Group 11-Seismic 2nd Assignment

Institute of Technology of Cambodia
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Study of comparison between wind load effect

and Seismic effect on 15 floors Residential
Building
Prof. PROK Narith
Student’s name: ID
1. TUM Chhay e20150780

2. UONG Chanvireak e20150793
3. VANN Theara e20150799
Academic Year: 2019-2020

Institute of Technology of Cambodia The Study of Seismic Effect
Contents
Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 2
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6

1.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Equivalent Linear ............................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Response spectrum ......................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3: Building Information ....................................................................................... 11

3.1 Plan details ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Seismic parameter .......................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Load details .................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 4: Analysis Procedure .......................................................................................... 14

4.1 Analysis, design and check with wind effect ................................................................. 14
4.1.1 Analysis and check in SLS ................................................................................ 14
4.1.2 Design and checked in ULS .............................................................................. 18
4.2 Analysis, design and check under seismic effect ........................................................... 21
4.2.1 Shear force determination .................................................................................. 21
4.2.2 Analysis and check under SLS .......................................................................... 23
4.2.3 Design and check under ULS ............................................................................ 28
4.3 Comparison between wind load and seismic effect ....................................................... 29
Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 30
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 31
Annexes A: Seismic reinforcement detailing............................................................................. 32
Annexes B: Structural detailing ................................................................................................. 35
1
List of Figures
Figure 4.1.1.1: 3D view of 15 floors Residential Building ............................................................. 11

