Earthquake

© All Rights Reserved

18 views

Earthquake

© All Rights Reserved

- Evaluation of Egyptian Code Provisions for Seismic Design of Education Buildings
- Seismic Behvaior of Immersed Tunnels
- Seismic Design and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings Using Yield Point Spectra
- Thesis Precast
- Memo 62 Earthquake TSS RVK
- Guia Para Usar El Ibc
- Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra
- ASCE 7-05 Section 121211 Moment Frames in Structures Assigned to Seismic Design Categories D Through
- Effect Of Repeated Near Field Earthquake To The High-Rise Rc Building
- Solidworks Simulation Standard
- Adapting Earthquake Actions in Eurocode 8 for Performance-based Seismic Design
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
- seismic-design-of-rc-buildingsrahul-leslie080815-151125071557-lva1-app6891.ppt
- 89-CodeDevelStructureswithDamper
- Lect 7 Seismic
- Musatafa Pasha
- Horton 2002
- TankPush
- seismed.pdf
- k 03341011113

You are on page 1of 21

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283314712

with a Dome Roof in Moderate Seismic Region

of Saudi Arabia

DOI: 10.1007/s13369-015-1882-8

CITATIONS READS

0 38

3 authors:

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals King Fahd University of Petroleum and Miner

8 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS

M. H. Baluch

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

139 PUBLICATIONS 994 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Ajmal on 16 February 2017.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

DOI 10.1007/s13369-015-1882-8

Roof in Moderate Seismic Region of Saudi Arabia

M. Ajmal1 M. K. Rahman2 M. H. Baluch1

Received: 4 January 2015 / Accepted: 6 October 2015 / Published online: 26 October 2015

King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2015

Abstract Recent seismic events in low-to-moderate seis- Keywords Pushover analysis Hinge formation Shear

micity regions of Saudi Arabia have led to concerns on the wall Shell element approach Mid-pier approach Base

vulnerability of RC buildings constructed in Saudi Arabia shear Interstory Drift Finite element

up to mid-1990s. These buildings were designed for gravity

loads only, and potential for damage during seismic event is

high. Buildings with dome at the roof level are an architec-

tural feature in many buildings. Monolithic dome at the roof 1 Introduction

of the structure stiffens the upper part of structure requiring

special consideration in seismic design. This paper presents Seismic events in the past two decades have resulted in large-

the assessment of seismic vulnerability, using nonlinear sta- scale loss of human lives and damage to the structures. Recent

tic pushover analysis, of an eight-story building with shear earthquakes including 1995 Kobe in Japan, 1999 Kocaeli in

walls and a large dome at the roof level, under a moder- Turkey, 2005 Kashmir in Pakistan and 2010 in Chile and

ate intensity earthquake. The building is located in western Haiti have highlighted the susceptibility of concrete struc-

region of Saudi Arabia, which is Region 3 as per Saudi Build- tures to extensive damage, under earthquake loading. The

ing Code. Pushover analysis is carried out using the software 1994 Northridge earthquake in the USA also brings forth the

SAP2000 incorporating inelastic material behavior for con- massive economical losses due to damage to infrastructure

crete and steel, for a typical 2D frame in the building with and buildings designed to resist major seismic events.

a shear wall. The shear wall is modeled using the shell ele- Saudi Arabia was generally considered aseismic for sev-

ment and mid-pier approaches. A 3D pushover analysis of eral decades. Majority of structures built up to mid 1990s

the building is also carried out with mid-pier model for shear were not designed for seismic loads. Recent seismic events

walls. The presence of heavy mass at the roof results in yield- in Saudi Arabia (Tabuk 2004, Makkah 2005, Haradh 2006,

ing of hinges in the roof-level columns supporting the dome. Yanbu 2009, Madinah 2009, Jizan 2014) have led to concerns

The beams connected to the shear wall and the shear walls of on the safety of reinforced concrete buildings, which have

the building are deficient under seismic load. Strengthening not been designed for seismic loading. The Saudi Building

of beams, columns at the roof level under the dome and shear Code [1] has categorized the Kingdom into seven regions

walls is warranted to meet the seismic demand. in which the western region has been placed in Region

3 with moderate seismicity. Several public and commer-

cial reinforced concrete buildings constructed in moderate

B M. K. Rahman seismic region of Saudi Arabia are vulnerable to damage

mkrahman@kfupm.edu.sa and failure during a seismic event. Buildings designed only

1 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, King Fahd

for gravity loads have limited lateral load resistance and

University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are susceptible to column sidesway or soft story mech-

2 Center for Engineering Research, Research Institute, King

anism under earthquake load. For buildings, which are

Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, designed for gravity and wind loads, the lack of ductile

Saudi Arabia detailing at the beamcolumn joint and nonadherence to

123

1292 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

strong column weak beam concept makes them seismically to show that all nonlinear static pushover techniques tend to

deficient. lead to reasonably satisfactory results. Fahjan et al. [13] car-

Performance-based seismic design code has been imple- ried out a nonlinear static analysis of an existing reinforced

mented in the recent years for design of concrete structures building with shear wall. They modeled shear walls for an

in many countries e.g., in USA [26], in Japan [7], in existing school building by mid-pier as well as shell element

Europe [8] and in Turkey [9]. The performance-based seismic method and found that the pushover analysis for FEMA-356

design emphasizes that public buildings such as hospitals, model and the mid-pier model showed close results.

