This study is to investigate the effect of earthquake motions on the response of a threedimensional
nine storey reinforced concrete structure with and without considering soil-structure
interaction. Numerical modelling of such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear
properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation capacities.
Nine storey RC building asymmetric in plan, height below 45 m, located in seismic zone III
designed as per IS 456:2000 and IS1893:2002 and detailed as per IS13920:1993. Properties of
nonlinear hinge properties are computed as per FEMA-356 and ATC 40 guidelines. Pushover
analysis is carried out in X- and Y- directions using user-defined nonlinear hinge properties. The
analysis has been carried out for the three different cases: (1) Fixed base without considering
soil structure interaction (SSI), (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition, and
(3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. It was found that SSI can affect the
seismic performance of building in terms of seismic force demands and deformations. From
the capacity curve, it is observed that SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions and
negligible for stiff soil conditions.
Título original
SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC BUILDING BY CONSIDERING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
This study is to investigate the effect of earthquake motions on the response of a threedimensional
nine storey reinforced concrete structure with and without considering soil-structure
interaction. Numerical modelling of such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear
properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation capacities.
Nine storey RC building asymmetric in plan, height below 45 m, located in seismic zone III
designed as per IS 456:2000 and IS1893:2002 and detailed as per IS13920:1993. Properties of
nonlinear hinge properties are computed as per FEMA-356 and ATC 40 guidelines. Pushover
analysis is carried out in X- and Y- directions using user-defined nonlinear hinge properties. The
analysis has been carried out for the three different cases: (1) Fixed base without considering
soil structure interaction (SSI), (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition, and
(3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. It was found that SSI can affect the
seismic performance of building in terms of seismic force demands and deformations. From
the capacity curve, it is observed that SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions and
negligible for stiff soil conditions.
This study is to investigate the effect of earthquake motions on the response of a threedimensional
nine storey reinforced concrete structure with and without considering soil-structure
interaction. Numerical modelling of such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear
properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation capacities.
Nine storey RC building asymmetric in plan, height below 45 m, located in seismic zone III
designed as per IS 456:2000 and IS1893:2002 and detailed as per IS13920:1993. Properties of
nonlinear hinge properties are computed as per FEMA-356 and ATC 40 guidelines. Pushover
analysis is carried out in X- and Y- directions using user-defined nonlinear hinge properties. The
analysis has been carried out for the three different cases: (1) Fixed base without considering
soil structure interaction (SSI), (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition, and
(3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. It was found that SSI can affect the
seismic performance of building in terms of seismic force demands and deformations. From
the capacity curve, it is observed that SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions and
negligible for stiff soil conditions.
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC BUILDING BY CONSIDERING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Jinu Mary Mathew 1 *, Cinitha A 2 , Umesha P K 2 , Nagesh R Iyer 2 and Eapen Sakaria 3 This study is to investigate the effect of earthquake motions on the response of a three- dimensional nine storey reinforced concrete structure with and without considering soil-structure interaction. Numerical modelling of such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation capacities. Nine storey RC building asymmetric in plan, height below 45 m, located in seismic zone III designed as per IS 456:2000 and IS1893:2002 and detailed as per IS13920:1993. Properties of nonlinear hinge properties are computed as per FEMA-356 and ATC 40 guidelines. Pushover analysis is carried out in X- and Y- directions using user-defined nonlinear hinge properties. The analysis has been carried out for the three different cases: (1) Fixed base without considering soil structure interaction (SSI), (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition, and (3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. It was found that SSI can affect the seismic performance of building in terms of seismic force demands and deformations. From the capacity curve, it is observed that SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions and negligible for stiff soil conditions. 1 Saintgits College of Engineering, Kottayam. 2 CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,Chennai-113. 3 Saintgits College of Engineering, Kottayam. *Corresponding author:Jinu Mary Mathew jinumarymathew234@yahoo.com ISSN 2319 6009 www.ijscer.com Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2014 2014 IJSCER. All Rights Reserved Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Research Paper Keywords: Soil structure interaction, Push-over analysis, Plastic hinge, Seismic performance INTRODUCTION Structural failures during Bhuj (2001) and Sikkim (2011) earthquakes demonstrated the importance of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) effects and its consideration to avoid failure and ensure safety. The possible bedrock movements during earthquakes intensify the dynamic effects of site and changes the structural response. Thus, the influence of foundation flexibility is so much important. The soil-structure interaction is an important issue, especially for stiff and massive structures constructed on the relatively soft ground, which may alter the dynamic characteristics of the structural response significantly. Past experiences showed that the soil under foundation can alter dynamic behavior of structure. The dynamic response of structures depends upon soil nature located under foundation, so neglecting of soil-structure 161 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 interaction is unsafe. During an earthquake, the load and deformation characteristic of the structural and geotechnical (soil) components of the foundations of structures can effect, and in some cases dominate, seismic response and overall performance. Understanding this importance structural engineers/researchers has included the foundation strength and stiffness in seismic analysis models. The modelling of soil and structural parts of foundations inherently accounts the interaction of soil and structure. In soil structure interaction the appropriate modelling of the flux of energy from the soil to the structure, and then back from the structure to the soil is accounted and the process is called SSI. Stewart et al. (1999) indicates that there is a high correlation between the lengthening ratio of the structural period due to the flexibility of the foundation and structure to soil stiffness ratio. As a general trend when the structure is stiff and underlying soil is soft the soil structure effect gets important, on the other hand as the structural period gets longer and stiffness of the soil under the structure gets higher soil structure interaction losses its importance. The response to earthquake motion of a structure situated on a deformable soil differs from structure supported on a rigid foundation. The ground motion recorded at the base of the structure differs from the records without building. The dynamic characteristic such as vibration modes and frequencies very much correlate with the induced changes in dynamic characteristic of soil during seismic excitation which shows the significance of soil structure interaction on the response of the structure to earthquake motion that is investigated in the present study. Boonyapinyo et al. (2008) studied the seismic performance evaluation of reinforced-concrete buildings by static pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Evaluated the seismic performance of building by nonlinear static analyses (pushover analysis and modal pushover analysis) and nonlinear time history analysis. Hayashi et al. (2004) pointed out that the damage reduction effects by soil-structure interaction greatly depend on the ground motion characteristics, number of stories and horizontal capacity of earthquake resistance of buildings. They brought out the importance of soil-structure interaction including nonlinear phenomena such as base mat uplift to evaluate the earthquake damage of buildings properly. The main objective of this paper is to better understand the soil structure interaction analysis and performance of a nine- storey RC building situated in soft soil of seismic zone III. For this purpose the three-dimensional (3D) frame structures is analyzed by using SAP 2000 for three conditions: (1) Fixed base without considering SSI, (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition; and (3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. Equivalent springs under raft foundation are used to simulate SSI in this study NINE-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME BUILDING Building Details A nine-storey RC building located in Trivandrum, Kerala designed for gravity and earthquake loads is studied. The rectangular plan of building is 15.31 m by 7.82 m. The story height is 2.85 m with a total height of 27.15 m. The structural system is asymmetrical and plan 162 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 layout is shown in Figure 1. The frames of building were designed as gravity frames. The thickness of floor slab is taken as 0.15 m and roof slab is taken as 0.10 m, 0.11 m and 0.25 m depending upon whether the slab is balcony, roof, sunken slab, respectively. All columns and beam dimensions are given in Tables 1 and 2, and building is supported on raft slab of thickness 0.40 m. It is designed for a soil bearing capacity of 120 kN/m 2 . The cylinder compressive strengths of concrete columns and beams are 30 MPa. The expected yield strength of steel deformed bars is 500 MPa. Plastic Hinge Model Seismic response of reinforced concrete 3D moment frame is modelled through nonlinear element representations of column, beam and beam column joints. Nonlinear element formulations for reinforced concrete members Figure 1: Plan of the Building Table 1: Dimension of Components of the Building-Beams Reinforcement Beam Dimension Section F e F c Top Bottom Clear No. (MPa)
(MPa) Reinf Reinf Stirrups Cover (mm) B1 200 x 500 G1 500 30 2Y20 2Y16, 2Y25 Y8-100 30 B2 200 x 600 G2 500 30 2Y20, 3Y25 3Y25 Y8-100 30 B12 200 x 500 G10 500 30 5Y25 2Y25, 2Y20 Y8-100 30 B16 200 x 400 G14 500 30 2Y16 2Y16 Y8-100 30 B22 200 x 500 G19 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 3Y25 Y8-100 30 B23 200 x 500 G20 500 30 2Y16, 1Y12 3Y16 Y8-100 30 B30 200 x 600 G26 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20, 1Y25 Y8-100 30 B31 200 x 500 G27 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20 Y8-100 30 B31a 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30 B32 200 x 400 G29 500 30 2Y16 4Y16 Y8-150 30 B33 200 x 500 G30 500 30 3Y16 2Y16, 1Y12 Y8-150 30 B34 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30 B48 200 x 600 G39 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 2Y25 Y8-100 30 163 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 Table 2: Dimension of Components of the Building-Columns Column Dimension Section No. Fe (MPa) Fc (MPa) Long.Reinf Stirrups Clear Cover (mm) Ground Floor C1 300 x 800 C1 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40 C4 300 x 1000 C4 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40 C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40 C9 300 x 1200 C9 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40 C10 250 x 1000 C10 500 30 24Y25 Y8-250 40 C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40 C12 300 x 1200 C12 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40 C13 250 x 800 C13 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40 C16 300 x 1400 C16 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40 Typical Floor C1 200 x 800 C17 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40 C4 200 x 1000 C20 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40 C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40 C9 200 x 1200 C24 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40 C10 250 x 1000 C25 500 30 22Y25 Y8-250 40 C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40 C12 200 x 1200 C26 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40 C13 250 x 800 C27 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40 C16 200 x 1400 C30 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40 range from 3D continuum finite element models to lumped plasticity concentrated hinge models. Lumped plasticity models consist of elastic elements with concentrated plastic hinges at each end. Concentrated plastic hinges are represented by rotational springs with back bone and cyclic deterioration properties that have been calibrated to results from experimental studies [FEMA 356]. Plastic hinge form at the maximum moments regions of RC members. The accurate assessment of plastic hinge length is important in relating the structural level response to member level response. The length of plastic hinge depends on many factors: (1) level of axial load (2) moment gradient, (3) level of shear stress in 164 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 plastic region, (4) mechanical properties of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, (5) concrete strength, (6) level of confinement and its effectiveness in potential hinge region. For the present study length of plastic hinge is taken as 0.5 H, where H is the depth of cross section. Stress Strain Relation for Confined Concrete In order to define moment-curvature relation to simulate the onset of damage, the stress- strain model of confined concrete and typical steel stress-strain model with strain hardening is essential. In this study modified manders confined concrete model as per CEN Eurocode 8 is used. A comparison of confined and unconfined stress-strain relation observed is shown in Figure 2. which include distribution of steel including spacing of longitudinal and lateral steel, amount of lateral steel, type of anchorage and grade of concrete. Under estimation of ultimate curvature may result brittle shear failure even the members are well detailed for ductile flexural behavior. In this study, nonlinear static analyses are carried out using user-defined plastic hinge properties. Definition of user- defined hinge properties requires moment- curvature characteristics of each element. The obtained moment-curvature behavior of beams and columns are shown in Figures 3-5. Figure 2: Comparison of Stress Vs Strain Relation Of Confined And Unconfined Concrete Moment Curvature Relationship The moment curvature relations are essential to model nonlinear behavior of structure and members. The ultimate deformation capacity of a member depends on the ultimate curvature and the plastic hinge length (Inel et al., 2006). The conservative estimation of ultimate curvature depends on several factors Figure 3: Moment Vs Curvature for Beams Figure 4: Moment vs Curvature for Ground floor Columns 165 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 The moment-curvature analyzes are carried out considering section properties and a constant axial load on the structural element. In development of user-defined hinges for columns, the maximum load due to several possible combinations considered need to be given as input in SAP2000. Following, the calculation of the ultimate curvature capacity of an element, acceptance criteria are defined and labelled as IO, LS and CP. The typical user-defined (moment-curvature) hinge properties for beams and columns (M2-M3 and PMM hinges in SAP 2000) used for the analysis are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The values of these performance levels can be obtained from the test results in the absence of the test data, and the values recommended by ATC-40. The acceptance criteria for performance within the damage control performance range are obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the IO and the LS structural performance levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance within the limited safety structural performance range are obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the life safety and the collapse prevention structural performance levels. A target performance is defined by a typical value of roof drift, as well as limiting values of deformation of the structural elements. To determine whether a building meets performance objectives, response quantities from the pushover analysis should be considered with each of the performance levels. Soil Structure Interaction According to the seismic improvement of current structure provision, the members of structure and foundation must be modelled Figure 5: Moment vs Curvature for Typical Floor Columns Figure 6: Typical user-defined Moment-rotation Hinge Properties (M2-M3)-Beams Figure 7: Moment vs. Rotation Curves (P-M-M) - Columns 166 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 together in unified model to consider soil- structure interaction. In this study two orthogonal springs, a vertical spring and three rotational springs were used in main direction of structures to simulate soil structure interaction. The stiffness of springs are estimated using Richart and Lysmer model and incorporated in the analysis. Foundation Model Behavior of foundation components and effects of soil-structure interaction were investigated. Soil-structure interaction can lead to modification of building response. Soil flexibility results in period elongation and damping increase. The main relevant impacts are to modify the overall lateral displacement and to provide additional flexibility at the base level that may relieve inelastic deformation demands in the superstructure. In this study, the stiffness of springs are estimated using Richart and Lysmer model which can be represented by a series of 3 translational and 3 rotational springs. The soil is treated as an isotropic, homogenous and elastic half space medium. For linear analysis, the unit weight of soil (), shear wave velocity (Vs) and Poisson ratio () are the inputs. Two scenarios were assumed for the soil deposit used in the present study, namely: Type I corresponding to Rock or hard soil; Type III corresponding to soft soil in accordance with the site classification of the IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. Table 3 lists the properties assigned for these two soil classes in the current study from the ranges specified by ATC 40. The study primarily attempts to see the effect of soil-structure interaction on buildings resting on different types of non-cohesive soil, viz., soft and rock. Richart et al. (1970) idealized the foundation as a lumped mass supported on soil which is idealized as frequency independent springs which he described in terms of soil parameter dynamic shear modulus of shear wave velocity of the soil. Table 3 along with Table 4 shows the different values of spring as per Richart and Lysmer. In which, G = dynamic shear modulus of soil and is given by; G = Vs 2 ; = Poissons ratio of the soil; = mass density of the soil; K = equivalent spring stiffness of the soil; r = equivalent radius of a circular foundation; L = length of the foundation; and B = width of the foundation. To examine the dynamic behavior while considering the effect of soil-structure interaction, building frames of nine storey was Table 3: Soil Parameters Assigned For Type I and Type III Description Type I Type III Unit Weight 2563.00 kg/m 3 1522.00 kg/m 3 Mass density of soil = /g 261.26 N/m 3 155.15 N/m 3 Shear wave velocity Vs 1220.00 m/s 150.00 m/s Shear Modulus G = Vs 2 388859.00 kN/m 2 3491.00 kN/m 2 Poissons Ratio 0.25 0.50 167 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 idealized as 3D space frames using standard beam element at each node. Slabs at different storey level were modelled with shell elements with consideration of adequate thickness. The storey height of the bui lding frames is considered as 2.85 m. The gravity loads assigned to the building was seismic weight of structural components, including the beams and columns and the reinforced concrete slabs. The weight of the non-structural components (e.g., Brick partitions, Plastering, floor finishing, etc.) in addition to the live load are also considered. Since the slabs were not modelled explicitly, their weight and the live load they carry were included in the structural model by distributing its reaction on the supporting beams. PUSH OVER ANALYSIS Amongst the natural hazards, earthquakes have the potential for causing the greatest damages. Since earthquake forces are random in nature and unpredictable, the engineering tools need to be improved for analyzing structures under the action of these forces. Earthquake loads are to be carefully modelled so as to assess the real behavior of structure with a clear understanding that damage is expected but it should be regulated. In this context pushover analysis which is an iterative procedure is looked upon as an alternative for the conventional analysis procedures. Pushover analysis of multi-story RCC framed buildings subjected to increasing lateral forces is carried out until the pre-set performance level (target displacement) is Table 4: Values of Soil Springs as Per Richart and Lysmer (1970) Model Direction Spring Value Equivalent Radius Remarks Vertical
4 1 z z Gr K
z LB r
This is in vertical Z direction
Horizontal
32 1 7 8 x x Gr K
x LB r
This induce sliding in horizontal X or Y Direction
Rocking
3 8 3 1 x x Gr K
4 3 3 x LB r
This produces rocking about Y axis
Rocking
3 8 3 1 y y Gr K
4 3 3 y LB r
This produces rocking about X axis
Twisting 3 16 3 z Gr K
4 3 3 6 z LB BL r
This produces twisting about vertical Z axis
168 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 reached. The promise of Performance-Based Seismic Engineering (PBSE) is to produce structures with predictable seismic performance. The recent advent of performance based design has brought the non linear static push over analysis procedure to the forefront. Pushover analysis is a static non linear procedure in which the magnitude of the structural loading along the lateral direction of the structure is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain pre-defined pattern. It is generally assumed that the behavior of the structure is controlled by its fundamental mode and the predefined pattern is expressed either in terms of story shear or in terms of fundamental mode shape. Push over procedure is gaining popularity during the last few years as appropriate analytical tools are now available (SAP-2000, ETABS). In this study SAP 2000 version 14 is used. Building is modelled using the materials M30 concrete and Fe500 Steel and assigned all the beams and columns including with their reinforcement, all loads (dead load, live load, and earthquake load) and user defined hinges. Eight sets of analysis were carried out, for a combination with and without considering SSI for hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction. Four different models were created for two different soil conditions. Figure 8 shows the building with fixed base model and Figure 9 shows building by considering SSI effect. The SSI effect are modelled for 1) fixed base and flexible base for soft soil in X- direction, 2) fixed base and flexible base for soft soil in Y - direction, 3) fixed base and flexible base for hard soil in X- direction, 4) fixed base and flexible base for hard soil in Y- direction. Figure 8: Building with Fixed Base Figure 9: Building with Flexible Base 169 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the present study, user defined stress- strain curve based on CEN Eurocode-8 is adopted and incorporated in SAP2000. The percentage variation of stress and strain for confined concrete is found to be 10-20% and 237-266%, respectively compared to unconfined concrete. From the study of moment-curvature relationship, it is clear that as the area of reinforcement increases the moment also increases considerably. If the area of reinforcement is same, but the area of the section differs, the moment is high for the section having greater area. So it is clear that the moment curvature depends mainly on percentage of reinforcement and the gross area of the section. Eight sets of pushover analysis were carried out, for a combination of with and without considering SSI effect for hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction. In general the two cases are studied, case 1- capacity curve without considering SSI and case 2 capacity curve with considering SSI. The observed pushover curves for the nine- storey RC building with above base condition were shown in Figures 10-13. Figure 10: Displacement Vs Base Force for Hard Soil in X Direction Figure 11: Displacement Vs Base Force for Hard Soil in Y Direction Figure 12: Displacement Vs Base Force for Soft Soil in X Direction Figure 13: Displacement Vs Base Force for Soft Soil in Y Direction CONCLUSION Based on analytical studies on nine-storey RC building frame, the following conclusions are arrived The stress-strain relationship is observed for the material used in the structural 170 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 components and a significant variation in strength and failure, strain is observed for confined and unconfined concrete. It is found that the moment-curvature characteristics of beam and column elements varies according to the type of reinforcement and spacing of bars. The non-linear static analysis was conducted using the SAP 2000. The results indicate that the SSI can considerably affect the seismic response of building founded on soft soil conditions. In general, the results showed that SSI effects are important for buildings founded on soft ground conditions. However, for firm ground conditions, its effects can be neglected. The deformations of the structural components of the buildings have also been affected by the SSI. The deformations of buildings with flexible bases have shown a considerable increase that ranged from 10% to about 230% compared to the fixed base case for buildings found between soil type I and Soil Type III. This would in turn increase the lateral deflection of the whole building. Thus, SSI can have a detrimental effect on the performance of buildings. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thanks the Director, CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, India for the help provided during the preparation of paper. REFERENCES 1. Design Aids for, Reinforced Concrete to IS 456 1978, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, SP 16: 1980. 2. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40, (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vol. 1 and 2, California. 3. Chinmayi H K and Jayalekshmi B R (2013), Soil-structure interaction analysis of RC frame shear wall buildings over raft foundations under seismic loading, International journal of scientific and Engineering Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 99-102. 4. Cinitha A (2013), Evaluation of seismic Performance and review on retrofitting strategies of existing RC Buildings, International conference on civil engineering and infrastructural issues in emerging economics, Proceedings, February, pp. 609-621. 5. Deepa B S (2012), Seismic Soil Structure Interaction Studies On Multistorey Frames, International Journal Of Applied Engineering Research And Development (Ijaerd), Issn 22501584, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 45- 58. 6. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces - code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India,IS 13920:1993, 1993. 7. Eurocode 8(2001) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part-1. European Standard PREN 1998-1. Draft no. 4. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization. 171 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 8. FEMA 356 (2000), Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 9. Ganainy H E and Naggar M H E I (2009), Seismic Performance of three- dimensional frame structures with underground stories, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol 29, pp. 1249-1261. 10. Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, IS 456:2000,2000. 11. Inel M Ozmen and Hayri Baytan (2006), Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, Eng Struct., Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 1494-1502. 12. IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 110002. 13. Jayalekshmi B R (2013), Effect of soil- flexibility on lateral natural period in RC framed buildings with shear wall, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 6, pp. 2067- 2076. 14. Jenifer Priyanka R M (2012), Studies on Soil Structure Interaction of Multi Storeyed Buildings with Rigid and Flexible Foundation, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 12, pp. 111- 118. 15. Julio A Garca (2008), Soil Structure Interaction In The Analysis And Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings, The 14 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China. 16. Magade S B (2009), Effect of Soil Structure Interaction On The Dynamic Behaviour of Buildings, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN: 2278-1684, pp. 09-14. 17. Muberra Eser Aydemir (2010), Soil Structure Interaction Effects On Multistorey R/C Structures, International Journal Of Electronics; Mechanical And Mechatronics Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 298-303. 18. Nagaraj H B and Murthy C C R (2013), Review of Geotechnical Provisions in Indian Seismic Code IS1893 (Part 1):2002; Document No:IITK-GSDMA- EQ13-V1.0; Final Report: A Earthquake codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes. 19. Pandey A D (2011), Seismic Soil- Structure Interaction Of Buildings On Hill Slopes, International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 544-555. 20. Pfrang E O, Siess C P and Sozen M A (1964), Load moment curvature charateristics of Reinforced concrete cross sections, Journal of the American concrete structuers, July, pp. 764-778. 172 This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014 21. Poonam (2012), Study Of Response Of Structurally Irregular Building Frames To Seismic Excitations, International Journal Of Civil, Structural Environmental And Infrastructure Engineering Research And Development (IJCSEIERD), ISSN 2249- 6866, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 25-31. 22. Rama Raju K, Cinitha A and Nagesh R Iyer (2012), Seismic Performance evaluation of existing RC Buildings designed as per past codes of practice, Sadhana, Vol. 37, Part 2, pp. 281-297. 23. Shah H J and Sudhir K Jain (2010), Design Example of a Six Storey Building; Document No:IITK-GSDMA- EQ26-V3.0; Final Report: A Earthquake codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes. 24. Stewart J P, Fenves G L and Seed R B (1999), Seismic soilstructure interaction in buildings I: analytical method, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 125, pp. 26-37. 25. Stewart J P, Seed R B and Fenves G L (1999), Seismic soilstructure interaction in buildings II: empirical findings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 125, pp. 38-48. 26. Tavakoli H R, Naeej M and Salari A (2011), Response of RC structures subjected to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions considering soil- structure interaction, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 881-896. 27. Virote Boonyapinyo, Norathape Choopool and Pennung Warnitchai (2008), Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced-Concrete Buildings by Static Pushover and Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses, The 14 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China. 28. Yasuhiro Hayashi and Ikuo Takahashi (2004), Soil Structure Interaction Effects on Building Response in Recent Earthquake, Proceedings Third UJNR workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction, March.