98 4 6 66
1.53 -48 -129 167 33 75 129
1.99 -38 -76 99 54 123 127
B976
2.45 -1 -9 744 59 143 141

2.91 9 57 518 60 131 119
3.37 51 111 115 40 92 132
3.83 118 151 28 13 32 150
4.29 127 179 41 -33 -45 35
4.75 135 194 43 -83 -131 58
112

Percentage
Percentage
increase in
increase in
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
M3
V2
0.15 -59 -116 95 -18 -91 415
0.625 -50 -105 109 5 -38 628
1.1 -42 -88 111 25 8 -68
1.575 -21 -63 202 39 44 14
2.05 -11 -32 200 47 67 44
2.525 18 7 -64 47 73 57
B971
3 52 42 -19 53 61 16
3.475 62 70 12 44 35 -22
3.95 72 90 25 31 -4 -88
3.95 101 90 -10 29 -4 -88
4.3 108 101 -6 11 -37 232
4.65 115 108 -6 -10 -74 670
0.15 -58 -116 102 -18 -103 462
0.621 -50 -106 111 1 -51 5863
1.093 -43 -89 108 17 -4 -75
1.564 -26 -65 144 32 32 -1
2.036 6 -33 444 41 55 34
Envelope Y
2.507 15 5 -70 43 62 45
B975
Second
2.979 42 40 -5 42 52 22
3.45 51 68 33 37 26 -30
3.45 66 68 3 36 26 -28
3.85 73 86 18 26 -5 -82
4.25 102 99 -3 0 -42 18970
4.65 108 107 0 -14 -83 506
0.15 -52 -120 129 -10 -100 885
0.642 -34 -109 218 20 -43 115
1.133 -26 -91 247 32 6 -80
1.625 -7 -65 874 41 45 10
2.117 2 -31 1966 42 69 65
2.608 32 9 -72 44 75 70
B977
3.1 40 44 10 44 61 39
3.1 52 44 -16 44 61 40
3.45 59 64 7 38 42 13
3.8 67 80 20 29 17 -41
3.8 82 80 -2 27 17 -37
4.225 91 95 5 13 -20 62
4.65 99 104 4 -6 -63 938
113

A-2 Calculation for Model three
Table A-15 Limit of re-entrant corners in meter

Location corner in re-entrant corner in re-entrant Remark
x- corner in y-direction corner in
direction x- y-direction
direction
6th floor 3.15 5.85 7.45 6.07 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
direction
direction
9th floor 3.15 5.54 12 7.875 Not regular in plan in y
direction
direction
direction
7thfloor 3.15 5.85 7.45 6.07 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
8th floor 3.15 6.34 12 6.34 Not regular in plan in y
direction
direction
direction
15th floor 4.40 5.1 7.50 5.85 Not regular in plan in y
direction
16th floor 4.40 5.1 7.50 5.85 Not regular in plan in y
direction
Roof 4.40 5.1 7.50 5.85 Not regular in plan in y
terrace direction
114


th
6 floor Within the limit 22.7%
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
18th floor Within the limit 89.3%
Roof terrace Within the limit 28.2%
Table A-17 Set back on elevation of the building in meter
Location Individual Set back that do not Set back occurring

preserve symmetry above 0.15H
Right and left side 0.19 ------------
elevation
Front and rear elevation 0.24,0.22 0.8
Table A-18 Percentage exceedance of Setback on elevation of the building from

the limit
Location Individual Set back that do not Set back occurring

preserve symmetry above 0.15H
Right and left side 90% Within the limit
elevation
Front and rear elevation 100%,100% 30%
115

Table A-19 Structural configuration of model 3
Similar story heights No
Short spans yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No

Beam 0.26EcIg
Column 0.7EcIg
Slab 0.26 EcIg
Wall 0.26 EcIg
Column design
Non- Sway
Frame type frame
P-∆ analysis Not Considered
116

Combination Lateral Eccentricity for

No. Vertical Loading
Name loading EQ
1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL+
1 Combo 1 ------ -
1.3wall static load
2 Combo 2 (0.75xComb1) +EQx -
3 Combo 3 (0.75xComb1) -EQx -
4 Combo 4 (0.75xComb1) +EQy -
5 Combo 5 (0.75xComb1) -EQy -
6. Combo 6 (0.9xComb1) ----- -
117

Table A-23 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter
Displacement
Building
of a point of
drift Displacement Remark
the structural Design story
elastically behavioural inter story
Story Building system inter story drift
Story No computed factor, γd drift as a
ht ht induced by the drift limit
from assumed parameter
design seismic ∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ (S.L.S)
action
(de)
( ds)=de/γd
Roof 3.4 63.24 0.4014 0.375 1.070 0.018 0.034 Satisfied

