PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC BUILDING

WITH HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE AND

REINFORCEMENT

A DISSERTATION
Submitted by
TRENTIYA BHAVIN MAHESHBHAI
for the partial fulfillment of the award of the degree
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(CIVIL-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING)

Under the guidance of

Prof. Dr. R. K. SHETH

Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Technology
DHARMSINH DESAI UNIVERSITY
NADIAD-387001
March-2021
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that, this Report entitled “Performance Evaluation of RC

Building with High-strength Concrete and reinforcement” is a record of the
work/activities carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of
Prof. Dr. R. K. Sheth for partial fulfillment of M. Tech. Dissertation – Part II.

I further declare to the best of my knowledge, this dissertaton does not contain
any part of work, which has been submitted for the award of any degree either in
this University or any other University without proper citation.

(Trentiya Bhavin Maheshbhai)

Candidate

Endorsed and Recommended for Examination

Guide
Prof. Dr. R. K. Sheth
Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Dharmsinh Desai University,
Nadiad.

I
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the report submitted herewith is a record of the work carried
out for M. Tech Dissertation – Part II by

TRENTIYA BHAVIN MAHESHBHAI

ID No. 19MSPES005, M. Tech. Sem. – IV (Civil–Structural Engg.): 2020-21

It embodies bonafide work carried out by him under my guidance and

supervision for the partial fulfillment for award of Master of Technology (Civil-
Structural Engineering) degree of D. D. University, Nadiad.

Prof. Dr. R. K. Sheth Prof. K. N. Sheth

Guide Head, Department of Civi Engineering,
Associate Professor, Dean, Faculty of Technology,
Department of Civil Engineering, Dharmsinh Desai University,
Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad.
Nadiad.

Examined By:

1._________________ 2._________________ 3._________________

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The overall journey at D.D.U. has been a period of intense learning, not only technically but
also on a personal front. I would like to reflect upon all the people who have encouraged and
assisted me throughout this journey.

With great pleasure I express my gratitude towards my guide Prof. Dr. R. K. Sheth for his
precious guidance and incessant help in technical and non-technical hitches throughout the
dissertation work. I shall always be obliged to him for all that he has done for me.

I express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere thanks to Prof. K. N. Sheth (Head, Civil
Engineering Department, D.D.U.) for his kind words of encouragement and motivation
throughout the dissertation. His valuable discussions, continuous reviews and suggestions have
helped me a lot during this study.

This acknowledgement would remain incomplete without a word of thanks to all my classmates
who helped me with great enthusiasm. Lastly, I would wish to express my deepest gratefulness
to my family for their patience, understanding and encouraging me during the long efforts.

Trentiya Bhavin Maheshbhai

III
 ABSTRACT
Seismic design of RC building with high-strength concrete and reinforcement has been
undergoing a major revolution in recent years, with importance changing from strength to
performance. Although researchers have been continuously advancing during the century, it is
impossible to predict future earthquakes severity and time of attacking. Therefore, previous
earthquake datas are still widely used to analyze buildings resulting in robust buildings for
future earthquakes. In order to capture the realistic structural behavior, nonlinear dynamic
analysis is carried out in present thesis for performance evaluation.

Nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) constitutes the most accurate way for simulating
response of structures subjected to strong levels of seismic excitation. A promising method
that has recently risen, is Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), which involves performing
nonlinear dynamic analysis of the structural model under a suite of ground motion records,
each scaled monotonically to several intensity levels. Fragility curve indicates a continuous
relationship between a ground motion intensity measure (IM) and the probability that the
specified structure will reach or exceed predefined damage states.

Here, two different heights of buildings are considered for two different cases. In first case
Fe500 grade steel is used with M25 grade concrete similarly second case Fe600 grade steel is
used with M60 grade concrete. First is 12 storey building with RC special moment resisting
frame structure and second is 25 storey building with RC moment resisting frame-wall
structure. Both the buildings are analyzed for seismic zone IV to be resisting on hard soil. So
above all four frames are designed as per IS:456-2000 (4th revision) and proposed IS:456 (5th
revision) draft so total 8 building models are created. The performance evaluation of above all
frames is done using NLTHA and IDA using SeismoStruct software for set of 8 recorded
ground motions of past Indian earthquakes.

The results of NLTHA showed satisfactory performance when evaluated by a set of recorded
ground motions of past Indian earthquake. IDA curves show that the median collapse capacity
of building with Fe600 and M60 grades is smaller than building with Fe500 and M25 grades.
Due to this the fragility curves result show that probability of exceedance is higher for building
with Fe600 and M60 grades as compared to building with Fe500 and M25 grades at given level
of spectral acceleration.

IV
 CONTENTS

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION……………………………………………….……...... I

CERTIFICATE…………………………………………………………………….…........ II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………….…….. III

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………......... IV

CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………...... V

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….... IX

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………................ XII

NOTATIONS…………………………………………………………….………...…... XIV

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Key Proposed Changes in Revised Code ........................................................................ 2

1.3 Seismic Design Methods ................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Performance Evaluation .................................................................................................. 3

1.4.1 Nonlinear Static Analysis ....................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis ................................................................................. 4

1.5 Fragility Curve ................................................................................................................ 5

1.6 Sources of Nonlinearity ................................................................................................... 7

1.7 Selection of Software ...................................................................................................... 9

1.8 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 9

1.9 Significance of Fragility Curve Development ............................................................... 10

1.10 Aim and Scope of Dissertation .................................................................................... 10

1.11 Layout of Dissertation ................................................................................................. 11

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Response Spectrum Method .......................................................................................... 14

V
 2.3 Design Wind Speed ....................................................................................................... 15

2.4 IS 16700: 2017 Provisions ............................................................................................ 18

2.5 Limit State Method for Design of Flexural and Compression Members ...................... 21

2.5.1 Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete (As Per IS 456-2000) ............................ 21

2.5.2 Stress-Strain Relationship for Steel (As Per IS 456-2000) .................................. 22

2.5.3 Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete (As Per IS 456 New Revision) ............. 23

2.5.4 Stress-Strain Relationship for Steel (As Per IS 456 New Revision) .................... 24

2.6 Beam Design ................................................................................................................. 25

2.7 Column Design .............................................................................................................. 27

2.8 Proposed Changes as per Revised Code........................................................................ 29

2.9 Background of Nonlinear Analysis ............................................................................... 33

2.10 Nonlinear Time History Analysis................................................................................ 34

2.11 Incremental Dynamic Analysis ................................................................................... 35

2.11.1 Terminology in IDA ........................................................................................... 35

2.11.2 Formation of IDA Curve .................................................................................... 37

2.11.3 General Properties of IDA .................................................................................. 38

2.12 Procedure of Fragility Curve Development ................................................................ 39

2.12.1 Procedure of Developing Fragility Curve Using IDA........................................ 40

2.12.2 Regression Analysis using Least Square Formulation ....................................... 41

2.13 FEMA 356 Performance Levels .................................................................................. 42

2.13.1 Structural Performance Levels ........................................................................... 42

2.13.2 Non-Structural Performance Levels ................................................................... 43

2.14 Plastic Hinge Length and Location ............................................................................. 45

2.15 Research Papers ........................................................................................................... 46

3. SOFTWARE BRIEF

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48

3.2 Seismostruct Overview.................................................................................................. 48

VI
 3.3 Geometric Nonlinearity ................................................................................................. 48

3.4 Material Nonlinearity .................................................................................................... 50

3.5 Types of Material .......................................................................................................... 52

3.6 Element Class ................................................................................................................ 54

3.7 Structural Geometry ...................................................................................................... 55

3.8 Load Assignments ......................................................................................................... 56

3.9 Processor ....................................................................................................................... 58

3.10 Post Processor.............................................................................................................. 58

4. ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEM

4.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 61

4.2 Building and Loading Data ........................................................................................... 61

4.3 Design Lateral Forces .................................................................................................... 64

4.4 Load Combination Considered for Analysis and Design .............................................. 66

4.5 Design Results ............................................................................................................... 67

4.5.1 Beam Design ........................................................................................................ 71

4.5.2 Column Design ..................................................................................................... 79

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 84

5.2 Summary of Reinforced Concrete Work ....................................................................... 84

5.3 Results of Nonlinear Time History Analysis ................................................................ 85

5.4 Comparison Of Static Pushover Curve For Building Design As Per Is 456:2000 And
IS 456 Proposed New Revision ..................................................................................... 85

5.5 Results of Incremental Dynamic Analysis .................................................................... 91

5.5.1 IDA Curve Generation ......................................................................................... 91

5.5.2 Limit–States on IDA Curves ................................................................................ 92

5.5.3 Summarizing the IDA Curve and Limit States .................................................... 92

VII
 5.6 Fragility Curve Development using IDA Results ....................................................... 100

5.7 Summary of Fragility Curve Results ........................................................................... 104

6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

6.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 106

6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 106

6.3 Future Scope of Work ................................................................................................. 107

References ......................................................................................................................... 108

VIII
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1 Flow Chart of Performance Evaluation Methods .................................................... 3

Figure 1. 2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis Plot ........................................................................ 5
Figure 1. 3 Types of Analysis .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1. 4 Flow Chart for Obtaining Fragility Functions (Median and β) ............................... 6
Figure 1. 5 Geometric Nonlinearity ........................................................................................... 8
Figure 1. 6 (A) Stress Strain Curve of Steel (B) Stress Strain Curve of Concrete .................... 9

Figure 2. 1 Notations for heights ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 2. 2 Maximum values of Height with Different Structural Systems ............................ 18
Figure 2. 3 Maximum Slenderness Ratio ................................................................................. 19
Figure 2. 4 Minimum Design Base Shear Coefficient ............................................................. 20
Figure 2. 5 Cracked RC Section Properties ............................................................................. 20
Figure 2. 6 Reinforcement Requirements in Beams ................................................................ 20
Figure 2. 7 Stress- Strain Curve for Concrete as per IS 456:2000 ........................................... 21
Figure 2. 8 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Steel bars (IS 456:2000) ...... 23
Figure 2. 9 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete ............................... 24
Figure 2. 10 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Steel bars ............................ 25
Figure 2. 11 Strain distribution and stress block diagram as per IS 456:2000 ........................ 26
Figure 2. 12 Stress Block Parameter A and B ......................................................................... 29
Figure 2. 13 Comparison of τcmax as per IS 456:2000 and revised IS 456 ............................... 30
Figure 2. 14 Formation of IDA Curve ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 2. 15 Four Different Behaviour of IDA Curves ........................................................... 39
Figure 2. 16 Clouds of Structural Response ............................................................................ 40
Figure 2. 17 Fragility Curve..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 2. 18 Target Building Performance Levels................................................................... 44
Figure 2. 19 Possible Idealized Hinge Model for Beam-Column Elements ............................ 45

Figure 3. 1 Simply Supported P-Delta Effect ....................................................................... 49

Figure 3. 2 Cantilevered column P-Delta Effect ...................................................................... 49
Figure 3. 3 Discretization of a Typical Reinforced Concrete Cross Section ........................... 50
Figure 3. 4 Gauss-Lobatto Integration Sections ...................................................................... 51
Figure 3. 5 Mandar Nonlinear Concrete Model ....................................................................... 52

IX
Figure 3. 6 Bi-Linear Steel Model ........................................................................................... 53
Figure 3. 7 Typical Inelastic Force Based Plastic Hinge Element ........................................... 54
Figure 3. 8 Seismostruct Model of 12 Storey RC SMRF Building ......................................... 55
Figure 3. 9 Time History Curve in SeismoStruct .................................................................... 57
Figure 3. 10 Typical Window of Real Time Analysis Processor ............................................ 58
Figure 3. 11 Global Axis in SeismoStruct Software ................................................................ 59
Figure 3. 12 Flow Chart of Nonlinear Analysis Process in SeismoStructPROCESSING....... 60

Figure 4. 1 Isometric and Geometrical configuration of 12 Storey Building .......................... 62

Figure 4. 2 Isometric and Geometrical configuration of 25 Storey Building .......................... 62
Figure 4. 3 Beam and Column Number for Typical Storey ..................................................... 67
Figure 4. 4 Design of Beam (B7, S3) for 12-Storey Building (Fe600 M60) ........................... 68
Figure 4. 5 Design of Column (C18, S3) for 12-Storey Building (Fe600 M60) ..................... 69
Figure 4. 6 Design of Shear Wall (SW102) for 25-Storey Building ....................................... 70

Figure 5. 1 Ground Motions Response Spectrum and Design Response Spectrum ................ 86
Figure 5. 2 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades ......................... 87
Figure 5. 3 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ......................... 87
Figure 5. 4 IDR Profile for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades ......................... 88
Figure 5. 5 IDR Profile for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ......................... 88
Figure 5. 6 Comparison of 12 Storey (Fe500 M25) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And
IS 456 New Revision ............................................................................................. 89
Figure 5. 7 Comparison of 12 Storey (Fe600 M60) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And
IS 456 New Revision ............................................................................................. 89
Figure 5. 8 Comparison of 25 Storey (Fe500 M30) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And
IS 456 New Revision ............................................................................................. 90
Figure 5. 9 Comparison of 25 Storey (Fe600 M60) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And
IS 456 New Revision ............................................................................................. 90
Figure 5. 10 Individual IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades ..... 94
Figure 5. 11 Summarized IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades . 94
Figure 5. 12 Individual IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ..... 95
Figure 5. 13 Summarized IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades . 95
Figure 5. 14 Individual IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades ..... 96
Figure 5. 15 Summarized IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades . 96

X
Figure 5. 16 Individual IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ..... 97
Figure 5. 17 Summarized IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades . 97
Figure 5. 18 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 M25 subjected to ..................... 98
Figure 5. 19 IDA Curves of 12 Storey Building with Fe500 M25 subjected to ...................... 98
Figure 5. 20 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 M60 subjected to ..................... 99
Figure 5. 21 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 M60 subjected to ..................... 99
Figure 5. 22 Scattered Plot of IDR (%) for 12 Storey Building ............................................ 100
Figure 5. 23 Logarithmic Plot for Immediate Occupancy ..................................................... 100
Figure 5. 24 Logarithmic Plot for Life Safety ....................................................................... 101
Figure 5. 25 Logarithmic Plot for Collapse Prevention ......................................................... 101
Figure 5. 26 Fragility Curve for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades ................ 102
Figure 5. 27 Fragility Curve for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ................ 102
Figure 5. 28 Fragility Curve for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades................ 103
Figure 5. 29 Fragility Curve for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades ................ 103
Figure 5. 30 Comparison of 12 Storey Building Fragility Curve for IO, LS and CP ............ 104
Figure 5. 31 Comparison of 25 Storey Building Fragility Curve for IO, LS and CP ............ 104

XI
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1 Suggested Values of Structural Damping Coefficients .......................................... 18

Table 2. 2 Stress-Strain Variation for Reinforcing Steel ......................................................... 22
Table 2. 3 Stress-Strain curve Parameter of concrete .............................................................. 23
Table 2. 4 Stress Block Parameter ........................................................................................... 29
Table 2. 5 Values of α as per revised IS 456 ........................................................................... 31
Table 2. 6 Minimum Longitudinal reinforcement as per revised IS 456 ................................. 32
Table 2. 7 Maximum Longitudinal reinforcement as per revised IS 456 ................................ 32
Table 2. 8 Minimum Transverse reinforcement as per revised IS 456 .................................... 33
Table 2. 9 Structural Performance Levels for structural wall .................................................. 44

Table 3. 1 Concrete Parameters .............................................................................................. 52

Table 3. 2 Steel Parameters ..................................................................................................... 53

Table 4. 1 Different Cases of all Model which Created for the Performance Evaluation ....... 61
Table 4. 2 Building Data of 12 Storey First Model (Fe500 M25) .......................................... 63
Table 4. 3 Building Data of 25 Storey First Model (Fe500 M30) ........................................... 63
Table 4. 4 Loading Data for Building ...................................................................................... 64
Table 4. 5 Comparison of Seismic and Wind Responses ........................................................ 65
Table 4. 6 Load Combination considered for Design and Analysis ........................................ 66
Table 4. 7 Design Base Shear and Modal Time Period ........................................................... 66
Table 4. 8 Comparison of Beam Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe500 M25) ............. 71
Table 4. 9 Comparison of Beam Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe600 M60) ............. 75
Table 4. 10 Column Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe500 M25) ................................ 79
Table 4. 11 Column Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe600 M60) ................................ 81

Table 5. 1 Summary of Reinforced Concrete work of 12 Storey Building ............................. 84

Table 5. 2 Summary of Reinforced Concrete work of 25 Storey Building ............................. 85
Table 5. 3 Eight Ground Motions Properties ........................................................................... 86
Table 5. 4 Threshold IDR (%) for all Frames .......................................................................... 92
Table 5. 5 Summarized Capacity for Each Limit State ........................................................... 93
Table 5. 6 Fragility Functions Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis................................... 101

XII
Table 5. 7 DBE and MCE for Each Building ........................................................................ 105
Table 5. 8 Probability of Exceedance of DBE and MCE ...................................................... 105

XIII
 NOTATIONS

εs Strain in Steel

εc Strain in Concrete
fy Yield stress of Steel
fck Compressive stress of Concrete
HRC High Strength reinforced Concrete
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PGV Peak Ground Velocity
Sa Spectral Acceleration
IS Indian Standard
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC Applied Technology Council
NLTHA Non-Linear Time History Analysis
IDA Incremental Dynamic Analysis
SR Structural Response
IM Intensity Measure
DS Damage State
DM Damage Measure
EDP Engineering Demand Parameter
IDR Inter-storey Drift Ratio
Con_ma Mandar Nonlinear Concrete Model
Stl_bl Bilinear Steel model
DBE Design Basis Earthquake
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake
DL Dead Load
LL Live Load
IO Immediate Occupancy
LS Life Safety
CP Collapse Prevention
GI Global Instability
CMR Collapse Margin Ratio

XIV
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL

Today, reinforced concrete buildings are designed and constructed using reinforcement
with a yield strength of 500MPa and for concrete M30 grades in India. In japan,
reinforcement with yield strength of 690MPa is currently used in building members
designed to resist earthquake forces. The manufacturing of reinforcement with yield
strength of higher than 500MPa is more common in Indian market in the near future.
Purpose of this work is to use of high strength reinforcement and high strength concrete for
RC building structure to identify the performance, design issues and structural behaviour
of the building.

There are many potential benefits of use of high strength concrete and high-strength
reinforcement for resisting earthquake effects in construction of buildings in India. This
includes Cost saving, Reduced material quantities, Reduced construction time, Reduction
in reinforcement congestion, Improved quality of construction.

The Current standard for reinforced concrete design, IS 456-2000 (4th Revision): Plain and
reinforced concrete-code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, allows the use of
reinforcement with a specified yield strength of 550MPa for flexure and confinement and
concrete strength allows to maximum M60 grades. In the upcoming, New IS 456
(5th Revision): Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice, which allows High Strength
Concrete (HSC) up to M120 grade and High Strength Steel (HSS) up to Fe650 grade
limitation and criteria. The latest amendment of IS 1786:2008 (Amendment no.3, March
2017) has specified different grades of TMT Steel bars such as Fe415, Fe500, Fe550,
Fe600, Fe650 and Fe700.

The behaviour of reinforced concrete structures under the effect of ground motions has
always been a subject of investigation, especially in seismic region. Earthquakes are often
responsible for major damages or even collapse of buildings which in turn means major
economic harm, and possible loss of human lives. Seismic loading acts on building such
that the structure may exhibit highly nonlinear behaviour, which requires complicated
material models and advanced dynamic analysis methods in order to accurately capture the

1
 response. Former to an earthquake, vulnerability evaluations of buildings are normally
carried out for judging the requirement for strengthening vital facilities and buildings
against later earthquakes. The best way to accomplish such assessments is Fragility curves.
Fragility curves exemplify the conditional probability that a response of a particular
structure may exceed the performance limit at a given ground motion intensity. This
approach is useful for retrofitting decisions, damage estimation, loss estimation and disaster
response planning.

1.2 KEY PROPOSED CHANGES IN REVISED CODE

There are many changes that have been proposed in the revised code. These changes will
be explained in detail in the next chapter. Some of the most important changes have been
mentioned below:

• The design loads on the structure are now mainly classified into two types: Force type
and Displacement type
• Six Limit states have been defined as per the revised code. These are: Limit State of
Safety, Limit State of Serviceability, Limit State of Durability, Limit State of Integrity,
Limit State of Robustness and Limit state of Restorability
• Increase in the types of cement and chemical admixtures that can be used for preparation
of concrete.
• Modifications in calculating of creep of concrete due to changes in values of creep
coefficient.
• High Strength Concretes up to M100 can now be designed as per the revised code
whereas concrete grades only up to M60 could be designed using the previous version
of the code.
• The stress strain curves for concrete are now grade dependent instead of a single curve
in the previous versions of the code. Due to these the stress block parameters are now
also grade dependent.
• Modifications in formulas for calculation of maximum shear strength (τcmax) and design
shear strength (τc) and modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete.
• Reinforcing steel of grades 550 and 650 have been included in the revised code. As per
IS456:2000 the maxing grade of reinforcing steel that could be used was Fe500.
• TMT steel bars will now have a definite yield point due to which the stress strain curve
for steel will now be different as compared to the previous code.

2
 • Modifications in the minimum and maximum percentage of reinforcing steel (transverse
and longitudinal) that can be used in design of different structural members.

• Minimum sizes of all structural members have been mentioned in the revised code.

• The value of the ratio, cylindrical strength and cube strength will now be different for
design and assessment as compared to only one value for both in the previous code.

1.3 SEISMIC DESIGN METHODS

Force based design method practised, focuses on the seismic force over the structure. In
this method, the design procedure is carried out for the seismic force acting on the system
where stiffness, time period and strength are the initial properties of the design. The existing
conventional code-based procedures are normative in nature. Linear elastic analysis of the
structure is performed for the lateral forces calculated from the procedure. Building codes
require that structures should be designed to withstand a certain intensity of ground
acceleration.

1.4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The performance evaluation technique is used to assess the response of the structure during
the particular seismic activity. It is used for design verification of new construction,
evaluation of existing structures in order to know the damage states and correlation of
damage states of structures to various amplitudes of the ground motion. The procedure
compares the capacity of the structure with the demands of the structure.

Performance
Evaluation
Methods
Nonlinear Nonlinear
Static Dynamic
Analysis Analysis

Static Adaptive Nonlinear Incremental

Pushover Pushover Time History Dynamic
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
Figure 1. 1 Flow Chart of Performance Evaluation Methods

3
 Performance assessment methods for evaluating seismic demand and capacity of the
structures can be broadly classified into:
• Nonlinear Static (Static Pushover and Adaptive Pushover Analysis)
• Nonlinear Dynamic (Nonlinear Time History and Incremental Dynamic Analysis)

1.4.1 Nonlinear Static Analysis

Nonlinear static analysis is an improvement over linear static. It is practical method in

which analysis is carried out under permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral
loads to estimate deformation and damage pattern of structure. Nonlinear static analysis is
the method of seismic analysis in which behaviour of the structure is characterized by
capacity curve that represents the relation between the base shear force and the
displacement of the roof. It is also known as Pushover Analysis. The nonlinear static
procedure provides a convenient and fairly reliable method for structures whose dynamic
response is governed by first-mode sway motions.

1.4.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

Nonlinear dynamic analysis methods generally provide more realistic models of structural
response to strong ground shaking and, thereby, provide more reliable assessment of
earthquake performance than nonlinear static analysis. Nonlinear static analysis is limited
in its ability to capture transient dynamic behaviour with cyclic loading and degradation.

Nonlinear dynamic analysis is required by some codes and guidelines for buildings of
unusual configuration or of special importance. This method is very rigorous and provides
resolute output of building response and performance. Displacement and acceleration
demands at each story along with the force demand for each member is determined
accurately. Since the nonlinear dynamic analysis model incorporates inelastic member
behaviour under cyclic earthquake ground motions, the nonlinear dynamic procedure
explicitly simulates hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear range.

TYPES OF NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

a. Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA)

Nonlinear time history analysis is the most accurate method used to predict seismic
responses of structures subjected to ground motions. Development of computer software

4
 allows us to use this method for evaluating building performances during the past decade.
To perform nonlinear time history analysis, properly selected ground motions are applied
directly to the model.

b. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

This method of analysis was adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and is considered as the state-of-the-art method to estimate the structural
responses under seismic loadings. IDA is a parametric analysis which predicts complete
structural responses and performances. A properly defined structural model is subjected to
a suite of ground motion records and the intensity of these ground motions are
monotonically scaled. Plotting of Intensity Measurement (IM) of the scaled ground motions
and Damage Measurement (DM) is called Incremental Dynamic Analysis.

Figure 1. 2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis Plot

1.5 FRAGILITY CURVE

Fragility curves provide the conditional probability of structural response when subjected
to earthquake loads as a function of ground motion intensity or other design parameters,
e.g, peak ground acceleration (PGA) or spectral acceleration (Sa). Seismic fragility curves
are used mainly by decision makers for the assessment of seismic losses both for pre-
earthquake disaster planning as well as post-earthquake recovery programs.
They can be classified as:
• Empirical fragility curves, based on post-earthquake damage evaluation data
• Analytical fragility curves, based on structural modelling and response simulation

5
 Structural Damage Fragility
Analysis Analysis Analysis
P(SR|IM) P(DS|SR) P(DS|IM)

Figure 1. 3 Types of Analysis

SR: Structural Response

IM: Intensity Measure
DS: Damage State

In case of seismic loading, failure is expressed conditional on ground motion intensity

measure (IM). The total probability of failure, considering all possible intensities and their
associated probabilities, can be obtained through integrating over all likely intensities.
Here, failure is in form of damage state (DS)
 ln(IM ) −  
( i
)
P DS  ds | IM =  

C 

 IM ,tot 
 = Lognormal median ground motion intensity (IM)
C

 = Associated dispersion
IM ,tot

 = Standard normal cumulative distribution function.

Nonlinear Static based Analysis Nonlinear Dynamic based Analysis

Clouds of Structural Response Results

IM vs. EDP

Regression Analysis

Fragility Functions

Figure 1. 4 Flow Chart for Obtaining Fragility Functions (Median and β)

6
 Regions of various damage states such as Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse
Prevention are marked between each fragility curves. For an earthquake with spectral
intensity corresponding to weak shaking, the exceedance probability for the IO Damage
State is quite high and the levels defined by higher damage states such as LS and CP
Damage States are very negligible. Whereas if there is an earthquake of strong intensity the
building is more likely to cross the higher damage states probability.

1.6 SOURCES OF NONLINEARITY

As it is required to know the ultimate capacity of building, the analysis is essential to be

carried out up to the plastic zone. The nonlinearity in RCC members can be geometric as
well as material.

Nonlinear analysis offers options for addressing problems resulting from the
above choices. We may consider only geometric nonlinearity where we may
continue to treat the structural material as elastic but include the effects of deformations
and finite displacements in formulating the equations of equilibrium. It is also possible
to regard only the material nonlinearity where the effect of changes in
material properties under load is taken into consideration. And, as a third general option,
we may include effects of both geometric and material nonlinearities in the analysis.

Geometric nonlinearity as a change in the elastic load-deformation characteristics of the

structure caused by the change in the structural shape due to large deformation. It appears
when the deflections of the structure are large enough to cause significant changes in the
geometry of the structure, requiring the equilibrium equations to be formulated for the
deformed configuration. These geometric nonlinearities can become significant in frames,
which are displaced laterally due to seismic movements or by wind loads. The interaction
between the gravity load induced axial forces in the columns and the lateral displacements
give rise to moments and forces in addition to those determined in a common “first order”
analysis. This additional effect is commonly referred as P- Δ effects, where “P” refers to
the gravity loading and “Δ” the lateral displacements.

7
 The few possible sources of each nonlinearity are as follows:
• Geometrical Effects
1. Initial imperfections such as member camber and out-of-plumb erection of a frame.
2. The P-Δ effect, a destabilizing moment equal to a gravity load times the horizontal
displacement it undergoes as a result of the lateral displacement of the supporting
structure.
3. The P-δ effect, the influence of axial force on the flexural stiffness of an individual
member.

Figure 1. 5 Geometric Nonlinearity

Concrete and steel reinforcement are the two constituents of RCC. Since concrete and steel
are both nonlinear materials, the material nonlinearity of RCC is a complex combination
of both.

• Material Effects
1. Plastic deformation of steel structures.
2. Cracking or creep of reinforced concrete structures.
3. Inelastic interaction of axial force, bending, shear, and torsion.

8
 (A) (B)
Figure 1. 6 (A) Stress Strain Curve of Steel (B) Stress Strain Curve of Concrete

1.7 SELECTION OF SOFTWARE

Rapid development in computer programs has led to analyze buildings dynamically and
credibly using complex numerical models and real earthquake inputs. Various seismic
analysis software, both research and commercial based, are available which can perform
nonlinear dynamic analysis taking into account material and geometric nonlinearity.
Various software available are Drain-2DX, SAP2000, ETABS, Opensees, Perform-3D,
IDRAC-2D, SeismoStruct.
In this research, SeismoStruct software was used which being a commercial software, is
unrestricted for research purposes. Also, it has graphical user interface and hence does not
need any programming or scripting.

1.8 MOTIVATION

There are several types of high-strength reinforcing bars available in other countries that
are not generally available in the India. In the early 1990s, Japan conducted the New RC
Project, which studied high-strength reinforcement and high-strength concrete in Japan in
1995, which coincided with a rapid increase in the number of reinforced concrete high-rise
buildings constructed. Between 1995 and 2002, approximately 200 high rise reinforced
concrete buildings were constructed in Japan (Sugano, 2008). Therefore, use of high-
strength concrete and reinforcement for RC building is most comfortable for cost saving,
reduction in reinforcement congestion, improved quality of construction and resistance of
earthquake lateral loads. In the upcoming, New 5th revision of IS 456: Plain and reinforced

9
 concrete-code of practice, which allows High Strength Concrete (HSC) up to M120 grade
and High Strength Steel (HSS) up to Fe650 grade limitation and criteria.

So, I am interested in evaluating performance of RC building with high-strength concrete

and reinforcement.

1.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF FRAGILITY CURVE DEVELOPMENT

Due to high frequency of earthquake occurrence every year there is a dire need of risk
assessment and information of seismic vulnerability of any structure. Also in the field of
retrofitting of structures, fragility curve aids in knowing the extent of damage by which one
can easily figure out the appropriate and reliable mitigation method as per possible damage.
This ultimately helps in cost-saving for the client as the extent of damage and appropriate
method of repair is known erstwhile. It also helps the researchers to compare a building
performance by varying damping devices and effect of incorporation of various structural
systems. Seismic fragility curves are used mainly by decision makers for the assessment of
seismic losses both for pre-earthquake disaster planning as well as post-earthquake
recovery programs.

1.10 AIM AND SCOPE OF DISSERTATION

AIM OF DISSERTATION

“Performance Evaluation of RC Buildings with high-strength concrete and

Reinforcement.”

SCOPE OF DISSERTATION

• In this study, two different heights of buildings are considered for two different cases.
In first case, Fe500 grade steel is used with M25 grade concrete and in second case,
Fe600 grade steel is used with M60 grade concrete.

• First is 12 storey building with RC Special moment resisting frame structure and second
is 25 storey building with RC moment resisting frame-wall structure. Both the buildings
are analyzed for seismic zone IV and resting on hard soil.

• The above all frames are designed as per IS 456-2000 (4th revision) and Proposed IS
456 (5th revision) draft, thus total 8 building models are created for the performance
evaluation.

10
 • Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) and Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
are performed for all above frames using SeismoStruct software for set of 8 recorded
ground motions of past Indian earthquakes. Total number of 32 IDA (i.e. 380 NLTHA
with monotonic scaling till numerical non‐convergence is first encountered) is carried
out for this parametric study.
• Results are plotted in terms of Interstorey Drift Ratio profile & IDA curves.
• Development of Fragility Curves for Performance Evaluation using results of IDA
considering performance criteria as per FEMA 356.

1.11 LAYOUT OF DISSERTATION

• Chapter 1: It comprises of Introduction, Aim and Scope of Dissertation.

• Chapter 2: It contains Literature Review of performance evaluation and fragility
curve development.
• Chapter 3: It focuses on Software Brief and Structure Modelling using SeismoStruct
software.
• Chapter 4: It shows the Illustrative Problem i.e. Analysis and Design of 12 Storey and
25 Storey building with IS 456 (4th revision) and IS 456 (5th revision).
• Chapter 5: It shows result in form of concrete and reinforcement quantity, Interstorey
Drift Ratio (%) profile for Nonlinear Time History Analysis, IDA Curves and Fragility
Curves obtained using results of IDA.
• Chapter 6: It contains the conclusions of this dissertation and the future scopes.

11
 Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL

Compared with steel structures, reinforced concrete (RC) structures have higher stiffness
and better serviceability to the living quality of residents. However, due to the low strength-
to-weight ratio of concrete, the RC structures usually need larger member cross sections,
which is accompanied by a larger self-weight and an increase in seismic demand and
construction cost. As a consequence, RC is generally considered unsuitable for high-rise
buildings in regions of high seismic hazard. Based on the past experience, the number of
stories for RC buildings is usually limited to around 30 in high seismic regions. In contrast,
high strength RC (HRC) structures can reduce the demand on member sizes, thereby
increasing the usable space while reducing the volume of concrete used. As a result, HRC
is better suited for the development of high-rise buildings, allowing them to reach the level
of 40 or 50 stories.

HRC is often considered as a new material in the engineering community. Actually, it has
been studied for several decades, with the strengths of concrete and reinforcement
increasing continuously. For instance, in the 1950s, concrete with a compressive strength
of 34 MPa was considered as of high strength. In the early 1970s, concrete with 62 MPa
compressive strength became available. By the end of the 20th century, there appeared
high-rise buildings constructed of concrete with a compressive strength exceeding 138
MPa. With the increasing application of HRC and the increase in its strength, a considerable
number of material or member tests have been conducted to investigate the stress–strain
relationship of high-strength concrete. For instance, Wee et al. and Mansur et al.
investigated the stress–strain relationship of concrete with a compressive strength between
50 and 120 MPa based on the compressive strength test of cylindrical concrete specimens
with different proportioning of concrete mixture.

Numerous studies have been directed to the engineering application of high strength
materials. For instance, Hegger conducted a study on a high-rise building constructed with
high strength material for the first time in German in 1990. The compressive strength of
the concrete used for this building was as high as 85 MPa. In Japan, to establish the design
guidelines for buildings constructed using high-strength concrete and reinforcement, the

12
Japanese Building Research Institute also initiated a project named New RC Project in
1988. Obviously, the adoption of HRC in high-rise buildings has become a trend
worldwide.

For the Performance evaluation of RC building, Elastic analysis is inadequate because they
cannot predict the force and deformation distributions after the initiation of damage in the
building. In performance-based design, response of structure is considered beyond elastic
limit. Inelastic analytical procedure becomes essential to identify the modes of failure and
the potential progressive collapse.

The researchers have recognized the need of vulnerability assessment for seismic
evaluation of buildings. They have identified that fragility curves are one of the tool for
vulnerability assessment.

The process of vulnerability assessment is essentially based on two components:

• Ground motion intensity-to-structural response functions, P(IM|SR)

• Structural response-to-damage state functions, P(SR|DS).

Resulting to fragility analysis i.e. The probability of a damage state sustained by an

examined building class, being reached or exceeded given a level of ground motion
intensity measure (IM).

A literature review for the present task is presented under the following headings:

• A brief of Response Spectrum method used for calculating the earthquake forces
• A brief of Dynamic Wind Response used for calculating the wind forces
• Limit State Method for design of flexural and compression members
• Comparison design aids of IS 456:2000 and Proposed IS 456 new revision
• Background of Nonlinear Analysis
• A brief of Nonlinear Time History Analysis and Incremental Dynamic Analysis.
• Procedure of Fragility Curve Development
• FEMA 356 Performance Levels
• Length of Plastic Hinge and its location
• Research Papers

13
2.2 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD

The calculation of design lateral forces is carried out using the Response Spectrum Method
as per the Indian Seismic Code [IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2016]

Step 1: Compute the modal mass (Mk) of mode k which is given by:
2
[∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 ∅𝑖𝑘 ]
𝑀𝑘 =
𝑔 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 (∅𝑖𝑘 )2

Where
g = Acceleration due to gravity,
Øik = Mode shape coefficient at floor i in mode k, and
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i.

Step 2: Compute the modal participation factor (Pk) of mode k which is given by:

∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 ∅𝑖𝑘
𝑃𝑘 = 𝑛
∑𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 (∅𝑖𝑘 )2

Step 3: Design Lateral Force at Each Floor in Each Mode:

The peak lateral force (Qik) at floor i in mode k is given by

𝑄𝑖𝑘 = 𝐴𝑘 ∅𝑖𝑘 𝑃𝑘 𝑊𝑖

Where
Ak = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value, using the natural period of
oscillation (Tk) of mode k.

Step 4: Story Shear Forces in Each Mode:

The peak shear force (Vik) acting in storey i in mode k is given by

𝑛

𝑉𝑖𝑘 = ∑ 𝑄𝑖𝑘
𝑖=1

Step 5: Story Shear Forces due to All Modes considered:

The design lateral forces Froof and Fi at roof and at floor i,

Froof = Vroof, and
Fi = Vi – Vi+1

The responses of different modes considered shall be combined by Complete Quadratic

Combination (CQC) method.

14
2.3 DESIGN WIND SPEED

The basic wind speed for any site shall be obtained from equation given below and shall be
modified to include the following effects to get design wind speed, Vz at any height (z) for
the chosen structure as per the Indian Wind Code [IS 875 (Part 3) : 2015].

Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 k4

Where
Vz = design wind speed at any height z in m/s,

Vb = basic wind speed in m/s,

k1 = probability factor (risk coefficient),

k2 = terrain roughness and height factor,

k3 = topography factor,

k4 = importance factor for the cyclonic region.

2.3.1 Dynamic Wind Response

Tall buildings which are ‘wind sensitive’ shall be designed for dynamic wind loads. Hourly
mean wind speed is used as a reference wind speed to be used in dynamic wind analysis.
For calculation of along wind loads and response (bending moments, shear forces, or tip
deflections) the Gust Factor (GF) method is used. For calculation of along wind load effects
at a level s on a building/structure, the design hourly mean wind pressure at height z shall
be multiplied by the Gust Factor (GF).

Figure 2. 1 Notations for heights

15
The design peak along wind base bending moment,

Ma = ∑ Fz Z

Fz = Cf,z Az p̅d G

Where
Fz = design peak along wind load on the structure at any height z, in kN

Az = the effective frontal area of the structure at any height z, in m2

𝑝̅ d = design hourly mean wind pressure in N/m2

Cf,z = the drag force coefficient of the structure corresponding to the area Az

G = Gust Factor

̅2z,d
𝑝̅d = 0.6 V

̅z,d = V
V ̅z,H k1 k3 k4

Where
̅z,H = The hourly mean wind speed at height z
V

̅z,H = k̅2,i Vb
V

k̅2,i = hourly mean wind speed factor for terrain category 1

𝑧
k̅2,i = 0.1423 [ln (𝑧 )] (𝑧0,𝑖 )0.0706
0,𝑖

Vb = Basic wind speed in m/s

G = Gust Factor and is given by.

2 𝑆𝐸
𝐻𝑠 𝑔𝑅
G = 1 + r√[𝑔𝑣2 𝐵𝑠 (1 + 𝑔)2 + ]
𝛽

Where
r = roughness factor which is twice the longitudinal turbulence intensity, Ih,i

gv = peak factor for upwind velocity fluctuation,

= 3.0 for category 1 and 2 terrains, and

= 4.0 for category 3 and 4 terrains

16
 Bs = Background factor indicating the measure of slowly varying component of
fluctuating wind load caused by the lower frequency wind speed variations

1
=
√0.26 (ℎ−𝑠)2 + 0.46𝑏2
𝑠ℎ
[1+ ]
𝐿ℎ

Where
bsh = average breadth of the structure between heights s and h

Lh = measure of effective turbulence length scale at the height h, in m

ℎ 0.25
= 85 (10) for terrain category 1 to 3

ℎ 0.25
= 70 (10) for terrain category 4

Φ = factor to account for the second turbulence intensity

𝑔𝑣 𝐼ℎ,𝑖 √𝐵𝑠
=
2

Where
Ih,i = turbulence intensity at height h in terrain category i,

Hs = height factor for resonance response

𝑆 2
= 1 + (ℎ)

h = building height in m

S = size reduction factor

1
= 3.5 𝑓 ℎ 4𝑓 𝑏
(1+ ̅ 𝑎 )(1+ ̅𝑎 0ℎ )
𝑉 ℎ,𝑑 𝑉 ℎ,𝑑

Where
b0h = average breadth of the structure between 0 to h.

fa = first mode natural frequency of the structure, in Hz

𝑉̅ ℎ,𝑑 = design hourly mean wind speed at height, h in m/s

17
 E = spectrum of turbulence in the approaching wind stream

𝜋𝑁
= 5
(1+70.8 𝑁2 ) ⁄6

Where
N = effective reduced frequency

𝑓𝑎 𝐿ℎ
N= ̅ ℎ,𝑑
𝑉

β = damping coefficient of the structure

𝑔𝑅 = peak factor for resonant response

= √[2 ln(3600𝑓𝑎 )]

Table 2. 1 Suggested Values of Structural Damping Coefficients

SI No. Kind of Structure Damping Coefficient, β

i) Welded steel structures 0.010
ii) Bolted steel structures/RCC structures 0.020
iii) Prestressed concrete structures 0.016

2.4 IS 16700: 2017 PROVISIONS

• Height Limit for Structural Systems (cl 5.1.1):

The maximum building height (in m) shall not exceed values given below for
buildings with different structural systems.

Figure 2. 2 Maximum values of Height with Different Structural Systems

18
• Slenderness Ratio (cl 5.1.2):
The maximum values of the ratio of height to minimum base width B shall not
exceed values given below.

Figure 2. 3 Maximum Slenderness Ratio

• Plan Aspect Ratio (cl 5.2.2):

The maximum plan aspect ratio (Lt/Bt) of the overall building shall not exceed
5.0. In case of an L shaped building, Lt and Bt shall refer to the respective length
and width of each leg of the building.

• Natural Modes of Vibration (cl 5.5):

The natural period of fundamental torsional mode of vibration shall not exceed
0.9 times the smaller of the natural periods of the fundamental translational
modes of vibration in each of the orthogonal directions in plan. The fundamental
translational lateral natural period in any of the two horizontal plan directions,
shall not exceed 8 s, considering sectional properties as cracked corresponding to
unfactored loads.

• The minimum grade of concrete shall be M 30. (cl [Link])

• The maximum grade of concrete shall be M 70. (cl [Link])
• For wind, the damping ratio shall not be greater than 2% of critical for concrete
buildings. (cl [Link])
• Minimum Design Base Shear Coefficient (cl 6.3.3):
The design base shear coefficient of building under design lateral forces, shall
not be less than shown below.

19
 Figure 2. 4 Minimum Design Base Shear Coefficient

• Cracked RC Section Properties (cl 7.2):

For analysis purpose cracked section should be used as given below.

Figure 2. 5 Cracked RC Section Properties

• The minimum requirements for reinforcement bar diameters in beams of moment

frames of framed-tube structures. (cl 8.7.8):

Figure 2. 6 Reinforcement Requirements in Beams

20
2.5 LIMIT STATE METHOD FOR DESIGN OF FLEXURAL AND COMPRESSION
MEMBERS
In the present study, the selected frame is conventionally analyzed using software for
various combinations of gravity as well as earthquake loads, keeping its base fixed. Using
the critical values of stresses and moments obtained from this analysis, the building is
designed by Limit State Method. This method is an improvement over the Ultimate Load
design method, which is based on the assumption that a structure reaches a collapse
condition forming a mechanism when a certain load is applied. In Limit State Method, the
structure is designed to withstand all loads likely to act on it in the duration of its life span
and also to satisfy the serviceability requirements like deflection limits and limitations of
crack width. The primary reference for this method of design is IS:456-2000 (4th revision)
but In few months coming new revision of the IS:456 so I have also design with IS456
(5th revision) draft and compared both result.

2.5.1 Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete (As per IS 456-2000)

The design of flexural member based on limit state of collapse provides the necessary safety
of the structure against partial or total collapse. Assumptions as recommended by IS code:
1) Plane Section normal to the axis remains plane after bending.
2) The maximum strain in concrete at the outermost compression edge is taken as 0.0035
in bending.
3) The relationship between the compressive stress distribution and the strain in concrete
may be assumed to be rectangular, trapezoid, parabola or any other shape, which results
in prediction of strength in substantial agreement with the results of sets.

Figure 2. 7 Stress- Strain Curve for Concrete as per IS 456:2000

21
 In the above figure,
fck = Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
In addition to the assumption made for flexural members, Code recommends the following
assumptions for the compression members:
1) The maximum compressive strain in concrete in axial compression is taken as 0.002.
2) The maximum compressive strain at the highly compressed extreme fiber in concrete
subjected-to axial compression and bending and when there is no tension on the section,
shall be 0.0035 minus 0.75 times the strain at the least compressed fiber.
R.C.C columns are generally designed for a minimum eccentricity of 20 mm or 0.05 times
depth of column whichever is greater. Hence moment due to eccentricity is always to be
considered. Interactive diagrams for different values of xu have been developed and given
in SP: 16 (1980). These diagrams can be used to obtain various combinations of axial load
and moment; the column section can sustain. For any value of the load and moment if the
point obtained is inside the diagram, the arrangement is safe. These diagrams also provide
information about compression failure, tension failure and balanced failure.
2.5.2 Stress-Strain Relationship for Steel (As per IS 456-2000)

The characteristic and design stress-strain curves specified by IS 456:2000 for type
of reinforcing steel (in tension and compression) is as shown in Figure 2.5. For the purpose
of limit state design, a partial safety factor γm equivalent to 1.15 shall be applied. The design
yield strength fyd is obtained by dividing the specified yield strength fy by the partial safety
factor, accordingly fyd = 0.87 fy. However, in the case of cold worked bars there is no specific
yield point. The transition from linear elastic behaviour to nonlinear behaviour is assumed
to occur at a stress level equal to 0.8 fy in the characteristic curve and 0.8 fyd in the design
curve. The full design yield strength 0.87 fy is assumed to correspond to ‘proof strain’ of
0.87fy
0.002 i.e., the design yield strain εy is to be taken as + 0.002.
Es
Table 2. 2 Stress-Strain Variation for Reinforcing Steel

Fe 415 Fe 500
Stress level
Total strain Stress (N/mm2) Total strain Stress (N/mm2)
0.80 fyd 0.00144 288.7 0.00174 347.8
0.85 fyd 0.00163 306.7 0.00195 369.6
0.90 fyd 0.00192 324.8 0.00226 391.3
0.95 fyd 0.00241 342.8 0.00277 413.0
0.97 fyd 0.00276 351.8 0.00312 423.9
1.00 fyd 0.00380 360.9 0.00417 434.8

22
 Figure 2. 8 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Steel bars as per IS 456:2000

2.5.3 Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete (As per IS 456 new revision draft)

In IS 456:2000, the limiting values of strain (ℇcp and ℇcu) were constant for all grades of
concrete. The values of ℇcp and ℇcu were 0.002 and 0.0035 respectively. In Revised IS456,
the limiting values of strain are dependent on the grade of concrete. These values are
mentioned in the table below:

Table 2. 3 Stress-Strain curve Parameter of concrete

Grades of Concrete Ecp Ecu

M20 0.00200 0.00350
M25 0.00203 0.00343
M30 0.00205 0.00336
M35 0.00208 0.00329
M40 0.00210 0.00323
M45 0.00213 0.00316
M50 0.00215 0.00309
M55 0.00218 0.00302
M60 0.00220 0.00295
M65 0.00223 0.00288
M70 0.00225 0.00281
M75 0.00228 0.00274
M80 0.00230 0.00268
M85 0.00233 0.00261
M90 0.00235 0.00254
M95 0.00238 0.00247
M100 0.00240 0.00240

23
Due to the changes in the limiting values of strain there will be changes in the stress strain
curve for concrete. The stress strain curve for concrete will also be dependent on the grade of
concrete i.e. there will be separate curves for each grade of concrete in the revised code as
compared to the single curve for all grades of concrete as per IS 456:2000. The stress strain
curves are plotted using the following equations:

2
∈𝑐 ∈𝑐
𝐹𝑐 (∈𝑐 ) = 0.45 𝐹𝑐𝑘 [2 ( )−( ) ] For 0 ≤ ∈𝑐 ≤ ∈𝑐𝑝
∈𝑐𝑝 ∈𝑐𝑝

= 0.45 𝐹𝑐𝑘 For ∈𝑐𝑝 ≤ ∈𝑐 ≤ ∈𝑐

Grade Dependent Stress-Strain Curves

Figure 2. 9 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete

as per IS 456 new Revision

2.5.4 Stress-Strain Relationship for Steel (As per IS 456 new revision draft)

The stress strain curves for mild steel as per Revised IS 456 are the same as that of IS
456:2000. The stress strain curves for HYSD bars as per Revised IS 456 are slightly
different as compared to that of IS 456:2000. The stress strain curves for HYSD bars in IS
456:2000 did not have a definite yield point, whereas as per the revised code the stress
strain curves have a definite yield point. These curves can be designed based on the values

24
 of ℇst,lim. Up to a strain value of ℇst,lim the stress and strain are directly proportional with
Modulus of Elasticity(Es = 2 x 105 N/mm2) being the slope of the line. After the value of
ℇst,lim is reached the curve becomes a straight horizontal line with fy = Es *ℇst,lim, The chart
of stress-strain curve for different grades of steel can be shown below figure :

Figure 2. 10 Characteristic and Design Stress-Strain Curves for Steel bars

as per IS 456 new Revision

2.6 BEAM DESIGN

The Beams are the structural members that carry the loads that are perpendicular to its
longitudinal axis. Its main function in a structure is to support the slabs transfer the loads
from the slabs to columns. In this dissertation only rectangular beams are considered. The
main criteria’s and formulas for the design of rectangular beams as per IS456:2000
(4th revision) and Proposed IS 456 (5th revision) are mentioned in this section.

Formulas for Design of Rectangular Beams as per IS [Link]

Beams can either be singly reinforced or doubly reinforced. Singly reinforced beams are
the ones in which the moment due to the applied load (Mu) is less than the limiting value
of moment of resistance (Mu,lim) of the section and hence no compression reinforcement is
required. Doubly reinforced beams are the ones in which Mu > Mu,lim, hence both tension
and compression reinforcement are to be provided.

25
A simple strain distribution diagram and stress block diagram for a rectangular singly
reinforced beam are shown in figure 2.5. In the figure, xu is the depth of neutral axis, C is
the total compressive force which is equal to 0.36fckbxu, T is the total tensile force which
is equal to 0.87fyAst and ℇs is the strain in steel. For flexure design the value of ℇs must not
be less than (fy/1.15Es) + 0.002 where Es is the modulus of elasticity for steel which is
taken as 2 x 105 N/mm2. As per IS 456:2000 the limiting values of depth of neutral axis are
different for different grades of steel, for 250MPa maximum depth of neutral axis (Xu/d)
is 0.53 similarly for 415MPa is 0.48 and 500 MPa is 0.46.

Figure 2. 11 Strain distribution and stress block diagram as per IS 456:2000

For a singly reinforced section:

• Calculate depth of neutral axis using the following equation:
Xu 0.87fy Ast
=
d 0.36fck bd
where, xu = Depth of neutral axis
Ast = Area of tension reinforcement
b = Width of beam
d = Effective depth of beam
fy = Characteristic strength of tension reinforcement
fck = Characteristic compressive strength of concrete

26
 • Calculate the moment of resistance (Mu) using the following equation:

Ast fy
Mu = 0.87fy Ast d [1 − ]
bdfck
• Calculate the limiting value of moment of resistance (Mu,lim) using the equation:

0.42 Xu,max
Mu,lim = 0.36 Xu,max [1 − ] bd2 fck
d
For a doubly reinforced section:

• Calculate the area of compression reinforcement (Asc) using the following equation:

Mu - Mu,lim = fscAsc (d – d’)

Where, Asc = area of compression reinforcement
(Xu,max − d′ )
fsc = stress in compression reinforcement at a strain of 0.0035 Xu,max
(value of fsc can be calculated from table-F in SP-16)
d’ = depth of compression reinforcement from compression fac
• Calculate the total area of tension (Ast) from the following equation

Ast = Ast 1+ Ast 2

Where, Ast = total area of tension reinforcement

Ast 1 = area of tensile reinforcement for a singly reinforced section for Mu,lim
Ast 2 = Ascfsc/0.87fy

2.7 COLUMN DESIGN

Column is a compression member, the effective length of which exceeds three times the
least lateral dimension. The main function of columns is to transfer the load from the super
structure to the substructure. Columns may be classified as short columns and long columns
based on the ratio of effective lengths to the dimensions of columns. A column is
considered to be short if both the slenderness ratios lex/D and ley/b are less than 12, where
lex and ley are the effective lengths in x and y directions respectively. D and b are the depth
and width of the column respectively. The columns are designed based on the axial load
and bending moment acting on the column. Based on this the columns may be classified as
axially loaded columns, columns subjected to combined axial load and uniaxial bending
and columns subjected to combined axial load and biaxial bending.

27
2.7.1 Design of Short Axially Loaded Members in Compression as per IS 456:2000

All Columns must be designed for a minimum eccentricity, equal to the unsupported length
of column/500 plus lateral dimension/30 subject to a minimum of 20mm. When the
eccentricity calculated as per above is less than 0.05D, the code permits the design of short
axially loaded columns using the following equation:

Pu = 0.4fck Ac + 0.67fy As
Where, Pu = axial load on member
Fck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete
Ac = area of concrete
Asc= area of longitudinal reinforcement for columns
Fy = characteristic strength of compression reinforcement

2.7.2 Design of Members Subjected to Axial Load with Uniaxial Bending as per IS 456:2000

The design of a member subjected to axial force and uniaxial bending will involve lengthy
calculation based on trial and error. In order to overcome these difficulties interaction
diagrams (design charts) may be used. Interaction diagrams for columns can be found in
‘SP 16: Design Aids to IS 456’. Form the values of Pu, Mu, fck, b and D the values of
Pu/fckbD and Mu/fckbD2 can be calculated. Using the values of Pu/fckbD, Mu/fckbD2 and d’/D
the percentage of reinforcement can be obtained from the graph, where d’ is the effective
cover to the reinforcement. Form the value of percentage of steel the area of longitudinal
steel required can be calculated.

2.7.3 Design of Members Subjected to Axial Load with Biaxial Bending as per IS 456:2000

The design of a member subjected to axial force and biaxial bending can be carried out
using the following equation:

αn
Mux αn Muy
( ) + ( ) ≤ 1.0
Mux1 Muy1

Where, Mux, Muy = Moments about x and y axes dues to design loads
Mux1, Muy1 = Maximum uniaxial moment capacity for an axial load Pu, bending
about x and y axis respectively (from interaction diagrams)
αn = Related to Pu/Puz

28
 Puz = 0.45fck Ac + 0.75fy Asc

For values of Pu/Puz = 0.2 to 0.8, the value of αn varies linearly from 1.0 to 2.0. For values
less than 0.2 the value of αn is 1.0; for values greater than 0.8, αn is 2.0

2.8 PROPOSED CHANGES AS PER REVISED CODE

This chapter consists of in detail study of all the changes that have been made to
IS 456:2000 as per the revised codes.

• Change in formula for calculation of Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (Ec):

As per IS [Link] Ec = 5000 (fck)0.5

As per Revised IS 456: Ec = 10000 (fck)0.3

• Changes in stress block parameters for Concrete:

As the limiting values of strain for concrete are now grade dependent, the stress block
parameters will now also be grade dependent. As per IS 456:2000 they had a constant
value of 0.364 and 0.416. The stress block values as per the revised code have been
shown in the table below.
Table 2. 4 Stress Block Parameter

Grades of
A B
Concrete
M20 0.364 0.416
M25 0.361 0.413
M30 0.358 0.411
M35 0.355 0.409
M40 0.352 0.407
M45 0.349 0.404
M50 0.346 0.402
M55 0.342 0.399
M60 0.338 0.396
M65 0.334 0.393
M70 0.330 0.391
M75 0.325 0.388
Figure 2. 12 Stress Block Parameter A and B
M80 0.321 0.386
M85 0.316 0.383
M90 0.311 0.380
M95 0.305 0.377
M100 0.300 0.375

• Changes in calculation maximum shear strength (τcmax):

As per IS 456:2000 the maximum shear strength was calculated as:

29
 τcmax = 0.83(fc)0.5
where, fc is the cylindrical strength of concrete.
The values in Table20 of code IS 456:2000 have been obtained after converting the
cylindrical strength to cube strength and then by multiplying a factor of 0.85, the latter
being the partial safety factor for material strength.
As per the Revised code the maximum shear strength can be calculated as follows:
τcmax = 0.1*fck / γm For Grade ≤ M60
= 6 / γm For Grade > M60
The graph of comparison of τcmax as per IS 456:2000 and revised code is given below.

Figure 2. 13 Comparison of τ cmax as per IS 456:2000 and revised IS 456

• Changes in calculation of Design Shear Strength (τc) of concrete:

According to IS456:2000 the Design Shear Strength was calculated as follows:
τc = 0.85*(0.8fck)0.5*((1+5β)0.5 - 1)/ 6β
Where, β = 0.8*fck / 6.89*pt
pt = Percentage of tension reinforcement
According to Revised Code the Design Shear Strength is calculated as follows:
τc = 0.36*λa* λs* λg/γm
Where λa = Aggregate Type factor (1 for normal wt. agg., 0.75 for light wt. agg.)
λs = Cross- Section size factor (1 for d ≤400mm, (400/d)0.25 for d >400mm)
λg = Cross-Section geometry factor (0.83 for rectangular, 0.7 for circular)
γm = 1.5

30
• Minimum sizes of all structural members specified as per revised IS456:
Slab 125mm thick
Column 300mm x 300mm
Beam 250mm x 300mm
Structural walls 160mm
Other walls 125mm
Footings 150mm thickness at cantilever tip

• Calculation of ratio of maximum depth of neutral axis to effective depth:

According to IS456:2000 the ratio of depth of neutral axis to the effective depth of
beam was calculated as

𝑋𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜀𝑐𝑢
( = )
𝑑 𝑓𝑦
𝜀𝑐𝑢 + 0.002 + ( )
1.15 ∗ 𝐸𝑠
As per the revised code the ratio is calculated using the same equation but as the values
of maximum strain have become grade dependent. The values of xumax/d will now be
dependent on both, grade of concrete and grade of steel where as in IS 456:2000 these
values were only dependent on the grade of steel. For design consider different value
are shown in table 2.3.
Table 2. 5 Values of α as per revised IS 456

α (xu,max/d) for different grades of

Grade of
reinforcing steel
Concrete 415 500 550 600
M20 0.479 0.456 0.444 0.432
M25 0.474 0.451 0.439 0.427
M30 0.469 0.446 0.433 0.422
M35 0.464 0.441 0.428 0.417
M40 0.459 0.436 0.424 0.412
M45 0.454 0.431 0.418 0.407
M50 0.448 0.425 0.413 0.401
M55 0.443 0.420 0.407 0.396
M60 0.437 0.414 0.402 0.390
M65 0.431 0.408 0.396 0.385
M70 0.425 0.402 0.390 0.379
M75 0.419 0.396 0.384 0.373
M80 0.413 0.391 0.379 0.368
M85 0.407 0.385 0.373 0.362
M90 0.400 0.378 0.366 0.355
M95 0.394 0.372 0.360 0.349
M100 0.387 0.365 0.353 0.342

31
 • Change in the minimum percentage of longitudinal reinforcement:

Table 2.4 are comparing the minimum amount of longitudinal steel required as per the
revised code and IS 456:2000 for different structural elements.
Table 2. 6 Minimum Longitudinal reinforcement as per revised IS 456

Structural Minimum Longitudinal Minimum Longitudinal

Element Reinforcement as per IS 456:2000 Reinforcement as per Revised IS 456
Ast,min 0.85 Ast,min 0.25√Fck
Beams = =
bd Fy bd Fy
0.8 percent of gross cross-sectional 0.008+0.00035(M-20) for M20-M40
area of column 0.015+0.00035(M-40) for M40-M60
Columns 0.022+0.00030(M-60) for M60-M80
0.028+0.00028(M-80) for M80-M100
Where M is the grade of concrete
0.15 percent of total cross section Not mentioned so no change. Same as
Slabs area for mild steel and 0.12 percent IS 456: 2000
for HYSD bars
0.12 percent HYSD bars and welded 0.12 percent for HYSD bars,0.12
wire fabric with diameter less than or percent for welded wire fabric with
Walls equal to 16mm and 0.15 percent for diameter less than 16mm and 0.15
other types of bars percent for mild steel bars

• Changes in the maximum amount of longitudinal steel

The maximum amount of longitudinal steel that can be used in different structural
element as per both IS 456:2000 and the revised code has been mentioned in the table
below.
Table 2. 7 Maximum Longitudinal reinforcement as per revised IS 456

Structural Maximum Longitudinal Maximum Longitudinal

Element Reinforcement as per IS 456:2000 Reinforcement as per Revised IS 456
4 percent of the gross cross-sectional 2 percent of the gross cross-sectional
Beams area area
6 percent of the gross cross-sectional 6 percent if the bars have been spliced
area (generally maximum 4 percent is using couplers and 4 percent if the bars
Columns used so as to avoid difficulty in are spliced using lapping or using both
placing and compacting of concrete)

Same as beams. 4 percent of gross 1 percent of gross cross-sectional area

Slabs
cross-sectional area

32
 • Changes in the minimum transverse reinforcement required

The minimum amount of transverse reinforcement that has to be provided for different
structural members as per IS 456:2000 and the revised code has been mentioned in the
table below.
Table 2. 8 Minimum Transverse reinforcement as per revised IS 456

Structural Minimum Transverse Minimum Transverse

Element Reinforcement as per IS 456:2000 Reinforcement as per Revised IS 456

𝐀 𝐬𝐯,𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝟎. 𝟒 𝐀 𝐬𝐯,𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝟎. 𝟒 𝟎. 𝟎𝟔√𝐟𝐜𝐤

Beams = = 𝐦𝐚𝐱 ( ; )
𝐛𝐬𝐯 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝐟𝐲 𝐛𝐝 𝐝 𝐝
𝐟𝐲 (𝐬 ) 𝐟𝐲 (𝐬 )
𝐯 𝐈𝐍𝐓 𝐯 𝐈𝐍𝐓

Only spacing criteria for transverse

reinforcement is given 𝐀 𝐬𝐯,𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝟎. 𝟔 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗√𝐟𝐜𝐤
Columns = 𝐦𝐚𝐱 ( ; )
𝐛𝐝 𝐝 𝐝
𝐟𝐲 (𝐬 ) 𝐟𝐲 (𝐬 )
𝐯 𝐈𝐍𝐓 𝐯 𝐈𝐍𝐓

0.15 percent of the gross cross- No minimum transverse reinforcement is

Slabs sectional area for mild steel and required
0.12 percent for HYSD bars

2.9 BACKGROUND OF NONLINEAR ANALYSIS

The first widespread practical applications of nonlinear analysis in earthquake

engineering in the USA were to assess and retrofit existing buildings. The first
significant guidelines on the application of nonlinear analysis were those published in
FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA
1997) and ATC 40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC 1996).
Owing to the state of knowledge and computing technologies at the time of their
publication (mid-1990s), these documents focus primarily on nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis. They have been carried forward into ASCE 41 Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2007), and improvements have been
proposed in FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures
(FEMA 2005).

Note that while ASCE 41, ATC-40 and related documents have a primary focus on
renovating existing buildings, the nonlinear analysis guidance and component modelling
and acceptance criteria in these documents can be applied to new building design.

More recently, the role of nonlinear dynamic analysis for design is being expanded to
quantify building performance more completely. The ATC 58 Guidelines for Seismic

33
 Performance Assessment of Buildings (ATC 2009) employ nonlinear dynamic analysis
for seismic performance assessment of new and existing buildings.

2.10 NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Nonlinear time history analysis is the most accurate method used to predict seismic
responses of structures subjected to ground motions. Development of computer software
causes to use this method in new building design and evaluating building performances
during the past decade. To perform nonlinear time history analysis, suitable ground motions
are directly applied to the model. There are two methods to obtain dynamic responses of a
structural model, which are direct time integration and modal superposition (Modal
superposition method is not applicable for nonlinear analysis). The nonlinear time history
analysis presented herein belong to the direct integration method which is a solution of
second order differential equation. The equation of motion for a structural system
represented by MDoF model is given as below.

𝑀𝑈̈ + 𝐶𝑈̇ + 𝐹𝑆 𝑈 = −𝑀𝐼𝑢̈ 𝑔

Where,

M = the mass matrix

C = the damping matrix
Fs = the resisting force
üg = earthquake ground acceleration
U = displacement response

I = unit column vector

In this study, direct integration method was adopted to solve the equation of motion which
is a second order differential equation. It is a common method used to solve dynamic
response systems and it solves equation of motion numerically using discrete time stepping
starting from zero to infinity. This method generally uses constant time stepping and it is
not an exact procedure. It can be classified into explicit and implicit methods. Researchers
showed that the implicit method is more accurate than the explicit method. In this study, α-
integration algorithm was selected in SeismoStruct software and it developed by Hilber et
al (1977). This algorithm is based on the Newmark method (i.e. has the same finite
difference expression and use the same γ and β parameters) by adding the parameter (α) to

34
 introduce numerical damping and improve second order accuracy and stability. Values of
the three parameters shall be chosen to obtain high accuracy, numerical damping and
analytical stability. The best choice for (α) is between [-1/3, 0] and the other two parameters
can therefore be determined using following equations (Hilber et al 1977).

𝛾 = (1 − 2𝛼)/2

𝛽 = (1 − 𝛼)2 /4

2.11 INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Bertero firstly proposed the idea of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) in 1977 and it has
been subjected to substantial development by many researchers at the end of last century
and the beginning of this century. This analysis method was adopted by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2000a) and is considered as the state-of-the-art
method to estimate the structural responses under seismic loadings. IDA is a parametric
analysis which predicts complete structural responses and performances. In this analysis, a
properly defined structural model is subjected to a suite of ground motion records and the
intensity of these ground motions are gradually increased using scale factors. The intensity
continues to increase when the whole structural responses range from elastic to the
nonlinear followed by structural collapse (Vamvatsikos 2002). In the end, a number of
curves depicting the parameterized responses versus the ground motion intensity levels are
produced. IDA performs a huge number of nonlinear time history analyses. For example, a
complete IDA may have 10 or more ground motion pairs and each is scaled to 20 levels
leading to 200 times nonlinear time history analyses. Although it takes a long time to
perform IDA, it can provide the whole range of structural responses from elastic to collapse.
With the development of computing technology every day, software was created to perform
the IDA making it possible for both practical and research purposes.

2.11.1 Terminology in IDA

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002) defined common terms in the IDA as listed below:

• Scale factor: A positive scalar which multiplies to ground motion to increase the intensity.
Scale factor can be increased in a constant steps or distinct steps.
• Intensity Measure (IM): A positive scalar which depends on the unscaled ground motions
and it is increased or decreased monotonically with scale factor. IM can be increased by
multiplying the scale factor to the ground motion.
35
• Damage Measure (DM): A positive scalar which is also known as a Structural State
Variable. DM characterizes more structural response which is subjected to prescribed
seismic load. Choosing an applicable DM depends on structure. Possible selection for the
DM could be maximum base shear, node rotations, peak story ductility, and various
proposed damage indices such as global cumulative hysteretic energy, peak roof drift, the
floor peak inter-story drift angle for all story of the building or the maximum inter-story
drift ratio.
• IDA Curve: A graph of DM versus IM. IDA curve can be plotted in two or more
dimensions relying on the IM and at least one of them must be scalable.
• Single-Record IDA curve: Also known as IDA curve or Dynamic Pushover (DPO) curve
(Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002). As mentioned in the IDA introduction, single-record
IDA is obtained by applying a number of nonlinear time history analysis for the same
record with different scale factors. The intensity of the ground motion incrementally
increased in each nonlinear time history analysis by multiply the amplitude of ground
motion to the incremented scale factor. From these time history analysis results, DM is
recorded (i.e. maximum inter-story drift). A curve relating the DM value to the IM is
obtained and this curve is known as a single record IDA curve. Using single-record curves
is not enough to estimate the response of the structure and display the effects of future
earthquakes. Single-record IDA curve helps researchers and engineers to know the
response of the structure under different intensities for a single earthquake.
• Multi-Record IDA curve: Since single-record IDA curve cannot capture building seismic
responses to future earthquakes, multi-record IDA curve is used to obtain a better
prediction of the building response. The multi-record IDA curve is therefore a collection
of single-record IDA curves for a single building obtained from different ground motions,
which are all parameterized on the same IM and DM (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002).
It is usually difficult to construct a structure to resist all ground motions, but creating
multi-record IDA curves with the same scaling parameter for different ground motions
will reduce the probability of building damages under future earthquakes. Ground motion
selection is an important step to create multi-record IDA curves and quite a number of
records are needed to capture the entire response range.

36
2.11.2 Formation of IDA Curve

• Step1: Create an appropriate model.

• Step2: Select pairs of ground motion records to perform dynamic response history
analysis.

Figure 2. 14 Formation of IDA Curve

37
 • Step3: Select a ground motion Intensity Measure (IM) and a Damage Measure (DM);
Example: Sa (T1, 5%), the 5%-damped first-mode spectral acceleration; the maximum
over all stories peak interstorey drift ratio
• Step4: Incrementally increase the IM level and run a nonlinear time history analysis each
time, stop incrementing when numerical non-convergence is first encountered.

2.11.3 General Properties of IDA

IDA curve visualizes the structural responses and shows structural behaviour subjected to
ground motions. Buildings have different IDA curve shapes depending on their capacities
(i.e. strength, stiffness, ductility) to resist seismic loads. In addition, researchers choosing
different IM and DM values based on their research objectives, will result in different IDA
curves. For example, IDA curve using base shear as the DM is different from the curve
using the maximum inter-story drift as the DM.

Slope of the IDA curve is a main indicator to understand the behaviour of the structure. The
structure has elastic response when the slope of the IDA curve is linear which means that
the proportion of the DM is linear with the IM. When the IDA curve becomes non-linear
representing the structure enters into the nonlinear range. Generally, when the scale factor
is low, IDA curve is a straight line which means that the structure is in the elastic region.
When the scale factor becomes higher, IDA curve starts to bend meaning that the structure
is close to yield. Building is considered as collapse when curve become flat line. The non-
linear part is terminated to four different types according to their corresponding IM as
defined by Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002) and the shapes for all four types are shown in
the Figure 2.7. Curve (a): the curve sharply softens after the initial buckling and the
structure has a large drift which causes the structure to collapse. Curve (b) has a small
hardening in its non-linear region compared to the other two curves (c) and (d), which
hardens and weave around the elastic region meaning that the global displacement of the
inelastic range is very close or equal to the displacement of the elastic model (Vamvatsikos
and Cornell, 2002).

Softening case means building collapses at smaller value IM and it has larger DM i.e.
maximum inter-story drift. In contrast, hardening means that IDA curve in the nonlinear
region weaving which means DM value increased and decreased by increasing IM.
Collapse of the IDA curves having hardening property is calculated from end part of the
curve which becomes flat line. Finally, the IM values at collapse and different damage

38
 values indicate the seismic capacity of a building model. For example, curve (a) has the
lowest value of IM and curve (d) has the highest value of IM among the four curves shown
in figure.

Figure 2. 15 Four Different Behaviour of IDA Curves

2.12 PROCEDURE OF FRAGILITY CURVE DEVELOPMENT

Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is an analysis which predicts structural performances.

The structural model is subjected to set of ground motion records and the intensity of these
ground motions are increased monotonically using scale factors. The intensity continues to
proliferate, ranging the structural responses to go from elastic to the nonlinear trailed by
collapse. Further, if both resistance (R) and Demand (D) of a structure are subjected to
variation with time, it is difficult to anticipate safety of structure. At certain time t, Safety
(S) can be simply expressed as St = Rt - Dt where negative values indicate an un-safe state.
But all combinations occurring during lifetime of a building cannot be known prior. Hence
probability distribution for R and D can be done. Fragility curves are a key component of
probabilistic seismic risk assessment. They express continuous relationships between a

39
 ground motion intensity measure (IM) and the total probability that the specified structure
will reach or exceed predefined damage states; they can be expressed as:

FLS = P [D > C | IM]

FLS = P [EDP > EDPC | IM]

FLS = P [IM > IMC]

Where, D is the demand of the asset class being assessed and C is a particular predefined
state of damage. Fragility may be evaluated using either EDP or IM demand ordinates
versus their associated capacities EDPC and IMC, respectively. An IM is a scalar ground
motion parameter that is considered to be representative of the earthquake damage potential
with respect to the specific structure.

2.12.1 Procedure of Developing Fragility Curve Using IDA

• Computer model of building is analysed and designed.

• Select pairs of ground motion records to perform dynamic response history analysis.
• Solve equation of motion at each time step and record the response parameters.
• Use scaling to increase the IM level of the ground motion record, and repeat the process
until all the limit states are reached.
• Repeat above steps for each selected ground motion.
• Cloud of structural response results is plotted as shown in Figure 2.8.
• Fragility curves are constructed from the set of IM and EDP pairs through an
appropriate statistical curve fitting approach.

CP

EDP (e.g. ISD, RDR., etc.)

LS

IO

IM (e.g., PGA, Sa(T1))

Figure 2. 16 Clouds of Structural Response

40
2.12.2 Regression Analysis Using Least Square Formulation
As much as the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) based nonparametric approaches offer the
full picture of the seismic fragility problem, several cases exist in which the MCS output is
not available, mostly related to its high computational cost. For such cases, seismic fragility
can be evaluated based on data from cloud or even a few stripe analysis. For cloud analysis,
regression is required to achieve a continuous representation of the distribution of EDP|IM
for all IM levels of interest, which is normally performed through the well-known power-
low approximation

𝐸𝐷𝑃(𝐼𝑀) = 𝑎𝐼𝑀𝑏 𝜀

ε = lognormal random variable

Probability of exceeding a certain damage state given the value the earthquake intensity
measure can be expressed as

ln(𝑎𝐼𝑀𝑏 ) − ln 𝐸𝐷𝑃𝐶,50%
𝑃(𝐷 > 𝐶|𝐼𝑀) = Φ ( )
𝛽𝐸𝐷𝑃(𝐼𝑀),𝑡𝑜𝑡

ln 𝑎 + b ln 𝐼𝑀 − ln 𝐸𝐷𝑃𝐶,50%
= Φ( )
𝛽𝐸𝐷𝑃(𝐼𝑀),𝑡𝑜𝑡

𝐸𝐷𝑃𝐶,50% 1/𝑏
ln 𝐼𝑀 − ln [( ) ]
𝑎
= Φ
𝛽𝐸𝐷𝑃(𝐼𝑀),𝑡𝑜𝑡 ⁄𝑏
( )

ln 𝐼𝑀 − ln 𝐼𝑀𝐶,50%
= Φ( )
𝛽𝐼𝑀,𝑡𝑜𝑡

Where,

𝐼𝑀𝐶,50% = Median ground motion intensity (IM)

𝛽𝐼𝑀,𝑡𝑜𝑡 = Associated dispersion of intensity measure (IM) on the EDP capacity

𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑉 [ln(𝜀)]
= 𝑏

Φ = Standard normal cumulative distribution function

In this study, 𝛽𝐸𝐷𝑃(𝐼𝑀) uncertainty of ground motion only is taken into consideration.

41
 This manner, fragility curve can be developed for different damage states.

Probability of Exceedance 0.8

0.6

0.4
IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY
0.2 LIFE SAFETY
COLLAPSE PREVENTION
0
IM

Figure 2. 17 Fragility Curve

2.13 FEMA 356 PERFORMANCE LEVELS

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356 (2000): Prestandard and

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings has given various performance
levels as below:

2.13.1 Structural Performance Levels

Immediate Occupancy (SP-1), means the post-earthquake damage state in which only very
limited structural damage has occurred. The basic vertical- and lateral-force-resisting
systems of the building retain nearly all of their pre-earthquake characteristics and
capacities. The risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural failure is negligible,
and building should be safe for unlimited egress, ingress and occupancy.

Damage Control (SP-2) is set forth as a midway point between Life Safety and Immediate
Occupancy. It is intended to provide a structure with a greater reliability of resisting
collapse and being less damaged than a typical structure, but not to the extent required of a
structure designed to meet the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level.

Life Safety (SP-3) means the post-earthquake damage state in which significant damage to
the structure has occurred but some margin against either partial or total structural collapse
remains. The level of damage is lower than that for the Structural Stability Level. Major
components have not dislodged or fallen, threatening life safety either within or outside the
building. Injuries might occur during the earthquake; however, the overall risk of life-

42
 threatening injury as a result of structural damage is expected to be very low. It should be
possible to repair the structure; however, for economic reasons, this repair might not be
practical. This level of performance is intended to be less than the level of performance
expected of fully code compliant new buildings.

Limited Safety (SP-4) is not specific level but range of post-earthquake damage states that
are less than Life Safety and better than Structural Stability.

Structural Stability (SP-5) means the post-earthquake damage state in which the building
is on the verge of partial or total collapse. Substantial damage to the structure has occurred,
potentially including significant degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-
force-resisting system. However, all significant components of the gravity-load-resisting
system must continue to carry their gravity loads. Significant risk of injury caused by falling
hazards from structural debris might exist. It should be expected that significant major
structural repair will be necessary prior to re-occupancy. The older concrete building might
not be technically or economically practical to repair.

Not Considered (SP-6) It is not a performance level but provides a place holder for
situations where only non-structural seismic evaluation or retrofit is performed.

2.13.2 Non-Structural Performance Levels

Operational (NP-A) At this level, most non-structural systems required for normal use of
the building are functional, although minor clean-up and repair of some items might be
required, with all machinery and equipment functional.

Immediate Occupancy (NP-B) is more restrictive than the Life Safety Level because it
involves bracing and anchorage of certain components that, based on their past
performance. All external utilities may not be locally backed up.

Life Safety (NP-C) Here, non-structural components might have sustained significant
damage, but they would not become dislodged and fall in a manner that could cause death
or serious injury, either to occupants or to people in immediately adjacent areas. Equipment
may not be functional without repair or replacement.

43
Reduced Hazard (NP-D) This post-earthquake damage state could include extensive
damage to non-structural components and system but not include collapse or falling of large
and heavy items that could cause significant injury of people.

Not Considered (NP-E) Non Structural components, other than those that have an effect on
structural response, are not evaluated.

Figure 2. 18 Target Building Performance Levels

Table 2. 9 Structural Performance Levels for structural wall

(Table C1-3, FEMA 356)

Immediate Collapse
Performance Levels Occupancy Life Safety Prevention
S-1 S-3 S-5

IDR (%) 0.50 1.00 2.00

44
2.14 PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH AND LOCATION

Plastic hinges form at the maximum moment regions of RC members. When a concrete
element undergoes large deformations in the post-yield stage, it is assumed that the entire
deformation takes place at a point called “plastic hinge”.

For reinforced concrete (RC) flexural members, the plastic deformation is localized in
a small zone namely the plastic hinge zone after the yielding of the member. The
performance of the plastic hinge zone is critical for flexural members as it governs the
load carrying and deformation capacities of the member. Therefore, plastic hinge has
been of great interest to structural designers and researchers for decades. The length of
the plastic hinge zone is an important design parameter where intense confinement
should be provided to increase the ductility of the member for survival from extreme
events such as earthquakes. The behaviour of plastic hinges is very complicated due to
the high nonlinearity of materials, interaction and relative movement between the
constituent materials, and strain localization.

As a result, most researchers investigated the problem through experimental testing.

Restricted by the time and cost involved in large tests, very limited knowledge has been
obtained up to date.

Generally, length of plastic hinge is in proportion of length or depth of element. There are
number of empirical equation to calculate length of plastic hinge for RC elements. Length
of plastic hinge varies in range of 0.5 to 1.5 times depth of element.

Figure 2. 19 Possible Idealized Hinge Model for Beam-Column Elements

45
2.15 RESEARCH PAPERS

ATC-98 (NIST GCR 14-917-30) (2014)(1), In this report Use of 13-story building to
evaluate the sensitivity of the stiffness of a building to the reinforcement grade. The
building structure was based on the NEHRP reinforced concrete frame-wall building design
example in FEMA 451 (FEMA, 2006). Here, Consider Four Case For Studies : Using
ASTM A706 Grade 60(415 MPa) reinforcement for beams, columns, and walls ; Using
ASTM A706 Grade 80(550 MPa) longitudinal reinforcement for beams, columns, and
walls ; Using a combination of ASTM A706 Grade 80(550 MPa) reinforcement for beams
and ASTM A706 Grade 100(690 MPa) reinforcement for columns and walls ; Using Grade
100(690 MPa) reinforcement for beams, columns, and walls. In this study performed Time
History Analysis with seven historical ground motion pairs and Compare result with MCE
(Maximum Consider Earthquake) and DLE (Design Level Earthquake). These studies
Show, The Story Drift ratio increases high with respect to increase the grade of steel bars.
The cost comparison between 415MPa and 500MPa it’s shown the saving of approximately
3% to structure cost and approximately 0.6% to the cost of the project.

K. C. Lin, H. H. Hung and Y. C. Sung (2015)(2), This paper investigates the combined effect
of flexural and shear actions on the failure modes of the high strength reinforced concrete
(HRC) members using the proposed algorithm for plastic hinge formation. The accuracy of
the present procedure for the HRC columns was verified by comparing the results obtained
with those of the cyclic loading tests performed in Japan. Using the proposed procedure,
the important parameters such as story drift ratios, ductility ratio of drifts, ductility ratios
of structural member and lateral displacements of the building at different levels of
earthquake were evaluated quantitatively and adopted for the performance assessment. The
results of this paper serve as a useful reference for the seismic design and evaluation of
HRC high-rise structures.

Drit Sokoli, Albert Limantono, and Wassim M. Ghannoum (2020)(3), The laboratory tests
presented in this publication were conducted to support the initiative of introducing these
higher-strength bars into ACI 318-19. Here Consider four column for case Studies : (1)
CH100 (690 MPa) reinforcement with (T/Y) of 1.21 (2) CL100 (690 MPa) reinforcement

46
with (T/Y) of 1.18 (3) CM100 (690 MPa) reinforcement with (T/Y) of 1.22, and (4) CH
60 (415 MPa) reinforcement with (T/Y) of 1.40. The result Obtain form test, All the
columns tested can therefore be considered to exhibit adequate performance for regions of
high seismicity. Results indicate that an overstrength factor higher than 1.25 on the yield
strength of longitudinal bars may be warranted when estimating the probable moment
strength of all columns, and especially in CM100.

Duy V. To and Jack P. Moehle (2020)(4), ACI 318-19 building code (ACI Committee 318
2019) has updated the limits of yield stress to 80ksi (550 MPa) and 100ksi (690 MPa) in
calculation of moment and axial strengths of special moment frames and special structural
walls. Here Consider four Beam for case Studies : (1) SBH60 (415 MPa) reinforcement
with (T/Y) of 1.17 ; (2) SBH100 (690 MPa) reinforcement with (T/Y) of 1.17 ; (3) SBL100
(690 MPa) reinforcement with (T/Y) of 1.26, and (4) SBM100 (690 MPa) reinforcement
with T/Y = 1.38. The result Obtain form test, all beams achieved a drift ratio capacity of
0.045 or greater. First crack ,0.006 drift ratio in all test beams with Grade 100 reinforcement
and 0.0035 drift ratio for the beam with Grade 60 reinforcement. Lateral Force Capacity at
Tip, Beam 4 > Beam 1 > Beam 2 > Beam 3

Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. (2004)(13), presented a promising method called Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA), which involves performing nonlinear dynamic analyses of the
structural model under a suite of ground motion records. IDA is an emerging analysis
method that offers thorough seismic demand and capacity prediction capability by using a
series of nonlinear dynamic analyses under a multiply scaled suite of ground motion
records. Realization of its opportunities requires several innovations, such as choosing
suitable ground motion Intensity Measures (IMs) and representative Damage Measures
(DMs). IDA can provide intuition for the behaviour of structures. To illustrate all the above
concepts, a complete walkthrough of the methodology is presented by using a 9-storey steel
moment-resisting frame with fracturing connections as an example to explain and clarify
the application of the IDA to Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). By
available software it has become almost trivial to perform the analysis, generate the IDA
curves, estimate limit-state capacities and summarize the results.

47
 Chapter 3
SOFTWARE BRIEF

3.1 INTRODUCTION

SeismoStruct was used to model and perform seismic analysis of two 12 storey building
with RC Special moment resisting frame structure and two 25 storey building with RC
moment resisting frame-wall structure for this study. This section discusses the use of
SeismoStruct to model the RC buildings and perform the Incremental Dynamic analysis
(IDA). A flow chart is created showing the main steps with detailed explanations to perform
IDA. To obtain an accurate model representing complex buildings, nonlinear steel and
concrete materials were used in this study. Software uses fibre-based system to define the
members’ cross-sections.

3.2 SEISMOSTRUCT OVERVIEW

SeismoStruct, one of the Seismosoft’s range, is a finite element software which is capable
of determining large displacement responses for both two and three dimensional models
subjected to static and dynamic loadings. SeismoStruct considers both geometric
nonlinearity and material inelasticity while analysing buildings. In addition, it has a 3D
element library with different cross-sectional configurations for concrete, steel and
composite structural members. To obtain a realistic model of a prototype building,
SeismoStruct uses spread inelasticity distribution along the cross-section and members’
length. Load application here include static forces and/or displacements and dynamic
accelerations.

It has a complete visual interface with no input files or programming scripts requirement.
It possesses the ability to smartly subdivide loading increment, whenever convergence
problems arise. AVI movie files can also be created to illustrate sequence of structural
deformation.

3.3 GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY

Geometric nonlinearity, also known as the P-delta effect, will severely influences building
responses when subjected to lateral loads. Existing lateral loads due to seismic and/or wind
loads and axial forces due to gravity loads increase the possibility of buckling in the

48
building members. To predict the P-delta effects on the structural seismic analysis,
geometric nonlinear shall be modeled.

P-delta effects are affected by the applied loads, building features and other parameters
such as building height, stiffness and asymmetry degree. It shall be considered especially
for those buildings carrying heavy gravity loads such as high-rise RC buildings. Currently,
software are developed to analyze and design buildings with the option to include P-delta
effects that are generally being categorized into two types:

1. Simply-Supported Beam P-Delta

In this type, compression axial force is applied to the beam and uniform distributed
loads and/or point loads are applied to the length of beam. Both loads cause to deform
the beam making beam to buckle easily. Both ends of the beam are restrained (i.e.
deformation at supports is zero) (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3. 1 Simply Supported P-Delta Effect

2. Cantilevered Column P-Delta

Compression axial force is applied to the ends of the column and uniform distributed
and/or point loads are applied to the length of column which increase the deformation
of the column. One support is restrained against deformation and the other support is
free which gives maximum deformation (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3. 2 Cantilevered column P-Delta Effect

49
 SeismoStruct provides an option to take the P-delta effects into account resulting from large
displacements or rotations and big deformations relative to the frame element’s chord. In
this research, cantilevered column P-delta effect was considered on the RC columns and
shear walls when gravity loads introduce compression axial force and lateral loads
perpendicularly applied to the columns and shear walls. Fixed support was adopted for the
foundations that did not have any deformations. Top of the building is free to move both
translationally and rotationally which has the maximum deformation.

3.4 MATERIAL NONLINEARITY

Distributed inelasticity elements are widely used in the earthquake engineering researches.
Advantage of distributed inelasticity element is that it does not need to calibrate the
empirical response parameters against the response of a frame element which is actual or
ideal and subjected to an idealized loading case. In this study, a fibre method was adopted
to model the cross-sections of the building members, during which a cross-section was
divided into 150 tiny fibres. Each fibre was associated with a uniaxial nonlinear material
stress-strain relationship. By integrating the nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain response of
single fibres over the cross-section, the sectional stress-strain state was developed for both
beams and columns. Figure 3.3 illustrates a discretization of a typical RC element cross-
section:

Figure 3. 3 Discretization of a Typical Reinforced Concrete Cross Section

50
Two finite element formulations are used to implement the inelasticity distribution of
structural elements which are displacement-based (DB) and forced-based (FB) formulation.
DB formulation is classical while FB formulation was developed more recently. In this
research, FB formulation was selected to implement the inelasticity distribution along the
structural elements. FB formulation imposes a linear moment variation and it does not need
any restrains along the building members. Both DB and FB formulations have the same
results in the linear elastic range. However, in the inelasticity range FB formulation can
produce real deformed shape while DB formulation cannot. The FB formulation does not
depend on the stress and strain states of individual fibre and the values of calculated
sectional curvatures. This approach has one approximation which is the discrete number of
the controlling sections throughout the members to perform the numerical integration. In
fact, to prevent under integration, at least three Gauss-Lobatto integration sections are
required which is used widely to calculate the response of force based elements. However,
in many cases this number is not enough to simulate the spread of inelasticity. Therefore,
it is better to use a minimum of four integration points and the typical numbers of
integration section. This property makes each structural element to be modelled with a
single FE element that allows one to one correspondence between building members
including beams, columns, and shear walls. It means that meshing is not required within
each element because FB formulation is always exact. Figure 3.4 shows a typical element
model with six Gauss-Lobatto integration sections.

Figure 3. 4 Gauss-Lobatto Integration Sections

51
3.5 TYPES OF MATERIAL

In the present thesis two nonlinear materials were used:

1. NONLINEAR CONCRETE MODEL (con_ma)

The concrete model used in this study is a uniaxial nonlinear confinement model. This
concrete model was programmed by Madas (1993) using both constitutive relationship and
cyclic rules proposed by Mandar et al (1988) and Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai (1997),
respectively. In addition, the effect of transverse reinforcement is incorporated by a method
proposed by Mandar et al (1988) based on the assumption that the model has constant
confining pressure throughout the whole stress and strain range (Seismosoft 2018). Five
model parameters were determined as listed in Table 3.1 to define the material mechanical
properties and the stress-strain relationship for this concrete model as shown in figure.
Table 3. 1 Concrete Parameters

Material Parameters Typical Value

Compressive Strength 15000-40000kPa
Tensile Strength 2000-3000kPa
Modulus of elasticity 18000-30000 MPa
Strain at peak stress 0.002-0.00222
Specific weight 24 kN/m3

Figure 3. 5 Mandar Nonlinear Concrete Model

52
2. BILINEAR STEEL MODEL (stl_bl)
This is a uniaxial bilinear stress strain model with kinematic strain hardening, whereby
elastic range remains constant throughout the various loading stages, and the kinematic
hardening rule for the yield surface is assumed as a linear function of the increment of
plastic strain. This simple model is also characterised by easily identifiable calibrating
parameters and by its computational efficiency. It can be used in the modelling of both steel
structures, where mild steel is usually employed, as well as reinforced concrete models,
where worked steel is commonly utilised. Five model-calibrating parameters must be
defined for capturing characteristics of the material which is shown in Table 3.2:
Table 3. 2 Steel Parameters

Material Parameters Typical Value

Modulus of Elasticity 2.0E8-2.10E8 kPa
Yield Strength 230000-650000 kPa
Strain Hardening Parameter 0.005-0.015
Fracture/Buckling Strain 0.10
Specific Weight 78 kN/m3

Figure 3. 6 Bi-Linear Steel Model

53
3.6 ELEMENT CLASS

By making use of element types, we can create unlimited number of different elements
classes that are not only able to accurately represent structural members (columns, beams,
walls, beam-column joints, etc.) and non-structural components (infill panels, energy
dissipating devices, inertia masses, etc.) but also allow the modelling of different boundary
conditions, such as flexible foundations, seismic isolation, structural gapping/pounding,
and so on. Following element class has been used in the current work.

INELASTIC FORCE-BASED PLASTIC HINGE FRAME ELEMENT TYPE

(infrmFBPH)

This is element featuring distributed inelasticity and forced based formulation but
concentrating such inelasticity within a fixed length of the element. The advantages of such
formulation are not only a reduced analysis time (since fibre integration is carried out for
the two member-end section only), but also a full control/calibration of the plastic hinge
length (or spread of inelasticity). The number of section fibres used in equilibrium
computations carried out at the element's end sections needs to be defined. In addition, the
plastic hinge length needs also to be demarcated.

Figure 3. 7 Typical Inelastic Force Based Plastic Hinge Element

54
3.7 STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY

Defining the geometry of the structure being modelled is a four-step procedure. Firstly, all
structural and non-structural nodes are defined, after which element connectivity can be
stipulated. The process is then concluded with the assignment of structural restraints, which
characterize the structure's boundary conditions. Additional constraints can also be defined.
The procedure is as follows:

• Define Materials and Sections

• Define Nodes
• Element Connectivity
• Define Constraints and Restraints

Figure 3. 8 Seismostruct Model of 12 Storey RC SMRF Building

55
3.8 LOAD ASSIGNMENTS

Loading can be applied in applied load module. A number of additional settings, which
vary according to the type of analysis, must be specified. Lumped mass which is
concentrated mass at the nodes has been applied in this study.

• For IDA there are two parameters needed to be define:

1. Applied Loads
2. Time History Curves

1. APPLIED LOADS
Nodal loads
- Permanent Load
These comprise all static loads that are permanently applied to the structure. They
can be forces (e.g. self-weight) or prescribed displacements (e.g. foundation
settlement) applied at nodes. When running an analysis, permanent loads are
considered prior to any other type of load, and can be used on all analysis types.
- Dynamic time-history loads
These are dynamic loads (accelerations or forces) that vary according to different
load curves in the real time domain. The product of their constant nominal value
and the variable load factor obtained from its load curve (e.g. accelerogram) at
any particular time gives the magnitude of the load applied to the structure. These
loads can be used in dynamic time history analysis, to reproduce the response of
a structure subjected to an earthquake, or in incremental dynamic analysis, to
evaluate the horizontal structural capacity of a structure.

2. TIME HISTORY CURVE

In both static and dynamic time-history analyses, in addition to permanent loads,
structures are subjected to transient loads, which may consist of forces/displacements
varying in the pseudo-time domain (static time-history loads) or of accelerations/forces
that vary in the real time domain (dynamic time-history loads). Whilst the type,
direction, magnitude and application nodes of these loads comes defined in the applied
loads module, their loading pattern, that is, the way in which the loads vary in time (or

56
pseudo-time), is given by the time-history curves, defined in the Time-history Curves
module. The latter comprises two interrelated sections:
(i) Load curves
In the Load Curves section, the time-history curve is defined either through direct
input of the values of time and load pairs (Create function) or by reading a text
file where the load curve is defined (Load function).
(ii) Time-history stages
In the Time-history Stages section, the user has the possibility of defining up to
20 analysis stages, each of which can be subdivided into a different number of
analysis steps, explicitly defined by the user.

Figure 3. 9 Time History Curve in SeismoStruct

57
3.9 PROCESSOR

In this part we can see the real time plotting of IDA curve and displacements.

Figure 3. 10 Typical Window of Real Time Analysis Processor

3.10 POST PROCESSOR

Similarly to its Pre-Processor counterpart, the Post-Processor area features a series of

modules where results from different type of analysis can be viewed in table or graphical
format. The postprocessor includes:

• Analysis Logs
• Modal/Mass Quantities
• Step Output
• Deformed Shape Viewer
• Global Response Parameters
• Element Action Effects
• Stress and Strain Output
• IDA Envelope Curve

58
GLOBAL RESPONSE PARAMETERS

Depending on the type of analysis and/or the input parameters defined in the Pre-Processor,
up to six different kinds of global response parameters results can be output in this module;
(i) structural displacements, (ii) forces and moments at the supports,(iii) nodal velocities /
accelerations, (iv) total inertia & damping forces, (v) hysteretic curves and (vi) performance
criteria checks. Apart from the latter, all the other results are defined in the global system
of coordinates, as illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 3. 11 Global Axis in SeismoStruct Software

Some of these parameters are briefly described hereafter:

Structural displacements: We can obtain the displacement results of any given number of
nodes, relative to one of the six available global degrees-of-freedom.

Forces and Moments at Supports: Similar to the structural deformations, the support forces
and moments in every direction can be obtained for all restrained nodes.

Nodal Accelerations and Velocities: In dynamic time-history analyses, the response nodal
accelerations and velocities can be obtained in exactly the same manner as nodal
displacements

Hysteretic Curves: We are able to specify a translational/rotational global degree-of-

freedom to be plotted against the corresponding total base-shear/base-moment or load
factor (pushover analysis). In static analysis, such a plot represents the structure's capacity
curve, whilst in time-history analysis this usually reflects the hysteretic response of the
model. The possibility for relative displacement output is also available, as this is useful
for the case of dynamic analysis post-processing.

59
ELEMENT ACTION EFFECTS

Depending on the type of elements employed in the structural model, there can be up to
eleven kinds of Element action effects results.

Frame Deformations: The deformations incurred by inelastic (infrm, infrmPH) and elastic
(elfrm) frame elements, as computed in their local co-rotational system of reference, are
provided.

Frame Forces: The internal forces developed by inelastic (infrm, infrmPH) and elastic
(elfrm) frame elements, as computed in their local co-rotational system of reference, are
delivered.

Frame Hysteretic Curves: Hysteretic plots of deformation vs. internal forces developed by
inelastic (infrm, infrmPH) and elastic (elfrm) frame elements, as computed in their local
co-rotational system of reference, are provided.

PRE – POST-
PROCESSING PROCESSING

Select Materials Analysis Logs

Define Sections Analysis Results

PROCESSING
Element Classes Node
Numerical Displacements
Building Nodes
calculations
Deformed Shape
Element Viewer
Connectivity
Global
Enter Constraints Responses

Figure 3. 12 Flow Chart of Nonlinear Analysis Process in SeismoStruct

60
 Chapter 4
ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEM

4.1 GENERAL

For illustrative problem, two different height of buildings are considered, first is 12 storey
building with RC Special moment resisting frame structure and Second is 25 storey
building with RC moment resisting frame-wall structure. Both buildings are designed with
two different cases, In the first case, Fe500 grade steel and M25 grade concrete are used
and in the second case, Fe600 grade steel and M60 grade concrete are used. The above all
frame are designed as per IS 456-2000 (4th revision) and Proposed IS 456 (5th revision)
draft, thus total 8 building models are created for the performance evaluation. The all
building dimension are same (18m x 24m) and storey height of each building is 3.50 m.
Response Spectrum Method is used to calculate seismic loads.

The perform Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) and Incremental Dynamic
Analysis (IDA) of above frames using SeismoStruct software is done for set of 8 recorded
ground motions of past Indian earthquake. Total of 32 IDA (i.e. 380 NLTHA) is carried
out for this parametric study. Fragility Curves are developed for Performance Evaluation
using results of IDA considering performance criteria as per FEMA 356.

Table 4. 1 Different Cases of all Model which Created for the Performance Evaluation

Designed As per IS 456-2000 Designed As per IS 456 new Revision

1. Building with 2. Building with 3. Building with 4. Building with

12-Storey Fe500 grade Steel Fe600 grade Steel Fe500 grade Steel Fe600 grade Steel
Building and M25 grade and M60 grade and M25 grade and M60 grade
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete

5. Building with 6. Building with 7. Building with 8. Building with

25-Storey Fe500 grade Steel Fe600 grade Steel Fe500 grade Steel Fe600 grade Steel
Building and M30 grade and M60 grade and M30 grade and M60 grade
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete

4.2 BUILDING AND LOADING DATA

Here, modelling, analysis and design of 12 storey RC special moment resisting frame
building and 25 storey RC moment resisting frame-wall structure is done using ETABS
2018 software as per provisions of IS 456-2000 (4th revision) and IS 456 (5th revision).

61
 Isometric view and Geometrical configuration of 12 storey and 25 storey building are
shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 respectively.

Figure 4. 1 Isometric and Geometrical configuration of 12 Storey Building

Figure 4. 2 Isometric and Geometrical configuration of 25 Storey Building

As per IS 1893:2016, equivalent static method of analysis for earthquake can be used only for
regular building with height less than 15 m in Seismic Zone II. Hence, here response spectrum
is used for analysis and design.

62
 Table 4. 2 Building Data of 12 Storey First Model (Fe500 M25)

Design Code IS 456: 2000 No. of Storeys 12

Effective Moment of
Concrete Grade (fck) M25 0.35 Ig0
Inertia (Beam)
Effective Moment of
Steel Grade (fy) Fe500 0.70 Ig0
Inertia (Column & Wall)

Height of Each Storey 3.50 m Seismic Zone IV

Max Dimension (X) 24 m Importance Factor (I) 1.20

Response Reduction
Max Dimension (Y) 18 m 5
Factor (R)

Total Height 42 m Soil Type Hard

Effective Cover of Beam 40 mm IDA Software SeismoStruct

Effective Cover of Performance Limit

50 mm FEMA 356
Column States

Table 4. 3 Building Data of 25 Storey First Model (Fe500 M30)

Design Code IS 456: 2000 No. of Storeys 25

Effective Moment of
Concrete Grade (fck) M30 0.35 Ig0
Inertia (Beam)
Effective Moment of
Steel Grade (fy) Fe500 0.70 Ig0
Inertia (Column & Wall)

Height of Each Storey 3.50 m Seismic Zone IV

Max Dimension (X) 24 m Importance Factor (I) 1.20

Response Reduction
Max Dimension (Y) 18 m 5
Factor (R)

Total Height 87.5 m Soil Type Hard

Effective Cover of Beam 40 mm IDA Software SeismoStruct

Effective Cover of Performance Limit

50 mm FEMA 356
Column States

63
 Table 4. 4 Loading Data for Building

Floor Finish Typical Floor 1.00 kN/m2

Roof 2.00 kN/m2
Wall External Wall 230 mm x 3.5 m 16.10 kN/m
Internal Wall 115 mm x 3.5 m 8.05 kN/m
Parapet Wall 115 mm x 3.5 m 2.76 kN/m
Live Load Typical Floor 3.00 kN/m2

Here, eight model created for performance evaluation and all are considered cracked RC
sectional properties for analysis and design.

4.3 DESIGN LATERAL FORCES

For 12 Storey Building with Fe500 grade steel and M25 grade concrete (X- direction)

Design Seismic Force: The calculation of design lateral forces is carried out as per the IS
1893 (Part 1): 2016.

Design Base Shear (Vb) = Ah W

𝑍 𝑆
( ) ( 𝑎)
2 𝑔
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient (Ah) = 𝑅
( )
𝐼

Seismic Weight of Building (W) = 67740.81 kN

Zone factor, Z = 0.24

Importance factor, I = 1.20

Response Reduction factor, R = 5

Fundamental natural period

T = 0.09 h⁄ = 0.7715 sec

√d

Sa/g = 1/T = 1.30 (from Acceleration Response Spectrum-Hard Soil)

Thus, Design Base Shear (Vbase) = 2528.46 kN

64
 For 12 Storey Building with Fe600 grade steel and M60 grade concrete (X- direction)

Design Seismic Force: The calculation of design lateral forces is carried out as per the IS
1893 (Part 1): 2016.

Design Base Shear (Vb) = Ah W

𝑍 𝑆
( ) ( 𝑎)
2 𝑔
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient (Ah) = 𝑅
( )
𝐼

Seismic Weight of Building (W) = 65333.32 kN

Zone factor, Z = 0.24

Importance factor, I = 1.20

Response Reduction factor, R = 5

Fundamental natural period

T = 0.09 h⁄ = 0.7715 sec

√d

Sa/g = 1/T = 1.30 (from Acceleration Response Spectrum-Hard Soil)

Thus, Design Base Shear (Vbase) = 2438.60 kN

Table 4. 5 Comparison of Seismic and Wind Responses

12 Storey 12 Storey
Building Building 25 Storey Building 25 Storey Building
(Fe500 (Fe600 (Fe500 M30) (Fe600 M60)
M25) M60)
Seismic Seismic Seismic Wind Seismic Wind
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

Base Shear
2514.38 2430.20 3028.44 2537.13 2933.09 2537.13
(kN)
Overturning
Moment 11605.48 11320.89 141782.78 132339.02 138812.96 132339.02
(kN.m)
Top Disp.
39.94 33.71 163.29 142.04 152.32 135.44
(mm)

IDR (%) 0.119<0.40 0.121<0.40 0.250<0.40 0.222<0.25 0.236<0.40 0.214<0.25

65
4.4 LOAD COMBINATION CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Table 4. 6 Load Combination considered for Design and Analysis

1.5 (DL + LL) Where,

1.5 (DL ± EQX) DL = Dead Load

1.5 (DL ± EQY) LL = Live Load

EQX = EQ Force in X direction
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY) EQY = EQ Force in Y direction

0.9DL ± 1.5EQX
0.9DL ± 1.5EQY

Both are RC special moment resisting frame Structure with 12 storey building are analysed
and designed for load combination shown in Table 4.5. The design base shear, fundamental
time period, spectral acceleration at DBE and modal time period are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4. 7 Design Base Shear and Modal Time Period

Modal
Fundamental Base
Time DBE, Sa
Storey Time Period Shear,
Period (g)
(Sec) Vbx (kN)
(Sec)
12 Storey Building
3.720 0.772 0.156 2514.28
(Fe500 M25)
12 Storey Building
3.522 0.772 0.156 2430.20
(Fe600 M60)
25 Storey Building
4.795 1.607 0.075 3028.44
(Fe500 M30)
25 Storey Building
4.664 1.607 0.075 2933.09
(Fe600 M60)

66
4.5 DESIGN RESULTS

Design of beam and column as per IS 456:2000 and as per IS 456 new revision shown in
Table no. 4.8 to 4.9.

Figure 4. 3 Beam and Column Number for Typical Storey

This numbering of beam and column same for both 12 storey RC special moment resisting
frame structure.

67
For design of beam, column and shear wall as per IS 456:2000 is done with help of
worksheet which created by K.N. Sheth and Dr. R.K. Sheth.

For design of beam, column and shear wall as per IS 456 new revision is done with new
worksheet which I can created and that shown in figure:

12 Storey (Fe600 M60) - Beam (B7, S3) as per IS 456 new revision which is as follows:

Figure 4. 4 Design of Beam (B7, S3) for 12-Storey Building (Fe600 M60)
68
12 Storey (Fe600 M60) - Design of Column (C18, S3) as per IS 456 new revision which is as follows:

Figure 4. 5 Design of Column (C18, S3) for 12-Storey Building (Fe600 M60)

69
Design of Shear wall (SW101) as per IS 456 new revision which is as follows:

Figure 4. 6 Design of Shear Wall (SW102) for 25-Storey Building

70
4.5.1 Beam Design

12 Storey building (Fe500 M25) - Design steel reinforcement of beam for hogging and
sagging moments from defined load combinations is shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4. 8 Comparison of Beam Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe500 M25)

Designed as per IS 456-2000 and IS 456 new revision

Beam Size Design As per Design As per

Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B1 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B2 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B3 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B4 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B5 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B6 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B7 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B8 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B9 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B10 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B11 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B12 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B13 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B14 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B15 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
1
B16 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
Storey
B17 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B18 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B19 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B20 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B21 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B22 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B23 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B24 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B25 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B26 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B27 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B28 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B29 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B30 300 600 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52
B31 300 600 1.03 0.52 1.03 0.52
B1 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.36 0.87
B2 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.36 0.87
B3 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.36 0.87

71
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B4 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.36 0.87
B5 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.31 0.82
B6 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B7 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B8 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.00 0.52
B9 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.00 0.52
B10 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.00 0.52
B11 300 600 1.36 0.87 1.03 0.52
B12 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B13 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B14 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B15 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B16 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.00 0.52
3 B17 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.00 0.52
Storey B18 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B19 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.03 0.52
B20 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B21 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.00 0.52
B22 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B23 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B24 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.03 0.52
B25 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.00 0.52
B26 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B27 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B28 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.03 0.52
B29 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.00 0.52
B30 300 600 1.31 0.82 1.00 0.52
B31 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.03 0.52
B1 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B2 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B3 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B4 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B5 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B6 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
6
B7 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
Storey
B8 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B9 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B10 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B11 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B12 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B13 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82

72
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B14 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B15 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B16 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B17 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.49 0.87
B18 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B19 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.49 0.87
B20 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B21 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
6 B22 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
Storey B23 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B24 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B25 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B26 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B27 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B28 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.49 0.87
B29 300 600 1.49 0.87 1.49 0.87
B30 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B31 300 600 1.36 0.82 1.36 0.82
B1 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B2 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B3 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B4 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B5 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
B6 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
B7 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
B8 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B9 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B10 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B11 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
9 B12 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
Storey B13 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
B14 300 500 1.31 0.84 1.31 0.84
B15 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B16 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B17 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B18 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B19 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B20 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B21 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B22 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B23 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B24 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84

73
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B25 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B26 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B27 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
9
B28 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
Storey
B29 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B30 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B31 300 500 1.46 0.84 1.46 0.84
B1 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B2 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B3 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B4 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B5 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B6 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B7 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B8 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B9 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B10 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B11 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B12 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B13 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B14 300 350 1.20 0.77 1.20 0.77
B15 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
12
B16 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
Storey
B17 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B18 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B19 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B20 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B21 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B22 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B23 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B24 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B25 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B26 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B27 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B28 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B29 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B30 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77
B31 300 350 1.41 0.77 1.41 0.77

74
 12 Storey building (Fe600 M60) - Design steel reinforcement of beam for hogging and
sagging moments from defined load combinations is shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4. 9 Comparison of Beam Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe600 M60)

Designed as per IS 456-2000 and IS 456 new revision

Beam Size Design As per Design As per

Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B1 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B2 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B3 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B4 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B5 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B6 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B7 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B8 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B9 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B10 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B11 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B12 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B13 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B14 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B15 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
1
B16 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
Storey
B17 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B18 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B19 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B20 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B21 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B22 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B23 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B24 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B25 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B26 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B27 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B28 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B29 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B30 300 550 1.09 0.57 1.09 0.57
B31 300 550 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B1 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B2 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B3 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81

75
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B4 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B5 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B6 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B7 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B8 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B9 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B10 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B11 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B12 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B13 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B14 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B15 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B16 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
3 B17 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
Storey B18 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B19 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B20 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B21 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B22 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B23 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B24 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B25 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B26 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B27 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B28 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B29 300 550 1.43 0.81 1.43 0.81
B30 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B31 300 550 1.43 0.76 1.43 0.76
B1 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B2 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B3 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B4 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B5 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B6 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
6
B7 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
Storey
B8 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B9 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B10 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B11 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B12 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B13 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71

76
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B14 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B15 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B16 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B17 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B18 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B19 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B20 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B21 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
6 B22 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
Storey B23 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B24 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B25 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B26 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B27 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B28 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B29 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B30 300 550 1.33 0.71 1.33 0.71
B31 300 550 1.33 0.76 1.33 0.76
B1 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B2 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B3 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B4 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B5 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
B6 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
B7 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
B8 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B9 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B10 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B11 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
9 B12 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
Storey B13 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
B14 300 500 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63
B15 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B16 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B17 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B18 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B19 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B20 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B21 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B22 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B23 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B24 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63

77
 Beam Size Design As per Design As per
Beam (mm) IS 456-2000 IS 456 new revision
Floor
No. Width Depth Top Bottom Top Bottom
(B) (D) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%) Pt (%)
B25 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B26 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B27 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
9
B28 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
Storey
B29 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B30 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B31 300 500 1.20 0.63 1.20 0.63
B1 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B2 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B3 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B4 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B5 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B6 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B7 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B8 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B9 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B10 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B11 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B12 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B13 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B14 300 350 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.57
B15 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
12
B16 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
Storey
B17 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B18 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B19 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B20 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B21 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B22 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B23 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B24 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B25 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B26 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B27 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B28 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B29 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B30 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57
B31 300 350 1.20 0.57 1.20 0.57

78
4.5.2 Column Design
Design steel reinforcement of column for axial force and bi-axial moments from defined
load combinations is shown in Table 4.10 and Table 4.11.

Table 4. 10 Column Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe500 M25)

Designed as per IS 456-2000 and IS 456 new revision

Design as per IS Design as per IS

Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C1 600 600 3.00 3.00
C2 650 650 3.20 3.20
C3 650 650 3.20 3.20
C4 600 600 3.00 3.00
C5 650 650 2.79 2.79
C6 700 700 3.02 3.02
C7 700 700 3.02 3.02
C8 650 650 2.79 2.79
C9 650 650 2.79 2.79
1 C10 700 700 3.02 3.02
Storey C11 700 700 3.02 3.02
C12 650 650 2.79 2.79
C13 650 650 2.79 2.79
C14 700 700 3.02 3.02
C15 700 700 3.02 3.02
C16 650 650 2.79 2.79
C17 600 600 3.00 3.00
C18 650 650 3.20 3.20
C19 650 650 3.20 3.20
C20 600 600 3.00 3.00
C1 550 550 1.87 1.87
C2 600 600 1.94 1.94
C3 600 600 1.94 1.94
C4 550 550 1.87 1.87
C5 600 600 2.16 2.16
C6 650 650 1.95 1.95
C7 650 650 1.95 1.95
C8 600 600 2.16 2.16
3
C9 600 600 2.16 2.16
Storey
C10 650 650 1.95 1.95
C11 650 650 1.95 1.95
C12 600 600 2.16 2.16
C13 600 600 2.16 2.16
C14 650 650 1.95 1.95
C15 650 650 1.95 1.95
C16 600 600 2.16 2.16
C17 550 550 1.87 1.87

79
 Design as per IS Design as per IS
Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C18 600 600 1.94 1.94
C19 600 600 1.94 1.94
C20 550 550 1.87 1.87
C1 500 500 2.15 2.15
C2 550 550 2.01 2.01
C3 550 550 2.01 2.01
C4 500 500 2.15 2.15
C5 550 550 2.57 2.57
C6 600 600 2.12 2.12
C7 600 600 2.12 2.12
C8 550 550 2.57 2.57
C9 550 550 2.57 2.57
6 C10 600 600 2.12 2.12
Storey C11 600 600 2.12 2.12
C12 550 550 2.57 2.57
C13 550 550 2.57 2.57
C14 600 600 2.12 2.12
C15 600 600 2.12 2.12
C16 550 550 2.57 2.57
C17 500 500 2.15 2.15
C18 550 550 2.01 2.01
C19 550 550 2.01 2.01
C20 500 500 2.15 2.15
C1 450 450 2.15 2.15
C2 500 500 1.99 1.99
C3 500 500 1.99 1.99
C4 450 450 2.15 2.15
C5 500 500 2.51 2.51
C6 550 550 1.65 1.65
C7 550 550 1.65 1.65
C8 500 500 2.51 2.51
C9 500 500 2.51 2.51
9 C10 550 550 1.65 1.65
Storey C11 550 550 1.65 1.65
C12 500 500 2.51 2.51
C13 500 500 2.51 2.51
C14 550 550 1.65 1.65
C15 550 550 1.65 1.65
C16 500 500 2.51 2.51
C17 450 450 2.15 2.15
C18 500 500 1.99 1.99
C19 500 500 1.99 1.99
C20 450 450 2.15 2.15

80
 Design as per IS Design as per IS
Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C1 450 450 1.59 1.59
C2 450 450 1.81 1.81
C3 450 450 1.81 1.81
C4 450 450 1.59 1.59
C5 450 450 2.48 2.48
C6 450 450 2.48 2.48
C7 450 450 2.48 2.48
C8 450 450 2.48 2.48
C9 450 450 2.48 2.48
12 C10 450 450 2.48 2.48
Storey C11 450 450 2.48 2.48
C12 450 450 2.48 2.48
C13 450 450 2.48 2.48
C14 450 450 2.48 2.48
C15 450 450 2.48 2.48
C16 450 450 2.48 2.48
C17 450 450 1.59 1.59
C18 450 450 1.81 1.81
C19 450 450 1.81 1.81
C20 450 450 1.59 1.59

Table 4. 11 Column Reinforcement Details for 12 Storey (Fe600 M60)

Designed as per IS 456-2000 and IS 456 new revision

Design as per IS Design as per IS

Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C1 450 450 2.79 2.79
C2 500 500 3.36 3.36
C3 500 500 3.36 3.36
C4 450 450 2.79 2.79
C5 500 500 2.80 2.80
C6 550 550 3.25 3.25
C7 550 550 3.25 3.25
1 C8 500 500 2.80 2.80
Storey C9 500 500 2.80 2.80
C10 550 550 3.25 3.25
C11 550 550 3.25 3.25
C12 500 500 2.80 2.80
C13 500 500 2.80 2.80
C14 550 550 3.25 3.25
C15 550 550 3.25 3.25
C16 500 500 2.80 2.80

81
 Design as per IS Design as per IS
Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C17 450 450 2.79 2.79
C18 500 500 3.36 3.36
C19 500 500 3.36 3.36
C20 450 450 2.79 2.79
C1 450 450 1.81 2.48
C2 450 450 2.48 3.10
C3 450 450 2.48 3.10
C4 450 450 1.81 2.48
C5 500 500 1.99 2.26
C6 500 500 2.51 2.54
C7 500 500 2.51 2.54
C8 500 500 1.99 2.26
C9 500 500 1.99 2.26
3 C10 500 500 2.51 2.54
Storey C11 500 500 2.51 2.54
C12 500 500 1.99 2.26
C13 500 500 1.99 2.26
C14 500 500 2.51 2.54
C15 500 500 2.51 2.54
C16 500 500 1.99 2.26
C17 450 450 1.81 2.48
C18 450 450 2.48 3.10
C19 450 450 2.48 3.10
C20 450 450 1.81 2.48
C1 450 450 1.81 2.48
C2 450 450 2.15 3.10
C3 450 450 2.15 3.10
C4 450 450 1.81 2.48
C5 500 500 1.74 2.26
C6 500 500 1.74 2.29
C7 500 500 1.74 2.29
C8 500 500 1.74 2.26
C9 500 500 1.74 2.26
6 C10 500 500 1.74 2.29
Storey C11 500 500 1.74 2.29
C12 500 500 1.74 2.26
C13 500 500 1.74 2.26
C14 500 500 1.74 2.29
C15 500 500 1.74 2.29
C16 500 500 1.74 2.26
C17 450 450 1.81 2.48
C18 450 450 2.15 3.10
C19 450 450 2.15 3.10
C20 450 450 1.81 2.48

82
 Design as per IS Design as per IS
Column Column Size (mm)
Floor 456-2000 456 new revision
No.
B D Pt (%) Pt (%)
C1 400 400 2.01 2.29
C2 450 450 1.81 2.48
C3 450 450 1.81 2.48
C4 400 400 2.01 2.29
C5 450 450 2.15 2.48
C6 450 450 1.81 2.48
C7 450 450 1.81 2.48
C8 450 450 2.15 2.48
C9 450 450 2.15 2.48
9 C10 450 450 1.81 2.48
Storey C11 450 450 1.81 2.48
C12 450 450 2.15 2.48
C13 450 450 2.15 2.48
C14 450 450 1.81 2.48
C15 450 450 1.81 2.48
C16 450 450 2.15 2.48
C17 400 400 2.01 2.29
C18 450 450 1.81 2.48
C19 450 450 1.81 3.14
C20 400 400 2.01 2.29
C1 400 400 1.51 2.47
C2 400 400 2.01 2.72
C3 400 400 2.01 2.72
C4 400 400 1.51 2.47
C5 400 400 2.72 2.72
C6 400 400 2.72 2.72
C7 400 400 2.72 2.72
C8 400 400 2.72 2.72
C9 400 400 2.72 2.72
12 C10 400 400 2.72 2.72
Storey C11 400 400 2.72 2.72
C12 400 400 2.72 2.72
C13 400 400 2.72 2.72
C14 400 400 2.72 2.72
C15 400 400 2.72 2.72
C16 400 400 2.72 2.72
C17 400 400 1.51 2.47
C18 400 400 2.01 2.72
C19 400 400 2.01 2.72
C20 400 400 1.51 2.47

83
 Chapter 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 GENERAL

In this chapter, quantity of reinforced concrete work of 12 Storey and 25 Storey RC

building has been compared. Results of Nonlinear Time History Analysis, Incremental
Dynamic Analysis using SeismoStruct and Fragility Curves are plotted in terms of:

• Interstorey Drift Ratio Profile for set of 8 recorded ground motions of past Indian
earthquake.
• IDA Curves for set of 8 recorded ground motions of past Indian earthquake with
monotonic scaling till numerical non‐convergence is first encountered.
• Fragility curves of frames from results of Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA).

5.2 SUMMARY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE WORK

For the 12 storey building (SMRF) and 25 storey building (RC frame wall) quantity of
concrete and reinforcement work required for beams, columns and shear wall has been
calculated. For 12 Storey building with Fe500 grade steel and M25 grade concrete are
designed as per IS 456-2000 and IS 456 new revision does not display difference. So, the
result for 12 Storey building with Fe500 grade steel and M25 grade concrete summary of
reinforced concrete work are not shown. This is similar for 25 Storey building with Fe500
grade steel and M30 grade concrete designed as per IS 456 new revision.

Table 5. 1 Summary of Reinforced Concrete work of 12 Storey Building

Storey 12 Storey 12 Storey 12

(Fe500 M25) (Fe600 M60) Differ. (Fe600 M60) Differ.
as per as per (%) as per IS 456 (%)
IS 456-2000 IS 456-2000 new revision
Total Beam 72.64 65.01 10.5 % 65.01 -
Steel
(tons) Column 62.06 45.83 26.1 % 50.67 10.5 %
Total Beam 350.66 332.10 5.3 % 332.10 -
Concrete
(m3) Column 252.84 170.54 32.5 % 169.93 0.35 %

84
 Table 5. 2 Summary of Reinforced Concrete work of 25 Storey Building

Storey 25 Storey 25 Storey 25

(Fe500 M30) (Fe600 M60) Differ. (Fe600 M60) Differ.
as per as per (%) as per IS 456 (%)
IS 456-2000 IS 456-2000 new revision
Beam 135.20 121.94 9.8 % 121.94 -
Total
Steel Column 172.98 104.68 39.4 % 117.10 10.6 %
(tons)
Shear Wall 73.24 58.25 20.4 % 58.25 -
Beam 811.24 757.60 6.6 % 757.60 -
Total
Concrete Column 480.02 324.23 32.5 % 322.65 0.49 %
(m3)
Shear Wall 396.10 333.36 15.8 % 333.36 -

5.3 RESULTS OF NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

This method evaluates structural seismic performance by applying series of ground motions
acceleration to structure. Natural ground motions are selected over artificial ground
motions as it is assumed that structural response obtained from real ground motion record
is the best prediction. In this procedure, ground motions are applied to structural model for
evaluating the displacement responses.

All available records from database that met the following criteria were selected:

1. All selected ground motions have a magnitude greater than 5.5.

2. The site condition is classified as rock.
3. The recording is made in the far field which has source-to-site distance greater than 10
km.
4. To avoid potential event-based bias in record sets, maximum two records are selected
per earthquake.
5. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) are more than 0.10g and Peak Ground Velocity
(PGV) are more than 10 cm/s.

Selected earthquake records were recorded in different locations around the India.
Earthquake names, years of occurrence, recording station, magnitude, site source distance,
PGA and PGV are shown in Table 5.3.

85
 Table 5. 3 Eight Ground Motions Properties

Site-
Recording
Earthquake Magnitude Source PGA PGV
Sr. no. Year Station
Name (M) Distance (g) (cm/s)
Name
(kM)
1 Chamoli 1999 Gopeshwar 6.6 17 0.359 45
2 Uttarkashi 1991 Uttarkashi 7.0 33 0.309 20
3 Uttarkashi 1991 Bhatwari 7.0 22 0.246 30
4 India-Burma 1997 Katakhal 5.6 52 0.159 24
5 IB88 1988 Berlongfer 7.2 220 0.340 23
6 IB88 1988 Diphu 7.2 210 0.340 21
7 Sikkim 2011 Gezing 6.9 51 0.310 239
8. Dharmshala 1987 Shahpur 5.7 34.5 0.247 141

Response spectrum of 8 recorded ground motions of past Indian earthquake along with
design response spectrum are shown in Figure 5.1.

1.40

1. Chamoli
1.20 2. Uttarkashi
3. Uttarkashi
Spectral Accleration (g)

1.00
4. IB97
5. IB88
0.80
6. IB88
7. Sikkim
0.60
8. Dharmshala
Mean
0.40
Zone 4 (IS 1893)

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Time Period (Sec)

Figure 5. 1 Ground Motions Response Spectrum and Design Response Spectrum

Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal displacement of
two adjacent floors and corresponding storey height. Median value of IDR is also plotted
along with individual profiles. It is observed from the results of NLTHA, maximum
Interstorey Drift Ratio does not exceed target drift limit 2% for all frames. Hence, the
frames show satisfactory performance under seismic loading.

86
The IDR profile obtained by nonlinear time history analysis for 8 recorded ground motions
of past Indian earthquake are shown in Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.5.
12

11
1. Chamoli
10
2. Uttarkashi
9
3. Uttarkashi
8 4. IB97
7 5. IB88
STORY

6 6. IB88
7. Sikkim
5
8. Dharmshala
4
Mean
3

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)
Figure 5. 2 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades
12

11
1. Chamoli
10
2. Uttarkashi
9
3. Uttarkashi
8 4. IB97
7 5. IB88
STORY

6 6. IB88
7. Sikkim
5
8. Dharmshala
4
Mean
3

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)
Figure 5. 3 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

87
 25
24
23
22 1. Chamoli
21
20 2. Uttarkashi
19
18 3. Uttarkashi
17
16 4. IB97
15 5. IB88
14
STORY

13 6. IB88
12
11 7. Sikkim
10
9 8. Dharmshala
8
Mean
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 4 IDR Profile for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades

25
24
23
22 1. Chamoli
21
20 2. Uttarkashi
19
18 3. Uttarkashi
17
16 4. IB97
15 5. IB88
14
STORY

13 6. IB88
12
11 7. Sikkim
10
9 8. Dharmshala
8
Mean
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 5 IDR Profile for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

88
 5.4 COMPARISON OF STATIC PUSHOVER CURVE FOR BUILDING DESIGN AS PER
IS 456:2000 AND IS 456 PROPOSED NEW REVISION
The pushover curve for 12 Storey buildings with Fe500 grades steel and M25 grades
concrete designed as per IS 456-2000 and as per IS 456 proposed new revision curves
shows almost similar that’s similarly happened in 12 Storey buildings with Fe600 grades
steel and M60 grades Concrete.

6000

5000

4000
Base Shear (kn)

3000

2000
12 Storey (Fe500 M25) As
per IS456-2000
1000 12 Storey (Fe500 M25) As
per IS456 new revision

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (m)

Figure 5. 6 Comparison of 12 Storey (Fe500 M25) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And IS456 New Revision

6000

5000

4000
Base Shear (kn)

3000

2000
12 Storey (Fe600 M60) As
per IS456-2000
1000 12 Storey (Fe600 M60) As
per IS456 new revision
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (m)

Figure 5. 7 Comparison of 12 Storey (Fe600 M60) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And IS456 New Revision

89
 The pushover curve result show similar so for 12 Storey building designed as per IS 456
new revision not perform incremental dynamic analysis. It’s similar for 25 storey building
designed as per IS 456 new revision models.

9000

8000

7000

6000
Base Shear (kn)

5000

4000

3000
25 Storey (Fe500 M30) As
2000 per IS456-2000
25 Storey (Fe500 M30) As
1000 per IS456 new revision
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Displacement (m)

Figure 5. 8 Comparison of 25 Storey (Fe500 M30) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And IS456 New Revision

9000

8000

7000

6000
Base Shear (kn)

5000

4000

3000
25 Storey (Fe600 M60) As
2000 per IS456-2000
25 Storey (Fe600 M60) As
1000 per IS456 new revision
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Displacement (m)

Figure 5. 9 Comparison of 25 Storey (Fe600 M60) SPO design as per IS456-2000 And IS456 New Revision

90
5.5 RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Incremental Dynamic Analysis is carried out using SeismoStruct software which evaluates
Fig. 5.3 Structural seismic performance by applying set of 8 recorded ground motions of
past Indian earthquake to structure. In order to cover the entire range of the structural
response from elasticity to global dynamic instability, each of the 8 selected ground
motions were scaled up or down with Hunt and fill method (Vamvatsikos D. 2004(13)) and
applied to the structure. For the algorithm was configured to use an initial step of 0.1 g, a
step increment of 0.05 g and a designated first elastic run at first natural time period of
structure Sa(T1,5%), while a maximum of 12 runs was allowed for each record.
Additionally, we specified a resolution of 10% on the global collapse capacity, i.e., we
expect the model to develop numerical nonconvergence and show practically infinite θmax
at some high intensity level, and we wish this level to be known within 10% of its IM value.
Finally, we allowed the demand resolution, i.e., the maximum difference between
successive IM values, to run to its best attainable value by expending all the 12 runs.
Alternatively, we could have designated some minimum satisfactory IM gap below which
we do not wish to proceed, thus saving some runs. So, Total 380 nonlinear time history
analyses were performed for this study.

5.5.1 IDA CURVE GENERATION

Plotting IDA curve is a three step procedure as discussed below,

1. Selection of Ground Motion: Select pairs of ground motion records to perform dynamic
response history analysis. Selected ground motions are shown in Table 5.3

2. Selection of Intensity Measure and Damage Measure: Intensity Measure as “5%

Damped Spectral Acceleration”. It has been proven to be efficient than PGA, because
Sa is structure specific in compare to PGA as site specific. Therefore, Sa could be the
IM choice.
Damage Measure as “Maximum Interstorey Drift Ratio”, it is well related to estimating
structure’s damage state.
3. IDA Curve generation by interpolation: After selecting the IM and DM values their
values are obtained from each of the dynamic analyses. We get set of more discrete
points for each ground motion record which resides in the IM-DM plane, lying on its
IDA curve. All these points are then connected using spline interpolation which gives

91
 realistic representation of IDA curve. Having the complete curve available, it is now
possible to calculate DM values at arbitrary levels of IM.

5.5.2 LIMIT–STATES ON IDA CURVES

For evaluating the performance of the building frame, limit states are plotted on the IDA
curve. Table 5.4 gives Threshold IDR (%) values as given in FEMA 356 for concrete frame
and walls. These values are used as threshold value of Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety
and Collapse Prevention levels for development of fragility curves.

Table 5. 4 Threshold IDR (%) for all Frames

Limit States IO LS CP GI

Threshold IDR for 1.00 2.00 4.00 +∞

Concrete Frame (%)
Threshold IDR for
0.50 1.00 2.00 +∞
Concrete Wall (%)

“Global Dynamic Instability (GI)” happens when any increase in the IM results in
practically infinite DM response resulting in the flatline. Calculating the IM-value of the
flatline capacity is usually simple, as best estimated somewhere between the highest
numerically-converging run and the lowest non-converging one, as produced by the
stepping algorithm.

5.5.3 SUMMARIZING THE IDA CURVE AND LIMIT STATES

It becomes essential to summarize the data as large amount of record to record variability
can be seen in the IDA curve. Various methods are available for appropriate summarization
and to quantify the randomness. It is necessary to employ appropriate summarization
techniques that will reduce this data to the distribution of DM given IM and to the
probability of exceeding any specific limit-state given the IM level.

The limit-state capacities can be easily summarized into some central value (e.g., the mean
or the median) and a measure of dispersion (e.g., the standard deviation, or the difference
between two fractiles). Among the several methods available to summarize the IDA curves,
the cross-sectional fractiles are arguably the most flexible and robust with respect to the
infinite DMs introduced by the flatlines. Consequently, it is chosen to calculate the 16%,
50% and 84% fractiles values of DM and IM capacity for each limit-state. The ratio
between median collapse intensity (SCT) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)

92
 ground motion intensity (SMT) is defined as collapse margin ratio (CMR), which is the
primary parameter used to characterize the collapse safety of the structure.

The median collapse intensity can be obtained by increasing the intensity until just over
one-half of the records cause collapse. The lowest intensity at which one-half of the records
cause collapse is the median collapse intensity (SCT). The MCE intensity is obtained from
the response spectrum of MCE ground motions at the fundamental period, T.

𝑆𝐶𝑇
𝐶𝑀𝑅 =
𝑆𝑀𝑇
The summarized capacities for each limit state for all buildings are given in Table 5.5.
Under the suitable assumption of continuity and monotonicity of the IDA curves, the
fractiles can be interpreted as follows: It is observed from summarized curve that in order
to generate demand θmax = 1% which is Life Safety Performance Level, 84% of the records
need to be scaled at levels Sa≥0.067 g, 50% of the records need to be scaled at levels
Sa≥0.107 g, 16% of the records need to be scaled at levels Sa≥0.186 g. The collapse margin
ratio (CMR) varies from 1.67 to 3.73.

Table 5. 5 Summarized Capacity for Each Limit State

Performance Sa (g)
Storey MCE (Sa), g CMR
Levels 16% 50% 84%
IO 0.067 0.108 0.187 - -
12 Storey LS 0.160 0.259 0.434 - -
(Fe500 M25) CP 0.260 0.551 0.916 - -
GI 0.288 0.650 0.978 0.311 2.10
IO 0.072 0.094 0.142 - -
12 Storey LS 0.142 0.232 0.315 - -
(Fe600 M60) CP 0.229 0.485 0.647 - -
GI 0.246 0.520 0.730 0.311 1.67
IO 0.041 0.065 0.106
25 Storey LS 0.080 0.164 0.274
(Fe500 M30) CP 0.154 0.358 0.469
GI 0.175 0.560 0.815 0.150 3.73
IO 0.040 0.060 0.113
25 Storey LS 0.073 0.159 0.239
(Fe600 M60) CP 0.148 0.326 0.483
GI 0.172 0.511 0.766 0.150 3.41

93
The results of IDA Curves and Summarized IDA Curves are shown in Fig 5.6 to Fig 5.13.

1.20
1. Chamoli
2. Uttarkashi
1.00
3. Uttarkashi
4. IB97
0.80 5. IB88
6. IB88
Sa(T1,5%)

7. Sikkim
0.60
8. Dharmshala

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 10 Individual IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades

1.20

84% IDA of IDR | Sa

1.00 50% IDA of IDR | Sa
16% IDA of IDR | Sa

0.80
Sa(T1,5%)

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 11 Summarized IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades

94
 1.20
1. Chamoli
2. Uttrakashi
1.00
3. Uttrakashi
4. IB97
0.80 5. IB88
6. IB88
Sa(T1,5%)

7. Sikkim
0.60
8. Dharmshala

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 12 Individual IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

1.20
84% IDA of IDR | Sa

1.00
50% IDA of IDR | Sa
16% IDA of IDR | Sa

0.80
Sa(T1,5%)

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 13 Summarized IDA Curves for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

95
 1.00
1. Chamoli
0.90
2. Uttarkashi
0.80 3. Uttarkashi
4. IB97
0.70
5. IB88
0.60 6. IB88
Sa(T1,5%)

7. Sikkim
0.50
8. Dharmshala
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 14 Individual IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades

1.00

84% IDA of IDR | Sa

0.90
50% IDA of IDR | Sa
0.80
16% IDA of IDR | Sa
0.70

0.60
Sa(T1,5%)

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 15 Summarized IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades

96
 1.00
1. Chamoli
0.90
2. Uttarkashi
0.80 3. Uttarkashi
4. IB97
0.70
5. IB88
0.60 6. IB88
Sa(T1,5%)

7. Sikkim
0.50
8. Dharmshala
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 16 Individual IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

1.00

0.90
84% IDA of IDR | Sa
50% IDA of IDR | Sa
0.80
16% IDA of IDR | Sa
0.70

0.60
Sa(T1,5%)

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)

Figure 5. 17 Summarized IDA Curves for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

97
To understand the changes in the nature of structural response as the intensity of ground
motion increases, the IDR profile is plotted for 12 storey SMRF when subjected to scaled
ground motion of Chamoli. Also, IDA curves for different storeys are plotted for
monotonically scaled ground motion of Chamoli.

12

11
Sa = 0.087g

10
Sa = 0.144g

9 Sa = 0.187g

8 Sa = 0.257g

7 Sa = 0.285g
STORY

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 18 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 M25 subjected to
Chamoli Earthquake, 1999

0.40
Storey 1
0.35
Storey 3
0.30 Storey 6
0.25 Storey 9
Sa(T1,5%)

0.20 Storey 12

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 19 IDA Curves of 12 Storey Building with Fe500 M25 subjected to

Chamoli Earthquake, 1999

98
 12

11
Sa = 0.080g

10
Sa = 0.130g

9
Sa = 0.180g

8 Sa = 0.240g

7 Sa = 0.260g
STORY

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 20 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 M60 subjected to
Chamoli Earthquake, 1991

0.35
Storey 1
0.30 Storey 3

0.25 Storey 6
Storey 9
Sa(T1,5%)

0.20
Storey 12
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO(%)

Figure 5. 21 IDR Profile for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 M60 subjected to
Chamoli Earthquake, 1991

99
5.6 FRAGILITY CURVE DEVELOPMENT USING IDA RESULTS

After obtaining clouds of responses from IDA method they are arranged in ascending order
and as per FEMA 356 criteria, they are bifurcated in category of IO, LS, and CP. Scattered
plot of IDR shown in Figure 5.12 is plotted for each category of IO, LS and CP.

5.00

4.00

3.00
IDR [%]

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Sa(T1,5%) [g]
Figure 5. 22 Scattered Plot of IDR (%) for 12 Storey Building
Logarithmic plot of intensity measure and damage measure shown in Figure 5.13 to Figure
5.15 is plotted for regression analysis of 12 storey building with Fe600 and M60 Grades.
Fragility functions, median of IM and dispersion of IM on the EDP capacity is obtained by
regression analysis. Fragility functions for 12 storey buildings at each performance levels
are shown in Table 5.5.
1.30

0.50

-0.30
ln(IDR)

-1.10

-1.90

y = 0.7265x + 1.512 -2.70

R² = 0.7698
-3.50
-5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00
ln(Sa(T1,5%))
Figure 5. 23 Logarithmic Plot for Immediate Occupancy
100
 1.80

1.40

1.00
ln(IDR)

0.60

0.20
y = 0.4997x + 1.3614
R² = 0.6169
-0.20
-3.00 -2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00
ln(Sa(T1,5%))
Figure 5. 24 Logarithmic Plot for Life Safety
2.00

1.60

1.20
ln(IDR)

0.80
y = 0.426x + 1.5112
R² = 0.4382
0.40
-2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50
ln(Sa(T1,5%))
Figure 5. 25 Logarithmic Plot for Collapse Prevention

Table 5. 6 Fragility Functions Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Performance Fragility Storey 12 Storey 12 Storey 25 Storey 25

Levels Functions Fe500 M25 Fe600 M60 Fe500 M30 Fe600 M60
Median 0.125 0.107 0.082 0.081
IO
Dispersion 0.454 0.305 0.353 0.364
Median 0.263 0.218 0.170 0.158
LS
Dispersion 0.465 0.329 0.427 0.373
Median 0.746 0.556 0.415 0.402
CP
Dispersion 0.551 0.421 0.431 0.413

101
Fragility curves obtained using above parameters are shown in Figure 5.16 to 5.20.

1.00

0.90
Probability of Exceedance

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 IO

0.20
LS
CP
0.10

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 26 Fragility Curve for 12 Storey Building with Fe500 and M25 grades

1.00

0.90
Probability of Exceedance

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 IO

0.20
LS
CP
0.10

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 27 Fragility Curve for 12 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

102
 1.00

Probability of Exceedance 0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 IO

0.20
LS
CP
0.10

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 28 Fragility Curve for 25 Storey Building with Fe500 and M30 grades

1.00

0.90

0.80
Probability of Exceedance

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
IO
0.20
LS
0.10
CP
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 29 Fragility Curve for 25 Storey Building with Fe600 and M60 grades

103
 1.00

0.90

0.80
Probability of Exceedance

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
12 Storey
0.20 (FE600 M60)

0.10
12 Storey
(FE500 M25)
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 30 Comparison of 12 Storey Building Fragility Curve for IO, LS and CP

1.00

0.90

0.80
Probability of Exceedance

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
25 Storey
0.20 (FE600 M60)

0.10
25 Storey
(FE500 M30)
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Sa (g)

Figure 5. 31 Comparison of 25 Storey Building Fragility Curve for IO, LS and CP

104
5.7 SUMMARY OF FRAGILITY CURVE RESULTS
It is seen that for spectral acceleration corresponding to DBE, all the frame has less than
50% probability of exceedance of Life safety limit state. It is observed that probability of
exceedance of Collapse limit state for spectral acceleration corresponding to DBE is
negligible. Spectral acceleration at Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) for each designed building is shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5. 7 DBE and MCE for Each Building

Storey DBE, Sa (g) MCE, Sa (g)

12 Storey
0.156 0.311
(Fe500 M25)
12 Storey
0.156 0.311
(Fe600 M60)
25 Storey
0.075 0.150
(Fe500 M30)
25 Storey
0.075 0.150
(Fe600 M60)

Probability of exceedance of DBE and MCE obtained from fragility curve results using
nonlinear dynamic analysis is shown in Table 5.8.

Table 5. 8 Probability of Exceedance of DBE and MCE

Performance Probability of Storey 12 Storey 12 Storey 25 Storey 25

Levels Exceedance (Fe500 M25) (Fe600 M60) (Fe500 M30) (Fe600 M60)

DBE 69% 89% 40% 41%

IO
MCE 98% 100% 96% 95%
DBE 13% 15% 3% 2%
LS
MCE 64% 86% 38% 44%
DBE 0% 0% 0% 0%
CP
MCE 6% 8% 1% 1%

105
 Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE
6.1 GENERAL

The objective of the present study is to carry out performance evaluation of RC Building
with high-strength Concrete and Reinforcement. For performance evaluation 12 storey and
25 Storey building are designed as per IS 456-2000 and as per IS 456 new revision. Also,
present study on structural response of structure when subjected to range of potential levels
of ground motion recorded and assessment of probability of exceedance of damage state
under the effect of spectral acceleration. For this purpose, the performance evaluation of
RC building with high-strength concrete and reinforcement is done using nonlinear
dynamic analysis methods and results are obtained. Fragility curves are obtained for
probabilistic assessment of vulnerability by means of lognormal distribution using results
of Incremental Dynamic Analysis.

6.2 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, Two different heights of buildings are considered for two different cases.
In first case, Fe500 grade steel is used with M25 grade concrete and in second case,
Fe600 grade steel is used with M60 grade concrete. First is 12 storey building (SMRF) and
second is 25 storey building (RC frame-wall) and both the building are design as per IS
456-2000 and IS 456 New revision. The performance evaluation of all frames is done using
NLTHA and IDA using SeismoStruct software for set of 8 recorded ground motions of
past Indian earthquake. Total of 32 IDA (i.e. 380 NLTHA) is carried out for this parametric
study.

The following conclusions have been drawn from this study:

• It is observed from the results of NLTHA, that maximum Interstorey Drift Ratio
does not exceed target drift limit 2% for all frames. Hence, the frames show
satisfactory performance under seismic loading.
• IDA curves show that the frames designed for DBE crosses the Immediate
Occupancy Performance Level and are well below the Collapse Prevention Level
for all cases which shows the satisfactory performance. Collapse margin ratio
varies from 1.67 to 3.73 which shows safety to the global collapse of structure.

106
 • It can be observed from results of summarized IDA curves that the median collapse
capacity of 12 storey building with Fe600 and M60 grades is smaller than 12 storey
building with Fe500 and M25 grades. It’s similar for 25 Storey buildings.
• It can be seen from the fragility curves that probability of exceedance is higher in
building with Fe600 and M60 grades as compared to building with Fe500 and M25
grades for DBE and MCE.
• From the fragility curves, it is observed that there is less than 50% probability of
exceedance of Life safety limit state and has negligible probability of exceedance
at Collapse limit state for spectral acceleration corresponding to respective DBE
for the all different cases of building.
• From the summary of quantity work, it is derived that the difference between 12
storey building (Fe600 M60) and (Fe500 M25) designed as per IS 456-2000 is
17.71 % in total steel and 16.71 % in total concrete and the 12 storey building
(Fe600 M60) designed as per IS 456 new revision only shows increment of about
10.5 % in column reinforcement.
• Similarly, the difference between 25 storey building (Fe600 M60) and (Fe500
M25) designed as per IS 456-2000 is 25.31 % in total steel and 16.13 % in total
concrete and the 25 storey building (Fe600 M60) designed as per IS 456 new
revision only shows increment of about 10.6 % in column reinforcement.

6.3 FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

• Present study can be extended with more different cases of different grades of steel
and Concrete for different height of building.
• Present study can be extended considering effect of vertical irregularity.
• Present study can be extended to tall building with different structural system.
• Soil Structure Interaction can be incorporated in this study.

107
 REFERENCES

1. ATC 98, "Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Earthquake-Resistant Concrete

Structures", Applied Technology Council, California.

2. K. C. Lin, H. H. Hung and Y. C. Sung, Jan 2015,“Seismic Performance of High

Strength Reinforced Concrete Buildings Evaluated by Nonlinear Pushover and
Dynamic Analyses”, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan.

3. Duy V. To and Jack P. Moehle, March 2020,“Special Moment Frames with High-
Strength Reinforcement Part 1: Beams”, ACI structural journal, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.

4. Duy V. To and Jack P. Moehle, March 2020,“Special Moment Frames with High-
Strength Reinforcement Part 2: Column”, ACI structural journal, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.

5. Chopra A.K. Dynamics of Structures. by Pearson.

6. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356. Prestandard and Commentary

for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington DC.

7. IS 456 (2000), Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

8. IS 13920 (2016), Indian Standard for Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced
Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces - Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.

9. IS 1786 (2008),High Strength Deformaed steel bar and wires for concrete
reinforcement. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

10. IS 16700 (2017), Indian Standard for Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall Concrete
Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

11. IS 1893 Part 1 (2016), Indian Standard for Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

12. IS 875 Part 3 (2015), Indian Standard for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures - Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

108
13. SeismoStruct. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis. [Online]
2018. [Link]

14. Shrikhande M., Agarwal P. Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. by PHI

Learning Pvt. Ltd.

15. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. (2004), Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis.
Earthquake Spectra., Vol. 20, pp. 523-553.

16. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. (2002), Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics., Vol. 31, pp. 491-514.

109