Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract: This paper presents the seismic evaluation, and proposed retrofit for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
Terminal 1, Manila, Philippines, completed in 1981. Further, this tackles the structural performance evaluation criteria, finite
element modelling of the building, and the overall performance of the building based on the analysis results. Moreover, seismic
evaluation and retrofit design against Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), ASCE, FEMA and ACI documents were
generally used as guidelines. The building was primarily checked to satisfy Collapse Prevention performance level against 2475-
yearbreturnbperiodb(2%bprobabilitybofbexceedance)bearthquakes.
Key words : Performance-Based Design, Buckling Restrained Braces, Maximum Gradual Evaluation
1
1.3. Material Properties 1.4.2 Earthquake Load
The following are the material properties used to check the
Since there is no site-specific seismic hazard assessment for
performance of the building.
NAIA Terminal 1 building, the site-specific response spectra
for the nearest location (NAIA Terminal 3 building) is used.
1.3.1 Concrete Properties
The material strengths of concrete used in the analysis with
respect to the members are as follows: The uniform hazard spectrum for 2475-year return period (2%
of probability of exceedance in 50 years, Maximum
Table 1-2: Compressive Strength of Concrete (fc)
Considered Earthquake level) is used to check the
performancebofbthebbuilding.
Member Actual Strength (Psi)
Foundation Uniform hazard spectrum for 2475-year return period is
Isolated footings 3000 estimated by multiplying 475-year return period (10% of
exceedance in 50 years, Design Basis Earthquake level)
Columns and Girders response spectra with the factor of 1.5. The comparison of all
All Level 4000 response spectra with UBC 97 response spectra are shown in
figurewbelow.
Shear Wall and Slabs
All Level 3000
Actual Strength
Bar Diameter (mm)
(psi)
12 mm and larger bars 60000
10 mm and smaller bars 40000
1.4 Loading Criteria
Figure 1-1: Comparison of Response Spectrum
1.4.1 Gravity Loading
Superimposed dead load and live load used in the 1.5 Load Combination
evaluation are as below.
1.5.1 Earthquake Load (2475-year Rturn Period)
Main Building The following load combination is used for each of the ground
Superimposed Dead Load motions.
All levels 45 psf Table 1-4: Load Combination
Live Load
Identifier Load Combinations
Deplaning-Observation Deck 100 psf
Roof Deck 20 psf Load Combination 1.0D + 0.25 L 1.0 E
Wing Building
Where: D=dead load; L=unreduced live load; E=earthquake load
Superimposed Dead Load
All level 45 psf 2.bFINITEbELEMENTbMODELING
Three dimensional finite element models of the building with
Live Load
appropriate finite elements, incorporating the nonlinear behavior
Deplaning-Observation Deck 100 psf are created in SAP 2000. The models are comprised of frame and
Roof Deck 20 psf shell elements to represent structural components.
2
To include the cracking effects of the flexure and 2.1 Elastic Components
shear for seismic rehabilitation of concrete structural
components of existing building, effective stiffness of the 2.1.1 Modeling of RC Beams, Columns
members are considered in the models. The stiffness All ordinary RC Beam and column members are modeled
modification members respective to the member are shown as the frame elements.
inbTableb2-1.
2.1.2 Modeling of RC Slabs
Table 2-1: Reduced Moment of Inertia and Shear Rigidity The RC slabs are modeled as the shell elements.
(X)
3
2.2.2 Shear Walls
The entire cross section of shear wall is discretized into
individual layers; concrete and vertical reinforcements etc.
