Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ i

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................ii

Table of Tables ............................................................................................................. iii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4

a. Information on the Structure ................................................................................ 6

b. RC Beam Section ................................................................................................... 7

2. Linpro and Ansys Model of Building................................................................... 11

a. Static Analysis Model (Linpro) ........................................................................... 11

b. Validation and Verification ................................................................................. 16

c. Static Analysis Model (Ansys) ........................................................................... 17

d. Validation and Verification ................................................................................... 22

e. Model analysis and Seismic Analysis in (Linpro and Ansys) ..................................... 23

f. Verification (Linpro and Ansys) ............................................................................ 34

3. Hand Calculation ................................................................................................. 35

a. Design Information .............................................................................................. 35

b. Stiffness .............................................................................................................. 35

4. Smath Calculation.............................................................................................. 36

5. Eurocode 8 elastic and design spectrum ........................................................... 37

6. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 39

7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 40

i
Table of Figures

Figure 2 Reinforced beam section dimensions .......................................................... 5

Figure 3 Material and geometrical information of a Roof beam (Linpro)................... 11

Figure 4 Material and geometrical information of a Floor beam (Linpro) .................. 12

Figure 5 Material and geometrical information of a Column (Linpro)........................ 13

Figure 6 Vertical load applied to the Floor beam and Roof beam (Linpro) ............... 13

Figure 7 Bending moment diagram from static analysis (Linpro) ............................. 14

Figure 8 Shear force diagram from static analysis (Linpro) ...................................... 14

Figure 9 Axial force diagram from static analysis (Linpro) ........................................ 15

Figure 10 Displacement graph from static analysis (Linpro) ..................................... 15

Figure 11 Reaction graph from static analysis (Linpro) ............................................ 18

Figure 12 Node creation accomplished (Ansys) ....................................................... 17

Figure 13 Elements creation accomplished (Ansys) ................................................ 18

Figure 14 Bending moment diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model) ...................... 19

Figure 15 Shear force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model) .............................. 20

Figure 16 Axial force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)) ............................... 21

Figure 17 Displacement diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model) ........................... 21

Figure 18 Reaction results (static analysis: ANSYS model) ..................................... 22

Figure 19 Mass defined ............................................................................................ 24

Figure 20 Calculated mass applied to the frame ...................................................... 25

Figure 21 modal analysis (Ansys) ............................................................................ 25

Figure 22 Seismic Analysis (Linpro) ......................................................................... 26

Figure 23 Deformed shape mode 1 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model) ...................... 14

Figure 24 Deformed shape mode 2 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model) ...................... 28

Figure 25 Deformed shape mode 3 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model) ...................... 29

ii
Figure 26 Deformed shape mode 4(Modal analysis: ANSYS model) ....................... 30

Figure 27 Deformed shape mode 5 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model) ...................... 31

Figure 28 Deformed shape mode 1 from modal analysis (Linpro model) ................. 31

Figure 29 Deformed shape mode 2 from modal analysis (Linpro model) ................. 32

Figure 30 Deformed shape mode 3 from modal analysis (Linpro model) ................. 32

Figure 31 Deformed shape mode 4 from modal analysis (Linpro model) ................. 33

Figure 32 Deformed shape mode 5 from modal analysis (Linpro model) ................. 33

Figure 33 Natural frequency from modal analysis (Linpro model) ............................ 34

Figure 34 Reaction from Ansys model ..................................................................... 34

Figure 35 Eurocode 8 horizontal elastic response spectrum .................................... 39

Table of Tables

Table 1 RC section property....................................................................................... 8

Table 5 values of the parameters for ground type .................................................... 37

