Performance Analysis of Tall RCC Structure Those Are Earthquake Resistant

Performance Analysis of Tall RCC Structure those are Earthquake Resistant
ABSTRACT
Earthquakes, even though they occur rarely, induce inertia forc% which is dynamic and
complex. Moreover, they are sometimes so devastating that it is worth going into the depth of
understanding them. The current work is one step towards understanding the complex effects
of this dynamic force particularly on low rise RC structures which are found in almost all
parts of the world. During 2001 Bhuj earthquake of India, a major damage was observed in
RC framed structures at Ahemdabad which were in the range of G+3 to G+7 storey. Most of
the buildings were having a normal grid of 3m x 3m column spacing with a storey height of
3m. Hence the present work, which is expected to act as a guide line for Civil and Structural
Engineers in smaller towns and cities where expert advice may not be easily available, is
devoted to RC framed structures ranging from G+3 to G+ 7 storeys.
Out of the various factors affecting the earthquake and dynamic response of RC framed
structures, in the current study, the shape of the column is considered to be one of the factors.
The G+7 storey frame without the consideration of brick infill is subjected to push over
analysis. The performance point for rectangular and equivalent square shaped cross section of
columns is studied. The study incorporates two variations in the overall plan dimensions - 6m
x 6m and 6m x 9m having four panes each of 3m x 3m and 3m x 4.5m respectively. The same
set of models are also studied with brick infill walls modeled as 2D finite elements and
equivalent strut. The performance point obtained from the push over analysis is considered as
a measure of performance. Parameters like base shear, roof displacement, number of plastic
hinges, severity of hinges, effective damping, etc. are compared for the mathematical models
at performance point.
Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Email: conceptsbookspublication@gmail.com
Web: https://researchitout.blogspot.com/
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5
1.1 Product Perspective
1.2 Objective
1.3 Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 2. Literature Survey 6 - 21
2.1 Seismic Response of Building
2.2 Seismic Performance of Semi Rigid Joint
2.3 Behavior of Beam Column Joint
2.4 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams
Chapter 3. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake 22 - 27
Forces
3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis
3.2 Methods for Linear Static Analysis
3.3 Methods for Linear Dynamic Analysis
3.4 Method for Nonlinear Analysis

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Chapter 4. Performance Based Seismic Evaluation 28 - 38
& Design
4.1 Performance Objective
4.2 ATC-40 Provisions
4.3 Potential Plastic Hinge Zones
4.4 Evaluation of Performance
4.5 Methods to Perform Nonlinear Analysis
4.6 Steps to Determine Capacity
4.7 Steps for Checking Performance
Chapter 5. Seismic Performance of RC Frames 39 - 42
Without Infill Walls
5.1 General Remarks
5.2 Steps for Analysis Through SAP2000
5.3 Mathematical Models Developed
Chapter 6. Hybrid Concept Extended to Bigger Frame 43 - 46

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Chapter 7. Result 47 - 59
7.1 Result
7.2 Discussion of Results
Chapter 8. Conclusion 60 - 63
8.1 Summary
8.2 Conclusion
Chapter 9. Future Enhancement 64 - 65
9.1 Future Enhancement

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
List of Figures
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Seismic zonation and intensity 02
map of India
Chapter 2. Literature Survey
2.1 Standard Macro elements with 06
Mathematical Models
2.2 Brick Infill Walls Idealizedas 10
Diagonal strut
2.3 Seismic Performance of Semi Rigid Joint 12
2.4Behavior of Beam Column Joint 13
2.5 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams 14
Chapter 3. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake Forces
3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis 15
3.2 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis 16
3.3 Linear Static Analysis 17
3.4 Linear Time History Analysis 18

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Chapter 4. Performance Based Seismic Evaluation & Design
4.1 Standard Structural Performance 21
4.2 Plastic Hinge Pattern by Seismic Actions 25
4.3 Plastic Hinge Pattern Dominated by 25
Gravity Loading
4.4 Idealized Component Force-Displacement 28
Relationship
4.5 Capacity Curve 29
4.6 Multiple Capacity Curve to Model 29
Strength Degradation
4.7 Capacity Curve with Global Strength 30
Degradation
Chapter 5. Seismic Performance of RC Frames Without Infill Walls
5.1 The Models Considered for Pushover 33
Analysis
5.2 Plan View Showing Orientation of 34
Rectangular Columns
Chapter 6. Hybrid Concept Extended to Bigger Frames
6.1 G+3 to G+7 Storey Frames of 37

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Overall Plan 9m x 9m
Chapter 7. Result
7.1 Capacity Curve for Rectangular Columns 41
7.2 Performance Point for Rectangular 42
Columns
7.3 Capacity Curve for Square 43
Columns
7.4 Performance Point for Square 44
Columns
7.5 Hinges Developed in Beams for 45
Push in X-Direction
7.6 Hinges Developed in Columns for 46
Push in X-Direction
7.7 Hinges Developed in R & S Models under 46
Push in X-Direction
7.8 Storey Drift for R & S Models under 47
Push in X-Direction
7.9 Bilinear Curve for Rectangular Columns 48
7.10 Performance Point For Rectangular 49
Column
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
7.11 Bilinear Curve for Square Columns 50
7.12 Performance Point for Square Columns 51
7.13 Storey Drift for R and S Models under 52

Push in X-Direction
7.14 Hinges Developed in R & S Models - 52
Push in X-Direction

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Product Perspective

Earthquakes have occurred in every part of the world. It is one of the natural processes which
have a long lasting effect on the human society at large. Although some of the regions are
identified as earthquake prone zones, the risk of earthquake has been a major cause of worry
for us. It is generally felt that the occurrence of earthquakes nowadays has increased. But the
fact is that the awareness and industrialization has increased throughout the world.
This is the fact that if one just sees the USGS website which is one of the major online source
of earthquake data occurring throughout the world in real time, one can observe that there are
more than 65 significant (M>4) earthquakes recorded in 2010. The number of significant
earthquakes is 74 in the year 2009, which is increasing.
Generally all earthquakes are devastating in, facts and figures tell us the specific reasons for
getting ready. According to Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC), Japan, from 1991 to
2000 38% of world's disasters occurred in Asia and 5, 88,000 people were killed.
Economic suffered amounted to 374 billion US dollars which accounts for 54% of the world's
aggregate damages.
Urbanization is an ongoing process and it cannot stopped anyway. Hence, it is clear that the
earthquake risk is going to be on the edge. To handle seismic risk should be determined, the
should be divided into zones as per the seismic ability of the buildings.
During an earthquake, it is observed that creative buildings behave abruptly.
Let us consider an example:
Bigger structures collapse rapidly as in case of many earthquakes we have seen in.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
There are two buildings one is made to cope up with the earthquake & another is made to
attract people without any earthquake prevention techniques. So, during an earthquake the
other buildings will fall and the first one will withstand the situation.
In order to withstand such a scenario, it is desirable opt for performance based engineering
and performance based design as far as seismic strengthening is concerned. Using the static
pushover analysis, the structural performance can be restricted to a predefined level say -
Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety or Collapse Prevention. Hence, it is required to divide the
newly planned city into zones those are having specific seismic performance.
Thus, a zone of the city may be reserved for all the buildings meeting the requirement of
immediate occupancy as per push over analysis. Thus, in the event of an earthquake, all the
buildings in that zone will be in a state of immediate occupancy. This will ensure that there is
no disturbance from other buildings to damage or collapse in the event of an earthquake. This
states that the zone will not suffer from any loss of man.
Thus, the new technology and research may help us in minimizing the earthquake risk up to
an extent. It is expected that the concept of push over analysis for framed structures will
become a general practice in future, to identify the seismic performance of a building.
It is a well known fact that when a building is subjected to duration dependant force, it is said
to be subjected to dynamic force. In order to analyze a structure which is subjected to
dynamic forces, the structure may be assumed to be in a state of dynamic equilibrium. In such
a state it will have it's mass M changing it's position as duration adjustments. It is usual to
assume the mass as lumped at a point in structural dynamics and if one is competent to
specify the location of the mass at various times with reference to a datum, one can say that
the difficulties of dynamics is solved. In order to achieve this, the equation of motion may be
considered for a Single Degree of Freedom (SDF) system with specific mass, stiffness and
damping.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 1.1 Seismic zonal and intensity map of India
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
While an engineer is planning to cope up with seismic strengthening of multi storey building.
It is advised to consider all codal provisions for such effects and all other guidelines to do the
same.
The provision of providing tie beams in both the lateral directions is a case of good
engineering practice. The location of mass at certain locations consequently as to cope up
with large torsional effects on the building can also be analyzed by using proper analysis
tools.
The present work specifically aims at giving guidelines to a structural engineer who is not
sure approximately the effects of column orientation or shape on the overall seismic response.
Furthermore, when a structural engineer is detailing the beam-column joints, this work aims

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
to follows some specific guidelines on the effect of joint rigidity on the seismic performance
of the structure. Thus the objective is to provide guidelines to a structural engineer in terms of
the steps to be taken to enhance the seismic performance of multi storey buildings.
From the literature review it is found that lot of work has been done on seismic response of
the beam-column joint in multi storey framed structure. But, we have not discussed to the
rigidity of the joint. We have explore the possibility of different stiffness of the beam column
joint and consider it as semi rigid instead of fully rigid. Beam-column joint enhances the
possibility of a semi rigid joint which is explored in detail. The aim is to analyze the seismic
response of RC framed structures with semi rigid joints under different parameters and to
compare the performance of the structure under shear force application.
Push over analysis is one of the most powerful tools for seismic evaluation of 2D and 3D
frames. Therefore, it is calculated to study the response of RC frames under push over
analysis as per Indian conditions and to discuss the effects of adjustment in those parameters
like shape of the columns, rigidity of the joints, location of the semi rigid joint in the frame. It
is also proposed to analyze the response of the structure, considering brick infill walls as and
to compare the performance.
The various parameters considered during push over analysis are base hear, roof
displacement, effective damping, duration period, number and at the performance point. It is
proposed that commercially available software ETABS for developing a mathematical model
of 3D RC frame. An open source software OPENSEES is also used to correlate the results
obtained from the ETABS software to acquire additional confidence in the accuracy of the
results obtained.
Another technology in construction which is getting popular now-a-days is Post tension

technology whereas the columns are normally reinforced concrete and the slabs and beams
are casted with post tension cables placed into. These cables are tensioned to provide a good
force to concrete which helps in balancing approximately 60 to 90 percent of the gravity
loads. The seismic resistance capability of such post tensioned slabs has always been

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
questioned as it replaces the normal beams with consequently called "fat" beams which are
less depth. In the study, a mathematical model of such types of buildings is also analyzed
under push over analysis.
Another factor which influences the performance of a structure is the application of floating
columns to support the structure. This concept is being used practically in all Indian cities and
towns because of the local building byelaws. However, applicationof floating columns
resulted in great damages observed in the city of Ahemdabad during the 2001 Bhuj
earthquake.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DESSERTATION
Chapter 1, discusses some facts of earthquakes, deals with the general concepts of structural
dynamics and the different seismic analysis tools. The chapter describes the types of analysis,
model and response types exhibited by framed structures including the scope and objectives
of the present work and the overall flow of the dissertation.
The literature survey on the subject of seismic analysis of structures has been discussed.
Chapter 2 and represent the current which can be used for more clarity.
Chapter 3 describes in brief about various methods available to analyze the response of the
structure. The duration history analysis which is considered to be additional advantage but
duration consuming is explained followed by the non-linear static analysis. The non-linear
dynamic analysis is also briefly explained followed by the steady state dynamic analysis.
Chapter 4 explains the main features required for push over analysis and includes a
theoretical background for seismic evaluation process. This explains how the capacity and
demand curves are developed.
Chapter 5. The mathematical model is made for analysis under seismic forces and the
performance is researched and reported in the mathematical models for G+6 structures are

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
developed using SAP2000 software and are subjected to pushover analysis for rectangular
and 16 square shaped columns.
Chapter 6 The hybrid frame -concept is discussed in this chapter further in to some bigger
sized frames in order to explain their effectiveness.
Chapter 7 explains the Results observed during the analysis.

Chapter 8 highlights the conclusions and with the direction to be kept in mind for research in
this field.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Seismic Response of Building
In 1996, Kilar and Fajfar suggested another approach to cope up with the pushover analysis
on irregular structures. The starting point of the process is to create a 3D mathematical model
which consists of 2D elements, or substructures, which account for walls, frames, couple
walls and walls on columns as demonstrate in Fig. 2.1. These macroelements which are
oriented arbitrarily in plane are assumed to resist loads only on their plane. Force-
displacement relationships are developed based on the initial stiffness, strength at the
assumed plastic mechanism and assumed post-yielding stiffness.
Analysis is performed as linear analyses, using event to event strategy. It was turns out to be
a larger displacement and larger ductility’s are required in concrete structures in order to
develop the strength of its symmetry.
The pushover used a fixed load profile in the shape of an inverted triangle which does not
take into account higher modes affecting the behavior of the building.
Fig. 2.1 Standard Macro elements with Mathematical Models.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Using a conventional pushover, with triangular load distribution, in 1998, Faella and Kilar
explained the applicability and the analysis of asymmetric plan structures. The movement the
load application point to fit the results from the dynamic analysis.
The results obtained were that the stiff and flexible edge could be successfully matched by
shifting the point of lateral load application. In many cases, it was found that the dynamic
response profile can be enveloped by shifting the equivalent static forces at the minimum and
maximum eccentricities.
In 2000, Moghadam and Tso discussed an approach to account for torsional effects on
irregular building. Accordingly, the target displacement was obtained by performing an
elastic spectrum analysis of the building; since the top displacements of exotic resistant
elements were exotic, many target displacements were needed to be computed. The lateral
load distributions used in the pushover were taken from the spectrum analysis, as well, to
take into account the higher order effects. With the target deformation and the load
distribution fixed up, 2D pushover analyses of the selected elements were carried out. The
elements were pushed until the target displacements, for copious one, were achieved. Three
exotic building configurations were used to test the scheme, i.e. uniform moment resisting
frame, set-back moment resisting frame and uniform wall-frame buildings. An ensemble of
10 artificial ground motion records, with response spectrum shapes similar to the Newmark-
Hall design spectrum, were developed to run the duration history analyses.
Performance-based evaluation results of exterior reinforced concrete (RC) building joints for
seismic excitation were presented in the form of a report in June 2000, by Clyde et al. RC
buildings that were built in the 1960s behave in a nonductile manner and do not meet current
seismic design criteria, In this report, beam-column joints of such nonductile buildings were
investigated using several performance-based criteria. Four half-scale RC exterior joints were
tested to investigate their behavior in a shear-critical mode. The joints were subjected to
quasi-static cyclic loading, and their performance was examined in terms of lateral load
capacity, drift, axial load reduction in the column at high levels of drift, joint shear strength,
ductility, shear angle, residual strength, and other PEER established performance criteria.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Two levels of axial compression load in the columns were investigated, and their influence
on the performance of the joint was discussed. It has been observed that joint strength
coefficient adjustments with the variation of the column compressive axial load
In 2000, Murty and Jain tod the effect of masonary infill walls in a structure is having
beneficial effects of the masonary infill walls and these should definitely be taken into
account mostly when dealing with the earthquake response of buildings. When the effect of
infill walls is not considered in the seismic analysis of RC frames, the performance of the
building may be far from realistic.
In 2000, Chopra and Goel proposed a modified and simplified non linear static analysis
procedure in ATC-40. They proposed two modified procedures-based on Capacity-Demand
diagrams which were similar to the procedure A and B afforded in ATC-40.
In 2000, Fajfar, proposed a simplified non linear procedure for 2D concrete structural frames.
This method is also known as the N2 method where the N stands for nonlinear analysis. In
this approach the structure is subjected to two pushover analysis which is symbolically
mentioned as 2 in the N2 method.
In this paper on future trends in earthquake resistant design of structures in 2000, Rai
mentioned that the future codes will be based on Performance Based design which predicts
that pushover analysis will become a common tool for structural engineers. The risk for
design purposes will be prescribed in terms of performance objectives and hazard levels.
It was Murty who pointed out in his paper in 2001, that provision of the effect of brick infill
walls must be incorporated in the revised Indian code of practice for plain and reinforced
concrete. He stated that practically all RC frames built in India have masonry infills.
Currently, the design practice is to neglect the presence of infills and assume the entire load
to be carried by the bare frame. However, the infills contribute significantly to the strength
and stiffness of the structure. Analytical studies and experiments have demonstrate that there
are large beneficial effects of considering infills in the design of the structure. The newly
revised code provides no guidance to designers on how to include the same in the design.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Such provisions are already available in the codes of other countries like NBC201 and
Eurocode 8. If the designed structure is close to the actual one, then the structure constructed
will behave as anticipated; else, damage will be imperative. His words proved right by the
Bhuj earthquake.
In 2001, Humar et at. discussed the performance of buildings during the 2001, Bhuj
Earthquake of India, They observed that most of the buildings in the epicentral region of Bhuj
were either load bearing masonry or RC framed structures. One of the important observations
to come out of the earthquake was that masonry infills, even when not tied to the surrounding
RC frame, could save the building from collapse, provided such infills are uniformly
distributed throughout the height consequently that abrupt adjustments in stiffness and
strength did not occur.
By 2002, Kilar and Fajfar explored the possibility of extending the N2 method, originally
formulated for planar analysis, to the analysis of irregular structures. In addition, comparisons
among N2 method, the MT method (proposed by Moghadam and Tso and nonlinear dynamic
analyses were carried out. The modified N2 procedure consists of two independent pushover
analyses of the studied 3D structural model with lateral loading in both horizontal directions,
respectively. Loading is applied at the mass centers. Displacement demand in the mass center
at the top is determined for copious direction discretely, similar to the approach used in
planar N2 analysis. Finally, the deformation quantities (displacements, story drift, rotations,
ductilities, etc.) are determined by a SRSS combination of effects obtained from the pushover
analyses in the two directions. The authors claimed that the extension of the N2 approach
seems to be competent to predict the response of a torsionaliy stiff multi-storey asymmetric
building with a reasonable accuracy, within the limits set by the dispersion of results of
dynamic analyses performed with exotic ground motions; however, the extreme cases of
plan-wise highly irregular structures were generally not appropriate for these simplified
methods.
In 2004, Peckley performed a pushover analysis on one internal plane frame of a 35 year old
10 storey RC building. By employing the fibre modeling approach, they effectively
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
demonstrated that those buildings which were built prior to the incorporation of ductile
detailing provisions are quite deficient in resisting shear attributable to earthquakes. The
pushover analysis was also carried out for the same building frame assuming that adequate
shear and confinement reinforcement are present. The authors plotted the base shear versus
the displacement graph for the existing shear deficient building and assumed adequate shear
and confinement reinforcement and exhibited the effectiveness of the pushover analysis in
identifying the weak links at the second floor level of an old RC building which can be
retrofitted to enhance its seismic capacity.
In 2004, Fajfar and Dolsek presented an extension to account for the effect of masonary infill
walls in RC framed buildings on N2 method for seismic performance assessment. The
application of the method was illustrated by a test example. Although the original N2 method
was proposed for planer structures, a variant was later proposed in 2002 by Kiiar and Fajfar
for the 3D application of the pushover analysis. The paper also proposed a modified method
consequently as to be applicable to RC buildings with infill walls. It was concluded that the
results obtained by N2 method are reasonably accurate, provided that the structure oscillates
pre dominantly in the first mode.
In 2004, Basu and Jain gave a comprehensive account of the seismic analysis of asymmetric
buildings with flexible floor diaphragms. The authors particularly focused on the torsional
provisions of the codes. A superposition based analysis procedure was proposed to
implement code specified torsional provisions for buildings with flexible floor diaphragms.
The proposed approach is applicable to orthogonal as well as nonorthogonal unsymmetrical
buildings and accounts for all possible definitions of centre of rigidity.
In the other part on study of behavior of the same set of buildings, it was observed that the
equivalent strut (Fig. 2.2) in the diagonal direction which substitutes the effect of masonary
infill in a RC frame helps in resisting the earthquake forces.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 2.2 Brick Infill Walls Idealizedas Diagonal strut
In the year 2008, Kadid and Boumrkik evaluated the performance of framed buildings
prediction of earthquakes by conducting non linear static pushover analysis. To achieve this
objective, three buildings with 5, 8 and 12 stories respectively were analyzed. The results
demonstrated that properly designed frames perform well under seismic loads.
Following are some of the conclusions drawn by them:
• The pushover analysis is a relatively simple way to explore the non linear behavior of
buildings.
• The behavior of properly detailed RC frame building is adequate as indicated by the

intersection of the demand and capacity curves and the distribution of hinges in the beams
and the columns. Most of the hinges developed in the beams and few in the columns but with
limited damage.
• The causes of failure of RC frame during the Boumerdes earthquake may be attributed to
the quality of the materials used and also to the fact that most of buildings constructed in
Algeria are of strong beam and weak column type and not to the intrinsic behaviour of
framed structures.
• The results obtained in terms of demand, capacity and plastic hinges bestow an insight into
the real behaviour of structures.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Hence, the above literature surveys a method of evaluating the seismic performance of a
framed structure i.e. using push over analysis came out. The current study the performance
obtained on push over analysis is contributing the basis of seismic evaluation of the RC
framed structures.
2.2 Seismic Performance of Semi Rigid Joint
In 2003, Hadianfard and Razani researched the effects of semi-rigid behavior of connections
in the reliability of steel frames. The behavior of beam to column connections in steel frames
is rigidity.
This paper discusses the effects of semi-rigid behavior of the connections finite element
analysis. Considering the loads and the resistance variables, Monte Carlo simulation
technique is used for estimating the probability of failure of the frame system.
In 2004, Langdon and Schleyer proposed an analytical model for evaluating the connection.
This model was applied to cope with the problem of welded double angle joints, and used by
the UK offshore industry. The results of the experiment were a failure, and used to generate
the spring constant values. Response in two directions was examined for three exotic
geometry configurations. The work highlights the importance of angle outstand with the hope
that the proposed connection model will be incorporated into a beam-connection model
capable of predicting the response of a beam with semi-rigid supports
The study of the literature with respect to the joint rigidity, explains that a lot of work has
been done on identifying the role of rigidity of a joint in the overall performance of a
structure. In case of seismic forces, the beam column joint stiffness is one of the key element
which has attracted a number of researchers. Our study aims on the effect of joint rigidity on
the seismic performance of RC framed structures. The variation in joint rigidity is used to
define as per types of frames known to be as rigid frames, semi rigid frames and a

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
combination of both resulting in a hybrid frame. The seismic performance is studied for all
these types of frames by using the push over analysis technique.
Fig 2.3 Seismic Performance of Semi Rigid Joint
2.3 Behavior of Beam Column Joint
In 2008, Wijanto and Andriono have reported that the special connection details are required
to ensure full continuity and monolithic action in case of precast/preaccentuateed concrete
building systems which is becoming popular throughout the world and particularly in
Indonesia. The latest development of research works of the equivalent monolithic systems
and their applications in some building projects to ensure safety, economy and workability of
the most suitable joint system has been presented. The paper discusses some of the
recommended connection systems in light of fulfilling the seismic design requirements.
The above available research papers clearly indicates that the beam column joint must be
properly modeled to capture the seismic response in case of framed structures.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 2.4 Behavior of Beam Column Joint
2.4 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams
In the year 2008/ Prawatwong, Tandian and Warnitchai presented the findings on the seismic
performance of two three-fifth scale post-tensioned (PT) interior slab-column connection
models with and without drop panels. A conventional displacement controlled cyclic loading
routine with monotonically increasing drift levels until failure was adopted to investigate the
seismic performance of the models. The experimental results presented by the authors
indicate that the models behaved like a linear elastic system with low energy dissipation
without pinching in hysteretic loops. The model with drop panel demonstrated considerably
additional drift capacity and ductility than the one without drop panel.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Thus, the above literature related to post tensioned slabs and beams bestows an indication
that there is a strong need to evaluate the seismic performance of PT structures especially in
the absence of conventional frames or shear walls. The study undertaken in the present work
focuses on the most sensitive issue of the performance of RC framed structures under seismic
forces with PT beams and a combination of PT and conventional beams.
Fig 2.5 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF ANALYSIS FOR EARTHQUAKE FORCES
3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis
Seismic analysis is related to observe the response of building. The analysis process of
structural design which includes earthquake or structural assessment and retrofitting and
brick infill are required.
While, earthquake many of the buildings collapse lack of understanding of the inelastic
behavior of structure. Elastic analysis states only elastic capacity of the structure and
indicates where the first yielding occurs.
Fig 3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
In order to study the inelastic behavior of structure the nonlinear analysis is required. The
development of rational methodology that is applicable to the seismic design of new
structures using available ground motion information and engineering knowledge, and yet is
flexible abundance to permit the inception of new technology became available. The major
effort in the development are occurring day by day.
Fig 3.2 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis
3.2 Methods for Linear Static Analysis
Linear static analysis concludes a series of forces acting based on building to represent the
effect of earthquake and is ground motion, which defined by a seismic design response
spectrum. It assumed about building responds idle mode. The building must be of lesser
hieght and must not twist when the ground shakes.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 3.3 Linear Static Analysis
The response is from a design spectrum, as per the natural frequency of the building. The
application of this method is in many building codes by applying parameters to account for
higher buildings with some higher modes, and for low levels of twisting. To account for
effects attributable to "yielding" of the structure, many codes apply modification factors that
alleviate the design forces.
3.3 Methods for Linear Dynamic Analysis
3.3.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis
Procedures are appropriate when higher mode effects are not significant. This is generally
true for short, regular buildings. Therefore, for tall buildings, buildings with the tensional
irregularities, and non-orthogonal systems, a good procedure is required.
The linear procedure, the building is modeled as a multi degree- of-freedom (MDOF) system
with elastic stiffness. The seismic input is modeled using the spectral analysis and history

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
analysis. The corresponding internal forces and displacements are determined using linear
elastic analysis. The advantage of these linear dynamic procedures with respect to linear
static procedures is that higher modes can be considered.
In linear dynamic analysis, the behavior of structure with respect to ground motion is
evaluated during this process, and all phase information is therefore maintained. Only linear
properties are assumed. The analytical method can application modal decomposition as a
means of reducing the degrees of freedom in the analysis.
3.3.2 Linear Time-History Analysis
Time-history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamical response of a structure to a

specified loading that may vary with time. The analysis may be linear or non linear.
Fig 3.4 Linear Time History Analysis
3.4 Method for Nonlinear Analysis
The nonlinear static procedures includes an inelastic analysis that is considered when
anticipating, what is happening to buildings after they begin to crack and yield in response to

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
realistic earthquake motion. This approach is different from traditional static linear procedure
that ensures the collapse of structure.
3.4.1 Secant Method
When the analysis of building is done with the Secant method, a global elastic model of the
structure is constructed. Special stiffness values are calculated for the modeled elements and
components. The global elastic model is analyzed using elastic response spectrum analysis.
The ground motion used in the analysis is either a code specified 5 % damped response
spectrum or the 5 % site specified spectrum.
In general, the response spectrum analysis will predict a exotic displacement pattern than
originally assumed. At this point, iteration begins. The pushover curves are used to select a
new set of element secant stiffness based on the displacements predicted by the global
analysis. The global elastic model is modified with the new secant stiffness, and the response
spectrum analysis is repeated. This process continues until the displacements predicted by the
computer model reasonably match the displacements used to calculate the secant stiffness, at
which point the analysis has predicted the earthquake demand.
3.4.2 Method of Pushover Analysis
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which, the amount of the structural
loading is increased in accordance with predefined pattern. With the increase in magnitude of
load, weak links of the structure are identified. The loading is monotonic with the effects of
the cyclic behavior and load reversals being estimated by using a modified monotonic force
deformation criteria and with damping approximations. Static pushover analysis is used in
structural engineering profession to evaluate the strength of the structure and it serves as a
beneficial and effective tool for detailed performance evaluation of building. The pushover
analysis can be performed either under load control or displacement control as mentioned
below.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
1. Load Control: Used when the load is known and the structure is predicted to be as good to
support the full magnitude of the load and is applied in step-by-step manner.
2. Displacement Control: In this method, the magnitude of the load combination is increased
or decreased as necessary until the control displacement reaches a predefined value. It is used
when specified drifts are sought, magnitude of the applied load is not known in advance,
structure can be anticipated to lose strength or become unstable or when displacement
occurring in the design earthquake is known.
3.4.3 Nonlinear duration History Analysis Methods
There are some buildings that are very complex to rely on the nonlinear static procedure.
These may require duration history analysis of the nonlinear behavior of the structure while
analysing a particular example of earthquake. The types of the buildings which may require
specialized analysis are highly complicated.
These methods are used during histories prepared for the actual ground motions recorded.
The requirements for the mathematical model for duration history analysis are identical to
those developed for response spectrum analysis. The damping matrix associated with the
mathematical model shall reflect the damping inherent in the structure deformation levels less
than the yield deformation.
These parameters shall be evaluated for time-history analysis. If three time-history analysis
are performed, the maximum response of the parameter of interest shall be used for design.
3.4.4 Fast Non-linear Analysis Method
The capability original structures when subjected to a large dynamic input often involve a
large amount of nonlinear behavior which includes the effects of bigger displacements &
nonlinear properties.
The application of geometric stiffness and P-Delta analyses constitutes the effects of first
order large displacements. If the axial forces in the members remain relatively constant

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
during the application of lateral dynamic displacements, many structures can be solved
directly without iteration.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC EVALUATION & DESIGN
4.1 Performance Objective
Objective states that required seismic performance of the building. Seismic performance is
described by creating the maximum ability of a building for damage state (performance level)
for an identified seismic hazard (earthquake). A performance objective includes consideration
of damage states to different levels of floor motion. Following are the structural damage.
Fig. 4.1 Standard Structural Performance Levels
Operational Level
• No any structural or non-structural damage
• Residents are safe during earthquake
• Utilities are available
• Facility is available for cleaning up the mess.
• Loss < 5% of actual value.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Immediate Occupancy Level
• No any structural damage
• Residents safe during event
• Little non-structural damage
• Structure is safe to occupy but may not work well.
• Very less interruption in the operations of the structure.
• Loss < 15% of actual value.
Life Safety Level
• Enough structural damage.
• Less injuries can occur.
• Large amount of non-structural damage.
• Structure is not safe for living until it gets repaired.
• Losses < 30% of actual value.
Collapse Prevention Level
• A complete structural and non-structural damages occurred.
• Heavy damage injury but not wide scale loss of life
•Cannot be repaired practically.
• Loss is nearly 60%.
During performance based design that specifically intends to limit the consequences of forces
which causes disaster which are defined admissible levels, one can limit the safety of the
structure as per requirement for example immediate occupancy stage or life safety stage or
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
collapse prevention stage etc. Perils addressed are wind, fire, snow, earthquake, live loads
etc.
4.2 ATC-40 Provisions
ATC stands for Applied Technology Council which is formed by United States of America.
The main objective of this council is seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.
However, the procedures recommended by them are for concrete buildings, they are
applicable to practically all types of buildings.
4.2.1 Structural Performance Levels
Structural performance levels are defined as follows:
1. Immediate Occupancy: Limited structural damage with the basic vertical and lateral force
resisting system retaining most of their pre-earthquake characteristics and capacities.
2. Damage Control: A placeholder for a state of damage somewhere between immediate

occupancy and life safety.
3. Life Safety: Significant damage with some margin counter aggregate or partial collapse.
Injuries may occur with the risk of life-threatening injury being low. Repair may not be
economically feasible.
4. Limited Stability: A placeholder for a state of damage somewhere between life safety and
structural stability.
5. Structural Stability: Substantial structural damage in which the structural system is on the
verge of experiencing partial or aggregate collapse. Significant risk of injury exists. Repair
may not be technically or economically feasible.
4.2.2 Non-structural Performance Levels
Non-structural performance levels are defined as follows:

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
1. Operational: Non-structural elements are generally in place and functional. Backup

systems for failure of external utilities, communications and transportation have been
provided.
2. Immediate Occupancy: Non-structural elements are generally in place but may not be
functional. No backup system for failure of external utilities is provided.
3. Life Safety: Considerable damage to non-structural components and systems but no

collapse of heavy items. Secondary hazards such as breach in high pressure, toxic or fire
suppression piping should not be present.
4. Alleviated Hazards: Extensive damage to non-structural components but should not

include collapse of large and heavy items that can cause significant injury to groups of
people.
4.3 Potential Plastic Hinge Zones
Location of plastic hinges in the structure is very vital because plastic hinges cause excessive
deformation. In plastic hinge regions, rotation of the member is very high that leads to failure.
Location of plastic hinges in beams must be clearly identified. The detailing requirements are
needed in inelastic regions of beams those are subjected to earthquake forces.
The design of structures with respect to earthquake resistance, different element of primary
force resisting systems are considered and designed detailed for energy dissipation under
deformations. The capacity design concept, potential plastic hinge regions within structure
are clearly defined. These are designed to have flexible strengths which are more like
practically able to the required strength.
Negative moment plastic hinge: Hinges in beams of frames, the design of these are used by
seismic actions, which is develop immediately adjacent to the sides of columns, as
demonstrate for the short span beams of the frame in Fig. 4.2.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Positive moment plastic hinge: When the positive moments in the span become large
because of the dominance of gravity loading, particularly in long-span beams, it may be
difficult, if not impossible, to develop a plastic hinge at a face of a column.
Fig. 4.2 Plastic Hinge Pattern by Seismic Actions
Fig. 4.3 Plastic Hinge Pattern Dominated by Gravity Loading

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.4 Evaluation of Performance
Many analysis methods, both linear and nonlinear, are there for the analyzing the reframed
structures. Elastic analysis methods include code static lateral force procedures, code
dynamic lateral force procedures and elastic procedures using demand capacity ratios. The
most basic inelastic analysis method is the complete nonlinear duration history analysis.
Simplified nonlinear analysis methods, referred to as nonlinear static analysis procedures,
include the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) that uses the intersection of the capacity
(pushover) curve and a alleviated response spectrum to estimate maximum displacement; the
displacement coefficient method that uses pushover analysis and a modified version of the
equal displacement approximation to estimate maximum displacement; and the secant
method that uses a substitute structure and secant stiffness’s
Although an elastic analysis bestows a good indication of the elastic capacity of structures
and indicates where first yielding will occur, it cannot predict failure mechanism and account
for. Inelastic analysis shows building behaving by identifying the failure and potential for
progression collapse. The application of the procedures for designing is used to help
engineers to understand the structures will behave when subjected to major earthquakes,
where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded.
The capacity spectrum method, a nonlinear static procedure that provides a graphical
representation of the global force-displacement capacity curve of the structure (i.e., pushover)
and compares it to the response spectra representations of the earthquake demands, is a very
beneficial tool in the evaluation and retrofit design of existing concrete buildings. The
graphical representation provides a clear picture of how a building responds to earthquake
ground motion, and, as illustrated in this chapter, it provides an immediate and clear picture
of how various retrofit or safeguard strategies, such as adding stiffness or strength, will affect
the building's response to earthquake demands.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.5 Methods to Perform Nonlinear Analysis
Two key elements of a performance-based design procedure are demand and capacity.
Demand is a representation of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is a representation of
the structure's ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance is dependent on the
manner that the capacity is competent to handle the demand. In other words, the structure
must have the capacity to resist the demands of the earthquake such that the performance of
the structure is compatible with the objectives of the design. The key step for the entire
analysis is identification of the primary structural elements, which should be completely
modeled in the non-linear analysis. Secondary elements, which do not significantly contribute
to the building's lateral force resisting system, need not be included in the analysis.
It is important to identify the failure mechanism for primary structural elements in RC

structures and define their non-linear properties accordingly. Earthquakes usually load these
elements in a cyclic manner, as demonstrate in Fig. 4.4 (a). For modeling and analysis
purposes, these relationship can be idealized as demonstrate in Fig. 4.4 (b) using a
combination of empirical data, theoretical strength and strain compatibility.
During the pushover process of developing the capacity curve as brittle elements degrade,
ductile elements take over the resistance and the result is a saw tooth shape that helps
visualize the performance. Once the global displacement demand is estimated for a specific
seismic hazard, the model is used to predict the resulting deformation in copious component.
The ATC-40 document provides acceptability limits for component deformations depending
on the specified performance level.
It may be noted here that the portion between points B and C demonstrate in Fig. 4.4 (b) for
ductile structures is further subdivided into three parts corresponding to the immediate
occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention stages.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
(a) Backbone curve from actual hysteretic behavior
(b) Idealized component behavior from backbone curve

Fig. 4.4 Idealized Component Force-Displacement Relationship
4.6 Steps to Determine Capacity
Structure's capacity is represented by a pushover curve. The most convenient way to plot the
force-displacement curve is by tracking the base shear and the roof displacement. The
capacity curve is generally constructed to represent the first mode response of the structure
based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration is the pre dominant response
of the structure. This is generally valid for buildings with fundamental periods of vibration up
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
to approximately one second. For additional flexible buildings with a fundamental period
greater than one second, the analyst should consider addressing higher mode effects in the
analysis.
The steps for determining capacity can be listed as:
1. Create a computer model of the structure and the foundation, following. the corresponding
modeling conditions.
2. Classify copious element in the model as either primary or secondary.
3. Apply lateral story forces to the structure in proportion to the product of the mass and
fundamental mode shape. This analysis should also include gravity loads.
4. Calculate member forces for the required combinations of vertical and lateral loads.
5. Record the base shear and the roof displacement. Also record member forces and rotations
as they will be needed for the performance check.
6. Revise the model using zero (small) stiffness for the yielding elements.
7. Add the increment of lateral load and the corresponding increment of roof displacement to
the previous aggregates to bestow the accumulated values of base shear and roof
displacement.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 4.5 Capacity Curve
Fig. 4.6 Multiple Capacity Curve to Model Strength Degradation

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 4.7 Capacity Curve with Global Strength Degradation
Modeling global strength degradation requires considerable judgment. If strength degradation

of over 20 percent is explicitly modeled, then the actual anticipated behavior of the degrading
elements should be carefully reviewed. The sensitivity of the estimated demand displacement
to the modeling assumptions should be checked by bounding the response with a range of
assumptions.
4.7 Steps for Checking Performance
The following steps should be followed in the performance check as per ATC-40.
1. For the global buildings responses verify the following:
a. The lateral force resistance has not degraded by additional than 20 percent of the peak
resistance.
b. The structure should satisfy the serviceability check i.e. the lateral drifts should not be
additional than the limits imposed.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
2. Identify and classify the exotic elements in the building. Any type of the element may be
present: beam-column frames, slab-column frames, solid walls, perforated walls, punched
walls, floor diaphragm and foundations.
3. Identify all primary and secondary elements.
4. For copious element type, identify the critical components and actions to check as detailed
in Chapter 11 of ATC 40.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 5
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF RC FRAMES WITHOUT INFILL WALLS
5.1 General Remarks
The 2001 Bhuj earthquake of India was an eye opener. It made thousands of people lose their
lives and rendered millions to lose their houses. The effect was consequently wide
disseminate that it not only affected the people in the vicinity of the epicenter but those living
in a metro city Ahmedabad, approximately 250 km away from the epicenter were badly
affected. One additional duration it revealed the inherent weakness lying in the concrete
building which are not detailed as per ductile detailing. A major damage was observed in RC
framed structures which were in the range of ground + three storey G+3) to (G+7) storey.
Further, these buildings were having a normal grid of 3m x 3m column spacing with a normal
storey height of 3m.
Attributable to aesthetic considerations, the columns were generally 230mm wide in order to
be flush with the 230 mm thick brick wall which is a standard building material used in India.
Hence, keeping all these factors in mind, it is calculated to study a typical RC building frame
having these dimensions under pushover analysis and to report the findings in a systematic
manner. It is also calculated to study another structure having a panel size to be 3m x 4.5m to
incorporate the effect of asymmetry.
5.2 Steps for Analysis
Following are general steps are followed to perform nonlinear pushover analysis using \
software:
1. Create a model that material non-linearily and pushover analysis results are restricted to
frame elements, although other element types may be present in the model.
2. Define the static load cases, like dead, live, etc. that are needed for application in the
pushover analysis (Define > Static Load Cases).

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
3. Define any other static and dynamic analysis cases, like quake, response spectrum, etc, that
may be needed for steel or concrete design of frame elements.
4. Define the pushover load cases (Define > Static Pushover Cases).
5. Define hinge properties (Define > Hinge Properties).
6. Assign hinge properties to frame elements (Assign > Frame > Hinges (Pushover)).
7. Run the basic linear and dynamic analyses (Analyze > Run).
8. If any concrete hinge properties are based on default values to be computed by the
program, one must perform concrete design consequently that reinforcing steel is determined
(Design > Concrete Frame Design > Commence Design/Check of Structure).
9. Run the pushover analysis (Analyze > Run Static Pushover).
10. Review the pushover results (Display > Demonstrate Static Pushover Curve), (Display >
Demonstrate Deformed Shape), (Display > Demonstrate Element Forces/Accentuatees >
Frames...), and (File > Print Output Tables... Frame forces in disseminatesheet format).
11. Revise the model as necessary and repeat.
There are two mathematical models developed for a Ground + 6 storey (G+6) RC space
frame. Figure 5.1 'demonstrates an isometric view of the two \models considered: a) with an
overall plan dimensions of 6m x 6m and b) with plan dimensions as 6m x 9m overall.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 5.1 the Models Considered for Pushover Analysis
Typical plan views of the 6m x 6m and 6m x 9m overall dimension models are as

demonstrate in Fig. 5.2.
5.3.1 Geometry and Loads Considered
Panel size = 3m x 3m
Number of panels in copious direction = 2 Overall plan dimension = 6m x 6m
Storey height = 3m
Column size = Rectangular columns - 230mm x 450mm
Equivalent square columns - 322mm x 322mm
Beam size = 230mm x 450mm

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The loading is considered as follows:
Dead load : on typical floors 4 kN/sq.m., on terrace floor 6 kN/sq.m.
Live load : on typical floors 2 kN/sq.m., on terrace floor 1.5 kN/sq.m.
5.3.2 Defining the Pushover Load Parameters
There are four categories of default plastic hinges defined in the software. They are: i) The
axial hinge (P), ii) The flexural hinge corresponding to M3 moment (M), iii) The shear hinge
(V) and siv) The mixd axial (P) and flexural hinges (M2 & M3) designated as PMM hinge.
To understand the behavior of the considered 3D RC frame, all the four types of hinges are
defined at the ends of all beams and columns. A discrete account is kept for the development
of copious of these hinges when a push is afforded. There are two lateral push defined in the
X and Y direction. First, a push is afforded in the gravity direction up to the full magnitude of
dead and live load. Later, a lateral push is afforded in copious of the plan directions, i.e. X
and Y defined as PUSH1 and PUSH2 which are displacement controlled. The target
displacement is defined as 4% of the building height.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 6
HYBRID CONCEPT EXTENDED TO BIGGER FRAMES
The concept of hybrid frames which was developed in the previous chapter has been
extended here to larger sized frames. The dominant reason for doing this is that the 2 bay
frame consisting of four panels in plan was having aggregately nine columns out of which
there is only one column which can be considered as an interior column. The eight columns
located on the peripherial frame were rigidly connected to the beam elements. This results in
a strong hybrid frame which behaves very similar to a rigid frame.
G+3 storey to G+7 storey RC space frames having 3 bays, 4 bays and 5 bays of 3m x 3m
panels in plan with columns at all points of intersection are considered for the analysis. Thus,
the overall plan dimensions of the frames considered are 9m x 9m, 12m x 12m and 15m x
15m. For of the frames, apart from the fully rigid case, hybrid and semi rigid frames with
beam end flexural rigidities of 0, 7500, 100000 and 290000 kNm/rad are considered. Thus, 9
models for copiousframe are considered for the analysis. In all 45 models for copious of the
plan dimensions are analyzed using ETABS software making a aggregate of 135 models for
all the three cases. The properties considered for copious models are as follows:
6.1.1 Geometry Considered
1. Overall plan dimensions considered are 9m x 9m, 12m x 12m and 15m x 15m of 3m x 3m
panel size. A typical 9m x 9m frame is demonstrate in Fig. 6.1.
2, Number of storeys considered are G+3, G+4, G+5, G+6 and G+7.
3. Storey height is 3m for all storey with columns considered as fixed at ground level.
4. All beams are of size 230 mm x 450 mm with a rigid diaphragm at copious storey
representing the slab.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
5. Column size of ground story is considered as 372 mm x 372 mm and that for all stories
above it are considered as 322 mm x 322 mm
6. Materials used are concrete of M25 grade and steel of Fe415 grade.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 6.1 G+3 to G+7 Storey Frames of Overall Plan 9m x 9m
6.1.2 Loads Considered
For copious of the models considered for analysis, the loads are considered as mentioned
below:
1) Slab thickness considered = 0.15 m
2) Imposed loads:
At terrace level = 3 kN/m2
On typical floor level = 3 kN/m2
3) Floor finish load:
On terrace level = 2 kN/m2
On typical floor level = 1.5 kN/m2
4) Wall load on peripheral beams:
On terrace level = 6 kN/m for parapet wall
On typical floor level = 13 kN/m for 230mm thick brick walls.
5) Earthquake loads:
As per IS 1893 Part 1: 2002 with the following factors,
Imposed load at copious storey = 3 kN/m2
Zone factor = 0.16, for Zone III
Type of soil = Medium
Importance factor = 1 and

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Response reduction factor = 5.
The earthquake load is program generated with specified duration period. The values of
equivalent static loads are calculated and scaled for the specified duration period for copious
frame.
6.1.3 Push over Parameters Considered
The Mixd Axial and Flexural (PMM) type of default hinges are defined at 5% span length
from both ends for all columns and beams and flexural (M3) default hinges are also
considered at mid-span of all beams. The flexural hinges at mid span of beams are provided
to capture the maximum bending accentuate developed under gravity loads.
The static analysis is carried out for the afforded dead, live and earthquake loads. The
concrete design of all members is carried out as per IS 456, 2000 for standard 13 load
combinations described in IS 1893 Part 1, 2002. The other parameters considered for
obtaining the performance point related to defining the push over case are
1. When a hinge drops load, the member unloading method considered is to apply local
redistribution to the selected member.
2. Displacement controlled nonlinear static analysis is considered.
3. P-Delta type geometric nonlinearity is considered.
4. To evaluate seismic performance, considered seismic coefficients are CA = 0.232 and Cv =

0.336 for medium soil and building in seismic zone III as per IS 1893 Part 1, 2002. (Table
10.2 and Table 10.4)
5. Building of type B representing an average structural behavior as per ATC40 is selected

for defining the performance point.
6. 5% inherent plus additional damping is selected in the parameters for defining capacity
spectrum

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 7
RESULT
7.1 RESULTS
The static analysis is carried out in SAP2000 for the four basic load cases. In all 13 load
combinations as prescribed in IS-1893 Part 1, 2002 are defined. Design of all the beams and
columns of the frame is carried out. Th4 results for rectangular columns are noted down from
the software in a tabular form as afforded in Table 7.1 and the same is represented in the
bilinear form in Fig. 7.1.
Table 7.1 Capacity Curve values for Rectangular Columns

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
In Table 7.1, Sa=(V/W*a), Sd=Dr0of/PFjzS,PF=9.53 (Modal Participation factor), a=0.75

(Modal Mass coefficient for the 1st natural mode), <D=0.134 (Amplitude of mode 1 at roof)
and W= 10920 kN (Weight of the building).
Fig. 7.1 Capacity Curve for Rectangular Columns
The values of ay, api, dy and dpi extracted from Fig. 7.1 are used to alleviate the initial
demand spectrum afforded in IS 1893 for 5% damping and the values are presented in Table
7.2.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 7.2 Demand Curve Values for Rectangular Columns
Thus, it is seen that as the pushover proceeds into inelastic zone, and as the plastic hinges
acquire developed in the members of the structure, the inherent damping increases from 5%
to higher values, thus reducing the demand on the structure. The plot of capacity spectrum in
ADRS format as in Fig. 7.1 is superimposed on the demand spectrum in Fig. 7.2. The
intersecting point of capacity spectrum and the demand spectrum is known as the
performance point. The damping is evaluated using the relations afforded by Eq. 7.3 and Eq.
7.4. This will yield the performance point for the model of G+6 frame having rectangular
shaped columns. It is seen from the plot of Fig. 7.2 that the capacity spectrum does not
intersect demand spectrum and hence the performance point does notexist for this
mathematical model.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 7.2 Performance Point for Rectangular Columns
A similar procedure is carried out for equivalent square columns, where the size of the square
columns is evaluated by keeping the same cross sectional area as that of rectangular columns.
Thus, an equivalent square column for a rectangular column of 230 mm x 450 mm works out
to be sqrt (230 x 450) = 322 mm. The capacity curve for square columns is based on the
values evaluated from the SAP2000 software which is presented in Table 7.3. Based on these
values, a capacity spectrum in a bilinear form is drawn as depicted in Fig. 7.3.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 7.3 Capacity Curve values for Square Columns
In Table 7.3, PF = 9.87, a = 0.79, 0 = 0.132 and W = 10920 Kn
Fig. 7.3 Capacity Curve for Square Columns
The values of ay, api, dy and dpi which are noted from Fig. 7.3 are used to develop the
alleviated demand spectrum whose values are afforded in Table 7.4.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 7.4 Demand Curve values for Square Columns
The superimposed plot of capacity spectrum on the original 5% damped and alleviated
demand spectrum calculated using Eq. 7.3 is presented in Fig. 7.4. It is seen from this plot
that the alleviated demand spectrum intersects the capacity spectrum at a point which is the
performance point. Thus, the performance point in the ADRS format is represented as (35,
0.8g).
Fig. 7.4 Performance Point for Square Columns
Moreover, another comparison between the performance of rectangular (R) and square (S)
columns is made by noting down the data for the plastic hinges developed in column
elements and beam elements. The number as well as accentuate level of the hinges is an
indication of the performance of the building. Under these circumstances, a detailed account
of number of hinges developed and it's corresponding accentuate level is presented for square
and rectangular columns. Fig. 7.5 Performance Point for Square Columns
This comparison is presented in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 for hinges developed in beams and
columns in both the models and it is also represented graphically with colour coded hinges in
Figs. 7.7 and 7.8. The final deformed shapes of both the models having rectangular and
square columns with colour coded hinges is demonstrate in Fig. 7.9.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 7.5 Beam Hinges Developed in R and S Column Models
Fig. 7.5 Hinges Developed in Beams for Push in X-Direction

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 7.6 Column Hinges Developed in R and S Column Models
Fig. 7.6 Hinges Developed in Columns for Push in X-Direction

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 7.7 Hinges Developed in R & S Models under Push in X-Direction
One additional important factor under lateral loads which is directly related to the
performance of a structure is the storey drift. The drift values for the square and rectangular
columns for the 3m x 3m panel size are presented in Table 7.7 and the corresponding plot is
presented in Fig. 7.8.
Table 7.7Storey Drift for R & S Models under Push in X-Direction
Fig. 7.8 Storey Drift for R & S Models under Push in X-Direction
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Similar observations are made for a panel size of 3m x 4.5m with a G+6 storey space frame.
The mathematical model developed for the same is demonstrate in Fig. 7.9 . The results
obtained in terms of capacity spectra along with bilinear representations are presented. The
capacity values to construct the capacity curve for bilinear representation for rectangular
columns, noted from the output of SAP2000 software, are presented in Table 7.8. The
bilinear curve is drawn in Fig. 7.9 and all relevant valuesare calculated from the same.
Table 7.8 Capacity for Rectangular Columns with 3 m x 4.5 m panel
Pf = 0.34, a = 0.76, (D = 3.71 and W = 13854 kN
Fig. 7.9 Bilinear Curve for Rectangular Columns
From bilinear curve, api = 2.4, ay = 1.5, dy = 4, dpi = 17.46 Beq = Po+5 = 0.637{(ay*dpi-
dy*api)}/api*dpi+5 = 25.21 + 5 = 30.21 From ATC 40, Sra = 0.4 and SRV = 0.55
The relevant values of effective damping are evaluated and are used to alleviate the demand
spectrum for rectangular columns. The values for constructing the alleviated demand
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
spectrum are presented in Table 7.9 and the plot of capacity spectrum superimposed on
alleviated demand spectrum to acquire the performance point is demonstrate in Fig. 7.10.
The performance point obtained from Fig. 7.10 for a 3m x 4.5m panel size with rectangular
columns in ADRS format is (2.5, lg).
Table 7.9 Alleviated Demand Values for Rectangular Columns
Fig. 7.10 Performane Point For Rectangular Column

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The same mathematical model with square columns is subjected to push over analysis in
SAP2000 and the values for constructing the capacity curve is noted down in Table 7.10.
Based on this, a bilinear curve is drawn in Fig. 7.11.
Table 7.10 Capacity for Square Columns for 3m x 4.5m panel
In Table 7.10, PF=0.35, a = 0.79, O = 3.66 , W = 13854 kN
Fig. 7.11 Bilinear Curve for Square Columns
From the bilinear curve, the value of api = 2.4, ay = 2.1, dy = 5, dpi = 11 Beq = po+5 =
0.637{(ay*dpi-dy*api)}/api*dpi+5 = 12.5 + 5 = 17.5 From ATC 40, Sra = 0.55 and SRV =
0.65 The above values are used to alleviate the demand spectrum specified by the code as per
ATC 40 provisions. The values for the initial demand spectrum and the alleviated demand
spectrum for this particular model are presented in Table 7.11, whereas Fig. 7.12
demonstrates the superimposed plot of capacity and alleviated demand spectrum for the
model with square columns. The intersection of the alleviated demand with the capacity

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
spectrum in the ADRS format represents the performance point which comes out to be (3.35,
1.35g) in the ADRS format.
Table 7.11 Alleviated Demand Values for Square Columns
Fig. 7.12 Performance Point for Square Columns

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The drift values for both square and rectangular column models are reported in Table 7.12
and the corresponding plot is presented in Fig. 7.13. Figure 7.14 demonstrates the hinges
developed at performance point for both the models.
Table 7.12 Drift Values for R and S Columns
Fig. 7.13 Storey Drift for R and S Models under Push in X-Direction

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 7.14 Hinges Developed in R & S Models - Push in X-Direction
7.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
1. For the panel size of 3m x 3m, it can be seen that there is no distinct performance point
observed for rectangular columns whereas the square columns demonstrate a distinct
performance point.
2. The hinges developed in the rectangular column model for the 3m x 3m panel size are
additional in number as well as severe in nature. This is evident from Fig. 7.5 and Fig. 7.6.
3. The deformed shape of both the models under a lateral push as demonstrate in Fig. 7.7
clearly indicates that there is an alarming lateral deformation in the model with rectangular
columns. This is an indication that under similar seismic situations, a building with square
columns will perform better.
4. Figure 7.8 indicates that for the model with rectangular columns, there is an excessive drift
at the first storey level which indicates a poor performance. The model with square columns
demonstrates a uniform variation in drift which signifies a better seismic performance.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
5. For the 3m x 4,5m model, it can be seen that a performance point is achieved in both the
models. Although the square shaped columns demonstrate a slightly better performance, the
performance of both the models are comparable.
6. The plot of storey drift in Fig. 7.13 for 3m x 4.5m panel demonstrates that square shaped
columns exhibit a less storey drift as compared to rectangular columns. This is a clear
indication of a better seismic performance by square shaped columns.
7. The final deformed shape with colour coded hinges demonstrate in Fig. 7.14 for square
column depicts fewer hinges and with lower accentuate value as compared to the rectangular
columns.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
8.1 Summary
The frequency and variation of earthquakes occurring across the globe have brought into
focus the need for a comprehensive study of the behavior of the building under the forces
induced attributable to the earthquake. With the availability of the high end hardware and
software, it is now feasible to study the complex demands that are dynamic in nature. Thus,
the present study was focused on a detailed parametric study to understand the complex
nature of this most devastating disaster and its effect.
There are various factors which affect the earthquake and dynamic response of RC framed
structures. Out of these factors, in the current study, the shape of the column was considered
to be one of the factors which affect the response. A mathematical model of G+7 storey RC
frame was considered for push over analysis using commercially available software
SAP2000. The performance point which is the intersecting point of the seismic demand and
capacity spectra was evaluated for frames having rectangular and equivalent square shaped
cross sections. The study incorporated two variations in the overall plan dimensions - 6m x
6m and 6m x 9m having four panels copious of 3m x 3m and 3m x 4.5m respectively for the
models. The same set of models was then studied with brick infill walls modeled as shell
elements and equivalent struts. Various parameters like base shear, roof displacement,
number of plastic hinges, severity of hinges, effective damping, etc. were compared for the
mathematical models at performance point. The G+7 RC space frame models were also
studied under push over analysis with the column cross section considered as T shaped as
counter rectangular shaped
Rigidity of the beam column joint is also one of the factors affecting the seismic performance
of RC frames. A set of RC plane frame mathematical models with one bay one storey to two
bay eight storeys was considered for study. The value of joint rigidity was varied from zero
(pinned joint) to very high (fully rigid joint) with small step increment. The variation in the
beam end moments was plotted counter the joint rigidity for all the models. Later, RC space
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
frame models with varying rigidity were also developed for comparing the results under
lateral loads using ETABS software.
The concept of semi rigid joints having four exotic joint rigidities viz. 0%, 20%, 45% and
100% for all internal joints and fully rigid joints in all external frames was used to create
hybrid frames. The seismic performance of semi rigid, hybrid and fully rigid space frames
having square and rectangular columns for G+3 to G+7 storey RC structures with overall
plan dimensions of 6m x 6m was compared using push over analysis. The concept of hybrid
frames was further extended to bigger frames of overall plan dimensions of 9m x 9m, 12m x
12m and 15m x 15m.
Similar to the hybrid concept adopted for RC frames with semi rigid joints, hybrid frames
with internal beams as PT beams and external beams as conventional beams was developed
for comparing the seismic performance of these hybrid PT frames with frames having all RC
beams and all PT beams. The G+3 to G+7 storey frames were used for study under push over
analysis. Also to reinforce the confidence, the OpenSEES software platform was used to do
the verification of push over analysis results obtained from ETABS software.
Moreover, the effect of introducing a floating column in a G+7 storey RC space frame having
rectangular and equivalent square column cross section when a peripheral column is removed
from the first to sixth storey was studied. Apart from storey drift, base shear, roof
displacement, effective duration period, effective damping and number and category of
plastic hinges developed at performance point were also included in the detailed parametric
study.
Finally, using the linear static method, the response spectrum method for Bhuj earthquake,
the IS 1893 specified response spectrum analysis method, the non linear static push over
analysis method and the duration history analysis method as per the acceleration duration
history recorded for the Bhuj earthquake at Ahmedabad station, the response of the G+3 to
G+7 storey frames was compared. The comparison in the response of the space frames

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
having rectangular and equivalent square column cross sections was done using the base
shear, roof displacement and drift criteria.
8.2 Conclusion
1. For a G+6 storey RC frame having an overall plan dimension of 6m x 6m and a panel size
of 3m x 3m, the seismic performance of frame having rectangular shaped columns is found
inferior to the same frame having equivalent square columns.
2. The results of the push over analysis for G+6 storey RC space frame indicates that the
storey drift for model with rectangular columns demonstrates a much higher storey drift at
first storey level as compared to the model having equivalent square columns.
3. The number and intensity of plastic hinges developed in a G+6 storey RC space frame with
rectangular columns at performance point is found much higher compared to the same model
having equivalent square columns. This fact indicates a better seismic performance of the
square shaped columns.
4. For an overall plan dimension of 6m x 9m for a G+6 storey building, the push over
analysis indicates that the seismic performance of both rectangular and square columns is
practically similar. However, the maximum storey drift for model with square columns is less
than that with rectangular columns.
5. When brick infill walls are considered in the form of struts in the push over analysis, the
number of plastic hinges decreases but severity of plastic hinges developed at performance
point increases for both G+6 storey models having square and rectangular columns as
compared to the same without considering infill walls.
6. In case of G+6 storey RC frames, looking at the effective damping and base shear at
performance point, it can be stated that square columns perform better for overall square plan
(3m x 3m panel) whereas rectangular columns perform better for rectangular overall plan (3m
x 4.5m panel). This is true for push over analysis with infill walls modeled as struts and even
without infill walls.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
7. For a G+6 storey model, T shaped columns demonstrate a better seismic performance as
compared to the rectangular columns in terms of plastic hinges developed at performance
point as well as storey drift which is observed. It is also clear that the rectangular column
demonstrate better performance when pushed in the direction of it's strong axis and inferior
performance when pushed in the direction of it's weak axis as compared to T shaped
columns. This behaviour is found additional pronounced when infill walls are considered in
the form of compression struts.
8. The seismic performance of frames with rectangular columns as compared to T- shaped

columns is better in one direction and inferior in the other direction push from the point of
view of roof displacement and base shear observed at performance point. Thiss also found
true when infill walls are considered for the models.
9. It is found that the effective" damping at performance point is practically the same for T
and rectangular column models when infill walls are not considered but the difference is
additional prominent when infill walls are modeled as struts.
10. For a G+6 storey model, with an overall plan dimension of 6m x 6m, it can be concluded
that equivalent T shaped columns perform better under seismic forces as compared to
rectangular columns by comparing parameters like roof displacement, base shear, effective
damping, plastic hinges and storey drift.
11. A study of RC plane frames from 1 bay 1 storey to 2 bay 8 storey with varying joint
rigidity under lateral loads indicate that in the top storey, the beam moment demonstrates a
peak value under semi rigid conditions. This peak moment is above the moment observed if
the same joints are considered as fully rigid.
12. It is observed that the peak moment occurs in the internal joint of a two bay frame at the
roof level under semi rigid conditions. The ratio of this peak moment to fully rigid moment
increases with increase in number of storey and reaches to a maximum of 2.89 at the inner
joint of a 2 bay 8 storey frame.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
13. When the plane frames up to three storeys are subjected to push over analysis considering
semi rigid beam column joints, there is hardly any effect on the performance point of fully
rigid frame and semi rigid frames.
14. Plane frames with semi rigid joints demonstrate a lower value of base shear and higher
roof displacement at performance point when subjected to push over analysis. This indicates
that frames with semi rigid joints demonstrate poor seismic performance compared to fully
rigid frames. Thus, in case of pre cast concrete frames, care should be taken to ensure the
joint rigidity.
15. The concept of peak moment is also observed when a space frame is modeled with semi
rigid joints. The peak moment occurs only in the top storey beams under lateral loads only.
This ratio increases with the increase in the number of storey. In the current study, the ratio of
the peak moment to fully rigid moment is found as 2.66 for a G+8 storey space frame.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 9
FUTURE ENHANCEMENT
Future Enhancement
1. The current study was limited to low rise structures up to G+7 storey only. The same work
can be extended to cover space frames up to 12 stories.
2. The irregularity of the structural frame work can be taken up to study the effect of seismic
forces on the same.
3. The other column shapes like plus shape and rectangular columns oriented in random
directions can be considered to carry out the analysis under lateral loads and to compare their
seismic performance.
4. The effect of shear walls in the frames can be considered for analysis as structures beyond
four storey are bound to have a RCC lift shaft.
5. Seismic analysis can be carried out by considering a high performing material like ECC in
the beam column joint of the frames.
6. RC frames having soft storey can be studied under push over analysis and a general
solution for improving their seismic performance can be worked out based on the findings.
7. A large number of RC framed structures are existing in our countries which are designed
for gravity loads only. Thus, a study can be taken up which designs a typical RC framed
structure for gravity loads only and then subject it to push over analysis. A parameter may be
identified which is causing the highest damage under seismic forces. Some general solution
can be worked out as a retrofitting measure to enhance the seismic performance of such
deficient frames.
8. Seismic performance may be compared for RC frames with various cross sectional shapes
like T, L, +, etc. apart from the rectangular and square shapes for low rise RC frames. The
best shape may be selected for better seismic performance using the well known optimization
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
technique such as Genetic Algorithm. However, it may require proper fusion of hard and soft
computing tools and a tremendous of computational effort.
9. Economics is one of the major driving force in deciding the method and material of
construction, especially in case of low rise apartment type housing units. Working out of the
cost difference in designing a 'building to a desired performance level of life safety and
immediate occupancy using push over analysis will be certainly an beneficial extension of the
present study.
10. Investigations can be carried out for RC frames having walls with light weight concrete
blocks (Autoclaved Airated Concrete) instead of the conventional bricks. Study of seismic
performance from the point of view of reduction in seismic weight and increase in the
strength of equivalent strut used for infill may prove fruitful.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
REFRENCES
[1]. Applied Technology Council, "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings",
ATC-40, Volume 1 and 2, Report No. SSC 96- 01, Seismic Safety Commission, Redwood
City, CA, 1996.
[2]. FEMA-273/274, Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Guidelines and

Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington D C,
USA, 1997.
[3]. Moghadam A. S. and Tso W. K., "Damage Assessment of Eccentric Multistory Building
using 3-D Pushover Analysis", Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper 997, Acapulco, 1996.
[4]. Kiiar V. and Fajfar P., "Simplified Pushover Analysis of Building Structures",
Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 1011, Acapulco,
1996.
[5]. Faella G. and Kiiar V., "Asymmetric Multistory R/C Frame Structures: Pushover versus
Non Linear Dynamic Analysis", Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, PP- 1123-1139, 1998..
[6]. Habibullah A., and Pyle S., "Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover
Analysis", Structure Magazine, Winter, 1998.
[7]. De-La-Colina J., "Effects on Torsion Factors on Simple Non Linear Systems using Fully-
Bidirectional Analysis", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, No. 28, pp. 691-
706, 1999.
[8]. Chopra A. K. and Goel R. K., "Capacity-Demand Diagram Methods for Estimating
Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDF Systems", Pacific Earthquake Research
Center, PEER Report" - 1999/02, 1999.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
[9]. Moghadam A. S. and Tso W. K., "Pushover Analysis for Asymmetric and Set-back
Multistory Buildings", Proceedings of 12th World 380
[10]. Peckley D. C., Tanzo W. T. and Pacheco B. M., "Pushover Analysis of a Thirty Five
Year Old Pre-Code RC Building", Proceedings of 1st Asia Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Manila, Phiilipines, Vol. 1, pp 137- 150, March 2004.
[11]. Fajfar P. and Dolsek M., "The N2 Method for Seismic Performance Assessment - Basic
Variant and Extension to Infilled RC Frames", Proceedings of 1st Asia Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Manila, Phiilipines, Vol. 1, pp 151- 164, March 2004.
[12]. Basu D. and Jain S. K., "Seismic Analysis of Asymmetric Buildings with Flexible Floor
Diaphragms", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Aug. 2004.
[13]. Das D. and Murty C. V. R., "Brick Masonary Infills in Seismic Design of RC Frame
Buildings: Part 1 - Cost Implications", The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 78, pp. 39-44, 2004.
[14]. Das D. and Murty C. V. R., "Brick Masonary Infills in Seismic Design of RC Frame
Buildings: Part 2 - Behaviour", The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 78, pp. 31-38, 2004.
[15]. IS:1893 (Part 1) : 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
2002.
[16]. Eurocode 8, Part 1-3, Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures,
General Rules - Specific Rules for Various Materials and Elements, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 1994.
[17]. NBC201:1994, Nepal National Building Code Mandatory Rules of Thumb - Reinforced
Concrete Buildings with Masonry Infill, Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning,
Kathmandu, Nepal, 1995.
[18]. IS 13920:1993, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced
Structures subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1993. 382
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
[19]. IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000. 29. Kaushik H. B., Rai D. C. and Jain S. K. ,
"Code Approaches to Seismic Design of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames: A
State-of-the Art Review", Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 961-983, Nov. 2006.
[20]. Zaregarizi S., "Comparative Investigation on using Shear Wall and Infill to Improve
Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings", Proceedings of 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper 05-01-0318, Beijing, China, Oct. 2008.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
APPENDIX – B
LIST OF PUBLICATION
[1] “A Study of Siesmic Stengthening of Multi Storey Building”, International

Research Journal of Engineering & Technology, Volume: 6, Issue 2, pp 55-57, June 2016.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Performance Analysis of Tall RCC Structure Those Are Earthquake Resistant

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

Performance Analysis of Tall RCC Structure Those Are Earthquake Resistant

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Performance Analysis of Tall RCC Structure those are Earthquake Resistant

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5

1.1 Product Perspective

1.3 Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter 2. Literature Survey 6 - 21

2.1 Seismic Response of Building

2.2 Seismic Performance of Semi Rigid Joint

2.3 Behavior of Beam Column Joint

2.4 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams

Chapter 3. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake 22 - 27

3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis

3.2 Methods for Linear Static Analysis

3.3 Methods for Linear Dynamic Analysis

3.4 Method for Nonlinear Analysis

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Chapter 4. Performance Based Seismic Evaluation 28 - 38

4.1 Performance Objective

4.2 ATC-40 Provisions

4.3 Potential Plastic Hinge Zones

4.4 Evaluation of Performance

4.5 Methods to Perform Nonlinear Analysis

4.6 Steps to Determine Capacity

4.7 Steps for Checking Performance

Chapter 5. Seismic Performance of RC Frames 39 - 42

Without Infill Walls

5.1 General Remarks

5.2 Steps for Analysis Through SAP2000

5.3 Mathematical Models Developed

Chapter 6. Hybrid Concept Extended to Bigger Frame 43 - 46

6.1 Mathematical Models Developed

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

7.2 Discussion of Results

Chapter 9. Future Enhancement 64 - 65

9.1 Future Enhancement

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

1.1 Seismic zonation and intensity 02

Chapter 2. Literature Survey

2.1 Standard Macro elements with 06

2.2 Brick Infill Walls Idealizedas 10

2.4Behavior of Beam Column Joint 13

2.5 Post Tensioned Slabs and Beams 14

Chapter 3. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake Forces

3.1 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis 15

3.2 Earthquake & Seismic Analysis 16

3.3 Linear Static Analysis 17

3.4 Linear Time History Analysis 18

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Chapter 4. Performance Based Seismic Evaluation & Design

4.1 Standard Structural Performance 21

4.2 Plastic Hinge Pattern by Seismic Actions 25

4.3 Plastic Hinge Pattern Dominated by 25

4.6 Multiple Capacity Curve to Model 29

4.7 Capacity Curve with Global Strength 30

Chapter 5. Seismic Performance of RC Frames Without Infill Walls

5.1 The Models Considered for Pushover 33

5.2 Plan View Showing Orientation of 34

Chapter 6. Hybrid Concept Extended to Bigger Frames

6.1 G+3 to G+7 Storey Frames of 37

7.1 Capacity Curve for Rectangular Columns 41

7.2 Performance Point for Rectangular 42

7.3 Capacity Curve for Square 43

7.5 Hinges Developed in Beams for 45

7.6 Hinges Developed in Columns for 46