COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .
UDK 550.34:699.841:69.032.2:620.19:691.32Original scientific article/Izvirni znanstveni lanekISSN 1580-2949MTAEC9, 52(5)575(2018)M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .575–581COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREYIRREGULARITY WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS NATIONALBUILDING CODESPRIMERJAVA NEPRAVILNOSTI NA VE NADSTROPNIHBETONSKIH ZGRADBAH GLEDE NA RAZLI NE NACIONALNEGRADBENE PREDPISEMahmud Sami Donduren, Abdulhamit NakipogluSelcuk University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, 42130 Konya, Turkeysdonduren@selcuk.edu.trPrejem rokopisa – received: 2018-02-02; sprejem za objavo – accepted for publication: 2018-03-22doi:10.17222/mit.2018.015In the design of earthquake-resistant reinforced-concrete structural systems, the necessity to construct a regular structure is oneof the main principles. Building irregularities generally become obvious with the effect of a seismic load. It is crucial that theirregularities of structural systems should be considered properly with respect to the conditions determined by the buildingcodes. In this study, the soft-storey irregularity that causes most of the losses and damage in earthquakes was investigated withrespect to the criterions of various national building codes. Eleven sub-models were produced on the basis of a general buildingmodel, and they were analyzed with respect to the conditions of the codes relating to the soft-storey phenomenon using theSAP 2000 structural-analysis program. The first-storey heights of the models were different from each other while all the otherparameters and the geometries were the same. In this way, the codes were compared in terms of the effect of the storey height onthe formation of a soft storey. Eventually, it was observed that, especially in the Japanese Seismic Code, the soft-storeyirregularity is handled very sensibly and safely.Keywords: earthquake, irregularities, codes, soft storey, SAP (structural-analysis program) 2000Konstruiranje betonsko oja anih struktur oz. zgradb, odpornih proti potresom, zahteva upo{tevanje nekaterih glavnih principov,med katere spada tudi obvezna gradnja pravilne oz. simetri ne strukture. Negativne posledice nepravilnosti v zgradbah se pojavljajo predvsem zaradi u inkov seizmi nih bremen. Najbolj pomembno je, da se nepravilnosti na strukturnih sistemih ocenjujejona ustrezen na in glede na stanje, ugotovljeno s pomo jo gradbenih predpisov. V pri ujo i {tudiji avtorji raziskujejo napake nave nadstropnih zgradbah (angl.: soft-storey buildings), ki povzro ajo ve ino izgub in po{kodb zaradi potresa, ter jih primerjajo skriteriji razli nih nacionalnih gradbenih predpisov. Na osnovi splo{nega gradbenega modela so pripravili enajst (11) podmodelov in jih analizirali s pomo jo programa za analizo struktur SAP 2000 glede na pogoje, podane s predpisi o ve nadstropnihzgradbah (soft-storey buildings). V modelih so izbirali razli no vi{ino prvega nadstropja, vsi drugi parametri in geometrijazgradb pa je ostala enaka. Na ta na in so lahko medsebojno primerjali predpise glede na vpliv vi{ine nadstropja na zgradbo. Nakoncu ugotavljajo, da so {e posebej japonski seizmi ni predpisi, ki zagotavljajo varnost ve nadstropnih zgradb pred potresi,najbolj{i v smislu ob utljivosti in varnosti le-teh.Klju ne besede: potres, nepravilnosti, kode (predpisi), ve nadstropne zgradbe, program za analizo struktur – SAP 20001 INTRODUCTIONAs we all know, a large part of the world is locatedalong seismic belts. Therefore, the importance of theaccuracy of a seismic analysis is very crucial in civilengineering structural projects. If we think that a building can be subjected to a seismic load in its lifetime, itbecomes crucial that the R/C structural system should becreated with the utmost engineering accuracy. Anearthquake can be described as a failure of the Earth’scrust at a significant depth, effecting the crust’s tension.The magnitude of an earthquake indicates the level of thefailure, thereby also indicating the amount of the released energy.1Regular structural systems are practical, economicaland, most importantly, safe with respect to the structuralanalysis, application, dimensioning, etc. The buildingsthat need to be avoided during design and constructionMateriali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581work due to the risks regarding their seismic behaviorare described as irregular buildings by the seismic codes.Interstorey-rigidity irregularity or, in other words, a softstorey is a vertical structural irregularity, which causesthe most significant loss and damage among all thestructural irregularities. So, we need to pay a lot ofattention to this irregularity when designing a structure.2The irregularity conditions from different codesdiffer from each other with respect to analyses, calculations and/or approaches.3,4 These differences betweenthe codes are the results of the seismicity and differentsoil conditions of a country or region where the code isused.5 Similar studies were conducted by other researchers.6–9In this study, various national building codes werecompared regarding the structural-system irregularitiesto reveal the differences.575
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .1.1 Soft storey (interstorey-rigidity irregularity)A soft storey is a phenomenon indicating that astorey’s rigidity is higher or much lower than that of thestorey above or below. In this case, abrupt changes in theamount of relative storey displacements of the adjacentstoreys occur. Thereby, the storey that has less rigidityand more displacements is defined as a soft storey. Theexistence of a soft storey in a building can cause greatdamage as shown in Figure 1.The most important reasons of the formation of thesoft-storey phenomenon are: The building’s first-storey height is much greater thanthe second-storey height (or the height of any storeyis much greater than that of the storey above). The first storey has very few or no infill walls incomparison to the second storey.2 ANALYTICAL PARTWhen comparing the building codes, the best resultswere obtained with the help of analytical calculations. Inthis stage, one of the most critical irregularities, the softstorey, was handled with the SAP2000 program. Thecriterions for a soft storey in the Turkish Seismic Code(TSC 2007), American Code of Minimum Design Loadsfor Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-2002),Indian Seismic Code (IS 1893-1, 2002) and JapaneseBuilding Code were taken into consideration. The calculation methods of these codes were compared. Within thisscope, a building model, which was symmetrical withrespect to the plan dimensions, was converted into several sub-models, based on the condition that all the parameters were the same and constant except for thechanges in the height of the first storey. The mainobjective was to obtain the limit values of these codesregarding the soft-storey issue by changing the model’sfirst-storey height to form a soft storey. The heights,which result in a soft storey, were compared and the dataobtained with analytical calculations allowed acomparison of the storey-irregularitiy criterions includedin different codes.Figure 2: General model’s plan and 3D views2.1 Information about the modelThe general model is an R/C frame system with columns and beams. The plan and 3D views of the modelare given in Figure 2.The parameters used in the analyses are given inTable 1.Table 1: Parameters of the general modelType of buiding’s structuralsystem:Total distance in the x direction:Total distance in the y direction:Span length between the axes:Storey heights:First-storey height:Number of storeys:Total building height:Seismic zone:Soil class:Building importance factor:Response-reduction factor:Concrete strength:Rebar strength:Column dimensions:Beam dimensions:Slab thickness:Beam loads:Slab loads:Seismic load:Frame with beams andcolumns9m9m3m3mh 3 m (changes)412–14 m (changes)1.seismic zone (mostsevere)Z3 (medium firm)I 1R 8C25 (25 MPa compressivestrength)S420 (420 MPa yieldstrength)30 cm 30 cm30 cm 50 cm15 cmG 6 kN/mG 1.5 kN/m2, Q 2kN/m21999 Düzce earthquake,east-west direction (timehistory)The first-storey heights of the models are given inTable 2.Table 2: First storey heights of the modelsModel number123456First storeyheight3.00 m3.30 m3.70 m3.85 m4.00 m4.25 mModel number7891011-First storeyheight4.30 m4.35 m4.40 m4.50 m5.00 m-Figure 1: Soft-storey damage1576Materiali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .Figure 4: Joint displacements of Model 8Figure 3: General model’s displaced view after the loading2.2 Load conditionsThe calculations were done with three seismic-analysis methods including an equivalent static load, a modalanalysis and time history. It was found that the maximumdisplacement values for the storeys occured during theanalyses using the time-history method. Hence, thetime-history method was chosen for the analysis. For theseismic load, the acceleration records of the 1999 DüzceEarthquake in the east-west direction were used. Figure 3 shows the displaced view of the general modelafter the loading.2.3 Storey displacementsTo get the limit values of the codes