schools, fire stations and municipalities should remain func- This paper presents the nonlinear behavior of an exist-

tional after seismic events. Seismic capacity and seismic ing reinforced concrete public building in moderate seismic

demands for different performance levels of the structure region of Saudi Arabia, characterized by the presence of a

need to be computed to ensure the achievement of desired heavy mass in the form of dome at the roof, when subjected

performance level. Two methods available to the structural to seismic loading using nonlinear static pushover technique.

engineer to calculate seismic demand of a structure are Using pushover analysis, capacity of the structure, target roof

the dynamic time history analyses and the nonlinear static displacement, interstory drift ratio, formation of hinges and

pushover analyses. sequence of yielding of members are evaluated. Pushover

Pushover analysis of buildings is one of the performance- analysis is first carried out for a selected 2D frame from the

based seismic design approach, which can estimate forces building with a shear wall followed by a pushover analysis

acting on brittle elements, identify failure mechanism of the of the 3D building.

structure, provide interstory drifts, trace the formation of

hinge and sequence of yielding of members and the capac-

ity of structure under seismic demand. Pushover analysis has 2 Description of Building

been widely used in the recent years. It is simplified and

approximate method to evaluate the seismic performance The structure under investigation is an existing public build-

of structural system and to estimate the inelastic structural ing located in the western region of Saudi Arabia, which was

response when subjected to lateral displacement. constructed in mid-1990. The building has eight stories with

A large number of studies on pushover analysis of a typical story height of 3.2 m for first five stories, with the

hypothetical structures have been reported in literature. remaining three story heights being 4.2, 2.4 and 5 m, respec-

Few studies addressing seismic assessment of an actual tively. The plan area of the building is 40 m 40 m. The

structure using the pushover analysis have been reported. building consists of reinforced concrete frame elements and

Rana et al. [10] conducted a pushover analysis of nine- shear walls with ribbed and flat slab systems at different sto-

teen stories, slender concrete tower building located in San ries levels except at the roof level, which has an architectural

Francisco with a gross area of 430,000 square feet. Analy- dome with a mass of about 88,000 kg. The building is located

sis showed formation of hinges in walls and at spandrel in the seismic Region 3 as per SBC-301 and Zone 2B as per

locations, which was considered undesirable for the perfor- Uniform Building Code [14]. The soil strata is stiff soil which

mance objective. By performing trial runs with arbitrarily places the structure in site class D as per SBC-301, and being

increased shear strength of the shear hinges at these loca- a public building the importance factor (I ) is taken as 1.25.

tions, shear-strengthening requirement was quantified. Shear For Region 3, the SBC-301 stipulates the maximum spectral

strengthening of the building enhanced the capacity of the response acceleration at short periods (Ss ) and 1-s (S1 ) are

structure to the desired performance level. Goksu et al. [11] 0.55 and 0.17 g, respectively.

performed a pushover analysis of a typical RC building in

Turkey with all typical construction faults. They investigated

the behavior of existing and retrofitted building frame using 3 Modeling of the Structure for Pushover Analysis

concrete and CFRP jackets. The pushover analysis results

showed a significant enhancement in strength due to retro- A typical plan and 3D model of the building showing the

fitting. beams and columns are shown in Fig. 1. Seismic assess-

3D pushover analysis is an attractive alternative for assess- ment of the building is carried out using pushover analysis.

ing the performance of an irregular reinforced concrete The pushover analysis is carried out for a typical 2D frame

building. Phino et al. [12] assessed 3D irregular SPEAR test with shear wall in the building followed by the 3D pushover

building (a full-scale model tested under pseudo-dynamic analysis of the whole building. The 2D frame consists of two

conditions and subjected to bidirectional seismic loading) shear walls and seven bays. Each story has different sections

using four commonly available nonlinear static procedures. for beams and columns. Figure 2 shows a typical frame of

The comparisons with the results obtained from nonlinear the building with shear walls (designated as FR1) which is

dynamic analysis of a verified model of the structure seemed selected for pushover analysis.

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1293

Fig. 1 a Typical plan of building at various levels, b 3D computer model of the building

3.1 Mechanical Properties and Loading the building as per SBC-301 and UBC-1997 are shown in

Table 6.

The mechanical properties of steel reinforcement and con-

crete used in the design and maintained in the construction 3.2 Shear Wall Modeling

phase are shown in Table 1. The average compressive strength

of the concrete is 30 MPa, and the yield strength of the For pushover analysis, the shear wall in the building is mod-

reinforcing steel is 420 MPa. The cross section and reinforce- eled using two approaches (1) shell element method and (2)

ments in the shear walls, beams and columns are shown in mid-pier idealization of shear walls. In the shell element

Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Dead and live loads used for approach, a multilayer shell element is used which com-

the analysis are summarized in Table 5. Dead loads consist prises of concrete and smeared rebar layers with material

of the weight of slabs, flooring for the selected frame, floor- properties as shown Fig. 3. The shell element formulation is

ing for the roof, internal partitions and electromechanical based on the assumption that plane section remains plane.

devices. Based on this assumption, first axial strains and curvatures

The seismic loads for the building are calculated using are obtained for the elements, and then using constitutive

FEMA-356 since the mass participation in the fundamen- relationships, stresses are computed. The nonlinear behavior

tal mode is more than 75 %. FEMA-356 design code lateral of shear wall modeled with shell element can be examined by

load distribution pattern is adopted which has the pattern stresses in concrete and steel layers. However, the ATC-40

of first mode shape. The center of mass of the build- and FEMA-356 plastic rotation performance level cannot be

ing is calculated based on mass distribution at each node. assessed using this approach. The stresses in concrete and

For 3D pushover analysis, the lateral loads are applied steel can give an indication of hinge formation, but not the

at the center of the mass. The accidental eccentricity is performance level.

ignored in the seismic loading in order to observe the lat- In mid-pier approach, the shear wall is modeled as

eral load effect on the walls. The seismic parameters for an equivalent mid-pier frame element and rigid beams as

123

1294 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

building selected for analysis

Table 1 Material properties for structural elements 3.3 Effective Flexural Stiffness of Frame Elements

Properties MPa

According to ATC-40, FEMA-356 and ASCE-41, the effec-

Compressive strength of concrete ( f c ) 30 tive flexural stiffness of a cracked section of the structural

Modulus of elasticity of concrete (E c ) 25,743 members should be used in pushover analysis. A nonlinear

Yield stress of rebar ( f y ) 420 static analysis is performed using the flexural stiffness of the

Ultimate stress of rebar ( f u ) 620 uncracked sections by considering the vertical loads compat-

Modulus of elasticity of steel (E s ) 200,000 ible with story lumped mass (1.0DL + 0.25LL). The axial

loads obtained from this analysis are used for calculating

the effective flexural stiffness values of beams, columns and

shown in Fig. 4. Plastic hinge concept and momentrotation walls. According to ASCE-41, effective flexural stiffness for

relationship are considered in the mid-pier model for the non- different members can be determined as shown in Table 7.

linear behavior of the wall. Plastic hinges are placed in the For the columns if AgPf 0.5, the effective stiffness can

c

mid-pier element at the location where yielding is expected be taken as 0.7 E c Ig , and if P

Ag f c 0.1, the effective stiffness

(Fig. 4), and the remaining part between the plastic hinges is P

can be taken as 0.3 E c Ig . If the value of Ag f c lies between

kept linear elastic.

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1295

Shear wall Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Vertical Horizontal Boundary elements reinforcement

reinforcement reinforcement

Longitudinal Ties

reinforcement

SW200 200 7200 12 @ 200 mm 12 @ 200 mm 820 10 @ 200 mm

SW300 300 4200 12 @ 200 mm 12 @ 200 mm 616 10 @ 200 mm

Beam b (mm) h (mm) Bottom rebar Top reinforcement Stirrups

reinforcement details

Mid-span Left support Right support

K9 300 500 316 625 625 625 10 @ 150 mm

K10 300 500 325 316 625 322 10 @ 100 mm

K11 300 500 325 316 325 625 10 @ 100 mm

K16 500 500 820 414 414 414 8 @ 100 mm

K17 500 500 1125 620 620 620 8 @ 50 mm

K28 300 900 425 416 416 416 8 @ 200 mm

Table 4 Column dimensions and reinforcement details Table 6 Seismic parameters for the structure

Column b (mm) h (mm) Longitudinal Ties Description SBC-301 [1] UBC [14]

reinforcement

Seismic zone Region 3 2B

1A13 300 600 1422 310 @ 142 mm

Building importance 1.25 1.25

2A13 300 500 1222 310 @ 142 mm factor (I )

3A13 300 500 1222 310 @ 142 mm Local site class D (stiff soil) D (stiff soil)

4A13 300 400 1016 210 @ 167 mm Structural behavior 6.5 8.5

5A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm response factor (R)

6A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm Live load participation 0.25 0.25

7A13 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm factor (n)

1A11 300 600 1422 210 @ 167 mm

2A11 300 600 1420 210 @ 167 mm 0.5 and 0.3, a linear interpolation method can be used. The

3A11 300 600 1420 210 @ 167 mm effective stiffness values for columns are shown in Table 8.

4A11 300 400 1016 210 @ 167 mm

5A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm 3.4 Modeling of Plastic Hinges

6A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm

7A11 300 300 816 210 @ 200 mm In pushover analysis, a forcedeformation curve is needed

for the plastic hinges. A typical force deformation curve for

hinge is shown in Fig. 5a. The points A, B, C, D and E on the

Table 5 Applied loads on structure

curve characterize the forcedeformation behavior of hinge,

Load description Load value (kN/m2 ) and the points between B and C represent ATC-40 acceptance

Slab (0.1 m) 2.38

criteria for the hinge which are immediate occupancy (IO),

life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP). The values of

Flooring for typical floors 0.94

these performance levels recommended by ATC-40 for IO,

Flooring for the roof 1.43

LS and CP are 0.2, 0.5 and 0.9, where is the length

Superimposed load 0.50

of plastic hinge plateau as shown in Fig. 5b.

Live loads for typical floors 4.80

The beams and columns in the structure are modeled using

Live loads for roof 2.40

an elastic plastic beamcolumn element. The members are

modeled as an elastic beam element with two rigid plastic

123

1296 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

element, b shell element model

for the shear wall

hinges at the ends. The maximum strain values for concrete The resulting momentcurvature relationship for the beam

of 0.003 and for steel of 0.05 (considering strain harden- K28 is shown in Fig. 8. The momentcurvature curve is

ing) according to ASCE-41 and FEMA-356 are used for the converted into bilinear idealized momentplastic rotation by

definition of plastic hinges at the member ends. The stress using Eqs. 1 and 2.

strain curve for the plastic hinges for concrete is obtained

using the Mander unconfined and confined concrete model p = u y (1)

(Mander et al. [15]). The unconfined concrete model is used

p = p L p (2)

for the outer layer of the section extending from the trans-

verse reinforcement to the surface, and confined concrete

model is used for the core concrete. A parabolic strain- where p = plastic curvature; u = ultimate curvature;

hardening stressstrain curve is used for the reinforcing y = yield curvature; p = plastic hinge rotation; L p =

steel. plastic hinge length (L p = 0.5 times depth of the section

according to ACI 318-08 [17]).

