Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

To compare the interstorey drift of regular structure and irregular

building with transfer beam under strong ground motion.


Farhanah Afiqah bt. Razman
School of Environment Engineering, KompleksPusatPengajianJejawi 3, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 02600
Arau, Perlis, Malaysia

walidradzman@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract : This paper with be focusing on the comparison of the interstories drift between
regular RC building that is normal structure design building with a irregular RC building
that design with transfer beam. The structure were subjected to 10 strong ground motion, the
IDR distribution were illustrate representing each story with the maximum IDR shift. Each
frame structure will presenting a graph of IDR% for comparison purpose. The result showing
regular RC building having a large value of IDR% compare to irregular RC building with
transfer beam.

1. Introduction
Recent upgrades in earthquake building require more quantied portrayals of seismic interest
parameters that structure an imperative connection inside the choice phase of structural
design what's more execution. As more research and understanding of this interstories drift
result from the ground motion leading to a more accurate and sophisticated structural design
precisely settled relocation levels that must be met at a given seismic danger level and
execution state. Malaysia were considered as stable part and out of region occurrence of
earthquake but earthquake occur in Sumatra somehow effect Malaysia as far-field ground
motion and this situation happen more frequent as time passed through. As (Balendral &
Z.Lil, 2008). mentions the seismic waves, generated from an earthquake in Sumatra, travel
long distance before they reach Singapore bedrock. The high frequency earthquake waves
damped out rapidly in the propagation while the low frequency or long period waves are
more robust to energy dissipation and as a result they travel long distances. Thus the seismic
waves reaching the bedrock of Singapore or Malay Peninsula are rich in long period waves,
and are significantly amplified due to resonance when they propagate upward through the
soft soil sites with a period close to the predominant period of the seismic waves. The
amplified waves cause resonance in buildings with a natural period close to the period of the
site, and there sulting motions of buildings are large enough to be felt by the residence. So
most of Malaysian building structure were not catered for ground motion impact especially
near-field ground motion because lack of information.

2. Design of frame
In this study 3 stories reinforced building irregular and regular were design using both
Eurocode 2 nad Eurocode 8. Irregular structure were actually a transfer beam building
while regular building was actually a building design normally. Based on the journal a
few details were extracted from the journal for the design purpose. As mention in the
journal the frame were applied with 20kN/m of dead load and 10kN/m live load, and
there are directly applied to the beams. All floor to be assume rigid in plan to account for
the diagram action of concrete slabs. Material properties are assumed to be 20MPa for the
compressive strength (concrete grade C20) and 500 MPa for the yield strength of both
longitudinal and transverse reinforcements (steel grade S500s).In the design of the
structure the ground were assume as fixed to the ground as mention in the journal.
a) Regular reinforce concrete design toward gravity

Figure 1 regular RC building with gravity design

Table 1 beam and column size of the regular RC building with gravity design
STORIES
1 stories
2nd stories
3rd stories
st

BEAM (mm)
300x400
300x400
300x400

COLUMN (mm)
300x300
300x300
300x300

The figure 1 and table 1 showing the detail description of the regular reinforced concrete
building. The frame were design using software and the reinforcement bar were
determined for column and beam as shown in Figure 2 and Table 2
Table 2 reinforment bar of column and beam for regular RC building with gravity design
NO

Column (C)

Beam (B)

6H16

5H12
8H16

4H20

6H12
6H25

B21
C2

C1
B11

C1

B11
C1
B11

C1
B11

B21
C2
B11
C1

C1
B11

C1 with gravity
C1 design
b) Irregular RC building

B11
C1

C1

Figure 2 irregular RC building with gravity design

Table 3 the beam and column size of irregular RC building


STORIES
1st stories
2nd stories
3rd stories

BEAM (mm)
400x500
700x800
900x1000

COLUMN (mm)
400x400
800x800
900x900

As the regular RC building design with gravity design the irregular RC building that being
design with gravity also design using software to obtain the reinforcement bar. The result as
following shown in Table 4

Table 4 the reinforcement bar for irregular RC building design with gravity design
NO

Column (C)

Beam (B)

1
7H16

4H16
6H25

2
8H32

7H25

8H25

3
10H4

8H40

c) Regular RC building design with earthquake design


B1
C1

B11
C2

B21
C4

C4

C2
B11

C3
B21

B11
C1
B21
C4

C3
B21

B21
C4

Figure 3 regular RC building with earthquake design

Table 5 the beam and column size of the regular RC building with earthquake design
STORIES
1st stories
2nd stories
3rd stories

BEAM (mm)
300x400
300x400
300x400

COLUMN (mm)
300x300
300x300
300x300

For the gravity design of the regular RC frame the load were as mention above that is
20kN for the dead load and 10kN for the live load. While for the earthquake design there
are calculation and being insert as delta force. Using equation 1 and 2 the delta force can
be determine for each floor

Fb = Sd (T1)m.

Equation 1

Because of Tc < T1 < Td


So equation 2 were selected base on the value of T1
Sd = agS (2.5/q)(Tc/T)

Equation 2

Table 6 the reinforcement bar for regular RC building with earthquake design
NO

Column (C)

Beam (B)

1
4H16

2H16
6H16

B1
C2

B11
C1

B11
C1

C1

C1
B11

C1
B11
C1

B1
C1
B11
C1

C1
B11

B11
C1

d) Irregular RC building with earthquake design

C1

As the regular RC building with earthquake design the irregular RC building with
earthquake design were also design with 20kN dead load and 10kN live load and added with
delta force as shown in Equation 1 and Equation 2.

Figure 4 irregular RC building with earthquake design

Table 7 beam and column size of regular RC with earthquake design


STORIES
1 stories
2nd stories
3rd stories
st

BEAM (mm)
300x400
500x700
800x1000

COLUMN (mm)
400x400
600x600
900x900

As the regular RC building design with earthquake design the irregular RC building that being
design with earthquake also design using software to obtain the reinforcement bar. The result as
following shown in Table 6

Table 8 reinforcement bar of irregular RC buidling with eathquake design


NO

Column (C)

Beam (B)
5H20

3H20
6H40

2
7H25

4H25
10H4

7H40

8H25

B11
C1

C1
B21

C2

B11

C1
B21

C2
B31

C3

B11

C1
B21
C2

C2
B11

B11
C3

4H40

3. Selection of ground motion


Ground motion were all selected from the PEER website, 10 ground motion were
selected. Table below show the detail of the ground motion selected

Table 9 the 10 ground motion being selected from PEER


Earthquake

Mag(Mw

Hypo

PGA

PGA(H

PGA
(V)

No

Date

Name

Dist.

Station
57217 Coyote

(H)

V/H < 1

24/4/1984

Morgan Hill
Imperial

6.2

0.1

Lake Dam
5054 Bonds

0.711

1.298

0.388 0.298921

15/10/1979

Valley
Chalfant

6.5

2.5

Corner
54428 Zack

0.588

0.775

0.425 0.548387

21/7/1986

Valley

6.2

18.7

Brothers Ranch

0.4

0.447

0.321 0.718121

16/7/1978

Tabas,Iran

7.4

9101 Tabas
1607 Anticline

0.836

0.852

0.688

0.80751

9/5/1983

Coalinga
Earthquake

5
Mag(Mw

12.6
Hypo

Ridge Pas

0.412
PGA

0.452
PGA(H

0.38
PGA

0.840708

No

Date

Name

Dist.

Station

(H)

(V)

V/H > 1

18/10/1989

Loma Prieta
Imperial

6.9

14.5

47125 Capitola

0.443

0.529

0.541 1.022684

15/10/1079

Vally

6.5

0.6

cerro array
5169

0.38

0.463

0.544 1.174946

Westmorland
8

26/4/1981

Westmorland

5.8

13.3

Fire Sta

0.368

0.496

0.838 1.689516

17/05/1976

Gazli USSR
Nahanni,

6.8

Karakyr

0.608

0.718

1.264 1.760446

10

23/12/1985

Canada

6.8

6097 Site 1

0.978

1.096

2.086 1.903285

As shown in the Table 8 the ground motion were actually 5 were V/H<1.0 and the
other V/H>1.0. All of the ground motion were actually the strongest groung selected from
the PEER.

4. Interstories drift
The interstories drift were extract from the result according to each stories and with
maximum values, graph were plot according to each ground motion. The interstories drift
then being compare for each frame for V < 1.0 and V > 1.0
a) The interstories drift for V/H < 1.0
3

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

IDR%

Figure 5 the average of IDR % of of horizontal and horizontal plus ground motion of
regular RC building with gravity design range of V/H<1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
IDR%

Figure 66 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical ground motion
of irregular RC building with gravity design range of V/H<1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
IDR%

Figure 7 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical of regular RC
building with earthquake design range of V/H<1.0

stories

2
H
H+V
1
0 0.010.010.020.020.030.030.04
IDR%

Figure 87 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical of irregular RC
building with earthquake design range of V/H<1.0

Figure 5, 6, 7 and 8 show the average of interstories drift values for horizontal and
horizontal plus vertical of all four frame design with gravity design and earthquake
design. The average of ground motion were actually with reading of V/H< 1.0. from the
graph can be seen that the interstories drift of regular RC building with gravity design
were the largest among all with 0.3 for the horizontal ground motion at the 3 rd floor and
0.2 for the horizontal plus vertical ground motion at the 3 rd floor. While the smallest
interstories drift is the irregular RC building with earthquake design with 0.03 of
horizontal ground motion and 0.03 of horizontal plus vertical ground motion.
As can we can see the pattern of interstories drift of all the frame the irregular RC
building are more consistent compare to the regular RC building. The possible reason for
this pattern to produce maybe because of the reinforcement of the transfer beam structure
making it more stable than the regular structure. As can be refer from the structure design
the size of the beam and column were bigger in size and the reinforcement bar were
according to the size.

b)

The interstories drift for V/H> 1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

IDR%

Figure 98 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus ground motion of
regular RC building with gravity design range of V/H>1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02


IDR%

Figure 109 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical ground motion
of irregular RC building with gravity design range of V/H>1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

IDR%

Figure 11 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical of regular RC
building with earthquake design range of V/H<1.0

STORIES

2
H
H+V
1
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

IDR%

Figure 12 The average of IDR% of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical of irregular RC
building with earthquake design range of V/H<1.0

Figure 22,23,24 and 25 show the average of interstories drift of horizontal and
horizontal plus vertical of irregular RC building with earthquake design range of
V/H<1.0. The regular RC building were still the largest interstories drift among all but

there are slightly different were the smallest interstories drift are the irregular RC
building with gravity design. this differences proving that the V/H<1.0 and V/H> 1.0 do
give effect to the interstories drift of the structure frame

From overall view we can see the interstories drift between the structure frame
design with gravity are more likely to be larger than the structural frame with earthquake
design either regular or regular both showing the same pattern.

h regular gravity
h+v regular gravity
stories

h irregular gravity

h+v irregular gravity


h regular earthquake
h+v regular earthquake
h irregular earthquake
h+v irregular earthquake

1
0

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35


IDR%

The figure above show that the interstories drift of all 4 four frame and it
show that the interstories drift of regular RC building show the highest interstories drift
among all the frame. Comparison of horizontal and horizontal plus vertical of the regular
RC building show that the interstories drift of horizontal component only having a
highest interstoies drift. We can conclude that the regular RC building were the most will
experiencing damage but not collapse as (Sozen MA, 1981)mention that an IDR value

smaller than 1% corresponds to damage of non structural component, while values of


IDR larger than 4% may result in irreparable structural damage or collapse.
5. Conclusion
From the overall result and observation it is more likely that the irregular RC building
design with Eurocode 8 were the most stable and can resist the wave from the horizontal
and vertical wave even under strong ground motion. And the regular RC building design
with Eurocode 2 having the highest interstories ratio compare to others. From this study
can be conclude the irregular RC building design with Eurocode 8 should be implement
in the future design for the more stable and safer structure.

References
akkar, s., yazgan, u., & gulkan, p. (2005). Drift Estimation in Frame Building
Subjected to Near-field Ground Motion.
Balendral, T., & Z.Lil. (2008). seismic hazard of singapore and malaysia. earthquake
engineering in the low and moderate seismic region in sourthen asia and australia .
DIOTALLEVI, P., & LANDI, L. (n.d.). effect of the ground motion .
Sozen MA. (1981). review of earthquake respond of reinforced concrete buildings
with a view to drift control. istanbul,turkey: turkish national commitee.