regarding the softstorey, eleven sub-models were designed. Lateral storeydisplacements of each model were obtained withSAP2000 and tabulated for the calculations of storeyrigidities.3 CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS3.1 Calculations according to the Turkish SeismicCode (TSC 2007)With respect to the TSC 2007, the soft-storey irregularity plays an important role when choosing theseismic-analysis method different from the other moderncountries’ codes. The soft-storey conditions from theTSC 2007 are expressed with Equations (1) and (2):hki (Di/hi)avg / (Di 1/hi 1)avg 2.0 Soft Storey(1)hki (Di/hi)avg / (Di–1/hi–1)avg 2.0 Soft Storey(2)where D is the storey displacement, and h is the storeyheight.10Materiali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581According to the storey-displacement values obtainedwith the analyses, Equations (1) and (2) were appliedand the critical first-storey height was determined. Withregard to the calculations, Model 8 was found to have thecritical height of the soft-storey formation of 4.35 m.Figure 4 shows joint displacements of Model 8.Lateral-displacement values for Model 8 are tabulated in Table 3.Table 3: Displacement values for Model 8h 20.54The calculation for Model 8 is shown in Equation(3):Δ111.97h14.35(3)h k1 Δ 2 (16.06 11.97)3h2hk1 2.02 2.0 Critical – Soft storey formation witha minor differenceIn Table 4, the results of all the models are given.Based on the observations of all the calculations, we cansay that the soft-storey irregularity was first formed inModel 8 and then in the other models where the firststorey height was more than 4.35 m. The value of hki 2.032 2.0 was confirmed to be the critical value of thesoft-storey formation according to the TSC 2007. Inother words, the minimum height of the first storey,577
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .which made this building form a soft storey with respectto the TSC 2007, was 4.35 m.where k is the lateral-storey stiffness.11,12 To find storeystiffness k, Equation (6) is used.Table 4: Models’ soft-storey-irregularity situations according to TSC2007F k uofhkiModel h, heightstorey (rigidity-irregularitynumber the first(m)index)13.001.05 2.023.301.12 2.033.701.53 2.043.851.57 2.054.001.75 2.064.251.94 2.074.301.98 2.084.352.03 2.0910114.404.505.002.05 2.02.12 2.02.48 egularRegularRegularRegularRegularCritical IrregularIrregularIrregularIrregular(6)where F is the storey’s equivalent static seismic loadand u is the lateral displacement value in the seismicdirection. The condition for the formation of a softstorey according to the ASCE/Indian codes is also givenin Figure 5.To obtain more realistic results and determine theequivalent static seismic loads of the storeys, it is moreappropriate to calculate the loads on the basis of theIndian equivalent static seismic load method. These calculations were done for eleven models. The results of theanalyses showed that Model 10 was the critical modelaccording to the Indian Seismic Code. The first-storeyheight of this model was h 4.50 m. The lateral-displacement values for Model 10 are given in Table 5.Table 5: Displacement values for Model 103.2 Calculations according to the Indian and American Seismic Codes (IS 1893-1, ASCE 7)The American Code (ASCE 7) and Indian Code (IS1893-1) treat a lot of formulations and obligationsregarding the soft-storey conditions in the same way.These codes scrutinize the soft-storey issue for twocases.11,121. Normal Soft Storey: If a storey’s lateral stiffness isless than 70 % of the stiffness of the storey above itor less then 80 % of the average stiffness of the abovethree storeyes, this storey is a soft storey.2. Extreme Soft Storey: A storey’s lateral stiffness is lessthen 60 % of the above storey’s stiffness or less then70 % of the average stiffness of the above three storeyes.Equations (4) and (5) show the conditions of a softstorey formation.ki 0.7ki 1 Soft storey(4) k i 1 k i 2 k i 3 Soft storeyki 0.8 3(5)orh 4.50 1The calculations of the equivalent static seismic loadand lateral-acceleration spectrum were done usingEquations (7) and (8), respectively.VB Ah WAh ZIS a2Rg(7)(8)where VB is the total equivalent static seismic load, Ah isthe lateral acceleration spectrum and W is the totalweight of the building in Equation (7). In Equation (8),Z is the seismic zone (from the table), I is the buildingimportance factor (from the table), R is the responsereduction factor (from the table) and Sa/g is the averageresponse-acceleration coefficient.12The calculation formula for the equivalent staticseismic load applying to any storey is given in