Seismic Response Study of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under … · 2019-11-14 · ground motion, 3D backfill using the finite element method - executing the soil interaction phenomena

International Journal of Engineering Research and Advanced Technology (IJERAT) E-ISSN : 2454-6135

DOI: http://doi.org/10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344 Volume.4, Issue 11

November -2018

www.ijerat.com Page 1

DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Seismic Response Study of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under

the Effect of Varying Frequency Content

Nithin Y K 1 and K P Shivananda 2

M.Tech Scholar1, Professor 2

Department of Civil Engineering

Siddaganga Institute of Technology

Tumakuru, Karnataka, India _______________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Earthquake causes damage to living things particularly people and harms the fabricated and common habitat. Keeping in mind the end goal to play it safe for the death toll and harm of structures because of the ground motion, it’s essential to sense the qualities of the ground motion. The most essential unique qualities of seismic tremor are peak ground acceleration (PGA), frequency content, and duration. These qualities play a vital role in respect to the response of structures under seismic loads. The quality of ground motions is estimated in light of the PGA, frequency content and to what extent the shaking proceeds. Ground motion has distinctive low, intermediate, and high-frequency contents. Current research involves studying seismic frequency components of reinforced concrete structures. Time history analysis is performed in the extended three-dimensional analysis of building system (ETABS) software. The proposed strategy is to think about the response of low, mid, and high- rise reinforced concrete buildings under low, intermediate, and high- frequency content ground motions. The response of the structures because of the ground motions as far as displacement, velocity, acceleration, and base shear is found. The reactions of each ground motion for each sort of building are contemplated and looked at. The outcomes demonstrate that low-frequency content ground motions have the noteworthy impact on both regular as well as irregular RC structures. However, high-frequency content ground motions have very less effect on responses of the regular as well as irregular RC buildings. Key Words: Reinforced Concrete Building, Ground Motion, Peak Ground Acceleration, Frequency Content, Time History Analysis. _______________________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION A quake is the aftereffect of a fast arrival of strain vitality put away in the world's hull that produces seismic waves. Structures are defenceless against seismic tremor ground movement and harms the structures. With a specific end goal to play it safe in preventing damage to structures because of ground movement, it’s essential to know the aspects of ground motion. The utmost vital unique attributes of seismic tremor are peak ground acceleration (PGA), frequency content, and duration. These qualities play transcendent run in concentrate the conduct of structures under seismic tremor ground motion. Ellen Rathje et al (1998) three streamlined frequency contents are considered: mean period (Tm), predominant period (Tp), and smoothed spectral predominant period (To). They recorded frequency parameters of 306 motion records from 20 earthquakes. They use this information to model the site dependency, size and distance of frequency content specifications. Model coefficients and standard error terms were evaluated by nonlinear regression analysis. Their results show that the traditional Tp parameters have the most shocking vulnerability to their expectations, suggesting that predicting the previous relationship of Tp is questionable for current information gathering. Furthermore, the optimum frequency content rendering parameter is Tm. David M. Boore (2003) Probabilistic technology is an important and epoch-making strategy for simulating terrestrial movements. Changes in mixing parameters or functional descriptions of the amplitude spectrum and the random phase spectrum of the seismic motion are determined such that the behaviour is distributed over a time span associated with the magnitude of the earthquake and the distance from the source. This technique is useful for simulating high frequency seismic motion (e.g., 0-1 Hz) and chronicles of possibly harming seismic tremors are not open, it is

http://doi.org/10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

http://www.ijerat.com/


International Journal of Engineering Research And Advanced Technology, Vol.4, Issue 11, November-2018.


DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

utilized to foresee them. Sekhar Chandra Dutta, et al. (2004) studied the response of low-rise building under seismic activity including soil-structure interaction. They studied the framework of low-rise building on a shallow foundation, i.e. isolation and the foundation of the grid. They used artificial earthquakes to analyse the reaction. Their study suggests that this response may be prolonged, taking into account the effects of soil structure interactions, especially the low level of rigid structure. Tufan Cakir (2012) Evaluation of the influence of seismic frequency on the seismic behaviour of the soil structure interaction of the cantilever retaining wall was studied. He to analyse the dynamic characteristics of the retaining wall of the cantilever that have undergone various ground motion, 3D backfill using the finite element method - executing the soil interaction phenomena. He assessed the impact of earthquake tremor frequency and earth and structure interaction using five different ground movements and six different soil compositions. We also tested finite element model verification by modal analysis technology and fully understood the results of numerical analysis. Finally, we expanded the strategy to study the parametric influence of vibration frequency component of earthquake motion and soil / ground interaction, and carried out a nonlinear time course study. His results show that as soil properties change, lateral displacement and stress response under various ground movements are tested. He concluded that the dynamic response of the cantilever wall is very sensitive to the frequency characteristics of earthquake micro tremor record and soil structure interaction. L. Di Sarno (2013) the effects of many earthquakes on the response of the inelastic structure are taken into account. Five sites representing the group of sites exposed to several fluctuations and site-to-site distance earthquakes were chosen. Of the several records collected from these five destinations, each location determined three records representing strong ground motions against driving conditions and loosening. The RC profile survey shows that not only does more than one earthquake guarantee a wide and urgent study, but the safety of the traditional design structure lacks a modest level of signs. Nayak and Biswal (2013) studied the seismic performance of the bottom mounted embedded block partially filled with a rigid rectangular storage tank. They used six different low frequency, medium frequency and high frequency seismic motions to check the dynamic behaviour of the tank immersion block system. They established a Galerkin finite element model based on velocity potential and demonstrated the effect of underwater blocks on the inaccurate and convective response of hydrodynamic conduction. The overturning moment of the foundation, the foundation shear and the count pressure distribution of the block wall along the reservoir. For all the earthquake motions studied, the corresponding convective response amplitude is lower than the peak impulse response component of the dynamic physical parameter, regardless of its frequency component. Furthermore, the impulse response is hardly dependent on the frequency component of the seismic motion, and depends on PGA, PGA is a measure of seismic intensity. However, the convective response is greatly influenced by the frequency component of ground excitation. The effect of the submerged block attached to the bottom has a substantial effect on the overall dynamics of the tank-liquid system, and this effect varies greatly under seismic motion at different frequency levels. Mahmood Hosseini, Banafshehalsadat Hashemi and Zahra Safi (2017) a survey was conducted to understand how the specifications of IBC 2009 and ACI 318-2014 effectively provide the life safety and performance levels of conventional buildings of reinforced concrete multi-layered structures. For this purpose, a multistate building with a maximum of 16 floors was designed in Tehran’s highest earthquake hazard area and designed according to specifications. Then a series of near-source three component acceleration maps were used according to the code, scaled and a series of nonlinear time history analysis were performed in all buildings. The displacement, acceleration, and base shear force of the top plate were calculated. As a result, in some earthquakes the performance of the building exceeds the LS, PL, sometimes reaching the collapse level. Extreme tremors occurs once in a while. Despite the fact that it is in fact possible to design and fabricate structures for these seismic tremor occasions, it is generally viewed as wasteful and excess to do as such. The seismic design is made with the desire that the extreme earthquake causes a demolition, and a seismic plan theory in this beginning has been made over the years. The purpose of seismic design is to limit damage in a structure to a decent sum. Structures designed to be able to withstand low levels of undamaged earthquakes, withstand moderate levels of earthquakes without structural damage, but with the potential for non-structural damage and withstand large terrain movements without failure, but with structural and non-structural damage. The damage in a structure starts from a point of weakness. These weaknesses additionally trigger the damage. Generally such weak spots are present inside the structure because of irregularity in mass and stiffness distribution. Structural irregularities are such weak spots in a structure from where the damage initiates and are explained in detail in the subsequent sections. Irregular buildings are preferred due to their aesthetically pleasing appearance and optimized functionality. However, past earthquakes have demonstrated their poor seismic performance. In this work, RC buildings of two, six and twenty story, regular and irregular, are subject to six low, medium and high frequency content ground motions. The structures are displayed as 3D and linear time history analysis is put through extended three-dimensional analysis of building system (ETABS) software and the results of each RC building due to each ground motion are studied and compared. It is found that low-frequency content ground motion has significant effect on responses of regular as well as irregular RC buildings irrespective of the building height. However, high-frequency content ground motion has very less effect on responses of both regular and irregular RC buildings regardless of the building height. Furthermore, the effect of the intermediate-frequency content ground motion is less than the low-frequency content ground motion and more than high-frequency content ground motion on responses of the RC buildings.





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

1.1 Re–entrant corners: IS 1893 (PART 1): 2002 defines re-entrant corner as a location in a structure where in the projection of the building component beyond that point outreach 15 % of its plan dimension in the given direction as shown in figure 1.1 and table 1.1 demonstrates its classification. When the building is subjected to ground motion inertial forces are mobilized. These forces travel along different paths known as „load paths‟ through various structural components and finally being transferred to the soil through foundation.

Figure 1.1: Re-entrant corners showing computation of A/L ratio.

1.2 Objective The main objective is to investigate the reflex of frequency content of ground motion on seismic response of structures with and without re-entrant corners. 1.3 Scope Consider two ground motions in each frequency content category, six ground motions, and investigate the influence of frequency response on dynamic response. The motivation behind this undertaking is to consider the response to low, medium and high frequency seismic motion of low, medium and high level conventional and irregular 3D RC buildings in terms of story displacement, velocity, acceleration, and base shear with the help of ETABS software.