The momentrotation relation thus obtained is used for

3.4.1 Plastic Hinges at Beam Ends pushover analysis. Figure 9 shows the idealized moment

rotation curve for the typical beam K28.

The momentcurvature relationship for the plastic hinges in

beams is obtained using the software XTRACT [16]. For a 3.4.2 Plastic Hinge at the Ends of Columns and Shear walls

typical beam (Beam K28, refer to Fig. 2), the cross-sectional

details and typical stressstrain curve for steel are shown in The loadmoment interaction curves for the plastic hinges

Fig. 6. The stressstrain curves obtained from the Mander at the column and shear wall ends are obtained from the

unconfined and confined concrete models for the beam K28 XTRACT [6] software. The moment and axial force interac-

are shown in Fig. 7. tion curve is created for neutral axis angles of 0 , 45 ,

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1297

frame FR1 for the shear wall

Table 7 Effective stiffnesses for the structural elements the column 1A13 and the shear wall SW200 are shown in

Component Flexural Shear Axial Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.

rigidity rigidity rigidity

Columns P

0.5 0.7 E c Ig 0.4 E c Aw E c Ag

4 Pushover Analysis of the Structure

Ag f c

Columns P

0.1 or

Ag f c 0.3 E c Ig 0.4 E c Aw E c Ag Nonlinear static pushover analysis is carried out to assess

with tension

the adequacy of the design for the building under seismic

loading. Structural analysis software SAP2000 [18] is used

90 , 135 and 180 to get the 3D interaction surface for this purpose. Pushover is carried out for a selected shear

which is required for 3D pushover analysis of the building. wall frame FR1 of the building (Fig. 2) and 3D building

Typical cross-sectional details and 3D interaction curves for (Fig. 1b). Nonlinear models of the frame FR1 and the 3D

123

1298 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Section Axial load Ag (mm2 ) P

Ag f c Effective flexural

P (kN) rigidity (EI)e

2A13 1415.6 150,000 0.31 0.515 E c Ig

3A13 1246.5 150,000 0.28 0.477 E c Ig

4A13 1074.2 120,000 0.30 0.498 E c Ig

5A13 869.1 90,000 0.32 0.521 E c Ig

6A13 665.8 90,000 0.25 0.447 E c Ig

7A13 554.2 90,000 0.21 0.405 E c Ig

8A13 528.9 90,000 0.20 0.396 E c Ig

1A11 1230.4 180,000 0.23 0.428 E c Ig

2A11 1042.9 180,000 0.19 0.393 E c Ig

3A11 852.9 180,000 0.16 0.358 E c Ig

4A11 632.9 120,000 0.18 0.376 E c Ig

5A11 441.6 90,000 0.16 0.364 E c Ig

6A11 260.1 90,000 0.10 0.300 E c Ig

7A11 90.4 90,000 0.03 0.300 E c Ig

for steel

section.

For 2D frame FR1, pushover analysis is carried out for

two models. In the first model, the shear wall is model using

finite element with multilayer shell element, and in the second

model, the mid-pier idealization of the shear wall is used

together with assigned hinges as shown in Fig. 12. For 3D

pushover analysis of the building mid-pier idealization of the

shear wall is adopted.

The pushover analysis of the frame FR1 and 3D building

is carried out by first analyzing the structure for grav-

ity loads (1.0DL + 0.25LL). The structure is subsequently

subjected to incremental static lateral seismic loads up to

the collapse of the structure in both positive and nega-

tive x-directions. The pushover curves thus generated are

Fig. 5 a Typical forcedeformation curve, b typical momentrotation

curve with acceptance criteria for hinge transformed into first mode capacity curves on the modal

accelerationdisplacement coordinates using transformation

Eqs. 3 and 4.

building are generated by assigning plastic hinges at the ends

of the columns and the beams. Momentcurvature curves for (i)

Vx1

beams and 3D loadmoment interaction surfaces for columns a1 = (3)

Mx1

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1299

1500

1000

Moment(kNm)

500

0

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

-500

-1000

-1500

Rotation (rad)

(i)

at ith step, Vx1 is the base shear at ith step in x-direction, and

Mx1 is the participated mass at the fundamental period in x-

direction.

(i)

(i) ux N1

d1 = (4)

x N 1 x1

(i)

where d1 is the modal displacement of the fundamental

period at ith step, x1 is the modal participation factor of the

Fig. 7 a Unconfined concrete stressstrain curve; b confined concrete fundamental period in x-direction, and x N 1 represents the

stressstrain curve

modal shape of N th story at the fundamental period of x-

direction. u (i)

x N 1 is the top displacement value in x-direction,

obtained from ith step of the pushover analysis.

