Brief Report Of Research done by EERI-VJTI Student Chapter's 1st team VJTI Unshakeables By 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Kunal Chopda Prathamesh Khanolkar Ronak Jain Sameer Dhuri Saurabh Humbre Shivam Mishra Sumit Ghogale Tanmay Kamble Vatsal Mehtalia Yogendra Borse

Guided by 1. Dr Mrs M. A. Chakrabarti , HOD , Structural Dept , V.J.T.I. 2. Dr K. K .Sangle, Prof Structural Dept, V.J.T.I.

1. Introduction : We are a team of undergraduate students from Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), Mumbai. Our team members are driven to make a mark in the field of earthquake sustainability. As a part of this, we students participated in Seismic Design Competition 2012 which is organized by EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). We wish to share this experience with ISSE. We were the 1st team from India to participate in this competition. With this discussion, more undergraduate students will develop interest in this field. The objectives of competition were to promote study of earthquake engineering among undergraduate students. It gave us opportunity to work on a hands-on project designing and constructing a cost-effective frame building to resist seismic loading and understand the fundamentals of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake.Our team was hired to submit a design for a multi-story commercial office building. Our task was to design and construct a cost-effective structure to resist seismic loading. 2. The overall framework of competition is as follows: To verify the seismic load resistance system, a scaled balsa wood model must be constructed and tested. The model is to be subjected to three ground motions, which represent different return period earthquakes. In order to ensure life safety the building model must not collapse during shaking. In addition, the response of the model in terms of roof drift and roof acceleration will be measured during the shaking. For each ground motion, the value of the roof drift will be used to estimate the monetary loss due to damage in the structural and non-structural building components. Likewise, the roof acceleration will be used to estimate the monetary loss due to damaged equipment that is contained inside the building. If collapse occurs, the monetary losses will account for demolishment, reconstruction, and downtime. Finally, the annual seismic cost will be obtained as the sum of the economic loss estimated for each of the earthquakes divided by its return period.A cost-benefit analysis will be carried out to determine the most cost-effective building. This will be done by balancing the revenue with the initial building cost and seismic cost. Project Constraints: The model has to comply with the conditions provided by the organizers as follows:

2.1 Building Dimensions The building must comply with the following dimensions. Max floor plan dimension: 15 in x15 in Min individual floor dimension: 6 in x 6 in Max and min number of floor levels: 29 and 15 Floor height: 2 in Lobby level height (1st level): 4 in Min and max building height: 32 in and 60 in Max rentable total floor area: 4650 in2 (3 m2) 2.2 Weight of Scale Model The total weight of the scale model, including the base and roof plates and any damping devices, should not exceed 4.85 lbs (2.2 kg). The approximate weight of Model Base Plate and Roof Plate 1.1 Kilograms. 2.3 Structural Frame Members Structures shall be made of balsa wood. The maximum member cross section dimensions are: Rectangular member: 1/4 in x 1/4 in and Circular member of dia 1/4 in (6.4 mm). 2.4 Shear Walls Shear walls constructed out of balsa wood must comply with the following requirements: Maximum thickness: 1/8 in Minimum length (plan view): 1 in. Shear walls must span at least one floor. Structural members can attach to the ends of a shear wall. 2.5 Structural Loading Dead loads and inertial masses will be added through steel threaded bars tightened with washers and nuts. These will be firmly attached to the frame in the direction perpendicular to shaking. Floor weight: (1.18 kg) Roof weight: (1.59 kg) Weight spacing: Increments of 1/10th the height (H/10) Length between weights on bar: 16 in Threaded bar diameter: 1/2 in The dead load will be placed at nine floor levels in increments of (H/10), corresponding to (1/10) x H to (9/10) x H. In cases where a floor does not exist at an exact increment of (H/10), the weight will be attached to the nearest higher floor.

Figure 1. Testing of model on shake table with the loads applied

3. Our aim To achieve balance of a stiff and flexible structure in design with Simple structural configuration. The design must be Cost effective and feasible. 4. We proceeded for our project as follows: Before we could start working on actual model, various tests were performed. Following points were considered first: 4.1 TESTING 4.1.1Material

Figure 2. Three point flexure test 4.1.1.1 BALSA wood: The material which is very close to steel is BALSA wood, which is very delicate to handle, as well as tough to work on. As it is brittle, it is liable to fracture and slicing and hence incapable to take considerable strain and deformations. Three point flexure test was performed (refer Figure 2) to determine Elastic modulus of balsa wood from formula E = (5wl4)/384Iy. 4.1.1.2 Adhesives: The joint with the different adhesives were tested for tension and shear failure. And from results, Fevikwik was finalized. Table 1. Strength of Adhesives Adhesive Tensile strength Shear Strength Fevikwik9.5 kg/mm2 0.4 kg/mm2 Araldite Fevicol 4.8 kg/mm2 3.1 kg/mm2 /mm2 15.8 kg/mm2 11.08 kg/mm2

4.1.2 Connection

Figure 3. Gusset plate connection in model No connection was supposed to be made with nails or binding wires etc. Only method to connect to members was to use Groove Joint, Butt Joint, Tongue & Groove Joint, and Oblique Cross Halving Joint to enhance the strength of joint. Also, Gusset Plate is used as moment connection; it increased surface area of contact and joint fixity. 4.1.3 Compression testing of column A prototype of beams and column of 2 storeys is subjected to compression test and the model with desired level is adopted.(refer Figure 4)

Figure 4. Compression test of prototype (buckling of columns at middle beam joints)

4.2 EXPERIMENTS:

To achieve our final model, we made 3 models before. First, the scheme framework of model was tested in ETABS software. Model with the optimum solution was chosen to be erected. The model is then tested on the shake table to study the effect of vibration on the structure simulating to the earthquake force.

. Figure 5: Primary models without bracing First model was made of pine wood due to unavailability and then actual balsa wood is used for rest of the models. Tube In Tube form is used for model 1 and 2. No bracing were provided to understand the behavior of the columns and beam only. Also, the method of erection was improvised from experience. In first model, no more than 3 people could work on the model. But later, it was erected in parts and the structure was made horizontal while assembly. So proper level is achieved. 4.3 Conceptual input in final model : From the experiments, we modified our structure to achieve final model. The features are:

4.3.1 Stiffen the structure:

Structure becomes stiffer if the internal force is more direct, more uniformly distributed and small. This concept is explained with the equations: Deflection of pin jointed structure is = (Ni2Li / EiAi) For i= 1 to m Stiffness of pin jointed structure is = 1/ (Ni2Li / EiAi) = 1/ Ni2fi Where, Ni: is the ith internal force induced by a unit load at the critical point; Li: is the length of ith member; Ei: Youngs modulus of the ith member; Ai: area of the ith member; fi=Li/Ei*Ai is known as the flexibility of the ith member. Hence to increase the stiffness conceptual solution used are 1. As many force components as possible should be zero. 2. No one force component should be significantly larger than the other non-zero forces. 3. The values of all non-zero force components should be as small as possible.

4.3.2 Core area was increased. 4.3.3 Shear Walls: We tried Tapered shear walls which cause reduction in cost, requirement of lesser material, faster completion of project. But it led to formation of soft-storey mechanism due to gradual reduction of shear resisting area, and the structure failed in torsion. Hence, we decided to use continuous shear wall for full height of the structure. 4.3.4 Super Column General super column theory consists of provision of columns having large dimensions and concrete columns having steel sections. They are extended to the top of the structure and provide a high degree of rigidity and generally adopted for tall structure. This was used to design huge right angled triangle shaped hollow columns formed by connecting 3 vertical shear walls at the 4 diagonal corners of the structure This helped to concentrate max weight along the edges and hence use the weight of the structure with maximum benefit. It was made using three shear walls converging to form right-angled triangles at the four corners of the structure. This gave very good performance during software modeling in spite of absence of a core and provision of outriggers. Also, it provided an overall stiffness and symmetry to the structure due to them having high stiffness and being at large distances from the centroid of the structure. This design causes lower amount of torsion. Also very large spans could be provided which is always welcomed by the developers.

4.3.5 Bracing Bracing systems may be used for transmitting loads and increasing lateral structural stiffness. There are many options to arrange bracing members and there are unlimited numbers of bracing patterns, as evidenced in tall buildings, scaffolding structures and temporary grandstands. Five criteria, based on the first concept derived in the last section, have been suggested for arranging bracing members for a structure. The five criteria can be presented as follows: Criterion 1: Bracing members should be provided in each story from the support (base) to the top of the structure. Criterion 2: Bracing members in different stories should be directly linked. Criterion 3: Bracing members should be linked linearly wherever possible. Criterion 4: Bracing members in the top story and in different bays should be directly linked where possible. Criterion 5: If extra bracing members are required, they should be linked following the above four criteria. The first criterion is obvious to ensure proper transmission of loads. If bracing is not provided over the entire height of a structure, its performance will be significantly reduced. There are a number of ways to achieve this criterion; but the second and the third criteria suggest using the shorter force path. The first three criteria mainly concern the bracing arrangements in different stories. For a temporary grandstand structure, however, the number of bays is usually larger than the number of the stories. To create a shorter force path, or more zero force members in a structure, the fourth criterion gives a means to consider the relationship of bracing members across the bays of the structure. The fifth criterion suggests that when extra bracing members are required, usually to reduce bracing member forces and distributes them more uniformly, they should be arranged using the previous criteria. 4.3.6. Roof frame: As the roof frame was subjected to loading, the frame of roof was made of thicker section to avoid local failure. (Refer Figure 6)

Figure 6: Thicker members in Roof grid 4.3.5.1 ETABS To decide what kind of bracing configuration to be used on the final model various models were made based upon the above concepts in E-tabs. The models were so prepared that other than bracing configuration nothing was changed. These models were analysed for a given time history function and based upon the deflection the final pattern of bracing configuration was decided. Characteristic of testing were Period: 1sec Number of steps per cycle: 20 Number of cycle: 5 Amplitude: 0.101 g

Figure 7. FFT analyzer to convert the time domain response to frequency domain

Figure 8: Trial models in ETABS for different types of bracings

Table 2. Model testing results using ETABS software Model Displacement Natural period Natural mm sec frequency Hz Trial one 0.5738mm 0.127641 7.8344 Trial two 0.5408mm 0.123654 8.0870 Trial three 0.5166mm 0.120926 8.2695 Trial four Trial five 0.4900mm 0.4891mm 0.117978 0.117896 8.4761 8.4820

We tested several designs in ETABS and decide to construct more better structure every time. (Refer figure 8 and tabel 2) The effect of construction errors can significantly hamper the performance of building during earthquakes thus emphasizing the importance of quality assurance. The performance prediction of scaled building models were exactly matching with software modelling due to accuate assumptions of material properties, joint fixity and geometry and precise construction. There was considerabel difference in actual model (refer figure 9) and software consideration of centre to centre joint. We need to make some assumptions and changes in input for ETABS model.Say, connection doesnt offer total rigidity to the joint, in ETAB model, we reduced the value of fixity of joint in the software model hence achieving similarity between software model and the actual model.

Figure 9: Difference of connection in software and in actual model 4.4 Final testing In the final testing, the joint of structure to the base plate failed. The reason being, we practiced using M seal to connect the structure to the base plate, which transmits the vibration to the model. But the same was ineffective due to increased setting time in the lower temperature then.

Figure 10. Final model

Figure 11. Testing of our model at EERI (VJTI student with the president 5. Conclusions This project has imparted us a great exposure to the field of structral engineering and its parts like structural dynamics, experimental mechanics, structural analysis to earthquake engineering, finite element analysis, geotechnical engineeering.every field has its equal importance and in together they help us to make megastructures stand every natural calamities like earthquake, storm etc

We made it to US and landed in the 18th position /34 universities & 6th amongst the Broken Structures category. We were the only team to have exact roof Drift & acceleration prediction in EERI SDC 2012. References 1. Improving the Earthquake Resitance of Small Buildings, Houses and Community Infrastructure.-Gregory A. J. Szakats 12th WCEE. 2. FEMA 451-B Concepts of Earthquake Engineering 3. Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover Ashraf Habibullah, and Stephen Pyle- ETABS. 4. Dynamic Analysis using Mode Superposition- CSI 5. IBC Internatioal Building Code-2009 6. NEHRP -Code 7(National Earhquake Hazard Risk Prevention) 7. Earthquake Tips C. V. R Murthy-NICEE (National information Center of Earthquake Engineering) 8. The Design Integration of Structural Efficiency, Architectural Expressiin and High Performance Exterior Wall Sytems.- Mark Sarkisian CTBUH(Conference of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. 9. Seismo Resisting Architecture on Building Scale- H Guliani , M I Yacante, A M Campora. 10. Design Example of a Six Storeyed Building- Sudhir K Jain

6. About author: This are the students of VJTI and founders of EERI-VJTI Student Chapter. They can be reached at http://www.vjtiunshakeables.com/ unshakeables@gmail.com The competition results testing of Video are on the following linkshttp://slc.eeri.org/SDC2012.htm , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtfTBGrZMiw