Volume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, Page: 1-10
Seismic Performance and Retrofitting of Steel Building
Bulbul Ahmed, Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh
S. M. Zahurul Islam, Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh
Received: Nov. 6, 2018;       Accepted: Nov. 20, 2018;       Published: Jun. 18, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.ie.20190301.11      View  800      Downloads  200
Some special Engineering firms are taken for rehabilitation by Performance based seismic design (PBSD). The existing building that has high value of facilities is important to make functional after immediate post-earthquake. Current codes and provisions cannot cover all structures located in active seismic zone and these structures are not capable of withstanding seismic action. Furthermore, heavy active earthquakes in urban areas have obviously established an urgency to measure performance of the existing building, upgrade and strengthen these seismic undersupplied structures. Many researchers worked in recent years to measure the performance of the building structures and develop various strengthening and rehabilitation techniques to improve the seismic performance of structures. The main objectives of this research are to evaluate the seismic performance of the steel frame building is designed as a multi-storey office building under seismic action located in Timisoara, Romania and using pushover analysis for the Life Safety performance level under an earthquake hazard level with 10% probability of exceedance in 30, 50, 100, 225, 475 and 975 years. The seismic performance of the building is measured by the push-over analysis by FEM software SAP2000. For this push over analysis, the target displacement of the top of the building is measured for life safety performance. The demand curve for the life safety, emergency occupancy, Local damaged, structural damaged, collapse of the building is conducted for different seismic actions. Capacity curve of the building is compared to the demand curve for checking the performance mentioned above. The capacity curve is less than the demand curve for all seismic actions. The building must be retrofitted for increasing the performance during seismic actions. The steel building is retrofitted by providing the steel bracing. The bracing size used is TUB-168.3x4 mm in the direction of tension and the performance of the building is tested by using pushover analysis for the same conditions that are done for unbraced structure. The performance of the building again determined for the same seismic actions. The lateral displacement of the building has significantly improved. The capacity curve coincides the first four accelerations for unbraced structure. The capacity curve is more than the demand curve and coincide all demand curves for all return periods and all accelerations for braced frame. The size of concentric tension brace is bigger; that is why no plastic hinges formed for all peak ground accelerations.
Seismic Action, Return Period, Seismic Performance, Capacity-Demand Curve, Retro-Fitting
To cite this article
Bulbul Ahmed, S. M. Zahurul Islam, Seismic Performance and Retrofitting of Steel Building, Industrial Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 1-10. doi: 10.11648/j.ie.20190301.11
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Clotaire Michel, Amin Karbassi, Pierino Lestuzzi, Evaluation of the seismic retrofitting of a reinforced masonry building using numerical modeling and ambient vibration measurements, Engineering Structures 158 (2018) 124–135.
Asteris PG, Chronopoulos MP, Chrysostomou CZ, Varum H, Plevris V, Kyriakides N, et al. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Eng Struct 2014; 62–63:118–34.
Karbassi A, Nollet MJ. Performance-based seismic vulnerability evaluation of masonry buildings using applied element method in a nonlinear dynamic-based analytical procedure. Earthq Spectra 2013; 29:399–426.
Zhong-Kui Cai, Daiyu Wang, Zhenyu Wang*, Full-scale seismic testing of concrete building columns reinforced with both steel and CFRP bars, Composite Structures 178 (2017) 195–209.
Islam, B., Ahsan, R., Rashed, G. M., Retrofit Techniques of Structures Associated with Soft Story, International Conference on Civil Engineering, 2012; 2: 25-29.
Liossatou E, Fardis MN. Residual displacements of RC structures as SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct D 2015; 44 (5):713–34.
Thenozhi, S., Yu, W., Advances in modeling and vibration control of building structures. Ann Rev Contr 2013; 37: 346-64.
Guo T, Cao Z, Xu Z, Lu S. Cyclic load tests on self-centering concrete pier with external dissipators and enhanced durability. J Struct Eng 2016; 142 (1):04015088.
May, P., Societal implications of performance-based earthquake engineering, PEER 2006/12. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2007.
Chandar, S. S., Rehabilitation of Buildings, International Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 2014; 5 (4): 333-338.
Hendramawat A Safarizki, Kristiawan, S. A., Basuki, A., Evaluation of the Use of Steel Bracing to Improve Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Building, The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Civil Engineering, 2013; (54) 447-456.
EN 1990- ENV 1991-1:1994. “Eurocode 0: Annex A1 (normative) Application for Buildings - “Eurocode - Basis of structural design”.
EN 1991-1-3: 2003 (E). “Eurocode 1: “Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions Snow loads”.
EN 1991-1-4: 2005 (E). “Eurocode 1: “Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions Wind actions”.
EN 1993-1-1: 2005 (E). “Eurocode 3: “Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings”.
EN 1993-1-8: 2005 (E). “Eurocode 3: “Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints”.
FEM Software: SAP 2000; Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2017.
EN 1998-1 (2004): Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”.
EN 1998-1: 2004. “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”.
Browse journals by subject