Earthquake Engineering

Analytical and Design Concepts for Earthquake Engineering
Introduction: In this chapter we will deal with some fundamental concepts pertaining to earthquake
engineering.
On completion of this chapter you should have an understanding of:
Why earthquake happens in nature

The essential engineering parameters, which affect the geo-technical and structural
aspect of a system under earthquake.
Basic concepts of dynamic analysis as applied to Earthquake engineering
pertaining to buildings, and different types of industrial and infra-structural systems
like chimney, frame foundation, retaining wall, water tank, RCC and earth dams etc.
Have an understanding of different provisions of IS 1893 (2002) code as well as UBC
1997 and IBC 2000 the two American earthquake codes used almost internationally
for projects in different part of the world.
Before reading this chapter we however feel you should go through the following chapter as a
pre-requisite.
1. Chapter 4 Basic concepts in structural dynamics
2. Chapter 5 Basic concepts in soil dynamics
3. Also have some fundamental awareness of how earthquake can affect a structurefoundation system.
Earthquake is perhaps the most complex natural phenomenon which human being is trying to
understand, combat and harness from the early history of mankind.
In spite of scientific study of the subject for last 100 years or more it is felt that we are still in the
infancy of our knowledge in this subject.
For data affecting this phenomenon are so vast and varying and also from different branch of
science, we at best can arrive at a simplified model of the problem amenable to human
perception and try to arrive at a solution which would in all probability survive this natures
assault with some limited damage if ever the structure is faced with such vagary.
The basic objective of an earthquake resistant design is not to make the structure fool
proof but to limit its damage to the extent of minimizing the loss of human life and
property.
Though earthquake is a global phenomenon, yet there are some countries in the world which
has been severely affected by earthquake leading to significant loss of human life and
properties- like USA, Japan, Turkey India, New Zealand etc, while there are countries whose
geological characteristics are seismically considered inert like United Kingdom, Gulf countries
like Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar etc which has no significant history of earthquake.
Based on the above it is evident that there are countries where significant research and
investigation has been carried out to develop a procedure for earthquake resistant design of
structures. Countries like USA, Japan, India Mexico etc have contributed significantly on this
issue.
In USA and Japan considerable research has been carried out in University of California
Berkley, California Institute of Technology, University of North Carolina, University of Tokyo to
name a few.
Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury
Head of Department Civil & Structural Engg.
Petrofac International Ltd.
Sharjah
United Arab Emirates
Page 1
8/30/2006
In India significant work has been carried out in University of Roorkee- Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur to understand the seismicity of the
region and develop a unified code for earthquake resistant design of structures and foundations.
Why does Earthquake happen in Nature?

The topic itself can be subject of a complete book. A detailed discussion on this is beyond the
scope of this work, however as civil engineers designing structures, which can withstand such
calamity -some fundamental understanding on this issue is essential.
Earth Crust
Earth Core
Molten Magma
Figure-1 Earth with its central core

As shown in the above figure (1) the earth constitutes of a central core, consisting of molten
magma, which is undergoing continuous upheaval. While the outer core, which has solidified in
million of years forms the outer earth crust. The inner magma (the molten core) is continuously
creating a pressure on the outer core and trying to come out by seeking some weaknesses in
the earth crust. Whenever it can come out it generates what is known as a volcanic eruption.
When it cannot it tries to push the crust upward thus creating folds and faults resulting in a
source which stores a significant amount of potential/strain energy.
As by law of nature all system in course of time try to achieve minimum state of energy, these
storehouse of potential energy keep on releasing their stored strain energy as kinetic energy
generating waves on the surface of the outer crust which is known as earthquake commonly.
It is said that the Himalayan mountain range is one such formation due to pressure of the inner
magma. The deformation, which the earth crust underwent due to formation of the mountain
range, is still being adjusted naturally. It is for this reason, areas in its close proximity like
Assam, Nepal and portions of south China is often subjected to severe earthquake.
There is also a phenomenon called seismotectonic movement otherwise known as continental
drift, which also generates earthquake at certain location of the earth.
According to this the outer crust of earth is made up of undistorted plates of lithosphere. These
plates are in differential motion, and at places they move away from each other where new plate
are added from the interior of the earth while in places they collide with each other.

Sharjah
Page 2
8/30/2006
All major earthquakes which mark the active zones of the earth closely follows the plate
boundaries and has been found to be a function of the movements of these plates1.
Human interference can also sometimes modifies stresses in the earth surface to trigger minor
or even moderate earthquakes.
In many mining areas tremors and shocks results due to underground explosion in mines which
can cause damages to structures on the ground.
One of the classic case of man made earthquake was the Koyna Dam incident in 1967 in India
when pounding of large amount of water behind the dam resulted in an earthquake causing
extensive damage to surrounding2.
Essential difference between systems subjected to Earthquake and

Vibrations from Machine
In earlier chapters we had discussed in detail response of machine foundation under dynamic
loading. In machine foundations the unbalanced force from the machine gets transmitted to the
ground via structure/foundation to the soil media. In such cases normally a limited part of the soil
is affected significantly. Moreover the strain range induced in the soil is usually limited to low
strain range (usually 10-3%). However in case of earthquake the phenomenon is quite different.
In this case when an earthquake shock generates due to rupture of a fault within the earth
surface it generates waves within the soil, which induces much larger strain in the soil (10-2
to10-1%) for a major earthquake.
0.2
0.1
19.4
18.2
17.1
16
14.8
13.7
12.5
11.4
10.3
9.12
7.98
6.84
5.7
4.56
3.42
2.28
-0.1
1.14
0
0
Velocity v2(m/sec)
Time History response Velocity
-0.2
-0.3
Time steps
Figure 2: -Typical propagation of earthquake waves through soil

Shown above is a typical propagation of waves through soil medium and is usually a
combination of specifically four types of waves namely
1) P waves (body waves)
2) 2) S waves (body waves)
3) Rayleigh Waves (surface waves)
1
For further information reader may refer to the monograph New Zealand Adrift by Stevens G.R.;
A.H &A.W.Reed Wellington 1980.
2
Anil K Chopra and Partha Chakrabarti The Koyna Earthquake and damage to Koyna Dam Bulletin
of Seismological Soceity of America 63 No-2 381-97 (1973)

Sharjah
Page 3
8/30/2006
4) Love waves (surface waves)

The primary or P waves are the fastest traveling of all the waves and generally produces
longitudinal compression and extension within a soil media. These waves can travel both
through soil and water and are the first one to arrive at a site. However soil being relatively more
resistant to compression and dilation effect its impact on ground distortion is minimal.
The S waves, also otherwise known as secondary or shear waves usually causes shear
deformation in the medium through which it propagates. The S waves can usually propagate
through soil only 3.The soil being weak in resisting shear deformation it travels at a much slower
speed through the ground then primary waves and are found to cause maximum damage to the
ground surface.
The Rayleigh waves are surface waves which are found to produce ripples on the surface of the
ground 4.These waves produce both horizontal and vertical movement of the earth surface as
the waves travel away from the source.
Love waves are similar to S waves and produces transverse shear deformation to the ground.
As described above all these waves combine together to produce shock waves from which an
engineer extracts the value of the maximum ground acceleration (amax) which is the major
parameter which governs his design.
Thus based on above it is apparent the mechanics of earthquake is opposite to dynamics of
machine foundation in the sense that here the forces are transmitted from soil to the structure.
It is the shock within the ground which excites the structure and induces the inertial force in the
system.
Effect of earthquake on soil foundation system :-
Having explained in the earlier section that the primary source of disturbance is in the soil itself,
it is important to assess and know what could be the effects of an earthquake on the soil on
which a structure is built. For it should be understood that irrespective of how well an earthquake
resistant design is carried out for a structure if the ground supporting it fails, the structure will
invariably undergo significant damage and which at times could even be catastrophic5.
The major effect on soil affected by an earthquake can be classified as follows :1) Liquefaction of soil
2) Settlement of foundation due to deep seated liquefaction failure
3) Reduction of bearing capacity
4) Ground Subsidence
5) Land Slides
Of all the phenomenon defined above liquefaction is perhaps the most important factor which
has caused catastrophe in many previous earthquakes, and unfortunately gets very little
attention from structural engineers in a design office 6.Thus it is important to understand what is
the phenomenon and what are methods available to assess and mitigate it.
What is Liquefaction?
Conceptually speaking liquefaction is very much akin to giving a rapid squeeze to a sponge ball
saturated with water. When the squeeze is applied, we observe that the water stored inside the
sponge comes out and the sponge feels lighter as the water comes out.
For soil sample (specially when it is cohesionless) the shear strength is given by the expression
3
Since liquid have no shear resistance it cannot travel through water.

This is very much similar to ripples produced by a pebble dropped in a pond.
5
Nigata Earthquake in Japan 1964 was one of the primary example where a number of structures
underwent significant damages due to ground subsidence and liquefaction of soil
6
Especially in India where in previous earthquakes significant damage has been recorded due to this
phenomenon.
4

Sharjah
Page 4
8/30/2006
s = ( u ) tan
Here s= shear strength of the soil
= Overburden pressure of the soil sample
u= insitu pore pressure within the soil sample
= angle of internal friction of the soil sample
When earthquake force acts on the soil sample it produces a rapid shock on the body, by virtue
of which there is a sudden increase in pore pressure, which cannot dissipate readily.
When the force of earthquake is significantly high(M>=6.5) which also results in ground shaking
for a good amount of time the pore pressure increment becomes such that it equals the
overburden pressure and the soil looses its shear strength altogether(i.e. s=0) and starts flowing
like a liquid. This phenomenon is otherwise known as liquefaction of soil.
When such phenomenon is observed during an earthquake soil collapses completely and sand
boils are observed in the ground. Even c- soils losses significant part of its strength resulting in
bearing capacity failures of foundation and or significant settlement.
Liquefaction of soil has been observed in a number of earthquakes throughout the world like
Nigata in Japan(1964), Kobe in Japan(1995), Dhubri and Koyna(1967) Earthquakes in India.
From above discussion it is obvious that non-plastic cohesionless soil under saturated
condition are most susceptible to earthquake.
As SPT value has been extensively used to define the static engineering strength of
cohesionless soil consistently it was but natural that researchers tried to co-relate SPT values of
cohesion less sandy soil to liquefaction potential of soil samples to earthquake shocks.
Pioneering research work was done in this area by Seed, Idriss and Tokimatsu who correlated
the observed SPT values to Cyclic resistance ratio which is one of the major parameters used to
define the liquefaction potential of a soil sample.
We will talk more about this later, first let us see how liquefaction is measured for a particular
soil sample.
The susceptibility of a soil sample undergoing liquefaction is measured by a term called
liquefaction potential, which is measured as a factor of safety against cyclic resistance ratio to
cyclic stress ratio.
Mathematically speaking it is defined as :CRR
FS =
1.0
(10.1)
CSR
Here FS.= Factor of safety against Liquefaction
CSR= Cyclic stress ratio
CRR=Cyclic resistance ratio
In other words ( based on the above formulation) if the factor of safety is less than or
equal to 1.0 the soil has very good possibility of undergoing liquefaction under an
earthquake, however if the value is greater than 1.0 the possibility of soil failure due to
liquefaction is remote.
Thus it is obvious that we need to first understand what does CSR and CRR stand for.
During earthquake the soil under influence of earthquake will be subjected to repetitive shear
stress( known as cyclic shear stress) and is estimated by the expression
CSR =
a
av
= 0.65 max
'v
g
' v

Sharjah
rd
(10.2)
Page 5
8/30/2006
Here amax=Maximum acceleration at the ground surface

v= Total overburden pressure at the design depth
' v = Effective overburden pressure at the design depth
g= Acceleration due to gravity
rd = Stress reduction factor which varies with depth and is given by
rd = 1.0 0.000765 z for z 9.15m
rd = 1.174 0.0267 z for 9.15m z 23m
rd = 0.744 0.008 z for 23m z 30m
(10.3a)
(10.3b)
(10.3c)
rd = 0.5 for z 30m

(10.3d)
7
For ease of electronic computation rd may also be expressed by the expression
rd =
(1.000 0.4113z
(1.000 0.4177 z
0 .5
+ 0.04052 z + 0.001753 z 1.5

+ 0.5729 z 0.006205 z 1.5 + 0.001210 z 2
0 .5
(10.4)
The maximum acceleration of the ground ( a max ) is another factor, which needs careful
evaluation.
For practical design office purpose one of the expression used to evaluate amax is
a max = 0.184 10 0.320 M (D )
0.8
(10.5)
Here a max = Maximum ground acceleration

M= Expected Moment Magnitude of earthquake
D= Maximum epicentral distance in km.
It may be noted that if more reliable observed earthquake data is available for the site
(predicting ground acceleration more accurately) it may well be used in lieu of the above
formula.
Having calculated the cyclic stress ratio based on the above expressions it is essential to
evaluate the cyclic resistance ratio(CRR) of the in-situ soil.
It is evident that the CRR value of the soil sample will depend on its in-situ strength. Since
Laboratory testing can be carried out under a better controlled environment, one of the
plausible method which has been tried is to collect in-situ undisturbed soil sample for
evaluation of the parameter CRR in the laboratory.
However, one of the major difficulty encountered in this is that generally the in-situ stress
state cannot be established in the laboratory, and specimens of granular soil retrieved with
typical drilling techniques are far too disturbed to yield any meaningful results.
Only through very specialized sampling techniques such as ground freezing sufficiently
undisturbed sample can be obtained, which again becomes a prohibitively costly affair for all
but most critical projects.
It is for this co-relating the CRR value with field observed test data is still the sate of
the art practice.
7
This formula was proposed by Thomas F Blake (Fugro-West Inc, Ventura Califormia)

Sharjah
Page 6
8/30/2006
Co-Relation between CRR and SPT value:For calculation of CRR based on observed SPT value(No), as a first step the observed SPT
value is subjected to certain corrections as expressed hereafter
(N1 )60 = N o (C N )(C E )(C B )(C R )(C S )
(10.6)
Here N o = Measured SPT value at the site
C N = Is a correction factor for overburden pressure
C E = Is a correction factor for Hammer energy ratio
C B = Is a correction factor for borehole diameter
C R = Is a correction factor for rod length
C S = Is a correction factor for sampler with or without liners
(N1 )60 = Corrected SPT value with 60% hammer efficiency.
The correction factors for various equipment parameters are as shown hereafter in Table-1
Factor
Overburden pressure
Energy Ratio
Rod length
Bore Hole Diameter

Sampling Method
Equipment Parameter
Independent of Equipment
Term
CN
Correction factor
Pa
'v
Safety Hammer
Doughnut Hammer
CE
0.6 to1.17
3 to 4 m
4 to 6 m
6 to10 m
10 to 30 m
> 30m
65 to 115 mm
150 mm
200 mm
Standard Sampler
Sampler without Liners
CR
CB
CS
0.45 to 1.0
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.0
>1.0
1.0
1.05
1.15
1.0
1.2
Table-1 Correction factors to observed SPT values

Here Pa= Atmospheric pressure or 100kPa(100kN/m2)
' v = Effective overburden pressure at depth of the standard penetration sample
Having established the design SPT value ( N1 )60 the cyclic resistance ratio(CRR) is given by the
expression for clean sands(i.e.< 5% contents) as
a + by + cy 2 + dy 3
where
(10.7)
CRR =
1 + ey + fy 2 + gy 3 + hy 4

Sharjah
Page 7
8/30/2006
a=0.048, b=0.004721,c=0.0006136, d=-1.673X10-5,e=-0.1248,f=0.009578,g=-0.0003285,

h=3.714X10-6 and y= ( N1 )60 .
The above equation is valid for ( N1 )60 less than 30.For clean granular soil for N>30 are far
too dense to liquefy and are generally classed as non-liquefiable.
Another expression, which is used for clean sand base for computation of CRR is8
(N )
1
50
1
+ 1 60 +
(10.8)
2
34 ( N1 ) 60
135
[10 ( N1 ) 60 + 45] 200
Here CRR7.5 = The Cyclic resistance ratio at Earthquake Magnitude of 7.5
Influence of fine contents on CRR value:While developing the original expression Seed et al.(1985) noted an apparent increase of CRR
value with an with increased fine contents. Whether this can be attributed to an increase in
resistance or decrease in penetration resistance is not clear.
However to cater to this it has been recommended correction to SPT values for the influence of
fine contents. Other grain characteristics like Plasticity index (PI) may also affect the liquefaction
resistance as well , however is not so well defined till date. Hence corrections based solely on
fine contents is used and should be mellowed with judgment and caution.
I.M.Idriss and R.B.Seed proposed corrections of ( N1 )60 to an equivalent clean sand value
(N1 )60CS given by
CRR7.5 =
(N1 )60CS = + ( N1 ) 60
(10.9)
where and are determined from the following relationships as shown in Table-2
Sl NO
1
2
3
4
5
Values of and
=0
190
1.76
2
= e FC
= 5 .0
= 1.0
FC 1.5
1000
= 0.99 +
Fine content
For FC 5%
5% FC 35%
FC 35%
For FC 5%
5% FC 35%
= 1.2
FC 35%
Table-2 :- Modification factor to SPT value based on Fine contents

The above equations can now be used for routine liquefaction resistance calculation for soil
subjected to SPT at field.
Effect of Earthquake Magnitude on Liquefaction Resistance :The original study of the liquefaction potential was based on a magnitude of 7.5 earthquake. To
evaluate the potential at earthquake of other magnitude correction factors were proposed that
allows induced stress ratios for other magnitudes be adjusted to correspond to a magnitude of
7.5 by dividing the stress ratios by the factors as shown hereafter Table-3
After Alan.F.Rauch at the University of Texas 1998.

Sharjah
Page 8
8/30/2006
Sl No
Earthquake Magnitude
1
2
3
4
5
5.25
6
6.75
7.5
8.5
Magnitude scaling
Factor
1.5
1.32
1.13
1.0
0.89
Table-3 :- Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by Seed and Idriss

The magnitude scaling factor as proposed above based on recent research is now believed to
be very conservative for moderate size earthquake. A new set of MSF has now been proposed
by Idriss where the MSF is defined as function of Moment Magnitude and is given by
10 2.24
MSF = 2.56
M
(10.10)
We furnish below in Taqble-4 data furnished by other researchers on the MSF value varying with
earthquake magnitude:Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Magnitude Seed And

Idriss(original)
5.5
1.43
6
1.32
6.5
1.19
7
1.08
7.5
1
8
0.94
8.5
0.89
Idriss(Later) Arango
Ambreseys
2.2
1.76
1.44
1.19
1
0.84
0.72
2.86
2.2
1.69
1.3
1
0.67
0.44
3
2
1.6
1.25
1
0.75
2.2
1.65
1.4
1.1
1
0.85
Andrus &
Stokoe
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.25
1
0.8
0.65
Table-4:- Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by various investigators

The factor of safety against Liquefaction can now be expressed as
CRR7.5
FS =
MSF
CSR
Where CRR 7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake
(10.11)
Whatever has been discussed previously will now be further clarified by a suitable problem,
which covers the whole gamut of the above conditions

Sharjah
Page 9
8/30/2006
Example 10.1
GWL
Density of soil =18/m3

Density of soil =20kN/m3
1.0 m
2.0m
Average SPT Value=13

Saturated Density of soil=19.6 kN/m3
6.0m
Figure-3:- Soil Profile of a site with typical soil properties.
As shown in the above figure 3 is a site soil profile which consists of 3.0meter of silty clay underlain by 6
meter of sand whose average SPT value is 13.The ground water table is observed to be at a level of 1.0
meter below Ground level. The dry density of the of the silty clay is 18 KN/m3, while that in saturated
condition is 20 KN/m3.The saturated density of sand is 19.6kN/m3.Sieve analysis shows the sand to have
Fines content as 15%.Find the liquefaction potential when the site is considered to be 150 kM away from
the epicentre having an earthquake Moment magnitude of 6.5?The SPT test was carried out by standard
sampler with safety hammer & having rod length of 6.0 meter. The diameter of the bore hole was 150mm
Solution
Considering a max = 0.184 10
0.320 M
(D )0.8 g
Here M=6.5 and D=150 kM which gives
a max = 0.184 10 0.3206.5 (150)
0.8
g = 0.4017 g
Effective vertical stress at center of the sand layer is

' v = 18 1.0 + 20 2 + 9.6 3 = 86.8 KN/m2
The gross vertical pressure at center of the sand layer
v = 18 1.0 + 20 2 + 19.6 3 = 116.8 KN/m2
The depth below ground where liquefaction potential is calculated is 1+2+3=6m
Thus z=6.0 m<9.15 meter which gives
rd = 1.0 0.000765 z
or rd = 1.0 0.000765 6 = 0.9954
v
rd we have
' v
0.4017 g 116.8
CSR = 0.65
0.9954 = 0.3497
g
86.8
a max
g
Considering CSR = 0.65

Sharjah
Page 10
8/30/2006
The corrected SPT value is given by
(N1 )60 = N o (C N )(C E )(C B )(C R )(C S )

Here N o = 13
100
, C E = 1.0 , C B = 1.05 , C R = 0.85 , C S = 1.0
86.8
CN =
Thus ( N1 )60 = 13
100
1.0 1.05 0.85 1.0 = 12.45
86.8
For FC=15% we have
=e
or
190
1.76
FC 2
190
1.76 2
15
= e
and
= 2.498
FC 1.5
1000
= 0.99 +
151.5
= 1.048
1000
or = 0.99 +
Thus corrected SPT value is given by ( N 1 )60CS = + (N 1 ) 60

Or, ( N 1 )60CS = 2.498 + 1.048 12.45 = 15.5
Considering CRR7.5 =
We have CRR7.5 =
(N )
1
50
1
+ 1 60 +
2
34 ( N 1 ) 60
135
[10 ( N1 ) 60 + 45] 200
1
15.5
50
1
+
+
= 0.16511
2
34 15.5 135 [10 15.5 + 45]
200
The Magnitude scaling factor is given by
MSF =
10 2.24
M 2.56
or, MSF =
10 2.24
= 1.44
6.5 2.56
CRR7.5
MSF
CSR
Thus FS =
Or
0.16511
FS =
1.44 = 0.6798 < 1.0
0.3497

Sharjah
Page 11
8/30/2006
Thus as the factor of safety being less than 1.0 the soil has a high chance of liquefaction during an
earthquake.
Correlation between CRR and CPT value:Other than SPT, cone penetration test(CPT) is also used in field for evaluation of geo-technical
engineering parameters. As such investigators have also tried to co-relate the CPT value with CRR for
evaluation of liquefaction potential. One of the advantages with CPT being that since it is a continuous
process, thin layers of soil that one can miss by SPT will not be missed in this case.
As stated earlier, equation (10.2) is used to determine the CSR value .The CRR value is indirectly corelated to CPT by developing relationship between CPT and SPT value.
As per Seed and Idriss
q c = 4 to 5 N for clean sand and

q c = 3.5 to 4.5 N for silty sand
Here q c = Is the observed CPT value in Mpa
Once an equivalent SPT value is obtained from the observed q c rest of the procedure remains same as
stated earlier.
Murthy et al has given following relationship which can also be used to obtain equivalent SPT values
from the observed cone penetration values.
State of sand
Very loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Dr
<0.2
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0.6-0.8
0.8-1.0
N
<4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
qc(Mpa)
<2.0
2-4
4-12
12-20
>20
<30
30-35
35-40
40-45
>45
Table5- Relationship between Relative density of fine sand ,SPT, Cone resistance and
angle of friction
Schmertmann(1978) presented relationship between SPT value and CPT values for various
types of soil which are also used extensively in design offices to determine equivalent SPT
values from observed CPT values.
Type of Soil
Sand and gravel Mixture
Sand
Sandy Silt
Clay-Silt sand mixture
Insensitive clay
qc/N
6
4
3
2
1.5
Table 6- Relationship between SPT, CPT values for different types of soil after
Schmertmann(1978)

Sharjah
Page 12
8/30/2006
Liquefaction of clay :Normally clay is a substance which is deemed non liquefiable. However based on experience of
earthquake in China it is now established that there are certain types of clay, which under
shaking do undergo liquefaction.
As a rule of thumb, a clay sample will be deemed liquefiable provided all of the following criteria
as mentioned below are complied with :-
Weight of soil particles finer then 0.005 mm is less then 15% of the dry weight of the
soil.
The liquid limit(LL) of the soil is less then 35%.
The moisture content of the soil is less than 0.9 times the liquid limit of soil.
Clayey soil meeting not all of the above criteria are usually considered non liquefiable.
Settlement of foundation due to liquefaction failure:We had stated in our earlier section of liquefaction that during earthquake due to shock, there is
a sudden increase in pore pressure that cannot dissipate immediately resulting in lose of shear
strength of soil. However, in course of time, this pore pressure do dissipate away towards the
surface resulting in volumetric deformation of the ground. Considering the above phenomenon
and heterogeneous nature of soil the soil may undergo differential settlement which could be
critical for building foundations and underground lifelines.
A technique to estimate the ground settlement has been proposed by Ishihara and Yoshimine
wherein they developed a chart based on which the post liquefaction volumetric strain is corelated to the FS value(CRR/CSR) and the SPT value as shown here after.
Insert Ishihara & Yoshimine curve.
Figure-4 Ishihara and Yoshmine Curve for computation of volunmetric strain
Based on above curve once we know the FS and SPT value the volumetric strain is read off
from the curve and settlement is obtained based on multiplying this strain with the depth of the
soil.
The above is now further elaborated by a problem hereafter
Example 10.2
For the soil sample as described in example 10.1 estimate the settlement of the sandy layer considering all
other boundary conditions remaining identical.
Solution:From previous example we have seen
0.1651
FS =
1.44 = 0.6798 < 1.0 which shows that the soil can undergo liquefaction
0.3497
We has also seen that the corrected SPT value of the soil is N=15.5 say 16
Referring to Ishihara & Yoshimines chart we find volumetric strain = 3%
Thus settlement of the sand layer of 6 meter is =

Sharjah
3
6000 = 180 mm
100
Page 13
8/30/2006
Reduction of Bearing Capacity of soil

Normally it is believed that earthquake has marginal effect on the bearing capacity of soil. As a
matter of fact it is often a common practice and advised in many codes to increase the allowable
1
bearing capacity by 25 to 33 %.
3
The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that normally when we find the bearing capacity
of soil, we find out the ultimate bearing capacity of soil. Dividing it by a factor of safety we arrive
at the allowable bearing capacity of the soil. This is mostly as per the general shear failure
theory of the soil whence, either Terzaghi, Meyerhof or Brinch Hansens formula is used.
However in many cases and especially for cohesive soil, it is the settlement -which governs the
design bearing capacity of soil.
Thus during an earthquake which is considered once in a lifetime phenomenon on the structure,
a lowering of the factor of safety on the bearing capacity is usually deemed acceptable, and
hence allowable bearing capacity is increased.
However it should be made clear that such increment is valid for a particular case of when the
foundation is resting on
Crystalline rocks having no horizontal fragments or laminations
Dense compacted sand having SPT value > 30
Stiff to very stiff clay with nominal plastic flow.
If the soil is otherwise made of fragmented rock, loose sand or soft plastic clay sensitive to
vibration this increased bearing capacity value should not be used.9
In such cases there could be significant reduction in strength when the foundation can undergo
either a local shear failure( when the foundation punches through the overlying soil due to
liquefaction of the bottom layer) or undergo a general shear failure when there is significant
change in the soil property for which the bearing capacity factors Nc,Nq, and N undergoes
reduction resulting in a reduced bearing capacity.
Punching Shear Failure of soil:To understand how local shear failure can occur let us consider the soil profile as shown in
figure 4
P
Figure-5:- Soil Profile of a site with foundation resting on top layer on non-liquefiable soil
Unfortunately many design engineers hardly give consideration to this and believes this increase of
bearing capacity of foundation almost a sacrosanct issue.
Sharjah
Page 14
8/30/2006
As shown in figure 4 let us consider a case of a foundation resting on top layer of shallow clayey
soil which is non liquefiable, underlain by a layer of loose sand susceptible to liquefaction.
It is apparent from figure 4 that depth of the layer below the footing to the top of liquefiable sand
layer is quite less and it might so happen that if the bottom layer looses its strength and the
foundation is subjected to heavy load from superstructure the foundation may punch through this
thin layer of soil and collapse causing serious damage to the super-structure. Similar to a
column punching through a RCC footing here the whole foundation punches through the soil
along the vertical dotted line to collapse.
To prevent this happening we calculate a factor of safety (FS) expressed as
2( B + L) Z f
for isolated footing
FS =
P
2 Z f
and FS =
for strip footing.
P
Here B= Width of foundation in meter
L= Length of foundation in meter
Z= Depth of soil layer from bottom of footing to the top of liquefiable soil
f = Shear strength of un-liquefiable layer of soil in kN/m2.
If the top layer of non liquefiable soil is cohesive in nature( clay) then the shear strength is given
by
f = S u where S u = Un-drained shear strength of the soil.
For c soil (undrained shear strength parameters) the shear strength is given by: f = c + h tan
Here h = Horizontal total stress in kN/m2. For cohesive soil this is often assumed as 0.5 v
For an un-liquefiable soil layer of cohesionless soil the shear strength is given by
f = ' h tan ' = k 0 ' v tan '

Here ' h = Effective horizontal stress in kN/m2 and is equal to the coefficient of passive
pressure at rest times the vertical effective stress ' v
' = Effective angle of friction of cohesionless soil.
We now show the application of the above based on a suitable problem as shown hereafter.
Example 10.3
P =650kN
3m
Layer-1 Non-Liquefiable plastic clay
9m

Sharjah
Layer-2 Liquefiable sandy layer
Page 15
8/30/2006
Figure-6:- Soil Profile of a site with foundation resting on top layer on non-liquefiable soil
As shown in the figure 5 a footing of size 3mX2m is place on a stiff clayey silt layer of undrained shear
strength Su=50 kN/m2 and =10o.The footing has maximum load of 650kN on it (including its own
weight).The clay layer is underlain by a layer of loose sand 9.0 meter deep which susceptible to
liquefaction. Find the factor of safety of the foundation under punching shear failure. The foundation is
resting at depth of 1.5 meter below ground level. Density of soil of top layer is 20 KN/m3
Solution:As per the problem
Z = 3.0 1.5 = 1.5 meter.
v = 20 1.5 = 30 kN/m2
Thus
h = 0.5 30 = 15 kN/m2.
f = 50 + 15 tan 10 = 52.64 kN/m2

Thus resistive force = 2( B + L) Z
= 2(3 + 2) 1.5 52.64 = 789.6 kN
789.6
= 1.214 . Considering the uncertainty in soil FS=1.2 could be a low value
650
General Shear failure capacity reduction due to liquefaction :This phenomenon is generally observed in case of the soil supporting the foundation is a stiff
clay layer underlain by sandy layer susceptible to liquefaction.
The ultimate bearing capacity of foundation based on general shear failure theory is given by
Terzaghis equation as
1
qult = cN c + qN q + s BN
2
The first term cN c gives the strength of the soil due to its cohesive property. The second term
depicts the effect of overburden soil which goes on to increase the bearing capacity of the soil
1
and the last term s BN gives the frictional strength of the soil where the term N is a
2
function of the friction angle .
For clayey soil as = 0 , gives N = 0 and N q = 1 ,For spread footing considering the aspect
Thus
FS =
ratio(B/L) correction we thus have

B
qult = cN c 1 + 0.3 + D f which is modified to

L
qult = S u N c 1 + 0.3 + D f .
L
For shallow foundation near the ground as the second term has minimal effect, for all practical
purpose we can consider the equation to be
B
qult = S u N c 1 + 0.3
L
For the bottom layer of liquefiable soil there is obviously a reduction in value of Nc and this is
usually function of the ratio of Z/B as follows
Sharjah
Page 16
8/30/2006
Z
B
0
0.25
0.5
1.0
1.5
0
0.7
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.5
Table 7- Reduction in value of Nc for Z/B ratio

Here B= Width of the foundation
Z= Height of soil from bottom of foundation to the top of liquefiable soil.
Example 10.3
For the example problem cited in example 10.3 find the reduced bearing capacity of the foundation
considering the top layer of soil as stiff clay of undrained shear strength of 50kN/m2.All other parameters
remains same as the earlier problem.Consider Nc=5.5 for clayey soil.
Solution:Under unliquefied state the ultimate bearing capacity is given by
qult = S u N c 1 + 0.3 + D f
L
For =0 Nc=5.5 which gives
qult = 50 5.51 + 0.3 + 20 1.5 = 360 kN/m2

3
Considering foundation size as 2mX3m we have
Qult = 360 2 3 = 2160 kN

FS =
2160
= 3.32
650
When the bottom soil is liquefied considering
Z 1.5
=
= 0.75 referring to table 7 reduced Nc value =1.9
B 2.0
2
+ 20 1.5 = 144 kN/m2

3
= 144 2 3 = 864 kN.
Thus q ult = 50 1.91 + 0.3

Hence Qult
Thus FS =
864
= 1.3 which is low and should preferably be about 1.5
650

Sharjah
Page 17
8/30/2006
Ground Subsidence due to earthquake

During an earthquake of major magnitude there are many cases of ground subsidence and land
slides which has wrecked havoc on many structures and specially underground services which
may get severely damaged due to this.
In the Sanfrancisco Bay earthquake(1906) major source of damage was fire which broke out as
an aftermath of the earthquake and could not be contained as most of the underground water
pipe lines were severely damaged due to ground subsidence and became non-functional.
The major reason for this subsidence is again deep seated liquefaction for which the soils starts
to flow and due to differential or non uniform flow can split apart a structure built on it. Roads
and pavements have been observed to undergo extensive damage due to subsidence and was
a major observation in Chi Chi Earthquake in Taiwan(1999).When the slope of the ground is
less or equal to 6% the flow of soil is generally defined as a lateral displacement of soil. When
this slope is more than 6% the same is know as a land slide.
A number of researches have been carried out to develop a mathematical model, which would
effectively predict the subsidence of the ground during a major earthquake. However, parametric
functions being so many in numbers and uncertain that there is yet a model which can stated as
unconditionally applicable.
The most used mathematical model for practical engineering purpose is one empirical model
developed by Bartlet and Youd developed based on historical data collected from 6 earthquakes
in USA and two in Japan.
The proposed to expressions one for sites near steep banks with a free face, the other with
sites having gently sloped terrain.
For free faced condition :-
LogDH = 16.3658 + 1.1782M 0.9275LogR 0.0133R + 0.6572 LogW + 0.3483LogT15

+ 4.5270 Log (100 F15 ) 0.9224 D5015
For sloped terrain condition :LogD H = 15.7870 + 1.1782 M 0.9275 LogR 0.0133R + 0.4293LogS + 0.3483LogT15
+ 4.5270 Log (100 F15 ) 0.9224 D5015
Here
DH=Estimated average ground displacement in meters
D5015 = Average mean grain size of the liquefiable layer
M=Moment magnitude of the earthquake
R=Epicentral distance in kM
F15=Average fine content(passing ASTM 200 sieve) for the liquefiable layer in%
T15 is the cumulative thickness of the saturated granular layer in meters having blow count<15
S=Ground slope in percent
W=Ratio of height(H) of the free face to the distance (L) from the base of the free pace to point
in questioning percent

Sharjah
Page 18
8/30/2006
Example 10.4
30meter
Density of soil =20kN/m3

Average SPT Value=13
Saturated Density of soil=19.6 kN/m3
6.0m
Figure-7:- Soil Profile of a site with typical soil properties.

As shown in the above figure 6 is a site soil profile which consists of 3.0meter of clay underlain by 6 meter
of sand whose average SPT value is 13 which is susceptible to earthquke. The site consists of a canal
flowing across as shown in the above figure.
The density of the clay is 20 KN/m3.The saturated density of sand is 19.6kN/m3.Sieve analysis shows the
sand to have Fines content as 15%.The average grain size diameter of the sand layer is 0.032 .A power
house is to be in built on this site located at distance of 30 meter from the canal bank. The site is
considered to be 50 kM away from the epicentre having an earthquake Moment magnitude of 6.75.Find the
estimated movement of soil with this free face condition.
Solution:Here R=50 kM
M=6.75
W=H/L=3/30=0.1=10%
T=6 meter
D50=0.32
Considering
LogDH = 16.3658 + 1.1782M 0.9275LogR 0.0133R + 0.6572 LogW + 0.3483LogT15

+ 4.5270 Log (100 F15 ) 0.9224 D5015 we have
LogD H = 16.3658 + 1.1782 6.75 0.9275 Log 50 0.0133 50 + 0.6572 Log10 + 0.3483Log 6
+ 4.5270 Log (100 10) 0.9224 0.032
LogD H = 16.3658 + 7.95285 1.576 0.665 + 0.6572 + 0.271 + 8.846 0.295 = 1.1751
which gives DH=0.068 meters

Considering uncertainties this value can vary from half to double thus estimated value is
0.04m to 0.134 m
Sharjah
Page 19
8/30/2006
Effect of earthquake on structures :

From above discussion it is obvious that earthquake has a profound influence soil, and since a
structure is built on this soil- it do also affects its response.
Potential energy stored in earth faults are released due to its rupture and generates kinetic
energy in form of stress waves in soil which propagates as P and S waves on the surface of the
earth and induces acceleration on structures and foundations built on the surface of the earth.
Thus as per Newtons law of motion the structure is subjected to force based on its inertial mass,
which it has to resist based on its stiffness and ensure that the stresses and deformations
induced in the structure and foundation are within the safe limits.
The above in essence is the basic philosophy of earthquake resistant design.
The analytical methods adapted for earthquake analysis for different class of structures and
foundations may be classified into following category :
Seismic coefficient method or equivalent static method

Response spectrum Method or Psuedo Static analysis
Dynamic analysis which is further subdivided into:o Modal analysis
o Time History analysis.
We as a first step would study in general the basic principles underlying the above methods and
finally see their application to different class of structures and foundations like buildings, tall
chimneys, elevated water tank, retaining walls earth dams etc.
Seismic Coefficient Method:This is an approach where the earthquake force is treated as an equivalent static force based on
the zonal classification of a country10.
Though earthquake force in essence is dynamic in nature based on the potential occurrence of
earthquake in a particular zone, the soil condition, the type of foundation code recommended a
certain percentage of weight of the structure which would it expect to resist as lateral force.
It should be noted that this method is now obsolete in terms of latest code IS-1893 2002 and
may only be used with caution just to get an idea about the extent of force it may generate in a
particular zone for a particular type of structure, and that too only for cases where large number
of human life is not endangered- either due to direct or indirect effect of earthquake.
Based on the seismic zoning, soil foundation system, importance factor etc we derive a factor
h ,which is given by
h = I 0 where
=A coefficient depending on the soil foundation system as given in Table 9
I= Importance factor as furnished in Table 10
0 = Basic horizontal seismic coefficient as given in Table 8
10
It is presumed the reader has a copy of the earthquake code like IS-1893(1984 and 2002) at hand for
cross reference.
Sharjah
Page 20
8/30/2006
Zone
Classification
V
IV
III
II
I
Seismic
Coefficient(0)
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
Table-8:- Basic seismic coefficient as per IS-1893 1984
Type of
soil
constituting
the
foundation
Rock or
hard soil
Medium
soil
Soft soil
Pile
passing
through
any soil
but
resting
on rock
1.0
Piles on
any other
soil
Raft
Combined
foundations or Isolated
RCC
Foundation
with tie
beams
Isolated
Fdn
without
tie
beams
Well
Foundations
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Not
1.0
applicable
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.0
Table-9:- Soil Foundation factor for various soil foundation system as per IS-1893-1984
Type of structure
Dams(all types)
Containers of inflammable or poisonous gases
or liquids.
Important service and community structures
such as hospitals, water towers and tanks,
schools important bridges, important power
houses, monumental structures, emergency
buildings like telephone exchange fire bridge ,
large assembly buildings like structures like
cinemas, assembly halls and subway stations.
All others
Importance factor (I)

3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
Table-10:- Value of importance factor I as per IS-1893 1984

Sharjah
Page 21
8/30/2006
Based on above having derived the value of h, the base shear acting at the soil foundation
level is given by
V=KChW for multistoried frames or buildings and
V= hW for all other type of structures
Where
V= Base shear on the structure due to a given earthquake
K= A factor known as the performance factor of the frame
C=A coefficient defining flexibility of a structure with the increase in number of storeys
depending on fundamental time period.
The value of performance factor K for different type of framing is as given in table 11 below :Structural Framing System
Moment resistance frame with
appropriate ductility details as given
in Is-4326
Frame as above with RC shear
walls or steel bracing members
designed for ductility
Frame as in figure 1a with either
steel bracing members or plain or
nominally reinforced concrete infill
panels
Frame as in 1a in combination with
masonry infill
Reinforced concrete framed
buildings(Not covered by 1 or 2
above)
Value of
performance factor
K
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.6
Table-11:- Value of performance factor I as per IS-1893 1984

The value of flexibility factor C versus time is as given in Figure 8 as presented below
Flexibility factor C
Flexilbility factor C
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Time period in seconds

Sharjah
Page 22
8/30/2006
Figure-8:- Value of flexibility factor C as per IS-1893 1984

For calculation of time period ,code has furnished some empirical formulas from which it may be
found out as follows:
For moment resisting frame without bracings or shear walls for resisting the lateral
loads
T = 0.1n
Here n= number of storeys including basement storeys.
For all others

T=
0.09 H
d
Here H= Total height of the main structure in meters and

d= Maximum base dimension of building in meters in direction parallel to the applied
seismic force.
The above formulations are only valid for buildings which are regular in shape and have regular
distribution of mass or stiffness both in horizontal and /or vertical plane.
The value of 0 @ 0.08 has been obtained for zone V based on observations of earthquake
occurrence in that zone however the values for other has been reduced proportionally, the basis
of this reduction has never been very explicit.
Though the above method has now been made obsolete in the recent code(IS-1893-2002) but
still remains in practice in design offices to estimate preliminarily the magnitude of earthquake
force before a more detailed analysis is carried out.
Example 10.5
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Figure 9:- Plan view of the frame

An RCC building having frame layout is as shown in figure 4 above. The transverse cross section of the
frame is a shown in figure 3 below. Given the following loading and geometric dimensions of the various
Sharjah
Page 23
8/30/2006
structural members calculate the base on the building as per seismic coefficient method IS-1893(1984)
considering zone IV.Consider soil foundation system as of medium stiffness.
EL 116.4
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL 102.0
Tie beam all round
4.0
4.0
EL 100.0
Figure 10:- Transverse elevation of the frame

Loadings:
Live load on roof = 2kN/m2

Live load on other floors= 4kN/m2
Parapet wall on roof = 1.5 meter all round
Internal Partition walls = 1 kN/m2
Floor finish
= 1.5 kN/m2
Cement plaster on ceiling = 50 mm
Geometric Properties( Dimensions in mm) :
Column size = 300X 600

Beam size in transverse direction = 300X 450
Beam size in longitudinal direction = 300X 600
Average thickness of water proofing on roof= 75 mm
All external walls 250 mm thick
Material Properties :
Density of concrete = 25 kN/m3

Density of brick = 20 kN/m3
Density cement plaster = 24 kN/m3
Grade of concrete = M25
Seismic zone properties :Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Sharjah
Page 24
8/30/2006
Seismic zone = Zone IV

Soil type Medium stiff
Foundation type= Isolated footings with tie beams at 1.0 meter below Ground level
Consider no live load on roof and 50% reduction in live load for other floors during earthquake
Solution :Calculation of roof load(El 116.4)Assume slab thickness =125 mm
Wt of slab = 0.125 24 8 25 = 600 kN
Live Load on roof = 2.0 24 8 = 384 kN
Parapet wall (1.5 m high) = 1.5 0.25 2(24 + 8) 20 = 480 kN (considering 250 mm thk)
Water proofing on roof= 0.075 24 8 24 = 345.6 kN
Cement plaster on ceiling = 0.05 24 8 25 = 240 kN
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN
Wt of short beam = 0.3 (0.450 0.125) 8 5 25 = 97.5 kN
Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 1.8 15 25 = 121.5 kN
Total load on roof = 600+384+480+346+240+257+98+122=2527 kN
Calculation of load on other floors(El 112.8 109.2 and 105.6) Wt of slab = 0.125 24 8 25 = 600 kN
Live Load on floor = 4.0 24 8 = 768kN
Wt of partition wall = 1.0 24 8 = 192kN
Load from external brick wall
= (3.6 0.475) 0.25 48 20 + (3.6 0.275) 0.25 16 20 = 1016 kN
Cement plaster on ceiling = 0.05 24 8 25 = 240 kN
Flooring on slab = 1.5 24 8 = 288 kN
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN
Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 3.6 15 25 = 243 kN
Total load on each floor = 600+768+192+1016+240+288+257+98+243=3702 kN
Sharjah
Page 25
8/30/2006
Calculation of load on ground floor (El 102.6)Load from external brick wall
= (3.6 0.475) 0.25 48 20 + (3.6 0.275) 0.25 16 20 = 1016 kN
Wt of long beam = 0.3 (0.6 0.125) 24 3 25 = 256.5 kN
Wt of columns = 0.3 0.6 2.8 15 25 = 189 kN
Total load on ground floor = 1016+257+189+98=1560 kN
Total Load to be considered for earthquake :Load at roof level =2527-384=2143 kN ( Considering no live load on roof during earthquake)
Load at EL 112.8 =3692-768+0.5X768=3308 kN( Considering 50% live load on each floor during earthquake).
Load at El 109.2= 3308 kN (Same as other floor)
Load at El 104.6= 1560 kN
Total Weight = 2143+3X3308+1560=13627 kN
Calculation of Seismic Coefficient :As stated in theory above a h =
For Seismic zone IV
I 0
0 = 0.05
For medium stiff soil with isolated foundations connected by tie beam b=1.0
For normal residential building importance factor I=1.0
Thus a h = 1.0 1.0 0.05 = 0.05
Considering T = 0.1n where n= number of storeys we have
T=0.5 secs based on which as IS-1893 1984 flexibility factor C=-.075
Considering Moment resistant frame with ductile detailing K=1.0
Thus Vb = KC hW
Or Vb = 1.0 0.75 0.05 13618 = 511.01 511 kN
Thus total base shear acting on building for an earthquake force acting in either transverse or longitudinal
direction is =511 KN11.
11
This is strictly not correct for we will see later that time period will vary in both direction based on its
stiffness and mass thus earthquake force will also vary accordingly. Moreover the force calculated
herein is the total force acting on the building considered as stick model. How the force is distributed in
each frame in plan as well as on each floor( vertically) we will see at a later stage.

Sharjah
Page 26
8/30/2006
Response spectrum method:This method has undergone almost a radical change compared to what is furnished in IS-1893
2002 and that what was furnished in IS-1893 1984.
In previous code(1984 version) it was observed that base shear developed based on seismic
coefficient method and that by response spectrum method were almost matching or were very
close for 5% damping in the system. However with the present version (2002) this force is
almost double the previous version. This we believe would significantly enhance the project cost
of all projects to come in future.
Response Spectrum Method as per 1984 version:Though the 1984 version has been made obsolete however for historical reason and also for
comparison with the present code we present below the steps followed in this method.
The 1984 version gave a set of curves representing the values Sa/g versus different time period
in seconds for different level of damping. The sets of curves are as shown in figure 11.
INSERT I984 CURVE OF IS-1893

Figure11:- Response Curve as per IS-1893 1984
The above curve is actually based on the curves generated by Housner based on his
observations and average spectrum obtained using four earthquake time histories.
Based on the response spectra curve as furnished in figure 11 for a particular time period of a
structure, the corresponding Sa/g is obtained for a particular damping ratio.
Based on the zonal demarcation like I, II, III, IV etc. code gives a values of response spectrum
factor F012 based on which the coefficient of horizontal seismic force is given by
Sa
g
Here and I are as already defined factors in the seismic coefficient method and the factor F0 is
as defined in Table 12 below.
h = IF0
12
This is exactly 5 times the value of 0 as given for seismic coefficient method.

Sharjah
Page 27
8/30/2006
Zone Classification
V
IV
III
II
I
Seismic Zone factor (F0)

0.40
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.05
Table-12:- Value of Seismic zone factor F0 as per IS-1893 1984

Once the value of h is known the rest of the procedure remains same as that for seismic
coefficient method.
It may be noted that here that the time period may either be obtained based on formulations as
given in code or may be found out based on a detailed dynamic analysis and forces then
obtained based on modal response technique13.
We now explain the above procedure based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 10.6
For the building cited in example 10.1 find the base shear as per response spectrum technique based on IS1893-1984. Consider the site to be zone 4 with medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the
structure.
Referring to figure-9 the time period of the building is given by
T = 0.1n = 0.5 sec.

For 0.5 sec and 5 % damping the Sa/g obtained from the curve as shown in Figure 11 is
Sa/g =0.16
As stated previously in example 10.1 =1.0 and I=1.0 and F0=0.25 as per Table 12
Thus
Or
h = IF0
Sa
g
h = 1.0X1.0X0.25X0.16=0.04
As shown in example 10.1 total weight of the structure W=13627 kN

For T=0.5 sec C=0.75 K=1.0.
Thus considering
V=KChW we have
V=1.0X0.75X0.04X13627=408.81=409 kN
Response Spectrum Method as per IS-1893 2002:-
13
This we are going to study in detail subsequently.

Sharjah
Page 28
8/30/2006
As stated at the outset the method has undergone a drastic modification with respect to the
present code. In lieu of the soil foundation factor () considered in the earlier code, the latest
version now defines the Sa/g curve for different type of soil starting with rock to soft soil.
Sa/g curve for various type of soil as per IS-1893 (2003) is shown in Figure 12 below for 5%
damping.
Spectral Acceleration
Coefficient(Sa/g)
Spectral Response as per IS-1893 2002

3
2.5
2
Sa/g(Hard
soil/Rock)
Sa/g(Medium
soil)
Sa/g(Soft soil)
1.5
1
0.5
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
0
Time Period(secs)
Figure 12:- Response Spectrum Curve Sa/g as per IS-1893(2002).

Moreover as computer analysis has almost become a daily routine work in day to day design
office practice-where it is preferable to have digital data of Sa/g for computer input, the code
now defines the Sa/g curve by direct formulas enabling one to furnish numerical input for
earthquake analysis by computer. The formulas suggested by code for various types of soil as
per Clause 6.4.4 of the code for 5% damping ratio are as follows:Type of soil
Rock or hard soil
Medium Soil
Soft Soil
Value of Sa/g
1+15T
2.5
1.00/T
1+15T
2.5
1.36/T
1+15T
2.5
1.67/T
Range
0.0<T<0.1
0.1<T<0.4
0.4<T<4.0
0.0<T<0.1
0.1<T<0.55
0.55<T<4.0
0.0<T<0.1
0.1<T<0.67
0.67<T<4.0
Table-13:- Expressions for Sa/g for different types of soil as per IS-1893 2002
The code has also given factors based on which the values of Sa/g obtained above may be
modified for different damping ratio.
Typical Sa/g curve for soft soil for different damping ratio are shown in Figure-13 while
multiplication factors to be considered for different damping ratios are furnished in Table 7.
Sharjah
Page 29
8/30/2006
Spectral Acceleration Soft soil
Spectral acceleration
coefficients(Sa/g)
Sa/g(5%)
2.5
Sa/g(7%)
Sa/g(10%)
1.5
Sa/g(15%)
Sa/g(20%)
Sa/g(25%)
0.5
Sa/g(30%)
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
Time period(secs)
Figure 13:- Response Spectrum Curve Sa/g for soft soil as per IS-1893(2002).
Damping 0
Ratio(%)
Factors 3.2
10
15
20
25
30
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.55
0.5
Table- 13:- Multiplying factors for obtaining values for other damping as per IS-1893
(2002)
The country unlike previously that was classified into 5 zones( zone I to V) in the present code
zone I has completely been deleted and the zones now constitute of zone II to V only. The zone
factors to be considered as per the present code is as presented in Table 14 below.
Seismic Zone
Seismic
intensity
Z
II
Low
III
Moderate
IV
Severe
V
Very severe
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.36
Table- 14:- Seismic Zone factor as per IS-1893 (2002)

The importance factor I has remain unchanged and as such the factors furnished earlier in Table
10 still holds good.
To bring it in line with international practice followed by other countries14, the code has now
introduced a new factor R which is known as the response reduction factor and also called the
ductility factor in many literature. This is the property of a body to dissipate energy by means of
its ductile behaviour and may be generated means of special detailing15.
The R factor for buildings constituting of different types of frames like Ordinary moment resistant
frames or special moment resistant frame etc whether it has shear wall etc has furnished
14
15
Specially UBC 1997, and NEHRP as followed in USA.

We will discuss more about this later.

Sharjah
Page 30
8/30/2006
different values. The value of the response reduction factor R for different types of structural
system as defined in IS-1893 2002 is furnished in Table 15 below.
Sl No
1
2
Lateral Load Resistant System

Ordinary moment resistant frame
Special Moment resisting frame specially detailed to provide
ductile behaviour
Steel Frame with:Concentric Bracing
Eccentric Bracing
Special moment resistant frame with ductile detailing
Buildings with shear walls
Load bearing Masonry wall buildings
Un-reinforced
Reinforced with horizontal RC band
Reinforced with horizontal RC band and vertical bars at
corners of rooms and jamb openings
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
Ductile shear walls
Buildings with Dual systems
Ordinary shear wall with OMRF
Ordinary shear wall with SMRF
Ductile shear wall with OMRF
Ductile shear wall with SMRF
3
3a
3b
4
5
5a
5b
5c
6
7
R
3.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
1.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
Table- 15:- Response reduction factor R as per IS-1893 (2002)

Based on the above data the design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure is
determined by the expression :Ah =
ZIS a
and the base shear is furnished by the expression
2 Rg
V = AhW
The empirical relation furnished by time period has also undergone some modifications. As per
the latest code the approximate fundamental time period in seconds for a moment resistant
frame without brick infill panels may be estimated by the empirical expression:
Ta = 0.075h 0.75 for RC frame building
Ta = 0.085h 0.75 for steel buildings
where h= height of the building

For all other buildings including moment resistant frame buildings with brick infill panels is
estimated from the formula
Sharjah
Page 31
8/30/2006
T=
0.09h
d
Where h=height of the building and

d=base dimension of the building at plinth level in meter along the direction of the lateral force.
Based on above we now solve a numerical problem to illustrate how base shear is obtained as
per latest IS-1893.
Example 10.7
For the building cited in example 10.1 find the base shear as per response spectrum technique based on IS1893-2002. Consider the site to be zone 4 with medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the
structure.
Referring to figure-9 the time period of the building is given by
T=
0.09h
d
Here h=16.4 meter and d=8m in transverse direction and d=24m in long direction thus
T=
T=
0.09 16.4
8
0.09 16.4
24
= 0.5218 sec in short direction and

= 0.3012 sec in long direction
Thus based on the response spectrum curve Sa/g=2.50 for both short and long direction
As per IS-1893 2002 for Zone IV Z=0.24
Considering SMRF with ductile detailing as per Table 9 R=5.0
ZIS a
2 Rg
0.24 1 2.5
= 0.06
Or Ah =
25
Thus Ah =
As shown in example 10.1 total weight of the structure W=13627 kN

Thus considering
V=AhW we have
V=0.06X13627=817.6 kN.
Thus based on the above three examples if we compare the base shear for the given building
we have as follows :-

Sharjah
Page 32
8/30/2006
Sl No
1
Code
IS-1893-1984
IS-1893-1984
IS-1893-2002
Method
Seismic
Coefficient
Method
Response
spectrum
Method
Do
Base Shear(kN)
511
Remarks
409
818
Table- 16:- Comparison of Base shear as per IS-1893 (1984) and IS-1893 2002
Dynamic analysis under earthquake loading:To understand the basic concept we start with system having single degree of freedom and
subsequently extend this to system having multi-degree of freedom.
Y
ut
X
ug
Figure-14:- Single bay portal subjected to Earthquake force
As shown in figure 14 a single bay portal subjected to an earthquake force for which the body
moves through a distance ug at base and undergoes additional deformation of u at top.
We had shown earlier that under time dependent force the equation of motion is given by
mu&& + cu& + ku = 0
where m= mass of the system

c=damping of the system(usually represented by a dash pot)
k= Stiffness of the system
u&&, u&, u = Acceleration, Velocity and displacement vectors.
As during the motion the body undergoes a rigid body motion in terms of ug it does not affect the
stiffness and damping of the system, which are affected by ut only.
Thus the above equation may represented as
m(u&&g + u t ) + cu& t + ku t = 0
Sharjah
Page 33
8/30/2006
From which we arrive at the expression

mu&&t + cu& t + ku t = mu&&g
or mu&&t + cu& t + ku t = Fe
Where Fe= The earthquake force induced on the system and is equal to the mass of the body
times ground acceleration due to earthquake.
How do we evaluate the earthquake force ?
Before we proceed further to analyse the above equation of equilibrium, it is essential to
understand the nature and characteristics of earthquake force and how do we evaluate it.
The earthquake force in essence is a transient force and acts on a body for a small instant of
time. In terms of Newtonian mechanics this can also be termed as an impulsive force acting on a
body.
According to the basic law of physics an impulse force is expressed as
F = F (t )dt
The above expression means a force F which is a function of time is acting upon a body for a
very small duration of time dt and is normally defined as an impulse.
dv
we can write this as
dt
Fdt = mdv .
As F = m
Thus if an impulse force F , is acting on a body ,it will result in a sudden change in its velocity
without significant change in its displacement.
For spring mass system under free vibration we had seen earlier that the displacement is given
by
x = A sin n t + B cos n t , where A and B are integration constants and their magnitudes
depend on the boundary condition.
For boundary conditions at t=0, velocity =v0 and displacement x=x0 the above expression can be
written as
v
k
x = 0 sin n t + x0 cos n t where n =
m
n
Thus for the spring mass initially at rest and acted upon by an impulse force is given by
F
x=
sin n t
m n
When considering damping for the system the free vibration equation is written as
x = Ae nt sin( 1 2 n t + )
Considering the impulse load the above can modified to
Sharjah
Page 34
8/30/2006
x=
m n 1
e nt sin 1 2 n t where is the damping ratio of the system
The above is know as Duhamel integral and is effectively used for evaluation of earthquake.
While considering earthquake the above expression can be further reduced to the expression
x=
&x&
n 1
e nt sin 1 2 n t
Under earthquake the shock induced on the ground is generally represented by a response
spectra or a velocity spectra. Moreover as we are interested in the peak value( or maximum
force in the system) the above integral can effectively used to obtain the peak velocity from
which maximum displacement and acceleration are obtained subsequently a shown here after.
We had seen earlier that equation of motion for the portal structure under earthquake is given by
the expression:-
mu&&t + cu& t + ku t = Fe
Dividing each tem by m we have
u&&t +
F
c
k
u& t + u t = e
m
m
m
2
or u&&t + 2 n u& t + n u t = u&&g
Since the force is impulsive in nature acting for a duration of time (say) the displacement
u t can be represented by
ut =
n 1
u&&
( )e n (t ) sin 1 2 n (t )d
Differentiating the above we have

t
1
u& t =
u&&g ( )e n (t ) [ n sin 1 2 n (t )d + n 1 2 cos 1 2 n (t )]d
2
n 1 0
t
Considering C1 = u&&g ( )e nt cos 1 2 nd and

0
C 2 = u&&g ( )e nt sin 1 2 nd the velocity can be expressed as

0
u& t =
n t
{[C C
1
t
or u& t = e
n
]sin
1 2 n t + C1 1
+ C 2 cos 1 2 n t
C1 + C 2 sin( 1 2 n t )
2

Sharjah
Page 35
8/30/2006
The velocity spectrum or the peak velocity is given by the maximum value of the above
t
Or S v = u& g = e
n
1 2
Sd =
Sd =
Sv
n
Sa
n 2
C1 + C 2
2
when the maximum displacement is given by
2
max
and
where Sa is the acceleration spectrum .
Thus the maximum force the system may experience is given by

Fmax= m n S d
2
It is obvious that that for response spectrum analysis the value Sa is function of the time period
or natural frequency of the system which is given by the expression
k
m
and
T=
Certain type of structures can very well be modelled as systems with single degree of freedom
and the base force can be found out as follows:Eample 10.8
As shown in the figure 14 below an air cooler of weight 450 KN is supported on a structure as shown .
Determine the force on the system calculating time period based on dynamic analysis. Consider the soil is
medium stiff and the site is in zone III .Consider 5% damping for the structure. For beams and columns
section properties are as follows Ixx=1268.6cm4 Iyy=568 cm4 and A=78 cm2 , Area of the bracing members
= 12 cm2, Esteel=2X106 Kg/cm2.Density of column material=78.5kN/m3
What will be the force on the frame based formulation as given in code?
6500
6000
3000
Figure-14 :- Structure supporting an Air cooler

Sharjah
Page 36
8/30/2006
Solution :For earthquake force in transverse direction:-
12 EI
L3
4
5
4
Here I = 1268.6cm = 1.2686 10 m
Stiffness of each column is given by K =
E = 2 10 8 kN/m 2 L=6.5 meter

Thus K =
12 2 10 8 1.2686 10 5
(6.5)3
4
Considering four columns
K
i =1
= 110.86 kN/m
= 4 110.86 = 443.46 kN/m
Weight of the air cooler = 450 kN

Thus mass of air cooler =
Mass of each column =
450
= 45.87 kN - sec 2 /m
9.81
7.8 10 3 78.5 6.5

= 0.4057 kN - sec 2 /m
9.81
Considering 1/3rd weight of column contributing to top mass of 4 column

4
mi =
i =1
0.4057 4
= 0.5409 kN - sec 2 /m
3
Weight of top beam = (6 + 12 ) 78.5 7.8 10

Mass of beam =
= 11 kN
11
= 1.1213 kN-sec2/m
9.81
Thus total mass = 45.87 + 0.5409 + 1.1283 = 47.532 kN - sec /m

2
Considering T = 2
T = 2
m
we have
K
47.532
= 2.057 sec. for which as per IS-1893(2002) Sa/g=0.661
443.46
ZIS a
here Z=0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 Sa/g=0.661 and R=3.0 we have
2 Rg
0.16 1.0 0.661
Ah =
= 0.0176
23
Thus Vh = 0.0176 47.532 9.81 = 8.22 kN.
Considering Ah =

Sharjah
Page 37
8/30/2006
For earthquake in longitudinal direction (i.e. in the direction of the braced bay)
Stiffness of per column ( considered hinged at base)=

=
6000
3EI 3 2.1 10 8 5.68 10 6

=
= 13 KN/m
L3
(6.5)3
Stiffness of bracing =
= tan 1
AE
cos 2
L
6
= 57.99 o
3.75
6500
Stiffness of each bracing=
1.2 10 3 2.1 10 8
cos 2 57.99 = 10893 kN/m
6.5
Thus total stiffness of the frame in longitudinal direction = 4 13 + 10893 4 = 43624 kN/m
Considering T = 2
m
we have
K
47.532
= 0.2074 sec. for which as per IS-1893(2002) Sa/g=2.5
43624
ZIS a
Considering Ah =
here Z=0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 Sa/g=2.5 and R=4.0( for concentric bracing) we
2 Rg
T = 2
have
0.16 1.0 2.5

= 0.05
2 4
Thus Vh = 0.05 47.532 9.81 = 23.31 kN. in longitudinal direction
Ah =
As per code for steel frame Ta = 0.085h
0.75
in transeverse direction
Or Ta = 0.085 6.5 0.75 = 0.346 sec for which the value Sa/g=2.5
ZIS a
Thus Considering Ah =
here Z=0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 Sa/g=2.5 and R=3.0 we have
2 Rg
0.16 1.0 2.5
= 0.066
Ah =
23
Thus maximum force on the frame =31.08 kN which is 3.78 times the force obtained by dynamic analysis.
Earthquake Analysis of systems with Multi-degree of freedom:Before we delve into the detailed dynamic analysis of systems with multi-degree of freedom
under earthquake force( based on modal analysis or time history response), we deal with a
Sharjah
Page 38
8/30/2006
particular technique often used in practical engineering design where for many buildings effect of
fundamental time period is most pre-dominant. In such cases higher mode participation vis--vis
its effect being insignificant are ignored without causing any significant errors.
Analysis based on assumed shape function :This is a technique in which a multi-degree freedom system is converted into an equivalent
system having mass and stiffness of that of a single degree of freedom based on an assumed
shape function to find out the time period of a system.
To start with let us consider a stick model of a system having multi-degree of freedom as shown
hereafter.
Mn
Displaced Shape(1st Mode)
Kn
M3
K3
M2
K2
M1
K1
Figure-16 A stick model having multi-degree of freedom

The kinetic energy of the system is given by
T (t ) =
1 n
y ( z , t )
mi
2 i =1 t
(5)
We consider here y ( z, t ) = ( z ) (t ) where
(z ) =
(t ) =
T (t ) =
Admissible shape function which satisfies the boundary condition of system

Generalized co-ordinate
n
n
1 n
& (t ) ( z )& (t )
m
(
z
)
i j n
k
k
2 i =1 j =1
k =1
1 n n &
n
j (t )&k (t ) mi j ( z ) k ( z ) from which we conclude that generalized
2 j =1 k =1
i =1
mass of the system is given by,
or T (t ) =
M * = mi j ( z ) k ( z )
i =1
Thus for fundamental mode for j=k we have

Sharjah
Page 39
8/30/2006
2
M * = mi i ( z )
i =1
Similarly potential energy is given by

1 n
2
k i [y ( z , t )]
2 i =1
Here = Difference in displacement between two adjacent level
n
1 n n
or, V (t ) = k i j ( z ) n (t ) k ( z ) k (t )
2 i =1 j =1
k =1
n
n
n
1
or, V (t ) = j (t ) k (t ) k i j ( z ) k ( z )
2 j =1 k =1
i =1
V (t ) =
Thus for fundamental mode for j=k we have
2
K * = k i i ( z )
i =1
Now knowing T = 2
T * = 2
m
we have for this generalized case
K
M*
K*
From the above mathematical derivation it is obvious that if we know what could be the assumed
shape function correctly it is possible to arrive at the fundamental time period of the system
correctly.
Based on the aspect ratio(H/D) Naeem16 has proposed the following shape functions which may
be considered for buildings modeled as stick having multi-degrees of freedom.
Here H=Height of the building
D= Width of building in direction of the earthquake force considered.
Sl No
H/D
1
H / D < 1 .5
1 .5 < H / D < 3
H / D > 1 .5
Shape function
sin
2H
x
H
1 cos
2H
Table-17- Assumed Shape Function for Building of various aspect ratio

16
Farzad Naeem Ed -Earthquake Engineering Handbook

Sharjah
Page 40
8/30/2006
We will now solve the previous building problem( vide example 10.5) to see how base shear
results differ with what we have calculated earlier
Example10.9:Refer the problem as shown in example10.5 calculate the time period of the building based on assumed
shape function method and calculate the base shear in both transverse and longitudinal direction and find
out the base shear based on IS-1893-2002.Consider all other boundary conditions remains same as was
defined in the previous problem
EL 116.4
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL 102.0
Tie beam all round
EL 100.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
Fig 17 Elevation of the frame

Solution:Considering the frame as a stick model in transverse direction we have the model as follows
El-116.4
K1
EL-112.8
K2
El-109.2
K3
K4
K5
Sharjah
Page 41
El 105.6
EL-102.00
EL-100.0
8/30/2006
Fig-18 Stick model conceived for the frame

Dimension of column= 300X600
Moment of inertia of the column=
1
300 600 3 = 5400000000 mm4
12
=0.0054 m4
12 EI
H3
7
Here Econc= 2.85 10 kN/m2
Stiffness of column=
Ki =
12 2.85 10 7 0.0054
(3.6)3
= 39583.33 KN/m
For fifteen column per level total stiffness K i = 15 39583.33 = 593750 kN/m
Thus K 1 = K 2 = K 3 = K 4 = 593750 KN/m
12 2.85 10 7 0.0054
= 3462750
(2)3
16.4
Since H/D in transverse direction is =
= 2.05 < 3.0 thus shape function considered is x/H
8
2
2
Level
Weight
Mass
Stiffness
i
i
mi i
k i i
And K 5 = 15
2143
218.4
1.00
593750
3308
337.2
3308
337.2
3308
337.2
1560
159.02
218.4
0.22
0.780
593750
0.219
0.561
593750
28476.84
106.12
0.22
0.341
593750
28737.5
39.20
0.22
0.121
3462750
28737.5
205.15
28737.5
2.33
0.121
571.7
Considering T * = 2
T * = 2
50698.12
165387.46
M*
we have
K*
571.7
= 0.369 sec
165387.46
Thus based on response spectrum curve Sa/g=2.5

Considering all other parameters remaining constant
Ah =
ZIS a 0.24 1.0 2.5

=
= 0.06
2 Rg
25

Sharjah
Page 42
8/30/2006
Thus base shear = 0.06 13627 = 817.62 kN, which is very close to what we got based on method as
suggested by code.
For longitudinal direction we have
Dimension of column= 300X600
Moment of inertia of the column=
1
600 300 3 = 1350000000 mm4
12
=0.00135 m4
12 EI
H3
7
Here Econc= 2.85 10 kN/m2
Stiffness of column=
Ki =
12 2.85 10 7 0.00135
(3.6)3
= 9895.833 KN/m
For fifteen column per level total stiffness K i = 15 9895.833 = 148437.5 kN/m
Thus K 1 = K 2 = K 3 = K 4 = 148437.5 KN/m
And K 5 = 15
12 2.85 10 7 0.00135
(2)3
Since H/D in transverse direction is =
Level
Weight
2143
= 865687.5 KN/m
16.4
x
= 0.683 < 1.5 thus shape function is sin
24
2h
Mass
Stiffness
218.4
i
1.00
148438
4
3308
337.2
3308
337.2
1561
159.12
516.71
0.179
4756.1
200.44
0.260
10034.4
88.05
0.511
148438
0.321
0.190
865688
15295.2
5.744
0.190
811.214
Considering T * = 2
T * = 2
298.58
0.771
148438
k i i
218.4
0.941
148438
3308
0.059
337.2
mi i
31251.33
61853.74
M*
we have
K*
811.214
= 0.719 sec
61853.74
Thus based on response spectrum curve Sa/g=1.89

Sharjah
Page 43
8/30/2006
Considering all other parameters remaining constant
Ah =
ZIS a 0.24 1.0 1.89

=
= 0.0454
2 Rg
25
Thus base shear = 0.0454 13627 = 619 kN,

Thus we see that when actual stiffness and mass distribution of the system is considered for calculation of
the time period the base shear could be in significant variation to that as to what has been considered in
the code.
Dynamic Analysis of systems having Multi-Degree of Freedom under

Earthquake force:In this section we discuss the time history and modal analysis technique as applied to
earthquake. We had already discussed in detail the basic concepts underlying the same in
chapter 4 (basic concepts of structural dynamics) as applied to harmonic forces.
The fundamental steps for earthquake analysis, essentially remains the same as that of
harmonic force except the fact that calculation of amplitude and interpretation of forces in the
system is different.
For a structural system having N degrees of freedom we have seen earlier in Chapter 4 that the
equation of motion is expressed as:-
[M ][X&& ] + [C][X& ] + [K ][X] = [P(t)]

Here
[M ] = Mass matrix of the system of order NXN

[C] = Damping matrix of order NXN
[K ] = Stiffness Matrix of order NXN
[X&& ], [X& ], [X] = Acceleration, velocity , displacement vector of the system
[ ][ ]
Considering the displacement vector as [X] = (x) (t) the eigen value of the problem is given
by
[[K ] [M ] ][ ] = 0 , from which we find out the time period of the system for m number of
2
significant modes.
The different techniques to find out the eigenvalues for the above equation has already been
discussed in chapter 11.
The equation of motion can now be expressed as
[M ][][&&] + [C][][& ] + [K ][][ ] = [P(t)]

Pre-multiplying the above by [] we have
T
[]T [M ][][&&] + []T [C][][& ] + []T [K ][][ ] = []T [P(t)]

Sharjah
Page 44
8/30/2006
Based on orthogonal property we had seen earlier that the above de-couples into N number of
equations expressed by
[&& ] + 2 [& ]+
n
T
[ n ] = [ nT] P(t)
[ n ] [M ][]
For earthquake as the force induced in the system can be expressed as
[ ]
P (t ) = [M ] u&&g , the above generic equation can be modified into
[&& ]+ 2 [& ]+
n
[ n ] =
[ ]
Ln u&&g
[ n ] [M ][]
T
where
Ln = [] [M ][I ] here [I ] is a unit column vector of dimension N

T
The solution of the above equation for nth mode any time t is then given by the expression17
t
L
1
n (t ) = T n
u&&g ( )e nn (t ) sin n (t )d
n [M ] n n 0
The displacement for each mass i at time t is then obtained by superimposition of all modes
calculated at this time t and is given by
N
xi = in n (t )
n =1
The earthquake force on the structure is then expressed in terms of the effective acceleration
&& (t ) = 2 n (t )
neff
Considering f = k we have
The earthquake force at any floor i at time is t is given by
f in (t ) = k i n xin
or f in (t ) = k inin n (t )
Since based on the eigen value expression we have
k = m 2
Substituting the value of k in terms of inertial force we have
f in (t ) = mi 2 nin n (t )
Superimposing all modal contribution the earthquake force on the structure is expressed as
f (t ) = [M ] 2 n [](t) where
[M ] = Mass matrix of the system of order NXN

[] = Relative amplitude distribution of order NXN
17
This is actually the Duhamel Integral we explained in case of systems having single degree of freedom

Sharjah
Page 45
8/30/2006
[ ] = Diagonal matrix of order NXN having eigen-values as the diagonal term

2
Based on the above theory the entire history of displacement and force response can be defined
for any multi-degree of freedom system having calculated the modal response amplitudes.
When the above theory is applied to response spectrum, as discussed earlier with single degree
of freedom the maximum response for each mode is considered.
If the maximum value of n max of the Duhamael integral is considered the maximum
displacement in that mode is given by
L
S vn
x n max = n n max = n T n
n [M ] n n
The maximum earthquake force in the structure is then given by
f n max = [M ] n
Ln
n [M ] n
2
S an where San, Svn are spectral velocity as furnished in the codes.
The base shear which is the algebraic sum of all the force is given by
N
V0 (t ) =
i =1
Ln 2
f n max (t ) =
n S vn
i =1 n M n
2
Ln
is usually called the effective modal mass of the system and when divided
Mn
by the total mass (represented in percentage), reflects the percentage of modal mass
responding to the earthquake force in each mode.
We now further illustrate the above theory by a suitable numerical problem.
The expression
Example-10.10
As shown below is a three storied RCC frame subjected to earthquake in zone IV having medium soil
condition . The damping ratio for RCC considered is 5%. Determine
The natural frequencies of the structure.

The eigen-vectors
The acceleration, velocity and displacement as per IS-1893 2002 based on response technique
method.
Effective Modal mass participation for each mode
The nodal displacement per mode
The nodal shear force per mode
Base shear for the three modes

Sharjah
Page 46
8/30/2006
X3
X2
X1
Fig-19 Elevation of the frame
Here
1) KAC=KDB=15000 KN/m
MGH=200 KN sec2/m
2) KCE=KDF=10000 KN/m
MEF=400 KN sec2/m
3) KEG=KFH=5000 KN/m
MCD=400 KN sec2/m
Solution:The free body diagram of the structure is as shown below :Based on the F.B.D for free vibration we have:
m3 &x&3 + k 3 ( x3 x 2 ) = 0
m2 &x&2 + k 2 ( x 2 x1 ) k 3 ( x3 x 2 ) = 0
m1 &x&1 + k1 x1 k 2 ( x 2 x1 ) = 0
m3 &x&3
k 3 ( x3 x 2 )

Sharjah
The above on simplification while writing in the matrix form gives:-
m1
0
0
m2
0
0 &x&1 k1 + k 2
0 &x&2 + k 2
m3 &x&3 0
Page 47
k2
k 2 + k3
k3
0 x1
k 3 x 2 =0
k 3 x3
8/30/2006
k 3 ( x3 x 2 )
m2 &x&2
k 2 ( x 2 x1 )
k 2 ( x 2 x1 )
m1 &x&1
k1 x1
The above on substituting the values gives the following matrices.
0
60000 30000
[K ] = 30000 40000 10000

0
10000 10000
400
and [M ] =
400
200
To find out the natural frequencies we have
60000 400
30000
0
302000
40000 400
10000 = 0
10000 200
10000
The above on expansion and further simplification gives a cubical equation as follows
3 3002 + 20625 281250 = 0

Solving the above cubical equation by Newton Raphson method18
1 = 18.1275 , 2 = 75 , 3 = 206.87
Thus
1 = 18.175 = 4.257
2 = 75 = 8.66
rad/sec which implies T2 = 0.725 sec
3 = 206.87 = 14.382
18
rad/sec which implies T1 = 1.47 sec
rad/sec which implies T3
= 0.427 sec
To calculate the mode shapes or the eigenvectors
Refer Chapter 11 for details of this method.

Sharjah
Page 48
8/30/2006
For first mode we have (
= 18.1275)
0
30000
1
60000 400 18.1275
= 0
40000 400 18.1275

30000
10000
2
0
10000 200 18.1275 3
10000
where
[ i ]3i =1 are the modal vectors
0
52749 30000
or, 30000
32749 30000
0
30000 6374.5
Solving the above equations for where
1
= 0
2
3
1 = 1.00
we have
1 : 2 : 3 = 1.00 : 1.7583 : 0.9296

Proceeding in identical fashion for second mode
( = 75)
30000
0
60000 400 75
1
= 0
30000
40000 400 75
10000
0
10000
10000 200 75 3
The above on simplification gives
1 : 2 : 3 = 1.00 : 1.00 : 2.00

For third mode we have
( = 206.87 )
30000
0
60000 400 206.87
1
= 0
30000
40000 400 206.87
10000
0
10000
10000 200 206.87 3
The above on simplification gives
1 : 2 : 3 = 1.00 : 0.75826 : 0.2414

Thus for three modes eigen-vectors are given by
1 .0
1 .0
1.00
[] = 1.7583 1.0 0.753

0.9296 2.0 0.2414
Sharjah
Page 49
8/30/2006
The Mass Matrix Mn
The mass matrix M n is given by
M n = [] [M ][] =
T
0 1.00
1.00
1.00 1809.47
1.00 1.7583 0.9296 400 0
1.00 1.00
2.00 0 400 0 1.7583 1.00 0.753 = 1600
0 200 0.9296 2.00 0.2414 638.37

1.00 0.753 0.2414 0
The Matrix Ln
The matrix Ln is given by
Ln = [] [M ][I ] =
T
0 1.00
0
0 1289.24
1.00 1.7583 0.9296 400 0
1.00 1.00
2.00 0 400 0 0 1.00

0 = 400
1.00 0.753 0.2414 0

0 200 0
0 1.00 147.36
2
Thus
Ln
is given by
Mn
918.24
2
Ln
= 100 this when divided by the total mass of the system(i.e. 400+400+200=1000kN) we have
Mn
34
91.8
= 10 % which represents the percentage mass participating in each mode
3.4
Calculation of Acceleration and velocity based on IS 1893(2002)
For first mode considering T1=1.47 sec
S a 1.36 1.36
=
=
= 0.9214
g
T
1.47
or S a
= 0.9214 * 9.81 = 9.04m / sec 2
Considering zone IV severe earthquake condition Z=0.24 and considering ductility factor R=3.0( for ordinary
moment resisting frame)
0.24 9.04
= 0.3616 m/sec2 thus
23
S
0.3616
S v (design) = a =
= 0.0849 m/sec
4.257
S a (design) =

Sharjah
Page 50
8/30/2006
For second mode considering T2=0.725 sec
S a 1.36 1.36
=
=
= 1.876
g
T
0.725
or S a
= 1.876 * 9.81 = 18.388m / sec 2
Considering Z=0.24 as before ductility factor R=3.0( for ordinary moment resisting frame)
0.24 18.388
= 0.736 m/sec2 thus
23
S
0.736
= 0.0849 m/sec
S v (design) = a =
8.66
S a (design) =
For third mode considering T3=0.437 sec
S a 1.36
=
= 2.5
g
T
or S
= 2.5 * 9.81 = 24.525m / sec 2
Considering Z=0.24 and R=3.0 we have
0.24 24.525
= 0.981 m/sec2 thus
23
S
0.981
S v (design) = a =
= 0.0682 m/sec
14.382
S a (design) =
Thus based on above for the three modes we have
0.3616
0.0849
[S a ] = 0.7316 m/sec2 and [S v ] = 0.0849 m/sec

0.981
0.0682
Calculation of displacement
The displacement in first mode is given by
= []
Ln S v1
M n 1
1.00
0.014113
1289.24 0.0849
or, = 1.7583
1809.47 4.257 = 0.024816 m

0.9296
0.013116
The displacement in second mode is given by
Sharjah
Page 51
8/30/2006
= []
Ln S v 2
M n 2
1.00
0.00245
400 0.0849
or, = 1.00
1600 8.66 = 0.00245 m

2.00
0.0049
The displacement in third mode is given by
= []
Ln S v 3
M n 3
0.0010966
1.00
147.36 0.0682
or, = 0.753
638.37 14.382 = 0.000821 m

0.0002631
0.2414
The shear force per floor is given by
[V ]i =n = [M ] n
Ln
n S vn
Mn
Thus for first mode we have
[V ]i =1
0 1.00
102
400 0
1289.24
4.257 0.0849 = 180 kN

= 0 400 0 1.7583
1809.47
48
0
0 200 0.9296 n
For second mode we have
[V ]i =2
0 1.00
74
400 0
400
8.66 0.0849 = 74 kN
= 0 400 0 1.00
1600
73
0
0 200 2.00 n
Thus for third mode we have
[V ]i =3
0 1.00
400 0
90
147
= 0 400 0 0.753
14.382 0.0682 = 68 kN
638
0
11
0 200 0.2414 n
Base shear per mode:-
The base shear per mode is given by :_

For first mode Vb=102+180+48=330kN
For second Mode Vb= 74+74-73=75kN
Sharjah
Page 52
8/30/2006
Fot third mode Vb=90-68+11=33 kN
330
Thus Vb = 75 kN
33
Modal combination of forces:Once the maximum response for each mode is obtained as described above, it is essential to
obtain the combined response of all modes. As the modal maxima may or may not occur at the
same time and nor have the same sign they cannot be combined to give accurate total
maximum response. The most convenient way to represent this is to combine them based on
probability basis.
Three techniques often used for modal combination of forces are
Absolute Sum Method (ABSSUM)
Square root of Sum Square (SRSS)
Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)
The Absolute Sum Method (ABSSUM):
As the name suggests by this method the modal combination of all responses are obtained by
summing up the absolute values of the response without considering their algebraic signs.
Thus based on above
n
n = i
i =1
where i represents the absolute value of the responses, without consideration of their
algebraic sign.
This method though still in practice sometimes has been observed to give results which are too
conservative and is now a days only used in case of non-critical structure. Use of this method for
important and critical structures has almost been abolished.
The Square Root of Sum Square Method (SRSS) :In this method the modal response are obtained by summing up the square of the responses
and taking its root and has been found to give a much better result.19
This method is however valid only when the frequencies of the structure are widely
spaced. For structures having repeated roots or closely spaced roots,CQC is found to be
superior, however when eigenvalues are widely spaced SRSS and CQC converges to almost
identical results.
Thus based on the above here
n =
19
i =1
2
i
Originally proposed by Rosenblueth E A basis for aseismic design University of Illinois 1951

Sharjah
Page 53
8/30/2006
The Complete Quadratic Combination Method(CQC):In this method20 the response of the system is obtained by the expression
n =
i =1
j =1
i ij j
Here n= number of modes being considered

i = Response quantity in mode i
j = Response quantity in mode j
ij = Cross modal coefficient and is given by

8 i j ( i + ij j ) ij 2
3
ij =
(1 )
2 2
ij
+ 4 i j ij (1 + ij )
Here i = Modal damping ratio for mode i

j = Modal damping ratio for mode j
ij = Frequency Ratio i
j
For normal seismic dynamic analysis the damping ratio is usually considered constant for all
modes when the above equation reduces to
8 2 (1 + ij ) ij 2
3
ij =
(1 )
2 2
ij
+ 4 2 ij (1 + ij )
The variation of the cross modal response with frequency ratio for various damping ratio is as
shown below.
From the curve we make a very interesting observation. The cross modal ratio plays a significant
part in the magnitude when the frequency ratio when the frequency ratio varies between 0.88 to
1.14.For other frequencies (which are widely apart) they diminish rapidly and their contribution is
insignificant. In other words for widely space frequencies the CQC method in effect converges to
the SRSS method.
20
Proposed by Der Kiureghian A A Response Spectrum Method for Random Vibration Analysis for
MDF Systems Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 9 1981 pp 419-435
Sharjah
Page 54
8/30/2006
Cross modal coefficient

Cross modal coefficient
1.2
2% DR
5% DR
1
0.8
7% DR
10% DR
15% DR
20%DR
0.6
0.4
0.2
25% DR
1.94
1.78
1.62
1.46
1.3
1.14
0.98
0.82
0.66
0.5
Frequency Ratio
Figure-20-Variation of Cross Modal Frequency for Different Frequency Ratio
We now further elaborate the above theories based on a suitable example

Example 10.11
For the example 10.11 given natural frequencies as 4.257, 8.66 and 14.382 rad sec and base shears as
330
Vb = 75 kN , Find out the Combined maximum base shear based on
33
Absolute sum method

Square Root of Sum Square Method
Complete quadratic Combination Method
Consider 5% damping in all modes.

Solution:
Absolute sum method
As per this the base shear is given by
Vb = 330 + 75 + 33 = 438 KN
Square Root of Sum Square Method
As per this the base shear is given by

Sharjah
Page 55
8/30/2006
Vb = 330 2 + 75 2 + 33 2 = 340 KN
Complete quadratic Combination Method:-
As a first step we find out the values

ij = i for the three modes
j
Mode
1
2
3
1
2.034296
3.378436
which is as given velow
3
0.49157
1
1.660739
0.295995
0.602142
1
Considering 5% damping as constant for all mode we have the cross modal values as
8 2 (1 + ij ) ij 2
3
ij =
(1 )
2 2
ij
Mode
1
2
3
+ 4 2 ij (1 + ij )
2
1
0.025022
0.009162
3
0.0123
1
0.045746
0.002712
0.027546
1
330
Now considering Vb = 75 kN and applying the equation
33
n =
Mode
1
2
3
i =1
j =1
i ij j
we have base shear based on CQC expression as
2
108900
619.3049
99.77034
304.432
5625
113.2222
3
29.53152
2475
1089
Adding all the nine terms in the above table and taking square root we have
Vb = 119255.3 = 345.33 kN
Thus it will be observed that based on CQC method base shear is 345 kN in lieu of 340 kN based on SRSS
method. Since the frequencies are widely spaced the variation is only marginal about 1.56% only.

Sharjah
Page 56
8/30/2006
Time History Analysis under Earthquake Force

Time history analysis under earthquake force is possibly the most comprehensive analysis one
can undertake. However inspite of its rigorous mathematical basis21, modal response technique
has still remained a more popular method in day to day design office practice.
The reason underlying the same can be attributed primarily to lack of site accelerograms which
is the basic input for such an analysis. Previously site specific ground acceleration data
available was few and far for which engineers always preferred to use the modal response
technique using the response spectrum curve which is available in all codes of all countries
which has a specific earthquake code.
However in last thirty years there has been a significant technological advancement based on
which earthquake accelerograms are now almost globally available for all major earthquakes.
All major and minor tremors occurring around the world, are now being manned constantly.
This has significantly enhanced our data base and in years to come for important structures time
history analysis would hopefully become a routine affair.22
We show hereafter a typical acceleration spectrum for the famous El-Centro Earthquake
28.4
25.6
22.7
19.9
17
14.2
11.4
8.52
5.68
Sa/g
2.84
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Sa/g
Accelerogram El-Centro Earthquake
Time(secs)
Fig-21:Acceleration data of El-Centro Earthquake(California) at time interval of 0.02
seconds
When an earthquake occurs anywhere in the world the seismic monitoring station picks up the
tremor signals and based on such data ground acceleration/ velocity at different time steps are
obtained this data is further used as an input ground acceleration for time history analysis of
structure to be build at that site or at its close proximity.
21
Refer chapter 4 where we have discussed the various techniques of time history analysis.
For Nuclear power plants time history response analysis is now mandatory for all class 1 type
structures like turbine building , reactor building , spent fuel chamber etc.
22

Sharjah
Page 57
8/30/2006
The theory underlying the method remains the same as shown in Chapter 4 except the fact that
we had earlier solved the problem with the forcing function as harmonic force which in case of
earthquake is the ground acceleration a&&g 23.
[ ]
Thus the basic equation of motion as described in chapter 4
[M ][X&& t +t ] + [C][X& t +t ] + [K ][X t +t ] = R t +t
The term R t + t is obtained by multiplying the ground acceleration data by the mass [M ] .
In other words, here R t + t = [M ] &a& g t + t at every time step t + t .
[ ]
Thus once the force R t + t is known the rest of the procedure remains same as what has been
described earlier in chapter 4.
For instance the steps of Newmark beta method gets slightly modified for earthquake case as
follows :Steps for Newmark- method for earthquake analysis
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Assemble the mass matrix M the damping matrix C and stiffness matrix K
&& ( This will be obtained from the seismic accelerogram data of the site )
Evaluate X
0
Select time step size t and parameters

Calculate integration constant .
[ ]
0 =
and
where
0.50
and
= 0.25(0.5 + )2
1
t
, 1 =
, 2 =
, 3 =
1 , 4 = 1 , 5 = 2
2
t
t
2
2
t
6 = t (1 ) , 7 = t
Form the modified stiffness matrix as:-
[K ] = [K ] + [M] + [C]
0
Calculate modified load at time t + t
[ ]
&&
R
t + t = [M ] a g
t + t
& + X
&&
&
&&
+ [M ] 0 X t + 2 X
t
3 t + [C] 1 X t + 4 X t + 5 X t
Solve for displacement vector
[K ]X
t + t
=R
t + t
Calculate the acceleration and velocity at time t + t
23
This is usually obtained as an input from the site based on observed data like the one as shown for the
El-Centro Earthquake.
Sharjah
Page 58
8/30/2006
[X&& ] = (X
t + t
t + t
[ ]
[ ]
& X
&&
X t ) 2 X
t
3
t
[X& ] = [X& ] + [X&& ] + [X&& ]

t + t
t + t
For the sake of brevity we now explain the above by a suitable numerical problem.
Example 10.12:A frame foundation supporting a compressor is subjected to El-Centro acclerogram as shown in the figure
Figure 13,The stiffness , mass and damping( non-proprtional) matrix are as shown hereafter.
Determine the response of the machine foundation based on time history response.
[M ] =
200
0
7000 2800
3000 1200
[C ] =
and [K ] =
1000
2800 12300
1200 51000
The displacement history is shown in tabular form for first 20 steps at time step of 0.02 seconds and the
results of displacement and acceleration for node 2 are finally shown graphically for 1566 steps
Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Displacement
at node 1
0
2.98E-06
1.18E-05
2.59E-05
4.98E-05
9.13E-05
1.50E-04
2.13E-04
2.66E-04
3.07E-04
Velocity at
node 1
0
2.98E-04
5.82E-04
8.35E-04
1.55E-03
2.59E-03
3.25E-03
3.06E-03
2.27E-03
1.80E-03
Acceleration
at node 1
0
2.98E-02
-1.36E-03
2.66E-02
4.53E-02
5.83E-02
7.55E-03
-2.68E-02
-5.15E-02
4.09E-03
Displacement
at node 2
0.00E+00
3.24E-06
1.32E-05
2.99E-05
5.83E-05
1.07E-04
1.78E-04
2.57E-04
3.26E-04
3.80E-04
Velocity at
node 2
0
0.000324
0.000672
0.001001
0.001838
0.003077
0.003967
0.003899
0.003049
0.002377
Acceleration
at node 2
0
0.032396
0.002417
0.030511
0.053184
0.07067
0.018316
-0.02506
-0.06
-0.00713
19.2
16.4
13.7
11
8.22
5.48
Displacement(d2)
2.74
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
-1.00E-02
-2.00E-02
Disp[alcement(m)
Displacement(d2)
Time step(sec)
Figur-21 :- Displacement History at node -2

Sharjah
Page 59
8/30/2006
18.4
16.3
14.3
12.2
10.2
8.16
6.12
4.08
Acceleration( node1)
2.04
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Acceleration at node
1(m/sec2)
Acceleration( node1)
Time steps
Figure-22:- Acceleration Response at node 1
This method as discussed earlier in Chapter 4 is applicable on full matrix when mass, stiffness
and damping matrix are all known. The technique is particularly suitable for cases, which has
non-classical damping (where the matrix on orthogonalization does not de-couple).
However for systems with large degree of freedom we rarely know the complete damping matrix
and we normally deal with the modal damping ratio usually defined as a constant value for each
mode for normal structural analysis.
For instance in case of analysis of 3D framed building structure we do not( or cannot) define the
damping matrix and the usual input is the modal damping ratio assumed constant for all modes.
In such cases we can either form the Rayliegh damping coefficient and adapting the
method as stated in chapter4 or proceed as mentioned hereafter.
As a first step we perform the usual eigen-value analysis and obtain the frequencies and the
eigen vectors.
Now knowing the modal damping ratio ( which is usually pre-defined) we de-couple
the equation into n number of equations( here n is the total numbers of degree of freedom of
the system) of the form
&&i =1,n + 2 i =1,n i =1,n &i =1,n + 2 i =1,n [ i =1,n ] = u&&g
] [
[ ]
For a given time history the above can be expressed as

&&
+ 2
&
+ 2 i =1,n [ ] =
i =1, n
1
1
i =1, n
u&&
i =1, n
i =1, n
] [
i =1, n
( )e n ( t ) [ n sin 1 2 n (t )d + n 1 2 cos 1 2 n (t )]d
For each of this equation we perform the time history response either by integration of the
Duhamel Integral or by numerical integration based on any one of the methods as explained
in chapter 4 and find out the values of the displacement, velocity and acceleration and finally
do a modal combination to obtain the response for the different mode.
In such case the displacement [u t ] = [ n ][ t ] and acceleration [u&&t ] = [ n ] &&t
[ ]
The corresponding effective earthquake force is given by
[Vn (t )] = [M ][u&&t ] .
Sharjah
Page 60
8/30/2006
The total modal force for all modes are given by
[Vn (t )] = [M ][ ] n 2 [ t ]
For many large complex structures or finite element system with many degrees of freedom
even the above process could be time consuming and very laborious, fortunately for many
such system, it is the first few modes which contribute significantly to the inertial forces
when the subsequent higher modes can be neglected without any appreciable error.
In such case if for a system NXN if J number of modes(J<<N) are deemed to be significant(
which can very well be estimated from the modal mass participation).Then the mass matrix
[M ]NXN ,stiffness matrix [K ]NXN and the damping matrix [C]NXN can well be crunched
down to a matrix of order JXJ by the following operation.
[M ]
[K ]
JXJ
JXJ
= []JXN [M ]NXN []NXJ similarly
= [] [K ] [ ]
and C
JXN
NXN
NXJ
[]
JXJ
= [ ]JXN [C]NXN [ ]NXJ .
Here
M
JXJ = Is the modified mass matrix of order JXJ
K
JXJ = Is the modified stiffness matrix of order JXJ
[C]JXJ = Is the modified damping matrix of order JXJ
[]JXN = Is the eigen vector for the first J modes of the structure of order NXN.
[ ]
[]
Once the modified matrix is known we can very well undertake a time history analysis of this
modified matrix and greatly reduce our computation time
We now explain the above theory by a suitable numerical problem

Sharjah
Page 61
8/30/2006
Example 10.13
Shown in the figure is a three-storied frame subjected to dynamic forces based on EL-Centro Erthqauke
as shown in figure 13. The damping ratio for for the structure is considered as 5%. Determine
The fixed base natural frequencies of the structure.
The fixed base eigen vectors.
Displacement and shear force
X3
X2
X1
3000
3000
3000
( All dimensions are in mm )

Fig.22 : Sketch Diagram of three-storied Space Frame.
Let us take
KAC=KDB=1.5X103 KN/m; KCE=KDF=1.0X103 KN/m; KEG=KFH=0.75X103 KN/m; MGH=200 KN sec2/m; MEF=400 KN
sec2/m; MCD=400 KN sec2/m
Solution:
The stiffness and mass matrix is given by
0
5000 2000
[K ] = 2000 3500 1500

0
1500 1500
400
400
and [M ] =
200
Considering
[[K ] [M][ ]][] = [0]

2
1 =1.281 rad/sec; 2 = 3.162 rad/sec; 3 = 4.135 rad/sec.

Thus the time periods for the fixed base structure is given by
T1 = 4.97 sec , T2 = 1.987 sec , T3 = 1.52 sec

Sharjah
Page 62
8/30/2006
The mode shapes or the eigen vectors and normalised eigen vectors are
1.0
1.0
0.03244 0.0344512
1.00
0.01615
[ ] = 2.1715 0.5 0.9208 ; [ i ] = 0.0350718 0.01622 0.03172

2.7816 1.50
0.04493 0.02433 0.02477
0.719
Considering the orthogonal equation
&&i + 2 i i &i + 2 = [a&&g ] we have the three equations as

1
&&1 + 0.281&1 + 1.6409611 = [a&&g ]

&&2 + 0.3162&2 + 9.99824 2 = [a&&g ]
&&3 + 0.4135&3 + 17.098 3 = [a&&g ]
Performing the time history analysis based on Wilson- method for input accelerogram of El-centro
earthquake and combining the response based on the equation
[X] = [][ ] we plot below the displacement and force history hereafter.
0.06
0.04
Modal disp1
Modal disp2
0.02
29.1
25
20.8
16.6
12.5
8.32
-0.02
4.16
0
0
Dispalcement(meter)
Dispalcement History
Modal disp3
-0.04
Time steps(sec)
Fig-23 Displacement History of the frame for the three modes

Sharjah
Page 63
8/30/2006
Modal shear response(kN)
200
30.8
27.4
23.9
20.5
17.1
13.7
10.3
6.84
-200
3.42
0
0
Force(kN)
400
Shear1
shear2
shear 3
-400
Time step(sec)
Fig-24 Modal shear History of the frame for the three modes
It will be observed that the major contribution is from the fundamental mode , the higher mode
contribution is practically insignificant.
What has been explained above is the generic theory pertaining to earthquake dynamic and
pseudo-static analysis. Though the above has been explained with respect to frames( or
buildings) can be very easily be extended to a generic finite element model with the
underlying principle remaining the same be the analysis is done based on response
spectrum method or step by step integration.
We now show application of the above theories as applied to some special structures which
are important to society and industry, has got some unique features and require some
special analytical techniques.
Earthquake analysis of tall chimneys and stack like structure:Tall chimneys and vertical self-supporting vessels are an important feature of power and
petrochemical industry. Damage to them during an earthquake can have a severe
consequence both in terms of economy and loss of human life
While it is expected that a power plant remains functional after an earthquake, which is
essential to fight the aftermath of the disaster, leakage or damage of vertical vessels in
refinery or chemical plants containing flammable or toxic liquid can create havoc to the
environment and surrounding life24.
Though the analysis herein is discussed in terms of tall chimneys can well be applied for
vertical self-supporting vessels also.
With ever growing demand for power, engineering industry is churning out power plants of
progressively higher capacity. To maintain the ecological balance as well as limit the
environmental pollution chimneys emitting the spent flue gas are also getting higher and
higher everyday. In India it is now mandatory that for all fossil fuel power plants the height of
chimneys be minimum 220 meter. While this though reduces the ground pollution
concentration significantly has posed new challenges to the structural engineers to come up
with a safe design of these tall chimneys especially under wind and earthquake, which
affects its behaviour significantly. Unlike other tall structures the most dangerous thing about
chimney is that these structures are basically a cantilever structure having one line of
24
Though the reason was different some of the readers may remember the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1980s
in India where huge number of people perished and got disabled for life due to leakage of toxic gas from
vessels in the plant of a multi-national Company.
Sharjah
Page 64
8/30/2006
defence (the structures itself) and has practically no redundancy built in it. Thus during an
earthquake if any portion of it develops a hinge would invariably make the system a
mechanism with collapse being imminent.
It is for this knowing the dynamic behaviour of the same under an earthquake loading is of
primary importance.
Fortunately as these structures have uniform distribution of mass and stiffness are more
amenable to classical mathematical treatment.
However one of the major controversy that remains with its behaviour is the level of
damping to be considered in the analysis25.
While one school of thought prefers to use the standard damping ratio as used for RCC
(5-7%), the other school of thought is that since of its huge mass (due to its self weight and
lining) a major portion of the chimney remains under compression even under wind and
seismic loading and thus remains un-cracked. Since propagation of cracking enhances the
damping property of the system and does not occur in the major portion of the chimney, a
much lower damping ratio of say 2% should be a more reasonable value. Unfortunately very
little field observed instrumented data are available to come to any decisive conclusion on
this issue.
Chimneys are usually of two types: Multi-flue chimneys (used to cater to more than two power units at a time) having
uniform cross section
Single flues (used to cater one or two units) usually having a tapered profile.
Plan View
EI constant
Fig-25 Typical Multi-Flue-Chimney with its mathematical model
25
And we know that damping effects significantly the dynamic response of the system

Sharjah
Page 65
8/30/2006
Analysis as proposed in IS-code: Before we start with the dynamic analysis of such tall structures we present herein the method
as proposed in IS Code: As per IS code the time period of such chimneys considered fixed at base is given by
WH
T = CT
EAg
Here
W= Weight of chimney plus lining and all other accessories
H= Height of chimney above the base
E= Modulus of Elasticity of the structural shell
A= Area of cross section of the base
g=Acceleration due to gravity
CT= Constant which is a function of the slenderness ratio26
For circular section A=2rt
Where r= mean radius of the shell and
t= thickness of the shell.
The design base shear is given by
5 z 2 z 2
V = C v AhW

3 H 3 H
4
z 0.5
z
M = AhWH 0.5 + 0.4
H
H
Cv= A coefficient which is a function of slenderness ratio
H =
Height of centre of gravity of the structure above base.
ZI
Ah=
, the seismic coefficient as per code
2R
The values of Cv and C are as furnished here after
Slenderness Ratio
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 or more
CT
14.4
21.2
29.6
38.4
47.2
56
65
73.8
82.8
1.8X(H/r)
Cv
1.02
1.12
1.19
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.39
1.43
1.47
1.50
Table-18 CT and Cv coefficient as per IS-code for different slenderness ratio

IS code does not furnish any expression for the deflection.
26
This has been furnished later as a table

Sharjah
Page 66
8/30/2006
Dynamic analysis of Tall Chimneys

We start with the analysis of a multi flue chimney of uniform cross section based on Rayleigh
Ritz technique to arrive at a closed form solution before extending the same to a numerical
solution for a tapered cantilever.
Since the outer core of a multi-flue chimney (usually termed as the wind shield) is of uniform
cross section we consider it as a cantilever beam fixed at base.
The free vibration equation of such beam is given by the expression27
2w
4w
EI 4 + A 2 = 0 here,
t
z
E= Elastic Modulus of the beam material
I= Moment of Inertia of the beam
= Mass density of the beam material
A= Area of cross section of the beam
w= Displacement of the beam and is a function of time and geometry and is depicted as
w( z , t ) = Y ( z ).q (t )
Based on separation of variable technique the above partial differential equation can be
separated into two linear differential equation and one of which is
d 4Y
A 2
EI 4 4Y = 0 where 4 =
EI
dz
The generic solution to this equation is given by28
Y = C1 sin z + C 2 cos x + C 3 sinh z + C 4 cosh z

Imposing the four boundary conditions: 1) Y = 0 at z=0
dY
2)
= 0 at z=0
dz
d 3Y
3)
= 0 at z=L
dz 3
d 2Y
2)
= 0 at z=L
dz 2
We have the shape function solution as
z
z
m cos m cosh m
H
H
H
H
Here m= Number of modes 1,2,3,.

2m 1
m = 1.875, 4.694,7.855,
For m=1,2,3..m and
2
Ym = sin
m z
sinh
m z
27
For details of the solution of this partial differential equation refer Dynamics of Structures Hurty
and Rubenstein
28
This is the standard from of solution to fourth order linear differential equation.. For further details
refer Theory of Linear differential equation by Daniel Murray Orient Longman Publication.

Sharjah
Page 67
8/30/2006
sin m + sinh m
cos m + cosh m
We apply here the Rayliegh Ritz29 technique as described below.
For a conservative system if T is kinetic energy and V is the Potential energy of the system then
at any time t the energy equations may be written in the form
m =
1
y ( z , t )
T (t ) = m( z )
dz
20
t
(5)
Here y (z , t ) = i ( z )qi (t )
(6)
i =1
Here y (z , t ) = Displacement function

i (z ) = Admissible function
qi (t ) = Generalized co-ordinate
Substituting the above in the energy equation we have
H
1
n
n
T (t ) = m( z ) i ( z )q& i (t ) j ( z )q& j (t )dz
20
i =1
j =1
1 n n
&
&
q
(
t
)
q
(
t
)
m( z )i ( z ) j ( z )dz from which we conclude that the mass
i
j
2 i =1 j =1
0
coefficient has the form
mij = m( z )i ( z ) j ( z )dz for i,j=1,2,3.n

0
For potential energy V we have

2
H
2 y( z, t )
1
V (t ) = EI ( z )
dz
2
20
z
2
H
n d 2 i ( z )
n d j ( z)
1
EI
(
z
)
q
(
t
)
q j (t ) dz

i
2
2
20
i =1 dz
j =1 dz
2
H
d 2 i ( z ) d j ( z )
1 n n
&
&
(
)
(
)
(
)
q
t
q
t
EI
z
dz , from which we conclude that

i j
2 i =1 j =1
dz 2
dz 2
0
stiffness has the form

H
k ij = EI ( z )
0
29
2
d 2 i ( z ) d j ( z )
dz for i,j=1,2,3..n
dz 2
dz 2
For further details refer chapter 11 where we have explained the theory with a simpler problem.

Sharjah
Page 68
8/30/2006
Since a multi-flue stack is considered to have a constant EI the stiffness and mass expression is
given as
k ij = EI
2
d 2 i ( z ) d j ( z )
dz and
dz 2
dz 2
A H
mij = i ( z ) j ( z )dz
g 0
Considering the shape function as
z
z
i cos i cosh i and

H
H
H
H
jz
jz
jz
jz
j = sin
sinh
j cos
cosh
H
H
H
H
The double derivative of the above is given by

2
z
z
z
z
i = i 2 sin i sinh i + i cos i + cosh i and

H
H
H
H
H
i = sin
i z
sinh
i z
jz
jz
jz
j z
sin
sinh
cos
cosh
+
+
H
H
H
H
H 2
Before performing the integration we change the above to generalized co-ordinate by

considering
j =
j2
z
dz
when d =
and as z 0, 0 and as z H , 1 based on above we can
H
H
now express the double derivative as
F ( )i =
F ( ) j =
i 2
H
[ sin i sinh i + i (cos i + cosh i )] = i 2

2
2
j2
H2
[ sin sinh + (cos + cosh )] =

j
f i ( ) and
j2
H2
f j( )
Thus stiffness of the system can now be expressed as

EI i j
2
2
1
f ( ) i f ( ) j d
0
H
and mass of the system is given by
k ij =
mij =
AH
g
f ( ) i f ( ) j d where i=j=1,2,3,m

Sharjah
Page 69
8/30/2006
For most of the chimneys it is found that first three modes are sufficient to predict the
dynamic response, as modal mass participation is almost 100% by this.
Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix30 is given by
1
1 4 f ( )1 2 d
1
EI 2 2
[K ]ij = 3 2 1 f ( )2 f ( )1 d
H
0
2 21
3 1 f ( )3 f ( )1 d
0
and the mass matrix30 is given by
[M ]ij
1
2
f ( )1 d
0
AH 1
=
f ( )2 f ( )1 d
g 0
1
f ( )3 f ( )1 d
0
2 4 f 2( )2 d
0
3 2
2
f ( )3 f ( )2 d
f ( )
2
f ( ) f ( )
3
34
2
f ( )3 d
2
f ( )3 d
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Simpsons 1/3rd rule between the
limits 1 to 0 when we have
[K ]3 X 3
25.04096 8.408225 3.005861

EI
= 3 8.408225 456.0095 85.24251 and the mass matrix is given by
H
3.005861 85.24251 3698.541
[M ]3 X 3
1.802803 0.0481 0.040574

W
= 0.0481 0.920438 0.039213
g
0.040574 0.039213 0.971506
Here W= Total weight of the shell +internal slabs + brick linings

Converting the above into standard eigen-value form of A = and applying the
generalized Jacobi technique31 we have
0
0
13.78759
EIg
and
[ ] = 3 0
494.6865
0
WH
0
3800.748
30
31
The matrix is symmetric about is diagonal

The technique has been worked in detail in chapter 11.

Sharjah
Page 70
8/30/2006
the eigen vectors are given as

0.000607 f 1 ( )
0.99907 0.02042
[] = 0.037058 0.9995 0.02023159 f 2 ( )

0.021924 0.022928 0.999751 f 3 ( )
since [ ] = 2 and T =
we have
0
0
1.69213
WH 3
[T ] = 0
0.282498
0
EIg
0
0.1019
Thus for the first three modes we have
Mode Number
1
2
3
Time period(secs)
T1 = 1.69213
WH 3
EIg
T2 = 0.2825
WH 3
EIg
T2 = 0.1019
WH 3
EIg
Table-18:- Time period of Chimney for first three modes

Transformation to the format of IS-Code:We have shown above that for fundamental mode the time period is given by
WH 3
, now considering I = Ar 2 where A = Area of the stack at the base
EIg
and r= radius of gyration, the equation can be written in the format of
T1 = 1.69213
T1 = 1.69213
WH
where = Slenderness ratio of the stack @ H/r
EAg
Considering CT = 1.69213 we have
WH
which is the same format as presented in the code. If we compare the
EAg
values of CT as furnished in code and as derived here it will be observed that code gives a
lower value of time period vis a vis what is presented here.
T1 = CT

Sharjah
Page 71
8/30/2006
Since the accuracy of Rayleigh Ritz Method is dependent on the choice of the assumed
shape function it is evident that code had used a different shape function then what has
been presented herein32.
The various values of CT as proposed by the present method and what has been proposed
in the code are as mentioned hereafter33
Slenderness
Ratio(H/r)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CT( as per IS
code)
14.4
21.2
29.6
38.4
47.2
56
65
73.8
82.8
1.8X(H/r)
CT(1st Mode)
8.43
16.86
25.3
33.71
42.14
50.57
59.0
67.4
75.85
84.28
CT(2nd Mode)
CT(3rd Mode)
1.41
2.83
4.24
5.65
7.06
8.48
9.89
11.30
12.71
14.13
0.51
1.02
1.53
2.04
2.55
3.06
3.57
4.08
4.59
5.10
Table-19:- Comparison of CT value analytical method versus IS-Code

Calculation of amplitude:In terms of response spectrum analysis displacement Sd is given by
Sd =
Sa
Sd = i
expressing the above in terms of codal formulation we may express it as
ZI S a
where
2R 2
i = Modal Participation factor and is given by

H
i =
mi i
0
H
i i
f ( )
i
0
1
f ( )
Z= Zone Coefficient
I=Importance factor
32
Present analysis would give slightly different values of moments and shears then what has been
proposed in the code
33
IS-1893 does not propose any CT values for 2nd or 3rd mode.
Sharjah
Page 72
8/30/2006
R=Ductility factor
Integration of the mass participation factor within limits 1 to 0 for the first three modes gives
Mode Number
1
2
3
Mass Participation Factor(Ki)

0.764712
0.409767
0.304183
Now considering
ZI
an IS code factor we can write the time dependent function of displacement as
2R
Sd = i
Sa
Thus for the first mode we have

S a1WH 3
S d = 0.764712
13.78759 EIg
Substituting the value of = 2 calculated earlier we have
S a1WH 3
EIg
the complete function is thus given by
S d = 0.05546
w( z , t ) = ( z ).q (t ) thus for this case
w( z, t ) = 0.05546
S a1WH 3
[0.999 f 1 ( ) + 0.037 f 2 ( ) 0.222 f 3 ( )]
EIg
For calculation of moment and shear we know that
EI
d 2w
= M z from which we get
dz 2
Sa 1
2
2
2
M z = 0.05446 WH 3 1 2 0.9991 f 1( ) + 0.037 2 f 2( ) 0.02192 3 f 3( )
g
H
Sa1
0.9991 2 f1( ) + 0.037 2 2 f 2( ) 0.02192 3 2 f 3( )
g
or, M z = 0.05446 WH
Again considering
Vz =
dM z
we have
dz

Sharjah
Page 73
8/30/2006
Sa
3
3
3
V z = 0.05446 W 1 0.9991 f 1( ) + 0.037 2 f 2( ) 0.02192 3 f 3( )
g
Proceeding in identical manner for second mode we have

S WH 3
w( z , t ) = 0.00083 a 2
[0.0204 f 1 ( ) + 0.999 f 2 ( ) + 0.223 f 3 ( )]
EIg
Sa
2
2
2
M z = 0.00083 WH 2 0.0204 1 f 1( ) + 0.999 2 f 2( ) + 0.0223 3 f 3( )
g
and
Sa
V z = 0.00083W 2
g
0.020413 f 1( ) + 0.999 2 3 f 2( ) + 0.0223 3 3 f 3( )
Similarly for third mode we have

w( z , t ) = 0.0000798
S a 3WH 3
[0.0006 f 1 ( ) + 0.0202 f 2 ( ) + 0.999 f 3 ( )]
EIg
Sa
2
2
2
M z = 0.0000798 WH 3 0.00061 f1( ) + 0.0202 2 f 2( ) + 0.999 3 f 3( )
g
and
Sa
3
3
3
V z = 0.0000798W 2 0.00061 f 1( ) + 0.0202 2 f 2( ) + 0.999 3 f 3( )
g
It will be observed that once we know the values within parenthesis for i=1,2,3 we can
immediately find out the dynamic amplitude, shear and moments without going
through the elaborate process of dynamic analysis.
The coefficients for dynamic amplitude, moment and shears are as stated hereafter
=z/H
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1()
2()
0.00000
-0.00071
-0.00272
-0.00584
-0.00990
-0.01477
-0.02033
-0.02649
-0.03323
-0.04053
-0.04842
-0.05692
-0.06607
-0.07587
-0.08630
-0.09731
-0.10882
-0.12070
-0.13283
-0.14510
-0.15741
0.00000
0.00004
0.00016
0.00033
0.00052
0.00071
0.00089
0.00104
0.00114
0.00119
0.00118
0.00110
0.00096
0.00077
0.00052
0.00023
-0.00010
-0.00044
-0.00080
-0.00117
-0.00154
3()
1()
2()
3()
V1()
0.00000
0.00001
0.00004
0.00007
0.00010
0.00012
0.00012
0.00011
0.00009
0.00005
0.00001
-0.00004
-0.00007
-0.00010
-0.00010
-0.00009
-0.00006
-0.00002
0.00003
0.00009
0.00016
0.59257
0.51826
0.44558
0.37788
0.31927
0.27342
0.24266
0.22735
0.22568
0.23384
0.24654
0.25780
0.26195
0.25453
0.23311
0.19786
0.15172
0.10032
0.05149
0.01463
0.00000
-0.03840
-0.02889
-0.01947
-0.01032
-0.00170
0.00611
0.01283
0.01824
0.02219
0.02460
0.02550
0.02499
0.02324
0.02051
0.01707
0.01325
0.00937
0.00577
0.00278
0.00075
0.00000
-0.00992
-0.00604
-0.00229
0.00112
0.00388
0.00573
0.00649
0.00612
0.00470
0.00250
-0.00015
-0.00282
-0.00513
-0.00673
-0.00741
-0.00710
-0.00593
-0.00417
-0.00224
-0.00066
0.00000
-1.48866
-1.47859
-1.41704
-1.27673
-1.05514
-0.77092
-0.45836
-0.16014
0.08057
0.22791
0.25968
0.17170
-0.02075
-0.28437
-0.57193
-0.82845
-0.99820
-1.03151
-0.89013
-0.54988
0.00015
V2()
V3()
0.19024
0.18973
0.18648
0.17863
0.16521
0.14613
0.12199
0.09400
0.06372
0.03291
0.00336
-0.02330
-0.04568
-0.06273
-0.07371
-0.07817
-0.07593
-0.06694
-0.05126
-0.02894
-0.00002
0.07761
0.07690
0.07258
0.06267
0.04692
0.02651
0.00374
-0.01849
-0.03719
-0.04980
-0.05463
-0.05113
-0.04004
-0.02325
-0.00363
0.01546
0.03054
0.03851
0.03695
0.02434
-0.00002
Table-20:- Coeffcients for dynamic Amplitude,Moment and Shear for tall Chimneys
Sharjah
Page 74
8/30/2006
The above table should be used as follows:WH 3 S a

w = Coeff
EI g
S
M = CoeffWH a
g
S
V = CoeffW a
g
We now elaborate the theory with a suitable numerical problem

Example10.14
A multi-Flue chimney has height of 220 meter. Its estimated weight including lining and internal slab is
175,000kN.The diameter of the chimney at is 22.0 meter having average shell thickness of 650 mm. The
chimney is situated in a place depicted by zone IV as per IS-code resting on medium soil. Find the
deflection, moment and shear for first three modes and the maximum design moments and shears.
Consider grade of concrete used as M30 and damping ratio as 5% for the three modes.
Solution:Outside diameter of chimney = 22 meter
Shell thickness =650 mm
Thus inside diameter of chimney = 20.7 meter
Youngs Modulus of concrete = 5700 30 10 = 31220186 KN/m2
3
Moment of Inertia at base =

Area of chimney at base =
(22
64
(22
20.7 4 = 2486.39 m4
20.7 2 = 43.59745 m2
I
= 7.552 meter
A
220
Slenderness Ratio =
= 29.132
7.552
Radius of gyration =
Considering Time period = T1 = 1.69213
T1 = 1.69213 29.132
WH
for first mode we have
EAg
175000 220
= 2.646 sec
31220186 43.59745 9.81
This gives Sa/g=0.5138

Similarly for mode 2 we have
T2 = 0.2825 29.132
175000 220
= 0.442 sec gives Sa/g=2.5
31220186 43.59745 9.81
And for mode 3 we have

Sharjah
Page 75
8/30/2006
T2 = 0.1019 29.132
175000 220
= 0.1594 sec s gives Sa/g=2.5
31220186 43.59745 9.81
For Zone IV medium stiff soil as per IS-1893

Z=0.24 I=1.5 R=2.0
Thus
0.24 1.5
= 0.09
2 2
Substituting the values of W,H,E,I,Sa/g and we have and multiplying by the coefficients as furnished
earlier we have
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0
-8E-05
-0.00031
-0.00066
-0.00112
-0.00167
-0.0023
-0.003
-0.00376
-0.00459
-0.00548
-0.00644
-0.00748
-0.00858
-0.00977
-0.01101
-0.01231
-0.01366
-0.01503
-0.01642
-0.01781
0
2.42E-05
8.83E-05
0.000179
0.000284
0.000392
0.000491
0.000573
0.00063
0.000656
0.000649
0.000607
0.00053
0.000422
0.000285
0.000126
-5.3E-05
-0.00024
-0.00044
-0.00065
-0.00085
0
5.93E-06
2.02E-05
3.77E-05
5.36E-05
6.44E-05
6.74E-05
6.15E-05
4.74E-05
2.69E-05
2.99E-06
-2.1E-05
-4.1E-05
-5.3E-05
-5.7E-05
-5.1E-05
-3.5E-05
-1.1E-05
1.92E-05
5.22E-05
8.62E-05
M1
1054943
922659.2
793263.9
672745.7
568401.1
486773.8
432003.4
404746.5
401779.4
416306.3
438906.6
458964.1
466356.1
453144.1
415012.1
352243.6
270103.8
178594.6
91661.99
26039.05
0
M2
-332609
-250266
-168653
-89394.9
-14725.4
52895.65
111124.1
158013.1
192220.3
213133
220912.3
216463.4
201348.5
177661.2
147885
114754.9
81139.99
49956.77
24117.45
6509.844
0
M3
-85892.8
-52356.5
-19806.1
9701.786
33633.96
49669.59
56257.83
52990.54
40755.22
21658.81
-1256.53
-24456.8
-44447.7
-58313.2
-64178.9
-61533.9
-51366.9
-36106.2
-19385.9
-5695.8
0
V1
12046.6
11965.12
11467.06
10331.63
8538.429
6238.515
3709.188
1295.934
-652.025
-1844.28
-2101.39
-1389.43
167.9279
2301.155
4628.23
6704.063
8077.666
8347.249
7203.185
4449.783
-1.17797
V2
-7490.81
-7470.74
-7342.79
-7033.39
-6505.1
-5753.69
-4803.49
-3701.25
-2508.88
-1295.92
-132.352
917.3806
1798.847
2470.086
2902.146
3077.905
2989.633
2635.892
2018.418
1139.562
0.779923
V3
-3055.84
-3028.09
-2857.84
-2467.79
-1847.49
-1044.01
-147.433
727.9183
1464.321
1960.973
2151.082
2013.365
1576.448
915.6577
142.885
-608.726
-1202.66
-1516.39
-1455.03
-958.383
0.739784
The design values are obtained by the SRSS values of the three modes and are as given here after
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
D(comb)
0
8.41E-05
0.00032
0.000685
0.001157
0.001718
0.002353
0.003052
0.003812
0.004633
0.005517
0.006469
0.007495
0.008595
0.009769
0.011012
0.012313
0.01366
0.015037
0.016431
0.017831

Sharjah
Mcomb
1109464
957431.2
811236
678728.5
569585.7
492152.2
449600.3
437716.7
447254.2
468194.1
491368.3
508037.9
509906.7
490207.7
445223.5
375540.5
286667.6
188932.2
96743.92
27438.15
0
Page 76
Vcomb
14511.06
14427.24
13913.2
12739.74
10891.94
8550.669
6070.696
3988.558
2977.226
2987.67
3010.069
2612.614
2397.757
3497.866
5464.74
7401.926
8696.723
8883.915
7620.826
4692.299
1.594734
8/30/2006
We show below the Modal moments shear and SRSS values.
1500000
M1
1000000
M2
M3
Mcomb
500000
9
0.
75
0.
0.
45
0.
0.
0.
-500000
15
0
0
Momnet(kN.M)
Bending Moment under earthquake
Z/H
Fig-27- Bending Moment diagram of Tall Chimney first three modes and SRSS Value
V1
V2
V3
20000
Vcomb
9
0.
75
0.
6
0.
45
0.
0.
-10000
15
10000
0.
Shear force(kN)
Shear force diagram for three modes
Z/H
Fig-28- Shear force diagram of Tall Chimney first three modes and SRSS Value
It is observed that for tall structures, especially chimneys the higher modes can have
significant contribution. Performing analysis based on only the fundamental mode could
result in under-design.

Sharjah
Page 77
8/30/2006
Analysis of single Flue chimney with tapered section
Variable EI
Fig-29:- Single Flue Chimney and its mathematical model

For single flue chimney due to thermodynamic reason and to enhance the exit velocity of the
flue gas34, are usually provide with a tapered section as shown in the figure. Besides the
reason cited ,the choice is also structurally reasonable for the moment and shear increases
from zero at top to maximum at base. Based on this the obvious economic design be that
which has a section minimum at top and maximum at base.
As the section has a varying profile( generally linear) the mathematical treatment as shown
for the multi-flue chimney with constant EI becomes complex for a closed form solution
except for the fundamental mode.
However this can very easily be solved by applying numerical techniques and arrive at an
accurate answer.
In case of tapered chimneys the numerical solution is preferable because though in most of
the cases the profile is linear from stress point of view and also to diminish the amplitude at
top the profile has a number of transition zones( i.e. the slope often changes at two or three
positions thus have varying integral functions with different limits)
34
The flue gas needs sufficient exit velocity to reduce the ground level pollution concentration

Sharjah
Page 78
8/30/2006
Secondly the brick liner inside the chimney shell which reduces the temperature differential
across the chimney shell also undergoes change in thickness after a certain level thus
making the mass function non-continuous which surely makes the choice of a numerical
solution more attractive.
However one additional step on has to do in this case is to perform the eigen value analysis
which was already implicit in the calculation for chimneys with constant sections.
The theory presented earlier can be modified for numerical analysis as follows:As the moment of inertia of the section is varying the stiffness equation can be expressed as
k ij =
E i 2 j 2
4
0 I z ( z ) i ( z ) j dz
H
varying at different height z.
where Iz is moment of inertia considered to be
Where
i =
or
i 2
i z
i z
i z
i z
sin H sinh H + i cos H + cosh H

H
i =
i 2
H2
F (z ) =
F ( z ) and
i 2
i z
i z
i z
i z
sin H sinh H + i cos H + cosh H

H
Thus the stiffness matrix can now be written as
[K ]33
4
2
1 I z F1 ( z ) dz
0
H
H
E 2 2
4
2 I z F22 ( z )dz
= 4 2 1 I z F2( z ) F1( z )dz
H
0
0
H
H
3 2 1 2 I z F3( z )F1( z )dz 3 2 2 2 I z F3( z )F2(z )dz
0
0
3 4 I z F32 (z )dz
Similarly Mass equation can be written as
[M ]ij
2
( c Ac + b Ab ) 1 ( z )
0
H
1
= ( c Ac + b Ab ) 2 ( z )1 ( z )1
g
0
H
( c Ac + b Ab ) 3 ( z )1 ( z )
( c Ac + b Ab ) 2 2 (z )
0
H
H
( c Ac + b Ab ) 3 ( z ) 2 ( z ) ( c Ac + b Ab ) 3 2 ( z )
0
0
Here c = Weight density of concrete

b = Weight density of brick lining
Sharjah
Page 79
8/30/2006
Ac= Area of RCC shell at any height Z

Ab= Area of Brick lining at any height z
Each of the above term of the stiffness and mass matrix are to be obtained by numerical
integration between the limits 0-H.
For numerical solution for and following values are to be adopted
Mode
1.875
1.362221
4.694
0.981868
7.855
1.000776105
Tabl-21- The integration constans to be used for numerical analysis

Once the stiffness and mass matrix are formed an eigen-values analysis needs to
performed based on the Equation
[K ] [M ] 2 = 0
Once the eigen values vis-a-vis time periods are known the Sa/g values are obtained from
the response curve as furnished in the codes.
The displacement amplitude is thus furnished by the equation
ZI S a
and the complete solution is given by the expression35
Sd = i
2R 2
ZI S a
wi (z , t ) = i
[ ii ]Fi ( z ) .Thus
2R 2
ZI S a1
[11 F1 ( z ) + 12 F2 ( z ) + 13 F3 ( z )]
w1 ( z , t ) = 1
2 R 1 2
w2 ( z , t ) = 2
ZI S a 2
[ 21 F1 ( z ) + 22 F2 ( z ) + 23 F3 ( z )] and
2R 2 2
w3 (z , t ) = 3
ZI S a 3
[31 F1 ( z ) + 32 F2 ( z ) + 33 F3 ( z )]
2 R 3 2
Here [ ii ] = Eigen vector value for the mode I

The moment and shear are then obtained from the equation
EI
d 2w
= M z and
dz 2
EI
d 3w
= V z which gives
dz 3
M 1 (z, t ) = 1
35
S a1 EI
1 H
2
11
1 2 F1( z ) + 12 2 2 F2( z ) + 13 3 2 F3( z ) here
Her ki remains same as the case with constant EI as show earlier

Sharjah
Page 80
8/30/2006
ZI
2R
M 2 (z, t ) = 2
M 3 (z, t ) = 3
EI
V2 ( z , t ) = 2
V3 ( z , t ) = 3
2 H
2
S a 3 EI
3 H
2
d 3w
= V z
dz 3
V1 ( z , t ) = 1
S a 2 EI
S a1 EI
1 H
2
11
S a 2 EI
2 H
2
S a 3 EI
3 H
2
21
31
1 2 F1( z ) + 22 2 2 F2( z ) + 23 3 2 F3( z ) and
1 2 F1( z ) + 32 2 2 F2( z ) + 33 3 2 F3( z )
13 F1( z ) + 12 2 3 F2( z ) + 13 3 3 F3( z )
21
31
]
]
13 F1( z ) + 22 2 3 F2( z ) + 23 3 3 F3( z ) and
13 F1( z ) + 32 2 3 F2( z ) + 33 3 3 F3( z )
Here
z
z
z
z
Fi( z ) = cos i cosh h i + i sin i + sinh i

H
H
H
H
We explain the above with a suitable numerical example:Example 10.15

A 220 meter tall RCC chimney has properties as shown hereafter. Calculate the first three fundamental
time period and seismic response for seismic zone IV, with site having medium soil.
The data for the chimney are as shown hereafter
Height of chimney =220 meter
Diameter of shell at bottom =22 meter
Shell thickness at bottom =650 mm
Diameter of shell at top = 5.0 meter
Shell thickness at top= 250 mm
Air gap between shell and lining = 100 mm although
Thickness of brick lining= 150 mm from 220 to 150 meter
Thickness of brick lining = 230 mm from 150 to 25 meter
Density of concrete=25 kN/m3
Density of brick= 22 kN/m3
Grade of concrete=M35
Zone coefficient =0.24
Importance factor=1.5
R(Ductility factor)=2.0
Solution:For the problem the earthquake factor=
Econc= 31220185.78 kN/m2
Sharjah
ZI 0.24 1.5
=
= 0.09
2R
4
Page 81
8/30/2006
z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
Outside
diameter
22
21.15
20.3
19.45
18.6
17.75
16.9
16.05
15.2
14.35
13.5
12.65
11.8
10.95
10.1
9.25
8.4
7.55
6.7
5.85
5
Outside
dia
lining
0
0
0
18.0775
17.27
16.4625
15.655
14.8475
14.04
13.2325
12.425
11.6175
10.81
10.0025
9.195
8.3875
7.58
6.7725
5.965
5.1575
4.35
Inside
diameter
20.7
19.8925
19.085
18.2775
17.47
16.6625
15.855
15.0475
14.24
13.4325
12.625
11.8175
11.01
10.2025
9.395
8.5875
7.78
6.9725
6.165
5.3575
4.55
Inside
dia
Lining
0
0
0
17.6175
16.81
16.0025
15.195
14.3875
13.58
12.7725
11.965
11.1575
10.35
9.5425
8.895
8.0875
7.28
6.4725
5.665
4.8575
4.05
Area of
lining
0
0
0
12.89600222
12.31252993
11.72905763
11.14558534
10.56211304
9.978640746
9.39516845
8.811696154
8.228223859
7.644751563
7.061279268
4.262355833
3.881830423
3.501305012
3.120779602
2.740254192
2.359728782
1.979203372
Area of
concrete
43.5974521
40.5351404
37.5834816
34.7424755
32.0121223
29.3924218
26.8833741
24.4849792
22.1972371
20.0201477
17.9537111
15.9979274
14.1527964
12.4183182
10.7944927
9.28132008
7.87880022
6.58693314
5.40571884
4.33515733
3.37524861
Moment of
inertia
2486.389939
2135.781491
1823.567498
1546.84251
1302.815147
1088.808108
902.2581633
740.7161567
601.8470066
483.4297052
383.3573185
299.6369863
230.3899223
173.851414
128.3708229
92.41158428
64.55120714
43.48127451
28.00744321
17.04944393
9.641081217
Next we define the function f i ( ) for the first three modes and then multiplying and integrating the
H
expression m1 = ( c Ac + b Ab )
2
1 (z ) dz etc we obtain mass matrix as shown hereafter.
0
z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
f1()
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.17
0.27
0.37
0.49
0.63
0.77
0.92
1.09
1.26
1.43
1.61
1.79
1.98
2.16
2.35
2.54
2.72
f2()
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.37
0.59
0.82
1.03
1.21
1.34
1.41
1.40
1.32
1.16
0.92
0.62
0.27
-0.14
-0.57
-1.03
-1.49
-1.96
f3()
0.00
0.13
0.46
0.85
1.21
1.45
1.51
1.38
1.05
0.58
0.04
-0.50
-0.95
-1.24
-1.32
-1.16
-0.79
-0.23
0.46
1.22
2.00
f1(x).f1(x)
0.00
0.14
1.96
11.60
32.43
69.73
126.80
205.03
303.73
420.17
549.82
686.68
823.77
953.56
942.19
1019.18
1070.23
1091.06
1078.68
1031.49
949.38
114105.17
F2(x).f1(
x)
0.00
0.59
7.81
42.86
110.18
215.60
352.36
504.71
650.94
767.47
833.09
832.57
759.11
615.44
364.48
150.83
-74.41
-288.90
-472.15
-607.65
-684.29
43303.49
f2(x).f2(x)
0.00
2.51
31.09
158.35
374.36
666.56
979.13
1242.41
1395.06
1401.84
1262.32
1009.45
699.53
397.22
141.00
22.32
5.17
76.50
206.67
357.97
493.21
112513.56
f3(x).f1(x
)
0.00
1.59
19.60
98.31
225.52
381.57
516.23
573.05
510.50
318.23
23.32
-315.27
-621.92
-824.51
-770.21
-661.89
-427.87
-116.81
210.18
495.41
697.70
4217.34
f3(x).f2(x
)
0.00
6.77
78.02
363.21
766.23
1179.70
1434.49
1410.63
1094.07
581.27
35.34
-382.25
-573.11
-532.15
-297.95
-97.96
29.75
30.93
-92.00
-291.85
-502.88
54348.47
f3(x).f3(x)
0.00
18.25
195.82
833.10
1568.28
2087.90
2101.62
1601.62
858.02
241.03
0.99
144.75
469.53
712.92
629.62
429.85
171.06
12.51
40.95
237.94
512.74
136827.21
Integrating each of the above term by Simpsons 1/3rd rule36 we have

36
I= h/3[( y0+4(y1+y3+y5++yn-1)+2(y2+y4++yn-2)+yn]

Sharjah
Page 82
8/30/2006
Dividing each of the above terms by g=9.81 we have the mass matrix as
11631.5 4414.2 429.997

[M ] = 4414.2 11469.27 5540 KN-sec2/m
429.997
5540
13948
Again for stiffness matrix we show the functions f i( ) as hereafter and applying the expression
k ij =
Z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
E i 2 j 2
H4
f1"(x)
2.72
2.54
2.35
2.16
1.98
1.79
1.61
1.43
1.26
1.09
0.93
0.77
0.63
0.49
0.37
0.27
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.00
0 Iz ( z ) i ( z ) j dz we have
f2"(x)
1.96
1.49
1.03
0.57
0.14
-0.27
-0.62
-0.92
-1.16
-1.32
-1.40
-1.41
-1.34
-1.21
-1.03
-0.82
-0.59
-0.37
-0.18
-0.05
0.00
f3"(x)
2.00
1.22
0.46
-0.23
-0.79
-1.16
-1.32
-1.24
-0.95
-0.50
0.04
0.58
1.05
1.38
1.51
1.45
1.21
0.85
0.46
0.13
0.00
f1"(x).f1"(x)
3283.58
2445.70
1791.12
1287.15
905.58
622.12
416.04
269.86
169.03
101.70
58.37
31.69
16.08
7.51
3.16
1.16
0.35
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.1961E+05
f2"(x).f1"(x)
14833.25
9030.09
4913.99
2136.53
395.01
-576.65
-1008.36
-1091.32
-976.03
-772.62
-554.21
-362.68
-215.99
-115.90
-55.01
-22.39
-7.41
-1.81
-0.26
-0.01
0.00
2.3089E+05
f2"(x).f2"(x)
67007.83
33341.16
13481.69
3546.40
172.30
534.50
2443.96
4413.37
5635.75
5869.80
5261.92
4150.99
2900.50
1787.65
957.77
433.67
157.71
41.78
6.48
0.30
0.00
1.3445E+06
f3"(x).f1"(x)
42337.64
20605.66
6118.56
-2422.39
-6355.70
-7091.03
-5968.29
-4094.23
-2238.81
-818.80
43.83
421.35
474.44
368.52
225.67
110.94
42.45
11.59
1.83
0.08
0.00
2.4450E+05
f3"(x).f2"(x)
191256.31
76080.79
16786.46
-4020.89
-2772.32
6572.75
14465.37
16557.31
12927.29
6220.62
-416.12
-4822.53
-6371.21
-5684.07
-3929.12
-2148.97
-903.64
-268.21
-45.51
-2.23
0.00
2.3870E+06
Integrating each of the above term numerically by Simpsons 1/3rd rule we have stiffness matrix as
1.1961 10 5
[K ] = 2.3089 10 5
2.445 10 5
2.3089 10 5
1.3445 10 6
2.387 10 6
2.445 10 5
2.387 10 6
8.9746 10 6
Performing the eigen value analysis by any of the methods as shown in Chapter 11 we have
(rad/sec)
T(sec)
7.274
77.994
665.705
2.69
8.83
25.801
2.335
0.711
0.243
Thus for T= 2.69 sec we have Sa/g =0.506, for T=0.71143 Sa/g =1.912 and for T=0.243 Sa/g =2.5
The corresponding eigen vectors are given by
0.978
-0.206
0.028
Sharjah
-0.199
0.952
-0.231
Page 83
0.078
-0.234
0.969
8/30/2006
f3"(x).f3"(x)
545891.08
173607.84
20901.32
4558.87
44606.72
80825.06
85618.10
62116.76
29652.64
6592.42
32.91
5602.72
13994.95
18073.30
16118.72
10648.68
5177.64
1721.86
319.55
16.79
0.00
8.9746E+06
ZI S a
[ ii ]Fi ( z ) for the first three modes and
2R 2
performing an SRSS we have the deflection as
Now applying the expression wi (z , t ) = i
Z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
d1
d2
0
0.00026789
0.001083743
0.002469443
0.004457507
0.00709863
0.010467125
0.014662016
0.019802496
0.02601757
0.033430847
0.042142434
0.052210656
0.0636366
0.07635444
0.090229911
0.105068462
0.120633473
0.136673848
0.152959279
0.169320917
d3
0
0.0001256
0.00052355
0.00121953
0.00222113
0.0035042
0.0050014
0.0065967
0.00812785
0.00939753
0.01019223
0.01030627
0.00956771
0.00786193
0.00514892
0.00147103
-0.00305107
-0.00823501
-0.01386508
-0.01973043
-0.02567019
0
0.00012031
0.00040682
0.0007514
0.00105669
0.00124471
0.00126471
0.0010984
0.00076119
0.00029891
-0.00021965
-0.00071338
-0.00110126
-0.00131444
-0.00130632
-0.00105889
-0.00058429
7.8992E-05
0.0008749
0.00174295
0.00263431
d(comb)
0
0.000319401
0.001270476
0.002854819
0.005091109
0.008013692
0.01166937
0.016115137
0.021419154
0.027664363
0.034950697
0.043390238
0.053091492
0.064133881
0.076538999
0.090248114
0.105114376
0.120914253
0.137378115
0.154236405
0.171276009
Again applying the expressions

3
S
2
M i z = i EI z 2 ai 2 i i Fi( z )
i H i =1
z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
M1
M2
3.67E+05
3.26E+05
2.89E+05
2.59E+05
2.36E+05
2.20E+05
2.07E+05
1.95E+05
1.80E+05
1.62E+05
1.39E+05
1.14E+05
8.75E+04
6.29E+04
4.16E+04
2.49E+04
1.31E+04
5.74E+03
1.87E+03
3.21E+02
0.00E+00
M3
1.66E+05
1.62E+05
1.52E+05
1.33E+05
1.04E+05
6.62E+04
2.57E+04
-1.26E+04
-4.36E+04
-6.41E+04
-7.30E+04
-7.16E+04
-6.25E+04
-4.91E+04
-3.48E+04
-2.19E+04
-1.20E+04
-5.40E+03
-1.80E+03
-3.14E+02
0.00E+00
M(comb)
1.93E+05
9.88E+04
2.91E+04
-1.76E+04
-4.34E+04
-5.18E+04
-4.76E+04
-3.58E+04
-2.13E+04
-7.72E+03
2.65E+03
8.93E+03
1.13E+04
1.08E+04
8.65E+03
5.91E+03
3.42E+03
1.61E+03
5.56E+02
9.91E+01
0.00E+00
446864.58
377351.31
328063.80
291654.23
261684.80
235591.22
214286.59
198681.30
186731.17
174100.41
157111.46
134655.60
108163.28
80532.97
54895.14
33665.99
18058.51
8045.56
2659.46
459.82
0.00
Considering
Vi z = i EI z
S ai
i H
2

i =1

Sharjah
3
i
Fi( z )
Page 84
8/30/2006
z
0
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
110
121
132
143
154
165
176
187
198
209
220
V1
V2
-1099.47
-1004.89
-1165.62
-1560.86
-2032.65
-2401.47
-2537.25
-2390.54
-1991.56
-1427.86
-812.11
-250.57
180.09
444.06
545.46
518.33
411.86
275.78
149.19
55.04
0.00
V3
-2082.90
-1689.54
-927.94
192.21
1434.61
2516.28
3219.92
3446.10
3216.83
2646.40
1896.10
1128.23
470.58
-2.75
-273.49
-368.13
-339.38
-246.61
-140.35
-53.54
0.01
V(comb)
7083.22
6026.67
4843.50
3521.88
2181.69
975.79
27.40
-600.46
-909.76
-954.43
-818.13
-590.77
-349.39
-146.84
-8.68
63.03
81.90
68.30
41.85
16.70
-0.01
7464.54
6339.17
5067.47
3857.05
3309.01
3612.60
4099.55
4236.84
3891.27
3154.87
2219.02
1297.96
613.15
467.71
610.25
638.87
539.93
376.21
209.06
78.58
0.01
The Bending moment and shear force diagram are as shown hereafter
Bending Moment Diagram
4.00E+05
M1
3.00E+05
M2
2.00E+05
M3
1.00E+05
M(comb)
0
22
8
19
6
17
4
15
2
13
0
11
88
66
44
-1.00E+05
22
0.00E+00
Bending moment(kN-m)
5.00E+05
Height z(m )
Fig-30 Bending Moment diagram for tapered chimney for first three modes including
the SRSS value

Sharjah
Page 85
8/30/2006
Shear force diagram
6000.00
V1
4000.00
V2
2000.00
V3
0.00
0
22
8
19
6
17
4
15
2
13
0
11
88
66
44
V(comb)
22
-2000.00
Shear force kN
8000.00
-4000.00
Height(z)
Fig-31-Shear Force diagram for tapered chimney for first three modes including the
SRSS value
Computer analysis of tall chimneys :Many corporate house and research institute has developed in-house computer program for
analysis and design of tall chimneys based on IS-4998 or ACI 307, CICIND etc.
The seismic analysis part however can also be done in generic finite element commercially
available package like GTSTRUDL, SAP 2000, STAAD PRO etc.
In such case for dynamic analysis normally a stick model with masses lumped at convenient
nodes suffice. The structural element constitutes of beam elements with the mass of the
shell and brick lining lumped at each end nodes i and j.
The computer assembles the stiffness matrix based on the principle of finite element
[K ] = [B]T D[B]dz and forms the lumped mass matrix [M ] which is diagonal in nature.
On formation of this elements it performs the eigen value analysis based on the expression
[K ][] = [M ][] 2 =0 and then perform the modal analysis based on response spectrum
method as explained earlier.
Discussion on factors affecting the dynamic analysis of tall chimneys :The major factors which affect the dynamic response of tall chimneys under earthquake are
the code factors
Z (zone factor)
I (Importance factor)
R (Ductility factor)
While IS code recommends the value of Z for different zones, the importance factor for
chimney considering its slenderness requires special consideration while the usual practice
is to apply a factor of 1.25 to 1.5 , however for zones which a more susceptible to
earthquake (like zone IV and V) it is recommended37 that importance factor considered be
2.0
Present IS code though has covered extensively the ductility factor R for different types of
frames and dual systems( frame + shear wall) etc has not come out with any
recommendation on the ductility factor to assumed for chimney like structures.
37
JLWilson CICIND research report Vol-13 2003 Aeismic design of tall chimneys.

Sharjah
Page 86
8/30/2006
CICIND recommends a value of R=1 for non ductile detailing and R=2 when ductile detailing
is to be adopted. In absence of any recommendations furnished by IS-code the above
values of R as recommended by CICIND may be adopted.
Do we consider soil structure interaction for dynamic analysis of chimney?
This is a question which has plagued many a engineer undertaking the task of design of tall
chimneys.
While research papers38 and code do recommend to consider this some assessments need
to be made whether it has any value addition in undertaking this complicated task.
Most of the tall chimneys are structurally flexible in nature and in all possibility have its fixed
base time period which would induce a base acceleration of the type k/T where k varies with
the nature of soil39. Considering the soil as equivalent springs based on Richart/Wolfs
formulation and correcting the time for soil-structure interaction based on the expression
T = T 1+
k
Kx
Kxh 2
1 +
Here
T = Modified time period of the structure due to the soil stiffness
T = Time period of the fixed base structure
4 2W
k = Stiffness of the fixed base structure @
gT 2
K x , K = Horizontal and rotational spring constant of the soil40
h = Effective height or inertial centroid of the system.

W= Total weight of the structure .
It will be observed that in most of the cases the time period will further prolong and which would
reduce the value of Sa/g as given in code.
While one may feel happy that it would give a more economic design considering the attenuation
of response, however is not true in all cases specially for chimney like structures.
Firstly for such flexible structures vibrating during earthquake the acceleration at the top portion
of the chimney will be subjected to much higher acceleration then the ground acceleration input
we furnish in the analysis41.
Only if we do a time history analysis it will be observed that the acceleration at top is indeed
much more than the input base acceleration.
Thus forces in reality could be more at top portion then what we observe considering soil
structure interaction and further reducing the design moments and shears may not always be a
safe decision, even with the soil damping attenuating the responses further at the higher mode.
38
Ghosh Dhiman .K. and Batavayal H.N Analysis of Structural response to earthquake for 150M high
RCC Chimney with soil-structure interaction Proceedings on National Seminar on Tall Chimneys
Vigyan Bhavan New Delhi 1985.
39
As per table 13 k=1.0 for hard soil, 1.36 for medium soil and 1.67 for soft soil
40
Refer Chapter 8 for the expressions of Kx and K.
41
The analysis is done with the implicit assumption of providing same ground acceleration to all the
mass along the height of the chimney.
Sharjah
Page 87
8/30/2006
UBC 97 tries to cater to this phenomenon by a provision of a fictitious force Ve=0.07 V.T for time
period greater than 0.7 seconds. As IS code does not have this provision, considering soil
compliance may under rate the response on the top portion of the structure.
Moreover as the ductility design for these type of chimneys are still not well defined, it would
perhaps be preferable to design it as a fixed base structure and render a conservative design.
Unless the structure is itself so rigid that one is reasonably sure that considering soil structure
interaction can amplify the response instead of attenuation.
Thus to sum it up.
A chimney should preferably be designed as a fixed base cantilever

Minimum three modes should be considered for dynamic analysis since the higher mode at
times can give higher response in terms of shears and moments.
If by three modes at least 90% mass participation is not there higher mode participation
needs to be considered.
Consider damping ratio somewhere between 2-5%
As the frequencies in most cases be widely spaced SRSS method of modal combination
would suffice.
If ground acceleration spectra for the particular site is available on may undertake a time
history analysis, when soil structure interaction can be considered.
In case codal spectrum is used for design,fixed base analysis is always preferable.
Earthquake analysis of Dams
Earthquake analysis of dam can be a topic of a reference book itself. Considering its
hugeness and effect on the surrounding environment and habitat, study of its behaviour
under earthquake force is a very important issue.
It can well be inferred that any failure of such dams can have catastrophic effect on the
surrounding. As mentioned earlier one of the major man made earthquake generated having
devastating effect on the surrounding was the Koyna Dam Earthquake effect in 1967.
The dams are normally of three type.
1) Made of concrete structure- could be Plain or Reinforced concrete
2) Made of natural earth with soft clay core popularly known as earthen dam
3) Made of compacted rockfill covered with a layer of protection to nullify seepage.
Water Line
Figure 32:- A schematic sketch of dam with water behind it

Concrete dams which are normally used to hold significant quantity of water are usually massive
in nature and normally does not induce significant stress within the body of the concrete itself
due to the inertial force, however the hydrodynamic force induced in due to the sloshing of the
Sharjah
Page 88
8/30/2006
water can induce significant force within the body of the dam, for which it should be ensured that
the dam does not undergo any crack due to such forces.
As the dam is a continuum is usually discretized into plain stress elements and one of the most
convenient method of analysis is by finite element method where after assemblage of the overall
stiffness matrix and the mass eigenvalues and subsequent forces can very well be obtained by
applying the standard modal analysis which we have discussed earlier.
Water Line
Figure 33:- A Schematic Finite Element Model of dam with water behind it
One of the earliest application of such technique was developed by R.W.Clough42 for analysis of
the Norfolk Dam in USA
Can you please add some more substance to this specially how time periods are derived
for earthquake analysis see what I have done for earth dams below I do not have any
literature here.
Dynamic Analysis of Earth Dams under earthquake

In countries like India, USA , Australia where a major part of the economy is largely dependent
on agriculture and consists of a number of rivers and canals, for the purpose of irrigation and
flood control (specially in rural areas) dams made out of natural earth is very popular.
The system usually consists of carefully chosen natural soil with a clay core( to control the
seepage) and has been successfully utilized for effective utilization of water stored thereby.
We deal with the earthquake analysis of such dams herein.
Unlike concrete dams, which are far more rigid, the behaviour of earth dams are different under
earthquake.
Though theoretically concrete dams also do not behave as an exactly rigid structures they are
usually assumed to behave as rigid without much practical error. In such case it is assumed that
the motion at the base is same in all parts of the concrete dam.
On the contrary for earth dams the constituent material being much softer it mostly behave as
flexible structure where the acceleration induced within the dam varies with height and could be
different at different points of the dam
Mononobes Method for analysis of earth dam :One of the earliest analysis of such earth dam was proposed by Mononobe in his classic paper43
in 1936 wherein the dam is considered as an isosceles triangle having uniform mass density.
42
Clough R.W. The stress distribution of Norfolk Dam Structures and Material research Department
of Civil Engineering Series 100 Issue 19 University of California Berkley(March 1962).
43
Mononobe N Seismic Stability of Earth Dam Proc II Congress on Large Dams Vol IV 1936
Sharjah
Page 89
8/30/2006
As width of the base of the dam is considered as far greater then the height of the dam, it is
assumed that the shear deformation is predominant and bending deformation which is
secondary in nature may be ignored.
s dz
z 2
dz
s+
s dz
z 2
Figure 34:-Shear force in a triangular wedge shaped Earth Dam

With respect to the figure as shown above for a strip dz the horizontal shear force and the
inertial shear is given by
2 X s
= dz where X is the horizontal amplitude of displacement and s is the
2
t z
shear force
2 X s
or az 2 =
t z
The shear modulus44 of the soil medium is given by
(az )dz
G=
s / az
Shear Stress
=
which gives
Shear strain dX / dz
dX
dz
Differentiating the above with respect to Z we have
s = Gaz
s
X
2 X
= Ga
+ Gaz 2 from which we have
z
z
z
2 X
X
2 X
=
+
which is the basic equation of shear vibration of the
Ga
Gaz
z
t 2
z 2
triangular wedge
For solution of the above equation considering z=zH where H is the height of the dam
44
This is considered constant over the depth in this case.

Sharjah
Page 90
8/30/2006
And considering
X = x( z ' ) sin t we have

2 X
= x 2 sin t and
t 2
X x
= sin t
z z
or
X
1 x
=
sin t and
z H z
2 X
1 2x
sin t
=
H 2 z 2
z 2
Substituting the above in the basic equation of shear vibration we have

x
2x
+ z ' 2 + H 2 z ' x 2 = 0
G
z '
z '
The above is the Bessels equation, whose solution is given by the expression

x = AJ 0 H
z ' here A is a constant and J0 is the Bessel function of order zero.
G
Implementing the boundary condition at the base of the dam(z=1) x=0 we have

J 0 H
=0
G
The above can be expanded as
1 0.0507
1
= n +
+ ......... where n=1,2,3. etc
H
G
4 4n 1
n
or, n =
vs
1 0.0507
n +
H
4 4n 1
Considering T =
we have

Sharjah
Page 91
8/30/2006
T=
2H
1 0.0507
vs n +
4 4n 1
Thus for the first three mode we have

Mode
1
2
3
Time Period(sec)
H
2.607
vs
H
1.138
vs
H
0.726
vs
Table-22 Time period of Earthen Dams for first three Modes

IS code only furnishes the first fundamental mode as mentioned above for calculation of
time period.
We started the derivation of the time period equation based on the equilibrium of the
elemental strip given by
2 X s
(az )dz 2 = dz
t z
and
2 X
2 X
2
=
sin
t
which
gives
maximum
value
of
as
t 2
t 2
2 X
= x 2
2
t
Again considering n =
2 X
t 2
vs
v
1 0.0507
n +
for n= 1 n = 0.767 s which gives
H
4 4n 1
H
2 2 vs
= x(0.767 )
H2
max
Substituting the value of x derived previously we have

2 X
t 2
.z '.0.767
= AJ 0 H
G
H
max
G
2 2 vs
(0.767 )
H2
2
vs 2
J 0 (0.767z ') , the numerical constants being considered within the

H2
constant proportionality.
or proportional to

Sharjah
Page 92
8/30/2006
For a particular dam as the
vs 2
H2
is a constant quantity, hence maximum
2 X
acceleration 2
is proportional to J 0 (2.41z ')
t max
The value of J 0 (2.41z ') for various values of z are as shown hereafter
z=z/H
Maximum
acceleration
, J 0 (2.41z ' )
0.0
1.00
0.1
0.986
0.3
0.874
0.5
0.668
0.7
0.406
0.9
0.127
1.0
0.00
Table-23:- Variation of accleration along the height of the dam as per Mononobe
The above values may be used to determine the inertial force at different heights of the
dam.
When resonance occur the deformations would tend to infinite value without any internal
friction, however due to internal friction the maximum deflection is restricted to a finite value.
Mononobe calculated the ratio of top and bottom deflection for G and and also when the
parameters vary linearly with depth. Considering linear variation with depth the acceleration
is expressed as
d0 d H z
where
d
H
is the acceleration at any depth z below top , 0 is the ground level acceleration
and d0 is the maximum displacement at the top. The ratio of top and bottom
displacement came to 2.5 and 3.5 respectively from which Mononobe concluded that
maximum acceleration at the top may be 2.5 to 3.5 times the acceleration at the base.
= 0 1 +
Gazetass Method for analysis of earth dam :George Gazetas45 developed solutions to the shear beam wave equation for the case
where the shear modulus value varies with the depth of the dam given by the
z
expression G ( z ) = Gav , where Gav is the average shear modulus of material
H
constituting the dam.
The nth natural frequency of the dam considering the dam to be of triangular shape(i.e.
h/H=1) is given by
vs n
(4 + )(2 ) , here vs= average shear wave velocity of the soil in the
H 8
dam and n is a function given below in table for the first three modes
n =
45
Shear vibrations of vertically inhomogeneous earth dams- Gazetas G International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol 6 No-1 pp 219-241
Sharjah
Page 93
8/30/2006
1
2.404
2.903
2.999
3.142
3.382
0
1/2
4/7
2/3
1
2
5.520
6.033
6.133
6.283
7.106
3
8.654
9.171
9.273
9.525
10.174
Table-24:- Frequency coefficient for Earth Dam for first three modes as per
Gazetas
The mode shape for the nth natural frequency is given by
1
2
z
J q n where Jq=Bessels function of first kind of order

H
q=/(2-) and can be evaluated from the expression
z
n ( z) =
H
( 1)k
x
J q ( x) =

k =0 k! ( q + k + 1) 2
by the expression
q+2k
where ( x ) is the gamma function and is given
(x ) = e x x n1dx
0
Makadisi and Seeds Method for analysis of earth dam :A simplified procedure proposed by Makadisi and Seed46 taking into consideration the
strain dependent degradation of shear modulus and damping of soil possibly remains
the most popular method for dam analysis in design office and was developed in similar
line of Mononobes method as explained earlier.
Based on the shear beam equation as derived earlier they found the acceleration at any
level z as a function of time is given by
2J ( z / H )
u&&( z , t ) = 0 n
nVn (t )
n J1 n
n =1
Where J0, J1= Bessel function of first kind of order zero and one
n= The zero value of frequency equation J 0 (H / G ) = 0
n= Natural frequency of the nth mode = nVs/H
t
Vn (t ) = u&&g e n n (t ) sin[ dn (t )]d where dn = n 1 2 the damped

0
natural frequency and n = Critical damping ratio.

46
Makadisi F.I. and Seed H.B. A simplified procedure for estimating earthquake induced deformations
in dam and embankments; EERC Report -77/19, University of California Berkeley.
Sharjah
Page 94
8/30/2006
Thus u&&( z , t ) = n ( z ) nVn (t ) where

n =1
2J 0 ( n z / H )
=Modal participation factor
n J1 n
n =1
Considering the first three modes of vibration the corresponding values of n are
always 1=2.4,2=5.52 and 3=8.65 which gives the first three natural frequencies as
n ( z) =
Mode
1
Frequency
v
1 = 2.4 s
H
v
2 = 5.52 s
H
vs
3 = 8.65
H
2
3
Table-25:- Natural Frequencies for first three modes for Earth Dams as per
Makadis and Seed
At the crest of the dam (z=0) the corresponding values of mode participation factors
n (0) for the first three modes are given by
Mode
Modal participation
factor
1 = 1.6
2 = 1.06
3 = 0.86
1
2
3
Table-26:- Modal participation factor for first three modes for Earth Dams as per
Makadis and Seed
Thus the crest acceleration at each mode is given by
u&&(0, t ) = n (0) nVn (t ) when based on response spectrum analysis the maximum
n =1
expected acceleration is given by

u&&(0, t ) = n (0) S an
Thus for the first three modes the maximum acceleration is given by
u&&1 max = 1.6 S a1

u&&2 max = 1.06 S a 2
u&&3 max = 0.86S a 3
The maximum SRSS values of the acceleration is thus given by the expression
Sharjah
Page 95
8/30/2006
u&&n max =
n =1
(u&&n max )2
To estimate the strain compatible material properties an expression for the average
shear strain over the entire section should be determined. From the shear slice theory,
the expression for shear strain at any level in the dam is given by
2 J1 ( n z / H )
Vn (t )
n =1 H n J 1 ( n )
( z, t ) =
=
=
H
vs
H
vs
2J1 ( n z / H )
n =1
n 2 J1 ( n)
nVn (t )
n ( z ) nVn (t )
n =1
2J1
n H
where n ( z ) =
= shear strain mode participation factor
n 2 J1 ( n )
It is recommended that the contribution of higher modes being small it is sufficient to
consider the contribution of the first mode only over the entire depth of the dam for
calculation of the average shear strain.
Thus the maximum average shear strain is obtained as
H
max ( z ) = 2 1 S a1
vs
It has been shown that the average value of the first factor is given by 1avg = 0.3
Assuming an equivalent cyclic shear strain as approximately 65% of the average shear
strain
H
avg (max) = 0.65 0.3 2 S a1
vs
Having obtained a new value for the average shear strain a new set of modulus and
damping value can obtained from the expressions47
D
r
and c =
G=
Dm 1 +
(1 +
)
r
Gmax
The iterations are carried out till the values become constant with respect to the earlier
cycle. It has been observed that the system generally converges by 3 cycles.
Calculation of seismic force in dam and its stability:-
47
For further explanation of how to modify the damping and shear modulus with respect to shear strain
refer chapter 7 titled Geo-technical Consideration for Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction .
Sharjah
Page 96
8/30/2006
Once the modal acceleration and its SRSS values is obtained, for assessing the damage
incurred in a dam, usual design office practice is to undertake a psuedo static analysis. For
major damage observed in a dam is due to stability failure specially on the upstream side.
To asses this, a slope stability analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the factor of safety
which should be more than unity under the seismic force in addition to all other forces working
on the dam.
For stability analysis, any standard method like Slip circle, Felleniuss or Bishops method 48may
be applied which needs to be modified to cater for the applied seismic force.
Water Line
W
Failure line
yW
Fig-35:- Slope Failure of Dam under Earthquake Force

For instance the Factor of safety(F) based on slip circle method is modified to:n
i =1 (N U yT )tan + cS
n
F=
i =1
(T + y N )
i =1
Here F= Factor of safety

N= Normal component of the weight of the soil
T=Tangential component of the weight of the soil
= Friction angle resistance of soil
c= cohesion of soil
S= Width of segments of slices considered for analysis
y= seismic acceleration coefficient(Sa/g) in horizontal direction obtained from code based on
the fundamental time period as derived earlier.
U= Force due to internal Pore pressure within the dam
Earthquake analysis of earth retaining structures:Retaining walls supporting earth make an important component in infra-structure works like
highways, roads, ports, bridge abutment etc.
It has not been uncommon that during post earthquake relief operations49, relief could not be
sent in time, for damage to retaining wall itself has cut off the link road or tilting of the same has
resulted in secondary collapse of bridge girders thus making some part of relief area
48
49
For details of these methods refer any standard text book on soil mechanics.
Specially in mountainous region

Sharjah
Page 97
8/30/2006
inaccessible thus compounding the problems of the relief workers who have anyway a tough job
to execute.
Thus understanding the behaviour of such structures under earthquake load is of paramount
importance to civil engineers undertaking such tasks. It is important at times that such structures
remain functional even after a severe earthquake maintaining the vital link among two places.
One of the earliest method for earthquake analysis of such retaining wall has been proposed by
Mononobe50 and Okabe51 which still remain the backbone of analysis in almost all design office
and code of practice.
Mononobes Method of Analysis of Retaining Wall:Mononobe developed a pseudo static analysis for estimation of earth pressure on a gravity type
retaining wall during an earthquake.
He basically extended the original Coulombs theory to develop the soil pressure behind a
retaining wall catering to the horizontal and vertical component of the ground acceleration.
hW
vW
W
H
Pa
Fr
F
B
Fig-36:- Mononobes force diagram for gravity type retaining wall under earthquake
Coulomb(1776)52 derived the equation of active and passive earth pressure as
Pa =
1
1
K AH 2 and Pp = K P H 2 where
2
2
50
Mononobe N and Matsuo H (1926) On determination of earth pressure during earthquakesProceeding on World Engineering Congress Page-9.
51
Okabe S General theory of earth pressure Journal of Japanese Society of Civil Engineering Vol 12,
No-1.
52
Coulomb C.A.(1776) Essai sur une Applicaion des Regles de Maximis er Minims a quelques
Problemes de Satique, relatifsa lArchutecture- Mem Roy des Sciences Paris Vol-3 P38.
Sharjah
Page 98
8/30/2006
cos 2 ( )
KA =
sin(
)
sin(
)
i
cos 2 cos( + ) 1 +

cos( + ) cos( i )

= Coefficient of active earth pressure and
cos 2 ( + )
KP =
+
+
sin(
)
sin(
)
i
cos 2 cos( ) 1

cos( ) cos(i )

= Coefficient of passive earth pressure
= Weight density of soil
H= Height of the retaining wall
Friction angle of the soil
Angle of friction between wall and soil
Angle subtended with the back of the wall with vertical
i=
Slope of soil with respect to the horizontal
Mononobe and Okabe modified the above coefficient of earth pressure considering the
horizontal and vertical seismic coefficient earthquake force h and v to
K AE =
cos 2 ( )
1
i
+
sin(
)
sin(
)
cos cos 2 cos( + + ) 1 +

cos( + + ) cos( i )

where = tan 1 h similarly the coefficient of passive earth pressure under
1 v
earthquake is given by
K PE =
cos 2 ( + )
1
sin( + ) sin( + i ) 2
2
cos cos cos( + ) 1
cos( + ) cos(i )

Sharjah
Page 99
8/30/2006
Mononobes solution was based on the following assumptions :-
The failure in soil takes place along the plane BC

The movement of the wall is sufficient to produce active plane
At failure full shear strength along the failure plane is mobilized
The soil mass behind the wall behaves a rigid body
h and v are maximum peak acceleration in horizontal and vertical direction.
It will be observed that in the above calculation no reference to time period is made,
which shows the analysis to be pseudo static in nature.
The h and v values are considered as peak acceleration is quite justified in this case
because of the following two reasons
At thet time when Mononobe worked out the solution, major retaining walls were gravity
type wall being massive was considered to be infinitely stiff i.e. have time period T 0 this
invariably makes the structure stiff attracting more force to it
As per Japanese code ( see 37 figure below)for time period up to nearly 0.8 second it is a
practice to consider maximum acceleration on the structure.
Response spectrum as per Japanese Code for
Medium soil
1.200
Sa/g
1.000
0.800
0.600
Sa/g
0.400
0.200
1.
8
1.
6
1.
4
1.
2
0.
8
0.
6
0.
4
0.
2
0.000
Time period in second
Fig-37 :- Response spectrum for medium type soil as per Japanese code
Mononobe considered the dynamic pressure distribution as parabolic in nature and for
active case it was assumed that the force is acting at a height H/2 from the bottom of the
wall. While for passive case again considering a parabolic distribution the force was
assumed to be acting at a height of 2/3 H from the base of the wall.
The above procedure has almost universally dominated the design office practice in almost
all countries53 though characteristics of retaining wall has undergone significant change with
advent of Reinforced Concrete structures.
While in the early thirties54 when Mononobe developed this theory almost all retaining wall
where either made of Masonry or plain concrete and where usually massive in nature. It
53
54
Including India where IS code follows the same procedure

The time when Monobe developed this theory

Sharjah
Page 100
8/30/2006
sustained its stability by its own weight. However with advancement in design techniques in
RCC they have progressively become much thinner and fit for purpose globally.
Now a days, the common practice is to go for a cantilever retaining wall for a height up to
6.0 meter beyond which engineers normally provide counterfort retaining wall which would
provide overall economy in design. The typical sketch of such walls are as shown below.
Cantilever Retaining Wall
Counterfort Retaining wall
Fig-38:- Present day Cantillever and Counterfort Retain walls made of RCC
It is obvious from the above figure that present day retaining walls have become much more
flexible as such considering maximum acceleration as inducing the design pressure may not be
true in all cases. Moreover, considering its flexibility the time period will surely play a dominant
role in dynamic response of the system where a pseudo static analysis only could become
insufficient.
In-spite of the above limitation Monobes pseudo static method is in extensive use irrespective of
whether the wall is a cantilever or a counterfort or if it is thin or thick.
Before we try tackle the above limitations as posed in Mononobes method we describe herein
other methods which are also in practice for evaluation of pressure due to earthquake force.
Seed and Whitmans Method 55:
Seed and Whitman developed an expression which may also be used to determine the
horizontal pseudo static force acting on a retaining wall.
As per their calculations the active earth pressure may be expressed as
3 a max
sH 2
8 g
According to this work the location pseudo static force is assumed to act at height of 0.6H above
the base of the structure.
PAE =
55
Seed H.B. and Whitman R.V.(1970)-Design of Earth Retaining Structures under Dynamic Loads
Proceeding ASCE specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in Ground and Design of Earth Retaining
Structures ASCE pp-103-147.
Sharjah
Page 101
8/30/2006
Arangos Method:
Dr Ignacio Arango56 (1969) developed this method which is deemed practical and simple by
extending the Coulombs theory of static earth pressure. As mentioned previously the static
pressure is expressed as
1
Pa = K AH 2 where
2
cos 2 ( )
KA =
1 2
sin( + ) sin( i ) 2
cos 2 cos( + ) 1 +
cos( + ) cos( i )
The active earth pressure can thus be expressed in the form
Pa =
1 1
H 2 Ac where
2
2 cos
Ac =
cos 2 ( )
2
sin( + ) sin( i )
cos( + ) 1 +

+
cos(
)
cos(
i
)

Mononobes expression on the other hand is given by

1
2
= K A cos 2
1
PAE = H 2 (1 v ) K AE
2
1
1
Am where
= H 2 (1 v )
2
cos cos 2
Am = K AE cos cos 2
=
cos 2 ( )
2
sin( + ) sin( i ) 2
cos( + + ) 1 +
cos( + + ) cos( i )

Comparing Am and Ac shows Am can be determined from the solution for Ac by redefining the
slope of the back of wall as where
= + and
i = i +
Thus Am=Ac( , i) = K A ( , i) cos 2 and

56
Dr Arango is the Manager of the Geotechnical division of Bechtel San Francisco office. A Bechtel
fellow who has contributed significantly in many areas of Geotechnical engineering specially in the area
of Liquefaction Potential of soil
Sharjah
Page 102
8/30/2006
1
1
PAE = H 2 (1 v )
K A ( , i) cos 2
2
2
cos cos
1
= H 2 (1 v ) K A ( , i) F where
2
cos 2
F=
cos cos 2
So far we have explained the various pseudo static method available for analysis for retaining
wall.
The first attempt to explain dynamic characteristics of such wall was proposed by Steedman and
Zeng57 in 1990 based on a pseudo dynamic method.
Steedman and Zengs Method :Ph
Ps
= 45 / 2
Fig-38:- Force diagram of cantilever retaining wall as per Steedman and Zengs Method
For the fixed base cantilever as shown above if subjected to ground acceleration ah the
acceleration at depth z is given by
H z
a ( z , t ) = a h sin t
v s

Considering the pressure on the wall is resulting from the triangular wedge only being at a state
of incipient failure, mass of a thin strip of depth dz within the soil wedge is given by
m( z , t ) =
H z
dz where is weight density of the soil.
g tan
The total inertial force Ph acting on the wall can thus be expressed as
57
Steedman R.S. and Zeng X(1990)- The Seismic Response of Waterfront Retaining Walls- Proceeding
on Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures; Specialty and
Technical Publication 25, Cornell University Ithaca New York.
Sharjah
Page 103
8/30/2006
a h
Ph (t ) = m( z )a( z , t ) =
0
Here =
4 g tan
2
[2H cos + (sin sin t )]
2
H
is the vertically propagating shear wave length and = t
v s
vs
For a special case when the failed wedge act as a rigid block(i.e. vs ) we have
( Ph (max)) lim vs =
H 2 a h
a
= h W = yW
2 g tan
g
The above can be stated to be equivalent force as assume in the Mononobes Method.
The total static plus dynamic thrust can then be obtained by resolving the force in the wedge and
is given by
Ph (t ) cos( ) + W sin( )
cos( + )
The total earth pressure is obtained by differentiating above expression with respect to z thus
PAE =
p AE =

z cos( )
PAE
z
z
sin( )
=
+ h
sin t
z
tan cos( + ) tan cos( + ) v s
The first term in the above equation represents the static pressure acting at a height of H/3 from
base while the second term represents the dynamic pressure where the thrust point is found to
be varying with time and is given by
2 2 H 2 cos + 2H sin 2 (cos cos t )

2H cos + (sin sin t )
For very low frequency motion the dynamic thrust is found to at H/3(this is when H/ is small
and the backfill moves in the same phase).For higher frequency motions the point of application
is found to move higher up on the wall.
hd = H
Dynamic analysis of RCC retaining wall :So far we have explained the various pseudo static and pseudo dynamic methods available for
analysis of retaining walls under earthquake force. We have also explained briefly some of the
limitations of the pseudo-static method which is perhaps more appropriate for gravity type of
wall. We now present herein a procedure for dynamic response of cantilever and counterfort
type of retaining wall.
While studying the dynamic response of structure previously we had seen that the acceleration it
would be subjected to depends on the time period of the structure, then considering a suitable
damping ratio we can find out the earthquake response based on code prescribed response
spectrum.
Based on the above philosophy we proceed to explain the investigation which has been carried
out by us.

Sharjah
Page 104
8/30/2006
Chowdhury and Dasguptas Method for Dynamic Analysis of Cantilever and Counterfort
Retaining Wall58.
The method applies standard modal response technique based on Rayleigh Ritz Method to
evaluate the dynamic response of the soil wall system . Though the response herein has been
obtained based on IS-code (IS-1893 2002 to be specific) can very well be adapted to any
international code provided the response history of the site in question is available either directly
or as prescribed in the national code of practice( like UBC, Eurocode etc)
PossibleFailure Line
H
Wall
=45+/2
D
Fig-40:- Cantilever Retaining Wall with soil at behind it.

We start with a simple case of retaining wall with soil profile as shown above.
It is assumed here like Mononobes case that
the soil profile under active case is at incipient failure when the failure line makes angle =
tan(45+/2) as shown in the above figure.
Since soil profile is already under failed condition under static load, the soil will not induce
any stiffness in the overall dynamic response but will only contribute to the inertial effect.
Since the cantilever wall is relatively thin the mass contribution of the wall itself may be
ignored compared to that of the soil. The wall thus contributes only to the stiffness of the
overall soil-structure system
The retaining wall is fixed at the base and foundation compliance has been ignored for the
time being
It will be observed that the assumptions made are identical to what Mononobe or Steedman and
Zang has assumed in their analysis.
Based on the above assumption the mass distribution of soil along the height of the wall is as
shown hereafter.
58
Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S Earthqauke Response of Cantilever and Counterfort Retaining Wall
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Oklahama USA Volume 8 and 9 2004
Sharjah
Page 105
8/30/2006
Z
A
m( z ) =
zdz
g tan
= 45 +
Y
Fig-41:- Mass Distribution of the failed soil wedge under active soil pressure
As shown in figure 41is the mass distribution of the failed wedge ABD.
For an elemental strip dz in vertical direction mass distribution is given by
zdz
m( z ) =
g tan
For analysis of time period as a first step we develop the stiffness and equivalent mass
contributing to the dynamic response of the system.
For this we use the Rayleigh Ritz method to obtain the stiffness and mass of the wall-soil
system.
We had already shown earlier while deriving the time period of chimneys that for a flexural beam
the stiffness and mass matrix may be obtained from the expressions
mij = m( z ) i ( z ) j ( z )dz for i,j=1,2,3.n

0
and
k ij =
2
d 2 i ( z ) d j ( z )
dz for i,j=1,2,3..n
EI ( z )
dz 2
dz 2
Here m(z) is as defined above

E= Youngs Modulus of the wall material
I(z)= Average moment of inertia of the wall
Considering the wall as a cantilever flexural member the displacement y(z,t) can represented
trigonometrically by
z
z
z
z
Ym = sin m sinh m m cos m cosh m

H
H
H
H
Here m= Number of modes 1,2,3,.

2m 1
m = 1.875, 4.694,7.855,
For m=1,2,3..m and
2
sin m + sinh m
m =
cos m + cosh m
Sharjah
Page 106
8/30/2006
Thus for failure wedge of the soil the mass contribution for an element dz for the first mode is
given by
[M ]ij = 0
g tan
i ( z ) j ( z )dz
g tan
zii ( z ) j ( z )dz
0
Considering the shape function as
z
z
i cos i cosh i and

H
H
H
H
jz
jz
jz
jz
j = sin
sinh
j cos
cosh
H
H
H
H
The double derivative of the above is given by

2
z
z
z
z
i = i 2 sin i sinh i + i cos i + cosh i and

H
H
H
H
H
i = sin
i z
sinh
i z
jz
jz
jz
j z
sinh
+ j cos
+ cosh
sin
H
H
H
H
H
Before performing the integration we change the above to generalized co-ordinate by

considering
z
dz
=
when d =
and as z 0, 0 and as z H , 1 based on above we
H
H
can now express the double derivative as
j =
j2
2
f ( )i =
f ( ) j =
i 2
H2
j2
H2
[ sin i sinh i + i (cos i + cosh i )] and
[ sin sinh + (cos + cosh )]

j
Thus stiffness of the system can now be expressed as
EI i j
2
2
1
f ( ) i f ( ) j d
H
and mass of the system is given by
k ij =
mij =
H 2 1
f ( ) i f ( ) j d
g tan 0
where i=j=1,2,3,m
Here = Weight Density of soil

g= Acceleration due to gravity.
E= Youngs Modulus of the wall material
Sharjah
Page 107
8/30/2006
I=Moment of Inertia of the wall

Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix59 is given by
1
4
1 f ( )1 2 d
1
1
EI 2 2
4
[K ]ij = 3 2 1 f ( )2 f ( )1 d
2 f 2( )2 d
H
0
0
1
2 21
2
2
3 1 f ( )3 f ( )1 d 3 2 f ( )3 f ( )2 d
0
0
and the mass matrix is given by
2
f ( )3 d
2
f ( )1 d
1
2 1
(
)
[M ]ij = H f ( )2 f ( )1 d
g tan 0
0
1
1
1
2
f ( )3 f ( )1 d
(
)
(
)
(
)
3
2
3
0
0
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Numerical analysis between the
limits 1 to 0 when we have
[K ]3 X 3
[M ]3 X 3
2.27931
22.98895 0.52915
EI
= 3 0.52915 471.77317 13.949631 and the mass matrix is given by
H
2.27931 13.94963 3862.69662
1.50220
H 2
=
- 0.21320
g tan
0.03949
- 0.21320 0.03949
0.58123 - 0.19877
- 0.19877 0.54721
Converting the above into standard eigen-value form of A = and applying the
generalized Jacobi technique60 we have
0
0
15.2851
EIg tan
and
[ ] =
0
904.73
0
5
H
0
8352.94947
0
the corresponding eigen vectors are given as

0.1441 0.03209 f1 ( )
0.9997
[] = 0.00816 0.98796 0.39449 f 2 ( )

0.0004
0.05544 0.91834 f 3 ( )
59
60
The matrix is symmetric about is diagonal

The technique has been worked in detail in chapter 11.

Sharjah
Page 108
8/30/2006
since [ ] = 2 and T =
we have
0
0
1.607247
H 5
[T ] = 0
0.20889
0
EIg tan
0
0.068748
Considering moment of inertia of the wall as I =
1 3
t having one meter width we can modify
12
the fundamental time period as
0
0
5.567
5
[T ] = 0 0.724 0 3H
Et g tan
0
0.238
Calculation of amplitude:In terms of response spectrum analysis maximum displacement amplitude Sd is given by
Sd =
Sa
Sd = i
, expressing the above in terms of codal formulation we may express it as
ZI S a
where
2R 2
i = Modal Participation factor and is given by

H
i =
mi i
0
H
mi i
0
f i ( )
0
1
f i ( )
Z= Zone Coefficient
I=Importance factor
R=Ductility factor
Integration of the mass participation factor within limits 1 to 0 for the first three modes gives
Mode Number
1
2
3
Mass Participation Factor(Ki)

0.962471
0.2580313
0.1212
Table 27:- Modal participation factor for Cantilever walls first three modes

Sharjah
Page 109
8/30/2006
Now considering
ZI
=
an IS code factor we can write the time dependent function of displacement as
2R
S
S d = i a2
Thus for the first mode we have

S a1H 5
S d = 0.96247
1 EIg tan
Substituting the value of = 15.2851 calculated earlier we have
S d = 0.7556
S a1H 5
Et 3 g tan
Here t= The average thickness of the wall
the complete displacement function is thus given by
w( z , t ) = ( z ).q(t ) which gives for first mode

w( z , t ) = 0.7556
S a1H 5
Et 3 g tan
[0.9997 f1 ( ) - 0.00816 f 2 ( ) - 0.0004 f 3 ( )]
Considering
EI
d 2w
= M z we get
dz 2
M ( z, t ) = 0.06296
V ( z , t ) = 0.06296
S a1H 3
[0.9997 1 2 f1( ) 0.0816 2 2 f 2( ) 0.0004 3 2 f 3( )]
g tan
S a1H 2
[0.9997 13 f1( ) 0.0816 2 3 f 2( ) 0.0004 3 3 f 3( )]
g tan
The above can now be represented as

S H 5
w( z , t ) = 3a1
F1 ( )
Et g tan
M ( z, t ) =
S a1H 3
F 1( )
g tan
V ( z, t ) =
S a1H 2
F 1( )
g tan
Here F1(), F1() and F1() are dynamic amplitude, moment and shear coefficients for the first
mode where,
F1 ( ) = 0.7556[0.9997 f1 ( ) - 0.00816 f 2 ( ) - 0.0004 f 3 ( )]
F1( ) = 0.06296[0.9997 1 f1( ) 0.0816 2 f 2( ) 0.0004 3 f 3( )]
2

Sharjah
Page 110
8/30/2006
3
3
3
F1( ) = 0.06296[0.9997 1 f1( ) 0.0816 2 f 2( ) 0.0004 3 f 3( )]
Similar expression can be deduced for the second and third mode61,however it will be shown
based on a numerical problem subsequently that Moments and shears developed in the wall for
the higher modes have insignificant contribution i.e. their SRSS values almost same as the
moment, shear and amplitude values for the first mode.
Table showing values of Fi =1,3 , Fi=1,3 , Fi=1,3 are furnished hereafter for reference
Z/H
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
F1
0.0000
0.0085
0.0333
0.0733
0.1274
0.1947
0.2740
0.3643
0.4645
0.5734
0.6900
0.8133
0.9421
1.0755
1.2125
1.3523
1.4940
1.6371
1.7809
1.9251
2.0694
F2
F3
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0006
-0.0011
-0.0019
-0.0026
-0.0034
-0.0041
-0.0046
-0.0050
-0.0052
-0.0051
-0.0047
-0.0041
-0.0031
-0.0020
-0.0007
0.0008
0.0024
0.0040
0.0057
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0003
-0.0003
-0.0003
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0002
F1
F2
F3
F1
F2
F3
-0.0106
-0.0085
-0.0063
-0.0041
-0.0019
0.0003
0.0023
0.0043
0.0061
0.0075
0.0086
0.0092
0.0093
0.0088
0.0078
0.0065
0.0048
0.0031
0.0016
0.0004
0.0000
-0.0019
-0.0012
-0.0005
0.0001
0.0006
0.0010
0.0012
0.0011
0.0009
0.0006
0.0001
-0.0003
-0.0007
-0.0010
-0.0011
-0.0011
-0.0009
-0.0007
-0.0004
-0.0001
0.0000
-0.4169
-0.4169
-0.4168
-0.4164
-0.4155
-0.4137
-0.4105
-0.4054
-0.3980
-0.3877
-0.3740
-0.3567
-0.3352
-0.3095
-0.2792
-0.2443
-0.2048
-0.1606
-0.1118
-0.0583
-0.0001
0.0108
0.0107
0.0107
0.0105
0.0102
0.0097
0.0089
0.0079
0.0065
0.0047
0.0028
0.0007
-0.0014
-0.0034
-0.0050
-0.0062
-0.0067
-0.0064
-0.0052
-0.0031
0.0000
0.0019
0.0019
0.0018
0.0016
0.0012
0.0008
0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0007
-0.0010
-0.0011
-0.0011
-0.0009
-0.0006
-0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0007
0.0007
0.0005
0.0000
0.5776
0.5426
0.5076
0.4725
0.4371
0.4014
0.3654
0.3291
0.2926
0.2563
0.2205
0.1857
0.1522
0.1207
0.0917
0.0657
0.0433
0.0251
0.0115
0.0030
0.0000
Table-28: Factors of dynamic amplitude moments and shears for Cantilever Retaining Wall
It is to be understood that once the time period and subsequent acceleration value Sa/g is known
from the code one has to only multiply the displacement ,moment, and shear expressions by the
values in the above table to arrive at the dynamic design data without resorting to any elaborate
dynamic analysis.
Analysis for passive case
For passive case the analysis remains the same except the fact that the angle becomes
tan 45 / 2 in lieu of what has been shown earlier.
We now explain the above theory based on a suitable numerical problem:Example 10.16
A Retaining Wall of height 5.8 meter has top thickness of wall as 200 mm and bottom thickness as 500 mm.
The density of soil it retains has a value of 22 kN/m3. The angle of friction of soil is 24o. Density of the
concrete wall is considered as 25 kN/m3. Consider the wall is in zone IV as per IS-code( 1893 2002) and is
resting on Hard soil. Determine the earthquake force acting on the wall.
Based on the above theory,
Average thickness of wall =
61
200 + 500
= 350 mm
2
These are left as exercise for the reader

Sharjah
Page 111
8/30/2006
Density of concrete= 25 kN/m3

Thus Youngs modulus of concrete=
5700 f ck 1000 kN/m2
= 2.85 10 kN/m2
7
Angle ( active case)=
45 +
Angle ( passive case)=
1
28 = 59 o
2
1
45 28 = 31o
2
As per IS-Code consider Importance factor as 1.0 and ductility factor as R=2.0
Considering
ZI
we have
2R
0.24 1.0
= 0.06
2 2
Now considering
0
0
5.567
5
[T ] = 0 0.724 0 3H
we have
Et g tan
0
0.238
0
0
5.567
22 5.85
which gives
[T ] = 0 0.724 0
2.85 10 7 0.353 9.81 tan 59
0
0.238
0.474
[T ] = 0.062 secs for active case for first three modes.
0.020
Similarly for passive case considering = 31 degree we have
0
0
5.567
22 5.8 5
[T ] = 0 0.724 0
which gives
2.85 10 7 0.35 3 9.81 tan 31
0
0.238
0.7882
[T ] = 0.10246 secs for passive case .
0.0337
Corresponding to the time periods for the first three modes the Sa/g values for active and passive case are
shown hereafter. The values are obtained considering 7% damping for the RCC wall i.e. codal values scaled
by a factor 0.9.

Sharjah
Page 112
8/30/2006
Mode
1
2
3
Sa/g(active case) m/sec2

1.9
1.731
1.67
Sa/g( passive case) m/sec2

1.142
2.25
1.355
The displacement shear and Moment factors are as shown here after
S a H 5
w( z , t ) =
Et 3 g tan
M ( z, t ) =
V ( z, t ) =
S a1H 3
and
g tan
S a1H 2
g tan
Thus for the first three modes we have
Mode
Amplitude Coefficient
(Active case)
1
2
3
Amplitude
Coefficient(Passive case)
0.00809
0.007375
0.0071125
Mode
0.013472
0.026551
0.015992
Moment Coefficient
(Active case)
1
2
3
Moment
Coefficient(Passive case)
-294.031
-267.888
-258.356
Mode
-489.348
-964.421
-580.889
Shear Coefficient (Active

case)
1
2
3
-50.695
-46.1876
-44.544
Shear Coefficient(Passive
case)
-84.3704
-166.279
-100.153
Multiplying the above factors by the coefficients as furnished earlier Table-28 the dynamic displacement
moment and shear for active and passive case are obtained as shown below
Z/H
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
D1
0.000
0.069
0.269
0.593
1.031
1.576
2.218
2.949
3.760
4.641
5.586
6.583
7.626
D2
0.000
-0.001
-0.004
-0.008
-0.014
-0.019
-0.025
-0.030
-0.034
-0.037
-0.038
-0.038
-0.035

Sharjah
D3
0.000
0.000
-0.001
-0.001
-0.002
-0.002
-0.002
-0.002
-0.002
-0.001
-0.001
0.000
0.000
M1
M2
-169.829
-159.549
-149.255
-138.922
-128.519
-118.023
-107.428
-96.753
-86.042
-75.371
-64.844
-54.587
-44.747
Page 113
2.848
2.266
1.682
1.097
0.512
-0.067
-0.629
-1.157
-1.629
-2.020
-2.305
-2.464
-2.483
M3
0.490
0.308
0.132
-0.030
-0.163
-0.255
-0.299
-0.292
-0.239
-0.148
-0.037
0.079
0.180
V1
21.133
21.132
21.128
21.109
21.063
20.971
20.808
20.552
20.175
19.653
18.962
18.081
16.994
V2
-0.497
-0.496
-0.494
-0.487
-0.473
-0.449
-0.413
-0.363
-0.298
-0.219
-0.129
-0.033
0.065
V3
-0.085
-0.084
-0.080
-0.070
-0.054
-0.034
-0.011
0.011
0.031
0.044
0.051
0.049
0.040
8/30/2006
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
8.706
9.815
10.946
12.093
13.251
14.416
15.583
16.751
-0.030
-0.023
-0.015
-0.005
0.006
0.018
0.030
0.042
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
-0.001
-0.001
-35.480
-26.949
-19.317
-12.743
-7.380
-3.374
-0.867
0.000
-2.358
-2.100
-1.732
-1.293
-0.835
-0.420
-0.117
0.000
0.253
0.288
0.281
0.238
0.169
0.091
0.027
0.000
15.688
14.154
12.387
10.384
8.144
5.667
2.953
0.003
0.156
0.232
0.285
0.309
0.296
0.241
0.143
0.000
0.026
0.008
-0.010
-0.024
-0.032
-0.031
-0.021
0.000
Table showing Dynamic amplitude, moment and shear for active case
Z/H
D1
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
0.000
0.114
0.448
0.987
1.717
2.623
3.692
4.908
6.257
7.725
9.296
10.956
12.692
14.488
16.334
18.217
20.127
22.054
23.992
25.934
27.878
D2
0.000
-0.004
-0.015
-0.030
-0.049
-0.070
-0.090
-0.108
-0.123
-0.134
-0.138
-0.135
-0.125
-0.108
-0.084
-0.053
-0.018
0.022
0.064
0.107
0.151
D3
0.000
0.000
-0.001
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
-0.005
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.002
-0.003
M1
M2
-282.643
-265.534
-248.402
-231.205
-213.891
-196.423
-178.791
-161.023
-143.197
-125.438
-107.918
-90.848
-74.471
-59.049
-44.851
-32.150
-21.208
-12.282
-5.615
-1.444
0.000
10.254
8.156
6.055
3.949
1.843
-0.242
-2.265
-4.165
-5.864
-7.271
-8.299
-8.872
-8.939
-8.490
-7.559
-6.234
-4.654
-3.006
-1.512
-0.423
0.000
M3
1.102
0.694
0.296
-0.067
-0.366
-0.574
-0.673
-0.657
-0.536
-0.334
-0.083
0.177
0.405
0.569
0.648
0.633
0.535
0.379
0.205
0.060
0.000
V1
V2
35.171
35.170
35.162
35.132
35.055
34.901
34.631
34.204
33.577
32.708
31.558
30.092
28.283
26.110
23.557
20.616
17.282
13.553
9.431
4.915
0.006
-1.788
-1.787
-1.778
-1.754
-1.703
-1.618
-1.487
-1.307
-1.073
-0.790
-0.466
-0.118
0.233
0.560
0.835
1.028
1.111
1.064
0.869
0.516
0.000
V3
-0.190
-0.189
-0.179
-0.157
-0.122
-0.077
-0.026
0.025
0.069
0.099
0.114
0.110
0.090
0.058
0.018
-0.021
-0.053
-0.071
-0.070
-0.047
0.000
Table showing Dynamic amplitude, moment and shear for passive case
If we compare the SRSS value with that of the first mode the values compare as hereafter
Z/H
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
Moment(1st Mode)
-282.643
-265.534
-248.402
-231.205
-213.891
-196.423
-178.791
-161.023
-143.197
-125.438
-107.918
-90.848
-74.471
-59.049
-44.851

Sharjah
Moment (SRSS)
282.831
265.660
248.476
231.239
213.900
196.424
178.807
161.079
143.318
125.649
108.237
91.280
75.007
59.659
45.488
Page 114
Shear First Mode

35.171
35.170
35.162
35.132
35.055
34.901
34.631
34.204
33.577
32.708
31.558
30.092
28.283
26.110
23.557
Shear SRSS
35.217
35.216
35.208
35.176
35.097
34.938
34.663
34.229
33.594
32.718
31.561
30.092
28.284
26.116
23.572
8/30/2006
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
-32.150
-21.208
-12.282
-5.615
-1.444
0.000
32.755
21.720
12.650
5.819
1.505
0.000
20.616
17.282
13.553
9.431
4.915
0.006
20.641
17.318
13.595
9.471
4.942
0.006
It is observed that the difference in the values are insignificant as such for these type of structure
performing a first mode analysis based on the fundamental time period only should suffice for practical
designs.
Some discussions on the above method :The method as shown above is an approximate method for evaluation of the time period of the
structure62, however is far more realistic then considering a maximum value of 0.9X2.5=2.25
m/sec2 ,which would result in significant over design of the retaining wall thus making it a more
expensive proposal. Another major advantage is that unlike the pseudo static or dynamic case
one need not estimate the point of application of this load, the moments and shear expression
are directly derived from the amplitude expression.
Based on the above numerical problem it is seen that fundamental time period is the most
significant mode. Thus arriving at a closed form expressions for more complex cases like soil
sloped at an angle or a counter fort retaining wall where the wall acts like a plate with
appropriate boundary conditions become much more simple63.
Extension to the generic case of soil at a slope i behind the wall:
180
62
We should remember that the integrations performed where based on numerical analysis and not a
closed form one as such errors due to truncation is surely to be expected.
63
This we will see subsequently as we take them up subsequently.
Sharjah
Page 115
8/30/2006
Fig-42:-Retaining Wall with soil sloped at an angle behind the wall

In this case we need to take the additional soil mass of the triangle ABE converted it into a form
so that it fits into the integration scheme we had proposed . Thuus for having same mass as
triangle ABE we take en equivalent trapezium ABEC equal to triangular area ABE, when
equating the area of ABEC and triangle ABE it can be proved that
cos sin i
=
H ( 1 + 1)
sin( i )
AC=
where
Now considering H = H + AC = H 1 +
[M ]ij = 0
=
i ( z ) j ( z )dz
g tan
mij =
=
g tan
zii ( z ) j ( z )dz
0
H 2 1
f ( ) i f ( ) j d
g tan 0
H 2 (1 + )2 1
f ( ) i f ( ) j d
g tan 0
where i=j=1,2,3,m in natural co-ordinate

where i=j=1,2,3,m
Since we had seen earlier that first mode analysis suffice for these type of structure restricting
the above expansion to first mode we have
m1 =
k1 =
H 2 (1 + )2 1
f ( ) 21d and
g tan 0
EI1
H
0 f ( ) i
Considering = 2 and T =
we have
Fundamental time period as
[T ] = 5.564(1 + )
H 5
Et 3 g tan
Based on above we can find out the fundamental time period of the system and subsequently
the expression Sa/g from the code for an appropriate damping of the system.
It will be observed that for =0 the time period value reduces to the fundamental time period for
the case where the soil is plane is considered parallel to the base.
The modal mass participation is given by the expression

Sharjah
Page 116
8/30/2006
1 =
g tan 1 ( z )dz
0
g tan 1 dz
2
1 =
f1 ( )dz
and remains same as earlier case @ 0.96247
0
1
f1 dz
2
Thus for the fundamental mode

2
S H 5 (1 + )
S d = 0.96247 a1
1 EIg tan
Substituting the value of we have
S d = 0.7556
S a1H 5 (1 + )2
Et 3 g tan
the complete displacement function is thus given by
w( z , t ) = ( z ).q(t ) which gives

w( z , t ) = 0.7556
S a1H 5 (1 + )
Et 3 g tan
F1 ( )
S a1H 3 (1 + )2 2
M ( z, t ) = 0.06296
1 F1( )
g tan
S a1H 2 (1 + )2 3
V ( z , t ) = 0.06296
1 F1( ) where the value 1 = 1.875
g tan
The coefficients are as furnished in Table 27 of this chapter

Dynamic analysis of Counterfort Retaining Wall
When retaining walls are more then 6.0 meter high normally for economic reason counterforts
are provided to reduce the moment in the supporting wall.
Sharjah
Page 117
8/30/2006
In such cases unlike cantilever, the wall does not behave as pure flexural member but behaves
as plate having three sides fixed and one side free.
To the best of our knowledge there exists no solution to this problem in terms of earthquake
induced dynamic force.
Present state of art is to develop the additional pressure based on Mononobes coefficient add it
too the static pressure (hydrostatic in nature) and solve for the moments and shears based on
coefficients as furnished in IS-3370 Part IV or similar literature.
In other words neither the time period nor the spatial distribution of the load is accounted for ,
considering its mode shape which again is a function of its boundary condition like free, fixed
etc.
For such walls when subjected to force due to an earthquake solutions have to be sought based
on plate vibration in lieu of beam vibration as shown previously and the solution becomes
downright tricky.
However since we have seen earlier that it is fundamental mode which basically governs the
design with a little bit of intelligent mathematical manipulation it is not too difficult to arrive at the
time period vis-a vis dynamic amplitude shear and moments for such type of retain wall.
A typical counterfort is shown hereafter.
Plan view of counter fort retaining wall

Side view of the wall
Figure 43 Plan view and elevation of counterfort retainin wall
It is evident that the wall between the buttress in this case will behave as plate instead of a
beam having boundary condition of three sides continous and one side free.
m(z)=zdz/g tan
H
Fixed edge(typ.)
=45+/2
b

Sharjah
Page 118
8/30/2006
Fig-44:- Wall with three edges fixed with soil mass under earthquake
Shown in the above figure is the wall of a counterfort retaining wall of height H and width b.
Where b is the dimension between the two counterforts. The failed soil mass under active and
passive pressure is shown by the triangular wedge which contributes its inertial effect on the wall
Here the displacement function of the wall can be represented by
n
w( z , y, t ) = i ( z , y )qi (t )
i =1
The kinetic energy of the system is given by

1
T=
2
Hb
w( z , y, t )
m( z, y ) t
00
Substituting the displacement function in above equation we have
1
T=
2
n
n
&
&
m
(
z
,
y
)
(
z
,
y
)
q
(
t
)
(
z
,
t
)
q
(
t
)
i
i
j
j
i =1
j =1
00
Hb
n n
H b
= q& i (t )q& j (t ) m( z , y ) i ( z , y ) j ( z , y )
i =1 j =1
0 0
From above we deduce that the mass coefficient is given by
H b
mij = m( z , y ) i ( z , y ) j ( z , y ) dy.dz for i,j=1,2,3.n
0 0
The strain energy equation of the plate is given by64
1
V =
2
where
2
2 w 2 w 2 w 2
w 2w
D( z, y) z 2 + y 2 2(1 ) z 2 y 2 zy
00
Hb
w( z , y, t ) = i ( z , y )qi (t )
i =1
It can be proved based on Lagranges equation that on differentiation of the above equation
with respect to q j (t ) the stiffness coefficient of an isotropic plate is given by
64
This is a standard equation for thin plate for further reference reader may refer to Theory of plates and
shells by Timoshenko and Kreiger.
Sharjah
Page 119
8/30/2006
2i 2 j
Kij = D 2 i +
0
y 2
z
0
H
2 2 j
i
+
y 2
z 2
2 2 j
2 j
(1 ) i
2 i
dy.dz
z 2 y 2
z
y
z
y
Et 3
the flexural stiffness of thin plate
12(1 2 )
E= Youngs modulus of concrete
t =Thickness of the wall
= Poissons Ratio of concrete
i , j = Mode shapes at different modes whose values have to be chosen for the appropriate
Here D=
boundary condition and shall be a function of both z and y .

To select the appropriate mode shape let us imagine a thin strip of element in vertical and
horizontal direction and try to visualize how they will deflect under a dynamic loading.
It is obvious that while vertical strip behaves as a cantilever beam, the horizontal strip shall
behave as a beam whose ends are fixed. Based on the above assumption the shape function for
the mode are assumed as
( z, y ) = F ( z ).F ( y ) where
F ( z ) = sin
F ( y ) = sin
z
H
sinh
z
z
z cos
cosh
H
H
H
3y
3y
3y
3y
sinh
y cos
cosh
2b
2b
2b
2b
For first mode = 1.875
sin + sinh
z =
and y =
cos + cosh
Calculation of mass coefficient
3
3
sinh
2
2
3
3
cos
cosh
2
2
sin
For first mode analysis as i ( z , y ) = j ( z , y ) we have

Hb
m=
g tan
dy.dz
00
Hb
g tan F ( z )
F ( y ) 2 dy.dz ,
(9)
00
where F(z) and F(y) are as defined above .

For ease of analysis we convert the integration basis from local to natural co-ordinate when

Sharjah
Page 120
8/30/2006
H
b
H
b
( + 1) and y = ( + 1) which implies dz = d and dy = d
2
2
2
2
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
sinh
z cos
cosh
Thus F ( ) = sin
2
2
2
2
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
sinh
y cos
cosh
and F ( ) = sin
4
4
4
4
z=
Substituting the aabove functions in mass equation we have

1 1
m=
H 2 b
2
2
1 1 8 g tan (1 + )F( ) F( ) dd
the above can be further simplified to the expression
m=
H 2 b
C1 where
8 g tan
1 1
C1 =
(1 + )F( )
F( ) 2 dd
1 1
Derivation of stiffness coefficient :For derivation of stiffness coefficient for the first mode as i ( z , y ) = j ( z , y ) we have from the
stiffness expression furnished above as
2
2
2 2
2 2
2
dy.dz
2
K = D 2 + 2 (1 )2 2
z
zy
y
z y 2
00
Hb
As ( z , y ) = F ( z ).F ( y ) we have
2 &&
= F ( z ) F ( y)
z 2
2 &&
= F ( y ) F ( z ) and
y 2
2
= F& ( y ) F& ( z )
yz
Substituting the above in the stiffness equation and on expansion we have

Sharjah
Page 121
8/30/2006
2
2
2
D[{F ( y) F&&( z )} + {F ( z ) F&&( y)} + 2 {F ( y) F ( z ) F&&( y) F&&( z )}+ 2(1 ){F& ( y) F& ( z )} ]
Hb
K=
00
where F(z) and F(y) are as defined previously .

For further derivation of the stiffness matrix it is essential to derive the first and second
derivatives of F(z) and F(y) and are as shown hereafter
F ( z ) = sin
z
H
sinh
z
z
z cos
cosh
H
H
H
z
z
z
z
F& ( z ) = cos
cosh
+ z sin
+ sinh
H
H
H
H
H
2
z
z
z
z
F&&( z ) = 2 z cos
+ cosh sin
sinh
H
H
H
H
H
Transforming the above in natural co-ordinate we have
F ( ) = sin
( + 1)
2
sinh
( + 1)
2
( + 1)
( + 1)
z cos
cosh
= f ( ) say
2
2
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
( + 1)
cosh
+ z sin
+ sinh
F& ( ) = cos
f ( )
=
H
2
2
2
2
H
say
2
(1 + )
(1 + )
(1 + )
(1 + ) 2
+ cosh
F&&( ) = 2 z cos
f ( )
sinh
=
sin
2
2
2
2 H 2
H
say
Similarly for y direction on differentiation and transformation to natural co-ordinate we have
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
3 ( + 1)
sinh
y cos
cosh
= f ( ) say
4
4
4
4
+
+
+
+
3
1
)
3
1
)
3
1
)
3
1
)
3
cosh
+ y sin
+ sinh
F& ( ) =
cos
f ( )
=
2b
4
4
4
4
2b
F ( ) = sin
9 2
F&&( ) = 2
4b

3 (1 + )
3 (1 + )
3 (1 + )
3 (1 + ) 9 2
+ cosh
sinh
sin
y cos
= 2 f ( )
4
4
4
4

4b
Substituting the above expressions in the stiffness equations we have

K=
DHb 4 1 1
81 4 1 1
9 2 2 1 1
9(1 ) 2 2 1 1
{
f ( ) f ( )}2 dd +
{
f ( ) f ( )}2 dd +
{
f ( ) f ( ) f ( ) f ( )}dd +
{ f ( ) f ( )}
4 H 4 11
16b 4 1 1
2b 2 H 2 1 1
2b 2 H 2
1 1

Sharjah
Page 122
8/30/2006
Considering
2
1 1
C2 =
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
1 1
1 1
C3 =
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
11
1 1
C4 =
[ f ( ) f ( ) f ( ) f ( )]dd
and
11
1 1
C5 =
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
11
We have
DHb 4
81 4
9 2 2
9(1 ) 2 2
C2 +
C
C
C5
+
+
3
4
4
2
2
2 2
4 H 4
16
b
2
b
H
2
H
b
4b
81 4 H
9 2 2
9(1 )
or K = D
+
+
C
C
C4 +
C5
2
3
3
3
8 Hb
8Hb
64b
4H
Derivation of the time period:m

Considering the time period as T = 2
we have substituting the value of m and k
K
obtained above we have
K=
T = 2
H 2 bC1
4b
9(1 ) 2 2
81 4 H
9 2 2
8 Dg tan
C
C
C
C5
+
+
+
2
3
4
3
8 Hb
8 Hb
64b 3
4H
Considering the value of D as given previously and considering H/b=r as the aspect ratio the
above on some manipulation and simplification may be expressed as
T = 2
12H 5 (1 2 )
8 Et 3 g tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3r 2 + X 4 )
Where X1, X2, X3, X4 are constants whose values are mentioned below.
It will be observed that here that the time period expression is very similar to the what we got for
beam except the fact that for plate element the aspect ratio(r ) factor in the denominator affect
the equation including the Poissons ratio ().
The Integration Constants:The integration constants for C1 to C5 are solved numerically based on Simpsons method and
are furnished hereafter for reference
Sharjah
Page 123
8/30/2006
Coefficients
C1
Integral Function
Value
1 1
2
2
(1 + ) f( ) f( ) dd
1 1
1244.402
C2
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
1 1
771.5905
760.1881
11
C3
1 1
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
11
1 1
C4
-103.306
[ f ( ) f ( ) f ( ) f ( )]dd
11
C5
563.8785
1 1
[ f ( ) f ( )] dd
11
Tabl-29:- Integration constants for time period calculation

Similarly the constants X1, X2, X3, X4 is given by
X1=75.3121451, X2=-3.2405562 X3=17.688041,X4=1.91589362
Calculation of Nodal forces under Dynamic Load :Once the time period is calculated and the response acceleration is obtained from IS 1893 the
shear force/or the nodal force is obtained from the expression
n
ZI
Vi = i
.S a mi i where
2R
i =1
n
i =1
i =1
1 = mi i / mii 2
is the modal mass participation factor
for the present plate problem it can be represented by

1 1
1 =
(1 + ) f ( ) f ( )dd
11
1 1
(1 + ) f
( ) f 2 ( )dd
11
The above on integration gives a unique value of 1 = 0.423

Substituting this value in the above equation we have
n
Vi = 0.423 .S a mi i , where = ZI and the equation can be further transformed

2R
i =1
into Vi =
0.423S a H b
(1 + ) f ( ) f ( )dd
8 g tan
11
2
1 1

Sharjah
Page 124
8/30/2006
In the above expression the term Sa/g is a function of the time period as derived above .The
above on integration will give the dynamic shear force.
However this is not required and the nodal forces can be found out for various values of
and for boundary +1 to 1 to obtain the nodal force coefficient. Once these coefficients are
known they can multiplied by the constant term to obtain dynamic force imposed by the soil at
various points of the plate. The summation of all these force over the surface of the wall will give
the total shear induced on the wall due to the earthquake.
0.423S a H 2 b
Thus Vi ( z , y ) =
( , )
8 g tan
The values of ( , ) are as plotted here after as coefficients on the plate.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2
1 0 0 .44 1.44
2.56
3.40
0.0
3.72
0.2
3.42
0.4
2.60
0.6
1.48
0.8 1.0
0.47
0.0
2.89
2.65
2.02
1.153
0.365
1.988
1.507
0.863
0.273
0.8
0 0.342
1.12
1.98
2.64
0 0.255
0.84 1.485
1.98
0.6
0.4 0 0.182 0.547
2.16
1.06
1.407
1.54
1.417
1.074
0.614
0.194
0.2 0
0.121 0.399 0.707
0.941
1.03
0.948
0.719
0.411
0.130
0.0 0
0.074 0.245 0.434
0.578
0.632
0.581
0.441
0.253
0.079
-0.2 0 0.041 0.133 0.235
0.313
0.342
0.315
0.238
0.136
0.043
-0.4 0
0.020 0.060 0.104
0.134
0.152
0.140
0.106
0.061
0.019
-0.6 0
0.005 0.020 0.032
0.043
0.047
0.043
0.033
0.018
0.006
- 0.8 0 0.0007 0.003 0.004
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.003 0.0007
-1.0 0
Fig_45: Load coefficients ( , ) for plates with three edge fixed and one edge free
under
The coefficients as shown above when multiplied by the term
0.423S a H 2 b
will give the
8 g tan
nodal force at various points of the plate.

It will be interesting to note from the surface envelope generated below that as the load
coefficients are dependent on the assumed shape function there generic curve follows the same
Sharjah
Page 125
8/30/2006
shape as that of the assumed mode that is, it varies like a cantilever in vertical direction and a
beam fixed at edge in horizontal direction . This is surely logical and is in variance to equivalent
static load where hydrostatic force is profile is assumed. The variation is more profound in
horizontal direction for in normal analysis this is considered as constant (like a rectangular
shape) while in reality it is hyperbolic in nature with zero at the edge and maximum at the centre.
Thus if the wall is spanning in one direction (i.e. a one way slab) when major load spans
horizontally along the shorter span, present state of art of arriving at the Shear Force and
Bending Moment could be significantly in variation to the reality.
Nodal Load function

4
3.5
3
2.5
f(P)
2
1.5
1
S11
0.5
0
-1
-0.2
-0.6
Height
0.2
0.6
S6
W idth
3.5-4
3-3.5
2.5-3
2-2.5
1.5-2
1-1.5
0.5-1
0-0.5
S1
Fig-46:-Surface envelope of nodal loads of counterfort wall under first mode

Once the force are known it can be put directly as input in a FEM analysis of a plate
broken up into meshes as shown above and applying the forces as nodal loads we get the shear
and bending moment in the wall.
Else the amplitude , dynamic moments and shear can obtained by the method as shown here
after.
Calculation of dynamic amplitude :As shown at the outset the displacement is defined by
n
w( z , y, t ) = i ( z , y )qi (t )
i =1
For structural systems under earthquake the dynamic amplitude can be calculated from the
expression
Sharjah
Page 126
8/30/2006
w( z , y ) = i ( z i yi ) S d
S
Sd = a
2
Where
Here Sa= Acceleration spectrum and is a function of time period

2= Square of the Natural frequency
Based on codal provision the displacement spectrum can be expressed as
Sd =
S a
2
2 =
Considering
2 =
4 2
T 2 , substituting equation of time period we have
8 Dg tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3 r 2 + X 4 )
H 5
Where D= Flexural stiffness as expressed earlier

Sd =
SaH 5
8 Dg tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3 r 2 + X 4 )
which gives
w(z, y) =
i SaH 5
8 Dg tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3 r 2 + X 4 )
Here F(z) and F(y) are as defined in equation (7) and (8)
F ( z ) F ( y)
4
2
2
Considering (r ) = X 1r + X 2 r + X 3 r + X 4 a function of aspect ratio above expression
can be modified and written as
w(z, y) =
i SaH 5
F ( z) F ( y)
8 Dg tan (r )
Now considering =
i S a
8g tan
Fig-47:-Amplitude function of wall for aspect ratio H/b=2

a constant for a system for a particular mode
Sharjah
Page 127
8/30/2006
D isplacem ent function f(d) for r=2

4.000
3.000
f(d) 2.000
1.000
-0.8
-0.2
0.4
S8
1
0.000
S1
W idth
3.000-4.000
2.000-3.000
1.000-2.000
0.000-1.000
Height
Expression (w(z,y) can now be expressed as

w(z, y) =
A F ( z) F ( y) 5
H
D ( r )
It is thus observed that the dynamic amplitude w(z,y) is function of the flexural stiffness of the
plate, (r ) the aspect ratio of the plate, and the shape function F(z) and F(y).
Shown below is the displacement envelope of the plate with typical aspect ratio of r=2
and Poissons ratio of 0.25.
The coefficients are scaled to 1000.The values when multiplied by the term A( and diveded by
1000) will give the dynamic amplitude for the first mode.
Calculation of Dynamic moments and shear :
The bending moment of a thin plate is given the expression
2w
2w
M z = D 2 + 2
y
z
2w
2w
M y = D 2 + 2
z
y
Qz = D
2w 2w
+
z z 2 y 2
Qy = D
2w 2w
+
y z 2 y 2
w(z, y) =
where
A F ( z) F ( y) 5
H
D ( r )
Substituting the value of w(z,y) above we have

Sharjah
Page 128
8/30/2006
Mz =
A 2
9 2
F ( z ) F ( y ) H 5
2 F ( z ) F ( y ) +
2
(r ) H
4b
Here F(z) and F(y) are as defined in previously in local and natural co-ordinates.
The above expression of Mz can be further modified to
Mz =
9 2r 2
A 2
+
F
(
z
)
F
(
y
)
F ( z ) F ( y ) H 3
(r )
4
From the above the expression we observe that moment varies as the cube of the height and is
a function of the basic shape function and their derivative, Poissons ratio and the aspect ratio.
Shown below is a typical envelope for aspect ratio H/b=2 and Poisons ratio=0.25
Function f(Mz) for r=2

0.15
0.1
0.05
f(Mz)
0
-0.05
0.8
Width
0.2
-0.4
S7
-1
-0.1
0.1-0.15
0.05-0.1
0-0.05
-0.05-0
-0.1--0.05
S1
Height
Fig-48:-Variation of dynamic moment in Vertical(Z) direction for H/b=2

Similarly for y direction we have
My =
9 2 r 2
A 2
+
F
(
z
)
F
(
y
)
F ( z ) F ( y ) H 3
( r )
4
where substituting the values of z in either local and nodal co-ordinates moment coefficient and
envelope can be plotted.
We show below a typical envelope of Moment (My) for aspect ratio r(H/b)=2 and Poissons
ratio=0.25.

Sharjah
Page 129
8/30/2006
Function f(My) for r=2
0.6
0.2
-0.2
-0.6
S7
-1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
f(My) 0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Width
S1
Height
0.4-0.5
0.3-0.4
0.2-0.3
0.1-0.2
0-0.1
-0.1-0
-0.2--0.1
-0.3--0.2
Fig-49:- Variation in Dynamic Moment in horizontal (Y) direction for H/b=2.

Similarly for shear force in Z and Y direction can be expressed as
Qz =
9 2 r 2
A 3
+
F
(
z
)
F
(
y
)
F ( z ) F ( y ) H 2 and
(r )
4
Qy =
A 3 2r
27 3 r 3
+
F
(
z
)
F
(
y
)
F ( z ) F ( y ) H 2
( r ) 2
8
Looking at above expressions we see that the shear force varies as the square of the height and
is a function of the aspect ratio and the basic shape function
The above procedure gives a comprehensive solution for walls with three side fixed and one
side free subjected to dynamic earth pressure under earthquake load where the moments ,
shears and amplitude are dependent on the time period ,geometry of the wall, its boundary
condition as well as the material and engineering property of the soil.
Soil sloped at an angle i with horizontal :

In this case like we did in cantilever wall let H = H + x = H 1 + where
65
cos sin i
sin( i )
Refer to the figure we have drawn for the cantilever retaining wall with sloped soil surface.

Sharjah
Page 130
65
8/30/2006
Thus the mass coefficient can now be considered as varying between H to 0

H b
m=
or
g tan F ( z )
F ( y ) 2 dy.dz
00
The above on transformation to natural co ordinate can be represented as

H 2 b
2
2
8 g tan F( ) F( ) dd
11
1 1
m=
m=
H 2 b(1 + )
C1
8 g tan
or
The time period is thus given by
12H 5 (1 + )(1 2 )
8 Et 3 g tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3r 2 + X 4 )
T = 2
It will be observed that for i=0, = 0 the above equation converges to equation (for time period
with walll having soil parallel to the ground .The constants X1, X2, X3, X4 remains same as
mentioned earlier.
The modal mass participation factor shall remain same as earlier i.e
1 1
1 =
(1 + ) f ( ) f ( )dd
11
1 1
(1 + ) f
= 0.423
( ) f ( )dd
2
11
Thus the nodal load can now be expressed as

Vi =
0.423S a H 2 b 1 1
(1 + ) f ( ) f ( )dd
8 g tan
11
0.423S a H 2 (1 + )b 1 1
(1 + ) f ( ) f ( )dd
8 g tan
11
Thus we see that the constant term is multiplied by an additional factor (1 + ) and the
integration constants ( , ) remains same as expressed earlier.
It may again be noted that for i=0, = 0 when the above expression converges to expression
Shear equation for the soil parallel to the ground.
From above we can safely deduce from mathematical similarity that for this case
The term A as expressed in earlier can be now be expressed as

Sharjah
Page 131
8/30/2006
i S a (1 + )
8 g tan
The rest of the steps remain same as explained earlier

Design Moments and shear coefficients:Observing the values of moments and shear as derived above it can be inferred that they can be
expressed in the form
0.423S a
(1 + ) H3
M(z)= Coeffz
8 g tan
0.423S a
(1 + ) H3
M(y)= Coeffy
8 g tan
0.423S a
(1 + ) H2
Q(z)= Coeffz
8 g tan
0.423S a
(1 + ) H2
Q(y)= Coeffz
8 g tan
It will be observed from above that these coefficients are a function of the aspect ratio of the
slab. Normally the ratio of H/b for counterforts varies between 2 to 3.We furnish below the
coefficients for moments and shears for various values between 2 to 3 in increment of 0.2566
Moment coefficients in vertical direction(Mz)
Aspec
t Ratio
2.0
H/b
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0618
0.0531
0.0440
0.0348
0.0255
0.0166
0.0083
0.0009
0.0053
0.0285
0.0244
0.0201
0.0156
0.0111
0.0066
0.0024
0.0014
0.0087
0.0530
0.0999
0.0076
0.0458
0.0861
0.0066
0.0386
0.0724
0.0058
0.0316
0.0590
0.0052
0.0248
0.0460
0.0047
0.0186
0.0339
0.0043
0.0129
0.0230
0.0042
0.0082
0.0136
0.0046
0.0043
0.0046
0.0064
0.0072
0.0045
0.0023
0.0017
0.0089
0.0051
0.0016
0.0000
0.0225
0.0193
0.0160
0.0126
0.0069
0.0420
0.0790
0.0060
0.0362
0.0681
0.0052
0.0305
0.0573
0.0045
0.0249
0.0467
-1.0
0.1016
0.0548
0.0102
-0.8
0.0877
0.0473
0.0089
-0.6
0.0737
0.0398
0.0077
-0.4
0.0601
0.0326
0.0067
-0.2
0.0469
0.0256
0.0059
0.0
0.0345
0.0191
0.0052
0.2
0.0234
0.0133
0.0046
0.4
0.0139
0.0084
0.0043
0.0273
0.0234
0.0192
0.0149
0.0106
0.0063
0.0022
0.0015
0.6
0.0065
0.0046
0.0042
0.0046
0.0526
0.0452
0.0374
0.0295
0.0216
0.0139
0.0067
0.0003
0.0051
0.8
0.0017
0.0022
0.0044
0.0071
0.0092
0.0100
1.0
0.0000
0.0015
0.0050
0.0088
0.0117
0.0128
0.0533
0.0457
0.0379
0.0303
0.0234
0.0176
0.0122
0.0073
0.0080
0.0005
0.0118
0.0804
0.0433
0.0081
0.0694
0.0374
0.0070
0.0583
0.0315
0.0061
0.0475
0.0257
0.0052
0.0216
0.0185
0.0153
0.0120
0.0416
0.0358
0.0297
0.0236
0.0489
0.0420
0.0350
0.0278
0.0421
0.0362
0.0301
0.0242
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
66
-0.4
Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated

Sharjah
Page 132
8/30/2006
1.0
-0.2
2.25
0.0371
0.0202
0.0045
0.0273
0.0150
0.0038
0.0185
0.0104
0.0033
0.0087
0.0055
0.0024
0.0003
0.0175
0.0117
0.0062
0.0014
0.0207
0.0139
0.0076
0.0020
0.0110
0.0065
0.0029
0.0051
0.0035
0.0028
0.0026
0.0026
0.0027
0.0013
0.0000
0.0015
0.0028
0.0044
0.0056
0.0061
0.0009
0.0031
0.0652
0.0351
0.0066
0.0562
0.0303
0.0057
0.0473
0.0255
0.0049
0.0385
0.0208
0.0042
0.0301
0.0163
0.0035
0.0221
0.0121
0.0029
0.0150
0.0084
0.0024
0.0089
0.0052
0.0021
0.0055
0.0175
0.0150
0.0125
0.0099
0.0072
0.0047
0.0024
0.0003
0.0073
0.0338
0.0290
0.0242
0.0193
0.0145
0.0098
0.0055
0.0018
0.0080
0.0396
0.0341
0.0284
0.0227
0.0171
0.0117
0.0067
0.0023
0.0042
0.0027
0.0019
0.0015
0.0013
0.0013
0.0011
0.0011
0.0019
0.0028
0.0036
0.0039
0.0000
0.0006
0.0020
0.0539
0.0291
0.0054
0.0465
0.0251
0.0047
0.0391
0.0211
0.0040
0.0319
0.0172
0.0034
0.0249
0.0135
0.0028
0.0183
0.0100
0.0023
0.0124
0.0069
0.0019
0.0074
0.0042
0.0016
0.0036
0.0145
0.0124
0.0103
0.0082
0.0061
0.0041
0.0022
0.0005
0.0048
0.0279
0.0240
0.0200
0.0160
0.0121
0.0084
0.0049
0.0019
0.0052
0.0328
0.0282
0.0235
0.0189
0.0143
0.0099
0.0059
0.0024
0.0034
0.0022
0.0014
0.0009
0.0006
0.0005
0.0009
0.0009
0.0013
0.0019
0.0024
0.0000
0.0004
0.0014
0.0453
0.0244
0.0046
0.0391
0.0211
0.0040
0.0329
0.0177
0.0034
0.0268
0.0145
0.0028
0.0209
0.0113
0.0023
0.0154
0.0084
0.0019
0.0104
0.0058
0.0015
0.0025
0.0122
0.0105
0.0087
0.0070
0.0052
0.0035
0.0020
0.0033
0.0235
0.0202
0.0169
0.0135
0.0103
0.0072
0.0043
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.75
0.0
0.2
0.4
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
3.0
0.0
0.2

Sharjah
Page 133
0.0364
0.0034
0.0146
0.0268
0.0030
0.0101
0.0182
0.0002
0.0028
0.0063
0.0108
0.0026
0.0028
0.0034
0.0050
0.0029
0.0016
0.0013
0.0032
0.0010
0.0000
0.0056
0.0340
0.0641
0.0048
0.0293
0.0552
0.0042
0.0247
0.0465
0.0036
0.0202
0.0379
0.0030
0.0158
0.0295
0.0026
0.0118
0.0217
0.0022
0.0081
0.0147
0.0020
0.0050
0.0087
0.0015
0.0019
0.0027
0.0041
0.0028
0.0019
0.0011
0.0011
0.0037
0.0151
0.0130
0.0108
0.0086
0.0064
0.0043
0.0023
0.0006
0.0021
0.0007
0.0000
0.0046
0.0281
0.0530
0.0040
0.0243
0.0457
0.0034
0.0204
0.0384
0.0029
0.0167
0.0313
0.0025
0.0131
0.0244
0.0020
0.0097
0.0180
0.0017
0.0067
0.0122
0.0015
0.0041
0.0072
0.0008
0.0013
0.0021
0.0034
0.0025
0.0048
0.0283
0.0243
0.0203
0.0164
0.0127
0.0095
0.0065
0.0039
0.0031
0.0004
0.0019
0.0013
0.0009
0.0009
0.0036
0.0276
0.0237
0.0198
0.0159
0.0121
0.0085
0.0052
0.0033
0.0238
0.0204
0.0171
0.0138
0.0107
0.0080
0.0055
0.0025
0.0127
0.0109
0.0091
0.0073
0.0055
0.0037
0.0021
0.0014
0.0005
0.0000
0.0039
0.0236
0.0445
0.0034
0.0204
0.0384
0.0029
0.0172
0.0323
0.0024
0.0140
0.0263
0.0020
0.0110
0.0205
0.0017
0.0081
0.0151
0.0014
0.0056
0.0102
0.8
-1.0
0.0196
0.0044
0.6
1.0
0.0039
0.0056
0.0183
0.0157
0.0130
0.0103
0.0076
0.0050
0.0025
0.0003
0.8
-1.0
0.0091
0.0058
0.0026
0.0073
0.0342
0.0294
0.0245
0.0197
0.0153
0.0114
0.0079
0.0047
0.0041
0.0005
0.6
1.0
0.0187
0.0140
0.0097
0.0058
0.0056
0.0005
8/30/2006
0.4
0.0062
0.0035
0.0012
0.0006
0.0018
0.0023
0.0007
0.0011
0.0034
0.0061
0.0005
0.0010
0.0017
0.0028
0.0017
0.0032
0.0024
0.0004
0.0029
0.0018
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0008
0.0007
0.0009
0.0013
0.0016
0.0000
0.0003
0.0010
0.0017
0.0023
0.0013
0.0009
0.0007
0.0007
0.0025
0.0023
0.0018
0.0010
0.0003
0.0000
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
Moment coefficients in horizontal direction(My)

Aspec
t Ratio
2.0
H/b
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.407
0.219
0.041
-0.109
-0.210
-0.247
-0.213
-0.114
0.035
0.212
0.399
-0.8
0.351
0.189
0.035
-0.094
-0.181
-0.213
-0.184
-0.098
0.030
0.183
0.344
-0.6
0.295
0.159
0.030
-0.079
-0.152
-0.179
-0.154
-0.083
0.025
0.154
0.290
-0.4
0.240
0.129
0.024
-0.064
-0.124
-0.146
-0.125
-0.067
0.021
0.125
0.236
-0.2
0.187
0.101
0.019
-0.050
-0.096
-0.113
-0.098
-0.052
0.016
0.098
0.184
0.0
0.138
0.075
0.014
-0.036
-0.070
-0.083
-0.071
-0.038
0.012
0.072
0.136
0.2
0.093
0.051
0.010
-0.024
-0.047
-0.055
-0.048
-0.025
0.009
0.049
0.092
0.4
0.055
0.030
0.006
-0.014
-0.027
-0.032
-0.027
-0.014
0.005
0.029
0.055
0.6
0.026
0.014
0.004
-0.005
-0.011
-0.013
-0.011
-0.006
0.003
0.014
0.026
0.8
0.007
0.004
0.002
0.000
-0.001
-0.001
-0.001
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.007
1.0
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.0864
0.0744
0.0626
0.0508
0.0395
0.0289
0.0192
0.0110
0.0045
0.0003
0.1665
0.1436
0.1207
0.0981
0.0764
0.0559
0.0374
0.0216
0.0093
0.0012
0.1955
0.1686
0.1417
0.1153
0.0897
0.0657
0.0440
0.0255
0.0110
0.0016
0.1686
0.1454
0.1222
0.0994
0.0773
0.0566
0.0379
0.0219
0.0094
0.0012
0.0902
0.0777
0.0653
0.0531
0.0413
0.0301
0.0201
0.0115
0.0047
0.0003
0.0275
0.1678
0.3160
0.0237
0.1447
0.2726
0.0200
0.1218
0.2293
0.0163
0.0992
0.1867
0.0128
0.0774
0.1457
0.0096
0.0571
0.1073
0.0067
0.0387
0.0727
0.0042
0.0231
0.0431
0.0023
0.0109
0.0202
0.0014
0.0700
0.0604
0.0507
0.0412
0.0321
0.0235
0.0157
0.0090
0.0038
0.0004
0.0018
0.1350
0.1164
0.0979
0.0796
0.0620
0.0454
0.0305
0.0177
0.0078
0.0012
0.0020
0.1585
0.1367
0.1149
0.0935
0.0728
0.0534
0.0358
0.0209
0.0092
0.0015
0.0018
0.1367
0.1179
0.0991
0.0806
0.0628
0.0460
0.0309
0.0179
0.0079
0.0013
0.0014
0.0731
0.0630
0.0530
0.0431
0.0335
0.0245
0.0164
0.0094
0.0040
0.0004
0.3217
0.1733
0.0324
0.2774
0.1495
0.0280
0.2334
0.1258
0.0236
0.1901
0.1025
0.0193
0.1483
0.0800
0.0151
0.1092
0.0589
0.0113
0.0739
0.0400
0.0078
0.0439
0.0238
0.0049
0.0205
0.0112
0.0026
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0054
0.0031
0.0012
0.0000
0.0002
0.0008
0.2608
0.1405
0.0263
0.2249
0.1212
0.0227
0.1892
0.1020
0.0191
0.1541
0.0831
0.0156
0.1203
0.0648
0.0122
0.0885
0.0478
0.0091
0.0600
0.0324
0.0063
0.0356
0.0193
0.0039
0.0167
0.0091
0.0020
0.0044
0.0025
0.0009
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.5
-0.2
-1.0
-1.0
2.25
-0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Sharjah
Page 134
0.0011
0.0030
0.0053
0.0008
0.0003
0.0000
0.0223
0.1361
0.2562
0.0192
0.1173
0.2210
0.0162
0.0987
0.1859
0.0132
0.0804
0.1514
0.0104
0.0628
0.1182
0.0077
0.0463
0.0870
0.0054
0.0314
0.0589
0.0033
0.0187
0.0350
0.0018
0.0088
0.0164
0.0008
0.0024
0.0043
8/30/2006
1.0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0005
0.2157
0.1162
0.0217
0.1860
0.1002
0.0188
0.1565
0.0843
0.0158
0.1274
0.0687
0.0129
0.0995
0.0536
0.0101
0.0732
0.0395
0.0075
0.0496
0.0268
0.0052
0.0294
0.0159
0.0032
0.0138
0.0075
0.0016
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.75
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0036
0.0020
0.0007
0.0000
0.0001
0.0003
0.1813
0.0977
0.0183
0.1564
0.0843
0.0158
0.1315
0.0709
0.0133
0.1071
0.0577
0.0108
0.0836
0.0451
0.0085
0.0616
0.0332
0.0063
0.0417
0.0225
0.0043
0.0247
0.0134
0.0026
0.0116
0.0063
0.0013
0.0013
0.1311
0.1130
0.0950
0.0773
0.0602
0.0442
0.0297
0.0174
0.0077
0.0014
0.0012
0.1130
0.0975
0.0820
0.0667
0.0519
0.0381
0.0256
0.0149
0.0066
0.0012
0.0009
0.0604
0.0521
0.0438
0.0356
0.0277
0.0203
0.0136
0.0079
0.0034
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
0.0000
0.0184
0.1125
0.2119
0.0159
0.0970
0.1827
0.0134
0.0816
0.1537
0.0109
0.0665
0.1252
0.0086
0.0519
0.0977
0.0064
0.0382
0.0719
0.0044
0.0259
0.0487
0.0027
0.0154
0.0289
0.0014
0.0073
0.0135
0.0006
0.0020
0.0036
0.0008
0.0939
0.0809
0.0681
0.0554
0.0431
0.0317
0.0213
0.0125
0.0056
0.0011
0.0009
0.1102
0.0950
0.0799
0.0650
0.0507
0.0372
0.0250
0.0147
0.0066
0.0013
0.0008
0.0950
0.0819
0.0689
0.0561
0.0437
0.0321
0.0216
0.0126
0.0056
0.0011
0.0006
0.0508
0.0438
0.0368
0.0300
0.0233
0.0171
0.0115
0.0067
0.0029
0.0005
0.0004
0.0001
0.0000
0.0155
0.0946
0.1781
0.0134
0.0816
0.1536
0.0112
0.0686
0.1292
0.0092
0.0559
0.1053
0.0072
0.0436
0.0821
0.0053
0.0321
0.0605
0.0037
0.0218
0.0410
0.0023
0.0130
0.0243
0.0012
0.0061
0.0114
0.0005
0.0017
0.0030
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0004
0.0003
0.0001
0.0000
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1502
0.1529
0.1539
0.1521
0.1468
0.1371
0.1227
0.1031
0.0781
0.0478
0.2897
0.2931
0.2935
0.2890
0.2777
0.2583
0.2300
0.1918
0.1435
0.0850
0.3401
0.3438
0.3441
0.3385
0.3251
0.3023
0.2688
0.2240
0.1673
0.0985
0.2933
0.2967
0.2972
0.2925
0.2811
0.2615
0.2327
0.1941
0.1452
0.0859
0.1569
0.1595
0.1605
0.1586
0.1530
0.1429
0.1278
0.1073
0.0812
0.0496
0.0478
0.2920
0.5498
0.0460
0.2910
0.5490
0.0441
0.2877
0.5437
0.0418
0.2800
0.5299
0.0386
0.2662
0.5044
0.0344
0.2448
0.4646
0.0290
0.2149
0.4085
0.0223
0.1756
0.3347
0.0141
0.1264
0.2423
0.0044
0.0672
0.1308
0.0030
0.0017
0.0005
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0012
0.1116
0.0963
0.0809
0.0659
0.0513
0.0376
0.0253
0.0148
0.0065
0.0012
0.0006
0.0487
0.0420
0.0353
0.0287
0.0223
0.0164
0.0110
0.0064
0.0028
0.0004
-1.0
3.0
0.0009
0.0579
0.0499
0.0420
0.0341
0.0266
0.0194
0.0130
0.0075
0.0033
0.0004
Shear coefficients in vertical direction( Qz)

Aspec
t Ratio
H/b
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
0.5596
0.3016
0.0564
0.5588
0.3006
0.0547
0.5534
0.2973
0.0528
0.5393
0.2894
0.0502
0.5134
0.2751
0.0467
0.4728
0.2530
0.0419
0.4157
0.2221
0.0357
0.3406
0.1815
0.0278
0.2466
0.1308
0.0181
0.1331
0.0696
0.0066
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Sharjah
Page 135
8/30/2006
1.0
0.0000
0.0021
0.0068
0.4428
0.2386
0.0446
0.4422
0.2380
0.0436
0.4379
0.2354
0.0423
0.4267
0.2292
0.0404
0.4062
0.2179
0.0378
0.3741
0.2005
0.0341
0.3289
0.1761
0.0292
0.2695
0.1440
0.0231
0.1951
0.1038
0.0155
0.1053
0.0000
0.0555
0.0013
0.0064
0.0043
0.3590
0.1935
0.0362
0.3585
0.1930
0.0355
0.3550
0.1909
0.0346
0.3460
0.1859
0.0332
0.3293
0.1768
0.0311
0.3033
0.1627
0.0282
0.2667
0.1429
0.0243
0.2185
0.1169
0.0193
0.1582
0.0844
0.0132
0.0854
0.0000
0.0452
0.0009
0.0058
0.0028
0.2969
0.1600
0.0299
0.2965
0.1596
0.0294
0.2936
0.1579
0.0288
0.2861
0.1538
0.0277
0.2723
0.1463
0.0260
0.2508
0.1347
0.0237
0.2205
0.1183
0.0205
0.1807
0.0968
0.0164
0.1308
0.0699
0.0113
0.0706
0.0000
0.0375
0.0006
0.0052
0.0019
0.2496
0.1345
0.0252
0.2492
0.1342
0.0248
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.75
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8

Sharjah
0.0121
0.1189
0.1205
0.1209
0.1192
0.1147
0.1068
0.0952
0.0796
0.0598
0.0358
0.0076
0.0964
0.0974
0.0975
0.0959
0.0921
0.0856
0.0761
0.0634
0.0474
0.0279
0.0050
0.0797
0.0804
0.0803
0.0789
0.0756
0.0702
0.0623
0.0518
0.0385
0.0223
0.0034
0.0670
0.0675
0.0161
0.2292
0.2313
0.2311
0.2270
0.2177
0.2022
0.1795
0.1492
0.1109
0.0646
0.0100
0.1858
0.1871
0.1867
0.1831
0.1754
0.1626
0.1441
0.1195
0.0884
0.0508
0.0066
0.1537
0.1545
0.1540
0.1509
0.1443
0.1337
0.1183
0.0979
0.0722
0.0411
0.0045
0.1292
0.1298
Page 136
0.0176
0.2691
0.2714
0.2710
0.2661
0.2551
0.2367
0.2100
0.1744
0.1295
0.0750
0.0110
0.2182
0.2196
0.2189
0.2147
0.2055
0.1905
0.1687
0.1398
0.1033
0.0591
0.0072
0.1804
0.1814
0.1806
0.1769
0.1692
0.1566
0.1386
0.1146
0.0844
0.0478
0.0049
0.1517
0.1523
0.0162
0.2321
0.2341
0.2339
0.2298
0.2204
0.2046
0.1817
0.1510
0.1123
0.0653
0.0101
0.1882
0.1895
0.1890
0.1854
0.1775
0.1646
0.1459
0.1209
0.0895
0.0514
0.0066
0.1556
0.1565
0.1559
0.1527
0.1461
0.1353
0.1198
0.0991
0.0730
0.0415
0.0045
0.1308
0.1314
0.0123
0.1241
0.1258
0.1261
0.1243
0.1195
0.1113
0.0992
0.0829
0.0623
0.0372
0.0077
0.1006
0.1017
0.1017
0.1000
0.0960
0.0893
0.0794
0.0661
0.0493
0.0290
0.0050
0.0832
0.0839
0.0838
0.0823
0.0789
0.0732
0.0650
0.0540
0.0401
0.0232
0.0034
0.0700
0.0704
0.0070
0.0022
0.0000
0.0378
0.2310
0.4351
0.0367
0.2304
0.4344
0.0354
0.2278
0.4302
0.0338
0.2218
0.4193
0.0314
0.2109
0.3991
0.0282
0.1940
0.3676
0.0241
0.1703
0.3232
0.0188
0.1393
0.2648
0.0123
0.1004
0.1917
0.0046
0.0044
0.0536
0.0014
0.1035
0.0000
0.0306
0.1873
0.3527
0.0299
0.1868
0.3522
0.0290
0.1848
0.3488
0.0278
0.1800
0.3399
0.0260
0.1711
0.3236
0.0235
0.1575
0.2980
0.0201
0.1383
0.2620
0.0159
0.1131
0.2147
0.0107
0.0816
0.1554
0.0044
0.0029
0.0436
0.0009
0.0839
0.0000
0.0253
0.1549
0.2917
0.0248
0.1545
0.2913
0.0242
0.1529
0.2884
0.0232
0.1489
0.2811
0.0218
0.1416
0.2676
0.0197
0.1303
0.2465
0.0170
0.1145
0.2167
0.0135
0.0937
0.1775
0.0092
0.0676
0.1285
0.0041
0.0020
0.0362
0.0006
0.0694
0.0000
0.0213
0.1302
0.2452
0.0209
0.1299
0.2449
8/30/2006
-0.6
0.2468
0.1328
0.0243
0.2405
0.1294
0.0234
0.2289
0.1231
0.0221
0.2109
0.1133
0.0201
0.1854
0.0995
0.0175
0.1519
0.0815
0.0140
0.1100
0.0588
0.0097
0.0594
0.0316
0.0004
0.0046
0.0014
-0.4
-0.2
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0000
0.0673
0.0660
0.0632
0.0586
0.0520
0.0431
0.0319
0.0183
0.0024
0.1292
0.1265
0.1209
0.1119
0.0989
0.0817
0.0601
0.0339
0.0032
0.1515
0.1483
0.1417
0.1311
0.1159
0.0957
0.0703
0.0396
0.0035
0.1308
0.1280
0.1224
0.1132
0.1001
0.0827
0.0608
0.0343
0.0032
0.0702
0.0689
0.0660
0.0612
0.0542
0.0449
0.0332
0.0191
0.0024
0.2
0.0205
0.1286
0.2425
0.0197
0.1252
0.2363
0.0185
0.1191
0.2249
0.0168
0.1096
0.2072
0.0145
0.0963
0.1822
0.0116
0.0788
0.1492
0.0080
0.0569
0.1080
0.0037
0.0014
0.0305
0.0004
0.0583
0.0000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3690
2.5424
3.3319
3.6985
3.7640
1.1799
2.1913
2.8721
3.1886
3.2460
0.9906
1.8399
2.4122
2.6796
2.7305
0.8033
1.4926
1.9581
2.1776
2.2236
0.6219
1.1562
1.5185
1.6925
1.7351
0.4510
0.8393
1.1048
1.2366
1.2770
0.2960
0.5520
0.7301
0.8242
0.8640
0.1628
0.3055
0.4088
0.4715
0.5121
0.0579
0.0121
0.0407
0.1114
0.0180
0.0703
0.1564
0.0112
0.0778
0.1953
0.2385
0.0134
0.0564
0.0608
0.0027
1.2186
2.2631
2.9659
3.2922
3.3505
1.0504
1.9508
2.5568
2.8385
2.8894
0.8822
1.6386
2.1482
2.3859
2.4306
0.7161
1.3304
1.7450
1.9399
1.9794
0.5554
1.0322
1.3551
1.5090
1.5446
0.4040
0.7516
0.9884
1.1043
1.1369
0.2669
0.4974
0.6566
0.7385
0.7693
0.1494
0.2797
0.3724
0.4259
0.4562
0.0571
0.0042
0.0286
0.1087
0.0047
0.0494
0.1497
0.1815
0.2126
0.0025
0.0547
0.0210
0.0397
0.0546
0.0019
1.0978
2.0387
2.6718
2.9658
3.0182
Shear coefficients in horizontal direction( Qy)

Aspec
t Ratio
H/b
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
-1.0
3.7646
3.2466
2.7311
2.2244
1.7359
1.2781
0.8654
0.5138
0.2404
0.0631
3.7055
3.1947
2.6847
2.1820
1.6961
1.2394
0.8265
0.4733
0.1968
0.0148
3.3533
2.8905
2.4278
1.9708
1.5285
1.1122
0.7351
0.4118
0.1579
2.5797
2.2235
1.8670
1.5146
1.1732
0.8517
0.5603
0.3101
0.1133
1.4184
1.2225
1.0263
0.8323
0.6444
0.4673
0.3067
0.1687
0.0601
0.0269
0.0232
0.0195
0.0158
0.0122
0.0089
0.0058
0.0032
0.0011
0.0106
0.0180
0.0125
0.0002
0.0000
3.3510
2.8899
2.4311
1.9800
1.5452
1.1377
0.7703
0.4573
0.2140
0.0562
0.0550
3.2984
2.8439
2.3904
1.9437
1.5121
1.1067
0.7404
0.4273
0.1826
0.0220
0.0776
2.9849
2.5733
2.1620
1.7562
1.3639
0.9949
0.6610
0.3751
0.1511
0.0030
0.0710
2.2963
1.9795
1.6627
1.3500
1.0474
0.7627
0.5048
0.2839
0.1104
0.0421
1.2625
1.0883
0.9141
0.7420
0.5754
0.4186
0.2766
0.1548
0.0592
0.0008
0.0239
0.0206
0.0173
0.0141
0.0109
0.0079
0.0052
0.0029
0.0011
0.0045
0.0043
0.0001
0.0000
3.0187
0.0386
2.9713
0.0545
2.6889
0.0499
2.0686
0.0296
1.1373
0.0006
0.0216
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0

Sharjah
Page 137
8/30/2006
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.6033
2.1900
1.7837
1.3920
1.0249
0.6939
0.4120
0.1928
0.0506
2.5620
2.1538
1.7518
1.3637
0.9992
0.6700
0.3889
0.1693
0.0255
2.3182
1.9482
1.5834
1.2308
0.8994
0.5998
0.3435
0.1429
0.0108
1.7833
1.4984
1.2173
0.9455
0.6900
0.4587
0.2608
0.1057
0.0033
0.9805
0.8237
0.6691
0.5195
0.3788
0.2515
0.1425
0.0570
0.0005
0.0186
0.0156
0.0127
0.0099
0.0072
0.0048
0.0027
0.0011
0.0000
2.7460
2.3682
1.9922
1.6226
1.2663
0.9323
0.6313
0.3748
0.1754
0.0461
0.0282
2.7029
2.3306
1.9596
1.5942
1.2415
0.9105
0.6116
0.3564
0.1573
0.0271
0.0398
2.4460
2.1089
1.7726
1.4412
1.1211
0.8203
0.5485
0.3162
0.1345
0.0152
0.0364
1.8817
1.6223
1.3634
1.1081
0.8614
0.6296
0.4199
0.2406
0.1003
0.0079
0.0216
1.0346
0.8920
0.7495
0.6091
0.4734
0.3458
0.2304
0.1316
0.0543
0.0034
0.0004
0.0196
0.0169
0.0142
0.0116
0.0090
0.0066
0.0044
0.0025
0.0010
0.0001
0.0000
2.5184
2.1718
1.8270
1.4880
1.1613
0.8550
0.5789
0.3437
0.1608
0.0422
0.0212
2.4788
2.1375
1.7973
1.4624
1.1393
0.8361
0.5623
0.3287
0.1465
0.0275
0.0299
2.2432
1.9342
1.6259
1.3223
1.0291
0.7538
0.5050
0.2925
0.1265
0.0177
0.0274
1.7257
1.4879
1.2506
1.0168
0.7909
0.5787
0.3870
0.2231
0.0949
0.0107
0.0162
0.9488
0.8181
0.6876
0.5589
0.4347
0.3179
0.2124
0.1221
0.0515
0.0051
0.0003
0.0180
0.0155
0.0130
0.0106
0.0082
0.0060
0.0040
0.0023
0.0010
0.0001
0.0000
0.0163
0.0231
0.0211
0.0125
0.0002
0.0000
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.75
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9464
1.7575
2.3035
2.5572
2.6029
0.7951
1.4767
1.9357
2.1497
2.1896
0.6458
1.1997
1.5732
1.7484
1.7832
0.5014
0.9318
1.2228
1.3609
1.3915
0.3656
0.6799
0.8936
0.9971
1.0243
0.2427
0.4520
0.5958
0.6684
0.6932
0.1375
0.2569
0.3410
0.3877
0.4111
0.0550
0.1040
0.1417
0.1684
0.1918
0.0004
0.0209
0.0031
0.0361
0.0104
0.0399
0.0248
0.0289
0.0494
0.0014
0.9986
1.8545
2.4304
2.6979
2.7456
0.8609
1.5989
2.0955
2.3263
2.3678
0.7235
1.3437
1.7613
1.9558
1.9918
0.5879
1.0921
1.4320
1.5911
1.6222
0.4569
0.8489
1.1138
1.2391
1.2658
0.3337
0.6204
0.8150
0.9086
0.9318
0.2223
0.4138
0.5449
0.6102
0.6307
0.1270
0.2371
0.3140
0.3553
0.3741
0.0524
0.0988
0.1334
0.1565
0.1746
0.0032
0.0157
0.0077
0.0271
0.0149
0.0300
0.0265
0.0218
0.0452
0.0010
0.9158
1.7008
2.2289
2.4742
2.5180
0.7896
1.4664
1.9218
2.1334
2.1715
0.6636
1.2325
1.6155
1.7939
1.8267
0.5395
1.0021
1.3138
1.4596
1.4877
0.4195
0.7795
1.0225
1.1371
1.1609
0.3068
0.5703
0.7489
0.8343
0.8546
0.2050
0.3813
0.5017
0.5610
0.5785
0.1178
0.2198
0.2905
0.3278
0.3432
0.0497
0.0935
0.1256
0.1459
0.1602
0.0049
0.0121
0.0105
0.0209
0.0174
0.0231
0.0270
0.0168
0.0415
0.0008
We now explain the above with a typical numerical problem

Example 10.17:Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury
Sharjah
Page 138
8/30/2006
A counter fort retaining wall of height 7.5 meter has counte forts spaced at 3.0 meter.The average thickness
of the wall is 300 m having RCC grade as M25.The wall is resting on hard soil in zone IV as per IS 18932002 .Density of the backfill soil is 22 kN/m3 having friction angle of 28o.The soil is sloped to the horizotal
plane at angle i=15o.Considering Econc=2.85X107 kN/m2
and poissons ratio of concrete as 0.3.
Determine the time period of the wall and find out the horizontal dynamic moments and shears in the wall
under active earth pressure?
Solution :Here we have
= 28 o
i = 15 o
Thus
= 45 + 0.5 28 = 59 o
Considering
=
=
cos sin i
sin( i )
cos 59 sin 15
= 0.192
sin 44
For the problem
12H 5 (1 + )(1 2 )
8 Et 3 g tan ( X 1r 4 + X 2 r 2 + X 3r 2 + X 4 )
T = 2
= 2
12 22 7.5 5 (1 + 0.192)(1 0.3 2 )

8 2.85 10 7 0.33 9.81 tan 59(75.3 2.5 4 3.25 2.5 2 + 17.68 0.3 2.5 2 + 1.72)
= 0.03sec
Thus
Sa
= 1 + 15T = 1.45 for hard soil
g
Here
ZI 0.24 1
=
= 0.06
2R
4
Thus in horizontal direction
M(y)= Coeffy
0.423S a
(1 + ) H3 and
8 g tan
Q(y)= Coeffy
0.423S a
(1 + ) H2
8 g tan

Sharjah
Page 139
8/30/2006
M(y)=
Q(y)=
0.423 0.06 22 1.45 7.5 3 1.192

= 30.58 Coeff ( y )
8 9.81 tan 59
0.423 0.06 22 1.45 7.5 2 1.192
= 4.077 Coeff ( y )
8 9.81 tan 59
Thus multiplying by the appropriate coefficent we have My and Qy as

Horizontal Moment My
-1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-0.8
7.975
6.878
5.786
4.712
3.678
2.708
1.833
1.088
0.509
0.134
0.000
-0.6
4.298
3.706
3.118
2.540
1.983
1.461
0.990
0.589
0.278
0.076
0.005
0.804
0.694
0.584
0.477
0.374
0.278
0.192
0.119
0.063
0.027
0.016
-0.4
-0.2
-2.141
-1.846
-1.551
-1.261
-0.981
-0.718
-0.479
-0.276
-0.117
-0.012
0.028
0.0
-4.128
-3.560
-2.993
-2.434
-1.895
-1.389
-0.932
-0.542
-0.237
-0.038
0.037
0.2
-4.847
-4.180
-3.514
-2.859
-2.226
-1.632
-1.096
-0.638
-0.281
-0.047
0.040
0.4
-4.180
-3.604
-3.030
-2.465
-1.919
-1.407
-0.944
-0.549
-0.240
-0.038
0.037
-2.235
-1.927
-1.620
-1.317
-1.024
-0.749
-0.501
-0.289
-0.122
-0.013
0.028
0.6
0.681
0.587
0.495
0.404
0.318
0.237
0.164
0.102
0.055
0.025
0.016
0.8
4.161
3.588
3.019
2.459
1.920
1.414
0.959
0.571
0.269
0.074
0.005
1.0
7.836
6.757
5.685
4.630
3.613
2.660
1.801
1.069
0.500
0.131
0.000
Horizontal Shear Qy
-1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-12.307
-10.614
-8.929
-7.272
-5.675
-4.179
-2.829
-1.680
-0.786
-0.206
0.000
-0.8
-12.114
-10.445
-8.781
-7.142
-5.560
-4.074
-2.732
-1.585
-0.690
-0.104
0.115
-0.6
-10.963
-9.451
-7.943
-6.455
-5.018
-3.667
-2.445
-1.400
-0.582
-0.044
0.162
-0.4
-0.2
-8.434
-7.271
-6.109
-4.963
-3.855
-2.813
-1.870
-1.063
-0.431
-0.013
0.149
-4.637
-3.997
-3.358
-2.728
-2.118
-1.544
-1.025
-0.581
-0.232
-0.002
0.088
0.0
0.2
-0.088
-0.076
-0.064
-0.052
-0.040
-0.029
-0.019
-0.011
-0.004
0.000
0.002
0.4
4.476
3.858
3.241
2.633
2.044
1.491
0.990
0.561
0.224
0.002
-0.085
8.312
7.165
6.020
4.891
3.799
2.772
1.843
1.047
0.424
0.013
-0.147
0.6
0.8
10.893
9.391
7.892
6.414
4.986
3.643
2.429
1.390
0.578
0.042
-0.163
12.091
10.426
8.764
7.128
5.549
4.065
2.725
1.581
0.687
0.101
-0.118
Earthquake Analysis of rigid walls when the soil does not yield.
In many cases when a retaining wall is sufficiently rigid, or a basement wall of a building or an
underground tank is restrained at top by a rigid slab, the wall becomes unyielding as such the
triangular profile of failure which usually generates during the static case does not take place.
During such case (under static loading) we design it for a condition of earth pressure at rest.
Sharjah
Page 140
8/30/2006
1.0
12.305
10.612
8.927
7.270
5.673
4.176
2.826
1.676
0.782
0.202
-0.006
Now we have a catch!! Since the soil is not under incipient failed condition, the assumption
made for dynamic analysis of cantilever and counterfort retaining wall as shown previously is not
valid in this case( where we ignored the stiffness of the soil) and a completely different
approach has to be adopted to obtain its dynamic response.
The major problem it boils down to is - what will be the dynamic pressure induced on the wall in
such case?.
Building
H
Basement
Z
Bed Rock
X
Fig-50:-Schematic sketch of building with basement wall

Shown above is a typical basement of a tall building (usually used for car parking and sundry
building services).The objective is to find the dynamic pressure on the wall of the basement due
to earthquake waves propagating through the soil medium.
Normally for deep basement wall there will be built in intermediate floor slabs, which make the
wall sufficiently rigid due to which the soil in contact with the wall does not yield and a plain
strain condition prevails.
The soil medium and the basement is assumed to be resting on stiff soil considered as the
bedrock- the level from which the ground acceleration propagates.
Let the depth of the basement is H and the soil medium in horizontal direction has been
considered having a finite dimension a, where Lt a in reality
Having defined the problem with basic conditions we can argue that for shear waves
propagating through the soil medium the wave propagation equation can be represented by
2
2 u ( x, z , t ) 2 u ( x , z , t )
2 u ( x, z , t )
Vs
=
+
t 2
z 2
x 2
(1)
Where Vs= Shear wave velocity of the soil medium

u(x,z,t)= The displacement function and can be considered as u=H(x)Q(z)G(t) three independent
functions.

Sharjah
Page 141
8/30/2006
Without getting into the details of theory of partial differential equation it can be shown that
equation (1) can be broken up into three ordinary differential equations of second order, given
by67
d 2G
+ 2 G = 0 where =Vs.i where i is a constant
2
dt
(2)
d 2 H ( x)
+ k 2 H ( x) = 0 where k is another constant (3)
2
dx
d 2 Q( z )
+ p 2 Q( z ) = 0 where p2=i2-k2
dz 2
(4)
The General solution of the equation(3) and (4) is given by
H ( x) = A cos kx + B sin kx
(5)
Q( z ) = C cos pz + D sin pz
(6)
We now impose the following boundary condition

At x=0 u=0 or H(x)=0 which implies A=0
At x=a (where a is very large) u=0 or H(a)=0 which implies
H(a)= B sin ka = 0
Or, ka = m
m
thus
a
mx
H m ( x) = sin
a
Or k =
(7)
(8)
At the free surface i.e. the superstructure base interface we have

At z=0 , shear strain
dQ( z )
u
= 0 or
= 0 which implies D=0
z
dz
At z=H displacement u = 0 , i.e Q( H ) = 0 when we have

C cos pH = 0 when we have
cos pH = 0 which implies
67
For solution of such partial differential equation refer Advanced Engineering Mathematics by
Kreyszig John Wiley Publication.
Sharjah
Page 142
8/30/2006
p=
(2n 1)
thus
2H
Q( z ) = cos
(9)
(2n 1)z
2H
(10)
Thus the eigenvector of the problem can be established as
( x, z ) = H ( x)Q( z ) = sin
(2n 1)z
mx
cos
a
2H
where m,n=1,2,3
(11)
For calculation of eigen value we have

p2 = i2 k 2
and = V s .i
thus p 2 =
2
Vs 2
k2
or = V s p 2 + k 2
Substituting the value of p and k from equation (9) and (7) we have
= Vs
m 2 (2n 1) 2
+
a2
4H 2
For fundamental mode considering m,n=1 and Lt a we have
= = Vs 0 +
or =
Vs
2H
Considering T =
T=
1
4H 2
(12)
2
we have
4H
which is basically the free field time period in one dimension for the site.
Vs
For Lt a we drop the first term of eigen function( in x direction) in equation 11 to determine
the displacement and pressure at wall face and consider the eigen function as only

Sharjah
Page 143
8/30/2006
(2n 1)z
2H
( z ) = cos
(13)
Based on Modal response technique the maximum amplitude function can be defined by
Sd =
Sa
where Sd= Maximum displacement

Sa= Acceleration which is the function of time period 4H/Vs and can be read off from
normalized response given in code.
Considering =
Sa
u( z) = i
ZI
the code factor we can write
2R
( z)
Now substituting the value of from equation 12 we have

u( z) =
Sa H 2
Vs
cos
z
2H
S a s H 2
z
where G= Vs2
cos
Gg
2H
(15)
here s = Weight density of soil

g= acceleration due to gravity
Here i = Modal Mass participation factor =
m
m
i
i
2
The modal participation factor can thus be considered as
i =
m
m
i
i
2
z cos 2 H
0
H
z cos
0
2H
The above on integration by parts gives
i =
8
+2
The strain within the soil body is given by

Sharjah
Page 144
8/30/2006
xx =
u
=0
x
zz =
u
which gives
z
S a s H
z
sin
Gg
2H
S H
16
z
=
a s sin
( + 2)
Gg
2H
2
zz = i
or zz
The constitutive stress- strain relationship under plain strain condition is given by
xx
1
= 2G
1
z z (1 2 )
xz
0
0
xx
0 zz
1 2
xz
2
0
2G (1 )
2G
xx +
zz
1 2
1 2
= 0 in this case we have
Thus xx =
As xx
xx =
2G
zz which gives the dynamic pressure on wall as
1 2
p dyn =
S H
16
2
z
a s sin
( + 2) 1 2
g
2H
Here the negative sign indicates that the pressure is acting in the direction of the wall.
or , p dyn =
S H
32
z
a s sin
( + 2)
g
2H
where v =
1 2
The above can be further simplified to
S a s H
where the coefficients may be read off for different values of
g
Poissons ratio( 0.25,0.3 and 0.4) as shown below
p dyn ( z ) = Coeff

Sharjah
Page 145
8/30/2006
Variation of dynamic coefficient of pressure with

depth
1.4
Pressure coefficient
1.2
1
n=0.25
0.8
n=0.3
0.6
n=0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Z/H
Fig-51 Variation of Dynamic pressure coefficient with depth
Ostadans Method 68:Dr.F Ostadan conducted extensive study on the subject based on analysis carried out in SASSI
200069 with various soil properties and Poissons ratio value and came with a normalized
dynamic pressure coefficient curve given by the expression
p ( z ) = 0.0015 + 5.05 z 15.84 z 2 + 28.25 z 3 24.59 z 4 + 8.14 z 5
The above normalized pressure coefficient when compared with the analytical solution proposed
herein gives quite closely matched value as shown below.
68
Ostadan F.-Seismic Soil Pressure for Building Walls an Updated Approach 11th International
Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering(11th ICSDEE) University of California
Berkeley January 2004.
69
Lysmer J, Ostadan F,Chen C- SASSI-2000 A System for Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction University of California Berkeley 1999.
Sharjah
Page 146
8/30/2006
Comparison of Dynamic Pressure curves
Closed
form
Solution
0.5
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
-0.5
0.1
0
0
Pressure
coefficient
1.5
Ostadan
's curve
Z/H
Fig-52:-Comparison of normalized pressure on the wall

Based on the above equation Ostadan has proposed a simplified method for determination of
dynamic pressure on such unyielding walls whose steps are as mentioned here after.
Perform free field soil column analysis and obtain the ground response at the depth
corresponding to the base of the wall in the free field.The reponse motion in terms of
acceleration response spectrum at 30% damping should be obtained. The free field soil
column analysis may be performed using Computer program like SHAKE with input
motion specified either at the ground surface or at the depth of foundation basemat.The
choice for location of control motion is an important decision that needs to be made
consistent with development of the design motion. The location of input motion may
significantly affect the dynamic response of the building and seismic soil pressure
amplitude.
Obtain total mass of the soil body as m = 0.5 H 2 v , for the present case
v = 2 /[(1 )(2 )]0.5 , here is mass density of the soil and is Poissons ratio.
Obtain the the lateral seismic force from the product of the total mass obtained above
and the acceleration value of the free field response at the soil column obtained at the
depth of the bottom of the wall
Obtain the maximum seismic soil pressure at the ground surface level by dividing the
lateral force obtained above by a factor 0.744H( which actually the area under curve for
the equation furnished by him as mentioned above)
Obtain the pressure profile by multiplying the peak pressure from the above step by the
pressure distribution relationship as furnished earlier.
Ostadans method has been compared with analytical method proposed here in for a
basement wall which is 30 feet deep having shear wave velocity of soil as 1000ft/sec. The
density of soil considered as 125 lbs/ft370.
The wall is considered to be in a zone subjected to severe earthquake where Z=0.24, I=1.2
and R=2.0. The outcome of the results are as shown hereafter:-
70
Personal communications- Indrajit Chowdhury with Dr. Ignacio Arango and Dr Farhand Ostadan
April 2005.
Sharjah
Page 147
8/30/2006
Dynamic Pressure
(psf)
Comparison of dynamic pressure

2000
Closed
form
1500
1000
O
500
0
-500
Simplified
Method
9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Height in feet
Fig-53:-Comparison of dynamic pressure for the 30ft basement wall with Vs=1000ft/sec
It will be observed that variation is not too wide and well within the acceptable limit of civil
engineering design..
Analysis of water tanks under earthquake force:Water tanks resting on ground, underground or on staging at a height form an important part of
infrastructure and township development. Even in industrial sector like power, petrochemical
industry it forms an important ingredient of process engineering or fire fighting. As such in post
earthquake scenario many of the tanks storing water it becomes essential that they remain
functional with nominal damage.
In India water tanks resting on ground were usually given the reprieve of any earthquake
analysis not many years ago71.
While overhead tanks were mostly treated as an inverted pendulum where the time period is
derived from the expression
T = 2
stat
W
where stsa =
where
g
K
W= Weight of water in tank+ Weight of tank+ 1/3rd wt of staging frame

K= Lateral stiffness of the frame
71
For most of the case it was observed that impulsive force suggested by IS-1893 1984 provided with
forces of small magnitude unless and until the tank was situated in a place where earthquake has a
severe intensity.
Sharjah
Page 148
8/30/2006
Fig-54:-Typical Overhead Water Tank modeled as an inverted pendulum

And water tanks both resting on ground as well as overhead have found to have undergone
damage during earthquakes in India and abroad. This is possibly due to the fact that the IS-code
recommendation on the pressure induced on the tank wall is incomplete.
IS-1893 1984 for instance only suggests the pressure coefficients for impulsive force and does
not cater to the convective or hydro-dynamic sloshing force, whose effect could be significant
specially if the tank is shallow. Nor does the code have any provision for calculation of the
sloshing height for which if sufficient free board is not kept could result in damage of the roof
slab.
It is unfortunate that code committee did not update this previously though superior
mathematical model for analysis of such liquid retaining vessel has been in existence since
195772.
Before we delve into the details of such mathematical model for analysis of such water tanks, let
us see how does the fluid behave, when an acceleration is induced at the base of such tanks.
Sloshed liquid
Sloshing Mass
h
Impulsive
Mass
Sa
D
72
Housner G.W. Dynamic Pressure on Accelerated Fluid Containers Bulletin of Seismological Society
of America Vol 47(1) January 1957.
Sharjah
Page 149
8/30/2006
Fig-55:-Typical cylindrical tank with liquid divided into impulsive and sloshing mass
Let us consider a cylindrical vessel of diameter D containing liquid of height h. When the vessel
is subjected to an acceleration Sa at its base a part of the liquid (called the impulsive mass)
moves along with the container as a rigid body at the bottom of the tank. Balance mass at the
top of the tank acts in more flexible manner and induces a convective or a sloshing force on the
tank wall. What part of the mass would act as an impulsive mass and sloshing mass depends
upon the aspect ratio h/D 73.
In simplistic mechanical analogy the above can be represented as shown hereafter
Ks/2 Ws
h sl
Ks/2
Connected by flexible spring to wall

Connected by rigid link to wall
hi
Wi
Fig-56:- Typical Mathematical model of water tank with impulsive and sloshing mass
Housner derived the values of sloshing and impulsive mass considering the wall of the tank as
rigid and later derived the same for flexible wall74.
We will not go into details of the derivation of the same from the fundamentals, which are given
elsewhere75 but will deal with final results only- for both circular and rectangular tanks which can
be directly used for computation of pressure in a tank either manually or through a computer.
Sl No
1
Rectangular Tank
L
tanh 3
Wi
H
=
L
W
3
H
3
hi = H ( Excluding Base
8
Pressure)
Circular Tank
R
tanh 3
Wi
H
=
R
W
3
H
3
hi = H ( Excluding Base Pressure)
8
73
The total impulsive and sloshing mass constitutes the full mass of liquid in the tank.
Haroun M.A. And Housner G.W. Seismic design of liquid storage tank Journal of Technical
Councils of ASCE Vol 107, No TCI pp191-207-1981
75
Housner G.W. Dynamic Analysis of fluids in containers subjected to acceleration Nuclear Reactors
and Earthquakes Report No TID 7024 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington DC 1963.
74

Sharjah
Page 150
8/30/2006
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
hi 1
4
=
1
L
H 8
tanh 3
H
L
3
(Including base Pressure)

W
Pi = S a 0 i
g
Wsl
L
H
= 0.527 tanh(1.58 )
W
H
L
H
cosh(1.58 ) 1
hsl
L
= 1
H
H
H
1.58 sinh(1.58 )
L
L
hi 1
4
=
1
R
H 8
tanh 3
H
R
3
(Including base Pressure)

W
Pi = S a 0 i
g
Wsl
R
H
= 0.318 tanh(1.84 )
W
H
R
H
cosh(1.84 ) 1
hsl
R
= 1
(Excluding
H
H
H
1.84 sinh(1.84 )
R
R
(Excluding Base pressure)
Base pressure)
H
cosh(1.58 ) 2
hsl
L
= 1
H
H
H
1.58 sinh(1.58 )
L
L
hsl
= 1
H
(Including Base pressure)
Base pressure)
1.58
H
tanh(1.58 )Wsl
L
L
Sa
H
h = 1.58 2 tanh(1.58 )
L
L
Psl = Wsl h sin t
H
0.527 L coth(1.58 )
L
d max =
g
1
2 h L
1.84
H
tanh(1.84 )Wsl
R
R
Sa
H
h = 1.534 2 tanh(1.84 )
R
R
Psl = 1.2Wsl h sin t
H
0.408 R coth(1.84 )
R
d max =
g
1
2 h R
KS =
H
) 2.01
R
(Including
H
H
1.84 sinh(1.84 )
R
R
cosh(1.84
KS =
Table-29:- Design Parameters for Dynamic analysis of tanks with fluids

W= Total weight of liquid in the tank
Wi= Weight of impulsive fluid assumed to fastened rigidly with the tank wall at a height hi above
the tank bottom.
hi=Height from the bottom of the tank where the impulsive force acts on the wall
Pi= Impulsive force which acts on the tank wall.
Sao= Acceleration at zero time period to be considered =g(9.81m/sec2) as per IS-1893 2002
Wsl=Sloshing weight of the fluid oscillating at the top part of the tank.
hsl=Height from the bottom of the tank where the sloshing force acts on the wall.
Ks= Equivalent spring stiffness of the sloshing fluid.
sl= Angular amplitude of free oscillation at the free fluid surface.
Psl= Sloshing force acting on the tank wall.
Sharjah
Page 151
8/30/2006
dmax= Sloshing Height of the liquid at free surface

L= Half width of rectangular tank of width 2L
R=Radius of circular tank
H= Height of fluid in the tank
Ks g
= Natural Frequency of the sloshing mass=
Wsl
The total moment acting on the base of the tank( when base pressure is included ) and on the
wall when( base pressure is excluded) is given by
M = Pi hi + Psl hsl
Above is the original form in which Housner presented a solution to the problem and has been
the backbone of further research on this topic for next 30 years.
The basic assumption in Housners hypothesis which may not be always true ( though a
conservative estimate) was the impulsive time period considered to be zero in his analysis. The
assumption was justified in the above case for Housner assumed the tank to be infinitely rigid
but in reality the tank could also be flexible when the time period may have a finite value (albeit
low compared to the sloshing time period).
Further researches as cited in footnote 74 and by Veletsos76,77 have defined the impulsive time
period when the wall is not rigid.
Impulsive time period for non rigid walls
Codes from different countries use different formulas for derivation of the time period. We
present here the most practical one which is easy to apply and amenable to electronic
computation.
Eurocode 8 suggests the formula proposed by Veletsos for circular tank, which is given by
Ti =
2R
Ci
H
E wt
where
H
H
Ci = 0.01675 0.15 + 0.46
R
R
Here R =Radius of the tank
H= Height of the Fluid in tank
= Mass density of the fluid
Ew= Youngs Modulus of the wall
t= Thickness of the wall
For rectangular tank formula proposed by Eurocode 8 is given by
76
Veletsos A.S. and Young Earthquake response of liquid storage tank Proceeding of 2nd Engineering
Mechanics specialty conference ASCE Raleigh 1977 pp-1-24
77
Veletsos A.S. Seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks Guidelines for seismic design of
Oil and gas pipelines system ASCE New York 1984 pp-255-370
Sharjah
Page 152
8/30/2006
d
where d is deflection of the wall due to an equivalent uniformly distributed load of
g
Ti = 2
we =
0.5Wi + Ww
BH
we
P
Here Wi= Weight of the impulsive fluid

Ww= Weight of wall perpendicular to the direction
of the earthquake force
B=Inside width of the tank
H= Height of fluid
we= Equivalent udl acting on the wall
Hw
Fig-57:-Load deflection diagram of tank wall

To calculate d following steps may be considered,
The c.g of the u.d.l we may be calculated from the expression
0.5Wi hi + Ww H w
h =
0.5Wi + Ww
Hw= Height of the wall
An equivalent concentrated load P may be calculated from the expression

P=weXH where H= Height of fluid in the tank
The deflection at the level of fluid surface is thus given by
()
P h
t3
=
where I =
3EI
12
It should be noted that the above is valid for tank walls which are free at top and have an aspect
ratio L/H >2.0 i..e it behaves as a one way slab. This may not be valid for walls with other
boundary conditions but is what is in vogue at present.
Sloshing time period of the vibrating fluid:The sloshing time period of the vibrating fluid for a circular tank may be obtained from the
expression
Tsl = 2
D
g
3.68 H
3.68 tanh

Sharjah
Page 153
8/30/2006
Here D= Diameter of the tank

Similarly for rectangular tank
2L
g
Tsl = 2
3.16 H
3.16 tanh
2L
2L= Inside length of tank parallel to the direction of the earthquake.
Calculation of Horizontal seismic force for tank resting on ground :Once the time period for impulsive and sloshing modes are known the corresponding
accelerations may be obtained from the chart as furnished in the IS-code. The seismic
coefficient may then be obtained from expression
ZIS ai
for impulsive force and
2 Rg
For RCC tank damping factor considered is usually 5% and for steel tank this is considered as
2%, as such corresponding graph from the curve should be read.
Ahi =
Ahsl =
ZIS asl
for sloshing force where damping considered for fluid is normally 0.5%
2 Rg
Where Z=Zone factor as explained earlier

I= Importance factor
R= Ductility factor
The new IS-1893(2002) is yet to arrive at the importance factor to be recommended for liquid
retaining structure, in absence of such data recommendations as followed in UBC 97 may be
followed.
For non important tanks consider I=1.0
For tanks supplying water to public community or meant for fire fighting in important industry like
power plant or petrochemical plants or containing liquid having nominal hazard I=1.25
For tanks containing hazardous or toxic liquid higher importance factor between I= 1.5 to 1.75
may be considered.
The assessment of ductility factor is far more complex as the basis of Sa/g as given in UBC and
that in IS-1893 does not correspond one is to one and a comparison of base shear for similar
structures has to be seen which is obviously a topic of research. In absence of such data
presently a conservative value of R between 1.5 to 2 may be used for tanks resting on ground
.For overhead tanks similarly a value of R=1.2-1.3 may be used for non ductile detailing and
R=2-2.2 may be used for tank frames with ductile detailing.
Calculation of base shear for tanks resting on ground:Once the seismic coefficient are known the impulsive and sloshing shear force is given by
Vi = Ahi (Wi + Ww +W r) and Vsl = Ahsl Wsl

Here Wi= Weight of sloshing fluid
Sharjah
Page 154
8/30/2006
Ww= Weight of wall

Wr= Weight of roof coming on the wall
The resultant shear may either be considered as
V = Vi + Vsl ( Absolute sum) 78

or V =
Vi 2 + Vsl 2 (SRSS value)
Calculation of Bending moment on the tank wall resting on ground:The bending moment for impulsive and sloshing force at the base of the wall is given by
M i = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww H w +W rH r ) and

M sl = Ahsl Wsl hsl here
hi= Height of impulsive mass from the bottom of the tank as explained earlier
Hw= Height of the cg of the wall mass
Hr= Height of the cg of the roof mass
hsl= Height of the sloshing mass from the bottom of the tank
In this case the height hi and hsl shall be calculated for the case Excluding base pressure
For moment in the base of the tank (i.e. the pressure induced in the soil) the same expression
as above may be used with exception that the height hi and hsl shall be calculated for the case
Including base pressure
The resultant Moment can now be obtained based on expression
M = M i + M sl ( Absolute sum)
or M = M i 2 + M sl 2 (SRSS value)
Calculation of sloshing height:In absence of any recommendation form IS code presently sloshing height may be calculated
based on Eurocode model
= 0.84 Ahsl L for rectangular tank

= 0.84 Ahsl Radius of tank for circular tank
We now further elaborate the problem based on a suitable numerical example.
78
This is the recommendation of Euro code 8

Sharjah
Page 155
8/30/2006
Example18 :A rectangular RCC fire water tank is resting on ground having sixe of 7.5mX7.5mX6.5m is constructed in a
refinery site which is classified as zone IV as per IS-1893 2002.The average thickness of wall is considered
as 450 mm.Grade of concrete used for constructing the tank is M30. The tank is covered by a roof slab
which is simply supported on the four walls having thickness of 200 mm.Nature of ground on which it is
resting is considered hard.Calculte the seismic force at the wall base and on the foundation.
500
6000
Fig-58:- Elevation and Plan view of the water tank with typical wall slab detail resting on
ground
Solution:Weight of water in tank= 7.5X7.5X6X10=3375 kN
Wt of roof slab=8X8X0.2X25=320 kN
Wt. of one wall=7.5X6.5X0.45X25=548 kN
Here L=0.5X7.5=3.75 m
H= 6.0 m
Based on Housners expressions
Impulsive mass is given by
tanh 3
H
or Wi =
W
L
3
H
3.75
tanh 3
3375 = 2475.8 kN
Wi =
3.75
3
6
Sharjah
Page 156
8/30/2006
hi =
3
H =2.25 m (EBP)79
8
1
4
hi =
1 H = 3.342 m (IBP)
L
8
tanh 3
H
L
3
Sloshing mass is given by
Wsl = 0.527
L
H
tanh(1.58 )W = 1097.6 KN
L
H
H
) 1
L
hsl = 1
H = 3.977 m(EBP)
H
H
1.58 sinh(1.58 )
L
L
cosh(1.58
H
)2
L
hsl = 1
H = 4.358 m(IBP)
H
H
1.58 sinh(1.58 )
L
L
cosh(1.58
Equivalent weight
0.5Wi + Ww
BH
0.5 2476 + 548
= 39.7 kN/m2
or, we =
7.5 6
we =
C.G. of the load
0.5Wi hi + Ww H w
h =
0.5Wi + Ww
0.5 2476 2.25 + 548 3.25

or, h =
= 2.56 m
0.5 2476 + 548
Equivalent concentrated force P
P = we H 1
or, P = 39.7 6 1 = 238 kN
79
Here EBP means excluding base pressure and IBP= Including base pressure

Sharjah
Page 157
8/30/2006
t 3 1 (0.45)3
I=
=
= 7.59375 10 3 m4
12
12
Econc= 3.122X107 kN/m2
d=
()
3
3
238 (2.56 )
P h
= 5.614 10 3 m
=
3
7
3EI
3 3.122 10 7.5938 10
Calculation of impulsive time period
Ti = 2
d
g
or, Ti = 2
5.614 10 3
= 0.150 sec
9.81
For T=0.150 sec Sa/g=2.5 as per IS-1893

Calculation of sloshing time period :Considering 2L=7.5 m H=6 meter
Tsl = 2
2L
g
3.16 H
3.16 tanh
2L
= 3.110 secs
which gives Sa/g= 0.321 for the sloshing mode with 5% damping which needs to be multipled by a factor of
2.98 to convert in into equivalent acceleration with 0.5% damping for the fluid.
For zone IV consider Z=0.24 and I=1.25 thus
Ahi =
ZIS ai
for impulsive force
2 Rg
Ahi =
0.24 1.25 2.5

= 0.1875 and
2 2
Ahsl =
ZIS asl
for sloshing mode
2 Rg
or, Ahsl =
0.24 1.25 0.321

2.98 = 0.072 ( Mulitpiled by a factor 2.98 to cater to 0.5% of
2 2
damping for fluid)
Calculation of Base Shear:Wt of roof =320 kN so assume 1/4th of the weight coming on each wall thus
Vi = Ahi (Wi + Ww +W r)
Sharjah
Page 158
8/30/2006
or Vi = 0.1875 (2476 + 548 +
1
320) = 582 KN for impulsive force
4
Vsl = AhslWsl
or, Vsl = 0.072 1098 = 79 KN for sloshing force
Thus resultant shear is given by
V = Vi 2 + Vsl 2 = 587 kN.

Calculation of Bending Moment at base of wall :-
M i = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww H w +W rH r ) for impulsive mode

M i = 0.1875 (2476 2.25 + 548 3.25 + 80 6.6) = 1478 kN.m
M sl = Ahsl Wsl hsl for sloshing mode
Thus
M sl = 0.072 1098 3.977 = 314.40 kN.m
Resultant Moment M =
M i 2 + M sl 2 = 1511 kN.m
Calculation of Bending Moment at foundation :-
M i = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww H w +W rH r ) for impulsive mode

M i = 0.1875 (2476 3.342 + 548 3.25 + 80 6.6) = 1984 kN.m
M sl = Ahsl Wsl hsl for sloshing mode
Thus
M sl = 0.072 1098 4.358 = 344.52 kN.m
Resultant Moment M =
M i 2 + M sl 2 = 2013 kN.m
Calculation of sloshing height:
= 0.84 Ahsl L
= 0.84 0.072 3.75 1000 = 227
mm less then the free board of 500 mm provided
Earthquake Analysis for overhead tanks:Water served to communities for daily use and even for industrial purpose in many cases are
stored in overhead tanks, so that it can be distributed under adequate pressure.
Thus in a post earthquake scenario it is essential that they remain serviceable to serve the
community and also mitigate secondary damages like fire.
Overhead water tanks come in different shapes like rectangular, Intze type, conoids etc supported on frames
constituting of beam columns or single circular shaft etc as shown below.
Sharjah
Page 159
8/30/2006
Fig-58:-Typical overhead water tank with its staging system modeled as two mass system
In this case also the liquid in the tank may be considered as a two mass lumped system like the
case of tank resting on ground constituting of impulsive and sloshing mass. The impulsive and
the sloshing mode may be treated as two uncoupled system where the impulsive mass of the
fluid as obtained by Housners expression may be added to the tank mass and 1/3rd of that of
the staging and whose dynamic response may be obtained from the expression
1
Wi + Wt + Ws
3
T = 2
gK s
Here Wi= Weight of impulsive fluid

Wt= Weight of of the tank
Ws= Weight of the staging
Ks= Stiffness of the staging frame
The sloshing time period may be obtained from the expression
T = 2
Wsl
where
gK sl
Where Wsl is the sloshing mass as per Housners expression and Ksl is the fluid stiffness

Sharjah
Page 160
8/30/2006
K sl H
H
= 0.83266 tanh 2 (1.58 ) , else they can be obtained from the graph as shown below
W
L
Impulsive,Sloshing mass and stiffness Ratio
1.2
Design Ratio
1
0.8
Wi/W
0.6
Ws/W
0.4
KsH/W
0.2
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
7
0.
1.
4
0.
1
0.
L/H
Fig-59:- Impulsive, Sloshing mass & Stiffness parameters for rectangular tank with
different L/H
In the above analysis everything is fine except the fact that the staging siffness needs to be
evaluated.
Easiest way it can be done is by modeling the frame in a computer analysis program like
STAAD-Pro ,SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL etc and apply a unit load at center of mass of the tank and
the water and find out the deflection at the base of the tank(top of staging).
Knowing the deflection the stiffness value Ks may be obtained from the relationship P=KsXd
Where d is the deflection and P is the applied load.
Unit Load acting at the cg of tank+ water
Rigid Links(Typical)
Nodes(typical)
Beam elements(typical)

Sharjah
Page 161
8/30/2006
Fig-60:-Typical Computer Model for staging for determing the deflection/stifness of the
frame
Else for a regular frames the stiffness may be obtained from the formula
12nEI
where n is the number of coulumns in the frame and j is the number of storey.
jL3
Once the time periods are established the calculation becomes quite straight forward.
The shear force at the top of the frame is given by
Ks =
1
Vi = Ahi (Wi + WT + W fr) and Vsl = Ahsl Wsl
3
Here Wi= Weight of impulsive fluid
WT= Weight of the tank
Wfr= Weight of the frame
Wsl= Weight of sloshing fluid
ZI Sa
And A =
where
2R g
Sa= the accelerations due to impulsive and sloshing mode time periods as calculated
above.
The resultantant shear at the top of the frame is given by
V = Vi 2 + Vsl 2
The overturning moment in impulsive mode at the base of staging is thus given by
1
M i = Ahi (Wi (hi + Hst ) + (WT + Wst ) H cg )
3
Here
hi= Impulsive height of the fluid as per Housners expression considering the including base
pressure case
Hst= Height of the staging frame
Hcg= Height from the base of staging to the c.g of the tank + fluid
The overturning moment in sloshing mode at the base of staging is thus given by
M sl = Ahsl Wsl (hsl + H st )
Here
hsl= Sloshing height of the fluid as per Housners expression considering the including base
pressure case
For circular tank the steps remain exactly same except the stiffness value which gets modified to

Sharjah
Page 162
8/30/2006
K sl H
H
= 0.58512 tanh 2 (1.84 ) .
W
R
The sloshing design parameters can also be obtained form the graph as furnished below
Impulsive , sloshing and stiffness ratio for circular
tank
1.2
Design Ratio
1
0.8
Ws/W
KsH/W
Wi/W
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.
8
2.
5
2.
2
1.
9
1.
6
1.
3
0.
7
0.
4
0.
1
Radius/Height
Fig-61:-Impulsive, Sloshing mass & Stiffness parameters for circular tank with different
R/H
Hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall and base:Other then knowing the overturning moement at the base of the tank and the maximum moment
in the wall for big tanks, it is essential that we know the hydrodynamic pressure on the wall and
the base of the tank, without which curtailment of reinforcement in the wall is not possible.The
hydrodynamic distribution of pressure in the tank is given as follows:Hydrodynamic pressure for circular tank
The impulsive pressure is given by
p hi (dyn) = i ( z ) Ahi gH cos where
z 2
D
i = 0.8661 tanh(0.866 ) here
H
H
= Mass density of the liquid

= Circumferential angle
z=Vertical distance of a point from the bottom of the tank wall.
Sharjah
Page 163
8/30/2006
Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure in vertical dirfection on a strip of length b is given by

x
sinh(0.866 )
h
p vi (dyn) = 0.866 Ahi gH
b'
cosh(0.866 )
h
The sloshing pressure for circular tank wall is given by

1
p si (dyn) = s ( z ) Asi gD1 cos 2 cos here

3
cosh 3.674
D
s = 0.5625
H
cosh 3.674
D
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by

p vs (dyn) = sv Ahs gD where
sv
x 4 x 3
H
= 1.125 sec h 3.674

D
D 3 D
Here x=Horizontal distance of a point on base of tank in the direction of seismic force from the
center of tank.
Hydrodynamic pressure for rectangular tank
For rectangular tank the impulsive pressure is given by
p hi (dyn) = i ( z ) Ahi gH where
i = 0.8661
2L
tanh(0.866 ) here
H
Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure in vertical dirfection on the base slab is given by

x
sinh(0.866 )
h
p vi (dyn) = 0.866 Ahi gH
2L
cosh(0.866 )
h
The sloshing pressure on tank wall is given by
p si (dyn) = s ( z ) Asi g (2 L ) here

Sharjah
Page 164
8/30/2006
cosh 3.162
2L
s = 0.4165
H
cosh 3.674
2L
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by

p vs (dyn) = sv Ahs g (2 L ) where
x 4 x 3
H
sec h 3.162
2L
2 L 3 2 L
sv = 1.25
Effect of vertical ground accelration:Vertical gorund acceleration increases the effective weight of liquid which induces additional
pressure on the tank wall.The distribution of this pressure is taken as similar to that of
hydrostatic force.
Hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall due to vertical acceleration may be taken as
p vw =
Ah =
2
Ah gH (1 z / H ) here
3
1.25ZI
as per IS code
R
Pressure due to inertia of the wall:Pressure due to inertia of the wall itsdelf may be taken as
p mw (dyn) = Ahi t w g here
t= Average thickness of the wall

w= Mass density of the tank wall
Maximum design dynamic pressure:The maximum dynamic design pressure may be obtained by taking the SRSS value of the
above pressures and be expressed as

Sharjah
Page 165
8/30/2006
p des (dyn) =
( p hi + p mw )2 + p sh 2 + pvw 2
Example10.19:Shown below is an elevated rectangular water tank of capacity 500 m3 resting on medium soil which is
classified as falling in a zone of IV as per IS Code.Grade of concrete used is M25.Based on dynamic
analysis find out the overturning moment on the top of the foundation, Shear at top of staging
hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall and base.Code to be used is IS 1893-2002.Col size 600X600, beam
size 500X750,
9000
250(typ)
6350
750(typ)
4250(typ)
4450
4450
4450
20,000
4450
Plan view of column
Elevation of water tank with framing system

Solution :Capacity of water tank= 500 m3
Weight of water in tank= 500X10=5000 kN.
Ht of water = 500/81=6.17 =6.2 m (say)

Sharjah
Page 166
8/30/2006
Calculation of weight of tank:Weight of roof slab( 150 mm thick)= 9.5X9.5X0.15X25=338.4 kN80

Weight of side wall = 9.25X4X6.35X0.25X25 = 1468.4 kN
Weight of bottom slab(350 mmthk) = 9.5X9.5X0.35X25= 789.7kN.
Thus weight of empty tank = 338.4+ 1468.4+789.7=2596.5 kN.
Calculation of wieght of staging:Height of staging =20m
Size of column= 600X600
Thus weight of 9# of column = 20X0.6X0.6X9X25=1620 kN
Length of peripherial beam =35.6= 36 meter(app)
Size of beam= 500X750 mm2
Weight of peripherial beams= 36X0.5X0.75X25X4(levels)=1350 kN
Length of internal beams= 18 meter(app)
Weight of internal beams= 18X4( levels)X0.5X0.75X25=675 kN.
Thus Total weight of staging= 1620+1350+675=3645 kN.
Calculation of impulsive weight of water:As per Housner
tanh 3
Wi
H
=
L
W
3
H
Here L=4.5 m H=6.2 meter W= 5000 kN

Thus Wi = 5000
0.8503
= 3381 kN
1.257
Calcualtion of sloshing weight of water:-
Wsl
L
H
= 0.527 tanh(1.58 )
W
H
L
or, Wsl = 5000 0.527
4.5
6.2
tanh(1.58
) = 1864 kN
6.2
4.5
Calculation of column stiffness:-
K col =
12nEI
jL3
Here Ec= 2.85X107 kN/mm2.

I=(1/12)X0.6X0.63=0.0108 m4
Thus EI= 307800 kN/m2
Here n= 9 ,and j=4 and height of column L= 5m, when we have
K col =
80
12nEI
jL3
Density of concrete considered as 25 kN/m3.

Sharjah
Page 167
8/30/2006
or K col =
12 9 307800
= 66485 kN/m
4 53
Calculation of impulsive time period :-
1
Wi + Wt + Ws
3
T = 2
gK s
1
3381 + 2597 + 3645
3
T = 2
= 0.6598 sec.
9.81 66485
For soil of medium strength we have
Sa/g= 1.36/T=1.36/0.66= 2.06 m/sec2 for 5% damping
Considering 7% damping for RCC design Sa/g is multiplied by a factor 0.9 as IS-1893 2002
Or Sa/g= 2.06X0.9= 1.855 m/sec2.
For zone IV Z=0.24 Importance factor=1.5(say) and R=1.5 for non ductile frame.
Thus Ahi =
or Ahi =
ZI Sa
2R g
0.24 1.5
1.855 = 0.2226
2 1.5
Thus impulsive shear at base slab level of the tank

Vhi= 0.2226X(3381+2597+1/3x3645)= 1626 kN.
Calculation of sloshing time period :-
Tsl = 2
2L
g
3.16 H
3.16 tanh
2L
substituting the value of H=6.2m and L=4.5m as stated above we have
Tsl = 3.43 secs.

Considering
Sa
1.36
=
= 0.3965 m/sec2 for 5% damping.
T
g s
Considering the fluid damping as 0.5% as per IS-1893 2002, the above value gets modified to

Sharjah
Page 168
8/30/2006
Sa
= 0.3965 2.98 = 1.18 m/sec2.
g s
Thus
Ahs =
ZI Sa
2R g
or, Ahs =
0.24 1.5
1.18 = 0.1416
2 1.5
Thus sloshing shear at base slab level of the tank

Vhi= 0.1416X1864= 264 kN.
Thus total shear acting at bottom of the tanks( top of staging)=
(1626)2 + (264)2
= 1647 kN
Overturning moment at the base of the staging :-
hi 1
4
=
1
L
H 8
tanh 3
H
L
3
6.2
4
hi =
1 = 3.80 m
4.5
8
tanh 3
6.1
4.5
3
6.1
1
M i = Ahi (Wi (hi + Hst ) + (WT + Wst ) H cg )
3
H cg =
3645
10
3
= 19.06 m
2597 + 1215
2597 23.30 +
or M i = 0.2226 (3381 (3.80 + 20) + ( 2597 +

Sharjah
Page 169
1
3645) 19.23) = 34086 kN.m
3
8/30/2006
For sloshing mode
H
)2
hsl
L
= 1
H
H
H
1.58 sinh(1.58 )
L
L
cosh(1.58
Substituting the values H=6.2m and L=4.5m we have
hsl = 4.586 m
Thus
M sl = AhslWsl (hsl + H st )
or M sl = 0.1416 1864 (4.586 + 20) = 6489 kN.m
Thus resultant overturning moment is given by
M = 340862 + 64892 = 34698 kN.M

Calculation of hydrodynamic pressure
Based on the formula furnished earlier- hydrodynamic pressure on wall for various cases are furnished
hereafter
Z/H
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Impulsive
pressure on
Wall
10.21798
10.1158
9.809262
9.298363
8.583104
7.663486
6.539508
5.21117
3.678473
1.941416
2.27E-15
Sloshing
pressure on
wall
1.02172E-18
3.91873E-17
3.00498E-15
2.30469E-13
1.7676E-11
1.35567E-09
1.03974E-07
7.97436E-06
0.000611599
0.046906968
3.5975604
Presure due to
vertical
acceleration
9.76
8.784
7.808
6.832
5.856
4.88
3.904
2.928
1.952
0.976
1.08E-15
Pressure due to
Wall inertia
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
1.4125
Resultant design
pressure(kN/m2)
15.18307
14.49346
13.67087
12.70428
11.58468
10.30475
8.858648
7.241974
5.452368
3.493355
3.864919
Similarly in vertical direction hydrodynamic pressure on base slab is

Sloshing
pressure in
vertical
direction
X/2L
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Impulsive
pressure in
vertical direction
0
0.183688
0.36369
0.53632
0.697892
0.84472
0
0.58238833
1.167154385
1.756685596
2.35338885
2.959700315

Sharjah
Page 170
Design
pressure(kN/m2)
0
0.61067
1.222506
1.836732
2.454688
3.077885
8/30/2006
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.973117
1.079398
1.159877
1.210868
1.228683
3.578095387
4.211098795
4.861294911
5.531338298
6.223964552
3.708062
4.347235
4.99775
5.662323
6.344084
Practical aspects of Earthquake Engineering:We are almost through with this chapter and take this opportunity to pacify those hardened
professionals whom we had perhaps bored to stupor with double integrals, partial differentials
and hyperbolic trigonometric functions.
Before we start with this topic, we would like to point out that- perhaps we could make the reader
realize that it is not a very easy subject to grasp. It requires competence in multifaceted subject
like engineering geology, soil dynamics, structural dynamics, fluid dynamics and finally applied
mathematics which is not a very easy thing to achieve in a nutshell. It is for this, specialists from
different field convene together to pool their knowledge and experience to develop a unified
design policy which is otherwise known as the code of practice.81
A professional engineer undertaking a design is usually guided by three things
Cost involved
Engineering and construction schedule
Sociological importance of the structure in hand.
To what sophistication an analysis should be carried out depends a lot on the budget the client
has the engineering and construction schedule he has to meet and social outcry it would create
in case the structure undergoes damage during an earthquake.
For instance a commercial building or a hotel sustaining damage during an earthquake without
collapse would cause a much lesser furor then a reactor building or a heavy water container
undergoing even a minor crack during an earthquake. For radiation effects emanating from
those cracks could have a catastrophic effect on the surrounding and would possibly result in
complete shut down of the plant till such cracks are rectified. This would possibly result in power
shortage in an area for months and could result in a huge revenue loss for industries dependent
on such power.
Chemical plants storing toxic and hazardous material if undergoes damage can again have
deadly consequence on the surrounding and can ravage the ecological balance so badly that it
could take years to restore the same.
Public building like hospitals, town halls, schools where people mostly take refuge in the post
earthquake scenario must remain functional for relief work to be effectively carried out.
People could surely argue that whats the big deal? As the code suggests we take a higher
importance factor and design it for a higher force. It is indubitable a fact that the argument do
have some substance in it.
But it has been seen in many cases that though the force induced in the structure was possibly
lesser then expected, structures have undergone a spectacular failure while there are structures
which was subjected to a far higher force then it was designed for and yet it has survived the
shock with only minor damages.
Reasons attributing to such spectacular failures have been very simple.
The structures were inherently planned poorly making them generically weak under
earthquake force82
81
82
And violations of the same in the name of economy or financial budget is not uncommon.
Like irregular geometry in plan causing additional torsion not catered to properly etc

Sharjah
Page 171
8/30/2006
And last but not the least improper detailing causing improper stress dissipation path
resulting in considerable damage to the structure.
We would like to re-emphasise at this point that irrespective of the most sophisticated analysis
one undertakes the most advanced software one may use if the same is not followed up with
well conceived structural arrangement and proper detailing can still result in collapse.
On the other hand, analysis of structures based on simple seismic coefficient method and plane
frame analysis carried out by simple portal method, but detailed properly and having robust
structural configuration has been found to survive severest of the shock.
One of the major limitation a civil engineer faces specially in the building industry is that in many
of the major buildings during conceptual stage he has very little control on selection of material
and planning of the functional space for this is principally controlled by the architects83. But how
well the structure will behave under earthquake depends a lot on these decisions. If the architect
concerned does not have appreciation of the problems earthquake could create could lead to a
situation of impasse and in extreme case can even result in replacement of the project civil
engineer84
While it is surely not the job of a structural engineer to put spanner in every aspiring wheel an
architect could conjure yet if he sees something that could seriously mar the performance of the
building should be pointed out clearly if possible with comparative numbers enabling an
architect to make a quantitative assessment.
The bottom line is that it is necessary to have an unbiased continuous and an open dialogue
between the architect and the engineer to arrive at the most optimal shape and configuration
which is structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing.
During planning stage of structure at a location susceptible to severe earthquake if some
fundamental rules are followed and adhered to much of the risk of a collapse can surely be
significantly mitigated. We discuss a few of the important ones hereafter
Avoid the fundamental period of the building to be near the free field site of the motion,
equating the two as shown earlier one can arrive at the critical height of the building
which an architect could be made aware to suppress the seismic excitation of the
building.
Avoid irregular geometry in plan these creates additional force if not properly taken of
can lead to significant damage of the building. We explain this point with an example.
Fig-63:-Typical plan of a school building
83
Not to mention those illiterate mafias who in the name of promoters today control almost everything
in building industry and have polluted the complete work ethics of the building industry
84
If the firm concerned is primarily an architectural firm
Sharjah
Page 172
8/30/2006
Shown is a typical plan view of a school building with a playground as shown above85.It is
obvious that shear center of such building will be along the chain dotted line as shown in the
above figure. Thus an earthquake force acting on the building would act along this line and
would invariably create additional torsion in the building which if not properly catered for
could result in severe cracking at the junction.
Now the point remains is that does this functional concept be rejected at the outset citing it
is dangerous?
For wearing an architects hat one can envisage a number of functional advantage with this
type of configuration as a school building. So what are the other option a structural engineer
is left with. He can surely under take a detailed dynamic analysis of such building and cater
to the additional torsion or can simply do the following:Construction joint
(Typ.)
Fig-64:-Plan of a school building with construction joint

The trick is simple - break up the building into three regular modules by providing
construction joints as shown which surely makes the configuration much simpler to
handle while the functional configuration conceived by the architect can still be
maintained.86
Avoid rapid change in stiffness in vertical direction.
This is a common problem faced in many congested urban area where due to lack of space the
ground floor is completely kept open for the cars to park while the top portion constitute of
residential or office complex with usual curtain walls as shown below.
Weakest link
85
A common feature one observes in many public schools in England and Germany, playground in front
is usually called a quadrangle.
86
A similar situation can happen in a pipe rack configuration too where due to process requirement and
pipe stress limitations the configuration cannot be changed. Again opting for a separation joint will do
the trick in such case
Sharjah
Page 173
8/30/2006
Fig65:-Typical office building with open space for car parking in ground floor
In such cases, the top portion of the building having higher stiffness would possibly have a low
time period which shows the structure is quite stiff. This would thus attract a significant force
which when gets transferred to the foundation, suddenly finds a level which has a much poorer
stiffness then rest of the building and if the members are not sturdy enough to transfer this shear
force would invariably result in a failure at the column beam junction as marked above as the
weak zone.
It can well be envisaged that while we cannot reject the option87, yet try to arrive at a solution
which would make the building safe against earthquake. The easiest solution would to provide
one bay with a shear wall which would should be stiff enough to absorb the load as shown
below.
Fig-66:-Office building with open shear wall and access cut out
We had just cited a few examples to give some idea. All international codes including IS1893(2002) has come up with do and donts in term of building planning and should be adhered
to as much as practicable.
Detailing is another aspect- which needs to be given proper attention. Ductile detailing as such
is gaining importance more and more to attenuate the effect of earthquake force. IS code has
developed a special code88 for the same which should be adhered to. Ductility is an important
aspect which safe guards a structure by dissipating the energy induced in the body due to
seismic force by cracking thus preventing a total collapse. A detailed discussion is beyond the
scope of this book and interested reader may refer to a number of excellent reference as cited in
the footnote.89,90
A word or two for the rookies
In eagerness to carry out a clever and sophisticated analysis it is not uncommon to see
freshmen start with an elaborate computer model at the outset and finally get lost in maze of
numbers loosing sight of the basic issue as to how the structure is behaving in general. Whether
there is an inherent flaw in the arrangement which generates additional forces in one part of the
system or not etc.
87
For doing so might result in a rejection of the building plan itself citing provisions have not been kept
for adequate parking space and the client does not have budget to provide a basement parking
88
IS-13920- Indian Code of practice for ductile detailing of structure.
89
Reinforced concrete design- by R.Park and T Pauley John Wiley Publication
90
Earthquake resistant design of structures a manual for Architects and Engineers- Dowrick D.J-.John
Wiley Publication.
Sharjah
Page 174
8/30/2006
Study the plan carefully- if required seek help of more experienced people and discuss. Always
start with a simple model like a stick model or a simple plane frame model to have a first feel of
the system behavior before launching into a more detailed and elaborate analysis- we can
assure you this will eliminate a number of erroneous design decisions vis a vis re-work at later
stage of the project when cost implication in terms of schedule can be more severe.
Prologue:We are almost at the end of the road,for readers seeking more information on the subject we
would encourage him to read the literatures mentioned at the end of the chapter.Read them if
you are really interested in this topic we can assure you that you will enjoy them immensely.
Considering this is not a handbook our intention is not to work out design problems in
completeness enabling one to follow them blindly.The purpose was to provide you with the basic
essence of the phenomena and encourage you to understand the fundamental mechanics
behind it.
Finally a word of apology, to the bridge engineers for not having adressed -such an
interesting topic.
The reasons were basically the following:Bridge engineering being a topic by itself would significantly increase the volume of this book91,
finally private bridges in India is a rare comodity and most of the bridges and flyovers are
controlled based on legislation of IRC92 and guidelines follwed by MOST93.
Even though detailed dynamic analysis is possible for such bridges very much, as per Indian
practice, most of the dynamic loads coming on the bridges due to moving vehicles or earthquake
are catered for based on dynamic load factor or psuedo static methods.Applying too much
sophistication in their analysis may not be approved by the legislative body.In USA bridge codes
put forward by AASHTO94 has regular provisions for design of bridges under dynamic
earthquake loading are not officially recognized in the country.Till such modifications are brought
about by IRC and MOST we thought it prudent not to venture in this otherwise a very interesting
subject.
Suggested Further Reading95 :Considering the fact that earthquake covers many areas we divide the reading ,material into
various categories as mentioned hereafter:Structural Earthquake Engineering:1.
Dynamics of structure- Ray.W. Clough and Joseph Penzien Mcgrawhill Publication( One complete
chapter is dedicated to earthquake analysis of systems under earthquake force, has almost been the
backbone of analysis of many structures based on this method)
2.
Dynamics of Structure, Theory and application to Earthquake engineering- Anil K Chopra ;Mcgrawhill
Publication ( Lucid treatment with excellent explanation of the fundamentals mostly dedicated to earthquake
analysis specially buildings should make a very interesting reading being written by one of the most leading
expert in this field.)
91
The intenion has never been to make international weightlifters out of the reader
Indian Road Congress
93
Ministry of Surface Transport of India
94
American Authority of state highway official
95
This is possibly the most written on subject in the world. For instance if one opens the web site
amazon.com one could get reference to approximately 1400 literature on this subject. Unfortunately in
India though galaxies of books have been written on various topics of civil engineering there is only
possibly two books written on this subject see reference 5 and 6
92

Sharjah
Page 175
8/30/2006
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering:3.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering- Steven Kramer Prentice Hall(A brilliant book which has completely
covered this aspect of earthquake engineering very well. An excellent treatise which will keep you very very
absorbed).
4.
Handbook of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering-Robert Day( A comprehensive book on the subject

which can be used for day to day design work.
Specialized Literature
5.
Elements of Earthquake Engineering Jaikrishna, Brijesh Chandra and Chandrshekaran ( A few of the
Indian books which has treated the subject in a very professional manner in concise a must reading for all
Indian Engineers)
6.
Masonry and Timber structures including earthquake resistant design- Anand S Arya- ( An excellent
treatise which has addressed the earthquake aspect of these two low cost material often used in rural India as
major building material)
7.
Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering Nathan Newmark and Rosenblueth ( An earthquake

specialists knowledge would possibly remain incomplete if this book is not read An all time classic in the
realms of Earthquake Engineering. The work of a genius )
8.
Earthquake resistant design of structures a manual for Architects and Engineers D.J.Dowrick-( A
reference we had cited a number of times. Originally written as a design manual for engineers working in the
design office of Ove Arup and Partners .Has became an invaluable literature on the subject.A must reading for
all professional engineers and Architects )
9.
Design of Earthquake resistant design of Strucures-S.Polyakov Mir Publisher- Moscow ( Few of the
book which reflects the Russian practice in earthquake and the procedures followed in CIS countries makes
very interesting reading)
The End
Sharjah
Page 176
8/30/2006

Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical and Design Concepts for Earthquake Engineering

Why earthquake happens in nature

Why does Earthquake happen in Nature?

Figure-1 Earth with its central core

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Essential difference between systems subjected to Earthquake and

Time History response Velocity

Figure 2: -Typical propagation of earthquake waves through soil

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

4) Love waves (surface waves)

Effect of earthquake on soil foundation system :-

Since liquid have no shear resistance it cannot travel through water.

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Here amax=Maximum acceleration at the ground surface

rd = 0.5 for z 30m

+ 0.04052 z + 0.001753 z 1.5

Here a max = Maximum ground acceleration

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Bore Hole Diameter

Table-1 Correction factors to observed SPT values

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

a=0.048, b=0.004721,c=0.0006136, d=-1.673X10-5,e=-0.1248,f=0.009578,g=-0.0003285,

Table-2 :- Modification factor to SPT value based on Fine contents

After Alan.F.Rauch at the University of Texas 1998.

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Table-3 :- Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by Seed and Idriss

Magnitude Seed And

Table-4:- Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by various investigators

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Density of soil =18/m3

Average SPT Value=13

Figure-3:- Soil Profile of a site with typical soil properties.

Here M=6.5 and D=150 kM which gives

a max = 0.184 10 0.3206.5 (150)

Effective vertical stress at center of the sand layer is

Considering CSR = 0.65

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

The corrected SPT value is given by

(N1 )60 = N o (C N )(C E )(C B )(C R )(C S )

For FC=15% we have

Thus corrected SPT value is given by ( N 1 )60CS = + (N 1 ) 60

The Magnitude scaling factor is given by

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

q c = 4 to 5 N for clean sand and

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Reduction of Bearing Capacity of soil

f = ' h tan ' = k 0 ' v tan '

Layer-1 Non-Liquefiable plastic clay

Authored by : Indrajit Chowdhury

Layer-2 Liquefiable sandy layer

Z = 3.0 1.5 = 1.5 meter.

f = 50 + 15 tan 10 = 52.64 kN/m2

= 2(3 + 2) 1.5 52.64 = 789.6 kN

ratio(B/L) correction we thus have

qult = cN c 1 + 0.3 + D f which is modified to

Table 7- Reduction in value of Nc for Z/B ratio

For =0 Nc=5.5 which gives

qult = 50 5.51 + 0.3 + 20 1.5 = 360 kN/m2

Considering foundation size as 2mX3m we have

Qult = 360 2 3 = 2160 kN

When the bottom soil is liquefied considering