74  M.S.

Williams

S E C TI O N P L A N
A B C D E F
15
B C D E
14
8
13
7
12
6
11
5

7 x 3.5
4 10
y
3 9

14 x 4.0
A F x
2 8
z
1
7

4.3
x
6

10 8 .5 3 8 .5 10 5

Figure 3.15  Schematic plan and section of example building

1

Figure 3.16  Isometric view of example building

 Structural analysis  75
3.6.2 Weight and mass calculation

3.6.2.1 Dead load

For this preliminary load estimate, neglect weight of frame elements (resulting
in same weight/mass for steel and concrete frame structures). Assume:
a. 150 mm concrete floor slabs throughout: 0.15 × 24 = 3.6 kN/m2.
b. Outer walls – brick/block cavity wall, each 100 mm thick, 12 mm plaster
on inside face:
• brick: 0.1 × 18 = 1.8;
• block: 0.1 × 12 = 1.2;
• plaster: 0.012 × 21 = 0.25;
• total = 3.25 kN/m2.
c. Internal walls – single leaf 100 mm blockwork, plastered both sides:
• block: 0.1 × 12 = 1.2;
• plaster: 0.024 × 21 = 0.5;
• total = 1.7 kN/m2.
d. Ground floor perimeter glazing: 0.4 kN/m2.
e. Floor finishes etc: 1.0 kN/m2.

Table 3.1  Dead load calculation

Level Calculation Load Total
(kN) (kN)
8 Slab (56 × 20) × 3.6 4032
Finishes (56 × 20) × 1.0 1120 5152
2–7 Slab (56 × 20) × 3.6 4032
Finishes (56 × 20) × 1.0 1120
Outer walls (2 × (56 + 20) × 3.5) × 3.25 1729
Internal walls (gl 2–14) (26 × 8.5 × 3.5) × 1.7 1315
Internal walls (gl C, D) (2 × 56 × 3.5) × 1.7 666 8862
1 Tower section (gl B–E) As levels 2–7 8862
Slab (gl A–B, E–F) (56 × 20) × 3.6 4032
Finishes (gl A–B, E–F) (56 × 20) × 1.0 1120
External glazing (2 × (56 + 40) × 4.3) × 0.4 330 14344
Total dead load, G 72668
76  M.S. Williams
3.6.2.2 Imposed load

Table 3.2  Imposed load calculation

Level Calculation Load Total
(kN) (kN)
8 Roof (56 × 20) × 2.0 2240 2240
2–7 Corridors ((56 × 3) + (8.5 × 4) + (8.5 × 8)) × 4.0 1080
etc.
Bedrooms ((56 × 20) – 270) × 2.0 1700 2780
1 Tower area As levels 2–7 2780
Roof terrace (56 × 20) × 4.0 4480 7260
Total imposed load, Q 26180

3.6.2.3 Seismic mass

Cl. 3.2.4 states that the masses to be used in a seismic analysis should be
those associated with the load combination:
G + yE,iQ
Take yE,i to be 0.3.
The corresponding building weight is 8208 × 9.81 = 80,522 kN.

3.6.3 Seismic base shear

First, define design response spectrum. Use Type 1 spectrum (for areas of
high seismicity) soil type C. Spectral parameters are (from EC8 Table 3.2):
S = 1.15, TB = 0.2 s, TC = 0.6 s, TD = 2.0 s
The reference peak ground acceleration is agR = 3.0 m/s2. The importance
factor for the building is gI = 1.0, so the design ground acceleration
ag = gI agR = 3.0 m/s2. The resulting design spectrum is shown in Figure 3.17
for q = 1 and q = 4, and design spectral accelerations can also be obtained
from the equations in Cl. 3.2.2.5 of EC8.
The framing type has not yet been considered, so we will calculate base
shear for three possible options:

Table 3.3  Seismic mass calculation

Level G Q G + ψE,iQ Mass
(kN) (kN) (kN) (tonne)
8 5152 2240 5824 593.7
2–7 8862 2780 9696 988.4
1 14344 7260 16522 1684.2
Total seismic mass 8208.3
 Structural analysis  77
10

8
q=1
6
Se (m/ s2)

4
q=4

0
0 1 2 3
Pe ri o d (s)

Figure 3.17  Design spectrum

steel moment-resisting frame (MRF);

concrete moment-resisting frame;
•

dual system (concrete core with either concrete or steel frame).

•
•

The procedure follows EC8 Cl. 4.3.3.2.2.

3.6.3.1 Steel MRF

Estimate natural period, EC8 Equation (4.6): T1 = Ct H 0.75
For steel MRF Ct = 0.085, hence: T1 = 0.085 × 28.80.75
 = 1.06 s
2.5 TC
TC < T1 < TD so EC8 Equation (3.15) applies:   Sd = ag S
q T1
EC8 Table 6.2: assuming ductility class medium (DCM), q = 4
2 .5 0 .6
Therefore: Sd = 3.0 ×1.15 × = 1.22 m/s 2
4 1.06
EC8 Equation (4.5):  Fb = lmSd

In this case T1 < 2 TC so l = 0.85

Therefore:  Fb = 0.85 × 8208 × 1.22

= 8,515 kN

Net horizontal force is 100 × 8,515/80,522 = 10.6% of total building

weight.

