Vol. 20 No. 2 (2017) Cover Image
Vol. 20 No. 2 (2017)

Published: March 31, 2017

Pages: 425-435

Articles

A Comparative Study on the Design Spectra Defined by Several Codes of Practice on RC Building Located in Baghdad City

Husain Khalaf Jarallah 1 Zahir Noori M. Taki 2
1 Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Al-Mustansiriyah University
2 Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University
History
  • Received: January 10, 2017
  • Available Online: March 25, 2017

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of different design spectral response acceleration parameters as suggested by the uniform building code (UBC), unified facilities criteria (UFC), and Iraqi seismic code(1997) (ISC 97) on the seismic response of reinforced concrete multi-story framed building located in Baghdad city, Iraq. These parameters are: (a) spectral response accelerations Ss, at short periods, and S1 at a 1-second period in accordance with international building code (IBC), (b) seismic zone factor (Z) according to UBC, (c) Seismic hazard zoning coefficient (Z) according to ISC 97. In this paper, first, the elastic seismic responses for significant modes of vibration for chosen building under design response spectrum that obtained from the above mentioned codes are calculated, and then a comparison was made among different design spectral response acceleration parameters. The intent of this study is to review the seismic provisions of the current edition of Iraqi seismic code (1997) to determine whether it provides an equivalent level of safety to that contained in other international codes. Design base shears, lateral seismic forces, inter story drifts, response spectrum modal, effective seismic modification, floors acceleration and story shears are comparatively presented.

Keywords

References

  1. ACI Committee 318, 2008, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary”, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
  2. ASCE 41-06. , 2007, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, USA.
  3. ASCE 7, (2010), “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10)”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  4. Chopra, A. K., 2007, “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering”, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  5. Computers and Structures, ETABS, 2015, “Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software”, Nonlinear Version 15.0.0, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
  6. Dhanvijay, V., Telang, D., and Nair, V., 2015, “Comparative Study of Different Codes in Seismic Assessment”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume: 02, Issue: 04.
  7. Dogangun, A. and Livaoglu, R., 2006, “A Comparative Study of the Design Spectra Defined By Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C Sample Buildings”, Vol.10, pp 335–351.
  8. IBC, 2009, “International Building Code”, International Code Council, Washington, DC.
  9. Iraqi Seismic Code Requirements For Building, Code 2/1997.
  10. Ismaeil, M. A and Nazar, S., 2014, “A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in UBC-1997 and Saudi Building Code for RC Buildings”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, Vol: 8, No: 4.
  11. Pong, W., Lee, Z. H. and Lee, A.,2006, “A Comparative Study Of Seismic Provisions Between International Building Code 2003 And Uniform Building Code 1997”, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 49–60.
  12. Singh, Y., Khose, V. N. and Lang, D.H., 2012, “A Comparative Study Of Code Provisions For Ductile RC Frame Buildings”, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp.24-28, Lisbon, Portugal.
  13. UBC, 1997, “Uniform Building Code”, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, USA.
  14. Unified Facilities Criteria, 2014, UFC 3-301-01.