Linear Dynamic Analysis of Different Structural Systems for Medium Rise Buildings (A Case Study)

Linear Dynamic Analysis of Different Structural Systems for
Medium Rise Buildings (A Case Study)
Jamal Ali 1
, Khawaja Junaid Waheed 2
, Khyzer Ahmed Sheikh3
and Muhammad Qasim 4
1,3.4
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan ( Email: jamal.ali060@gmail.com,
khyzersheikh@gmail.com, civil.qasim@gmail.com)
2
Junior Engineer NESPAK (Pvt.) Limited, Pakistan (Email: khjunaid.nice@gmail.com)
Abstract: A comparative study is carried out to examine the behavior of different structural systems under
seismic loads in structurally irregular medium rise building. The structural systems analyzed in the case study
include Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF), Dual RCC Wall-Frame and RCC Braced Frame
Structures including Cross Braced, Single Diagonally Braced, V Braced and Inverted V Braced Frame Structure.
The
has been carried out to study the performance of structures under the action of dynamic loads. Design
- Building Code of Pakistan (BCP-2007). The
effectiveness of Wall-Frame structure has been analyzed by varying the location of shear walls while RCC
Braced structure is analyzed by altering the type of bracing system in different cases. The parameters considered
for analyzing the structural response of structural systems subjected to seismic loads are lateral drift, base shear
force and structural time period. It has been concluded that for high intensity seismic zones dual RCC wall-frame
structures are most suited to control lateral drift in medium to high rise structures. For low seismic zones a
frame structure or a braced-frame structure gives better structural performance under dynamic loads.
Keywords: Braced Structures, Concrete Bracing, Shear Walls, Dual Wall-Frame Structures, Intermediate
Moment Resisting Frame Structures, Medium Rise Buildings, Case Study.
1. Introduction
In low rise buildings, seismic loading does not produce significant lateral displacement therefore, moment
resisting frames are sufficient to resist both gravity and lateral loading. In medium to high rise buildings,
acceleration due to lateral loads significantly increase with height of structure. Therefore, RCC Shear walls or
RCC bracing are additionally designed and incorporated to cater for lateral loads [1].
The earthquake that stuck Pakistan on Oct 8th, 2005 with recorded magnitude of 7.9 on Richter scale also
initiated the need to optimize the design of lateral force resisting structures located in medium to high risk
seismic zones [2]. Shear walls are generally used in Medium rise buildings in Pakistan to control lateral drift. In
a dual structural system; comprising frame and lateral force resisting system, torsional forces are generated when
Center of mass and Center of rigidity for a building vary by more than 20%. The center of rigidity depends on
the location of shear wall and bracing in the building. Therefore, placement of shear wall and bracing elements
has significant effects on behavior of a structure subjected to earthquake loading.
To determine the effectiveness of structural systems, an existing 19-story building (excluding three basement
floors) located in Blue Area, Islamabad has been studied with different proposed shear wall locations and
proposed bracing types coupled with intermediate moment resisting frame structure. The building is originally
designed with RCC shear walls and RCC bracings.
ISBN 978-93-84422-37-0
Proceedings of International Conference on Architecture, Structure and Civil Engineering
(ICASCE'15)
Antalya (Turkey) Sept. 7-8, 2015
International Conference on Architecture, Structure and Civil Engineering (ICASCE'15) Sept. 7-8, 2015 Antalya (Turkey)
24

2. Case Study
State Life Tower building is a 19-story (excluding basements) medium rise building situated in Blue Area,
Islamabad. It is originally designed as a dual structural system consisting of intermediate moment resisting frame
reinforced with shear walls and concrete bracings. Building lies in seismic zone 2B (PGA range is 0.16g to
0.24g) with occupancy category of III i.e. Special occupancy structures [3]. Total building height from the
ground level is 66m. Analysis is carried out on aforementioned structural systems. The best possible case for
each system is selected and then compared with other systems to reach conclusion.
2.1. Structural Systems
A brief description of different structural systems that are analyzed and compared in the case study are
presented in Table 1
TABLE I: Comparison of Structural Systems used in Case Study
Type of
Structure
Dual Wall-Frame Structure
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame
Structure
Concrete Bracing Structure
This structural system consists of
RCC frames interacting with RCC
shear walls. Beams and columns
primarily take vertical loads while
shear wall is designed to resist
lateral loads as well as vertical loads
to some extent.
The frame system consists of columns
and beams that are interconnected with
restrained moment connections. With a
moment connection a column is attached
to a beam with no release at the joint
when structurally analyzed. Loads are
resisted in moment-frame systems by
flexure in the beams and columns that
induce shears and moments into beams,
columns and the moment-connected
joints.
This structural system is designed
primarily to resist lateral loads like wind
and earthquake forces. Members in a
braced frame are designed to work in
tension and compression, similar to a
truss. A braced frame resists lateral loads
by the actions of its diagonal members.
Buildings are braced by inserting diagonal
structural members into the rectangular
open areas of a structural frame.
Ground Floor Plan 2nd Floor Plan 6th Floor Plan
Bracings
25

9th Floor Plan 14th Floor Plan
Fig 1: Plan View of different floors of Original State Life Building in Islamabad
2.2. Modelling in ETABS
The structure is analyzed using response spectrum analysis method in ETABS with following assumptions;
Beam-column joints were modeled as rigid joints. Frame was detailed as an intermediate resisting frame
(IMRF), as IMRFs are usually detailed in seismic Zone 2B [4].
The system was assumed to be linearly elastic and floors and beams were assumed to be rigid, which will
overestimate the stiffness of building. Considering the general trend of acceleration of the response spectrum;
the fundamental time period of structure will decrease which in turn will result in larger earthquake induced
forces. Hence, the assumption of floor and beam rigidity can be thought as a safe engineering assumption.
All supports were assumed to be fixed supports.
Only structural elements with significant stiffness; beams, columns, shear wall, concrete bracings were
modeled and non-structural elements were ignored.
Ramps in basements were modeled as slab structures to account the rigidity and stairs were not modeled.
For mass source 100 % D.L and 25% L.L is used. The mass is lumped at each story level.
P
show that P-Delta effects are not required in any structural scenario analyzed in the case study [4].
2.3. Structural Irregularities
The building under consideration is fairly irregular in various dimensions. It has vertical geometric
irregularity between story levels 8 and 9. Stiffness irregularity exists between story levels 1 and 2 [4]. Torsional
irregularity is dependent on plan layout which is variable in each structural scenario. Hence, torsional check is
performed for each scenario separately. Summary of various structural irregularities present or absent in the
building is shown in Table 2.
TABLE II: Summary of Structural Irregularities
Horizontal Irregularity
Check
Performed
Vertical
Irregularity
Check
Performed
Torsional Irregularity To be checked for each case Stiffness Irregularity Yes
Re-entrant Corners Nil Weight Irregularity Nil
Diaphragm Discontinuity Nil Vertical Geometric Yes
Non Parallel structural
irregularity
Nil In Plane Discontinuity Nil
Out of plane irregularity Nil Strength Irregularity Not checked
26

2.4. Analysis Procedure
According to Section 5.29.8.4 of BCP 2007, Dynamic Analysis is preferred because, it is an irregular
structure and lies in Seismic Zone 2B with Occupancy Category of III [4]. Response spectrum analysis with Ritz
vectors has been performed on all cases [5, 6]. The spectrum cases in ETABS are defined according to UBC 97.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Case 1: Shear Wall-Frame Structure
The State Life building is designed as a dual system consisting of intermediate moment resisting frame
run up to 6th
floor with location so adjusted as to reduce torsional stresses. Beyond 6th
floor, the plan area
reduces significantly and lower shear walls are terminated. Analysis is carried out without altering the position
and configuration of the building. The allowable maximum lateral drift/displacement value is calculated using
no torsional
irregularity [7, 8].
Further analysis is carried out by altering the location of shear wall in the building to understand the
structural behavior subjected to peak ground acceleration of up to 0.24g. Two sub-cases are analyzed with
respect to shear wall location. In shear wall proposed layout 01 (SW-PL-01), shear wall is placed at the center of
the building where it acts as a core wall. Shear wall proposed layout 02 (SW-PL-02) is formulated by moving
shear wall towards the periphery of the building. Torsional irregularity is present in both proposed layouts.
Analysis results are shown in Table 3.
TABLE III: Analysis results for wall-frame dual structure
Parameters
Original
Structure
SW-PL-01 SW-PL-02
Allowable
Value
Max. base shear (kN) 9487 8767 7317 ---
Time period 1st
mode (sec) 1.12 1.22 1.26 ---
Max. lateral displacement (mm) 38.6 43.2 43.4 131
Lateral displacement as a function of story level for wall-
response is non-linear and slope of lateral displacement curve increases after Floor 9. The lateral drift curve for
SW-PL-01 and SW-PL-02 is almost identical up to 8th
floor, where afterwards there is a break between 8th
and
9th
floor for SW-PL-01. One possible reason for this behavior is the vertical geometric irregularity that exists
between floors # 8 and 9. The maximum lateral displacement at top floor is 43.4mm. It can be seen from
analysis results that the time period of building in 1st
mode for proposed layouts has small variation compared to
original case that dictates a more ductile response of building under seismic loading. The base shear force for
proposed layout 2 is 2170kN less than the original case. However, the maximum lateral displacement has
increased by almost 5mm with respect to original structure but is well below the allowable limits prescribed in
building codes i.e. 131mm. Proposed layout 02 has the minimum base shear force and highest time period with
well controlled lateral drift values among the considered Wall-Frame dual cases. Hence, this layout is selected
for further comparison with other structural systems.
3.2. Case 2: Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF)
The performance of frame structure for medium rise structures under lateral loads is also important aspect of
this study. The shear wall is removed from the structure to analyze the intermediate moment resisting frame in
ETABS. The parameters considered are same i.e. the effectiveness of frame structure in controlling lateral
displacements and structural response to seismic loads. For this layout of the building additional torsional
stresses are also produced in the structure. Analysis results are shown in Table 4.
TABLE IV: Analysis results for frame structure
Parameters Maximum Value Allowable Value
Base shear (kN) 4412 ---
Time period 1st mode (sec) 2.7 ---
Max. lateral displacement (mm) 102 131
27

The base shear forces have reduced to about 50% by removing shear wall compared to wall-frame original
case results. The stiffness of frame structure is quite less as indicated by time period in 1st mode i.e. 2.7sec. This
accounts for ductile behavior of structure under the action of dynamic loading. However, the lateral
displacement in this case is very high i.e. 102mm which is a clear indicative of effectiveness of shear wall in
controlling lateral drift of structure.
3.3. Case 3: RCC Braced Frame Structure
In this case, different types of RCC bracings are separately incorporated into IMRF model of the building.
Each different type i.e. Cross bracing, Single Diagonal bracing, V bracing, Inverted V bracing gives a distinct
structural response [9]. Based on analysis results (Table 5) the best scenario among these bracing systems is
selected for comparison with selected structural systems. However, in this study the effects of location of
bracings in the structure are not studied.
TABLE V: Analysis Results for Braced Frame Structure
Parameters
Cross
Bracing
Single Diagonal
Bracing
V
Bracing
Inverted V
Bracing
Allowable
Value
Max. base shear (kN) 8091 7285 7775 7970 ---
Time period 1st
mode (sec) 1.67 1.84 1.73 1.69 ---
Max. lateral displacement (mm) 74 78.5 74.6 73.4 131
Lateral displacement profile for Braced-
displacement is quite linear up to 14th
floor and increases non-
area changes at 14th
floor). It is evident from analysis results that the base shear forces of braced frame are quite
comparable with that of shear-frame results. Cross bracing system produces maximum base shear force and
single diagonal bracing the least. The structural time period for single diagonal bracing is higher i.e. 1.84sec
whereas the results of other three bracing types are quite comparable. This time period is higher compared to
wall-frame structure imparting more ductility in the structure. The stiffness of braced frame structure is higher
than the IMRF but quite less than the shear-frame structure producing higher values of lateral displacement.
The lateral displacement values vary from 73.4mm for Inverted V Bracing to 78.5mm for single diagonal
bracing. Single Diagonal Braced Frame (SDBF) is the best possible scenario as the base shear forces are
minimum and time period is highest compared to other bracing types.
a. Case 1 b. Case 3
Fig. 2: Lateral displacement profile for Shear Wall and Braced Frame structures
28

4. Comparison Between Different Structural Systems
The selected cases from different structural systems are compared based on analysis results to evaluate the
most optimum and suitable structure keeping in view the parameters i.e. base shear force, time period and lateral
displacement of the building subjected to an earthquake load corresponding to a PGA of 0.24g. The analysis
results of selected cases are shown in Table 6
TABLE VI: Comparison of Selected Cases
Parameters SW-PL-02 IMRF SDBF Allowable Value
Max. base shear (kN) 7317 4412 7285 ---
Time period 1st
mode (sec) 1.26 2.7 1.84 ---
Max. lateral displacement (mm) 43.4 102 78.5 131
Graph shows that lateral displacement in SW PL 02 is almost linear throughout the height of the building.
However, there is a break in the linear curve of SDBF and IMRF where the trend becomes non-linear at story
level 14 due to structural irregularity between levels 13 and 14. Base shear forces generated in IMRF are quite
less i.e. 65% of dual systems. Results indicate that lateral drift for IMRF and SDBF has increased by 135% and
80% respectively compared to dual shear wall system. Dual systems incorporating shear walls coupled with
frame are stiffer as compared to braced frames and rigid moment resisting frames based on results of time period
of structure. Effectiveness of dual system in controlling lateral drift is quite obvious compared to frame
-frame structure compared to
braced-frame structure. Though the increased time period of structure gives better structural response under
dynamic loading but it alone cannot serve as a design criterion [10]. For high rise structures where lateral drift is
the governing criteria for design, dual wall-frame systems are recommended be used [11]. The lateral
displacement values for braced frame and IMRF are less than the allowable limit from building codes but for
structures lying in occupancy category III, a lateral displacement value of 78.5mm or 102mm cannot be
tolerated. Keeping in view the structural parameters and lateral drift control shear wall dual system is most
suited for medium rise structures.
Fig. 3: Comparison of Lateral displacement and maximum Base Shear force for selected cases
5. Conclusion
The selected case i.e. SW-PL-02 is now compared with the results of actual structure. The base shear in
selected case is 29.6% less whereas the time period of structure in 1st
mode and lateral displacement has
increased up to 12.5% compared to original structure (Table 7). The increase in lateral displacement is small and
can be compromised. The reduced base shear forces will result in reduced cross sections of concrete members
and steel reinforcement. This will affect the overall economy of structure. The concrete braced and IMRF
structure can be used for medium to high rise structures in areas with low seismic intensity but dual systems are
recommended for high intensity seismic zones to control lateral drifts.
29

TABLE VII: Comparison with Original Building
Parameters Original Building SW-PL-02 % age Difference
Max. base shear (kN) 9487 7317 29.6% decrease
Time period 1st mode (sec) 1.12 1.26 12.5% increase
Max. lateral displacement (mm) 38.6 43.4 12.4% increase
6. Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help and support provided by Engr. Mansoor Khalid and Engr.
Zeeshan Alam in structural analysis of building. The authors also acknowledge the financial assistance provided
by National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan in carrying out this research study.
7. References
[1]
Walls in Controlling Lateral Drift for Medium to High Rise Structures (10 25 St
International Conference on Geological and Civil Engineering, IPCBEE vol. 80 (2015) © (2015) IACSIT Press,
Singapore, pp. 31-36, DOI: 10.7763/IPCBEE. 2015. V80. 7.
[2]
of Asian Earth Sciences. (Impact Factor 2.379), ISI Indexed, August 2011, Vol 42 (3), 468-478, Available Online on
sciencdirect.com, ISSN 1367-9120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2011.05.006.
[3]
USA.
[4] nd Works Government of
Pakistan, Islamabad.
[5] -98,
ACI 318-99)
[6] Varum H, Teixeira- on of retrofitting
strategies for non-
11, Issue 4 August 2013, pp. 1129-1156, Springer, Impact Factor 1.56, 1570-761X, Accepted, Available
Onlinehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9421-4
[7]
(MTDM), Volume 17, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 275-284, Springer, Impact Factor 0.854, ISSN: 1385-2000,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11043-012-9180-2
[8]
Engineering, AJSE KFUPM, Springer, Impact Factor (0.385), Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 2103-2112, Dec 2012, ISSN
1319-8025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13369-012-0304-4
[9] Pak. J.
Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol. 14, Jan., 2014 (p. 17-26).
[10] N. F. El-Leithy, M. M. Hussein and W. A. Attia. Comparative Study of Structural Systems for Tall Buildings. Journal
of American Science 2011;7(4):707-719]. (ISSN: 1545-1003)
[11]
- 38.
30

Linear Dynamic Analysis of Different Structural Systems for Medium Rise Buildings (A Case Study)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Linear Dynamic Analysis of Different Structural Systems for Medium Rise Buildings (A Case Study) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Linear Dynamic Analysis of Different Structural Systems for Medium Rise Buildings (A Case Study)