Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures

on

  • 364 views

Electrical Engineering,Mechanical Engineering,Computer Science & Engineering,Artificial Intelligence,Material Science,Mathematicse,Applied physics,Applied Chemistry,Electronics ...

Electrical Engineering,Mechanical Engineering,Computer Science & Engineering,Artificial Intelligence,Material Science,Mathematicse,Applied physics,Applied Chemistry,Electronics Engineering,Instrumentation Engineering,Civil Engineering,Earth quake Engineering,Structural engineering,

Statistics

Views

Total Views
364
Views on SlideShare
364
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures Document Transcript

    • International OPEN Journal ACCESS Of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures N. N. Gulhane1, Prof. M. V. Mohod2 1 2 Post graduate student in structural engineering, Department of Civil engineering, Prof. Ram Meghe Institute of Technology and Research Badnera, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Maharashtra 444602 India ABSTRACT: Pounding between adjacent structures is commonly observed phenomenon during major earthquakes which may cause both architectural and structural damages. To satisfy the functional requirements, the adjacent buildings are constructed with equal and unequal heights, which may cause great damage to structures during earthquakes. To mitigate the amount of damage from pounding, the most simplest and effective way is to provide minimum separation distance. To study the effect of structural pounding, a case study has been done on different setback ratios (Area & Height) and to investigate the minimum seismic pounding gap between two adjacent structures by using GAP joint element & non- linear time history analysis. Keywords: SAP v.14, setback structures, Seismic analysis, gap element I. INTRODUCTION Structures are built very close to each other in metropolitan areas where the cost of land is very high. Due to closeness of the structures, they collide with each other when subjected to earthquake or any vibration. This collision of buildings or different parts of the building during any vibration is called pounding which may cause either architectural and structural damage or collapse of the whole structure. This may happen not only in buildings but also in bridges and towers which are constructed close to each other. Although some modern codes have included seismic separation requirement for adjacent structures, large areas of cities in seismically active regions were built before such requirements were introduced. Many investigations have been carried out on pounding damage caused by previous earthquakes. Pounding damage was observed during the 1985 Mexico earthquake, the 1988 Sequenay earthquake in Canada, the 1992 Cairo earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake and 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Significant pounding was observed at sites over 90 km from the epicentre thus indicating the possible catastrophic damage that may occur during future earthquakes having closer epicentres. II. BUILDING MODELING For this study 21 story building with a 3m height of each story, Different building geometries Area & Height were taken for the study. These building geometries represent varying degree of irregularity. In 2 D frame structure nine different categories of buildings, ranging 4 bays (in X direction) a bay width 4m and 21 bays in Y direction. In SAP 14 software. three different gap element are provided in building. Sr. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sr. no. 1 2 3 TABLE 1 Description Number of stories Building height Bay width in x- direction Size of beam Size of column Grade of concrete & steel Along plan area (RA) RA=25 RA=50 RA=75 | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | Specification G+20 63m 4m 0.45mx0.45m 0.45mx0.60m M20 & Fe415 TABLE 2 Along height (RH) RH=16/5, 11/10, 6/15 RH=16/5, 11/10, 6/15 RH=16/5, 11/10, 6/15 www.ijmer.com Gap width (m) 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |211|
    • Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures Figure:1 Irregularities In Height i.e. RA=25 and RH=16/5,11/10,6/15 Figure:2 Irregularities In Height i.e. RA=50 and RH=16/5,11/10,6/15 Figure:3 Irregularities In Height i.e. RA=75 and RH=16/5,11/10,6/15 | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |212|
    • Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For showing variation spectral displacement varies gap width 0.000475 0.000474 RA-25 & RH-16/5 0.000473 0.000472 0.000471 RA-25 & RH-16/5 0.00047 0.000469 0.000468 5 10 15 Figure:4 RA=25 and RH=16/5 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-25 & RH-11/10 0.00117 0.001168 0.001166 0.001164 0.001162 0.00116 0.001158 0.001156 0.001154 0.001152 RA-25 & RH-11/10 5 10 15 Figure:5 RA=25 and RH=11/10 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-25 & RH-6/15 0.00166 0.001655 0.00165 0.001645 0.00164 0.001635 0.00163 0.001625 0.00162 RA-25 & RH-6/15 5 10 15 Figure:6 RA=25 and RH=6/15 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |213|
    • Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures 0.000489 RA-50 & RH-16/5 0.000488 0.000487 0.000486 0.000485 RA-50 & RH-16/5 0.000484 0.000483 0.000482 5 10 15 Figure:7 RA=50 and RH=16/5 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-50 & RH-11/10 0.00134 0.001335 0.00133 0.001325 0.00132 0.001315 RA-50 & RH-11/10 0.00131 0.001305 0.0013 5 10 15 Figure:8 RA=50 and RH=11/10 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-50& RH-6/15 0.00134 0.001335 0.00133 0.001325 RA-50& RH-6/15 0.00132 0.001315 5 10 15 Figure:9 RA=50 and RH=6/15 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |214|
    • Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures RA-75 & RH-16/5 0.000516 0.000514 0.000512 0.00051 0.000508 0.000506 RA-75 & RH-16/5 0.000504 0.000502 0.0005 0.000498 5 10 15 Figure:10 RA=75 and RH=16/5 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-75 & RH-11/10 0.002332 0.00233 0.002328 0.002326 0.002324 0.002322 RA-75 & RH-11/10 0.00232 0.002318 0.002316 5 10 15 Figure:11 RA=75 and RH=11/10 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m RA-75 & RH-6/15 0.00146 0.001455 0.00145 0.001445 RA-75 & RH-6/15 0.00144 0.001435 0.00143 5 10 15 Figure:12 RA=75 and RH=6/15 for gap= 0.05m, 0.10m, 0.15m | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |215|
    • Seismic Pounding Effect in Framed Structures Time history results clearly depict the need of seismic gap between adjoining structures. The initial models of RA=25%, RA=75% variation along the height shows the need of seismic gap between the range 5cm to 15cm. whereas for RA=50% and variation along height a seismic gap between 5cm to 10cm is suggested. IV. CONCLUSIONS The analytical studies involved design of different building geometries were taken for the study .the building geometries represent varying degree of irregularity or amount of setback. Following conclusion can be draw from the obtaining result, 1) when RA=25,75 and RH=16/5,11/10 in that case response linearly increases then seismic gap width 15 cm have found to be sufficient. RA=25, 75 and RH=6/15 in that case seismic gap width more than 15 cm is needed. 2) RA=50 and RH=16/5,11/10 is show similar variation in seismic gap width 15 cm have found to be sufficient. But for RA=50 and RH=6/15 the seismic gap width 10 cm is sufficient. REFERENCES [1]. [2]. [3]. [4]. [5]. [6]. [7]. [8]. [9]. [10]. [11]. IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings, (Fifth Revision). IS 456 : 2000 Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice ( Fourth Revision) I. J. Sharma “Seismic pounding effect in buildings” Thesis in national institute of technology Rourkela 4.Shehata E.Abdel Raheem Seismic Pounding between Adjacent Building Structures Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 6 (2006) H. Shakib and M. pirizade Seismic analysis of setback building by using probabilistic approach method- (ASCE)ST.1943 6.Rajaram Chenna, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla “Three Dimensional Modeling Of Pounding Between Adjacent Building” Indian Concrete Journal Report No: IIIT/TR/2012/-1 7.Robert Jankowski ” Non-linear Modelling of Earthquake Induced Pounding of Buildings published on ICTAM, 15-21 August 2004, Warsaw, Poland 8. G. L. Cole, R.P.Dhakal, A.J.Carr & D.K. Bull Building pounding state of the art: Identifying structures vulnerable to pounding damage. 2010 NZSEE Conference 9.SAP 2000 Nonlinear Version 14 Software Package. 10. SAP2000 Nonlinear Manuals. 11. SAP Video Tutorial. | IJMER | ISSN: 2249–6645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |216|