Assessment of The Effects of Equivalent Lateral Forces by Using Different International Building Codes

Assessment Of The Effects Of Equivalent Lateral Forces By Using
Different International Building Codes.
Assessment of the Effects of Equivalent

Lateral Forces by Using Different
International Building Codes.
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of the Addis
Ababa University for the Degree of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering.
By
Amelework Yimer
Advisor: Dr.-Ing. Adil Zekaria

2014/15
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Acknowledgements
My great pleasure is in my advisor, Dr.-Ing. Adil Zekaria. I am grateful of him for his
encouragement from the very beginning, important suggestions and inspiration in guidance and
continuous supervisions.
And I would like to thanks All my life time friends especially Afework, Sentayhu, Adam and
Girum for their positive response regarding to every issues.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2015/16
Amelework Yimer
i
BY Amelework Y. AAU
ABSTRACT
Lateral load can be considered to be those which act parallel to the ground plane and may occur at
many angles other than perfectly horizontal generally considered to act transversally to the primary
structural system. And the seismic building codes are used in analysis because of to protect human
life, to limit damage, to keep the structural safety of buildings and etc.
Although this lateral load distribution is significant in buildings in our country there is no sufficient
research on the assessment of the effects of equivalent lateral force distribution by using different
international codes.
Then this thesis works provides an investigation of the back ground of different provisions that are
specified by different international codes.
And in addition this thesis work studies the effects of lateral force distribution on the seismic
performances of the structures like lateral distribution of force, story shear, period and etc by using
different codes.
The provision codes selected for the current issues are like IBC 2009, EC8, 2004 and other
international building codes. By using this code provisions lateral force distribution and story shear
of different codes will be compared with respect to RSA.
Keywords: - Equivalent static analysis, Response spectrum analysis, lateral distribution of force
formulas, higher mode, structure configuration.
ii
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table of Contents Content Page

Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
List of tables
List of Figures V
Symbol and Notation vi
Declaration Viii
Approved By Ix
CHAPTER ONE
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Organization of study 3
1.3 Statement of the problem 3
1.4 Objective of the study 4
1.5 Methodology 4
1.6 Scope of the study 6
1.7 Significance of the study 6
CHAPTER TWO
2 Back Ground Study of Equivalent Static Analysis 7
2.1 Background of Seismic Provision 7
2.2 Concepts of basic analysis procedures 8
2.2.1 Definitions of equivalent lateral forces 9
2.2.2 Modal response spectrum analysis method 10
2.3 Some of acceptable modes of ELF procedures 11
2.3.1 Base shear 11
2.3.2 Time period 12
2.4 Literature review 13
2.4.1 Evolution of the Equivalent Static Lateral Force Methods 13
and Distribution of Forces
2.4.2 Literatures 14
2.5 Some Other Distribution Formulas of Lateral Forces That 25
Are Not Included In the Current Codes.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER THREE
3 Comparing equivalent lateral force distributions 27
3.1 Introduction 27
3.1.1 Dynamic Analysis & distribution of lateral force 28
3.2 Comparing of the parameters in code provisions 28
3.2.1 Ft (top force) 28
3.2.2 K Values 29
3.2.3 Lateral Force Distribution Formulas Over The Height Of 30
The Story
CHAPTER FOUR
4 Result 33
4.1 Case study 33
4.1.1 Introduction 33
4.1.2 Description of the case study 33
4.1.2.1 Moment Resisting frame(MRF) 40
4.1.2.2 Moment Resisting Frame & Shear wall(MRF+SW) 40
4.1.2.3 Irregular structures(P-Irr & E-Irr) 41
4.1.2.4 Both Irregular structures(P&E-Irr) 41
4.1.3 Base shear calculation 41
4.2 Result and Discussion 43
4.2.1 Introduction 43
4.2.2 Lateral force distribution 43
4.3 Lateral force distribution on each configuration 52
4.4 Lateral force distribution on height 53
4.5 Base shear 55
4.6 Top story displacement 57
4.7 Summary 57
CHAPTER FIVE
5 Conclusion and Recommendation 59
5.1 Conclusion 59
5.2 Recommendation 61
APPENDIX 71
BY Amelework Y. AAU
List of Figures Content Page
Fig. 2.1 Relative shears distribution over height of building. 16

Fig. 2.2 Three Degree of freedom structures analyzed by Merchant and 17
Hudsen
Fig. 2.3 Comparison of story shear coefficient of the story for Eqn. 2.2 22
and Eqn. 2.3
Fig. 4.1 Sample models 34
Fig. 4.2 Plan View of both plan and elevation irregular building 34
Fig. 4.3 Lateral force distribution for MRF 20 story buildings 35
Fig. 4.4 Lateral force distribution for MRF +SW+20 story buildings 36
Fig. 4.5 Lateral force distribution for IRR 15 story buildings 38
Fig. 4.6 Lateral force distribution for MRF + 20 story building 48
Fig. 4.7 Lateral force distribution for MRF + SW + 20 story building 50
Fig. 4.8 Lateral force distribution for IRR 15 story building 51
BY Amelework Y. AAU
List of Tables Content Page
Table 3.1 formulas for distribution of lateral forces for different codes 31
Table 4.1 Descriptions of selected models 39
Table 4.2 Parameters that are selected for base shear 42
Table 4.3 Vertical distribution of lateral forces according to different codes for 44
MRF 20 story building
Table 4.4 the percentage difference of each Value which was presented in table 4.3 45
with respect to that of RSA
Table 4.5 Summary of mean, S.D, Max & Min difference of each code to RSA for 46
MRF+SW 20 story Buildings
Table 4.5.1 Comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF+20 story 46
Table 4.5.2 Comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF+SW+20 story 47
Table 4.5.3 Comparison of base moment for different codes of P IRR +15 story 47
Table 4.5.4 Comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF +20 story 47
Table 4.5.5 Comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF+SW+20 story 47
Table 4.5.6 Comparison of base moment for different codes of PIRR 15 story 47
Table 4.6 Summary of mean, S.D, Max & Min difference of each code to RSA for 49
Irr 15 story Buildings
Table 4.7 The Mean and Standard deviation of percentage difference from codes to 49
RSA for MRF buildings of having different elevation
RSA of MRF+SW buildings of having different elevation
RSA of Irregular model C buildings of having different elevation
v
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Symbols and Notations

α= ratio of the design ground acceleration to the acceleration of gravity
αg= design ground acceleration on type A ground (ag = γI.agR)
α0 = bed rock acceleration ratio for the site and depend on the seismic zone
αi= participation factor
β= design response factor for the site
βi= participation factor for base shear
γ= behavioral factor
λ= correction factor
Ai= Shear coefficient distribution
Ct = regression coefficient
C= Lateral force coefficient
Ca = Seismic coefficient
Fi = Lateral force at level i
Ft = The portion of the base shear concentrated at the top of the structure in addition to fn
g= Acceleration due to gravity
h= Height of the story
hi &hn = Height in meter above the base to level i and n
Li= floor-dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action
Mi= mass of storey i
q= behavior factor
I= Important factor
S= soil factor
Si,Sj= displacements of masses mi, mj in the fundamental mode shape
Sd(T1)= for linear analysis, the design spectra normalized by the acceleration of gravity
T= Elastic fundamental period of vibration, in second , of the structure in the direction under
consideration
T1= fundamental period of vibration of a building
V= Total design lateral force or shear at the base
Vx= design story shear in story x vi
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Vtot= total seismic storey shear

Vb= Base shear
W= total seismic dead load
Wi, Wj= seismic dead load of story i
Z= seismic zone factor
Zi,Zj= height of mass mi and mj above the level of application of the seismic action
vii
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my original work. This thesis has not been presented for any other
university and is not currently submitted in candidature of any other degree, and that all sources
of material used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Amelework yimer
Signature: __________
Place: Addis Ababa University

Institute of Technology
viii
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Approved By
Name Signature Date
Dr Adil Zekaria Advisor
Dr Girma Zereyouhanse Internal examiner
Dr Esayas G/Youhannes External Examiner
Dr Agizew Nigussie Chairman
Dr Aberham Gebre A/ Graduate post graduate Director
ix
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Buildings are subjected to lateral loads caused by wind, blasting or earthquake. Lateral loads can
develop high stresses, produce sway movement or cause vibration. Therefore, it is very important
for the structure especially, for a high rise building to have sufficient strength against vertical
axial loads and lateral loads together with adequate stiffness to resist the coming force.
Buildings cannot resist this horizontal load if they are not well analyzed and designed; the lateral
force-resisting structure has significant impact on space planning.
Seismic building codes are guidelines how to design and construct buildings and other civil
engineering works in seismic regions. Their purposes are to protect human lives, to minimize
damage, and to sustain operations of important structures. Seismic design has progressed
significantly over the last few years due to the extension of engineering schools that graduate
competent engineers and the vast academic researchers conducted. The progress enhanced the
improvement and identification of ground motion, soil type and structure.
Seismic code provisions stipulated the standard procedure for the analysis of forces and
displacements in structures subjected to ground motion. The two most known analysis
procedures are Equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis and Dynamic response spectrum analysis
(RSA). The ELF analysis is a simplified technique derived from structural dynamics. It is based
on the dynamics of a single degree of freedom oscillator or multi degree of freedom system
vibrating in accordance with the specific shape.
The general guidance seen in the code is that structural engineers, who conduct the seismic
analysis, according to the simplified procedure, required a more rigorous analysis that may be
used to determine more accurately the seismic force acting on the structure. Hence the derivation
of each code varies from time to time by using one code as the input for the other code. For
instance
1
BY Amelework Y. AAU
EBCS8-1995 was driven from UBC 1997 and EC8-2004, which have undergone through a major
change over the years, to being more qualified.
Journal of civil engineering for the institution of engineers, Bangladesh Vol.CE 25,No, 1, 1997
conducted a “ critical evaluation and comparison of different seismic code provisions” by
M.A.Noor, M.A. Ansary and S.M. seraj. The main objective of the study was to evaluate and
compare some section of seismic design provisions like UBC1994, NBC 1995, IS 1984 and
BSLJ 1987 editions under different parameters like force distribution, zone factor, importance
factor, base shear, period and coefficients. To run this analysis they used moment resisting
frames and steel frames having 16 floors, the numerical study has been done. At the end, they
tried to present their result by using chart and compare the difference of one code from the others
and finally concluded that, even though every code have similar definitions and principles about
provisions, there were differences in many cases especially, when the seismic intensity and
occurrences differ the outcomes of the analysis have been varied.
The ELF method is primarily intended to provide life safety, for the expected maximum
earthquake level. Observation of structural systems responding in the inelastic range indicated
that, the structure yields, the period, damping and other dynamic properties change often
substantially, the effects of this change in dynamic properties was that while the force levels
actually experienced by the structure were greater than those used in the design, they were less
than those that would occur in a fully elastic response. [1]
A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and International Building Codes
for RC Buildings by Dr. S.V. Itti, Prof. Abhishek Pathade and Ramesh B. Karadi was done, this
study focuses on the comparison of the Indian Code (IC) and International Building Codes (IBC)
in relation to the seismic design and analysis of Ordinary RC moment resisting frame (OMRF),
Intermediate RC moment-resisting frame (IMRF) and Special RC moment-resting frame
(SMRF), the analysis run by using ETABS soft ware, and the results were presented by using
many tables charts and graphs. This paper tried to describe the difference b/n two codes and
structures and tried to present the difference of results on these two codes using percentage. [2]
“Comparison of seismic provisions of EBCS8-1995 and current major building codes pertinent
2
BY Amelework Y. AAU
to the equivalent static analysis’’ done by Asrat Worku on the comparison of different and
internationally accepted codes that are UBC 1997, IBC 2000, EC 8-1998 and EBCS 8-1995 by
using ELF (equivalent lateral force) method and this analysis never include RSA, the comparison
was made for the case of base shear, story shear, overturning moment, P effect and others.
The result of comparison was stated in 11 points but it can be summarized to three main parts
a. For the distribution of the base shear, IBC 2000 employs a linear mode for structures of
short period only (T0.05 sec). For all other structures it used a quadratic fundamental
mode as basis. All the other codes were based on a linear fundamental mode.
b. IBC 2000 used reduced overturning moments in lower stories of buildings taller than 10
stories; no such reduction was made by the other codes.
c. The requirements and provisions of EBCS 8-1995 with respect to torsion, story drift and
P-delta effects were similar to those of EC 8-1998 with some differences in the upper
limits of the story drift and the moment ratio. The corresponding regulations of IBC 2000
exhibit, however a significant difference from both codes and even from UBC 1997
existed [3]
As have seen many papers compare the lateral force distribution on codes by using each
provision without investigating the historic background or sources of each code difference.
But in this paper the investigation of the background of ELF analysis procedure of structures for
different codes will be conducted. And after finding of the background the paper compared the
effects of each code on the structure like story shear and all others.
This paper investigated the background of each code provisions under lateral load distribution
because it gives better information for the code developer, and it can give information to code
costumers to predict the consequence of difference in each code if any conditions may be
changed; not only this comparing of each codes with respect to response spectrum analysis tells
us which code had better quality than the others this comparison used for modification.
In tall buildings the lateral load due to earthquake was a matter of concern. These lateral forces
can produce critical stresses in the structure, induce undesirable lateral stresses in the structure,
and induce undesirable vibration or causes excessive lateral sway of the structure. Drift is the
magnitude of the lateral displacement at the top of the building relative to its base. Hence it was
BY Amelework Y. AAU
necessary to take in to account the seismic load for the design of structures during choosing of
best code for our homework.
This paper gave the solution for the homework.
1.2 Organization of the study
The 1st chapter included Background, objective, methodology, significance of the study and
others; the general over view of the study has been included. All the necessary information in
this paper was stated. The general best parts for the coming study were listed here.
The 2nd chapter included wider and general concepts on provisions and analysis methods in
addition, this part has all the necessary and acceptable parameters of ELF analysis in detail and
literature reviews were presented
The 3rd in this chapter detail background on the source of Lateral force distribution, evolution
and application with different factors like higher mode had been seen, similarly in this chapter
the difference of each codes and source of differences had been seen and compared.
The 4th chapter included case study by selecting structures as that were stated in sec 1.4 in this
case study the difference out puts were seen and discussed
The 5th chapter included conclusion and recommendation; it summarized the main conclusions
of the study. Finally suggestions for future work were also presented.
1.3 Statement of The Problem
The codes are basic guidelines for structures and peoples practice codes on their day to day
design activity, but mostly the system was using of different provisions that were specified in
different codes without giving attention about the back ground of these codes.
The source of difference effects of lateral load distribution on different codes were not well
studied before.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
1.4 Objective Of Study

The study would imply in a better experience and knowledge
A- General objective
 The general objective of the study was to assess the effects and Background of equivalent
lateral force distributions according to the major international building codes.
B- Specific objective
The specific objectives of this research were:
 To investigate the background of the different provisions specified by the different codes
for the lateral load distribution case.
 By applying the lateral force distribution of the different codes on selected building,
demonstrate the effect of the lateral load on the seismic behavior of structures, such as story
drift, story shear and etc will be seen.
1.5 Methodology
The methods used to accomplish the objectives and come up with relevant conclusions and
recommendations were outlined as follows.
Literature Review to study the back ground of seismic provisions of the lateral force
distributions.
Detail literature review and assessment of the background of selected seismic code provisions
from the perspective of the equivalent lateral force distribution concept have been done.
Comparative analysis was done for the given provision.
Based on the literatures the sensitivity of codes for higher mode, longer fundamental period,
stiffness and strength factors, Height factors, mode failurity and response spectra of each code
have been compared.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Selection of building structures to investigate the effects of lateral force distribution on seismic
behavior.
To accomplish this study different structural models having different height and stiffness were
selected like 5 models with 3, 6, 10, 15 and 20 stories for moment resisting frames and for
MRF+SW structures 3 different stories (6, 15 and 20 stories) were selected at end irregular
structures having different elevations and plan were selected.
During the analysis RSA was reference point, so the comparison had been done for the static
analysis result of different codes and structural configurations with RSA.
Lateral force distributions for different code provisions are applied to the selected buildings.
Although all code provisions have their own lateral force derivation methods, for the simplicity
and strength of the work some parameters were selected for the calculation of base shear and
period in common for all codes which are g=0.1, soil type C, Zone 4, q=2.5 and others as
necessary based on EURO code 8, 2004. From this simplified calculation the base shear that
had gotten was common for all codes and structural conditions as stated in sec 1.4.3, after all
this all calculated values were applied in the provision formulas in table 2.3 for lateral force
distribution.
Comparisons of the effects of this lateral load distribution on selected structures will be done.
For these buildings response spectrum analysis and static analysis were performed. So the
member force, distributions etc for RSA and static analysis methods were compared, the nearest
code had been preferred. After all this, great discussion based on the result was done.
Conclusion and recommendations.
Finally from the results of comparison and discussion in the previous, summarizing ideas have
raised and recommendation also has been stated here.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
1.6 Scope of the study
Finding the background of each code provisions and each articles was time taking and difficult
to handle. In this paper the targeted idea was specifically on historical background of Lateral
force distribution on elastic analysis and this paper found more literatures to search historical
and analytical evolution of force distribution under ELF procedure at this time the paper
considered that all conditions were constant like soil type, Zone, Importance factor and other
except building configuration stated in sec 1.4.3 and RSA was used to compare.
Most Building codes permits dynamic response history analysis and non linear static analysis,
but this study used only on the static analysis without detailing and design work.
1.7 Significances of the Study
Studying about different codes under the case of lateral force distribution was used during the
revision of codes, in analysis and design of buildings. Also this was used to differentiate the
drawbacks of each code for better improvement of design lateral load patterns in all structures.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER TWO
2. HISTORICAL BACK GROUND STUDY OF EQUIVALENT STATIC

ANALYSIS METHODS
2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SEISMIC PROVISION
In the early time of 1666 London was damaged by fire and many buildings collapsed, this
resulted for the introduction of the first comprehensive general building codes, this damage
became a lesson for government to enforce for the development of codes. Then the purpose of
the code was to provide minimum standards to safeguard the life or limb, health, property, and
public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of building
materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In the
mean time, the concept of earthquake being developed since the existence of dangerous shocking
and destruction of buildings like in 1755 the Lisbon devastating earthquake resulted in
prescriptive rules for building certain kinds of buildings common in the area, in Messina, Italy
(1911), and Kanto (Tokyo) Japan (1923) led to guidelines for engineers to design buildings for
horizontal forces of about 10% of the weight of the building. In 1906 San Francisco,
interestingly, produced little or no code development in the US and 1925 San Barbara convinces
critical mass in California on the need for seismic requirements. In 1927 Uniform Building Code
being formulated then 1933 Long Beach results in legislature passing the Field Act (for schools)
and the Riley Act (for all buildings). Then by this way the seismic codes provisions being more
developed and applied in design of buildings. [4]
At that time in the seismic code analysis the purpose of those codes was to prevent collapse,
heavy materials falling to street, size or rareness of earthquake not specified as now so their
references were just “Earthquake loading”.
In the recommendation of 1968 of the (Structural Engineers Association of California) SEAOC
Code was intended to provide criteria to fulfill the purposes of building codes generally.
7
BY Amelework Y. AAU
More specifically with regard to earthquakes, structures designed in conformation with the
provisions and principles set forth, there it should be able to:
1. Resist minor earthquakes without damage;
2. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some
nonstructural damage;
3. Resist major earthquakes, the intensity of severity of the strongest experienced in
California, without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. [4]
2.2. Concepts Of Basic Analysis Procedures
All seismic code provides the standard procedure for the analysis of forces and displacements in
structures subjected to ground motion. The Basic analysis procedures are under
1st static condition Equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis,
2nd under dynamic analysis procedure
2.1) Dynamic response spectrum analysis (RSA),
2.2) Dynamic response History Analysis (RHS) and
2.3) Non linear Analysis.
The response History analysis is mostly used to calculate the structural response as a function of
time when the system is subjected to ground acceleration.
Dynamic response spectrum analysis method is mostly used in major cases and it concerned with
procedures to compute the peak response of a structure during an earthquake directly from
design spectrum without the need for response history analysis of the structures. This method is
not an exact predictor of peak response but it provides an estimate that is sufficiently accurate for
structural design application.
Linear static analysis procedures are appropriate when higher mode effects are not significant.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
This is generally true for buildings with limited height depending on different codes
requirements and regularity of buildings, also this method can be used for irregular buildings
with limitation therefore, for tall buildings with torsion irregularities, or non-orthogonal systems,
a dynamic procedure is required.
2.2.1. Definitions of Equivalent Lateral Force
The ELF analysis is a simple, static and acceptable for most regular structures having specified
height for analysis. It is based on the dynamics of a single degree of freedom oscillator or multi
degree of freedom system vibrating in accordance with the specific shape. The equivalent static
analysis is one of the common approaches used for seismic demand analysis of structures, which
is one of the fastest and most practical methods in most codes. This procedure is used for
common structures (residential buildings with moderate height). It is the simplest method of
analysis because the forces depend on the code based fundamental period of structures with some
empirical modifiers. The design base shear is to be computed as a whole, and then it is
distributed along the height of the building based on some simple formula appropriate for
buildings with regular distribution of mass and stiffness. The design lateral force obtained at
each floor shall then be distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements depending upon
the floor diaphragm action.
Thus, it was necessary to investigate this approach in terms of structural considerations and the
effect of different parameters on structural response, in addition, to the comparison between its
analysis results and actual response of the structure. The equivalent lateral load patterns along
the height of structures from various seismic codes such as Euro Code 8-2004, International
building codes 2006, uniform building codes1997 and other non published formulas depend on
fundamental period of structures and their mass, and the distribution patterns are based primary
on elastic dynamic analysis of fixed base or rigid base structures.
BY Amelework Y. AAU
The seismic forces in a structure depend on a number of factors including the size and other
characteristics of the earthquake, distance from the fault, site geology, and the type of lateral
Load resisting system. These factors should be included in the specification of the seismic design
forces. In the equivalent static force procedure, the inertial forces are specified as static forces by
using empirical formulas. [6]
2.2.2. Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Method
The modal response spectrum method is superposition method and is generally applicable to
analysis of dynamic response of complex structures in their linear range of behavior, in particular
analysis of forces and deformations in multistory buildings. The method is based on the fact that
for certain forms of damping which are reasonable models, for many buildings the response in
each natural mode of vibration can be computed independently of the others and the modal
responses can be combined to determine the total response. Each mode responds with its own
particular pattern of deformation (the mode shape), with its own frequency (the modal
frequency), and with its own modal damping and the modal response can be computed by
analysis of a SDOF oscillator with properties of (damping and ductility) chosen to be
representative of the particular mode and degree to which it is excited by the earthquake motion.
The modal method, which is applicable for the analysis of linear responding systems, leads to an
approximate estimate of the design forces for buildings because they are usually designed to
deform significantly beyond the yield limit during moderate to very intense ground shaking.
However, it is believed that for many buildings, satisfactory approximations to the design forces
and deformations can be obtained from the modal method by using the modified design response
spectrum for inelastic history systems.
A complete modal analysis provides the history of response forces, displacements and
deformations of a structure to a specified ground acceleration history. However the complete
response history is rarely needed for design:
10
BY Amelework Y. AAU
The maximum value of response over the duration of the earthquake usually suffices. Because
the response in each vibration mode can be modeled by the response of a SDOF oscillator, the
maximum response in the mode can be directly computed from the earthquake response
spectrum, and procedures for combining the modal maxima to obtain estimates (but not the exact
value) of the maximum total responses that are available. In its general form the modal method
for linear response analysis is applicable to arbitrary three dimensional structural systems.
However, for the purpose of designing buildings it can often be simplified from the general case
by restricting consideration to lateral motion in a plane. In many cases, planar model which is
appropriate for each of the two orthogonal lateral directions can be analyzed separately and
results of the two analysis combined. [7]
2.3. Some of acceptable forms of ELF analysis procedures.

2.3.1. Base Shear
In static procedure, equivalent static forces applied at the story levels replace the time varying
inertia forces. The relative magnitudes of these equivalent static forces are based on simplifying
assumptions for mode shapes and mode participation. A comparison of the base shear is the
simplest way of comparing the final result. Comparison of base shear is similar to comparison of
numerical coefficient; under consideration of IBC 2006 ‘W’ is the total dead load and applicable
portion of other loads. The applicable portion of other loads includes a minimum of 25% of the
floor live load applicable in areas used for storage except for public garages and open parking
structures, partition weight, total operating weight of permanent equipment, and snow load only.
‘W’ is the total seismic load and applicable portions of live load. In the case of EC 8-2004 the
base shear is result of design spectrum and mass, where m is the total mass of the building. The
parameter m is estimated by taking into account the presence of the dead gravity load and a
fraction of the live gravity load; Sd is the ordinate of the design spectrum corresponding to the
fundamental period of the building T1; and λ is a reduction factor of the seismic forces based on
the effective modal mass of the fundamental mode of vibration. Thus, the value of λ is equal to
0.85 if the building has more than two stories and T1 < 2 TC; otherwise, λ is equal to 1.0.
11
BY Amelework Y. AAU
The design spectrum parameter Sd is obtained by reducing the ordinates of the reference elastic
spectrum based on the behavior factor q. The ductility can be estimated by using this factor q,
which has different values based on resisting frame characters, under this UBC 1997 and EBCS
8 -1995 codes also define the base shear by weight and design spectrum with similar fashion to
other codes.
2.3.2. Time Period
The period of vibration is a fundamental parameter in the force-based design or linear analysis of
structures because this parameter defines the spectral acceleration and thus the base shear force
to which the building should be designed. For the usual range of structural periods, higher
periods of vibration lead to lower design forces. The linear static (or lateral force) method allows
engineers to predict the fundamental period of vibration in a simplified manner and calculate the
design base shear force from the response spectrum. Base shear force is then distributed along
the height of the building in a linear manner. Period-height relationships which have been
obtained for different building typologies from the measured periods of vibration during
earthquake ground shaking are generally used, though many analysis methods like Rayleigh
analysis is used in different codes.
The fundamental period of vibration required for the simplified design of reinforced concrete
structures has been calculated for many years using a simplified formula relating the period to
the height of the building. One of the first formulae of this type was presented almost 30 years
ago in ATC3-06 [ATC, 1978] and had the form
T  C t H 3 / 4 , Ct = regression coefficient and H=height of building.
The period formulas in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997) and the 1996 Structural
Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) recommendations (SEAOC 1996) are derived
from those developed in 1975 as part of the ATC3-06 project [Applied Technological Council
(ATC) 1978] largely based on periods of buildings "measured" from their motions recorded
during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
12
BY Amelework Y. AAU
T  C t H 3 / 4 , Ct = regression coefficient and H =height of building, which is first appeared in the
ATC3-06 report, was derived using Rayleigh's method (Chopra 1995) with the following
assumptions:
(I) Equivalent static lateral forces are distributed linearly over the height of the building;
(2) Seismic base shear is proportional to l / T 2 / 3
(3) Deflections of the building are controlled by drift limitations. Although the first two
assumptions are evident, the third assumption implies that the height wise distribution of
stiffness is such that the inter story drift under linearly distributed forces is uniform over the
height of the building. Numerical values of G, = 0.035 and 0.025(for building height in ft) for
steel and RC moment resisting frame buildings were established in the ATC3-06 report based on
measured periods of buildings from their motions recorded during the 1971 San Fernsisco
earthquake.
The Equivalent static analysis methods adopt seismic coefficient concept for earthquake resistant
design of structures to calculate the base shear, the response coefficient of the structures depends
on the natural period of their vibration. Time period of structure should be calculated using the
structural properties and deformation characteristics of resisting elements (stiffness and mass
characteristics of the structure, the time consuming method of period calculation like Rayleigh
methods have better result. [6]
2.4. Literature Review

2.4.1 Evolution of the Equivalent Static Lateral Force Methods and
Distribution of Forces
The work done after the 1908 Reggio-Messina Earthquake in Sicily by a committee appointed by
the Italian government may be the origin of the equivalent static lateral force, in which a seismic
coefficient is applied to the mass of the structure, to produce the lateral force that is
approximately equivalent in effect to the dynamic loading of the expected earthquake.
13
BY Amelework Y. AAU
The Japanese engineer Toshikata Sano independently developed in 1915 the idea of a lateral
design force V proportional to the building’s weight W. This relationship can be written as
F  CW , where C is a lateral force coefficient, expressed as some percentage of gravity. The
first official implementation of Sano’s criterion was the specification C = 10 percent of gravity,
issued as a part of the 1924 Japanese Urban Building Law Enforcement Regulations in response
to the destruction caused by the great 1923 Kanto earthquake. On other side In California, the
Santa Barbara earthquake of 1925 motivated several communities to adopt codes with C as high
as 20 percent of gravity after the occurrence of large damage this motivation increases through
the years still now. [9]
2.4.2. Literatures
1. Vertical distribution of seismic force formula was developed for the first time based on
the results from experimental and analytical studies of the Alexander Building in San Francisco,
by “Blume, J. A. and H. L. Hesselmeyer, "The Reconciliation of the Computed and Observed
Periods of Vibration of a Fifteen Story Building," a thesis presented to Stanford University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Engineer, 1934.
Wi H i
Fi  Vb ……………………………………………………………………........... [2.1]
Wi H i
This is the first distribution formula of vertical seismic forces during and after 1934.
 The design concept was working stress design that was more effective to achieve the
target which was creating more strength (resistance of building for the coming seismic load). At
this time the thinking were structures typically deflect more in shear than in flexure. So the
lateral load distribution corresponding to this deflected shape was similar to a "triangular" shape
which relates to linear deflection of structures.
The building was an exception and there was no any experiment on vibration period before
Blume.
14
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Then after he introduced the idea of dynamic analysis for The Alexander Building San
Francisco, there was done experiment for consecutive 25 year periods, starting from 1934,
analytical and experimental models of the structure were evaluated to measure period of
Vibration, displacement, shear distribution and others by using different ground motions. After
25 years, the experimental distribution diagram was used digital computer and had very large
gap from measured value or result by using code formulas stated in eq [2.1] and shear
distribution graph of the experiment was a curved parabola. from this and shear deflection they
concluded that seismic lateral force distribution was triangular and linear, in addition the gap b/n
experiment and measured result led them to further experiment on higher mode effect.[10]
2. “Period determinations and other earthquake studies of a fifteen story building” Chapter 11,
proc.world conf. on earth quake engineering, June 1956. By J. A. Blume and R.W Binder during
the experiments for period of a modern multi story office buildings, the proposed structure was
steel frame office and they did the experiment by collecting 20 ground motion measurements for
2 successive years with 3 different instruments and the instrument were placed at different floors
of building to calculate the natural period of 15 story steel frames (1958-1960). The two strong
motion accelerometers and sets of maximum story displacement recorders installed to record the
building movements for future earthquake. So by using this, those people did vertical and
transverse records at the period of experiment. And they measured the period for successive 3
modes. Finally what they got was the fundamental period of experimental and calculated values
for consecutive 3 modes that were almost equal with variation of < 25% for different phases of
construction. From this, they concluded that the first mode and additional 2 nd and 3rd mode
shapes are significant for the responses. The especial character of this experiment was the
building has been in construction phase then the result of variation in experimental and measured
period was from 6%-25% till the end of the finishing work. And the distribution of lateral force
has direct relation to period. From this one can understand the distribution of force is dependent
on higher mode. [12]
15
BY Amelework Y. AAU
3. Tung, T.P. and N.M. new marks analyzed, “shear in a tall buildings subjected to strong
ground motion earthquakes,” proceedings, world conference on earthquake engineering,
Berkeley, California, June 1956, pp.10-1, 10-11. For their analysis a 10 story structures were
selected and they are considered as a shear beam. For more simplified and clear work, they select
two configurations: the first were regularity in mass and stiffness, and the second were
irregularity in mass and stiffness the horizontal ground motion for each of the twelve different
strong motion earthquakes recorded by the U.S. coast and Geodetic survey on west coast: After
the application of ground motion the result of shear diagram was nearly parabolic with the
exception for lower story remain as linear and the analysis was carried out on the electronic
digital computer. With each of the accelelograms reproduced by a series of polygonal lines. [13]
Fig. 2.1 - Relative shears distribution over height of building.
It is clearly stated on the fig. 2.1 the shear distribution shape supports the linear distribution of
lateral force formula and this idea was consistent to triangular loading assumption. In this
experimental measurement of ground acceleration on structures the effect of regularity and
irregularity of structures were discussed in the graph as the damping ratio changes the outcome
of irregular structures which varies largely. See on fig. 2.1 the white bubbles and the regular
structures had uniform and non scattered stress distribution [13]
16
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4. Merchant,H.C. and D.E. Hudson, “made separation in multi degree of freedom systems
using earthquake response spectrum data”, Bulletin of the seismological society of America, Vol.
52, No.2 April 1962, pp. 405-416 on this study three-degree-of-freedom shear-beam models
were used to investigate the contribution of higher modes to the base shear as seen in the fig. 2.2
. Three structural configurations were selected, uniform, tapered, and stepped distributions of
mass and stiffness; and three earthquake motions; three damping conditions; and five
fundamental periods were used for the analysis on the selected models. After the application of
this different ground motion and damping the result of analysis indicated that participation of the
higher modes to the base shear response appeared to be independent on the earthquake, structural
configuration, and amount of damping. But the participation of higher modes to the base shear
depends only on the period of oscillation of building. This fundamental period has direct relation
to the distribution of forces, so on their judgment the distribution formulas should have included
the effects of higher modes. [10]
Fig. 2.2 - Three Degree of freedom structures analyzed by Merchant and Hudsen
5. Clough, R. W., "Earthquake Analysis by Response Spectrum Superposition &," Bulletin