3.6.3.2 Concrete MRF

Estimate natural period, EC8 Equation (4.6):  T1 = Ct H 0.75
78  M.S. Williams
For concrete MRF Ct = 0.075, hence:  T1 = 0.075 × 28.80.75 = 0.93 s
2.5 TC
TC < T1 < TD so EC8 Equation (3.15) applies:   Sd = ag S
q T1

EC8 Table 5.1: assuming DCM, q = 3 .0

au
a1
where au is the load factor to cause overall instability due to plastic hinge
formation, and a1 is the load factor at first yield in the structure.
Where these values have not been determined explicitly, for regular
buildings, EC Cl. 5.2.2.2 allows default values of the ratio a u a1 to be
assumed. For our multi-storey, multi-bay frame, a u a1 = 1.3, hence
q = 3 × 1.3 = 3.9.
2 .5 0 .6
Therefore:  Sd = 3.0 ×1.15 × = 1.43 m/s 2
3.9 0.93
EC8 Equation (4.5):  Fb = lmSd
In this case T1 < 2 TC so l = 0.85
Therefore:  Fb = 0.85 × 8028 × 1.43 = 9,954 kN
Net horizontal force is 100 × 9,954/80,522 = 12.4% of total building
weight.

3.6.3.3 Dual system (concrete core with either concrete or steel frame)
Estimate natural period, EC8 Equation (4.6): T1 = Ct H 0.75
For structures other than MRFs, EC8 gives Ct = 0.05, hence:

T1 = 0.05 × 28.80.75 = 0.62 s

(For buildings with shear walls, EC8 Equation (4.7) gives a permissible
alternative method of evaluating Ct based on the area of shear walls in
the lowest storey. This is likely to give a slightly shorter period than that
calculated above. However, as the calculated value is very close to the
constant-acceleration part of the response spectrum (TC = 0.6 s), the lower
period would result in very little increase in the spectral acceleration or the
design base shear. This method has therefore not been pursued here.)
2.5 TC
TC < T1 < TD so EC8 Equation (3.15) applies:  Sd = ag S
q T1

For dual systems, DCM, EC8 Table 5.1 gives:   q = 3.0

au
a1
and EC Cl. 5.2.2.2 gives a default value of the ratio a u a1 = 1.2 for a wall-
equivalent dual system. Hence q = 3 × 1.2 = 3.6.
 Structural analysis  79
2 .5 0 .6
Therefore:   Sd = 3.0 ×1.15 × = 2.32 m/s 2
3.6 0.62
EC8 Equation (4.5):   Fb = lmSd
In this case T1 < 2 TC so l = 0.85

Therefore:  Fb = 0.85 × 8208 × 2.32 = 16,176 kN

Net horizontal force is 100 × 16,176/80,522 = 20.1% of total building

weight.

3.6.4 Load distribution and moment calculation

The way the base shear is distributed over the height of the building is a
function of the fundamental mode shape. For a regular building, EC8 Cl.
4.3.3.2.3 permits the assumption that the deflected shape is linear. With this
assumption, the inertia force generated at a given storey is proportional to
the product of the storey mass and its height from the base.
Since the assumed load distribution is independent of the form of framing
chosen, and of the value of the base shear, we will calculate a single load
distribution based on a base shear of 1000 kN. This can then simply be
scaled by the appropriate base shear value from above.
EC8 Equation (4.11) gives the force on storey k to be:
zk mk
Fk = Fb
∑z mj j
j

Table 3.4  Lateral load distribution using linear mode shape approximation
Level k Height zk Mass mk zk mk Force Fk Moment =
(m) (t) (m.t) (kN) Fkzk (kNm)
8 28.8 593.7 17098 139.6 4020
7 25.3 988.4 25006 204.1 5165
6 21.8 988.4 21547 175.9 3835
5 18.3 988.4 18087 147.7 2702
4 14.8 988.4 14628 119.4 1767
3 11.3 988.4 11169 91.2 1030
2 7.8 988.4 7709 62.9 491
1 4.3 1684.2 7242 59.2 254
Totals – 8208.5 122,486 1000.0 19265
80  M.S. Williams
The ratio of the total base moment to the base shear gives the effective
height of the resultant lateral force:
19, 265
heff = = 19.3 m above the base, and heff /h = 19.3/28.8 = 0.67.
1, 000

3.6.5 Framing options

Although not strictly part of the loading and analysis task, it is helpful at this
stage to consider the different possible ways of framing the structure.

3.6.5.1 Regularity and symmetry

The general structural form has already been shown to meet the EC8
regularity requirements in plan and elevation. A regular framing solution
needs to be adopted to ensure that there is no large torsional eccentricity.
Large reductions in section size with height should be avoided. If these
requirements are satisfied, the total seismic loads calculated above can be
assumed to be evenly divided between the transverse frames.

3.6.5.2 Steel or concrete

Either material is suitable for a structure such as this, and the choice is likely
to be made based on considerations other than seismic performance. The
loads calculated above are based on a seismic mass that has neglected the
mass of the main frame elements. These will tend to be more significant for a
concrete structure, which may therefore sustain somewhat higher loads than
the initial estimates calculated here.

3.6.5.3 Frame type – moment-resisting, dual frame/shear wall

system or braced frame
In the preceding calculations both frame and dual frame/shear wall systems
have been considered. In practice, it is likely to be advantageous to make
use of the shear wall action of the service cores to provide additional lateral
resistance. It can be seen that this reduces the natural period of the structure,
shifting it closer to the peak of the response spectrum and thus increasing
the seismic loads. However, the benefit in terms of the additional resistance
would outweigh this disadvantage.
In general, MRFs provide the most economic solution for low-rise
buildings, but for taller structures they tend to sustain unacceptably large
deflections and some form of bracing or shear wall action is then required.
The height of this structure is intermediate in this respect, so that a variety
of solutions are worth considering.
The load distributions for each of the frame types considered can be
obtained by scaling the results from 3.6.4 by the base shears from 3.6.3.