1.4 Methodology For analysis, six low, medium, high frequency seismic motion records are considered i.e. 1979 Imperial Valley-06 (Holtville Post Office) component, 1994 Northridge-01 Canoga Park - Topanga Can component, 1957 San Francisco (Golden Gate Park) component, 1940 Imperial Valley-02 (El Centro Array #9) component, 1992 Landers (Fort Irwin) component, 1983 Coalinga-06 Coalinga-14th & Elm (Old CHP) component. Ground motion records are taken from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database. Reinforced concrete buildings with 2-story, 6-story, and 20-story are considered low, middle and high rise buildings modeled as 3 dimensional regular and irregular reinforced concrete buildings within ETABS. After that, above ground motions are introduced to the software and linear time history analysis is executed. The premise of this research is to study the behavior of reinforced concrete buildings within a variable frequency range. This survey shows how low, mid and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings function with low, medium and high frequency earthquake motions.

2. STRUCTURAL MODELING

2.1 Structural Parameters and Description

TABLE 2.1 - Structural parameters for models

1 No. of Bays 4 bays along longitudinal direction 5 bays along transverse direction

2 Spacing of each bays 4 m - longitudinal direction 5 m - transverse direction

3 No. of Story 2-story, 6-story, 20-storyregular and irregular buildings 4 Support condition at bottom Fixed

5 Total height of building model 7m, 21m & 70m

6 Bottom Storey height 3.5 m

7 Typical Storey height 3.5 m

8 Size of Column 300 x 400 mm & 600 x 600 mm 9 Size of Beam 300 x 400 mm

A/L Ratio Condition

<0.15 Safe

0.15 – 0.20 Deficient

>0.20 Highly deficient

Table 1.1 Classification of re- entrant corners based on A/L ratio





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

10 Compressive strength (fck) 30 MPa 11 Yield strength (fy) 500 MPa 11 Depth of Slab 125 mm 12 Beam Clear Cover 25 mm 13 Column Clear Cover 40 mm

14 Live Load On Floor = 3.0 kN/m2

On Roof = 1.5 kN/m2

15 Floor Finish On Floor = 1.5 kN/m2

On Top Roof = 2.0 kN/m2

16 Zone Factor III [0.16]

17 Soil type II -Medium soil

18 Importance Factor 1.0

19 Response Reduction Factor [OMRF] = 3.0

20 Damping Ratio 5 %

2.2 Regular RC Buildings 2-story, 6-story, 20-story regular reinforced concrete buildings, which are low, mid, and skyscraper, are considered. The beam in (x) transverse direction is 4m and in (y) longitudinal direction 5m. Figure 2.1 demonstrates the plan and figure 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 demonstrates 3D view of the three buildings having five bays in x-direction and five bays in y-direction. Story height of each building is assumed as 3.5m.

Figure 2.1: Regular Building Plan Figure 2.2: 3D View of 2-story regular RC building





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Figure 2.3: 3D view of 6-story regular RC building Figure 2.4: 3D view of 20-story regular RC building

2.3 Irregular RC Buildings 2-story, 6-story, and 20-story irregular reinforced concrete buildings, which are low, mid, and skyscraper, are considered. The beam in (x) transverse course is 4m and in (y) longitudinal direction is 5m. Figure 2.5 demonstrates the plan and figure 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 demonstrates 3D view of the three buildings having five bays in x-direction and five bays in y-direction. Story height of each building is assumed 3.5m.

Figure 2.5: Irregular Building Plan Figure 2.6: 3D View of 2-story irregular RC building





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Figure 2.7: 3D view of 6-story irregular RC building Figure 2.8: 3D view of 20-story regular RC building

3. GROUND MOTION RECORDS AND TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

3.1 GROUND MOTION RECORDS

Records are chosen based on the peak ground acceleration (PGA) to the peak ground velocity (PGV), i.e. the ratio PGA/PGV. The justification behind this is close - source shallow quakes or records estimated on rock, will display high acceleration peaks of short duration, prompting low - velocity cycles. These records will give high estimations of PGA/PGV. Deep or distant earthquakes or records estimated on delicate ground will have lower acceleration values, however individual cycles are of longer duration, leading to high - velocity waves. These will yield low PGA/PGV ratios. Intermediate scenarios in both senses will yield intermediate values of PGA/PGV. Structures are exposed to ground motions which has dynamic attributes i.e. peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground displacement (PGD), frequency content, and duration. These qualities play dominating principle in concentrate the response of RC structures under seismic loads. The structure steadiness relies upon the structure slenderness, and also the ground motion amplitude, frequency and duration. Based on the frequency content, which is the ratio of PGA/PGV the ground motion records as appeared in table 3.1 are classified into three classes:

• High-frequency content PGA/PGV > 1.2

• Intermediate-frequency content 0.8< PGA/PGV< 1.2

• Low-frequency content PGA/PGV < 0.8

Where the acceleration PGA is expressed in ‘g’ and the velocity PGV in ‘m/s’