1500 Capacity curves are then used to determine the perfor-

mance point of the frame FR1 and 3D structure using

1000 FEMA-356 capacity spectrum method (CSM). Capacity

curves and designed response spectrums for 5, 10, 15 and

500 20 % damping ratios for building in western region are plot-

Moment (kNm)

0 curves and designed response spectrums gives the demand

-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 displacement. Demand displacement is transformed to roof

-500

displacement which gives an adequate measure of the tar-

get displacement that the frame FR1 and 3D building are

-1000

expected to experience due to the design earthquake excita-

tion.

-1500

Curvature (rad/m)

5 Results and Discussion for Pushover Analysis of

Fig. 8 Momentcurvature curve for the beam K28 Shear Wall Frame Fr1

the building with shear wall is carried out until the collapse

123

1300 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

and 3D interaction curve for the

column 1A13

9000

0 PMM Interacon

7000

Axial Force (kN)

45 PMM Interacon

5000 90 PMM Interacon

135 PMM Interacon

3000

1000

0, -2235

-3000

Moment (kNm)

50000

0 PMM Interacon

40000

45 PMM Interacon

Axial Force (kN)

135 PMM Interacon

20000

10000

0

-50000 -30000 -10000 10000 30000 50000

-10000

Moment (kNm)

Fig. 11 Cross-sectional details and 3D interaction curve for the shear wall SW200

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1301

Pushover curves for the FR1 frame, modeled with shell ele-

ment and mid-pier approach, are shown in Fig. 13. It can be

seen from Fig. 13 the curves are linear in the beginning, but

start to deviate from linearity as beams and columns undergo

inelastic action. From Fig. 13, it can be seen that the pushover

curves for both approaches are almost identical. The base

shears in the positive x-direction for the frame FR1 modeled

with shell element and mid-pier approach at a displacement

of 0.21 m are 5390.76 and 5066.87 kN, respectively, whereas

in the negative x-direction, the base shears are 5483.87 and

5514.70 kN, respectively. The base shear values are close

using the two approaches. For the design of new structures,

professional engineers can use the mid-pier approach with a

reasonable degree of accuracy with less computational time.

However, for forensic investigations of buildings and retro-

fitting of shear walls in existing structures, it would be more

appropriate to use the shell element approach as one can

visualize the stresses in concrete and steel.

FR1 modeled with shell element approach in the positive

and negative x-directions, and Figs. 16 and 17 show the per-

formance points for mid-pier approach. Table 9 shows the

base shear and target displacement of the frame FR1 using

shell element and mid-pier methods at performance point.

The seismic demand for the frame FR1 is 80 mm for shell

element and 82 mm for mid-pier approach in the positive

x-direction. The displacement capacity for the structure is

210 mm at which point the structure is in a collapse state.

Fig. 12 Plastic hinges assigned to frame FR1 for the shell element and

mid-pier methods 5.3 Hinge Formation at Demand Displacement

with shell element based on acceptance criteria for hinge.

the frame FR1 modeled with the +X Mid-Pier Model

shell element and mid-pier 4000

-X Mid-Pier Model

approach

+X Shell Element Model

2000

Base shear (kN)

0

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000

Displacement (m)

123

1302 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

the positive x-direction for the

frame FR1 modeled with shell

element approach

the negative x-direction for the

frame FR1 modeled with shell

element approach

Figures 19 and 20 show the crushing of the concrete and walls for the seismic demand. Therefore, the shear walls of

yielding of steel at the base of shear walls, which is an the building need to be retrofitted to meet the seismic demand.

indication of hinge formation in the shear walls at demand Figure 21 shows the hinge formation for the frame FR1 mod-

displacement when the frame is pushed in positive x- eled with mid-pier approach. Both shell element and mid-pier

direction. approach show approximately similar patterns of hinge for-

It can be seen from Fig. 19 that the maximum stress in mation. Some additional hinges in mid-pier approach result

a concrete is 33.6 MPa, which exceeds the average concrete from the slightly higher seismic demand obtained for this

compressive strength of 30 MPa. Similarly, Fig. 20 shows approach.

that the maximum stress in the steel is 455 MPa exceeding the It can be seen from Figs. 18 and 21 that the columns below

yield strength of 420 MPa. The pushover analysis using shell the frame supporting the dome (7th storey) are yielding at

element method clearly shows the deficiency of the shear the demand displacement. This violates the strong column

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1303

the positive x-direction for the

frame FR1 modeled with

mid-pier approach

the negative x-direction for the

frame FR1 modeled with

mid-pier approach

Frame model Direction Spectral Spectral Base shear Displacement

the frame FR1 from the capacity

acceleration, displacement, (kN) (m)

spectrum method

Sa (g) Sd (m)

Shell element X 0.333 0.051 4227.5 0.077

Mid-pier +X 0.342 0.054 4199.7 0.082

Mid-pier X 0.369 0.054 4516.3 0.080

weak beam philosophy for seismic design. Several column This depicts the fact that the effect of dome at the top of

elements entered into the inelastic range at the top of the the building has not been incorporated in the design of the

building (under the dome) as compared to the lower level. building under seismic load. Pushover analysis of the frame

123

1304 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Fig. 18 Hinge formation at demand displacement for the frame FR1 modeled with shell element approach

FR1 carried out for higher seismic demand (seismic Region 5.4 Lateral Displacement and Interstory Drift Ratio

1 in Saudi Arabia) portrays a strong probability of collapse (IDR)

of the dome and frame at the higher levels of the build-

ing. This behavior also shows that the building has not been Figure 22 shows the lateral displacement for the frame FR1

designed for seismic loads. It is therefore assessed that the model with shell element and mid-pier method in posi-

building needs to be retrofitted to ensure the IO (immedi- tive and negative x-directions at demand displacement. The

ate occupancy) performance level. The columns at the top maximum lateral displacement for the two at a demand dis-

storey level under the dome should be retrofitted to meet the placement is 8.0 and 8.2 cm, respectively, whereas in the

seismic demands and to ensure that the dome does not col- negative x-direction is 7.7 and 8.0 cm, respectively.

lapse. The elements such as domes, lanterns at the top of The interstory drift in a building is an important damage

the structure are particularly vulnerable to damage in a seis- parameter commonly used to assess the vulnerability of the

mic event due to stiffening and heavy mass at the top level structure to seismic loading. The interstory drift ratios are

[19]. computed using Eq. 3.

