Eqx pushx Eqz Pushz

80 60
60
40

Base Shear case RF4 (kN)

Base Shear RF4 (kN)
40
20
20
0 0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
-80 -60
Storey Displacement(mm) Storey Displacement(mm)

k) l)
Eqx Push X Eqz Pushz
80 60
60
Base Shear case RF5 (kN)

Base Shear case RF5 (kN)

40
40
20 20
0
-0.2 0
-20 0 0.2
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
-40 -20
-60
-40
-80
-100 -60
Storey Displacement(mm) Storey Displacement(mm)

m) n)
Figure 6.7 Correlation of TH with PA (a)-(n)

63
 Eqx Pushx Eqz pushz
80 80

60 60

Base Shear Case RF2 (kN)

Base Shear case RF2 (kN)
40
40
20
20 0
0 -0.2 -20 0 0.2
-0.2 0 0.2 -40
-20
-60
-40
-80
-60 -100
-80 -120
Storey Displacement(mm) Storey displacement(mm)
g) h)
Eqx pushx Eqz Pushz
80 60
60 50

40 40
Base Shear case RF3 (kN)
Base Shear case RF3 (kN)

30
20
20
0
-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 10
-20
0
-40 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
-10
-60 -20
-80 -30
-100 -40
-120 -50
Storey Displacement(mm)
Storey Displacement(mm)
i) j)

62
 Eqx pushx Eqz pushz
200 200

Base shear case R1(kN) 150 150

100 100

Base Shear Case R1 (kN)

50 50

0 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3
-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150

-200 -200
Storey displacement (mm) Storey displacement(mm)

c) d)
Eqx pushx Eqz Pushz
80 60
50
60
40
40
Base Shear Case RF1 (kN)

30
Base Shear Case RF1 (kN)

20 20
10
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0
-20 -0.04 -0.02-10 0 0.02 0.04

-40 -20
-30
-60
-40
-80 -50
Storey Displacement(mm)
Storey Displacement(mm)

e) f)

61
load on the corresponding joist elements. On average, the weight of each model is 336000
N. Base Shear coefficient is the maximum lateral force divided by total vertical weight of
structure.

From Figure 6.10, in both X and Z direction, the base shear coefficient has increased
drastically for R1. The base shear was 30% more than UM1 in Z direction than in X
direction for R1. It can also be inferred that presence of band increased the force resistance
capacity of the model. In case of RF1, RF3, RF4 and RF5, the base shear capacity was less
than UM1 because of the early yielding of connections in these cases for cyclic loading.
The UM1 has higher ductility in compare to the above cases for cyclic loading.

6.5 Study of correlation of PA with TH

The results of non-linear time history has to be associated to the pushover analysis to check
correspondence between them. The pushover curves serve as upper limit for non-linear
time history because of complexity of data interpretation for the TH case.

Eqx Eqz Pushz

80 80

60 60
Base Shear case UM1 (kN)

Base Shear case UM1 (kN)

40 40

20 20

0 0
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15
-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
Storey displacement(mm) Storey Displacement(mm)

a) b)
60
load on the corresponding joist elements. On average, the weight of each model is 336000
N. Base Shear coefficient is the maximum lateral force divided by total vertical weight of
structure.

From Figure 6.10, in both X and Z direction, the base shear coefficient has increased
drastically for R1. The base shear was 30% more than UM1 in Z direction than in X
direction for R1. It can also be inferred that presence of band increased the force resistance
capacity of the model. In case of RF1, RF3, RF4 and RF5, the base shear capacity was less
than UM1 because of the early yielding of connections in these cases for cyclic loading.
The UM1 has higher ductility in compare to the above cases for cyclic loading.

6.5 Study of correlation of PA with TH

The results of non-linear time history has to be associated to the pushover analysis to check
correspondence between them. The pushover curves serve as upper limit for non-linear
time history because of complexity of data interpretation for the TH case.

Eqx Eqz Pushz

80 80

60 60
Base Shear case UM1 (kN)

Base Shear case UM1 (kN)

40 40

20 20

0 0
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15
-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
Storey displacement(mm) Storey Displacement(mm)

a) b)
60
 250

200

RF2
Base Shear (kN)

150
UM1
RF3
RF4
100
R1
RF5
RF1
50

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Displacement(mm)

Figure 6.5 Base Shear vs Displacement at Yield and Performance Point in X direction (PA)

57
 300

250

200
RF3
Base Shear (kN)

UM1
150 RF4
RF5
RF2
100 RF1
R1

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement ( mm)

Figure 6.3 Base Shear Vs Displacement X direction (PA)

55
 350

300

250

R1
Base Shear (kN)

200 RF1
RF3
150 RF5
UM1
RF2
100
RF4

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement(mm)

Figure 6.4 Base Shear Vs Displacement Z direction (PA)

56
From Figure 6.1, the stiffest model case was R1 and at the lowest was UM1. Hence, the
addition of connection increased the stiffness of models.

Table 6.1 Diaphragm Type Check for UM1

In-
In-plane plane Diaphragm
Condition Remarks
Direction of wall disp wall displacement
(IBC): if (4) > (3) ,
loading disp
“RIGID”

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Perpendicular to 0.561 0.113 1.231 1.349
RIGID
joists
0.200 0.118 1.396 0.638
Parallel to joists FLEXIBLE

35
30
25
Frequency (Hz)

20
15
10
5
0
UM1 RF1 RF4 RF5 RF3 RF2 R1
Modal Types

Figure 6.1 Model types with increasing order of stiffness (Fundamental mode
frequency)

46