Figure 4.1.1.2: Top view with Grid line at Basement Level ........................................................... 12
Figure 4.1.2.1: Rebar of column along grid A-A ............................................................................ 18
Figure 4.1.2.2: Percentage capacity ratio along grid A-A ............................................................... 18
Figure 4.1.2.3: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid A-A ............................... 18
Figure 4.1.2.4: Rebar of column along grid B-B ............................................................................ 19
Figure 4.1.2.5: Percentage capacity ratio along grid B-B ............................................................... 19
Figure 4.1.2.6: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid B-B ............................... 19
Figure 4.1.2.7: Rebar of column along grid C-C ............................................................................ 19
Figure 4.1.2.8: Percentage capacity ratio along grid C-C ............................................................... 19
Figure 4.1.2.9: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid C-C ............................... 20
Figure 4.2.3.1: Percentage capacity ratio along grid A-A ............................................................. 28
Figure 4.2.3.2: Percentage capacity ratio along grid B-B ............................................................. 28
Figure 4.2.3.3: Percentage capacity ratio along grid A-A ............................................................. 28
Figure 4.2.3.4: flexural reinforcement alone grid C-C .................................................................... 29
Figure 4.2.3.5: Shear reinforcement alone grid C-C ....................................................................... 29
2
List of Tables
Table 4.1.2-1: Column results under wind effect ............................................................................ 20
Table 4.1.2-2: Beam results under wind effect ............................................................................... 20
Table 4.2.1-1: Processing of determinate the story force ................................................................ 23
Table 4.2.3-1: Column results under seismic effect ........................................................................ 28
Table 4.2.3-2: Beam results under seismic effect ........................................................................... 29
Table 4.2.3-1: Comparison results .................................................................................................. 29
v
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 General
n earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. The tectonic plates are always slowly moving, but they get
stuck at their edges due to friction. When the stress on the edge overcomes the friction, there is an earthquake
that releases energy in waves that travel through the earth's crust and cause the shaking that we feel. The
shaking due to the seismic force causes destructive damage to the infrastructure, especially, building. With
these serious effects, the study of earthquake behavior should be in consideration during the building design
in order to minimize the disastrous tragedy that may induce by the earthquake.
1.1 Objective
With this study, the seismic force will be described. The steps in which then lead to determination of the story
forces and finally shear force that induces by the earthquake activity. Then those forces will be used to apply
on the building in order to see its effect.
For the analysis, we will first focus only on the wind effect on the building. We will check and verify the
necessary conditions for the stability of the building such as drift as well as deflection. Then, we will do the
analysis by considering the seismic force on the building behavior and verify needed conditions.
Finally, with the results of both cases, we will do comparison of the building behavior between under the
only wind effect and seismic force. We will convey how the seismic force has effect on the amount of
reinforcement of the structure as well.
Page 6 of 30
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
The provisions for design using linear methods of analysis such as the equivalent lateral force
technique and the modal response spectrum analysis technique are highly prescriptive. They limit
the modeling assumptions that can be employed as well as the minimum strength and stiffness and
the structure must possess. Further, the methods used in linear analysis have become standardized
in practice such that it is unlikely that different designers using the same technique to analyze the
same structure will produce substantially different results. This is not the case when nonlinear
analytical methods are employed to predict the structure’s strength and its deformation. Therefore,
the designer using such methods must use a significant amount of independent judgment in
developing appropriate analytical models, performing the analysis, and interpreting the results to
confirm the adequacy of a design. Since relatively minor changes in the assumptions used in
performing a nonlinear structural analysis can significantly affect the results obtained from such an
analysis, it is imperative that the assumptions used be appropriate. Therefore, the designs
employing nonlinear analysis methods are typically subjected to a mandatory independent design
review in order to provide a level of assurance that the independent judgment applied by the
designer when using these methods is appropriate and compatible with that made by other
competent practitioners.
2.2 Equivalent Linear
The response of the buildings is assumed in a linearly elastic manner as this method follow
linear static procedure. It is one of the process to estimate the seismic load. To proceed with an
equivalent static analysis of a structure, we need to determine only the two characteristic values of
the design acceleration response parameters, SD1 and SDS. This is because the base shear
equations, discussed previously, are directly related to these parameters. However, for buildings
and structures requiring modal analysis procedures, it is necessary to develop an acceleration graph,
commonly referred to as an acceleration spectrum, because design acceleration values are required
for an entire range of building periods. In a modal analysis, we attempt to capture the multimodal
response of a building by statistically combining its individual modal responses. Therefore,
accelerations corresponding to an entire range of building periods are required in performing the
dynamic analysis.
• To proceed with the analysis, it is necessary to allocate the base shear as effective horizontal
loads at various floor levels. This is given by the formula:
Which,
The remainder of base shear (V-Ft) is then distributed as an inverted triangle over the height of
the building.
Page 7 of 30
− The total seismic lateral force, also called the base shear, is determined by the relation:
Which,
Rw: Modification Factor
W: total dead load
Z: seismic zone factor
C: coefficient of fundamental period
S: site coefficient
▪ 1.0 for soil profile with either: (i) a rock-like material characterized by a shear
wave velocity greater than 2500 ft/s or by other suitable means of classification; or
(ii) stiff or dense soil conditions where the soil depth is less than 200ft (soil profile
type S1).
▪ for soil profiles with dense or stiff soil conditions, where the soil depth exceeds
200ft (soil profile type S2).
Page 8 of 30
▪ 1.5 for a soil profile 70ft or more in depth and containing more than 20ft of soil to
medium-stiff clay but not more than 40ft of soft clay (soil profile type S3)
▪ 2.0 for a soil profile containing more than 40ft soft clay characterized by a shear wave
velocity less than 500 ft/s (soil profile type S4)
I: Important factor
▪ I=1.0 for special and standard occupancies
▪ I=1.25 for essential and hazardous occupancies
T: Fundamental Period of vibration for moment-resisting Frames
− Concentrated horizontal force Ft
𝐹𝑡 = 0.07𝑇𝑉
• The overturning moments and story shears are distributed to various lateral load resisting
elements in proportion to their rigidities.
− The story shear at any level is the sum of all the lateral forces at any above that level
− The overturning moment at any level is the sum of the moments of the seismic story shears
above that level.
• Related accelerations
• Displacement in each floor
Page 9 of 30
2.3 Response spectrum

