Global Retrofitting Strategies for an Existing Three-storied RC School Building in Mandalay, Myanmar
pdf

Keywords

Non-seismic
Priority Index
Pushover analysis
Retrofit strategies
Steel plate shear wall

Abstract

Low to severe earthquakes occur around the world every year, damaging and causing structural failure in buildings. Consequently, seismic improvements are required for existing buildings that are vulnerable to damage by seismic forces. The objective of this study was to investigate retrofitting strategies in terms of their sustainability. Mandalay, Myanmar, was selected as the study area as it is located near the Sagaing fault, which itself is in a strong earthquake zone (seismic zone 4). A three-storied RC building with a non-seismic design was selected as a case study building. An investigation was carried out into the performance and vulnerability of the building under three earthquake hazard levels. The vulnerability index value was calculated using the Priority Index method. Meanwhile, non-linear static pushover analysis was performed to investigate the performance of the existing building using SAP2000 V14 software. Four different types of retrofitting strategies were considered, namely reinforced concrete shear walls with openings, reinforced concrete shear walls without openings, steel plate shear walls, and finally steel bracing. Among these, it was found that the use of steel plate shear walls was the best retrofitting technique, owing to it having the best performance along with the lowest displacement. Its performance level reached up to the Immediate Occupancy (IO) level even under the conditions of a Maximum Consider Earthquake (MCE).

https://doi.org/10.29037/ajstd.616
pdf

References

Applied Technology Council. 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Redwood City: Applied Technology Council.

Chakrabarti A, Menon D, Sengupta AK. 2008. Handbook on seismic retrofit of buildings. Oxford: Alpha Science International.

Dönmez C, Pujol S. 2005. Spatial distribution of damage caused by the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Earthq Spectra. 21(1):53–69. doi:10.1193/1.1850527.

Fathalizadeh A. 2017. Introducing two most common types of shear walls and their construction methods. J Civ Eng Res. 1(1):8–12. http://www.journals-researchers.com/ojs/index.php/jcer/article/view/1.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Hassan AF, Sozen MA. 1997. Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise buildings in regions with infrequent earthquakes. ACI Struct J. 94(1):31–39. doi:10.14359/458.

Kaplan H, Yilmaz S, Cetinkaya N, Atimtay E. 2011. Seismic strengthening of RC structures with exterior shear walls. Sadhana. 36(1):17–34. doi:10.1007/s12046-011-0002-z.

Nyein EK. 2018. Development of seismic vulnerability-map for RC buildings in Patheingyi Township and Mandalay.

Sahin C. 2014. Seismic retrofitting of existing structures. Portland: Portland State University.

Thant M, Ngal NL, Tun ST, Thein M, Swe W, Myint T. 2012. Seismic hazard assessment for Myanmar. Yangon: Myanmar Earthquake Committee, Myanmar Geoscience Society.

Thwe T, Thwin NSLM. 2020. Improvement of seismic performance for existing RC building with shear walls. Proceedings of the Universal Academic Cluster International February Conference; Bangkok, Thailand. p. 34–48.

Zhou W, Zheng W, Pujol S. 2013. Seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete structures affected by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng. 11(6):2079–2104. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9517-5.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.