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1305

30

25

20

Height(m)

15

shell model

10

shell model

mid-pier model

5 mid-pier model

0

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Lateral Displacement (cm)

displacement

Figure 23 shows the interstory drift ratio for the frame FR1

model with shell element and mid-pier approach in positive

and negative x-directions at the demand displacement.

The maximum interstory drift ratios in the positive x-

direction for the frame FR1 at the demand displacement are

0.344 and 0.363 %, respectively, whereas in the negative x-

direction these are 0.317 and 0.331 %, respectively. It can be

observed from Figs. 22 and 23 that the maximum lateral dis-

placement and maximum interstory drift ratio obtained from

mid-pier approach give very close results to the shell element

approach.

Fig. 21 Hinge formation at demand displacement for the frame FR1

modeled with mid-pier approach

6 Results and Discussion for 3D Pushover Analysis

i

i = (3) of the Building

hi

where i is interstory drift ratio; h i is the story height; i is The capacity curve for 3D pushover analysis of the build-

the relative floor displacement. ing in x-direction is shown in Fig. 24. The pushover analysis

123

1306 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

Shell Element model Shell Element model

(IDR) for the frame FR1 at

demand displacement 8

Story

5

4

Mid-Pier model

3

Mid-Pier model 2

0

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Interstorey Drif Ratio (%)

x-direction for 3D building

30000

20000

Base Shear (kN)

10000

0

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

-10000

-20000

-30000

-40000

Displacement (m)

30

shows the formation of hinges in the beams connected to

shear walls and in shear walls at a very small displacement. 25

Lateral displacement and interstory drift ratio are shown in

Figs. 25 and 26. The target displacement at performance 20

Height(m)

15

itive and negative x-directions, which is very close to the

demand level, obtained from 2D pushover analysis of the 10

frame (0.082 m).

The plastic hinge formations in the 3D building are shown 5

in Figs. 27 and 28. Formation of hinges clearly shows

0

that the members of the building are designed for grav- -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

ity loads only. It can be observed that the shear walls are Lateral Displacement (cm)

deficient in resisting the seismic load. The 3D pushover

analysis shows that at the seismic demand level, hinges cor- Fig. 25 Lateral displacement of stories for 3D building at demand

displacement

responding to LS (life safety) are formed in most of beams

connected to the shear wall. Plastic hinges are also formed

the dome. The shear walls are also observed to be defi-

in columns at the top story levels under the dome, which

cient at the demand level. It can be seen from Figs. 27 and

is indicative of deficiency of the supporting members for

28 that most of the hinges can be categorized into LS (life

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1307

the building from 3D pushover

analysis 8

Story

4

0

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Interstory Drift Ratio (%)

the positive x-direction at

demand displacement

safety) as per FEMA-356. The 3D pushover analysis high- obtained from 2D and 3D analysis. It can be seen from Fig. 29

lights the deficiency of the building particularly the beams that the 3D pushover curve is stiffer and gives higher base

connected to the shear walls and the columns under the shear as compared to 2D analysis because the members and

dome. shear walls connected to the frame FR1 in orthogonal direct

For comparison of 2D and 3D pushover analysis results, are not considered in 2D analysis. The base shear in the pos-

the shear wall frame FR1 is considered. Figure 29 shows itive x-direction at a target displacement of 0.21 m from 3D

the comparison between the pushover curves of frame FR1 analysis is 6014 kN which is 1.15 times more than the base

123

1308 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

the negative x-direction at

demand displacement

the 2D and 3D pushover curves

3D Pushover curve

for the frame FR1 6000

2D Pushover Curve

4000

Base Shear (kN)

2000

0

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000

Displacement (m)

shear obtained from 2D analysis, whereas it is 1.17 times the frame FR1 at the demand displacement, from 2D and 3D

more in the negative x-direction. pushover analysis, is 8.2 and 8.5 cm, respectively (Fig. 31).

Figure 30 shows a comparison between the hinge forma- In the negative x-direction, the maximum lateral displace-

tions in frame FR1 for the 2D and 3D model. The figure ment is 8.0 and 8.86 cm, respectively. It is apparent that the

shows sequence of yielding of members, and shear walls are 2D pushover analysis response of a typical 2D frame in the

almost similar at the demand level for the 2D and 3D model. building is close to that obtained for the same frame from 3D

The 3D model hinges show higher plastic deformation (LS as pushover analysis of the building. The 2D pushover analysis

per FEMA-356) as compared to 2D model in frame FR1. The of a typical frame in a building can be utilized to predict the

maximum lateral displacement in the positive x-direction for demand displacement for a 3D structure.

123

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310 1309

formation at demand

displacement for frame FR1

frame from 2D and 3D pushover

analysis

30

The shell element approach for modeling the shear wall

brings forth the deficiency in the shear wall with the crushing

25

of concrete and yielding of the reinforcing steel at the base

20 level, which is an indication of hinge formation. In the mid-

Height(m)

15 hinge status of shell element and mid-pier approach at max-

3D (Posive) imum displacement provides almost the same pattern. The

10 3D (Negave) mid-pier model is suitable for the design of new structures,

2D (Posive) but for retrofitting of shear wall in existing structures, shell

5 2D (Negave)

element model is more appropriate.

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 Acknowledgments The study is being funded by King Fahd Uni-

versity of Petroleum and Minerals under Project Number IN101028.

Lateral Displacement (cm)

The support of the Civil Engineering Department and Center for Engi-

neering Research Institute at KFUPM is gratefully acknowledged. The

Fig. 31 Comparison of the lateral displacement of stories at demand

authors acknowledge the support provided by Istanbul Technical Uni-

displacement for the frame FR1

versity and Earthquake Engineering Center to the KFUPM graduate

students involved in this project.

7 Conclusions References

Nonlinear static pushover analysis is a powerful tool to assess 1. SBC-301: Saudi Building Code for Load and Forces Requirements.

the seismic vulnerability of existing structures. Inelastic per- Saudi Arabia (2007)

2. ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.

formance assessment of an eight-story public building with

Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA (1997)

a large dome at the roof level, under a moderate inten- 3. ATC-55: Evaluation and Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analy-

sity earthquake using the pushover analysis revealed several sis Procedures. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA

deficiencies in the structure at the seismic demand level. (2001)

4. ASCE-41: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American

Development of hinges in the beams and columns at a low

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), USA (2006)

level of displacement shows that the building was designed 5. FEMA-356: Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Reha-

for the gravity load only. Pushover analysis showed hinges bilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency,

forming in the columns at the roof level under the dome indi- Reston, Virginia (2002)

6. FEMA-440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis

cating the possibility of the collapse of the dome. Both 2D Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reston, Vir-

and 3D pushover analyses show that the building needs to ginia (2005)

be retrofitted to meet the seismic demands. The columns at 7. BCJ: The Seismic Design Code for Building in Japan. Japan (2009)

top level need to be strengthened to preclude the collapse 8. CEN: Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-

part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN

of the dome. The beams connected to the shear walls and 1998-1:2004. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels (2004)

the shear walls itself need to be retrofitted to achieve the IO 9. TEC: Turkish Earthquake Design Resistant Code. Ankara, Turkey

(immediate occupancy) performance level for this important (2007)

public building. In the buildings with heavy mass at the roof 10. Rana, R.; Jin, L.; Zekioglu, A.: Pushover analysis of a 19 story con-

crete shear wall building. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake

(dome), it is important to provide adequate reinforcement in Engineering. Canada (2004)

the columns at top level to preclude formation of hinges at 11. Goksu, C.; Demir, C.; Darilmaz, K.; Ilki, A.; Kumbasar, N.: Sta-

this level under a seismic loading. tic nonlinear analysis of a retrofitted typical reinforced concrete

123

1310 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:12911310

building in Turkey. In: 8th U.S. National Conference on Earth- 16. XTRACT: Cross Section Analysis Program for Structural Engi-

quake Engineering. California, USA (2006) neers. IMBSEN & Associates Inc., USA (2007)

12. Pinho, R.; Bento; Bhatt, C.: Assessing the 3D irregular SPEAR 17. ACI: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Amer-

building with nonlinear static procedures. In: 14th World confer- ican Concrete Institute, USA (2008)

ence on earthquake engineering. Beijing, China (2008) 18. SAP2000: Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Struc-

13. Fahjan, Y.M.; Kubin, J.; Tan, M.T.: Nonlinear analysis methods tures 14.0. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California

for reinforced concrete building with shear walls. In: 14th Euro- (2009)

pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ohrid, Republic of 19. Sonda, D.; Cossu, M.; Miyamoto, H.K.: Seismic improvement of

Macedonia (2010) monumental churches with domes. In: 15th World Conference on

14. UBC: Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Build- Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal (2012)

ing Officials, USA (1997)

15. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R.: Theoretical stressstrain

model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Div. ASCE 114:18041826

(1988)

123

- Evaluation of Egyptian Code Provisions for Seismic Design of Education BuildingsUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Seismic Behvaior of Immersed TunnelsUploaded byKiana Hashemi
- Seismic Design and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings Using Yield Point SpectraUploaded byGabriel Ionita
- Thesis PrecastUploaded byAlexa Aleda
- Memo 62 Earthquake TSS RVKUploaded byMirjana Filip's Mum
- Guia Para Usar El IbcUploaded byFrancis Vanessa Valladares Duarte
- Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand SpectraUploaded byanser_ti68400
- ASCE 7-05 Section 121211 Moment Frames in Structures Assigned to Seismic Design Categories D ThroughUploaded bySherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Effect Of Repeated Near Field Earthquake To The High-Rise Rc BuildingUploaded byAde Faisal
- Solidworks Simulation StandardUploaded bysherwin perez
- Adapting Earthquake Actions in Eurocode 8 for Performance-based Seismic DesignUploaded bySouliman Alkhoder
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDINGUploaded byJournal 4 Research
- seismic-design-of-rc-buildingsrahul-leslie080815-151125071557-lva1-app6891.pptUploaded byhipreyash
- 89-CodeDevelStructureswithDamperUploaded byCindy Chan
- Lect 7 SeismicUploaded byKyatoor Santosh
- Musatafa PashaUploaded byIlmi Ferati
- Horton 2002Uploaded byAnonymous kLnqFYq
- TankPushUploaded byBeny Abdou
- seismed.pdfUploaded byLobsang Matos
- k 03341011113Uploaded byPaula-Alexandra Neagu
- Lecture 17.4 Structural Analysis for Seismic ActionsUploaded byJACK
- Parametric Study on Curved Bridges SubjeUploaded bydiablopapanatas
- EQ_1Uploaded byeli700
- Www.asce.Org - ASCE_SEI 7-2002 Errata_Section922_04Uploaded byMIKHA2014
- thesisUploaded byPraveen Shrestha
- CIVI454-CHAP6-2019Uploaded byGuangjun Ou
- P650-658Uploaded byAnonymous USbc7XzsA6
- Construcciones de Madera en SismosUploaded byDiego Dja
- 1%2E1585993Uploaded byFrancisco Héctor Bañuelos
- 8.pptxUploaded byankush

- BEHAVIOUR OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE EXPOSEDUploaded byJasson Statham
- DNVGL-ST-0126.pdfUploaded byhabibmusthafa
- Corbel Design PaperUploaded bykapola
- Behavior of Reinforced CorbelUploaded bySumanth
- 318-14_CrossReference_2011to2014Uploaded bySumanth
- 318-14_CrossReference_2011to2014Uploaded byfoush basha
- ACI 318 14 Changes PCI JournalUploaded bySumanth
- Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete - Recent Research.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Significant Changes From the 2011 to the 2014 Edition of ACI318,SK Ghosh, PCI JournalUploaded byZiyad12
- Canadian Standards Association-Design of Concrete Structures-Canadian Standard Association (2004)Uploaded bySumanth
- IStructE Recommendations for the permissible stress design of reinforced concrete building structures.pdfUploaded byRajiv Sawaruth
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-14.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04Uploaded byMbayo David Godfrey
- GIAN 2017 BrochurUploaded bySumanth
- Preview of Performance Based Specifications and Control of Concrete Durability State of the Art Report RILEM TC 230 PSCUploaded bySumanth
- Properties of Concrete2, 5th EditionUploaded byUsman Ilyas
- Book PMonteiroUploaded bysantiago
- US Army - Geo Technical Notes.docUploaded bySumanth
- GIT-SDPUploaded byfiq
- Geotech - Wedge.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Earth Rod ResistanceUploaded bySumanth
- WilsonbookUploaded bychuncho88
- Seismic Design of SMFsUploaded bysbayegan8
- nistgcr10-917-5Uploaded bygustic1
- NEHRP PROVISIONS SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Seismic Design of Steel Structures.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Siesmic design of irregular rcc.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Building (3)Uploaded bypaulkohan
- Seismic Design of Building Structures - UBCUploaded bySumanth
- Non Structural Elements in BuildingsUploaded byashuswara

- Memory TimingsUploaded byerdstyle9382
- DSD ReportUploaded byDahal Binay
- Global-Atlas-of-Excreta-Waste-Water-Sludge-And-Biosolids-Management-Moving-forward-the-sustainable-and-welcome-uses-of-a-global-resourceUploaded byanwarh
- pbsregisterofsponsorsUploaded byGurusubramaniam Sankaran
- BTS3900 Installation Guide-(V100_03)Uploaded byn1sovile
- udt-2009Uploaded byAbhilash Bhanu
- SRS Banking AssignmentUploaded bySonal Parihar Chauhan
- Aromat-NAIS-PLC-FP0Uploaded byMitrita Zanet
- Davidas de Villanueva v. Villanueva G.R. No. L-29959Uploaded byfg
- Den TonicUploaded bykzm3
- ForumZFD - Job Announcement Project Officer ButuanUploaded byforumZFD Philippines
- ALGAEXUploaded byFrank Higuera
- Bond ValuationsUploaded bySyed Shabbir Rizvi
- Elkton man charged in alleged ‘sexting’ caseUploaded byFOX45
- Characterization of Fractured RockUploaded bydtraylor44
- Summary and Review of ElectromagentismUploaded byterrylim
- AWC-ASCE7-05-SnowProvisions-0607.pdfUploaded byReza Shahsana
- M.E Thermal Engg 2016-2017 Syllabus (1ihuiu).pdfUploaded byAnonymous kewC5C30c
- Linux CommandsUploaded byMario T.
- Recorded-15-03984 - Lancaster City EVIDENCE of CONSPIRACY to CONDEMN and EXTORT PROPERTY - With Banking History for PNC, Wells Fargo, And Bank of Bird-In-Hand - Published August 12, 2016Uploaded byStan J. Caterbone
- CSR LavondaUploaded byPhan Qui
- pptUploaded bysohial
- Mello Chapter 6Uploaded bynopri dwi rizki
- Social and Cultural ForcesUploaded bykulsoomalam
- Bengkel Teknik Menjawab Fizik 2013Uploaded byleelee1127
- 110Uploaded byAhmad Firdaus
- ccs_conduct_rules_1964_details revised 2000Uploaded byapi-20002381
- Economic Order QuantityUploaded byZafar Iqbal
- Example Sheet 1Uploaded bymeochip21
- Opp and Threats of AutomobilesUploaded byfareesa_b3043