THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCE &

SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (ICASI 2018)

Parametric Studies of Floor Rotation

Performance of Assymmetrical Building
Affected by Pulse Ground Motion

1Gamal Halim (gamalhalim@live.com)

2Ade Faisal (adefaisal@yahoo.com)
 INTRODUCTION

The damage of building can be avoided by

understanding properly the configuration plan
of building.
 INTRODUCTION

Irregular shape plan buildings (so-called

assymmetrical building), like most buildings
in general, can cause severe damage to
structures when exposed to seismic forces.
 INTRODUCTION

Floor torsion can cause quite serious

problems in buildings such as increased
displacement at the extreme points of the
building and the problems in lateral retaining
elements located on the edges of buildings.
 MODELING Of THE SYSTEM

The structural
system is taken
from the study
done by Beyer
(2007) which is
so-called Beyer’s
Model.
The building size is 25 m x 15 m and the height is 3
m for each floor.
 MODELING Of THE SYSTEM

However, in the plan model, the size of the shear

wall is adjusted in line with the considered
eccentricity.
The system has natural period of T1 = 0.97 s, T2 =
0.88 s, and T3 = 0.48 s.
 RECORDING of EARTHQUAKE

The near-fault ground motion is mainly affected the following

points: 1) earthquake mechanism; 2) the direction of fault
propagation relative to the site; 3) the possibility of
permanent displacement due to fracture. The above
mentioned points are then known by quake observers as
"rupture directivity" and "fling step". The rupture directivity
effect produces the pulse signature in the motion.
 RECORDING Of EARTHQUAKE
No Tp-Pulse Earthquake Mag. Mechanism Rjb (km) Rrup Vs30
Period (sec) Name (km) (m/sec)

1 1.092 Kobe, Japan 6.9 strike slip 0.94 0.96 269.14

2 1.372 Northridge-01 6.69 Reverse 3.16 5.92 269.14

3 2.828 Kobe, Japan 6.9 strike slip 3.31 3.31 370.52

4 3.528 Northridge-01 6.69 Reverse 0 5.19 370.52

5 5.341 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 7.62 Reverse 9.62 9.62 427.73

Oblique
6 7.791 Kocaeli, Turkey 7.51 strike slip 10.56 13.49 353.63

7 6.265 Imperial Valley- 6.53 strike slip 5.09 5.09 202.26

06

8 6.265 Imperial Valley- 5.12 strike slip 6.01 6.01 282.5

9 9.128 Landers 7.28 strike slip 34.86 34.86 370.08

10 6.188 Tabas, Iran 7.35 Reverse 1.79 2.05 766.77
 DETAILS Of PARAMETRIC STUDIES
 This research has used three eccentricities, which is calculated based
on the centre of second moment of inertia of the wall system.
Walls Size Ix (m4) Iy (m4)

Eccentricity 1

Wall 1 5,0 x 0,2 2,083 0,003

Wall 2 2,5 x 0,3 0,391 0,006

Eccentricity 2

Wall 1 5,0 x 0,2 2,083 0,003

Wall 2 2,5 x 0,3 0,391 0,006

Eccentricity 3

Wall 1 5,26 x 0,24 2,895 0,006

Wall 2 2,0 x 0,2 0,133 0,001

 DETAILS Of PARAMETRIC STUDIES
 This research has used three eccentricities, which is calculated based
on the centre of second moment of inertia of the wall system.
Varies eks1 eks2 eks3

Name CR1 CR2 CR3

Place (m) 1,250 2,187 3,375

Wall 4

Wall 1 Wall 2

Wall 3
 DETAILS Of PARAMETRIC STUDIES
 The base shear design (V) is calculated based on SNI 03-1726-2012.
It is produced the results listed in Table 4. The base shear force is
used to calculate the hinge properties of the walls of system.

Eccentricity R V (KN)

3 2877
4 2158
Eccentricity 1
5 1726
6 1439
3 2685
4 2014
Eccentricity 2
5 1611
6 1342
3 2435
4 1826
Eccentricity 3
5 1461
6 1218
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 The results are taken from 150 simulations, which is

involving 15 building models and 10 ground motions.
 The overall model of the building is influenced by the
parameter of Eccentricity of the building and the Response
Modification Factor (R).
 The three models of eccentricity of this building have
different periods of natural buildings. This happens
because of differences in the rigidity of the building.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Elastic System  Inelastic System

Based on figures, it is clear that the floor drift that occurs during
elastic and inelastic conditions are not the same. And the
deformation in inelastic condition is always greater than the
elastic condition. The difference in inelastic elasticity value to
elastic up to 51% indicates that the building is still able to survive
further than the elastic limit before the building is collapse.
 CONCLUSIONS
 This study can conclude the following insights:
1. Inelastic buildings can deform larger than elastic buildings.
The maximum elastic deformation has found to be 0.176
mm, whereas the inelastic system produced of 0.226 mm.
The difference between the both is reached to 51%, which
is indicated that the building is still able to further withstand
than the elastic limit before the building is collapsed.
2. The presence of rigid parts of the building of the other part
will affect the location of the center of rigidity thus creating
an eccentricity of stiffness. In system with Eccentricity 1, the
deformation has shown of 38% difference, whereas system
with Eccentricity 2 and 3 has indicated 91% and 163% of
difference, respectively. These results are the system with
R = 3.
 REFERENCES
 Anagnostopoulos, S. A., Alexopoulou, C., dan Stathopoulos, K. G. (2010). An
answer to an important controversy and the need for caution when using
simple models to predict inelastic earthquake response of buildings with
torsion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , 521–540.
 Anonim. (2005). International Code Council, Inc. Illinois: Building Officials and
Code Administrators International, Inc.
 Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2002). Standar Perencanaan Ketahanan
Gempa Untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung (SNI-1726-2002). Jakarta: BSN.
 Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2012). Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan
Gempa untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung dan Non Gedung (SNI 03-1726-
2012). Jakarta: BSN.
 Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2002). Tata Cara Perhitungan Struktur Beton
Untuk Bangunan Gedung (SNI-2847-2002). Jakarta: BSN.
 Beyer, K., dan Bommer, J. J. (2007). Selection and Scaling of Real
Accelerograms for Bi-Directional Loading: A Review of Current Practice and
Code Provisions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11 , 13-45.
 REFERENCES
 Budiono, B., dan Supriatna, L. (2011). Studi Komparasi Desain Bangunan
Tahan Gempa: dengan Menggunakan SNI 03-1726-2002 dan RSNI 03-1726-
201x. Bandung: Penerbit ITB.
 De Stefano, M., dan Pintucchi, B. (2008). A Review Of Research On Seismic
Behaviour Of Irregular Building Structures Since 2002. Bull Earthquake Eng 6
, 285-308.
 De Stefano, M., Marino, E. M., dan Rossi, P. P. (2006). Effect of Overstrength
on the Seismic Behaviour of Multi-storey. Bull Earthquake Eng 4 , 23–42.
 Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., Lange, S. T., dan Deierlein, G. G. (2008). Beam-
Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading
to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
 Imran, I., dan Hendrik, F. (2010). Perencanaan Struktur Gedung Beton
Bertulang Tahan Gempa. Bandung: Penerbit ITB.
 Katsanos, E. I., Sextos, A. G., dan Manolis, G. D. (2010). Selection of
earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 30 , 157–169.
 REFERENCES
 Marusic, D., dan Fajfar, P. (2005). On the Inelastic Seismic Response of
Asymmetric Buildings Under Bi-axial Excitation. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamic , 943–963.
 Pawirodikromo, W. (2012). Seismologi Teknik dan Rekayasa Kegempaan.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
 Roy, R., dan Chakroborty, S. (2013). Seismic Demand of Plan-asymmetric
Structures: A Revisit. Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Vibration 12 , 99-
117.
 Sommer, A., dan Bachmann, H. (2005). Seismic Behavior of Asymmetric RC
Wall Buildings: Principles and New Deformation-based design method.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , 101–124.
 Stathopoulos, K. G., dan Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2005). Inelastic Torsion Of
Multistorey Buildings Under Earthquake Excitations. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics , 1449–1465.
TERIMA KASIH