This document summarizes the analysis and design of a 10-story reinforced concrete building under seismic load. It describes the structural configuration, location in seismic zone 4, and application of both gravity and lateral loads. Static and dynamic analyses were performed using 26 and 18 load combinations respectively. Story drifts, displacements, and shears from the static and dynamic analyses were compared and found to be within acceptable limits. Beam and column sections were designed based on the static analysis results.

1. Analysis and Design of High-Rise RC Building under Seismic Load
1
Group IX, 2
Dr Zaw Min Htun
Department of Civil Engineering, Technological University (Pakokku), Pakokku, Myanmar
Abstract- �is study is operated for Analysis and
Design of High-rise RC Building under Seismic
Load for ten-storeyed RC inverted T-shaped
building locating in seismic zone 4 and basic wind
speed 80 mph. Firstly, structural configuration is
considered as re-entrant corner, and gravity loads
and lateral loads are acted on structure, and dual
system is applied. �e structure is designed with 26
combinations of loading for static analysis and 18
combinations of loading for dynamic analysis.
Stability checking results are satisfied within the
limitations and thereafter, linear response spectrum
analysis is utilized according to dynamic lateral
force procedure based on UBC-97.
I. INTRODUCTION
Leaping population is forcing engineering
society to make buildings so that suitable structures
need to be constructed to sustain valuable human
resources. �e robust structures are demanded by
owners of accommodation, insofar as some terrain,
mountainous regions are situated in seismic region.
During twentieth century, approximately 17,000 people
per year were killed from building collapse due to
disaster such as fire, deluge and earthquake.
�e way to reduce potential damage of
structures and harm to dwellers is to construct building
to face minimum debris caused by earthquake. Not only
from economical point of view but also from reducing
redundancy of damage due to earthquake especially
need to be considered. According to these, a ten-
storeyed RC building is analyzed and designed.
�e aims and objectives of the study are as
follows:
1. To analyze and design of high-rise
residential building under seismic load.
2. To investigate structural behavior of
proposed building.
3. To evaluate special performances and
member forces.
II. CASE STUDY
�e required data for proposed buildings are a
follows:
A. Data for Proposed Building
�e proposed building is 10-storeyed inverted
T-shaped RC building. Data preparations of proposed
building are listed as follows:
Type of structure
-Ten-storeyed RC building
Type of occupancy
- Residential
Area of structure
- Length = 100 ft
- Width = 77 ft
Height of structure
- Overall height = 109 ft
- Typical story height = 10 ft
- Bottom story height = 12 ft
Shape of structure
- Inverted T-shaped structure
Zone location of structure
- Seismic zone 4
B. Material Properties
�e strength of the structure mainly depends
on material properties applied in structure and analysis
data are as follows:
Modulus of elasticity of concrete = 3.122 ksi
Passion’s ratio = 0.2
Coefficient of thermal
Expansion of concrete = 5.5 x 10-6
in
per degree F
Design property data
Concrete cylinder strength, fc’ = 3 ksi
Yield strength, fy = 50 ksi
Tensile strength, fu = 50 ksi
C. Loading Consideration
�ere are two kinds of loads considered in this
study. �ey are gravity loads, which are dead load and
live load, as well as lateral loads, which are wind load
and earthquake load.
Dead Load
Dead loads comprise of all of the materials,
which apply on the structure, and all fixed equipment
considered in the structure. Required data for dead
loads are as follows:
Unit weight of concrete = 150 lb/ft2
9” thick brick wall = 100 lb/ft2
4.5” thick brick wall = 55 lb/ft2
Superimposed dead load = 25 lb/ft2
Finishing load = 15 lb/ft2
Live Load
Live loads are developed by the occupants and
appliances and vehicles, used by dwellers. Required
data for live load are as follows:
Unit weight of water = 64 lb/ft3
Live load on single bed room = 40 lb/ft2
Live load on master bed room = 60 lb/ft2
Live load on passage lane = 100 lb/ft2
Live load on stair = 100 lb/ft2
Live load on landing = 100 lb/ft2
Live load on lift = 100 lb/ft2
Live load on roof = 20 lb/ft2
Live load of water tank = 150 lb/ft2
Wind Load
�e wind pressure on a structure depends on
the wind response of the structure. Required data in
designing for wind load are as follows:

2. Exposure type = Type B
Basic wind speed = 80 mph
Total height of the structure = 109 ft
Numerical coefficient = 0.03
Windward coefficient = 0.8
Leeward coefficient = 0.5
Importance factor = 1
Design code = UBC-97
Earthquake Load
�e aim of seismic design is to make the
structure so as to deplete the displacements, forces
produced by ground motion. Required data for
earthquake load are as follows:
Seismic zone = 4
Seismic source type = B
Soil type = SD
Importance factor = 1
Response modification factor = 8.5
Ct value = 0.03
D. Modeling of Proposed Building
�e proposed Building is located in seismic
zone 4 as well as wind speed 80 mph, normal force
method and exposure type B is applied. �e proposed
building is ten-storeyed inverted T-shaped RC building
in which shear wall is included in the proposed
building, three units are incorporated in each story,
emergency stair way is utilized for each unit because of
contingency planning. Six water tanks are placed on
roof for convergence of water supply through pipe
system. Architectural floor plan and 3D view of
proposed building can be seen as shown in Figure A.1
and Figure A.2 respectively.
III. LOAD COMBINATION
According to ACI 318-99 and UBC-97, total
number of 26 combinations of loading for static
analysis are considered, as well as total number of 18
combinations of loading, based on UBC-97, for
dynamic analysis are determined.
A. Load Combination for Static Analysis
�ese 26 load combinations are applied for
static analysis, eighteen of which are extracted from
ACI 318-99 and eight of which are referred from UBC-
97. �ey are as follows:
1. 1.4DL + 1.4SD
2. 1.4DL + 1.4SD + 1.7LL
3. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL+1.275WX
4. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL−1.275WX
5. 1.05DL + 1.05SD +1.275LL+1.275WY
6. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL−1.275WY
7. 0.9DL + 0.9SD + 1.3WX
8. 0.9DL + 0.9SD − 1.3WX
9. 0.9DL +0.9SD + 1.3WY
10. 0.9DL + 0.9SD − 1.3WY
11. 1.05DL + 1.28SD + EQX
12. 1.05DL + 1.28SD − EQX
13. 1.05DL + 1.28SD + EQY
14. 1.05DL + 1.28SD − EQY
15. 0.9DL + 0.9SD + 1.02 EQX
16. 0.9DL + 0.9SD − 1.02 EQX
17. 0.9DL + 0.9SD + 1.02 EQY
Continued-
18. 0.9DL + 0.9SD − 1.02 EQY
19. 1.16DL + 1.16SD + 1.28 LL + EQX
20. 1.16DL + 1.16SD + 1.28 LL − EQX
21. 1.16DL + 1.16SD + 1.28 LL + EQY
22. 1.16DL + 1.16SD + 1.28 LL − EQY
23. 0.79DL + 0.79SD + 1.02EQX
24. 0.79DL + 0.79SD − 1.02EQX
25. 0.79DL + 0.79SD + 1.02EQY
26. 0.79DL + 0.79SD − 1.02EQY
B. Load Combination for Dynamic Response
Spectrum Analysis
Such eighteen load combinations of loading
are utilized for dynamic analysis, all of which are taken
from UBC-97. �ey are as follows:
1. 1.4DL + 1.4SD
2. 1.4DL + 1.4SD + 1.7LL
3. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL + 1.275WX
4. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL ‒ 1.275WX
5. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL + 1.275WY
6. 1.05DL + 1.05SD + 1.275LL ‒ 1.275WY
7. 0.9DL + 0.9SD + 1.3WX
8. 0.9DL + 0.9SD ‒ 1.3WX
9. 0.9DL + 0.9SD + 1.3WY
10. 0.9DL + 0.9SD ‒ 1.3WY
11. 1.33055DL + 1.33055SD + 1.275LL +
1.4025SPECX
12. 1.33055DL + 1.33055SD + 1.275LL ‒
1.4025SPECX
13. 1.33055DL + 1.33055SD + 1.275LL +
1.4025SPECY
14. 1.33055DL + 1.33055SD + 1.725LL ‒
1.4025SPECY
15. 0.614DL + 0.614SD + 1.43SPECX
16. 0.614DL + 0.614SD ‒ 1.43SPECX
17. 0.614DL + 0.614SD + 1.43SPECY
18. 0.614DL + 0.614SD ‒ 1.43SPECY
IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUILDING
�e proposed building is analyzed with by
using computer analysis software, ETABS (V 9.7.1), as
well as gravity loads, which are dead load, live load,
superimposed load, finishing load, rain load, lift load;
and lateral loads, which are wind load and earthquake
load are applied on the proposed building. �ereafter,
the proposed building is firstly analyzed with static
analysis by using 26 combinations of loading. Stability
checking, whose results are within the satisfied
limitations, are consequently functioned according to
UBC-97.
After the building has been analyzed with
static analysis, according to dynamic lateral force
procedure from UBC-97, which describes buildings
situating in severe seismic zone 4, or having irregularity
structure, or being over 240 feet, and sitting on soil
profile type SF and having structural period over 0.7
sec, building should be analyzed with dynamic analysis.
With the result that linear response spectrum analysis as
a linear dynamic analysis procedure is analyzed.
V. Static Analysis Results
Overall, stability checkings for proposed
building with static analysis is within the satisfied
limitations. �ey are as follows:
Page 2

3. Table 1. Overall Stability Checking for Static Analysis
of Proposed Building
Items X-direction Y- direction Limit
Story Drift
ΔMx =
0.51193
ΔMy =
0.51408
< 2.4
Overturning
Moment
FS = 9.48 FS = 6.03 > 1.5
Sliding FS = 3.10 FS = 3.10 > 1.5
Torsional
Irregularity
∆max
∆avg
= 1
∆max
∆avg
= 1 < 1.2
P- ∆ effect
Max; drift
ratio =
0.00071
Max; drift
ratio=
0.00072
< 0.28
VI. Static Design Sections of Proposed Building
Beam and column sections are designed to
provide suitable design section.
A. Static Design Sections of Beams
Static beam sections of the proposed building
are described in Table 2.
Table 2. Static Design Sections of Beams
Name of beam Type of beam
Sections
(in × in)
B1 Secondary beam 9 × 9
B2 Main beam 10 × 10
B3 Main beam 10 × 12
B4 Main beam 10 × 14
B5 Main beam 12 × 14
B. Static Design Sections of Columns
Static column sections of the proposed
building are described in Table 3.
Table 3. Static Design Sections of Columns
Name of
Column
Story Level
Section
(in × in)
Reinforcing
bar
C1
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 7 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 8 to 9 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 10 14 × 14 8#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
C2
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 7 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 8 to 9 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 10 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
VII. COMPARISON OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
Having analyzed with static analysis, the
proposed building is analyzed with dynamic analysis.
After that, static and dynamic analysis results are
compared, such as story drifts, story moment, story
shear, and point displacements in X-direction and Y-
direction, with static design sections.
A. Comparison of Story Drift
�e maximum story drift data in X-direction
and Y-direction of static and dynamic are compared in
Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
Figure 1. Comparison of Story Drift in X-direction due
to EQX and SPECX
Figure 2. Comparison of Story Drift in Y-direction due
to EQY and SPECY
B. Comparison of Point Displacement
�e maximum point displacement in Y-
direction of static and dynamic are compared in Figure
3 and Figure 4 respectively.
Figure 3. Comparison of Point Displacement at Point
11 in Y-direction due to EQY and SPECY
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Stories Drift due to EQX
Stories Drift due to SPECX
Story Level
StoryDrift(in)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Story Drift due to EQY
Story Drift due to SPECY
StoryDrift(in)
Story level
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Point Displacement due to EQY
Point Displacement due to SPECY
Displacement(in)
Story level
Page 3

4. Figure 4. Comparison of Point Displacement at Point
70 in Y-direction due to EQY and SPECY
C. Comparison of Story Shear
�e maximum story shear data in X-direction
and Y-direction of static and dynamic are compared in
Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively.
Figure 5. Comparison of Story Shear in X-direction due
to EQX and SPECX
Figure 6. Comparison of Story Shear in Y-direction due
to EQY and SPECY
D. Comparison of Story Moment
�e maximum story moment data in X-
direction and Y-direction of static and dynamic are
compared in Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively.
Figure 7. Comparison of Story Moment in X-direction
due to EQX and SPECX
Figure 8. Comparison of Story Moment in Y-direction
due to EQY and SPECY
VIII. Redesign for Proposed Building
When dynamic analysis is performed with
static design sections, local and global members occur
failures because of structural irregularity and proposed
building height being over 65 feet. Performing redesign
sections for proposed building is essential and the
following beam and column sections are designed to
provide suitable design sections for dynamic analysis.
A. Dynamic Redesign Sections of Beams
Dynamic beam sections of the proposed
building are described in Table 4.
Table 4. Dynamic Redesign Sections of Beams
Name of beam Type of beam
Sections
(in × in)
B1 Secondary beam 9 × 9
B2 Main beam 10 × 10
B3 Main beam 10 × 12
B4 Main beam 10 × 14
B5 Main beam 12 × 14
B6 Main beam 14 × 14
B7 Main beam 14 × 16
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Point Displacement due to EQY
Point Displacement due to SPECYDisplacement(in)
Story level
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Story Shear due to EQX
Story Shear due to SPECX
StoryShear(kips)
Story level
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Story Shear due to EQY
Story Shear due to SPECY
StoryShear(kips)
Story level
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Story Moment due to EQX
Story Moment due to SPECX
StoryMoment(kip-in)
Story level
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Story Moment due to EQY
Story Moment due to SPECY
StoryMoment(kip-in)
Story level
Page 4

5. B. Dynamic Redesign Sections of Columns
Dynamic column sections of the proposed
building are described in Table 5.
Table 5. Dynamic Redesign Sections of Columns
Name of
Column
Story Level
Section
(in × in)
Reinforcing
bar
C1
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 7 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 8 to 9 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 10 14 × 14 8#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
C2
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 7 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 8 to 9 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 10 16 × 16 8#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
C3
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 9 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 10 14 × 14 8#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
C4
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 10 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 11 12 × 12 8#No.7
C5
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 7 18 × 18 12#No.7
Story 8 to 10 16 × 16 8#No.7
C6
Story 1 to 2 24 × 24 12#No.8
Story 3 22 × 22 12#No.8
Story 4 to 5 20 × 20 12#No.7
Story 6 to 10 18 × 18 12#No.7
After static analysis has been done, dynamic
analysis is performed. But, local and global members
are occurred failure condition. Consequently,
redesigning for dynamic analysis is functioned, and
Table 4 and Table 5 show required dynamic redesign
sections for proposed building.
IX. Discussions and Conclusions
In this study of computer aided earthquake
resistant design of ten-storeyed inverted T-shaped RC
building, structural analysis is carried by using ETABS
software (V 9.7.1). �e proposed building has re-
entrant corners irregularity. Concrete strength 3000 psi
and yield stress of steel 50000 psi are used. �e width
of the beam is assumed starting from 10 in and
sectional dimension of the column is set to be 12 in
according to seismic design specifications. And dual
system is also used in the proposed building.
After the building has been analyzed with
dynamic analysis by using static design sections, local
and global members are occurred failure condition. �e
structure in which, 10 local members and 12 global
members are failed from story 5 to story 10 are found.
�e percentage of redesign sections of columns and
beams are nearly 51 per cent and 46.44 per cent
respectively by increasing gross sections only.
According to lateral force procedure, when
building locates in serve seismic zone and has structural
irregularity with over 65 feet height, dynamic analysis
must be performed. In this study, proposed building
which is only considered with static analysis is not
enough to resist severe earthquake. So, redesign
sections for dynamic analysis is also performed in this
study.
As for columns and beams, although changing
reinforcing steel is not performed, larger gross sections
of columns and beams are needed to be replaced from
story 5 to story 10. So, when dynamic analysis is
performed, larger gross sections of columns and beams
are required to resist lateral loads.
References
1. [MNBC] Myanmar National Building Code
(2016)
2. [10Nyi] U Nyi Hla Nge: Reinforced
Concrete Design, 2nd
Ed., �eory
and Examples, (2010).
3. [01Mic] Michael R. Lindeburg, PE with
Majid Baradar: A Professional’s
Introduction to Earthquake Forces
and Design Details, In Seismic
Design of Building Structures, 8th
Ed.,
Professional Publications, Inc.,
(2001).
4. [97Nil] Nilson, A.H. and Darwin: Design
of Concrete Structures, 12th
Ed.,
Singapore, Mc Grow-Hill
Companies, Inc., (1997).
5. [97UBC] Uniform Building Code: Structural
Engineering Design Provisions 1997,
8th
Edition, Volume 2, International
Conference of Building Officials,
(1997).
6. [Manual] CSI Analysis Reference
Acknowledgement
First of all, the authors would like to express
their respectful gratitude to His Excellency Minister,
Dr. Myo �ein Gyi, Ministry of Education and to Dr.
Myint Myint Khaing, Pro Rector and Principal,
Technological University (Pakokku).
�e authors would extremely be thankful and
beholden to their supervisor, Dr. Zaw Min Htun,
Professor and Head at Department of Civil Engineering,
Technological University (Pakokku). �e authors
would like to explore gratitude to three member
teachers who guide us to finish this thesis smoothly.
�ey are U Aung Lwin Soe, Lecturer, as well as to Daw
Aye Nandar Tun, Assistant Lecturer, and to Daw Hnin
Nwe Soe, Demonstrator, three of which are serving at
Department of Civil Engineering, Technological
University (Pakokku).
Furthermore, the authors would like to extend
their sincere thanks to their external examiner, Dr.
Nann Tin, Professor and Head, Department of Civil
Engineering, Technological University (Monywa).
Page 5

6. APPENDIX A
Modelling of Proposed Building
Figure A.1. Architectural View of Typical Floor Plan
Figure A.2. 3D View of Proposed Building
Page 6