iii
1. Introduction
The inherent uncertainties surrounding a structure's material composition, geometric attributes,
and various environmental factors contribute to the inability to precisely predict its response to
seismic activities or other dynamic forces. The intricate nature of civil constructions and the
complexity inherent in analytical processes render it challenging to comprehensively
understand the true behavior of a building. When subjected to seismic events or strong winds,
buildings exhibit a characteristic sway, akin to the tremors experienced when operating
machinery such as cars or large industrial equipment. Over time, structures may experience
amplified and potentially hazardous vibrations, particularly in the event of earthquakes,
generating dynamic forces that induce oscillations.
This report delves into an investigation conducted on the dynamic properties of an existing
five-story reinforced concrete-framed building through modal analysis (refer to Figure 1).
Complementing traditional hand calculation analyses, computer-based methodologies were
employed, leveraging finite element software ANSYS and the Linpro program. The seismic
evaluation of the frame was conducted in two dimensions. A comprehensive delineation of the
analysis procedures and methodologies is provided hereinbelow.
• ANSYS and Linpro software were both used to produce a 2D structural model of the
structure (East-West).
• The computer model was tested and validated using static studies (gravity only), such
as analysing mass and reactivity. In this case, a full section property used for the
concrete assuming it is uncracked (model 1). It should be noted that the load is typical,
with a load factor of 1 used in this case.
• To manually determine the frame's four natural frequencies using a SMATH sheet and
a 5DOF sway frame (no formula exists in Blevins for this particular arrangement).
• The results of hand calculations and natural frequency discoveries from ANSYS and
Linpro models were compared.
• Due to the potential for extensive concrete cracking after an earthquake, the column
section properties were decreased by a factor of 0.5 and the beam section qualities were
decreased by a factor of 0.7. We provide both updated natural sway frequencies based
on re-analysed modal data as well as re-run (model 2)
• Determination of the effective masses of the ANSYS model 2.
• The EC8 elastic spectra's acceleration at the basic natural frequency was identified.
• The structure's lateral forces from seismic activity and base shear have been considered.
• Along with the vertical loading with load factors of 1, a comparable static analysis was
carried out utilising the seismic lateral force estimates from the ANSYS model.
• A spectrum compatible time history from the Blackboard lecture was used to build a
modal superposition time history for the Linpro model, and the results were combined
with static analysis.
• By contrasting the output of the ANSYS and Linpro models, verification and validation
were carried out.

4
• ANSYS model output was utilised to design steel reinforcement for the Columns
(rectangular section, combined axial loading and uniaxial bending moment) and the
beams (Tee section bending only).
• The final goal of this course is to provide a critique of the student's work. There are a
number of factors to consider, such as the impact of assumptions on the final results,
the justifications for any discrepancies, and design-related concerns.

Figure 1 An existing 5 storey reinforced concrete framed structure

Figure 2 Reinforced beam section dimensions

5
 a. Information on the Structure
Five-story reinforced concrete-framed building with a design that prioritises stability over shear
walling and bracing on the North-South axis of the building. Stability in the "East-West"
direction is attained as a result of the rigid jointed monolithic moment frame action
(Vierendeel). Figure 1 below depicts an existing five-story reinforced concrete-framed high-
rise building that demonstrates these desirable characteristics.
• The columns of this well-made framework are constructed from Breadth ‘400’
mm and Depth ‘425’ mm.
• Floors are constructed using ‘425’ mm deep x 300mm wide RC beams
components, while the roof is constructed using 350mm deep x 200mm wide
beams a section.
• All concrete floors are 175 mm thick.
• In addition to the material's self-weight, a dead load of 1kN/m2 is applied.
• It is supposed to act independently of the beams and to span exclusively in the
"North-South" direction. act in a composite manner with the beam portion in the
direction labelled "East-West." It is reasonable to suppose that each beam has a
flange width of 1 metre so that it can function as a Tee section for the purposes of
computing the section parameters (see figure 2)
• Live loads of 3.0kN/m2 are applied to the floor, and 1.25kN/m2 are applied to the
roof.
• The concrete strength is assumed to be C50.
• The distance between each pair of frames is 4.0 metres.
• The building was constructed using Soil Class A.
• The highest ground acceleration in the design is set at 0.175, while damping is
expected to be 5%.
• A type 1 EC8 Spectra will be assumed.
The information you provided indicates the following:
Highest Ground Acceleration: The highest ground acceleration considered in the design is
0.175. Ground acceleration is a critical parameter in seismic design, as it represents the
maximum acceleration that the ground can experience during an earthquake. This value is
typically expressed as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (g), where g = 9.81 m/s²
(approximately 32.2 ft/s²). In your case, the ground acceleration is 0.175g.
Damping: The damping in the structure is expected to be 5%. Damping is a measure of the
energy dissipation capacity of a structure during dynamic loading, such as during an
earthquake. It is expressed as a percentage and affects the structural response and behaviour
during seismic events. A higher damping value indicates better energy dissipation and can help
reduce the dynamic response of the structure to seismic forces.
Both the ground acceleration and damping are crucial factors in seismic design and analysis.
Engineers use this information to evaluate the structural response and ensure that the building
or structure can withstand the specified ground motion while considering the damping effect

