See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340177511

Effect of seismic load on steel frame multistory building from economical point
of view

Conference Paper  in  AIP Conference Proceedings · March 2020

DOI: 10.1063/5.0000052

CITATIONS READS
0 33

2 authors:

Ali Kifah Kadhum Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq

Al-Mustansiriya University University of Diyala
6 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of Heating View project

Effect of seismic load on steel frame multistory building from economical point of view View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Kifah Kadhum on 30 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effect of seismic load on steel frame
multistory building from economical point of
view
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020114 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000052
Published Online: 25 March 2020

Ali Kifah Kadhum, and Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq

AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020114 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000052 2213, 020114

© 2020 Author(s).
 Effect of Seismic Load on Steel Frame Multistory Building from
Economical Point of View

Ali Kifah Kadhum1,a) and Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq2,b)

1
University of AL-Mustansiriyah /College of Engineering/ Department of Civil Engineering, Iraq.
2
University of Diyala/College of Engineering/ Department of Civil Engineering, Iraq.
a)
alikifah@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq
b)
dr.khattabsaleem@yahoo.com

Abstract. This paper aims at studying the effect of earthquake loading on the constructional design of a 13-multistorey steel
frame residential building from economical point of view. This type of loading should be taken into considerations now in
Iraq especially after the earthquake of 7.3 magnitude that occurred in November 2017 near the city of Halabja by about 31
kilometers. The same steel multistory building was designed twice; once with traditional gravity dead and live loading and
the second with adding earthquake loading in order to discuss the difference from structural and economical points of view.
A commercial package ETABS2018 was used to analyze this 39-meter-high building. The building was analyzed according
to the American code ASCE7-10, while it was designed according to AISC 360-10. A huge increase in the steel member
amounts in columns, beams, secondary beam, deck slabs were recorded due to taking the seismic load into considerations.
More specifically, the steel frame amounts increased due to including earthquake loading, the addition in steel frame section
(p-m) interaction ratio was by about 209% and 128% for columns and beams, respectively. Therefore, cost was raised by
about 209% and 128%, for columns and beams, respectively. More specifically, the total cost of the building concerning
beams and columns increased by 337%. It is worth to mention here that the maximum increase in main steel frame was
observed on the storey 10. Whereas, in slabs, the maximum increase that was recorded in main ratio of (p-m) interaction
increase was occurred from the storey 8 to the building top. In columns, the main ratio of (p-m) interaction increase was
seen on the 8ht, 9th, 10th and 11th storeys due to effect lateral shear forces, and section is not seismically compact for highly
ductile members (AISC 341-10 Table D1.1).

INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are a real threat to people's lives and properties. The recent earthquake in Halabja city is the best proof
that it is time to take seismic load seriously. Therefore, it is a must now to predict the strength of the quake and prepare
for it to avoid or minimize damage. It should be noted here that strengthening the building against seismic load
increases its cost, so this work was done. The earthquake leads to random ground movements, which occur in all
possible directions originating from the epicenter. Vertical motion is rare, but horizontal movement is more common.
The earthquake leads the building to vibrate and develop inertial forces in the building itself. Because the motion of
the earth is vibratory, it generates contradictory effects, as tensile stresses can become compressive and compressive
stresses can become tensile ones. Consequently, the earthquake can lead to the compressive failure of concrete or yield
of reinforcing steel in addition to the destruction of the building's decorations. In addition, the vibration movement
leads to storey drift that hurt the inhabitants and their properties [1]. Usually in Iraq, people do not tend to build high
structures due to the foundations problems, but the high structures in Iraq immune to earthquakes in three ways [2]:
1.Bare frame, 2.Shear wall frame and 3.Brace frame.
Earthquake analysis is a dynamic analysis since earthquake force is dynamic in nature whose acceleration fairly
changes with time compared to the structure’s natural frequency. Dynamic analysis gives real time results for
earthquake loading in terms of dynamic displacements, time history results and the modal analysis. The analysis is
done manually for simple structures or by using Finite element analysis for complex structures to find out the mode
shapes and frequencies.

2nd International Conference on Materials Engineering & Science (IConMEAS 2019)

AIP Conf. Proc. 2213, 020114-1–020114-9; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000052
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1964-3/$30.00

020114-1
 FIGURE 1. 3D model of the building.
In the present study, the effect of earthquake loading on reinforced concrete beams, slabs, columns and shear walls
is calculated and discussed from constructional and economical points of view. The main parameters that were taken
into considerations in the present study in the seismic performance of model are story drift, base shear, story deflection
and time period.

OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the current research is to analyze and design a reinforced concrete 20 multi-storey building
twice, once without taking the seismic loads into consideration, and second, with taking seismic loads into
considerations. The goal is finding and discussing the difference between the two cases from the constructional and
economical points of view. ETABS software was used to carry out this question. The structure was subjected to
traditional gravity self-weight, finishing additional dead load, live load and seismic loads. The applied loads on the
building were calculated using AISC 360-10 Code. Seismic loads are calculated using ASCE 7-10 and dynamic
analysis of the building was conducted using response spectrum method.

CASE STUDY BUILDING

The present work is carried out on the high-rise building shown in Figures 1 and 2. For analysis and design,
ETABS2018 software was used depending on AISC 360-10 and ASCE 7-10. The plan of multi-story building is 40m
in length and 30m in width. The building has a steel frame section that contains. There are eight flats in the first eight
floors, and then, there are six flats in each story up to the top. Table 1 shows the three-dimensional model of the
building, while Table 2 shows the applied load in detail.

020114-2
 FIGURE 2. 2D Plan Model Case Study.
TABLE 1. Building details.
Structure plan (m) 40 X 30
Total Hight (m) 41
Height of typical floors (m) 3
Height of bottom floors (m) 5
Deck slab thickness (mm) 175
Columns (mm) 1-HE340, 2-HE400
Beams (mm) IPE 360
Secondary beams W12X30
TABLE 2. The applied loads in detail for the two loading cases.
Load Case 1st Loading case 2nd Loading case
Self-weight Density of the steel frame is 78 kN/m3
Additional dead load Flooring load is 200 kg/m2
Live load Live load on the floors is 250 kg/m2
Earthquake load - according to ASCE 7-10 Code

ANALYSIS
The analysis of reinforced concrete structure has been done considering the entire structure as a three-dimension
model framed structure using ETABS [4]. Beams and columns are considered as beam elements. There are 3096 joints,
1209 beams and 520 deck slab elements for slabs in the ETABS modeling. The main objective of modeling the whole
structure as 3D model is to take into account the behavior of each component in space structure environment. The deck
slab is modeled as a thin plate element to carry its own weight, additional dead load and the live load as gravity

020114-3
distributed pressures. When seismic loads were applied, the natural frequencies and time periods in first 10 modes are
found to be 4.721, 3.606, 3.486, 1.678, 1.256, 1.184, 0.949, 0.71, 0.672, 0.665 period sec as show in Figure 3.

3-a: Mode 1 3-b: Mode 2 3-c: Mode 3 3-d: Mode 6

period 4.721 period 3.606 period 1.678 period 1.256
FIGURE 3. Time periods.

DESIGN

Design Considerations
The detailed design stage defines a complete solution for all subsystems, which are steel frame beams, columns
and slabs according to AISC 360-10. Calculating total amounts and costs of constructional materials such as steel
frames are a complementary step that was conducted in this study.

Seismic analysis procedure

The basic concepts of design theory for earthquake resistant are [6]:
i. The buildings should resist small earthquakes without causing significant damage.
ii. The buildings should resist medium earthquakes with small non-structural damage.
iii. The buildings must resist strong earthquakes with some non-structural and structural damage.
iv. To avert damage during a strong earthquake, members must be ductile enough to dissipate and absorb energy by
post-elastic deformation.
v. In the case of the key elements failure, the structural system redundancy allows internal forces redistribution.
vi. If the primary system or element fails or yields, the lateral force can be redistributed to a secondary system to stop
developing collapse.

Response spectrum method

Engineers prefer the response spectrum to deal with earthquakes for several reasons [7]:
i. Provides a real representation of earthquake in the form of a static equivalent load.
ii. Permits an obvious understanding of different vibration modes contributions to the whole seismic response of the
structure.
iii. Provides an easy way to find forces in the members that are exposed to an earthquake.
iv. Provides a beneficial approximate estimation of the safety and reliability of structures subjected to earthquake.

020114-4
 Design load combinations

The design loading combinations are number of combinations of the pre-scribed response cases for which the building
is to be checked/designed, Table 3. The ETABS software generates some default design load combinations for the
design of steel frame structures [8].
Table 3. Load combinations.
1 1.1DL 7 0.8DL+ EQ+X
2 1.2DL+1.6LL 8 0.8DL+ EQ+X
3 1.3DL+LL+ EQ+X 9 0.8DL+ EQ+Y
4 1.3DL+LL- EQ+X 10 0.8DL+ EQ-Y
5 1.3DL+LL+ EQ+Y 11 1.3DL+LL+ EQRS
6 1.3DL+LL+ EQ+Y 12 0.8DL+EQRS

Seismic Load

ASCE 7-10 Auto Seismic Load Calculation Code was used to determine the lateral loads caused by earthquake.
These loads were calculated automatically through generating lateral seismic loads for load pattern according to ASCE
7-10, as calculated by ETABS, assuming that the Eccentricity Ratio is 5% for all diaphragms [9].

Structural Period

The structural period is detailed as follows [9]:

Period Calculation Method ETABS Calculation
Coefficient, Ct [ASCE, Table 12.8-
2] 𝐂𝐭 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟖𝐟𝐭

Coefficient, x [ASCE, Table 12.8-2] 𝐱= 𝟎. 𝟖

Structure Height Above Base, hn 𝐡𝐧 = 𝟏𝟑𝟒. 𝟓𝟏 𝐟𝐭
Long-Period Transition Period, T L [ASCE 11.4.5] 𝐓𝐋 = 𝟖 𝐬𝐞𝐜

Factors and Coefficients

The response factors and coefficients are detailed as follows [9]:

Response Modification Factor, R [ASCE Table 12.2-1] R= 6
System Overstrength Factor, Ω0 [ASCE Table 12.2-1] 𝛀𝟎 = 𝟑
Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd [ASCE Table 12.2-1] 𝐂𝐝 = 𝟓. 𝟓
Importance Factor, I [ASCE Table 11.5-1] 𝐈= 𝟏
Ss and S1 Source User Specified
Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss [ASCE 11.4.1] 𝐒𝐬 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟐𝐠
Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 [ASCE 11.4.1] 𝐒𝟏 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓𝐠
Site Class [ASCE Table 20.3-1] D - Stiff Soil
Site Coefficient, Fa [ASCE Table 11.4-1] 𝐅𝐚 = 𝟏
Site Coefficient, Fv [ASCE Table 11.4-2] 𝐅𝐯 = 𝟏. 𝟓

Seismic Response

The seismic response is detailed as follows [9]:

MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, SMS [ASCE 11.4.3, Eq. 11.4-1] SMS = Fa SS 𝐒𝐌𝐒 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟐𝐠
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, SM1 [ASCE 11.4.3, Eq. 11.4-2] 𝐒𝐌𝟏 = 𝐅𝐯 𝐒𝟏 SM1 = 0.975g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration, SDS [ASCE 11.4.4, Eq. 11.4-3] 𝟐 SDS = 0.88g
𝐒𝐃𝐒 = 𝐒𝐌𝐒
𝟑

020114-5
 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, SD1 [ASCE 11.4.4, Eq. 11.4-4] 𝟐 SD1 = 0.65g
𝐒𝐃𝟏 = 𝐒
𝟑 𝐌𝟏

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Steel p-m interaction ratio for columns, AISC 360-10

Figures 4 and 5 in addition to Table 4 show the amount of increase in ratio for steel frame for the columns of all
storeys. The storeys 1, 8, 9 and 10 are the most earthquake-affected storeys by the seismic impact. They are at heights
of 26-32 meters.

Steel p-m interaction ratio for column no. 26

3.5
2.988 without EQ EQ
3 2.622
2.38
2.5
2.044
2
RATIO

1.722 1.675
1.55 1.456
1.5 1.353 1.246 1.153 1.225
0.887 0.858
1 0.687 0.631 0.72 0.724
0.574 0.521 0.591
0.468 0.414 0.457
0.5 0.326
0.115
0
storey 1 storey 2 storey 3 storey 4 storey 5 storey 6 storey 7 storey 8 storey 9 storey storey storey storey
10 11 12 13
No. of Storeys
FIGURE 4. The column no. 26 of all storeys.

3.5
Steel p-m interaction ratio for column no. 9
2.958 without EQ EQ
3
2.569
2.5 2.339
2.013
2
RATIO

1.669 1.656
1.52 1.425
1.5 1.324 1.218 1.211
1.126
0.89 0.85
1 0.687 0.731 0.76
0.63 0.573 0.517 0.6
0.461 0.406 0.469
0.5 0.337
0.154
0
storey 1 storey 2 storey 3 storey 4 storey 5 storey 6 storey 7 storey 8 storey 9 storey storey storey storey
10 11 12 13
No. of Storey
FIGURE 5. The column no. 9 of all storeys
TABLE 4. Steel p-m interaction ratio for columns.
Storey Steel p-m interaction ratio Storey Steel p-m interaction ratio
Without With Without With
Col 9 Col 26
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake
Storey 8 0.85 2.569 Storey 8 0.858 2.622
Storey 9 0.731 2.339 Storey 9 0.72 2.38
Storey10 0.6 2.013 Storey10 0.591 2.044

020114-6
 Steel p-m interaction ratio for Beam 33
Figure 6 in addition to Table 5 show the increase in the ratio of steel frame for the beams of all storeys, the most
affected storey. These beams are at (1 – 41) meters high.

2.5
Steel p-m interaction ratio for Beam 33
2.295
2.093 without EQ EQ
1.987 1.913
2 1.834 1.759
1.667
1.549
1.451
1.5 1.333
RATIO

1.194
1.018
1 0.781
0.692 0.694 0.696 0.697 0.699 0.7 0.702 0.706 0.708 0.709 0.71 0.712 0.712

0.5

0
storey 1 storey 2 storey 3 storey 4 storey 5 storey 6 storey 7 storey 8 storey 9 storey storey storey storey
10 11 12 13
No. Of Storey
FIGURE 6. Steel p-m interaction ratio for Beam 33.
TABLE 5. Steel p-m interaction ratio for beams.
Storey Steel p-m interaction ratio Storey Steel p-m interaction ratio
Beam 33 Without With Beam 33 Without With
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake
Storey 1 0.692 2.295 Storey 4 0.697 1.913
Storey 2 0.694 2.093 Storey 5 0.699 1.834
Storey3 0.696 1.987 Storey6 0.702 1.759

Displacement
Fig. 7 shows the maximum displacement values generated by the earthquake load that is described by the response
spectrum method. Based on the above, Table 7 summarizes the differences that took place in steel frame between the
case of no earthquake and the case of earthquake inclusion. It was found that, due to including earthquake loading, the
addition in steel frame section (p-m) interaction ratio was by about 209% and 128% for columns and beams,
respectively. Therefore, cost was raised by about 209% and 128% for columns and beams, respectively. More
specifically, the total cost of the building, beams and columns, increased by 337% due to taking the earthquake into
considerations.

020114-7
 FIGURE 7. Maximum Storey Displacement.

TABLE 6. Difference Summery.

Member No Earthquake With Earthquake Comparisons
type Number Average Numbers Average Steel % Increase % Increase
of Steel ratio of elements ratio interaction in in
elements interaction (p-m) steel frame ratio total cost
(p-m)
Columns 702 0.55 702 1.702 209 209

Beams 1209 0.702 1209 1.605 128 128

Total increase in cost 337

CONCLUSIONS
The earthquake applied affective lateral forces on the building side. This effect was obvious in the columns and
beams, especially in the joints among them. These joints have been strengthened by additional other section to
withstand the lateral forces of the earthquake. The slabs were surrounded monolithically by the beams, so the impact
of the earthquake was obvious, but less than that took place in columns and beams. The addition in steel frame section
for interaction (p-m) ratio was by about 209% and 128% for columns and beams, respectively. Therefore, cost was
raised by about 209% and 128% for columns and beams, respectively. More specifically, the total cost of the building,
beams and columns, increased by 337% due to taking the earthquake into considerations.

REFERENCES
1. S. S. Dash, "Seismic Analysis of High- Rise Building by Response Spectrum Method”," india, 11, (2015).
2. S. G. C. K. C. G. S.S. Patil, International Journal of Computational Engineering Research 272, (2013).
3. Muhammed Tahir Khaleel1, Dileep Kumar U2, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET) 03, 2395 -0056 (2016).
4. ETABS “Integrated Building Design software manual by Computers and Structures” Inc., 2016).
5. Syed Fahad Ali S. A. Bhalchandra IJSRD, International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| 3, 2321-
0613 (2015).

020114-8
 6. S. R. H. Shobeni1, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 3, (2017).
7. R. S. D. Narasimhulu2, IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, 5, (2017).
8. A.K. Kadhum, K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 9, 588–
598(2018).
9. ASCE 7-10 “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other structures “American Society of Civil Engineers
10. ASCE 7-10 “Building Code Requirements for Structural steel”.
11. P. N. G. G. Pardeshi sameer1, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) 03, 015
(2016).
12. D. G. V. S. Shamshad Begum, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology 2, (2016).
13. G. A. Papagiannopoulos1 and D. E. Beskos1, 2 “Seismic Inelastic Design Of Steel Structures By Spectrum
Analysis And Equivalent Damping”, (The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17,
2008, Beijing, China, 2008) pp. 12-17.
14. P. R. G. Prof. N. N. Shinde1, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology) 2, (2016).

020114-9
View publication stats