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Table 3.1: Attributes and classification of frequency-content

Ear

thqu

ake

(Sta

tion)

C

ompo

nent

Mag

nitu

de

Epi

cent

ral

Dis

tanc

e (k

m)

D

urat

ion

(s)

Tim

e st

ep fo

r re

spon

se

i (

)

PGA

(g)

PG

V (m

/s)

PG

A/P

GV

Freq

uenc

y C

onte

nt

G

roun

d M

otio

n

C

lass

ifica

tion

1979 Imperial Valley-06 (Holtville Post Office)

H-HVP225.AT2

6.53

19.80

37.86

0.0050

0.25815

0.53136

0.4858

Low(LGM)

1940 Imperial Valley-02 (El Centro Array #9

ELC270.AT2

6.95

12.98

53.45

0.0100

0.21074

0.31326

0.6727

Low(LGM)

Northridge-01 (Canoga Park-Topanga Can)

CNP106.AT2

6.69

4.85

24.98

0.0100

0.3576

0.3379

1.0583

Intermediate

(IGM)

1992 Landers (Fort Irwin)

FTI000.AT2

7.28

120.99

39.98

0.0200

0.11357

0.09535

1.1910

Intermediate

(IGM)

1957 San Francisco (Golden Gate Park)

GGP100.AT2

5.28

11.13

39.72

0.0050

0.09532

0.03932

2.4242

High(HGM)

1983 Coalinga-06 [Coalinga-14th & Elm (Old CHP)]

E-CHP000.AT2

4.89

9.27

59.995

0.0050

0.11381

0.06109

1.8629

High(HGM)

3.2 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Time history investigation is a well ordered strategy where the loading and the response history are assessed at progressive time increments. During each progression the reaction is assessed from the initial conditions existing toward the start of the progression (displacements and velocities and the loading history in the interval). In this technique, the non-linear behavior might be effectively considered by changing the structural properties (e.g. stiffness, k) from one stage to another. Accordingly, this strategy is exceptionally viable to decide the nonlinear response. However, in linear time history analysis, the structural properties are assumed to remain constant and a linear behavior of structure is assumed during the entire loading history. In structural analysis, the number of possible modes must be over 90% of the total seismic intensity. Tables 3.2-3.7 show that the number of modes considered here is more prominent or close to the standard. Table 3.2 demonstrates the dynamic characteristics of the 2-story regular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 9.3646 rad/sec and fundamental period is 0.671 sec.

Table 3.2: Dynamic characteristic of the 2-story regular RC building

Mode Period UX UY Sum UX

Sum UY Frequency Circular

Frequency Eigenvalue

sec cyc/sec rad/sec rad²/sec² 1 0.671 0.9231 0 0.9231 0 1.49 9.3646 87.6961





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Table 3.3 shows the dynamic characteristics of the 6-story regular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 2.679 rad/sec and fundamental period is 2.345 sec.



Sum UY

Frequency Circular Frequency

Eigenvalue


Table 3.4 shows the dynamic characteristics of the 20-story regular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 1.4837 rad/sec and fundamental period is 4.235 sec.





sec cyc/sec rad/sec rad²/sec² 1 4.235 0 0.7885 0 0.7885 0.236 1.4837 2.2015

Table 3.5 shows the dynamic characteristics of the 2-story irregular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 9.5121 rad/sec and fundamental period is 0.661 sec.

Table 3.5: Dynamic characteristic of the 2-story irregular RC building





Table 3.6 shows the dynamic characteristics of the 6-story irregular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 2.7071 rad/sec and fundamental period is 2.321 sec.

Table 3.6: Dynamic characteristic of the 6-story irregular RC building

Mode Period UX UY Sum UX Sum UY Frequency Circular


sec cyc/sec rad/sec rad²/sec² 1 2.321 0.8346 0.000003438 0.8346 0.000003438 0.431 2.7071 7.3282

Table 3.7 shows the dynamic characteristics of the twenty-story irregular reinforced concrete building for mode 1. The fundamental frequency of the structure is 1.4867 rad/sec and fundamental period is 4.226 sec.

Table 3.7: Dynamic characteristics of the 20-story irregular RC building




sec cyc/sec rad/sec rad²/sec² 1 4.226 0.001 0.7853 0.001 0.7853 0.237 1.4867 2.2103





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

4. RESULTS OF REGULAR RC BUILDINGS

4.1 Two-Story Regular RC Building Figure 4.1-4.2 shows story displacement, velocity and acceleration of 2-story regular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to low frequency content time series and least because of high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story velocity is greatest because of intermediate frequency content time series and least because of high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story acceleration is most extreme because of intermediate and low frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of high frequency content time series in X and Y direction. In figure 4.3, base shear is maximum due to low frequency content time series and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction.

Figure 4.1: Displacement, Velocity, Acceleration response of 2-story regular RC building along X and Y direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

STO

Y H

EIG

HT

(m)

STORY DISPLACEMENT X (mm)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940IMPERIAL VALLEY1979LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANCISCO1957COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY VELOCITY (m/sec)


NORTHRIDGE1994SAN FRANSISCO1957COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY ACCELERATION X (m/sec2)


NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY DISPLACEMENT Y (mm)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANCISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY VELOCITY Y (m/sec)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO 1957

COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY ACCELERATION Y (m/sec2)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

-20

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1940 Imperial Valley-02

Displacement X mm Displacement Y mm

-9.5 mm at 8.7 sec

8.3 mm at 6.9 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec


Velocity X m/sec Velocity Y m/sec

-0.08 m/sec at 8.5

0.09 m/sec at 6.8 sec

-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec


Acceleration X m/sec² Acceleration Y m/sec²

1.01 m/sec2 at 8.7 sec


-20

0

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


9.4 mm at 2.8 sec

-8 mm at 3 sec-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.09 m/sec at 2.9

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.91 m/sec2 at 2.8 sec

1.04 m/sec2 at 3

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t X m

m

Time sec



9.7 mm at 8 sec8.5 mm at 9.7 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec




-0.09 m/sec at 9.8 sec

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



-0.9 m/sec2 at 8 sec -1.09 m/sec2 at 9.7 sec





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Figure 4.2: Roof Displacement, Roof Velocity, Roof Acceleration of 2-story regular RC building due to considered ground motion in X and Y direction.

Figure 4.3: Maximum base shear along X and Y direction of regular 2-story building.

4.2 Six-Story Regular RC Building Figure 4.4-4.5 shows story displacement, velocity, and acceleration of 6-story regular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to intermediate frequency content time series and least because of low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story velocity is greatest because of intermediate frequency content time series and least because of high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story acceleration is most extreme because of intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction and least because of high frequency content time series in X and Y direction. In figure 4.6, base shear is maximum due to intermediate and low frequency content time series along X and Y direction respectively and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction.

-20

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-8.5 mm at 5.8 sec-7.9 mm at 6.8 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06




-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06




-10

0

10

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


7.8 mm at 23.2

8.8 mm at 23.3

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers



-0.09 m/sec at 23.4 sec-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers


0.9 m/sec2 at 23

-0.88 m/sec2 at 23.8 sec

-20

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-9.27 mm at 10.9 sec

8.3 mm at 17.2 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01



-0.1 m/sec at 17.3 sec-2

-1

0

1

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-0.96 m/sec2 at 16.6 sec-1.24 m/sec2 at 16.6 sec

635.6512

582.397 586.6333575.0391

588.2634

572.9419

540550560570580590600610620630640650

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers 1992Max

Northridge1994 Max

SanFrancisco1957 Max

Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar X

kN

Ground Motions

681.5878

652.5531646.0091

650.7266645.4765 643.5432

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40

STO

Y H

EIG

HT

(m)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY VELOCITY X (m/sec)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40

Stoy

Hei

ght (

m)

Story Displacement Y (mm)


NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO 1957

COALINGA 1983

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY ACCELERATION (m/sec2)

IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-29.989 mm at 3.6 sec-28.30 mm at 3.5 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.097 m/sec at 3.3 sec-0.103 m/sec at 3.2 sec

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.511 m/sec2 at 3.4 sec


-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


32.33 mm at 22.1 sec31.70 mm at 21.9 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


0.079 m/sec at 21.5 sec


-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


0.44 m/sec2 at 2

-0.59 m/sec2 at 2.5

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-24.85 mm at 7.9 sec-24.10 mm at 7.9 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.096 m/sec at 7.2


-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.4288 m/sec2 at 8.2 sec

-0.457 m/sec2 at 6.3 sec

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-29.96 mm at 11.3 sec

32.10 mm at 12.2 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-0.09 m/sec at 10.7 sec-0.093 m/sec at 6 sec -0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


0.421 m/sec2 at 6.3 sec0.411 m/sec2 at 6.2

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


30.67 mm at 21.7 sec

-27.15 mm at 24.8 sec-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers


-0.11 m/sec at 22 sec -0.099 m/sec at 21.9-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers


0.578 m/sec2 20.6 sec0.484 m/sec2 24.8





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344



4.3 Twenty-Story Regular RC Building Figure 4.7-4.8 shows story displacement, velocity, and acceleration of 20-story regular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to high frequency content time series and least because of low and intermediate frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story velocity is greatest because of intermediate frequency content time series and least because of low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story acceleration is most extreme because of high and intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction and least because of intermediate and low frequency content time series in X and Y direction. In figure 4.9, base shear is maximum due to intermediate and low frequency content time series along X and Y direction respectively and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction.


-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-32.34 mm at 19.3 sec-36.97 mm at 14.1 sec-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


0.099 m/sec at 19.6 sec

-0.114 m/sec at 13.8 sec -1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-0.54 m/sec2 at 10.4 sec

0.589 m/sec2 at 10.6 sec

622.6251

642.9354

710.6745

685.0266

614.9739604.4482

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

she

ar X

kN

GROUND MOTIONS

653.6393

709.7324

681.8745

660.8727 661.1642

639.875

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY 1940

IMPERIALVALLEY 1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SANFRANSISCO1957COALINGA 1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY 1940

IMPERIALVALLEY 1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY 1940

IMPERIALVALLEY 1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY1940IMPERIALVALLEY1979LANDERS1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SANFRANSISCO1957COALINGA1983





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344



-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-48.63 mm at 5.1 sec -55.76 mm at 5.3 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



0.095 m/sec at 6.3 0.097 m/sec at 6.3 sec

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.437 m/sec2 at 8.7 sec

-0.52 m/sec2 at 7.2 sec

-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-58.85 mm at 24.3 sec

67.27 mm at 40 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


0.094 m/sec at 25.2 sec

-0.093 m/sec at 23.7 -1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.065 m/sec2 at 2.9 sec

-0.54 m/sec2 at 2.9 sec

-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-53.03 mm at 9 sec-58.28 mm at 9.1 sec -0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



0.095 m/sec at 9.7 sec0.11 m/sec at 9.7 sec

-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



-0.43 m/sec2 at 8 sec


-200

0

200

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-51.41 mm @ 26.5 sec

-59.76 mm @ 11.3 sec -0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


0.101 m/sec 11.9 sec0.102 m/sec 12.2 sec

-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-0.44 m/sec2 at 5.6 sec

-0.62 m/sec2 at 5.6 sec

-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


52.22 mm at 22.1 sec52.017 mm at 22.2 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers



-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers



-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-54.49 mm at 34.7 sec

68.09 mm at 21.7 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


0.103 m/sec at 16 0.115 m/sec at 20.9

-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01



1532.164

1470.5475

1554.8433

1440.6771

1479.4533

1421.5732

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar X

kN

Ground Motions

1627.64021596.3214 1581.3251

1406.3104 1398.8888

1457.0125

125013001350140014501500155016001650

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

5. RESULTS OF IRREGULAR RC BUILDINGS

5.1 Two-Story Irregular RC Building Figure 5.1-5.2 shows story displacement, velocity, and acceleration of 2-story irregular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to high and low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction respectively and least because of intermediate and high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction respectively. The story velocity is greatest because of intermediate frequency content time series and least because of high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story acceleration is most extreme because of high and low frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of low and high frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively. In figure 5.3, base shear is maximum due to low frequency content time series and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction.

Figure 5.1: Displacement, Velocity, Acceleration response of 2-story irregular RC building along X and Y direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO 1957

COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)

STORY ACEELERATION X (m/sec2)


NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO 1957

COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


-20

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-9.26 mm at 8.7 sec

8.27 mm at 6.9 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.083 m/sec at 8.5


-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.996 m/sec2 at 8.7 sec

-0.880 m/sec2 at 6.9 sec

-10

0

10

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t mm

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


9.39 mm at 2.8 sec

-8.07 mm at 3 sec-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.090 m/sec at 2.9 sec


-2

-1

0

1

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.90 m/sec2 at 2.8 sec


-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



8.59 mm at 8 sec8.38 mm at 9.1 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec




0.093 m/sec at 9.8 sec-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.94 m/sec2 at 9 sec0.903 m/sec2 at 9.9





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

Figure 5.2: Roof Displacement, Roof Velocity, Roof Acceleration of 2-story irregular RC building due to considered ground motion in X and Y direction.

Figure 5.3: Maximum base shear along X and Y direction of irregular 2-story building.

5.2 Six-Story Irregular RC Building Figure 5.4-5.5 shows story displacement, velocity, and acceleration of 6-story regular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to high and intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story velocity is greatest because of high and intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of low and high frequency content time series in both X and Y direction respectively. The story acceleration is most extreme because of intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction and least because of high frequency content time series in X and Y direction. In figure 5.6, base shear is maximum due to intermediate and low frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction.

