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

net/publication/270648226

Seismic analysis of L-shaped high and low rise buildings-comparison with

NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010

Conference Paper · May 2013

CITATION READS

1 867

2 authors:

Ahmed Hamada Ashraf El Damatty

The University of Western Ontario The University of Western Ontario
28 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS    224 PUBLICATIONS   1,850 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Composite Conical Tanks View project

Reinforced Concrete Conical Tanks under Hydrostatic Pressure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Hamada on 22 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CSCE 2013 General Conference - Congrès général 2013 de la SCGC

Montréal, Québec
May 29 to June 1, 2013 / 29 mai au 1 juin 2013

Seismic Analysis of L-Shaped High and Low Rise Buildings –

Comparison with NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010
A. Hamada1, A. A. El Damatty1
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, Canada

Abstract: A study is conducted to assess the seismic provisions of the National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) 2005 and 2010, pertaining to the loading and analysis of irregular L-shaped buildings. The study
uses a low-rise and a high-rise building as case studies. Three-dimensional models of the two irregular
buildings are developed using the commercial finite-element software package ETABS. The lateral
resisting system of the high-rise building consists of a combination of shear walls and rigid frames, while
the low-rise building consists of shear walls only. The code provisions are strictly followed with regard to
the equivalent static and dynamic analysis procedures. According to the code provisions and based on
the location of the building, dynamic analysis is not required for the low-rise building. However, a
response spectrum analysis of this building reveals a significant contribution of the higher modes, which
is not accounted for accurately in the equivalent static approach. The dynamic analysis of the high-rise
building indicates that the base shear force estimated by the code can be significantly over estimated.
Also, the study reveals that the directions of application of two perpendicular ground motions specified by
the code might not be the most critical in the case of L-shaped buildings.

1 Introduction

The objective of the current study is to reveal some of the problems faced by structural engineers during
the design process of irregular L-shaped buildings using the seismic provisions of the National Building
Code of Canada (NBCC) 2005 and 2010. In the current study, these codes of analysis and design of
buildings are utilized for the analysis of two L-shaped buildings. The study discusses the seismic loading
and analysis of high-rise and low-rise irregular L-shaped buildings using three-dimensional finite element
models.

The idealization of code equations in the NBCC 2005 and 2010 concerning the effect of the higher modes
is controversial. As presented currently, the code equations are applicable to both low-rise and high-rise
buildings. For low-rise buildings; however, the code equations neglect the effect of the higher modes and
assume that the first mode is dominant. This is not always applicable for buildings with an irregular
distribution of lateral resisting systems. In certain cases of irregular low-rise buildings, as shown in the
current study, it is not conservative to use the equivalent static approach described by the code to extract
the seismic forces on the structure. Boivin and Paultre (2009) assessed the seismic performance of a 12-
story concrete building. The building used a ductile concrete shear wall core as a seismic force resisting
system and was designed according to NBCC 2005 and Canadian Standards Association standard CSA
– A23.3. The study concluded that the NBCC 2005 underestimates the higher mode responses of a
reinforced concrete wall structure whose seismic response is dominated by higher modes.

GC-221-1
Pannneton et al. (2006) studied an actual eight-story ductile reinforced concrete shear wall building to
evaluate the NBCC 2005 seismic provisions. The study indicated that the shear forces and bending
moments are most often underestimated by static code procedures compared to inelastic dynamic
analyses. For high rise buildings, the effect of higher modes is reversed. As shown in the current study ,
the effect of the higher modes recommended by NBCC 2005 is highly conservative and in some cases
gives double the base shear force calculated using dynamic analysis of the building. The effect of higher
mode provisions in NBCC 2010 is less conservative than the provisions in NBCC 2005.

Earthquake equivalent forces act in horizontal planes where the lumped masses and rigid diaphragms of
each story of the building are located. The direction of these forces has been recommended in NBCC
2005 and 2010 to be directed towards the principle axes of the structure. These directions are considered
to be critical for some regular structures; however, irregular structures, L-shaped buildings for example,
need more investigation and trials to find the seismic force directions which give the critical design forces
and base shears. It is difficult to predict which direction to apply the earthquake load for irregular
structures with plan views such as L-Shape, semi-circle, and ellipse. Thus, the current study recommends
engineering judgment and many trials to specify the critical seismic force directions for irregular buildings.

2 Analysis Loads

2.1 Gravity Loads

Gravity loads are calculated in accordance with the National Building of Canada Code (NBCC 2005 and
NBCC 2010). These gravity loads include the building self-weight, super imposed dead loads, live loads,
mechanical loads, and snow loads.