Response-spectrum analysis is the linear dynamic method which estimates the contribution
from each natural mode of vibration to demonstrate the possible maximum response of essentially
elastic structure. This method gives the knowledge into dynamic behavior by estimating pseudo
spectral acceleration, displacement or velocity as a function of structural period for a given time
period and level of damping. The software takes care of the Eigen value issue of the model and
estimate the fundamental natural period values. Thus, the total seismic loads are created and its
dispersion along the height of the building corresponding to the mass and stiffness distribution. The
modeling and analysis are performed by ETABS 2016. For each mode shape, from design spectrum
responses are studied, with the assistance of parameters, for example modal frequency and modal
participation mass ratio and after that they are combined to give an assessment of the total response
of the structure.
• The response spectrum for a given ground motion component üg(t) can be developed by
implementation of the following steps:
1. Numerically define the ground acceleration üg(t); typically, the ground motion ordinates
are defined every 0.02sec.
2. Select the natural vibration period Tn and damping ratio ζ of an SDF system.
3. Compute the deformation response u(t) of this SDF system due to ground motion üg(t) by
any of numerical methods.
4. Determine u0, the peak value of u(t).
2𝜋 2𝜋
5. The spectral ordinate is 𝑉 = 𝑢0 , 𝑉 = ( 𝑇 )𝐷, 𝐴 = ( 𝑇 )2𝐷
𝑛 𝑛
6. Repeat steps 2 to 5 for a range of Tn and ζ values covering all possible systems of
engineering interest.
Present the result of step 2 to 6 graphically to produce three separate spectra or a combined
spectrum as shown in figures above.
Page 10 of 30
Chapter 3: Building Information

3.1 Plan details
Residential Building has 15 floors with basement floor.
▪ Basement floor at -1.00 m
▪ Ground floor at +0.00 m
▪ From 2nd floor to 15th floor with 15m of height
▪ The roof floor at +50.7 m.
Figure 4.1.1.1: 3D view of 15 floors Residential Building
Page 11 of 30
Figure 4.1.1.2: Top view with Grid line at Basement Level
3.2 Seismic parameter

− Soil Coefficient: S=1.5 for S3
− Importance factor: I=1 for Special and standard
− Seismic zone: Z=0.2 for zone 2B
− Response modification factor: Rw=0.85 for Moment resisting frame
3.3 Load details

This Building is designed following the ASCE 7-10 and simulate by Etabs v2017
• Load on building
Basement Floor:
LL= 12 kN/m2 (Parking Floor)
1st Floor:
LL= 4 kN/m2 (Reception, coffee and Rest) and SD= 2 kN/m2
2nd to 14th floor:
LL= 2.5 kN/m2 and Super deadload: SD= 2 kN/m2
th
15 floor:
LL= 1 kN/m2 (Ordinary Roof Floor)
Stair:
LL= 5 kN/m2 and SD= 3.5 kN/m2
• Wind load act on building
We are currently using ASCE 7-10, use the basic wind speed Vb = 45m/s = 100mph for
700 years in ELU and for ELS, we use 33m/s = 74 mph for 50 years.
Other parameters are:
- Exposure type B
- Topographic factor, K¬zt = 1
- Guest factor = 1
Page 12 of 30
- Directionality factor, Kd = 0.85

- Exposure and pressure coefficient: Exposure from extents of diaphragm
- Wind pressure coefficient: calculated by program
• Load combination under wind effect by default program:

There are 6 combination:
- UDCom1: 1.4DL+1.4LL
- UDCom2: 1.2DL+1.6LL+1.2SD
- UDCom3: 1.2DL+1LL+1.2SD+1Wind (700years-ULS)
- UDCom4: 1.2DL+1LL+1.2SD-1Wind
- UDCom5: 0.9DL+0.9SD+1Wind
- UDCom6: 0.9DL+0.9SD-1Wind
• Load combination under wind effect by default program:
There are 6 combination:
- UDCom1: 1.4DL+1.4LL
- UDCom2: 1.2DL+1.6LL+1.2SD
- UDCom3: 1.2DL+1LL+1.2SD+ (700years-ULS)
- UDCom4: 1.2DL+1LL+1.2SD-1Wind
- UDCom5: 0.9DL+0.9SD+1Wind
- UDCom6: 0.9DL+0.9SD-1Wind
In this study, the analysis 15 floors building will be carried out both wind load effect and seismic
load effect by equivalent static method. Analysis with Etabs version 2017 software are the most
popular and convenience for analyzing and design building.
• Material property
▪ Concrete strength for column: fc’= 30MPa
▪ Concrete strength for beam: fc’= 30 MPa
▪ Steel strength: fy= 390 MPa
▪ Modulus of elasticity of concrete:
Ec= 25742.9602 MPa for fc’= 30 MPa
Ec= 27805.57498MPa for fc’= 35 MPa
▪ Modulus of elasticity of steel: Es= 200000 MPa
• Section property
▪ Column: C600x700, C500x600
▪ Beam: B400x600, B300x500
▪ Slab: Thickness 250mm, 200mm, 120mm
▪ Wall: Thickness 300mm, 250mm and 200mm
Page 13 of 30
Chapter 4: Analysis Procedure

4.1 Analysis, design and check with wind effect
4.1.1 Analysis and check in SLS
Deflection check
In order to check the ultimate limit state of column and beam, we need to reduce the inertia Ig
cross section:
− Beam: 0.5
− Slab: 0.35
− Column: 1.0
The deflection limit:

l
− Long-term deflection:  n  ( Additional deflection)
480
l
− Total deflection total: tot 
240
l
❖ For beam with deflection additional: 2DL+2SL+1.3LL  n 
480
Figure 4.1.1-1: Beam additional deflection under wind effect
l 8100
 = = 16.875mm
480 480
13.54 + 24
 n = 32.628 − = 14.128mm
2
 n = 14.128mm  16.875mm Okay!
Page 14 of 30
l
❖ For Beam with deflection total: 3(DL+SD) +1.6LL tot 
240
Figure 4.1.1-2: Beam total deflection under wind effect
l 8100
 = = 16.875mm
480 480
20 + 34.91
 n = 37.461 − = 10.045mm
2
 n = 14.128mm  16.875mm Okay!
l
❖ For slab with deflection additional: 2DL+2SL+1.3LL n 
480
Figure 4.1.1-3: slab additional deflection under wind effect
l = 4.252 + 8.12 = 9.147 m
Page 15 of 30
l 9147
 = = 19.05mm
480 480
23 + 13
 n = 34.889mm − = 16.89mm
2
 n = 16.89mm  19.05mm Okay!
l
❖ For slab with deflection total: 3(DL+SD) +1.6LL tot 
240
Figure 4.1.1-4: Slab total deflection under wind effect
l 8100
= = 33.75mm
480 240
35 + 19
tot = 51.262mm − = 24.26mm
2
 n = 24.26mm  33.75mm Okay!
Page 16 of 30
Drift of the structure

cross section:
− Beam: 0.5
− Slab: 0.35
− Column: 1.0
− Wall crack: 0.5
Combination load for check drift: DL+SD+0.6W
In combination drift in 50 years, the basic wind speed is 33m/s. Therefore, we can find the reduced
factor when we use the basic wind speed in ULS.
l 50700
Limitation of drift:   = = 105.625mm
480 480
Figure 4.1.1-5: Drift plot under wind effect
H 50700
= = = 105.625mm
480 480
 = 17.849 mm
  = 105.625mm  17.849mm Ok!!
Page 17 of 30
4.1.2 Design and checked in ULS

cross section:
− Beam: 0.35
− Column: 0.7
− Slab: 0.25
− Wall: 0.35
▪ Column design:
In the primary design, column input section: C600x700, C500x600
➢ Along Grid A-A:
The column has rebar area larger other: C500x600 with 8149mm2 rebar area and 2.72% rebar percentage.
Figure 4.1.2.1: Rebar of column along grid A-A
And Check P-M-M by putting 18DB25 with 2.95%
`
Figure 4.1.2.2: Percentage capacity ratio along grid A-A
P-delta Checked:
Perform by Etabs v17, P-delta option then iterative base on load
Load pattern Scale factor
Dead Load 1.2
Super Dead Load 1.2
Live Load 1.6
Notional DL 1.2
Notional LL 1.6
Notional SD 1.2
Figure 4.1.2.3: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid A-A
➢ Along Grid B-B:

The column has rebar area larger other: C500x600 with 12462 mm2 rebar area and 4.1% rebar percentage.
Page 18 of 30
Figure 4.1.2.4: Rebar of column along grid B-B
Figure 4.1.2.5: Percentage capacity ratio along grid B-B
After P-Delta effect
Figure 4.1.2.6: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid B-B
➢ Along Grid C-C:

The column has rebar area larger other: C500x600 with 6727 mm2 rebar area and 2.24% rebar percentage.
Figure 4.1.2.7: Rebar of column along grid C-C
Figure 4.1.2.8: Percentage capacity ratio along grid C-C
Page 19 of 30
After P-Delta effect
Figure 4.1.2.9: Percentage capacity ratio after P-Delta effect along grid C-C
Table 4.1.2-1: Column results under wind effect
Section (Along axe) Longitude Rebar Transversal Rebar Transversal Rebar

(Support) (Mid-span)
C500x600 (A-A) 18DB25 10DB@150 10DB@250
C500x600 (B-B) 16DB32 10DB@150 10DB@250
C500x600 (C-C) 14DB25 10DB@150 10DB@250
▪ Beam design:
We have modeling two differences section of beam: B300x500 and B400x600
Table 4.1.2-2: Beam results under wind effect
Section Support Mid-span

Longitudinal B400x600 (Top) 5DB20 2DB20
B400x600 (Bottom) 3DB20 4DB20
Transversal DB10@150 DB10@250
Page 20 of 30
4.2 Analysis, design and check under seismic effect

4.2.1 Shear force determination
− Fundamental period for concrete building
3
T = 0.074(hn ) 4
hn = 53.2m
3
 T = 0.074(52.3) 4 = 1.45769s
− Coefficient of fundamental
1.25  S
C= 2
T3
We choose: S2=1.5 for a soil profile 70ft or more in depth and containing more than 20ft of soil to
medium-stiff clay but not more than 40ft of soft clay (Recommended)
1.25 1.5
C = 2
= 1.45845
3
(1.45769)
− Building seismic weight (DL) W

W = 0W
2
Floor W (kN) Floor W (kN)

Story15 2235.211 kN Story7 3126.673 kN
Story14 3077.854 kN Story6 3126.673 kN
Story13 3126.673 kN Story5 3670.994 kN
Story12 3126.673 kN Story4 3670.994 kN
Story11 3126.673 kN Story3 3670.994 kN
Story10 3126.673 kN Story2 3694.976 kN
Story9 3126.673 kN Story1 3497.311 kN
Story8 3110.626 kN
 W = 3327.36kN + 8  3391.04kN + 3  3935.18kN + 3941.97 kN + 3620.06kN + 630.216kN

+ 3072.25kN + 2294.72kN = 55820.4kN
Page 21 of 30
− Base shear
ZICW
V=
Rw
Which
Z=0.2 (Zone 2B)
I=1 (For special and standard occupancies)
C=1.45845
W=55820.4
Rw=8.5
0.2 11.45845  55820.4

V = = 1915.56kN
8.5
− Concentrated horizontal force Ft at the top of the building (Top level additional force)
Ft = 0.07TV
Which
T=1.45769s
V=1915.56kN
Ft = 0.07 1.45769 1915.56 = 195.46kN
− Story shear
V − Ft = 1915.56kN − 195.46kN = 1720.097kN
Page 22 of 30
Table 4.2.1-1: Processing of determinate the story force
Floor h (m) h (m) W (kN) SW (kN) wh(kNm) wh/Swh (V-Ft)x(7) (kN)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
15 50.7 2235.211 kN 113325.185 0.0941 153.8414
3.5 2235.211
14 47.2 3077.854 kN 145274.688 0.1206 197.2135
3.5 5313.064
13 43.7 3126.673 kN 136635.624 0.1135 185.4858
3.5 8439.738
12 40.2 3126.673 kN 125692.267 0.1044 170.6299
3.5 11566.41
11 36.7 3126.673 kN 114748.91 0.0953 155.77
3.5 14693.08
10 33.2 3126.673 kN 103805.55 0.0862 140.92
3.5 17819.76
9 29.7 3126.673 kN 92862.20 0.0771 126.06
3.5 20946.43
8 26.2 3110.626 kN 81498.41 0.0677 110.64
3.5 24057.06
7 22.7 3126.673 kN 70975.48 0.0589 96.35
3.5 27183.73
6 19.2 3126.673 kN 60032.13 0.0498 81.49
3.5 30310.4
5 15.7 3670.994 kN 57634.61 0.0479 78.24
3.5 33981.4
4 12.2 3670.994 kN 44786.13 0.0372 60.80
3.5 37652.39
3 8.7 3670.994 kN 31937.65 0.0265 43.36
3.5 41323.39
2 5.2 3694.976 kN 19213.88 0.0160 26.08
3.5 45018.36
1 1.7 3497.311 kN 5945.43 0.0049 8.07
1.7 48515.67
Ground 0 3072.249
51587.92
Base -1
S 51587.92253 1204368.14
4.2.2 Analysis and check under SLS

Deflection check
cross section:
− Beam: 0.5
− Slab: 0.35
Page 23 of 30
− Column: 1.0
The deflection limit:

l
− Long-term deflection:  n  ( Additional deflection)
480
l
− Total deflection total: tot 
240
l
❖ For beam with total deflection  tot 
240
Figure 4.2.2-1: Beam Total deflection under Seismic effect

l = 8.1m
l 8100
 = = 33.75mm
240 240
18.609 + 44.368
tot = 53.28mm − = 21.79mm
2
 tot = 21.79mm  33.75mm Okay!
Page 24 of 30
l
❖ For beam with additional deflection  n 
480
Figure 4.2.2-2: Beam additional deflection under Seismic effect
l = 8.1m
l 8100
 = = 16.875mm
480 480
30.197 + 12.63
tot = 36.284mm − = 14.87 mm
2
 tot = 14.875mm  16.875mm Okay!
l
❖ For slab with additional deflection  n 
480
Figure 4.2.2-3: Slab additional deflection under Seismic effect
l = 4.252 + 8.12 = 9.147 m

l 9.147
 = = 19.05mm
480 480
Page 25 of 30
12.63 + 29.733
tot = 38.765mm − = 17.58mm
2
 tot = 17.58mm  19.05mm Okay!
l
❖ For slab with total deflection  tot 
240
Figure 4.2.2-4: Slab total deflection under Seismic effect
l = 4.252 + 8.12 = 9.147 m

l 9.147
 = = 38.11mm
240 240
18.609 + 43.714
tot = 56.935mm − = 23.77mm
2
 tot = 23.77mm  38.11mm Okay!
Page 26 of 30
Drift of the structure

cross section:
− Beam: 0.5
− Slab: 0.35
− Column: 1.0
− Wall crack: 0.5
Combination load for check drift: DL+SD+0.7E
In combination drift in 50 years, the basic wind speed is 33m/s. Therefore, we can find the reduced
factor when we use the basic wind speed in ULS.
l
Limitation of drift:  
480
Figure 4.2.2-5: Drift plot under wind effect
H 50700
= = = 106.625mm
480 480
 = 99.513mm
  = 78.873mm  99.513mm okay!
Page 27 of 30
4.2.3 Design and check under ULS

cross section:
− Beam: 0.35
− Column: 0.7
− Slab: 0.25
− Wall: 0.35
➢ Along Grid A-A:

After PMM checked:
We take: C600x700 with 3.45 % percentage of rebar ratio`
➢ Along Grid B-B:

After PMM checked:
We take: C600x700 with 3.45 % percentage of rebar ratio
Figure 4.2.3.2: Percentage capacity ratio along grid B-B

➢ Along Grid C-C:
After PMM checked:
We take: C600x700 with 3.45 % percentage of rebar ratio
The results of column and beam after designed checked with seismic effect:
Table 4.2.3-1: Column results under seismic effect
Section (Along axe) Longitude Rebar Transversal Rebar

C600x700 (A-A) 18DB32 10DB@150
C600x700 (B-B) 18DB32 10DB@150
C600x700 (C-C) 18DB32 10DB@150
Page 28 of 30
▪ Beam design:
We have modeling two differences section of beam: B300x500 and B400x600
Figure 4.2.3.4: flexural reinforcement alone grid C-C
Figure 4.2.3.5: Shear reinforcement alone grid C-C
Table 4.2.3-2: Beam results under seismic effect
Section Support Mid-span

Longitudinal B400x600 (Top) 4DB25 2DB25
B400x600 (Bottom) 2DB25 3DB25
Transversal DB10@150 DB10@250
4.3 Comparison between wind load and seismic effect
Table 4.2.3-1: Comparison results
Types Wind load Seismic load Difference Others

Drift 17.85 76.894 0.232
Additional
Deflection 14.128 14.87 0.95010087
beam
Rein of beam 2513.27 2945.24 0.85333284 At support
Rein of
8835.72 14476.46 0.61035087 Longitudinal
column
Page 29 of 30
Chapter 5: Conclusion
To sum up, through the rigorous processes of analyzing both cases such with seismic load and without
seismic load, we observe that the percentage reinforcement of the whole structure doesn’t really
change due to the seismic load. However, the seismic load on the building mostly affect to the drift.
Perspective
Since the effect of earthquake to building has significant effect on the drift, so in order to withstand
with this effect, the building should be design with different structural system such as bearing wall,
building frame or shear-wall frame interaction. Moreover, we observe that the percentage of
reinforcement is slightly different so designer should consider seismic effect in their design to ensure
the safety of the building rather than being too much economical.
Page 30 of 30
Bibliography
[1] Prok, N. (2016, September). Response of Soil-Structure Interaction System Considering the
Nonlinearity of Soil during Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10173/1421
[2] Taranath, B. S. (2005). Wind and earthquake resistant buildings structural analysis and design. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
[3] Taranath, B. S. (2010). Reinforced concrete design of tall buildings. Boca Raton: CRC Press / Taylor
& Francis Group.
[4] American Concrete Institute, ACI. (2014). Building code requirements for structural concrete (Aci
318-14): an Aci standard and commentary on building code requerements for structural concrete (Aci
318R-14): an Aci report. Farmington Hills, MI.
[5] ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, VA.
[6] Prok, N. (2019). Concept de tremblement de terre ITC course
Annexes A: Seismic reinforcement detailing
❖ Beam
The flexural and transverse reinforcement requirements for frame beams are as follows:
➢ Positive moment strength at joint face is greater than or equal to one-third negative moment
➢ strength provided at that face of the joint. Neither the negative nor the positive moment strength at
any section along the member length shall be less than one-fifth the maximum moment strength
provided at the face of either joint.
➢ Stirrups shall be provided at both ends of the member over a length equal to 2h from the face of
the supporting member toward midspan.
➢ The first stirrup shall be located not more than 2 in. from the face of the supporting member.
➢ Maximum stirrup spacing shall not exceed
➢ d /4
➢ 8 × the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar
➢ 24 × the diameter of the stirrup bar 12 in.
➢ Stirrups shall be spaced at not more than d/2 throughout the length of the member.
➢ Stirrups shall be spaced at not more than d/2 throughout the length of the member.
❖ Column
The transverse reinforcement requirements for frame columns are as follows:
➢ Maximum tie spacing shall not exceed so over a length lo measured from each joint face. Spacing so
shall not exceed the smallest of
− 8 × the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar
− 24 × the diameter of the tie bar
− The minimum member dimension /2
− 12 in.
➢ The length lo shall not be less than the largest of
− Clear span /6
− The maximum cross-sectional dimension of member
− 18 in.
➢ The first tie shall be located no farther than so/2 from the joint face
➢ Joint reinforcement shall conform to Section 11.11.2
➢ Tie spacing outside of length l0 shall not exceed 2s0
Annexes B: Structural detailing