of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 52, No.3, July 1962, on this paper Clough
analyzed five structures, ranging in height from four to twenty stories, subjected to three ground
motions. The structures comprised moment resisting frames with central concrete cores.
17
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Maximum displacement, shear, and moment values from the calculated response histories were
compared with modal response spectral values. Displacement and moment distributions were
found to be governed by the first mode, whereas the shear distribution displayed higher mode
contributions. The contribution of higher modes was found to increase with an increase in the
number of stories.
In addition to this Clought used the ‘Alexander building’ which was among the first structures
for elastic response history analysis and Blume, J. A. and H. L. Hesselmeyer, used this structure
for vertical distribution of lateral force determination on their study. Then by clought the
structure were used as an ideal shear beam model and the E~W component of the 1940 EI Centro
ground motion were applied on it. From the RHA Clought found that the maximum base shear
was a combination of the first mode spectral response plus approximately 40% of the second and
third mode spectral responses. However, the maximum shear distribution over the height was
quite similar to the shear distribution obtained from the triangular loading specified in the Joint
Committee draft provisions. In this paper, clought agree with the contribution of higher mode on
the distribution of lateral force and the way of distribution is triangular on this assessment. [10]
6. Oscar. A. LOPEZ AND M. CRUZ in 1996 published paper on “Number of Modes for the
Seismic Design of Buildings” they had seen the effects of higher modes on the maximum
response of buildings subjected to horizontal component of earthquake ground motion. The
objective of study was in developing better design formulas that use in building design.
To make the analysis clear they did it in two step the
1st was applying nine horizontal ground motion in the frames having of different height and
stiffness but similar response spectrum.
2nd analysis was on two different Response spectrums
So to visualize they consider structures that are represented by linear systems with discrete
masses concentrated at each floor and subjected to one horizontal component of ground motion
given in terms of the acceleration response spectrum S a. The buildings are assumed to have a
regular plan configuration so that torsional dynamic effects are ignored. In addition for simple
demonstration different structural conditions were selected,
(1) A Shear Building with Constant Column Stiffness (SB-CCS),
18
BY Amelework Y. AAU
(2) A Shear Building with Variable Column Stiffness (SB-VCS) such that the first mode shape is
linear" and
(3) A Flexural Building (FB), with different height from 3 stories to 50 stories.
Then they define the participation factor for base shear and top story shear with different mode
shape.
Participation factors are dimensionless and independent of the normalizing criteria used for mode
shape calculations. For the simple one degree of freedom system (one-storey building), all the
participation factors are equal to one; therefore, for multistory buildings they include the effects
of the number of floors in addition to the shape of the mode in consideration. The participation
factor for the base shear ( i ) is the well-known effective mass of mode i divided by the total
building mass; it is a positive number and the sum for all modes is equal to one. The
participation factor for the top story (shear or displacement), i , can adopt positive or negative
values but it can be shown that the sum for all modes is also equal to one. This result can be
found if the unit vector is written as a linear combination of the products of the modal vectors
and the Li / M i values. [14]
Then after defining the participation factor for base shear and top story shear the overall response
behavior of buildings were defined by base shear and top story shear and the maximum response
were calculated by using SRSS method.
From the result of the analysis the contribution of higher mode is low in shear structures or stiff
structures and as the elevation and flexibility of building increases, the contribution of higher
mode became more significant with increasing period.
And on the second trial of their analysis the response spectra of different codes were used for
comparing
( Vb  S i * Ai Is base shear formula,) Then by using this two different spectral they try to
visualize percentage error of the different spectrum and structure condition for each mode. In
their result they state that the top storey shear is the overall response parameter that shows the
largest contribution of higher modes. Local member forces associated to the top storey shear will
exhibit a similar higher mode contribution.
19
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Higher mode contribution increases with increasing values of the parameter T1 / T * and with
increasing number of stories. Also, flexural buildings have a larger contribution of higher modes
than shear buildings, for tall flexural buildings resting on stiff soils (i.e. T1 / T * about 5) and a
spectrum with a descending branch proportional to 1 / T , the higher mode contribution to the top
storey shear could be three times greater than the first mode contribution. For tall buildings
located on stiff soils, the higher mode contribution to the top storey shear cans double the
contribution to the base shear.
For tall buildings, dynamic response values calculated from UBC and NEHRP procedures lead to
relative errors that increase monotonically with T1 / T * values.
7. “Evaluation Of Building Code Formulas For Earthquake Forces” By Anil K. Chopra, M.
ASCE and Ernesto F. Cruz, A. M. ASCE present the effect of higher mode Response spectrum
dependency on Period, stiffness and The degree to which the spectrum needs to be raised for the
velocity-and displacement-controlled spectral regions that expressed by the stiffness of beam to
column ratio rho(ρ); the spectrum need to be raised very little for shear buildings (ρ = ), but
decreasing rho or increasing flexibility leads to the high raising of spectrum down ward, but the
intermediate (rho=1/8) is preferable because the bending and flexure effects are participant.
For expressing lateral distribution and base shear comparing they had used ATC-3
recommendation, UBC 1994 code and Mexico’s Federal district code, and 5 story building
having of different stiffness were selected then the code results were compared to RSA
From the result of their analysis UBC 1994 code has good approach with RSA than others but
the final conclusion was this approach of UBC 1994 is no longer continued as the elevation of
building increases.
8. “SEISMIC DESIGN LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN STEEL FRAME’’ by Y. Deguchi1, T.
Kawashima, M. Yamanari and K. Ogawa on their work the seismic code of Japan [BCJ1997]
provision and the shear distribution coefficient that found by calculation were compared.
Where the equation of Japanes were
1 2T1
Ai  1   i * where, T1  0.03H ………………………………………………… [2.2]
i 1  3T1
20
BY Amelework Y. AAU
And the shear coefficient distribution calculated for the study were
1
Ai 
i
………………………………………………………………………………………...............[2.3]
Where Ai =shear coefficient distribution
H = height of structure
T1 = fundamental period of the structure
 i = participation factor
During this the experiment equation of the distribution of seismic load in the design were based
on the assumption that the velocity spectrum of ground motion is independent of the natural
period, and it was deduced from the maximum shear response of the elastic shear bar with both
uniform stiffness and mass distributions. Then, two equations were selected with respect to the
seismic design load distributions that had already been proposed in Japan. A comparison of those
equations was carried out with regard to both leveling of the story drift, angle distribution, and
minimization of the maximum story drift angle in all the stories of a multistory frame.
The equation of the distribution of the seismic load in the design was obtained based on a simple
theoretical analysis. The current seismic code of japan as derived based on this two concepts
1. The shear coefficient distribution was plotted for a narrow range irrespective of the number of
stories, stiffness distribution, and mass distribution, in case that the shear coefficient was
expressed as a function of i in which the weight above the story was divided by the total weight
of the structure.
2. The shear coefficient distribution, which was determined to make the damage distribution of a
frame uniform, almost coincides with the story distribution of the maximum shear coefficient of
an elastic structure, except for at the top story.
And the calculated coefficient was found by considering the maximum shear response deduced
by means of an elastic shear bar with both uniform stiffness and mass distributions. In the study
maximum shear response obtained by means of an elastic shear bar was mainly assumed to be an
object; therefore, the intensity of the maximum shear response did not pose a problem.
21
BY Amelework Y. AAU
This implied that the maximum shear response could be investigated by means of the elastic
structure because of the consideration that the shape of the load distribution of the elastic
structure was similar to an elastoplastic structure.
A comparison between these equations was carried out in the next figure, there was a difference
in the top story of approximately 0.2 or less, and the shear coefficient distribution obtained from
Eqn. 2.3 tends to yield a large value. However, this was almost coincident, except for that around
the top story. Although, for a 12-story system, Eqn. 2.2 yields slightly larger values; for an 8-
story system, Eqn. 2.2 and Eqn. 2.3 are equivalent; and for a 4-story system, Eqn. 2.3 yields a
slightly larger value. That is the reason why the Ai distribution obtained from Eqn. 2.2 exhibits
larger values near the bottom of the structure’s center, although the A i distribution of Eqn. 2.2
tends to be yield slightly larger values near the top story.
Finally, what they concluded was that the second equation of Ai was the most effective and
useful because it yielded the least values of the largest of the maximum story drift anglers R max
occurring in the corresponding story: moreover it has the simplest equation. [16]
Fig. 2.3- Comparison of story shear coefficient of the story for Eqn. 2.2 and Eqn. 2.3
22
BY Amelework Y. AAU
By using the derivation of ref [16] and [16.1] Ishiyama analyzed shear, flexural and shear-
flexural of 5 DOF models varying the distributions of mass and stiffness during that the sheer
force distributions can be expressed as a combination of above four distributions.
a) Uniform distribution of seismic coefficient ( Va )
b) Inverted triangular distribution of seismic coefficient ( Vb )

c) Distribution of shear type structure subjected to white noise or constant velocity response
spectrum ( Vc )
d) Distribution of higher mode effect of flexural structure ( Vd )

And k in all IBC code which indicates the higher mode effect depends on this r, s and t based on
derivation on ref (16.1)
r =is the ratio of shear deformation to flexural deformation,
s= is lateral stiffness of the first story to the average stiffness of the building,
t= is the ratio of the fundamental period of the building to the corner period of the spectrum.
In his(Ishiyama) analytical and empirical calculation r=0 except for very slender and high rise
building, the building can be expressed as shear type models during the calculation of k and after
the necessary assumptions and calculations by using this shear coefficient distribution ( Ai ) and
(Chopra and Newmark, 1980). Analytical and empirical calculation the distribution of lateral
force and design story shear were considered as quadratic as the elevation of building increases
and linear for short rise building but this distribution was not actual inertial force. When we saw
the derivation formula again (ref 16.1) from this rather than assuming k 1 and k2 get by formula of
1 ℎ ℎ ℎ =
= and in terms of k1, k2 it is more preferable to use a constant k value that was found by
the empirical and analytical calculation, then the number has 1 for low rise building because it is
linear in the sketch of Ai Vs Bi , fig 2.5 shows increscent of distribution coefficient is quadratic
then the value of k is converted to 2 for high rise building but this rise effect is being expressed
by fundamental period for each mode.[16.1]
24
BY Amelework Y. AAU
2.5. Some Other Distribution Formulas of Lateral Forces That Are Not
Included In the Current Codes.
1. The earth quake code of Los Angeles prior to 1971 was dependent on height and dimension
or width ratio. This was for the sake of developing more resistant structures, but even it creates
good resistance the measured high ground acceleration was greater than the acceleration force
calculated by the code, and the allowable design stress permitted by the code was lower than the
dynamic analysis result led to the modification of codes. To prove this the researchers used 7
ground motions that creates large acceleration force in the upper part of the building in 50 story
building and the digital computer measured the vibration of each conditions and modes, and also
they use 5-6 mode of vibration and fundamental period, for calculating the time history and to
find the building response like (shear, displacement, drift and others). When they compared the
result of this with the code it has great variation so they decided that for highly elevated building
dynamic analysis was preferable and for moderately elevated buildings they used new improved
code which considers the effect of higher mode, from that
V  CW ………………………………………………………………………………............ [2.4]
V  KCW ……………………………………………………………………………….......... [2.5]
Is modified by adding “ K ” factor and the distribution of this lateral load become
V  Ft (Wx H x )
Fi  n
………………………………………………………………….............. [2.6]
W H
i 1
i i
Hn 2
Ft  0.004( ) V , if ( H n / Ds )  3 Ft  0 , not greater than the value of 15% of base shear
Ds
Ft  0.15V ……………………………….............................................................................. [2.7]
In this case the lateral force should be less than 15%of the base shear. This is called as Los
angeles Code (LAC).
25
BY Amelework Y. AAU
2. “Lateral load patterns for the conceptual seismic design of moment- resisting frame
structures” the thesis paper done by Kyungha Park tried to drive new formula for distribution of
lateral forces by using inelastic analysis methods, the new design load patterns were proposed as
a function of ground motion and structural characteristics as well as the performance level of
interest, which was quantified by the target story ductility ratio, b/c in order to keep the
structures from brittle failure when deformation of structure was beyond its yield point without
significant strength loss The ductility was distributed uniformly over the height. ELF was based
on strength, stiffness and inter story drift but on his idea he included additional ductility concept
to drive the formula, the derivation was so tedious and long see reference 17 from long and
tedious calculation the new proposed formula is,
(V y  Ft ) wi hik
Fx  ……………………………………………………………………........... [2.8]
wh i i
k
Kyunga Park Formula (KPF)

In this formula there is no any limitation for period to consider the higher mode. [17]
3. “Review of code developments for earthquake resistant design of concrete structures in
New Zealand” presented By R. Park
The distribution of the total horizontal seismic force up the height of a typical building was
recommended to be the inverted triangular shape (with the greatest force at the top, except that
for slender buildings (height/width > 3)10% of the total force was concentrated at the top and the
remaining 90% was distributed in the usual way. To provide for shear resulting from torsional
motions the applied horizontal force at each level was applied eccentrically with respect to the
centre of rigidity at that level. Two equations for the eccentricity of the horizontal load were
given, each a function of the horizontal dimension of the building and the distance from the
centre of rigidity to the centre of mass, and the most unfavorable condition was used. During this
time the rough compares of UBC 1997 and IBC 2006 code was done and stated that IBC 2006
was more conservative because instead of using additional load at top they used quadratic value
for higher mode periods. [18]
0.9Vwi hi
Fi  where, Ft  0.1Vb …………………………………………………………..........[2.9]
 wi hi
26
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER THREE
3. COMPARING EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTIONS
ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CODES
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The target of this thesis work was to find out the back ground of lateral force distribution
formula derivation and comparison of each distribution formula that was stated by different
international buildings codes and to evaluate the effects of lateral force distribution on structure;
the paper used a reference line to compare each code with the RSA. The background and
evolution of distribution have been stated in chapter two then here comparison and effect
evaluation was run.
The Equivalent lateral force distribution method could be defined shortly as, the seismic force
effect on the structure could be translated to equivalent lateral force at the base of the structure
which can be distributed to different stories and thus to the vertical structural elements (frames
and/ or shear walls).
ELF design procedure was done by using elastic response spectra, under this analysis most
buildings were considered that, they typically response for the simplified 1st mode shape in most
cases for number of stories <10 the mode shape was linear and distribution was also linear.
In equivalent lateral force procedure the magnitude of forces distributed was based on an
estimate of the fundamental period and on the distribution of forces as given by simple formulas
appropriate for regular buildings.
Even the distribution of lateral force was based on linear shape on first mode when the elevation
of buildings increase the higher mode was being included then the linearity of distribution of
force was changed to some other new parameter like parabola or triangular having concentrated
force at the top as per the code development.
27
BY Amelework Y. AAU
3.1.1. Dynamic Analysis & distribution of lateral force

Dynamic analysis should be based on an appropriate ground motion representation and should be
performed using accepted principles of dynamics. Static distribution of lateral force concept related
with the dynamic distribution concept and linear distribution of mass, stiffness and damping in this
perception we considered the structure as SDOF by reducing the possible displacement of structure
(degree of freedom), and using the mode shape which could be expressed as non loaded period and
vibration.
Base shear was the result of effective modal mass or weight and coefficient but as the effective
modal mass was less than the total weight for correction the scaling up n was used in practice.
Let us see the derivation from Chopra
Base shear Vbn  M n* An ……………………………………………………………........... ...[3.1]
Statically distribution of lateral load was expressed as F jn  n m j jn An …………............. ... .[3.2]
M n*  n Lhn = ( Lhn ) 2 / M n ……………………………………………………………….............[3.3]

N
M n   m j jn2 …………………………………………………………………………............[3.4]
j 1
N
Lhn   m j jn ………………………………………………………………………..................[3.5]
j 1
by inserting eq[3.1] in eq[3.2] we get eq[3.6]

F jn  n m j jnVbn / M n* ............................................................................................................. ...[3.6]
by substituting eq[3.4] and eq[3.5] into eq[3.3] and to eq[3.6] we get

m j j
F jn  Vbn * N
………………………………………………………………............... .[3.7]
m 
j 1
j jn
This was the dynamic result of distribution of lateral force over the floor and it indicates that
distribution was dependent on Height, shape function, or mode shape and mass when we came to
codes they used the formula that were stated in table 3.1 and all codes use two general things that
are base shear and weight distribution
28
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Wj H j
F jn  Vbn * N
……………………………………………………………………........ [3.8]
W H
j 1
j jn
 jn is mode shape function in dynamic analysis and shape function for static analysis to come up
with the code used linear flow of cantilever from zero at base to 1 at top which has shape
function of  jn  h j / L , and depending on different conditions when h j =height at j floor
and L=total length. For the fundamental period, after this derivation the codes use their method
for higher mode consideration.
3.2. Comparing of the parameters in code provisions

3.2.1. Ft (Top force)
The 1925 and 1952 santa barabara earthquake, 1949 Olympia earth quake and 1961 of Alaska
earthquake were representative for large magnitude earthquakes and during this earthquake many
structures failed and damaged. from these damages, engineers observed that most earlier
structures were designed to achieve strength only, this means every structures have to withstand
and resist the coming lateral force by themselves for short period of time and when the time of
shaking increase the capacity of structures decrease and failure starts from top of building that
means the flexibility of structure was low and it could not survive for long time. Especially, most
highly elevated and slender structures deflect primarily in bending than in shear. So this
flexibility of structure at top story increases the sensitivity of structures to earth quake and failure
to handle this problem the uniform building code drivers use additional force at top of building
for analysis. The value of this additional force was b/n 2%-15% with different evolutional
periods of uniform building codes but as best Ft  0.07 * T * V is being preferable in UBC 1997
because the formula showed that it include fundamental period and the formula of preliminary
28
BY Amelework Y. AAU
period was T  CH 3 / 4 which was dependent on height to consider higher mode effect, so the code
provision supported the idea of Clought, Marchant and Hudson and this Value was b/n the
interval of SACEO recommendation from 2%-15% additional forces.[20]
3.2.2. “k” value

Even the design story shear in any direction was distributed to the various elements of the lateral
force-resisting system in proportion to their rigidities. The distribution of lateral forces over the
height of a building was generally quite complex because a number of natural modes of vibration
contribute significantly to these forces. The contributions of the various vibration modes to the
lateral forces and to the base shear depended on a number of factors including shape of the
design response spectrum and natural vibration periods and mode shapes which in turn depended
on mass and stiffness properties of the building. However these forces were in large part a
function of the first (fundamental) mode of vibration. Thus, in the equivalent lateral force
procedure they were determined from formula similar to those for the first mode. Table 3.1
showed distribution formula for each code from different reasons. The formula for distribution of
lateral force was different. See IBC 2006(table 3.1) it uses additional “k” value which was
coefficient related to the estimated fundamental vibration period and with k=1 for the first mode
shape that was a straight line and if k=2 first mode shape was a parabola with its vertex at the
base. condition of k=1 was appropriate for building with fundamental period of 0.5sec or less,
because the influence of vibration modes was higher than the fundamental mode which was
small in earthquake responses of short period buildings and the fundamental vibration mode of
regular buildings departed of little from a straight line. Although earthquake responses of long
period buildings were primarily due to the fundamental mode of vibration, the influence of
higher modes could be significant and the fundamental mode lied between a straight line and a
parabola with its vertex at the base. The force distribution with k=2 was therefore appropriate for
buildings with a fundamental period of 2.5 sec or longer. Linear vibration of k between values of
1 at a period of 0.5sec and 2 at 2.5sec provides a simple transition between the two extreme
values.
29
BY Amelework Y. AAU
If the base shear was equal for all codes and when the period T  0.7 sec UBC 1997 and IBC
2006 code would have similar distribution shape. Also when the period T  0.7 sec UBC 1997
code and EBCS 8-1995 being similar, as it has been seen from table 3.2 IBC 2006 and UBC
1997 codes were highly time and higher mode dependent for distribution Euro code considered
only the distribution to be based on the mass distribution and EBCS 8, 1995 code considered the
effect of higher mode.
In the provision UBC1997 and EBCS 8-1995 codes they added additional concentrated force at
the top this was because the greatest lateral force was applied, similarly stiffness of building
decreased at the top of the building, for that matter the preliminary design process should have to
consider this large force for detailing, the shear increased form the top to its maximum at the
base. Each floor shear was successively added to the sum from above; this method for the
distribution of loads was only for the design of vertical lateral load resisting elements. To
account for tall buildings that did not have a uniform triangular distribution, the codes required
that an additional force be applied at the top of the building but this was only if the period T was
greater than 0.7sec in UBC code and applicable at any time in EBCS code. Another reason for
the application of this Ft was also to increase factor of safety as quality of construction (using of
specified quantity and quality of material on site was less in most area) to balance this code
developer used additional forces at the top.
The height wise distribution of lateral forces was approximated by specifying horizontal
accelerations proportional to elevation above ground, to the square of this elevation, or
intermediate between these. The acceleration distribution passes smoothly from a straight line
when T  Tv to a parabola as T tends to infinity. This vibration in acceleration distribution with
fundamental vibration period T was intended to recognize the changing fundamental mode shape
and increasing higher mode contributions to response with increasing T 1
The basic target of using k factor in IBC2000-2012 or Ft in UBC1960-1997 and EBCS 8- 1995
code is to recognize the changing fundamental mode and increasing higher mode contribution to
structural response with increasing T1 as higher mode responses are more significant.
30
BY Amelework Y. AAU
31
3.2.3. Lateral Force Distribution Formulas Over The Height Of The Story
The building was typically considered to respond in a simplified first mode shape. For buildings
less than 10 story height, the mode shape was often assumed to be linear by assuming sinusoidal
response the peak acceleration at the floor levels were thus also distributed approximately
linearly with height, like Some countries practices distribution of lateral seismic forces that were
period dependant. The Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building was
determined from the base shear in accordance with the formula for the lateral force at the j th
floor. Table 3.1 state different provision formulas that were used for lateral force distribution.
Table 3.1:- formulas for distribution of lateral forces for different codes
CODES Distribution Of Lateral Forces

EBCS 8-1995 ( Fb  Ft )Wi H i
Fi  and , Ft  0.07T1 Fb
W j H j
IBC 2006 w j h kj
F j  Vb

n
i 1
wi hik
where k is
1 1 ≤ 0.5
( + 1.5)⁄2 0.5<T1<2.5
2 ≥ 2.5
EC 8- 2004 Si
Fi  Fb mi
 S jmj
UBC 1997 ( Fb  Ft ) wi hi
Fi  ,
 wjhj
For 0 ≤ 0.7
= 0.07 ≤ 0.25 > 0.7
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Earth quake codes of Los Angeles prior V  Ft (Wx H x )

Fi  n
1971, LAC W H
i 1
i i
Ft=0.004( )2V, if (Hn/Ds) <3 Ft=0 and not ≥15%

of base shear
KPF (V  F t ) w i h ik
Fi 
 w i h ik
Building codes serve as to reach to minimum standard, UBC 1997 code is derived based on
structural engineering association of California (SEAOC) recommended guidelines for lateral
force requirements, EC 8- 2004 derivation is so former from Dr-Blume concept still now and it
never include the effect of higher mode on distribution of lateral force similarly IBC 2006 code
include the effect of higher mode in different way from UBC 1997 & IBC 2006 derivation is
based on Federal emergency management agency (FEMA) & national earthquake hazards
reduction program (NEHRP).
Lateral load pattern is dependent on function of mass and fundamental period of the structures.
The fundamental period of structure is highly related to height of the structures from this IBC
2006, UBC 1997, EBCS 8- 1995, LAC & KPF include the effect of higher mode in their
distribution but the case is not in EC 8-2004. The basic difference of codes is the way they use
higher mode like IBC 2006 uses “k” factor, UBC 1997 uses F t if T>0.7, EBCS 8-1995 use Ft at
any time and LAC use Ft if (Hn/Ds)>3 and KPF use Ft and ‘k’ factor to consider higher mode and
the special feature of KPF is it consider ductility condition of structures and its derivation is in
elastically or nonlinearly.
32
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER FOUR:
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. CASE STUDY
4.1.1. Introduction
The seismic response of building structures can be estimated through utilization of a variety of
analysis methods that range from simple equivalent static analysis to complex nonlinear dynamic
analysis. The traditional approach is to employ equivalent static analysis method, while the
current design practice is moving toward an increased emphasis on the nonlinear analysis
method.
This Chapter describes the analysis results of different codes in lateral force distribution and its
effects such as story shear and others on the buildings that have different elevation, regularity
and rigidity.
To handle the comparison, different reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings were
used, that were located on soil type A and seismic zone 4 were selected, and for the specific and
detail study this paper use similar base shear formula based on EC 8-2004 code to calculate the
base shear. And for the calculation of distribution of lateral force, different codes, which were
stated on table 3.1, had been used.
4.1.2. Description of the Case Study

This study focuses on the comparison of 3 configurations of the buildings that are:
1. Moment Resisting Frames (MRF) in regular form
2. Plan Irregular, Elevation Irregular and both Plan and Elevation Irregular(PI,EI,PEI)
3. Moment Resisting Frames +Shear Wall(MRF+SW)
The reason for selecting this configuration were to evaluate the distribution of lateral force with
different configurations by using different codes, for example MRF+SW buildings are stiffer
than MRF buildings and also irregular buildings in most conditions does not have uniform
distribution pattern. So, to observe this difference MRF, irregular and MRF+SW buildings were
used.
33
BY Amelework Y. AAU
And in the analysis, different height were used b/c as explained and discussed in many literatures
consideration of higher mode is necessary for lateral force distribution, and to determine the
necessities of this higher mode the height had great factor. So the comparative analysis was done
by using different heights.
On the MRF regular building, the only difference b/n the selected 5 models was height and cross
section of structures. It was done also on the MRF+SW buildings as briefly described on table 4.1
In MRF+SW, the lift opening is one for all conditions Just because the model had area which
was not much wide.
In the case of both plan and elevation irregular buildings of 7 stories, the lateral load resisting
system (beam & columns) doesn’t run without interruption from foundation to top.
From the dimensional explanation, The buildings were laid out on a rectangular grid with a
typical five 6m bays in the Y-direction, and three 6m bays in the X-direction and irregular
buildings laid on XY grid but have different mass as shown in figure 4-1 & 4-2 . plan view of
plan Irregular and elevation irregular building is stated at the back in the appendix.
The structures are hypothetical and have been chosen for the research purpose. The member
dimensions selected for this analysis were, beam 35cm wide X 35cm deep, 40X40cm, 50X50cm,
columns 40cm, 45cm, 55cm, 60cm & 75cm etc. depending on different conditions the detail is
described in table- 4-1, The slab is 15cm thick.
The comparison procedure for a concrete building, which were located in a seismic area with
0.1g base design acceleration on the soil type A (EC 2004 code), was reported. 0.1g base design
acceleration, soil type “A” and other similar parameters were used during response spectrum
analysis. In doing so, the European Codes were preferred to calculate base shear for all condition
b/c the response spectrum analysis result of lateral force distribution by using all these codes like
(UBC1997, EBCS 8 1995, IBC 2006, …) had similar base shear and the difference is almost less
than 10% during the calculation. Similarly, all the input conditions were similar.
In the comparison, all static analysis methods were done, by considering as the Response
spectrum is reference and real. So, the value which is closed to the RSA is considered as value
that is near to the reality or experimental result.
34
BY Amelework Y. AAU
A
Fig 4.1- 3D and plan view of sample model "A"
fig 4.2- 3D and plan view of sample model "B"
34
BY Amelework Y. AAU
fig 4.3- 3D and plan view of sample model "C"
35
BY Amelework Y. AAU
fig 4.4 - 3D and plan view of sample model "D"

36
BY Amelework Y. AAU
6th floor
E
5th floor
7th floor
37
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4th floor 3rd floor
1st and 2nd floor
fig 4.5 - 3D and plan view of sample model "E"
38
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.1: - Descriptions of selected models

Sample Story Configuration Naming Remark
A 3 MRF(Reg) A-3 Column-40X40cm,Beam-35X35cm
6 MRF(Reg) A-6 Column-45X45cm,Beam-40X40cm
10 MRF(Reg) A-10 Col-50X50cm,Beam-40X40cm for 5 upper floors
Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 lower floors
15 MRF(Reg) A-15 Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 upper parts
20 MRF(Reg) A-20 Col-70X70cm,Beam-50X50cm for 10 upper floors
B 6 MRF+SW B-6 Column-45X45cm,Beam-40X40cm & wall thickness
20cm
15 MRF+SW B-15 Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 upper parts
Col-75X75cm,Beam-50X50cm for 5 lower floors, and
25cm wall thickness
20 MRF+SW B-20 Col-60X60cm,Beam-50X50cm for 10 upper floors
Col-80X80cm,Beam-50X50cm for 10 lower floors, and
25cm wall thickness
C 6 P-Irr C-6 Column-45X45cm,Beam-40X40cm
15 P-Irr C-15 Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 upper parts
D 6 E-Irr D-6 Column-45X45cm,Beam-40X40cm
15 E-Irr D-15 Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 upper parts
E 7 P&E-Irr E-7 Column-40X40cm,Beam-40X40cm
Column-40X40cm,Beam-40X40cm
Column-45X45cm,Beam-40X40cm in irregular pattern
15 P&E-Irr E-15 Col-60X60cm,Beam-45X45cm for 5 upper parts
39
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4.1.2.1. Moment Resisting Frame (MRF)

In table 4-1.“A” represent name of models and numbers represent the number of story e.g. A-3
represent model “A” having of three stories. model “A” were regular MRF model, which were
used to compare distribution of lateral forces by varying height or story of buildings which is
from story 3 to 20 with constant floor height 3m per floor. In the case of distribution of lateral
force height have great factor, due to this some codes allow additional force at top when the
height of the building increases (UBC 1997) and other codes allow quadratic distribution of
lateral force when the height of building increases (IBC 2006) and others, then from this paper
different elevation were used to show the distribution by different codes.
The selected height in this thesis paper was under the acceptable limit of different codes like for
regular moment resisting frames different codes allow the following height like
(UBC=73m, EBCS=80m and others), so the range is b/n all this, even some code allow for 80m
some others use only for 40m for that matter the selected elevation should have been on average
range of them during the comparing.
4.1.2.2. Moment Resisting Frame & Shear Wall (MRF+SW)
“B” represent name of models and numbers represent the number of story e.g. B-6 represents
model “B” having of six stories.
This comparing done by increasing the elevation only it never includes the positioning of Wall or
the Wall is placed at the center throughout the analysis.
And the height was b/n the range of 18m-60m b/c in many codes there is no brief explanation on
height limitation for the MRF+SW buildings, from that the paper accepts the limitations of
height in MRF that was stated in case “A”.
Even 80m was our maximum height based on EBCS 8-1995 for the case of other codes our
maximum height was below that so it is better to use 60m in the analysis and comparing.
40
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4.1.2.3. Irregular structures (P-Irr & E-Irr)

“C” represent name of models and numbers represent the number of story e.g. C-6 represents
model “C” having of six stories. Torsion irregularity, mass irregularity and other conditions were
considered in UBC 1997 and IBC 2006 for static analysis in plan. similarly “D” represent name
of models and numbers represent the number of story eg. D-6 represents model “D” having of
six stories. Both irregularity in UBC 1997 and IBC 2006 considered week story, which means
the story strength is less than 80% of that of story above it and the mass irregularity is being
considered to exist where the effective mass of any story is more than 150% of the effective
mass of adjacent story. So the irregularity of the elevation satisfy this idea, Other condition is
similar to case “C” generally this assessment consider the irregularity of models as per code
standard.
4.1.2.4. Both Irregular structures (P&E-Irr)
“E” represent name of models and numbers represent the number of story eg. E-7 represents
model “E” having of seven stories. In the code of EBCS 8-1995 and EC8-2004 there is no
recommendation for both plan and elevation irregularity in static analysis, but the other codes
accept this analysis that is why the analysis includes this.
4.1.3. Base Shear calculation

According to EC 8-2004, the seismic base shear force, Fb for each horizontal direction in which
the building is analyzed, shall be determined using the following expression:
Fb = Sd(T1)*m
Where Sd (T1) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1; T1 is the fundamental period of
vibration of the building for lateral motion in the direction considered; W is the total weight of
the building, above the foundation level; g is the gravity acceleration;
41
BY Amelework Y. AAU
γ is the importance factor of the building; and λ is the effective modal mass correction factor, the
value of which is equal to λ = 0.85 for T ≤ 2 T c and n> 2 stories, where Tc is the upper limit of
the period of the constant
spectral acceleration branch and n is the number of stories.
The value of the fundamental period of vibration, T, is determined using the following
expression:
T  C t H 3 / 4 , Where C t is a factor determined according to the structural system and building
material and is equal to 0.075 in the case of a moment-resistant space concrete frame, and H is
the height of the building (m), from the foundation or from the top of a rigid basement. The
ordinate of the design spectrum, S d (T1 ) , can be determined from S d (T )  agS .(2.5 / q ) * (Tc / T ).
As expressed previously, for this study the base shear is being similar for each building
configurations, and it is calculated by using the European Code standards,
Table 4.2: - Parameters that are selected for base shear

CODE EURO g 0.1 Tb 0.15
soil type A S 1 Tc 0.4
Zone 4.00 I 1 Td 2
q® 2.5 T V varies as Ht varies
Lateral force determination Fb  S d (T1 )m , Tc  T  Td . From this, get
S d (T )  agS .(2.5 / q ) * (Tc / T )

Thus, by using the previous formulas and inputs, the base shear for each condition were
calculated.
42
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4.2. Results and Discussion

4.2.1. Introduction
This study aims to evaluate and compare the static load analysis methods of different codes and
formulas that were stated in table 3.1, their approach to the RSA or to the dynamic analysis
methods, and similarly the effects of different configuration on the lateral force distribution were
evaluated.
4.2.2. Lateral Forces Distribution (Vertical Distribution of Forces)
In the case of MRF buildings, the distribution of lateral forces on the building heights increases
regularly. And for P-Irr, E-Irr and P&E-Irr buildings, the distribution is not regular and formal.
In the case of MRF+SW buildings, the distribution is similar to MRF buildings which is regular
and that almost all the values are on their increasing orders.
N.B….[the analysis for distribution and shear etc. was done by using each models, in distribution
of lateral forces in MRF 3, 6, 10, 15, & 20 story & in P-Irr, E-Irr and P&E-Irr for 6,7, &15 story
and in MRF+SW building 6,15, & 20 story buildings, totally detail analysis was done for all the
11 models but for discussion the results of highly elevated models were selected, rather than
presenting all figures this paper use some samples in this portion and discussed about all but at
the back page in Appendix all data’s are presented]
N.B. "%" sign indicates the percentage difference of each Value with respect to that of RSA, and
KPF represents Kyungha Park formulas and LAC represents Los-Angeles Code.
43
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.3: - Vertical distribution of lateral forces according to different codes for MRF 20 story
building
Story EBCS EC UBC IBC KPF LAC RSA
20 317.7 166.6 317.7 213.3 196 228.5 276.26
19 147.4 160.2 147.4 197.3 182 156.5 234.16
18 141.3 153.3 141.3 183.3 169 150.5 153.09
17 135.1 136.5 135.1 168.3 156 143.5 134.08
16 129 125 129 154.3 144 136.5 128.51
15 122.8 121.5 122.8 141.3 133 130.8 122.97
14 116.7 118 116.7 129.3 121 123.5 117.46
13 109.7 118.6 109.7 117.3 111 117.5 111.53
12 103.7 111.6 103.7 105.3 101 110.5 107.16
11 98.3 104.8 98.3 95.6 91.8 104.3 102.64
10 92.1 97.9 92.1 85.6 82.9 97.7 92.36
9 86 91 86 76.3 74.7 91.1 83.31
8 79.9 84 79.9 67.7 67.1 84.5 79.09
7 73.7 77.1 73.7 59.9 60.1 77.8 76.27
6 67.6 70.2 67.6 52.8 53.8 71.2 77.07
5 61.4 63.2 61.4 46.5 48.2 64.6 67.86
4 50.3 51.4 50.3 24 56.3 38.4 53
3 39.1 39.4 39.1 23 47.43 29.4 41.4
2 23 22.5 23 15 33.5 16.2 24.7
1 5.5 4 5.5 6 10 3.6 6.6
44
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.4: - the percentage difference of each Value which was presented in table 4.3 with
respect to that of RSA
story % of EBCS % of EC to % of IBC % of UBC % of KPF % of LAC
to RSA RSA to RSA to RSA to RSA to RSA
20 13 39.7 22.8 13 29.1 17.3
19 37.1 31.6 15.7 37.1 22.3 33.2
18 7.7 0.1 16.5 7.7 9.4 1.7
17 0.8 8.4 20.3 0.8 14.1 6.6
16 0.4 7.8 16.7 0.4 10.8 5.9
15 0.1 7.2 13.0 0.1 7.5 6.0
14 0.6 6.5 9.2 0.6 2.9 4.9
13 1.6 6.0 4.9 1.6 0.5 5.1
12 3.2 4.0 1.7 3.2 5.7 3.0
11 4.2 2.1 6.9 4.2 10.6 1.6
10 0.3 5.7 7.3 0.3 10.2 5.5
9 3.1 8.5 8.4 3.1 10.3 8.6
8 1.0 5.8 14.4 1.0 15.2 6.4
7 3.4 1.1 21.5 3.4 21.2 2.0
6 12.3 8.9 31.5 12.3 30.2 7.6
5 9.5 6.9 31.5 9.5 29.0 4.8
4 5.1 3.0 54.7 5.1 5.9 27.5
3 5.6 4.8 44.4 5.6 12.7 29.0
2 6.9 8.9 39.3 6.9 26.3 34.4
1 16.7 39.4 9.1 16.7 34.0 45.5
Mean 6.6 7.3 19.5 6.6 15.4 12.8
St.Dev 8.59 10.82 14.2 8.59 10.0 13.32
Max % diff 37.1 39.7 54.7 37.1 34.0 45.5
Min % diff 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.5 1.6
45
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.5: - Vertical distribution of lateral forces according to different codes for MRF+SW 20
story building
Story Height EBCS EC IBC RSA KPF LAC

20.0 60.0 208.61 140.83 164.24 194 153.31 173.43
19.0 57.0 162.00 135.67 152.94 174.3 142.93 121.60
18.0 54.0 132.00 130.40 142.6 138.8 132.50 116.72
17.0 51.0 121.00 125.40 131.2 125 123.80 111.89
16.0 48.0 113.00 115.60 121.4 115.5 114.24 107.08
15.0 45.0 99.47 107.62 112.01 102.00 105.34 102.26
14.0 42.0 94.40 100.58 102.87 95.00 96.64 97.44
13.0 39.0 90.12 94.34 94.18 88.00 88.97 92.40
12.0 36.0 85.58 90.50 85.96 83.00 81.41 87.54
11.0 33.0 80.40 85.45 78.21 78.00 74.29 82.99
10.0 30.0 76.31 80.41 70.95 74.00 77.62 78.17
9.0 27.0 71.68 75.34 64.19 69.00 61.41 73.36
8.0 24.0 67.05 65.33 57.95 64.00 55.67 68.54
7.0 21.0 62.30 65.29 52.4 60.00 50.76 63.72
6.0 18.0 57.79 60.25 47.07 57.00 45.64 58.90
5.0 15.0 53.16 55.21 42.49 55.00 41.40 54.09
4.0 12.0 48.52 50.17 38.45 51.00 37.83 49.50
3.0 9.0 33.89 35.12 25.20926 29.00 24.50 34.45
2.0 6.0 19.26 20.08 12.60132 21.00 12.39 19.63
1.0 3.0 8.46 8.77 5.482556 9.00 5.44 8.60
Table 4.5.1: - comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF 20 story building
Code EBCS EC UBC IBC KPF LAC RSA

Mb 81,657.00 75,251.10 81,655.70 83,003.10 78,590.67 79,839.90 85,359.42
%age diff 4.33 11.84 4.33 2.76 7.92 6.46
46
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.5.2: - comparison of base moment for different codes of MRF+SW 20 story building
Codes EBCS EC IBC UBC KPF LAC RSA
Mb 68,171.34 64,356.26 66,118.06 68,171.34 62,545.63 62,902.11 68,319.30

0.22 5.80 3.22 0.22 6.45 6.92
%age diff
Table 4.5.3: - comparison of base moment for different codes of plan Irregular 15 story building.
Codes EBCS EC IBC UBC KPF RSA
Mb 39,815.6 42,834.7 40,418.8 39,815.6 36,732.0 39,465.3

0.89 7.86 2.36 0.89 7.4
%age diff
Table 4.5.4:-comparison of top story displacement for different codes of MRF regular 20 story
building.
Codes EBCS EC IBC UBC LAC KPF RSA

Max dis 0.0623 0.0489 0.054 0.0623 0.057 0.0571 0.047
24.55 3.88 12.96 24.55 17.54 17.68
%age diff
Table 4.5.5: - comparison of top story displacement for different codes of MRF +SW regular 20
story building.
Max dis 0.022 0.024 0.02 0.022 0.022 0.0216 0.023
4.34 4.33 4.3 4.34 4.34 6.08
%age diff
Table 4.5.6:-comparison of top story displacement for different codes of P-Irregular 15 story
building.
Max dis 0.0321 0.032 0.033 0.032 0.028 0.0319 0.0344
6.68 6.55 4.06 6.97 18.60 7.26
%age diff
47
BY Amelework Y. AAU
25
20
15
ebcs
ec
story
ibc
rsa
10 kyunga
1971
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Lateral Force Distribution
Fig. 4.6- Lateral force distribution for MRF 20 story buildings
48
BY Amelework Y. AAU
49
Table 4.6:- Summary of mean, S.D, Max & Min difference of each code to RSA for MRF+SW
20 story Buildings
% of EBCS % of EC to % of IBC to % of UBC % of KPF to % of LAC
to RSA RSA RSA to RSA RSA to RSA
Mean 4.5 5.4 12.8 4.5 13.4 7.6
St.deviation 3.06 5.20 11.18 3.06 12.40 6.74
Max %
difference 14.4 27.4 40.0 14.4 41.0 30.2
Min %
difference 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.3
Table 4.7:-Summary of mean, S.D, Max & Min difference of each code to RSA for Irr 15 story
Buildings
% of % of EC to % of IBC to % of UBC to % of KPF to
EBCS to RSA and RSA RSA RSA
RSA LAC
Mean 11.7 10.2 18.3 3.5 20.8
St.Dev 10.75 10.79 18.34 1.81 20.44
Max % difference 40.1 34.5 67.1 7.1 70.1
Min % difference 0.5 1.9 1.3 0.6 2.0
BY Amelework Y. AAU
25.00
20.00
15.00
ebcs
ec
ibc
story
rsa
kyunga
10.00
1971
5.00
0.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Lateral force Distribution
Fig. 4.7- Lateral force distribution for MRF +SW +20 story buildings
50
BY Amelework Y. AAU
16
14
12
10
EBCS &UBC
EC
8
IBC
RSA
story
Kyunga
6
0
0 50 100 150 200
Lateral force distribution
Fig. 4.8- Lateral force distribution for IRR 15 story buildings
51
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4.3. Lateral force distribution on each configuration
The analysis result from table 4.3-4.5 and described figures from Fig 4.1-Fig 4.3 explain the
distribution of lateral force for MRF, MRF+SW, and IRR buildings which indicates that the
average difference of EBCS 8-1995, UBC 1997, EC 8- 2004 & LAC, codes from RSA is almost
on comparable range. From these four codes EBCS 8- 1995 and UBC 1997 have a little bit better
similarity regarding their approach to RSA.
EBCS 8-1995, UBC 1997 & LAC, codes have similar higher mode consideration in elevated
structures which is linear distribution of lateral force by adding additional force at top and on
other approach the EC 8- 2004 code has flexural mode of failure like other codes but this code
never consider higher mode and it has still the distribution method of 1934 which is linear with-
out consideration of higher modes.
On the other hand even EC 8-2004 has somewhat greater percentage difference to RSA than
EBCS 8-1995 and UBC 1997 however, its percentage difference of standard deviation and
maximum difference are minimum with respect RSA than others.
The static lateral force distribution of IBC 2006 and KPF to RSA are in a noticeable difference
or gap, when compared to other codes.
Here when the irregularity of building increases the gap b/n codes and RSA increases and using
static analysis for design is difficult to get qualitative result.
Actually the gap b/n each code is minimum and it was difficult to say one code is constantly
preferable or has a lesser amount of mean percentage difference to RSA than others but as can be
seen from previously stated tables particularly for the three different configurations models
analyzed in this chapter EBCS 8-1995 and UBC 1997 are preferable. However, this result may
not be consistent depending on the comparing approach used other than mean percentage
differences.
In general for the three configurations of buildings having comparing approach of mean
percentage difference to RSA, the linear approach of distribution which includes additional force
at top is being more preferable.
52
BY Amelework Y. AAU
As seen the graphs in detail, when the models are divided by 5 floors interval it will be easy to
visualize the non-consistency results, for example in MRF buildings having of 20 story when it is
divided by five intervals we get 4 parts, then it is easy to see the code which approach to RSA
with in this four parts in one model, the result shows variation of approach through-out the floors
which was minimum difference to RSA occur for 5 lower parts of the building in EC 8-1995
codes, and from 5 to upper some other codes take the advantage but after all that the EBCS 8-
1995 and UBC 1997 codes get the approach so due to this non uniform result it is difficult to
decide which code is more preferable constantly but from average view EBCS 8-1995 and UBC
1997 codes and EC 8-2004 are more preferable than others.
4.4. Lateral force distribution on Height
From table 4.6 - 4.7 & 4.8-4.10 for all MRF, MRF+SW, and IRR structures the percentage
difference on each story increases when the height of story increases. For Buildings having less
than six story the mean percentage difference of EBCS 8-1995 code is lesser than the other
codes. At this story level all the other codes analyzed in this thesis paper are similar and their
mean percentage difference to RSA is a bit greater than EBCS 8-1995.
But when the height of building increases EBCS 8-1995, EC 8-2004, UBC 1997 and LAC codes
have minimum difference than the rest.
For low rise buildings EBCS 8-1995 is preferable and advisable in static analysis, and when the
height of building increases EBCS 8-1995 and UBC 1997 codes showed better results. But LAC
code has similar character to EC 8-1995 up to some extent after achieving this requirement in
high rise building this code (LAC) tends to show total similarity to EBCS 8-1995 and UBC
1997. The gap of IBC 2006 and KPF to RSA are noticeable, when compared to other codes.
53
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.8:- The Mean and Standard deviation of percentage difference from codes to RSA for
MRF buildings of having different elevation
Codes
Model
(Naming) Value EBCS EC IBC UBC LAC KPF
9.94 9.10 11.92 9.10 9.10 11.94
Mean
8.29 5.71 5.50 5.71 5.71 8.57
St.D
Max % 20.54 18.05 17.14 18.05 18.05 19.70
A-6
difference
Min % 1.70 2.94 2.95 2.94 2.94 1.69
difference
10.87 10.09 16.16 10.87 10.87 18.98
Mean
11.00 9.89 17.34 11.00 11.00 18.36
St.D
Max % 37.19 32.65 59.43 37.19 37.19 62.16
A-10
difference
Min% 1.77 1.10 3.05 1.77 1.77 1.58
difference
14.2 16.5 21.1 14.2 16.5 21.7
Mean
9.79 8.10 17.53 9.79 8.10 19.17
St.D
Max % 36.1 31.9 78.8 36.1 31.9 80.8
A-15
difference
Min % 1.4 5.4 2.8 1.4 5.4 0.1
difference
A-20 6.6 7.3 19.5 6.6 15.4 12.8
Mean
8.59 11.82 14.20 8.59 10.00 13.32
St.D
Min % 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.5 1.6
difference
Max % 37.1 39.7 54.7 37.1 34.0 45.5
difference
53
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.9:-The Mean and Standard deviation of percentage difference from codes to RSA of
MRF+SW buildings of having different elevation
Codes
model Value EBCS EC IBC UBC LAC KPF
8.94 7.8 11.45 7.8 11.45 9.99
Mean
12.75 12.95 13.93 12.95 13.93 13.09
St.D
Max % 37.37 38.85 40.63 38.85 40.63 41.40
B-6 difference
Min % 1.68 0.88 0.79 0.88 0.79 1.28
difference
19.2 15.2 24.1 19.2 15.2 29.3
Mean
12.55 10.89 26.97 12.55 10.89 26.05
St.D
Max % 43.7 38.0 81.7 43.7 38.0 83.3
B-15 difference
Min % 3.1 2.7 1.0 3.1 2.7 4.5
difference
4.5 6.4 12.8 4.5 13.4 7.6
Mean
3.06 7.20 11.18 3.06 12.40 6.74
St.D
Max % 14.4 27.4 40.0 14.4 41.0 30.2
B-20 difference
Min% 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.3
difference
54
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Table 4.10:- The Mean and Standard deviation of percentage difference from codes to RSA of
Irregular model C buildings of having different elevation
Codes
model Value EBCS EC IBC UBC LAC KPF
Mean 7.56 7.91 9.35 7.91 7.91 9.53
St.D 10.56 10.40 10.23 10.40 10.40 12.09
Max %
C-6 difference 27.27 23.30 22.55 23.30 23.30 25.77
Min % 0.17 1.03 1.28 1.03 1.03 0.38

difference
Mean 11.7 10.2 18.3 11.7 20.8 11.7
St.D 10.75 10.79 18.34 10.75 20.44 10.75
Max %
C-15 difference 40.1 34.5 67.1 40.1 70.1 40.1
Min % 0.5 1.9 1.3 0.5 2.0 0.5

difference
Mean 18.9 18.3 7.7 18.9 18.3 13.3
St.D 7.98 9.75 6.05 7.98 9.75 10.88
Max %
E-7 difference 31.5 29.0 16.9 31.5 29.0 27.1
Min % 7.6 2.0 1.2 7.6 2.0 2.2

difference
mean 23.15 23.18 19.2 23.15 23.18 27.52
St.D 10.96 11.77 14.44 10.95 11.77 14.21
Max %
diff 46.53 49.86 52.97 46.53 49.86 50.06
Min %
E-15 dff 0.5 2.94 1.57 .5 2.94 1.29
55
BY Amelework Y. AAU
In irregular cases for plan or elevation irregularity the result is similar to MRF and MRF+SW
which were described before.
But in both plan and elevation irregular case the results show fluctuation such an examples is a 7
story building analyzed. During this analysis IBC and KPF codes had better approach to RSA but
in 15 story building the result is changed, actually EBCS 8-1995 and EC 8-2004 codes never
accept static analysis for both plan and elevation irregularity of buildings and UBC 1997 & IBC
2006 code allow this with some restriction of height for the case of discussion used 15 story
buildings which is out of height limit for static analysis, and its result indicate UBC 1997, LAC ,
EBCS 8-1995 and EC 8-2004 had less average % difference to RSA than IBC 2006 and KPF.
4.5. Base moment
The analysis result from table 4.5.1-4.5.3 explain base moment with respect to RSA of each code
for MRF, MRF+SW, and IRR buildings. In MRF buildings the percentage difference of EBCS
8-1995, UBC and IBC 2006 codes are less than five percent and the others EC8-2004, LAC and
KPF codes have a difference from RSA which is greater than five percent. so that form these
codes IBC 2006 code have a litter bit better similarity regarding their approach to RSA.
similarly for MRF+SW buildings the percentage difference of EBCS 8-1995, UBC 1997 and
IBC 2006 codes are less than five percent and the others EC8-2004, LAC and KPF codes have a
difference from RSA which is greater than five percent. so that form these codes EBCS 8-1995
and UBC 1997 code have a litter bit better similarity regarding their approach to RSA and their
difference and for plan irregular buildings the percentage difference of EBCS 8-1995, UBC
1997 and IBC 2006 codes are less than five percent and the others EC8-2004, LAC and KPF
codes have a difference from RSA which is greater than five percent. so that form these codes
EBCS 8-1995, IBC 2006 and UBC 1997 code have a litter bit better similarity regarding their
approach to RSA.
56
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4.6. top story displacement
The analysis result from table 4.5.4-4.5.6 explain top story shear with respect to RSA of each
code for MRF, MRF+SW, and IRR buildings. In MRF buildings the percentage difference of
EBCS 8-1995, UBC 1997, LAC, KPF and IBC 2006 codes are greater than ten percent, on other
side EC8-2004 code has a difference from RSA which is too much less than five percent. so
that form all these codes EC8-2004 code have better similarity regarding their approach to RSA.
When we come to MRF+SW all codes shows similar result to RSA and difference of each other
is almost similar. For the case of P-Irr buildings except LAC all other codes have less than seven
percent difference to RSA.
In this case the special thing is that EC8-2004 have good approach with regard to RSA and less
displacement value than other codes this shows that the code is preferable than other.
4.7. Summary
The major objective of the study is to assess the background of lateral distribution of force and
compare distribution of lateral force on different codes with respect to RSA hence for the
simplicity of discussion this paper divide the results found from the analysis based on height and
configuration.
For low rise MRF(model A) and MRF+SW(model B) buildings the mean percentage difference,
percentage Standard Deviation difference and maximum percentage difference of EBCS 8-1995
was convergent to RSA than other code. And when the elevation increases EBCS 8-1995, UBC
1997, EC 8-2004 and LAC does not have significant difference to RSA. But percentage
Standard Deviation difference and maximum percentage difference of IBC 2006 for low rise
building, EC 8-2004 and LAC for intermediate buildings and EC 8-2004 for high rise buildings
are less than EBCS 8-1995 when compared, this non consistent result make the judgment
difficult to say specific one code is better than other, actually almost all codes are similar and
the gap was not significant, for the case of comparing some codes had less percentage Standard
57
BY Amelework Y. AAU
Deviation difference and maximum percentage difference to RSA than other but the standard
deviation shows the rate of fragmentation of that code with respect to RSA from the center mean
value similarly maximum percentage difference to RSA of some codes is non-divergent but this
condition exist at one point and our discussion concentrate on the general building system for
that matter it is better to use the results of mean percentage difference value. To visualize the
different with height it is better to see Figures presented on APPENDIX and above from that on
the case of configurations listed above and low rise buildings EBCS 8-1995 is convergent to
RSA and when the height increases EBCS 8-1995, UBC 1997,EC 8-2004 and LAC being
preferable.
For low rise plan or elevation Irregular buildings(model C,D,E) the mean percentage difference,
Standard Deviation difference and maximum difference of EBCS 8-1995 is congregate to RSA.
And when the elevation increases mean percentage difference of EC 8-2004, EBCS 8-1995 and
UBC 1997 were non-considerable than others.
Similarly percentage Standard Deviation difference and maximum difference of EBCS 8-1995
and UBC 1997 are less than other codes when compared, but when the irregularity is being on
plan and elevation together the result cannot be reserved see the appendix and figures above like
for seven story highly irregular building IBC 2006 is preferable and for 15 story EBCS 8-1995,
EC 8-2004 and UBC 1997 are preferable.
For the case of both height and plan irregularity EBCS 8-1995 and EC 8-2004 codes never
accept simple static analysis but the rest UBC 1997 and IBC 2006 codes allow this analysis with
height limitation, so our 15 story is out of codes standard and limit when the height increases
IBC 2006 code is not preferable but within the range the IBC 2006 code can be preferable.
58
BY Amelework Y. AAU
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
This study tried to show the different outputs of the distribution of lateral forces in the EC8-
2004, EBCS8-1995, UBC 1997, IBC 2006, and other unpublished formulas. The differences
were especially due to consideration of higher mode while using the first mode during
distribution of lateral forces. Besides, some codes consider the higher mode and that; the
difference arises from the natural period of vibration to start the higher mode consideration and
ways of expression to use the higher mode (like straight or curved distribution). These
differences finally lead to major differences in the distribution and its effects. In the equivalent
lateral forces analysis, the basic differences among the given codes were on consideration of
higher mode and the effect of distribution of lateral force.
In general as explained in previous chapters all codes show their own response and reactions for
different conditions of buildings.
A. In all three different structures namely MRF(model A), MRF+SW(model B) and
IRR(models C,D,E) structures the lateral force distribution analyzed by using different codes
showed insignificant difference of codes to each other and when compared with respect to
RSA. due to this negligible difference and corresponding inconsistency it is found to be
difficult to judge which codes are better; which mean which code results more closer result to
RSA.
B. Regarding base moment the results for three types of structures(models A,B,C,D,E) using
different codes and when compared with RSA showed two response categories; in the first
part, the analysis result gaps from RSA are less than three percent; the codes which falls in
this part are IBC 2006, UBC 1997 & EBCS 8-1995. and on the second part the analysis
results are far by more than five percent the codes which fall in this parts are LAC,KPF and
EC8-2004. From this it can be concluded that codes in part one have good approach to RSA
than others.
59
BY Amelework Y. AAU
C. Based on top story displacement the analysis result for all three types of structures(models
A,B,C,D,E) showed better response when EC8-2004 and other codes used are compared. For
this code (EC8-2004) the result gap observed is less than five percent; whereas for the
remaining codes the result gap observed is relatively higher which is greater than five percent
with respect to RSA results.
60
BY Amelework Y. AAU
5.2 Recommendation
 Further studies on the application of the equivalent linear force methods for structures
with irregularities such as mass distribution & other irregular buildings which is not included
in this thesis .
 Further studies comparison of other conditions like natural period, base shear and others
should be encouraged.
 Further studies on more number of models and more complex structures

 Further studies on different case comparison that is supported by experimental
investigation
61
BY Amelework Y. AAU
APPENDEX - A
Plan view of plan irregular and elevation irregular buildings on different floors
62
BY Amelework Y. AAU
APPENDEX B
The summary figure of all condition of analysis is presented here, all lateral force distribution
patterns have increasing order from lower to upper level of floor but the difference is in some
configurations especially in irregular models the distribution is not uniform.
4 ebcs
ubc&EC
story
ibc
3 rsa
Kyunga
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

Fig. B.1 Lateral force distribution for MRF+6 story buildings
63
BY Amelework Y. AAU
12
10
EBCS&UBC
EC
6
IBC
RSA
Kyunga
Story
0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Lateral force distribution
Fig. B.2 Lateral force distribution for MRF+10 story buildings 64
BY Amelework Y. AAU
16
14
12
10
EBCS
EC
8
IBC
RSA
Story
Kyunga
6
0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
Fig. B.3 Lateral force distribution for MRF+15 story buildings

65
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4
Ebcs
UBC & EC
Ibc
RSA
3
Kyunga
Story
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Fig. B.4 Lateral force distribution for MRF+SW+6 story buildings 66
BY Amelework Y. AAU
16
14
12
10
ebcs &ubc
ec & 1971
8
ibc
rsa
Story
Kyunga
6
0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Fig. B.5 Lateral force distribution for MRF+SW+15 story buildings
67
BY Amelework Y. AAU
4
EBCS
UBC,EC,1971L
Story
IBC
RSA
3
Kyunga
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Fig. B.6 Lateral force distribution for IRRG + 6 story buildings
68
BY Amelework Y. AAU
6
Story
EBCS
UBC,EC,1971L 19.3
4
IBC
RSA
Kyunga
3
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fig. B.7 Lateral force distribution for IRRG +7 story buildings

69
BY Amelework Y. AAU
16
14
12
Story
10
EBCS &UBC
EC
8
IBC
RSA
Kyunga
6
0
0 50 100 150 200
Fig. B.8 Lateral force distribution for IRRG +15 story buildings
70
BY Amelework Y. AAU
References
[1] M.A. Noor.; M.A. Ansary.; and S.M. Seraj., Criticsl Evaluation and Comparison of
Different Sesmic Code Provision, Vol.CE,25,No.1,1997.
[2] Dr. S.V. Itti.; Prof. Abhishek Pathade.; and Ramesh B. Karadi, A Comparative Study on
Seismic Provisions made in indian and international Building Codes for RC Buildings.
[3] Asrat Worku.; Comparison of Seismic Proisions of EBCS 8,1995 and Current Major
Building codes pertinent to the equivalent static force analysis Journal of EAEA, Vol.
18,2001.
[4] Background of Seismic Codes and Performance Expectations.; PEER Tall Buildings
Initiative—Task 2 Workshop April 18, 2007.
[5] Asrat Worku.; Recent developments in the definition of design earthquake Ground
motions Calling for a revision of the current Ethiopian seismic code - EBCS 8: 1995
Journal of EEA, Vol. 28, 2011.
[6] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for

Earthquake Resistance of Structures, EN 1998-1: April 2004.
[7] N.M. Newmark.; and W.J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Augest 12, 1982.
[8] International Code Council, Inc. (ICC), 2009 International Building Code, February 2009.
[9] http://www.csiberkeley.com/Tech_Info/15.pdf, last accessed date, January 1, 2005.
[10] Sharon Lee Wood.; Experiments to study the earth quake response of reinforced
concrete frames with setbacks, PhD Thesis, Dec. 1985
[11] P. Bisch.; E. Carvalho.; H. Degee.; P. Fajfar.; M. Fardis.; P. Franchin.; Worked examples

presented at the Workshop “EC 8: Seismic Design of Buildings”, Lisbon, 10-11
Feb. 2011
71
BY Amelework Y. AAU
[12] John A. Blume.; and R.W. Bitnder, Periods of a modern Multi story office building
Chapter 11 Proc World Conf. on earthquake Engineering, June 1958.
[13] T.P. Tung and N.M. Newmark , Numerical Analysis of earthquake response of a Tall
Building , bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.45, No.4, October
1995, pp.269-278.
[14] Oscar a. Lopez.; & miguel cruz', number of modes for the seismic design of buildings
earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, vol. 25,837 855 (1996).
[15] Anil K. Chopra,1 M. ASCE and Ernesto F. Cruz,2 A. M. ASCE, evaluation of building
code formulas for earthquake forces Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 8,
August, 1986.
[16] Y. Deguchi.; T. Kawashima.; M. Yamanari.; and K. Ogawa, seismic design load

distribution in steel frame, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
[17] Kyungha Park.; lateral load patterns for the conceptual seismic design of moment-
resisting frame structures ,Augest 2007
[18] R. park.; review of code development for earthquake resistant design of concrete
structures in new zearland , October 1981
[19] F.CRUZ.; & Anil K chopra Evolution of an improved code type procedure for
preliminary design, Augest 2,1988
72
BY Amelework Y. AAU
BY Amelework Y. AAU

Assessment of The Effects of Equivalent Lateral Forces by Using Different International Building Codes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Assessment of The Effects of Equivalent Lateral Forces by Using Different International Building Codes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Assessment of The Effects of Equivalent Lateral Forces by Using Different International Building Codes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment Of The Effects Of Equivalent Lateral Forces By Using

Different International Building Codes.

Assessment of the Effects of Equivalent

Advisor: Dr.-Ing. Adil Zekaria

Table of Contents Content Page

List of Figures Content Page

Fig. 2.1 Relative shears distribution over height of building. 16

List of Tables Content Page

Symbols and Notations

Vtot= total seismic storey shear

Place: Addis Ababa University

Dr Girma Zereyouhanse Internal examiner

Dr Esayas G/Youhannes External Examiner

Dr Agizew Nigussie Chairman

Dr Aberham Gebre A/ Graduate post graduate Director

1.2 Organization of the study

1.3 Statement of The Problem

1.4 Objective Of Study

1.6 Scope of the study

1.7 Significances of the Study

2. HISTORICAL BACK GROUND STUDY OF EQUIVALENT STATIC

2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SEISMIC PROVISION

1st static condition Equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis,

2nd under dynamic analysis procedure

2.1) Dynamic response spectrum analysis (RSA),

2.2) Dynamic response History Analysis (RHS) and

2.3) Non linear Analysis.

2.2.1. Definitions of Equivalent Lateral Force

2.2.2. Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Method

2.3. Some of acceptable forms of ELF analysis procedures.

T  C t H 3 / 4 , Ct = regression coefficient and H =height of building, which is first appeared in the

2.4. Literature Review

Fig. 2.1 - Relative shears distribution over height of building.

5. Clough, R. W., "Earthquake Analysis by Response Spectrum Superposition &," Bulletin

b) Inverted triangular distribution of seismic coefficient ( Vb )

d) Distribution of higher mode effect of flexural structure ( Vd )

Ft  0.15V ……………………………….............................................................................. [2.7]

Kyunga Park Formula (KPF)

3.1.1. Dynamic Analysis & distribution of lateral force

Statically distribution of lateral load was expressed as F jn  n m j jn An …………............. ... .[3.2]

M n*  n Lhn = ( Lhn ) 2 / M n ……………………………………………………………….............[3.3]

by inserting eq[3.1] in eq[3.2] we get eq[3.6]

by substituting eq[3.4] and eq[3.5] into eq[3.3] and to eq[3.6] we get

function of  jn  h j / L , and depending on different conditions when h j =height at j floor

3.2. Comparing of the parameters in code provisions

3.2.2. “k” value

CODES Distribution Of Lateral Forces

Earth quake codes of Los Angeles prior V  Ft (Wx H x )

Ft=0.004( )2V, if (Hn/Ds) <3 Ft=0 and not ≥15%

4.1.2. Description of the Case Study

fig 4.2- 3D and plan view of sample model "B"

fig 4.3- 3D and plan view of sample model "C"

fig 4.4 - 3D and plan view of sample model "D"

4th floor 3rd floor

1st and 2nd floor

fig 4.5 - 3D and plan view of sample model "E"

Table 4.1: - Descriptions of selected models

4.1.2.1. Moment Resisting Frame (MRF)