Roof
3.4 59.84 0.3945 0.375 1.052 0.051 0.034 Not satisfied
terrace
16th 3.4 56.44 0.3753 0.375 1.001 0.053 0.034 Not satisfied
15th 3.4 53.04 0.3554 0.375 0.948 0.055 0.034 Not satisfied
14th 3.4 49.64 0.3346 0.375 0.892 0.058 0.034 Not satisfied
13th 3.4 46.24 0.3129 0.375 0.834 0.061 0.034 Not satisfied
12th 3.4 42.84 0.2901 0.375 0.774 0.063 0.034 Not satisfied
11th 3.4 39.44 0.2664 0.375 0.710 0.066 0.034 Not satisfied
10th 3.4 36.04 0.2417 0.375 0.645 0.068 0.034 Not satisfied
9th 3.4 32.64 0.2161 0.375 0.576 0.069 0.034 Not satisfied
8th 3.4 29.24 0.1901 0.375 0.507 0.070 0.034 Not satisfied
7th 3.74 25.84 0.1638 0.375 0.437 0.070 0.0374 Not satisfied
6th 3.74 22.44 0.1377 0.375 0.367 0.075 0.0374 Not satisfied
5th 3.74 18.7 0.1096 0.375 0.292 0.071 0.0374 Not satisfied
4th 3.74 14.96 0.0829 0.375 0.221 0.065 0.0374 Not satisfied
3rd 3.74 11.22 0.0584 0.375 0.156 0.057 0.0374 Not satisfied
2nd 3.74 7.48 0.0369 0.375 0.098 0.046 0.0374 Not satisfied
1st 3.74 3.74 0.0195 0.375 0.052 0.029 0.0374 Satisfied
Ground 4.25 0 0.0086 0.375 0.023 0.017 0.0425 Satisfied
1st 3.06 -4.25 0.0022 0.375 0.006 0.003 0.0306 Satisfied
basement
2nd 3.06 -7.31 0.0011 0.375 0.003 0.003 0.0306 Satisfied
basement
3rd 3.06 -10.37
basement
Base 2.5 -12.87
118

Table A-24 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for ultimate limit statein meter
Total Remark
Total
unfactored On
factored Design
gravity Vx θ= interstory
Story Building gravity interstory θlimit
Story No load at (story (Ptot*dr)/ drift
ht ht load at and drift ≤0.25
and above shear) (Vtot/h) sensitivity
above the ∆r=∆i -∆i-1
the story coefficient
story (Ptotal)
(Ptotal) (U.L.S)
Roof 3.4 63.24 -2101.37 -1616.44 0.018 -145.76 0.06 0.25 Satisfied
Roof 0.051 Satisfied
terrace 3.4 59.84 -7223.63 -5556.64 -609.31 0.14 0.25
16th 3.4 56.44 -11760.37 -9046.44 0.053 -1027.4 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
15th 3.4 53.04 -16884.07 -12987.75 0.055 -1464.5 0.14 0.25 Satisfied
14th 3.4 49.64 -22787.40 -17528.77 0.058 -1882.1 0.16 0.25 Satisfied
13th 3.4 46.24 -28687.82 -22067.55 0.061 -2280.2 0.17 0.25 Satisfied
12th 3.4 42.84 -34587.87 -26606.05 0.063 -2655.5 0.19 0.25 Satisfied
11th 3.4 39.44 -40488.53 -31145.02 0.066 -3007.8 0.20 0.25 Satisfied
10th 3.4 36.04 -46233.42 -35564.17 0.068 -3333.8 0.21 0.25 Satisfied
9th 3.4 32.64 -52337.49 -40259.61 0.069 -3641.1 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
8th 3.4 29.24 -58427.01 -44943.85 0.070 -3933 0.24 0.25 Satisfied
7th 3.74 25.84 -64552.01 -49655.39 0.070 -4201.4 0.22 0.25 Satisfied
6th 3.74 22.44 -70832.23 -54486.33 0.075 -4450.9 0.25 0.25 Satisfied
5th 3.74 18.7 -78555.56 -60427.35 0.071 -4769.8 0.24 0.25 Satisfied
4th 3.74 14.96 -85868.40 -66052.62 0.065 -5037.3 0.23 0.25 Satisfied
3rd 3.74 11.22 -93138.18 -71644.75 0.057 -5269.4 0.21 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 3.74 7.48 -100442.02 -77263.09 0.046 -5465.4 0.18 0.25 Satisfied
1st 3.74 3.74 -107079.14 -82368.57 0.029 -5607.4 0.11 0.25 Satisfied
Ground 4.25 0 -103387.39 -79528.76 0.017 -5795.1 0.06 0.25 Satisfied
1st
0.003
basement 3.06 -4.25 -106438.80 -81876.00 -5896 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
nd
2 0.003
basement 3.06 -7.31 -111038.02 -85413.86 -5952.4 0.01 0.25 Satisfied
rd
3
basement 3.06 -10.37
Base 2.5 -12.87
119

A-3 Calculation for model four
Table A-25 Setback on elevation of the building
Location Individual Set back that don’t

preserve symmetry
Right and left side elevation 0.12,0.16,1.4
Front and rear elevation 0.16
Table A-26 Percentage exceedance of Setback on elevation of the building from

the limit
Location Individual Set back that don’t

preserve symmetry
Right and left side elevation 20%,60%,1300%
Front and rear elevation 60%
Symmetrical elevation shape

yes
Similar story heights
No
Short spans
yes
Symmetrical plan shape
yes
Identical resistance on both axes
Yes
Uniform plan/elevation stiffness
yes
Uniform plan/elevation resistance
Yes
Uniform plan/elevation ductility
yes
Perimeter lateral resisting systems
yes
Redundancy
yes
Direct load path, no cantilevers
No
Regular plan yes
120


Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
Non- Sway
Frame type frame
P-∆ analysis Not Considered
Combination Lateral Eccentricity for

No. Vertical Loading
Name loading EQ
1.3*DL+
1 Combo 1 1.6*LL+ 1.3PD ------
static load
2 Combo 2 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQx Not used
3 Combo 3 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQx Not used
4 Combo 4 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQy Not used
5 Combo 5 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQy Not used
121

A-4 Calculation for model five
Table A-31 Limit of re-entrant corners in meter
Re-entrant Limit of Re-entrant Limit of re-

Location corner in re-entrant corner in entrant Remark
x- corner in y-direction corner in
direction x-direction y-direction
Ground 6 6.45 7.37 7.375 Regular in plan
floor
1st floor 6 6.45 16.94 7.375 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
2nd floor 6 6.45 16.94 7.375 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
3rd floor 6 6.45 16.94 7.375 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
4th floor 6 6.45 16.94 7.375 Not regular in plan in y-
direction
direction
direction
direction
direction
direction
122


Ground Within the limit Within the limit
1st floor Within the limit 130%
2nd floor Within the limit 130%
3rd floor Within the limit 130%
4th floor Within the limit 130%

yes
Similar story height
No
Short spans
yes
yes
Yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
Redundancy
yes
No
Regular plan No
123


Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
Eccentricity ration of 0.05 used by

1 Combo1 1.3*DL + 1.6*LL -
software

2 Combo2 (0.75xComb1) +EQx
software

3 Combo3 (0.75xComb1) -EQx
software

4 Combo4 (0.75xComb1) +EQy
software

5 Combo5 (0.75xComb1) -EQy
software
124

Table A-37 Design interstory drift for serviceability limit state in meter
Displacement
drift Displacement the structural design Remark
design
elastically behavioural system story inter story
Story Building interstory
Story No computed factor, induced by drift drift as a
ht ht drift
from γd assumed the design limit parameter
∆r=∆i -∆i-1
ETABS equal to γ seismic ≤0.01h (S.L.S)
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Lift roof 3 41.76 0.0548 0.5 0.110 0.003 0.030 satisfied

Roof 3.06 38.76 0.0562 0.5 0.112 0.003 0.031 satisfied
10th 3.23 35.7 0.0545 0.5 0.109 0.004 0.032 satisfied
9th 3.23 32.47 0.0525 0.5 0.105 0.005 0.032 satisfied
8th 3.06 29.24 0.0498 0.5 0.100 0.007 0.031 satisfied
7th 3.06 26.18 0.0464 0.5 0.093 0.009 0.031 satisfied
6th 3.06 23.12 0.0420 0.5 0.084 0.010 0.031 satisfied
5th 3.06 20.06 0.0368 0.5 0.074 0.012 0.031 satisfied
4th 3.06 17 0.0310 0.5 0.062 0.012 0.031 satisfied
3rd 3.06 13.94 0.0248 0.5 0.050 0.013 0.031 satisfied
2nd 3.06 10.88 0.0185 0.5 0.037 0.012 0.031 satisfied
1st 3.23 7.82 0.0124 0.5 0.025 0.011 0.032 satisfied
Ground 4.59 4.59 0.0070 0.5 0.014 0.011 0.046 satisfied
Basement 3 0 0.0014 0.5 0.003 0.003 0.030 satisfied
Base -3
125

Total Total
Remark on
factored unfactored
Design θlimit interstory
gravity gravity Vx θ=
Story Building inter drift
Story No load at and load at (story (Ptot*dr)/
ht ht story ≤0.25 sensitivity
above the and above shear) (Vtot/h)
drift coefficient
story the story
∆r=∆i - (U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
∆i-1
Lift roof 3 41.76 -595.60 -458.15 -0.003 -28.38 0.02 0.25 satisfied
Roof 3.06 38.76 -6859.80 -5276.77 0.003 -329.42 0.02 0.25 satisfied
10th 3.23 35.7 -15890.04 -12223.11 0.004 -771.08 0.02 0.25 satisfied
9th 3.23 32.47 -27128.92 -20868.40 0.005 -1306.03 0.03 0.25 satisfied
8th 3.06 29.24 -38925.12 -29942.40 0.007 -1765.75 0.04 0.25 satisfied
7th 3.06 26.18 -48578.02 -37367.71 0.009 -2128.14 0.05 0.25 satisfied
6th 3.06 23.12 -58152.99 -44733.07 0.010 -2451.68 0.06 0.25 satisfied
5th 3.06 20.06 -67805.88 -52158.37 0.012 -2738.07 0.07 0.25 satisfied
4th 3.06 17 -77522.96 -59633.05 0.012 -2988.18 0.08 0.25 satisfied
3rd 3.06 13.94 -87155.40 -67042.62 0.013 -3198.27 0.09 0.25 satisfied
2nd 3.06 10.88 -96872.53 -74517.33 0.012 -3371.87 0.09 0.25 satisfied
1st 3.23 7.82 -105639.45 -81261.12 0.011 -3494.55 0.08 0.25 satisfied
Ground 4.59 4.59 -113891.08 -87608.52 0.011 -3579.19 0.06 0.25 satisfied
Basement 3 0 -115058.62 -88506.63 0.003 -3593.67 0.02 0.25 satisfied
Base -3
126

