Conceptual design of a building with columns and shear walls

Week-5 Challenge

1Q.

Answer:

For the structure a.

• Due to the asymmetry of this structure, it is taken into consideration.
• The shear wall's L-shaped shape and the horizontal irregularities present here cannot be taken into consideration.
• Regarding specific aspects of the seismic response of non-rectangular walls, there is some uncertainty.
• Lack of tensile strength and force configuration cause it to happen.
• These walls are subject to biaxial bending and bidirectional shears during earthquakes because they have high stiffness and strength in both directions.

For the structure b.

• For this structure, the frame's placement of the shear walls can be viewed as symmetrical.
• With as much two-way symmetry as possible, the walls of a wall system of this frame could be arranged in two horizontal directions.
• Because the shear walls are arranged symmetrically and similarly at each storey, it can be assumed that their resistance to seismic forces and deformation demands is fairly uniform, reducing uncertainty regarding the seismic response.

For the structure c.

• Because the shear walls present are not arranged in two orthogonal horizontal directions, this structure can be said to be asymmetrical in nature.
• Such a structure's center of mass and center of gravity won't be too far apart, allowing the first two fundamental modes to transition between each other.
• Since the foundation, shear wall, and columns are placed differently, they take up a significant amount of time during earthquakes.
• The load will not be distributed equally in both directions by this kind of shear wall system. As a result, this structure lacks redundancy.
• The wall provides more eccentricity and lateral stiffness on the left side. As a result, when it happens, the damage or failure will be less.

2Q.

Answer:

• A two-way eccentricity of the center of mass in relation to the center of stiffness exists in this structural frame, where the eccentricity of the x-direction is greater than the eccentricity of the y-direction.
• Because the beams in this structure are stronger than the columns, the design is weak column strong beam in nature.
• Because of the lateral forces acting on the structure, this structure needs a shear wall to prevent column failure.
• Shear walls and columns working together help to keep structures from collapsing when seismic forces are present.
• As shown in the frame plan, the alignment of the beams is uniformly continuous in the X and Y directions for B1 and B2, and B11 and B12, B9 and B10.
• However, because the structural frame is not continuous and there are additional all beams, lateral forces make it difficult to distribute the load evenly throughout the entire structure.
  Instead of following seismic design scenarios, beams with long spans may have their top reinforcement at the supports determined by factored gravity load.
  
  
• As a result, this structure will switch to a better offset, symmetrical portal.
• In order to achieve lateral stiffness, mass regularity, and moment resisting factor, the connections between the column beams must be in the proper cross section area.
  Because it achieves a uniformly spread, global inelastic displacement demand at roof level, to all storeys, we believe that beam-sway mechanisms in strong column/weak beam design frames are preferable.

• Due to the need to prevent the loss of center of stiffness caused by lateral forces occurring throughout the structure, we changed the column of C5 and C8 to be thought of as a combined footing in this instance.
• The center of mass and the center of stiffness should remain within the structure during lateral horizontal force action as we add one more column of C10 to the boundary of the plan.
  
  

3Q.

Answer:

• The heavy seismic zone areas are completely unsuited to this plan.
• The interior columns in this plan are asymmetrical.
• The partition wall, which is attached to the base of the beam, should be able to withstand any lateral deformation brought on by the structure.
• The interior beams will support the slab and then resist an earthquake-related failure with the lateral load.
• Due to its direct alignment with a column's centroidal axis, we provided flat slabs for these irregular columns in the plan.
• Because of the irregular plan and continuous nature of the beams at various locations, it is prohibited for them to withstand the local seismic load.
• The flat sab is a better choice for this design than a typical beam-column junction because it supports the columns without the use of a beam, lowering the building's weight and indirectly enhancing the structure's ductility.
• In order to solve this structure's problem, we offer a shear wall that runs from the structure's foundation up through vertical components. This should reduce the risk of sudden failure occurring as a result of lateral force acting on the structure.