-20

0

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-9.36 mm at 5.8 sec

-7.909 mm at 6.8 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-0.082 m/sec at 5.6 sec

-0.087 m/sec at 6.7

-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


0.819 m/sec2 at 5.8 sec

0.899 m/sec2 at 6.8 sec

-10

0

10

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


9.395 mm at 23.3 sec

8.07 mm at 23.2 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers



-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers


0.903 m/sec2 at 23 sec

-0.921 m/sec2 at 23.8

-10

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t X m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-9.07 mm at 10.9 sec-7.70 mm at 16.8 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


0.088 m/sec at 17.1

0.093 m/sec at 16.7 sec-2

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-1.008 m/sec2 at 16.6 -1.14 m/sec2 at 16.6

508.4308

536.8113 535.9798

492.9771

514.8771

489.3176

460470480490500510520530540550

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar X

kN

Ground Motions

593.15

572.7073580.9837

561.2068 559.9132 561.1314

540

550

560

570

580

590

600

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)




0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)




0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIAL VALLEY1940

IMPERIAL VALLEY1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SAN FRANSISCO1957

COALINGA 1983

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-29.10 mm at 3.6 sec-28.57 mm at 3.5 sec -0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.092 m/sec at 3.3 sec

-0.102 m/sec at 3.2 sec -1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.513 m/sec2 at 3.4 sec

0.513 m/sec2 at 9.7 sec

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


30.46 mm at 22.1 sec29.85 mm at 21.9 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


0.08 m/sec at 6.5 sec0.091 m/sec at 6.4

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


0.457 m/sec2 at 2 sec

0.604 m/sec2 at 2.5 sec

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-23.93 mm at 7.9 sec-24.38 mm at 7.9 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.087 m/sec at 7.3 sec-0.096 m/sec at 7.2 sec -1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



-0.409 m/sec2 at 7.1 sec


-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-29.32 mm at 11.3 sec

31.60 mm at 12.2 sec

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


0.089 m/sec at 11.8 sec

-0.095 m/sec at 6 sec-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06




-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


28.52 mm at 21.7 sec 26.78 mm at 23.6 sec

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers


-0.107 m/sec at 22 sec-0.101 m/sec at 21.9 sec

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers


0.586 m/sec2 at 20.6 sec0.47 m/sec2 at 24.8sec





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344



5.3 Twenty-Story Irregular RC Building Figure 5.7-5.8 shows story displacement, velocity, and acceleration of 20-story regular RC building due to six ground motions. The story displacement is maximum due to high and intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story velocity is greatest because of intermediate frequency content time series and least because of low frequency content time series in both X and Y direction. The story acceleration is most extreme because of high and intermediate frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively and least because of intermediate and low frequency content time series in X and Y direction respectively. In figure 5.9, base shear is maximum due to low frequency content time series in X and Y direction and minimum due to high frequency content time series along X and Y direction


-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-31.02 mm at 14.2 sec-35.82 mm at 14.1 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


0.097 m/sec at 19.6 sec

-0.113 m/sec at 13.8 sec -1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-0.54 m/sec2 at10.4 sec

0.59 m/sec2 at 10.6 sec

528.3236

563.7132

594.4043 590.8137

541.6751527.1922

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar X

kN

Ground Motions

568.567

614.9233

577.1885564.8823 564.4594

552.8049

520530540550560570580590600610620

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY 1940

IMPERIALVALLEY 1979

LANDERS1992

NORTHRIDGE 1994

SANFRANSISCO1957COALINGA1983

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)



NORTHRIDGE 1994


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

STO

RY

HEI

GH

T (m

)


IMPERIALVALLEY 1940

IMPERIALVALLEY 1979

LANDERS 1992

NORTHRIDGE1994

SANFRANSISCO1957COALINGA 1983





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344



-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-46.36 mm at 5.1 sec

-53.18 mm at 5.2 sec-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



0.086 m/sec at 6.3 sec0.093 m/sec at 6.3

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec



0.446 m/sec2 at 8.7 sec

-0.48 m/sec2 at 7.2 sec

-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


52.76 mm at 17.9 sec65.96 mm at 40 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1957 San Francisco


-0.089 m/se at 18.7 sec -0.082 m/se at 23.7 -1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1957 San Francisco



-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec



-50.76 mm at 9 sec-55.08 mm at 9.1 sec -0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec



-0.097 m/sec at 9.7 sec-0.112 m/sec at 9.7 sec

-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec




0.415 m/sec2 at 7.9 sec

-100

-50

0

50

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-46.97 mm at 18.2 sec-55.54 mm at 11.2 sec

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


0.094 m/sec0.095 m/sec

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1983 Coalinga-06


-0.45 m/sec2 at 5.5 sec

-0.59 m/sec2 at 5.6 sec

-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1992 Landers


50.13 mm at 22.1 sec50.54 mm at 22.2 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1992 Landers


