Dr. MOHD. HAMRAJ - International Journal of Science, · PDF filePERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER...

PERFORMANCEBASEDPUSHOVERANALYSISOFR.C.CFRAMESFORPLANIRREGULARITY

Dr.MOHD.HAMRAJ

Professor,CivilEngineering,MJCollegeofEngineeringandTechnology,Telangana,India,Email:[email protected]

ABSTRACT

A performance‐based Analysis is aimed at controlling the structural damage based on precise estimations of properresponseparameters.Performance‐basedseismicdesignexplicitlyevaluateshowabuildingislikelytoperform;giventhepotentialhazarditislikelytoexperience,consideringuncertaintiesinherentinthequantificationofpotentialhazardanduncertainties in assessment of the actual building response. It is an iterative process that beginswith the selection ofperformanceobjectives, followedby thedevelopmentof a preliminarydesign, an assessment as towhether or not thedesignmeetstheperformanceobjectives,andfinallyredesignandreassessment,ifrequired,untilthedesiredperformancelevelisachieved.InthispresentstudythreenewR.C.Cbuildingsunsymmetricalinplan(L‐shape)(designedaccordingtoIS456:2000)istakenforanalysis:4,8and20storeytocoverthebroaderspectrumoflowrise,mediumrise&highrisebuildingconstruction.Differentmodelingissueswereincorporatedthroughsixmodelforeachbuildingwere;bareframe(withoutinfill),havinginfillasmembrane,replacinginfillasanequivalentstrutinpreviousmodel.Thepushoveranalysishas been carried out usingETABS. Buildings located in Zone‐III have been analyzedComparative studymade for bareframe (without infill), having infill as membrane, replacing infill as an equivalent strut. The results of analysis arecompared in terms of Base Shear, Storey Displacement and Drift Ratio. The buildings were designed to meet theperformance level, whose damage is limited to Grade 2 (slight structural damage,moderate nonstructural damage) inorder to enable ImmediateOccupancy, is termed asPerformanceBasedDesign. For seismicperformanceof reinforcedconcretebuildings,CapacitySpectrumMethod(CSM)isused.

IndexTerms:Response,BaseShear,StoreyDisplacementandDriftRatio.

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 General

Amongst the natural hazards, earthquakes have thepotential for causing the greatest damages sinceearthquakeforcesarerandominnature&unpredictable,the engineering tools needs to be sharpened foranalyzing structures under the action of these forces.Performancebaseddesignisgaininganewdimensioninthe seismic design philosophy wherein the near fieldgroundmotion(usuallyacceleration)istobeconsidered.Earthquake loads are to be carefully modeled so as toassess the real behavior of structure with a clearunderstandingthatdamageisexpectedbut itshouldberegulated. In thiscontextpushoveranalysiswhich isaniterative procedure shall be looked upon as analternative for the orthodox analysis procedures. Thisstudy focuses on pushover analysis of multistory RCframed buildings subjecting them to monotonicallyincreasing lateral forces with an invariant height wisedistribution until the preset performance level (targetdisplacement)isreached.

1.2NeedofPerformanceBasedSeismicDesign

From the effects of significant earthquakes, it isconcluded that the seismic risks in urban areas areincreasing and are far from socio‐economicallyacceptablelevels.Thereisanurgentneedtoreversethissituationanditisbelievedthatoneofthemosteffectivewaysofdoingthis is through, thedevelopmentofmorereliable seismic standards and code provisions thanthose currently available and their stringent

implementation for the complete engineering of newengineering facilities. A performance‐based design isaimed at controlling the structural damage based onpreciseestimationsofproper responseparametersandtheflowdiagramisshowninFigure1.2.

Figure1.2Performance‐baseddesignflowdiagram

1.3Objectives

i.Toevaluatetheeffectofmasonrywallforlow,mediumand high rise building in terms of Top StoreyDisplacement.

ii.Tostudytheloadcarryingcapacityofdifferentframes(considered in this work) using masonry wall as infillandequivalentdiagonal strut in termsofBaseShearatperformancepoint.

1.4ScopeofthePresentStudy

The scope of present study aims at evaluation of R.Cbuildings (designed according to IS 456:2000) using

Dr. MOHD. HAMRAJ et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: OCT 19, 2014

ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 7 SEP-OCT 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1544

Pushover Analysis and redesigning columns and againanalyzing. The performance based seismic engineeringtechnique known has Non‐Linear Static Pushoveranalysis procedure has been effectively used in thisregard.ThepushoveranalysishasbeencarriedoutusingETABS, a product of Computers and StructuresInternational. A total of 9 cases for 4, 8 and 20 storeybuildingslocatedinZone‐IIIhavebeenanalyzed.

The results of analysis are compared in terms of baseshear, Top storey displacements, the buildings weredesign tomeet theperformance level,andperformancecheck isdonebycheckingthehingesatnodesanddriftratioofthebuilding.WhosedamageislimitedtoGrade2(slight structural damage, moderate nonstructuraldamage)inordertoenableImmediateOccupancylevel.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1BasisoftheProcedure

In Nonlinear Static Procedure, the basic demand andcapacity parameter for the analysis is the lateraldisplacement of the building. The generation of acapacity curve (base shear v/s roof displacement)defines the capacity of the building uniquely for anassumedforcedistributionanddisplacementpattern. Itis independent of any specific seismic shaking demandand replaces the base shear capacity of conventionaldesignprocedures. If thebuildingdisplaces laterally, itsresponsemust lieonthiscapacitycurve.Apointonthecurve defines a specific damage state for the structure,sincethedeformationforallcomponentscanberelatedto the global displacement of the structure. Bycorrelating this capacity curve to the seismic demandgenerated by a specific earthquake or ground shakingintensity,apointcanbefoundonthecapacitycurvethatestimatesthemaximumdisplacementofthebuildingtheearthquake will cause. This defines the performancepoint or target displacement. The location of thisperformance point relative to the performance levelsdefined by the capacity curve indicateswhether or notthe the design meets the performance objectives, andfinally redesign and reassessment, if required, until thedesiredperformancelevelisachieved.

In thepresentwork, four storied, eight storied and tenstoried (L‐shape) reinforced concrete frame buildingssituatedinZoneIII,istakenforthepurposeofstudy.Thenumberofbaysineachdirectionandheightateachfloorare in shown in table 2.1 below, the building isunsymmetrical about both the axis. The total height ofthebuildingis12.8forfourstoried,25.6foreightstoriedand 64 m for twenty storied building. The building isconsideredasanOrdinaryMomentResistingFrame.

Table2.1DimensionsofBuildingframes

Storey Bayslengthin(m)

Heightoffloor

Bays in x‐direction

Bays in y‐direction

4 5 3.2 5 4

8 5 3.2 5 4

20 5 3.2 5 4

2.2PushoverAnalysisUsingETABS

The following steps are included in the pushoveranalysissteps1 to4are to create thecomputermodel,step 5 runs the analysis and steps 6 to 9 review thepushoveranalysisresults.

1) Create the basic computer model (without thepushoverdata) as shown in Figure2.2.1. The graphicalinterface of ETABS makes this quick and easy task.Assigned sectional properties & applies all the gravityloadsi.e.DeadloadandLiveloadonthestructure.

Figure2.2.1BasicModelinETABS

2) Define properties and acceptance criteria for thepushover hinges as shown in fig 2.2.2. The programincludesseveralbuilt‐indefaulthingesthatarebasedonaveragevalues fromATC‐40 for concretemembersandaverage values from FEMA‐273 for steel members. Inthisanalysis,PMMhavebeendefinedatboththecolumnendsandM3hingeshavebeendefinedatboththeendsofallthebeams.

Figure2.2.2DefiningFrameSections

3)Locatethepushoverhingesonthemodelsbyselectingalltheframesmembersandassigningthemoneormorehingepropertiesandhingelocationsasshowninfigure2.2.3.




4)DInEinthfromthattheandspecpushthatcanspec

Figu

5) Rnonlmaddefinanalnode

Figure

DefinethepusTABSmorethesameanalymthefinalcowas previoufirst pushovethen subseqcified tostarthover. Pushois, pushed tbe displacecifieddisplace

ure2.2.4Def

Figure2

Run the basilinear pushode forcontrolning a numlysisanddispeineachcase

e2.2.3Assign

shoverloadcthanonepusysis.Alsoaponditionofanusly run in ther loadwasquent lateralt fromthe finover load casto a certain dment controementcontro

finingPusho

2.2.5Definin

ic static anaover analysislnodesatea

mber of pushplacementwae.

nmentofHin

cases,figureshoverloadcpushoverloadnotherpushohe same anaused to apppushover lonal conditionses can be fodefined forceolled, that isolled.

overCasefor

ngPushover

alysis. Then. The pushoach level.Thihover casesasmonitored

nges

2.2.4and2.2casecanberdcasecanstaoverloadcasalysis. Typicaly gravity looad cases wenof thegravorce controllee level, or ths, pushed to

rGravityLoa

Cases

run the staver curve wiswasdonein the sam

dforadiffere

2.5.unartedallyoadereityed,heyo a

ad

aticwasbymeent

6)eanuFi

7)FidathimvaangecuusD

) A table waach step of tumber of hinigure2.2.6.

F

Figu

) The capaciigure 2.2.8. Tamping inforhe new capmmediately. Taluesisdefinndthesingleeneratedwhiurveandthesed to convisplacement

Figure

as obtainedwthe pushovenges in each

Figure2.2.6

re2.2.7Push

ity spectrumThemagnitudrmationon thpacity spectrThe performedbytheintedemandspeich shows thdemandcurvert the pushResponseSp

e2.2.8Capac

which gives ter curve andstate. This t

Pushovercu

hoversCurv

m curve obtaide of the earhis formcanrum plot c

mance point fersectionoftectrumcurve.he coordinateveaswellasohover curveectrumForm

citySpectrum

the coordina summarizestable is show

urve

veTable

ined is showrthquake andnbemodifiedcan be obtafor a given sthecapacityc.Also,atablees of the capotherinformto Accelera

mat.

mCurves

ate ofs thewn in

wn ind thedandainedset ofcurveewaspacityationation‐




Figure2.2.9CapacityTable

8)Thepushoverdisplacedshapeandsequenceofhingeinformationonastepbystepbasiswasobtainedandisshown in the figures 2.2.10(a) to 2.2.10(f) and table2.2(a) to 2.2(c) summarizes the member andperformancelevelofbareframe,infillframeandinfillasequivalentstrutframefor4storeybuildingforzoneIII,DBE,soiltypemedium.

9)Output for thepushoveranalysiscanbeprinted inatabular form for theentiremodelor for selectedof themodel.Thetypesofoutputavailableinthisformincludejoint displacements at each step of the pushover, andhinge force,displacementandstateateachstepsof thepushover.

Step0:Figure2.2.10(a)Deformedshapesatstep0.

Step1:Figure2.2.10(b)Deformedshapesatstep1

Step2:Figure2.2.10(c)Deformedshapeatstep2

Step3:Figure2.2.10(d)Deformedshapeatstep3

Step4:Figure2.2.10(e)Deformedshapeatstep4

Figure2.2.10(f)HingepatterninBareframe4Storeybuilding




Table2.2(a)Summaryofmemberandperformancelevelofbareframefor4storeybuildingforzoneIII,DBE,soiltypemedium

Zone

Roofdisplacement

A‐B

B‐IO

IO‐LS

LS‐CP

CP‐C

C‐D

D‐E

>E

TOTAL

III 73mm 620

164

0 0 0 0 0 0 784

The drift ratio of the building is 0.073/12.8 =0.0057=0.57%<1%

Figure2.2.10(g)Hingepatterninfillasmasonrywallframefor4Storeybuilding

Table2.2(b)Summaryofmemberandlevelperformanceofinfillasmasonrywall4storeybuildingforzoneIII,DBE,soiltypemedium

Zone

Roofdisplacement

A‐B

B‐IO

IO‐LS

LS‐CP

CP‐C

C‐D

D‐E

>E

TOTAL

III 82mm 548

236

0 0 0 0 0 0 784

The drift ratio of the building is 0.082/12.8 =0.0063=0.63%<1%

Figure 2.2.10(h) Hinge pattern infill as equivalentstrutframefor4Storeybuilding

Table2.2(c)summaryofmemberlevelperformanceofinfillasequivalentstrut4storeyforzoneIII,DBE,soiltypemedium

Zone

Roofdisplacement

A‐B

B‐IO

IO‐LS

LS‐CP

CP‐C

C‐D

D‐E

>E

TOTAL

III 78mm 491

293

0 0 0 0 0 0 784

. The drift ratio of the building is 0.078/12.8=0.00609=0.609<1%

Similarly, the performance based pushover analysisusingETABShas been carried out for 8 storied and20storied L shape framed structures and the results havebeenincorporatedandrepresentedinthefigures2.2.11to 2.2.22. And the corresponding empirical andanalytical time periods in all storeys are given in table2.2(d).

Table2.2(d)EmpiricalandAnalyticalTimePeriodinallStories

The approximate Fundamental natural period ofvibration from the empirical expression of the IS‐1893part1, is compared with the analytical time period, Asshownintable2.2(d)analyticaltimeperioddonottallywith empirical time period. The analytical period




depends on the mass and stiffness, but empirical timeperioddependsontheheightofthebuilding.

Figure2.2.11BaseShearforDifferentframesfor4storeybuildingsatPerformancePoint

Figure2.2.12BaseShearforDifferentframesfor8storeybuildingatPerformancePoint

Figure2.2.13BaseShearforDifferentframesfor20storeybuildingatPerformancePoint

Figure2.2.14Storey‐Displacementfor4StoreysBuilding

Figure2.2.15Storey‐Displacementfor8StoreyBuilding

Figure2.2.16Storey‐Displacementfor20StoreyBuilding

Figure2.2.17Story‐Driftfor4StoreyBuilding


2039.231

2226.4472192.123

19001950200020502100215022002250

Base shear,kN

Type of frame

Bare Frame

Infilled Frame(masonry wall)

Infill Frame(Strut)

2360.195

2688.9862590.238

20002200240026002800

Base shear,kN

Type of frame

Bare Frame

Infilled Frame(Membrane)

6810.808

7541.7037409.129

60006500700075008000

Base shear,kN

Type of frame

Bare frame

Infilled frame(masonry wall)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 2 4 6

Dis

pla

cem

ent,

m

Storey

Bare Frame

Infilled as Diagonal Strut

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 5 10

dis

pla

cem

ent,

m

storey

Bare frame

Infilled as Diagonal Strut

00.10.20.30.40.5

0 10 20 30dis

pla

cem

ent

,m

storey

Bare Frame

Infilled as Diagonal strut

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 0.005 0.01 0.015

Sto

rey

Drift ,m

Bare Frame

Infilled Frame (as diagonal strut)

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.0020.0040.0060.0080.01

Sto

rey

Drift ,m

Bare Frame

Infilled Frame (Membrane)

Infilled Frame (Strut)





Figure2.2.20ComparisonofFundamentalNaturalperiodofvibrationfor4storey



3. DISCUSSIONOFRESULTS

3.1ResultsforBareBuildingFrames

Fig.2.2.14, 2.2.15 & 2.2.16 show the Base shear fordifferentframes.For4,8and20storeyBareframestheBase Shears are 2040KN, 2360KN and 6810KN afterperforming the Performance‐Based Pushover Analysis,Fig.2.2.17,2.2.18&2.2.19showtheStoreyDisplacementfordifferent frames. For 4, 8, 20 storeyBare frame theTop storey displacements are 0.117 m ,0.203 m and0.471 m and fig.2.2.20, 2.2.21 & 2.2.22 show the Driftratio for different frames. The Fundamental naturalfrequenciesforBareframesusingempiricalformulaare0.5075 sec, 0.853 sec, 1.69 sec .where as Analyticalfrequenciesare0.82sec,1.648sec,2.9386sec for4,8,20 storey Bare frame .The drift ratios are less than0.04*hwhereh is theheight of floor taken as 3.2m foreachfloor.

3.2 Results for Infilled Building Frames (usingMasonryWall)

Fig.2.2.14, 2.2.15 & 2.2.16 show the Base shear fordifferent frames. For 4, 8 and 20 storey Infilled framesthe Base Shears are 2226 KN, 2689 KN and 7542 KNafter performing the Performance‐Based PushoverAnalysis, Fig.2.2.17, 2.2.18 & 2.2.19 show the StoreyDisplacement for different frames. For 4, 8, 20 storeyInfilledframetheTopstoreydisplacementsare0.079m,0.0164 m and 0.437 m and fig.2.2.20, 2.2.21 & 2.2.22show the Drift ratio for different frames. For 4, 8, 20storey Bare frame the drift ratios are less than 0.04*hwhere h is the height of floor taken as 3.2m for eachfloor. The Fundamental natural frequencies for infilledframes using empirical formula are 0.2013 sec fordifferent stories are same because formula depends onbasedimensionofthebuilding(0.09/√d)wheredisthebase dimension of the building. Whereas Analyticalfrequenciesare0.6813sec,1.055sec,2.5461sec.

3.3 Results for Infilled Building Frames (usingEquivalentDiagonalStrut)

Fig.2.2.14, 2.2.15 & 2.2.16 show the Base shear fordifferentframes.For4,8and20storeyBareframestheBase Shears are 2192KN, 2590KN and 7409KN afterperforming the Performance‐Based Pushover Analysis,Fig.2.2.17,2.2.18&2.2.19showtheStoreyDisplacementfordifferent frames. For 4, 8, 20 storeyBare frame theTop storey displacements are 0.088 m ,0.171 m and0.456 m and fig.2.2.20, 2.2.21 & 2.2.22 show the Driftratiofordifferentframes.For4,8,20storeyBareframethedriftratiosarelessthan0.04*hwherehistheheightof floor takenas3.2mforeach floorFor4,8,20storeyBareframethedriftratiosarelessthan0.04*hwherehis the height of floor taken as 3.2m for each floor. TheFundamental natural frequencies for infilled frames(equivalentstrut)usingempiricalformulaare0.2013secfordifferent storiesare samebecause formuladependsonbasedimensionofthebuilding(0.09/√d)wheredisthe base dimension of the building.WhereasAnalyticalfrequenciesare0.6465sec,0.95sec,2.24sec.

4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1Conclusions

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.005 0.01 0.015

Sto

rey

Drift ,m

Bare Frame

Infilled Frame (Membrane)

0.82040.6813 0.6465

0.5075

0.2013 0.2013

00.20.40.60.81

Bare frame

Infilled (Masonry wall)

Infilled (Strut)

per

iod

, sec

ond

s

Type of frame

Analytical

Empirical in IS 1893 part1

1.648

1.055 0.950.853

0.201 0.2013

00.51

1.52

Per

iod

, se

con

ds

Type of frame

Analytical

Emprical in IS 1893 Part 1

2.9386 2.5461 2.24611.69

0.2013 0.201301234

per

iod

,sec

ond

s

Type of frame

Analytical

Emperical in IS 1893 part1




1. Duetopresenceoftheinfillwall(asmembrane)displacementat top storeydecreases to33%,19%and7% for four, eight, twenty stores (respectively) withrespecttobareframe.Fromtheaboveobservationitcanbe seen that due to enhance height of the buildinginfluenceofstiffnessoftheinfillwallwillbeless,thusitshould be used more lateral load resistant system toincrease the stiffness of themulti storey building. Andresults show that stiffness of the infill walls (asmembrane) is efficient for building with low andmediumheight.2. Duetopresenceoftheinfillasequivalentstrut,displacementat topstoreydecreases to25%,16%,and5% for four, eight, twenty stores (respectively) withrespecttobareframe.3. The seismic analysis of RC frames should bedone by considering the infillwalls in the analysis. Formodeling the infill wall the equivalent diagonal strutmethodcanbeeffectivelyused.4. The seismic analysis of RC (Bare frame)structure leads to under estimation of Base shear. Thisunderestimationofbase shearmay lead to the collapseof structure during earthquake shaking. Therefore it isimportant to consider the infill walls in the seismicanalysisofstructure.5. The IS code describes very insufficientguidelinesabout infillwall designprocedures. Softwarelike ETABS is used as a tool for analyzing the effect ofinfill on the structural behavior. It is observed that,ETABS provide overestimated value of fundamentalperiodforbareframemodel..Thestoreydriftforallthebuildingsconsidered,satisfythepermissiblelimit0.04*hwherehisthestoreyheight,asperIS1893. Accordingtorelativevaluesoftheparametersconsidered,itcanbeconcluded that provision of infill wall enhances theperformanceintermsofstoreydisplacementanddrift.4.2SCOPEFORFUTUREWORK

As the performance based pushover analysis is veryuseful method to design the structure at requiredperformance level, it can be applied in differentstructures

In the present study full infill is taken in theframes, partial infill canbe taken so, as to consider theopeningintheframeincaseof(doorandwindows) Single diagonal strut is considered in place ofmasonrywall,doublediagonalstrutcanbeused. Maximum considered earthquake (MCE) levelcanbetakenforlifesafetyperformancelevel.

REFERENCES

[1] ATC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the SeismicRehabilitationofBuildings,FEMA273Report,preparedby the Applied Technology Council for the BuildingSeismic Safety Council, Published by the FederalEmergencyManagementAgency,Washington,D.C

[2] ATC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on theGuidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,FEMA274Report,preparedby theAppliedTechnologyCouncil, for the Building Seismic Safety Council,

published by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency,Washington,D.C.

[3] Bertero VV. 1997, Performance‐based seismicengineering:acriticalreviewofproposedguidelines.In:Proceedings of the International Workshop on SeismicDesignMethodologiesfortheNextGenerationofCodes.Bled/Slovenia

[4] ASCE, 1998, Handbook for the SeismicEvaluation of Buildings, a Prestandard, FEMA 310Report, prepared by the American Society of CivilEngineers for the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency,Washington,D.C.

[5] Kappos,A.J.,Stylianidis,K.C.andMichailidis,C.N.,(1998),“AnalyticalmodelsforbrickmasonryinfilledR/Cframesunderlateralloading”,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.2,No.1,59‐87

[6] “Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear StaticPushover Analysis” by Ashraf Habibullah, S.E.1, andStephen Pyle, S.E.2 (Published in Structure Magazine,Winter,1998)

[7] FajfarP.1999.Capacityspectrummethodbasedon inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake EngineeringandStructuralDynamics;pages979–993

[8] ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary forthe Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356Report, prepared by the American Society of CivilEngineers for the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency,Washington,D.C.

[9] Priestley MJN & Kowalsky MJ. 2000 Directdisplacement‐basedseismicdesignofconcretebuildings.Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for EarthquakeEngineering.

[10] Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., and Park, R., (2000),“Analytical Modeling of Infilled Frame Structures ‐ AGeneralReview”,BulletinoftheNewZealandSocietyforEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.33,No.1,pp30‐47

[11] Mander J.B., 2001, Future directions in seismicdesignandperformance‐basedengineering,Departmentof Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,Christchurch,NewZealand,NZSEE2001Conference

[12] ASCE, 2002, StandardMethodology for SeismicEvaluationofBuildings.StandardNo.ASCE‐31.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,Reston,Virginia.

[13] Klingner R.E., Bertero V.V. (2003) “Earthquakeresistance of infilled frames”, Journal of StructuralEngineering,ASCE,104(ST6):973‐989

[14] ATC,2006,Next‐GenerationPerformance‐BasedSeismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan for New andExisting Buildings, FEMA 445, Federal EmergencyManagementAgency,Washington,D.C.

[15] Xue Q, Chia‐Wei Wu, Cheng‐Chung Chen, Kuo‐Ching Chen, 2007, Civil and Hydraulic EngineeringResearchCenter, SinotechEngineeringConsultants Inc.,




Taiwan, The draft code for performance‐based seismicdesign of buildings in Taiwan. Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com, Engineering Structures 30(2008)1535‐1547

[16] Magazine:‐Structuremag‐AJointPublicationofNCSEA/ CASE/ SEI, June, 2008, Performance‐BasedDesignwithApplicationtoSeismicHazard

[17] DakshesJ.Pambhar(2012),“PerformanceBasedPushover Analysis of R.C.C. Frames”, InternationalJournal of Advanced Engineering Research and StudiesIJAERS/Vol.I/IssueIII/April‐June,2012/329‐333.

[18] ETABS User’s Manual, “Integrated BuildingDesignSoftware”,ComputerandStructureInc.Berkeley,USA

[19] IS‐1893:2002, Criteria for Earthquake resistantDesignofstructures.

[20] MAMAkberuddin(2013)“PushoverAnalysisofMediumRiseMulti‐StoryRCCFrameWith andWithoutVertical Irregularity”, International Journal ofEngineering Research and Application Vol. 3, Issue 5,Sep‐Oct2013,pp.540‐546

[21] Stafford Smith, B., (1963), “Lateral stiffness ofinfilledframes”,JournalofStructuralDivision,ASCE,Vol.88,No.ST6,pp183‐199.




Dr. MOHD. HAMRAJ - International Journal of Science, · PDF filePERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER...

Documents

Transcript of Dr. MOHD. HAMRAJ - International Journal of Science, · PDF filePERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER...