Example on Multi storey

building Analysis and Design

Prepare by
Dhorajia Dhaval H.
06MCL003
1
2
 MODEL-1 MODEL-2

No. of stories=12 Keeping other data same

only increase no of stories
No. of shear wall=2 No. of stories=25
Thickness=0.365 m
Overcome additional quantity
Increase thickness of shear wall by Of deflections, drift, B.M.,S.F.
keeping same no. of shear wall as M1
& M-2 By two way Increase nos. of shear
wall by keeping same
thickness of shear wall
No. of stories=25
as M-1 & M-2

MODEL-5 MODEL-6
MODEL-3 MODEL-4
Thickness of shear No. of shear No. of shear
Thickness of
wall=0.6m wall=4 wall=6
shear wall=0.5m

3
 Problem solution

Design
Analyses
Devendra

Dhaval
•Basic fundamental •Modeling in ETAB
calculation check of model
•Parametric study of diff. results
under gravity loading
of diff. models –Deflections, drift
•Comparison of base shear ,S.F., B.M., mode shapes
computation by seismic
•Conclusion related cost &
coefficient method
reduction of actions
by:1893(2002) & software
3D model & spring mass
model Deepak
• Comments on analyses
under gravity load and 4
lateral load
 Analysis

Gravity Load Lateral load

•Load transfer slab to •Seismic coefficient

beam as per One way & method as per IS:1893-
two way consideration (2002)

•Beam to column by •Done by C++

reaction method
•Done by STAAD
modeling

5
6
7
8
D.L.=0.2x24=4.8 kN/m2 in Y-range
S.W.
L.L.=0.25x3=0.75 kN/m2 in Y-range except on terrace

9
Elevation: load case :L.L.

10
Elevation: load case :L.L.

11
12
 Basic primary check of model under
gravity load consideration
Model No. Total gravity load (kN) by C++ Total gravity load (kN) Variation
by STAAD Pro. (%)

1 143110.9688 1460316.008 9.8

2 300854.6875 3539466.912 8.5

3 331215.1563 4246348.157 7.8

4 349615.4375 3928263.343 8.9

6 424136.5938 4560608.535 9.3

13
 Lateral load Analysis
Seismic coefficient method as per
IS:1893 (Part-I) (2002)

Time period as per codal

Time period as per 3D Time period as per
formula
ETAB model spring mass model

Ta=0.09xh/d1/2

Other values:
Z=zone-III=0.16 I=1 R=5 Soil Type-II 14
15
[K]-[Mw2]=0

16
RESULTS

17
Mod Time period Sa/g value
el
No. By By ETAB By spring
codal 3D model mass
formula model By By ETAB By spring
codal 3D mass
formula model model
1 0.8792 1.203

2 1.83 2.32 1.54 1.13

3 1.83 2.2 0.7431 0.586

4 1.83 1.9 0.7431 0.618

0.7431 0.715
5 1.83 1.87
0.7431 0.7272
6 1.83 1.67
0.7431 0.7683

18
 Ah value Base shear Vb (kN)
By By ETAB By spring By By ETAB By spring
codal 3D model mass codal 3D model mass
formula model formula model

0.02464 0.01808
3526.25 2587.445

0.01189 0.009376 3577.04 3278.97

0.01189 0.009888 3938.14 3368.97

0.01189 0.01144
4156.78 3999.600
0.01189 0.011635
4309.92 4217.709
0.01189 0.012293 5042.81 5213.826
19
M M M M
M M M M M M M M
1 1 3 4
2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6
C S S C
C S C S C S C S

20
Why base shear for same model
we get diff. in comparison of
analyses done by codal formula
& by software solution?

21
Time period

•Based upon stiffness and mass of the

system
[K]-[Mw2]=0
•Solution can give w value and based
upon that find T

22
If time period increase

Sa/g value decrease

Ah
decrease

Base shear decrease

23
If time period decrease

Sa/g value increase

Ah
increase

Base shear increase

24
 Time period
Finding out by codal formula
•Independent of stiffness and mass
of structure.
•Formula evaluate based on
observation of seismic performance
during seismic event of exciting
structure and experiment base
•Give lower value compare to
software analyses for same
structure and same condition.
•If change in structural system is
occur regarding to stiffness and
mass other than storey height and
base width there is no change in
time period value.
Finding out by software
•Dependent of stiffness and mass of
structure.
•Value find base on stiffness and mass of
spring mass model & eigen-values and
eigen-vectors.
•Give higher value compare to codal
formula for same structure and same
condition.
•If in any change in structural system is
occur there will be change in time period
value.
25
 Some observations and
comparisons in model
• M1 has lesser time period than the all the
models because less height.
• In M2 to M6 has constant time period as
per codal formula but comparatively
decrease in case of finding out by
software analyses because stiffness
increase.

26
Compare to M3 & M4 , model M5 & M6 has
lesser time period because they are more stiffer
than M3 & M4.
Conclusion:
•Time period is very impoartant key factor in case of
seismic analyses of structure.
•In case of codal foumula which find based on
experimental work and past observation not depended
mass and stiffness of the structure.
•Generally for one structure get diff. time period one
by codal formula and one by software analyses and in
comparison of both by coad get lesser time period.

27
 Other consideration to overcome lateral
effects due to lateral loads on structure

•By wall-frame structure

•By framed structure
•Infill wall
•Effect of mass and stiffness variable and it’s effect
on time period & comparisons with codal formula for
time period.
•For finding Equivalent stiffness by small C++
programme.
•Then find time period by spring mass model.
28
Importance of studying time period
• Time period find by codal formula and
actual time period due to stiffness & mass
of structure is also different when keeping
geometrical data same.
• Real time period find only by spring-mass
model of structure.

29
Thank You

30