A-5 Calculation for model six

yes
Yes
Short spans
yes
yes
Yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
Redundancy
yes
No
Regular plan Yes
Regular elevation Yes

Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
127

Table A-42 load combination
Combination Lateral
No. Vertical Loading Eccentricity for EQ
name loading
1 Combo1 1.3*DL + 1.6*LL ----- -----------

2 Combo2 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQx
software

3 Combo3 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQx
software

4 Combo4 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQy
software

5 Combo5 (0.75xCombo1) -EQy
software
6 Combo 6 G.L + L.L + W.L ------ ----------
128

A-6 Calculation for model seven
Similar story height Yes
Short spans yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan Yes

Beam 0.26EcIg
Column 0.7EcIg
Slab 0.26 EcIg
Wall 0.26 EcIg
Column design
129

Combination Lateral
name loading
1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL+
1 Combo 1 ------
1.3wall static load

2 Combo 2 (0.9xCombo 1) +EQx
software

3 Combo 3 (0.9xCombo 1) -EQx
software

4 Combo 4 (0.9xCombo 1) +EQy
software

5 Combo 5 (0.9xCombo 1) -EQy
software
6. Combo 6 (0.9xCombo 1) -----
130

Table A-47 Design interstory driftfor service limit state in meter.
Displaceme
Building nt of a point
drift Displaceme of the
Design Story Remark
elasticall nt structural
interstor drift interstory
Story No Stor Buildin y behavioural system
y drift limit drift as a
y ht g ht compute factor, γd induced by
∆r=∆i- ≤0.01 parameter
d from assumed the design
∆i-1 h (S.L.S)
ETABS equal to γ seismic
(de) action
(ds)=de/γd
Top roof 2.8 32.2 0.0296 0.5 0.059 0.008 0.028 satisfied
roof 1.4 29.4 0.0271 0.5 0.052 0.003 0.014 satisfied
10th ' 1.4 28 0.0258 0.5 0.049 0.003 0.014 satisfied
10th 1.4 26.6 0.0245 0.5 0.046 0.003 0.014 satisfied
9th' 1.4 25.2 0.0232 0.5 0.044 0.003 0.014 satisfied
9th 1.4 23.8 0.0219 0.5 0.041 0.003 0.014 satisfied
8th' 1.4 22.4 0.0206 0.5 0.039 0.003 0.014 satisfied
8th 1.4 21 0.0193 0.5 0.036 0.003 0.014 satisfied
7th' 1.4 19.6 0.0180 0.5 0.033 0.003 0.014 satisfied
7th 1.4 18.2 0.0166 0.5 0.031 0.003 0.014 satisfied
6th' 1.4 16.8 0.0153 0.5 0.028 0.003 0.014 satisfied
6th 1.4 15.4 0.0140 0.5 0.025 0.003 0.014 satisfied
5th' 1.4 14 0.0127 0.5 0.023 0.002 0.014 satisfied
5th 1.4 12.6 0.0114 0.5 0.020 0.002 0.014 satisfied
4th' 1.4 11.2 0.0102 0.5 0.018 0.002 0.014 satisfied
4th 1.4 9.8 0.0090 0.5 0.016 0.002 0.014 satisfied
3rd' 1.4 8.4 0.0079 0.5 0.014 0.002 0.014 satisfied
3rd 1.4 7 0.0068 0.5 0.011 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd' 1.4 5.6 0.0057 0.5 0.009 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd 1.4 4.2 0.0047 0.5 0.008 0.002 0.014 satisfied
1st' 1.4 2.8 0.0038 0.5 0.006 0.002 0.014 satisfied
1st' 1.4 1.4 0.0030 0.5 0.004 0.001 0.014 satisfied
ground' 1.4 0 0.0022 0.5 0.003 0.001 0.014 satisfied
ground 1.4 -1.4 0.0016 0.5 0.002 0.002 0.014 satisfied
2nd
1.4 -2.8 0.0009 0.5 0.000 0.000 0.014 satisfied
basement
basement 2.2 -5 0.0000 0.5 0.000 0.000 0.022 satisfied
base 2 -7
131

Remark on
Design
Total factored Total unfactored Vx interstory drift
interstory θ=
Story gravity load at gravity load at and θlimit sensitivity
Story No Building ht drift Ptot*dr/
ht and above the above the story (story ≤0.25 coefficient
(Vtot/h)
story(Ptotal) (Ptotal) shear)
∆r=∆i -∆i-1
(U.L.S)
top roof 2.8 32.2 -897.03 -690.02 0.008 -31.17 0.060 0.25 Satisfied
roof 1.4 29.4 -2985.64 -2296.65 0.003 -148.07 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
10th ' 1.4 28 -3713.51 -2856.55 0.003 -181.92 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
10th 1.4 26.6 -5564.15 -4280.12 0.003 -280.52 0.028 0.25 Satisfied
9th' 1.4 25.2 -6279.57 -4830.44 0.003 -313.92 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
9th 1.4 23.8 -8138.43 -6260.33 0.003 -401.48 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
8th' 1.4 22.4 -8847.07 -6805.44 0.003 -434.82 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
8th 1.4 21 -10720.13 -8246.25 0.003 -512.07 0.032 0.25 Satisfied
7th' 1.4 19.6 -11415.06 -8780.82 0.003 -544.60 0.030 0.25 Satisfied
7th 1.4 18.2 -13306.71 -10235.93 0.003 -612.95 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
6th' 1.4 16.8 -13981.03 -10754.64 0.003 -643.28 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
6th 1.4 15.4 -15881.25 -12216.35 0.003 -723.19 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
5th' 1.4 14 -14822.82 -11402.17 0.002 -599.28 0.033 0.25 Satisfied
5th 1.4 12.6 -18035.85 -13873.73 0.002 -696.94 0.034 0.25 Satisfied
4th' 1.4 11.2 -19056.39 -14658.76 0.002 -807.31 0.029 0.25 Satisfied
4th 1.4 9.8 -20632.08 -15870.83 0.002 -765.69 0.033 0.25 Satisfied
3rd' 1.4 8.4 -21623.63 -16633.56 0.002 -872.66 0.030 0.25 Satisfied
3rd 1.4 7 -23228.45 -17868.04 0.002 -829.57 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
2nd' 1.4 5.6 -24193.1 -18610.08 0.002 -926.90 0.026 0.25 Satisfied
2nd 1.4 4.2 -25828.5 -19868.08 0.002 -883.50 0.026 0.25 Satisfied
1st' 1.4 2.8 -26782.76 -20602.12 0.002 -970.15 0.024 0.25 Satisfied
1st' 1.4 1.4 -28455.24 -21888.65 0.001 -995.67 0.019 0.25 Satisfied
ground' 1.4 0 -29806.36 -22927.97 0.001 -1008.01 0.023 0.25 Satisfied
ground 1.4 -1.4 -32661.49 -25124.22 0.002 -1035.60 0.031 0.25 Satisfied
2nd
1.4 -2.8 -34042.79 -26186.76 0.000 -1043.40 0.000 0.25
basement Satisfied
basement 2.2 -5 -33957.12 -26120.86 0.000 -1047.99 0.000 0.25 Satisfied
base 2 -7
132

A-7 Calculation for model eight
Similar story height Yes
Short spans yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan Yes

Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
133

Combination Vertical Lateral Eccentricity for

No.
name Loading loading EQ
1.3*DL+
1 Combo 1 ------ -
1.6*LL
2 Combo 2 DL +LL -
3 Combo 3 (0.9xDL) EQx -
4 Combo 4 ( DL +LL) EQx -
5 Combo 5 (0.9xDL) EQy -
6. Combo 6 ( DL +LL) EQy -
A-8 Calculation for model nine
Table A-53 Limit for Re-entrant corner

Location corner in x- re-entrant corner in re-entrant Remark
direction corner in y- corner in
x-direction direction y-direction
First floor 12.50 11 6.50 9.2 Not regular in plan in x-
direction
Second 12.50 11 6.50 9.2 Not regular in plan in x-
floor direction
Third 12.50 11 6.50 9.2 Not regular in plan in x-
floor direction
Fourth 12.50 11 6.50 9.2 Not regular in plan in x-
floor direction
134


First floor 13.64% Within the limit
Second floor 13.64% Within the limit
Third floor 13.64% Within the limit
Fourth floor 13.64% Within the limit
Similar story height No
Short spans yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan No
135


Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
Frame type
Non- Sway frame
P-∆ analysis
Not Considered
Combination Lateral
name loading
1 Combo 1 1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL ------ -

software

3 Combo 3 (0.75xCombo1) -EQx
software

4 Combo 4 (0.75xCombo1) +EQy
software

5 Combo 5 (0.75xCombo1) -EQy
software
6. Combo 6 DL + LL ----- -
136

Table A-59 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter
Displacement
drift Displacement the structural
Design story Remark inter
elastically behavioural system
Story Building interstory drift story drift as
Story computed factor, γd induced by
ht ht drift limit a parameter
from assumed the design
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 ≤0.01h (S.L.S)
ETABS equal to γ seismic
(de) action
(ds)=de/γd
Water
2.86 17.44 0.0175 0.5 0.035 0.003 0.0286 satisfied
tank
Roof 3.06 14.58 0.0158 0.5 0.032 0.005 0.0306 satisfied
3rd 3.06 11.52 0.0133 0.5 0.027 0.007 0.0306 satisfied
2nd 3.06 8.46 0.0100 0.5 0.020 0.008 0.0306 satisfied
1st 3.4 5.4 0.0062 0.5 0.012 0.009 0.0340 satisfied
Ground 2 2 0.0019 0.5 0.004 0.004 0.0200 satisfied
Base 2 0
Table A-60 Design interstory drift for service limit state in meter for modified
model
Displacement
Building
of a point of
drift Displacement Remark
the structural Design Story
elastically behavioural inter story
Building system interstory drift
Story No Story ht computed factor, γd drift as a
ht induced by drift ∆r=∆i limit
from assumed parameter
the design -∆i-1 ≤0.01h
ETABS equal to γ (S.L.S)
seismic action
(de)
(ds)=de/γd
Water 2.86 17.44 0.0783 0.5 0.1566 0.016 0.029 satisfied
tank
Roof 3.06 14.58 0.0705 0.5 0.141 0.019 0.031 satisfied
3rd 3.06 11.52 0.0608 0.5 0.1216 0.031 0.031 satisfied
2nd 3.06 8.46 0.0451 0.5 0.0902 0.041 0.031 satisfied
1st 3.4 5.4 0.0245 0.5 0.049 0.040 0.034 satisfied
137

for modified model
Total Total
Remark on
factored unfactored
Design θ= interstory
gravity gravity Vx
Story Building interstory (Ptot*dr)/ drift
Story No load at load at (story θlimit
ht ht drift (Vtot/h) sensitivity
and above and above shear) ≤0.25
∆r=∆i -∆i-1 coefficient
the story the story
(U.L.S)
(Ptotal) (Ptotal)
2.86 17.44 0.016 -256.4 -197.23 -28.78 0.04 0.25 satisfied

Water tank
3.06 14.58 0.019 -1432.56 -1101.97 -147.8 0.05 0.25 satisfied
Roof
3.06 11.52 0.031 -2588.46 -1991.12 -243.4 0.08 0.25 satisfied
3rd
3.06 8.46 0.041 -3790.02 -2915.40 -315.8 0.12 0.25 satisfied
2nd
3.4 5.4 0.040 -5009.15 -3853.19 -362.1 0.12 0.25 satisfied
1st
2 2 0.009 -5831.8 -4486.00 -372 0.06 0.25 satisfied
Ground
138

Table A-62 Comparison for Column moment and shear force for Envelope X and Y in
KN-m
M2 modified
M3 modified
Location
V2 modified
V3 modified
M2 original
M3 original
Column
V2 original
V3 original
Story
Load
Roof 0 -6.4 -5.6 -13 6.8 23.1 237

Roof 1.3 4 14 236 -4 -2.9 -32 -0.8 -1.5 74 1.3 4.4 233
Roof 2.7 4.7 2.7 -43 -4.2 -14.9 253
Third 0 -1.7 0.9 -47 7.7 23.9 210
Third 1.3 5 15 201 -1 1.0 -7 -0.3 0.0 -97 0.9 3.2 242
Envelope X and Y
Third 2.7 1.1 -0.9 -17 -5.8 -18.3 212

Second 0 1.6 4.1 157 8.0 23.3 189
Second C9 1.3 5 15 172 1 3.0 211 0.3 0.7 112 0.8 3.0 275
Second 2.7 -0.9 -2.7 196 -6.4 -18.2 183
First 0 -2.8 2.0 -28 10.0 20.8 108
First 1.5 8 16 103 0 3.5 2825 -2.7 -3.1 15 -2.1 -4.1 94
First 3 -2.5 -7.9 217 -14.2 -28.3 99
Ground 0 1.1 -0.1 -93 2.2 3.3 45
Ground 0.8 4 7 52 2 1.4 -34 -0.6 -1.2 95 -1.3 -2.1 69
Ground 1.6 -2.4 -2.3 -2 -4.7 -7.4 55
139

M2 modified
M3 modified
V2 modified
V3 modified
Location
M2 original
M3 original
V2 original
V3 original
Column
Story
Load
Roof 0 -29 -38 29 17 35 101

Roof 1.3 12 23 96 -21 -26 24 -1 -3 141 2 4 135
Roof 2.7 27 32 19 -14 -27 94
Third 0 -21 -31 47 14 29 102
Third 1.3 10 19 96 -13 -20 48 -3 -4 40 2 4 132
Envelope X and Y
Third 2.7 15 22 51 -11 -22 96

Second 0 -19 -34 83 14 31 120
Second C7 1.3 9 20 109 -12 -22 75 -2 -6 134 2 5 191
Second 2.7 14 23 66 -11 -22 104
First 0 -6 -7 19 2 5 110
First 1.5 3 5 83 -5 -8 53 2 5 186 -2 -3 76
First 3 9 17 77 -6 -11 77
Ground 0 3 3 -11 -1 -3 133
Ground 1 -2 -4 116 5 5 8 -1 -2 60 1 1 95
Ground 2 -6 -7 19 2 5 110
140

Table A-63 Comparison of Beam shear force and moment for combination one in
KN-m
increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
B6 Load 0.2 -59 -119 102 -29 -57 100

B6 0.633 -48 -90 87 -7 -12 63
B6 1.067 -37 -56 50 10 20 105
B6 1.5 -8.9 -17 87 18 36 92
B6 1.933 4.8 22 370 20 34 75
B6 2.367 27 56 109 10 17 61
B6 2.8 38 85 125 -2 -14 464
B13 0.2 -50 -102 103 -18 -30 65
B13 0.65 -26 -72 178 8 9 18
Envelope X and Y
B13 1.1 -15 -36 137 16 34 113

B13 1.55 1.9 5 166 20 41 107
Third
B13 2 12 46 269 17 29 72
B13 2.45 34 81 141 9 0 -95
B13 2.9 50 112 125 -15 -43 183
B28 0.2 -37 -58 58 -27 -40 47
B28 0.667 -36 -49 38 -16 -15 -10
B28 1.133 -18 -34 93 3 5 76
B28 1.6 -3 -14 360 10 16 64
B28 2.067 -1.4 7 383 11 18 63
B28 2.533 12 22 82 7 11 48
B28 3 13 31 135 4 -2 -54
B60 0.2 -3 -29 780 -1 -10 1075
B60 0.6 -2 -24 1285 0.1 0 -100
141

increase in M3
increase in V2
Percentage
Percentage
M3 modified
V2 modified
Location
M3 original
V2 original
Beam
Story
Load
B5 0.1 -77 -208 170 -26 -79 208
B5 0.561 -66 -174 162 2 9 315
B5 1.944 -5 -9 99 51 146 186
B5 2.406 7 54 638 50 135 169
B5 2.867 19 118 508 44 96 115
B5 3.328 72 175 143 4 28 587
B5 3.789 82 222 170 -24 -64 166
Envelope X and Y
B5 4.25 92 257 179 -56 -175 213

First
B38 0.15 -56 -205 269 -42 -126 203

B38 0.625 -45 -169 278 -22 -37 71
B38 1.1 -7 -128 1751 7 34 415
B39 0 -17 -62 257 9 33 290
B39 0.43 -9 -23 151 12 52 314
B39 0.86 -9 19 117 14 53 278
B39 1.29 1 57 7772 15 36 138
B39 1.72 33 90 169 1 5 619
B39 2.15 42 118 183 -11 -40 268
142

A-9 Calculation for model 10
Table A-64 Setback on elevation of the building in meters
Location Individual Set back that don’t Gradual setback

preserve symmetry
Right and left side elevation --------- 0.4
Front and rear elevation 0.11, 0.24 ------------
Table A-65 Percentage exceedance of setback on elevation of the building from

the limit
Location Individual Set back that don’t Gradual setback

preserve symmetry
Right and left side elevation --------- 100%
Front and rear elevation 10%, 140% ------------
Symmetrical elevation shape No

Yes
Short spans yes
Redundancy yes
Regular plan Yes
143


Beam Not used
Column Not used
Slab Not used
Wall Not used
Column design
Combination Lateral
name loading
1 Combo 1 1.3*DL+ 1.6*LL ------

software

3 Combo 3 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQx
software

4 Combo 4 (0.75xCombo 1) +EQy
software

5 Combo 5 (0.75xCombo 1) -EQy
software
6. Combo 6 DL + LL -----
144

Table A-70 Design interstory drift limit for serviceability limit state in meter
Displacement
Story
elastically behavioural system Interstory inter story
Story Building drift
Story No computed factor, γd induced by drift drift as a
ht ht limit
from assumed the design ∆r=∆i -∆i-1 parameter
≤0.01h
(de) action
( ds)=de/γd
Roof 3 48 0.0746 0.5 0.1492 0.02 0.03 satisfied
13th 3 45 0.0853 0.5 0.1706 0.01 0.03 satisfied
12th 3 42 0.0818 0.5 0.1636 0.01 0.03 satisfied
11th 3 39 0.0775 0.5 0.155 0.01 0.03 satisfied
10th 3 36 0.0728 0.5 0.1456 0.01 0.03 satisfied
9th 3 33 0.0676 0.5 0.1352 0.01 0.03 satisfied
8th 3 30 0.0618 0.5 0.1236 0.01 0.03 satisfied
7th 3 27 0.0553 0.5 0.1106 0.01 0.03 satisfied
6th 3 24 0.0487 0.5 0.0974 0.01 0.03 satisfied
5th 3 21 0.0418 0.5 0.0836 0.01 0.03 satisfied
4thmezz 3 18 0.0348 0.5 0.0696 0.01 0.03 satisfied
4th 3 15 0.0303 0.5 0.0606 0.01 0.03 satisfied
3rd 3 12 0.0248 0.5 0.0496 0.01 0.03 satisfied
2nd 3 9 0.0193 0.5 0.0386 0.01 0.03 satisfied
mezz 3 6 0.0140 0.5 0.028 0.01 0.03 satisfied
1st 3 3 0.0091 0.5 0.0182 0.01 0.03 satisfied
1st base 3 -3 0.0024 0.5 0.0048 0.00 0.03 satisfied
2nd base 3 -6 0.0005 0.5 0.001 0.00 0.03 satisfied

Base 2 -8
145

Table A-71 Interstory drift sensitivity coefficient for U.L.S in meter
Total Total Remark

factored unfactored on
Design
gravity gravity Vx θ= interstory
Story Story Building interstory θlimit≤
load at and load at and (story (Ptot*dr)/ drift
No ht ht drift 0.25
above the above the shear) (Vtot/h) sensitivity
∆r=∆i -∆i-1
story story coefficient
(Ptotal) (Ptotal) (U.L.S)
Roof 3 48 -1378.45 -1060.35 -0.021 -81.66 0.09 0.25 satisfied

13th 3 45 -10782.67 -8294.36 0.007 -520.30 0.04 0.25 satisfied
12th 3 42 -19260.55 -14815.81 0.009 -904.90 0.05 0.25 satisfied
11th 3 39 -28269.47 -21745.75 0.009 -1282.00 0.05 0.25 satisfied
10th 3 36 -38554.72 -29657.48 0.010 -1689.00 0.06 0.25 satisfied
9th 3 33 -48843.09 -37571.61 0.012 -2069.00 0.07 0.25 satisfied
8th 3 30 -59127.44 -45482.65 0.013 -2420.00 0.08 0.25 satisfied
7th 3 27 -66935.24 -51488.65 0.013 -2747.00 0.08 0.25 satisfied
6th 3 24 -80223.31 -61710.24 0.014 -3050.00 0.09 0.25 satisfied
5th 3 21 -90769.62 -69822.78 0.014 -3325.00 0.10 0.25 satisfied
4thmezz 3 18 -100469.19 -77283.99 0.009 -3550.00 0.07 0.25 satisfied
4th 3 15 -116235.01 -89411.55 0.011 -3866.00 0.08 0.25 satisfied
3rd 3 12 -131630.59 -101254.30 0.011 -4138.00 0.09 0.25 satisfied
2nd 3 9 -147003.21 -113079.39 0.011 -4369.00 0.09 0.25 satisfied
Mezz 3 6 -175582.48 -135063.45 0.010 -4560.00 0.10 0.25 satisfied
1st 3 3 -162381.73 -124909.02 0.008 -4686.00 0.07 0.25 satisfied
Ground 3 0 -191509.49 -147314.99 0.006 -4802.00 0.06 0.25 satisfied
1st base 3 -3 -207283.79 -159449.07 0.004 -4874.00 0.04 0.25 satisfied
2ndbase 3 -6 -216136.65 -166258.96 0.001 -4890.00 0.01 0.25 satisfied

Base 2 -8
146

Appendix-B Sample Architectural Drawings
147

DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
university, and that all the sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly
acknowledged.
NAME: TSION FEKADU MEKONNEN
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
This thesis has been submitted on my approval as a university advisor
Dr.-Ing. ADIL ZEKARIA

Final Draft PDF

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

Final Draft PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Assessment of Seismic Design Practice and Overall Structural Design Process of

Buildings Designed in Addis Ababa and submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Degree of Master of Science (Structural Engineering)

respect to originality and quality.

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Examiner________________________________ Signature __________Date_______

Chair of Department or Graduate Program Coordinator

Assessment of Seismic Design Practice and Overall Structural Design Process of

Buildings Designed in Addis Ababa.

Tsion Fekadu Mekonnen

Addis Ababa University, 2015

Eurocode, which is similar to Ethiopian Building Code and Standard, is used to

practice at different consulting offices, consideration of dynamic analysis for irregular

structure, fulfillment of fundamental requirements for earthquake design, structural

to the code requirement.

Keywords: Seismic Design; Dynamic Analysis; P-∆ Analysis; Stiffness Reduction;

Fundamental Requirement of Earthquake Design

My deepest gratitude then extends to my beloved families for always standing by my

side and their support.

MSc in Structural Engineering and sponsoring me throughout my study.

My deepest gratitude extends to my advisor Dr-Ing.Adil Zekaria for his

encouragement and guidance throughout this thesis work.

me information and data which brought this thesis in to picture.

1.1 General ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Objective ......................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Materials and Methods .................................................................................... 4

1.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 Review of Historical Records of Earthquake in Ethiopia ............................... 6

2.2 Review of Seismic Mechanisms and Seismicity in Ethiopia .......................... 7

2.3 Review of Response of Built-up Structures to Seismic Events in Ethiopia .... 7

2.4 Background and current state of code-required seismic design in Ethiopia . 12

2.4.1 Ethiopian Building Standard Codes ....................................................... 12

2.4.2 Seismic Zoning ...................................................................................... 13

2.5 Deficiencies in current code and proposed revisions .................................... 16

2.5.1 Seismic Zoning and Peak ground acceleration (PGA) .......................... 16

2.6 Characteristics of earthquake resistant buildings .......................................... 19

2.6.1 Basic principle of conceptual of design ................................................. 19

2.6.2 Structural regularity ............................................................................... 20

2.6.2.1 General ............................................................................................... 20

2.6.2.2 Criteria for regularity in plan according to EBCS 8-1995 ................. 21

2.6.2.3 Criteria for regularity in Elevation according to EBCS 8-1995 ......... 22

2.7 Structural analysis according to EBCS 8-1995 ............................................. 23

2.7.1 Modeling ................................................................................................ 23

2.7.2 Accidental eccentricity........................................................................... 24

2.7.3 Method of analysis ................................................................................. 24

2.7.3.1 Equivalent static analysis according to EBCS 8-1995 ....................... 25

2.8 Safety verifications ........................................................................................ 29

2.8.1 Ultimate limit state ................................................................................. 29

2.8.2 Seviceability limit state .......................................................................... 30

2.8.3 Combination of actions .......................................................................... 30

2.9 Frame member stiffness ................................................................................ 30

2.10 Slab modeling ................................................................................................ 32

2.11 Number of modes considered ........................................................................ 33

2.12 Scaling factor for base shear ......................................................................... 33

3.1.1 Structural configuration ......................................................................... 34

3.1.1.1 Plan regularity .................................................................................... 35

3.1.1.2 Elevation regularity ............................................................................ 36

3.1.2 Seismic design ....................................................................................... 39

3.1.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 44

3.2.1 Structural configuration ......................................................................... 56

Examiner________________________ Signature Date_