Multi-Dynamic Analysis and Design of a Tall Building

Syed Abbas Ahmed1, A.Sivakumara2

1,2

Structural Engineering Department, VIT University abbas_ahmed@live.com sivakumara@vit.ac.in concern. Seismic loading requires an understanding of the structural behaviour under large in-elastic cyclic deformations. Behaviour under this loading is fundamentally different from wind or gravity loading, requiring much more detailed analysis, and application of a number of stringent detailing requirements to assure acceptable seismic performance beyond the elastic range. A simple, symmetric yet sophisticated shaped structure was modelled in a finite element based software namely, ETABS (Extended Three dimensional Analysis of Building Structures). II. DESCRIPTION The model was first given a trial section for the structural members and was analysed for the same. The static analysis was carried out on the model with the given trial sections assigned to it. From the corresponding analysis and design results, an estimate was arrived at to how the building was behaving and how far the sections provided have performed on the self-weight and lateral loads on it. The location considered for this building is Bhuj, Gujarat. The building comprises of a central section along with 4 symmetrical wings in the 4 directions. Provided with an opening at the centre for the core wall. Number of storeys: G + 15 Storey Height: 3.1 metres Total height of the building: 50 metres Built up area of the building: 1296 sq. metres

Abstract In this paper, the dynamic seismic and wind analysis of a tall R.C.C framed building subjected to wind and earthquake excitation using software. The main objective of current research is to study dynamic responses due to the seismic and wind excitation on a high rise building and its respective responses to it. Analysis results of the R.C.C framed high rise model is studied and accordingly economical sections were to be provided, sections suitable for both seismic and wind excitations. A + shaped structure was analyzed and designed for, such that the various structural members like beam, column and shear wall are economically designed to resist both the dynamic lateral loads of seismic and wind.

KeywordsDynamic, seismic, wind, tall building, economical

I. INTRODUCTION Analysis and design of structures occupy an important place in the field of Civil Engineering. Modern day structures are usually complex in geometry and are made of a combination of several materials. In order to ensure that structures do not fail during their intended design life period with catastrophic and unpredictable consequences, proper analysis and design are mandatory. Wind is the term used for air in motion and is usually applied to the natural horizontal motion of the atmosphere. The flow of wind is not steady and fluctuates in a random fashion. The flow of wind is complex because many flow situations arise from the interaction of wind with structures. Windstorms pose a variety of problems in buildings, particularly tall buildings causing concerns for building owners and engineers alike. In designing for wind, a building cannot be considered independent of its surroundings. The influence of nearby buildings and land configuration on the sway response of the building can be substantial. Following are some of the criteria that are important in designing for wind: 1) Strength and stability. 2) Fatigue in structure members and connections caused by fluctuating wind loads. 3) Excessive lateral deflection that may cause cracking of internal partitions and external cladding, misalignment of mechanical systems and possible permanent deformations of structural elements. Structural design of building for seismic loading is primarily concerned with structural safety during major earthquakes, but serviceability and the potential for economic loss are also a

Plan of the building (Dimensions in metres)

Earthquake Parameters: Seismic zone considered Zone V Soil Type Soft soil Importance Factor High Response reduction factor 3

Wind Parameters: Wind Speed 50 m/s Terrain Category 3 Structure class A Risk co-efficient 1.08 Windward Co-efficient 0.8 Leeward Co-efficient 0.5 The model was first given trial sections for the structural members and was analysed for the same. The static analysis was carried out on the model with the given trial sections assigned to it. Column Size: 400mm x 400mm Beam Size: 300mm x 400mm Slab: 150mm thick Shear Wall: 200mm thick Load Combinations: 1.5 (D.L+L.L) 1.2 (D.L+L.L+/-EQx, y) 1.2 (D.L+L.L+/-Wx, y) 1.5 (D.L+/-EQx, y) 1.5 (D.L+/-Wx, y)

acceleration v/s time data of the 2001 Bhuj, Gujarat earthquake was adopted for the analysis.

Accelerogram of Bhuj Earthquake, 2001

III. RESULT Firstly, the column profiles will be shown as these structural members are of prime importance, the percentage of rebar distribution was calculated on the trial sections adopted i.e.; 400x400mm, and graphs were plotted v/s storey level. Due to the symmetry of the building, 8 typical columns behave similarly. The majority of the columns in the building passed the analysis. The most critical case was observed to be the inner intermediate columns which required the maximum percentage of steel distribution. The allowable rebar percentage of steel according to IS456:2000 is 6%. Columns which require steel more than 6% rebar distribution need to be revised for better economic and safe design.

Load combinations are referred from IS1893 (Part-1):2002 and IS875 (Part-1):1987 for earthquake and wind loads respectively. From the corresponding analysis and design results, an estimate was arrived at to how the building was behaving and how far the sections provided had performed on the selfweight and lateral loads on it. The paper also purports to study the behaviour of the building based on the time-history analysis done. The ground

Typical Perimeter Columns

The columns on the perimeter of the building performed well for the given section, and the different loadings on it. The rebar distribution of this particular case is given below:

Rebar % v/s Storey level

Rebar % v/s Storey level

From this graph it can be concluded that the column sections provided require appropriate amount of steel against the different types of loads acting on it. On the bottom storeys more steel is required in the case of earthquake loads, but it is well within the safe limit prescribed. Similarly for another case of columns,

This typical column location required more steel against dead and live loads acting on it, rather than the lateral loads. The least amount of rebar distribution being required for wind loads followed by earthquake loads. Thus accordingly it can be further optimized for better economy. The following case is for the most critical location of column in the building:

Critical Column location

The edge columns showed quite a variation in the amount of rebar distribution in the design. There columns support the junction of the adjacent building blocks. Here the behaviour was found to be more critical for the gravity loads rather than the lateral loads acting on it.

Axial load = 5201 KN Biaxial Moments Moment in X-axis, Mux = 104 KN-m Moment in Y-axis, Muy = 2.55 KN-m Rebar Distribution = 9.5%

The mid-storey levels ranging from level 6 to 11, showed more beams failing in the centre and the wing junctions.

This column location was found to be the most critical, as shown above the column tends to fail for all the load cases as the storey level decreases. Thus, this section requires special attention for further analysis and design. All the cases shown above are for the lateral loads acting in the X-direction. Similarly it is the same for the lateral loads acting in the Y-direction as the building is symmetrical in both the directions. Beams provided of 300mmx400mm dimensions performed satisfactorily for all the load cases except earthquake loads. The storey levels 2 to 5 showed beam failure on the location near the shear wall. That is the beams supported by the shear wall failed when subjected to earthquake force on it.

Stresses due to shear force and torsion together exceeds the maximum allowed, thus failing in the design. Here it is worth noticing that the effect of torsion is in effect, requiring attention for design revision. The analysis results for the critical beam are as follows:

Units are in KN-m

The beams highlighted as red imply that those beams have failed the design for 300mmx400mm section dimensions provided.

The beam results given above are for the most critical case of load combination, i.e.; 1.2(D.L+EQx). Also the resulting shear developed on the shear wall due to the lateral loads are shown, it is worth noting that the shear is more due to earthquake than wind force acting on the building frame.

Shear Wall The core wall of the building was given thickness of 200mm and analysed for the gravity and lateral loads. The design for which showed varied results. For earthquake loads on it from top storey to storey-10, the wall performed satisfactorily. But from storey-9 to ground floor, the shear wall failed due to excess stresses in shear and torsion. Thus further revision in the section design is required for the wall. Storey Drifts Table-1 shows the various storey displacements in the building. Displacements due to earthquake load and wind load acting on it in a particular direction, in this case the Xdirection.

Table-1 Maximum Storey Displacement

Earthquake Forces acting in Xdirection

Values shown are in KN The above figure shows the storey shear for earthquake force.

Wind Loads acting in X-direction Displ. (cm) 5.3545 5.0765 4.7788 4.4582 4.1105 3.7346 3.3317 2.9053 2.4612 2.0081 1.5573 1.1234 0.7248 0.3844 0.1293

Storey Level STORY15 STORY14 STORY13 STORY12 STORY11 STORY10 STORY9 STORY8 STORY7 STORY6 STORY5 STORY4 STORY3 STORY2 STORY1

Displ. (cm) 20.1902 18.9437 17.616 16.2068 14.7132 13.1435 11.5141 9.8484 8.1756 6.5302 4.9527 3.4892 2.1933 1.1273 0.3625

The allowable storey drift is given by H/500; H=50metres H/500 = 50 x 100 / 500 centimetres = 100cm. Thus the maximum permissible storey drift is 100cm. whereas in this building the maximum is 20cm. Hence this building is safe against storey displacement.

Values shown are in KN The figure above shows the storey shear for wind force. As seen from the above figures, it is clearly evident that the stronger of the two lateral loads on the structure, earthquake load is the predominant lateral force on the building structure.

IV. CONCLUSIONS Present Study The trial sections that were provided for the preliminary analysis are inappropriate for the tall building structure. The column sections of 400x400mm provided are suitable for some of the positions, but unsuitable for all. Also the beams at the junction of shear wall provided also need to be revised in section, shear wall dimensions also need to be revised. Furthermore the study on the static analysis and design of the building helps in the better understanding of the behaviour and design criteria required. From this preliminary study it can be concluded that special emphasis must be given for the design of earthquake loading combinations. Future Study Time History analysis of the building structure is to be carried out, for which optimum economical structural members are to be provided. As well as dynamic analysis for lateral wind loads is also to be carried out and economical design for the same is to be done. Finally, optimizing the building structure for the lateral loads, such that the building is optimized, economical and failure safe against the multi-dynamic loads on it.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

V. REFERENCES Seismic Analysis of the worlds tallest building by Hong Fan, Q.S. Li,
Alex Y Tuan and Lihua Xu. Structural Dynamics,Ray W. Clough & Joseph Penzien Full scale measurements of wind effects on tall buildings, Q.S Li, J.Q Fang, A.P Jeary and C.K. Kong. Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super tall buildings, by Peter A. Irwin. Wind and Earthquake Resistant Building, Structural Analysis and Design, Bungale S. Taranath. Seung-Eock Kim & Huu-Tai Thai for Nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 38453856. Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,Manish Shrikande & Pankaj Agarwal. Dynamic of Structures, Anil k. Chopra. Computers and Structures ETABS software manuals, CSI California, U.S.A. Uniform Building Code (UBC)1997, IS456:2000, IS1893(Part-1):2002 and IS875(Part-1):1987.