Comparative Investigation on Mode Shapes and Natural Frequency of Low-Rise RC Frame Building

Sharma, Pushkar; Gupta, Tanmay

doi:10.1007/978-981-16-6557-8_72

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings, however, demonstrate an appropriate error in the range (1-30%), and the seism struct provided genuine natural frequency calculations since the Indian code has a regular mode shape. This work also examines the limits of doing modal analysis [42].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison Analysis of Buildings as per Norwegian and Ethiopia ES-EN1998-1 Seismic Code

Abate,

Evangelista,

Tam

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An earthquake is one of the most significant and shocking natural disasters ever documented anywhere on the planet. Throughout history, it has claimed millions of lives and wreaked devastation on infrastructure. Because earthquake forces are spontaneous and unpredictable, engineering methods must be honed to investigate buildings under the impact of these forces. The dynamic and static computations of four RC multistory structure prototypes with various elevations in a high seismic zone are compared in this paper. The project under review is modeled as a 3, 6, 12, and 18-story establishment, and it is analyzed employing ETABS vs. 2019. The Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Procedure is used for static experimentation, while the Response Spectrum (RS) Procedure is employed for dynamic investigation. Both calculations are performed as per the EUROCODE 8-2004 recommendation. The ELF seismic load practice utilized was for the country of Norway, which has similar parameters to the ES-EN 8-15 seismic regulation Type I target RS, with ag/g = 0.1, spectrum type = I, soil factor S = 1.3 ground type, spectrum period (Tb, Tc, and Td) 0.1 s, 0.25 s, and 1.5 s. For the RS investigation, the parameters employed are as per ESEN-2015, ag/g = 0.1, and the spectrum type = I and ground type = B parameters were involved in the same manner for the RS analysis. The soil factor was set to 1.35; the spectrum period was set to (Tb, Tc, and Td) 0.05 s, 0.25 s, and 1.2 s. The behavior factor = 3.8, the lower bound factor = 0.2, and the damping ratio = 0.05. The results are then compared by employing different components such as displacement, story drift, story stiffness, base story shear, and story moment. Ultimately, a comparison of static and dynamic investigations has been carried out. Compared to the RS approach, the ELF technique produces more additional displacement, total drift, and base shear. As per the findings of this paper, for high-rise and tall buildings, dynamic analysis such as RS should be used rather than static analysis (ELF).

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%