These layers are located by a pecific distance from the
reference surface and with the specified thickness. The
material properties of each layer are specified by the
properties of concrete and steel. Each layer is assigned as
shell, membrane or plate element depending upon the
requirement. The hysteretic response of the wall section is
simulated by assigning the hysteretic behavior in the
property of concrete and steel materials explicitly.
t3
t1
t2
4
3. ANALYSIS RESULTS 3.1.3 Wing Building
3.1 Modal Analysis Table 3-2: Natural Period of Wing Building in (sec)
Figure 3-1: Mode Shapes of Main Building Sum 100% 100% 100% 100%
5
It is found that 20.48% and 53.78% of total mass is
participating in the first mode of Y-direction (Mode 1) for
original and modified building respectively while 72.94% and
59.39% of total mass is participating in the first mode of X-
direction (Mode 2) for original and modified building
respectively. From the table, it can be seen that the total mass
participation contributed from first 35 modes are 100.00% in
both X and Y direction.
Original
Modified
6
Figure 3-6: Maximum Story Displacement (DF1) Figure 3-7: Maximum Story Displacement
in X-Direction of Wing Building DF1) in Y-Direction of Wing Building
Figure 3-8: Maximum Story Displacement (DF2) Figure 3-9: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in
in X-Direction of Wing Building Y-Direction of Wing Building
Figure 3-10: Maximum Story Drift (DF01) in X- Figure 3-11: Maximum Story Drift (DF01) in
Direction of Main Building Y-Direction of Main Building
7
Figure 3-12: Maximum Story Drift (DF02) in Figure 3-13: Maximum Story Drift (DF02) in Y-Direction of
X-Direction of Main Building Main Building
Figure 3-14: Maximum Story Drift (DF1) in X- Figure 3-15: Maximum Story Drift (DF1) in Y-Direction
Direction of Wing Building of Wing Building
Figure 3-16: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in X- Figure 3-17: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in Y-Direction of
Direction of Wing Building Wing Building
8
SUMMARY ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The seismic evaluation has been carried out through the use of Jose A. Sy , President / CEO of Sy^2 + Associates, Inc. which
state-of-the-art analyses tools and procedures with special is the leading structural consultancy firm for tall buildings in
emphasis on the effects due to earthquakes. The performance the Philippines, graduated Cum Laude from the University of
of the building is evaluated for 2475-year return period Santo Tomas with a degree of B.S. Civil Engineering, and
earthquake. Since there is no site-specific seismic hazard ranked 11th in CE Board Exam in 1979. His more than 30
assessment for NAIA Terminal 1 building, the site-specific years of structural design experience which includes a wide
response spectra for the nearest location (NAIA Terminal 3 variety of projects such as high-rise structures, commercial
building) is used. Uniform hazard spectrum for 475-year buildings, condominiums, hotels, banks and industrial plant
return period earthquake (DBE level) is multiplied by a factor facilities makes him a cut above the rest. He is responsible for
of 1.5 to estimate the 2475-year spectrum (MCE level). various structural innovations such as top-down construction
of permanent retaining wall with soldier piles and tie-back
Finite element models of main and wing buildings are created anchors, the first full-blown top-down construction of
with various levels of complexity to investigate the response substructure in downtown Manila, performance-based seismic
and behavior of the building. Modal pushover analysis is design using push-over analysis for a seismic upgrade of an
conducted to evaluate the nonlinear response of the building. existing building and performance-based design of a 54-
Global response of the building as well as the deformation storey building using Buckling Resistant Bracings as
capacity and the strength of primary structural elements are outriggers.
checked against the demand forces under 2475-year return
period earthquake. Global structural stiffnening as well as Dr. Naveed Anwar, Executive Director/ CEO of the Asian
local strengthening scheme is applied to enhance the structural Institute of Technology, Thailand has over twenty five years
system. Buckling restrained braces and restraining walls are of extensive experience in the conception, planning, analysis,
added at appropriate locations to stiffen the structure. The design, detailing and evaluation of multistory buildings,
main purpose of the BRB system is to control the seismic bridges, water retaining structures, industrial buildings and
responses through the energy dissipation due to axial tension special structures and has worked on over 500 different
and compression yielding of the brace. FRP retrofit technique projects. He is a holder of Doctor of Engineering, Structural
is used for the local strengthening of the members. Engineering and M.Eng. Structural Engineering from the
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. He
finished B. Sc. Civil Engineering from the University
Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.