6
for better seismic performance. These values are typically used as inputs in seismic analysis
and design codes to ensure the safety and reliability of structures in earthquake-prone regions.

b. RC Beam Section

In order to fix an already-existing RC frame, three distinct types of RC sections were used,
which was done in accordance with the design requirements. The material qualities and
geometrical characteristics of the section are outlined in Table 1. providing the data for the
three distinct types of RC sections used in fixing the existing RC frame. Based on the
information you've given in Table 1, here are the material qualities and geometrical
characteristics of the three RC sections:
RC Column:
Depth of the section: 0.425 meters
Area of cross-section (A): 0.17 square meters
Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.00266 m4
RC Floor Beam:
Depth of the section: 0.425 meters
Area of cross-section (A): 0.25 square meters
Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.015145 m4
RC Roof Beam:
Depth of the section: 0.350 meters
Area of cross-section (A): 0.21 square meters
Second moment of area (Iyy): 0.0147 m4
These properties, such as depth, cross-sectional area, and second moment of area (Iyy), are
essential for understanding the structural behaviour and load-carrying capacity of the RC
frame. Designing and selecting the appropriate RC sections based on these characteristics is
crucial to ensure the stability and safety of the fixed structure.
The depth of the section refers to the height of the respective elements, and the area of cross-
section (A) represents the cross-sectional area of the elements perpendicular to the direction of
loading. The second moment of area (Iyy) is a property that indicates the structural stiffness
and resistance to bending. It is a measure of how the material is distributed about the neutral
axis of the section. Larger values of Iyy imply greater resistance to bending.
These properties are essential for the structural design and analysis of the building. They are
used in calculations to ensure the elements can withstand the loads and forces they will
experience during their service life. It's important to use these properties in conjunction with
the building's loading conditions, local building codes, and other design factors to ensure the
structural integrity and safety of the entire building system.

7
Table 1 RC section property

Data description RC Column RC Floor Beam RC Roof Beam

Depth of the section 0.425m 0.425m 0.350m

Area of cross section (A) 0.17m² 0.2500m² 0.21m²

Second moment of area 0.00266m4 0.015145m4 0.0147m4

(Iyy)

The data you provided describes the properties of three different reinforced concrete (RC)
elements: RC columns, RC floor beams, and RC roof beams. Here's a breakdown of the
properties for each element:
TOTAL MASS OF BUILDING CALCULATIONS

8
TOTAL MASS OF BUILDING CALCULATIONS
To calculate the total mass of the building concrete slab, we need to know the area of the slab
and its volume. Since the density of concrete is given in kN/m², we'll first convert the depth
from millimetres (mm) to meters (m) to be consistent with the density units. Then, we can
calculate the volume and finally determine the mass.
Given:
Slab depth = 175 mm = 0.175 meters
Density of concrete = 25 kN/m²
Step 1: Calculate the area of the slab:
Let's assume the area of the concrete slab is A square meters.
Step 2: Calculate the volume of the concrete slab:
Volume (V) = Area × Depth
Step 3: Calculate the total mass of the concrete slab:
Mass = Volume × Density
Since we don't have the exact area of the slab, I'll show you the calculation in a general form.
You can insert the appropriate area value to get the final result.
Let's assume the area of the concrete slab is 1 square meter (A = 1 m²) for the example:
Step 1: Area of the slab (A) = 1 m²
Step 2: Volume (V) = 1 m² × 0.175 m = 0.175 m³
Step 3: Mass = 0.175 m³ × 25 kN/m² = 4.375 kN
So, if the area of the concrete slab is 1 square meter, the total mass of the concrete slab is 4.375
kN. If you have the exact area of the slab, insert that value into the calculations to get the
accurate total mass.

