Docstoc

20120130406030-2

Document Sample
20120130406030-2 Powered By Docstoc
					    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH 0976
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN IN –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME
                 ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJARET)
ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print)
ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online)
                                                                           IJARET
Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October 2013, pp. 288-298
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijaret.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.8376 (Calculated by GISI)                 ©IAEME
www.jifactor.com




  A STUDY OF SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF A GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL IN
               GANAIHAMAM, BARAMULLAH IN J&K

       Mohammad Adil Dar1, Prof (Dr) A.R. Dar2 , Asim Qureshi3, Jayalakshmi Raju4
       1
           PG Research Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Kurukshetra University, India
                 2
                   Professor & Head Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Srinagar, India
               3
                 PG Research Student, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, India
                 4
                   UG student, Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore, India


ABSTRACT

        Earthquakes are one of the nature’s greatest hazards on our planet which have taken heavy
toll on human life and property since ancient times. The sudden and unexpected nature of the
earthquake event makes it even worse on psychological level and shakes the moral of the people.
Man looks upon the mother earth for safety and stability under his feet and when it itself trembles,
the shock he receives is indeed unnerving. Mitigation of the devastating damage caused by
earthquakes is of prime requirements in many parts of the world. Since earthquakes are so far
unpreventable and unpredictable, the only option with us is to design and build the structures which
are earthquake resistant. Accordingly attempts have been made in this direction all over the world.
Results of such attempts are very encouraging in developed countries but miserably poor in
developing countries including our country India. This is proved by minimal damage generally
without any loss of life when moderate to severe earthquake strikes developed countries, where as
even a moderate earthquake cause’s wide spread devastation in developing countries as has been
observed in recent earthquakes. It is not the earthquake which kills the people but it is the unsafe
buildings which is responsible for the wide spread devastation. Keeping in view the huge loss of life
and property in recent earthquakes, it has become a hot topic worldwide and lot of research is going
on to understand the reasons of such failures and learning useful lessons to mitigate the repetition of
such devastation. If buildings are built earthquake resistant at its first place (as is being done in
developed countries like USA, Japan etc) the devastation caused by earthquakes will be mitigated
most effectively. The professionals involved in the design/construction of such structures are
structural/civil engineers, who are responsible for building earthquake resistant structures and keep
the society at large in a safe environment.
        Apart from the modern techniques which are well documented in the codes of practice, there
are some other old traditional earthquake resistant techniques which have proved to be effective for
resisting earthquake loading and are also cost effective with easy constructability.

                                                  288
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

        In India there are about 80-90% of buildings which are non-engineered and are much
vulnerable to damage due to earthquakes. In the state J&K presently the earthquake problem is the
most important issue to be given serious consideration as it devastates societies. The Kashmir region
has witnessed frequent earthquakes in the past. But the recent earthquakes demonstrated how
extremely vulnerable the buildings in this region are. These earthquakes shook the confidence of
many Kashmiri in local building materials and even in the techniques they had been using for
centuries.
        During our project survey we analyzed that the immediate reaction of the people towards
frequent earthquakes in the state has been a strong desire to abandon traditional architecture and
building systems and adopt cement and steel based construction, but still there are large number of
people whose spine has not shaken yet and while construction they do not seem to be aware of
threats posed by earthquake. During our interactions with the people we concluded that the main
reasons behind their negligence is lack of proper seismic knowledge among skilled workers like
masons, carpenters, bar binders and lack of attention shown by government officials. At times even
the practicing engineers are not adequately familiar with details of seismic resistant construction.

Key Words: Catastrophic Damage, Non-Engineered Buildings, Traditional Architecture, Lack of
Proper Seismic Knowledge, Details of Seismic Resistant Construction.

INTRODUCTION

        The 8th October 2005 earthquake in Jammu and Kashmir clearly demonstrated the
earthquake vulnerability profile of the state. Most of the losses in this earthquake have occurred due
to collapse of buildings constructed in traditional materials like stone brick and wood, which were
not engineered to be earthquake resistant.
        Construction of earthquake resistant new buildings alone is not the desired solution of the
problem but there are as many as 90% of structures in J&K that need to be reviewed and retrofitted ,
especially those structures which have higher importance factor viz. hospitals, schools etc. As we
know that just after the earthquake the first requirement to the injured people is to provide them
medical facility and if hospitals collapse, how can we avoid the further loss of the life? It is not the
earthquake that kills the people but the buildings that are meant for shelter becomes the trap and
weapon for killing the people during earthquake. It is also evident that life becomes more miserable
when people become homeless especially in cold climate regions. Thus, the need of the hour is not
only to design earthquake resistant structures but also retrofitting of seismically unsafe existing
building in highly earthquake prone areas

    Table 1. District Wise Deaths, Houses Damaged Partially as well as Fully in Kashmir Valley




                                                  289
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

BEHAVIOUR OF MASONRY BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

        Ground vibrations during earthquakes cause inertia forces at locations of mass in the
building. These forces travel through the roof and walls to the foundation. The main emphasis is on
ensuring that these forces reach the ground without causing major damage or collapse. Of the three
components of a masonry building (roof, wall and foundation) (Figure (a), the walls are most
vulnerable to damage caused by horizontal forces due to earthquake. A wall topples down easily if
pushed horizontally at the top in a direction perpendicular to its plane (termed weak direction), but
offers much greater resistance if pushed along its length (termed strong direction) [Figure (b)].




                                                                              1- Earthquake force
                                                                              2- Overturning
                                                                              3- Sliding
   FIG. (a) Flexural wall                     FIG. (b) Shear wall

    CATAGORISATION OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE STAGES IN LOAD BEARING
                          MASONRY WALLS




                                   Stage I of Earthquake. damage




                                  Stage I of Earthquake. Damage

                                                290
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME




                               Stage II of Earthquake. Damage




                                 Stage II of Earthquake. Damage




                               Stage III of Earthquake. Damage




                               Stage III of Earthquake. Damage

                                             291
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME




                                  Stage IV of Earthquake. Damage


CASE STUDY

        Case studies are the best way to learn the practical aspects of the real life problems from the
experience of others. They eliminate the need for reinvention, and a further benefit is that they can
help build confidence in prevailing building systems. The purpose of presenting case studies in our
project is to share the learning from cases that are relevant to the present day scenario of high level
seismic risk in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.This chapter includes field survey of a government
public building (GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL in GANAIHAMAM, BARAMULLAH )in the area of
J&K.

                          GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL GANAIHAMAM




                                         Front view of school
The building is a typical double story load bearing masonry structure constructed in mud mortar. The
                              building is situated at old town Baramulla.



                                                 292
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

                  SALIENT FEATURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODES
                             (IS 4326-1993, IS 13828-1993)

  1. LIGHTNESS
              The building is light in weight, typically constructed in brick masonry. The building is
      constructed using kacha bricks as building material. Further the presence of timber roof truss
      also results in decrease in weight of the structure.

  2. PROJECTION AND SUSPENDED PARTS
           Structural projecting parts are absent.

  3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION
             The building is symmetrical in plan which somewhat improves the seismic
      performance of structure, even if other salient features are lacking.

  4. CONTINUITY OF CONSTRUCTION
             The parts of the building were not integrally tied together. The connection between
      the walls in strong and weak direction is completely absent and also the presence of large
      openings leads to the lack of box action in the structure. Although, the presence of continuous
      wooden lintel band improves the continuity between the parts of building to some extent.




  5. OPENING IN BEARING WALLS
               Window openings are large in size which weakens walls from carrying inertial force
      in their own plane. Furthermore the total area of opening exceeds 40% of area of wall which
      is not in accordance with code.




                                                293
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME




                     Opening in bearing walls


  6. HORIZONTAL BANDS

           A wooden lintel band is provided over all the openings and is continuous.




                             Seismic band

           Roof band is not provided but is necessary in building with CGI sheet roof, pitched or
   sloping roof.



                                                294
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

  7. WORKMANSHIP
            The quality of workmanship in brickwork is not so good, the structure being un-
     engineered and also lack of proper planning has resulted in settlement of the building during
     2005 earthquake which led to formation of cracks as shown in figure below.




                                   Lack of proper workmanship

  8. QUALITY OF MATERIAL
             Good quality material was not used during construction of building. Kacha bricks
      were used as basic structural unit which have compressive strength less than 3.5Mpa which is
      not permitted by present day codes. Furthermore, mud mortar has been used as principal
      binding material which decreases the strength of building during earthquake.

  9. BRICK NOGGED TIMBER FRAME CONSTRUCTION
               The wall construction consists of timber studs and corner posts framed into sills, top
      plates and wall plates. Horizontal struts and diagonal braces are used to stiffen the frame
      against lateral loads. The building in our assessment has diagonal braces but these are not
      rigidly connected and properly placed which reduce the strength of the frame. Furthermore,
      the dhajji walls have been constructed only on two sides of the building which resulted in the
      tilting of building after the 2005 Eqk. as we observed during our site visit.




                                    Brick nogged timber frame


                                                295
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME




                                                       Building tilted

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL GANAIHAMAM BARAMULLAH
                     AS PER IS CODES IN TUBULAR FORM

 SNO.       PARTICULARS OF                      CODAL                  COMPATIBLI-TY            REFRENCES
               BUILDING                      REQUIREMENTS                WITH CODE
                                                                          (YES/NO)
 1.     Building configuration:                     L ≤ 3B                  YES                    Cl. 4.4.2
        rectangular with l<3b                                                                    IS 4326:1993
 2.          Building category: E
             (seismic zone v and                                                       Cl.7,Table1 IS       Cl.7.1.1 Table
            importance factor 1.5)                                                      13828:1993                2 IS
                                                                                                              4326:1993
        (i). No. of stories = 2                       ≤3                    YES                      Table 7
                                                                                                  IS 4326:1993
        (ii). Mud mortar                          H2 or richer              NO                       Table 3
                                                                                                  IS 4326:1993
        (iii). Opening in bearing                                                                Table 4 FIG.7
        wall (see fig. 4.2)                                                                       IS 4326:1993
               A. b5 = 608mm                     b5 ≥ 450mm                 YES            --------------do-------------
             B. (b1+ b2+ b3)/l = 0.56         (b1+ b2+ b3)/l ≤ 0.42         NO             --------------do-------------
             C. b4 = 456mm                       b4 ≥ 560mm                 NO             --------------do-------------
 3.     Building uit: unbaked (kacha)       Compressive strength ≥          NO            Cl. 8.2.1           Cl. 8.1.1.1
        brick Compressive strength <              3.5 Mpa                              IS 13828:1993        IS 4326:1993
        3.5 Mpa
 4.     Thickness of load bearing
        walls

                                                                                       Cl. 8.2.3 IS 13828:1993
        Ground floor
        Internal = 340mm                     ≥ 1 ½ brick thick or           YES
        external = 225mm                            l/16
        First floor
        Internal = 125mm                       ≥ 1 brick thick or           NO
        external = 125mm                              l/16
 5.     Typical story height = 2.3m                  ≤ 3m                   YES        Cl. 8.2.4 IS 13828:1993
 6.     Seismic bands
        (i). Lintel band: provided                 Required                 YES        Cl. 8.4.2 IS 4326:1993
        (wooden)
        (ii) Roof band :not provided               Required                 NO         Cl. 8.4.3 IS 4326:1993
        (iii) Plinth band: not                     Required                 NO         Cl. 8.4.6 IS 4326:1993
        provided
        (iv) At sill level : not provided          Required                 NO         Cl. 8.4.1 IS 4326:1993


                                                                 296
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

 7.       Vertical reinforcement

          (i). At corners : not provided              Required            NO    Cl. 8.4.8 IS 4326:1993
          (ii). At jambs of door and                  Required            NO    Cl. 8.4.8.1 IS 4326:1993
          windows: not provided
 8.       Dhajji wall
          (i). connection with infill wall.       Tight fitting brick     YES       Cl.10.8.1 IS 4326:1993
                                              masonry in stretcher bond
             (ii). Connection with cross      Steel strips (hold fast)    YES       Cl.10.9.1 IS 4326:1993
                        walls.                150x35x1.5 (mm)
           (iii) Connection with roof and        Steel strips or notch    NO        Cl.10.9.2 IS 4326:1993
                        floor.                          required


CONCLUSION

        It is quite pondering that even for a rider riding motorcycle; it has been put mandatory on his
part to wear a helmet just for his safety or even for buildings certain building bylaws have been
provisioned which need to be abided. These objectives are solely attributed for the safety and well
being of the public on the whole and refraining them from landing into any inconvenience. Thus in
this regard our domain i.e. the analysis made by us in regard of the earth quake too need to be given
a broader dimension like this. Its importance should be given a due domain in familiarizing the
message about the very same. Also certain measures should be taken by the Structural Designers on
the mandatory lines which would take into account not only raising the structures but raising them
with strength to mobilize the ill effects of the earthquake so that even if a structure fails at least it
should be in a position to alarm the people so that in the elapsed time they could make a safe
passage. The need of an hour is to produce low cost but earthquake resistant structures in severe and
severe most seismic zones and J&K being the most earthquake prone area, we and all other engineers
of the valley should understand that it is the masonry that would prove to be economical construction
on one hand and earthquake resistant on the other hand, provided an engineering approach to the said
material is adopted

REFERENCES

      1. IS 4326:1993 “Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings Code of Practice?”
      2. IS 13828:1993 “Improving Earthquake Resistance of Low Strength Masonry Buildings -
          Guidelines.”
      3. IS 1893(PART-I):1993 “Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part 1 General
          provisions and Buildings”.
      4. Earthquake Resistant Design, by S.K. Duggal.
      5. IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tips.
      6. A manual of Earthquake Resistant Non- Engineered Construction. Indian Society of Earthquake
          Technology, Roorkee 2001.
      7. Manual for Restoration and Retrofitting of Rural Structures in Kashmir 2007.
      8. Report on the 8th October 2005, Kashmir Earthquake, Amita sinvhal, Ashok D. Pandey & Sachin
          M. Pore. IIT ROORKEE.
      9. “Masonry Codes and specifications, “International Conference on Building Officials,
      10. “Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures,” ACI 530/ASCE 5? TMS 402 ACI.
          Detroit; ASCE New York, Boulder,1992.
      11. Mohammed S. Al-Ansari, “Building Response to Blast and Earthquake Loading”, International
          Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 327 - 346,
          ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.


                                                                 297
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, September – October (2013), © IAEME

   12. Mohammad Adil Dar, Prof(Dr) A.R. Dar, Saqib Fayaz and Jayalakshmi Raju, “A Study of
       Seismic Safety of District Hospital in Baramullah in J&K”, International Journal of Civil
       Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 88 - 98, ISSN Print:
       0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
   13. Web sites.
           a. www.sciencedirect.com,
           b. www.nicee.org,
           c. www.bmtpc.org,
           d. www.geocites.com.

AUTHOR’S DETAILS

M Adil Dar
             The Author has received his B.E(Hons) in Civil Engineering from M.S.R.I.T
             Bangalore. He is Presently pursuing his M-Tech in Structural Engineering in under
             Kurukshetra University. The Author has published papers in numerous High Quality
             Peer Reviewed International Journals and International Conferences. His research
             interests include Earthquake Engineering, Bridge Engineering & Steel Structures. He
             is the Life Member of ISE,ISET,ICI,ISCE,SEFI & IAEME & Member of
             IASE,ACCE,ISSE,ASCE,ACI & IRC.
Prof(Dr) A.R.Dar
             The Author has received his B.E in Civil Engineering from R.E.C Srinagar (Presently
             N.I.T Srinagar) , M.E(Hons) in Structural Engineering from I.I.T Roorkee & Ph.d in
             Earthquake Engineering        from University of Bristol U.K under prestigious
             Commonwealth Scholarship Award. He is presently working as a Distinguished
             Professor & Head of Civil Engineering Department in N.I.T Srinagar. . The Author has
             published papers in several International journals & Conferences..His research areas
             include Earthquake Resistant Design, Tall Structures, Structural Dynamics, RCC
             design, Steel Design & Prestressed Design. He is the life member of several
             professional bodies in structural engineering. He is presently the senior most professor
             & holds many administrative responsibilities in the same institution.
Asim Qureshi
             The Author has received his B.Tech(Hons) in Civil Engineering from N.I.T Srinagar.
             He is Presently pursuing his M-Tech in Structural Engineering from I.I.T. Bombay.
             The Author has published papers in many lnternational journals. His research interests
             include Earthquake Engineering, Bridge Engineering & Prestressed Structures.



Jayalakshmi Raju
             The Author is pursuing her B.E (Final Year) in Civil Engineering in M.S.Ramaiah
             Institute of Technology Bangalore. She has published many papers in numerous peer
             reviewed journals and International Conferences. She has presented technical papers in
             many State & National Level Technical Events. She has also participated in many
             technical events like cube casting & technical debates. Her research interests include
             Steel Design, RCC Design & Bridge Engineering. She is the student member of
             ASCE,ACI,SEFI,IAEME & ISCE.
                                                298

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/16/2013
language:
pages:11