Equation(9).Q i VB w i h i2nj 1w j h h2(9)The natural-period calculation for RC-frame buildings is done with Equation (10) where h is the building’stotal height in meters.Ta 0.075 h0.75Figure 5: Condition for a soft storey12578(10)The above equations were applied to all the modelsand the calculations for the critical one (Model 10) aregiven below.Materiali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .Q1 777.3 1430.2 4.50 2 138.9 kN3 (1250.6 3 2 ) 1430.2 4.50 2Q2 777.3 1250.6 3 2 139.5 kN3 (1250.6 3 2 ) 1430.2 4.50 2358.9F 26.99 kN/mm u 13.2985139.5F 38.61 kN/mmk2 u (16.9111 13.2985)k1 26.99 0.7 38.61 27.027 Critical – Soft storeyformation with a minor differenceIn Table 6, soft-storey results for all the storeys aregiven. The outcomes of the analyses show that Model 10is the critical one according to the Indian Seismic Code.It was found that the models with a first-storey height of4.50 m or more exhibited a soft-storey irregularity.Table 6: Models’ soft-storey-irregularity situations according toIndian Seismic Code (IS 1893-1)Modelnumber123456789h, 0115.00k1/k2 (Storeys’ Soft-storey-irregrigidity ratio) ularity situation0.90 0.7Regular0.86 0.7Regular0.81 0.7Regular0.79 0.7Regular0.77 0.7Regular0.74 0.7Regular0.73 0.7Regular0.72 0.7Regular0.71 0.7RegularCritical–0.69 0.7Irregular0.63 0.7Irregular3.3 Calculations according to the Japanese SeismicCodeThe Japanese Seismic Code determines the soft-storey irregularity using a much more different approach, asshown below.rs(11)Rs , Rs 0.6 Soft storeyrswhere Rs is the lateral-stiffness ratio and rs is the lateralstiffness. The lateral stiffness is defined as the storeyheight divided by the storey drift caused by the lateralseismic shear for moderate earthquake motions. rs is theavearage lateral storey stiffness.13Table 7: Displacement values for Model 2Joint4129171h 3.30 mDisplacement-x (mm)6.1211.1114.3916.32Materiali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581In the results of the analyses, Model 2 was determined as the critical one according to the JapaneseSeismic Code. This model’s first-storey height was 3.30m. The resulting displacement values for Model 2 aregiven in Table 7.Calculations were done for all the models and thesolution for Model 2 is given below:h 3.3 0.54 m/mmrs1 Δ 612.h3 0.60 m/mmrs2 Δ (1111. 612. )rs3 h3 0.92 m/mm Δ (14.39 1111. )rs4 h3 1.55 m/mm Δ (16.32 14.39)rs1 rs2 rs3 rs4 0.54 0.60 0.92 155. 44 0.902 m/mmrs1 0.54Rs 0.599rs1 0.92rs 0.599 0.6 Critical – Soft storey formation with aminor differenceTable 8 shows the soft-storey results for all the models. According to the Japanese Seismic Code, thecritical model was Model 2 where the first-storey heightwas 3.30 m.Table 8: Models’ soft-storey-irregularity situations according toJapanese Seismic CodeModelnumber1234567891011h, .00Rs (LateralSoft-storeystiffness ratio) irregularity situation0.654 0.6Regular0.599 0.6 Critical – Irregular0.429 0.6Irregular0.416 0.6Irregular0.398 0.6Irregular0.370 0.6Irregular0.366 0.6Irregular0.362 0.6Irregular0.358 0.6Irregular0.350 0.6Irregular0.310 0.6Irregular3.4 Soft-storey conditions from some other nationalbuilding codesEurocode-8This code recommends an increase in the load-bearing capacities of columns to compensate for the rigidityloss due to the lack of infill walls in some storeys. TheEuropean Standard also states that even if there are theinfill walls of a building’s first storey and if the buildingis a residential one, there should be stirrups along all thefirst storey’s columns, forming a stirrup-densification579
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .zone. This makes it possible to use the building as anoffice or to remove the infill walls.14,15Bulgarian Seismic StandardIf the rigidity ratio of the adjacent storeys is less then50 %, the less rigid storey is defined as a soft storeyaccording to the Bulgarian Seismic Standard. It is advised that the seismic load affecting the soft storeyshould be calculated when determining the seismic-loaddesign of a building. It is desired that a building with asoft storey should have a lateral-load capacity that isthree times larger than the potential load. Apart fromdetermining this situation, the standard does not makeany other calculation suggestions.6New Zealand Seismic Code (NZS 4203:1992)The New Zealand Seismic Code states that to fulfilthe vertical-regularity requirement, when using the equivalent static method, the lateral displacements of individual storeys should be reasonably close.16 However, itdoes not explain what reasonably close means.Israeli Seismic Standard (SI-413, 1995)When a storey’s lateral stiffness is less then 65 % ofthe above storey’s stiffness or when a storey’s lateralstiffness is less then 70 % of the average stiffness of theabove three storeys, a soft-storey irregularity occurs.17The calculation of the stiffness is not explained in thestandard.4 CONCLUSIONSIn this study, the soft-storey irregularity, formedbecause of various reasons was investigated. Variousnational building codes were compared. Analytical comparisons were made between the Turkish Seismic Code(TSC 2007), American Code of Minimum Design Loadsfor Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-2002),Indian Seismic Code (IS 1893-1, 2002) and JapaneseBuilding Code. Additionally, some information wasgiven about the soft-storey irregularity according toEurocode-8, Bulgarian Seismic Standard, New ZealandSeismic Code and Israeli Seismic Standard. The analyseswere done using the SAP2000 structural-analysis program. In this context, in a building model, which wassymmetrical with respect to the plan dimensions, a softstorey irregularity was deliberately formed. Eleven submodels were formed by changing the general model’sfirst-storey height to form different soft storeys. Thesemodels were completed and then compared according tothe seismic codes’ conditions and limiting values withregard to the soft-storey formation. In the eleven models,the storey heights were 3 m, except for the first storey.All the other parameters were the same.According to the results obtained, the followingconclusions can be made:With respect to the TSC 2007, the condition for asoft-storey formation is nki 2.0. The calculations580showed that in Model 8, this parameter was exceededwith a minor difference of 2.035 and a soft-storey irregularity occured. For this model, the first-storey height was4.35 meters.As regards the Indian and ASCE Seismic Standards,the k1/k2 storey-stiffness ratio was at the limit value inModel 10. The ratio for this model was obtained ask1/k2 0.699 0.7 and so a soft-storey irregularity wasformed. The first-storey height of Model 10 was 4.50 m.The calculations of the Japanese Seismic Code arevery different from those of the other codes. When theresults were examined, it was found that the Rs lateral-rigidity ratio was at the limit in the calculations forModel 2. In consequence, the Rs 0.599 0.6 valuemade the first storey into a soft storey. For Model 2, thefirst-storey height was h 3.30 m.When all the conclusions are considered, it is obviousthat in the Japanese Seismic Code, the soft-storeyphenomenon is handled much more carefully. Withrespect to this issue, the Japanese Code stays much moreon the safe side in comparison with the other seismiccodes. This can be thought of as reasonable if we thinkabout the seismicity and soil conditions of Japan.On the other hand, in the ASCE, Indian SeismicCode and Turkish Seismic Code, the soft-storey irregularity is generally tolerated. Also, in the Bulgarian, NewZealand and Israeli Seismic Codes, the soft storey ismentioned but these codes include no detailed numericaland analytical formulations or conditions regarding thiscritical issue. In these codes, the soft-storey conditionsare more superficially treated.The soft-storey irregularity, which causes great lossesunder the effect of a seismic load, should be determinedwith much more sensitive numerical calculation methodsin the national seismic codes, especially in the earthquake-prone countries.5 REFERENCES1T. Sandikci, Investigation of relationship between soft story andtorsional irregularities in reinforced concrete buildings, MasterThesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 20142G. Iºik, Investigation of short column and soft story behavior atreinforced concrete structures, Master Thesis, Karadeniz TechnicalUniversity, Trabzon 20063C. Arnold, Designing for earthquakes: A manual for architects, Fema454, Chapter 5, USA 20064S. G. Gök, Design of a multistorey reinforced concrete buiilding withA3 irregularity according to Turkish Eurocode and ACI 318Regulations, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul20135T. Öztürk, Effect of openings in building slabs on the structural system behavior, TMMOB IMO Teknik Dergi, 24 (2013), 6233–62566H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai, S. K. Jain, Code approaches to seismicdesign of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames: A state-ofthe-art review, Earthquake Spectra, 22 (2006), 961–983, doi:10.1193/1.23609077F. Bahadir, F. S. Balik, Predicting displacement data of threedimensional reinforced concrete frames with different strengtheningMateriali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–581
