Evaluation of plan configuration irregularity effects on seismic response demands of L-shaped MRF buildings

Raheem, Shehata E. Abdel; Ahmed, Momen M. M.; Ahmed, Mohamed M.; AbdelShafy, Aly G.A.

doi:10.1007/s10518-018-0319-7

Cited by 47 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also (Wziatek, 2015) made a comparison between ASCE 7-10(ASCE7-10, 2010), ACI 318(ACI318-08, 1989) and IBC-2012(IBC, 2012 standards by calculating the base shear forces and relative story drifts for beam, column and wall elements then determining reinforcement areas for those designs. In the researches done by (Abdel Raheem, Ahmed, & Ahmed, 2018) L type building was investigated according to UBC-97 (UBC, 1997), EC8 (Eurocode8, 2004), NBCC-95 (NBCC-95, 1995), TEC-2007 and ASCE 7-10 standards considering relative story drift, base shear force and torsional irregularities. From this study it was concluded that slab discontinuity in L type structure loaded with seismic loads changes the performance of the structure highly at lateral drift and the relative story drift.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study on ASCE 7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings

Aksoylu

Mobark

Arslan

et al. 2020

rdlc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doctrines of earthquakes and also the latest approaches of earthquake resistant building design in standards need to be revised periodically. While the revisions and updates in the American standards occur over periods of three or five years including limited subjects, in Turkey the same revisions are done once over long periods including the whole subjects of the standards. As examples the standards of 1975, 1998, 2007 and finally 2018 could be given. Especially, in 2018 standard (TBEC-2018) many changes were made over concepts and criteria. The procedure of calculating the earthquake loads in 2018 standards is similar to the one in the American standards of (ASCE-7-16), however for the element design the changes are shown as developments over the one of 2007 earthquake standard (TEC-2007). The changes made by 2018 standard for calculations of earthquake loads and their effects on civil engineering are very important factors of new building design. The earthquake load affecting a building which is the first factor of earthquake resistant building design shows important differences according to the condition changes in the standard. Based on this motivation in this study reinforced concrete frame type buildings of different elevations were researched by using ETABS (structural software for building analysis and design) according to linear equivalent seismic load method. According to the analysis results of the chosen buildings, a comparison forthe base shear force, top displacement and relative story displacement between TEC-2007, TBEC-2018 and ASCE 7-16 standards was carried out. From the analysis results, it is found that for most of the soil classes while the maximum base shear forces in 3 and 5-story buildings are achievedat TEC-2007, the maximum base shear forces in 7 and 9-story buildings are achieved at TBEC-2018. Also, it is predicted that the higher increment in the design forces of buildings with higher elevations is obtained at TBEC-2018 for strong soils, and at TEC-2007 for weak soils. By considering cracked sections at TBEC-2018 the calculations displacement and period was affected as periods in TBEC-2018 were increased by almost 34% respected to TEC-2007. The same increment ratio was determined for ASCE 7-16 as 45%. Also, as a response for the increments in period, the spectral acceleration determined from the elastic spectrum diagram was decreased. At the end of the study, nonlinear performance analysis was also performed and performance points were determined according to the demand spectra of the seismic codes. ASCE's demand displacement values are in any case lower than Turkish codes. TBEC-2018 reveals less displacement demands in high-rise buildings than TEC-2007. The closest results for the three regulations occurred on the softest grounds.According to the results obtained from the static pushover analysis, a ductile behavior occurred in all of the structural systems and plastic hinge mechanism started from the beams firstly.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study on ASCE 7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings

Aksoylu

Mobark

Arslan

et al. 2020

rdlc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The infilled panels are positioned near one of the corners to simulate the large lateral stiffness induced by a staircase [1,34]. The response of the building is defined by floor torsion at the stiff and strong corner of the building (Figure 3).…”

Section: Analyses and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This condition was exacerbated by the presence of significant irregularities. The presence of asymmetrical infilled masonry walls or staircases located at corners of the building causes eccentricity in mass and stiffness distributions, leading to the possibility of significant damage to specific parts of the building [1]. A large existing stock of reinforced concrete buildings dated prior to 1980 can be categorized as substandard and seismically deficient [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Retrofitting of Irregular Pre-80s Low-rise Conventional RC Building Structures

Lie

Utomo

et al. 2021

ced

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A resilience and seismic safety evaluation method of under-qualified concrete structures designed based on codes prior to the introduction of earthquake provisions is presented. A numerical method for evaluating and improving a structure’s performance and resilience through jacketing and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) retrofitting was developed. The model analyzed the structure’s existing condition, inadequate elements were identified, and segments that required strengthening were determined. Retrofitting and external reinforcing techniques were applied, and their effectiveness evaluated. Elements identified as insufficient were subjected to a strengthening iteration process to ensure that all qualifications were fulfilled. It was proven that the numerical simulation was accurate, cost-effective and time-saving in evaluating deficient structures and the effectiveness of their strengthening methods. The numerical model and analysis in conjunction with the technology of jacketing and CFRP retrofitting provide a fast and straightforward solution for older structures in ameliorating their resilience and overall performance

show abstract

“…The best example of the stress concentration is the re-entrant corner in the L-shaped, T-shaped and U-shaped buildings that causes heavy stress concentration due to changes in stiffness and torsional amplification. The stress concentration is the main reason for early failure of the structure [5]. The main irregularities in structures can be summarized as follows.…”

Section: Classification Of Irregularitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common irregularities and its effects on reinforced concrete building response

Ghimire

S²,

Chaulagain

et al. 2021

Struct. Mech. of Eng. Const. and Build

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most of the countries, the irregular building construction is popular for fulfilling both aesthetic and functional requirements. However, the evidence of past earthquakes in Nepal and the globe demonstrated the higher level of seismic vulnerability of the buildings due to irregularities. Considering this fact, the present study highlighted the common irregularities and its effect on reinforced concrete building response. The effect of structural irregularities was studied through numerical analysis. The geometrical, mass and stiffness irregularities were created by removing bays in different floor levels and removing the columns at different sections respectively. In this study, the numerical models were created in finite element program SAP2000. The structural performance was studied using both non-linear static pushover and dynamic time history analysis. The results indicate that the level of irregularities significantly influenced the behavior of structures.

show abstract

Evaluation of plan configuration irregularity effects on seismic response demands of L-shaped MRF buildings

Cited by 47 publications

References 14 publications

A comparative study on ASCE 7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings

A comparative study on ASCE 7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings

Seismic Retrofitting of Irregular Pre-80s Low-rise Conventional RC Building Structures

Common irregularities and its effects on reinforced concrete building response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About