11th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC-2020)

“Integrating Innovation & Sustainability in Civil Engineering”

March 13-14, 2020, Karachi, Pakistan.

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF HIGH-

RISE BUILDINGS USING STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS BY ETABS
Abrar Ahmad, Mamoon Riaz
International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
[email protected], [email protected]

Tayyab Zafar, Kanwar Kashif Zulfiqar

International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
[email protected], [email protected]

Saleh Ali Khawaja

International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
This research focuses on seismic behavior of high-rise buildings. Building under study is Fortune One
Tower located at Jinnah Avenue Sector F9 Islamabad (Seismic zone 2B) having 22 Stories with 04
basements. The project aims at finding the economical sizes of structural members and provide safety,
stability and serviceability in the proposed building. The building was modelled in ETABS 2016 (Extended
Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building System Version 2016). Linear Static and Linear Dynamic
Analysis were performed on the selected building. Equivalent Lateral Force method was used as static
analysis while Response Spectrum Analysis was used as Dynamic Analysis. Building Code of Pakistan
(BCP), Universal Building Code (UBC-97) and American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-14) codes were
followed for the design of the building. The outcome of this research is the economical sizes of structural
members. Results established the superiority of Response Spectrum Analysis over the Equivalent Lateral
Force Method.

Keywords:
Static Analysis, Dynamic Analysis, Equivalent Lateral Force & Response Spectrum Analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

Earthquake is a natural cataclysm responsible for millions of deaths around the world since ancient times.
The trembling of the earth due to an underground movement of tectonic plates along a fault plane or from
volcanic activity is what we called an earthquake. Pakistan is situated in a region of high seismicity, which
is evident from the catastrophic seismic event of October 8, 2005(Naseer et al., 2010). An earthquake of
7.6 Magnitude shook Kashmir and Northern parts of Pakistan resulting 73000 deaths, more than 70000
injured or disabled, 2.8 million people become homeless, 2.3 million people are left with inadequate food
and a total loss of 5.2 billion dollars to the economy of Pakistan (Durrani et al., 2005). The possibility of
repetition of such devastating earthquakes even greater than Magnitude of 8 are expected in the
region(Avouac et al., 2006).
The population of world is increasing, so is the case with urbanization, as a result vertical construction is
necessary to accommodate the increased population and to avert the diminishing agricultural lands
(Ibrahim, 2007) but earthquakes have greater potential to damage high-rise buildings. Since forces
developed under earthquakes are unpredictable and random in nature, the engineering tools need to be
sharpened for analyzing such structures. Loads acting on a building may be static like load of people,
furniture, snow, dead load of the building itself etc., or dynamic like earthquake forces, wind etc. Dynamic
forces can be distinguish from static forces by their ability to produce acceleration with respect to the natural
frequency of the structure (Kakpure and Mundhada, 2017). Designers usually perform only the conservative
static analysis (Kumar, Kushwaha and Sinha, 2018) due to its simplicity while it is clearly mentioned in
UBC-97 when the height of an irregular building exceeds 65 ft, dynamic analysis must be performed.
Hopefully, by this research we can make them understand the significance of using dynamic analysis
because it gives lesser values of all critical parameters associated with seismic event (Kakpure and
Mundhada, 2017).
In the present work, a high-rise building comprising of 22 storeys with 04 basements located at sector F9
Islamabad (Seismic zone 2B) is analyzed both by Equivalent Static Analysis and Response Spectrum
Analysis method using Structural Analysis Software ETABS 2016.

2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Linear Static Analysis “Equivalent Lateral Force Method” and linear dynamic analysis “Response
Spectrum Analysis” were performed on the structure by ETABS and a comparison is made between the
two analysis techniques.

2.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Method

The forces developed under seismic event are dynamic in nature, so the design of buildings for such forces
must consider the dynamic nature of forces (Kakpure and Mundhada, 2017). However, for simple and
regular structures with small to medium heights static analysis is considered sufficient and allowed by
Universal building Code (UBC Code, 1997) and Building Code of Pakistan (BCP, 2007).
Equivalent Lateral force method (ELF) involves the calculation of base shear and its distribution along the
height by formulae given in the UBC-97. This is a conservative method used in low to medium height
buildings and it assumes same acceleration at every point of the structure during ground motion (Kumar,
Kushwaha and Sinha, 2018). In ETABS the first step was to model the building. After modelling, load
patterns and load combinations were defined. Loads are applied on the building as per UBC-97. As the
building is in Islamabad seismic zone 2-B, so peak ground acceleration of 0.2g is used as per Building Code
of Pakistan. Lastly, in the analysis menu from the “set load cases to run” run linear static for Equivalent
Lateral Force Method.

