AN EVALUATION BASED STUDY ON BARE RCC FRAMED …ijrdst.org/admin-panel/papers/443_approvedpaper.pdf · understanding of seismic behavior, rather than rigorous mathematical formulations.
Post on 14-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 1
AN EVALUATION BASED STUDY ON BARE RCC FRAMED
STRUCTURE SUBJECTED TO LATERAL SEISMIC LOADS BY
CONSIDERING STIFFNESS OF SLAB KANAKATLA RAJKUMAR
1, Mrs. R. SUMATHI
2
1 Student, Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Maisammaguda, Medchal(M),
Malkajgiri(D), 500100 2Assistant Professor, Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Maisammaguda,
Medchal(M), Malkajgiri(D), 500100
ABSTRACT
Till recent times to predict the exact capacity of the R.C structure with considering stiffness
of slab, need to depend on non-linear static analysis .To Model the Complex behavior of
reinforced concrete analytically in its non-linear zone is difficult. This has led Engineers in
the past to rely heavily on empirical formulas which were derived from numerous
experiments for the design of reinforced concrete structures for structural design and
assessment of reinforced concrete structures including force redistribution. This analysis of
the non-linear response of R.C Structures to be carried out in routine fashion, it helps in the
investigation of behavior and the cracks pattern of R.C structure with considering stiffness
of slab skeleton framing system. Building composed of only reinforced concrete columns,
beams and slabs have been adopted in analysis for many framed buildings. Generally,
flexural stiffness of slabs is ignored and the floor load is transferred as uniformly
distributed load on to the supporting beams in the conventional analysis of bare frame
structures. However, in reality, the floor slabs may have some influence on the lateral
response of the structures. Consequently, if the flexural stiffness of slabs in a frame system
structure is totally ignored, the lateral stiffness of the framing may be underestimated. So,
to study on the behavior of R.C structure with considering stiffness of slab is very essential.
The research was already done on linear analysis.Therefore the objective of the present
investigation is to study the nonlinear behavior of the G+5 R.C building by considering the
effect of increased stiffness due to slab elements in R.C space frames, subjected to seismic
loading, on the parameter like displacement etc., for zone II, III, IV and V. By comparing
the two models of frame such has skeleton framed structure (SFS), skeleton framed
Structure with considering stiffness of slab (SFWS), the effect of increased stiffness on the
above parameters is studied and also the increased capacity of framed system is also
studied. From the present study it is concluded that non-linear analysis of R.C structures
with considering stiffness of slab (SFWS) to seismic load can resist for more deformation
and base shear than Skelton framing system (SFS).
Keywords: Non-linear analysis, skeleton framed structure (SFS), skeleton framed Structure
with considering stiffness of slab (SFWS), Displacements, pushover capacity curves.
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The Buildings, which appeared to be
strong enough, may crumble like hours of
cards during earthquake and deficiencies
may be exposed. Experience gain from
the recent earthquake of Bhuj,
demonstrates that the most of buildings
collapsed were found deficient to meet
out the requirements of the present day
codes. In last decade, four devastating
earthquakes of world have been occurred
in India, and low to mold intensities
earthquake of world frequently. Due to
wrong construction practices and
ignorance for earthquake resistant design
of buildings in our country, most of the
existing buildings are vulnerable to future
earthquakes. In the simplest case, seismic
design can be viewed as a row-step
process. The first, and usually most
important one, is the conception of an
effective structural system that needs to
be configured with due regards to all
important seismic performance
objectives, ranging from serviceability
consideration to life safety and collapse
prevention. This step comprises the art of
seismic engineering, since no rigid rules
can, or should, be imposed on the
engineer’s creativity to devise a system
that not only fulfills seismic performance
objectives, but also pays tribute to
functional and economic constraints
imposed by the owner, the architect, and
other professionals involved in the design
and construction of a building. By
default, this process of creation is based
on judgment, experience, and
understanding of seismic behavior, rather
than rigorous mathematical formulations.
Rules of thumb for strength and stiffness
targets, based on the fundamental
knowledge of ground motion and elastic
and inelastic dynamic response
characteristics, should involve a
demand/capacity evaluation at all
important performance level, which
requires identification of important
capacity evaluation at all important
performance level, which requires
identification of important capacity
parameters and prescription of acceptable
values of these parameters, as well as the
prediction of the demands imposed by
ground motions. Suitable capacity
parameters and their acceptable values, as
well as suitable methods for demands
prediction will depend on the
performance level to be evaluated. In
light of these facts, it is imperative to
seismically evaluate the existing building
with the Present day Knowledge to avoid
the major destruction in the future
earthquakes. The Buildings found to be
seismically deficient should be retrofitted
or strengthened.
ObjectiveofthePresentStudy:
The objective of the presentwork is to
study the nonlinear static behavior of
the structure with and without
considering stiffness of slab,
subjected to seismic loading.
Comparing the two models of frame
such has Skeleton framed structure
(SFS) and Skeleton framed Structure
with considering stiffness of slab
(SFWS) at different seismic zones,
the effect of increased stiffness on the
above parameters studied & increased
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 3
capacity of framed systems were also
studied.
ScopeofthePresentStudy:
For the purpose of Comparison,
building type, floor system, floor area,
bay size and column height are kept
constant throughout the study.
Ordinary moment resisting frames
(OMRF) with response reduction
factor of 3 and importance factor 1
(general building) is considered
throughout the study.
The study is made for 6 storied
structures with plan dimensions of 15
m X 15 m, in all the seismic zones of
India (Zones II to Zone V)
LiteratureReview
Santhosh. D Pushover analysis is non-
linear static analysis in which Provide
‘capacity curve’ of the structure, it is a
plot of total base force vs. roof
displacement. The analysis is carried out
up to failure; it helps determination of
collapse load and ductility capacity of the
structure. The pushover analysis is a
method to observe the successive damage
state of the building.Pushover analysis is
a non-linear static analysis used to
determine the force-displacement
relationship, or capacity curve, for a
structural element. To evaluate the
performance of RC frame structure, a
non-linear static pushover analysis has
been conducted by using ETABS 9.7.1.
To achieve this objective, three RC bare
frame structures with 5, 1, 15 stories
respectively were analyzed. And also
compared the base force and
displacement of RC bare frame structure
with 5, 1, 15 stories.
A. K. Chopra extracted an improved
Direct Displacement-Based Design
Procedure for Performance-Based seismic
design of structures. Direct displacement-
based design requires a simplified
procedure to estimate the seismic
deformation of an inelastic SDF system,
representing the first (elastic) mode of
vibration of the structure. This step is
usually accomplished by analysis of an
“equivalent” linear system using elastic
design spectra. In their work, an equally
simple procedure is developed that is
based on the well-known concepts of
inelastic design spectra. This procedure
provides: (1) accurate values of
displacement and ductility demands, and
(2) a structural design that satisfies the
design criteria for allowable plastic
rotation. In contrast, the existing
procedure using elastic design spectra for
equivalent linear systems is shown to
underestimate significantly the
displacement and ductility demands.
In this work, it is demonstrated
that the deformation and ductility factor
that are estimated in designing the
structure by this procedure are much
smaller than the deformation and ductility
demands determined by nonlinear
analysis of the system using inelastic
design spectra. Furthermore, it has been
shown that the plastic rotation demand on
structures designed by this procedure may
exceed the acceptable value of the plastic
rotation.
Krawinkler and Seneviratnaconducted
a detailed study that discusses the
advantages, disadvantages and the
applicability of pushover analysis by
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 4
considering various aspects of the
procedure. The basic concepts and main
assumptions on which the pushover
analysis is based, target displacement
estimation of MDOF structure through
equivalent SDOF domain and the applied
modification factors, importance of lateral
load pattern on pushover predictions, the
conditions under which pushover
predictions are adequate or not and the
information obtained from pushover
analysis were identified. The accuracy of
pushover predictions were evaluated on a
4-story steel perimeter frame damaged in
1994 Northridge earthquake. The frame
was subjected to nine ground motion
records. Local and global seismic
demands were calculated from pushover
analysis results at the target displacement
associated with the individual records.
The comparison of pushover and
nonlinear dynamic analysis results
showed that pushover analysis provides
good predictions of seismic demands for
low-rise structures having uniform
distribution of inelastic behavior over the
height. It was also recommended to
implement pushover analysis with caution
and judgment considering its many
limitations since the method is
approximate in nature and it contains
many unresolved issues that need to be
investigated.
Ceroni et al., formulated that ductility of
R.C. elements has been widely studied
either experimentally and theoretical
since its evaluation is basic to carry out a
reliable non-linear analysis of structures;
post-elastic deformability is a resource for
redistributing stresses in a structure to
increase the ultimate load but, above all,
to absorb and dissipate energy during
major earthquakes. However, the problem
remains open and models still need an
improvement in two directions. On one
side, mechanical models can be
implemented to take into account
constructive details, shear-flexure
interaction, size effects as well as non-
linear constitutive relationship of
materials and steel-concrete bond. On the
other side, simplified approaches have to
be assessed in order to allow an easy but
reliable ductility evaluation without using
any sophisticated analytical model,
generally not very designers friendly. In
this paper a wide parametric analysis with
a refined model is carried out in order to
build on a reliable formulation for the
plastic hinge length of R.C. columns
subjected to axial and flexural load. The
model used to analyze the non-linear
behavior of the element and to estimate
the plastic rotation is a point by point
model, including an explicit formulation
of the bond slip relationship and capable
to take into account the effect of the
distributed and concentrated non-
linearity, as the spread of plasticity along
the member and the fixed end rotation. Its
efficiency has been already successfully
applied to experimental comparison.
Habibullah and Pyle, Yielding and post-
yielding behavior can be modeled using
discrete user-defined hinges. Currently
ETABS allows hinges can only be
introduced into frame elements; the PHP
properties can be assigned to a frame
element at any location along it. The
authors have been developed a dual
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 5
parameters method to define the PHP
properties of RC frame structure for the
pushover analysis
Ho and Wang, The purpose of this paper
is to extend the application of this method
to the RC structures containing RC shear
wall. In order to use the functions
provided by the ETABS code, the RC
shear wall is treated as a wide, flat
column. Modeling a RC wall as a wide
and flat column (frame elements) not only
can consider the steel reinforcements in
RC elements exactly, but also can assign
the PHP of RC walls according to its
plastic behavior. In ETABS, the default
properties are available for hinges in the
following degrees of freedom:
1. Axial (P)
2. Major shear (V2)
3. Major moment (M3)
4. Coupled P-M2-M3 (PMM)
He concluded that a dual parameters
method is introduced to define the plastic
hinge properties (PHP) of RC wall in the
pushover analysis of RC structure. The
effectiveness of this simple method is
verified by the agreement of the
prediction curves with some additional
test data. This newly proposed method is
quite simple and is easy for engineers to
link with commercial structural analysis
code to conduct the performance design
of structure under seismic loading.
Dileep . M et al.,explained the practical
difficulties associated with the non-linear
direct numerical integration of the
equations of motion leads to the use of
non-linear static pushover analysis of
structures. Pushover analysis is getting
popular due to its simplicity. High
frequency modes and non-linear effects
may play an important role in stiff and
irregular structures. The contribution of
higher modes in pushover analysis is not
fully developed. The behavior of high
frequency model responses in non-linear
seismic analysis of structures is not
known. In this paper an attempt is made
to study the behavior of high frequency
model responses in non-linear seismic
analysis of structures.
Non-linear static pushover
analysis used as an approximation to non-
linear time history analysis is becoming a
standard tool among the engineers,
researches and professionals worldwide.
High frequency modes may contribute
significantly in the seismic analysis of
irregular and stiff structures. In order to
take the contribution of higher modes
structural engineers may include high
frequency modes in the non-linear static
pushover analysis. The behavior of high
frequency modes in non-linear static
pushover analysis of irregular structures
is studied. At high frequencies, the
responses of non-linear dynamic analysis
converge to the non-linear static pushover
analysis. Therefore non-linear response of
high frequency modes can be evaluated
using a non-linear static push over
analysis with an implemental force
pattern given by their modal mass
contribution times zero period
acceleration. The higher modes with rigid
content as a major contributing factor
exhibit a better accuracy in non-linear
pushover analysis of structures when
compared to the damped periodic modes.
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 6
Mayuri D. Bhagwat, Dr.P.S.PatilIn the
present work dynamic analysis of G+12
multistoried practiced RCC building
considering for Koyna and Bhuj
earthquake is carried out by time history
analysis and response spectrum analysis
and seismic responses of such building
are comparatively studied and modeled
with the help of ETABS software. Two
time histories (i.e. Koyna and Bhuj) have
been used to develop different acceptable
criteria (base shear, storey displacement,
storey drifts). Conclusions drawn are.
1. From the graphs it is observed that the
values of base shear for Bhuj earthquake
is 49.11% more than the Koyna
earthquake. Response spectrum method
gives 50% more results than time history
analysis.
2. As a result of comparison between time
history method and response spectrum
method it has been observed that the
values obtained by response spectrum
analysis of base shear and top story
displacement for Koyna earthquake
39.70% & 31.18% and for Bhuj
earthquake 40.53% & 31.99% are higher
than time history analysis.
3. From the tabulated values it is
observed that the values of the Storey
drifts for all the stories are found to be
within the permissible limits.
4. From the results it is recommended that
time history analysis should be performed
as it predicts the structural response more
accurately than the response spectrum
analysis.
K. Venkataraostudied the seismic
behavior of conventional RC framed
building, flat slab with drop and without
drop building in all seismic zones of
India. Different parameters like lateral
drift, base shear, time period and axial
force are compared. It was concluded that
lateral displacement of conventional RC
frame is less as compared to flat slab
without drop building.
Kusuma B The paper aims at evaluating
the seismic actions by considering various
codal provisions, which are particularly
provided for the analysis of RC building
with unsymmetrical configuration and
with different types of irregularities. The
analysis is carried out on a model of
G+49 stories of RC framed structure with
unsymmetrical floor plan located in Zone
IV, soil type III, using finite element
based ETABS (V 13.1) software. The
various structural response parameters
such as, storey displacement, storey drift,
base shear and storey stiffness are
determined by considering different
irregularities such as mass irregularity,
vertical geometric irregularity, re-entrant
corner, diaphragm discontinuity and
stiffness irregularity in the model and the
structural parameters stated above are
compared for the models having different
irregularities. Seismic analysis is carried
out using response spectrum method for
both symmetrical and unsymmetrical
building. The data required for the input
is collected from IS code 1893 (Part
I):2002. Then the analytical work is
carried out as per the procedure
formulated and the results are obtained.
The major part of the study includes the
comparison of values of set of response
parameters such as, mode period, storey
lateral displacement, storey drift, base
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 7
shear and the storey stiffness. It is
concluded that RC moment resisting
frame and with masonry walls, perform
better under the action of seismic load,
compared to irregular structure, the lateral
displacement is increased in case of
vertical irregular structure and the
stiffness of the structure is reduced in
vertical irregular.
DileshwarRana, Prof. JunedRaheem
studied seismic analysis of regular &
vertical geometric irregular RCC framed
building. They concluded that 4 bay
frames is appropriate for lower building
height and for higher stories, 8 bay
frames is suitable. Seismic performance
improves with number of bays.
Arvindreddy, R.J.FernandesIn this
paper an analytical study is made to find
response of different regular and irregular
structures located in severe zone V.
Analysis has been made by
takingreinforced concrete regular and
irregular 15 storey buildings and is
analyzed by static and dynamic methods.
Six models are modeled. One is of regular
structure and remaining are irregular
structural models. