CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL

Indian buildings built over past two decades are seismically deficient
because of lack of awareness regarding seismic behaviour of structures. In
general, most earthquake code provisions implicitly require that structures be
able to resist minor earthquakes without any damage, moderate earthquakes
with negligible structural damage and some non-structural damage, and major
earthquakes with possibly some structural and non-structural damage. In most
structures that are subjected to moderate-to strong earthquakes, economical
earthquake-resistant design is achieved by allowing yielding to take place in
some structural members. Estimating the maximum lateral displacement of
the structures in the wake of massive earthquakes is considered to be widely
important for seismic design

Earthquake perhaps the most disastrous

calamity has been threatening the mankind since the day of its inception.
Suitable amount of research have been reported towards the mitigation of
seismic hazard, proposing careful detailing of structural systems and
provising many new materials and external device conducive to dissipation
energy imparted to the structure during seismic excitation. With the advent of
each catastrophic earthquake, Failure of these structures attributes almost
irrecoverable damage to the body society; there is a no sequence of past
earthquakes
.
Due to economic reason, the present seismic codes allow structures
to undergo inelastic deformations in the event of strong ground motions.
Consequently, the demand lateral strength is lower than the strength
maintaining the structure in the elastic range. According to the seismic codes,
1

the buildings are allowed to use over strength against strong earthquakes. It is
well known fact that the distribution of mass and rigidity is one of the major
considerations in the seismic design of moderate to high rise buildings. A
major challenge for the performance based seismic engineering is to develop
simple yet efficiently accurate methods for analyzing designed structures and
evaluating existing buildings to meet the selected performance objectives. In
recent years, the seismic design provisions necessary for the construction of
new buildings and rehabilitation of existing structures have been witnessing
some rapid changes. Comprehensive research is now being conducted to
evaluate the current seismic design methodology implemented in different
codes and standards. An earthquake is a manifestation of rapid release of
stress waves during a brittle rupture of rock. The complexity of earthquake
ground motion is primarily due to factors such as source effect, path effect
and local site effect. An earthquake causes the ground to vibrate and
structures supported on ground in turn subject to this motion. Thus the
dynamic loading on the structure during an earthquake is not external loading,
but the inertial effect due to motion of support. The various factors
contributing to the structural damage during an earthquake are vertical
irregularities, irregularity in strength and stiffness, mass irregularity, torsion
irregularity etc.

Elastic analysis is insufficient because they cannot realistically

predict the force and deformation distributions after the initiation of damage
in the building. Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to identify
the modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The need to
perform some form of inelastic analysis is already incorporated in many
building codes. Currently, building evaluation guidelines permit the use of
two nonlinear analysis methods to estimate seismic demands: Non-linear
Static

Procedure

(NSP)

and

the

Non-linear

Dynamic

Procedure

(NDP).Nonlinear dynamic analysis of refined mathematical models of

2

structures subjected to site specific earthquakes is the most accurate means to

evaluate the performance of buildings. However, the inelastic time-history
analysis is usually too complex and time consuming in the design of most
buildings. Such an approach, for the time being, is not practical for everyday
design use. Earthquakes have the potential for causing the greatest damages,
amongst the other natural hazards. Earthquakes are perhaps the most
unpredictable and devasting of all natural disasters. Earthquake causes great
destruction in terms of human casualties and also a tremendous economic
impact on the affected area. The concern about seismic hazards has led to an
increasing awareness and demand for structures designed to withstand seismic
forces. The building, which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble
during earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed. Performance based
analysis is used to produce structure with predictable seismic performance.
Performance based analysis is the ability to assess seismic demands and
capacities with a reasonable degree of certainty. For seismic performance
evaluation, a structural analysis of the mathematical model of the structure is
required to determine force and displacement demands in various components
of the structure. Several analysis methods, both elastic and inelastic, are
available to predict the seismic performance of the structures. The force
demand on each component of the structure is obtained and compared with
available capacities by performing an elastic analysis. Elastic analysis
methods include code static lateral force procedure, code dynamic procedure
and elastic procedure using demand-capacity ratios. These methods are also
known as force-based procedures which assume that structures respond
elastically to earthquakes.

Structures suffer significant inelastic deformation under a strong

earthquake and dynamic characteristics of the structure change with time so
investigating the performance of an analytical procedures help to understand
the actual behaviour of structures by identifying failure modes and the
3

potential for progressive collapse. Inelastic analysis procedures basically

include inelastic time history analysis and inelastic static analysis which is
also known as pushover analysis. Building model is analyzed by using
inelastic static analysis. Inelastic static analysis, or pushover analysis, has
been the preferred method for seismic performance evaluation due to its
simplicity. It is a static analysis that directly incorporates nonlinear material
characteristics. Inelastic static analysis procedures include Capacity Spectrum
Method, Displacement Coefficient Method.

Earthquakes are the earth's natural means of releasing stress.

When the earth's plates move against each other, stress is put on the
lithosphere. When this stress is great enough, the lithosphere breaks or shifts.
The above figure shows the waves of earthquake. Imagine holding a pencil
horizontally. If you were to apply a force to both ends of the pencil by using
down on them, you would see the pencil bend. After enough force was
applied, the pencil would break in the middle, releasing the stress you have
put on it. The Earth's crust acts in the same way. As the plates move, they put
forces on themselves and each other. When the force is large enough, the crust
is forced to break. When the break occurs, the stress is released as energy
which moves through the Earth in the form of waves, which we feel and call
an earthquake. Energy is released during an earthquake in several forms,
including as movement along the fault, as heat, and as seismic waves that
radiate out from the "source" and causes the ground to shake, sometimes
hundreds of km's away. A seismic wave is simply a means of transferring
energy from one spot to another within the earth. Although seismologists
recognize different types of waves, we are interested in only two types: P
(primary) waves, which are similar to sound waves, and S (secondary) waves,
which are a kind of shear wave. Within the earth, P waves can travel through
solids and liquids, whereas S waves can only travel through solids.

During their lifetime, building structures could be exposed to

natural extreme phenomena (earthquake, tornados, fire, flooding) and
anthropogenic phenomena (blastor impact). Structures are not usually
designed for extreme loadings and when such events occur can lead to
catastrophic failure. Recently, terrorist attacks aiming important buildings led
to structural collapse, with important human lives and material loss. The term
of progressive collapse refers to the development of an initial local failure as a
chain reaction, which could lead to local o total crush. The main characteristic
of progressive collapse is the significant disproportion The progressive
collapse became an interesting topic for building designers and researchers
after the partial collapse and the importance of the subject highly increases
with recent terrorist activities all around the world. Extreme events as blast
and impact, considered improbable in the past, were moved to credible
events, having a finite probability of occurrence. Thus, nowadays the design
activity should have as additional objective the progressive collapse risk
mitigation for important buildings. Structural analysis in traditional ways is
completed with a new approach, which bring in the conception of the most
unfavourable scenarios and then adjust the design processes according to
these special situations. The main objective of this kind of approach is to
reduce the effects of exceptional events and to mitigate the progressive
collapse, performance targets that could be reached even with a partial
deterioration of the structure. The actual building design codes offers general
references to prevent progressive collapse having as support the main
characteristics of the structure (redundancy, integrity, continuity, ductility and
efforts redistribution), but there are no further recommendations for an
analysis that contains the phenomenon. Furthermore, the usual philosophy of
the most of the actual design codes is to protect the structures under
conventional loads during their lifetime. So, the structures are not currently
designed for exceptional events as blast caused by gas accumulation, impact
with a vehicle or a plane, classical explosions. Many codes offer only general
5

recommendations in order to mitigate the effect of progressive collapse.

Total seismic base shear as experienced by a building

during an earthquake is dependent on its natural period, the seismic force
distribution independent on the distribution of stiffness and mass along the
height. In buildings with soft first storey, the upper storeys being stiff,
undergo smaller inter-storey drifts. However, the inter-storey drift in the soft
first storey is large. The strength demand son the columns in the first storey
for third buildings are also large, as the shear in the first storey is maximum.
For the upper storeys, however, the forces in the columns are effectively
reduced due to the presence of the Buildings with abrupt changes in storey
stiffness have uneven lateral force distribution along the height, which is
likely to locally induce stress concentration. This has adverse effect on the
performance of buildings during ground shaking. Such buildings are required
to be analyzed by the dynamic analysis and designed carefully. The majority
of the RC buildings are constructed with masonry infill walls. However, the
combination of masonry infill with the framed structure is most often
neglected during the design procedure, assuming that the structural
performance is not influenced. Such an assumption may lead to substantial
inaccuracy in predicting the lateral stiffness, strength and ductility of the
structure. In the past a number of studies have been devoted on the seismic
behaviour of RC frames with masonry infill and a number of analytical
models of masonry infill have been developed for a rational approach of the
behaviour of the in-fills.

A column is supposed to be a vertical member starting

from foundation level and transferring the load to the ground. The term
floating column is also a vertical element which at its lower level rests on a
beam which is a horizontal member. Buildings with columns that hang or
float on beams at an intermediate storey and do not go all the way to the
6

foundation, have discontinuities in the load transfer path. The beams in turn
transfer the load to other columns below it. Such columns where the load was
considered as a point load. There are many projects in which floating columns
are already adopted, especially above the ground floor, so that more open
space is available on the ground floor. These open spaces may be required for
assembly hall or parking purpose. The column is a concentrated load on the
beam which supports it. The structures already made with these kinds of
discontinuous members are endangered in seismic regions. But those
structures cannot be demolished; rather study can be done to strengthen the
structure. The stiffness of these columns can be increased by retrofitting or
these may be provided by bracing to decrease the lateral deformation. Many
high rise buildings are planned and constructed with architectural
complexities. The complexities are nothing but soft storey, floating column,
heavy load, the reduction in stiffness, etc.

Structure collapse is one of the reasons for failure of framed

structures during an event of an earthquake. Such irregularities are highly
undesirable in the buildings built in earthquake prone areas. In such buildings,
the stiffness of the lateral load resisting systems at that storey is quite less
compared to other storeys. Pushover analysis is a nonlinear static approach
for the seismic analysis of structures subjected to permanent vertical load and
gradually increasing lateral load at very large strains up to failure.
Considering these aspects in mind, the present work focuses on the seismic
performance of soft storey Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames using pushover
analysis. finite element software has been used. Typical two dimensional RC
frames having soft storey are modelled and their seismic performance with
varying stiffness ratio at different storey levels have been evaluated using
pushover curves. Base shear carried, roof displacement experienced, status of
performance point and number & status of hinges formed are the parameters
used to quantify the performance of RC frames. It is inferred that structures
7

with soft storey are most vulnerable to seismic excitation. They possess lower
lateral load carrying capacity and experience increased roof displacement.

1.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Nonlinear static analysis, or pushover analysis, has been developed over
the past twenty years and has become the preferred analysis procedure for
design and seismic performance evaluation purposes as the procedure is
relatively simple and considers post-elastic behaviour. However, the
procedure involves certain approximations and simplifications that some
amount of variation is always expected to exist in seismic demand prediction
of pushover analysis. Although, in literature, pushover analysis has been
shown to capture essential structural response characteristics under seismic
action, the accuracy and the reliability of pushover analysis in predicting
global and local seismic demands for all structures have been a subject of
discussion and improved pushover procedures have been proposed to
overcome the certain limitations of traditional pushover procedures. However,
the improved procedures are mostly computationally demanding and
conceptually complex that use of such procedures are impractical in
engineering profession and codes. As traditional pushover analysis is widely
used for design and seismic performance evaluation purposes, its limitations,
weaknesses and the accuracy of its predictions in routine application should
be identified by studying the factors affecting the pushover predictions. In
other words, the applicability of pushover analysis in predicting seismic
demands should be investigated for low, mid and high-rise structures by
identifying certain issues such as modelling nonlinear member behaviour,
computational scheme of the procedure, variations in the predictions of
various lateral load patterns utilized in traditional pushover analysis,
efficiency of invariant lateral load patterns in representing higher mode
effects and accurate estimation of target displacement at which seismic
demand prediction of pushover procedure is performed.
8

Pushover analysis is a viable method to assess damage vulnerability of

buildings. Pushover (nonlinear static) analysis is performed to identify
damage venerability of structures and to determine an acceptable level of
safety. Pushover analysis is a series of incremental static analysis carried out
to develop a capacity curve for the building. Base on the capacity curve, a
target displacement which is an estimate of the displacement that the design
earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The extent of damage
experienced by the structure at this target displacement is considered
representative of the damage experienced by the building when subjected to
design level ground shaking. Stiffness change where IO, LS and CP stand for
immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention respectively.

Fig.1.1 Load- Deformation curve

Immediate Occupancy Level

In this level, overall damage of the building is light.

Structure

substantially retains original strength and stiffness. Equipment and contents

are generally secure, but may not operate due to mechanical.
Life Safety Level
Some residual strength and stiffness left in all stories. Failing hazards
mitigated but many architectural, mechanical and electrical systems
Collapse Prevention Level
Little residual stiffness and strength is left in al stories. Extensive
damage is occurred to the structure.
Performance level
The main output of a pushover analysis is in terms of response demand
versus capacity. If the demand curve intersects the capacity envelope near the
elastic range , then the structure has a good resistance. If the demand curve
intersects the capacity curve with little

1.3 METHODS OF ANALYSIS

For seismic performance evaluation, a structural analysis of the
mathematical model of the structure is required to determine force and
displacement demands in various components of the structure. Several
analysis methods, both elastic and inelastic, are available to predict the
seismic performance of the structures.

1.3.1 Elastic Methods of Analysis

The force demand on each component of the structure is obtained and
compared with available capacities by performing an elastic analysis. Elastic
analysis methods include code static lateral force procedure, code dynamic
procedure and elastic procedure using demand-capacity ratios. These methods
are also known as force-based procedures which assume that structures

10

respond elastically to earthquakes. In code static lateral force procedure, a

static analysis is performed by subjecting the structure to lateral forces
obtained by scaling down the smoothened soil-dependent elastic response
spectrum by a structural system dependent force reduction factor, "R". In this
approach, it is assumed that the actual strength of structure is higher than the
design strength and the structure is able to dissipate energy through yielding.
In code dynamic procedure, force demands on various components are
determined by an elastic dynamic analysis. The dynamic analysis may be
either a response spectrum analysis or an elastic time history analysis.
Sufficient number of modes must be considered to have a mass participation
of at least 90% for response spectrum analysis. Any effect of higher modes
are automatically included in time history analysis. In demand/capacity ratio
(DCR) procedure, the force actions are compared to corresponding capacities
as demand/capacity ratios. Demands for DCR calculations must include
gravity effects. While code static lateral force and code dynamic procedures
reduce the full earthquake demand by an R-factor, the DCR approach takes
the full earthquake demand without reduction and adds it to the gravity
demands. DCRs approaching 1.0 (or higher) may indicate potential
deficiencies.

Although force-based procedures are well known by

engineering profession and easy to apply, they have certain drawbacks.

Structural components are evaluated for serviceability in the elastic range of
strength and deformation. Post-elastic behaviour of structures could not be
identified by an elastic analysis. However, post-elastic behaviour should be
considered as almost all structures are expected to deform in inelastic range
during a strong earthquake. The seismic force reduction factor "R" is utilized
to account for inelastic behaviour indirectly by reducing elastic forces to
inelastic. Force reduction factor, "R", is assigned considering only the type of
lateral system in most codes, but it has been shown that this factor is a
function of the period and ductility ratio of the structure as well. Elastic
methods can predict elastic capacity of structure and indicate where the first
11

yielding will occur, however they dont predict failure mechanisms and
account for the redistribution of forces that will take place as the yielding
progresses. Real deficiencies present in the structure could be missed.
Moreover, force-based methods primarily provide life safety but they cant
provide damage limitation and easy repair. The drawbacks of force-based
procedures and the dependence of damage on deformation have led the
researches to develop displacement-based procedures for seismic performance
evaluation. Displacement-based procedures are mainly based on inelastic
deformations rather than elastic forces and use nonlinear analysis procedures
considering seismic demands and available capacities explicitly.

1.3.2 Inelastic Methods of Analysis

Structures suffer significant inelastic deformation under a strong
earthquake and dynamic characteristics of the structure change with time so
investigating the performance of a structure requires inelastic analytical
procedures accounting for these features. Inelastic analytical procedures help
to understand the actual behaviour of structures by identifying failure modes
and the potential for progressive collapse. Inelastic analysis procedures
basically include inelastic time history analysis and inelastic static analysis
which is also known as pushover analysis. The inelastic time history analysis
is the most accurate method to predict the force and deformation demands at
various components of the structure. However, the use of inelastic time
history analysis is limited because dynamic response is very sensitive to
modelling and ground motion characteristics. It requires proper modelling of
cyclic load deformation characteristics considering deterioration properties of
all important components. Also, it requires availability of a set of
representative ground motion records that accounts for uncertainties and
differences in severity, frequency and duration characteristics. Moreover,

12

computation time, time required for input preparation and interpreting

voluminous output make the use of inelastic time history analysis impractical
for seismic performance evaluation. Inelastic static analysis, or pushover
analysis, has been the preferred method for seismic performance evaluation
due to its simplicity. It is a static analysis that directly incorporates nonlinear
material characteristics. Inelastic static analysis procedures include Capacity
Spectrum Method, Displacement Coefficient Method and the Secant Method
The theoretical background, reliability and the accuracy of inelastic static
analysis procedure is discussed in detail in the following sections.

1.3.3 SUMMARY
The uncertainties involved in accurate determination of material
properties, element and structure capacities, the limited prediction of ground
motions that the

structure is going to experience and the limitations in

accurate modelling of structural behaviour make the seismic performance

evaluation of structures a complex and difficult process. Displacement-based
procedures provide a more rational approach to these issues compared to
force-based procedures by considering inelastic deformations rather than
elastic forces. The analytical tool for evaluation process should also be
relatively simple which can capture critical response parameters that
significantly effect the evaluation process.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is an approximate analysis method in which the
structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces with an
invariant height-wise distribution until a target displacement is reached.
Pushover analysis consists of a series of sequential elastic analyses,
superimposed to approximate a force-displacement curve of the overall
structure. A two or three-dimensional model which includes bilinear load-

13

deformation diagrams of all lateral force resisting elements is first created and
gravity loads are applied initially. A predefined lateral load pattern which is
distributed along the building height is then applied. The lateral forces are
increased until some members yield. The structural model is modified to
account for the reduced stiffness of yielded members and lateral forces are
again increased until additional members yield. The process is continued until
a control displacement at the top of building reaches a certain level of
deformation or structure becomes unstable.

Figure 1.2: Global Capacity (Pushover) Curve of a Structure

Pushover

analysis

can

be

performed

as

force-controlled

or

displacement-controlled. In force-controlled pushover procedure, full load

combination is applied as specified, i.e. force-controlled procedure should be
used when the load is known (such as gravity loading). Also, in forcecontrolled pushover procedure some numerical problems that affect the
accuracy of results occur since target displacement may be associated with a
very small positive or even a negative lateral stiffness because of the
development of mechanisms and P-delta effects. Generally, pushover analysis
is performed as displacement-controlled proposed by to overcome these
problems. In displacement-controlled procedure, specified drifts are sought
(as in seismic loading) where the magnitude of applied load is not known in
advance. The magnitude of load combination is increased or decreased as

14

necessary until the control displacement reaches a specified value. Generally,

roof displacement at the centre of mass of structure is chosen as the control
displacement. The internal forces and deformations computed at the target
displacement are used as estimates of inelastic strength and deformation
demands that have to be compared with available capacities for a performance
check.

1.4.1 USE OF PUSH OVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis has been the preferred method for seismic
performance evaluation of structures by the major rehabilitation guidelines
and codes because it is conceptually and computationally simple. Pushover
analysis allows tracing the sequence of yielding and failure on member and
structural level as well as the progress of overall capacity curve of the
structure.
The expectation from pushover analysis is to estimate critical response
parameters imposed on structural system and its components as close as
possible to those predicted by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Pushover analysis
provide information on many response characteristics that can not be obtained
from an elastic static or elastic dynamic analysis.
These are estimates of inter story drifts and its distribution along the
height.

Determination of force demands on brittle members, such as axial

force demands

on columns, moment demands on beam-column

connections
Determination of deformation demands for ductile members
Identification of location of weak points in the structure (or potential
failure modes)
Consequences of strength deterioration of individual members on the
behaviour of structural system

15

 Identification of strength discontinuities in plan or elevation that will

lead to changes in dynamic characteristics in the inelastic range
Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path
Pushover analysis also expose design weaknesses that may remain
hidden in an elastic analysis. These are story mechanisms, excessive
deformation demands, strength irregularities and overloads on potentially
brittle members.

1.4.2 LIMITATION OS PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Although pushover analysis has advantages over elastic analysis
procedures, Underlying assumptions, the accuracy of pushover predictions
and limitations of current pushover procedures must be identified. The
estimate of target displacement, selection of lateral load patterns and
identification of failure mechanisms due to higher modes of vibration are
important issues that affect the accuracy of pushover results. Target
displacement is the global displacement expected in a design earthquake. The
roof displacement at mass centre of the structure is used as target
displacement. The accurate estimation of target displacement associated with
specific performance objective affect the accuracy of seismic demand
predictions of pushover analysis.

However, in pushover analysis, generally an invariant lateral load

pattern is used that the distribution of inertia forces is assumed to be constant
during earthquake and the deformed configuration of structure under the
action of invariant lateral load pattern is expected to be similar to that
experienced in design earthquake. As the response of structure, thus the
capacity curve is very sensitive to the choice of lateral load distribution
selection of lateral load pattern is more critical than the accurate estimation of
target displacement.

16

The lateral load patterns used in pushover analysis are proportional to

product of story mass and displacement associated with a shape vector at the
story under consideration. Commonly used lateral force patterns are uniform,
elastic first mode, "code" distributions and a single concentrated horizontal
force at the top of structure. Multi-modal load pattern derived from Square
Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) story shears is also used to consider at least
elastic higher mode effects for long period structures. These loading patterns
usually favour certain deformation modes that are triggered by the load
pattern and miss others that are initiated and propagated by the ground motion
and inelastic dynamic response characteristics of the structure . Moreover,
invariant lateral load patterns could not predict potential failure modes due to
middle or upper story mechanisms caused by higher mode effects. Invariant
load patterns can provide adequate predictions if the structural response is not
severely affected by higher modes and the structure has only a single load
yielding mechanism that can be captured by an invariant load pattern. FEMA273 recommends utilising at least two fixed load patterns that form upper and
lower bounds for inertia force distributions to predict likely variations on
overall structural behaviour and local demands. The first pattern should be
uniform load distribution and the other should be "code" profile or multimodal load pattern. The 'Code' lateral load pattern is allowed if more than
75% of the total mass participates in the fundamental load.

1.5 NEED FOR STDUY

Structural is designed to resist the lateral force induced by seismic forces
acting on the building. Non-linear static (Pushover) analysis is considered as a
powerful tool to assess the capacity of structure and hence is able to predict
the actual behaviour of the structure during

earthquake. Therefore, the

structure deserve a special consideration in analysis and design. Hence in the

present study seismic analysis of multi-storey building in seismic zone V is
carried out.
17

1.6 OBJECTIVES
The objective of seismic resistant design is to have no structural/nonstructural damage in low magnitude earthquakes, limited and
repairable damage in moderate earthquakes and life safety for extreme
earthquakes.

RC framed building is considered to study the behaviour of (G+5)

storey columns under earthquake excitation using SAP 2000.
Comparative seismic analysis of multi-storeyed building in seismic
zone V

Non-Linear static analysis was carried out

1.7 SCOPE OF THE WORK

In the present study the seismic behaviour of (G+5) storey building being
considered. Non-Linear seismic analysis is carried out on multi-storey
building under seismic zone V using SAP2000.The effect on structure under
earthquake excitation is mainly studied.

18

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General
Many International and National level papers are referred and the
details are given below. Journal papers from the year 1996 were collected and
referred for the study.

2.2 Studies on Literature Review

2.2.1 Mwafy and Elnashai (2000) Owing to the simplicity of inelastic

static pushover analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis, the study of
this technique has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. In
this paper, the validity and the applicability of this technique are assessed by
comparison with dynamic pushover idealised envelopes obtained from
incremental dynamic collapse analysis. This is undertaken using natural and
articial earthquake records imposed on 12 RC buildings of different
characteristics. This involves successive scaling and application of each
accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response, up to the
achievement of the structural collapse. The results of over one hundred
inelastic dynamic analyses using a detailed 2D modelling approach for each
of the twelve RC buildings have been utilised to develop the dynamic
pushover envelopes and compare these with the static pushover results with
different load patterns. Good correlation is obtained between the calculated
idealised envelopes of the dynamic analysis and static pushover results for a
dened class of structure. Where discrepancies were observed, extensive
investigations

19

based on Fourier amplitude analysis of the response were undertaken and

conservative assumptions were recommended. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

2.2.2 Pankaj and Thakkur (2001) Reinforced concrete multi-storeyed

buildings in India for the first time have been subjected to a strong ground
motion. A number of such buildings have been damaged in earthquake.
oorkee conducted the damage survey of buildings. It had been observed that
principle reasons of failure of due to soft storeys, irregularities poor quality of
construction practices and inconsistent earthquake response, and lessons learn
from the failure. Dynamic analysis of the damaged buildings and
instrumented undamaged building has been carried out. Modifications needed
in the design practices to minimise earthquake have also been proposed

2.2.3 Andreas and Panagopoulos (2004) A performance-based design

procedure for realistic 3D reinforced concrete (R/C) buildings is presented,
that involves the use of advanced analytical tools. Depending on the building
configuration, use of two alternative tools is suggested, i.e. either time-history
analysis for appropriately scaled input motions, or inelastic static (pushover)
analysis, both for two different levels of earthquake loading. Theoretical
issues of defining appropriate input for inelastic dynamic analysis, setting up
the analytical model that should account for post-yield behaviour of the
plastic hinge zones, defining loading in two directions and target
displacement for the pushover analysis, and detailing in a way consistent with
the deformations derived from the advanced analysis, are discussed. The
proposed method is then applied to a regular multi-storey reinforced concrete
3D frame building and is found to lead to better seismic performance than the
standard code (Euro code 8) procedure, and in addition leads to a more
economic design of transverse reinforcement in the members that develop

20

very little inelastic behaviour even for very strong earthquakes

2.2.4 Villaverde (2008) A response spectrum method for the seismic

analysis of structures with added dampers is herein introduced. The method is
based on a modal decomposition of the equations of motion and the
derivation of relationships between spectral accelerations, velocities, and
displacements valid for high damping ratios. It involves the calculation of the
complex natural frequencies, mode shapes, and participation factors of the
system and the use of an acceleration Response spectrum. It differs from
similar methods proposed in the past in that it properly accounts for the high
damping ratios observed in structures With added dampers and employs
unique formulations to determine the peak relative velocities and absolute
accelerations of the system. A numerical example is provided to illustrate the
application of the procedure and compare the results attained with it and a
time-history analysis. Through this example, it is shown that the proposed
method is simple to use and leads to results that are close to the results from a
time-history analysis.

2.2.5 Jain and Murty (2008) Open first storey is a typical feature in the
modern multi-storey constructions in urban India. Such features are highly
undesirable in buildings built in seismically active areas; this has been
verified in numerous experiences of strong shaking during the past
earthquakes. This paper highlights the importance of explicitly recognizing
the presence of the open first storey in the analysis of the building. The error
involved in modelling such buildings as complete bare frames, neglecting the
presence of in-fills in the upper storeys, is brought out through the study of an
example building with different analytical models. This paper argues for
immediate measures to prevent the indiscriminate use of soft first storeys in
buildings, which are designed without regard to the increased displacement,
ductility and force demands in the first storey columns. Alternate measures,
21

involving stiffness balance of the open first storey and the storey above, are
proposed to reduce the irregularity introduced by the open first storey. The
effect of soil flexibility on the above is also discussed in this paper.

2.2.6.Nikos and Martha (2010) A number of construction practices,

implemented during the design process of a reinforced concrete (RC)
structural system, may have significant consequences on the behaviour of the
structural system in the case of earthquake loading. Although, a number of
provisions are imposed by the contemporary Greek national design codes for
the seismic design of RC structures, in order to reduce the consequences, the
influence of the constructional practices on the seismic behaviour of the
structure remains significant. The objective of this work is to perform a
comparative study in order to examine the influence of three, often
encountered, construction practices namely weak ground storey, short and
floating columns and two combinations on the seismic performance of the
structure with respect to the structural capacity and the maximum inter storey
drifts in three earthquake hazard levels.

2.2.7 Sapate (2012) Many high rise buildings are planned and
constructed with architectural complexities. The complexities includes soft
storey at lower level or at any intermediate level, floating column at various
levels and shear wall provided in basements, etc. High rise buildings are
critically analyzed for the effect of earthquake. Earthquake loads as specified
in IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 are considered in the analysis of building. A G+15
storey high rise building with different architectural complexities is analyzed
for various earthquake zones. In over all study of seismic analysis, critical
load combinations are found out. For these critical load combinations, zone
wise variation in moments on columns at ground floor level is compared and
significant co relationship between these moments values are established.
Mathematical models developed can be used with reasonable accuracy.
22

2.2.8 Goudar and Koti (2012) The static pushover analysis is becoming
a popular tool for seismic performance evaluation of existing and new
structures. The existing building can become seismically deficient since
seismic design code requirements are constantly upgraded and advancement
in engineering knowledge. Further, Indian buildings built over past two
decades are seismically deficient because of lack of awareness regarding
seismic behaviour of structures. The widespread damage especially to RC
buildings during earthquakes around the world generated a great demand for
developing a simple yet efficiently accurate new method known as pushover
analysis for seismic evaluation. The expectation is that the non-linear static
analysis popularly known as pushover analysis will provide adequate
information on seismic demands imposed by the design ground motion on the
structural system and its components and consumes very less time compared
to non-linear dynamic analysis. In a real structure the strength of concrete and
steel may not be the same as assumed in the analysis, it may be more or less,
Since the output of the analysis is very much sensitive to design parameters,
in the present thesis, attempt is made to understand the sensitivity of design
parameters like strength of concrete, strength of steel and cover to
reinforcement on performance of structures namely bare frame structure and
frame with rigid slab and compare the variation in performance within these
two.

2.2.9 RezaAlaghebandian (2012)In this study a comparison between

three models including diagonal strut model, three strut model, and horizontal
spring model for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frames with
masonry infill walls is presented. In diagonal strut model a masonry panel is
replaced by equivalent single diagonal compression strut between the corners.
In three strut model a masonry panel is replaced by one diagonal and two

23

non-diagonal struts with force-deformation characteristics based on the

orthotropic behaviour

24