2.2 Response Spectrum Analysis

Response Spectrum Analysis is a linear dynamic analysis which takes into consideration the dynamic nature
of earthquake forces. An earthquake vibrates the ground below the building due to which vibrations are
induced in the building. Mode shape is the set of relative nodal displacements for a particular node of free
vibration for a specific natural frequency. Each mode shape is associated with a unique frequency of
vibration, time period and participating mass. Only those mode shapes are considered in which the
participating mass is greater than 90% (UBC Code, 1997). A plot between peak ground acceleration and
the time period is obtained which is called Response Spectrum. Equivalent Lateral force is a conservative
approach as compare to Response Spectrum analysis because it depends only on the height and weight of
the building irrespective of the different vibrations induced in the building (Kumar, Kushwaha and Sinha,
2018). Response Spectrum Analysis is more realistic determination of seismic forces as compared to ELF
and we must perform Dynamic analysis when an irregular building height reaches 65 ft (UBC Code, 1997).
It considers each mode of vibration along with its time period. For each time period and damping ratio
definite spectral acceleration is obtained. Stress resultants are obtained by displacement response. The final
response envelop is obtained by adding stress resultants with some combination rule, complete quadratic
combination for this work (Nawy, 2000).
In ETABS to perform Response Spectrum Analysis, first we must perform static analysis, because
modelling of the structure is same for both the analysis, moreover base shear from Equivalent Lateral Force
method is used in adjusting scale factor for Response Spectrum Analysis. It all starts with defining a
Response Spectrum function and select UBC-97. Put 5% damping and assign seismic coefficients of Ca =
0.28 and Cv =0.40 because of seismic zone 2-B. Define a response spectrum load case both in X and Y
direction, adjust the initial scale factor (scale factor = gxR/I) and select complete quadratic combination
(CQC) as a directional combination method. Modify the modal case and put maximum number of modes
equal to 66, as the number of floors is 22. Lastly, in the analysis menu from the “set load cases to run” run
Model-eigen along with linear static for Response Spectrum Analysis.

3. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

The building selected for the present work is Fortune One Tower located in Sector F9 Islamabad having 22
storeys with four basements. Islamabad comes under seismic zone 2B with peak ground acceleration
between 0.16 to 0.24g (BCP, 2007). As per seismic zone requirement Intermediate Moment Resisting
frames are used in the building. The dimension of the building in X-Y plan is 119՛x 99՛. Grades of concrete
used were 4000psi and 6000psi. Concrete with 4000psi compressive strength is used in beams and slabs
while 6000psi concrete is used in columns and shear walls. Grade 60 steel rebar is used throughout the
building. The building comprises of 04 basements, lower three basements are used for car parking and the
lower ground floor/basement 01 is used as a super store. Ground floor to 3rd floor is used for commercial
purposes with MEP and Mezzanine floor. The rest of the floors consist of residential apartments with
penthouse at the top. The height of the floors varies from 10ft, 10.5ft, 10.75ft, 11.75ft and a maximum of
13.5 ft at the ground floor. Slabs of 6in, 7in, 8in and 9inch were used. Beams of various dimension
12’’x6”,12”x15”, 12”x18”, 12”x24”, 12”x30”, 12”x42”, 10”x51” etc. were used. Columns sizes mainly
used were 48”x18’,36”x24”, 36”x36”, 18”x30”, 24”x30”, 24”x36”, 24”x30” etc. as per requirement. The
building contains a central lift with shear walls around it. Retaining wall is provided around four sides of
basement. The soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine soil profile type, so type SD is
used as per UBC-97 Section 1636.2. The modelling of this building in ETABS is done by grid formation,
assigning of number of stories, materials definition, defining of section properties and the assignment of
these defined sections to their positions. Further, stiffness modifiers, Diaphragm, floor meshing, End length
offsets, load patterns, load combinations, mass source, P-delta effect, assigning of support to the base and
finally occupancy and seismic loads were assigned to the building according of BCP and UBC-97. The
ETABS generated 3D model of the building is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: 3D Model of the Building in ETABS

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The reinforced concrete building under study is analyzed both statically and dynamically by ETABS 2016.
The graphical results along with explanation of all critical parameters such as Storey Displacement, Story
Drift, axial forces in columns and bending moments in beams are presented below:

4.1 Storey Drifts

Storey Drift is the relative lateral displacement of a floor with respect to the floor above or below it. When
this difference of lateral displacement is divided by storey height, it yields storey drift ratio, which is one
of the critical parameters in seismic design of high-rise buildings. Maximum inelastic response for buildings
(ΔM = 0.7RΔS) with time period less than 0.70 seconds shall be less than 2.5% of the height of the building
while it is 2% for buildings with time period greater or equal to 0.70 seconds. Table 1 shows the variation
of storey drifts along the height of the building followed by its graphical illustration.

Table 1: Comparison of Storey Drifts

Storey Storey No. Elevation Location EQX (in) EQY (in) RSX (in) RSY (in)
Top Roof 27 232.25 Top 0.001168 0.001058 0.000839 0.000598
Roof 26 223.75 Top 0.001245 0.001155 0.000935 0.000847
18th Floor 25 213.25 Top 0.001292 0.001319 0.000996 0.000945
17th Floor 24 202.75 Top 0.001326 0.001507 0.001049 0.001149
16th Floor 23 192.25 Top 0.001351 0.001684 0.001094 0.001344
15th Floor 22 181.75 Top 0.001365 0.001843 0.001124 0.00152
14th Floor 21 171.25 Top 0.001372 0.001985 0.001141 0.001673
13th Floor 20 160.75 Top 0.001404 0.002109 0.001152 0.001801
12th Floor 19 150.25 Top 0.001423 0.002216 0.001172 0.001904
11th Floor 18 139.75 Top 0.001435 0.002301 0.001183 0.001986
10th Floor 17 129.25 Top 0.001447 0.002359 0.001191 0.002047
9th Floor 16 118.75 Top 0.001453 0.002389 0.001194 0.002087
8th Floor 15 108.25 Top 0.00145 0.002392 0.001189 0.002107
7th Floor 14 97.75 Top 0.001437 0.002375 0.001177 0.002112
6th Floor 13 87.25 Top 0.001416 0.002332 0.00116 0.002098
5th Floor 12 76.75 Top 0.001383 0.002259 0.001137 0.002062
4rth Floor 11 66.25 Top 0.001344 0.002165 0.001109 0.002005
MEP Floor 10 58.25 Top 0.001287 0.002035 0.001069 0.001921
3rd Floor 9 47.5 Top 0.001229 0.001904 0.001029 0.001837
2nd Floor 8 36.75 Top 0.001141 0.001712 0.000963 0.001685
Ist Floor 7 26 Top 0.00104 0.00149 0.000886 0.001497
Mezzanine Floor 6 16.25 Top 0.000902 0.001213 0.000777 0.001238
Ground Floor 5 4.5 Top 0.000668 0.000755 0.000572 0.000749
Basement 01 4 -9 Top 0.000376 0.000231 0.000315 0.000171
Basement 02 3 -19 Top 0.000107 0.000075 0.00009 0.000052
Basement 03 2 -29 Top 0.000039 0.000036 0.000035 0.000029
Basement 04 1 -39 Top 0.000037 0.000022 0.00003 0.00002
Base 0 -49 Top 0 0 0 0
 Figure 2: Comparison of Storey Drifts

From Figure 2, it is observed that Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) gives 18% greater values of maximum
story drift in the X-direction (EQX) than Response Spectrum Analysis (RSX). Correspondingly, maximum
story drift in Response Spectrum Analysis (RSY) in the Y-direction is 12% less than Static Analysis (EQX).

4.2 Storey Displacements

Storey displacement is a measure of displacement of a story with respect to the base of the building. The
values of storey displacement increases from the base to the top of the building. The variation of storey
displacements at different floor levels is shown in Table 2 followed by graphical illustration.

Table 2: Comparison of Storey Displacements

 Figure 3: Comparison of Storey Displacements

From figure 3, it is observed that maximum Storey Displacements in Equivalent Lateral Force Method
(EQX) in X-direction is 23% greater than Response Spectrum Analysis (RSX). Similarly, maximum Storey
Displacement in Y-direction in Response Spectrum Analysis (RSY) is 17% less than its value in Equivalent
Lateral Force Analysis (EQY).

4.3 Maximum Axial Load in Columns

Three columns of different locations, Interior, peripheral and corner columns are selected for this
comparison to cover all the necessary positions.

4.3.1 Peripheral column

From the bar chart shown in figure 4, it is obvious that axial load of peripheral column in Response
Spectrum Analysis (RSX) is 5% less than Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (EQX) in the X-direction. In
the Y-direction, maximum axial load EQY is 4% greater than RSY.