2.2 Seismic Loads

Seismic loads are calculated in accordance with the provisions of NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010. The
location of the two buildings is in a moderate seismic area in Ontario. Site specific 5% damped spectral
response acceleration values Sa(T) are shown in Figure 1, as specified in both NBCC 2005 and NBCC
2010. As shown in Figure 1, the NBCC 2005 spectral acceleration Sa(T) has higher values for structural
periods less than 1 (sec) with a maximum difference of 18%. On the other hand, The NBCC 2010 has
higher spectral acceleration values for periods higher than 1 (sec) with a maximum difference of 10%.
The high-rise building soil type is different than that of the low-rise building. Accordingly, the design
spectral acceleration values S(T) are different from one building to the other. This is discussed in detail in
section 4 and 7.

0.45
0.4
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.35 NBCC 2005

0.3 NBCC 2010
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (sec)

Figure 1: Building site - 5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration Values Sa(T)

GC-221-2
3 Low-Rise Building Structure System and Analysis Model

The concrete low-rise building shown in Figure 2 consists of five stories and a basement. The total height
of the building is 20 (m) and the building is L-shaped. Shear walls are responsible for resisting the lateral
and gravity loads. The basement has a different structural system with different shear walls distribution.
The basement structural system consists of shear walls, steel columns, and deep steel beams. Hollow-
core slabs are used to support gravity loads. An ETABS (Version 9.5; Computers and Structures, Inc.,
2008) model is created to perform the elastic analysis of the building, as shown in Figure 2. Members
stiffness properties are adjusted in accordance with the effective stiffness values given in Table 21.1 of
CSA A23.3-94.

Figure 2: Three-Dimensional Model of the Low-Rise Building

According to the NBCC 2005 and 2010, the fundamental period of the building (T a) is 0.473 (sec). Modal
analysis is conducted to predict the building’s natural period and compare it with the period determined
using the code guidelines. The modal analysis shows that the first mode is a torsional mode, as shown in
Table 1. The fundamental period of the building is determined using the ETABS model as 0.33 and 0.32
(sec) in X and Y directions, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the modal analysis findings.

Table 1: Modal Analysis Results (Low-Rise Building)

Period UX UY SumUX SumUY RZ SumRZ

Mode
(sec) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %)
1 0.61 4.33 12.42 4.33 12.42 46.31 46.31
2 0.33 42.18 11.24 46.52 23.66 12.58 58.89
3 0.32 20.06 43.02 66.58 66.68 4.00 62.90
42 0.03 0.71 2.02 91.44 91.75 0.44 86.30
60 0.02 1.84 1.08 99.82 99.83 5.65 99.66

4 Low-Rise Building Seismic Analysis

According to NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010, clause 4.1.8.7.1, the equivalent static force procedures may
be used for buildings that meet any of the following criteria:

GC-221-3
 a) For NBCC 2005, in case where IE Fa Sa(0.2) = 1.0 x 0.80 x 0.41 = 0.328 < 0.35 (Satisfied), and
for NBCC 2010 where IE Fa Sa(0.2) = 1.0 x 0.80 x 0.34 = 0.272 < 0.35 (Satisfied).
b) Structures with structural irregularity, that are less than 20 (m) in height and have a fundamental
lateral period less than 0.5 (sec) in each of the orthogonal directions (Satisfied).
The design spectral acceleration values of S(T) for soil type B using NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010 are
shown in Figure 3. According to NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010, clause 4.1.8.11.2, the minimum static
lateral earthquake force shall be calculated using the following equation:

[1] V = S(Ta) Mv IE W / (Rd Ro)

0.35

0.3
Design Spectral Acceleration (g)

NBCC 2005

0.25 NBCC 2010

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (sec)

Figure 3: Building Site – Soil Type B – Design Spectral Acceleration S(T)

Using Equation 1, the minimum static base shear in X and Y directions, according to NBCC 2005, is
14529 (kN). Where, the building weight, W, is 104,805 (kN), I E is 1, Ta according to clause 4.1.8.11.3 is
0.473 (sec), and Mv is equal to 1.0. The minimum static base shear in X and Y directions, according to
NBCC 2010, is 13434 (kN). Force reduction factors, Rd and Ro, are equal to 1.0 for the simplicity of the
comparison.

5 Low-Rise Building Discussion

The building satisfies all the NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010 code provisions to be modeled for seismic
loads using only static load procedures. The analysis is conducted using dynamic analysis provisions
recommended by NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010. For NBCC 2005 design spectral acceleration, PSPECX
and PSPECY are the response spectrum analyses in X and Y directions, respectively. As shown inTable
1 the building has a similar period in X and Y directions, with almost the exact same mass. Based on that,
the building’s principle axes are assumed to have an inclination angle of 45o. PSPECX45 and PSPECY45
are the response spectrum analyses acting in the building’s principle axes directions. For NBCC 2010
design spectral acceleration, PSPECX10 and PSEPECY10 are the response spectrum analyses in X and
Y directions, respectively.

The base shear of the dynamic analysis is 23% higher than the base shear calculated using the static
equations of NBCC 2005. As for NBCC 2010, the dynamic base shear is 4% higher than shear calculated
using the static equations. These results are shown in Table 2. The code higher mode factor (Mv) for this
building is equal to 1. The effect of higher modes is therefore neglected and the code equation depends
on considering the first mode as the dominant mode. The dynamic analysis shows that the first three
modes account for only 66% of the building mass as shown in Table 1. 42 modes are required to reach

GC-221-4
90% of the building mass, and 60 modes to cover the entire building mass in the X and Y directions and
torsion modes. Higher modes have smaller periods, which correspond to higher ground acceleration
values from the design spectrum. The difference between the static and dynamic base shear decreases
when using NBCC 2010. The NBCC 2010 design spectrum has lower values and a mild slope when the
period is less than 1.0 (sec). The shear forces along the height for NBCC 2005 static and dynamic cases
are plotted in Figure 4. According to NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010 clause 4.1.8.11.6, the concentrated
force at the top of the building may be considered as zero when the fundamental lateral period does not
exceed 0.7 (sec). The significant difference in the dynamic shear force at the top of the building leads to
higher axial and bending moments in the seismic force resisting system.

Table 2: Low – Rise Building Base Shear Results

Base Shear
Story Load Static - Response VX VY V Difference
(kN) (kN) (kN) %
1 EQX Static 14529 0 14529 --
1 EQY Static 0 14529 14529 --
1 EQX10 Static 13434 0 13434 --
1 EQY10 Static 0 13434 13434 --
1 PSPECX Response Spectrum 13217 9779 16441 13
1 PSPECY Response Spectrum 9779 12768 16082 11
1 PSPECX45 Response Spectrum 10984 14125 17893 23
1 PSPECY45 Response Spectrum 12233 7690 14449 --
1 PSPECX10 Response Spectrum 11248 8347 14007 4
1 PSPECY10 Response Spectrum 8347 10862 13698 2

4 PSPECX
NBCC 05
Storey

3
PSPECY
2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
Shear Force (kN)

Figure 4: Shear Force Distribution along the Building Height

GC-221-5
6 High – Rise Building Structure System and Analysis Model

The 52 story high-rise concrete building has an L-shape plan as shown in Figure 5. The total height of the
building is 159.6 (m). The building has two basement stories surrounded by 400 (mm) retaining walls. The
first three stories above the ground level are public areas, with a swimming pool located in the middle
story. The lateral load resisting system consists of a number of shear walls and two rigid frames at the
edge of the building, which are incorporated mainly to resist torsion. The location of the shear walls and
the two rigid frames are shown in Figure 5. Flat slabs are used to support gravity loads. The building rests
on pile foundations.

Rigid Frames

PSPECY23
PSPECX38
PSPECY38
Main PSPECX23
Building

Low-rise
Stories

Basement

Springs

Figure 5: Three-Dimensional Model and Plan View of the High Rise Building

GC-221-6
An ETABS (Version 9.5; Computers and Structures, Inc., 2008) model is created to perform elastic
analysis on the building as shown in Figure 5. Members’ stiffness properties are adjusted in accordance
with the effective stiffness values given in Table 21.1 of CSA A23.3-94. The piles are simulated using
equivalent translation and rotational springs. In addition, the deep pile caps are modeled using multiple
layers of shell elements. These multiple layers simulate the concrete and steel reinforcement behavior of
these rigid pile caps. According to the NBCC 2005 and 2010, the fundamental period of the building (T a)
is 2.25 (sec). The fundamental period of the building is determined using the computer model as 6.3 and
5.3 (sec) in X and Y directions, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the modal analysis findings.

Table 3: Modal Analysis Results (High – Rise Building)

Period UX UY SumUX SumUY RZ SumRZ

Mode
(sec) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %) (Mass %)
1 6.27 21.72 9.25 21.72 9.25 16.96 16.96
2 5.28 2.46 30.89 24.18 40.13 24.32 41.28
3 3.76 29.13 18.55 53.31 58.69 7.59 48.87
4 1.81 1.47 0.26 54.78 58.94 8.68 57.54
5 1.32 8.80 7.49 63.58 66.43 0.30 57.84
17 0.19 0.26 4.50 90.57 93.84 1.11 76.10
45 0.07 0.00 0.00 99.40 99.50 0.00 99.24

7 High – Rise Building Seismic Analysis

0.55
0.5
0.45 NBCC 2005
Design Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.4 NBCC 2010

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Period (sec)

Figure 6: Building Site – Soil Type D – Design Spectral Acceleration S(T)

The design spectral acceleration values of S(T) for soil type D using NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010 are
shown in Figure 6. Using Equation 1, the minimum static base shear in X and Y directions (EQX and
EQY) is 25,233 (kN). Where, the building weight, (W) is 687,613 (kN), IE is 1, Ta according to clause
4.1.8.11.3 shall not exceed 4.5 (sec), and Mv is 2.5. Rd and Ro are equal to 1.0 for the simplicity of the
calculations. According to NBCC 2005, the static base shear shall not be less than:

GC-221-7
[2] S(2.0) Mv IE W / (Rd Ro)

Using Equation 2, the minimum static base shall not be less than 50,467 (kN).

According to NBCC 2010, clause 4.1.8.11.2, the minimum static lateral earthquake force shall be
calculated using Equation 1. As for walls, coupled walls and wall-frame systems, the minimum static base
shear shall not be less than the following equation:

[3] S(4.0) Mv IE W / (Rd Ro)

Using Equation 3, the minimum static base shear in X and Y directions (EQX10 and EQY10) is 33,224
(kN). Where, Mv is equal to 3.0

8 High – Rise Building Discussion

According to NBCC 2005, clause 4.1.8.8.1, the earthquake forces shall be assumed to act in any
horizontal direction. In addition, in clause 4.1.8.8.1.a where the components of the seismic force resisting
system are oriented along a set of orthogonal axes, independent analyses about each of the principal
axes of the structure shall be performed. The response spectrum analyses are performed in X (PSPECX)
and Y (PSPECY) directions as shown in Figure 5. The calculated base shears are shown in Table 4. In
order to calculate the building’s principle axes, two methods are used. L-shaped structures tend to have
their first mode shape in the direction of the weak axis. Based on that, the first method is based on the
first mode deformed shape. The inclination angle of the principle axes with respect to X axes is 38 o.
Accordingly, the response spectrum analyses are performed in the two orthogonal directions
(PSPECX38) and (PSPECY38) as shown in Figure 5. The PSPECX38 and PSPECY38 base shear
values are reported in Table 4. The second method is based on the distribution of the mass in the first
mode shape. The first mode has 9.25% of the mass in the Y-direction and 21.72% of the mass in the X-
direction, as shown in Table 3. Accordingly, the principle axes inclination angle with respect to X-axis is
23o. The response spectrum analyses are performed in the two orthogonal directions (PSPECX23) and
(PSPECY23) as shown in Figure 5. The PSPECX23 and PSPECY23 base shear values are reported in
Table 4.

Table 4: High-Rise Building Base Shear Results

Base Shear
Story Load Static - Response VX VY
(kN) (kN)
1 EQX Static 50467 0
1 EQY Static 0 50467
1 EQX10 Static 33224 0
1 EQY10 Static 0 33224
1 PSPECX Response Spectrum 28007 15356
1 PSPECY Response Spectrum 15448 26538
1 PSPECX38 Response Spectrum 23380 23160
1 PSPECY38 Response Spectrum 21827 20091
1 PSPECX23 Response Spectrum 26110 19878
1 PSPECY23 Response Spectrum 18475 23343
1 PSPECX10 Response Spectrum 24935 14152
1 PSPECY10 Response Spectrum 14227 23524

GC-221-8
As shown in Table 4, there is a significant difference between the static and dynamic base shear values
calculated using NBCC 2005. For X and Y directions, the static base shear values (EQX and EQY) are
158% and 164% higher than the dynamic base shear values (SPECX and SPECY), respectively. For the
principle axes directions with an inclination angle of 38o, the static base shear values (EQX and EQY) are
153 % and 170 % higher than the dynamic base shear values (PSPECX38 and PSPECY38),
respectively. For the principle axes directions with an inclination angle of 23 o, the static base shear values
(EQX and EQY) are 154 % and 170 % higher than the dynamic base shear values (PSPECX23 and
PSPECY23), respectively. In addition, the response spectrum analyses are performed in X and Y
(SPECX10 and SPECY10) directions using the design spectral acceleration values of NBCC 2010 shown
in Figure 6. The static base shear values (EQX10 and EQY10) are 116% and 121 % higher than the
dynamic base shear values (PSPECX10 and PSPECY10) respectively. Based on these results, the
dynamic analysis of this L-shaped high-rise building indicates that the base shear force determined using
the code can be significantly over estimated. The NBCC 2010 reduces the difference between the static
and dynamic base shear by modifying the static base shear equation as shown in Section 7.

Based on the results shown in Table 4, the maximum X and Y base shear values result from applying the
ground motion in directions that are not in the building’s principle axes. The base shear in the X direction
VX due to response spectrum analysis is 28,007 (kN). However, when applying response spectrum
analysis in the principle axes PSPECX38 and PSPECX23, the base shear values VX are 23,380 and
26,110 (kN), respectively. The 20% and 7% difference in base shear values lead to significant differences
in the internal forces which occur in the lateral resisting system. For the low-rise building case, the peak X
and Y direction base shears follow the same trend that the high-rise building does. However, the total
base shear values acting in the principles axes (PSPECX45 and PSPECY45) are higher or equal to static
base shear values, as shown in Table 2. Based on these results, more investigation is required for L-
shaped high and low-rise buildings in order to find the optimum direction of two perpendicular ground
motions which lead to the maximum lateral forces.

9 Conclusions

The current study assesses the seismic provisions of the NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010 with regard to the
loading and analysis of irregular L-shaped buildings. The study considers a low-rise and high-rise
building. The lateral resisting system of the low-rise building consists of shear walls only, while for the
high-rise building a combination of shear walls and rigid frames comprise the resisting system. The NBCC
2005 and NBCC 2010 code provisions are strictly followed with regard to the equivalent static and
dynamic analysis procedures.

The study assesses the contribution of the higher modes to the L-shaped buildings base shear values. In
addition, the study investigates the direction of application of two perpendicular ground motions in the
case of L-shaped buildings. The following conclusions can be stated from the analyses conducted in the
current study:

- The NBCC 2010 site specific spectral acceleration Sa(T) are different than the NBCC 2005 Sa(T).
For periods less than 1 (sec), the NBCC 2010 site specific spectral acceleration Sa(T) are lower
than the NBCC 2005 values. On the other hand, the NBCC 2010 Sa(T) values of periods higher
than 1 (sec) are higher than the NBCC 2005 Sa(T) values.
- For the current L-shaped Low-rise building, the equivalent static approach is satisfactory.
However, the study shows that response spectrum analyses of the building reveal a significant
contribution to the building base shear force from the higher modes, which is not accounted for
accurately in the equivalent static approach. Thus, the base shear values calculated using
response spectrum analyses are higher than the values calculated using the equivalent static
approach. In addition, the significant difference in the distribution of shear force along the building
height leads to higher internal forces developing in the lateral resisting systems when using the
response spectrum approach as opposed to the equivalent static approach.

GC-221-9
 - The dynamic analysis of the L-shaped high-rise building indicates that the base shear force
determined by the code can be significantly over estimated. The NBCC 2010 modifies the
equivalent static base shear equation to overcome this significant difference for high-rise
buildings with periods higher than 4 (sec).
- The study reveals that the direction of application of two perpendicular ground motions specified
by the code might not be the most critical directions in the case of low-rise and high-rise L-shaped
buildings.

10 Acknowledgement

The first author is indebted to the Vanier Canada Graduate and the Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for the financial support provided for this research.

References

Boivin, Y., and Paultre, P. 2009. Seismic performance of a 12-storey ductile concrete shear wall system
designed according to the 2005 National building code of Canada and the 2004 Canadian Standard
Association standard A23.3. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37(1): 1-16.
Cement Association of Canada and Canadian Standards Association. 2006. Concrete design handbook
(CSA - A23.3). Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa.
National Research Council of Canada, National Research Council Canada, National Research Council
Canada, Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, and Institute for Research in
Construction 2005. National building code of Canada (NBCC 2005).
National Research Council of Canada, National Research Council Canada, National Research Council
Canada, Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, and Institute for Research in
Construction 2010. National building code of Canada (NBCC 2010).
Panneton, M., Leger, P., and Tremblay, R. 2006. Inelastic analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall
building according to the National Building Code of Canada 2005. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 33(7): 854-871.

GC-221-10

View publication stats