Comparison Of The Response Of Regular Structure And Horizontal Irregularities In An Earthquake Due To Using An Equivalent Static Analysis And Time History

by ADMIN 155 views

Introduction

Earthquake loads are a crucial aspect in planning building structures to ensure they can withstand earthquake shocks. In this analysis, there are three commonly used methods: static analysis, dynamic analysis of spectrum responses, and dynamic analysis of time history. This article will discuss the comparison of the accuracy of the Static Equivalent Analysis and Dynamic Time History Analysis in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes.

Background

Earthquake analysis is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors, including the type of building structure, the severity of the earthquake, and the analysis method used. The accuracy of the analysis method is critical in ensuring that the building structure can withstand the forces exerted by the earthquake. In this study, we will examine the accuracy of the Static Equivalent Analysis in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes.

Methodology

This study uses two 8-storey building models with a Special Moment Frame System (SRPMK). Both of these models have significant internal angular differences: the first model has an angle in 10% (regular structure), while the second model has an inner angle of 40% (irregular structure). The two models were then analyzed by the Equivalent Static Analysis method and Dynamic Time History Analysis.

Dynamic Analysis of Time History

Dynamic Analysis of time history uses the superposition method (capital analysis method) with four recorded earthquake records that have been adjusted to the response of the Padang City design spectra. The earthquake recording used was the Parkfield Earthquake, the Imperial Valley earthquake, the Loma Coralito earthquake, and the Parachute IMP IMP earthquake. Calculations are carried out with the help of the SAP 2000 version 14 Program in 3D. Structural responses analyzed include displacement (displacement), inter-floor intersection ratio (drift ratio), and bending moments and columns.

Results

The results of the analysis showed a significant difference between the structural response obtained through the static equivalent analysis and the dynamic analysis of time history. In a regular structure with an angle in 10%, an equivalent static analysis is still quite accurate because it produces a greater structural response value compared to time history analysis.

However, in irregular structures with angle in 40%, the static analysis of equivalent is proven to be inaccurate. This can be seen from some of the smaller structural response values ​​compared to time history analysis.

Discussion

From the results of this study, it can be concluded that the static analysis of equivalent can still be used to estimate the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with regular configurations. However, for buildings with irregular configurations, the static equivalent analysis is inaccurate in predicting structural responses, and the use of dynamic time history analysis is needed for more precise results.

Conclusion

This study provides a deeper understanding of the accuracy of the commonly used structural analysis method. The results can help engineers in choosing the right analysis method for the design of earthquake-resistant building structures, especially in buildings with irregular configurations.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

  • For buildings with regular configurations, the static equivalent analysis can be used to estimate the structural response due to earthquakes.
  • For buildings with irregular configurations, the dynamic time history analysis should be used to obtain more precise results.
  • Engineers should carefully consider the type of building structure and the analysis method used to ensure that the building can withstand the forces exerted by the earthquake.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, including:

  • The study only used two building models with different internal angular differences.
  • The study only used four recorded earthquake records.
  • The study only analyzed the structural response in terms of displacement, drift ratio, and bending moments and columns.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions include:

  • Conducting a more comprehensive study using a larger number of building models and earthquake records.
  • Analyzing the structural response in terms of other parameters, such as shear forces and torsional moments.
  • Developing a more accurate analysis method that can predict the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with irregular configurations.

References

Appendix

The appendix includes the following:

  • The building models used in the study.
  • The earthquake records used in the study.
  • The analysis results obtained from the study.
    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Comparison of the Response of Regular Structure and Horizontal Irregularities in an Earthquake due to Using an Equivalent Static Analysis and Time History ===========================================================

Q: What is the main objective of this study?

A: The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of the Static Equivalent Analysis and Dynamic Time History Analysis in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with regular and irregular configurations.

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

A: The key findings of this study are:

  • The static equivalent analysis is accurate in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with regular configurations.
  • The static equivalent analysis is inaccurate in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with irregular configurations.
  • The dynamic time history analysis is more accurate in predicting the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with irregular configurations.

Q: What are the implications of this study?

A: The implications of this study are:

  • Engineers should use the dynamic time history analysis for buildings with irregular configurations to obtain more accurate results.
  • The static equivalent analysis can be used for buildings with regular configurations, but with caution and careful consideration of the analysis method used.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study are:

  • The study only used two building models with different internal angular differences.
  • The study only used four recorded earthquake records.
  • The study only analyzed the structural response in terms of displacement, drift ratio, and bending moments and columns.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: The future research directions are:

  • Conducting a more comprehensive study using a larger number of building models and earthquake records.
  • Analyzing the structural response in terms of other parameters, such as shear forces and torsional moments.
  • Developing a more accurate analysis method that can predict the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with irregular configurations.

Q: What are the practical applications of this study?

A: The practical applications of this study are:

  • Engineers can use the results of this study to choose the right analysis method for the design of earthquake-resistant building structures.
  • The study can help engineers to better understand the behavior of buildings with irregular configurations under earthquake loads.
  • The study can provide a basis for developing more accurate analysis methods for predicting the structural response due to earthquakes.

Q: What are the potential risks of using the static equivalent analysis for buildings with irregular configurations?

A: The potential risks of using the static equivalent analysis for buildings with irregular configurations are:

  • The analysis may not accurately predict the structural response due to earthquakes, leading to potential damage or collapse of the building.
  • The analysis may not account for the complex behavior of buildings with irregular configurations, leading to inaccurate results.

Q: What are the potential benefits of using the dynamic time history analysis for buildings with irregular configurations?

A: The potential benefits of using the dynamic time history analysis for buildings with irregular configurations are:

  • The analysis can provide more accurate results for buildings with irregular configurations.
  • The analysis can account for the complex behavior of buildings with irregular configurations.
  • The analysis can help engineers to better understand the behavior of buildings with irregular configurations under earthquake loads.

Q: What are the next steps in this research?

A: The next steps in this research are:

  • Conducting a more comprehensive study using a larger number of building models and earthquake records.
  • Analyzing the structural response in terms of other parameters, such as shear forces and torsional moments.
  • Developing a more accurate analysis method that can predict the structural response due to earthquakes in buildings with irregular configurations.