Figure 4: Maximum Axial load at Peripheral Column Figure 5: Maximum Axial Load in Interior Column

4.3.2 Interior column

From the bar chart shown in figure 5, it is observed that Response Spectrum Analysis (RSX and RSY) and
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (EQX and EQY) values are quite the same in their respective X and Y
directions. Maximum loads due to ELF are only 2% greater than Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA).

4.3.3 Corner column

From the bar chart shown in figure 6, it is observed that axial load of corner column in Response Spectrum
Analysis (RSX) are 7% less than Equivalent Lateral Force Method (EQX) in the X-direction. In the Y-
direction, Static Analysis (EQY) are 5% greater than Dynamic Analysis (RSY).
 Figure 6: Maximum Axial load at Corner Column

4.4 Comparison of Beam Bending Moments

Three beams of different locations, Interior, peripheral and corner beams are selected for this comparison
to cover all the necessary positions.

4.4.1 Maximum bending moment in peripheral beam

From the bar chart shown in figure 7, it is obvious that bending moment of peripheral beam in Dynamic
Analysis (RSX) is 4% less than Static Analysis (EQX) in the X-direction. In the Y-direction, maximum
bending moment in Static Analysis (EQY) is 3% greater than Dynamic Analysis (RSY).

Figure 7: Maximum B.M in Peripheral beam Figure 8: Maximum bending Moment in End Beam

4.4.2 Maximum bending moment in end beam

From the bar chart shown in figure 8, it is observed that bending moment of end beam in Response Spectrum
Analysis for both directions is 4.5% less than Equivalent Static Analysis in the respective direction.

4.4.2 Maximum bending moment in interior beam

From the bar chart shown in figure 9, it is observed that bending moments in interior beams due to Response
Spectrum Analysis RSX and RSY are approximately 3% less than Static Analysis EQX and EQY in both
X and Y directions respectively.
 Figure 9: Comparison of Maximum Bending Moment in Interior Beam

5. Conclusions:

• In Dynamic Analysis values of Storey Drifts are 18% less than Static Analysis.
• Storey displacement increases gradually along the height of the building with highest displacement
on the top of the building in both X and Y directions.
• Dynamic Analysis gives 23% less values for Storey Displacement as compared to Static Analysis.
• Axial loads in Dynamic Analysis at the Corner and Peripheral columns are 4 to 7% less than Static
Analysis. However axial load for interior column is not reduced significantly by Dynamic Analysis.
• Bending moments in beams are 3 to 4% less in Dynamic Analysis than Static Analysis.
• All the critical parameters like story drift, story displacement, bending moment in beams and axial
load on columns shows significant low values in Dynamic Seismic Analysis as compared to Static
Seismic Analysis. The precise estimation of seismic forces and structural response in dynamic
analysis is accounted for reduction in all critical parameters. So, it is highly recommended to use
Dynamic Analysis in high-rise buildings.
• This work focuses on Linear Static and Linear Dynamic Analysis and can be improved by
performing Non-linear Static Push Over Analysis and Non-linear Dynamic Time History Analysis.

6. References:

Avouac, J. et al. (2006) ‘The 2005 , M w 7 . 6 Kashmir earthquake : Sub-pixel correlation of ASTER images
and seismic waveforms analysis’, 249, pp. 514–528. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.06.025.
Code, U. B. (1997a) ‘UBC-97’, in Structural engineering design provisions. International conference of
building officials, Whittier, California.
Code, U. B. (1997b) ‘UBC. 1997’, in International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code,
Whittier, California.
Durrani, A. J. et al. (2005) ‘the Kashmir Earthquake of October 8 , 2005 a Quicklook Report’, Earthquake.
Ibrahim, E. (2007) ‘High- Rise Buildings – Needs & Impacts’, pp. 1998–2008.
Kakpure, G. G. and Mundhada, D. A. R. (2017) ‘Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis
of Multistoried RCC Buildings by ETAB’, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications,
07(05), pp. 06–10. doi: 10.9790/9622-0705050610.
Kumar, N., Kushwaha, D. and Sinha, R. (2018) ‘Earthquake Resistant Design & Comparison of ( G + 7 )
OMRF Building at Meerut by Using Equivalent Lateral Force & Response Spectrum Method’, 6(Vii), pp.
456–462.
Naseer, A. et al. (2010) ‘Observed seismic behavior of buildings in Northern Pakistan during the 2005
Kashmir earthquake’, Earthquake Spectra, 26(2), pp. 425–449. doi: 10.1193/1.3383119.
Nawy, E. (2000) Reinforced concrete: A fundamental approach.
Seismic Provisions (2007) ‘Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions 2007)’, p. 303.