Info: Zenodo’s user support line is staffed on regular business days between Dec 23 and Jan 5. Response times may be slightly longer than normal.

CIVIL & ARCHITECTURE DOMAIN
Published December 5, 2020 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Study on High Rise (G+32) Cluster Shaped Building under Earthquake with the help of IS 1893, UBC Codal Provisions

Creators

  • 1. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, P.E.S College of Engineering, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
  • 2. P.G. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, P.E.S College of Engineering, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.

Description

Construction is a vital part of every developing country in this area. The tallness of a building is relative and cannot be defined in absolute terms either in relation to height or the number of stories. But, from a structural engineer's point of view the tall building or multistoreyed building can be defined as one that, by virtue of its height, is affected by lateral forces due to wind or earthquake or both to an extent that they play an important role in the structural design. The utmost country has own specific code for structure design to help the structure engineer to provide more stable, durable structure as to feasible in country topography and environment. In this paper presents the comparative study of analysis of high rise structure with considering dynamic force for three codal Guidelines (IS 1893:2002, UBC-1997, and ASCE: 7-10) using E-TAB. The comparative study includes the analysis of high rise (g+32) cluster shaped building under earthquake with the help of IS-1893, ASCE-7- 10 UBC-1997 codal provisions in the terms of model time period , base shear, story drift and displacement as shown in the graphical representation of the results is shown below.

Files

Study on High Rise (G+32) Cluster -Formatted Paper.pdf

Files (673.1 kB)

Additional details

References

  • Izhar, T., Bano, S., & Mumtaz, N. (2019). Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic Forces for Different Codal Guidelines..
  • Jayalekshmi, B. R., & Chinmayi, H. K. (2015). Soil–Structure Interaction Effect on Seismic Force Evaluation of RC Framed Buildings with Various Shapes of Shear Wall: As Per IS 1893 and IBC. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 45(3), 254-266.
  • Ge, Q., Xiong, F., Xie, L., Chen, J., & Yu, M. (2019). Dynamic interaction of soil–Structure cluster. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 123, 16- 30.
  • Shinde, B. H. Seismic Analysis of RCC Multistoried Building by IS 1893: 2016 and it's Comparison with IS 1893: 2002.
  • Kohli, A. R., & Gore, N. G. (2017). Analysis and Design of an Earthquake Resistant Structure using STADD. Pro.
  • Charavande, G., Maru, S. Earthquake Analysis, of RC Structure using Different Codes and Different Countries.
  • Liu, T., & Zhong, W. (2017). Earthquake responses of near-fault building clusters in mountain city considering viscoelasticity of earth medium and process of fault rupture. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 99, 137-141.
  • Titiksh, A. (2017). Effects of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of a Medium Rise Structure. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 18(8), 1307-1314.
  • Malviya, N., & Pahwa, S. (2017). Seismic analysis of high rise building with is code 1893-2002 and is code 1893-2016.
  • Nahhas, T. M. (2017). A Comparison of Saudi Building Code with 1997 UBC for Provisions of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Using a Real Building. Open Journal of Earthquake Research, 6(02), 98.