CC BY
3
AUNIVERSUM:
№ 9 (126)_m ТЕХНИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ_сентябрь. 2024 г.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
DOI - 10.32743/UniTech.2024.126.9.18239 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT SEISMIC PROTECTION MEASURES
Kamalov Bobur
PhD Student,
Tashkent University of architecture and civil engineering,
Uzbekistan, Tashkent E-mail: [email protected]
Miralimov Mirraxim
Candidate of Technical Science, Professor, Tashkent University of architecture and civil engineering,
Uzbekistan, Tashkent E-mail: [email protected]
СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ РАЗЛИЧНЫХ МЕР СЕЙСМИЧЕСКОЙ ЗАЩИТЫ
Камалов Бобур Мухтар угли
докторант,
Ташкентский архитектурно-строительный университет, Республика Узбекистан, г. Ташкент
Миралимов Миррахим Мирмахмутович
канд. техн. наук, профессор, Ташкентский архитектурно-строительный университет, Республика Узбекистан, г. Ташкент
ABSTRACT
Seismic protection measures are essential for ensuring the structural integrity and safety of buildings in earthquake-prone areas. This article presents a comparative analysis of various seismic protection techniques, including base isolation, energy dissipation devices, and advanced structural systems. The study evaluates the effectiveness, cost, implementation challenges, and suitability of these measures for different building types. The analysis is supported by case studies to illustrate practical applications and outcomes.
АННОТАЦИЯ
Сейсмозащитные мероприятия необходимы для обеспечения конструктивной целостности и безопасности зданий в сейсмически уязвимых районах. В данной статье представлен сравнительный анализ различных методов сейсмозащиты, включая базовую изоляцию, диссипационные устройства энергии и передовые структурные системы. В исследовании оцениваются эффективность, стоимость, вызовы внедрения и пригодность этих мер для различных типов зданий. Анализ поддерживается кейсами для иллюстрации практических приложений и результатов.
Keywords: seismic protection, base isolation, energy dissipation, structural system, earthquake engineering.
Ключевые слова: сейсмозащита, сейсмоизоляция, диссипация энергии, конструкционные система, инженерная сейсмология.
Introduction
Earthquakes are among the most devastating natural disasters, causing widespread damage to buildings, infrastructure, and human life. With rapid urbanization and population growth, particularly in seismically active regions, the vulnerability of urban environments to earthquakes has increased significantly. The collapse of buildings during seismic events not only results
in significant economic losses but also endangers human life. As such, enhancing the seismic resilience of buildings is a critical priority for engineers, architects, and policymakers worldwide. Over the decades, a range of seismic protection measures have been developed and implemented to mitigate the impact of earthquakes on buildings and reduce their associated risks. However, selecting the most appropriate and effective measure
Библиографическое описание: Kamalov B., Miralimov M. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT SEISMIC PROTECTION MEASURES // Universum: технические науки : электрон. научн. журн. 2024. 9(126). URL:
https://7universum.com/ru/tech/archive/item/18239
remains a complex challenge due to varying site conditions, building characteristics, and economic considerations. Seismic protection measures can be broadly categorized into traditional structural design approaches, passive protection systems, active control systems, and hybrid methods. Traditional design approaches, such as reinforced concrete and steel frameworks, rely on the inherent strength, ductility, and stiffness of materials to resist seismic forces. While these methods have been effective in improving the performance of structures during earthquakes, they may not always provide sufficient protection, especially for buildings located in highly seismic zones or those with unique architectural features.
Passive protection systems, including base isolators and energy dissipating devices like dampers, have gained popularity for their ability to absorb and dissipate seismic energy, thereby reducing the forces transmitted to the structure. Base isolators, such as rubber bearings and sliding bearings, are installed between the building's foundation and superstructure, allowing controlled movement and minimizing the transfer of ground motion to the building. Meanwhile, energy dissipation devices like tuned mass dampers and viscous dampers work by converting seismic energy into heat or other forms of energy, minimizing structural vibrations.
Since earthquakes pose serious threats to the built environment, taking precautions against them is essential to minimizing damage and saving lives. The goal of this article is to present a thorough analysis of several seismic protection strategies, with an emphasis on their effectiveness, affordability, and real-world implementation issues. Engineers and architects can improve the resilience of buildings by making well-informed judgments by being aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy. Active control systems represent a more advanced approach to seismic protection. They use sensors to detect ground motion and actuators to apply counteracting forces in real-time, reducing the impact of seismic waves on the structure. Examples include active mass dampers and semi-active control devices. Although these systems offer precise and adaptive protection, they are often more complex and expensive to implement and maintain compared to passive methods.
Hybrid seismic protection measures combine elements of passive and active systems, offering a balanced approach that can provide both energy dissipation and real-time control. While hybrid systems offer potential benefits in terms of performance and adaptability, they also present challenges in terms of design complexity, installation, and cost.
This thesis aims to conduct a comparative analysis of these different seismic protection measures, focusing on their effectiveness, cost-efficiency, implementation challenges, and suitability for various building types and regions. The research will examine case studies of buildings employing different seismic protection measures in various seismic zones, assessing their performance during past earthquakes. Furthermore, it will explore recent advancements in seismic protection technology, such as smart materials and adaptive systems,
and their potential applications in future construction projects.
By evaluating both traditional and innovative seismic protection strategies, this thesis seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of their relative advantages and limitations, ultimately guiding decision-makers in selecting the most appropriate measures for different contexts. The findings of this research will contribute to the development of more resilient and sustainable buildings in earthquake-prone areas, thereby enhancing the safety and well-being of communities.
Seismic Protection Measures:
1. Base Isolation.
Base isolation is a technique that involves decoupling the building from ground motion, thereby reducing the seismic forces transmitted to the structure. The most common base isolation systems use rubber bearings, lead-rubber bearings, or sliding bearings.
Advantages: Base isolation significantly reduces seismic forces, enhances occupant safety, and minimizes structural damage. It also allows the building to remain operational after an earthquake.
Disadvantages: The initial cost of base isolation systems is high, and maintenance can be complex. Additionally, implementing base isolation in existing buildings requires significant structural modifications.
Applications: Base isolation is suitable for critical infrastructure such as hospitals, emergency response centers, and bridges, where continuous operation post-earthquake is vital.
2. Energy Dissipation Devices.
Energy dissipation devices, also known as dampers, are installed within a building's structure to absorb and dissipate seismic energy. Types of dampers include viscous, friction, and tuned mass dampers (TMDs).
Advantages: These devices effectively reduce vibrations and can be retrofitted into existing structures. They offer flexibility in design and can be tailored to specific building requirements.
Disadvantages: Installation of energy dissipation devices can be complex, and there is potential for performance degradation over time. Regular maintenance is required to ensure optimal functionality.
Applications: Energy dissipation devices are ideal for high-rise buildings, historical structures, and other buildings where retrofitting is necessary to improve seismic performance.
3. Advanced Structural Systems.
Advanced structural systems, such as tuned mass dampers (TMDs) and active control systems, use sophisticated technology to enhance a building's seismic resilience. These systems dynamically adjust to minimize vibrations during an earthquake.
Advantages: Advanced structural systems are highly efficient in reducing vibrations and can be adapted to a wide range of building designs. They provide superior protection and can significantly enhance the comfort and safety of occupants.
Disadvantages: These systems are expensive to install and maintain. They require advanced engineering expertise and sophisticated technology.
Applications: Advanced structural systems are typically used in skyscrapers, landmark structures, and other high-value buildings where the benefits justify the high cost.
Comparative Analysis
1. Effectiveness:
Base Isolation: Highly effective in reducing seismic forces, providing substantial protection against ground motion.
Energy Dissipation Devices: Moderately effective, with performance depending on the type and placement of devices.
Advanced Structural Systems: Highly effective, especially in reducing vibrations in high-rise buildings.
2. Cost:
Base Isolation: High initial cost but cost-effective over the building's lifespan due to reduced damage and repair costs.
Energy Dissipation Devices: Moderate cost, with potential for higher costs in retrofitting existing buildings.
Advanced Structural Systems: High cost, both for installation and ongoing maintenance.
3. Implementation Challenges:
Base Isolation: Requires significant modifications to the building's foundation, making it challenging for retrofitting.
Energy Dissipation Devices: Easier to implement in new constructions, but retrofitting can be complex and costly.
Advanced Structural Systems: Require specialized knowledge, advanced technology, and can be difficult to integrate into existing buildings.
4. Suitability for Different Building Types.
Base Isolation: Best suited for low- to mid-rise buildings and critical infrastructure.
Energy Dissipation Devices: Versatile and suitable for a wide range of buildings, including those needing retrofitting.
Advanced Structural Systems: Ideal for high-rise and iconic structures where maximum vibration reduction is necessary.
Table 1.
Seismic Comparison
Metric Otrigger Systems Base isolation Damping Devices
Lateral stiffness High Moderate Moderate
Seismic force Reduction Moderate High (60-90%) Moderate to High
Load distribution Improved Improved Enhanced
Vibration Control Moderate High High
Building Height Suitable for tall buildings Applicable to all heughts Applicable to all heughts
Occupant safety Moderate to High High High
Table 2.
Protection Metrics
Efficiency Factor Outrigger System Base Isolation Damping Devices
Design Complexity High Moderate Low to Moderate
Construction Complexity High Moderate Low to Moderate
Initial Cost High High Moderate
Long-term Cost Moderate Cost-effective Moderate
Retrofitting Suitability Low High High
Maintenance Low Low Moderate
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Hospital with Base Isolation A hospital in Japan equipped with base isolation technology demonstrated remarkable resilience during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. The isolation system allowed the building to remain functional, ensuring that critical medical services were uninterrupted during and after the quake.
Case Study 2: High-Rise Building with Energy Dissipation Devices
A high-rise office building in California, retrofitted with viscous dampers, exhibited reduced structural damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The dampers
absorbed seismic energy, preventing significant deformation and preserving the building's integrity.
Case Study 3: Skyscraper with Tuned Mass Damper
The Taipei 101 skyscraper in Taiwan features a large tuned mass damper that mitigates swaying caused by earthquakes and strong winds. During the 2002 earthquake, the damper effectively reduced vibrations, ensuring the stability and comfort of the building's occupants.
Conclusion
Building safety and resilience in seismically active locations are fundamentally dependent on the implementation of effective seismic protective measures.
The dynamic forces generated during an earthquake can cause severe damage to structures, posing significant risks to human lives and the built environment. To mitigate these risks, a range of seismic protection strategies has been developed, each offering distinct advantages and challenges. Among these are advanced structural systems, energy dissipation devices, and base isolation techniques, which serve as critical components in enhancing a building's ability to withstand seismic events.
Base isolation, which involves the installation of flexible bearings or sliding elements between a building's foundation and its superstructure, is widely regarded as one of the most effective methods for protecting critical infrastructure, such as hospitals, bridges, and emergency response facilities. By decoupling the structure from ground motion, base isolation significantly reduces the energy transmitted to the building during an earthquake, thereby minimizing structural damage and maintaining functionality. However, this method comes at a substantial financial cost, often making it less feasible for ordinary buildings or projects with limited budgets.
Energy dissipation technologies, on the other hand, provide a more cost-effective alternative that suits a broad range of structures, from residential and commercial buildings to retrofits of existing facilities. Devices such as dampers, which absorb and dissipate seismic energy, help reduce vibrations and limit structural damage. These technologies are particularly valuable for older
buildings that require upgrades to meet current seismic standards, offering an economical means to enhance safety without the need for extensive structural modifications. While advanced structural technologies, including special moment-resisting frames, shear walls, and tuned mass dampers, may entail higher initial costs, they offer superior performance for landmark structures and high-rise buildings that demand higher levels of protection. These systems are designed to accommodate larger displacements and absorb greater amounts of energy, thereby preventing catastrophic failure and ensuring that buildings remain operational even after significant seismic events. Their application is particularly crucial for iconic structures, densely populated high-rises, and buildings located in regions with high seismic activity, where failure is not an option. The selection of an appropriate seismic protective method should be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the unique requirements, financial constraints, and structural characteristics of any given project. Factors such as the building's function, occupancy, design life, location, and the likelihood of seismic activity must all be carefully considered. Additionally, economic feasibility, long-term maintenance costs, and potential environmental impacts play crucial roles in determining the most suitable seismic protection strategy. By weighing these factors, stakeholders can make informed decisions that balance safety, performance, and cost, ultimately contributing to the creation of safer, more resilient built environments in seismically active regions.
References:
1. AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). (2016a) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings Standard ANSI/AISC 360-16. AISC, Chicago, IL
2. Chandnani D., Joshi R., Trivedi K. Characteristics & applications of different types of dampers as seismic energy dissipater //Int J Comput Sci Netw. - 2016. - T. 5. - №. 2. - C. 369-372.
3. Kamalov, B. (2022). SIZE-PLANNING AND URBAN PLANNING OF BUILDINGS IN SEISMICALLY ACTIVE REGIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLUTIONS. Results of National Scientific Research International Journal, 1(6), 556-562.
4. Patil, Aniket & Joshi, Raunak & Kumar, Ashish & Arge, Abhishek. (2021). Seismic Dampers and the Factors Affecting its Efficacy A Review Paper.
5. Kamalov B., Mirolimov M. (2023). THE WIDE USAGE OF VISCOUS SEISMIC PROTECTION IN IMPROVING THE RESISTANCE OF BUILDINGS FOR EARTHQUAKE. GOLDEN BRAIN, 1(1), 64-67.
