Structural Dynamics

COMPARATIVE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC
RESPONSE OF 10–STOREY RCC BUILDING COMPLYING NSCP 2015

CODE PROVISIONS USING ETABS 2016 AND EXCEL
___________________________________
A GRADUATE PROJECT
Presented to:
The Faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering and Technology
College of Engineering and Technology
MSU – Iligan Institute of Technology
Iligan City
___________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course of CE 225
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
ENGR. JUNNAZ P. BALACUIT
May 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE…………….…………………………………………...……………... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………… ii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………. vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS……………………………………………………………. vii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….. 1
NSCP 2015 CODE REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 208) 3

208.3 Symbols and Notations ……..………………………………….... 3
208.4 Basic for Design…………………………………………………. 4
208.4.2 Occupancy Categories…………………………………... 4
208.4.3 Site Geology and Soil Characteristics…………………… 5
208.4.4 Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics……………………... 5
208.4.4.1 Seismic Zone………..……..…………………….. 5
208.4.4.2 Seismic Source Types………..……..…………… 6
208.4.4.3 Seismic Zone 4 Near–source Factor………..…… 7
208.4.4.4 Seismic Response Coefficient………..…………. 7
208.4.10.2 Determination of R………..…………………… 8
208.5.2 Static Force Procedure…………………………………… 9
208.5.2.1 Design base Shear……………………………….. 9
208.5.2.2 Structural Period………………………………… 9
A. Method A……………………………………….. 9
B. Method B………………………………………... 10
208.5.2.3 Vertical Distribution Force……………………… 10
208.5.3 Dynamic Analysis Procedure…………………………….
208.5.3.2 Ground Motion…………………………………..
208.5.3.4.1 Description of Response Spectrum
11
Analysis……………………………………………..
208.5.3.5 Response Spectrum Analysis …………………... 12
208.5.3.5.1 Response Spectrum Analysis
12
Representation………………………………………
208.5.3.5.2 Number of Modes…………………….. 12
208.5.3.5.3 Combining Modes…………………….. 12
208.6 Earthquake loads and Modeling Requirements…………………. 12
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
208.6.1 Earthquake Loads………………………………………... 12
OTHER IMPORTANT PARAMETERS

Modal Characteristics………………………………………………….. 13
Modal Responses………………………………………………………. 14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………… 15
DRAWING PLANS…………………………………………………………………. 16
CALCULATIONS…………………………………………………………………... 19
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 51
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….. 52
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Seismic Importance Factors…………………………..…………… 4
2 Soil Profile Types…....…………………………………………….. 5
3 Seismic Zone Factors…………………………..………………….. 5
4 Seismic Source Types……………………………………………... 6
5 Near–Source Factor, Na …………………………………………... 7
6 Near–Source Factor, Nv …………………………………………... 7
7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca ……………….…………........................... 7
8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv ……………….…………........................... 8
Numerical Coefficient for Earthquake–Force–Resisting Structural
9 9
Systems…………………………………………………………….
10 Material Property Definition………………………………………. 18
11 Applied Loads……………………………………………………... 18
12 Summary of Structural Section Dimensions ……………………… 19
13 Seismic Properties…………………………………………………. 19
14 Roof Deck Load Computations……………………………………. 21
rd th
15 3 Floor–10 Floor Load Computations…………………………... 22
16 2 Floor Load Computations ……………………………………...
nd
23
17 Static Load Definitions (2nd Floor)……………………………….. 23
18 Static Load Definitions (3rd Floor–10th Floor)…………………… 24
19 Static Load Definitions (Roof Deck)……………………………… 24
20 Preliminary Results……………………………………………….. 27
21 Preliminary Data………………………………………………….. 27
22 Design Base Shear for Method A………………………………… 28
23 Additional Lateral Force at the Top………………………………. 28
24 Summary of Results………………………………………………. 28
25 Summary of Results of Method A………………………………… 30
26 Summary of Results of Method B…………………………………. 31
27 Design Base Shear for Method B………………………………….. 31
28 Additional Lateral Force at the Top……………………………….. 32
29 Summary of Results……………………………………………….. 32
30 Summary of Results for ETABS………………………………….. 34
31 Comparison of Different Methods………………………………… 35
32 Seismic Mass and Stiffness………………………………………... 38
33 Mass Matrix (kg)…………………………………………………... 39
iv
LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)
34 Stiffness Matrix (N/m)…………………………………………….. 39

35 Summary of Preliminary Result…………………………………… 40
36 Eigenvector (Phi)………………………………………………….. 40
37 Modal Characteristics……………………………………………… 41
38 Pseudo–spectral Acceleration……………………………………... 41
39 Modal Lateral Story Forces (kN)…………………………………. 42
40 Modal Story Shear (kN)…………………………………………… 42
41 Frequency Ratio, βij……………………………………………….. 43
42 Cross Modal Coefficient, ρij………………………………………. 43
43 Tabulated Comparison of Lateral Force and Shear……………….. 44
44 Tabulated Comparison of Drift and Displacement………………... 45
45 Base Shear Comparison of Static Analysis and Dynamic Analysis. 46
.
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines. ……………...………. 6
2 Design Response Spectrum……..…………..……………………... 11
Magnitude of Earthquake based on PSHA DOST–PHIVOLCS
3 14
Seismicity Map …………..………………………………………...
4 Typical Floor Plan…………………………...…………………….. 15
5 Perspective Plan View……………………………………………... 15
6 Front Side View……………………………………………………. 16
7 Right Side View. ……………………….…………………………. 16
8 2–D Frame in ETABS………………..………….………………… 17
9 3–D Frame in ETABS………………..………….………………… 17
10 Fault–finder Application which shows the Near–source………….. 20
13 Lateral Story Force………………………………………………… 36
14 Story Shear………………………………………………………… 36
15 Story Drift…………………………………………………………. 37
16 Story Displacement……………………………………………….. 37
17 Lateral Story Force………………………………………………… 47
18 Story Shear………………………………………………………… 47
19 Story Drift…………………………………………………………. 48
20 Story Displacement………………………………………………... 48
21 Base Shear Comparison…………………………………………… 49
vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS
EQUATION PAGE
1 Design Base Shear.………………………………………………. 9
2 Maximum Design Base Shear ……..…………..………………… 9
3 Minimum Design Base Shear………..…………………………... 9
4 Minimum Design Base Shear………..…………………………... 9
5 Structural Period…………………………………………………. 9
6 Fundamental Period……………………………………………… 10
7 Total Lateral Force ……………………….……………………… 10
8 Top Lateral Force (Additional)……………..………….………… 10
9 Lateral Force at any Floor Level………………..………….……. 10
10 Eigen Value System Equation…………………………………… 13
11 Period…………………………………………………………….. 13
12 Dynamic Parameter………………………………………………. 13
18 Lateral Force……………………………………………………... 14
19 Story Shear………………………………………………………. 14
20 Spectrum function……………………………………………….. 14
10 Ultimate Load Combination……………………………………... 18
11 Ultimate Load Combination……………………………………... 18
12 Stiffness………………………………………………………….. 24
vii
INTRODUCTION
This paper investigates the effects of seismic load to a structure. The article
describes main methods of the definition and practical application of the seismic load based
on the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 similar to the Universal
Building Code (UBC) 97. A simple ten–storey, 3 bays concrete 2D–frame with fixed joints
was chosen. There was made a comparison of all methods using the same structure. There
are two commonly used procedures for specifying seismic design forces: the "Equivalent
Static Force Procedure" and "Dynamic Analysis (Modal Response Spectrum)".
In the equivalent static force procedure, the inertial forces are specified as static
forces using empirical formulas. The empirical formulas do not explicitly account for the
"dynamic characteristics" of the particular structure being designed or analyzed ( (Di Julio
Jr., 2011). The formulas were, however, developed to adequately represent the dynamic
behavior of what are called "regular" structures, which have a reasonably uniform
distribution of mass and stiffness. For such structures, the equivalent static force procedure
is most often adequate. Structures that do not fit into this category are termed "irregular".
Common irregularities include large floor–to–floor variation in mass or center of mass and
soft stories. Such structures violate the assumptions on which the empirical formulas, used
in the equivalent static force procedure, are based. Therefore, its use may lead to erroneous
results. In these cases, a dynamic analysis should be used to specify and distribute the
seismic design forces.
The actual time history record is required in order to perform the seismic dynamic
analysis and design of a structure to be built at a particular location however it is not
possible to have such records at each and every location. Further, the seismic analysis of
structures cannot be carried out simply based on the peak value of the ground acceleration
as the response of the structure depend upon the frequency content of ground motion and
its own dynamic properties. To overcome the above difficulties, earthquake response
spectrum is the most popular tool in the seismic analysis of structures (Ahmad & Najar,
2016).
Response spectra are curves plotted between maximum response of SDOF system
and estimation of maximum responses subjected to specified earthquake ground motion
and its time period (or frequency). Response spectrum can be interpreted as the locus of
maximum response of a SDOF system for given damping ratio (Ahmad & Najar, 2016).
1
Response spectra thus helps in obtaining the peak structural responses under linear range,
which can be used for obtaining lateral forces developed in structure due to earthquake thus
facilitates in earthquake–resistant design of structures. Usually response of a SDOF system
is determined by time domain or frequency domain analysis, and for a given time period of
system, maximum response is picked (Ahmad & Najar, 2016).
Moreover, in EDA (elastic dynamic analysis) Method, the normalized modal

displacements at each DOF are multiplied by participation factors and spectral responses.
The products are summed together using either the Complete Quadratic Combination
(CQC) or the Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) to obtain the response at each
DOF.
2
NSCP 2015 CODE REQUIREMENTS
(SECTION 208: EARTHQUAKE LOADS)
Presented herein are the succeeding earthquake provisions that is primarily used to
design seismic–resistant structures to safeguard against major structural damage that may
lead to loss of life and property. These provisions are not intended to assure zero-damage
to structures nor maintain their functionality after a severe earthquake.
208.3 Symbols and Notations
The symbols and notations provided in this sub section is just portion of the original
sub section provided in NSCP 2015 Manual (see section 208.3) which deemed significant
in the analysis procedure.
𝐶𝑎 = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 2.7

