SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Technology in Structural Engineering by A.Pavan Kumar (08304022) Under the supervision of Prof. Ravi Sinha

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY POWAI, MUMBAI 400076 JUNE 2010

Acknowledgement

I express a deep sense of sincere gratitude to Prof. Ravi Sinha for his constant, encouraging and inspiring guidance and support throughout this study. It was great experience working under Prof. Ravi Sinhas supervision, which helped me to achieve in depth insight in this field.

A.Pavan Kumar 08304022

ii

Acceptance certificate

This M.Tech project thesis titled Seismic Performance Evaluation and Fragility Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings submitted by A.Pavan Kumar (Roll No: 08304022) is approved for the degree of Master of Technology in Structural Engineering.

Examiners .. ..

Supervisor ..

Chairman .

Date: 2nd July, 2010 Place: IIT Bombay

iii

Abstract
Earthquakes are one of the most destructive calamities and cause a lot of casualties, injuries and economic losses leaving behind a trail of panic. Earthquake risk assessment is needed for disaster mitigation, disaster management, and emergency preparedness. Vulnerability of building is one of the major factors contributing to earthquake risk. The vulnerability functions developed for specific building or building class is input parameter for loss estimation. In this report procedure for seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings is studied. Three methods namely capacity spectrum method (CSM), displacement coefficient method (DCM), modal pushover analysis (MPA) are discussed for estimating seismic inelastic displacement. Using these methods seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings is evaluated. The validation of these methods has been done with models reported in literature. Two example problems have been evaluated using the methods mentioned. Procedure for developing vulnerability or fragility curves of specific building or generic building type is discussed. Applicability of HAZUS drift ratio based damage state thresholds for building designed as per IS 456-2000 code is studied. Comparison of fragility curves developed using different procedures is studied and applicability is discussed. Seismic fragility curves were developed and damage probability indices has been constructed for the chosen example problems. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial building class is studied and band of fragility curves representing medium rise commercial reinforced building class is developed.

iv

Table of Contents Abstract List of figures List of tables Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Scope of the Dissertation 1.3 Organization of the Report Chapter 2 Seismic Pe rformance Evaluation of Buildings 2.1 Seismic performance based evaluation and design 2.1.1 Performance objectives 2.1.2 Performance levels 2.2 Earthquake ground motion 2.3 Basic safety objective 2.4 Preliminary evaluation of structure 2.5 Retrofit strategy and retrofit method 2.6 Methods of evaluation of seismic performance of buildings 2.6.1 Elastic method of analysis 2.6.1.1 Seismic coefficient method 2.6.1.2 Linear elastic dynamic analysis 2.6.2 Inelastic method of analysis 2.6.2.1 Inelastic time history analysis 2.6.2.2 Inelastic static analysis or pushover analysis 2.6.2.2.1 Background to pushover analysis 2.6.2.2.2 Implementation of pushover analysis 2.6.2.2.3 Limitations of pushover analysis 2.7 Estimation of inelastic displacement demand 2.7.1 Capacity spectrum method (CSM) 2.7.1.1 Design demand spectrum 2.7.1.2 Conversion of design demand spectrum into ADRS format 2.7.1.3 Conversion of capacity curve into capacity spectrum 2.7.1.4 Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum 2.7.1.5 Calculation of spectral reduction factors 2.7.2 Displacement coefficient method-FEMA 273,1997 2.7.3 Modal pushover analysis 2.8 Acceptance criteria for different performance levels

Page No iv viii xii 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 18 19 19 21 21 21 23 26

2.9 Discussions Chapter 3 Seismic Vulne rability and Fragility Analysis of Buildings 3.1 Seismic vulnerability of building 3.2 Fragility curves of building 3.2.1 Procedure to develop DPM of building for given level of earthquake 3.2.1.1 Building type and classification 3.2.1.2 Seismic design levels and quality of construction 3.2.1.3 Damage states 3.2.1.4 Calculation of cumulative damage probability of particular damage state 3.2.1.5 Calculation of discrete damage probability of damage states 3.2.1.6 Median spectral displacements for different damage states 3.2.1.7 Development of damage state variability 3.3 Discussions Chapter 4 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Buildings 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Modeling of nonlinearity in beams and columns 4.3 Bilinear representation of nonlinear curve 4.4 Procedure to develop moment-curvature relationship 4.4.1 Conversion of moment-curvature into moment-rotation 4.4.2 Validation of program for moment-curvature relationship 4.5 Modeling of nonlinearity in infill walls 4.6 Modeling of nonlinearity in shear wall 4.7 Discussions Chapter 5 Analysis and Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings 5.1 Analysis and validation of 2D frame (Inel,2006) 5.1.1 Modal analysis of 2D frame 5.1.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 2D frame 5.1.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 2D frame -CSM 5.1.3.1 Manual calculation of performance point of 2D frame 5.1.3.2 SAP 2000 calculation of performance point of 2D frame 5.1.4 Discussions 5.2 Analysis and validation of 3D frame (Fajfar,1996) 5.2.1 Modal analysis of 3D frame 5.2.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 3D frame 5.2.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3D frame-CSM

26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 38 40 41 43 44 47 45 45 45 45 46 48 48 52 56 56 58 58 59

vi

5.2.4 Discussions 5.3 Analysis and evaluation of 3 storey buildings (Irtem,2007 ) 5.3.1 Modal analysis of 3 storey buildings 5.3.2 Pushover analysis of 3 storey buildings with and without infill walls 5.3.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3 story bare frame (3SBF)-DCM 5.3.4 Seismic fragility analysis 3 story bare frame 5.3.5 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake 5.3.6 Discussions 5.4 Analysis and evaluation of example building no1 5.4.1 Linear static analysis of example building no1 5.4.2 Modal analysis of example building no1 5.4.3 Nonlinear static analysis of example building no1 5.4.4 Performance evaluation of example building no1 using SCM 5.4.5 Performance evaluation of example building no1 using CSM 5.4.5.1 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone III, MCE 5.4.5.2 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone IV, MCE 5.4.5.3 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone V, MCE 5.4.6 Discussions 5.5 Analysis and evaluation of example building no 2 5.5.1 Modal analysis of original and designed example building no 2 5.5.2 Pushover analysis of original and designed example building no 2 5.5.3 Seismic fragility analysis of original and designed example building no 2 5.5.4 Seismic performance of original example building no 2 for DBE,MCE 5.5.4.1 Seismic performance evaluation for design basis earthquake 5.5.4.2 Seismic performance evaluation for maximum considered earthquake 5.5.5 Probability of damage states of original example building no 2 for DBE, and MCE 5.5.6 Discussions 5.6 Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of reinforced concrete commercial buildings 5.6.1 Discussions 5.7 Discussions Chapter 6 Discussions and Conclusions 6.1 Discussions 6.2 Conclusions 6.3 Scope for future work References Appendix 1 Appendix 2

61 61 61 62 64 66 68 69 70 70 70 72 73 74 75 76 76 78 79 80 81 82 87 87 90 93 94 95 100 100 103 103 103 104 105 106 109 113

vii

List of Figures Fig. No 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 Performance levels on pushover curve and load deformation curve (Irtem, 2007) Pushover or capacity curve of the building (Sermin ,2005) Force displacement characteristics of MDF and equivalent SDF system (Krawinkler, 1998) Capacity spectrum method (HAZUS MH MR4) Spectral acceleration coefficients vs. time period (IS 1893-2002) Traditional response spectrum vs. ADRS spectrum (ATC 40,1996) Capacity curve vs. capacity spectrum (ATC 40,1996) Bilinear representation of pushover or capacity curve (FEMA 273, 1997) Properties of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from the pushover curve (Chopra , 2002) Log-normally distributed seismic fragility curves (HAZUS-MHMR1) Flowchart to develop damage probability matrix Idealized component load versus deformation curve (FEMA 273,1997) Damage state thresholds on bilinear capacity spectrum (Barbat , 2008) Bilinear representation of nonlinear curve Stress-strain curve for concrete Stress-strain curve for Fe415 grade steel Flowchart to develop moment curvature relationship Moment curvature relationship of with P and without P (C++) Moment curvature relationship (Matlab) Mathematical modeling of infill walls (Irtem, 2007) Load deformation curve of diagonal strut (Irtem, 2007) Elevation view of 2D frame (Inel, 2006) Layout of columns of 2D frame (Inel, 2006) Description Page No 7 12 14 17 18 19 20 23 24 28 29 33 35 38 39 39 40 42 42 43 43 46 46

viii

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9

Comparison of pushover curve of 2D frame (User vs. default properties) Pushover curves of 2D frame (Inel,2006) Design response spectrum for zone III, MCE, soil type II Capacity spectrum of 2D frame Capacity and demand spectra of 2D frame in ADRS format Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 1) Reduced spectra of 2D frame with initial assumed point (Sdi,Sai) (Trail 1)

47 47 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 57 57 58 59 60 60 62 63 63 63 64 64

5.10 Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 2) 5.11 Reduced spectra of 2D frame with second assumed point (Sdi,Sai) (Trail 2) 5.12 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II 5.13 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I 5.14 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I 5.15 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II 5.16 Member level performance level for zone III ,MCE, soil type II 5.17 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type III 5.18 Member level performance level for zone III ,MCE, soil type III, 5.19 Elevation view of 7 story building (Fajfar,1996) 5.20 Plan view and layout of beams and columns of 7 story building (Fajfar,1996) 5.21 Reinforcement details of beams and columns of 7 story building(Fajfar,1996) 5.22 Comparison of pushover curves for 7 story building 5.23 Performance point of 7 storey building for zone III, MCE, soil type II 5.24 Member level performance level of 7 storey for zone III, MCE, soil type II 5.25 Building configurations with and without infill walls of 3 storey building (Irtem, 2007) 5.26 Pushover curves of 3SBF with different load patterns 5.27 Pushover curves of 3SIF-I with different load patterns 5.28 Pushover curves of 3SIF-II with different load patterns 5.29 Comparison of pushover curves for 3 storey building with and without infill walls 5.30 Pushover curves for 3 storey building (Irtem ,2007)

ix

5.31 Bilinear representation of pushover of 3SBF ( FEMA 273, 1997 ) 5.32 Damage state thresholds on capacity spectrum of 3SBF 5.33 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of spectral displacement 5.34 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of roof displacement 5.35 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake 5.36 Building configuration of example building no1 5.37 Another view of building configuration of example building no1 5.38 Capacity curves of example building no1 with different load patterns in Xdirection 5.39 Pushover curve of the example building no1 pushed in Y-direction 5.40 Performance of example building no1 for different zone levels of earthquake 5.41 Capacity spectrum of example building no1 building 5.42 Demand imposed by different zones on the example building no1 building 5.43 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone III, MCE 5.44 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone IV, MCE 5.45 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone V, MCE 5.46 Building configuration of example building no 2 5.47 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2 for different load patterns in X-direction 5.48 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2 in Ydirection 5.49 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of roof displacement 5.50 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of spectral displacement 5.51 Comparison of fragility curves as per HAZUS and Barbat,2008 method for original example building no 2 5.52 Median damage states in terms of peak ground acceleration for original example building no 2 5.53 Fragility curves of original example building no 2 in terms of peak ground acceleration

65 67 67 68 68 71 71 72 73 74 74 75 75 76 77 80 81 82 83 83 84 84 85

5.54 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of roof displacement 5.55 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of spectral displacement 5.56 Comparison of fragility curves for original, designed example building no 2 5.57 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for DBE 5.58 Bilinear representation of pushover of original example building no 2 as per FEMA 273, 1997 5.59 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE,CSM 5.60 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE,DCM 5.61 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail1) 5.62 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail2) 5.63 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE,CSM 5.64 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE, DCM 5.65 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE 5.66 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for MCE 5.67 Plan layout of 4, 6, 8 storey buildings with 4m span length 5.68 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey numbers in terms of drift ratio 5.69 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey height for 6 storey building 5.70 Comparison of capacity curves of 6 storey building with varying span length 5.71 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with varying storey number 5.72 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with varying storey height 5.73 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with varying span length 5.74 Band of fragility curves of collapse resistance for medium rise reinforced concrete buildings

85 86 86 87 88 89 89 90 90 92 92 93 93 96 97

97 97 98

98

99

99

xi

List of Tables Table No 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 Description Page No 5 6 6 7 7 9 26 32 34

Description of structural performance levels (ATC 40,1996) Description of nonstructural performance levels (ATC 40,1996) Building performance levels (ATC 40,1996, FEMA 273,1997) Earthquake hazard levels (ATC 40,1996) Earthquake hazard levels (FEMA 273,1997) Configuration deficiencies in a building (ATC 40,1996) Global acceptability limits for various performance levels (ATC 40,1996) Guidance for selection of damage state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1) Guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story drift ratios of structural damage-state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1) Damage state thresholds (Barbat ,2008) Average inter-story drift ratio (HAZUS-MH MR1) for structural damage states

3.3 3.4

34 35

4.1 5.1 5.2

Beam details and validation of

program with reported results

41 45 50

Comparison of modal analysis results of 2D frame with reported results Parameters used in estimating seismic inelastic displacement of 2D frame by CSM Summary of member level performances of 2Dframe for zone III, MCE, soil type II (Manually estimated) Summary of member level performances of 2D frame for given level of earthquake under different soil conditions Comparison of modal analysis results of 7 storey building with reported results Summary of member level performances of 7 storey building for zone III, MCE, soil type II Details of diagonal strut used in mathematical modeling of 3 storey

5.3

52

5.4

56

5.5

58

5.6

59

5.7

61

xii

building 5.8 Comparison of modal analysis results of 3 storey buildings with reported results Comparison of parameters used in DCM for 3SBF with reported results Damage state thresholds and variability for 3SBF Results of modal analysis of example building no1 Design base shear values and member level performances of example building no1 in various zones using SCM Member level performances of example building no1 in different zones using CSM Comparison of estimated inelastic displacement of example building no1 by SCM and CSM Comparison of modal analysis results of original and designed example building no 2 Damage state thresholds and variability of original and designed example building no 2 Parameter values used in evaluation of original example building no 2 using CSM for DBE,MCE Element performance levels of original example building no 2 using CSM,DCM for DBE,MCE Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE and MCE 61

5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

66 69 70 73

5.13

77

5.14

78

5.15

80

5.16

82

5.17

91

5.18

91

5.19

94

xiii

Declaration sheet

I declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and where others ideas or words have been included; I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.

A.Pavan Kumar (Roll No. 08304032) Date: 2nd July, 2010 Place: IIT Bombay

xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Earthquakes can create serious damage to structures. The structures already built are vulnerable to future earthquakes. The damage to structures causes deaths, injuries, economic loss, and loss of functions. Earthquake risk is associated with seismic hazard, vulnerability of buildings, exposure. Seismic hazard quantifies the probable ground motion that can occur at site. Vulnerability of building is important in causing risk to life. The seismic vulnerability of a structure can be described as its susceptibility to damage by ground shaking of a given intensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the probability of a given level of damage to a given building type due to a scenario earthquake. The level of damage is directly associated with deaths, injuries, economic losses. Damage functions are to be developed to assess the damage level for given level of earthquake. The outcome of vulnerability assessment can be used in loss estimation. Loss estimation is essential in disaster mitigation, emergency preparedness. 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 behavior of structures could not be identified by an elastic analysis. However, post-elastic behavior 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 behavior indirectly by reducing elastic forces to inelastic. Elastic methods can predict elastic capacity of structure and indicate where the first 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.

1.2 Scope of the Dissertation

1. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings using capacity spectrum method (ATC 40, 1996) and displacement coefficient method (FEMA273, and FEMA 356, 2000) is studied. 2. Basics of pushover analysis, advantages and limitations are discussed in detail. 3. Estimation of seismic inelastic displacement by capacity spectrum method, displacement coefficient method, seismic coefficient method and modal pushover analysis is explained in detail. 4. Modeling of member nonlinearity in flexural members, axial members, and shear walls has been studied in detail. 5. Developed coding to generate moment-curvature relationship for reinforced concrete sections in Matlab and C++. 6. Comparison of capacity curves developed using SAP 2000 default hinge properties and user defined hinge properties developed based on IS 456-2000 is studied and importance of using user defined hinge properties is discussed. 7. Effect of infill walls on lateral resistance and capacity of building is studied and compared with bare frame. 8. Influence of soil conditions on seismic inelastic displacement of building for given level of earthquake is studied. 9. Different methods of developing fragility curves and damage probability matrix are studied and comparisons were made. 10. Applicability of HAZUS based drift ratios and fragility curves for buildings designed as per IS 456-2000 have been studied. 11. Influence of age of construction of buildings on fragility curves of buildings is studied. 12. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial building class is studied.

1.3 Organization of the Report

Second chapter discuss seismic performance evaluation of RCC buildings as per ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. The methods for evaluation of performance of structure are discussed in brief. Basics of pushover analysis, advantages and limitations have been discussed in detail. It also explains methods for estimating seismic inelastic displacement using capacity spectrum method (CSM), displacement coefficient method (DCM), and modal pushover analysis (MPA). Third chapter explains different procedures in development of fragility curves and damage probability matrices. The different ways of defining median damage states for developing fragility curves have been discussed along with their limitations. Fourth chapter discusses modeling of nonlinear component properties in flexural members, axial members, and shear walls. The validation of developed moment curvature rela tionships with already published results has been done. The modeling of infill walls as diagonal struts and its load deformation characteristics has been studied. Fifth chapter deals with modal analysis, performance evaluation and fragility analysis of buildings. It starts with models taken from published literature and results were compared. Fragility curves developed with different methods were compared and conclusions were drawn. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial building class has been studied. Sixth chapter deals with discussions, conclusions and scope for further work.

