Respuesta sísmica de edificios de 8 niveles de concreto armado con irregularidad en planta
For the modeling of structures, the hypothesis of a rigid diaphragm (DR) is frequently employed in earthquake-resistant design, without considering whether this hypothesis accurately reflects the building's actual response to seismic loads. From an architectural standpoint, buildings with irreg...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online |
| Lenguaje: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Costa Rica
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/ingenieria/article/view/56413 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | For the modeling of structures, the hypothesis of a rigid diaphragm (DR) is frequently employed in earthquake-resistant design, without considering whether this hypothesis accurately reflects the building's actual response to seismic loads. From an architectural standpoint, buildings with irregular floor plan typologies fulfill spatial, functional, and bioclimatic needs. However, these structures contradict their seismic performance due to their differing responses. Additionally, a hypothesis must be assumed for the floor slab, which can be a rigid diaphragm (DR) or a flexible diaphragm (DF). Therefore, it is essential to understand the linear responses of structures with irregular floor plans. The objective of this study is to evaluate irregular configurations in L, H, T, and U-type floor plans regarding the seismic behavior of 8-story structures, considering both DR and DF hypotheses. Based on global and local responses, it was determined that the DF study cases exhibited longer vibration periods, resulting in greater deflections of the structures caused by the deformation of the slab in its plane. However, shear forcé values with DF were lower compared to DR models, due to the slab deforming in its plane, resulting in a reduction of the seismic amplification coefficient (C). Additionally, L, T, and U typologies showed higher seismic demands, lateral displacements, and accelerations at the edges compared to the H model, which exhibited smaller and uniform lateral displacements. |
|---|