0.113 m/sec at 21.3 sec0.116 m/sec at 21.4 sec

-0.5

0

0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1992 Landers



-100

0

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dis

plac

emen

t m

m

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


-49.77 mm at 26.7 sec

63.83 mm at 21.6 sec

-0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Velo

city

m/s

ec

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01


0.102 m/sec at 16 sec 0.107 m/sec at 20.9

-1

0

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Acce

lera

tion

m/s

ec²

Time sec

1994 Northridge-01



114011601180120012201240126012801300132013401360

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar X

kN

Ground Motions

11001150120012501300135014001450

ImperialValley 1940

Max

ImperialValley 1979

Max

Landers1992 Max

Northridge1994 Max


Coalinga1983 Max

Base

She

ar Y

kN

Ground Motions





DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

6. CONCLUSIONS

Here, low, mid, and high-rise regular as well as irregular 3D RC buildings are studied under low, intermediate, and high-frequency content ground motions. Linear time history analysis is performed using ETABS software. The responses of the buildings are shown in terms of story displacement, story velocity, story acceleration, and base shear. Then the results of each RC building due to each ground motion are studied and compared. It is found that time period of building increase with increase in the height of the building on the other hand frequency and circular natural frequency of the building decreases with increase in the height of the building. For all the models lateral displacement of the building increases with increase in the height of the building along both X and Y directions for different time series function. Low-frequency content ground motion has significant effect on responses of regular as well as irregular RC buildings irrespective of the building height. However, high-frequency content ground motion has very less effect on responses of both regular and irregular RC buildings regardless of the building height. Furthermore, the effect of the intermediate-frequency content ground motion is less than the low-frequency content ground motion and more than high-frequency content ground motion on responses of the RC buildings.

REFERENCES [1] A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Third Edition ed., New Delhi:

Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.

[2] C. V. R. Murty, R. Goswami, A. R. Vijayanarayanan and V. V. Mehta, Some Concepts in Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings, Gujarat: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, 2012.

[3] D. M. BOORE, "Simulation of Ground Motion Using the Stochastic Method," Pure and Applied Geophysics, no. 160, pp. 635-676, 2003.

[4] Elnashai Amr S. and Di Sarno Luigi , Fundamentals of EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, London: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

[5] E. M. Rathje, N. A. Abrahamson and J. D. Bray, "Simplified Frequency Content Estimates of Earthquake Ground Motions," Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, no. 124, pp. 150-159, 1998.

[6] E. M. Rathje, F. Faraj , S. Russell and J. D. Bray, "Empirical Relationships for Frequency Content Parameters of Earthquake Ground Motions," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 119-144, February 2004.

[7] E. Şafak and A. Frankel, "Effects of Ground Motion Characteristics on the Response of Base-Isolated Structures," in Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Illinois, 1996.

[8] “Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System (ETABS) software,” Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI).

[9] IS 456, Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice (fourth revision), New Delhi 110002: Bureau of Indian Standard, 2000.

[10] IS 875 (Part1), Dead loads, unit weights of building material and stored material (second revision), New Delhi 110002: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987.

[11] IS 875 (Part2), Imposed loads (second revision), New Delhi 110002: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987.

[12] IS 1893 (Part1), Indian Standard CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANTDESIGN OF STRUCTURES PART 1, 6.1 ed., New Delhi 110002: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002.

[13] L. D. Sarno, "Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response," Engineering Structures, vol. 56, pp. 673-681, 2013.

[14] “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA West-2 Database,". [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-185[Accessed 2017].



https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit



DOI : 10.31695/IJERAT.2018.3344

[15] “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA West-2 Database,” [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-6[Accessed 2017].

[16] "Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA Database,”. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-855[Accessed 2017].

[17] "Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA Database," 2005. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-959[Accessed 2017].

[18] "Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA Database," 2005. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-416[Accessed 2017].

[19] "Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA Database," 2005. [Online]. Available https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/130483/searches/120755/edit RSN-23[Accessed 2017].

[20] Mohmood Hosseini, Banafshehalsadat Hashemi and Zahra Safi, “Seismic Design Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Near-Source Earthquakes by Using Nonlinear Time History Analyses.” Procedia Engineering vol 199, pp. 176-181, 2017.

[21] M. N. Hassoun and A. Al-Manaseer, Structural Concrete Theory & Design, Fifth Edition ed., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012.

[22] P. Pankaj and E. Lin, "Material modelling in the seismic response analysis for the design of RC framed structures," Engineering Structures, vol. 27, pp. 1014-1023, 2005.

[23] S. C. Dutta, K. Bhattacharyaa and R. Roy, "Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil-structure interaction," Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, no. 24, pp. 893-914, 2004.

[24] S. K. Nayak and K. C. Biswal, "Quantification of Seismic Response of Partially Filled Rectangular Liquid Tank with Submerged Block," Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2013.

[25] T. Cakir, "Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behaviour of cantiliver retaining wall including soil-structure interaction," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 45, pp. 96-111, 2013.

[26]

[27]

V. Gioncu and F. M. Mazzolani, Earthquake Engineering for Structural Design, London & New York: Spon Press, 2011

Y. Chin-Hsun, "Modeling of nonstationary ground motion and analysis of inelastic structural response," Structural Safety, vol. 8, no. 1-4, pp. 281-298, July 1990.








Documents

Seismic Response Study of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under … · 2019-11-14 · ground motion, 3D backfill using the finite element method - executing the soil interaction phenomena