M. S. DONDUREN, A. NAKIPOGLU: COMPARISON OF R/C BUILDINGS WITH A SOFT-STOREY .applications using ANN, Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering,61 (2017), 843–856, doi:10.3311/PPci.96528J. Komínek, M. Pohanka, Estimation of the number of forward timesteps for the sequential Beck approach used for solving inverseheat-conduction problems, Materials and Technology, 50 (2016) 2,207–210, doi:10.17222/mit.2014.1929I. Nikoli}, I. Jankovi} - astvan, J. Krivokapi}, D. Ðurovi}, V. Radmilovi}, V. Radmilovi}, Geopolymerization of low-grade bauxite,Materials and Technology, 48 (2014) 1, 39–4410TSC 2007, Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas(Turkish seismic code 2007), The Turkish Ministry of Public Worksand Settlement, Ankara11ASCE 7-02, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, VirginiaMateriali in tehnologije / Materials and technology 52 (2018) 5, 575–58112IS 1893-1:2002 Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistantdesign of structures – Part 1: General provisions and buildings (FifthRevision), Bureau of Indian Standarts, New Delhi13Y. Ishiyama, Intorduction to earthquake engineering and seismiccodes in the world, Hokkaido 2011, 11514EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquakeresistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules forbuildings, European Comittee for Standardization, Brussels15S. A. Kaplan, Dolgu Duvarlarin Betonarme Taºiyici Sistem Performansina Etkisi, TMH, 452 (2008), 49–6216NZS 4203:1992 General structural design and design loadings forbuildings, Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington17SI 413:2009 Design provisions for earthquake resistance ofstructures, The Standards Institution of Israel, Tel Aviv581
SAP2000 and tabulated for the calculations of storey rigidities. 3 CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS 3.1 Calculations according to the Turkish Seismic Code (TSC 2007) With respect to the TSC 2007, the soft-storey irregu-larity plays an important role when choosing the seismic-analysis method different from the other modern countries’ codes.
For Small Office Buildings (Built up Area 10,000 sqm.) Rs. 15 Thousands Renewal (without upgradation) or Downgrading For Large Office Buildings (Built up Area 30,000 sqm.) Rs. 20 Thousands For Medium Office Buildings (10,000 sqm. Built up Area 30,000 sqm.) Rs. 15 Thousands For Small Office Buildings (Built up Area 10,000 sqm.)
Comparison table descriptions 8 Water bill comparison summary (table 3) 10 Wastewater bill comparison summary (table 4) 11 Combined bill comparison summary (table 5) 12 Water bill comparison – Phoenix Metro chart 13 Water bill comparison – Southwest Region chart 14
figure 8.29 sqt comparison map: superior bay (top of sediment, 0-0.5 ft) figure 8.30 sqt comparison map: 21st avenue bay figure 8.31 sqt comparison map: agp slip figure 8.32 sqt comparison map: azcon slip figure 8.33 sqt comparison map: boat landing figure 8.34 sqt comparison map: cargill slip figure
chart no. title page no. 1 age distribution 55 2 sex distribution 56 3 weight distribution 57 4 comparison of asa 58 5 comparison of mpc 59 6 comparison of trends of heart rate 61 7 comparison of trends of systolic blood pressure 64 8 comparison of trends of diastolic blood pressure 68 9 comparison of trends of mean arterial pressure
Water bill comparison summary (table 3) 10 Wastewater bill comparison summary (table 4) 11 Combined bill comparison summary (table 5) 12 Water bill comparison - Phoenix Metro chart 13 Water bill comparison - Southwest Region chart 14 Water bill comparison - 20 largest US cities chart 15
Should tall buildings be treated like other buildings? Tall buildings are occupied by hundreds if not thousands of people The consequence of failure of tall buildings is much more severe than an ordinary building Codes provide a “one size fits all” approach to seismic design. Tall buildings as small class of specialized
6 Shaping Buildings for the Humid Tropics Planning for Comfort Buildings in hot-humid climates need to be different from those in hot-dry climates. Heavy buildings can moderate the temperature in dry areas. In places where the climate alternates between dry and wet seasons, heavy buildings are comfortable in the dry season, .
ENERGY STAR Label for Buildings ENERGY STAR identifies the level of a building's energy performance relative to other similar buildings. Buildings achieving a score of 75 (on a 100-point scale) are eligible for the ENERGY STAR Label. Represents the top 25% of buildings Labeling is based on the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy
