Project Report

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction about Seismic Loading
Apart from gravity loads, the structure will experience dominant lateral forces of considerable
magnitude during earthquake shaking. It is essential to estimate and specify these lateral forces
on the structure in order to design the structure to resist an earthquake. It is impossible to
exactly determine the earthquake induced lateral forces that are expected to act on the structure
during its lifetime. However, considering the consequential effects of earthquake due to
eventual failure of the structure, it is important to estimate these forces in a rational and realistic
manner.
The earthquake forces in a structure depend on a number of factors such as:
Characteristics of the earthquake (Magnitude, intensity, duration, frequency, etc.)
Distance from the fault
Site geology
Type of structure and its lateral load resisting system.
1.2 Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy
Apart from the factors mentioned above, the consequences of failure of the structure may also
be of concern in the reliable estimation of design lateral forces. Code of practice for earthquake
resistant design of structures primarily aims at accomplishing two primary objectives; total
safety against loss of life and minimization of economic loss.
These objectives are fulfilled by design philosophy with following criteria:
Resist minor earthquake shaking without damage.
Resist moderate earthquake shaking without structural damage but possibly with some
damage to nonstructural members.
Resist major levels of earthquake shaking with both structural and nonstructural damage, but
the building should not collapse thus endangerment of the lives of occupants is avoided.
1|Page
Figure 1.1: Schematic Diagram Depicting Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy for
Different Levels Shaking
The purpose of an earthquake-resistant design is to provide a structure with features, which

will enable it to respond satisfactorily to seismic effects. These features are related to five major
objectives, which are listed in order of importance:
The likelihood of collapse after a very severe earthquake should be as low as possible.
Damage to non-structural elements caused by moderate earthquakes should be kept
within reasonable limits. Although substantial damage due to severe earthquakes,
which have a low probability of occurrence is acceptable, such damage is unacceptable
in the case of moderate tremors which are more likely to occur.
Buildings in which many people are usually present should have deformability features
which will enable occupants to remain calm even in the event of strong shocks.
Personal injury should be avoided.
Damage to neighboring buildings should be avoided
2|Page
1.3 Seismic Wave Behavior
The P wave or primary wave is the fastest of the three waves and the first detected by
seismographs. They are able to move through both solid rock as well as through liquids. These
are compressional or longitudinal waves that oscillate the ground back and forth along the
direction of wave travel, in much the same way that sound waves (which are also
compressional) move air back and forth as the waves travel from the sound source to a sound
receiver. Compressional waves compress and expand matter as they move through it.
Figure 1.2: Schematic Diagram of P Wave
S waves or secondary waves are the waves directly following the P waves. S waves travel in
the same direction, but instead of being a compressive wave, they oscillate with a shearing
behavior at right angles to the direction of motion. They travel about 1.7 times slower than P
waves. Because liquids will not sustain shear stresses, S waves will not travel through liquids
like water, molten rock, or the Earths outer core. S waves are more dangerous than P waves
because they have greater amplitude and produce vertical and horizontal motion of the ground
surface.
Figure 1.3: Schematic Diagram of S Wave
3|Page
Surface waves travel at or near the surface of the Earth only. These can be the most destructive
waves in that they appear to roll along lifting and dropping the ground as they pass and they
are slowest. There are two types of surface waves:
1) Love waves move like S waves in that they have a shearing motion in the direction of travel,
but the movement is back and forth horizontally.
2) Rayleigh waves move both horizontally and vertically in a vertical plane pointed in the
direction of travel.
Love and Rayleigh waves both produce ground shaking at the Earths surface but very little
motion deep in the Earth. Because the amplitude of surface waves diminishes less rapidly with
distance than the amplitude of P or S waves, surface waves are often the most important
component of ground shaking far from the earthquake source, thus can be the most destructive.
Figure 1.4: Schematic Diagram of Love Wave and Rayleigh Wave
4|Page
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), Seismic Behavior of Multi-

Storied Buildings
The study deals with the comparison of base shear of multi storied buildings with dimensions
20x20mts, 30x30mts,40x40mts,60x60mts at different zones and different types of soils as per
IS:1893(part-I):2002. A total of 224 multi storied buildings are analyzed for this paper. This
work helps in understanding the effect of earthquake with increase in area and height of multi
storied buildings and also the increase of base shear for different zones and soil conditions.
Vibrations which disturbs the earths surface caused by waves generated inside the earth are
termed as earthquakes. It is said that earthquakes will not kill the life of human but structures
which are not constructed in considering the earthquake forces do. At present a major
importance has given to earthquake resistant structures in India for human safety. India is a
sub-continent which is having more than 60% area in earthquake prone zone. A majority of
buildings constructed in India are designed based on consideration of permanent, semi-
permanent, movable loads. But earthquake is an occasional load which leads to loss of human
life but also disturbs social conditions of India.
India having different soil conditions and different earthquake intensity places with more than
60% area is prone to earthquakes, should develop earthquake resistant structures in
consideration to IS:1893(part: I):2002. India classified into 4 seismic zones namely zone II, III,
IV, V, having different types of soils which increases the importance of understanding of effect
of base shear in consideration to various types of soils in same zone also. Response of structures
to earths surface vibrations is a function of type of soil available at site conditions. Response
acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) for 5% damping is calculated for rock, medium, soft soils. Zone
factor value indicates expected intensity of earthquake in different seismic zones.
The particulars of places for different seismic zones are:- Zone II comprises of: east costal
portion of pondicherry and vishakhaptnam, Madhya Pradesh and part of Uttar Pradesh (Bhopal,
Nagpur, Aurangabad, Jaipur, Udaipur, Jodhpur and Jhansi), part of Rajasthan, interior parts of
southern India excluding coast line (Bangalore, Mysore, Hyderabad, Tanjavur, Madurai,
Nagapur, Bhilai and Rourkela). Zone III comprises of: parts of Gujarat, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,
Rajastan and west Bengal (Surat, Rajkot, Bikaner, Patiala, Bhatinda, Agra, Lucknow,
Allahabad, and Durgapur), east and west coast lines of Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa,
5|Page
West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharastra. (Chennai, Kalpakkam, Nellore, Vijayawada,
Bhubaeswar, Kolkata, Mumbai, Goa, Mangalore and Calicut.). Zone IV comprises of: Jammu
& Kashmir, Uttarkhand and Punjab, Darjeeling, Nainital, Shimla, Roorkee, Dehradun, Delhi,
Chandigarh, Ghorakhpur, Patna, Himalayas. Zone V comprises of: Himalayas, Jammu &
Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh, Bhuj area of Gujarat, Bihar and North Eastern states
(Srinagar, Bhuj, Dharbhanga, Guwahati, Imphal, Jorhat and Kohima). Importance factor relates
to the importance of structure. I = 1.5 for important service buildings and community buildings,
I = 1.0 for other buildings. The response reduction factor considered for study is 5.0 for special
RC moment resisting frame (SMRF). Analysis of considered 224 multi storied structures are
made by using Equivalent static load method as per IS: 1893(part: I):2002.
Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), Seismic Behaviour of Buildings on Different
Types of Soil
Buildings are subjected to different earthquake loading and behaves differently with
diversification in the types of soil condition, such as dense soil, medium and soft soil. Different
soil properties can affect seismic waves as they pass through a soil layer. When a structure is
subjected to an earthquake excitation, it interacts with the foundation and soil, and thus changes
the motion of the ground. It means that the movement of the whole ground structure system is
influenced by type of soil as well as by the type of structure. As the seismic waves transfer
from the ground which consist of alteration in soil properties and performs differently
according to soils respective properties. In this study, different soil strata are taken and
corresponding base shear and lateral displacement is determined with variation in floors as
G+4, G+5 and G+6 and zone as 3, 4 and 5. IS 1893: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures gives response spectrum for different types of soil such as hard, medium
and soft. A building is modeled in SAP-2000 having different Winklers springs as its
foundation corresponding to different soil properties. This research has immense benefits in
the Geotechnical Earthquake engineering field.
Vibrations which disturb the earths surface caused by waves generated inside the earth are
termed as earthquakes. It is said that earthquakes will not kill the life of human but structures
which are not constructed in considering the earthquake forces do. At present a major
importance has given to earthquake resistant structures in India for human safety. India is a
sub-continent which is having more than 60% area in earthquake prone zone. A majority of
buildings constructed in India are designed based on consideration of permanent, semi-
6|Page
permanent, movable loads. But earthquake is an occasional load which leads to loss of human
life but also disturbs social conditions of India. The extent to which the structural response
changes the characteristics of earthquake motions observed at the foundation level depends on
the relative mass and stiffness properties of the soil and the structure. Thus the physical
property of the foundation medium is an important factor in the earthquake response of
structures supported on it.
The estimation of earthquake motions at the site of structure is most important phase of design
of the structure. It is assumed that the motion in foundation level of equal structure is to ground
free field motion. This assumption is correct only for the structures constructed on rock or very
stiff soil. For the structures constructed on soft soil, foundation motion is usually different from
the free field motion and a rocking component caused by the support flexibility on horizontal
motion of foundation is added.
Anand [1] studied the seismic Behaviour of RCC buildings with and without shear wall under
different soil conditions. Lateral displacement, Base shear, axial force and Moment in the
column value increases when the type of soil changes from hard to medium and medium to soft
for all the building frames. It was concluded that the soil structure interaction must be suitably
considered while designing frames for seismic forces. Pandey [2] studied the seismic soil-
structure interaction of buildings on hill slopes. It was found that response reduction factor
decreases with increasing time period, but it was expected to be constant beyond a certain value
of time period. Jenifer studied the effect of lateral force on tall buildings with different type of
irregularities. It was found that building with soft soil gives more deflection as compared to
medium and hard soil for all types of building. Building with stiffness irregularity gives more
deflection as compared to other type of buildings with different irregularity. Constantinou and
Kneifati [3] proposed an energy method to estimate the damping of seismically isolated
structure, taking into account the energy dissipation of the bearing and the radiation damping
in the soil. Novak and Henderson [4] investigated the modal properties of base-isolated
structures and concluded that, when the flexibility of soil and isolators are comparable, the
contribution of SSI should not be ignored. Kelly carried out an experimental study concerning
base-isolated nuclear facilities founded on soft-sites, led to the conclusion that the isolator
design should be taken into the account for significant displacement demands. Spyrakos and
Vlassis [5] assessed the effects of SSI on the response of base-isolated bridges by a parametric
study. They derived analytical expressions to demonstrate the significance of SSI phenomena
in influencing the response of the isolated system. Tsai developed a time-domain procedure to
7|Page
investigate the efficiency of isolators to reduce the energy imported in an FPS-isolated building
for earthquake motion. Both radiation damping and foundation flexibility were found to be
essential in the accuracy of response prediction and safety of the isolated structure. Spyrakos
and Maniatakis studied on effects of soil-structure interaction on the response of base-isolated
4-DOF located on an elastic soil layer overlying rigid bedrock and subjected to a harmonic
ground motion. Initially, a four degree of freedom system was developed and the equations of
motion were formulated in the frequency domain. Frequency independent expressions were
used to determine the stiffness and damping coefficients for the rigid surface foundation on the
soil stratum underlined by bedrock at shallow depth.
When a structure is subjected to an earthquake excitation, it with interacts the foundation and
soil, and thus changes the motion of the ground. It means that the movement of the whole
ground structure system is influenced by type of soil as well as by the type of structure. As the
seismic waves transfer from the ground which consist of alteration in soil properties and
performs differently according to soils respective properties. In this study, different soil strata
are taken and corresponding base shear and lateral displacement is determined with variation
in floors as G+4, G+5 and G+6 and zone as 3, 4 and 5. IS 1893: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures gives response spectrum for different types of soil such as hard,
medium and soft. A building is modelled in SAP-2000 having different Winklers springs as
its foundation corresponding to different soil properties. This research has immense benefits in
the Geotechnical Earthquake engineering field.
Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), Analysis of RC Building Frames for
Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems
In this study, seismic analysis of high rise RC building frames have been carried out
considering different types of bracing systems. Bracing systems is very efficient and unyielding
lateral load resisting system. Bracing systems serves as one of the component in RC buildings
for increasing stiffness and strength to guard buildings from the incidence caused by natural
forces like earthquake force. In proposed problem G+ 10 story building frame is analyzed for
different bracing system under seismic loading. STADD-Pro software is used for analysis
purpose. The results of various bracing systems (X Bracing, V Bracing, K Bracing, Inverted V
Bracing, and Inverted K Bracing) are compared with bare frame model analysis to evaluate the
effectiveness of a particular type of bracing system in order to control the lateral displacement
and member forces in the frame. It is found that all the bracing systems control the lateral
8|Page
displacement of frame very effectively. However Inverted V bracing is found to be most
economical.
Structures are built to facilitate the performance of various activities connected with residence,
office, education, healthcare, sports and recreation transportation, storage, power generation,
etc. All the structures should sustain the loads coming on them during their service life by
possessing adequate strength and also limit the deformation by possessing enough stiffness.
Strength of a structure depends on characteristics of the material with which it constructed and
Stiffness depends upon the cross sectional and geometrical property of the structure. Tall
building or multi-storied building defined as virtue of its height (more than 30 m), is affected
by lateral forces due to wind or earthquake or both to an extent that they play an important role
in the structural design. Structural analysis deals with the mechanism of regeneration of loads
applied on the system into local element force, using various theories and theorems enunciated
by eminent engineers and investigators. It also deals with the computation of deformations
these members suffer under the action of induced forces.
The essential work of members of framed structure is to transfers the gravity loads and lateral
loads to the foundation of structure and then to the earth. The main loads comes in the structure
is gravity loads consists dead load, live loads and some service loads. Beside this there is
probability of structure may undergo through lateral forces caused due to seismic activity, wind
forces, fire, and blasts etc. Here the columns and beams of the structures are used to transfers
the major portion of the gravity loads and some portion of lateral loads but that is not significant
to the stability of structure. So we provide bracing systems, shear walls, dampers etc. to resist
or transfer these lateral forces to the structure uniformly without affecting the stability and
strength of the structure.
Sabelli (1999), investigated to identify ground motion and structural features that control the
response of concentrically braced frames, and to identify improved design procedures and code
provisions. The focus of this paper is on the earthquake response of three and six story
concentrically braced frames utilizing buckling-restrained braces. A brief discussion is
provided regarding the mechanical properties of such braces and the benefit of their use.
Results of detailed nonlinear dynamic analyses are then examined for specific cases as well as
statistically for several suites of ground motions to characterize the effect on key response
parameters of various structural configurations and proportions.
Mahmoud R. Maher, R. Akbari (2003), carried out the study for the earthquake behaviour
factor (R) for steel X braced and knee-braced RC buildings. The R factor components including
9|Page
ductility reduction factor and over strength factor are extracted from inelastic pushover
analyses of brace-frame systems of different heights and configurations. The effects of some
parameters influencing the value of R factor, including the height of the frame, share of bracing
system from the applied load and the type of bracing system are investigated. The height of
this type of lateral load-resisting system has a profound effect on the
R factor, as it directly affects the ductility capacity of the dual system. Finally, based on the
findings presented, tentative R values are proposed for steel-braced moment resisting RC frame
dual systems for different ductility demands.
P. Jayachandran (2009), carried out the study to enables optimization of initial structural
systems for drift and stresses, based on gravity and lateral loads. The design issues are
efficiency of systems, rigidity, member depths, balance between sizes of beam and column,
bracings, as well as spacing of columns, and girders, and areas and inertias of members. Drift
and accelerations should be kept within limits. Good preliminary design and optimization leads
to better fabrication and erection costs, and better construction. The cost of systems depends
on their structure weight. This depends on efficient initial design.
The structural steel weight is shown to be an important parameter for the architects,
construction engineers and for fabrication and assembly optimization.
R.K. Gajjar, Dhaval P. Advani (2011), investigated, the design of multi-storeyed steel building
is to have good lateral load resisting system along with gravity load system because it also
governs the design. They presented to show the effect of different types of bracing systems in
multi storied steel buildings. For this purpose the 20 stories steel buildings model is used with
same configuration and different bracings systems such as knee brace, X brace and V brace is
used. A commercial package STADD Pro is used for the analysis and design and different
parameters are compared.
Kevadkar, Kodag (2013), concluded that the structure in heavy susceptible to lateral forces
may be concern to severe damage. In this they said along with gravity load (dead load, live
load) the frames able to withstand to lateral load (loads due to earthquake, wind, blast, fire
hazards etc.) which can develop high stresses for that purpose they used shear wall and steel
bracing system to resist the such type of loading like earthquake, wind, blast etc. In study
according to author R.C.C. building is modelled and analyzed in STADD & results are
compared in terms of Lateral Displacement, Story Shear and Story Drifts, Base shear and
Demand Capacity (Performance point).
10 | P a g e
K. Shaiksha Vali and B. Ajitha, (2014), Seismic Analysis in Tall Buildings for Hard Soil
Type and Different Seismic Zones
In this work, it is proposed to carry out an analytical study, on multistorey building of 35 stories,
was carried out accounting for different seismic zones and hard soil type. The suitability and
efficiency of different lateral bracing systems that are commonly used and also that of concrete
infills were investigated. The different bracing systems viz., X-brace, V-brace, inverted V or
chevron brace and infills are introduced in these analytical models. These building models are
analyzed, using SAP 2000 software, to the action of lateral forces employing linear static and
linear dynamic approaches as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002.
From the ancient pyramids to todays modern skyscraper, a civilizations power and wealth has
been repeatedly expressed through spectacular and monumental structures the design of
skyscrapers is usually governed by the lateral loads imposed on the structure. As buildings have
taller and narrower, the structural engineer has been increasingly challenged to meet the
imposed drift requirements while minimizing the architectural impact of the structure. This
undying quest for height has laid out incredible opportunities for the building profession. From
the early moment frames to todays ultra-efficient mega-braced structures, the structural
engineering profession has come a long way. The recent development of structural analysis
and design software coupled with advances in the finite element method has allowed the
creation of many structural and architecturally innovative forms. However, increased reliance
on computer analysis is not the solution to the challenges that lie ahead in the profession. The
basic understanding of structural behaviour while leveraging on computing tools are the
elements that will change the way structures are designed and built.
The design of skyscrapers is usually governed by the lateral loads imposed on the structure. As
buildings have taller and narrower, the structural engineer has been increasingly challenged to
meet the imposed drift requirements while minimizing the architectural impact of the structure.
In response to this challenge, the profession has proposed a multitude of lateral schemes that
are now spoken in tall buildings across the globe.
This study seeks to understand the evolution of the different lateral systems that have emerged
and its associated structural behaviour, for each lateral scheme examined, its advantages and
disadvantages will be looked at.
Earthquake and its occurrence and measurements, its vibration effect and structural response
have been continuously studied for many years in earthquake history and thoroughly
documented in literature. Since then the structural engineers have tried hard to examine the
11 | P a g e
procedure, with an aim to counter the complex dynamic effect of seismically induced forces in
structures, for designing of earthquake resistant structures in a refined and easy manner.
Linear static analysis or equivalent static analysis can only be used for regular structures with
limited height. Linear dynamic analysis can be performed in two ways either by mode
superposition method or response spectrum method and elastic time history method. This
analysis will produce the effect of the higher modes of vibration and the actual distribution of
forces in the elastic range in a better way. They represent an improvement over linear static
analysis. The significant difference between linear static and dynamic analysis is the level of
force and their distribution along the height of the structure. Non linear static analysis is an
improvement over the linear static or dynamic analysis in the sense that it allows the inelastic
behaviour of the structure. The methods still assume a set of static incremental lateral load over
the height of structure. Main features of seismic method of analysis (Riddell and Llera, 1996)
based on Indian Standard 1893 (Part I): 2002 are described as follows.
(a) Equivalent lateral force
(b) Response Spectrum Analysis
(c) Elastic Time History Analysis
12 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
SEISMIC ZONES
3.1 Introduction to Seismic Zones
1. Seismic Zonation may be termed as the geographic delineation of areas having different
potentials for hazardous effects from future earthquakes. Seismic zonation can be done
at any scale, national, regional, local, or site.
2. The term Zoning implies that the parameter or parameters that characterize the hazard
have a constant value in each zone. If, for example, for practical reasons, the number
of zones is reduced (from five as is the case in large majority of national codes), we
obtain a rather simplified representation of the hazard, which in reality has continuous
variation.
3. A seismic zone is a region in which the rate of seismic activity remains fairly consistent.
This may mean that seismic activity is incredibly rare, or that it is extremely common.
Some people often use the term seismic zone to talk about an area with an increased
risk of seismic activity, while others prefer to talk about seismic hazard zones when
discussing areas where seismic activity is more frequent.
4. Many nations have government agencies concerned with seismic activity. These
agencies use the data they collect about seismic activity to divide the nation into various
seismic zones. A number of different zoning systems are used, from numerical zones
to colored zones, with each number or color representing a different level of seismic
activity.
5. A seismic zoning map for engineering use is a map that specifies the levels of force or
ground motions for earthquake-resistant design, and thus it differs from a seismicity
map, which provides only the occurrence of earthquake information. The task of
seismic zoning is multidisciplinary and involves the best of input from geologist,
seismologist, geotechnical, earthquake and structural engineers.
13 | P a g e
3.2 Need for Seismic Zonation
1. These maps identify the regions of a country or province in which various intensities of
ground shaking may have occurred or may be anticipated.
2. Maps of probabilistic hazard give an idea of the underlying statistical uncertainty, as is

done in calculating insurance rates. These maps give, for example, the odds at which
specified earthquake intensity would be exceeded at a site of interest within a given
time span.
3. Seismic zoning is used to reduce the human and economic losses caused by
earthquakes, thereby enhancing Economic development and Political stability.
4. New probabilistic maps have been developed as the basis of seismic design provisions
for building practice. These usually give the expected intensity of ground shaking in
terms of peak acceleration. The peak acceleration can be thought of as the maximum
acceleration in earthquakes on firm ground at the frequencies that affect sizable
structures.
5. The losses due to damaging earthquakes can be mitigated through a comprehensive

assessment of seismic hazard and risk. Seismic zonation of vulnerable areas for bedrock
motion thus becomes important so that the planners and administrators can make use
of it after applying appropriate amplification factors to take into account the local soil
conditions, for better land use planning and safe development.
3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones
The 1993 Latur earthquake of magnitude 6.3 caused intensity IX damages but prior to the
earthquake, Latur was placed in seismic zone 1, where no such magnitude of earthquake was
expected. The Latur earthquake further led to the revision of the seismic zonation map of India.
The map was revised again in 2002 with only four zones such as II, III, IV and V (IS: 1893
(Part 1): 2002) (Fig. 4). The Peninsular India was modified and Zones I and II were combined.
The new zone placed the 1993 Latur earthquake in zone III. The areas falling under zone V is
14 | P a g e
most seismically active. The areas under this zone are the entire northeastern part of India, parts
of northwestern Bihar, the Kangra Valley in Himachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
eastern part of Uttaranchal, the Rann of Kutchh in Gujarat and the Srinagar area in Jammu and
Kashmir. Two major metropolitan cities, with a high population density, i.e. Delhi, lie in zone
IV, and Kolkata, at the boundary of zone III and IV of the zonation map. The recent four seismic
zones of India are assigned PGA values ranging from 0.1 g to 0.4 g with 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The changes in zonation map of India with the occurrence of significant
earthquakes are an indication that the zoning at a national level does not provide the solution
for tackling the seismic hazards.
Figure 3.1: Map of India Showing Seismic Zones of India
Zone II III IV V
Intensity Low Medium Severe Very Severe
Zone value 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Table I: Zone Value for Different Zones
15 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
4.1 Determining Soil Profile Type for Identifying the Response Spectrum
The soil profile mainly constituting the local soil below the foundation required for use of
response spectra is divided into three types. It is quite natural to have variation in properties of
soil, and most soil deposits have both vertical as well as lateral variation of properties
depending on the geomorphic forces and source of soil formation. There may be soil layers of
varying properties of the similar soil type namely coarse-grained soils (Gravels, Sands or Sandy
Gravels, or Gravelly Sands); fine-grained soils (Clays or Silty Clays or Clayey Silts) or there
may be interlaying of coarse grained soils and fine grained soils. The importance of local site
conditions and its role on the response of structures has been well recognized. The soil and
rock at a site have specific characteristics that can significantly amplify the incoming
earthquake motions traveling from the earthquake source.
IS: 1893-2002 - Part 1 has acknowledged the importance of local site effects and has defined
three soil profile types, which essentially are rock or hard soils (Type I), medium soils (Type
II), and soft soils (Type III). The code has suggested a design spectrum for each of these soil
profile types. However, the code does not explain how to decide the type of soil profile to be
used to select the appropriate design acceleration spectrum, given the variation of soil profile
in a particular locality. Thus, a procedure is required to arrive at the type of soil profile.
Soil profile types are to be characterized based on the average soil properties for the upper 30
m of the soil profile. Standard penetration test is a field test conducted at regular intervals in
every borehole, which has a good correlation with engineering properties of soil. N values,
which are corrected for overburden and dilatancy effects, are correlated with relative density
and hence the angle of internal friction for coarse-grained type of soils and the undrained shear
strength of fine-grained soils. Relative density reflects the state of compactness of coarse-
grained soils, and the undrained strength reflects the stiffness of fine-grained soils. These, in
turn, reflect the field behavior of a profile of soil. For layered soils having varying properties
over the exploration depth of 30 m, the average N values are to be obtained.
16 | P a g e
Type I: Rock or Hard Soils
1) Well graded gravel (GW) or well graded sand (SW) both with less than 5% passing 75 m
sieve (Fines).
2) Well graded Gravel- Sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW).
3) Poorly graded Sand (SP) or clayey sand (SC), all having N above 30.
4) Stiff to hard clays having N above 16.
Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils
1) Poorly graded sands or poorly graded sands with gravel (SP) with little or no fines having
N between 10 and 30.
2) and stiff to medium stiff fine-grained soils, like Silts of Low compressibility (ML) or Clays
of Low compressibility (CL) having N between 10 and 16.
Type III: Soft Soils
All soft soils other than SP with N<10. The various possible soils are:
1) Silts of Intermediate compressibility (MI).
2) Silts of High compressibility (MH).
3) Clays of Intermediate compressibility (CI).
4) Clays of High compressibility (CH).
5) Silts and Clays of Intermediate to High compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH).
6) Silt with Clay of Intermediate compressibility (MI-CI).
7) Silt with Clay of High compressibility (MH-CH).
Table II: Elastic Property of Foundation Soil
Type of Soil Shear Modulus G Elastic Modulus E Poissons Ratio

(kN/m2) (KN/m2)
Hard 2700 6750 0.25
Medium 451.1 1200 0.33
Soft 84.5 250 0.48
17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5
BRACING SYSTEM
5.1 Introduction
The selection of a particular type of framing system depends upon two important parameters
i.e. seismic risk of the zone and the budget. The lateral forces acting on any structure are
distributed according to the flexural rigidity of individual components. Indian Codes divide the
entire country into four seismic zones (II, III, IV & V) depending on the seismic risks. OMRCF
is probably the most commonly adopted type of frame in lower seismic zones. However with
increase in the seismic risks, it becomes insufficient and SMRCF or Steel Brace frames need
to be adopted.
A rigid frame in structural engineering is the

load-resisting skeleton constructed with straight
or curved members interconnected by mostly
rigid connections which resist movements
induced at the joints of members. Its members
can take bending moment, shear, and axial
loads. They are of two types: Rigid-framed
Structures & Braced-frames Structures. The two
common assumptions as to the behavior of a
building frame are that its beams are free to
rotate at their connections and that its members
are so connected that the angles they make with
each other do not change under load.Moment-
resisting frames are rectilinear assemblages of
beams and columns, with the beams rigidly
connected to the columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame
action-that is, by the development of bending moment and shear force in the frame members
and joints. Frames may be designed using concept of strong column-weak girder proportions.
There are two types of MRF: OMRF and SMRF. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF)
is a moment-resisting frame not meeting special detailing requirements for ductile behavior.
Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is a moment-resisting frame specially detailed to
18 | P a g e
provide ductile behavior and comply with the requirements given in IS-4326 or IS-13920 or
SP6.
5.2 Bracing System
The essential work of members of framed structure is to transfers the gravity loads and lateral
loads to the foundation of structure and then to the earth. The main loads comes in the structure
is gravity loads consists dead load, live loads and some service loads. Beside this there is
probability of structure may undergo through lateral forces caused due to seismic activity, wind
forces, fire, and blasts etc. Here the columns and beams of the structures are used to transfers
the major portion of the gravity loads and some portion of lateral loads but that is not significant
to the stability of structure. So we provide bracing systems, shear walls, dampers etc. to resist
or transfer these lateral forces to the structure uniformly without affecting the stability and
strength of the structure.
CASE-1: Building frame without bracing system (Bare Frame).
CASE-2: Building frame with X bracing system.
CASE-3: Building frame with V bracing system.
CASE-4: Building frame with Inverted V bracing system.
19 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6
METHODOLOGY
In general, the methods of seismic analysis can be classified as (1) Static and (2) Dynamic.
Dynamic analysis can further be classified as (i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static)
Analysis and (ii) Time Domain Analysis. All of the above categories have their (a) Linear and
(b) Non-linear counterparts.
6.1 Static Analysis
The static procedure of building is modelled with their linearly elastic stiffness of the building.
The equivalent viscous damps the approximate values for the lateral loads to near the yield
point. Design earthquake demands for the LSP (LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE) are
represented by static lateral forces whose sum is equal to the pseudo lateral load. When it is
applied to the linearly elastic model of the building it will result in design displacement
amplitudes approximating maximum displacements that are expected during the design
earthquake. To design the earth quake loads to calculate the internal forces will be reasonable
approximate of expected during to design earth quake.
a) Linear Analysis
Seismic Coefficient Method (SCM): Here the seismic base shear for the building is
determined by using an emphatically determined time period, and distributed over the stories
as lateral load proportional to an assumed mode shape, which is parabolic (but interestingly
with 100% mass participation assumed). Here lateral load determination is all formula based,
no modal analysis is required, and the method is therefore STATIC.
b) Non-linear Analysis
Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or Pushover Analysis: Unlike as SCM (where the lateral
load of a calculated intensity is applied in whole - in one shot), in NSP, analysis model is gently
'pushed over' by a monotonically increasing lateral load applied in steps up to a predetermined
value or state. Here also seismic base shear for the building is distributed over the stories as
lateral load proportional to an assumed mode shape, which is either uniform or a power
distribution with the value of k determined to be a value between 1 (inverted triangular
distribution) and 2 (parabolic distribution) by an empirical method.
(k is the power of h shown with k=2 in the formula under IS: 1893, Clause 7.7.1)
20 | P a g e
6.2 Dynamic Analysis
The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having
certain period and damping, during earthquake ground motions. The maximum response
plotted against of un-damped natural period and for various damping values and can be
expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum
relative displacement. For this purpose response spectrum case of analysis have been
performed according to IS 1893.
a) Linear Analysis
i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) (IS: 1893, 7.8.4) Here a DYNAMIC (modal) analysis
is done to get the dynamic characteristics of the building (natural frequencies and mode shapes)
from which the lateral loads corresponding to each mode shape is calculated, with which a
STATIC analysis is performed for each mode, the results (BM, SF, etc.) of which are then
combined (SRSS) to get the design forces.
ii) Time Domain Analysis
Linear Time History Analysis (IS: 1893, Cl.7.8.3): In THA, the support points of the model
is oscillated back and forth in accordance to a recoded ground motion of an actually occurred
earthquake (as recorded by a seismograph, and available in tabular form of time vs.
acceleration). The results (BM, SF, etc.) are usually taken as the maximum enveloped over
time (i.e., the max. BM on the mid span of a particular beam in the maximum among all the
BMs, each corresponding to each time point over the duration of earthquake.
b) Non-linear Analysis
i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis
Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or the same Pushover Analysis mentioned above, but with
the 1st mode proportionate lateral loads or more rightly, a combination (SRSS) proportionate
lateral loads. Note that unlike the RSA, its not the results corresponding to each mode shape
that is SRSSed, but the loads themselves. No one considers putting this version of pushover
analysis under Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (and as the non-linear counterpart of RSA.)
ii) Time Domain Analysis: Non-linear Time History Analysis (NL-THA) Here since the
structure has non-linear hinges inserted, the members can undergo and stiffness degradation,
strength deterioration in general, damage, as a real building would, during the progress of an
earthquake.
21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7
ANALYSIS
7.1 General
Structural design of earthquake resistant buildings has almost become mandatory now all over
India. As such, many companies implemented relevant clauses of IS 1893(Part 1):2002 and IS:
13920-1993 applicable for RC buildings in structural analysis software. The intention is to
provide a fast and reliable tool to structural engineers using which they can off-load the arduous
task of cumbersome calculations to software and at the same time can apply their own good
judgment for interpretation of results to provide appropriate practical design & detailing for all
components of buildings like slabs, beams, columns and foundation. The best part of software
is that, it calculates the Earthquake loads automatically from the basic parameters provided by
user.
The design of a building can be done by conventional method or with the help of Software. In
this study structure are designed by using Software because designing by conventional method
consumes lot of time, effort and can contain errors whereas by using software we can save time
and obtain more accurate results. As mentioned above, we have used software named
ETABS9.7.1 abbreviated as Structural Analysis Design and Detailing Software.
The purpose for us using the software is that it is user friendly and has unique features like it
designs the structural components individually along with their Analysis and Results .Another
useful feature of this software is that we can view the analysis result of each member at any
story level. In this report regular building modal has been analysed by static, dynamic analysis.
The static and dynamic has done on computer with the help of software using the parameters
for the designing as per the IS 1893(Part 1): 2002 for the all zone and soil conditions and the
post processing result obtained has summarized in succeeding tables.
22 | P a g e
7.2 Geometry & Analysis with ETABS 9.7.1
Figure 7.1: Geometry with ETABS 9.7.1
Figure 7.2: Frame Analysis with ETABS 9.7.1
23 | P a g e
7.3 Design Parameters
Here analysis is being done for G+8,G+16 & G+24 multistorey (rigid joint symmetrical frame)
building by computer software using, ETABS 9.7.1 by taking preliminary data required as
below:-
Multistorey Rigid Jointed Plane Frame

1. Type of Structure
Reinforced Cement Concrete
2. Number of Storey G+8, G+16 & G+24
3. Seismic Zone All, As Per IS 1893(Part 1):2002
4. Floor Height 3.5 m
5. Depth Of Foundation 3.0 m
6. Building Height 28 m, 56 m & 84 m
7. Plan Size 35 m x35 m
8. Total Area 1225 m2
Size of Column
9. 0.80 m x 0.80 m
(Bottom 8 Storeys)
Size of Column
10. 0.60 m x 0.60 m
(From 9 to 16 storeys)
Size of Column
11. 0.45 m x 0.45 m
(From 17 to 24 storeys)
12. Size of Beams 0.55 m x 0.60 m
13. Thickness Of Slab 150 mm
14. Imposed Load 4.00 kN/m2
15. Floor Finish 1.0 kN/m2
Water Proofing
16. 1.0 kN/m2
(at Top Floor)
24 | P a g e
17. External Wall Load (at Top Floor) 2.76 kN/m2
External Wall Load

18. 11.04 kN/m2
(at Remaining Floors)
19. Internal Wall Load 5.52 kN/m2
20. Specific Wt. of RCC 23.56 kN/m3
21. Specific Weight of Infill 20.00 kN/m3
Concrete M-40 and Reinforcement Fe-

22. Material Used 415 (HYSD Confirming to IS: 1786-
2008)
23. Earthquake Load As Per IS 1893(Part 1):2002
24. Type Of Soil All , As Per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002
Ec
25. (Ec is Short Term Static Modulus of 5000Fck
Elasticity in N/mm2)
Fcr 0.7Fck
26. (Tensile Strength of Concrete in Flexure (Fck is Characteristic Cube Strength Of
in N/mm2) Concrete in N/mm2)
27. Static Analysis Equivalent Static Coefficient Method
28. Software Used ETABS 9.7.1
0.075h0.75
Fundamental Natural Period of Building
29. For Moment Resisting RC Frame
Ta in seconds
Building Without Infill
0.09hD
Fundamental Natural Period of Building For All Other Building I/C Moment
30.
Ta in seconds Resisting RC Frame Building With Brick
Infill Walls
25 | P a g e
31. Importance Factor, I 1.0
Response Reduction Factor, R

32. For Special RC Moment Resisting Frame 5.00
(SMRF)
Average Response Acceleration 1+15T 0.00T0.1
33. Coefficient Sa/g 2.5 0.1T0.40

(for Hard Soil Sites) 1.00/T 0.40T4.00

(for Medium Soil Sites) 1.67/T 0.67T4.00

(for Soft Soil Sites) 1.36/T 0.55T4.00
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient

36. Z/2 x I/R x Sa/g
Ah for Structure
37. Damping Percentage 5%
38. Seismic Wt. Of Building Sum Of The Seismic Wt. Of Floors
Design Lateral Force or Design Base
39. Shear Along Any Principal Directions Ah x W
Vb
Vertical Distribution of Base Shear to

40. Vb x Wihi2/Wihi
Different Floors Levels, Qi
26 | P a g e
7.4 Load Cases Applied
1. EQX 10. [1.5{DL+EQX}]
2. EQZ 11. [1.5{DL-EQX}]
3. DEAD LOAD (D.L) 12. [1.5{DL+EQY}]
4. LIVE LOAD (L.L) 13. [1.5{DL-EQY}]
5. [1.5{D.L+L.L}] 14. [0.9DL+1.5EQX]
6. [1.2{D.L+0.5L.L+EQX}] 15. [0.9DL-1.5EQX]
7. [1.2{D.L+0.5L.L-EQX}] 16. [0.9DL+1.5EQY]
8. [1.2{D.L+0.25L.L+EQY}] 17. [0.9DL-1.5EQY]
9. [1.2{D.L+0.25L.L-EQY}]
7.5 Multistorey Structure with Different Type of Bracing
Figure 7.3: Geometry of Bracing with ETABS 9.7.1
27 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8
RESULTS
For the data of the following graphs refer Annexure.

1200
1000
Base Shear
800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Storey
II I II II II III III I III II III III
IV I IV II IV III VI V II V III
Graph 1: Result of Multistorey Structure for 8th Storey Building
2000
1500
Base Shear
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Storey
1400
1200
1000
Base Shear
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 Storey 15 20 25 30
28 | P a g e
0.0025
0.002
Storey Drift
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Storey

0.003
0.0025
Storey Drift
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Storey


0.003
0.0025
Storey Drift
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Storey
29 | P a g e
0.00025
0.0002
Storey Drift
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
X V INVERTED V
Graph 7: Result of Bracing for Soil Type 1 and Zone II
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
Storey Drift
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
X V INVERTED V
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
Storey Drift
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
X V INVERTED V
30 | P a g e
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
Stroey Drift
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
X V INVERTED V
Graph 10: Result of Bracing for Soil Type 1 and Zone III
0.00045
0.0004
0.00035
0.0003
Storey Drift
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
X V INVERTED V
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
Stoery Drift
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
X V INVERTED V
31 | P a g e
0.0005
0.00045
0.0004
0.00035
Storey Drift
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
X V INVERTED V
Graph 13: Result of Bracing for Soil Type 1 and Zone IV
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
Storey Drift
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
X V INVERTED V
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
Storey Drift
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
X V INVERTED V
32 | P a g e
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
Storey Drift
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
X V INVERTED V
Graph 16: Result of Bracing for Soil Type 1 and Zone V
0.001
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
Storey Drift
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
X V INVERTED V
0.0014
0.0012
0.001
Storey Drift
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
X V INVERTED V
33 | P a g e
1600
1400
1200
Base Shear
1000
800
600
400
200
0
X V INVERTED V

2500
2000
Base Shear
1500
1000
500
X V INVERTED V
2500
2000
Base Shear
1500
1000
500
X V INVERTED V
34 | P a g e
2500
2000
Base Shear
1500
1000
500
X V INVERTED V
3500
3000
2500
Base Shear
2000
1500
1000
500
X V INVERTED V
4000
3500
3000
Base Shear
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
X V INVERTED V
35 | P a g e
4000
3500
3000
Base Shear
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
X V INVERTED V
5000
4500
4000
3500
Base Shear
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
X V INVERTED V
6000
5000
4000
Base Shear
3000
2000
1000
X V INVERTED V
36 | P a g e
6000
5000
4000
Base Shear
3000
2000
1000
X V INVERTED V

8000
7000
6000
Base Shear
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
X V INVERTED V

9000
8000
7000
6000
Base Shear
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
X V INVERTED V
37 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION
1. As we move from zone II to III and IV to V, the base shear increases by 60 % and 50%
respectively for soft soil and G+8 storey building.
2. As we move from G+8 to G+16 and G+16 to G+24, base shear increases by 207 % and
decreases by 9% respectively for medium soil and zone II.
3. For zone IV, and G+24 building, the base shear increases by 37% and 22% as we move
from rocky to medium soil and medium to soft soil respectively.
4. As we move from zone II to III and IV to V, the storey drift increases by 60 % and 67%
respectively for soft soil and G+8 storey building.
5. As we move from G+8 to G+16 and G+16 to G+24, storey drift increases by 14% and
10% respectively for medium soil and zone II.
6. For zone IV, and G+24 building, the storey drift increases by 36% and 22% as we
move from rocky to medium soil and medium to soft soil respectively.
7. For zone II & soil type 1 and from X bracing to V bracing the storey drift is increase
by 20.62%.
8. For zone III & soil type 3 and from X bracing to V bracing the storey drift is increase
by 20.79%.
9. For zone III & soil type 2 and from X bracing to inverted V bracing the storey drift is
increase by 18.91%.
10. For zone IV & soil type 1 and from X bracing to inverted V bracing the storey drift is
increase by 18.7%.
11. For zone IV & soil type 3 and from Inverted V bracing to V bracing the storey drift is
increase by 1.44%.
12. For zone V & soil type 2 and from Inverted V bracing to V bracing the storey drift is
increase by 1.5%.
38 | P a g e
REFERENCES
[1]. Anand, N. and Mightraj, C. 2010. Seismic behavior of RCC shear wall under different
soil conditions In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference on Geo-trends
[2]. A.D. Pandey, Prabhat Kumar and Sharad Sharma "Seismic soil structure interaction of
buildings on hill slopes", Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2011.
[3]. Constantinou, M.C., kneifati, M.C. (1986). Effect of soil-structure interaction on damping
and frequencies of base-isolated structures, the 3rd US national conference on earthquake
engineering. 1: 671-681.
[4]. Novak, M., Henderson, P. (1989). Base-isolated buildings with soil-structure interaction.
Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamic. 18: 751-765.
[5]. Spyrakos, C.C. and Vlassis, A.G. (2002). Effect of soil-structure interaction on seismically
isolated bridges, Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 6: 3, 391-429.
[6]. IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF

STRUCTURES
[7]. IS 875 (Part-1): 1987 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS (OTHER THAN
EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
[8]. IS 875 (Part-2): 1987 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS (OTHER THAN
EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
[9]. Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), Seismic Behavior of Multi-
Storied Buildings
[10]. Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BUILDINGS
ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL
[11]. Abhyuday Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta, (2015), A Comparative Study of the Various
Structural Framing Systems Subjected To Seismic Loadings
[12]. Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), Analysis of RC Building Frames for
Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems
39 | P a g e
ANNEXURE
Base shear for G+8 Storey Structure

Zone Rocky Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
II 670.688 912.625 1120.26
III 1073.10 1460.20 1792.42
IV 1609.65 2190.30 2688.63
V 2414.48 3285.45 4032.95
II 1868.87 2541.65 3101.55
III 2971.56 4041.32 4962.51
IV 4457.54 6061.96 7443.74
V 6685.99 9092.99 11164.63
II 2060.79 2802.64 3441.5
III 3297.24 4484.23 5506.42
IV 4945.89 6726.38 8259.59
V 7418.81 10089.59 12389.42
40 | P a g e
Maximum storey drift for G+8 Storey Structure
II 0.000356 0.000484 0.000594
III 0.000774 0.000881 0.00095
IV 0.00095 0.001197 0.001321
V 0.00147 0.001796 0.002206
II 0.000405 0.000551 0.000356
III 0.000649 0.000882 0.001083
IV 0.000973 0.001324 0.001625
V 0.00146 0.001986 0.002438
II 0.000447 0.000608 0.00746
III 0.000715 0.000972 0.001194
IV 0.001073 0.001459 0.001791
V 0.001609 0.002188 0.002687
41 | P a g e

Project Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Project Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Introduction about Seismic Loading

The earthquake forces in a structure depend on a number of factors such as:

Characteristics of the earthquake (Magnitude, intensity, duration, frequency, etc.)

Distance from the fault

Type of structure and its lateral load resisting system.

1.2 Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy

These objectives are fulfilled by design philosophy with following criteria:

Resist minor earthquake shaking without damage.

The purpose of an earthquake-resistant design is to provide a structure with features, which

Figure 1.2: Schematic Diagram of P Wave

Figure 1.3: Schematic Diagram of S Wave

Figure 1.4: Schematic Diagram of Love Wave and Rayleigh Wave

Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), Seismic Behavior of Multi-

(a) Equivalent lateral force

(b) Response Spectrum Analysis

(c) Elastic Time History Analysis

3.1 Introduction to Seismic Zones

2. Maps of probabilistic hazard give an idea of the underlying statistical uncertainty, as is

5. The losses due to damaging earthquakes can be mitigated through a comprehensive

3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones

Figure 3.1: Map of India Showing Seismic Zones of India

Intensity Low Medium Severe Very Severe

Zone value 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36

Table I: Zone Value for Different Zones

2) Well graded Gravel- Sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW).

4) Stiff to hard clays having N above 16.

Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils

Type III: Soft Soils

1) Silts of Intermediate compressibility (MI).

2) Silts of High compressibility (MH).

3) Clays of Intermediate compressibility (CI).

4) Clays of High compressibility (CH).

5) Silts and Clays of Intermediate to High compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH).

6) Silt with Clay of Intermediate compressibility (MI-CI).

7) Silt with Clay of High compressibility (MH-CH).

Table II: Elastic Property of Foundation Soil

Type of Soil Shear Modulus G Elastic Modulus E Poissons Ratio

Hard 2700 6750 0.25

Medium 451.1 1200 0.33

Soft 84.5 250 0.48

A rigid frame in structural engineering is the

5.2 Bracing System

CASE-1: Building frame without bracing system (Bare Frame).

CASE-2: Building frame with X bracing system.

CASE-3: Building frame with V bracing system.

CASE-4: Building frame with Inverted V bracing system.

6.1 Static Analysis

i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis

ii) Time Domain Analysis

i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis

Figure 7.1: Geometry with ETABS 9.7.1

Figure 7.2: Frame Analysis with ETABS 9.7.1

Multistorey Rigid Jointed Plane Frame

2. Number of Storey G+8, G+16 & G+24

3. Seismic Zone All, As Per IS 1893(Part 1):2002

4. Floor Height 3.5 m

5. Depth Of Foundation 3.0 m

6. Building Height 28 m, 56 m & 84 m

7. Plan Size 35 m x35 m

8. Total Area 1225 m2

12. Size of Beams 0.55 m x 0.60 m

13. Thickness Of Slab 150 mm

14. Imposed Load 4.00 kN/m2