Fragility and Vulnerability Assessment of Monolithic Building Construction

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Fragility and Vulnerability Assessment of Monolithic Building Construction

Aleena Sakheer

M-Tech Student (Structural) Dept.of Civil Engineering YCET

Kollam, India

Abstract- The thesis aims to study the modeling and analysis of monolithic building using ETABS modeling of normal framed building and regular monolithic building have to be conducted and analysis and modeling of different plan irregular building, vertically irregular building which includes set back and step back structures using equivalent static analysis, modal analysis, response spectrum analysis and fragility analysis. The earthquake response of the building and damage assessment and are found out by comparing the analysis result. Using HAZUS manual damage indices due to the earthquake should be worked out and fragility curves should be generated using percentage of damage on Y axis and peak ground acceleration on X axis.

KeywordsETABS,Monolithic building construction Fragility analysis,HAZUS, ground acceleration

  1. INTRODUCTION

    Monolithic structure means the whole structure along with the slab is casted at a time. In order to construct a monolithic structure we required formwork for construction. In this project we discuss about the importance of use of monolithic construction work for high rise building. In accordance with the importance of time, it is feasible method for construction of the repetitive construction work as compared to conventionally applied method of construction. In this work we use aluminum formwork. Monolithic construction work is able to deliver good quality and durable structure in cost effective manner. It has been used in development of silos, residential building, schools, stadium, and roof of industries, nuclear reactors, pressure vessel, and auditorium. In monolithic structure we used formwork which provides proper alignment, smooth surface and good quality work. Due to use of formwork it increases the speed of construction as compare to conventional method. The progress of any country can be only judged by the progress of the construction industry of the country. Cost and time are the two important entities which plays vital role in any construction activity. Hence it has become necessary to estimate cost and time required to complete the construction. Indian construction industry has started using a number of the arena elegance technology. At same time, progressive rise in stock of construction industry in India and rapid growth of population and urbanization has led to shortage of accommodation and situation has become critical in urban and metropolitan areas. For construction of mass building works, it's far important to have progressive technology that are capable of fast construction and are able to construct best quality and durable construction in cost intended manner.

    1.1. FRAGILITY AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Recent studies shows that structural performance of

    Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings always play crucial roles in terms of earthquake losses. Structures already built are vulnerable to future earthquakes. Damage to structures cause deaths, injuries, economic losses. Earthquake risk is associated with seismic hazard, vulnerability of building, exposure. Seismic risk measures the likely ground movement that can happen at site. Tools specifically defined for crisis administration and seismic danger moderation arrangements must be defined. Vulnerability assessment reveals the damageability of a structure under varying ground motion intensities. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the probability of a given level of damage for a given building type due to scenario earthquake. Vulnerability of structures to ground motion effects is usually expressed in terms of fragility curves or damage functions that take into account the uncertainties in the seismic demand and structures capacity. Fragility curve is a statistical tool developed for the vulnerability assessment in different field. The outcome of this assessment can be used in loss estimation which is essential in disaster mitigation emergency preparedness.

  2. OBJECTIVES

    • To find out the effectiveness of monolithic building construction technique in various types of buildings

    • Comparison of Monolithic building with normal framed building.

    • Analysis of various types of Monolithic building using different analysis method

    • Comparison of different Monolithic building

      • Regular building

      • Plan irregular building

      • Vertically irregular building which includes set back and step back buildings

    • Building response and damage assessment of different types of monolithic structures

      • Storey drift

      • Storey stiffness

      • Storey shear

      • Wall axial load

      • Wall shear force

  3. METHODOLOGY

Sl no.

Component

Values

1

Model

G+10

2

Storey height

3m

3

Beam

300mm X380

mm

4

Column

450mm x450mm

5

Wall thickness

150mm

6

Material

M25

7

Grade of steel

Fe415

9

Slab thickness

200mm

10

Seismic zone

5

11

Importance factor

1

12

Type of soil

Soft soil

13

Type of structure

Concrete

14

Response reduction factor

5

15

Live load

3kN/m2

16

Floor finish

1kN/m2

IV . MODELING

In the first phase of my project a regular G+10 storey framed building and a regular G+10 storey monolithic building was considered to study the behaviour of both the building and hence compare the results.in the second phase of my project several monolithic buildings were considered which includes plan irregular building ,vertically irregular building .

Figure 1: 3 D View of square building

Asymmetric or plan irregular structures are those in which seismic response is not only translational but also tensional and is a result of stiffness and or mass eccentricity in the structure. From the dynamic point of view a plan irregular building is that for which one or more rotational modes have a significant participating mass ratio.

Figure 2: C shaped building 3 D View

Figure 3: I shaped building 3 D View

Figure 4: L shaped building 3 D View

Different types of plan irregular buildings were modelled which includes C shape, L shape, Plus shape, I Shape, Building with opening , Step shape, T shaped building.

V.ANALYSIS

  1. Equivalent Static Analysis

    The natural period of building is calculated by the empirical expression prescribed in the code. The total design seismic base shear calculation and its distribution along the height are done as per IS 1893(part-I)-2002. The seismic weight is calculated using full dead load plus 25% of live load.

  2. Modal analysis

    p>Modal analysis or mode super position method, is a linear dynamic response procedure which evaluates and super imposes free vibration mode shapes to characterize displacement patterns .mode shapes describes the configuration into which a structure will naturally displace

  3. Response spectrum analysis

For response spectrum analyses, earthquake ground acceleration in each direction is given as a digitized response spectrum curve of pseudo spectral acceleration response versus period of the structure.

On comparing the normal framed building with monolithic building construction on conducting several analysis method it is clear that the monolithic building offers much more rigid or offers less vibration

FUNDAMENTAL TIME

PERIOD (sec)

0.195 0.201

FUNDAMENTAL TIME

PERIOD (sec)

0.195 0.201

0.176

0.176

PI 1 PI 2 PI 3 PI 4 PI 5 PI 6 PI 7 PI 8

PI 1 PI 2 PI 3 PI 4 PI 5 PI 6 PI 7 PI 8

0.182 0.177 0.184 0.187 0.178

0.182 0.177 0.184 0.187 0.178

Figure 5: Comparison of time period of monolithic plan irregular buildings

PI 1- Square shape PI 2- C shaped

PI 3- I Shaped PI 4- L Shaped PI 5- Opening

PI 6- plus shaped PI 7- step shaped PI 8- T shaped

PI 1- Square shape PI 2- C shaped

PI 3- I Shaped PI 4- L Shaped PI 5- Opening

PI 6- plus shaped PI 7- step shaped PI 8- T shaped

  1. Shaped building shows highest time period due to longer length of projections and more re-entrant corners .Square shape shows least time period

    Figure 6: Comparison of base shear of monolithic plan irregular buildings

    Base shear is highest for building with opening since mass and stiffness is null at the center.Base shear is least for square plan.This is due to the pattern of mass and stiffness distribution

    Figure 7: Comparative results of stiffness in X direction

    In x-direction stiffness is maximum for I-shaped building due to its symmetry. For plan irregular building, stiffness depends on symmetry of the building

    Figure 8: Comparitive results of storey drift in X direction

    In x-direction the drift is maximum for step shape, L shape and T-shape. For plan irregular building, storey drift is maximum at the middle storeys.

    Figure 9: Comparative results of shear in X direction

    Figure 10: Comparative results of wall shear on top

    Here also Plan irregularity is irrespective of wall shear force

    Figure 7: Comparitive results of axial load on top

    Plan irregularity is irrespective of wall axial load

    VI CONCLUSION

    Monolithic building has less time period, high base shear, more stiffer and heavier than normal framed building hence vibrates less. Since the amount of drift is constant throughout height, there is less chance for sudden damage in monolithic building. The response of the monolithic building with plan irregularity .Time period is highest for I shaped building due to length of projections and number of re-entrant corners. Base shear is highest for building with opening due to null mass and stiffness at the centre. Storey stiffness depends on symmetry of the building. Top storeys of the monolithic building has less stiffness and storey shear. Storey drift is maximum at the middle storeys

    Plan irregularity is irrespective of story shear, wall axial load, wall shear force.

    Here Plan irregularity is irrespective of story shear

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The author wish to express her special gratitude to Anjali Sudhakar, Assisstant professor ,Younus College of

    Engineering and Technology Kollam, above all the author thank GOD almighty for his grace throughout the work.

    REFERENCES

    1. Prasad Kolekar, Vishwajeet Nigade, Shivaji Hajare, Prathamesh Kamble, Sagar Patade, Amit Kumavat (2020) Analysis and Comparison of Mivan Formwork System with Conventional Formwork System International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net

    2. Ali Kadhim Sallal (2018) Design and analysis ten storied building using ETABS software-2016International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology ISSN: 2455-0876 Volume 4; Issue 2

    3. B Kranthi and Dr J.S.R. Prasad (2018) SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF RC PRECAST BUILDINGS ,International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2018, pp. 217225,

      Article ID: IJCIET_09_08_023

    4. Baylon, Michael B and Cecilia M,(2018) seismic vulnerability assessment of Adamson university building as built using fragility curves. Global journal of researchers in engineering volume 18 issue 1 version 1.0

    5. Nikita patel, Namrata verma (2017) a study in monolithic structure , International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering,

      ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume- 5, Issue-11, Nov.-2017

    6. Prof. R. B. Bajare, Shubham Deshmukp, Ashwin Mahajan, Roohi Karnataki, Indrayani V. Patil.(2017) Page Remedies to the Common Deficiencies Faced in Mivan Technology at Malin Rehabilitation IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

    7. Sopna S Nair, Dr. G Hemalatha ,Dr. P Muthupriya (2017) Vulnerability Assessment Using Fragility Curves, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp.

    8. Devang Gohel1, Dr. Jayeshkumar Pitroda(2017) A CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE WITH MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE Volume 5, Issue 4 December 2017 | ISSN: 2320- 2882 IJCRT1704284 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 2220

    9. Pawan M. Walvekar1, Hemant L. Sonawadekar (2017) Seismic Performance Evaluation of Mivan Structural System v/s Conventional Structural System with Effect of SSI by Pushover Analysis ,International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 04 Issue: 06 | June -2017 www.irjet.net

    10. Dhanalakshmi P, Ramesh B M (2017) Seismic vulnerability of plan irregular RC building with soil structure interaction , International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

    11. Deepika Ramanathan (2017) studied the Increasing adoption of shuttering to boost Indian formwork market ,International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092,

    12. Megha Vasavada and Dr V R Patel (2016) Development of fragility curves for RC building using HAZUS method, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) .

    13. Sumit.A.Patel, Prof. A.R.Darji , Prof Dr. K.B. Parikh, Prof. Bhavik.R.Patel July (2016), FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF HIGH- RISE BUILDING STRUCTURE Volume 3, Issue 7 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 127

    14. Rony Joy, Dr. CK Prasad Varma Thampan (2016) , DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL FRAGILITY CURVE A REVIEW ,International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 03 Issue:

    15. Tarannum Yasmin, Ajay Chourasia, S.K.Bhattacharyya and Jalaj Parashar (2015) FRAGILITY ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS: A REVIEW International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 02 Issue: 06 | www.irjet.net

    16. Georgios TSIONIS and Michael N. FARDIS (2014) SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS AND BRIDGES IN THESSALONIKI

    17. Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, Athanasia K Kazantzi,(2013), seismic fragility and vulnerability assessment using simplified methods for the global earthquake model ,COMPDYN 2013 4th ECCOMAS Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering.

    18. M. Sadegi, M Hosseini (2012) developing fragility curves for seismic vulnerability assessment of tubular Steel power transmission tower based on incremental dynamic analysis, WCEE

    19. G.M. Calvi, R. Pinho, G. Magenes, J.J. Bommer, L.F. Restrepo- Vélz and H. Crowley (2006) DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 30 YEAR ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 472, Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 75-104

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *