TOBIT IGBA

Supervised by Prof Yong Lu

MSc Structural Engineering and Mechanics Matric no: 1100792/1163779

Infill wall in firm soil assured little damage against

collapse for 4, 8 & 12 R/c frames in Algeria.
1. Introduction vulnerability index of a 4 vulnerability index
of a 8 storey r/c
vulnerability index of a
12 storey r/c structure
storey r/c structure
This project looked at assessing the design, seismic 0.25
structure 0.35 CASE 1 REGULAR 12
CASE 1 REGULAR 4
performance, and damage vulnerability index in reinforced 0.2
STOREY
0.35
CASE 1 REGULAR 8
STOREY
0.3
STOREY
CASE 2 REGULAR 12
CASE 2 REGULAR 4 0.3
concrete frames designed for low, medium and high rise STOREY
0.25
CASE 2 REGULAR 8
STOREY
0.25 STOREY
CASE 1 IRREGULAR 12
0.15 CASE 1 IRREGULAR 4

structures with different irregularities. STOREY

CASE 2 IRREGULAR 4
0.2
CASE 1 IRREGULAR
8 STOREY
0.2 STOREY
CASE 2 IRREGULAR 12
0.1 0.15
STOREY STOREY
0.15 CASE 2 IRREGULAR

2. OBJECTIVE 0.05
CASE 1 HIGHLY
IRREGULAR 4 STOREY 0.1
8 STOREY

CASE 1 HIGHLY
IRREGULAR 8
0.1 CASE 1 HIGHLY
IRREGULAR 12 STOREY
CASE 2HIGHLY 0.05
The overall objective was to design, using RPA99/2003 0 IRREGULAR 4 STOREY 0.05 STOREY
CASE 2HIGHLY
CASE 2HIGHLY
IRREGULAR 12 STOREY
0 IRREGULAR 8 0
code, a 4, 8 and 12 Storied RC framed building with regular STOREY

Fig1 Fig 2 Fig 3

shape, irregular shape and highly irregular shape under low
Regular R/c frames at Irregular r/c frames at Highly irregular r/c
seismicity with PGA 0.15g (seismic zone 1, soil type B) firm performance points performance points frame at performance
point
soil using pushover analysis procedure in SAP2000 to 0.6
0.6
0.7
Spectral acceleration

0.5
ascertain seismic load carrying capacity of all structures. 0.4 0.4 0.6
0.5

Sa
0.2 0.3
Furthermore, the project aimed at achieving the following: 0.4

Sa
0.2
0.3
0 0.1
a) Studying the effect of the above mentioned structures 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
0.2
0.1
0 0.1
Sd 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
considering a larger level of shaking in terms of design Spectral displacement
4r/c demand case 2 4r/c demand case1
4r/c demand case 2 4r/c capacity case1&2
0 0.1 Sd 0.2 0.3 0.4

acceleration applied to the structure with PGA 0.4g 4r/c capacity case 1 & 2

8r/c capacity case 1 & 2

8r/c demand case 2

8r/c demand case 1

4r/c demand case 1 8r/c demand case 2
4r/c H.I demand case 2 4r/c H.I capacity case1&2
8r/c capacity case 1&2 8r/c demand case 1

(seismic zone 3, soil type B) with the same building 12r/c demand case 2

12r/c demand case 1

12r/c capacity case1&2

12r/c demand case 2 12r/c capacity case1&2

4r/c H.I demand case 1

8r/c H.I capacity case 1&2

8r/c H.I demand case 2

8r/c H.I demand case 1

plans, elevations and materials as mentioned above. 12r/c demand case 1 12r/c H.I demand case 2

12r/c H.I demand case 1

12r/c H.I capacity case1&2

b) Comparing the seismic response effects of the Fig 4 Fig 5 Fig 6

structures mentioned above in terms of base shear,
storey drift, spectral acceleration, spectral displacement,
storey displacement, over-strength ratio, and ductility
ratio and response modification factor for both cases
above.
c) Determining the performance point, plastic hinges
failures and vulnerability index of the two cases.
3. METHOD
This project began by looking into literature reviews
which aided in achieving the right technique, tool and
approach used in setting up this study.
The use of Algerian code (RPA99/2003) in detailing
and designing of all structures considered.
The use of pushover analysis consisting of the
application of gravity loads and lateral load patterns for
analysing and evaluating the structural seismic
response with a state of the art software called
SAP2000.
Two case studies were analysed, one considering the
Max considered earthquake under low seismicity and
the other considering a large/higher earthquake level.
4. RESULT FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The target displacement results of each case were obtained
using FEMA 440- Displacement Modification pushover
analysis from SAP 2000.
The building vulnerability index were obtained using the
vulnerability index formula from Lakshmanan. N., 2005b at
performance points of the buildings.
Fig 1 to 3 showed that at performance points CASE 2 R/C
framed buildings in larger/ higher seismic event were more
vulnerable to damage than CASE 1 which considered the
maximum considered earthquake for low seismicity.
.Irregular structures were the most vulnerable, while regular
structures were the least vulnerable when a higher level of
earthquake was considered.
Fig 1, 2 and 3 showed that Case 1 had vulnerability index
of 0.125 for 4, 8 and 12 stories considering different level
of irregularities meaning that the Maximum considered 6. REFERENCE
earthquake at low seismicity were all in the operational Lakshmanan, N. (2005b). Ductility Based Design and Detailing for
level of acceptance criteria for performance level with
negligible damage found.
Figure 4, 5 and 6 showed that capacity curve decreased in height as
stories increased in height, it also showed that structures were safe
since at the performance point demand curve intersected the capacity
curve in the elastic range for case 1 considering regular, irregular and
highly irregular structures, while case2 demand curves intersected the
capacity curve at the damage control range.
5. CONCLUSION
Performance objective for avoidance of collapse under the two
specified design earthquakes was achieved with an assurance of life
safety design criteria. The performance based seismic design
obtained by the pushover analysis satisfied the acceptance criteria at
Operational level for a low seismicity (case 1) and in the range of
Immediate occupancy to Life safety level (IO to LS) for a high
level/intensity of earthquake (case 2).
Regular shaped structures were the safest with the least
vulnerability to damage, followed by highly irregular structure with
geometric irregularity and a first soft storey, while irregular structure
was the most vulnerable amongst the three. Regular shaped
buildings performed well even in high intensity earthquake.
In reality, this means that a Geometric irregular structure with Irregular
elevation will be less vulnerable to damage when it is compared to a
weak first storey Irregular structure.
Reinforced concrete frames with infill wall in firm soils having different
irregularities performed well having enough redundancy to resist
earthquake forces with limited damage observed at both low seismicity
and when a larger level of earthquake was applied.
CASE 2 R/c framed buildings with larger/ higher seismic event in the
structures considered are more vulnerable to damage than CASE 1
considering the maximum considered earthquake in low seismicity.
Hinge status at maximum roof displacement was more than the target
roof displacement at Immediate Occupancy (IO) but less than the
target roof displacement for Life Safety (LS) showing a strong column-
weak beam failure pattern and a satisfactory distribution of hinges, but
the limit state of collapse prevention stage at the Max considered EQ
was not reached in this case, showing a conservative design.
Retrofitting of stories where damaged plastic hinge were noticed by
either cross bracing or shear wall providing extra resistance in weaker
sections of the structure.
Lateral Loads in Capacity Building of Engineers in Earthquake Risk
Management, Allied Publishers Private Limited, Chennai.