CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................5
1.1 MOTIVATION AND PHILOSOPHY .........................................................................................................................5
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................6
1.3 PROJECT DETAILS ......................................................................................................................................................7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................8
2.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................8
2.2. Dynamic analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................8
2.2.1. Dynamic forces caused by earthquake. ...................................................................................................8
2.2.2. Inertia forces..........................................................................................................................................................8
2.2.3. Spring forces ..........................................................................................................................................................9
2.2.4. Damping forces.................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.5. Formulation of Eq of motion ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Envelopes for response vectors in linear structures ............................................................................... 11
2.4. Design of column section subjected to three components of earthquake .................................... 11
2.5. Penzien & Watabe Characterization of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motion. .............. 12
2.6. Earthquake excitation .............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.7. Response quantities .................................................................................................................................................. 13
2.7.1. RESPONSE HISTORY....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.8. PSEUDO-VELOCITY, AND PSEUDO-ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ................................ 15
2.8.1. Pseudo-velocity Response Spectrum ..................................................................................................... 15
2.8.2. Pseudo-acceleration Response Spectrum ........................................................................................... 16
2.8.3. Combined D-V-A Spectrum .......................................................................................................................... 17
3. RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE VECTORS........................................................................... 18
3.1. THE RESPONSE VECTOR ........................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2. EQS OF MOTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.3. MODAL EXPANSION.................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.4. NATURAL VIBRATION FREQUENCIES AND MODES ................................................................................ 20
3.4.1. MODAL AND SPECTRAL MATRICES ....................................................................................................... 22
3.4.2. COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR THE EIGENVALUE PROBLEM ......................................... 23
3.5. MATRIX ITERATION METHOD (STODLA METHOD) ............................................................................... 24
3.5.1. Determination of the EIGENSPECTRUM .............................................................................................. 24
3.5.2. Convergence to the first mode .................................................................................................................. 24

1|P a ge
 3.5.3. Convergence to highest mode: .................................................................................................................. 25
3.5.4. Convergence to any intermediate mode: ............................................................................................. 25
3.6. DAMPING MATRIX ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.7. MODAL EQS ................................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.8. MODAL RESPONSES.................................................................................................................................................. 31
3.9. RESPONSE OF SDOF SYSTEMS TO GENERAL DYNAMIC EXCITATION: Duhamel Integral .. 31
3.10. EQUIVALENT MOMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 33
3.10.1. BEAM-COLUMNS SUBJECTED TO END MOMENTS ........................................................................ 33
3.10.2. Concept of Equivalent Moment ................................................................................................................. 37
4. RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD ................................................................................................................................. 38
4.1. THEORY OF RANDOM VIBRATIONS ................................................................................................................. 38
4.2. THE RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD ............................................................................................................ 40
4.3. MATRIX FORMULATION......................................................................................................................................... 45
5. THE ELLIPTICAL ENVELOPE.......................................................................................................................................... 47
5.1. THE SUPREME ENVELOPE .................................................................................................................................... 53
6. CAPACITY CURVE ................................................................................................................................................................. 56
6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
6.2. Inelastic behavior of beam-columns ................................................................................................................ 57
6.3. Design Interaction Eqs: AISC/LRFD Format ................................................................................................ 59
7. PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 62
7.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 62
7.2. Example structure ...................................................................................................................................................... 62
7.3. Example Building........................................................................................................................................................ 62
TOTAL STIFFNESS MATRIX ................................................................................................................................................. 71
TOTAL MASS MATRIX ............................................................................................................................................................. 72
MATRIX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
MATRIX ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
DAMPING MATRIX .................................................................................................................................................................... 75
NATURAL FREQUENCY FOR 24 MODES ........................................................................................................................ 76
7.4. MODE SHAPE DIAGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 77
7.5. EL CENTRO EARTHQAUKE DATA...................................................................................................................... 83
GRAPHS OF FORCES IN EACH NODE AFTER TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS ..................................................... 84
7.6. P-M INTERACTION CURVE FOR ISMB 200 (CAPACITY CURVE) ....................................................... 93
7.7. RESPONSE ENVELOPE FOR MEMBER 5 USING RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD AT
VARIOUS ANGLE OF ATTACK, WHEN IS KNOWN AND WHEN IT IS UNKNOWN. ............................... 94

2|P a ge
 7.8. COMPARISON OF SEISMIC DEMAND AND SEISMIC CAPACITY CURVE......................................... 95
7.9. RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 96
8. DISCUSSIONS AND REMARKS........................................................................................................................................ 97
9. Annextures:.............................................................................................................................................................................. 98
Annexure A: List of script files,their functions & definitions of variables ................................................ 98
Script Files: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 98
Data File: ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Definitions of variables: .................................................................................................................................................. 99
Annexure B: program listing............................................................................................................................................... 102
Script File 1: stodola.m .......................................................................................................................................................... 102
Script File 2: Duhamel.m ...................................................................................................................................................... 104
Script File 3: responses.m ..................................................................................................................................................... 106
Script File 4: envelope.m ....................................................................................................................................................... 107
Script File 5: rhistory.m......................................................................................................................................................... 108
Script File 6: CapCurve.m ..................................................................................................................................................... 109
Annexure C: Input/output .................................................................................................................................................... 110
10. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................. 112

3|P a ge
4|P a ge
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 MOTIVATION AND PHILOSOPHY

In dynamic analysis of a structure to earthquake ground motions, a computation in general

involves three basic steps: (i) formulation and selection of the physical model for the structure,
(ii) mathematical formulation of the governing Eq, and (iii) computation of the response. The
maximum value of the responses is used to design the member components of the structure. This
Time-History analysis is rarely done prior to design, for a regular structure due to complex
mathematical procedures involved that are not well known to lots of practicing engineers.

In earthquake engineering, the response spectrum method is commonly used to estimate the
maximum values of response acting in linear structures subjected to seismic ground motions.
With this method, individual peak modal responses are obtained using a prescribed set of
response spectra that characterizes the ground motion expected at the location of the structure.
These modal maxima are then combined according to well defined Modal Combination Rules,
like ABSSUM or SRSS or CQC, to estimate the maximum value of response of interest. But, this
conventional response spectrum method is ideally suited for design or analysis of structural
elements that are controlled by maximum value of a single response quantity; e.g., a beam
governed by maximum bending moment. For members in which simultaneous action of multiple
seismic responses must be considered, e.g., a column subjected to axial load and a bending
moment, its critical combination of responses may not coincide with maximum value of any of
the responses. For such cases, an envelope that bounds the evolution of vector of seismic
response in time is desirable. This envelope can then be superimposed over the capacity surface
of the member (commonly known as interaction diagram) to determine the critical combination
of responses. As shown later, the rectangular envelope produced in conventional response
spectrum method can be overly conservative in many design situations.

In this report, envelopes based on actual Time History analysis results, for multiple sets of
response quantities, is developed. When the principle direction along which the ground motion
components are uncorrelated are known, the envelope that bounds a vector of seismic responses
in a linear structure is an ellipsoid that is inscribed within the rectangular enveloped developed
for conventional response spectrum method explained above. This elliptical envelope provides a
tighter bound on a vector response process than the rectangular envelope, without losing the on
the necessary optimum conservatism. It is sincerely hoped that improved economy in the design
of structures would be achieved through this method.

5|P a ge
Uncertainty in determining the principal directions of ground motion is also addressed in the
report. When the principal direction of ground motion is not known in advance, which is
generally the case; the uncertainty in orientation of this direction must be addressed. This is done
by constructing a supreme envelope that bounds the union of elliptical envelopes for all
orientation of principle directions.

Conventional response spectrum based methods are valuable tools for seismic analysis and
design of structure. The code recommends the structure to be kept linear for the

Serviceability level ground motion. However, it is usually uneconomical to proportion structure

to remain linear during strong ground motion. But, the use of modal superposition method
necessitates the linear consideration. The solution is to scale the response spectrum down by a
structural system factor Rw >1. The structure is then designed to remain linear under this reduced
level of seismic input.

There is need to examine ways in which the envelope that bounds a vector of seismic responses
in a linear structure changes when non-linear elements are introduced into it. The additional
insight gained from such study might help us in better understanding of non-linear behaviour of
the structures.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The primary objective of this research is to generate elliptical envelopes from the results of
Time-History Analysis and using CQC- combination rule of the chosen example structure. The
elliptical envelopes thus produced are used to redesign the members of the structure, to quantify
the frugality that could be achieved through the proposed method.

Two sets of envelopes are developed: an elliptical envelope for the case in which the principal
direction of ground motion are known, and a supreme envelope for the case in which the
orientation of principle direction is uncertain. Procedures for computing the coordinates of these
envelopes using quantities readily available in conventional response spectrum analyses are
known from literature review.

6|P a ge
 1.3 PROJECT DETAILS

The project is, in brevity, a thorough Dynamic Time - History analysis. For the purpose of
carrying out Time -History Analysis, a 3 dimensional single storey, single bay steel frame is
considered, with dimensions being 4m by 4m by 4m.The frame is first designed for the loads
given in IS 875: part 1 for dead loads and IS 875: part 2 for live loads, using STAAD Pro. Once
the column and beam dimensions are obtained, detailed Time History Analysis is carried out for
the structure, for which the entire series of codes were written in MATLAB. The STAAD input
file, used for preliminary design, and the entire MATLAB code, used for analysis, is also shown
in this report for the sake of entirety.

7|P a ge
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. INTRODUCTION
Several aspects of earthquake engineering will be covered in this literature review, from dynamic
analysis of structures to elliptical and supreme envelopes. Firstly, the review will focus on
previous studies and modern text available in the field of earthquake technology and seismic
design of structures. Secondly, since the time history analysis is based on dynamic analysis
concepts, it will also be covered in this review. Finally, the concept of ensemble and statistical
nature of elliptical and supreme envelopes is also embarked upon in this review, in brevity
though.

2.2. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2.2.1. DYNAMIC FORCES CAUSED BY EARTHQUAKE.

Ground motion resulting from earthquakes of sufficiently large magnitude are one of the most
serious and disastrous dynamic disturbances that affect manmade structures. Earthquakes are
believed to occur from a fracture in earth’s crust. They occur because of the slow convective
motion of the earth’s mantle that underlies the crust.

The earthquake wave motion is very complex. The effect of such a motion on supported structure
can best be assessed by obtaining measurements of the time histories of the ground displacement
or accelerations by means of a seismograph. Ground motion induced by earthquake cause
dynamic excitation of the supported structure. This time varying support motion can be
translated into set of equivalent dynamic forces that act on structure and cause it to displace
relative to the support. If a ground motion history is specified it is possible to analyze the
structure to obtain estimates of the deformations and stresses induced in it.

2.2.2. INERTIA FORCES

8|P a ge
Inertia forces are defines as magnitude equal to product of mass and acceleration and a direction
opposite to the direction of acceleration. This principle is known as d’ Alembert’s principle. It
converts the problem of dynamic response to an equivalent static problem involving equilibrium
of forces. In rotational motion mass moment of inertia plays the same role as mass does in
rotational motion.

For a single DOF system:

Eq 2.1
For a multi degree of freedom system, to specify the displaced configuration we need to specify
the displacement along N coordinates. For example, if we know the vertical displacement at each
point mass in a lumped mass model the displaced shape of the beam is uniquely determined. The
system is therefore N degree of freedom system.

To formulate the mass matrix let us imagine that the system has a unit acceleration along one of
the coordinate direction , say j, while the acceleration at all other coordinates are zero. Since the
coordinates are independent of each other such a state is possible. For our choice of coordinates
this state implies that only mass M j is undergoing acceleration and therefore the force of
magnitude -Mj is the inertia force in the system. This way we can create the mass matrix for our
idealised lumped mass model. For lumped mass systems mass matrix is diagonal in nature.

For a multi DOF system:

Eq 2.2
Where denotes mass matrix and denote ground acceleration vector.

2.2.3. SPRING FORCES

An elastic body undergoing deformation under the action of external forces sets up internal
forces the resists the deformation. These forces of elastic constraints, alternatively known as
spring forces are present irrespective of whether the deformation is a result of static or dynamic
forces.

This force is given by:

For a single DOF system:

9|P a ge
 Eq 2.3
For a multi degree of freedom system, assuming behavior of structure is linear, elastic forces can
be obtained by the method of superposition. For this, we apply a unit displacement along
coordinate direction , holding all other displacements to zero. Internal elastic forces will oppose
the displacements, and to maintain the displacements we must apply external forces along all
coordinate directions. The external force required at coordinate is .

