SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED BUILDING

ABSTRACT

Masonry infill are normally considered as non-structural elements and their

stiffness contributions are generally ignored in practice, such an approach
can lead to an unsafe design. Until now infill wall system has been studied by
many authors like P.G.Asteris (2003); and Depts. Das and C.V.R.Murty (2004);
B.Srinivas and B.K.Raghu Prasad (2009); Mulgund G.V (2011).
It is proposed to develop an infill wall system in edges of the building to
reduces the seismic effects on buildings. In the present studies RCC framed
buildings are analyzed by ETABS software. In modeling the masonry infill
panels the Equivalent diagonal strut method is used for of the braces of the
buildings. This work includes four kinds of 15 story rectangular RCC framed
building with height to depth ratio (H/D) as 7.02 which are describe here.
The building with shear wall at the corners and dimensions as 35 m x 25 m;
building with shear wall at the corners and also center core of shear walls
and dimensions as 35 m x 25 m; the building with shear wall at the corners
and dimensions as 25 m x 25 m; and building with shear wall at the corners
and also center core of shear walls and dimensions as 25 m x 25 m.
In each building after design infill walls are modeled in different cases. Infill
walls are used on the exterior beams as dead load (Case 1); infill walls are
used on the exterior beams as strut for all storey's (Case 2) and infill walls
are used on the exterior beams as strut for all storey's except the first story
(Case 3).

CHAPTER- 1
INTRODUCTION

Masonry infill are normally considered as non-structural elements and their

stiffness contributions are generally ignored in practice, such an approach
can lead to an unsafe design. The masonry infill walls though constructed as
secondary elements behaves as a constituent part of the structural system
and determine the overall behavior of the structure especially when it is
subjected to seismic loads. In this paper seismic analysis has been
performed using Equivalent Lateral Force Method for different reinforced
concrete (RC) frame building models that include bare frame, unfilled frame
and open first storey frame. The results of bare frame, in filled frame and
open first storey frame are discussed and conclusions are made. In modeling
the masonry infill panels the Equivalent diagonal Strut method is used and
the software ETABS is used for the analysis of all the frame models. Mostly
two common structural damages observed caused by masonry infill walls in
earthquakes i.e soft stories and short columns. In office or residential
building outer side central opening are used. In this case central opening are
provided in periphery wall with different percentage i.e. 15% and 25% and
brick compressive strength are used as per IS : 1905-1987 i.e. 5.0 and 12.5
N/mm2 and Brick Masonry strength is 0.50 and 1.06N/mm2.
Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with masonry infill walls have been
widely constructed for commercial, industrial and multi storey residential
uses in seismic regions. Masonry infill typically consists of bricks or concrete
blocks constructed between beams and columns of a reinforced concrete
frame. The masonry infill panels are generally not considered in the design
process and treated as architectural (non-structural) components.
Nevertheless, the presence of masonry infill walls has a significant impact on

the seismic response of a reinforced concrete frame building, increasing

structural strength and stiffness (relative to a bare frame) [1]. Properly
designed infill can increase the overall strength, lateral resistance and
energy dissipation of the structure. An infill wall reduces the lateral
deflections and bending moments in the frame, thereby decreasing the
probability of collapse. Hence, accounting for the infill in the analysis and
design leads to slender frame members, reducing the overall cost of the
structural system. The total base shear experienced by a building during an
earthquake is dependent on its time period. The seismic force distribution is
dependent on the stiffness and mass of the building along the height. The
structural contribution of infill wall results into stiffer structure thereby
reducing the storey drifts (lateral displacement at floor level). This improved
performance makes the structural design more realistic to consider infill
walls as a structural element in the earthquake resistant design of structures.
1.2 Organization of the Dissertation

The dissertation is divided into six chapters as follows.

First chapter is introduction of the work.
Second chapter entitled Review of Literature describes in detail the
various works conducted by the researchers to understand the behavior of
masonry infill and concrete shear wall frames and their effect on strength
requirements, for different type of buildings by the seismic analysis and
summary of literatures need for the present investigation, and describes the
objectives and scope of the present study are organized in the project. This
chapter also describes the importance of the study.
Third chapter includes different seismic analysis procedures such as
linear and non linear both static and dynamic analysis. It also gives
introduction to hinges and to their properties. It includes detailed procedure
for pushover analysis and graphical representation of pushover curves.

Advantages of inelastic procedure over elastic procedure and brief details of

earthquake.
Fourth chapter provide complete details of different models which has
used in this dissertation and modeled in etabs software with their elevation
and 3D views.

Manually calculations of natural time periods, base shears

and distribution of lateral seismic shear forces of the different models.

Fifth chapter is the discussion of results by considering the different
parameters of the building model.
The chapter sixth gives summary, conclusions and further scope of the
study, and at last references.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The current study is concerned with the application of recent techniques of

analyses proposed by the international seismic codes and guidelines to
determine the elastic and inelastic responses of typical multi-storey buildings
made of reinforced concrete due to earthquake ground motions. It aims to
encourage the inclusion of performance-based concepts in local seismic
codes of design and evaluation. Basically, the objectives of this thesis are:
To assess the implementation of recent linear and nonlinear analyses, within
the current practice of seismic design codes, for estimating seismic demands
of multi-storey buildings.
To evaluate the seismic demands estimated using the pushover technique by
comparison with the dynamic results determined by nonlinear time-history
analysis using two natural records of ground motions: Elcentro and Bhuj.
PARAMETER OF STUDY

To Study the behavior of building on influence of masonry infill on the

overall behavior of structure when subjected to lateral seismic forces.
To verify the effect of vertical irregularity on the fundamental natural
period of the building and its effect on performance of the structure
during earthquake for different building models selected.
Finding out the deflections and storey drifts at each storey using linear
and non-linear analyses.

To study the ductility factor for different building models with and
without infill and the performance level of the structures during
earthquake.

CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

It has always been a human aspiration to create taller and taller

structures. Development of metro cities in India there is increasing demand
in High Rise Building. The reinforced cement concrete moment resisting
frames in filled with unreinforced brick masonry walls are very common in
India and in other developing countries. Masonry is a commonly used
construction material in the world for reason that includes accessibility,
functionality, and cost. The primary function of masonry is either to protect
inside of the structure from the environment or to divide inside spaces.
Normally considered as architectural elements. Engineers often neglect their
presence. Because of complexity of the problem, their interaction with the
bounding frame is often neglected in the analysis of building structures.
When masonry in fills are considered to interact with their surrounding
frames, the lateral load capacity of the structure largely increases. This
assumption may lead to an important inaccuracy in predicting the response
of the structure. This occurs especially when subjected to lateral loading.
Role of infills in altering the behavior of moment resisting frames and their
participation in the transfer of loads has been established by decades of

research. A review of the developments in the seismic analysis, design, and

experimental investigations are presented along with the codal provisions of
various countries.

2.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Multi-storied-framed building construction commenced in the late 19th

century even though the analytical methods were not developed until the
early 20th century. The earlier structures were analyzed using approximate
methods such as cantilever method developed by A. C. Wilson in 1908 and
portal method by Albert Smith in 1915. Iterative methods, namely Hardy
Cross method of 1932 and Kanis method of 1947 were developed, and
widely adopted for the analysis of building frames in preference to the direct
solutions of the equations formed by the slope-displacement method. The
behavior of framed buildings under seismic loads was investigated
extensively because of the wide spread damage in various countries. Sano in
1916 introduced the term seismic coefficient, which is widely adopted in
determining the lateral forces on multi-storied structures. The behavior of
the industrial bank building in Japan, which withstood the 1923 Great Kanto
earthquake without significant damage, was invaluable in comprehending
the term seismic coefficient. In the years that followed, several building
codes were modified to include the clause that the structure shall be
designed to withstand a horizontal seismic coefficient exceeding 0.1. This
may be the first specification for earthquake resistance and seismic load
considerations.
Various research works and experiments have been carried out since a long
time all over the globe to understand or to evaluate the effect of seismic
forces on existing RC building in high seismic zones and in hilly terrain. The
concepts of modeling and analysis techniques used for this purpose are also

getting improved with advancement of engineering and technology from

past experience,
2.3 REVIEW

M C Griffith and A V Pinto [1] have investigated the specific details of a 4story, 3-bay reinforced concrete frame test structure with unreinforced brick
masonry (URM) infill walls with attention to their weaknesses with regards to
seismic loading. The concrete frame was shown to be a weak-column
strong-beam frame which is likely to exhibit poor post yield hysteretic
behavior. The building was expected to have maximum lateral deformation
capacities corresponding to about 2% lateral drift. The unreinforced masonry
infill walls were likely to begin cracking at much smaller lateral drifts, of the
order of 0.3%, and completely lost their load carrying ability by drifts of
between 1% and 2%.
Shunsuke Otani [2] studied the development of earthquake resistant
design of RCC Buildings (Past and Future). The measurement of ground
acceleration started in 1930s, and the response calculation was made
possible in 1940s. Design response spectra were formulated in the late
1950s to 1960s. Non-linear response was introduced in seismic design in
1960s and the capacity design concept was introduced in 1970s for
collapse safety. The damage statistics of RCC buildings in 1995 Kobe disaster
demonstrated the improvement of building performance with the
development of design methodology. Buildings designed and constructed
using outdated methodology should be upgraded. Performance basis
engineering should be emphasized, especially for the protection of building
functions following frequent earthquakes. Ciro Faella, Enzo Martinelli,
Emidio Nigro [3] proposed an assessment procedure in terms of
displacement capacity and demand. The sample application of the proposed
procedure to a typical building emphasized how easy and quick can be its
application. As a brief parametrical investigation, the influence of subsoil

stiffness on the seismic vulnerability of the building was analyzed pointing

out that vulnerability was much larger as subsoil was less stiff. A rational
design procedure for choosing the retrofitting system was proposed with the
aim of determining the key mechanical characteristics of a bracing system
working in parallel with the existing structure for complying the safety
requirement provided by Euro code 8 Part 3 entirely devoted to existing
structures. In the proposed design procedure, according to a displacementbased approach, the strengthening substructure was designed in terms of
lateral stiffness, because Page12 displacement demand is strictly controlled
by the displacement capacity of the existing structure. For this reason, usual
force-based design procedures suitable for new structures, in which
displacement capacity is only imposed by the new structure itself, are not
directly applicable for bracing system utilized for retrofitting existing
structures.
Ouz, Sermin [4] ascertained the effects and the accuracy of invariant
lateral load patterns utilized in pushover analysis to predict the behavior
imposed on the structure due to randomly selected individual ground
motions causing elastic deformation by studying various levels of nonlinear
response. For this purpose, pushover analyses using various invariant lateral
load patterns and Modal Pushover Analysis were performed on reinforced
concrete and steel moment resisting frames covering a broad range of
fundamental periods. The accuracy of approximate procedures utilized to
estimate target displacement was also studied on frame structures. Pushover
analyses were performed by both DRAIN-2DX and SAP2000. The primary
observations from the study showed that the accuracy of the pushover
results depended strongly on the load path, the characteristics of the ground
motion and the properties of the structure.
Durgesh C. Rai [5] gave the guidelines for seismic evaluation and
strengthening of buildings. This document was developed as part of project
entitled Review of Building Codes and Preparation of Commentary and

Handbooks, awarded to Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur by the Gujarat

State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), Gandhinagar through World
Bank finances. This document was particularly concerned with the seismic
evaluation and strengthening of existing buildings and it was intended to be
used as a guide.
G E Thermou and A S Elnashai [6] made a global assessment of the effect
of repair methods on ductility, strength and stiffness, the three most
important seismic response parameters, to assist researchers and
practitioners in decision-making to satisfy their respective intervention aims.
Also the term rehabilitation was used as a comprehensive term to include
all types of retrofitting, repair and strengthening that leads to reduced
earthquake vulnerability. The term repair was defined as reinstatement of
the original characteristics of a damaged section or element and was
confined to dealing with the as-built system. The term strengthening was
defined as intervention that lead to enhancement of one or more seismic
response parameters (ductility, strength, stiffness, etc.), depending on the
desired performance.
A.Kadid and A. Boumrkik [7] proposed use of Pushover Analysis as a
viable method to assess damage vulnerability of a building designed
according to Algerian code. Pushover analysis was a series of incremental
static analysis carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building. Based
on the capacity curve, a target displacement which was an estimate of the
displacement that the design earthquake would produce on the building was
determined. The extent of damage experienced by the structure at this
target displacement is considered representative of the damage experienced
by the building when subjected to design level ground shaking. Since the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures might be highly inelastic under
seismic loads, the global inelastic performance of RC structures would be
dominated by plastic yielding effects and consequently the accuracy of the

pushover analysis would be influenced by the ability of the analytical models

to capture these effects.
R.K. Goel [8] evaluated the nonlinear static procedures specified in the
FEMA-356, ASCE/SEI 41-06, ATC-40, and FEMA-440 documents for seismic
analysis and evaluation of building structures using strong-motion records of
RC buildings. The maximum roof displacement predicted from the nonlinear
static procedure was compared with the value derived directly from recorded
motions for this purpose. It was shown that: (i) the nonlinear static
procedures either overestimates or underestimates the peak roof
displacement for several of the buildings considered in the investigation; (ii)
the ASCE/SEI 41-06 Coefficient Method (CM), which was based on recent
improvements to the FEMA-356 Coefficient Method suggested in the FEMA440 document, does not necessarily provide better estimate of the roof
displacement; and (iii) the improved FEMA-440 Capacity Spectrum Method
(CSM) provided better estimates of the roof displacement compared to the
ATC-40 CSM.
Saptadip Sarkar [9] studied the Design of Earthquake resistant multi
stories RCC building on a sloping ground that involves the analysis of simple
2-D frames of different floor heights and varying number of bays using a
software tool named STAAD Pro. Using the analysis results various graphs
were drawn between the maximum compressive stress, maximum bending
moment, maximum shear force, maximum tensile force and maximum axial
force being developed for the frames on plane ground and sloping ground.
The graphs were used to draw comparisons between the two cases and the
detailed study of Short Column Effect failure. In Page14 addition to that, the
feasibility of the software tool to be used was also checked and the detailed
study of seismology was undertaken.
Siamak Sattar and Abbie B. Liel [10] quantified the effect of the presence
and configuration of masonry infill walls on seismic collapse risk. Infill panels

are modeled by two nonlinear strut elements, which have compressive

strength only. Nonlinear models of the frame-wall system were subjected to
incremental dynamic analysis in order to assess seismic performance. There
was an increase observed in initial strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation
of the in filled frame, when compared to the bare frame, even after the walls
brittle failure modes. Dynamic analysis results indicated that fully-in filled
frame had the lowest collapse risk and the bare frames were found to be the
most vulnerable to earthquake-induced collapse. The better collapse
performance of fully-unfilled frames was associated with the larger strength
and energy dissipation of the system, associated with the added walls.
Benyamin Monavari, Ali Massumi & Alireza Kazem [12] used nonlinear
static analysis and five locals and overall yields and failure criteria to
estimate seismic demands of buildings. The failure is directed towards losing
structures performance during the earthquake or subsequent effects.
Because of the consequent excitations of an earthquake or lateral imposed
loads on a structure, the stiffness of some elements of structure reduced and
the structure started to fail and lose its performance; although failure
happened either in small parts of structure or at the whole. In this study
thirteen reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 16 and 20 stories, having 3 and 4 bays were designed using
seismic force levels obtained from the Iranian Seismic Code 2005 and
proportioned using the ACI318-99 Building Code and then were modeled by
IDARC. Pushover analysis with increasing triangular loading was used.
Haroon Rasheed Tamboli & Umesh N. Karadi [13] performed seismic
analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force Method for different reinforced
concrete (RC) frame building models that included bare frame, in filled frame
and open first story frame. In modeling of the masonry infill panels the
Equivalent diagonal Strut method was used and the software ETABS was
used for the analysis of all the frame models. In filled frames should be
preferred in seismic regions than the open first story frame, because the

story drift of first story of open first story frame is very large than the upper
stories, which might probably cause the collapse of structure. The infill
Page15 wall increases the strength and stiffness of the structure. The seismic
analysis of RC (Bare frame) structure lead to under estimation of base shear.
Therefore other response quantities such as time period, natural frequency,
and story drift were not significant. The underestimation of base shear might
lead to the collapse of structure during earthquake shaking

2.4 SUMMARY

RC frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls are common in developing

countries with regions of high seismicity. Often, engineers do not consider
masonry infill walls in the design process because the final distribution of
these elements may be unknown to them, or because masonry walls are
regarded as non-structural elements. Separation between masonry walls and
frames is often not provided and, as a consequence, walls and frames
interact during strong ground motion. This leads to structural response
deviating radically from what is expected in the design.
In this the Behavior of masonry in filled concrete frames under the lateral
load is studied, RCC buildings are generally analyzed and designed as bare
frame. But after the provision of infill walls, mass of the building increases
and this will result in the increase of the stiffness of the structure. During the
seismic activities, response of the structure with infill walls is quite different
for the structure without infill walls. Infill walls changes the dynamic behavior
of the structure.
2.5 NEED FOR THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION

A review of literature reveals that there is no standard procedure to model

multistoried-framed

buildings,

particularly

in

the

context

of

Indian

construction practices. Even the current Indian code of practice IS 1893 (Part
1): 2002 does not specifically refer to stilt type buildings. Since stilt type
framed structures are widely adopted in India, there is a need to study the
seismic behavior of such structures.
In such a situation, an investigation has been performed to study the
behavior of such buildings with masonry infill walls subjected to earthquake
loads. So, that the stability of the structure could be achieved at the time of
earthquake.
Alternative measures need to be adopted for this specific situation. The
under-lying principle of any solution to this problem is in (a) increasing the
stiffness of the first storey such that the first storey is at least 50% as stiff as
the second storey, i.e., soft first storey's are to be avoided, and (b) providing
adequate lateral strength in the first storey. The possible schemes to achieve
the above are (i) provision of stiffer columns in the first storey, and (ii)
provision of a concrete service core in the building. The former is effective
only in reducing the lateral drift demand on the first storey columns and the
latter is effective in reducing the drift as well as the strength demands on the
first storey columns.

CHAPTER -3
SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Being an engineer we must choose the best seismic analysis method

(based on the complexity of the structure) in order to obtain the best
estimate of the seismic displacement demands.. The analysis procedures can
be divided into linear procedures (linear static & linear dynamic) and non
linear procedures (nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic)
3.2 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

When loads are applied to a body the body deforms and the effects of loads
are transmitted throughout the body The external forces induce internal
forces and reactions to render the body into a state of equilibrium. In linear
static procedures the building is modeled as an equivalent single-degree of
freedom (SDOF) system with a linear static stiffness and an equivalent

viscous damping. The seismic input is modeled by an equivalent lateral force

with the objective to produce the same stresses and strains as the
earthquake it represents. Based on an estimate of the first fundamental
frequency of the building using empirical relationships or Rayleighs method,
the spectral acceleration Sa is determined from the appropriate response
spectrum, which, multiplied, by mass of the building M, results in the
equivalent
lateral force V:

The

coefficient Ci takes into account issues

like order

effects, stiffness degradation, but also

force reduction due to anticipated inelastic behavior. The lateral force is then
distributed over the height of the building and the corresponding internal
forces and displacements are determined using linear elastic analysis.
These linear static procedures are used primarily for design purposes and are
incorporated in most codes. Their expenditure is rather small. However, their
applicability is restricted to regular buildings for which the first mode of
vibration is prominent.
3.4 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
3.4.1 Introduction

Pushover Analysis is a nonlinear static method of analysis.

This

analysis technique, also known as sequential yield analysis or simply

Pushover analysis has gained significant popularity during past few years.
It is one of the three analysis techniques recommended by FEMA 273/274
and a main component of Capacity Spectrum Analysis method (ATC-40). The
following are the definitions which are most commonly used in Pushover
Analysis.

3.5 NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

In nonlinear dynamic procedure the building model is similar to the one

used in non-linear static procedures incorporating directly the inelastic
material response using in general finite elements. The main difference is
that seismic input is modelled using a time history analysis, which involves
time-step-by-time-step evaluation of the building response.
This is the most sophisticated analysis procedure for predicting forces
and displacements under seismic input. However, the calculated response
can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground motion
used as seismic input; therefore several time-history analyses are required
using different ground motion records. This most basic inelastic method at
this time is considered overly complex and impractical for general use.

3.6 ADVANTAGES OF INELASTIC PROCEDURE OVER ELASTIC PROCEDURES.

Although an elastic analysis gives a good understanding of the
elastic capacity of structures and indicates where first yielding will occur, it
cannot predict failure mechanisms and account for redistribution of forces
during progressive yielding. Inelastic analyses procedures help demonstrate
how buildings really work by identifying modes of failure and the potential for
progressive collapse.

The use of inelastic procedures for design and

evaluation is an attempt to help engineers better understand how structures

will behave when subjected to major earthquakes, where it is assumed that
the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. This resolves some of
the uncertainties associated with code and elastic procedures

3.7 SAFETY EVALUATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

3.7.1 Introduction

Safety against collapse of reinforced concrete is usually defined in

terms of its ductility ratios. The design of reinforced concrete structures is
performed by using resistance smaller than the one required for the system
to remain elastic under intense ground shaking.

Then, the seismic codes

implicitly cause structural damages during strong earthquake motions and

the design relies on the capacity of the structures to undergo large inelastic
deformations and to dissipate energy without collapse.

This design

methodology is used by all design standards including IS 1893.

1. Ductility Ratio

Ductility ratio is the capacity of a member to sustain inelastic

deformations without failure. There are three ductility ratios that are used to
evaluate capacity of reinforced concrete structures. They are as below
1. Displacement ductility ratio
2. Curvature ductility ratio
3. Rotational ductility ratio

3.7.2.1 Displacement Ductility (Global Ductility) Ratio

Displacement ductility ratio of building is defined as the ratio between

maximum top displacements of building to the yield top displacement of that
building.

d=

d max
dy
.. (1)

in which dmax and dy are maximum displacements and yield displacement

respectively.

The above ductility ratio is called global ductility demand ratio of building.
Similarly ductility supply ratio of building is defined as ratio between ultimate
top displacements of building to the yield top displacement

s=

du
dy
.. (2)

where du is the top displacement at collapse of the building.

3.7.3 Response Reduction Factor (R)

The response reduction factors takes into account the ductility of

the structural system and over strength so that the structure can be
designed to the level of yield force of the structure and rely on non linear
response of the structure in the case of severe earth quake. It is, therefore,
obvious that structure having low over strength or low ductility should be
designed for higher seismic coefficients. This means designed for higher
design seismic coefficients than that for the buildings.
Extensive research has been devoted in the past couple of decades
towards the developments of inelastic design spectra based on displacement
rather than force criteria.
mount

of

Such research was primarily motivated by the

performance-based

seismic

design,

which

launched

the

development of new analysis and design tools based on displacement rather

than forces.
This family of methods aims at the calculation of the reduction factor R
commensurate with the achievement of a target ultimate displacement du.
The target displacement often referred to in an indirect manner through nondimensional parameters, which are either the ductility or displacement
coefficient.

In this context, inelastic design response spectra can be expressed in

many formats, the most widely recognized of which are:

The conventional constant ductility plot, which depicts the reduced

spectral acceleration Sa/R values as a function of period for different
ductility levels.

The capacity spectrum format, in which the reduced spectral

acceleration values are drawn as a function of peak displacement
(elastic or ultimate) for different ductility levels.

The yield point spectra format, which is plot of the strength

coefficient

C=mSa/R/W=Sa/g/R

as

function

of

the

yield

displacement dy.

The earliest R- -T relationship was developed by Newmark and Hall

(1982) based on observations conducted on the seismic response of a
number of undamped SDOF systems, which lead the following relations.

For long-period systems, the obtained ultimate displacement was not

much greater than the elastic spectral displacement therefore: R=

For short-period systems, the reduction the force led the system to
exhibit large ductility demands. Therefore, it was considered safer to
keep the response in the elastic range, i.e. R=1

For intermediate-period system, an equal energy rule proved to be

useful. That is, the energy absorbed by the inelastic system should be

2 1
equal to that absorbed by elastic one: R=

3.7.4

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY

The vulnerability of a building subjected to an earthquake is dependent

on seismic deficiency of that building relative to a required performance
objective. The seismic deficiency is defined as a condition that will prevent a
building from meeting the required performance objective. Thus, a building
evaluated to provide full occupancy immediately after an event may have
significantly more deficiencies than the same building evaluated to prevent
collapse.
Depending on the vulnerability assessment, a building can be
condemned and demolished, rehabilitated to increase its capacity, or
modified so that the seismic demand on the building can be reduced. Thus,
structural rehabilitation of a building can be accomplished in a variety of
ways, each with specific merits and limitations related to improving seismic
deficiencies.

3.7.5 HOW DO BUILDINGS RESIST EARTHQUAKE FORCES

As a building responds to ground motions produced by an earthquake,

the bottom of the structure moves immediately, but the upper portions do
not because of their mass and inertia. Figure-3.4 shows the base of a
building moving while the upper part lags behind.
The horizontal force, or base shear, created by ground motion resulting
from an earthquake must be resisted by the building. The more the ground
moves, or the greater the weight of the building, the more force must be
resisted by the building. When an architect or engineer designs a building, he
or she must determine the maximum force a building might have to resist in

the future. Buildings are always designed to handle normal vertical and
lateral forces. However, once you introduce the possibility of an earthquake,
a building must be designed for extraordinary horizontal or lateral forces.
The horizontal (lateral) forces associated with an earthquake can be thought
of as a lateral force applied to each floor and to the roof of a building. Figure
3.5 shows the vertical and horizontal forces on a building during an
earthquake. Panel (a) shows the direction of gravitational forces on a
building, panel (b) shows the horizontal force of seismic waves, and panel (c)
shows the combined forces of gravity and an earthquake applied to the floors
and roof of a building.

Fig -3.4 behaviour of building in ground acceleration

Horizontal forces accumulate along the floors and roof and then are
distributed through the vertical supports into the foundation. A structural
engineer must design a building so that lateral forces are distributed
throughout the building without a break. Several structural systems, such as

floors, walls, and columns, may be used in new buildings to reduce the
effects of earthquakes and associated natural disasters.

Fig 3.5 forces acting on the building during ground excitation

3.7.6 STIFFNESS:

A building is made up of both rigid and flexible elements. For example,

beams and columns may be more flexible than stiff concrete walls or panels.
Less rigid building elements have a greater capacity to absorb several cycles
of ground motion before failure, in contrast to stiff elements, which may fail
abruptly and shatter suddenly during an earthquake. Earthquake forces
automatically focus on the stiffer, rigid elements of a building. For this
reason, buildings must be constructed of parts that have the same level of
flexibility, so that one element does not bend too much and transfer the
energy of the earthquake to less ductile When the earthquake struck, the

longer, more flexible columns at the front of the building passed the
earthquake forces on to the short, stiffer columns in the back instead of
distributing the forces equally among all of the columns.

Deflection the

extent to which a structural element moves or bends under pressure, played

a major role. The longer columns simply deflected or bent without cracking.
The short columns, therefore, were overwhelmed and cracked.

Fig3.6 showing long and short columns

3.7.7 EFFECT OF INFILL

The presence of the infill walls increases the lateral stiffness

considerably. Due to the change in stiffness and mass of the structural

system, the dynamic characteristics change as well. infill walls have an

important effect on the resistance and stiffness of buildings. However, the
effect of the infill walls on the building response under seismic loading is very
complex and math intensive.
Exterior masonry walls and/or interior partitions built as an infill
between a reinforced concrete frames beams and columns are usually
considered to be non-structural elements in design. The interaction between
the frame and infill is often ignored. However, the actual behavior of such
structures observed during past earthquakes shows that their response is
often wrongly predicted during the design stage .Infill-frames have been
used in many parts of the world over a long time. In these structures,
exterior masonry walls and/or interior partitions, usually regarded as nonstructural architectural elements, are built as an infill between the frame
members. However, the usual practice in the structural design of infill-frames
is to ignore the structural interaction between the frame and infill. This
implies that the infill has no influence on the structural behavior of the
building except for its mass. This would be appropriate if the frame and infill
panel were separated by providing a sufficient gap between them. However,
gaps are not usually specified and the actual behavior of infill frames
observed during past earthquakes shows that their response is sometimes
wrongly predicted.
Infill-frames

have often

demonstrated

good

earthquake-resistant

behavior, at least for serviceability level earthquakes in which the masonry

infill can provide enhanced stiffness and strength. It is expected that this
structural system will continue to be used in many countries because the
masonry infill panels are often cost-effective and suitable for temperature
and sound insulation purposes. Hence, further investigation of the actual
behavior of these frames is warranted, with a goal towards developing a
displacement-based approach to their design.

Behavior of masonry in filled concrete frames under the lateral load is

studied. Investigations showed that, one of the most appropriate ways of
analyzing the masonry in filled concrete frames is to use the diagonally
braced frame analogy. RCC buildings are generally analyzed and designed as
bare frame. But after the provision of infill walls, mass of the building
increases and this will result in the increase of the stiffness of the structure.
During the seismic activities, response of the structure with infill walls is
quite different for the structure without infill walls. Infill walls changes the
dynamic behavior of the structure
3.7.8 SOFT STOREY

Recent trend of urbanization of cities of the developing countries,

especially in South Asia region, is witnessing construction of multi-storeyed
buildings with open ground floor reserved for car parking or other utility
services. Though multi-storeyed buildings with open (soft) ground floor are
inherently vulnerable to collapse due to earthquake load, their construction
is still widespread in the developing nations. Social and functional need to
provide car parking space at ground level far out-weighs the warning against
such buildings from engineering community. These buildings are generally
designed as RC framed structures without regards to the structural action of
the masonry infill (MI) walls present in the upper floors. However, in reality,
masonry infill (MI) walls in the upper floors make those floors much stiffer
against lateral load (e.g. earthquake) compared to ground floor rendering
these buildings into soft story buildings. Experience of different nations with
the poor and devastating performance of such buildings during earthquakes
always seriously discouraged construction of such a building with a soft
ground floor. Typical examples of soft story (ground floor) failures are shown
in Fig-4.7. However, construction of such a building with isolated MI wall
requires high construction skill and may not be appropriate for the
developing nations.

Some national codes like

the Indian seismic code [9] requires members of the soft story (story

stiffness less than 70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the
average lateral stiffness of the (three stories above) to be designed for 2.5
times the seismic story shears and moments, obtained without considering
the effects of MI in any story.

Fig-3.7: Soft story failure

Diaphragms:

The floor and roof systems that distribute an earthquakes lateral

forces are referred to as diaphragms. Diaphragms support the gravitational
and lateral forces on a building and transfer them to vertical structural
elements like shear walls, braced frames, and moment-resistant frames.
These vertical elements help resist lateral forces and are therefore called
horizontal (or lateral) bracing systems

3.7.10 STOREY DRIFTS:

Drift is the extent to which a building bends or sways. Limits are often
imposed on drift so a building is not designed to be so flexible that the
resulting drift or swaying during an earthquake causes excessive damage.
Figure shows how a building can be affected by drift in an earthquake. If the
level of drift is too high, a building may pound into the one next to it. Or the
building may be structurally safe but non-structural components, such as
ceilings and walls, could be damaged as the building bends and the ceilings
and walls are ripped away from their attachments. Of course, people in the
building could be killed or injured from falling debris.

Fig3.8 show the effect of high story drift

3.7.11 EFFECT OF SHEAR WALL

Reinforced concrete walls are strength and portent elements frequently

used in constructions in seismic areas because they have a high lateral
stiffness and resistance to external horizontal loads, these shear walls may
be added solely to resist horizontal forces or concrete walls enclosing
stairways elevated shafts and utility cores may serve as shear walls. shear
walls not only have a very large enplane stiffness and therefore resist lateral
load and control deflection very efficiently but they also helps in reductions

of structural & non-structural damage. The building incorporated with shear

wall sufficiently ductile will be much away from seismic vulnerability and
building failure in the earthquake sensitive zones thus resulting in increased
life safety & low property loss.

3.7.10 BEHAVIOUR OF SHEARWALL:

Shear wall constructed in the high rise buildings, generally behave as

vertical cantilever beam with their Strength controlled by flexure as shown in
fig(1) rather than by shear such walls are subjected to bending moments and
Shears originating from lateral loads ,and to axial compression caused by
gravity these may therefore be designed in same manner as regular flexural
element .when acting as a vertical cantilever beam the behavior of a shear
wall which is properly reinforced for shear, will be governed by the yielding of
the tension reinforcement located at the vertical edge of the wall and, to
some degree, by the vertical reinforcement distributed along the central
portion of wall. It is thus evident that the shear is critical for the Wall with
relatively low height-to-length ratio, and tall shear walls are controlled mainly
by flexural Requirements. Since the ductility of flexural member such as tall
shear wall can be significantly affected by the maximum usable strain in
compression zone of concrete. Confinement of concrete that the ends of
Shear wall section would improve the performance of such shear wall. Tall
shear walls in multi-storey buildings the shear walls are slender enough and
are idealized as cantilever fixed at base Their seismic response is dominated
by flexure. Because of load reversals, shear walls sections necessarily
contains substantial quantity of compression reinforcement. The fig below
shows the diagonal tension cracks in tall shear wall and the formation of
plastic hinges in the axial compression :

Fig-3.9 Behaviour of shear wall under flexure & formation of plastic hinges

Shear walls are the main vertical structural elements with a dual role
of resisting both the gravity and lateral loads. Wall thickness varies from 150
mm to 500 mm, depending on the number of stories, building age, and
thermal insulation requirements. In general, these walls are continuous
throughout the building height a shear wall may be tall shear wall or low
shear wall also known as squat walls characterized by relatively small
height-to-length ratio.

Chapter - 4

ANALYTICAL MODELLING AND NUMERICAL STUDIES