Group 11-Seismic 2nd Assignment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Group 11-Seismic 2nd Assignment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Institute of Technology of Cambodia

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Study of comparison between wind load effect

Prof. PROK Narith

1. TUM Chhay e20150780

Academic Year: 2019-2020

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 7

Chapter 3: Building Information ....................................................................................... 11

Chapter 4: Analysis Procedure .......................................................................................... 14

Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 30

Annexes A: Seismic reinforcement detailing............................................................................. 32

Annexes B: Structural detailing ................................................................................................. 35

Figure 4.1.1.1: 3D view of 15 floors Residential Building ............................................................. 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

W: total dead load

Z: seismic zone factor

C: coefficient of fundamental period

T: Fundamental Period of vibration for moment-resisting Frames

− Concentrated horizontal force Ft

• Displacement in each floor

2.3 Response spectrum

Chapter 3: Building Information

Figure 4.1.1.1: 3D view of 15 floors Residential Building

Figure 4.1.1.2: Top view with Grid line at Basement Level

3.2 Seismic parameter

3.3 Load details

- Directionality factor, Kd = 0.85

• Load combination under wind effect by default program:

Chapter 4: Analysis Procedure

The deflection limit:

Figure 4.1.1-1: Beam additional deflection under wind effect

Figure 4.1.1-2: Beam total deflection under wind effect

Figure 4.1.1-3: slab additional deflection under wind effect

l = 4.252 + 8.12 = 9.147 m

Figure 4.1.1-4: Slab total deflection under wind effect

Drift of the structure

Figure 4.1.1-5: Drift plot under wind effect

4.1.2 Design and checked in ULS

Figure 4.1.2.1: Rebar of column along grid A-A

And Check P-M-M by putting 18DB25 with 2.95%

➢ Along Grid B-B:

Figure 4.1.2.4: Rebar of column along grid B-B

And Check P-M-M by putting 16DB32 with 4.2%

Figure 4.1.2.5: Percentage capacity ratio along grid B-B

After P-Delta effect

➢ Along Grid C-C:

Figure 4.1.2.7: Rebar of column along grid C-C

And Check P-M-M by putting 14DB25 with 2.3%

Figure 4.1.2.8: Percentage capacity ratio along grid C-C

After P-Delta effect

Table 4.1.2-1: Column results under wind effect

Section (Along axe) Longitude Rebar Transversal Rebar Transversal Rebar

Table 4.1.2-2: Beam results under wind effect

Section Support Mid-span

4.2 Analysis, design and check under seismic effect

− Building seismic weight (DL) W

Floor W (kN) Floor W (kN)

 W = 3327.36kN + 8  3391.04kN + 3  3935.18kN + 3941.97 kN + 3620.06kN + 630.216kN

0.2 11.45845  55820.4

Table 4.2.1-1: Processing of determinate the story force

Floor h (m) h (m) W (kN) SW (kN) wh(kNm) wh/Swh (V-Ft)x(7) (kN)