Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic force evaluation of RC shear wall buildings as per international codes

  • Jayalekshmi, B.R. (Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka) ;
  • Chinmayi, H.K. (Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka)
  • Received : 2013.11.29
  • Accepted : 2015.10.28
  • Published : 2016.01.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Seismic codes are the best available guidance on how structures should be designed and constructed to ensure adequate resistance to seismic forces during earthquakes. Seismic provisions of Indian standard code, International building code and European code are applied for buildings with ordinary moment resisting frames and reinforced shear walls at various locations considering the effect of site soil conditions. The study investigates the differences in spectral acceleration coefficient ($S_a/g$), base shear and storey shear obtained following the seismic provisions in different codes in the analysis of these buildings. Study shows that the provision of shear walls at core in low rise buildings and at all the four corners in high rise buildings gives the least value of base shear.

Keywords

References

  1. ASCE 41-06 (2007), "Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings", American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, USA.
  2. Dogangun, A. (2006), "A comparative study of the design spectra defined by Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C sample buildings", J. Seismol., 10(3), 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9020-4
  3. EC8 (2004), "Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings", European Norm, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels.
  4. FEMA-273 (1997), "NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  5. FEMA-356 (2000), "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  6. Ghosh, S.K. and Khuntia, M. (1999), "Impact of seismic design provisions of 2000 IBC: Comparison with 1997UBC", Proceedings of the 68th Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Santa Barbra, California, USA.
  7. Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G. and Cosenza, E. (2008), "Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(1), 54-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701457173
  8. Imashi, N. and Massumi, A. (2011), "A comparative study of the seismic provisions of Iranian seismic code (standard no. 2800) and International building code 2003", Asian J. Civ. Eng., 12(5), 579-596.
  9. International Building Code (2012), International Code Council Inc., Falls Church, VA, USA.
  10. IS: 13920 (1993), "Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces -code of practice", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
  11. IS: 1893 (part 1) (2002), "Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
  12. IS: 456 (2000), "Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
  13. Khose , V.N., Singh, Y, and Lang, D.H. (2012), "A comparative study of design base shear for RC buildings in selected seismic design codes", Earthq. Spectra, 28(3), 1047-1070. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000057
  14. Malekpour, S., Seyyedi, P., Dashti, F. and Asghari, J.F. (2011), "Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment-resisting frames using Iranian, European and Japanese seismic codes", Procedia Eng., 14, 3331-3337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.421
  15. Nahhas, T.M. (2011), "A comparison of IBC with 1997 UBC for modal response spectrum analysis in standard-occupancy buildings", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 10(1), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-011-0050-8
  16. Pong, W., Gannon, G.A. and Lee, Z.H. (2007), "A comparative study of seismic provisions between the International building code 2003 and Mexico's manual of civil works 1993", J. Adv. Struct. Eng., 10(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1260/136943307780429699
  17. Pong, W., Lee, Z.H. and Lee, A. (2006), "A comparative study of seismic provisions between International building code 2003 and uniform building code 1997", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 5(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-006-0604-3
  18. Santos, S.H.C., Zanaica, L., Bucur, C., Lima S.S. and Arai, A. (2013), "Comparative study of codes for seismic design of structures", Math. Model. Civ. Eng., 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmce-2013-0001
  19. Singh, Y., Khose, V.N. and Lang, D.H. (2012), "A comparative study of code provisions for ductile RC frame buildings", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  20. Yayong, W. (2004), "Comparison of seismic actions and structural design requirements in Chinese Code GB 50011 and International Standard ISO 3010", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 3(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02668846