𝐶𝑡 = numerical coefficient given in by 208.5.2.2 of the code
𝐶𝑣 = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 2.8
𝐹𝑥 = design seismic force applied to Level i, n or x,respectively
𝐹𝑝 = design seismic force on a part of the structure
𝐹𝑝𝑥 = design seismic force on a diaphragm
the portion of the base shear, V, considered concentrated at the top of the
𝐹𝑡 =
structure in addition to Fn, given by equation 2.8
𝑓𝑖 = lateral force at Level i for use in Equation 208–14
𝑔 = acceleration due to gravity = 9.815 m/sec2
ℎ𝑖 , ℎ𝑛 , ℎ𝑥 = height above the base to Level i, n or x, respectively, m
𝐼 = importance factor given in Table 2.1
level of the structure referred to by the subscript i; (where “i = 1”
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑖 =
designates the first level above the base)
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑛 = level that is the uppermost in the main portion of the structure
level that is under design consideration; (where “x = 1” designates the
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑥 =
first level above the base)
near–source factor used in determination of Cain Seismic Zone 4 related
𝑁𝑎 = to both proximity of the building or structure to known faults with
magnitudes as set forth in Tables 2.4 and 2.5
3
near–source factor used in determination of Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related
𝑁𝑣 = to both proximity of the building or structure to known faults with
magnitudes as set forth in Tables 2.4 and 2.6
numerical coefficient representative of the inherent over-strength and
𝑅 = global ductility capacity of lateral-force-resisting systems of concrete, as
set forth in Table2.9
𝑆𝐴,𝐵,𝐶,𝐷,𝐸 = soil profile types as set forth in Table 2.2
elastic fundamental period of vibration of the structure in the direction
𝑇 =
under consideration, (seconds)
𝑉 = base shear given by Equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,2.4 or 2.6
𝑉𝑥 = the design storey shear in Storey x
the total seismic dead load of the structure defined in section 208.5.2.1 of
𝑊 =
the code
𝑤𝑖 , 𝑤𝑥 = the portion of W located at or assigned to Level ior x, respectively
𝑍 = seismic zone factor as given in Table 2.3
208.4 Basic for Design
208.4.2 Occupancy Categories
For purposes of earthquake-resistant design, each structure shall be placed

in one of the occupancy categories listed in Table 103-1. Table 208-1 assigns
importance factors, I and Ip, and structural observation requirements for each
category.
Table 1 (Table 208–1) Seismic Importance Factors

Seismic *Seismic
Occupancy Category Importance Importance
Factors, I Factors, Ip
I. Essential Facilities 1.50 1.50
II. Hazardous Facilities 1.25 1.25
III. Special Occupancy Structures 1.00 1.00
IV. Standard Occupancy Structures 1.00 1.00
V. Miscellaneous Structures 1.00 1.00
*The limitation of Ip for panel connections in Section 208. 7.2.3 shall be 1.0 for the entire connector
4
208.4.3 Site Geology and Soil Characteristics
Each site shall be assigned a soil profile type based on properly substantiated
geotechnical data using the site categorization procedure set forth in Section
208.4.3.1.1 and Table 208–2.
Table 2 (Table 208–2) Soil Profile Types

Undrained
Soil Shear Wave
Soil Profile Name / SPT, N Shear
Profile Velocity, Vs
Generic Description (blows/300mm) Strength,
Type (m/s)
SU (kPa)
SA Hard Rock > 1,500
760 to
SB Rock
1,500
Very Dense Soil & Soft
SC 360 to 760 > 50 > 100
Rock
SD Stiff Soil 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil < 180 < 15 < 50
SF Soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation
208.4.4 Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics
Seismic hazard characteristics for the site shall be established based on the
seismic zone and proximity of the site to active seismic sources, site soil profile
characteristics and the structure's importance factor.
208.4.4.1 Seismic Zone
The Philippine archipelago is divided into two seismic zones only. Zone 2
covers the provinces of Palawan (except Busuanga), Sulu and Tawi–Tawi while the
rest of the country is under Zone 4 as shown in Figure 208-1. Each structure shall
be assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accordance with Table 208-3
Table 3 (Table 208–3) Seismic Zone Factors
ZONE 2 4
Z 0.20 0.40
5
Figure 1 (Figure 208–1) Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines
208.4.4.2 Seismic Source Types

Table 208–4 defines the types of seismic sources. The location and type of
seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based on approved
geological data.
Table 4 (Table 208–4) Seismic Source Types

Seismic Source Definition
Seismic Source
Seismic Source Description Maximum Moment
Type
Magnitude, M
Faults that are capable of
producing large magnitude
A 7.0 ≤ M ≤ 8.4
events and that have a high
rate of seismic activity.
All faults other than Types
B 6.5 ≤ M ≤ 7.0
A and C.
Faults that are not capable
of producing large
C magnitude earthquakes and M < 6.5
that have a relatively low
rate of seismic activity
6
208.4.4.3 Seismic Zone 4 Near–Source Factor
In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned near–source factors in
accordance with Tables 208–5 and 208–6 based on the Seismic Source Type as set
forth in Section 208.4.4.2.
Table 5 (Table 208–5) Near–Source Factor, Na

Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source
Type ≤ 2 km ≤ 5 km ≥ 10 km
A 1.5 1.2 1.0
B 1.3 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0
Table 6 (Table 208–6) Near–Source Factor, Nv
Seismic Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source

Source Type ≤ 2 km 5 km 10 km ≥ 15 km
A 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.0
B 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
208.4.4.4 Seismic Response Coefficient

Each structure shall be assigned a seismic coefficient; Ca and Cv.
Table 7 (Table 208–7) Seismic Coefficient, Ca

Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16 0.32Na
SB 0.20 0.40Na
SC 0.24 0.40Na
SD 0.28 0.44Na
SE 0.34 0.44Na
Site–specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic
SF site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients
7
Table 8 (Table 208–8) Seismic Coefficient, Cv
Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16 0.32Nv
SB 0.20 0.40Nv
SC 0.32 0.56Nv
SD 0.40 0.64Nv
SE 0.64 0.96Nv
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic
SF site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients
208.4.10.2 Determination of R
Each structure shall be assigned a seismic coefficient; Ca and Cv.
Table 9 Numerical Coefficient for Earthquake–Force–Resisting Structural Systems

System and Height
R
Basic Seismic–Force Resisting System Limitation
Zone 2 Zone 4
A. Bearing Wall Systems
 Special reinforced concrete shear walls 4.5 *NL 50 m
 Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 4.5 *NL **NP
B. Building Frame Systems
 Special reinforced concrete shear walls or
5.0 *NL 75 m
braced frames (shear walls)
 Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
5.6 *NL **NP
or braced frames
 Intermediate precast shear walls or braced
5.0 *NL 10 m
frames
C. Moment-Resisting Frame Systems
 Special reinforced concrete moment
8.5 *NL **NL
frames
 Intermediate reinforced concrete moment
5.5 *NL **NP
frames
 Ordinary reinforced concrete moment
3.5 *NL **NP
frames
*NL – Not Limited

**NP – Not Permitted
8
208.5.2 Static Force Procedure
208.5.2.1 Design Base Shear
The total design base shear in a given direction is given by equation:
𝐶𝑣 𝐼
𝑉𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 1)
𝑅𝑇
The total design base shear need not exceed the following:
2.5𝐶𝑎 𝐼
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 2)
𝑅
The total design base shear shall not be less than the following:
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.11𝐶𝑎 𝐼𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 3)
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than the
following:
0.8𝑍𝑁𝑣 𝐼
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 4)
𝑅
208.5.2.2 Structure Period
The value of T shall be determined from one of the following methods:
A. Method A
The equation for the structural period, T, is given by equation 2.5.

3
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )4 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 5)
where:
𝐶𝑡 = 0.0853 for steel moment − resisting frames
𝐶𝑡 = 0.0731 for reinforced concrete moment − resisting frames and
eccentrically braced frames
𝐶𝑡 = 0.0488 for all buildings
9
B. Method B
The fundamental period T may be calculated using the structural properties and
deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
analysis. The analysis shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section
208.6.2. The value of T from Method B shall not exceed a value of 30 percent greater
than the value of T obtained from Method A in Seismic Zone 4, and 40 percent in
Seismic Zone 2. The fundamental period T may be computed by using equation 6:
∑𝑛 𝑤𝑖 𝛿𝑖2
𝑇 = 2𝜋√ 𝑖=1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 6)
𝑔 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝛿𝑖
208.5.2.3 Vertical Distribution of Force
The total force shall be distributed over the height of the structure in conformance
with equations 7, 8 and 9 in the absence of a more rigorous procedure.
𝑛
𝑉 = 𝐹𝑡 + ∑ 𝐹𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 7)
𝑖=1
The concentrated force Ft at the top, which is in addition to Fn, shall be determined
from the equation:
𝐹𝑡 = 0.07𝑇𝑉 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 8)
The value of T used for the purpose of calculating Ft shall be the period that
corresponds with the design base shear as computed using Equation 208–4. Ft need not
exceed 0. 25V and may be considered as zero where T is 0.7s or less. The remaining portion
of the base shear shall be distributed over the height of the structure, including Level n,
according to the following equation:
(𝑉 − 𝐹𝑡 )𝑤𝑥 ℎ𝑥
𝐹𝑥 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 9)
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ℎ𝑖
10
208.5.3 Dynamic Analysis Procedure
Dynamic analyses procedures, when used, shall conform to the criteria established in
this section. The analysis shall be based on an appropriate ground motion representation
and shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics.
Structures that are designed in accordance with this section shall comply with all
other applicable requirements of these provisions.
208.5.3.2 Ground Motion
The ground motion representation shall, as a minimum, be one having a 10–percent

probability of being exceeded in 50 years, shall not be reduced by the quantity R.
In this particular, an elastic design response spectrum constructed in accordance with

Figure 208–3, using the values of Ca and Cv consistent with the specific site shall be used.
The design acceleration ordinates shall be multiplied by the acceleration of gravity equal
to 9.815 m/sec2.
Figure 2 (Table 208–3) Design Response Spectrum
208.5.3.4.1 Description of Response Spectrum Analysis
An elastic dynamic analysis of a structure utilizing the peak dynamic response of all
modes having a significant contribution to total structural response. Peak modal responses
are calculated using the ordinates of the appropriate response spectrum curve which
11
correspond to the modal periods. Maximum modal contributions are combined in a
statistical manner to obtain an approximate total structural response.
208.5.3.5 Response Spectrum Analysis
208.5.3.5.1 Response Spectrum Representation
The ground motion representation shall be in accordance with Section 208.5.3.2. The
corresponding response parameters, including forces, moments and displacements, shall be
denoted as Elastic Response Parameters. Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced in
accordance with Section 208.5.3.5.4.
The base shear for a given direction, determined using dynamic analysis must not be
less than the value obtained by the equivalent lateral force method of Section 208.5.2 (Static
Force Procedure). In this case, all corresponding response parameters are adjusted
proportionately.
208.5.3.5.2 Number of Modes
The requirement of Section 208.5.3.4.1 that all significant modes be included may be
satisfied by demonstrating that for the modes considered, at least 90 percent of the
participating mass of the structure is included in the calculation of response for each
principal horizontal direction.
208.5.3.5.3 Combining Modes
The peak member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base
reactions for each mode shall be combined by recognized methods. When three-
dimensional models are used for analysis, modal interaction effects shall be considered
when combining modal maxima.
208.6 Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements
208.6.1 Earthquake Loads
The ground motion producing lateral response and design seismic forces may be
assumed to act non-concurrently in the direction of each principal axis of the structure,
except as required by Section 208.7.2.
Seismic dead load, W, is the total dead load and applicable portions of other loads
listed below.
12
1. In storage and warehouse occupancies, a minimum of 25 percent of the floor live
load shall be applicable,
2. Where a partition load is used in the floor design, a load of not less than 0.5 kN/m2
shall be included.
3. Total weight of permanent equipment shall be included.
Modal Characteristics
The main objective of modal characteristics is to determine the eigenvalue (𝝀) and
modal shapes (𝝓𝒌 ). To achieve such, mass matrix [M] and stiffness matrix [K] shall be
established.
𝑚1 0 0 … 0
0 𝑚2 0 … 0
𝑀= 0 0 𝑚3 0 0
⋮ ⋮ 0 ⋱ ⋮
[0 0 0 … 𝑚𝑛 ]
𝑘1 + 𝑘2 −𝑘2 0 0 0
−𝑘2 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 −𝑘3 0 0
𝐾= 0 −𝑘3 𝑘3 + 𝑘4 −𝑘4 0
0 0 −𝑘4 ⋱ ⋮
[ 0 0 0 … 𝑘𝑛 ]
where given matrices play important part in setting up the following system,
`𝑑𝑒𝑡([𝐾] − 𝜔2 [𝑀]) = 0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 10)
2𝜋
𝑇𝑘 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 11)
𝜔𝑘
continually, simultaneous calculations are done though using the following,
{𝑙} = [1 … 1]𝑇 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 12)
𝐿𝑘 = [𝛷𝑘 ]𝑇 [𝑀]{𝑙} … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 13)
𝑀𝑘 = [𝛷𝑘 ]𝑇 [𝑀][𝛷𝑘 ] … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 14)
𝐿𝑘
𝛤𝑘 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 15)
𝑀𝑘
W𝑘 = 𝛤𝑘 (𝐿𝑘 𝑔) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 16)
𝑃𝑀𝑘 = 𝑊𝑘 /𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 17)
13
Modal Responses
Lateral story forces for each mode, Qik, can be computed using Equation 18. Moreover,
story shear, Vik, can be computed using Equation 19
𝑄𝑖𝑘 = 𝑆𝐴𝑘 𝜙𝑖𝑘 Γk 𝑤𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 18)
𝑉𝑖𝑘 = ∑ 𝑄𝑖𝑘 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 19)

𝑗=𝑖+1
Pseudo-Spectral Acceleration, SA
The spectrum is defined by three functions of modal period, 𝑻𝒌 , shown in the following
equations:
For 𝑇𝑘 ≤ 0.2𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:

18.75𝐶𝑎2
𝑆𝐴 (𝑇𝑘 , 𝜉) = 𝑇𝑘 + 𝐶𝑎 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 20)
𝐶𝑣
For 0.2𝑇𝑠 ≤ 𝑇𝑘 ≤ 𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:

𝑆𝐴 (𝑇𝑘 , 𝜉) = 2.5𝐶𝑎 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 21)
For 𝑇𝑘 ≥ 𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:
𝑆𝐴 (𝑇𝑘 , 𝜉) = 2.5𝐶𝑎 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 22)
where,
𝐶𝑣
𝑇𝑠 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 23)
2.5𝐶𝑎
14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project being subjected to comparative seismic analysis is situated in Western part
of Mindanao, particularly, Brgy. San Pablo, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur. This paper
aims to showcase a simple apartment with Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames that is
structurally design as safer than safe, as it is the most concerning issues to structures
nowadays when earthquake hits. Thus, the structural designer uses both static and dynamic
analysis in performing analysis and design. The project soon to rise which is limited up to
ten floors with 2–bays only, positioned at a distance 1.1 km from a near source earthquake
shown in Figure 3. The soil bearing in the area is approximately 120 kPa.
Dumingag,
Zamboanga Del Sur
Figure 3 Magnitude of Earthquake based on PSHA DOST–PHIVOLCS Seismicity Map
15
DRAWING PLANS
All drawings presented herein are output from three different software, namely;
computer–aided design (CAD) 2018, sketchup 2017 and ETABS 2016.
Figure 4 Typical Floor Plan (2nd Floor–10th Floor)
Figure 5 Perspective Plan View
16
Figure 6 Front Side View Figure 7 Right Side View
17
9 @ 3.6 m
4.5 m
Figure 8 2–D Frame in ETABS
Figure 9 3–D Frame in ETABS
18
CALCUATIONS
All calculations presented herein are product of manual calculations, excel

calculations, MATLAB, and software generated results.
Material Properties
Table 10 Material Property Definition

Material Property Value Unit
Concrete compressive strength, f′c 28 MPa
Steel yield strength (main reinforcement), fy 375 MPa
Steel yield strength (stirrups and ties), fyt 275 MPa
Unit weight of concrete, 𝛾c 24 kN/m3
Unit weight of concrete masonry, 𝛾𝑀 16.5 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity of steel, Es 200, 000 MPa
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec 4, 700√f′c MPa
Structural Analysis and Designing Using ETABS 2016)
This project requires structural analysis and designing for all major components
before subjecting to seismic analysis to ensure that the structural members are adequate to
carry such applied loads. Satisfying the requirements, ETABS 2016 was utilized in this
project to generate appropriate design for the framing system. Simple load combinations
for stress check is limited only to the following:
𝑈 = 1.4 (𝐷𝐿 + 𝑆𝐷𝐿) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 10)
𝑈 = 1.2(𝐷𝐿 + 𝑆𝐷𝐿) + 1.6𝐿𝐿 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 11)
Loads applied in generating the desired design is presented in Table 11 as summary

detailed calculations are presented in the succeeding section of this paper.
Table 11 Applied Loads

Applied Loads Value
Dead Loads, DL (excluding selfweight)
Superimposed Dead Loads, SDL (summary of minimum loads) 2.30 kN/m2
Masonry (100 mm thick CHB) 2.98 kN/m2
Live Loads, LL
Residential (basic floor area) 1.90 kN/m2
19
The analysis conducted is not an optimization procedure, thus, the dimensions resulted
from software generation can be reduced technically. Initial input is given and the rest was
for the software to generate the reinforcement that will satisfy the requirements. Since the
cross section of the structural member is the main concern of this project, Table 12 presents
the Summary of Structural Section Dimensions.
Table 12 Summary of Structural Section Dimensions