For a Multi DOF system

Eq 2.4
Where denote damping matrix and denote displacement vector.

2.2.4. DAMPING FORCES

These forces are always opposite to the direction of motion but their character is difficult to
define or measure analytically. The magnitude of damping forces is small in comparison to the
inertia and damping forces. Despite this damping forces may significantly affect the response. A
damping force may result from the resistance offered by the air. When the velocity is small, the
resistance offered by a fluid or a gas is proportional to the velocity. And resisting force of this
nature is called viscous damping force and is given by

For a single DOF system:

Eq 2.5
For MDOF system damping forces could be obtained in the similar manner as we obtained
matrix, by replacing unit displacement by unit velocity.

2.2.5. FORMULATION OF EQ OF MOTION

Following d’ Alembert’s principle, the dynamic forces is first converted to a problem of

equilibrium of forces by introducing appropriate inertia forces in place of acceleration. For a
MDOF system instead of a single Eq we get a group of differential Eqs coupled together. The
uncoupled Eqs can be obtained for classical damping case by the use of Modal Decomposition
method. The Eqs obtained would be of the form:

10 | P a g e
 Eq 2.6
The mass, stiffness, damping matrix is diagonal or not depends on the chosen coordinate system.
If proper coordinate system is chosen then all the three matrices could be uncoupled. It is
possible to have mass matrix diagonal in one coordinate system and stiffness matrix diagonal in
other.

When a time history is given the Eq changes form continuous to discrete and the solution is
obtained by approximate numerical method rather than by differential calculus. The modified Eq
is:

Eq 2.7
Where is the influence vector and , , are mass, stiffness and damping matrices
respectively. The mode shape vectors for the structure are obtained using Stodla method and the
Eq is solved by Duhamel integral details of which are covered in appropriate places in the thesis.

2.3. ENVELOPES FOR RESPONSE VECTORS IN LINEAR

STRUCTURES
When the principal directions along which the components of ground motion are uncorrelated are
known, the envelope is shown to be elliptical in shape and is identical to that derived previously
by Gupta and Singh(1997) and Anastassiadis(1993). The Penzien and Watabe idealization
assumes that the directions of ground motion remain fixed for the duration of strong motion. In
essence, the motion is assumed to have a nearly stationary strong motion phase that has broad
frequency content and a duration several times longer than the fundamental period of the
structure. Naturally, these assumptions and approximations affect the accuracy of procedure for
actual earthquakes.

2.4. DESIGN OF COLUMN SECTION SUBJECTED TO THREE

COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE
For the seismic design of structures the earthquake ground motion is often represented as the
response spectra for three orthogonal components of earthquake. The maximum response of
structure is calculated using several modes of vibration for each component of earthquake
(Gupta1977). Probabilistically, the maximum response is taken to be the square root of the sum
of the squares of the response obtained in each contributing mode of vibrations for each
component of earthquake (Chu, Amin, Singh(1972)).

11 | P a g e
 Eq 2.8
Where is the effective response value, and is the maximum response in the mode of
vibration due to excitation in the th direction . For a column subjected to axial force
N and uniaxial moment M with proper directions for positive signs. The maximum com pressive
or tensile stress is given by

Eq 2.9

Where A is the cross sectional area of the column and Z is the section modulus.

This Eq may be treated as design criteria when is limited by an allowable stress. The section
parameters A and Z are, in general, functions of N and M. eq(2.9) is therefore nonlinear.

2.5. PENZIEN & WATABE CHARACTERIZATION OF 3-

DIMENSIONAL EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION.
Most analytical investigations in the past have only considered one component of ground motion.
But recent advances in computer oriented analysis methods make it possible to conduct studies
of this complexity.

Recognizing that seismic waves are initiated by irregular slippage along faults followed by
numerous random reflections, refractions and attenuations within the complex ground formation
through which they pass, stochastic modelling of strong ground motions is a realistic form which
can be applied in practice. Defining earthquake excitation of a structural system in this manner
has the distinct advantage that a stochastic analysis yields mean values and variances of response
consistent with variations permitted in the ground motion model (Penzien, Watabe,1975). If
unlimited ground motion data were available, representative stochastic models be established for
earthquake ground motions. Unfortunately, strong motion data in form of accelerograms are not
easily available. So one needs to hypothesize the earthquakes.

2.6. EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION

For engineering purposes, the time variation of the ground motion is the most useful way of
defining the shaking of the ground during earthquake. The ground acceleration appears on
the right side of the differential Eq governing the response of structure to earthquake excitation.
Thus for given ground acceleration, the problem to be solved is defined completely for a SDF
system with known mass, stiffness & damping properties.
12 | P a g e
The basic instrument to record three components of ground shaking during earthquakes is the
strong-motion accelerograph which doesn’t record continuously but is triggered into motion by
the first waves of the earthquake to arrive. After triggering, the recording continues for some
minutes or until the ground shaking falls again to imperceptible levels. The basic element of an
accelerograph is a transducer element which in its simplest form is an SDF mass-spring-damper
system. Therefore the transducer element is characterized by its natural frequency and viscous
damping ratio ; typically, Hz and for modern analog accelerographs; and
Hz and in modern digital acclerographs. These transducer parameters enable
the digital instrument to record, without excessive distortion, acceleration-time functions
containing frequencies from very low up to 30Hz; the analog instrument is accurate over a
narrower frequency range, up to 15 Hz.

The ground acceleration is defined by numerical values at discrete time instants. These time
instants should be closely spaced to describe accurately the highly irregular variation of
acceleration with time. Typically the time interval chosen to be to of a second, requiring
from 1500 to 3000 ordinates to describe the ground motion.

2.7. RESPONSE QUANTITIES

Of greatest interest in structural engineering is the deformation of the system. or displacement
u(t) of the mass relative to the moving ground, to which the internal forces are linearly related.
These are the bending moments and shears in the beams and columns of the frame. Knowing the
total displacement of the mass would be useful in providing enough separation between
adjacent buildings to prevent their pounding against each other during an earthquake. Pounding
is the cause of damage to several buildings during almost every earthquake. Similarly, the total
acceleration of the mass would be needed if the structure is supporting sensitive equipment
and the motion imparted to the equipment is to be determined.

2.7.1. RESPONSE HISTORY

For a given ground motion , the deformation response u(t) of an SDF system depends only
on the natural vibration period of the system and its damping ratio. It is seen that the time
required for an SDF system to complete a cycle of vibration when subjected to this earthquake
ground motion is very close to the natural period of the system.

Once the deformation response history u(t) has been evaluated by dynamic analysis of the
structure, the internal forces can be determined by static analysis of the structure at each time
instant. The preferred approach in earthquake engineering is based on the concept of the
equivalent static force, , because it can be related to earthquake forces specified in building
codes; is defined as:

13 | P a g e
 Eq 2.10
where k is the lateral stiffness of the frame. Expressing k in terms of the mass m gives

Eq 2.11

where

Eq 2.12

Observe that the equivalent static force is m times A(t), not m times the total acceleration .
The pseudo-acceleration response A(t) of the system can readily be computed from the
deformation response u(t).

For a frame the internal forces (e.g., the shears and moments in the columns and beam, or stress
at any location) can be determined at a selected instant of time by static analysis of the structure
subjected to the equivalent static lateral force at the same time instant. Thus a static analysis
of the structure would be necessary at each time instant when the responses are desired.

The response spectrum provides a convenient means to summarize the peak response of all
possible linear SOF systems to a particular component of ground motion. It also provides a
practical approach to apply the knowledge of structural dynamics to the design of structures and
development of lateral force requirements in building codes.

A plot of the peak value of a response quantity as a function of the natural vibration period of
the system, or a related parameter such as circular frequency or cyclic frequency , is called
the response spectrum for that quantity. Each such plot is for SDF systems having a fixed
damping ratio , and several such plots for different values of are included to cover the range of
damping values encountered in actual structures. Whether the peak response is plotted against
or is a matter of personal preference.

A variety of response spectra can be defined depending on the response quantity that is plotted.
Consider the following peak responses:

Eq 2.13

14 | P a g e
The deformation response spectrum is a plot of against for fixed . A similar plot for is
the relative velocity response spectrum, and for is the acceleration response spectrum.

2.8. PSEUDO-VELOCITY, AND PSEUDO-ACCELERATION RESPONSE

SPECTRA
Only the deformation u(t) is needed to compute internal forces. Obviously, then, the deformation
spectrum provides all the information necessary to compute the peak values of deformation and
internal forces. The pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration response spectra are studied,
however, because they are useful in studying characteristics of response spectra, constructing
design spectra, and relating structural dynamics results to building codes.

2.8.1. PSEUDO-VELOCITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Consider a quantity V for an SDF system with natural frequency related to its peak
deformation due to earthquake ground motion:

Eq 2.14
The quantity V has units of velocity. It is related to the peak value of strain energy stored in
the system during the earthquake by the Eq

Eq 2.15
This relationship can be derived from the definition of strain energy as follows:

Eq 2.16
The right side of Eq is the kinetic energy of the structural mass m with velocity V, called the
peak relative pseudo-velocity, or simply peak pseudo-velocity. The prefix pseudo is used because
V is not equal to the peak velocity flo, although it has the correct units.

The pseudo-velocity response spectrum is a plot of V as a function of the natural vibration period
or natural vibration frequency , of the system.

15 | P a g e
 2.8.2. PSEUDO-ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Consider a quantity A for an SDF system with natural frequency related to its peak
deformation due to earthquake ground motion:

Eq 2.17
The quantity A has units of acceleration and is related to the peak value of base shear [or the
peak value of the equivalent static force :

Eq 2.18
The peak base shear can be written in the form

Eq 2.19
where w is the weight of the structure and g the gravitational acceleration. When written in this
form, Alg may be interpreted as the base shear coefficient or lateral force coefficient. It is used in
building codes to represent the coefficient by which the structural weight is multiplied to obtain
the base shear.

Observe that the base shear is equal to the inertia force associated with the mass m undergoing
acceleration A. This quantity is generally different from the peak acceleration of the system. It
is for this reason that we call A the peak pseudo-acceleration; the prefix pseudo is used to avoid
possible confusion with the true peak acceleration .

The pseudo-acceleration response spectrum is a plot of A as a function of the natural vibration

period , or natural vibration frequency , of the system.

16 | P a g e
 2.8.3. COMBINED D-V-A SPECTRUM

Each of the deformation, pseudo-velocity, and pseudo-acceleration response spectra for a given
ground motion contain the same information, no more and no less. The three spectra are simply
different ways of presenting the same information on structural response. Knowing one of the
spectra, the other two can be obtained by algebraic operations.

The reasons why we need three spectra that give the same information is that each spectrum
directly provides a physically meaningful quantity. The deformation spectrum provides the peak
deformation of a system. The pseudo-velocity spectrum is related directly to the peak strain
energy stored in the system during the earthquake. The pseudo-acceleration spectrum is related
directly to the peak value of the equivalent static force and base shear. The second reason lies in
the fact that the shape of the spectrum can be approximated more readily for design purposes
with the aid of all three spectral quantities rather than anyone of them alone. For this purpose a
combined plot showing all three of the spectral quantities is especially useful. This integrated
presentation is possible because the three spectral quantities are interrelated as:

Eq 2.20
A response spectrum should cover a wide range of natural vibration periods and several damping
values so that it provides the peak response of all possible structures.

The response spectrum has proven so useful in earthquake engineering that spectra for virtually
all ground motions strong enough to be of engineering interest are now computed and published
soon after they are recorded. Enough of them have been obtained to give us a reasonable idea of
the kind of motion that is likely to occur in future

17 | P a g e
 3. RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE
VECTORS

In this section we develop the modal analysis procedure to determine the response of a structure
to earthquake-induced ground motion , identical at all support points of the structure

3.1. THE RESPONSE VECTOR

For a N-degree-of-freedom linear and classically damped structure,

be a time varying m-vector of responses, where each response
component is a linear function of the nodal displacements

So,

Eq 3.1
The N-vector is a function of the stiffness and undeformed geometry of the structure. All the
typical response quantities of engineering interest, e.g., inter-story drifts, axial and shear forces,
bending moments and stress components can all be expressed in this form. In order to describe
the m-vector of responses, we introduce the N x m matrix so that

Eq 3.2

3.2. EQS OF MOTION

The differential Eq governing the response of an MDF system subjected to three translational
components of earthquake-induced ground motion follows,

Eq 3.3

where

18 | P a g e
 Eq 3.4
where, M, C and K are the mass, damping and the stiffness matrices, respectively,
is the vector of ground acceleration and I = [I1,I2,I3] being the Nx3
influence matrix which contains the nodal displacements due to unit displacement in the kth
component of ground motion. The displacement of the ground , the total (or absolute)
displacement of the mass , and the relative displacement between this mass and the
ground by . At each instant these displacements can be related by

Eq 3.5
In general approach the total displacement of each mass is expressed as its displacement due
to static application of the ground motion plus the dynamic displacement uj relative to the quasi-
static displacement:

Eq 3.6
can be expressed as ; so , it becomes

Eq 3.7

3.3. MODAL EXPANSION

The displacement u of an N-DOF system can be expressed by the superposition of the modal
contributions:

Eq 3.8
where denote the N x n matrix of mode shapes included in the analysis and
denote the normal coordinates that represent the time varying
amplitudes of these modes so when we multiply it with the mode shapes it gives the
corresponding displacements. The equality being true only when n = N. We can however reduce
the size of the problem without compromising the accuracy by considering only those modes
which contribute significantly to the total response of the structure.

19 | P a g e
The spatial distribution of the effective earthquake forces is defined by . This force
distribution can be expanded as a summation of modal inertia force distribution

Eq 3.9
where

Eq 3.10

Eq 3.11

Eq 3.12
is the row vector of participation factors associated with the three components of ground
motion for mode i. The contribution of the nth mode to the excitation vector MI is

Eq 3.13

3.4. NATURAL VIBRATION FREQUENCIES AND MODES

The free vibration of an undamped system in one of its natural vibration modes can be described
mathematically as:

Eq 3.14
Where, the deflected shape does not vary with time. The time variation of the displacements
is described by the simple harmonic function

Eq 3.15
Where, and are constants of integration that can be determined from the initial conditions
that initiate motion. Combining Eqs (3.14) and (3.15) gives

Eq 3.16

20 | P a g e
Where, and are unknown.

Substituting this form in Eq (3.3) for C and F=0 gives

Eq 3.17
This Eq can be satisfied in one of two ways. Either which implies that and
there is no motion of the system (this is the so-called trivial solution), or the natural frequencies
and the modes must satisfy the following algebraic Eq:

Eq 3.18
Which provides a useful condition. This algebraic problem is called the matrix eigenvalue
problem. When necessary it is called the real eigenvalue problem to distinguish it from the
complex eigenvalue problem. The stiffness and mass matrices and are known ; the problem
is to determine the scalar and the vector .

To indicate the formal solution to Eq (3.18), it is rewritten as :

Eq 3.19
which, can be interpreted as a set of N homogeneous algebraic Eqs for the N elements
. This set always has the trivial solution , which is not useful because it implies
no motion. It has nontrivial solutions if

Eq 3.20
When the determinate is expanded, a polynomial of order N in is obtained. Eq () is known as
the characteristic Eq or frequency Eq . This Eq has N real and positive roots for because
and , the structural mass and stiffness matrices, are symmetric and positive definite. The
positive definite property of is assured for all structures supported in a way that prevents rigid-
body motion. The positive definite property of is also assured because the lumped masses are
nonzero in all DOF’s retained in the analysis.

The N roots of Eq() determine N natural frequencies of vibration. These roots

of the characteristic Eq are also known as eigenvalues, characteristic values, or normal values.
When a natural frequency is known, Eq (3.20) can be solved for the corresponding vector
to within a multiplicative constant. The eigenvalue problem does not fix the absolute
amplitude of the vectors , only the shape of the vector given by the relative values of the N
displacements . Corresponding to the IN natural vibration frequencies of
an N-DOF system, there are N independent vectors which are known as natural modes of
vibration or natural mode shapes of vibration.

21 | P a g e
So, a vibrating system with N DOF’s has N natural vibration frequencies
arranged in sequence from the smallest to largest ; corresponding natural periods ; and natural
modes . The term natural is used to qualify each if these vibration properties to emphasize the
fact that these are natural properties of the structure in free vibration, and they depend only on its
mass and stiffness properties. The subscript denotes the mode number and the first mode
is known as the fundamental mode.

3.4.1. MODAL AND SPECTRAL MATRICES

The N eigenvalues, N natural frequencies , and N natural modes can be assembled compactly
into matrices. Let the natural mode corresponding to the natural frequency have elements
, where indicates the DOFs. The eigenvectors then can be displayed in a single square
matrix, each column of which is a natural mode:

Eq 3.21

Eq 3.22
By using the modal and spectral matrices, it is possible to assemble all of these relations into a
single matrix Eq:

Eq 3.23

22 | P a g e
 3.4.2. COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR THE EIGENVALUE PROBLEM

The eigenvalue problem for finding the vibration properties- natural frequencies and modes-of a
structure can be represented by a characteristic Eq:

Eq 3.24
where, the eigenvalues are the roots of the characteristic Eq and is a polynomial of
order N, the number of DOFs of the system. This is not a practical method, especially for large
systems (i.e., a large number of DOFs), because evaluation of the N coefficients of the
polynomial requires much computational effort and the roots of are sensitive to numerical
round-off errors in the coefficients.

Finding reliable and efficient methods to solve the eigenvalue problem has been the subject of
much research. Most of the methods available can be classified into three major categories
depending on which basic property is used as the basis of the solution algorithm:

(1) Vector iteration methods

(2) Transformation methods use the orthogonality property of modes
(3) Polynomial Iteration techniques work on the fact that .
All solution methods for eigenvalue problems must be iterative in nature because, basically
solving the eigenvalue problem is equivalent to finding roots of the polynomial . No explicit
formulas are available for these roots when N is larger than 4, this requiring an iterative solution.
One such method of finding iterative solutions for the roots of the polynomial Eqs is by
converging the solution to one of those roots. We in our problem have used STODLA to achieve
the same.

23 | P a g e
 3.5. MATRIX ITERATION METHOD (STODLA METHOD)

3.5.1. DETERMINATION OF THE EIGENSPECTRUM

The determination the eigenspectrum of a system is an important part of the dynamic analysis of
the system. Since the response of MDOF system is usually contained in the lower modes of
vibration, determination of the characteristics of the fundamental mode is of primary interest.

3.5.2. CONVERGENCE TO THE FIRST MODE

As we know

So, we can write it as

We define Dynamical Matrix D such that

Eq 3.25
Hence,

So, we make first initial guess of

So, to start with, we determine i=1 first mode shape and first eigen value:

Now since for iteration process only shape is needed. So, we drop and then scale factor will
represent

24 | P a g e
So, basically if a square matrix is multiplied by an eigen vector then it yields another eigen
vector which is proportional to it, constant of proportionality being the eigen value.

Eq 3.26
, being the constant of proportionality

So we need to continue the iteration until

Then,

Eq 3.27

3.5.3. CONVERGENCE TO HIGHEST MODE:

Pre-multiplying by ,

Hence,

Doing iteration with this Eq leads to highest mode shape & eigen value.

3.5.4. CONVERGENCE TO ANY INTERMEDIATE MODE:

Say, we need to determine the eigen value & eigen vector for 2 nd mode,

Pre-multiplying with

Pre-multiplying with

25 | P a g e
Pre-multiplying with

Proceeding in the same way,

Pre-multiplying with ,

Similarly,

So if we do iteration with , we converge to 2nd mode & 2nd eigen value.

Hence, to obtain the kth mode shape & kth eigen value,

Let Sk-1=Sweeping matrix till k-1th vector, then

26 | P a g e
 Eq 3.28
th
And the dynamical matrix for obtaining k mode using iteration process is

Then

Eq 3.29

3.6. DAMPING MATRIX

The damping matrix for practical structures should not be calculated from the structural
dimensions, structural member sizes and the damping of the structural materials used, because
unlike the elastic modulus, which enters into the computation of stiffness, the damping properties
of the materials are not well established. Even if these properties were known, the resulting
damping matrix would not account for a significant part of energy dissipated in friction at steel
connections, opening and closing of microcracks in concrete, stressing of non-structural
elements-partition walls, mechanical equipment, fireproofing, etc. - friction between the structure
itself and non-structural elements and other similar mechanisms, some of which are even hard to
identify.

Thus the damping matrix for a structure should be determined from its modal damping ratios,
which account for all energy dissipating mechanisms

Classical damping is an appropriate idealization if similar mechanisms are distributes throughout

the structure. Consider first mass-proportional damping and stiffness-proportional damping:

Eq 3.30
Where, constants and have units sec-1 and sec, respectively. For both these damping
matrices the matrix C is diagonal by virtue of the modal orthogonality properties, therefore, these
are classical damping matrices.

We now relate the modal damping ratios for a system with mass-proportional damping to the
coefficient . The generalized damping for the nth mode:

Eq 3.31
And the modal damping ratio:

27 | P a g e
 Eq 3.32
The damping ratio is inversely proportional to the natural frequency the coefficient can be
selected to obtain a specified value of damping ratio in any one mode, say fir the th mode.
Eq() then gives

Eq 3.33
With determined, the damping matrix C is known from Eq(), and the damping ration in any
other mode, say the th mode is given by Eq(3.31).

Similarly, the modal damping ratios for a system with stiffness-proportional damping can be
related to the coefficient In any case

Eq 3.34

Eq 3.35
The damping ratio increases linearly with the natural frequency. The coefficient can be
selected to obtain a specified calue if the damping ratio in any one mode, say for the th mode.
Eq then gives

Eq 3.36
With determined, the damping matrix C is known from Eq(3.34), and the damping ratio in
any other mode is given by Eq(3.35). Neither of the damping matrices defined by Eq (3.35) are
appropriate for practical analysis of MDF systems. The variations of the modal damping ratios
with natural frequencies are not consistent with the experimental data that indicate roughly the
same damping ratios for several vibration modes of a structure.

As a first step toward constructing a classical damping matrix consistent with experimental data,
we consider Rayleigh damping:

Eq 3.37
The damping ratio for the th mode of such a system is

28 | P a g e
 Eq 3.38
The coefficients and can be determined from the specified damping ratios and for the
th and th modes, respectively. Expressing Eq(3.38) for these two modes in the matrix form
leads to

Eq 3.39
These two algebraic Eqs can be solved to determine the coefficients and . If both modes are
assumed to have the same damping ratio , which is reasonable based on experimental data, then

The damping matrix is then known from Eq(3.39) and the damping ratio for any other mode
given by Eq(3.38), varies with natural frequency as shown in Fig.

So the generalised Eq becomes:

Eq 3.40
where, N is the number of degrees of freedom in the system and are constants.

3.7. MODAL EQS

When the mode shapes are chosen to satisfy the eigen value problem
substituting () into () and pre-multiplying by yields n uncoupled modal Eqs

Eq 3.41
where,

29 | P a g e
 Eq 3.42
and

Eq 3.43
are the natural frequency and damping ratio of mode ‘i’, respectively

Let,

Eq 3.44
denote the displacement response of an oscillator that has the frequency and damping ratio of
mode i and is subjected to kth component of ground motion, where

Eq 3.45
is the unit impulse response function of mode i and

Dividing Eq by M we get

Eq 3.46
replacing u by to emphasize its correction to the ith mode:

Eq 3.47
Comparing Eqs () and ()

Eq 3.48

30 | P a g e
 3.8. MODAL RESPONSES
The contribution of the nth mode to the displacement u(t) is

Eq 3.49

Modal responses due to each component of ground motion.

Eq 3.50

3.9. RESPONSE OF SDOF SYSTEMS TO GENERAL DYNAMIC

EXCITATION: DUHAMEL INTEGRAL

A general method for evaluating response of SDOF system to an arbitrary form of excitation can
be derived on the basis of unit impulse response function. The method is based on the principle
of superposition and hence is strictly valid for linear systems only. Consider a SDOF system
subjected to some arbitrary forcing function . This arbitrary excitation can be considered to
be a sequence of pulses of infinitesimal duration and magnitude equal to the amplitude of the
forcing function . The response of a system to an impulse is denoted by
& given by

Eq 3.51
The total response at time will be the sum of the response due to all incremental impulses
occurring prior to time . Therefore,

Eq 3.52

31 | P a g e
This integral is known as Duhamel integral and can be used to compute the response of SDOF
system to any arbitrary excitation. This Eq can also be written as

Eq 3.53
And in this form it is commonly referred to as the convolution integral. The free-vibration
response due to non-zero initial conditions should be superposed with the forced vibration
response computed by using Duhamel integral to get the complete response.

Since the forcing functions are usually available as tabulated values for different time intervals,
this Eq needs to be evaluated numerically by replacing the continuous integral by a finite
summation with a uniform pulse width (step size) approximating the infinitesimal . As the
above formulation is based on the superposition of impulse response functions, it is necessary to
ensure that the pulse duration used in actual evaluation of the response is indeed small enough
to closely resemble this assumed behavior. Moreover, should be small enough to assume the
force amplitude to be constant within the interval.

The numerical approach to evaluate the responses of a SDOF system by Duhamel integral
involves interpolation of the excitation i.e. the integrand of the Duhamel integral.This approach
is strictly applicable only for linear systems.

If the excitation function is specified as a set of discrete values for to

spaced at uniform interval of . Assuming a linear variation of the excitation function within an
interval, the variation of within an interval may be given as,

Eq 3.54
where, . The general solution for the dynamic response of an
underdamped SDOF system within the time interval and is given by,

Eq 3.55
and

Substituting for and evaluating the integral, the recurrence relations for displacement and
velocity may be obtained as,

32 | P a g e
and

Eq 3.56
where are the coefficients of the recurrence relations and are given as

Eq 3.57
where .

For reasonable accuracy in the computed response, it is necessary that the sampling interval
, being the natural period of the SDOF oscillator.

3.10. EQUIVALENT MOMENTS

3.10.1. BEAM-COLUMNS SUBJECTED TO END MOMENTS

Here we are considering the case in which the primary bending moment is caused by end
moments in the beam-column. Shown in Fig. is a beam-column acted on by end couples and
at the left and right ends of the member, respectively, and acted on by an axial force . Using
the free-body diagram of a segment of beam-column of length x from the left end, the external
moment acting on the cut section is

33 | P a g e
 Eq 3.58
Equating this to the internal moment of – and rearranging, we have

Eq 3.59
or, using , we can write

Eq 3.60
The general solution is

Eq 3.61
The constants and can be evaluated by using the boundary conditions

From the first boundary condition, we obtain

And from the second boundary condition, we can obtain

Eq 3.62
Therefore, Eq () can now be written as

Eq 3.63
from which

Eq 3.64
and

34 | P a g e
 Eq 3.65
and

Eq 3.66
To determine the location of the maximum moment, we set the shear force or Eq(),
equal to zero. In doing so, we obtain the location

Eq 3.67
From Fig it can be seen that

Eq 3.68

Eq 3.69
The maximum moment is obtained by using the above expressions for and in the
expression where is given in Eq (3.65), Thus

Eq 3.70

Eq 3.71

35 | P a g e
 Eq 3.72
The minus sign that appears in Eq(3.72) simply indicates that causes tension on the top
fiber of the cross section.

If is the larger of the two end moments, then the terms in the brackets in Eq (3.72) represent
the moment amplification factor for the beam-column subjected to end moments and an
axial force . Note that this amplification factor depends not only on the magnitude of the axial
force, but also on the magnitude of the ratio of the end moments.

For members bent in double curvature, sometimes the maximum moment occurs at the end and
is therefore equal to , as shown in Fig. If this is the case the amplification factor becomes
meaningless because this theoretical maximum moment occurs outside the length of the beam-
column.

It should be mentioned that in the development of Eq(3.72) only member overall stability is
considered. Failure due to lateral torsional buckling or buckling due to unwinding from double to
single curvature is not considered.

Although Eq(3.72) has been developed for a member bent in double curvature, the same can also
be used for a member bent in single curvature, simply by replacing by – . Thus, for
members bent is single curvature, the expression for maximum moment is

Eq 3.73
Eqs (3.72) and (3.73) can be written in a combined form as

Eq 3.74
where is positive if the member is bent on double curvature and is negative if it is bent in
single curvature. The absolute value for is used in the coefficient of Eq (3.74) because we
are interested only in the magnitude, not the direction of .

A special case for a beam column bent in single curvature is the case in which the end moments
are equal and opposite, i.e., if , then the Eq reduces to

36 | P a g e
 Eq 3.75

3.10.2. CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENT MOMENT

Eq (3.74) is the expression for the maximum moment for the general case of a beam-column
subjected to unequal end moments. The maximum moment may occur at a member’s end, and
be equal to the larger of the two end moments, or it may occur somewhere within the member
whose magnitude can be given by Eq(3.74). For the purpose of design, one needs to know
whether the maximum moment occurs at the end or away from the ends, and also the location of
the maximum moment if it should occur away from the ends. To eliminate these calculations, the
concept of equivalent moment is introduced in design practice.

The concept of equivalent moment is shown schematically in Fig. The end moments and
acting on the member are replaced by a pair of equal and opposite equivalent moment . The
magnitude of the equivalent moment is such that the maximum moment produced by it will be
equal to that produced by the actual end moments. Mathematically, one can obtain the equivalent
moment by setting in Eq(3.73) and evaluate this to the

Eq 3.76
From which we solve for

Eq 3.77

Eq 3.78
In which is the equivalent moment factor.

37 | P a g e
 4. RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD

A response-spectrum-based procedure for predicting the envelope that bound a vector of

seismic responses is developed. When the principal directions along which the components of
ground motions are uncorrelated are know, the envelope is shown to be elliptical in shape and
is identical to that derived by Gupta and Singh (1977) and Anastassiadis (1993). The
procedure developed here is based upon results obtained from the theory of random vibrations.
The derivation of response envelopes is based on the response spectrum method. Consequently,
they do not offer as much insight regarding the applicability of the procedure and the conditions
under which it might fail to provide accurate results. Once the mathematical basis for the method
has been established, we demonstrate how the envelope can be constructed in a physically
intuitive manner. We will see that this approach is helpful for understanding why the resulting
ellipsoid is an appropriate upper bound on the possible combinations of responses. Finally,
because the principal directions of ground motion are normally not known in advance, an
envelope that accounts for the uncertainty in the orientation of these directions is developed. This
envelope, which in general is not elliptical, is the union of the elliptical envelopes for all
orientations of the principal directions. For this reason, it is called the "supreme" envelope.

4.1. THEORY OF RANDOM VIBRATIONS

Assume is a zero-mean, stationary Gaussian vector process with the two-sided power
spectral density matrix .The cross-power spectral density between modal responses
and is given by

Eq 4.1
where is the complex frequency response function for mode
is the (k, l) element of and represents the cross-power spectral density
of ground acceleration components and and an asterisk denotes the
complex conjugate. The standard procedures of the theory of random vibrations yield

Eq 4.2

38 | P a g e
for the cross-power spectral density of responses and .

It is a common practice to resolve the translational ground motions into components directed
along the structure axes. We assume that one of the structure axes is vertical and denote the
components of ground motion along the two horizontal structure axes and the vertical axis as
, and , respectively. As a result of this convention, , and
are associated with the components of ground acceleration directed along the structure axes.
Penzien and Watabe (1975) observed that during the strong motion phase of an earthquake the
translational ground motion components are uncorrelated along a well-defined orthogonal system
of axes whose orientation remains reasonably stable over time. These axes, which are denoted
the principal axes of the ground motion, are usually oriented such that the major and intermediate
principal axes lie in the horizontal plane and the minor principal axis is vertical. We denote the
components of ground acceleration directed along the major, intermediate and minor principal
axes as , and , respectively , and define their diagonal matrix of power
spectral densities by = diag[ , , ] . The
components along any other system of axes obtained by a rotation of these principal axes are
naturally correlated. Consequently, unless the principal axes of ground motion coincide with the
structure axes, the cross terms corresponding to k l are not zero and must be included in the
analysis. We account for these cross terms by relating the components of ground motion directed
along the structure axes to the principal components of the ground motion though the rotational
transformation

Eq 4.3
Where and

Eq 4.4
in which the counterclockwise angle specifies the orientation of the horizontal principal axes
relative to the horizontal structure axes in the horizontal plane, as in Figure 4.1

The power spectral density matrices of the ground accelerations directed along the two sets of
axes are related through

39 | P a g e
 Eq 4.5
Hence

Eq 4.6
The covariance between zero-mean responses and is

Eq 4.7

Eq 4.8
where

Eq 4.9
is the covariance between modal responses and .

4.2. THE RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD

40 | P a g e
For the purposes of structural design, the components of ground motions at a site are commonly
described by their response spectra, which are functions that specify the maximum response of a
single-degree-of-freedom oscillator due to a given component of ground motion for a range of
frequencies and damping ratios of the oscillator. Therefore, it is useful to express Eqs in terms of
the response spectra of the principal components of ground motion.

The formulation developed here is an extension of the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)
modal combination rule developed by Der Kiureghian (1981) for predicting the peak value of a
single response quantity resulting from a single component of ground motion. In particular, we
assume that (1) each component of the seismic input is a wide-band, zero-mean Gaussian process
having a stationary duration that is several times longer than the fundamental period of the
structure, (2) the significant modes of vibration are within the range of dominant frequencies of
the excitation, and (3) the structure is not too lightly damped ( ≥ 0.02, i = 1,2, ... , n).

Following the derivation of the original CQC rule, an approximation for the covariance

Term is introduced. We first write

Eq 4.10

where is the variance of and is the correlation coefficient between modal

responses and . We then substitute the following approximations for and .

For , it has been shown by Der Kiureghian (1980, 1981) that when the significant modes of
vibration are within the range of dominant frequencies of the wide-band seismic excitation, the
following expression is a good approximation

Eq 4.11
This expression, which is based on response to white noise, is independent of the ground motion
components; thus, the superscript on is removed.

41 | P a g e
When the response is a stationary zero-mean Gaussian process, can be expressed as

,Eq 4.12

where = E[max ] is the mean displacement response spectrum ordinate for mode i due
to the kth principal component of ground motion and is a peak factor that has a mild
dependence on the power spectral density and the duration of the excitation. We note that the
original CQC rule is based upon the conventional absolute value definition of the response
spectrum, = E[max ]. The difference between the two definitions is normally
negligible, i.e., less than 5%, for damping ratios typical of conventional structures. We also note
that the expectation operator E[·] in the definition of implies that

the ground motion , which gives rise to , is a realization from an ensemble of

ground motions that can be characterized as a stochastic process.

Hence

Eq 4.13
Under the assumption that the response is a stationary, zero-mean Gaussian process, the variance
of can be expressed as

,Eq 4.14
where = E[max ] is the mean of the maximum value of and is a peak factor.
Using the relationship in which is the correlation coefficient between
responses and ,

42 | P a g e
 Eq 4.15

Where = . As discussed by Der Kiureghian (1981), because the response peak

factors r = 1,2, ... , m, are approximately weighted averages of the modal peak factors,

, i = 1, 2, ... , n ,

Eq 4.16
Thus, we can write, without much loss in accuracy,

Eq 4.17
The above expression defines the elements of the "response matrix".

We can now make the following observations.

43 | P a g e
First, it is apparent from the above derivation that, when r s, is related to the covariance
between responses and . The algebraic sign of indicates whether the responses
and are positively or negatively correlated. If and are uncorrelated,
then = 0; whereas if is proportional to , then the two responses are perfectly
correlated, i.e., = ±1, and ,

Second, when r = s,

Eq 4.18

by virtue of the fact that = 1 and, therefore, = . Above Eq is a response spectrum-

based estimate for the square of the expected maximum value of due to multiple
components of ground motion. Furthermore, considering the case when the structure is subjected
to a single component of ground motion directed along the Z1 structure axis shown in Figure, i.e.,
D2i = D3i = 0 for all modes and = 0, the above Eq reduces to

Eq 4.19
which is the original CQC rule developed by Der Kiureghian (1981).

Finally, we note that can be interpreted as a bounding envelope on as it evolves in

time. Thus, the peak values of the individual response components can be used to define a
rectangular domain in the m-dimensional response space that envelops the response vector x(t).
This envelope, however, is obviously conservative, as the individual response maxima

normally do not occur at the same time. As we will see shortly, when e is specified, the envelope
derived in this study is an ellipsoid in the m-dimensional response space that is inscribed within
this conservative rectangular envelope

44 | P a g e
 4.3. MATRIX FORMULATION

For the derivation of the elliptical envelope, it is convenient to rewrite (4.17) in a matrix
form. Define the n x n diagonal matrices = diag[ ] and = diag[ ] for k = 1,2,3 and
the n x n correlation matrix We can then rewrite (4.17) in the form

Eq 4.20

where

Eq 4.21

45 | P a g e
For a given structure and response spectra, and for known principal directions of the ground
motion, is known and is identical for all response quantities. Furthermore, since =
= > 0 for any non-trivial response, is a positive definite matrix.

FIGURE 4.1

1 2= structure axes

1’ 2’ = major and intermediate principal axes of ground motion, respectively

46 | P a g e
 5. THE ELLIPTICAL ENVELOPE

We defined the m x m response matrix

Eq 5.1
in which the (r,s) element is Xrs . Because Z is symmetric and positive definite, X is
symmetric and positive semi-definite. Furthermore, X is singular only when there are linearly
dependent columns in Q, i.e., when one or more of the responses considered are linear
functions of other responses. In the following derivation of the elliptical envelope we first
assume that such linear dependence between the response components does not exist so that
X is positive definite and invertible. The case of linearly dependent responses is treated as a
special case.

Consider the case where the orientation of the principal directions of ground motion, , is
known. To derive a response-spectrum-based envelope of the vector response process x(t) as
it evolves in time, consider the projection of x(t) on a unit vector a in the m-dimensional
response space

Eq 5.2
When the rth element of is taken to be unity with all other elements equal to zero, we
obtain .For an arbitrary unit vector , is a linear combination of the
elements of the response vector x(t) and, therefore, of the nodal displacements. Hence

Eq 5.3
where = is an N-vector of constants that are functions of the stiffness and
undeformed geometry of the structure and the specified direction in the response space.
= E[max (t)], i.e., the expected peak value of the projection of the response vector
along the direction specified by . Hence, we can write

Eq 5.4
Now consider the unit vector along the response axis in direction 1, i.e., = [1,0,0, ... ,0]T .
Eq yields X1 which establishes the bound A similar bound - is
obtained by considering the direction vector = [1,0,0, ... ,0]. These bounds define two
hyperplanes that are perpendicular to the axis and are located at distances ± from the
origin. Note that the distance to the bounding hyperplane in direction is the maximum

47 | P a g e
value of the projection of x(t) on . Hence, this distance is predicted using the one-sided
definition of the response spectrum. Next, consider a = [0, ± 1,0, ... ,0] T , i.e., unit vectors
along the response axis in direction 2. Similarly, the bounds - on the second
response quantity are obtained, which similarly define two hyperplanes perpendicular to the
axis. Continuing this process for the remaining response axes, one obtains m parallel pairs
of hyperplanes normal to the response axes. The intersection of the domains between each
pair of parallel planes defines an m-dimensional rectangular domain that envelops the vector
response process. The rectangular envelope is the one used when the maxima of individual
response quantities are combined to evaluate the adequacy of a given design.

Now consider an arbitrary vector that is not aligned with any of the response axes. The
projection of the response vector along this direction is bounded by with
defined earler. This bound defines a hyperplane that is perpendicular to and is at a distance
from the origin of the response space. Obviously, the response vector should be contained
within the intersection of the half-space T X defined by this hyperplane and the
rectangular domain defined earlier. This intersection is shown in Figure 3.1b in the two-
dimensional space of and . This procedure can be repeated for many directions a, thus
gradually tightening the envelope. Figure 3.1c shows the resulting envelope in the plane of
and .

In the following, we show that this envelope is an ellipsoid that is completely defined by the
response matrix X. Consider the bounding hyperplane defined by the unit normal vector
and distance from the origin of the response space and a unit vector having an acute
angle with . Let denote the distance from the origin to the hyperplane in the
direction of and denote the distance to the envelope in the same direction. Figure 3.2
shows these distances in the plane defined by vectors and .One can write

Eq 5.5

For a given , the distance to the envelope is the minimum of ) with respect to . To
obtain this distance, we solve

Eq 5.6

48 | P a g e
for and substitute into (5.5). Upon rearranging (5.6) and using (5.5), one has

Eq 5.7
Hence,

Eq 5.8
and, provided X is not singular,

Eq 5.9

Substituting this result into (5.5) for yields

Eq 5.10

or, since is a minimum,

Eq 5.11
This Eq defines an ellipsoid in the polar coordinate system. It can be used to determine the
distance from the origin of the response space to the envelope in any direction specified by
the unit vector .

We now examine properties of matrix X that are helpful in understanding the geometry of the
envelope defined by (5.11). First, we rewrite (5.11) by squaring both sides of the expression
and multiplying through by to obtain

49 | P a g e
 Eq 5.12
As mentioned earlier, the point x = is located on the envelope in direction from the ori-
gin. Hence, the envelope is defined by the locus of points x in the response space that satisfy

Eq 5.13
Because X is symmetric and real-valued, it can be expressed as

Eq 5.14
where is an m x m diagonal matrix whose elements rr = ; r = 1,2, ... , m are the
eigenvalues of X and is an m x m orthogonal matrix whose rth column is the eigenvector
associated with the eigenvalue . The columns of form a basis for the response space that
can be adopted as a new coordinate system. We designate these coordinate axes , r = 1,2, ...
, m, and

note that, in general, they are rotated with respect to the coordinates ,r = 1,2, ... , m . Any
point x in the response space can be specified by x’ in the rotated coordinate system through
the transformation

Eq 5.15
Using , yields
’ ’

Eq 5.16
as an expression that defines the envelope in the coordinate system formed by the columns of
. Expanding (5.15), we see that the envelope is the locus of points in the response space that
satisfy

’ ’ ’

Eq 5.17
It is clear from the preceding Eq that the envelope is an ellipsoid as we asserted earlier.
Moreover, the principal axes of this ellipsoid coincide with the coordinate system defined by
the columns of , which were identified as the eigenvectors of X, i.e., the eigenvectors of X
are the principal axes of the envelope. In addition, the length of the rth semi-axis is , which
is the square root of the rth eigenvalue of X.

50 | P a g e
FIGURE 5. 1 figure 5.2

FIGURE 5. 3

51 | P a g e
FIGURE 5.4

FIGURE 5.5

52 | P a g e
 FIGURE 5.6 FIGURE 5.7 FIGURE 5.8

5.1. THE SUPREME ENVELOPE

It is evident from equations that the size and orientation of the elliptical envelope are func-
tions of the orientation of the principal axes of ground motion, . In the preceding derivation,
was assumed to be known. Normally, however, this information is not available during the
design phase of a structure. In such cases, it is prudent to consider all possible values that
can assume. That is, the envelope used for design should bound all the elliptical envelopes
obtained for 0 2π . In this section, we derive expressions for this bounding envelope,
which we denote as the "supreme" envelope.

For a specified direction in the response space and a given orientation of the principal
axes of ground motion, the distance to the hyperplane defined by that bounds the
elliptical envelope is given by (5.4). Using (4.19) and the trigonometric identities sin2 (1-
cos2 )/2 and 2sin cos = sin 2 , (5.4) can be rewritten as

Eq 5.18
For a specified , the value of that maximizes is found by solving

53 | P a g e
 Eq 5.19
such that

Eq 5.20

The result is

Eq 5.21

Eq 5.22
where

Eq 5.23
Hence

Eq 5.24
where

Eq 5.25
Eq (5.33) defines the distance to the hyperplane tangent to the supreme envelope and having
as its unit normal vector. This expression is analogous to (5.4) derived earlier for the el-
liptical envelope. However, the matrix here is dependent upon and, as a result, the

54 | P a g e
supreme envelope is not an ellipsoid. It is evident that the supreme envelope is a union of all
elliptical envelopes obtained for 0 2π. Furthermore, the bounding hyperplane in a
given direction is tangent to that ellipsoid in the union that is defined by evaluated at .
It follows, from a derivation similar to that used to derive (5.13), that points x on the supreme
envelope satisfy the relation

Eq 5.26
One can use this relation to compute points on the supreme envelope by varying . Each such
point corresponds to a value of that can be computed in terms of . A closed-form expres-
sion for the supreme envelope for this case does not exist. Alternatively, the envelope can be
constructed by superimposing the elliptical envelopes for all values in the interval of
interest.

FIGURE 5.9

Figure 5.10

55 | P a g e
 6. CAPACITY CURVE

6.1. INTRODUCTION
Having obtained the response-spectrum based envelopes as well as time-history plots, the
next step is to use it for the purpose of seismic analysis & design. These envelopes can be
used in conjunction with a capacity surface (or interaction diagram) to either determine the
adequacy of a design or to determine the required value of a design parameter. To determine
the adequacy of a design, one has to make sure that the envelope bounding the response
vector lies entirely within a prescribed capacity surface. Similarly, to determine the required
value of a design parameter, which directly controls the position of the capacity surface, is so
chosen such that the capacity surface completely encompasses the envelope.

In practice, all members in a space frame are subjected to combined loading & is essentially a
beam-column. A beam-column is a structural member subjected to both bending and
compression/tension. However, if the axial force effects in a member are negligible, it is
more convenient to design & analyze it as a beam. On the other hand, if the bending effects in
a member are negligible, it is more convenient to treat it as a column. The analysis of a beam-
column is more complicated than that of a member subjected to only one type of loading.
Even a reasonable approximate solution involves considerable labour in numerical
calculations & hence limits its practical use. On the other hand, the present design procedures
& plastic analysis takes no account of mutual effects of different kind of loading on each-
other, and hence have an unknown amount of inaccuracy when applied to space frame
analysis and design.

A compromise between these two approaches is to consider the concept of interaction

diagram/ capacity surface relating the axial force and two bending moments under the
condition that the entire section is fully plastic. However, interaction curves are not unique to
a member but the manner of application of loading is important. Hence, a Capacity Surface is
a graphical representation of the upper-bound for applied load effects to ensure stability and
safety of the member.

The general governing Eq of an elastic prismatic beam-column is a fourth order linear

differential Eq relating the derivatives of the lateral displacements, the axial forxe P, and the
transverse load w(x) or external moments M in the form

Eq 6.1
where k2 = P/EI. The eneral solution to this Eq is

Eq 6.2
Alternatively, one can draw a free-body diagram of a segment of beam-column and equate
the external moment to internal moment at some general location to obtain a second order
differential Eq

56 | P a g e
 Eq 6.3
Whose general solution is:

Eq 6.4
Here f(x) is the particular integral. And the arbitrary constants ( A, B, C, D) can be
determined from boundary conditions.

For design purposes, it is often necessary to determine the maximum deflection & maximum
moment. The maximum deflection can be determined by setting y’ = 0 to solve for x & then
back substitute. The maximum moment can be obtained by setting , solving for x &
then back substituting in moment Eq.

For simplicity and uniformity in a non-sway beam-column, it is often possible to approximate

the value of the maximum moment by an expression in the simple form

Eq 6.5
Where

M0 = maximum moment that would exist if the axial force in the member were absent.

moment amplification factor to reflect the effect of axial force on magnifying

the primary moment in the member.

Cm = defined as follows:

1. For members subjected to transverse loading

Eq 6.6
2. For members subjected to end-moments only

Eq 6.7

Eq 6.8
K = effective length factor

6.2. INELASTIC BEHAVIOR OF BEAM-COLUMNS

57 | P a g e
The above discussion is limited to the case in which the member remains fully elastic. In
other words, no yielding of material has taken place in any part of the member. The
assumption of a fully elastic behavior is justified to some extent for the member under service
loading conditions. However, for failure behavior, we must include inelasticity in analysis.

The inclusion of inelasticity in analysis makes the problem much more complex because the
governing differential Eqs become highly non-linear. In many instances, closed-form
solutions are intractable and recourse must be made to numerical techniques to obtain
solutions. However, using certain simplifying assumptions, approximate solutions to some
specific cases of inelastic beam-column can be obtained analytically. For instance,
investigation of the behavior & failure load of an eccentrically loaded beam-column of
rectangular cross-section yields following relation between Moment & Axial Force:

If

Eq 6.9
And if

Eq 6.10
Where

, normalized axial force

Axial force

Design Axial strength

, normalized moment

Maximum end-moment

Design Flexural strength

, normalized buckling capacity

, Euler’s buckling load

Using the above Eqs, depending upon the range of applicability of the Eqs, ultimate strength
interaction curves for and (i.e., curves giving the values of for a given value
of ) can be developed for various values.

58 | P a g e
Although a rectangular section with idealized stress-strain relationship has been used here to
obtain the interactions diagrams, the same procedure can be extended to obtain ultimate
strength interaction diagrams for I-shaped sections with or without residual stress. However,
the determination of ultimate loads for these sections involves considerably more effort, and
in many cases, resort to numerical solution techniques is inevitable.

From a practical standpoint, it is more convenient if the maximum load can be determined
approximately in a direct manner by simpler formulae. To this end, design interaction
formulae provide just such a quick & easy way for estimating the maximum load carrying
capacity of a beam-column. These design interaction Eqs provide a convenient & direct
means for designers to estimate the adequacy of members subjected to combined stresses.
These are Eqs that relate a combination of axial force & moments that will initiate the failure
of a beam-column. They generally give good approximations to the more exact interaction
curves developed on the basis of inelastic analysis.

6.3. DESIGN INTERACTION EQS: AISC/LRFD FORMAT

The AISC/LRFD format based on the exact inelastic solutions of 82 beam-columns,
recommends the following interaction Eqs for sway and non-sway beam-columns.

For

Eq 6.11
For

Eq 6.12
where

ultimate axial compression capacity of the axially loaded column

ultimate moment resisting capacity of the laterally unsupported beam about the x
and y axes, respectively

column resistance factor ( =0.85)

beam resistance factor ( =0.90)

design axial force

59 | P a g e
 design moment for the member about x and y axes, respectively, calculated as
follows

Eq 6.13
in which

moment in member assuming there is no lateral translation in the frame calculated by

using first-order elastic analysis

moment in a member as a result of lateral translation of the frame only calculated by

using first-order elastic analysis

moment amplification factor

Eq 6.14
moment amplification factor, evaluated by

Eq 6.15
or alternatively

Eq 6.16
,

axial loads on all columns in a storey

first-order translational deflection of the storey under consideration

sum of all storey horizontal forces producing

L= storey height

The advantage of using AISC/LRFD format is that, unlike the ASD and PD interaction Eqs in
which both the yielding and stability interaction Eqs are needed in the design process, only
one interaction Eq is needed if the LRFD approach is used. The applicable Eq is determined
by the term . Another feature of the LRFD approach that is different from the ASD

60 | P a g e
and PD approach is that the and moment magnification effect is treated
independently.

Figure 6.1

61 | P a g e
 7. PROBLEM STATEMENT

7.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we describe the example structure and the ground motions considered and
perform the dynamic analysis of the structure using the time history analysis and the response
spectrum-based procedures developed earlier and also verify the possibilities and potential
limitation of the use of design envelopes based on such methods.

7.2. EXAMPLE STRUCTURE

The seismic response of a single story steel structure is examined in the numerical analysis.
The material properties, member sizes and connection details of these structures were
selected, in part, to reflect current design philosophies and construction practices with the aid
of STAAD PRO. MATLAB was used to perform all the mathematical operations and to
generate the require plots for the design analysis. SAP software was used to model the
structure and study the deformed geometry.

7.3. EXAMPLE BUILDING

The single-story steel building shown in Figure is the structure that is considered in the
following numerical analyses. The structure consists of single bay in both of the horizontal
directions, fixed joints and fixed ground condition.

The beam and column sizes and material properties are listed-

ISMB 200 was used for all beams and columns in the structure

Where
E is modulus of elasticity
A is area of the cross section
L is the length of the member
Ix is cross-sectional moment of inertia for principal x-axis
Iy is cross-sectional moment of inertia for principal y-axis
Iz is cross-sectional moment of inertia for principal z-axis
J is torsional constant
G is modulus of elasticity in shear
Im is mass polar moment of inertia per unit length

E 2E+11 N/m2
A 0.003233 m2
L 4m

62 | P a g e
Ix 9.56603E-08 m4
Iy 0.0000015 m4
Iz 0.000022354 m4
G 76923076923
N/m2
J 9.36355E-08 m4
Im 0.187325462 N.s2

63 | P a g e
 LOCAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR ALL MEMBERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 161650000 0 0 0 0 0 -1.6E+08 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 838275 0 0 0 1676550 0 -838275 0 0 0 1676550
3 0 0 56250 0 -112500 0 0 0 -56250 0 -112500 0
4 0 0 0 1800.683 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68324 0 0
5 0 0 -112500 0 300000 0 0 0 112500 0 150000 0
6 0 1676550 0 0 0 4470800 0 -1676550 0 0 0 2235400
7 -161650000 0 0 0 0 0 1.62E+08 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 -838275 0 0 0 -1676550 0 838275 0 0 0 -1676550
9 0 0 -56250 0 112500 0 0 0 56250 0 112500 0
10 0 0 0 -1800.68 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0 0
11 0 0 -112500 0 150000 0 0 0 112500 0 300000 0
12 0 1676550 0 0 0 2235400 0 -1676550 0 0 0 4470800

ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR BEAM 1 AND 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR BEAM 2 AND 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0

64 | P a g e
 ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR COLUMN 5, 6, 7 AND 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 161650000 0 0 0 0 0 -1.6E+08 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 838275 0 0 0 1676550 0 -838275 0 0 0 1676550
3 0 0 56250 0 -112500 0 0 0 -56250 0 -112500 0
4 0 0 0 1800.683 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68324 0 0
5 0 0 -112500 0 300000 0 0 0 112500 0 150000 0
6 0 1676550 0 0 0 4470800 0 -1676550 0 0 0 2235400
7 -161650000 0 0 0 0 0 1.62E+08 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 -838275 0 0 0 -1676550 0 838275 0 0 0 -1676550
9 0 0 -56250 0 112500 0 0 0 56250 0 112500 0
10 0 0 0 -1800.68 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0 0
11 0 0 -112500 0 150000 0 0 0 112500 0 300000 0
12 0 1676550 0 0 0 2235400 0 -1676550 0 0 0 4470800

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 2

13 14 15 16 17 18 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 56250 0 0 0 112500 0 -56250 0 0 0 112500 0
14 0 838275 0 -1676550 0 0 0 -838275 0 -1676550 0 0
15 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0 0 -161650000 0 0 0
16 0 -1676550 0 4470800 0 0 0 1676550 0 2235400 0 0
17 112500 0 0 0 300000 0 -112500 0 0 0 150000 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68324
7 -56250 0 0 0 -112500 0 56250 0 0 0 -112500 0
8 0 -838275 0 1676550 0 0 0 838275 0 1676550 0 0
9 0 0 -161650000 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0
10 0 -1676550 0 2235400 0 0 0 1676550 0 4470800 0 0
11 112500 0 0 0 150000 0 -112500 0 0 0 300000 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238

65 | P a g e
 GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 3

19 20 21 22 23 24 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 161650000 0 0 0 0 0 -1.6E+08 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 838275 0 0 0 1676550 0 -838275 0 0 0 1676550
21 0 0 56250 0 -112500 0 0 0 -56250 0 -112500 0
22 0 0 0 1800.683 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68324 0 0
23 0 0 -112500 0 300000 0 0 0 112500 0 150000 0
24 0 1676550 0 0 0 4470800 0 -1676550 0 0 0 2235400
13 -161650000 0 0 0 0 0 1.62E+08 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 -838275 0 0 0 -1676550 0 838275 0 0 0 -1676550
15 0 0 -56250 0 112500 0 0 0 56250 0 112500 0
16 0 0 0 -1800.68 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0 0
17 0 0 -112500 0 150000 0 0 0 112500 0 300000 0
18 0 1676550 0 0 0 2235400 0 -1676550 0 0 0 4470800

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 4

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6
19 56250 0 0 0 112500 0 -56250 0 0 0 112500 0
20 0 838275 0 -1676550 0 0 0 -838275 0 -1676550 0 0
21 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0 0 -161650000 0 0 0
22 0 -1676550 0 4470800 0 0 0 1676550 0 2235400 0 0
23 112500 0 0 0 300000 0 -112500 0 0 0 150000 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68324
1 -56250 0 0 0 -112500 0 56250 0 0 0 -112500 0
2 0 -838275 0 1676550 0 0 0 838275 0 1676550 0 0
3 0 0 -161650000 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0
4 0 -1676550 0 2235400 0 0 0 1676550 0 4470800 0 0
5 112500 0 0 0 150000 0 -112500 0 0 0 300000 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 -1800.68 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 5

25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 56250 0 0 0 0 -112500
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838275 1676550 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1676550 4470800 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 -112500 0 0 0 0 300000

66 | P a g e
 GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 6

31 32 33 34 35 36 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 56250 0 0 0 0 -112500
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838275 1676550 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1676550 4470800 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 -112500 0 0 0 0 300000

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 7

37 38 39 40 41 42 13 14 15 16 17 18
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 56250 0 0 0 0 -112500
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838275 1676550 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1676550 4470800 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 -112500 0 0 0 0 300000

GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 8

43 44 45 46 47 48 19 20 21 22 23 24
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 56250 0 0 0 0 -112500
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161650000 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838275 1676550 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1676550 4470800 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800.683238 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 -112500 0 0 0 0 300000

67 | P a g e
 LOCAL MASS MATRIX
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 33.89116 0 0 0 0 0 16.94558 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 37.76443 0 0 0 21.30301263 0 13.0723 0 0 0 -12.5881438
3 0 0 37.76443 0 21.30301263 0 0 0 13.0723 0 12.58814383 0
4 0 0 0 0.249767283 0 0 0 0 0 0.124883641 0 0
5 0 0 21.30301 0 15.4931001 0 0 0 -12.5881 0 -11.6198251 0
6 0 21.30301 0 0 0 15.4931001 0 12.58814 0 0 0 -11.6198251
7 16.94558 0 0 0 0 0 33.89116 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 13.0723 0 0 0 12.58814383 0 37.76443 0 0 0 -21.3030126
9 0 0 13.0723 0 -12.5881438 0 0 0 37.76443 0 21.30301263 0
10 0 0 0 0.124883641 0 0 0 0 0 0.249767283 0 0
11 0 0 12.58814 0 -11.6198251 0 0 0 21.30301 0 15.4931001 0
12 0 -12.5881 0 0 0 -11.6198251 0 -21.303 0 0 0 15.4931001

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 2

13 14 15 16 17 18 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

68 | P a g e
 GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 3
19 20 21 22 23 24 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 4

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6
19 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 5

25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

69 | P a g e
 GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 6
31 32 33 34 35 36 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 7

37 38 39 40 41 42 13 14 15 16 17 18
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

GLOBAL MASS MATRIX FOR MEMBER 8

43 44 45 46 47 48 19 20 21 22 23 24
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.83673 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.093662731 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.78231293

70 | P a g e
TOTAL STIFFNESS MATRIX

71 | P a g e
TOTAL MASS MATRIX

72 | P a g e
MATRIX

73 | P a g e
MATRIX

74 | P a g e
DAMPING MATRIX

75 | P a g e
NATURAL FREQUENCY FOR 24 MODES

76 | P a g e
7.4. MODE SHAPE DIAGRAM

77 | P a g e
78 | P a g e
79 | P a g e
80 | P a g e
81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e
 7.5. EL CENTRO EARTHQAUKE DATA

Duration of Earthquake is 30 seconds and the values are given in v/s time , at an interval
of 0.02 seconds.

83 | P a g e
GRAPHS OF FORCES IN EACH NODE AFTER TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

84 | P a g e
85 | P a g e
86 | P a g e
87 | P a g e
88 | P a g e
89 | P a g e
90 | P a g e
91 | P a g e
92 | P a g e
 7.6. P-M INTERACTION CURVE FOR ISMB 200 (CAPACITY CURVE)

Capacity curve for member 5 using the section properties and formula derived in earlier
chapters. A plot between the axial force P and moment M is drawn.

93 | P a g e
 7.7. RESPONSE ENVELOPE FOR MEMBER 5 USING RESPONSE SPECTRUM
METHOD AT VARIOUS ANGLE OF ATTACK, WHEN IS KNOWN AND
WHEN IT IS UNKNOWN.

Response envelope of elliptical in nature between the two forces, P (axial force) and M
(moment) acting on the member 5 due to ground motion are plotted for different angle
of attacks shown by the red color plots.

Considering the extreme boundaries of these plots, a supreme envelope is drawn which
encompass all the cases of different values of , shown by the blue plot.

94 | P a g e
 7.8. COMPARISON OF SEISMIC DEMAND AND SEISMIC CAPACITY CURVE

A plot between the seismic capacity of the column obtained from the information on sectional
properties of the element and its seismic demand obtained from its behavior under the given
earthquake information.

95 | P a g e
 7.9. RESULTS

1. In this study the time history results obtained from Time History Analysis of structure
was compared with the elliptical envelopes obtained from response spectrum method and
CQC rule, as explained previously.

2. For addressing uncertainty in the direction of principle component of ground motion,

supreme envelopes were also plotted.

3. The responses obtained from Time History analysis were found to lie well within the
elliptical envelopes and supreme envelopes. All of the time history points were completely
circumscribed by the elliptical envelope; with substantial conservatism still there for
addressing the uncertainty that couldn’t be taken into account in this study.

4. The interaction curve (capacity curve) for the column of the frame was also drawn
and was compared with the envelopes of response spectrum method (demand curve) for
optimizing the design of steel columns. It was found that the demand curve of ISMB 200
and capacity curve were widely spaced, since the selection of the member ISMB200 was
based on the conventional rectangular envelopes, hence we conclude that design of such
structure for simultaneous acting force should be made with elliptical or supreme envelopes
depending upon the data available.

96 | P a g e
 8. DISCUSSIONS AND REMARKS

1. Undoubtedly, elliptical envelope is unconservative relative to the corresponding supreme

envelope. For a known value of and using the corresponding elliptical envelope for
design will always result in a smaller estimate for the required reinforcement ratio than
that predicted by supreme envelope. The estimates can differ by as much as 50%
depending upon the type of the structure.

2. The conclusion that can be made from this study is that the conventional rectangular
envelope can be conservative in some situations but overly conservative in other
situations, thus should not be used in design. But if somehow can be confidently
predicted, which is the case of a single well defined source of seismic activity near the
structure, then elliptical envelope can be used to predict a safe response. However, if is
not known in advance, as in most of the cases, it’s wise to use supreme envelope.

3. Linear analyses are appropriate for serviceability limit states associated with moderate-
intensity ground motions. However, when a structure is subjected to high-intensity ground
motions, its behavior is expected to be nonlinear; and, hence, the response spectrum
method cannot be used.

4. Problem relating to multiple base excitation could also be studied for this kind of structure,
where the structure is being attacked by different earthquakes simultaneously

5. Response spectra method is based on the assumption that the different responses won’t
peak simultaneously but if they do, how the results will change can be an area of future
research

6. During the entire period of earthquake, it was assumed that the orientation of the structure
axis and the principal ground motion directions remain fixed, but for more accurate results
the deformed geometry of the structure need to be studied.

97 | P a g e
 9. ANNEXTURES:

Annexure A: List of script files,their functions & definitions of variables

SCRIPT FILES:

The complete program for the analysis of the structure by Time-History Method & Response-
Spectrum Method and for obtaining the Capacity Curve of the column, has been divide into 6
script files performing different functions. The script files, in the order in which they must be
called in COMMAND PROMPT, & their functions are as under:

S.No. File Name Functions

1 stodola.m  Determination of natural frequencies & mode shapes
 Determination of Damping Matrix
 Determination of modal participation factors
2 duhamel.m  Determination of response of structure by Duhamel Integral
3 responses.m  Modal combination by CQC Rule
 Determination of response matrix by Response Spectrum Method
4 envelope.m  Plotting of Response Envelopes

5 rhistory.m  Determination of response quantities by Time History Analysis

6 CapCurve.m  Plotting of Capacity Curve for column

DATA FILE:

File Name: workspace.mat

Content:
 Global Stiffness Matrix of the structure
 Global Mass Matrix of the structure
 Member Stiffness Matrix of Column 1
 El Centro earthquake data
Description:

The “workspace mat” file m st be imported in workspace before calling the script files

98 | P a g e
 DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES:

File Variable Dimensions Definitions

Name
stodola.m K 24 X 24 Global Stiffness Matrix of the structure
M 24 X 24 Global Mass Matrix of the structure
D 24 X 24 Dynamical Matrix
lth Scalar Size of any column/rpw of dynamical Matrix
S 24 X 24 Sweeping Mtrix
phi 24 X 2 Trial & Improved eigenvector in the iterations of
Stodola method
omega 24 X 24 Natural circular frequency (diagonal matrix)
PHI 24 X 24 Mode Shape Matrix
V 24 X 24 Same as PHI
frequency 24 X 24 Frequency matrix for the structure (diagonal matrix)
h Scalar Number of modes to be included in analysis
zeta hX1 Damping ratio vector
C 24 X 24 Damping Matrix for te structure
G1,G2,G3 1 X 24 Ground Influence Vectors in x, z and y direction,
respectively
T 3 X 24 Modal Participation Factors

duhamel.m El 1502 X 1 El Centro earthquake data, values at time

intervals of 0.02 seconds
et Scalar Duration of earthquake
dt Scalar Time interval of earthquake data
z Scalar Damping Ratio
wn Scalar Natural circular frequency
wd Scalar Damped natural frequency
k 1 X 24 Stiffness in ith mode in uncoupled dynamic equation
A, B, C, D 1 X 24 Coefficients of recurrence relation for displacement
in Duhamel Integral
Ad, Bd, Cd, 1 X 24 Coefficients of recurrence relation for velocity in
Dd Duhamel Integral
u1 1 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator
subjected to ground motion in x-direction
u2 1 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator
subjected to ground motion in z-direction
u3 1 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator
subjected to ground motion in y-direction
ud1 1 X 1502 Velocity w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator subjected to
ground motion in x-direction
ud2 1 X 1502 Velocity w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator subjected to
ground motion in z-direction
ud3 1 X 1502 Velocity w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator subjected to
ground motion in y-direction
d1 24 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator in all
modes of vibration subjected to ground motion in x-
direction
d2 24 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator in all
modes of vibration subjected to ground motion in z-

99 | P a g e
 direction
d3 24 X 1502 Displacement w.r.t. time of a SDOF oscillator in all
modes of vibration subjected to ground motion in y-
direction
D 3 X 24 Maximum displacement for each ground motion

responses.m rho 24 X 24 Co-relation coefficients between modal responses

Q 24 X 24 Response matrix for one angle of attack
X 19 X 24 X 24 Response matrix for angle of attack changing from
00 to 3600 in steps of 200

envelope.m i Scalar Subscript for the response to be plotted on x-axis

j Scalar Subscript of thr response to be plotted on y-axis
a Scalar Major axis of the response envelope between ith
and jth response for one angle of attack
b Scalar Minor axis of the response envelope between ith
and jth response for one angle of attack
ki Scalar Angle of inclination of the response envelope w.r.t.
x-axis, between ith and jth response for one angle of
attack
r, theta - Polar co-ordinates of response envelope between ith
and jth response for one angle of attack
R, theta - Polar co-ordinates of supreme envelope between ith
and jth response

rhistory.m u 24 X 1502 Displacements for one angle of attack

Ut1 24 X 1502 Displacements in one mode of vibration for 00 angle
of attack for ground motion along x-direction
Ut2 24 X 1502 Displacements in one mode of vibration for 00 angle
of attack for ground motion along z-direction
Ut3 24 X 1502 Displacements in one mode of vibration for 00 angle
of attack for ground motion along y-direction
U 24 X 1502 X Displacements all angles of attack
51
P 24 X 1502 X Response Matrix
51
Ma 2 X 1502 Moment at near-end
Mb 2 X 1502 Moment at far-end
Me 2 X 1502 Equivalent moment

CapCurve.m Ag Scalar Gross area of the column

Ym0 Scalar Safety factor
fy Scalar Yield strength of steel
Pd Scalar Design compression strength of the column
fbd Scalar Design flexureal stress for unsupported beam
Zpz, Zpy Scalar Plastic section modulii about z & y axes
Mdz, Mdy Scalar Design bending strength for the column
P 1 X 31 Applied axial load
My 1 X 31 Applied moment about y-axis
Mz 1 X 31 Applied moment about z-axis
a1, a2 Scalar Constants

100 | P a g e
workspace.mat data 188 X 8 El Centro earthquake data
K 24 X 24 Global stiffness matrix for the structure
M 24 X 24 Global stiffness matrix for the structure
member1 12 X 12 Member stiffness matrix for column 1

101 | P a g e
 Annexure B: program listing

SCRIPT FILE 1: STODOLA.M

clearvars -except data K M member1;

%PRELIMINARY BASICS

%STODLA METHOD TO FIND EIGEN VALUES AND EIGEN VECTORS

disp('STODLA METHOD TO FIND EIGEN VALUES AND EIGEN VECTORS');

disp('Import the mass matrix & stiffness matrix varialbles in Workspace');
input('Press ENTER to continue...');

%D = Dynamical Matrix

D(:,:,1)=K\M;
lth=length(D(:,1,1));

%Assuming omega(1,1)=1 and phi(:,1)=[1,1,1....]

%Convergence to ith mode

S=eye(lth);
for i=1:lth
D(:,:,i)=D(:,:,1)*S;
phi=ones(lth,1);
flag=0;
while(flag==0)
V=D(:,:,i)*phi(:,1);
phi(:,2)=V./V(1,1);
if (V(1,1)<0)
V(1,1)=-V(1,1);
phi(:,2)=-1*V./V(1,1);
end
if (roundn(phi(:,1),2)== roundn(phi(:,2),2))
flag=1;
PHI(:,i)=phi(:,2);
omega(i,i)=sqrt(1/V(1,1));
end
phi(:,1)=phi(:,2);
end
S=S-PHI(:,i)*((PHI(:,i)'*M)/(PHI(:,i)'*M*PHI(:,i)));
end
clear phi V;
V=PHI;
frequency=omega/(2*pi);

%CALCULATION OF DAMPING MATRIX

disp('CALCULATING THE DAMPING MATRIX');

h=input('Enter the number of modes to be included: ');

while h>lth

102 | P a g e
 disp ('The number of modes exceeds the maximum possible');
input('Press ENTER to continue...');
h=input('Enter the number of modes to be included: ');
end

for n=1:h
for i=0:h-1
om(i+1) = (omega (n,n))^(2*i-1);
end
omg(n,:)=om;
end

for m=1:h
zeta(m,:)=0.05;
end

X=(1/2*omg)\zeta;
C=zeros(lth,lth);
for j=0:h-1
cm=X(j+1)*M*((M\K)^j);
C=C+cm;
end

input('Press ENTER to continue...');

% GROUND INFLUENCE VECTORS

G1=[1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0;0];
G2=[0;1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;0;0];
G3=[0;0;0.6;0;0;0;0;0;0.6;0;0;0;0;0;0.6;0;0;0;0;0;0.6;0;0;0];

%CALCULATION OF MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTORS

disp('Calculation of modal participation factors');

input('Press ENTER to continue...');

for y=1:lth
for k=1:3
L(1,y)=(V(:,y)'*M)*G1;
L(2,y)=(V(:,y)'*M)*G2;
L(3,y)=(V(:,y)'*M)*G3;
M1(y)=(V(:,y)'*M)*V(:,y);
T(k,y)=L(k,y)/M1(y);
%S1(:,y)=T1(y)*(M*phi');
end
end
clearvars om omg cm h i j k flag y z m n S M1 X D lth phi zeta

103 | P a g e
 SCRIPT FILE 2: DUHAM EL.M

%Elcentro Earthquake data

input('Enter Earthquake data in the workspace & press enter to continue:');
El=reshape(data.',[],1);
El=9810*El;
et=input('Give the end time: ');
dt=input('Give time interval: ');

%DUHAMEL INTEGRAL
input('PERFORMING DUHAMEL INTEGRAL')
z=0.05;
wn=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
wd=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));

for h=1:length(K(:,1))
wn(h)=omega(h,h);
wd(h)=wn(h)*sqrt(1-z^2);
end

k=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));

for y=1:length(K(:,1))
k(y)=V(:,y)'*K*V(:,y);
end

A=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
B=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
C=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
D=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
Ad=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
Bd=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
Cd=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));
Dd=zeros(1,length(K(:,1)));

for m=1:length(K(:,1))
A(m)=exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(z/sqrt(1-z^2)*sin(wd(m)*dt)+cos(wd(m)*dt));
B(m)=exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(sin(wd(m)*dt)/wd(m));
C(m)=1/k(m)*(2*z/(wn(m)*dt)+exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(((1-2*z*z)/(wd(m)*dt)-
z/sqrt(1-z*z))*sin(wd(m)*dt)-(1+2*z/(wn(m)*dt))*cos(wd(m)*dt)));
D(m)=1/k(m)*(1-2*z/(wn(m)*dt)+exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*((2*z*z-
1)/(wd(m)*dt)*sin(wd(m)*dt)+2*z/(wn(m)*dt)*cos(wd(m)*dt)));
Ad(m)=-exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(wn(m)/sqrt(1-z^2)*sin(wd(m)*dt));
Bd(m)=exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(-z/sqrt(1-z^2)*sin(wd(m)*dt)+cos(wd(m)*dt));
Cd(m)=1/k(m)*(-1/dt+exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*((wn(m)/sqrt(1-z*z)+z/(dt*sqrt(1-
z*z)))*sin(wd(m)*dt)+cos(wd(m)*dt)/dt));
Dd(m)=1/(k(m)*dt)*(1-exp(-z*wn(m)*dt)*(z/sqrt(1-
z*z)*sin(wd(m)*dt)+cos(wd(m)*dt)));
end

t=dt:dt:et;
n=length(t);
u1(1)=0;
u2(1)=0;
u3(1)=0;
ud1(1)=0;

104 | P a g e
ud2(1)=0;
ud3(1)=0;

for v=1:length(K(:,1))
for i=1:(n-1)
u1(i+1)=A(v)*u1(i)+B(v)*ud1(i)+C(v)*El(i)+D(v)*El(i+1);
u2(i+1)=A(v)*u2(i)+B(v)*ud2(i)+C(v)*El(i)+D(v)*El(i+1);
u3(i+1)=A(v)*u3(i)+B(v)*ud3(i)+C(v)*(0.6*El(i))+D(v)*(0.6*El(i+1));
ud1(i+1)=Ad(v)*u1(i)+Bd(v)*ud1(i)+Cd(v)*El(i)+Dd(v)*El(i+1);
ud2(i+1)=Ad(v)*u2(i)+Bd(v)*ud2(i)+Cd(v)*El(i)+Dd(v)*El(i+1);

ud3(i+1)=Ad(v)*u3(i)+Bd(v)*ud3(i)+Cd(v)*(0.6*El(i))+Dd(v)*(0.6*El(i+1));
end
d1(v,:)=u1;
d2(v,:)=u2;
d3(v,:)=u3;
end
clearvars A B C D Ad Bd Cd Dd
%D= Maximum Value Of Displacements For Each Ground Motion Component

for i=1:24
D(1,i)=max((d1(i,:)));
D(2,i)=max((d2(i,:)));
D(3,i)=max((d3(i,:)));
end

clearvars -except data omega frequency D C PHI K M member1;

105 | P a g e
 SCRIPT FILE 3: RESPONSES.M

%CONSIDERING ONLY SINGLE MEMBER

input('CALCULATION OF REPONSE MATRIX');
disp('Import the stiffness matrix for member 1 in workspace');
input('Press ENTER to continue...');
V=PHI;
V(13:24,:)= [];
zeta=0.5*ones(length(K(:,1)),1);
rho=zeros(length(K(:,1)),length(K(:,1)));
Z1=zeros(length(K(:,1)),length(K(:,1)));
Z2=zeros(length(K(:,1)),length(K(:,1)));
Z3=zeros(length(K(:,1)),length(K(:,1)));
Q=zeros(length(K(:,1)),length(K(:,1)));
%X=zeros(length(member1(:,1)),length(member1(:,1)));
angle=0:pi/9:2*pi;
for ang=1:length(angle)
for r=1:length(member1(:,1))
for s=1:length(member1(:,1))
for i=1:length(K(:,1))
for j=1:length(K(:,1))

rho(i,j)=(8*sqrt(zeta(i)*zeta(j)*omega(i,i)*omega(j,j))*(zeta(i)*omega(i,i)
+zeta(j)*omega(j,j))*omega(i,i)*omega(j,j))/((omega(i,i)^2-
omega(j,j)^2)^2+4*zeta(i)*zeta(j)*omega(i,i)*omega(j,j)*(omega(i,i)^2+omega
(j,j)^2)+4*(zeta(i)^2+zeta(j)^2)*omega(i,i)^2*omega(j,j)^2);
for k=1:3
Z1(k)=T(k,i)*T(k,j)*rho(i,j)*D(k,i)*D(k,j);
end
z1=sum(Z1(:));
for k=1:2
for l=1:2
Z2(k,l)=(-
1)^(k+l)*T(l,i)*T(l,j)*rho(i,j)*D(k,i)*D(k,j)*(sin(angle(ang)))^2;
end
end
z2=sum(Z2(:));
for k=1:2
Z3(k)=(-
1)^k*(T(1,i)*T(2,j)+T(2,i)*T(1,j))*rho(i,j)*D(k,i)*D(k,j)*sin(angle(ang))*c
os(angle(ang));
end
z3=sum(Z3(:));
Z=z1-z2-z3;
Q(i,j)=((member1(r,:)*V(:,i))*(member1(s,:)*V(:,j)))*Z;
end
end
X(ang,r,s)=sum(Q(:));
end
end
end

clearvars -except data angle omega frequency D d1 d2 d3 PHI K M X member1;

106 | P a g e
 SCRIPT FILE 4: ENVELOPE.M
%TO PLOT THE ELLIPSE OF RESPONSES
disp('PLOTTING ELLIPSE');
i=input('Enter first response subscript: ');
j=input('Enter second response subscript: ');
theta=0:pi/24:2*pi;
for ang=1:length(angle)
a=X(ang,i,i);
b=X(ang,j,j);
ki=1/2*atan((2*X(ang,i,j)/(X(ang,i,i)^2-X(ang,j,j)^2)));
%KI=[cos(ki),-sin(ki);sin(ki),cos(ki)];
rho(ang,:)=a*b./sqrt(b^2*cos(theta-ki).^2+a^2*sin(theta-ki).^2);
%polar(theta,rho(ang,:),'-r' );
[x,y]=pol2cart(theta,rho(ang,:));
plot(x,y,'-b');
hold on
end
R=max(rho,[],1);
%polar(theta,R,'--b');
[x,y]=pol2cart(theta,R);
plot(x,y,'--r');

107 | P a g e
 SCRIPT FILE 5: RHISTORY.M
%RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS
V=PHI;
ang=0:pi/25:2*pi;
for a=1:length(ang)
u=zeros(length(K(:,1)),1500);
for p=1:length(K(:,1))
Ut1=T(1,p)*V(:,p)*d1(p,:);
Ut3=T(2,p)*V(:,p)*d2(p,:);
Ut2=T(3,p)*V(:,p)*d3(p,:);
U1=Ut1.*cos(ang(a))-
...Ut3.*sin(ang(a))+Ut2+Ut3.*cos(ang(a))+Ut1.*sin(ang(a));
u=u+U1;
end
U(:,:,a)=u;
end
I=[9.56603E-08;0.0000015;0.000022354];
disp('Enter the "member" stiffness matrix:');
keyboard;
chk=input('Type of member "0" for column "1" for beam: ');
for a=1:length(ang)
if chk==1
i=input('Enter the beam no.: ');
l=1;
h(1:24)=1:24;h(25:48)=1:24;
DD(1:6,:)=U(h(6*i-5:6*i),:,a);
DD(7:12,:)=U(h(6*i+1:6*i+6),:,a);
P(:,:,a)=member*DD;
else
i=input('Enter the column no.: ');
l=7;
DD=zeros(12,1500);
DD(7:12,:)=U(6*i-5:6*i,:,a);
P(:,:,a)=member*DD;
end

for m=l:l+3
for n=1:2
ke=sqrt(P(l,:,a)./(20000*10^6*I(n+1,:)));
Mb(n,:)=max(abs(P(n+4,:,a)),abs(P(n+10,:,a)));
Ma(n,:)=min(abs(P(n+4,:,a)),abs(P(n+10,:,a)));

Cm=sqrt(((Ma(n,:)./Mb(n,:)).^2+2*(Ma(n,:)./Mb(n,:)).*cos(ke.*4)+1)./(2*(1-
cos(ke.*4))));
Me(n,:)=Mb(n,:).*Cm;
Me(n,1)=0;
scatter(P(m,:,a),Me(n,:),2);
hold on;
end
scatter(P(m,:,a),P(l+3,:,a),2);
hold on;
end
end
clearvars Ut1 Ut2 Ut3 u U1 Cm Ma Mb ke m n DD h a chk ang I

108 | P a g e
 SCRIPT FILE 6: CAPCURVE.M
%Capacity Curve
Ag=3233;
Ym0=1.1;
fy=415;
Pd=Ag*fy/Ym0;
fbd=150;
Zpz=253860;
Zpy=55450;
Mdz=Zpz*fbd;
Mdy=Zpy*fbd;

P=0:Pd/30:Pd;
My=0:Mdy/30:Mdy;
[x,y,]=meshgrid(P,My);
n=x/Pd;
a1=5*n;
a2=2;
for i=1:length(a1)
if(a1(1,i)<1)
a1(1:length(a1),i)=1;
end
end
Mndz=1.11*Mdz*(1-n);
for i=1:length(n)
if(Mndz(1,i)>Mdz)
Mndz(1:length(n),i)=Mdz;
end
if(n(1,i)<0.2)
Mndy(1:length(n),i)=Mdy;
else
Mndy(1:length(n),i)=1.56*Mdy*(1-n(1,i))*(n(1,i)+0.6);
end
end

Mz=real(Mndz.*(1-(Y./Mndy).^a1).^(1/a2));
surf(Mz,y,x)
alpha(0.75)
colormap bone
clearvars Ag Ym0 fy fbd Zpy Zpz P My Mz x y n a1 a2 i Mndz Mndy

109 | P a g e
 Annexure C: Input/output

>> stodola

STODLA METHOD TO FIND EIGEN VALUES AND EIGEN VECTORS

Import the mass matrix & stiffness matrix varialbles in Workspace

Press ENTER to continue...

CALCULATING THE DAMPING MATRIX

Enter the number of modes to be included: 24

Warning: Matrix is close to singular or badly scaled.

Results may be inaccurate. RCOND = 4.036991e-086.

> In stodola at 66

Press ENTER to continue...

Calculation of modal participation factors

Press ENTER to continue...

>> duhamel

Enter Earthquake data in the workspace & press enter to continue:

Give the end time: 30

Give time interval: 0.02

PERFORMING DUHAMEL INTEGRAL

>> responses

CALCULATION OF REPONSE MATRIX

Import the stiffness matrix for member 1 in workspace

Press ENTER to continue...

>> envelope

PLOTTING ELLIPSE

Enter first response subscript: 3

Enter second response subscript: 5

>> rhistory

Enter the "member" stiffness matrix:

110 | P a g e
K>> return

Type of member "0" for column "1" for beam: 1

Enter the beam/column no.: 1

>> CapCurve

>>

111 | P a g e
 10. REFERENCES

1. Envelopes for seismic response vectors Menun, Charles A.; Der Kiureghian, Armen PEER-1999/08,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1999-07, 203
pages (400/P33/1999-08)

2. Modal Combination Rule for Multicomponent Earthquake Excitation, Smeby, wiggo; Der Kiureghian,
Armen; Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol13, 1-12(1985).

3. Characteristics of 3 Dimensional Earthquake ground motion, Penzien, Joseph; Watabe, Makoto;

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol 3, 365-373, 1975.

4. Design of Column sections subjected to three component of earthquake ground motion, A. K. Gupta;
M. P. Singh; Nuclear Engineering and Design, 4/(1977), 129-133.

5. Origin of response spectrum method, M.D. Trifunac; M. I. Todorovska, 14WCEE.

6. Structural Stability By Lui and Chen.

7. Dynamics of structures by Anil K. Chopra.

8. Dynamics of Structures by Jagmohan L. Humar.

9. Structural Dynamics: Theory And Computation by Mario Paz

10. Matrix Analysis Of Framed Structures by William Weaver, James M. Gere

11. Dynamics of Structures by Clough-Penzien

12. IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002 Indian Standards Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part 1

112 | P a g e