Question 1:
The building shown, 20 × 35 m in plan, has columns on a 5 × 5 m grid and shear walls (with dimensions shown in m, 250 mm in thickness) in three alternative arrangements, (a), (b), (c), all with the same total cross-sectional area of the shear walls. Compare the three alternatives, taking into account the restraint of floor shrinkage, the lateral stiffness and the torsional one with respect to the vertical axis, the vertical reinforcement required for the same total flexural capacity at the base, the static eccentricity, the system’s redundancy, foundation systems, architectural constraints etc.
Restraint of Floor shrinkage
Observation
Full restraints at all corners
Corners are left free but restraints along the edge
Non-uniform restraints
Conclusion
Option(a) will have higher restraint to shrinkage, thus lead to cracks in the floor.
Option(b) is average.
Option(c) will not effectively restrain the shrinkage, so possibly less cracks.
The Lateral stiffness
Observation
Comparatively Lower Lateral stiffness in both X and Y
Uniform and comparatively higher lateral stiffness in both X and Y
Non uniform Lateral stiffness in both X and Y
Conclusion
Option(b) will provide higher lateral stiffness for a pure seismic acceleration in X and Y directions.
Torsion with respect to vertical axis
Observation
Corner Walls provide more resistance to twist
Edge Walls provide good resistance to twist
Irregular Walls provide very poor resistance to twist
Option(a) will be best option with respect to Torsional resistance whereas
Option(c) is the worst one.
Conclusion
Vertical reinforcement for similar base capacity
Observation
Walls are subjected to nominal flexural moment and heavy twisting moment
Walls are subjected to nominal twisting moment
Walls are subjected to heavy flexural moment and twisting moment
Conclusion
Option(c) will require higher vertical reinforcement and
Option(b) will require the least
Static eccentricity
Observation
Structurally symmetric
Un-symmetric
Only Option(c) will have static eccentricity and it is significant
Conclusion
System's redundancy
Observation
Uniform placement of lateral load supports in both the axes
Uniform placement of lateral load supports in both the axes
Concentrated lateral load supports in both the axes
Conclusion
Option(a) and (b) are more redundant than Option(c)
Foundation systems
Observation
Due to 'L' shaped Walls, the geometry of foundation and its design will be critical
Walls are in line. Easy to
fix the geometry and design of foundation
Walls are in line & concentrated. Easy to fix the geometry of foundation but critical in design
Conclusion
Option(b) and Option(c) shall be incorporated with isolated footings/strip footings.
Option(a) is recommended to have peripheral box foundation.
Architectural constraints
Observation
Walls obstruct only corners.
Walls obstruct the faces of building.
Vertical wall will not allow passage
Conclusion
Architecturally speaking, Option(a) is the preferred one.
Option(b) is subjected to discussion
Option(c) will not be accepted both architecturally and commercially
Question 2:
Discuss the suitability for earthquake resistance of the moment resisting framing plan of a three-storey building depicted here (cross-sectional dimensions in cm), the eccentricity of the centre of mass (as centroid of floor plan) to the centre of stiffness (from the moments of inertia of the columns) are shown. Suggest an alternative. Also, is there torsional flexibility? Are the two fundamental translational modes of vibration larger than the fundamental torsional mode of vibration. Discuss qualitatively.
Issues in the given Framing plan:
Indirect lateral load Transfer in X and Y directions - The beams are connecting to another beams which is ineffective during lateral load transfer. In such conditions, the primary beam is prone to shear failure.
Issues in the given Framing plan:
Eccentricity - The longer the distance between center of mass and center of stiffness, the higher torsional moment of the building. As per the given plan eccentricity, the building is subjected to higher torsional moment (Torsional flexibility) in both X and Y directions.
Strong beam Weak Column possibility
-The size of columns majorly mentioned as 25 cm x 25 cm. But all the beams have much deeper section (50cm). Inertia of beam is visually higher than column. If the column reinforcement is adequately greater than that of beams, we are okay and since we do not have the reinforcement detail, this is doubtful. It is recommended to have slight bigger sizes for column.
Question 3:
A multi-storey building with basement, with a quadrilateral (non symmetrical floor plan) plan as, has interior columns in an irregular (not in a grid) pattern in plan that serves architectural and functional considerations. Partition walls and interior beams supporting the slab have different layout in different stories. However, there is no constraint to the type, location and size of the lateral force resisting components and sub-systems on the perimeter. Proposals are to be made and justified for the choice of the lateral-load-resisting system and its foundation.
Observations in the given Framing plan:
Floor plan - The floor plan of building is not either uniform or symmetric. So naturally any lateral load induced in the floor will not have 100% influence in same direction. Definitely a Special lateral load resisting system for these torsional moments should be accommodated.
Random Internal columns - Since the internal columns are random, they are unable to transfer lateral loads efficiently and can not achieve desirable building response. So we have to assume and design those columns for only gravity loads.
Floor to floor variations in Partition walls and Beams - Partition walls provide an important mass control in a building and beams play key role in shear transfer from floor to beam. All these elements are not in order. So heavy distortion and distribution of lateral loads will happen.
Suggestion on the Lateral load system & Its foundation:
Heavy torsional forces should be controlled by respective lateral load system. So "Corner Shear walls" are suggested.
The proportion of floor area is greater on the left side than the right side (Irregular quadrilateral). So Corner shear walls on the left side should be heavier than the right.
Corner Shear walls shall preferably be supported over a box foundation. Shear walls should be connected by Link beams to transfer shear from one to the other.
The internal columns shall be supported by isolated footings. Those isolated footings can be connected with Shear walls through Tie beams.