Chapter 2 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Buildings

2.1 Seismic performance evaluation
The seismic performance evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings pose a great challenge for the owners, architects, and engineers. The risk, measured in both lives and dollars, are high. Equally high is the uncertainty of where, when, and how large future earthquakes will be. The inherent complexity of concrete buildings and of their performance during earthquakes compounds uncertainty. Traditional procedures developed primarily for new construction are not wholly adequate tools for meeting this challenge. Filiatrault et al, 1997 studied seismic behavior of two half scale reinforced concrete structures experimental and analytically. Performance based evaluation procedure provides insight about the actual performance of buildings during earthquake. The steps to be followed in seismic performance evaluation of structures and rehabilitation of structures are given below 1. Select the performance objective of the building as required by owner to achieve for given seismic hazard. 2. Review the existing building conditions by visual inspections, existing drawings, and tests on structure and perform preliminary evaluation of the building. 3. Formulate a strategy for achieving the desired performance objective for given level of seismic hazard. 4. Assess the performance of the retrofitted structure with any analysis procedures. 5. Check the performance of the structure with desired performance objective. 6. If performance objective is not achieved, formulate new strategy and assess the performance of the structure again. Do the above process till desired performance objective is achieved. The steps for performance based design remain same as above. In design we have flexibility in changing the configuration of building, and sections. Once the design is fixed the above process remains same. The explanation of performance levels, preliminary evaluation of building and formulation of the retrofit strategy is discussed in brief in the following sections.

2.1.1 Performance objectives

Performance objective specifies the desired seismic performance of building. Seismic performance is described by designating the maximum allowable damage state for an identified seismic hazard.

2.1.2 Performance levels

Performance level describes a limiting damage condition which may be considered satisfactory for a given building and a given ground motion. Performance levels are qualitative statements of damage the structure going to experience in future prescribed earthquakes. Performance levels are described for structural components and nonstructural components.ATC 40, 1996 defines 6 levels of structural damage or performance levels and 5 levels of nonstructural damage. The brief details of structural and non-structural performance levels are given in table 2.1 and table 2.2. Table 2.1 Description of structural performance levels (ATC 40, 1996) Structural performance level Immediate occupancy(IO) Damage control Life safety (LS) Very limited structural damage and risk to life is negligible. Vertical and lateral resisting system retains all pre-earthquakes characteristics. Range with more damage than IO and less than LS Significant damage to structural elements with some residual strength. Risk to life from structural damage is very low. Limited safety Structural stability(SS) Range with more damage than LS and less than SS Building is on verge of partial or total collapse. Significant degradation in stiffness and strength of lateral resisting system. Gravity load resisting remains to carry gravity demand. Damage description

There is not considered (NC) option in performance level. This is option for owner weather to consider structural or nonstructural performance level. FEMA 273, 1997 defines same definitions of performance levels as described in ATC 40, 1996 but instead of structural stability (SS) FEMA 273, 1997 describes as collapse prevention (CP).

Table 2.2 Description of nonstructural performance levels (ATC 40, 1996) Nonstructural performance level Operational Nonstructural systems are in place and functional. All equipment and machinery will be in working condition Immediate occupancy Minor disruption of nonstructural elements and functionality is not considered. Seismic safety status should not be affected Life safety Considerable damage to nonstructural elements. Risk to life from nonstructural damage is very low. Hazards reduced Extensive damage to nonstructural damage. Risk to life because of collapse or falling of large and heavy items should be considered Damage description

Building performance level is combination of structural and nonstructural performance levels. There so many combinations of performance levels for owner to choose based on requirement. Building performance levels that commonly used are given in table 2.3. The building performance levels represented on pushover curve and load de formation curve are shown in figure 2.1 Table 2.3 Building performance levels (ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997) Building performance levels Operational Immediate occupancy Life safety Structural stability (or) Collapse prevention Combination of structural and nonstructural performance level Immediate occupancy(S)+ Operational (NS) Immediate occupancy(S)+Immediate occupancy(NS) Life safety (S)+ Life safety(NS) Structural stability (or) Collapse prevention (S)+Not considered

2.2 Earthquake ground motion

Earthquake ground motion is combined with a desired building performance level to perform a performance objective. The earthquake ground motion can be specified as level of shaking

associate with a given probability of occurrence or in terms of maximum shaking from single event. ATC 40, 1996 defines three levels of earthquake ground motions as given in table 2.4 Table 2.4 Earthquake hazard levels (ATC 40, 1996) Level of earthquake Serviceability earthquake (SE) Design earthquake (DE) Definition Ground motion with a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year period Ground motion with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year period Maximum earthquake (ME) Ground motion with a 5 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year period

FEMA 273, 1997 defines two levels of earthquake ground motions as given in table 2.5 Table 2.5 Earthquake hazard levels (FEMA 273, 1997) Level of earthquake Basic safety earthquake 1 (BSE~1) Basic safety earthquake 2 (BSE~2) Definition Ground motion with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year period Ground motion with a 2 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year period

Figure 2.1 Performance levels on pushover curve and load deformation curve (Irtem, 2007)

2.3 Basic safety objective

As per ATC 40, 1996 Basic performance objective is defined as achieving life safety performance level for design earthquake (DE) and structural stability performance level for maximum earthquake (ME). As per FEMA 273,1997 guidelines basic safety objective is defined as achieving life safety performance level for basic safety earthquake~1 (BSE~1) and collapse prevention performance level for basic safety earthquake~2(BSE~2). The wide variety of building performance level can be combined with various levels of ground motion to form many possible performance objectives. Performance objectives for any building may be assigned using functional, policy, preservation or cost considerations.

2.4 Preliminary evaluation of structure

A general sense of expected building performance should be developed before performing a detailed analysis. Preliminary evaluation involves acquisition of building data, review of the seismic hazard, limited analysis, and characterization of potential deficiencies. With preliminary analysis we can judge whether to go for higher level of analysis or to use simplified analysis. If sufficient data of the building is not there then material testing has to be done. Sometimes with preliminary analysis it is observed that the building meets the desired performance objective. The typical deficiencies that could be observed in a building during preliminary evaluation are described in the table 2.6

2.5 Retrofit strategy and retrofit system

Retrofit strategy is a basic approach adopted to improve the seismic performance of the building or otherwise reduce the existing seismic risk to an acceptable level. Both technical strategies and management strategies can be employed to obtain seismic risk reduction. Technical strategies include such approaches as increasing building strength, correcting critical deficiencies, altering stiffness, and reducing demand. Management strategies include such approaches as change of occupancy, incremental improvement, and phased construction. Retrofit system is the specific method used to achieve the selected strategy. If the basic strategy is to increase building strength, then the alternative systems that may used to accomplish this strategy could include addition of shear walls, thickening of existing shear

walls, and addition of braced frames. It is necessary to select a specific system in order to complete a design. Table 2.6 Configuration deficiencies in a building (ATC 40, 1996) Configuration deficiencies Incomplete load path Vertical irregularities Horizontal irregularities Weak column/Strong beam Complete load path is required to transfer lateral load to foundation. Missing links in the load path must be identified. Vertical irregularities typically occur in a story which is significantly weaker, more flexible or heavier than the stories above or below. Horizontal irregularities are typically due to odd plan shapes, re-entrant corners, diaphragm openings and discontinuities. Optimum seismic performance is gained when frame members ha ve shear strengths greater than bending strengths of column are greater than beams to have controlled failure mode. Column hinging can lead to story mechanism creating large deflections and inelastic rotations. Detailing concern Non-ductile frame exhibit poor seismic performance. Quantity, spacing, splicing, location, size, anchorages of bars are to be checked. Beam column joint The lateral stability of the frame is dependent upon beam column joint capacity. Adequate stiffness and strength must be provided to sustain repeated cyclic stress reversals. Adequate reinforcement should be provided in joint. Explanation of deficiencies

2.6 Methods of analysis for evaluation of seismic performance evaluation of buildings

Basically two methods of analysis are available to predict the seismic performance of structures. Each method has its own advantages and limitations. The details of the two methods are given below.

2.6.1 Elastic method of analysis

It is assumed that the structure will remain elastic under probable loads. So the strains and stress are linear along the depth of section. But to design a building to remain elastic for earthquake forces is uneconomical. 2.6.1.1 Seismic coefficient method In seismic coefficient method the maximum base shear is calculated based on the fundamental time period, importance factor, reduction coefficient. Lateral forces are distributed proportional to square of height. R factor is used to allow structure to go into inelastic to dissipate energy through yielding. 2.6.1.2 Linear elastic dynamic analysis This analysis required for Irregular buildings and Tall buildings. Dynamic Analysis can be time history analysis or response spectrum analysis. Sufficient number of modes must be considered in analysis such that total mass participation is at least 90%.Elastic Methods can predict elastic capacity of structure and indicate where the first yielding will occur, however they dont predict failure mechanism and account for the redistribution of forces that will take place as the yielding progresses. Moreover, force-based methods primarily provide life safety but they cant provide damage limitation and easy repair.

2.6.2 Inelastic method of analysis

Inelastic method of analysis incorporates material nonlinear behavior and geometric nonlinearity. Material nonlinearity is modeled using nonlinear stress-strain curve. Geometric nonlinearity is incorporated in structure by calculating secondary mo ment for each time step. 2.6.2.1 Inelastic time history analysis or nonlinear response history a nalysis In NRH analysis the reduced stiffness in nonlinear range is considered and the force deformation is not single valued function. It depends on direction of motion as well. 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 modeling and ground motion characteristics. It requires proper modeling of cyclic load deformation characteristics considering deterioration properties of all important components. Also, it

10

requires availability of a set of representative ground motion records that accounts for uncertainties and differences in severity, frequency and duration characteristics. Moreover, computation time, time required for input preparation and interpreting voluminous output make the use of inelastic time history analysis impractical for seismic performance evaluation. 2.6.2.2 Inelastic static analysis or pus hover analysis In pushover analysis the structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads until target displacement is reached. A predefined load pattern is applied and increased till yielding in one member occurs then the structure is modified and lateral loads are increased further. Sermin et al, 2005 studied application of pushover of procedure for frame structures. He studied the effect of different lateral load patterns on capacity of structure. The pushover or capacity curve of the building is shown figure 2.2. Lateral loads are increased till structure reaches its ultimate capacity. The pushover is expected to provide information on many response characteristics that cannot be obtained from an elastic static or dynamic analysis. The following are examples of such response characteristics are taken from Krawinkler et al, 1998.

1. The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial force demands on columns, force demands on brace connections, moment demands on beam-to-column connections, shear force demands in deep reinforced concrete spandrel beams, shear force demands in un reinforced masonry wall piers, etc. 2. Estimates of the deformation demands for elements that have to deform in elastically in order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure by ground motions. 3. Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on the behavior of the structural system. 4. Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are expected to be high and that have to become the focus of thorough detailing. 5. Identification of the strength discontinuities in plan or elevation that will lead to changes in the dynamic characteristics in the inelastic range. 6. Estimates of the inter story drifts that account for strength or stiffness discontinuities and that may be used to control damage and to evaluate P- effects.

11

7. Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path, considering all the elements of the structural system, all the connections, the stiff nonstructural elements of significant strength, and the foundation system.

Figure 2.2 Pushover or capacity curve of the building (Sermin, 2005) 2.6.2.2.1 Background to pushover analysis Pushover analysis is based on the assumption that the response of the structure can be related to the response of an equivalent single degree-of- freedom (SDOF) system. The formulation of the equivalent SDOF system is not unique, but the basic underlying assumption common to all approaches is that the deflected shape of the MDOF system can be represented by a shape vector that remains constant throughout the time history, regardless of the level of of

deformation. Accepting this assumption and defining the relative displacement vector an MDOF system as can be written as

.The governing differential equation of an MDOF system

(1) Where M and C are mass and damping matrices, Q denotes storey force vector and ground acceleration. If we define the reference SDOF displacement as (2) Pre-multiply differential equation by and substitute for we obtain the following is

differential equation for the response of the equivalent SDOF system as

12

(3) Where are the properties of the equivalent SDOF system and are given by (4) (5) (6) Presuming that the shape vector equivalent SDOF system is known, the force deformation characteristics of the can be determined from the results of a nonlinear

incremental static analysis of the MDOF structure, which usually produces a base shear versus roof displacement diagram of the type shown in figure 2.3 below. In order to identify nominal global strength and displacement quantities, the multi linear be represented by a bilinear relationship that defines a yield strength stiffness and post elastic stiffness diagram needs to and effective elastic

for the structure.

The simplified pushover is shown in the figure 2.3 is needed to define the properties of the equivalent SDOF. The yield value of base shear and corresponding roof displacement

are used to compute force displacement relationship for equivalent SDF system as follows. (7) (8) Where is story force vector at yield i.e.,

The initial period of equivalent SDOF is given by following equation

(9)

13

Figure 2.3 Force displacement characteristics of MDF and equivalent SDF system (Krawinkler, 1998) The strain hardening ratio of of the MDF system defines the strain hardening ratio

of equivalent SDF system. The fundamental question in the execution of the pushover analysis is the magnitude of the target displacement at which seismic performance evaluation of the structure is to be performed. The target displacement serves as an estimate of the global displacement the structure is expected to experience in a design earthquake. A convenient definition of target displacement is the roof displacement at the center of mass of the struct ure. The properties of the equivalent SDOF system, together with spectral information for inelastic SDOF system provide the information necessary to estimate the target displacement. The target displacement for inelastic SDOF system is calculated from inelastic spectra using the period calculated above. Then this target displacement is converted into global roof displacement. To use inelastic response spectrum we need ductility factor which we can get

from R- factor (i.e. ratio of elastic strength to yield strength). The R- factor can be calculated from the above data. The displacement obtained from inelastic spectrum has to be modified to account for effect, stiffness degradation, strength deterioration.For performance

evaluation of a structure, the structure is pushed to calculated target displacement, and then desired responses at target displacement are found out from pushover data base. 2.6.2.2.2 Implementation of pushover analysis The process is to represent the structure in a two- or three dimensional analytical model that accounts for all important linear and nonlinear response characteristics, apply gravity loads followed by lateral loads in predetermined or adaptive patterns tha t represent approximately

14

the relative inertia forces generated at locations of substantial masses, and push the structure under these load patterns to target displacements that are associated with specific performance levels. The internal forces and deformations computed at these target displacements are used as estimates of the strength and deformation demands, which need to be compared to available capacities. The emphasis in performance evaluation needs to be on the following points. 1. Verification that an adequate load path exists. 2. Verification that the load path remains sound at the deformations associated with the target displacement level. 3. Verification that critical connections remain capable of transferring loads between the elements that form part of the load path. 4. Verification that individual elements that may fail in a brittle mode and are important parts of the load path are not overloaded. 5. Verification that localized failures (should they occur) do not pose a collapse or life safety hazard, i.e. that the loads tributary to the failed element(s) can be transferred safely to other elements and that the failed element itself does not pose a falling hazard. 2.6.2.2.3 Limitations of pushove r analysis A carefully performed pushover analysis will provide insight into structural aspects that control performance during severe earthquakes. For structures that vibrate primarily in the fundamental mode, such an analysis will very likely provide good estimates of global as well as local inelastic deformation demands. It will also expose design weaknesses that may remain hidden in an elastic analysis. Such weaknesses include story mechanisms, excessive deformation demands, strength irregularities, and overloads on potentially brittle elements, such as columns and connections. Although pushover analysis posses a lot of advantages, it has several limitations also. 1. Pushover analysis is approximate in nature and based on static loading, so it cannot represent dynamic phenomena in large accuracy. It may not detect some important deformation modes that may occur in a structure subjected to severe earthquakes, and it may exaggerate others. 2. Limitations are imposed also by the load pattern choices. Whatever load pattern is chosen, it is likely to favor certain deformation modes that are triggered by the load

15

pattern and miss others that are initiated and propagated by the ground motion and inelastic dynamic response characteristics of the structure. Thus, good judgment needs to be employed in selecting load patterns and in interpreting the results obtained from selected load patterns. 3. Pushover analysis will give reasonable results when the structure is vibrating in fundamental mode. But its accuracy decreases when the higher modes become

important in particular structure.

2.7 Estimation of inelastic displacement demand

The structure undergoes inelastic displacement for severe earthquake. Linear analysis methods cannot predict the inelastic displacement. Nonlinear response history analysis gives exact behavior of the buildings under severe earthquakes. Nonlinear response history analysis is very sensitive to ground motions and building characteristics. The other method which uses inelastic static analysis (pushover analysis) is effective way of estimating inelastic displacement. Three methods for estimating inelastic displacement are discussed in detail.

2.7.1 Capacity spectrum method

ATC 40, 1996 has developed a simple iterative procedure to estimate seismic inelastic displacement for given level of earthquake. For seismic evaluation of existing structures the procedure can be easily implemented. This procedure requires pushover curve which is obtained from nonlinear static analysis of structure. Demand spectrum has to be developed for the given site considering level of earthquake (Serviceability earthquake (SE), Design earthquake (DE), and Maximum earthquake (ME)). This are defined based on percentage chances of probability of exceeding particular ground motion during 50 year time period. IS1893 defines two levels of earthquakes (Design basis earthquake (DBE), Maximum considered earthquake (MCE)). The procedure to estimate seismic inelastic displacement as per ATC 40, 1996 procedure is given below. 1. Develop design demand spectrum ( level of earthquake. 2. Convert demand spectrum ( spectrum (ADRS) format. 3. Develop the capacity curve i.e., pushover curve obtained with incremental invariant lateral load pattern applied to structure until structure reaches ultimate capacity. vs T) into acceleration displacement response vs T) for the given site considering soil effects,

16

4. Convert capacity curve into capacity spectrum which is representation of capacity curve in acceleration-displacement response spectra (ADRS) format. 5. Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum is needed to estimate the effective damping displacement and appropriate reduction of spectral demand associated with . associated with maximum displacement

6. Calculate the effective viscous damping

i.e. hysteretic damping represented as equivalent viscous damping plus inherent viscous damping. 7. Calculate spectral reduction factors which are required to reduce 5%

damped elastic design response spectrum to account for yielding. 8. Draw demand spectrum in ADRS format on the same plot as the capacity spectrum as shown in the figure 2.4 9. If reduced demand spectrum intersects the capacity spectrum at initially assumed displacement then it is the performance point. Performance point is the inelastic

displacement of the structure for the given level of earthquake. 10. If reduced demand spectrum does not intersects the capacity spectrum at initially assumed displacement then assume next displacement based on judgment. Repeat

steps 5 to 8 until convergence is achieved. The plot showing capacity spectrum method is given in figure 2.4

Figure 2.4 Capacity spectrum method (HAZUS MH MR 4)

17

Conversion of capacity curve and demand spectrum into acceleration-displacement response spectrum is explained in the following sections. Calculation of effective damping and spectral reduction factors are also explained in the following sections. 2.7.1.1 Design de mand s pectrum ( vs T)

The design demand spectrum has to be developed for given site considering range of earthquakes or IS 1893-2002 code gives design response spectrum for different zones. IS

1893-2002codes gives design response spectrum for three sites i.e., rocky or hard soil, medium soil, soft soil sites is represented in figure 2.5. The classification of site into above mentioned categories is based on IS 1893-2002. The design response spectrum is for 5% damped structure. IS1893 gives modification factors for other damping values. For special structure site design spectrum has to be developed. The reduction factors given in IS1893 for other damping can be used as reduction factors to get reduced design demand response spectrum.

Figure 2.5 Spectral acceleration coefficients vs. time period (IS 1893-2002) The mathematical expressions to calculate spectral acceleration coefficient for different sites as per IS1893 are given below. For rocky or hard soil sites (10) For medium soil sites

18

(11) For soft soil sites (12)

2.7.1.2 Conve rsion of design response spectrum into ADRS format Every point on response spectrum curve has associated with it a unique spectral acceleration , spectral velocity , spectral displacement and time period T. To convert

a spectrum from standard for each point on the curve represents the time period

to ADRS format it is necessary to determine the value . The line radiating from origin to point on the curve . The representation of response spectrum in traditional and in

ADRS format is shown in figure 2.6. It is observed that the period lengthens as the structure undergoes inelastic displacement. This spectral displacement is related to spectral acceleration and time period as given in equation no 13. (13)

Figure 2.6 Traditional response spectrum vs. ADRS spectrum (ATC 40, 1996) 2.7.1.3 Conve rsion of capacity curve into capacity spectrum To use capacity spectrum method it is necessary to convert the capacity curve into capacity spectrum. Capacity spectrum is plot in terms spectral acceleration displacement and spectral vs

. The demand imposed on the structure i.e., design response spectrum (

19

T) is also converted into ADRS format. Both capacity spectrum and design response spectrum in ADRS format are plotted on graph. The performance point i.e., inelastic seismic demand is intersection of capacity spectrum and reduced demand spectrum such that capacity of structure and demand imposed on the structure are equal. The required equat ions to make transformation are given in equation no 14 to equation no 17. Conversion of capacity curve into capacity spectrum is shown in figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7 Capacity curve vs. capacity spectrum (ATC 40, 1996) (14)

(15)

(16) (17) The meaning of notations are given below =Mode shape vector at level i =Modal mass participation factor for the first natural mode V= Base shear W= Seismic weight of the building i.e., dead load and likely live load Mass assigned to level i =Spectral acceleration =Spectral displacement

20

2.7.1.4 Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum A bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is needed to estimate the effective damping and appropriate spectral reduction factors representation requires definition of the point . Construction of the bilinear . This point is the trial performance

point which is estimated to develop a reduced demand response spectrum. The first estimate of the point is designated as the second , and so on. Equal

displacement approximation is used as an estimate of ap1, dp1. Equal displacement approximation is based on the assumption that the inelastic spectral displacement is the same as that which would occur if the structure remained perfectly elastic. The procedure to construct bilinear curve is explained in section 4.3. Once bilinear capacity spectrum developed we can calculate the effective damping using the expressions given in equation no 18. (18) Where are initial assumed values based on equal displacement approximation are obtained from bilinear curve of capacity spectrum. and spectral reduction factors

method. The yield values

factor is measure of the extent to which actual building hysteresis is well represented by idealized parallelogram. The - factor depends on structural behavior of the building and factor can be obtained from ATC 40, 1996.

duration of ground shaking. The values for

2.7.1.5 Calculation of spectral reduction factors Spectral reduction factors are required to reduce the elastic 5% damped design response spectrum to account for yielding i.e. hysteric effect. The spectral reduction factors are given in equation no 19, and 20. (19) (20)

2.7.2 Displacement coefficient method

FEMA273, 1997 has developed displacement coefficient method for calculating the displacement demand. The displacement coefficient method provides a numerical process for calculating the displacement demand. There are some differences in terminology used

21

compared to ATC 40, 1996. Bilinear representation of pushover curve is different from the procedure used in ATC 40, 1996. The step by step procedure to calculate the inelastic displacement of structure is given below. 1. Develop a capacity curve (base shear versus roof displacement) of the overall structure by pushover analysis. 2. Bilinear representation of pushover is developed to know initial stiffness, secant stiffness and post elastic stiffness. These parameters are required to modify time period of the structure. The method for bilinear representation of pushover curve as per FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines is explained in section 2.8.1 3. Calculate the effective fundamental time period using expression given below (21) Where =Initial elastic lateral stiffness of building in the direction under consideration. =Effective lateral stiffness of building in the direction under consideration. =Effective fundamental time period =Elastic fundamental time period calculated by elastic dynamic analysis Calculate the target displacement as (22) Where =Modification factor to relate spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement =Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to displacement calculated for linear elastic response =Modification factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response =Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to second order effects. The values and expressions to calculate above factors are given in FEMA 273, 1997. In this approach, a line representing the average post-elastic stiffness, of capacity curve is is

first drawn by judgement. Then, a secant line representing effective elastic stiffness

drawn such that it intersects the capacity curve at 60% of the yield base shear. The yield base shear is defined at the intersection of and lines. The process is iterative because the

22

value of yield base shear is not known at the beginning. An illustrative capacity curve and its bilinear representation are shown in figure 2.8

Figure 2.8 Bilinear representation of pushover or capacity curve (FEMA 356, 2000) 2.7.3 Modal pushove r analysis Chopra et al, 2007 developed an improved pushover analysis procedure named Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) to account for the effects of higher modes on structural response and for the redistribution of inertial forces during progressive yielding. This procedure is shown to be equivalent to response spectrum analysis (RSA) when applied to linear elastic systems. In the modal pushover analysis, the seismic demand due to the individual terms in the modal expansion of effective earthquake forces is determined by pushover analysis using the inertia force distribution at each mode. Combining these modal demands due to first two or three terms of the expansion provide an estimate of the total seismic demand on the inelastic systems. The differential equation governing the response of a multistory building to horizontal earthquake ground motion is (23) The standard approach is to directly solve these coupled equations leading to exact nonlinear response history analysis. The spatial distribution s of effective earthquake forces is expanded into modal coordinates with assumption that coupling of modal coordinates arising from yielding of the system is neglected. The governing equation for the nth mode inelastic SDF system is (24) The resisting force is given as

23

The vibration properties natural frequency

and damping ratio

are properties of nth mode is obtained from

of the corresponding linear MDF system. The relationship pushover curve with load distribution its ultimate capacity. The pushover curve ( is converted to

with structure pushed till structure reaches

as explained in the following

equations. The two sets of forces and displacements are related as follows , The above equation is used to convert pushover curve to desired values of , Where = is the effective modal mass of the nth mode inelastic SDF system is computed as (27) and are (26) (25) relation, the yield

The vibration period

Figure 2.9 Properties of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from the pushover curve (Chopra, 2002)

24

The procedure to estimate the seismic demands of inelastic systems consists of following steps. 1. Determine the natural frequencies vibration of the structure. 2. For the nth mode, develop the 'modal' capacity curve (base shear versus roof displacement) of the overall structure for the lateral load distribution where is the mass matrix. 3. Obtain the force-displacement relationship of the nth mode inelastic SDOF from the corresponding 'modal' capacity curve as described in preceding paragraphs. 4. Perform a nonlinear dynamic analysis for the ground motion excitation by utilizing the force-displacement relationship of nth mode inelastic SDOF system to obtain the peak deformation of n-th mode inelastic SDOF system. and mode shapes for linearly elastic

5. Calculate the peak roof displacement of MDF system mode inelastic SDOF system as

associated with the n-th

(28) Where Modal participation factor for the nth mode Mode shape value of nth mode MDF system at roof level : Peak spectral displacement of nth mode inelastic SDOF system 6. Extract any peak response parameter (shear force, bending moment, drift ratios, .

plastic rotation) from the pushover results at roof displacement

7. Repeat above steps for as many modes required. The condition for number modes to be considered is the total mass participation should be at least 90%. 8. Determine the peak value of total response by combining the peak modal responses using any appropriate modal combination (square root of sum of squares (SRSS), complete quadratic combination (CQC)).

25

2.8 Acceptance criteria for diffe rent performance levels To determine whether a building meets a specified performance objective, response quantities obtained from above mentioned analysis procedures are compared with limits for appropriate performance levels. The response limits fall into two categories. These response limits include requirements for the vertical load capacity, lateral load resistance, and lateral drift. The gravity load capacity of the building structure should remain intact for acceptable performance at any level. The lateral load resistance of the building should not degrade by more than 20 percent of the maximum resistance of the structure. The deformation limits for various performance levels are given in table 2.7

Table 2.7 Global acceptability limits for various performance levels (ATC 40, 1996) Inter-story drift limit Immediate occupancy Maximum total drift Maximum inelastic drift 0.01 0.005 Damage control 0.01-0.02 0.005-0.015 Life safety 0.02 No limit No limit Structural stability

Where

=Total calculated lateral shear force in story i = Total gravity load at story i

Each component must be checked to determine if its components respond within acceptable limits. The acceptable limits for various performance levels for beams and columns are given in ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. 2.9 Discussions Seismic performance evaluation of buildings is discussed. The various steps to be followed in evaluation procedure are explained in detail. Various seismic methods of analysis of structure are discussed in brief. Basics of pushover or nonlinear static analysis, advantages and limitations are explained clearly. Methods of estimating seismic inelastic displacement as per ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA356, 2000 guidelines are explained in detail. Modal pushover analysis procedure proposed by Chopra et al, 2007 is also explained.

26

Chapter 3 Seismic Vulnerability and Fragility Analysis of Buildings

3.1 Seismic vulnerability of building
Earthquake risk assessment is needed to estimate the casualties, losses (direct losses, economic losses, social impact) and to mitigate the risk associated. Earthquake risk is depends on hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. A significant component of a loss model is a methodology to assess the vulnerability of the built environment. The seismic vulnerability of a structure can be described as its susceptibility to damage by ground shaking of a given intensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the probability of a given level of damage to a given building type due to a scenario earthquake. There are two methods of assessing vulnerability of given building type. Empirical methods developed based on observed damage in past earthquakes. Analytical methods developed by simulation done on computer model. Lang et al, 2002 studied seismic vulnerability of existing buildings in Switzerland. He developed analytical capacity curves for masonry building reinforced buildings. Damage grades were defined on capacity curves. Calvi et al, 2006 has discussed the development of vulnerability assessment methods in 30 years.

3.2 Fragility curves of building

Fragility curves describe the probability of damage to building. Building fragility curves are lognormal functions that describe the probability of reaching, or exceeding, structural and nonstructural damage states, given median estimates of spectral response, for example spectral displacement. These curves take into account the variability and uncertainty associated with capacity curve properties, damage states and ground shaking. The fragility curves distribute damage among slight, moderate, e xtensive and complete damage states. For any given value of spectral response, discrete damage-state probabilities are calculated as the difference of the cumulative probabilities of reaching, or exceeding, successive damage states. The probabilities of a building reaching or exceeding the various damage levels at a given response level sum to 100%. Discrete damage-state probabilities are used as inputs to the calculation of various types of building-related loss. Each fragility curve is defined by a median value of the demand parameter (e.g., spectral displacement) that

27

corresponds to the threshold of that damage state and by the variability associated with that damage state. The typical fragility curve is shown in figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Log-normally distributed seismic fragility curves (HAZUS-MHMR1)

3.2.1 Procedure to develop damage probability matrix (DPM) of building for given level of earthquake
The steps involved in development of fragility curve as per HAZUS-MH MR1 are explained in the flowchart shown in figure 3.2. 3.2.1.1 Building type and classification Buildings are classified both in terms of their use, or occupancy class, and in terms of their structural system, or model building type. Damage is predicted based on model building type, since the structural system is considered the key factor in assessing overall building performance, loss of function and casualties. Occupancy class is impo rtant in determining economic loss, since building value is primarily a function of building use Buildings are classified based on structural characteristics like number of stories as 1. Low-rise (1-3 stories), 2. Mid-rise (4-7 stories) 3. High-rise (8+ stories) Building classification is done based on the material used for construction: steel frame, concrete frame, brick masonry burned and unburned, stone masonry and mud wall.

28

Seismic Design Level

Building Model Type

Ground Motion and Seismic Data

Structural Building Characteristics

Develop Response Spectra

Generate Capacity Curve

Calculate Building Peak Response (Sd)

Generate Fragility Curve for defined Damage States

Calculate Discrete Damage Probabilities for Damage States

Damage Probability Matrix for particular Building Model Type

Figure 3.2 Flowchart to develop damage probability matrix 3.2.1.2 Seismic design levels and quality of construction The building damage functions distinguish among buildings that are designed to different seismic standards, have different construction quality, or are otherwise expected to perform differently during an earthquake. These differences in expected building performance are determined primarily on the basis of seismic zone location, design vintage and use (i.e., special seismic design of essential facilities).Damage functions are provided for three Code seismic design levels, labeled as High-code, Moderate-code and Low-code, and an additional design level for Pre-code buildings. 3.2.1.3 Damage states Damage states are defined separately for structural and nonstructural systems of a building. Damage is described by one of four discrete d amage states: slight, moderate, extensive, and complete. Loss functions relate the physical condition of the building to various loss parameters (i.e., direct economic loss, casualties, and loss of function).

29

Slight structural damage: Flexural or shear type hairline cracks in some beams and columns near joints or within joints. Moderate structural damage: Most beams and columns exhibit hairline cracks. In ductile frames some of the frame elements have reached yield capacity indicated by large flexural cracks and some concrete spalling. Extensive structural damage: Some of the frame elements have reached their ultimate capacity indicated in ductile frames by large flexural cracks, spalled concrete and buckled main reinforcement; non-ductile frame elements may have suffered shear failures or bond failures at reinforcement splices or broken ties or bucked main reinforcement in columns which may result in partial collapse. Complete structural damage: Structure is collapsed or in imminent danger of collapse due to brittle failure of non-ductile frames or loss of frame stability. 3.2.1.4 Calculation of cumulative damage probabilities of particular damage state The damage function is assumed to be lognormal function. To define a probability distribution median and standard deviation values are required. For a given median spectral displacement and standard deviation for a particular damage state , design level

the conditional probability of being in or exceeding is defined by (29) Where = Median value of spectral displacement at which the building reaches the threshold of damage state, =Standard deviation of the natural logarithm of spectral displacement for damage state, = Standard normal cumulative distribution function. = Given peak spectral displacement Probability of being in or exceeding slight damage state, Probability of being in or exceeding slight moderate state, Probability of being in or exceeding slight extensive state, Probability of being in or exceeding collapse damage state,

30

3.2.1.5 Calculation of discrete damage probabilities of damage states The probability of discrete damage state Probability of complete damage Probability of extensive damage Probability of moderate damage Probability of slight damage Probability of no damage = = = = = is given below

3.2.1.6 Median s pectral displacements for different damage states There are certain key aspects to the damage functions of which users must be aware when developing fragility parameters. First, the damage functions should predict damage without bias such as that inherent to the conservatism of seismic design codes and guidelines. In general, limit states of the NEHRP guidelines (or ATC 40, 1996) will under-predict the capability of the structure, particularly for the more critical performance objectives, such as collapse prevention (CP). The NEHRP guidelines criteria for judging CP certainly do not intend that 50 out of 100 buildings that just meet CP limits would collapse. Most engineers would likely consider an acceptable fraction of CP failures (given that buildings just meet CP criteria) to be between 1 and 10 in every 100 buildings. In contrast, the median drift value of the Complete structural damage state of HAZUS is the amount of building displacement that would cause, on the average, 50 out of 100 buildings of the building type of interest to have Complete damage (e.g., full financial loss). In general, users should not derive median values of HAZUS damage states directly from the performance limits of the NEHRP guidelines and ATC 40, 1996. Fragility parameters of the more extreme damage states are particularly difficult to estimate since these levels of damage are rarely observed even in the strongest ground shaking. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the worst earthquake disaster to occur in a modern urban region, only about 10 in every 100 mid-rise commercial buildings located close to fault rupture had severe damage or collapse. Typically, the fraction of modern buildings with such damage (e.g., complete structural damage) is much less than 10 in 100. In selecting median values of damage states, users should be mindful that median values represent the 50 percentile (e.g., 50

31

in every 100 buildings have reached the state of damage of interest). Median values of spectral displacement (or spectral acceleration) for the more extensive states of damage may appear large relative to seismic code or guideline design criteria. Development of damage-state medians involves three basic steps 1. Develop a detailed understanding of damage to elements and components as a continuous function of building response (e.g., average inter-story drift or floor acceleration) 2. Select specific values of building response that best represent the threshold of each discrete damage state 3. Convert damage-state threshold values (e.g., average inter-story drift) to spectral response coordinates (i.e., same coordinates as those of the capacity curve). The general guidelines for selection of damage state medians are given table 3.1 Table 3.1 Guidance for selection of damage state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1) Damage state Likely amount of damage, direct economic loss, building condition Range of possible loss ratios Slight Moderate 0% - 5% 5% - 25% Probability of long-term building closure P=0 P=0 P P 0.5 1.0 Probability of partial or full collapse P=0 P=0 P P 0

Extensive 25% - 100% Collapse 100%

In using the acceptance criteria of the NEHRP guidelines users must be aware and account for each of the following four issues Conservative deformation limits: The deformation limits of the NEHRP guidelines are, in general, conservative estimates of true component or element capacity. The Collapse Prevention deformation limits of primary components or elements are defined as 75% of that permitted for secondary elements, reflecting added conservatism for design of primary components or elements. While appropriate for design, conservatism should be removed from deformation limits used to estimate actual damage and loss.

32

Deformation limits vs. Damage states :The NEHRP guidelines provide limits on component or element deformation rather than explicitly defining damage in terms of degree of concrete cracking, nail pull-out, etc., or whether component of element damage is likely to repairable (or not). For estimating direct economic loss it is important to understand the type of damage, not just the degree of yielding, to establish if repair would be required and what the nature (and cost) of such repairs would be. Global vs. Local damage: Local damage (as inferred from the deformation limits of the NEHRP guidelines) of individual components and elements must be accumulated over the entire structure to represent a global damage state. Collapse failure: Reaching the collapse prevention deformation limit of components or elements does not necessarily imply structural collapse. Typically, structural systems can deform significantly beyond Collapse Prevention deformation limits before actually sustaining a local or global instability.

The load deformation curve used as per NEHRP guidelines is given in figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Idealized component load versus deformation curve (FEMA 273, 1997) The median of Slight damage is defined by the first structural component to reach control point C on its load deformation curve. Moderate damage is defined by a median value for which a sufficient number of components have each reached control point C (on their respective load deformation curves) such that it will cost at least 5% of the replacement value of the structural system to repair (or replace) these components. Extensive damage is defined by a median value similar to moderate damage, except that damage repair now costs at least 25% of the value of the structural system. Complete damage is defined by a median value for which at least 50% (in terms of repair/replacement cost) of structural components have each lost full lateral capacity, as defined by control point E on their respective load deformation

33

curves. The general guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story drifts ratios of structural damage-state medians are given in table 3.2 Table 3.2 Guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story drift ratios of structural damage-state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1) Damage state Component (Criteria Set No. 1)1 Component (Criteria Set No. 2)1 Fraction2 Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse > 0% 5% 25% 50% Limit3 C C C E Factor4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0-1.55 Fraction2 50% 50% 50% 50% Limit3 B B B B Factor4 1.0 1.5 4.5 12

1. The average inter-story drift ratio of structural damage state is lesser of the two drift ratios defined by criteria sets no. 1 and no.2, respectively. 2. Fraction defined as the repair or replacement cost of components at limit divided by the total replacement value of the structural system. 3. Limit defined by the control points of figure 3.3 and the acceptance criteria of NEHRP guidelines. 4. Factor applied to average inter-story drift of structure at deformation (or deformation ratio) limit to calculate average inter-story drift ratio of structural damage-state median. 5. Complete factor is largest value in range for which the structural system is stable. Barbat et al, 2008 has defined median spectral displacement for each damage state. This method uses capacity spectrum to define threshold for each damage state. Push the structure to its ultimate capacity. Convert pushover in to capacity spectrum (ADRS format). Bilinear the capacity spectrum with ultimate and yield points. Bilinear representatio n of capacity spectrum with damage thresholds is shown figure 3.4. Table 3.3 Damage state thersholds (Barbat ,2008) Median spectral displacement Damage state Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

34

Figure 3.4 Damage state thresholds on bilinear capacity spectrum (Barbat, 2008) The damage state medians for different code level designs and heights of the generic building type are given in table 3.4 (HAZUS-MH MR1). These values doesnt represent for a specific building. Table 3.4 Average inter-story drift ratio Model building type Concrete moment frame (C1) 0.005 Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse Low rise building High- code design level 0.010 0.030 0.080 Low rise building Moderate- code design level 0.005 0.009 0.023 0.060 Low rise building Low- code design level 0.005 0.008 0.020 0.050 Low rise building Pre- code design level 0.004 0.006 0.016 0.040 for structural damage states (HAZUS-MH MR1) Structural damage states

Mid-rise buildings 2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR

High rise buildings 1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR

35

Mid-rise and high-rise buildings have damage-state drift values based on low-rise (LR) drift criteria reduced by factors of 2/3 and 1/2, respectively, to account for higher- mode effects and differences between average inter-story drift and individual inter-story drift. The median spectral displacement for each damage state is given by equation (30) Average inter-story drift ratio at the threshold of damage state, =Height of building at the roof level =Modal mass participation factor for the first natural mode 3.2.1.7 Development of damage state variability Lognormal standard deviation values describe the total variability of fragility-curve

damage states. Three primary sources contribute to the total variability of any given state namely, the variability associated with the capacity curve, the demand spectrum damage state (31) the variability associated with

, and the variability associated with the discrete threshold of eac h

HAZUS gives standard deviation values based on the following criteria 1. Building height group - Low-rise buildings, Mid-rise buildings, High- rise buildings 2. Post-yield degradation of the structural system Minor, Major and Extreme degradation 3. Damage-state threshold variability Small, Moderate or Large variability 4. Capacity curve variability Very small, Small, Moderate or Large variability. 3.3 Discussions This chapter discusses the definition of vulnerability or fragility. The damage states used to define physical damage of building are discussed. Procedure for developing fragility curve as per HAZUS is discussed in detail. Defining damage thresholds with agreement of capacity spectrum method is also discussed. Finally formulation of damage probability matrix for given seismic hazard is explained.

36

Chapter 4 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Buildings

4.1 Introduction
The material behavior of concrete and rebar are specified as given SP16. The concrete strength is taken as 0.67fck in structure. The rebar strength is taken as yield strength. The beams were modeled with given material and cross sectional properties as line elements. The shear walls and slabs were modeling as shell elements with given material and cross sectional properties. The beam and columns are modeled as line elements along the center line of members but in reality the beams end at the face of column and beams will be either at center line or side line of the column. So the beams are offset at the face of column and cardinal points are used to shift the beams from center line of column. Beams and slabs are top centered to have monolithic slab action along with beams.

4.2 Modeling of nonlinearity in beams and columns

Modeling of beams and columns and incorporating the effect of material nonlinearities becomes a very crucial step of nonlinear procedures. The only, but important, difference to linear static model is that the column and beam elements in this model are modeled to fail. This is done by having the hinges in all the possible places of hinge formations. Beams and columns are assumed to fail by plastic hinge formation at either ends. In the model, columns and beams are modeled as line elements with hinges provided at their ends, whose stiffness changes depending on the moment experienced by the beam/column during analysis. The hinge properties for beam or column are obtained from the (Moment-rotation) curve

which is specific to the element and the axial load on it. In a large building, elements with similar dimensions and loads can be grouped together and hence same properties for hinge can be used in order to minimize the effort. The modeling of buildings has been done in SAP 2000, ETABS.

4.3 Bilinear representation nonlinear curve

Bilinear representation of nonlinear is required in capacity spectrum method to calculate effective damping and reduction factors, conversion of moment curvature into

37

moment rotation interpretation.

. The procedure for bilinear representation remains same except

1. Calculate area under the curve using integration methods (Trapezoidal rule, Simpsons rule ) 2. Calculate initial stiffness of the curve from the data. 3. The initial slope and area under bilinear curve should be same as nonlinear curve. With end point change the slope of the second line till area under bilinear curve matches with nonlinear curve. 4. Intersection point of initial slope and second slope represents bilinear point. The bilinear representation of the nonlinear curve is figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Bilinear representation of nonlinear curve

4.4 Procedure to develop moment-curvature relationship

Theoretical determination of moment-curvature characteristics for reinforced concrete section with flexure and axial load is based on the following assumptions. 1. Plane sections before bending remains plane after bending. 2. Stress-strain relationship for both concrete and steel is known. 3. Tension carrying capacity of concrete is ignored. The curvatures associated with a range of bending moments and axial loads may be determined using these assumptions and from strain compatibility and equilibrium of forces. Programs are developed in C++ language and Matlab 7.1 is used to get moment-curvature relationship of beams and columns. The procedure used for developing programs for

38

developing moment curvature relationship is explained below and flowchart is shown in figure 4.4 1. The model is subjected to gravity load analysis to find out the axial load coming on the element. For beam, axial load is assumed to be zero. 2. The stress strain curves for concrete and steel are assumed. The assumed stress strain relation relationship is as per IS 456-2000.The typical stress-strain curve for concrete material for M20 grade is shown in figure 4.2. The stress-strain curve for rebar material for Fe415 grade is shown in figure 4.3. 3. Cross section of beam or column is divided into the number of elemental strips and the distance of each strip is measured from the surface corresponding to the extreme compression.
16

Compressive Stress (0.67fck)

14 12
10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 Stress(N/mm2)

Compressive strain

Figure 4.2 Stress-strain curve for concrete

500 400

Stress (N/mm2) Fe415

300
200 100

Compressive Stress
0.0025 0.005 Tensile Stress

0
-0.005 -0.0025 7E-18 -100 -200

-300
-400 -500

Strain

Figure 4.3 Stress-strain curve for Fe415 grade steel

39

4. Assume extreme compression strain, the strain values of each strips are calculated from assumed neutral axis. From these strain profile, stresses are calculated from stress strain relationship. Force in each strip is obtained by multiplying corresponding stress with strip area. 5. The neutral axis for particular strain is located by equating axial load carrying capacity with load coming on it. The moment extreme compression strain. 6. These steps are repeated for different values of strain from zero to ultimate strain. The moment curvature relation is plotted. and curvature is found out for that particular

Figure 4.4 Flowchart to develop moment curvature relationship

4.4.1 Conversion of moment curvature

into moment rotation

The input of nonlinearity in the modeling of hinge location is the moment rotation values. The moment curvature found out from the program has to be converted into moment rotation 40

relationship. The total rotation of the element at the ultimate moment is eq ual to the sum of rotation of element at the yielding moment and plastic rotation. (32) The yield rotation can be calculated using slope deflection equations. The yield rotation is given as (33) Plastic rotation of the section (34) Where =Ultimate curvature =Yield curvature = Plastic hinge length =0.5*section depth (D) (ATC 40, 1996)

4.4.2 Validation of program for moment-curvature relationship

The validation of moment curvature relationship developed with published results. The program to develop moment curvature relationship for section is developed in Matlab 7.1 and C++. The coding is shown in appendix 2. Validation of S.N.Sinha example 3.13 ii Table 4.1 Beam details and validation of Beam details Beam width Coding 300 mm Program in C++ program with reported results Moment of resistance (kN-m) 214.67 214.50 214.98 216.61

Beam overall depth 500 mm Program in Matlab Beam clear cover Grade of concrete Grade of steel No of bars Diameter of bars 25mm M25 Fe415 4 22 mm S.N.Sinha Nimish

41

Figure 4.5 Moment curvature relationship of with P and without P (C++)

Figure 4.6 Moment curvature relationship (Matlab)

42

4.5 Modeling of nonlinearity in infill walls

The masonry walls used for partition purpose in buildings will contribute to initial lateral stiffness significantly. In severe earthquake loading the walls will get cracked and contribution to lateral stiffness is negligible. Masonry walls can be modeled as diagonal strut model or continuum plate model. The load deformation of strut is shown in figure 4.8. The diagonal strut modeled width is given by equation 35 and 36.

Figure 4.7 Mathematical modeling of infill walls (Irtem, 2007)

Figure 4.8 Load deformation curve of diagonal strut (Irtem, 2007)

43

(35)

(36) =Column height between centerlines of beams =Height of infill panel =Modulus of elasticity of frame material =Modulus of elasticity of infill material =Moment of inertia of column = length of infill wall = Diagonal width of infill panel = Thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut =Angle whose tangent is the infill height to length aspect ratio = Coefficient used to determine equivalent width of infill strut

4.6 Modeling of nonlinearity in shear wall

Sap 2000 v 14 allows to model nonlinear behavior of shear walls. The nonlinear behavior of shear wall is modeled using nonlinear material property at finite number of points. Shear wall is modeled as layers with different properties. Layers are kinematically connected by the Mindlin-Reissner assumption that normals to the reference surface remain straight after deformation. Force deflection behavior is computed by integrating stress strain behavior through thickness and over length of element.

4.7 Discussions
The modeling of material nonlinearity and member nonlinearity is discussed. The member nonlinearity for flexural members is represented in terms of moment curvature relationship assuming flexural failure at collapse. Coding for generating moment curvature is given in appendix 1. The infill walls are modeled as diagonal struts. The load deformation curve for axial members is also discussed. The modeling of nonlinearity in shear walls is discussed in brief. The developed programs for moment curvature relationship are compared with published results.

44

Chapter 5 Analysis and Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings

5.1 Analysis and validation of 2D frame (Inel, 2006)
Inel et al studies the possible differences in the results of pushover analysis due to default and user-defined nonlinear component properties. Plastic hinge length and transverse

reinforcement are varied to study influence on pushover curve. Four story building is taken to validate the procedure of developing pushover curve. The elevation of frame and reinforcement details is shown figure 5.1 and figure 5.2. Material prope rties Compressive strength of concrete Yield strength of steel 16 MPa 220 MPa

Joint masses assigned at each floors centre of mass 58.4 kN Modulus of elasticity of steel Modulus of elasticity of concrete 200000 MPa 22360.67 MPa

5.1.1 Modal analysis of 2D frame

The modal analysis of the structure is carried to know whether stiffness and mass of the structure is correct or not. The details of modal analysis for first 3 modes are shown in table 5.1. Table 5.1 Comparison of modal analysis results of 2D frame with reported results Analysis results Mode no Time period (sec) Modal mass participation factor 1 2 3 0.75 0.25 0.14 0.82 0.11 0.03 0.75 0.25 0.14 Reported results (Inel,2006) Time period (Sec) Modal mass participation factor 0.81 0.11 0.03

45

Figure 5.1 Elevation view of 2D frame (Inel, 2006)

Figure 5.2 Layout of columns of 2D frame (Inel, 2006)

5.1.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 2D frame

The nonlinear static analysis of 4 story frame is done in SAP 2000. The pushover analysis is done with SAP default nonlinear properties and user defined nonlinear properties. The default nonlinear properties defined in SAP 2000 are as per ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997.

46

Default hinge properties could not be modified and they are section dependent. When default hinge properties are used, the program combines its built- in default criteria with the defined section properties for each element to generate the final hinge properties. User-defined hinge properties can be based on default properties or they can be fully user-defined. When userdefined properties are not based on default properties, then the properties can be viewed and modified. The generated hinge properties are used in the analysis. They could be viewed, but they could not be modified. First mode load distribution is applied in both cases. To compare with reported result the structure is pushed to drift ratio 1.5 percent. The results of pushover analysis are shown in figure 5.3.
0.14

Base shear/seismic weight

0.12 0.10
0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

Defualt nonlinear hinge properties User defined nonliinear hinge properties

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Roof drift (%)

Figure 5.3 Comparison of pushover curve of 2D frame (User vs. default properties)

Figure 5.4 Pushover curves of 2D frame (Inel, 2006)

47

5.1.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 2D frame

The seismic performance evaluation of building is carried for maximum considered earthquake (MCE) as per IS 1893-2002 under three different soil conditions. The seismic performance of building is evaluated using capacity spectrum method (CSM). The method uses capacity and demand curves in single format called ADRS format. The intersection point of capacity spectrum and demand spectrum such that capacity equals demand is performance point. Performance point is the inelastic displacement that the structure is going experience for the given level of earthquake.SAP 2000 calculates performance point of the structure using capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient method. To understand the procedure of different methods the performance point is also ca lculated manually and both results were compared. 5.1.3.1 Manual calculation of pe rformance point of 2D frame The performance point is calculated using capacity spectrum method manually. The structural performance is evaluated for zone III maximum considered earthquake (MCE).Manual

calculation is done for structure having soil type II. The structure is assumed to behave as Type B structure defined as per ATC 40, 1996.The procedure for developing response spectra and capacity spectra are clearly explained in chapter 2. Step 1: Define the level of the earthquake as response spectrum for given soil condition.

0.5 0.4 0.3

Spectral coefficient

Response Spectra
0.2

0.1
0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Time period (Sec)

Figure 5.5 Design response spectrum for zone III, MCE, soil type II

48

Step 2: Develop the capacity spectrum from pushover curve. Capacity spectrum is plot between spectral acceleration and spectral displacement of single degree of freedom system.

0.14

Spectral coefficient (sa/g)

0.12 0.1

0.08
0.06 0.04 Capacity Spectrum

0.02
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.6 Capacity spectrum of 2D frame Step 3: Plot capacity spectrum and demand spectra on same graph.

0.5

Spectral coefficient (Sa/g)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 5% Damped Response Spectra

Capacity Spectra

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.7Capacity and demand spectra of 2D frame in ADRS format Step 4: Assume initial performance point on the capacity spectra. Bilinear the capacity spectra and calculate effective damping. The spectral reduction factors are calculated as per Newmarks formulae. The procedure for calculating equivalent damping, effective damping, and degradation factor are described in chapter 2. Initially assumed performance point (Sd i, Sai) = (0.0290, 0.1042). The parameters values used for different trails are given in table 5.2.

49

Table 5.2 Parameters used in estimating seismic inelastic displacement of 2D frame by CSM Parameters required for CSM Equivalent damping Effective damping Degradation factor Spectral reduction factor in constant acceleration range Spectral reduction factor in constant velocity range Trail 1 18.54 17.42 0.67 0.59 0.68 Trail 2 29.96 24.03 0.63 0.49 0.60

Spectral coefficient (Sa/g)

0.12

0.08 Bilinear Capacity Spectra

0.04

Capacity Spectra
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.8 Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 1)

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.05 0.1

Spectral coefficient (Sa/g)

5% Damped Response Spectra

Capacity Spectra

Reduced Spectra

0.15

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.9 Reduced spectra of 2D frame with initial assumed point (Sdi, Sai) (Trail 1)

50

The reduced demand spectra intersected capacity spectra at (Sdi, Sai) = (0.051, 0.104). The performance point calculated is not within 5% of the assumed value. Reiterate the above steps with new assumed trail performance point. For next iteration performance point assumed as (Sdi, Sai) = (0.04, 0.10). The bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is given below.

Spectral coefficient (Sa/g)

0.12

0.1
0.08 0.06 0.04

Bilinear Capacity Spectra

Capacity Spectra

0.02 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03

0.04

0.05

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.10 Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 2)

0.4

Spectral coefficient (Sa/g)

0.3 0.2

5% Damped Response Spectra Capacity Spectra

Reduced Spectra
0.1 0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectral displacement (m)

Figure 5.11 Reduced spectra of 2D frame with second assumed point (Sdi, Sai) (Trail 2) The reduced demand spectra intersected the capacity spectra at (Sdi, Sai) = (0.0385, 0.113). The performance point calculated is within 5% of the assumed value. The calculated spectral displacement is the inelastic displacement that the equivalent single degree of freedom structure will experience for the given level of earthquake. To get roof displacement of the

51

structure, the spectral displacement has to be multiplied with participation factor and mode value at roof. Roof displacement that the structure will undergo = 0.0385*1.3085 m =0.05037 m=50.37 mm Drift ratio =50.37*100/11200=0.44 % <1% (Immediate occupancy state) The element level performance under given level of earthquake is shown in table 5.3 Table 5.3 Summary of member level performances of 2D frame for zone III,MCE, soil type II Zone Roof displacement A-B B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E Total III 50.37 mm 32 23 17 0 0 0 0 0 72

Figure 5.12 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II 5.1.3.2 SAP 2000 calculation of performance point of 2D frame The seismic performance evaluation of the structure is carried out for three soil conditions. The performance evaluation is carried out zone III MCE level of earthquake. In Sap 2000 response spectrum as per IS 1983-2002 can be given as input parameter. The seismic performance evaluation can be performed easily in SAP 2000.

52

Zone III, soil type I

Figure 5.13 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I Spectral displacement =29.52 mm, Roof displacement =37.934 mm Drift ratio =0.33% <1% (Immediate occupancy)

Figure 5.14 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I

53

Zone III, soil type II

Figure 5.15 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II Spectral displacement =41.22 mm, Roof displacement =53.395 mm, Drift ratio =0.47% <1% (Immediate occupancy)

Figure 5.16 Member level performance level for zone III, MCE, soil type II,

54

Zone III, soil type III

Figure 5.17 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type III Spectral displacement =55.795 mm, Roof displacement =72.871 mm Drift ratio =0.65% <1% (Immediate occupancy)

Figure 5.18 Member level performance level for zone III, MCE, soil type III

55

The summary of element level performance under given level of earthquake for different soil conditions is shown in table 5.4 Table 5.4 Summary of element performance levels for given earthquake level under different soil conditions Soil type I II III Roof displacement 37.93 mm 53.39 mm 72.87 mm AB 37 31 30 BIO 27 24 16 IOLS 8 17 26 LSCP 0 0 0 CPC 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 >E Total

5.1.4 Discussions
The main aim of analysis of this model is to compare the modal analysis results and pushover results. The results obtained from modal analysis are same as reported in literature. The pushover analysis is carried with SAP 2000 default nonlinear component properties and user defined properties. The user defined properties are developed based on IS 456-2000 stressstrain relationship for materials. The results obtained with default properties are slightly less after yield of structure. The seismic performance of frame is evaluated using capacity spectrum method. Detailed step by step procedure for estimating seismic inelastic displacement for given level of earthquake is explained. The performance evaluation of frame is carried out for three different soil conditions. It is noted that the structure experiences maximum roof displacement under soft soils because of amplification of waves in soft soils. The member level performances for zone III earthquake under different soil conditions have been reported.

5.2 Analysis and validation of 3D frame (Fajfar, 1996)

Fajfar et al, 1996 has developed a procedure for seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. The method uses inelastic response spectrum and nonlinear static analysis. Seven stories building with and without shear wall is considered in his study. To validate the pushover procedure model without shear wall is considered. The details of the structure are shown in figure 5.19 to figure 5.21. Modal analysis is carried out in SAP 2000 and the results

56

are compared with Ivan A. et al. The all dimensions in shown in figure 5.19, figure 5.20 and figure 5.21 are in mm.

Figure 5.19 Elevation view of 7 story building (Fajfar, 1996)

300 X 500

500 X 500

300 X 500

6000

6000

6000

5000 17000

6000

Figure 5.20 Plan view and layout of beams and columns of 7 story building (Fajfar, 1996)

57

3 19- support 2 19- midspan

10 500

10
500

300

2 19- support 3 19- midspan

500

22

CROSS SECTION OF BEAMS

CROSS SECTION OF COLUMNS

Figure 5.21 Reinforcement details of beams and columns of 7 story building (Fajfar, 1996)

Material prope rties Compressive strength of concrete Yield strength of steel 25 MPa 425MPa

Joint Masses assigned at each floor centre of mass 58.4 kN Modulus of elasticity of steel Modulus of elasticity of concrete 200000 MPa 22800 MPa

5.2.1 Modal analysis of 3D frame

Table 5.5 Comparison of modal analysis results of 7 storey building with reported results Analysis results Mode no Time period (Sec) Modal mass participation factor 1 2 3 0.70 0.22 0.12 0.84 0.09 0.03 0.73 0.23 0.12 Reported results (Ivan A,2008) Time period (Sec)

5.2.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 3D frame

Pushover analysis is performed on seven story building with invariant elastic mode load distribution. The pushover analysis is carried out with SAP 2000 default nonlinear properties.SAP 2000 defines nonlinear properties as per ATC 40,1996 and FEMA 273, 1997.

58

Pushover analysis is also carried with user defined nonlinear component properties. The results of pushover analysis are shown in figure 5.22.
1600
1400

Base shear(kN)

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Ivan,2008 Defualt nonlinear hinge properties User defined nonlinear hinge properties

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Roof displacement (m)

Figure 5.22 Comparison of pushover curves for 7 story building

5.2.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3-D building

The performance evaluation of the 3-D building was carried out for zone III, MCE level of earthquake. The structure is assumed to be resting on soil type II. The structure is assumed as type B. The roof displacement of the structure for given level of earthquake is 43.247 mm. Drift ratio =43.247*100/21750=0.19 % < 1% (Immediate occupancy state) The member level deformations in various performance levels are given in table 5.6. Table 5.6 Summary of member level performances of 7 storey for zone III, MCE, soil type II Zone Roof displacement A-B B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E Total III 43.24 mm 433 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 490

59

Figure 5.23 Performance point of 7 storey building for zone III, MCE, soil type II The location of hinge formation under given level of earthquake is shown in figure 5.24

Figure 5.24 Member level performance level of 7 storey for zone III, MCE, soil type II

60

5.2.4 Discussions
The modal analysis is performed with first mode load distribution and compared. It is observed the fundamental time period is slightly less than reported in literature. The pushover analysis is carried default and user defined properties. It is observed that with default properties the capacity of the structure is slightly less than reported results in literature. The results obtained with user defined nonlinear properties are same as results reported in literature. The behavior of the structure with default and user defined properties is sa me. The initial slope of pushover with default and user defined are slightly high compared to Ivan et al, 2008 results. The structure is in immediate occupancy state for the given level of earthquake. The beams in lower story reached their yield state. The columns are within elastic limit. It is observed only few beams have crossed their yield state.

5.3 Analysis and evaluation of 3 storey buildings (Irtem, 2007)

The 3 storey building model shown in figure 5.25 is taken from published literature to validate the seismic performance evaluation of structure using DCM. The same model is used to account for effect of infill walls on capacity of building. The details of diagonal strut used in modeling are given in table 5.7. Table 5.7 Details of diagonal strut used in mathematical modeling of 3 storey building Details of diagonal strut used in mathematical modeling = 5884 MPa 475.47 kN = 480 cm 73.14 kN = 177.60 cm 0.33 cm = 17.5 cm =1.29 cm

5.3.1 Modal analysis of 3 storey buildings

Table 5.8 Comparison of modal analysis results of 3 storey buildings with reported results Type of building model Time period Time period (Irtem,2007) 3SBF 3SIF-I 3SIF-II 0.45Sec 0.19 Sec 0.28 Sec 0.45 Sec 0.19 Sec 0.22 Sec

61

The modal analysis is performed on three structures. The fundamental time period is reported in table 5.10. It is observed that the infill wall reduces time period of structure drastically.

5.3.2 Pushover analysis of 3 storey buildings with and without infill walls
Three models were used to differentiate the effect of infill walls and location of infill walls on pushover analysis results. The pushover curves developed are compared with results reported in literature. The following terminology is used for different pushover cases. G+Q+EQX is pushover analysis carried with EQX load pattern applied after nonlinear static analysis of dead load and live load. G+Q+EQX (0.05) is pushover analysis carried with EQX load pattern applied at 5% eccentricity after nonlinear static analysis of dead load and live load. EQX is pushover analysis carried with EQX load pattern applied. The results of pushover analysis are shown in below figures 5.26 to 5.28. The comparison of capacity of building with and without infill walls are shown in figure 5.29.

Figure 5.25 Building configurations of 3 storey buildings (Irtem, 2007)

62

1500

Base shear (kN)

1000 G+Q+EQX

500

G+Q+EQX(0.05) 0.9G+EQX(0.05)

0 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

Roof displacement (cm)

Figure 5.26 Pushover curves of 3SBF with different load patterns

3000
2500

Base shear (kN)

2000

1500
1000 500

G+Q+EQX EQX

0 0 2

Roof displacement (cm)

10

12

Figure 5.27 Pushover curves of 3SIF-I with different load patterns

2500 2000

Base shear (kN)

1500
1000 500 0 0 5 10 15 20 G+Q+EQX EQX

Roof displacement(cm)

Figure 5.28 Pushover curves of 3SIF-II with different load patterns

63

3000 2500

Base shear (kN)

2000 1500 1000 3SBF-G+Q+EQX 3SIF-I-G+Q+EQX 3SIF-II-G+Q+EQX

500 0
0.00 4.00

Roof displacement (cm)

8.00

12.00

16.00

Figure 5.29 Comparison of pushover curves for 3 storey building with and without infill walls

Figure 5.30 Pushover curves for 3 storey building (Irtem, 2007)

5.3.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3 story bare frame (3SBF)-DCM

The performance evaluation of structure is done for E4 level seismic hazard level (Turkey code) and compared with published value in journal. The fundamental time period of the structure is 0.45 sec. The bilinear pushover curve is needed to calculate initial stiffness, effective stiffness, and post- yield stiffness. Bilinear representation of pushover curve as FEMA 273, 1997 is shown in figure 5.31

64

1400 1200

Base shear (kN)

1000
800 600 400 200 0 0.00 5.00 Pushover Curve Bilinear Curve

Roof displacement (cm)

10.00

15.00

20.00

Figure 5.31 Bilinear representation of pushover of 3SBF as FEMA 273, 1997 Initial elastic lateral stiffness of building=673.90 kN/cm Effective lateral stiffness of building=673.89 kN/cm Effective time period

Effective time period

=0.45 sec

The target displacement is given by formulae The spectral acceleration for given effective time period =1.346 g

The modification factors used in displacement coefficient method are given below Modification factor to relate spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement = 1.26

Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to displacement calculated for linear elastic response =1

Modification factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response = 1.15

Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to second order effects 1 (because of positive post-yield stiffness)

65

Target displacement

=1.26*1*1.15*1*1.346*981*0.4597*0.4597/ (4**) =8.90 cm

Drift ratio = 8.90*100/900=0.98% < 1% (Immediate occupancy)

Table 5.9 Comparison of parameters used in DCM for 3SBF with reported results Calculated values Initial stiffness Effective stiffness 673.90 kN/cm 673.89 kN/cm Irtem H, 2007 672.22 kN/cm 672.22 kN/cm 0.458 Sec 0.458 Sec 10.15 cm 1.12%

Fundamental time period 0.45 Sec Effective time period Target displacement Drift ratio Performance level 0.45 Sec 8.90 cm 0.98%

Between IO and LS Between IO and LS

5.3.4 Seismic fragility analysis 3 story bare frame

The seismic fragility analysis of 3-storey is performed and damage probability matrix is developed. Each fragility curve is defined by a median value of the demand parameter (e.g., spectral displacement, roof displacement, PGA) that corresponds to the threshold of that damage state and by the variability associated with that damage state. The damage state variability values are taken from HAZUS for C1L, high code design structure. The fragility curves can be developed for varied input parameters representing the damage state (Spectral displacement, roof displacement, Spectral acceleration, Peak ground acceleration). Here the fragility curves are developed for spectral displacement and roof displacement as input parameter. The damage thresholds and variability is given in table 5.10. The discrete damage states are shown on capacity spectra in figure 5.32. Seismic fragility curve for 3SBF in terms of spectral displacement and roof displacement is shown in figures 5.33 and figure 5.34 respectively.

66

Figure 5.32 Damage state thresholds on capacity spectrum of 3SBF

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state P(ds/Sd)

0.8

0.6

Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

0.4

0.2

10

12

Spectral displacement (cm)

Figure 5.33 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of spectral displacement

67

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state P(ds/Sd)

0.9 0.8 Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

0.7
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

0.2
0.1 0 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

Roof displacement (cm)

Figure 5.34 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of roof displacement

5.3.5 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake

The discrete damage states are obtained from fragility curve of particular damage sate. The lower damage state is obtained from subtracting higher damage state in fragility curve. The discrete damage state probabilities for E4 level of earthquake (Turkish code) is evaluated and values are given below. The graphical representation of probability of discrete damage states in shown in figure 5.35.
0.6

Probability of damage state

0.5 0.4 0.3

Slight Moderate
Extensive Complete

0.2
0.1 0

Slight

Moderate Extensive Complete

Damage states

Figure 5.35 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake

68

Table 5.10 Damage state thresholds and variability for 3SBF Median spectral Median roof Damage state displacement displacement variability 0.98 cm 1.19 cm 0.81 1.40 cm 1.71 cm 0.84 3.93 cm 4.97 cm 0.86 11.49 cm 14.76 cm 0.81

Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

Probability of Complete damage Probability of Extensive damage Probability of Moderate damage Probability of Slight damage Probability of No damage

= 0.26 = 0.48 = 0.22 = 0.01 = 0.006

5.3.6 Discussions
The seismic performance evaluation is done as per FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. Three different models have been analyzed to differentiate the effect of infill walls on lateral resistance. In third model infill walls at ground storey is not modeled to simulate soft story behavior. It is observes that the infill walls are reducing the time period very much. The inelastic displacement is calculated is compared with published results. It is clearly observed that the infill walls add initial lateral stiffness to structure. Once hinges are formed in axial members the structure is going to behave as bare frame. It is clearly observed that soft storey mechanism is formed in model (3SIF-II). The seismic performance of the 3 storey bare frame is evaluated as per FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. The evaluated performance of structure is compared with the reported performance in literature. The structure is immediate occupancy state for given level of earthquake. The method for defining damage state median in terms of spectral displacement is discussed. The fragility curves has been developed and damage probability matrices for E4 level of earthquake is constructed. The discrete damage probability of different damage states for E4 level of earthquake is constructed. It is observed that the structure has more probable chances of having extensive damage state.

69

5.4 Analysis and evaluation of example building no 1

The DHL office building in Mumbai is taken to model real complicated structure. This building has one side full of shear walls and other side columns. The shear walls were oriented in both directions. The slab thickness was varying within each floor. Opening spaces were there inside structure. Two water tanks were located at top of building. The shear walls were modeled as nonlinear shell elements. Water tanks were also modeled as shell elements. The geometric model of the example building no1 is shown in figure 5.36 and figure 5.37.

5.4.1 Linear static analysis of example building no1

The dead load of structure is calculated from the dimensions of members. The live load for office building is 5kN/m2 irrespective of usage. The live is applied to slabs as uniform load which distributed to beams as two way slab action and one way slab action. The dead load analysis and live load analysis is carried out. The static analysis is also done for dead load plus 25% of live load which will be used as starting for carrying pushover analysis (Nonlinear static analysis).

5.4.2 Modal analysis of example building no1

The mass of structure is calculated from dead load and 50% of live load. As the structure is unsymmetrical, the mass of each member is lumped at respective ends. Since the structure is unsymmetrical in mass and stiffness the fundamental mode is torsion mode with time period. The 3rd mode is predominantly associated with translation in X direction and 65 percentage of mass is associated with translational degree of freedom in X direction. The results of modal analysis is shown in table 5.11 Table 5.11 Results of modal analysis of example building no1 Modal mass participation (Percentage) UX 1.78 2.82 65.34 1.12 UY 32.53 34.51 0.006 5.89 UZ 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.0005 RX 33.27 37.99 0.05 0.17 RY 0.86 1.02 31.58 0.05 RZ 3.44 48.23 13.72 1.61

Mode no 1 2 3 4

Time period (Sec) 1.02 0.81 0.53 0.32

70

Figure 5.36 Building configuration of example building no1

Figure 5.37 Another view of building configuration of example building no1

71

5.4.3 Nonlinear static analysis of example building no1

Pushover analysis is carried with mode 3 load patterns in both directions. Push over analysis is carried out in unstressed state and from end of dead load and 50% live load. The third mode is translational mode so push over analysis is carried with third mode load pattern. Push over analysis is also carried with triangular load pattern in both directions. The capacity of the structure is very high compared to the demand imposed. There are so ma ny shear walls in both directions which makes the structure stiff and strong. The material behavior is modeled as per Sp16 charts. The line element nonlinear property is modeled using lumped plastic hinge method. The nonlinear characteristics of nonlinear hinge are defined using moment rotation relationship. The nonlinear property of area element is modeled with nonlinear material characteristics. Sap 2000 converts the rebar into strip and nonlinear analysis is carried making area element into strips. The following terminology is used for different pushover cases. Push-3 is pushover analysis carried with mode 3 rd load pattern applied from unstressed state of structure. Push-DD+0.5LL-3 is pushover analysis carried with mode 3 rd load pattern applied after nonlinear static analysis of dead load and 50% of live load. PushDD+0.5LL-X is pushover analysis carried with triangular load pattern in X-direction after nonlinear static analysis of dead load and 50% of live load. Push-DD+0.5LL-Y is pushover analysis carried with triangular load pattern in Y-direction after nonlinear static analysis of dead load and 50% of live load. The pushover curves with different load patterns in X and Y direction is shown in the figure 5.38 and figure 5.39 respectively

10000

Base shear (Ton)

8000

6000
4000 2000 0

Push-3 Push-DD+0.5LL-3 Push-DD+0.5LL-X

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Roof displacement (m)

Figure 5.38 Capacity curves of example building no1 with different load patterns in Xdirection

72

12000

10000

Base shear (Ton)

8000 6000

4000
2000 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Push-DD=0.5LL-Y

0.2

Roof displacement (m)

Figure 5.39 Pushover curve of example building no1 pushed in Y-direction

5.4.4 Performance evaluation of example building no1 using SCM

The design base shear is calculated as per IS 1893-2002 code and for that base shear the deformation of the structure is noted from pushover curve. The member and building performance level is evaluated for that roof displacement. The calculation of seismic weight includes total dead load and 50% live load. The live load on structure is calculated assuming that 5 inches thick slab. As per IS 875-II the maximum live load to be considered for office building is 5 kN/m2 , in calculation of seismic weight 50 % of live load is considered (as per IS 1893-2002). Live load on roof is not taken in calculation of seismic weight of the structure. The design base shear is calculated for zone III, zone IV, and zone V and for two levels of earthquakes. Response reduction factor (R) is taken as 4 in calculation of design base shear. The details of calculation of design base shear in different zones is given in appendix 2.The design base shear values and member level performances in various zones is shown in table 5.12. Table 5.12 Design base shear values and member level performances of example building no1 in various zones estimated using SCM Zones Base shear (Ton) III IV V 1187.08 1769.28 2654.03 Roof displacement 24.74 mm 39.47 mm 72.73 mm 1823 A-B BIO 82 IOLS 1 5 5 LSCP 0 0 0 CPC 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 DE 0 0 0 >E Total

0 0 0

1906 1906 1906

1652 249 1652 249

73

Figure5.40 Performance of example building no1 for different zone levels of earthquake

5.4.5 Performance evaluation of example building no 1 using capacity spectrum method

It is observed from pushover curves with different load patterns that variation in capacity variation is not much. So for performance evaluation the capacity curve is obtained with 3 rd mode load pattern is taken for analysis and capacity spectrum is shown in figure 5.41
2.5

Spectral acceleration (Sa/g)

2 1.5 1

Sa-Sd

0.5
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.41Capacity spectrum of example building no1 For seismic performance evaluation the demand and capacity spectrum are plotted on same graph. The seismic performance evaluation carried out for different zones level of earthquake.

74

It is observed from the figure 5.42 given below for zone III, MCE, the structure is behaving linear. For zone IV the structure shows slight nonlinear behavior. For zone V the structure has experienced nonlinear behavior.
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 Demand-Zone III Capacity Demand-IV Demand-V

Spectral acceleration (mm/sec2)

4000
2000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.42 Demand imposed by different zones on example building no1 5.4.5.1 Performance evaluation of example building no 1 for zone III, MCE For zone III, MCE, demand curve intersects the capacity spectrum in linear portion. The intersection point is performance point. The spectral displacement has to be multiplied with modal participation factor and modal value at roof to get the roof displacement.

14000

Spectral acceleration (mm/sec2)

12000 10000

8000
6000 Demand

4000
2000 0

Capacity

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.43 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone III, MCE Spectral displacement at intersection point of demand and capacity spectrum is 35 mm

75

Roof displacement of the structure for imposed demand =Spectral displacement* modal participation factor*modal value at roof. Roof displacement=35*1.138=39.83 mm Drift ratio =39.83*100/34138=0.116% 5.4.5.2 Performance evaluation of example building no 1 for zone IV, MCE For zone IV, MCE, demand curve intersects the capacity spectrum in end of linear portion. The intersection point is performance point. The spectral displacement has to be multiplied with modal participation factor and modal value at roof to get the roof displacement
14000

Spectral acceleration (mm/sec2)

12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000 Capacity Demand-IV

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.44 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone IV, MCE Spectral displacement at intersection point of demand and capacity spectrum is 52 mm Roof displacement=52*1.138=59.17 mm Drift ratio =59.17*100/34138=0.17% 5.4.5.3 Performance evaluation of example building no 1 for zone V, MCE For zone V, MCE, demand curve intersects the capacity spectrum in nonlinear portion. Calculation of performance point is iterative process as explained in previous sections.

76

25000

Spectral acceleration (mm/sec2)

20000
15000 capacity 10000 5000

Demand-5% Demand-10%

0
0 200 400 600 800

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.45 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone V, MCE The spectral displacement is assumed to be 83mm and then effective damping is calculated. The reduction factor for 10% effective damping from IS code is 0.80. The performance point is around 80 mm. Roof displacement of the structure = 80*1.138=91 mm Drift ratio of the structure =91*100/34138=0.26% It is observed that structure is experiencing slight nonlinear behavior. The member level performances at different earthquake levels are reported in table 5.13. Table 5.13 Member level performances of example building no1 in different zones using CSM Zone III IV V Roof displacement 39.33 mm 59.17 mm 91 mm A-B 1652 1473 1309 B-IO 249 422 518 IO-LS 5 11 78 LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1906 1906 1906

The building performance level for different levels of demand is given below. It is observed that the building will be in immediate occupancy state. For zone V level of earthquake force the building is going to experience slight nonlinear behavior. Most of the beams and columns

77

are yielded but damage is very less. The local damage doesnt affect overall stability of the structure. Table 5.14 Comparison of estimated inelastic displacement of DHL by SCM and CSM Seismic coefficient method Zone Roof displacement III IV V 24.74 mm 39.47 mm 72.73 mm Drift ratio 0.0724 0.1156 0.213 Capacity spectrum method Performance level Roof displacement 39.33 mm 59.13 mm 91 mm Drift ratio 0.116 0.17 0.26 Immediate occupancy Immediate occupancy Immediate occupancy

5.4.6 Discussions
The structure is analyzed for dead load and live loads. The structure has many shear walls in each direction. The shear wall makes structure stiff and strong. Shear walls were in both directions making structure strong and stiff in both directions. The structure is slightly asymmetrical in plan and mass is more in right end making the structure to vibrate in torsion mode. The structures fundamental mode and next higher mode are torsion mode and 3 rd mode was purely translation in X-direction. The structure has been pushed in both directions with three load patterns. It is observed that capacity variation is not much with different load patterns. The seismic performance evaluation carried out with seismic coefficient method and capacity spectrum method. The seismic coefficient method doesnt consider the actual energy dissipated. It is gives reduction factor based on general type of lateral resisting system. Capacity spectrum method actually calculates the actual energy dissipated with different displacements in terms of effective damping. The building is in immediate occupancy state for three levels of code based earthquake forces with most of the beams yielded.

78

5.5 Analysis and evaluation of example building 2

Civil engineering department building of IIT Bombay has been chosen as the example building to do the evaluation, both experimentally as well as analytically. This building was designed and constructed during 1960s and has successfully served its purpose for almost 40 long years. The building is a RCC moment resisting frame type structure (Daniel, 2005). A mathematical model in EATBS v 9.1 is developed. The department building has been analyzed with original drawings and the same building is designed as per IS 456-2000. The design of building as per IS 456-2000 resulted in smaller cross sections of columns and acceptable percentage of reinforcement. The fragility analysis has been done for original building and designed building. Civil engineering department building of the institute is a triple storied, 76.6 m long and 23.8 m wide building. The foundation is 2.5 m deep, the ground floor is 4.0 m tall, the first floor is nearly 3.65 m tall and the second floor is 3.5m tall. The building is constructed in two portions with an expansion joint between them. It has two staircases, one adjacent to the expansion joint the other at one end of the building. Both staircases are built separate from the main structure. Hence for analysis only one portion of the structure without the staircase is taken. All the structural and architectural drawings of the building are available as a hard copy. Most details of reinforcement are available. The layout of building is illustrated in figure 5.46. The thickness of the slab is 127mm throughout. The live load on corridors is 4kN/m2 and that on classrooms is 3 kN/m2 as per the provisions of IS875. The live load on roof is 1.5 kN/m2 . The designed building as per IS 456 has reduced cross sections compared to original building. The amount of reinforcement in columns is limited to 1% of cross sectional area. The beams cross sections are determined so that the deflection criteria are satisfied. The grade of concrete and steel used in designing beams and columns are same as original example building no 2. This is to compare the pushover capacity of original and designed example building no 2. The columns sizes of original and design example building no 2 is given in appendix 2

79

Figure 5.46 Building configuration of example building no 2

5.5.1 Modal analysis of original and designed example building no 2

The modal analysis is done for the original building and designed building. Loads have been applied to the building as per the specifications of IS1875-1987(Part II) and an eigen-value analysis has been carried out to identify the dominant modes of the structure. The time periods for both the structures are tabulated in table 5.15 Table 5.15 Comparison of modal analysis results of original and designed example building no 2 Mode no Original example building no 2 Designed example building no 2 -IS 456 Time period (Sec) 1 2 3 4 0.86 0.62 0.59 0.24 Time period (Sec) 0.89 0.76 0.69 0.23

80

5.5.2 Pushover analysis of original and designed example building no 2

The pushover analysis is performed on original and designed example building no 2 with different load patterns. The capacity curve of original building and designed building in Xdirection are shown in figure 5.47. The capacity curve of original building and designed building in Y-direction are shown in figure 5.48. Original-Push1 is pushover analysis carried with 1st mode load pattern applied from unstressed state of original structure. Original-PushEQX is pushover analysis carried with load pattern as per IS 1893-2002 applied in positive X-direction from unstressed state of original structure. OriginalPushNEQX is pushover analysis carried with load pattern as per IS 1893-2002 applied in negative X-direction from unstressed state of original structure. Design-Push2 is pushover analysis carried with 2nd mode load pattern from unstressed state of designed structure. Remaining terminology for designed building is same as original building. The pushover capacity in Y-direction is more compared to that in X-direction because of higher stiffness in that direction.
1800

1600
1400

Original-Push1 Original-PushEQX Original-PushNEQX Designed-Push2 Designed-PushEQX DesignedPushNEQX 0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Base shear (kN)

1200

1000
800 600 400

200
0

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.47 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2

81

12000 10000

Base shear (kN)

8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Original-PushEQY Design-PushEQY

50

100

150

200

250

300

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.48 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2 in Y-direction

5.5.3Seismic fragility analysis of original, designed example building no 2

Seismic fragility curves were developed for original building and designed building. The seismic fragility curves developed in terms of spectral displacement, roof displacement, peak ground acceleration. Fragility curves for original building in terms of roof displacement, and spectral displacement is shown in figures 5.49 and figure 5.50 respectively. Comparison of fragility developed using HAZUS and Barbat et al, 2008 method for original building is shown in figure 5.51. Defining damage states in terms of peak ground acceleration is show in figure 5.52. A fragility curve in terms of peak ground acceleration is plotted in figure 5.53. Fragility curves for designed building in terms of roof displacement, and spectral displacement is shown in figures 5.54 and figure 5.55 respectively. Comparison of fragility curves developed for original building and designed building is shown in figure 5.56. Table 5.16 Damage state thresholds and variability of original and designed example building no 2
Original building Roof displacement Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse 13.64 mm 19.93 mm 44.52 mm 118.28 mm Spectral displacement 10.39 mm 15.66 mm 39.72 mm 111.91 mm Damage variability 0.73 0.77 0.83 0.98 Roof displacement 12.95 mm 18.51 mm 44.99 mm 124.42 mm Designed building as per IS 456 Spectral displacement 10.31 mm 14.74 mm 40.83 mm 119.09 mm Damage variability 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.81

82

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

0.8

0.6

Slight
Moderate

0.4

Extensive Collapse

0.2

0 0 25 50 75 100 125

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.49 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of roof displacement

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

0.8

0.6 Slight

Moderate Extensive
Collapse

0.4

0.2

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.50 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of spectral displacement

83

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

Barbat-Slight
0.8 Barbat-Moderate Barbat-Extensive 0.6

Barbat-Collapse
Hazus-Slight

0.4
Hazus-Moderate Hazus-Extensive 0.2

Hazus-Collapse
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.51 Comparison of fragility curves as per HAZUS and Barbat method for original example building no 2

Figure 5.52 Median damage states in terms of peak ground acceleration

84

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

0.8

0.6
Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA/g)

Figure 5.53 Fragility curves of original example building no 2 in terms of peak ground acceleration

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

0.8

0.6

Slight
0.4 Moderate Extensive Collapse 0.2

0 0 25 50 75 100 125

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.54 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of roof displacement

85

Probability of exceedance of particular damage state

0.8

0.6
Slight

Moderate
Extensive Collapse

0.4

0.2

0
0 25

Spectral displacement (mm)

50

75

100

125

Figure 5.55 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of spectral displacement
Probability of exceedance of particular damage state
1

0.8

Original-Slight Original-Moderate

0.6

Original-Extensive Original-Collapse

0.4

Deisgn-Slight Design-Moderate

0.2

Design-Extensive Design-Collapse

25

50

75

100

125

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.56 Comparison of fragility curves for original building and designed example building no 2

86

5.5.4 Seismic performance of original example building no 2 for design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake
The seismic performance evaluation of the original building is evaluated using capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient method. The comparison is made between two methods. The performance of building is evaluated for design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake. The detailed procedure for evaluation of structure is explained in previous chapters. 5.5.4.1 Seismic performance evaluation for design basis earthquake (DBE) Original example building no 2 performance has been evaluated for design basis earthquake using capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient method. 5.5.4.1.1 Capacity s pectrum method The damping values and reduction factors used are given in table 5.19. The performance point is shown in figure 5.57. The member level performances for design basis earthquake are shown in figure 5.59. Parameter values used in evaluation of original example building no 2 using CSM for DBE are tabulated in table 5.17 Spectral displacement =32.172, Roof displacement =32.172*1.134=36.4830 mm Drift ratio =36.483*100/13650=0.2627 % <1% (Immediate occupancy)
0.2

Spectral coefficient(Sa/g)

0.15

Capacity spectrum
Demand spectrum

0.1

Reduced demand

0.05

0
0 25 50 75 100 125

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.57 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for DBE

87

5.5.4.1.2 Displacement coefficient method The parameters used in estimating seismic inelastic displacement using displacement coefficient method are given below. Initial elastic lateral stiffness of building=66.33kN/ mm Effective lateral stiffness of building=66.33 kN/mm Effective time period =0.86 Sec

Effective lateral stiffness of building= 17.26 kN/mm Modification factors = 1.3, =1 = 1.1, 1; =1.23 m/Sec2

The spectral acceleration for given effective time period

1500

Base shear (kN)

1000 Bilinear curve 500

Pushover Curve

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 5.58 Bilinear representation of pushover of original structure as per FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines Target displacement =1.3*1*1.1*1*1.23*0.86*0.86/ (4**) =32.9 mm Drift ratio = 32.9*100/13650=0.24% < 1% (Immediate occupancy)

The performance point evaluated using capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient methods are quite comparable. The structure is in immediate occupancy state for DBE. Most of beams and columns in bottom storey are yielded.

88

Figure 5.59 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE using CSM

Figure 5.60 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE using DCM

89

5.5.4.2 Seismic performance evaluation for maximum considered earthquake (MCE) 5.5.4.2.1 Capacity s pectrum method The parameters used in evaluation using capacity spectrum method for MCE is shown in table 5.17 Spectral displacement =99.49, Roof displacement =99.49*1.061= 105.55mm Drift ratio =105.55*100/13650=0.77 %
0.4

Spectral coefficient(Sa/g)

0.35

0.3 0.25
0.2 0.15 0.1 Capacity spectrum Demand spectrum

Reduced demand

0.05 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.61 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail1)
0.45 0.4

Spectral coefficient(Sa/g)

0.35
0.3

0.25
0.2

Capacity spectrum Demand spectrum

Reduced demand

0.15
0.1

0.05
0

50

100

150

200

250

Spectral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.62 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail2)

90

Table 5.17 Parameter values used in evaluation of on original building no 2 using CSM for DBE, MCE DBE Parameters required for CSM Equivalent damping Effective damping Degradation factor MCE Trail 1 Trail 2

4.6752 45.221 14.5663 8.1324 39.727 14.7594 0.67 0.7679 0.67 0.6507 0.7311

Spectral reduction factor in constant acceleration range 0.5975 0.3331 Spectral reduction factor in constant velocity range 0.6898 0.4851

Displacement coefficient method The elastic, effective and post yield stiffness will be as given in section 5.5.4.1.2 Effective time period =0.86 Sec =2.46 m/sec2

The spectral acceleration for given effective time period Modification factors = 1.3, =1 = 1.5, 1

Target displacement

=1.3*1*1.5*1*2.46*0.86*0.86/ (4**) =89.86 mm

Drift ratio = 89.86*100/13650=0.65% < 1% (Immediate occupancy) The summary of element level performances for DBE, MCE evaluated using CSM and DCM are tabulated in table 5.18 Table 5.18 Element level performances for DBE, MCE evaluated using CSM, DCM Roof displacement CSM DCM CSM DCM 36.48 mm 32.9 mm 105.55 mm 89.86 mm A-B B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 932 932 932 932

Design basis earthquake (DBE) 728 203 1 0 0 731 201 0 0 0

Maximum considered earthquake 716 78 1 137 0 716 78 10 128 0

91

Figure 5.63 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE using CSM

Figure 5.64 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE using DCM

92

5.5.5 Probability of damage states of original building for DBE and MCE
The discrete damage states probabilities of original building have been constructed for code based level of earthquakes are given in table 5.19. Variation of damage state probabilities for building evaluated using capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient method for DBE and MCE is shown in figure 5.65 and figure 5.66

0.40

Probability of damage state

0.35

0.30
0.25

0.20
0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

DBE CSM
DBE DCM

No damage

Slight

Moderate Extensive Collapse

Figure 5.65 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE
0.45

Probability of damage state

0.40
0.35 0.30

0.25
0.20 0.15 MCE CSM

MCE DCM

0.10
0.05 0.00

No damage

Slight

Moderate Extensive Collapse

Figure 5.66 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for MCE

93

Table 5.19 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE and MCE Probability of damage states Design basis earthquake (DBE) CSM Roof displacement (mm) 36.48 Damage states Probability of Complete damage Probability of Extensive damage Probability of Moderate damage Probability of Slight damage Probability of No damage Sum of probability of all damage states 0.0975 0.1333 0.3814 0.2801 0.1078 1 0.1336 0.1543 0.3854 0.2425 0.0842 1 0.0027 0.0131 0.1365 0.3984 0.4493 1 0.0056 0.0223 0.1823 0.4133 0.3765 1 DCM 32.9 Maximum considered earthquake (MCE) CSM 105.55 DCM 89.86

5.5.6 Discussions
Civil engineering department has been built in 1960. The building was built with different construction practice compared to construction practice followed today. The building has served its purpose for last 50 years. The building has modeled with actual details and assessed it performance for IS 1893-2002 code based level of earthquake. The same building has been designed as per IS 456-2000. The structure has been analyzed for all load combinations as per IS 456-2000. The maximum reinforcement in columns is limited to 1% of cross sectional area. Eigen value analysis carried for original and designed structure. It is observed that for original building the fundamental mode is long direction where as for designed structure the fundamental mode is short direction. This is due to reduction in stiffness in shorter direction. The structure has pushed in both principal directions. In each direction the structure is pushed with different load patterns. The variability of capacity is not much because the mass participation is more than in 90% in each case. It is observed that capacity of structure in short direction is more than in longer direction. For incremental loads applied in short direction it is observed that hinges started in beams before columns were as for incremental loads applied in longer direction the hinges started both in beams and columns. So, longer direction is critical for performance evaluation. The performance of original building is evaluated using capacity

94

spectrum method and displacement coefficient method. It is observed that the structure is in immediate occupancy state for design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake. Fragility curves were developed for original building and designed building. The main aim in developing in the fragility curves for both buildings is study the influence of age of construction period on damage of buildings for future earthquakes. The damage variability for pre- code building is more compared to design building. This is to consider the uncertain associated with construction practice, building capacity. There are so many ways of defining discrete damage states for a building or class of build ing. HAZUS defines damage states in terms of drift ratios for spectral displacement. But it is questionable to use these drift ratios for buildings built as per IS 456 code. NEHRP gives guidelines for defining damage states on pushover curve considering the number of elements reached different points on load deformation curve. Barbat et al, 2008 defines the damage state using bilinear pushover curve. Here the structure has to be push till it collapses. The seismic fragility curves for original building as per HAZUS and Barbat et al, 2008. It is observes that HAZUS based developed curves underestimate the probability of particular damage for given level of earthquake. Unless with some modification in capacity curves or fragility curves the HAZUS cannot be used in loss estimation for buildings built as per IS 456-2000. The damage state probabilities of original building for design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake has been developed. These damage probability matrices can be used in loss estimation.

5.6 Influence of structural parameters to vulnerability of reinforced concrete commercial buildings

The seismic design mostly focuses on design and verification of member strength for design basis earthquake. However, during actual earthquakes, structural systems play a more important role in seismic collapse resistance. The 4 storey, 6 storey and 8 storey symmetrical frames with varying storey height and span length has been analyzed for code based load combinations. The structures are designed as per IS 456-2000. The influence of structural parameters on seismic collapse resistance is studied. The column sizes of designed buildings, base shear calculations and lateral force distributions are given in appendix 2. Band of

95

seismic fragility curves for medium rise reinforced concrete buildings representing commercial building class has been developed. Using monte-carlo simulation the damage state variability can also be found. The first number in terminology used in figures represents storey number; second number represents storey height in meters; third number represents span length in meters. The plan of all structures is 3 bays in both directions. The plan for all structures kept same for simplicity. Plan view of 4 storey building with 2.8 m storey height is shown in figure 5.67.The plan remains same as given below except varying storey number, storey height, and span length. The variation of capacity of structure with increasing storey number, storey height, and spa n length is shown in figure 5.68, figure 5.69, and figure 5.70 respectively. Eight storey building has slightly less ultimate drift ratio compared to six storey building because the column cross sections has been increased to limit percentage of reinforcement to 2.5%.The variation of vulnerability of buildings with respect to storey number, storey height, and span length is shown in figure 5.71, figure 5.72, and figure 5.73 respectively. Band of variation of vulnerability curves for commercial class of buildings with open walls is shown in figure 5.74.

Figure 5.67 Plan layout of 4, 6, 8 storey buildings with 4m span length

96

800 700

Base shear (kN)

600
500 400 4-2.8-4 6-2.8-4 8-2.8-4

300
200 100 0

0.5

1.5

Drift ratio in percentage

Figure 5.68 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey numbers in terms of drift ratio
800
700 600

Base shear(kN)

500
400 300 6-2.8-4

200
100 0

6-3.6-4

0.5

Drift ratio in percentage

1.5

Figure 5.69 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey height for 6 storey building
2000 1800 1600

Base shear (kN)

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

6-3.6-4
6-3.6-8

0.5Drift ratio in percentage 1.5 1

Figure 5.70 Comparison of capacity curves of 6 storey building with varying span length

97

Probability of collapse of building

0.8

0.6 4-2.8-4 0.4

6-2.8-4
8-2.8-4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4

Drift ratio in percentage

Figure 5.71 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of RC buildings with varying storey no

Probability of collapse of building

0.8

0.6 6-2.8-4 0.4 6-3.6-4

0.2

0 0 1 2 3 4

Drift ratio in percentage

Figure 5.72 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with varying storey height

98

Probability of collapse of building

0.8

0.6

6-3.6-4

0.4

6-3.6-8

0.2

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Drift ratio in percentage

Figure 5.73 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with varying span length

Probability of collapse of building

0.8

0.6 4-2.8-4 6-2.8-4 0.4

8-2.8-4
6-3.6-4 6-3.6-8

0.2

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Drift ratio in percentage

Figure 5.74 Band of fragility curves of collapse resistance for medium rise reinforced concrete buildings

99

5.6.1 Discussions The variation of vulnerability of building at collapse state is studied for commercial class buildings. The developed band of curves is applicable to only buildings where contribution of infill walls to lateral stiffness is negligible. The same procedure can be used for developing for other class of buildings. The fragility curves are to be developed for a sample of buildings built which represents the particular class of buildings. The variation in collapse state of buildings with varying span length is significant compared to variation of storey height. The buildings with large span or storey number have large axial compression ratios of columns, which results in smaller bending strength and ductility of columns, as well as energy dissipation capacity of the whole structure. So controlling the axial compression ratio will be critical to improve the vulnerability of structures to collapse resistance.

5.7 Discussions
This chapter starts with analysis of 2D frame for which published results are available. The purpose of choosing this frame is to validate the modeling of simple 2D frame. The modeling of mass and stiffness is validated by comparing first 4 modes time periods and mass participation factor. The modeling of nonlinear hinges is also validated by comparing with published pushover curves. The published capacity curves were developed based on SAP 2000 default hinge properties. SAP 2000 automatically develops nonlinear hinge properties based on ACI-318 code. The importance of developing nonlinear hinge properties based on IS 456-2000 is studied by comparing the capacity curves developed based on ACI-318 and IS 456-2000. The same model is used to evaluate the seismic performance for different soil conditions. The step by step procedure in estimating the s eismic performance of 2D frame using capacity spectrum method (CSM) for given level of earthquake is discussed. The summary of element performance levels has been reported. SAP 2000 automatically calculates the seismic performance of buildings based ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. Comparison is made in estimating the seismic performances of 2D frame by SAP 2000 and manually. Simple 3D bare frame is analyzed for which modal analysis and pushover analysis results are reported in literature. The modal analysis results and pushover capacity results were compared with reported results. Performance of 3D bare frame is evaluated and it is observed that the 3D frame bottom stories beams are yielded for given level of earthquake.

100

To study the effect of infill walls on lateral resistance and capacity of building the models with and without infill walls is considered. It is observed that the infill walls increase the lateral stiffness very much compared to bare frame. The layout of infill walls is changed to simulate soft storey mechanism. Comparison of capacity curves with and without infill walls is plotted and compared with published results. Seismic performance of the bare frame is evaluated using displacement coefficient method (DCM) as per FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. The summary of member level performances is tabulated. The damage state thresholds were plotted on capacity spectrum and fragility curves were developed in terms of spectral displacement and roof displacement. The damage probability indices for E4 level of earthquake (Turkey code) is developed and plotted. The real office building is located in Mumbai is chosen for evaluation. The building has varying width shear walls along height of building and columns. The grade of concrete varies along the height of the building, and slab thickness varies within each floor of the building. The nonlinear component behavior is modeled as per material behavior given in SP 16. The structure has been pushed in both principal directions with different load patt erns. Variation of capacity curves with different load patterns is studied. The seismic performance evaluation carried using seismic coefficient method (SCM) as per IS 1893-2002 and capacity spectrum method (CSM) as per ATC 40, 1996. The structure is evaluated for different levels of earthquake. Summary of component level performance is reported. Original example building no 2 is modeled and evaluated for design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake. The pushover analysis is performed in both principal directions and critical direction is chosen for performance evaluation. The performance of building is evaluated using capacity spectrum method, and displacement coefficient method. Original example building no 2 was constructed in 1960, and same building is designed as per recent IS 456-2000 code. The modal analysis and pushover analysis is performed and compared with original building results. Seismic fragility curves are developed for original example building no 2 in terms of spectral displacement, roof displacement, and peak ground acceleration. Fragility curves developed based on Barbat et al, 2008 and HAZUS is compared and applicability of HAZUS based drift ratios is discussed. Comparison of fragility curves of original and designed original example building no 2 is made. The discrete damage state probability indices for original example

101

building no 2 for design basis earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE) are developed. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of reinforced concrete commercial buildings is evaluated. Buildings with varying storey number, storey height, and span length are designed as per IS 456-2000. The pushover analysis is carried with IS 1893-2002 code load pattern. The capacity curves were plotted and comparisons were made. The seismic fragility curves with varying structural parameters are plotted. Band of fragility curves representing for reinforced concrete commercial buildings are plotted. The developed curves are applicable to buildings where infill walls lateral stiffness is negligible.

102

Chapter 6 Discussions and Conclusions 6.1 Discussions

Seismic performance evaluation procedures as per ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 are discussed. It observed that developing design response spectrum of site is very important. Performance evaluation of the structure depends on demand imposed on the structure as well as capacity of structure. Demand spectra should be either site specific or as per code. De sign spectra should consider the soil effects, levels of earthquake. Capacity of structure should be evaluated along principal axes of building. Performance evaluation should be carried for ground motion along critical principal axes of building. Capacity of the structure should be evaluated accurately considering at least two invariant load distributions. Component nonlinear behavior can be modeled using ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines or it can be based on developed moment curvature relationship for sections. SAP 2000 automatically generates hinge properties based on FEMA 273, 1997 and ATC 40, 1996 guidelines. It is observed that base shear capacity is under estimated with use of default properties as compared to user defined hinge properties. Different methods of analysis of structure for seismic evaluation are studied. Nonlinear time history analysis is exact and accurate method for estimating seismic inelastic displacement. Nonlinear time history analysis is very sensitive to building characteristics and ground motions. It requires availability of a set of representative ground motion records that accounts for uncertainties and differences in severity, frequency and duration characteristics. Moreover, 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. This method directly includes material nonlinear behavior. The procedure for developing component nonlinear behavior is explained in chapter 4. Pushover analysis gives good results for structures with time period up to one second. For tall structures higher mode contribution will be significant in response contribution. Modal pushover analysis can give better results for tall structures. The underlying assumptions in developing modal pushover analysis are discussed in chapter 2.

103

Necessity of vulnerability analysis and methods of assessing vulnerability of buildings are discussed. The different ways of defining damage state thresholds has been discussed and applicability of HAZUS based drift ratios is discussed Developing fragility curves for a structure is studied in detail. Comparison of fragility curves developed based on different approaches is studied. Construction of damage probability matrices from fragility curves is explained. Damage probability matrices are used in loss estimation. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of reinforced concrete commercial building class is studied. The developed fragility curves cannot be used for other class of buildings.

6.2 Conclusions
1. Pushover analysis can be effectively used in assessing the seismic performance evaluation of buildings with certain limitations. 2. Capacity spectrum method uses the intersection of capacity spectrum and reduced demand spectrum to estimate inelastic displacement were as displacement coefficient method uses modification of elastic displacement using some coefficients. 3. Capacity spectrum method is iterative process to estimate inelastic displacement and displacement coefficient method is direct method of estimating target displacement. 4. Capacity spectrum method gives graphically clear picture of how a building responds to earthquake ground motion, and how retrofit of structure will impact buildings response. Displacement coefficient method is fast method to estimate target displacement. 5. Modal pushover analysis can be used for estimating inelastic displacement of structure with higher mode contributions to response. 6. Component nonlinear load deformation relationship have to be developed based on IS 456-2000 material stress-stress curves. 7. Contribution of lateral stiffness due to infill walls need to be considered in estimating capacity of structure. 8. Performance based evaluation of structures give true picture of element level and global level states of buildings. 9. Seismic fragility curves gives the probability of exceeding of discrete damage states of building by incorporating uncertainties associated with the capacity of building, demand imposed on building or class of buildings, and defining damage state thresholds.

104

10. Discrete damage state probabilities developed for a given level of earthquake for specific building or class of buildings can be used in loss estimation and risk estimation. 11. Applicability of HAZUS based drift ratios for different damage states of class of buildings designed as per IS456 -2000 is questionable. Research need to be done on applicability of HAZUS drift ratios for buildings built as per IS 456-2000. 12. The developed band of fragility curves is applicable to commercial building class.

6.3 Scope for future work

1. Using advanced models to incorporate shear damage and its effects in the structure. 2. Beam-Column joints were considered as rigid in this analysis but to simulate shear cracks the joint should be made flexible. 3. Developing building inventory for particular region and developing fragility curves for the sample of buildings representing class of buildings in that region. 4. Incorporating the results of seismic fragility analysis in geographic information based systems to assess loss estimation and risk estimation 5. Developing confidence level of fragility curves developed for class of buildings.

105

References
1. Akash K., (2009). Seismic Vulnerability of RCC Structures, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Bombay, India. 2. Applied Technology Council, (1996). Recommended methodology for seismic evaluation and retrofitting of buildings. Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, California. 3. Barbat A. H., Lagomarsino S.,and Pujades L.G., (2002). Vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings.projects,REN 2001-2418-C04-01 and REN2002-03365/RIES Universitat Politdecnica deCatalunya, Barcelona, Spain, University of Genoa, Italy. 4. Barbat A. H., Pujades L.G., and Lantada N., (2008). Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona .Soil dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,28,851-865 5. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. IS 875 (Part I):1987, New Delhi. 6. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. IS 875 (Part II):1987, New Delhi. 7. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice. IS 456:2000, New Delhi. 8. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. IS 1893 (Part I):2002, New Delhi. 9. Calvi G.M., Pinho R., Magenes G., Bommer J.J., Restrepo-Vlez L.F. and Crowley H.,(2006). Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over the Past 30 years, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Vol 43, 75-104. 10. Chopra A.K., (2007). Dynamics of Structures-Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 11. Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 561-582. 12. Computers and Structures Inc, CSI, (1998). SAP2000 Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures V12N, Berkeley, California.

106

13. Daniel, J. (2005). Condition Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Bombay, India. 14. Fajfar P., and Gaspersic P., (1996). The N2 Method for the Seismic Damage Analysis of R/C Buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,Vol. 25, 31-46. 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1997). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings Report No. FEMA 273, Washington, D. C. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. FEMA 356, Washington, D. C. 17. Filiatrault A., Lachapelle E.and Lamontagne P., (1997). Seismic performance of ductile and nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. I. Experimental study Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25, 331-341. 18. Filiatrault A., Lachapelle E.and Lamontagne P., (1997). Seismic performance of ductile and nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. II Analytical study Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25, 342-352. 19. Gupta A., and Sinha R., (2006). Risk.iitb-A GIS-Based Seismic Risk Assessment System, 13th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Paper No. 075. 20. Gulati B., (2006). Earthquake Risk Assessment of Buildings: Applicability of HAZUS in Dehradun, India,MS Thesis, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing. 21. Ivan A., (2008). Condition Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Bombay, India. 22. Irtem E.,Turker K.,Hasgul U.,(2007). Causes of Collapse and Damage to Low-Rise RC buildings in Recent Turkish Earthquakes, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities @ASCE, 21,351-360. 23. Inel M., and Baytan Ozmen H., (2006). Effect of Plastic Hinge Properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, Engineering Structures, Vol 28, 1494-1502. 24. Kircher C.A., Aladdin A.N., Onder K., and William T.H., (1997). Development of building damage functions for Earthquake Loss Estimation, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 13, No.4, 663-682 25. Kircil M.S., and Polat Z., (2006). Fragility analysis of mid-rise RC frame buildings, Engineering Structures, Vol 28, 1335-1345. 26. Kose M.M., and Karslioglu., (2008).Effect of Infills on High- Rise Buildings: A Case Study,Struct. Design Tall Spec.Building, 18,907-920.

107

27. Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K., (1998). Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation, Engineering Structures, Vol.20, 452464. 28. Lang K., (2002). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing buildings, Doctoral of Technical Sciences, Dissertation ETH No.14446, Imperial College,London. 29. Multi- hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, (2003). Advanced Engineering Building Module, HAZUS-MH MR1, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Mitigation Division, Washigton, D.C. 30. Nimish P., 2009. Performance Based Evaluation and Design, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Bombay, India. 31. Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1971). Reinforced Concrete Structures, 1st Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. 32. Sermin O., (2005).Evaluation of Pushover Procedures for Frame Structures, PhD Thesis, Middle East Technical University. 33. Siddiqui R., and Pradeep Kumar R., (2007). Estimation of Risk due to Earthquake Hazard in AP, India and IT Based Approach, New Technologies for Urban Safety for Mega Cities in Asia, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 34. Sinha S.N., (2001). Reinforced Concrete Design, Tata Mc Graw Hill Publishing, Delhi, 2002. 35. Tang D., Lu X., Ye L.,Shi W.,(2009). Influence of structural parameters to seismic collapse resistance of RC frames in 7-degree seismic fortification zone,4th Conf on Protection of Structures Against Hazards,331-338.

108

Appendix 1
Moment-curvature relations hip for doubly reinforced concrete section developed in Matlab 7.1 b=input('enter the beam width in mm ='); d=input('enter the effective depth in mm ='); Asc=input('enter the area of rebars in compression mm2='); Ast=input('enter the area of rebars in tension mm2='); Fck=input('enter the characteristic strength or design strength of concrete in N/mm2 = '); Fy=input('enter the yield strength or design stress of rebars in N/mm2 = '); E=input('enter the value of modulus of elasticity in N/mm2 ='); d1=input('enter the distance of top reinforcement from top face mm='); e0=0.002; xu=5; %initial guess of neutral axis%

phi=0:0.000000100:0.0002; for i=1:2001; if xu*phi(i)<=0.002& (d- xu)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E)); f = @(xu)(b*fc*(((phi(i)*xu.^2)/e0)-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu.^3/3)+(phi(i)*E*Asc*(xu-d1))(phi(i)*(d- xu)*E*Ast)); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=b*fc*(((2*phi(i)*xu.^3)/(3*e0))-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu^4/4)+(E*phi(i)*Asc*(xud1)^2)+(E*phi(i)*Ast*(d- xu)^2); elseif xu*phi(i)<=0.002& (d-xu)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)>(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)(b*fc*(((phi(i)*xu.^2)/e0)-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu.^3/3)+(fy*Asc)-(phi(i)*(d- xu)*E*Ast)); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=b*fc*(((2*phi(i)*xu.^3)/(3*e0))-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu^4/4)+(fy*Asc*(xud1))+(E*phi(i)*Ast*(d-xu)^2); elseif xu*phi(i)<=0.002& (d-xu)*phi(i)>(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((b*fc*(((phi(i)*xu.^2)/e0)-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu.^3/3))+(phi(i)*E*Asc*(xu-d1))fy*Ast); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=b*fc*(((2*phi(i)*xu.^3)/(3*e0))-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu^4/4)+(E*phi(i)*Asc*(xud1)^2)+fy*Ast*(d-xu); elseif xu*phi(i)<=0.002& (d-xu)*phi(i)>(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)>(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((b*fc*(((phi(i)*xu.^2)/e0)-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu.^3/3))+(fy*Asc)- fy*Ast);

109

xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=b*fc*(((2*phi(i)*xu.^3)/(3*e0))-(phi(i)/e0)^2*xu^4/4)+(fy*Asc*(xu-d1))+fy*Ast*(dxu); elseif xu*phi(i)>0.002& xu*phi(i)<0.003&(d-xu)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((fc*b*(xu-(0.34*(0.002/phi(i)))))+(phi(i)*E*Asc*(xu-d1))-phi(i)*(d-xu)*E*Ast); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=(fc*b*0.5*(xu^2-0.167*((0.002/phi(i))^2)))+(E*phi(i)*Asc*(xud1)^2)+E*phi(i)*Ast*(d-xu)^2; elseif xu*phi(i)>0.002& xu*phi(i)<0.003&(d-xu)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)>(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((fc*b*(xu-(0.34*(0.002/phi(i)))))+(fy*Asc)-phi(i)*(d-xu)*E*Ast); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=(fc*b*0.5*(xu^2-0.167*((0.002/phi(i))^2)))+(fy*Asc*(xu-d1))+E*phi(i)*Ast*(d-xu)^2; elseif xu*phi(i)>0.002& xu*phi(i)<0.0035&(d-xu)*phi(i)>(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)<=(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((fc*b*(xu-(0.34*(0.002/phi(i)))))+(phi(i)*E*Asc*(xu-d1))-fy*Ast); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=(fc*b*0.5*(xu^2-0.167*((0.002/phi(i))^2)))+(E*phi(i)*Asc*(xu-d1)^2)+fy*Ast*(d- xu); elseif xu*phi(i)>0.002& xu*phi(i)<0.0035&(d-xu)*phi(i)>(fy/(E))& (xu-d1)*phi(i)>(fy/(E)) f = @(xu)((fc*b*(xu-(0.34*(0.002/phi(i)))))+(fy*Asc)-fy*Ast); xu = fzero(f,xu); M(i)=(fc*b*0.5*(xu^2-0.167*((0.002/phi(i))^2)))+(fy*Asc*(xu-d1))+fy*Ast*(d-xu); else M(i)=0; end end plot (phi,M/(10^6)),grid; xlabel('Curvature of the section (phi)'); ylabel('Moment of resistance of the section (M) in kN-m'); title('Moment Curvature Relation For RCC section'); Moment-curvature relationship for RCC Section in C++ //fc=Characteristic Strength of Concrete in N/mm2// //fys=Yield Strength of steel bars in N/mm2/ //B=Breadth of the Cross section in mm// //D=Overall depth of the cross section in mm// //AF= Axial Force acting on the cross section in N// //NoS= Number of steel layers in the cross section// #include <iostream> #include <conio.h>

110

#include "fstream" using namespace std; int main() { double B,D,fck,fy,AF,fc,fys; int NoS; //Section Properties of Reinforced Concrete Section// cout<<"\n Enter Beam Width in mm: "; cin>>B; cout<<"\n Enter Beam Depth in mm: "; cin>>D; cout<<"\n Enter Grade of Concrete in N/mm2 : M"; cin>>fc; cout<<"\n Enter Grade of Steel in N/mm2 : Fy"; cin>>fys; cout<<"\n Axial Force in N : "; cin>>AF; cout<<"\n Enter Number of layers of Steel bars : "; cin>>NoS; fy=fys/0.87; fck=fc/0.446; //Input of steel properties double Steeldepth[NoS], diameter[NoS], NumOfBars[NoS]; for ( int x = 0; x < (NoS); x++ ) {cout<<"\n depth of steel : "; cin>>Steeldepth[x]; cout<<"\n diameter of steel : "; cin>>diameter[x]; cout<<"\n no. of bars : "; cin>>NumOfBars[x]; } // Initializing strain// ofstream myfile; remove("M-phi.txt"); myfile.open("M-phi.txt"); double ec=0.001, NA=0,Pc=0,Ps=0, phi=0, Mc=0, Ms=0, M=0,Es=200000; myfile<<phi<<" "<<M<<" "<<endl; while ( ec<=0.0035 ) { ec=ec+0.0001; for( double n= 0; n = n +1; ) //Neutral axis determination such that Axial force+Tension=Compressive force// { NA=n; Pc=0;Ps=0;Mc=0;Ms=0; for ( double z= 0; z < n; ) {z=z+0.01; double e = ec*(n- z)/n; double tempPc=0; if (e<0.002) { tempPc=B*0.01*446*fck*(e-250*e*e); }

111

else {tempPc=B*0.01*0.446*fck; } Pc=Pc+tempPc; Mc=Mc+tempPc*(D*0.5-z); if (z>D) break; } for ( int y = 0; y < NoS; y++ ) { double es = (n-Steeldepth[y])*ec/n; double tempPs = 0; if (es < (0.87*fy/Es) && es > (-1*0.87*fy/Es)){ tempPs = NumOfBars[y]*diameter[y]*diameter[y]*0.25*3.1415*Es*es; } else if (n>Steeldepth[y]){ tempPs = NumOfBars[y]*diameter[y]*diameter[y]*0.25*3.1415*0.87*fy; } else {tempPs=NumOfBars[y]*diameter[y]*diameter[y]*0.25*3.1415*0.87*fy*-1;} Ps = Ps + tempPs; Ms=Ms+tempPs*(D*0.5-Steeldepth[y]); } double P = (Pc+Ps); if (P>=AF) break; } M=(Ms+Mc)*0.000001; phi=ec/NA; myfile<<phi<<" "<<M<<" "<<NA<<endl; cout<<"\n Neutral Axis of section : "<<NA; cout<<"\n Moment of Resistance in : "<<M; cout<<"\n Curvature of the section : "<<phi; } getch(); return 0; }

112

Appendix 2
1) Design base shear calculation for example building no 1
The self weight of the area and frame elements are given below Dead load and live load on area and line elements Self weight (kN) Area elements Frame elements Total weight(kN) Total weight(Ton) 36450.31 kN 24099.48 kN 60549.79 kN 6172.25 Ton Live load (kN) 71752.57 kN Area load is transferred to beam 71752.57 kN 7314.227 ton

Self weight of area elements =36450.31 kN Assuming thickness of slab as 5 inches =0.127m Total area of shell elements= (36450.31/20*0.127)=14350.515 m2 Total live load on the structure =14350.515 * 5=71752.57 kN=7314.227 ton Seismic weight is dead load plus 50 percent of live load =6172.25 Ton +3657.11 Ton= =9829.36 Ton Design base shear is given as =Ah*W; Ah=Z*I*Sa/(R*g) Design base shear=0.12*9829.36=1187.08 Ton ( zone III, MCE, Medium soil) Design base shear=0.18*9829.36=1769.28 Ton ( zone IV, MCE, Medium soil) Design base shear=0.27*9829.36=2654.035 Ton ( zone V, MCE, Medium soil)

2) Base shear calculation for 4, 6, and 8 storey buildings

4 Storey building (2.8 m Storey height,4m span length) Details of calculation of base shear Force distribution Time period (Sec) 0.9550 Story no Height (m) Force at storey level (kN) Seismic weight (kN) 6355.92 4 11.20 75.50 Spectral coefficient (Sa/g) 1.4241 3 8.40 106.63

113

Seismic coefficient (Ah) Design base shear Vb (kN)

0.0380 241.3697

2 1

5.60 2.80

47.39 11.85

6 Storey building (2.8 m Storey height,4m span length) Details of calculation of base shear Force distribution Time period (Sec) 1.4419 Story no Height (m) Force at storey level (kN) Seismic weight (kN) 10178.67 6 16.80 53.00 Spectral coefficient (Sa/g) 0.9432 5 14.00 92.28 Seismic coefficient (Ah) 0.0252 4 11.20 59.06 Design base shear Vb (kN) 256.0176 3 8.40 33.22 2 5.60 14.77 1 2.80 3.69 8 Storey building (2.8 m Storey height,4m span length) Details of calculation of base shear Force distribution Time period (Sec) 1.91 Story no Height (m) Force at storey level (kN) Seismic weight (kN) 14078.48 8 22.40 41.16 Spectral coefficient (Sa/g) 0.71 7 19.60 78.89 Seismic coefficient (Ah) 0.0211 6 16.80 57.96 Design base shear Vb (kN) 266.5526 5 14.00 40.25 4 11.20 25.76 3 8.40 14.49 2 5.60 6.44 1 2.80 1.61 6 Storey building (3.6 m Storey height,4m span length) Details of calculation of base shear Force distribution Time period (Sec) 1.9727 Story no Height (m) Force at storey level (kN) Seismic weight (kN) 11658.27 6 21.60 40.65 Spectral coefficient (Sa/g) 0.6894 5 18.00 78.95 Seismic coefficient (Ah) 0.0184 4 14.40 50.53 Design base shear Vb (kN) 214.3312 3 10.80 28.42 2 7.20 12.63 1 3.60 3.16 6 Storey building (3.6 m Storey height, 8m span length) Details of calculation of base shear Force distribution Time period (Sec) 2.020187 Story no Height (m) Force at storey level (kN) Seismic weight (kN) 29004.00 6 21.60 130.61 Spectral coefficient (Sa/g) 0.6732 5 18.00 177.31 Seismic coefficient (Ah) 0.0180 4 14.40 113.48 Design base shear Vb (kN) 520.6830 3 10.80 63.83 2 7.20 28.37 1 3.60 7.09

114

3) Column sizes of original and designed example building no 2

Original example building no 2 Column sizes Below ground floor Ground floor 1st floor 2nd floor 15"x27" 14"x24" 14"x24" 14"x24" Design example building no 2 Column sizes 15"x18" 15"x18" 15"x18" 15"x18"

4) Column sizes of 4, 6, 8 storey buildings

Storey Id 4-2.8-4 6-2.8-4 8-2.8-4 6-3.6-4 6-3.6-8 (Ground storey) Column sizes Beam sizes 300x300 mm 325x325mm 350x350mm 325x325mm 500x500mm 230x300 mm 230x300 mm 230x300 mm 230x300 mm 300x450mm 300x450mm

6-3.6-8 (Remaining storeys) 450x450mm

115