Structural and Architectural Component Dimension
Column 600 mm x 600 mm
Beam 600 mm x 800 mm
Slab Thickness 125 mm
Masonry Wall Thickness 110 mm
After the generated results, the structure is ready for seismic analysis. All
provisions used thereafter are based on NSCP 2015 manual.
Code Based Seismic Properties
Table 13 Seismic Properties
Occupancy Category IV – Standard Occupancy Structures

Seismic Importance Factor (I) 1.0
Location Dumingag, ZDS, Region X
Seismic Zone 4
Seismic Importance Factor (Z) 0.4
Distance from nearest Seismic Source 1.1 km
Magnitude Between Mw 7.06 and Mw 7.65
Seismic Source Type A
Soil Profile Type SC (SU = 120 KPa)
Near Source Factors, Na 1.5
Near Source Factors, Nv 2.0
Seismic Response Coefficient, Ca 0.66
Seismic Response Coefficient, Cv 1.28
Special Reinforced Concrete Moment
Type of Structural System
Frames
Response Reduction Factor, R 8.5
20
11
1.111km
Figure 10 Fault–finder Application which shows the Near–source
21
Load Computations
The structure has similar storey all throughout, which in turn gives a uniform floor
area and the total length of beam of all the storey equivalent to A = 192 m2, Lperimeter=84m,
and Lwall=62m.
Table 14 Roof Deck Load Computations

Applied Loads Computation Results
Dead Load (DL)
Slab (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(192𝑚2 )(0.125𝑚) 576 𝑘𝑁
Column (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.6𝑚)(0.6𝑚)(3.6/2)(9) 139.968 𝑘𝑁
Beam (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.60𝑚)(0.80𝑚)(84𝑚) 976.68 𝑘𝑁
Ceiling (Suspended) (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
MEP (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
Floor Finish (Tile) (1.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 211.2 𝑘𝑁
Interior Partitions (1.00𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 192 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟐, 𝟏𝟑𝟒. 𝟐𝟒𝟖 𝒌𝑵
Super Imposed Dead Load For roof deck, there is no applied SDL.
Masonry 0
TOTAL 0
Live Load
Residential 1.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
A minimum of 25% LL reduction is required based on Section
208.6. This project considers 30% LL reduction but not applicable
in RD.
TOTAL 𝟎
22
Table 15 3rd Floor–10th Floor Load Computations
Dead Load (DL)
Slab (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(192𝑚2 )(0.125𝑚) 576 𝑘𝑁
Column (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.6𝑚)(0.6𝑚)(3.6)(9) 279.936 𝑘𝑁
Beam (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.60𝑚)(0.80𝑚)(84𝑚) 976.68 𝑘𝑁
MEP (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟐, 𝟐𝟕𝟒. 𝟐𝟏𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Super Imposed Dead Load
Masonry (2.98𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(3.6𝑚)(62) 665.136 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟔𝟔𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Live Load
208.6. This project considers 30% LL reduction.
TOTAL 𝟏𝟎𝟗. 𝟒𝟒 𝒌𝑵
23
Table 16 2nd Floor Load Computations
Dead Load (DL)
Slab (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(192𝑚2 )(0.125𝑚) 576 𝑘𝑁
Column (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.6𝑚)2 (2.25 + 1.8)(9) 314.928 𝑘𝑁
Beam (24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 )(0.60𝑚)(0.80𝑚)(84𝑚) 976.68 𝑘𝑁
MEP (0.10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(192𝑚2 ) 19.2 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟐, 𝟑𝟎𝟗. 𝟐𝟎𝟖 𝒌𝑵
Super Imposed Dead Load
Masonry (2.98𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )(3.6𝑚)(62) 665.136 𝑘𝑁
TOTAL 𝟔𝟔𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟔 𝒌𝑵
Live Load
208.6. This project considers 30% LL reduction.
TOTAL 𝟏𝟎𝟗. 𝟒𝟒 𝒌𝑵
Table 17 Static Load Definitions (2nd Floor)
Applied Load Weight (kN) Mass (kg)
Dead Load 2,309.208 235,393.2722
Super Imposed Dead Load (Masonry) 665.136 67,801.83486
Live Load 109.44 11,155.9633
TOTAL 3,083.784 314,351.1703
24
Table 18 Static Load Definitions (3rd Floor–10th Floor)
Dead Load 2, 274.216 231, 826.2997
Super Imposed Dead Load (Masonry) 665.136 67, 801.83486
Live Load 109.44 11, 155.9633
TOTAL 3, 048.792 310, 784.1703
Table 19 Static Load Definitions (Roof Deck)
Dead Load 2, 134.248.208 217, 558.4098
Super Imposed Dead Load (Masonry) 0 0
Live Load 0 0
TOTAL 2, 134.248.208 310, 784.1703
Storey Stiffness
From structural analysis, the stiffness for each floor is then calculated using Eq. 1 2.
12𝐸𝐼
𝑘= … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 12)
𝐿3
Storey Stiffness Computation
Total Number of Columns per Storey, n
𝑛 = 9 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠
Modulus of Elasticity, E
f′c = 28 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Ec = 4,700√f′c = 4,700√28 MPa
Ec = 24,870 MPa
Moment of Inertia, I
(600mm)(600 mm)3
Ic = = 1.08𝑥1010 𝑚𝑚4
12
25
Height of Storey Columns, L1
𝐿1 = 4,500 𝑚𝑚
Therefore, the Storey Stiffness is:
12(24,870 MPa)(1.08𝑥1010 𝑚𝑚4 )

𝑘1 = 9 [ ]
(4,500 𝑚𝑚)3
𝒌𝟏 = 𝟑𝟏𝟖, 𝟑𝟑𝟔. 𝟕𝟗𝟕𝟕 𝒌𝑵/𝒎
Height of Storey Columns, L2-RD
𝐿2−𝑅𝐷 = 3,600 𝑚𝑚
Therefore, the Storey Stiffness are:
12(24,870 MPa)(1.08𝑥1010 𝑚𝑚4 )

𝑘2−𝑅𝐷 = 9 [ ]
(3,600 𝑚𝑚)3
𝒌𝟐−𝑹𝑫 = 𝟔𝟐𝟏, 𝟕𝟓𝟏. 𝟓𝟖𝟏 𝒌𝑵/𝒎
26
CALCULATIONS
(Static Force Analysis)
METHOD A
Table 20 Preliminary Results

Zone Factor Zone 4 0.4
Faults that are capable
of producing large
Seismic Source A magnitude events and
that have a high rate of
seismic activity
Soil Profile Type SD Soft Soil
Closest Distance to known Seismic Source 1.1 km

Na 1.5
Near Source Factors
Nv 2.0
Ca 0.66
Seismic Response Coefficient
Cv 1.28
I 1
Importance Factor
IP 1
R 8.5
Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames
Ω 2.8
Table 21 Preliminary Data

Storey 𝑤𝑥 (kN) ℎ𝑖 (m) ℎ𝑥 (m)
RD 2,134.2486 3.6 36.9
10 3,408.792 3.6 33.3
9 2,957.85803 3.6 29.7
8 2,957.85803 3.6 26.1
7 2,957.85803 3.6 22.5
6 2,957.85803 3.6 18.9
5 2,957.85803 3.6 15.3
4 2,957.85803 3.6 11.7
3 2,957.85803 3.6 8.1
2 2,992.861974 4.5 4.5
SUM 29,240.90878
27
Structural Period
3
𝑇 = (𝑐𝑡 )(ℎ𝑛 )4
3
𝑇 = 0.0731(36.9)4 = 1.094427889 𝑠𝑒𝑐
Table 22 Design Base Shear for Method A

Design Base Shear Units
V 4,023.414 kN
Vmax 5,676.176 kN
Vmin1 2,122.890 kN
Vmin2 2,201.668 kN
Vfinal 4,023.414 kN
Table 23 Additional Lateral Force at the Top

Top Lateral Force Units
Ft (T < 0.7) 0.00 kN
Ft (0.7<T < 3.6) 308.234 kN
Ft (T < 3.6) 1,005.854 kN
Ft (final) 308.234 kN
Table 24 Summary of Results

Story Level wi (kN) hi (m) wihi (kN-m) Fx (kN) Vx (kN)
Roof 2,134.2486 36.9 78,753.77 798.276 798.276
10 3,408.792 33.3 11,3512.77 706.330 1,504.606
9 2,957.85803 29.7 87,848.38 546.634 2,051.240
8 2,957.85803 26.1 77,200.09 480.375 2,531.615
7 2,957.85803 22.5 66,551.81 414.116 2,945.731
6 2,957.85803 18.9 55,903.52 347.858 3,293.589
5 2,957.85803 15.3 45,255.23 281.599 3,575.188
4 2,957.85803 11.7 34,606.94 215.341 3,790.529
3 2,957.85803 8.1 23,958.65 149.082 3,939.611
2 2,992.861974 4.5 13,467.88 83.803 4,023.414
1 0 0 0.00 0.000 4,023.414
Total 42,7785.33
28
Shear Force Distribution Lateral Force
798.276 kN
706.330 kN
546.634 kN
480.375 kN
414.116 kN
347.858 kN
281.599 kN
215.341 kN
149.082 kN
83.803 kN
4023.414 kN
Figure 11 Summary of Results
29
Table 25 Summary of Results of Method A
Drifti
Story Level wi (kN) ki (kN/m) Vi (kN) fi (kN) δi (m)
(m)
Roof 2134.249 621,751.56 798.276 798.276 0.00128 0.05193

10 3408.792 621,751.56 1504.606 706.330 0.00242 0.05065
9 2957.858 621,751.56 2051.240 546.634 0.00330 0.04823
8 2957.858 621,751.56 2531.615 480.375 0.00407 0.04493
7 2957.858 621,751.56 2945.731 414.116 0.00474 0.04086
6 2957.858 621,751.56 3293.589 347.858 0.00530 0.03612
5 2957.858 621,751.56 3575.188 281.599 0.00575 0.03082
4 2957.858 621,751.56 3790.529 215.341 0.00610 0.02507
3 2957.858 621,751.56 3939.611 149.082 0.00634 0.01898
2 2992.862 318,336.80 4023.414 83.803 0.01264 0.01264
Base 4023.414 0.000 0.000 0.000
30
CALCULATIONS
METHOD B
Table 26 Summary of Results of Method B
Story Level wiδi2 (kN-m2) fiδi (kN-m)
Roof 5.75585871 41.46

10 8.744227538 35.77
9 6.879754525 26.36
8 5.970699322 21.58
7 4.937526836 16.92
6 3.858804558 12.56
5 2.809932659 8.68
4 1.859280971 5.40
3 1.064997803 2.83
2 0.478082139 1.06
Sum 42.36 172.63
Structural Period
𝑇 = 0.9935 𝑠
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 1.42 𝑠 > 𝑇, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑻 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗𝟑𝟓 𝒔
Table 27 Design Base Shear for Method B
Design Base Shear Units

V 4,432.271 kN
Vmax 1,7231.250 kN
Vmin1 2,122.890 kN
Vmin2 2201.668 kN
Vfinal 4,432.271 kN
31
Table 28 Additional Lateral Force at the Top
Top Lateral Force Units
Ft (T < 0.7) 0.00 kN
Ft (0.7<T < 3.6) 308.234 kN
Ft (T < 3.6) 1108.068 kN
Ft (final) 308.234 kN
Table 29 Summary of Results

Story Level wi (kN) hi (m) wihi (kN-m) Fx (kN) Vx (kN)
Roof 2,134.2486 36.9 71,070.48 805.535 798.276
10 3,408.792 33.3 113,512.77 794.283 1,504.606
9 2,957.85803 29.7 87,848.38 614.701 2,051.240
8 2,957.85803 26.1 77,200.09 540.192 2,531.615
7 2,957.85803 22.5 66,551.81 465.683 2,945.731
6 2,957.85803 18.9 55,903.52 391.174 3,293.589
5 2,957.85803 15.3 45,255.23 316.664 3,575.188
4 2,957.85803 11.7 34,606.94 242.155 3,790.529
3 2,957.85803 8.1 23,958.65 167.646 3,939.611
2 2,992.861974 4.5 13,467.88 94.239 4,023.414
1 0 0 0.00 0.000 4,023.414
Total 58,9375.75 35,507.7351 31,075.4640
32
Shear Force Distribution Lateral Force
805.535 kN
794.283 kN
614.701 kN
540.192 kN
465.683 kN
391.174 kN
316.664 kN
242.155 kN
167.646 kN
94.239 kN
4432.271 kN
Figure 12 Summary of Results
33
CALCULATIONS
ETABS
Presented in Table 29 is the summary of results generated in ETABS 2016, the

detailed calculation is shown in Appendix A of this paper.
Table 30 Summary of Results for ETABS
Story Level wi (kN) ki (kN/m) Vi (kN) fi (kN) Drifti (m) δi (m)

Roof 1606.437 147776.979 244.6848 645.918 0.001656 0.03968
10 2692.423 177872.916 434.2133 448.804 0.002441 0.03803
9 2692.423 191574.921 602.94 400.285 0.003147 0.03559
8 2692.423 199966.467 750.8647 351.765 0.003755 0.03244
7 2692.423 206059.628 877.9875 303.246 0.004261 0.02868
6 2692.423 211116.054 984.3084 254.727 0.004662 0.02442
5 2692.423 215805.551 1069.8274 206.207 0.004957 0.01976
4 2692.423 220844.362 1134.5444 157.688 0.005137 0.01480
3 2692.423 228634.722 1178.4596 109.169 0.005154 0.00967
2 2707.981 266291.984 1201.7064 61.3669 0.004513 0.00451
Base 1201.706 0.000 0.000 0.000
34
Table 31 Comparison of Different Methods
METHOD A METHOD B ETABS

Story
Level
Drifti Drifti Drifti
δi (mm) δi (mm) δi (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Roof 0.796 33.431 0.829 38.578 1.656 39.683

10 1.543 32.636 1.718 37.749 2.441 38.027
9 2.208 31.093 2.510 36.031 3.147 35.586
8 2.791 28.885 3.204 33.521 3.755 32.439
7 3.292 26.094 3.801 30.317 4.261 28.684
6 3.711 22.803 4.300 26.516 4.662 24.423
5 4.048 19.092 4.701 22.216 4.957 19.761
4 4.303 15.044 5.005 17.515 5.137 14.804
3 4.476 10.742 5.211 12.510 5.154 9.667
2 6.266 6.266 7.299 7.299 4.513 4.513
Base 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0
Graphical Comparison of Static Responses
Presented in this section are the series of graphical comparison of different methods
for static analysis concerning lateral story force, story shear, story drift, and story
displacement.
The graphs (Figures 13 to 16) shows that Method B is conservative compared to

ETABS Calculation and Method A considering the lateral force, shear, drift and
displacement. The value generated in ETABS is lower than both the manual methods.
35
Lateral Story Force
10
6
Story
5 Method A
4
Method B
3
ETABS
2
0
0.000 150.000 300.000 450.000 600.000 750.000 900.000
Force (kN)
Figure 13 Lateral Story Force
Story Shear
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
Method A
4
3 Method B
2
ETABS
1
0
0.000 750.000 1500.000 2250.000 3000.000 3750.000 4500.000 5250.000
Shear (kN)
Figure 14 Story Shear
36
Story Drift
10
9
8 Method A
7
Method B
6
Story
5 ETABS
4
3
2
1
0
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000
Drift (mm)
Figure 15 Story Drift
Story Displacement
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5 Method A
4
Method B
3
2 ETABS
1
0
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
Drift (mm)
Figure 16 Story Displacement
37
CALCULATIONS
(Dynamic Analysis (Response Spectrum))
All values presented herein are output of excel calculations and ETABS generation
complying all requirements provided by the code (NSCP 2015).
Series of tables are presented in this section and figures are also presented thereafter.
Table 32 Seismic Mass and Stiffness
Floor Storey Mass (kg) Stiffness (kg)

Roof 10 2043 621,752
10 9 2958 621,752
9 8 2958 621,752
8 7 2958 621,752
7 6 2958 621,752
6 5 2958 621,752
5 4 2958 621,752
4 3 2958 621,752
3 2 2958 621,752
2 1 2993 318,337
38
Table 33 Mass Matrix (kg)
305,083 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301,515 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208,257
Table 34 Stiffness Matrix (N/m)

940,088,356 -621,751,558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -621,751,558 1,243,503,116 -621,751,558
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -621,751,558 621,751,558
39
Table 35 Summary of Preliminary Result
Mode Eigenvalue Frequency Period
Mode 1 41.02 6.41 0.9810
Mode 2 371.66 19.28 0.3259
Mode 3 1,032.30 32.13 0.1956
Mode 4 1,987.26 44.58 0.1409
Mode 5 3,155.22 56.17 0.1119
Mode 6 4,422.13 66.50 0.0945
Mode 7 5,659.45 75.23 0.0835
Mode 8 6,742.68 82.11 0.0765
Mode 9 7,570.01 87.01 0.0722
Mode 10 8,078.70 89.88 0.0699
Table 36 Eigenvector (Phi)

Floor Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Mode 10
Roof Deck 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
10 0.98626 0.87551 0.65423 0.33436 -0.05685 -0.48120 -0.89564 -1.25848 -1.53559 -1.70598
9 0.95290 0.59322 -0.01905 -0.65350 -1.02671 -0.93047 -0.33318 0.59804 1.56602 2.27158
8 0.90058 0.20401 -0.68279 -1.01158 -0.42560 0.61564 1.14370 0.49907 -1.08127 -2.65027
7 0.83034 -0.22197 -1.00473 -0.39479 0.82672 0.84152 -0.51832 -1.23177 0.24082 2.81089
6 0.74359 -0.60794 -0.82369 0.60246 0.81408 -0.73723 -0.75780 1.06506 0.67885 -2.74022
5 0.64204 -0.88434 -0.23031 1.01912 -0.44419 -0.73500 1.08252 -0.12066 -1.37521 2.44407
4 0.52772 -1.00135 0.47837 0.45364 -1.02280 0.84343 -0.04815 -0.91184 1.61916 -1.94681
3 0.40290 -0.93788 0.94757 -0.54901 -0.03642 0.61314 -1.04667 1.27854 -1.33046 1.28937
2 0.270061611 -0.705368014 0.94241327 -1.022579954 1.005687875 -0.93201697 0.827411428 -0.71167443 0.60407331 -0.52582526
40
Table 37 Modal Characteristics
Mode L (kg) M (kg) Γ Effective Weight (kN) Participation of Mass (%)
Mode 1 2,095,608.51 1,673,908.92 1.2519 25750.0921 89.67984398
Mode 2 -604,158.62 1,639,461.72 -0.3685 2185.198946 7.610392218
Mode 3 290,619.26 1,613,600.85 0.1801 513.7395345 1.789200641
Mode 4 -163,806.16 1,620,803.41 -0.1011 162.4876677 0.565895789
Mode 5 101,466.02 1,671,455.69 0.0607 60.4556241 0.210548798
Mode 6 -67,093.28 1,786,533.45 -0.0376 24.73074355 0.086129759
Mode 7 46,540.84 2,025,352.92 0.0230 10.49682574 0.036557294
Mode 8 -33,599.71 2,570,695.12 -0.0131 4.310333125 0.015011597
Mode 9 25,402.71 4,173,370.81 0.0061 1.517620901 0.005285418
Mode 10 -20,719.86 12,935,206.77 -0.0016 0.325754473 0.001134505
Table 38 Pseudo–spectral Acceleration
Mode T/TS SA SA (g) - m/s2

Mode 1 1.26 1.30 12.81
Mode 2 0.42 1.65 16.19
Mode 3 0.25 1.65 16.19
Mode 4 0.18 1.56 15.31
Mode 5 0.14 1.37 13.48
Mode 6 0.12 1.26 12.40
Mode 7 0.11 1.19 11.71
Mode 8 0.10 1.15 11.27
Mode 9 0.09 1.12 11.00
Mode 10 0.09 1.11 10.86
41
Table 39 Modal Lateral Story Forces (kN)
Roof Deck 3,339.01 -1,242.86 607.44 -322.13 170.46 -96.95 56.03 -30.68 13.94 -3.62
10 4,767.80 -1,575.41 575.36 -155.94 -14.03 67.54 -72.66 55.89 -31.00 8.94
9 4,606.52 -1,067.45 -16.75 304.78 -253.38 130.60 -27.03 -26.56 31.62 -11.91
8 4,353.59 -367.10 -600.48 471.79 -105.03 -86.41 92.78 -22.17 -21.83 13.90
7 4,014.06 399.41 -883.61 184.13 204.03 -118.11 -42.05 54.71 4.86 -14.74
6 3,594.66 1,093.94 -724.39 -280.98 200.91 103.48 -61.48 -47.30 13.71 14.37
5 3,103.76 1,591.30 -202.54 -475.30 -109.62 103.16 87.82 5.36 -27.76 -12.81
4 2,551.10 1,801.85 420.70 -211.57 -252.42 -118.38 -3.91 40.50 32.69 10.21
3 1,947.69 1,687.64 833.34 256.05 -8.99 -86.06 -84.91 -56.78 -26.86 -6.76
2 1,320.99 1,284.27 838.61 482.56 251.13 132.36 67.92 31.98 12.34 2.79
Table 40 Modal Story Shear (kN)

Roof Deck 3,339.01 -1,242.86 607.44 -322.13 170.46 -96.95 56.03 -30.68 13.94 -3.62
10 4,767.80 -1,575.41 575.36 -155.94 -14.03 67.54 -72.66 55.89 -31.00 8.94
9 4,606.52 -1,067.45 -16.75 304.78 -253.38 130.60 -27.03 -26.56 31.62 -11.91
8 4,353.59 -367.10 -600.48 471.79 -105.03 -86.41 92.78 -22.17 -21.83 13.90
7 4,014.06 399.41 -883.61 184.13 204.03 -118.11 -42.05 54.71 4.86 -14.74
6 3,594.66 1,093.94 -724.39 -280.98 200.91 103.48 -61.48 -47.30 13.71 14.37
5 3,103.76 1,591.30 -202.54 -475.30 -109.62 103.16 87.82 5.36 -27.76 -12.81
4 2,551.10 1,801.85 420.70 -211.57 -252.42 -118.38 -3.91 40.50 32.69 10.21
3 1,947.69 1,687.64 833.34 256.05 -8.99 -86.06 -84.91 -56.78 -26.86 -6.76
2 1,320.99 1,284.27 838.61 482.56 251.13 132.36 67.92 31.98 12.34 2.79
42
CQC PARAMETERS
Table 41 Frequency Ratio, βij

Roof Deck 1.0000 0.3322 0.1994 0.1437 0.1140 0.0963 0.0851 0.0780 0.0736 0.0713
10 3.0099 1.0000 0.6000 0.4325 0.3432 0.2899 0.2563 0.2348 0.2216 0.2145
9 5.0163 1.6666 1.0000 0.7207 0.5720 0.4832 0.4271 0.3913 0.3693 0.3575
8 6.9600 2.3123 1.3875 1.0000 0.7936 0.6704 0.5926 0.5429 0.5124 0.4960
7 8.7699 2.9137 1.7483 1.2600 1.0000 0.8447 0.7467 0.6841 0.6456 0.6249
6 10.3824 3.4494 2.0697 1.4917 1.1839 1.0000 0.8840 0.8098 0.7643 0.7399
5 11.7454 3.9022 2.3415 1.6876 1.3393 1.1313 1.0000 0.9162 0.8646 0.8370
4 12.8203 4.2593 2.5557 1.8420 1.4618 1.2348 1.0915 1.0000 0.9438 0.9136
3 13.5840 4.5131 2.7080 1.9517 1.5489 1.3084 1.1565 1.0596 1.0000 0.9680
2 14.0330 4.6622 2.7975 2.0162 1.6001 1.3516 1.1948 1.0946 1.0331 1.0000
Table 42 Cross Modal Coefficient, ρij

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Mode 10
Roof Deck 1.00000 0.00640 0.00231 0.00130 0.00088 0.00067 0.00055 0.00048 0.00043 0.00041
10 0.00640 1.00000 0.03500 0.01216 0.00689 0.00477 0.00372 0.00313 0.00281 0.00264
9 0.00231 0.03500 1.00000 0.08347 0.02913 0.01665 0.01176 0.00940 0.00816 0.00756
8 0.00130 0.01216 0.08347 1.00000 0.15602 0.05697 0.03332 0.02419 0.01997 0.01803
7 0.00088 0.00689 0.02913 0.15602 1.00000 0.25845 0.10312 0.06300 0.04774 0.04139
6 0.00067 0.00477 0.01665 0.05697 0.25845 1.00000 0.39552 0.18196 0.11986 0.09744
5 0.00055 0.00372 0.01176 0.03332 0.10312 0.39552 1.00000 0.56530 0.31979 0.23857
4 0.00048 0.00313 0.00940 0.02419 0.06300 0.18196 0.56530 1.00000 0.74877 0.54964
3 0.00043 0.00281 0.00816 0.01997 0.04774 0.11986 0.31979 0.74877 1.00000 0.90424
2 0.00041 0.00264 0.00756 0.01803 0.04139 0.09744 0.23857 0.54964 0.90424 1.00000
43
Table 43 Tabulated Comparison of Lateral Force and Shear
MANUAL ETABS
Floor SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN) Vi (kN) fi (kN)
Roof Deck 3,634.45 3,634.45 3,614.28 3,614.28 2,981.10 2,981.10 2,955.64 2,955.64
10 8,678.55 5,044.10 8,645.53 5,031.25 6,762.26 3,781.15 6,719.96 3,764.32
9 13,346.87 4,668.33 13,312.72 4,667.19 9,890.65 3,128.39 9,851.98 3,132.02
8 17,601.69 4,254.81 17,571.41 4,258.69 12,491.29 2,600.64 12,461.49 2,609.52
7 21,438.34 3,836.65 21,414.20 3,842.79 14,689.15 2,197.87 14,667.10 2,205.60
6 24,853.04 3,414.71 24,836.44 3,422.24 16,589.29 1,900.13 16,577.58 1,910.48
5 27,833.53 2,980.48 27,825.65 2,989.21 18,280.92 1,691.63 18,280.15 1,702.57
4 30,352.64 2,519.12 30,354.92 2,529.27 19,766.97 1,486.05 19,776.76 1,496.61
3 32,363.02 2,010.38 32,377.52 2,022.60 20,992.47 1,225.50 21,019.16 1,242.40
2 33,803.78 1,440.76 33,833.41 1,455.89 21,811.09 818.62 21,857.27 838.11
33,803.78 0.00 33,833.41 0.00 21,811.09 0 21,857.27 0
44
Table 44 Tabulated Comparison of Drift and Displacement
MANUAL ETABS
Floor SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm) Drifti (mm) δi (mm)
Roof Deck 5.85 395.86 5.81 395.71 24.548 621.55 24.458 621.226
10 13.96 390.01 13.91 389.90 37.062 598.419 36.917 598.154
9 21.47 376.05 21.41 375.99 48.299 564.165 48.152 563.991
8 28.31 354.59 28.26 354.58 57.459 519.327 57.337 519.259
7 34.48 326.28 34.44 326.32 64.786 465.247 64.694 465.286
6 39.97 291.80 39.95 291.88 70.598 403.27 70.544 403.407
5 44.77 251.82 44.75 251.93 75.18 334.658 75.166 334.873
4 48.82 207.06 48.82 207.18 78.607 260.64 78.635 260.904
3 52.05 158.24 52.07 158.36 81.738 182.538 81.826 182.799
2 106.19 106.19 106.28 106.28 100.878 100.94 101.061 101.123
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45
Table 46 Base Shear Comparison of Static Analysis and Dynamic Analysis
Base Shear Comparison
Dynamic Analysis
Static Analysis
Floor Manual ETABS
Method A Method B ETABS SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Roof Deck 798.2764088 805.5348629 645.9179 427.5822291 425.2090692 350.7180235 347.7218471
10 1504.606002 1599.817514 1094.722 1021.005586 1017.121384 795.5594941 790.5833765
9 2051.239752 2214.518791 1495.0068 1570.220559 1566.202382 1163.605882 1159.056106
8 2531.614865 2754.710823 1846.7722 2070.786659 2067.225232 1469.563188 1466.058094
7 2945.731341 3220.393609 2150.0182 2522.157112 2519.31805 1728.135812 1725.540988
6 3293.589182 3611.567149 2404.7449 2923.887552 2921.934289 1951.680635 1950.303
5 3575.188386 3928.231443 2610.9522 3274.532573 3273.606021 2150.696141 2150.605894
4 3790.528954 4170.386492 2768.6401 3570.899301 3571.166801 2325.525376 2326.677835
3 3939.610885 4338.032295 2877.8087 3807.414033 3809.120132 2469.701871 2472.842624
2 4023.41433 4432.27105 2939.1756 3976.91574 3980.401463 2566.010176 2571.443741
Base 4023.41433 4432.27105 2939.1756 3976.91574 3980.401463 2566.010176 2571.443741
Ratio (at least 90% provided by NSCP 2015) 0.578938009 (need to be adjusted)
The ratio of the minimum dynamic base shear to the maximum static base shear in this project is approximately 57% which in turn does not
comply with the given requirements provided by NSCP 2015 which is 90%. The value of the ratio dictates that the structure needs to be adjusted
in order to comply the code requirement. However, this paper conducts an assessment only, thus, the project need not to be adjusted.
The series of figures presented below show that the manual calculation differs greatly in ETABS generated value both SRSS and CQC.
However , the values of SRSS compared CQC methods are more likely the same not just in manual calculation but also in ETABS results.
46
Story Lateral Force
10
6
Story
4 Manual SRSS
Manual CQC
3
ETABS SRSS
2
ETABS CQC
1
0
0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00
Force (kN)
Figure 17 Lateral Story Force
Story Shear
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
Manual SRSS
4 Manual CQC
3 ETABS SRSS
2 ETABS CQC
1
0
0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00
Shear (kN)
Figure 18 Story Shear
47
Story Drift
10
9
Manual SRSS
8
Manual CQC
7 ETABS SRSS
6 ETABS CQC
Story
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Drift (mm)
Figure 19 Story Drift
Story Displacement
10
9
8
7
6
Story
5
4 Manual SRSS
3 Manual CQC
2 ETABS SRSS
1 ETABS CQC
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 20 Story Displacement
48
Base Shear Comparison
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Method A Method B ETABS SRSS CQC SRSS CQC
Figure 21 Base Shear Comparison
49
CONCLUSIONS
Conducting comparative assessment of seismic analysis, results have shown

significant difference between static analysis and dynamic analysis. The two different
seismic analysis procedure uses different parameters as well. Static analysis in this paper
has three different methods in calculating and comparing the resulting lateral forces, shear,
drift and displacement, particularly, it uses Method A, Method B, all provided by the code
with regards to its procedural analysis, and ETABS to compare manual calculations to
computer –generated analysis. Whereas, dynamic analysis uses SRSS and CQC in getting
the resulting lateral forces, shear, drift, and displacement in the structure both achieved in
manual calculations and computer –generated calculations.
Static analysis comparing Method A and Method B, the period of the structure does
not differ in large number, in fact it differs at approximately 1 second only, and its responses
in terms of lateral forces, shear distribution, drift, and displacement are very close enough,
but mathematically, Method B is more conservative compared to Method, since it gives the
largest value of all the responses, but not economically good when implemented. However,
comparing these manual calculations to computer –generated calculations using ETABS,
it does differ significantly at a wide range, ETABS gives smaller values of the responses.
In this connection, manual calculations are generally conservative than ETABS but it does
not conclude the accuracy of both.
Dynamic analysis comparing SRSS and CQC, both methods gives result that are
almost equal, thus, insignificant difference has seen with these methods of all the responses
calculated and proved from the graphs presented in the previous section. Likewise, the
responses also of the computer –generated calculations using ETABS give the same
judgement, of which values are almost equal that even it cannot be compared in the graphs
presented above. However, comparing manual and computer –generated calculations, an
unacceptable difference has seen which can easily be seen in the graphs. Moreover, the
difference does not correlate again with how accurate these methods are.
Finally, it is the designer’s choice already on what methods and procedures to use in
analyzing and designing structures, specifically, seismic analysis as it is proved in this
paper that there is significant difference in calculating manually and automatically in all
part of the seismic responses. Thus, better understand the theory behind computer–
generated software to easily trace the difference.
50
REFERENCES
Ahmad, B., & Najar, A. (2016). Comparative Seismic Analysis of EL Centro and Japan
Earthquakes using Response Spectra Method. International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology, 6.
ASEP. (2015). National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 ed. Manila: ASEP.
Caterino, N., & Cosenza, E. (2013). Approximate Methods to Evaluate Storey Stiffness
and Interstory Drift of RC Buildings in Seismic Area. Journal in Structural
Engineering & Mechanics, 245.
Chopra, A. K. (2012). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake

Engineering. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (1995). Dynamics of Structures. Berkeley, CA: Computers
and Structures.
Di Julio Jr., R. M. (2011). Linear Static Seismic Lateral Force Procedures. In R. M. Jr.,
Linear Static Seismic Lateral Force Procedures (pp. 247-273). Northridge.
51
APPENDICES
52
ETABS 2016 16.0.0 License #*183JEGXCZEEZ5PG
Story Response - Auto Lateral Load to Stories

Summary Description
This is story response output for a specified range of stories and a selected load case or load combination.
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Display Type Auto lateral loads to stories Story Range All Stories
Load Pattern EQ Static Top Story Story10
Load Set 1 Bottom Story Base
Plot
Auto Lateral Load to Stories
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Force, kN
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019

Tabulated Plot Coordinates
Story Response Values
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Y-Dir

m kN kN
Story10 36.9 Top 645.9179 0
Story9 33.3 Top 448.8041 0
Story8 29.7 Top 400.2848 0
Story7 26.1 Top 351.7654 0
Story6 22.5 Top 303.246 0
Story5 18.9 Top 254.7267 0
Story4 15.3 Top 206.2073 0
Story3 11.7 Top 157.6879 0
Story2 8.1 Top 109.1686 0
Story1 4.5 Top 61.3669 0
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019

Story Response - Story Shears

Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Display Type Story shears Story Range All Stories
Load Case EQ Static Top Story Story10
Output Type Absolute Max Bottom Story Base
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
-3.00 -2.70 -2.40 -2.10 -1.80 -1.50 -1.20 -0.90 -0.60 -0.30 0.00 E+3
Force, kN
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019

Story Elevation Location X-Dir Max X-Dir Min Y-Dir Max Y-Dir Min
m kN kN kN kN
Story10 36.9 Top 0 -645.9179 0 -634.0001
Bottom 0 -645.9179 0 -634.0001
Story9 33.3 Top 0 -1094.722 0 -1067.2331
Bottom 0 -1094.722 0 -1067.2331
Story8 29.7 Top 0 -1495.0068 0 -1453.63
Bottom 0 -1495.0068 0 -1453.63
Story7 26.1 Top 0 -1846.7722 0 -1793.191
Bottom 0 -1846.7722 0 -1793.191
Story6 22.5 Top 0 -2150.0182 0 -2085.9159
Bottom 0 -2150.0182 0 -2085.9159
Story5 18.9 Top 0 -2404.7448 0 -2331.8049
Bottom 0 -2404.7448 0 -2331.8049
Story4 15.3 Top 0 -2610.9521 0 -2530.8579
Bottom 0 -2610.9521 0 -2530.8579
Story3 11.7 Top 0 -2768.6401 0 -2683.0748
Bottom 0 -2768.6401 0 -2683.0748
Story2 8.1 Top 0 -2877.8086 0 -2788.4558
Bottom 0 -2877.8086 0 -2788.4558
Story1 4.5 Top 0 -2939.1756 0 -2847.6937
Bottom 0 -2939.1756 0 -2847.6937
Base 0 Top 0 0 0 0
Bottom 0 0 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019

Story Response - Maximum Story Drifts

Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Display Type Max story drifts Story Range All Stories
Output Type Max Bottom Story Base
Plot
Maximum Story Drifts
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00 E-3
Drift, Unitless
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m
Story10 36.9 Top 0.001229 0.001046
Story9 33.3 Top 0.001676 0.001549
Story8 29.7 Top 0.002065 0.001993
Story7 26.1 Top 0.002396 0.002378
Story6 22.5 Top 0.002666 0.0027
Story5 18.9 Top 0.002872 0.002961
Story4 15.3 Top 0.003015 0.003158
Story3 11.7 Top 0.003093 0.003293
Story2 8.1 Top 0.003146 0.003395
Story1 4.5 Top 0.003042 0.003142
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019

Story Response - Maximum Story Displacement

Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp1
Display Type Max story displ Story Range All Stories
Output Type Max Bottom Story Base
Plot
Maximum Story Displacement
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement, mm
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m mm mm
Story10 36.9 Top 93.441 95.015
Story9 33.3 Top 89.016 91.251
Story8 29.7 Top 82.984 85.677
Story7 26.1 Top 75.548 78.501
Story6 22.5 Top 66.923 69.941
Story5 18.9 Top 57.326 60.219
Story4 15.3 Top 46.985 49.56
Story3 11.7 Top 36.131 38.19
Story2 8.1 Top 24.999 26.34
Story1 4.5 Top 13.688 14.137
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Load Case SRSS Top Story Story10
Output Type Not Applicable Bottom Story Base
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 E+3
Force, kN
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m kN kN
Story10 36.9 Top 2981.1032 2863.2314
Bottom 2981.1032 2863.2314
Story9 33.3 Top 6762.2557 6513.7571
Bottom 6762.2557 6513.7571
Story8 29.7 Top 9890.65 9546.2225
Bottom 9890.65 9546.2225
Story7 26.1 Top 12491.2871 12085.6435
Bottom 12491.2871 12085.6435
Story6 22.5 Top 14689.1544 14245.1265
Bottom 14689.1544 14245.1265
Story5 18.9 Top 16589.2854 16117.2397
Bottom 16589.2854 16117.2397
Story4 15.3 Top 18280.9172 17783.1032
Bottom 18280.9172 17783.1032
Story3 11.7 Top 19766.9657 19238.7871
Bottom 19766.9657 19238.7871
Story2 8.1 Top 20992.4659 20429.3346
Bottom 20992.4659 20429.3346
Story1 4.5 Top 21811.0865 21206.4319
Bottom 21811.0865 21206.4319
Base 0 Top 0 0
Bottom 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Load Case CQC Top Story Story10
Plot
Story Shears
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 E+3
Force, kN
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m kN kN
Story10 36.9 Top 2955.6357 2837.0631
Bottom 2955.6357 2837.0631
Story9 33.3 Top 6719.9587 6470.4965
Bottom 6719.9587 6470.4965
Story8 29.7 Top 9851.9769 9507.4972
Bottom 9851.9769 9507.4972
Story7 26.1 Top 12461.4938 12056.8822
Bottom 12461.4938 12056.8822
Story6 22.5 Top 14667.0984 14224.7372
Bottom 14667.0984 14224.7372
Story5 18.9 Top 16577.5755 16107.3552
Bottom 16577.5755 16107.3552
Story4 15.3 Top 18280.1501 17783.6572
Bottom 18280.1501 17783.6572
Story3 11.7 Top 19776.7616 19249.3029
Bottom 19776.7616 19249.3029
Story2 8.1 Top 21019.1623 20456.7845
Bottom 21019.1623 20456.7845
Story1 4.5 Top 21857.2718 21253.2084
Bottom 21857.2718 21253.2084
Base 0 Top 0 0
Bottom 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 E-3
Drift, Unitless
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m
Story10 36.9 Top 0.006822 0.005592
Story9 33.3 Top 0.010297 0.009498
Story8 29.7 Top 0.013417 0.013065
Story7 26.1 Top 0.015961 0.016043
Story6 22.5 Top 0.017998 0.018514
Story5 18.9 Top 0.019613 0.020577
Story4 15.3 Top 0.020887 0.022318
Story3 11.7 Top 0.021842 0.023748
Story2 8.1 Top 0.02273 0.025036
Story1 4.5 Top 0.022431 0.023599
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 E-3
Drift, Unitless
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m
Story10 36.9 Top 0.006797 0.005556
Story9 33.3 Top 0.010257 0.009437
Story8 29.7 Top 0.013377 0.012997
Story7 26.1 Top 0.015927 0.015977
Story6 22.5 Top 0.017972 0.018451
Story5 18.9 Top 0.019597 0.02052
Story4 15.3 Top 0.020883 0.022268
Story3 11.7 Top 0.021849 0.023706
Story2 8.1 Top 0.022753 0.025009
Story1 4.5 Top 0.022472 0.023587
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Displacement, mm
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m mm mm
Story10 36.9 Top 621.55 641.803
Story9 33.3 Top 598.419 623.438
Story8 29.7 Top 564.165 592.611
Story7 26.1 Top 519.327 549.581
Story6 22.5 Top 465.247 495.634
Story5 18.9 Top 403.27 432.078
Story4 15.3 Top 334.658 360.141
Story3 11.7 Top 260.64 281.024
Story2 8.1 Top 182.538 196.067
Story1 4.5 Top 100.94 106.195
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019


Summary Description
Input Data
Name StoryResp2
Plot
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Base
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800
Displacement, mm
10_New.EDB Page 1 of 2 4/1/2019


m mm mm
Story10 36.9 Top 621.226 640.186
Story9 33.3 Top 598.154 621.9
Story8 29.7 Top 563.991 591.214
Story7 26.1 Top 519.259 548.371
Story6 22.5 Top 465.286 494.636
Story5 18.9 Top 403.407 431.307
Story4 15.3 Top 334.873 359.599
Story3 11.7 Top 260.904 280.696
Story2 8.1 Top 182.799 195.912
Story1 4.5 Top 101.123 106.142
Base 0 Top 0 0
10_New.EDB Page 2 of 2 4/1/2019

Structural Dynamics

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

Structural Dynamics

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

COMPARATIVE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC

RESPONSE OF 10–STOREY RCC BUILDING COMPLYING NSCP 2015

ENGR. JUNNAZ P. BALACUIT

NSCP 2015 CODE REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 208) 3

208.6.1 Earthquake Loads………………………………………... 12

OTHER IMPORTANT PARAMETERS

34 Stiffness Matrix (N/m)…………………………………………….. 39

Moreover, in EDA (elastic dynamic analysis) Method, the normalized modal

208.3 Symbols and Notations

𝐶𝑎 = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 2.7

208.4 Basic for Design

208.4.2 Occupancy Categories

For purposes of earthquake-resistant design, each structure shall be placed

Table 1 (Table 208–1) Seismic Importance Factors

Table 2 (Table 208–2) Soil Profile Types

208.4.4 Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics

208.4.4.1 Seismic Zone

Table 3 (Table 208–3) Seismic Zone Factors

208.4.4.2 Seismic Source Types

Table 4 (Table 208–4) Seismic Source Types

Table 5 (Table 208–5) Near–Source Factor, Na

Table 6 (Table 208–6) Near–Source Factor, Nv

Seismic Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source

208.4.4.4 Seismic Response Coefficient

Table 7 (Table 208–7) Seismic Coefficient, Ca

Each structure shall be assigned a seismic coefficient; Ca and Cv.

Table 9 Numerical Coefficient for Earthquake–Force–Resisting Structural Systems

*NL – Not Limited

208.5.2.1 Design Base Shear

The total design base shear in a given direction is given by equation:

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.11𝐶𝑎 𝐼𝑊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 3)

208.5.2.2 Structure Period

The value of T shall be determined from one of the following methods:

The equation for the structural period, T, is given by equation 2.5.

𝐶𝑡 = 0.0731 for reinforced concrete moment − resisting frames and

eccentrically braced frames

𝐶𝑡 = 0.0488 for all buildings

208.5.2.3 Vertical Distribution of Force

208.5.3.2 Ground Motion

The ground motion representation shall, as a minimum, be one having a 10–percent

In this particular, an elastic design response spectrum constructed in accordance with

Figure 2 (Table 208–3) Design Response Spectrum

208.5.3.4.1 Description of Response Spectrum Analysis

208.5.3.5 Response Spectrum Analysis

208.5.3.5.1 Response Spectrum Representation

208.5.3.5.2 Number of Modes

208.5.3.5.3 Combining Modes

208.6 Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements

208.6.1 Earthquake Loads

`𝑑𝑒𝑡([𝐾] − 𝜔2 [𝑀]) = 0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 10)

continually, simultaneous calculations are done though using the following,

{𝑙} = [1 … 1]𝑇 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 12)

𝐿𝑘 = [𝛷𝑘 ]𝑇 [𝑀]{𝑙} … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 13)

𝑀𝑘 = [𝛷𝑘 ]𝑇 [𝑀][𝛷𝑘 ] … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 14)

W𝑘 = 𝛤𝑘 (𝐿𝑘 𝑔) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (Eq. 16)

𝑃𝑀𝑘 = 𝑊𝑘 /𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (Eq. 17)

𝑄𝑖𝑘 = 𝑆𝐴𝑘 𝜙𝑖𝑘 Γk 𝑤𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 18)

𝑉𝑖𝑘 = ∑ 𝑄𝑖𝑘 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 19)

For 𝑇𝑘 ≤ 0.2𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:

For 0.2𝑇𝑠 ≤ 𝑇𝑘 ≤ 𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:

For 𝑇𝑘 ≥ 𝑇𝑠 the spectrum function is:

𝑆𝐴 (𝑇𝑘 , 𝜉) = 2.5𝐶𝑎 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (Eq. 22)

Figure 3 Magnitude of Earthquake based on PSHA DOST–PHIVOLCS Seismicity Map

Figure 4 Typical Floor Plan (2nd Floor–10th Floor)