Proposal For Earthquake Resistant Buildings

Problem Statement

Through million years of evolution, humans are constantly developing new technology and techniques to adopt with the environment and nature of the world. Even though, the nature provides us the resources which are necessary to live, it also brings disaster some time such as floods and earth quake. However, the researchers are consistently trying to find cost effective design solution to prevent damage from such natural distress. Earthquakes have a life-altering impact on the living beings unless they are fortunate enough to survive. Building damage is the greatest in areas of soft sediments as huge buildings are more likely effected by the earthquakes compare to the smaller buildings.  Buildings can be constructed to withstand most earthquakes by adopting resistant designs. Depend upon the level of earthquake, certain regions takes special consideration to design building. Some believes that Earthquake resistant design (EQRD) of buildings are still at dark ages (Das & Guha, 2016). Still experts are constantly trying to provide an effective solution to prevent such damage. Nowadays, they are trying to develop new techniques while utilizing new materials which maybe offer more significant promise in deducing the seismic risk. Seismic risk defines a likelihood of incidence of a definite level of seismic hazard or damage over a definite time and is measured by three parameters: probability, a level of hazard or loss, and exposure time.

This paper discuss about the multi-disciplinary turf of engineering, the design of earth quake-resistant structures. The problem statement is identified as have we learned enough over the years about building structures that will behave predictably and within acceptable damage limits?

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate the possible solution of building resistant design. The professionals associate with the EQRD are able to provide various cost effective design solutions to construct more effective structure.

Objectives:

• To understand the current development issues decreasing the level of indecisions in calculating the ground motion.
• To determine what is ‘the level of acceptable risk’ which can be used to design earthquake resistant buildings.

There are certain design criterion which must be satisfied while constructing a basic design of earthquake-resistant structure. Firstly, Computed capacity defines ability of the structure to resist the impact of the earthquake without any causalities (Kappos & Penelis, 2014).  On other hand seismic demand can be define as the impact of the earthquake on the buildings. The design demand is the predicted maximum value of seismic demand for design purposes and actual distribution indicates that there is some probability that it would be exceeded. However, it is believed among professionals that no structure is completely safe and the seismic demand can be also measured due to the uncertainty of the earthquake load (Subramani & Vasanthi, 2016). Experts are constantly trying to construct the optimal design which would be able to withstand the impact of the earthquakes to an extent. The earthquakes loads hits the ground, then the foundations of the structure is impacted by the collation of the inner plates. If the foundation of the structureis unable to withstand the collation eimpact, the buildings falls aas result. Certain designs are more suitable to withstand such impact. However, the level of the impact is the key as it differs (Bernat-Maso, Gil & Escrig, 2016).

Research Aim and Objective

Some buildings are more effective to withstand the impact than other due to the the irregularity in the building structures. The irregularity is mainly depends upon the stiffness, strength and mass along with the height of structure (Azimi & Asgary, 2013). In the high intensity zones, the buildings are constructed with very complex design in order avoid critical damage. There are two types of irregularities as vertical irregularities and plan irregularities.

a) Stiffness Irregularity

i) Vertical Geometric Irregularity

Vertical geometric strurure is called irregular due to the high lateral force resisting system.if the force increase more than 150 percent on the horizontal dimension, the irregularity ooccurs as result.   

ii) Extreme Soft Storey-when the stiffness of the lateral is less than 70 percent of the average stiffness and above or less than 60 percent of that in the storey.  

iii) Mass Irregularity-where seismic weight of any storey is higher than 200 percent, the mass irregularity eisted  of its adjacent storey’s.

In order to overcome the EQRD problem, experts must rely on new technology and materials. In near future, professionals would be able to provide an effective solution design. The emerging future trends are followed:

. The main goal of the professionals is to construct the design inequality with maximum functionality and least possible cost (Arya, Boen & Ishiyama, 2014). Bayesian statics nad probability theory offers an mathematical framework which is useful to calculate the uncertianity of the design wquation. This frawork can assist to construct more effective design which could withstand the impact of the earthquake. Some buildings are more effective to withstand the impact than other due to the the irregularity in the building structures. The irregularity is mainly depends upon the stiffness, strength and mass along with the height of structure (Azimi & Asgary, 2013). In the high intensity zones, the buildings are constructed with very complex design in order avoid critical damage.

Strategies to make buildings earthquake resistant

Weaker Building	Strong Building
Little or no bracing	Bracing used throughout
Uneven bracing	Symmetric bracing
Bracing missing on some sides	Bracing on all side of structure
Building not attached to foundation	Structure firmly attached to foundation
Complex shapes	Simply Shapes
Spacious floor plan	Not many open spaces, especially on first floor
lopsided	Evenly distributed weight
Heavy roof	Light roof
Long spans of support/beans	Short spans of support/beans
Careless Construction	Careful Construction

.In order to complete the analysis of the study, secondary research methodology is chosen. Different scolar articles have been studied and data have been taken from these articles. The data sets are well connneted to topic and shows the major advatages as well as the disadvantages of the process. The stduyes that have been made form the reserhc articles, the work of the reserchers is being used as a new purpose and enhaced methods will be used for the purpose of the analysis.These datas are properly analysied and results are based on the same.

Task ID	Task Description	Duration	Start Date	End Date
1	Topic Selection	5	01 August 2018	06 August 2018
2	Gather information from secondary sources	15	07 August 2018	22 August 2018
3	Finalize the layout	10	23 August 2018	02 September 2018
4	Review Literature	20	03 September 2018	23 September 2018
5	Develop Plan for Research	15	24 September 2018	09 October 2018
6	Select the correct technique	5	10 October 2018	15 October 2018
7	Collect secondary data	20	16 October 2018	05 November 2018
8	Data analysis and Interpretation	10	06 November 2018	16 November 2018
9	Draw Conclusion	5	17 November 2018	22 November 2018
10	Prepare Rough Draft	7	23 November 2018	30 November 2018
11	Completion of Final Work	15	01 December 2018	16 December 2018

Task ID	Task Description	resource Name	Cost
1	Topic Selection	Superviser	$    10.00
2	Gather information from secondary sources	Researcher	$       5.00
3	Finalize the layout	Researcher	$       2.00
4	Review Literature	Researcher	$       3.00
5	Develop Plan for Research	Researcher	$       5.00
6	Select the correct technique	Researcher	$       4.00
7	Collect secondary data	Researcher	$       2.00
8	Data analysis and Interpretation	Researcher	$       4.00
9	Draw Conclusion	Researcher	$       3.00
10	Prepare Rough Draft	Researcher	$       2.00
11	Completion of Finnal Work	Researcher	$    15.00
	Total cost		$    55.00

Conclusion:

 Building damage is the greatest in areas of soft sediments as huge buildings are more likely effected by the earthquakes compare to the smaller buildings.  Buildings can be constructed to withstand most earthquakes by adopting resistant designs. Depend upon the level of earthquake, certain regions takes special consideration to design building. Some believes that Earthquake resistant design (EQRD) of buildings are still at dark ages (Das & Guha, 2016). Still experts are constantly trying to provide an effective solution to prevent such damage. Nowadays, they are trying to develop new techniques while utilizing new materials which maybe offer more significant promise in deducing the seismic risk. Seismic risk defines a likelihood of incidence of a definite level of seismic hazard or damage over a definite time and is measured by three parameters: probability, a level of hazard or loss, and exposure time.

References:

Arya, A. S., Boen, T., & Ishiyama, Y. (2014). Guidelines for earthquake resistant non-engineered construction. UNESCO.

Azimi, N., & Asgary, A. (2013). Rural residents and choice of building earthquake-resistant house: results of a choice experiment study. Environmental Hazards, 12(3-4), 240-257.

Bernat-Maso, E., Gil, L., & Escrig, C. (2016). Textile-reinforced rammed earth: Experimental characterisation of flexural strength and thoughness. Construction and Building Materials, 106, 470-479.

Das, A., & Guha, P. (2016). Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis of RC regular and irregular frame structures.

El-Tawil, S., Li, H., & Kunnath, S. (2013). Computational simulation of gravity-induced progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings: Current trends and future research needs. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(8), A2513001.

Kappos, A., & Penelis, G. G. (2014). Earthquake resistant concrete structures. CRC Press.

Komur, M. A. (2016). Soft-story effects on the behavior of fixed-base and LRB base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 41(2), 381-391.

Langenbach, R. (2015). The earthquake resistant vernacular architecture in the Himalayas. Seismic retrofitting: Learning from vernacular architecture, 83-92.

Patil, U., & Hallur, S. (2015). Seismic Analysis of G+ 5 Framed Structures with and Without Floating Columns Using ETABS-2013 Software. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(4).

Piroglu, F., Ozakgul, K., & Aydin, E. (2013). Site investigation of masonry buildings damaged during the 23 October and 9 November 2011 Van Earthquakes in Turkey. Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences, 13(3).

Romão, X., Paupério, E., & Menon, A. (2015). Traditional construction in high seismic zones: A losing battle? The case of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Seismic retrofitting: Learning from vernacular architecture, 93-100.

Sreekumar, M. G., & Nair, D. G. (2013). Stabilized lateritic blocks reinforced with fibrous coir wastes. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 23-32.

Subramani, T., & Vasanthi, R. (2016). Earth Quake Resistant Building Using SAP. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), 5(5), 173-181.