Effects of Building Configuration on Seismic Performance of RC Buildings by Pushover Analysis
Affiliation(s)
1 Structural Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. 2 College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 3 Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
1 Structural Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. 2 College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 3 Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
ABSTRACT
In the recent earthquakes, concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, which has raised questions against the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. These existing reinforced concrete buildings need to be evaluated to determine the capacity to resist seismic loads. The behavior of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its overall shape, size and geometry. Conventional approach to earthquake resistant design of buildings depends upon providing the building with strength, stiffness and inelastic deformation capacity which are great enough to withstand a given level of earthquake-generated force. This is generally accomplished through the selection of an appropriate building configuration and the careful detailing of structural members. In this research, nonlinear pushover analysis has been used to evaluate the seismic performance of three buildings with three different plans having same area and height. This method determines the base shear capacity of the building and performance level of each part of building under varying intensity of seismic force. The results of effects of different plan on seismic response of buildings have been presented in terms of displacement, base shear and plastic hinge pattern.
In the recent earthquakes, concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, which has raised questions against the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. These existing reinforced concrete buildings need to be evaluated to determine the capacity to resist seismic loads. The behavior of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its overall shape, size and geometry. Conventional approach to earthquake resistant design of buildings depends upon providing the building with strength, stiffness and inelastic deformation capacity which are great enough to withstand a given level of earthquake-generated force. This is generally accomplished through the selection of an appropriate building configuration and the careful detailing of structural members. In this research, nonlinear pushover analysis has been used to evaluate the seismic performance of three buildings with three different plans having same area and height. This method determines the base shear capacity of the building and performance level of each part of building under varying intensity of seismic force. The results of effects of different plan on seismic response of buildings have been presented in terms of displacement, base shear and plastic hinge pattern.
Cite this paper
Alashker, Y. , Nazar, S. and Ismaiel, M. (2015) Effects of Building Configuration on Seismic Performance of RC Buildings by Pushover Analysis. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 5, 203-213. doi: 10.4236/ojce.2015.52020.
Alashker, Y. , Nazar, S. and Ismaiel, M. (2015) Effects of Building Configuration on Seismic Performance of RC Buildings by Pushover Analysis. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 5, 203-213. doi: 10.4236/ojce.2015.52020.
References
[1] Pankaj A. and Manish S. (2006) Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, ISBN-81-203-2892-2. Prentice Hall of India (pvt), New Delhi, 534-540. [2] Kadid, A. and Boumrkik, A. (2008) Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 9, 75-83. [3] Solomon, A. and Hemalatha, G. (2013) Limitations of Irregular Structure for Seismic Response. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 3, 579. [4] Murty, C.V.R., Goswami, R., Vijayanarayanan, A.R. and Mehta, V. (2012) Earthquake Behavior of Buildings. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gandhinagar, 53-79. [5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington DC. [6] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vols. 1 and 2, California. [7] Poluraju, P. and Nageswara, R. (2011) Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure Using SAP 2000, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 4, 684-690. [8] Ismaeil, M.A. (2014) Pushover Analysis of Existing 3 Stories RC Flat Slab Building in the Sudan. Joint International Conferences 2014, Pattaya, 8-9 November 2014, Paper ID-ICRTIST-2014-5092. [9] Habibullah, A. and Pyle, S. (1998) Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis. Structure Magazine. [10] UBC-1997 (1997) Structural Design Requirements. Vol. 2, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier. [11] Computers and Structures (2001) SAP2000 Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley. [12] Alashker, Y., Nazar, S. and Ismaeil, M.A. (2014) A Comparative Study of Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings by Steel Bracings and Concrete Shear Walls. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, 2, 24-34. [13] Nazar S. (2014) A Comparative Study of Seismic Provisions Provided in UBC-97 and Saudi Building Code. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Civil Science and Engineering, 10, 448-454.
[1] Pankaj A. and Manish S. (2006) Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, ISBN-81-203-2892-2. Prentice Hall of India (pvt), New Delhi, 534-540. [2] Kadid, A. and Boumrkik, A. (2008) Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 9, 75-83. [3] Solomon, A. and Hemalatha, G. (2013) Limitations of Irregular Structure for Seismic Response. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 3, 579. [4] Murty, C.V.R., Goswami, R., Vijayanarayanan, A.R. and Mehta, V. (2012) Earthquake Behavior of Buildings. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gandhinagar, 53-79. [5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington DC. [6] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vols. 1 and 2, California. [7] Poluraju, P. and Nageswara, R. (2011) Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure Using SAP 2000, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 4, 684-690. [8] Ismaeil, M.A. (2014) Pushover Analysis of Existing 3 Stories RC Flat Slab Building in the Sudan. Joint International Conferences 2014, Pattaya, 8-9 November 2014, Paper ID-ICRTIST-2014-5092. [9] Habibullah, A. and Pyle, S. (1998) Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis. Structure Magazine. [10] UBC-1997 (1997) Structural Design Requirements. Vol. 2, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier. [11] Computers and Structures (2001) SAP2000 Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley. [12] Alashker, Y., Nazar, S. and Ismaeil, M.A. (2014) A Comparative Study of Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings by Steel Bracings and Concrete Shear Walls. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, 2, 24-34. [13] Nazar S. (2014) A Comparative Study of Seismic Provisions Provided in UBC-97 and Saudi Building Code. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Civil Science and Engineering, 10, 448-454.