9
 SECTION PROPERTY

CALCULATE CENTROID OF BUILDING

To determine the centroid of a building's slab, assuming it possesses a rectangular shape, we
necessitate knowledge of its dimensions: length (L) and width (W). The centroid of a
rectangular shape can be computed using the following formulae:
Centroid = (L / 2)
Centroid = (W / 2)
Where:
Centroid is the x-coordinate of the centroid (measured from the reference axis, typically taken
along the length).
Centroid is the y-coordinate of the centroid (measured from the reference axis, typically taken
along the width).
L is the length of the rectangular slab.
W is the width of the rectangular slab.
For example, if the rectangular slab has a length of 4 meters (L = 4m) and a width of 2 meters
(W = 2m), the centroid coordinates would be:
Centroid = (4m / 2) = 2m
Centroid = (2m / 2) = 1m

10
So, for this example, the centroid of the rectangular slab would be located at the point (2 meters,
1 meter) from the reference axis. Keep in mind that if your slab has a different shape, the
centroid calculation will be different, and you'll need to provide the specific dimensions and
shape to determine its centroid

2. Linpro and Ansys Model of Building

a. Static Analysis Model (Linpro)

Figure 3 Material and geometrical information of a Roof beam (Linpro)

11
Figure 4 Material and geometrical information of a Floor beam (Linpro)

12
Figure 5 Material and geometrical information of a Column (Linpro)

Figure 6 Vertical load applied to the Floor beam and Roof beam (Linpro)

13
Figure 7 Bending moment diagram from static analysis (Linpro)

Figure 8 Shear force diagram from static analysis (Linpro)

14
Figure 9 Axial force diagram from static analysis (Linpro)

Figure 10 Displacement graph from static analysis (Linpro)

15
Figure 11 Reaction graph from static analysis (Linpro)

b. Validation and Verification

Based on the provided data, let's go through the calculations:
Total load calculated for roof element:
Total load = 56.52 kN/m² × 4.0 m × 5 (number of roof elements) = 1130.4 kN
Total load calculated for beam element:
Total load = 80 kN/m² × 4.0 m × 5 (number of beam elements) × 4 (number of floors) = 6400
kN
Total load calculated for the whole building:
Total load = 1130.4 kN (roof load) + 6400 kN (beam load) = 7530.4 kN
Now, let's examine the total reactions from the Linpro analysis:
Total reaction from Linpro analysis = 1152.19 kN + 2226.5 kN + 2660.02 kN + 1511.29 kN =
7550 kN
The negligible variance observed between the total calculated load for the entire building
(7530.4 kN) and the total reaction derived from the Linpro analysis (7550 kN) suggests a minor
disparity, likely attributable to rounding errors or other analytical nuances.
Given the closely aligned values of the total calculated load and the total reaction from the
analysis, the model can be deemed satisfactory and adequately suited for practical applications.
Nonetheless, prudent practice entails a thorough review of the model's underlying assumptions,
boundary conditions, and input data to uphold precision and coherence in the outcomes.
In summary, if the deviation between the calculated load and total reaction remains marginal,
it is justifiable to regard the model as validated and suitable for subsequent analyses and design
endeavors.

16
 c. Static Analysis Model (Ansys)

Figure 12 Node creation accomplished (Ansys)

17
Figure 13 Elements creation accomplished (Ansys)

18
Figure 14 Bending moment diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)

19
Figure 15 Shear force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)

20
Figure 16 Axial force diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model))

Figure 17 Displacement diagram (static analysis: ANSYS model)

21
Figure 18 Reaction results (static analysis: ANSYS model)

d. Validation and Verification

It appears that discussing the validation and verification of an Ansys model by comparing the
total reaction and total mass applied to the building. Let's break down the terms:
Validation: Validation is the process of checking whether the simulation or model represents
the real-world behavior accurately. In this context, you likely compared the results obtained
from the Ansys model (total reaction) with some real-world measurements or reference data.
If the results from the Ansys model are in good agreement with the real-world data, the model
is considered validated.
Verification: Verification is the process of checking whether the model is correctly solving the
underlying equations and that it is implemented correctly. In this context, you likely compared
the total mass applied to the building (calculated from the model) with the actual expected mass
or design values. If the calculated values match the expected values, the model is considered
verified.
Based on the provided data:

Total reaction from Ansys model: 2730399.64 N (Newtons) = 278328.199 kg (kilograms)

Total mass applied from roof: 115229.36 kg
Total mass applied from floors: 163098.85 kg
Total mass applied from the building = 115229.36 kg + 163098.85 kg = 278328.21 kg
It seems that there might be a small discrepancy in the total mass applied from the building
(278328.21 kg) compared to the total reaction from the Ansys model (278328.199 kg). This
small difference could be due to rounding errors or other factors.
In general, if the variation between the total applied mass and total reaction remains minor and
falls within acceptable margins, the model remains suitable for practical use. Nevertheless, in
scenarios demanding heightened scrutiny or encountering substantial disparities, it becomes
imperative to meticulously scrutinize the model's assumptions, boundary conditions, and input
data to uphold precision and dependability. Additionally, conducting sensitivity analyses is
advisable to gauge the repercussions of uncertainties in the model inputs on the outcomes.

22
 e. Model analysis and Seismic Analysis in (Linpro and Ansys)

A modal analysis was performed on Linpro models, and the natural frequency results were
compared to those obtained from hand calculations and the ANSYS programme.
Mass on floor beam=8154.94kg/m
Mass on floor beam=8.154tones/m
Node spacing 0.5m=4.08tones/m
Mass on roof beam=5761.47kg/m
Mass on roof beam=5.76tonnes/m
Node spacing 0.5m=2.88tonnes/m

23
Figure 19 Mass defined

24
Figure 20 Calculated mass applied to the frame

Figure 21 modal analysis (Ansys)

25
SEISMIC ANALYSIS LINPRO MODEL

Figure 22 Seismic Analysis (Linpro)

26
Figure 23 Deformed shape mode 1 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

27
Figure 24 Deformed shape mode 2 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

28
Figure 25 Deformed shape mode 3 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

29
Figure 26 Deformed shape mode 4 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

30
Figure 27 Deformed shape mode 5 (Modal analysis: ANSYS model)

Figure 28 Deformed shape mode 1 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

31
Figure 29 Deformed shape mode 2 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 30 Deformed shape mode 3 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

32
Figure 21 Deformed shape mode 4 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 32 Deformed shape mode 5 from modal analysis (Linpro model)

33
Figure 33 Natural frequency from modal analysis (Linpro model)

Figure 34 Reaction from Ansys model

f. Verification (Linpro and Ansys)

Total reaction from Ansys model = 2730399.64 N
Total mass applied from the roof = 23045.87 kg x 5 = 115229.36kg
Total mass applied from the floors = 8154.94 kg x20 = 163098.8 kg
Total mass applied from the building = 115229.36kg + 163098.8 kg = 278328.16 kg
The total mass applied from the building should be 278328.16 kg, not 278328.199 kg as you
stated initially. The discrepancy is likely due to a rounding error in the initial calculation.
Apart from that, without further context about the specific structure, loading conditions, or
analysis objectives, it's challenging to provide a conclusive assessment of the model's validity.
The "Model ok" statement might refer to the calculated reactions and masses aligning with the
expected values, but a thorough engineering analysis should be performed to validate the Ansys
model fully. Various factors like material properties, boundary conditions, and loading
scenarios need to be considered to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the simulation.

34
3. Hand Calculation
Four of the frame's natural frequencies were manually estimated using a SMATH sheet utilising
an appropriate representation in the form of a 5DOF sway frame (no formula exists in Blevins
for this particular arrangement).
a. Design Information
Second moment of area, Iyy=0.00266m4
Modulus of elasticity of steel, E=17kN/mm2
Total mass on first, second, third, fourth and Fifth floor beams= 163098.85kg
Total mass on roof= 115229.36kg
Number of columns=4
Ground, first and Second story height=3500mm
Third, fourth and fifth height=3250mm
b. Stiffness
K=( 12xExIxNc)/L3
Third, Fourth and Fifth storey,
12x17x2.266109 x4
K= = 53.86 kN/mm
32503
For first and second storey,
12x17x2.266x109 x4
K= =43.1266kN/mm
35003

35
4. Smath Calculation

For critical structures or accurate analysis, it is crucial to involve a structural engineer with
experience in building dynamics and seismic analysis. They can perform a comprehensive
analysis considering all the complexities and safety factors specific to the building's design and
location.
The building is modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system for simplicity.
36
We'll consider only vertical vibrations (up and down motion).
The formula to estimate the fundamental natural frequency (fn) of a single-degree-of-freedom
system is:
fn = 1 / (2π) * √(k / m)
Where:
fn is the fundamental natural frequency (in Hz),
k is the effective stiffness of the building (in N/m), and
m is the effective mass of the building (in kg).
Step 1: Determine the effective stiffness (k):
The effective stiffness of the building can be estimated based on the combined stiffness of the
structural elements such as columns, beams, and floors. It depends on the material properties
and dimensions of these elements.
Step 2: Determine the effective mass (m):
The effective mass includes both the mass of the building itself (dead load) and the mass of
occupants, furniture, and equipment (live load) that contribute significantly to the dynamic
behavior.
Step 3: Calculate the natural frequency (fn):
Using the formula mentioned above, plug in the values of k and m to calculate the natural
frequency in Hz.
Keep in mind that this is a simplified approach, and real-world building analysis requires more
detailed modeling using finite element analysis (FEA) or other structural analysis methods.
Additionally, the natural frequency can vary for different vibration modes (lateral, torsional,
etc.) of a multi-story building.
For critical structures or accurate analysis, it is crucial to involve a structural engineer with
experience in building dynamics and seismic analysis. They can perform a comprehensive
analysis considering all the complexities and safety factors specific to the building's design and
location.

5. Eurocode 8 elastic and design spectrum

The EC8 elastic spectra plotted and the acceleration at the fundamental natural frequency
determined. The information provided in the design brief in relation to the proposed building
such as soil type, damping ratio, peak ground acceleration used in the analysis process.
Shape of the response spectrum: = Type 1 (high seismicity)
Direction of the seismic component: = Horizontal
Reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground (rock): αgR = 0.175 g
Importance factor: γI = 1

37
 Viscous damping ratio of the structure: ξ = 5 %
Ground type: = A
Ratio of vertical to horizontal peak ground acceleration: avg/ag = 0.9
Spectral amplification factor: F = 2.5
Soil factor: S = 1
Characteristic period of elastic response spectrum (start of constant acceleration
branch): TB = 0.15 s
Characteristic period of elastic response spectrum (start of constant velocity branch): TC =
0.4 s
Characteristic period of elastic response spectrum (start of constant displacement
branch): TD = 2 s
Table 2 values of the parameters for ground type

Ground type S TB (S) TC (S) TD (S)

A 1,0 0,15 0,4 2,0

B 1,2 0,15 0,5 2,0

C 1,15 0,20 0,6 2,0

D 1,35 0,20 0,8 2,0

E 1,4 0,15 0,5 2,0

0 ≤ T ≤TB:Se (T) =a.g.s[1+T/TB (2.5.ɳ-1)]

TB ≤ T ≤ Tc: Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5.ɳ

Tc ≤ T ≤ TD:Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5. ɳ. (Tc/T)

TD ≤ T ≤ 4 second: Se (T) =a.g.s.2.5. ɳ. (Tc x Td/T2)

a.g=9.81x0.175= 1.717m/s2

ɳ = √(10/(5 + ε)) = √(10/(5 + 5)) = 1 ≥ 0.55

S 0 =a.g.s[1+0/TB (2.5.ɳ-1)] =1.717 x1.20 x [1+0/0.15x (2.5x1-1)] =2.06m/s-2

S 1 =a.g.s.2,5.ɳ = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1) = 5.150 m/s-2

S 2 =ag.s.25.ɳ .Tc/0.5 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x 0.5/0.5) = 5.15 m/s-2

S 3 =ag.s.2,5. ɳ .Tc.TD/22 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x (0.5 x2/4) = 1.288m/s-2

38
S 4 =ag.s.25. ɳ .Tc.TD/42 = (1.717 × 1.20) × (2.5 × 1 x (0.5x2/16) = 0.322m/s-2

Figure 35 Eurocode 8 horizontal elastic response spectrum

6. Discussion
Using ANSYS and Linpro, a 2D structural model was crafted to suit the building's East-West
orientation. This model, derived from the design brief, incorporated manually calculated
masses and loads as vertical loads for static analysis. Further refinement and validation of the
model were carried out by a third party. Extensive static analysis, including mean load reaction
checks, ensured the reliability of the computer model. Both ANSYS and Linpro models were
scrutinized and validated, with modal analysis revealing four natural frequencies.
Given the shared analysis factors, such as material properties and modulus of elasticity, the
results from ANSYS and Linpro were found to be closely aligned. However, ANSYS, with its
consideration of additional sectional properties like section depth and Poisson's ratio, exhibited
more reliable findings, albeit with slight fluctuations. To accurately represent the structure, a
5DOF sway frame was utilized, with natural frequencies manually determined using a SMATH
sheet.
The incorporation of material properties in both Linpro and ANSYS simulations enhances
result accuracy, making the latter particularly advantageous for future projects. ANSYS
software facilitates comprehensive calculations by enabling engineers to account for
parameters like Poisson's ratio and actual constants. Effective masses, pivotal for seismic
activity assessment, were computed using modal analysis software.
The structure's EC8 elastic spectra were analysed to determine the acceleration at the
fundamental natural frequency, crucial for calculating base shear and seismic lateral force
distribution. The integration of effective masses derived from the ANSYS model with the
fundamental natural frequency facilitated a thorough seismic assessment.
In summary, the combination of ANSYS and Linpro software, complemented by manual
calculations, enabled a comprehensive structural analysis. ANSYS, distinguished by its

39
consideration of material and sectional properties, emerged as a valuable tool for achieving
precise results, especially in earthquake-prone regions. This detailed analysis offers critical
insights into structural behaviour and safety, underscoring the importance of employing
sophisticated software tools in future construction endeavours

7. Conclusion
The completion of this exercise resulted in several key findings. Specifically, it involved
analysing the dynamic behaviour of the frame using hand calculations, as well as finite element
software such as ANSYS and Linpro. As mentioned previously, variations in natural frequency
results were observed, which were attributed to differences in the underlying assumptions of
the techniques used. For instance, ANSYS considers factors like column mass, beam stiffness,
and Poisson's ratio, whereas these variables are ignored in manual calculations.
According to the data, there is a correlation between natural frequency and mass, with
frequency decreasing as mass increases due to the relationship between mass and stiffness.
Additionally, stiffness plays a crucial role, as an increase in stiffness leads to a higher inherent
frequency of the structure. ANSYS and Linpro leverage information about the section's
geometry, such as the second moment of area, section depths, and cross-sectional area, to
account for stiffness of structural components. Conversely, manual calculation of structure
stiffness involves considerations like the second moment of area and the base height of the
floor level.
Moreover, the height of the building influences its flexibility, with taller structures exhibiting
greater flexibility and consequently lower natural frequencies
Understanding a structure's dynamic behaviour is critical for mitigating the risk of casualties
and preventing economic losses, particularly in regions prone to earthquakes. Employing a
variety of analytical approaches is essential to accurately analyse and validate data during this
process. Eurocode 8, a cutting-edge method for seismic activity forecasting developed over
years, relies on factors like peak ground acceleration and ground conditions, which pose
challenges for precise measurement, leading to inherent uncertainties.
Upon subjecting the frame to seismic activities, significant increases in moments and forces
were observed, revealing inadequacies in the steel sections' capacity. This underscores the
imperative of considering seismic activity's impact during structural design. Variations in
natural frequency results were noted, attributed to differing assumptions and parameters
inherent in each analytical method employed.
The exercise involved employing various analysis methods, including hand calculations,
ANSYS, and Linpro, to study the frame's dynamic behaviour. Each method had its own set of
assumptions and input parameters, contributing to result disparities. ANSYS, in particular,
factors in column mass, beam stiffness, and Poisson ratio, all of which exert considerable
influence on the structure's natural frequency. Conversely, the manual calculation approach
neglected these variables, yielding differing outcomes.

40
The interplay between mass and stiffness significantly influences the structure's natural
frequency; as mass increases, natural frequency decreases, while increased stiffness correlates
with higher natural frequencies. Structural stiffness, determined by geometrical factors like the
second moment of area and section depths, plays a pivotal role in this regard.
Additionally, the structure's height impacts its flexibility, with taller structures exhibiting lower
natural frequencies. These insights underscore the complexity of structural dynamics and the
importance of meticulous consideration of various factors to ensure structural integrity and
safety, particularly in seismic-prone regions.

41