EVALUATION OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF IRREGULAR TUBE BUILDINGS IN TUBE SYSTEMS
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Imam Hussein University, Tehran, Iran
Publication date: 2016-03-01
 
Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2016; 10(29):46–51
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Setbacks in the volume of a building usually arise from the demands of urban design for illumination, proportion, etc. However, in seismic events they are the cause of abrupt changes in stiffness and mass producing a concentration of stresses in the floors near the site of sudden change. In general terms, one should ensure that the transitions are as gradual as possible in order to avoid such concentration of stresses. This study is intended to investigate seismic behavior of irregular building tube in tube systems, for this purpose seismic behavior of 40-story and 60-story reinforced concrete frame building with irregular plan was evaluated, seismic behavior of irregular buildings was assessed by overall building drifts, story drifts and shear lag behavior factors.. Higher irregularities in the overall plan structure of a building increase the phenomena of story drift and shear lag phenomena. Story drift and shear lag are higher for 60-story building than for a 40-story building.
 
REFERENCES (12)
1.
Murty C.V.R. Earthquake tips-IITK. Building Materials and Technology Promotion, NICEE, New Delhi 2009.
 
2.
Athanatopoulou A.M., Makarios T. and Anastassiadis K. 2006. Earthquake analysis of isotropic asymmetric multistory buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 15(4), 417–443.
 
3.
Roy R. and Chakroborty S. 2013. Seismic demand of plan-asymmetric structures: a Revisit. Earthquake Engineering and Engin. Vibration, 12(1), 99–117.
 
4.
Kristek V, Bauer K. 1993. Stress distribution in front columns of high rise buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 115(5), 1326–1337.
 
5.
Lee K-K, Lee L-H, Lee E-J. 2002. Prediction of shear-lag effects in framed-tube structures with internal tube(s). The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 11, 73–92.
 
6.
Singh Y, Nagpal K. 1994. Negative shear lag in framed-tube buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(11), 3105–3121.
 
7.
CEN 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules. Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.
 
8.
Magliulo G., Maddaloni G. and Cosenza E. 2007. Comparison between non-linear dynamic analysis performed according to EC8 and elastic and nonlinear static analyses. Engineering Structures, 29(11), 2893–2900.
 
9.
IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1 – General provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision).
 
10.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2011. CSI analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures Inc.
 
11.
Berkeley C.A., Haji-Kazemi H., Company M. 2011. Exact method of analysis of shear lag in framed tube structures. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 11, 375–388.
 
12.
ACI 318. 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (318R-08). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.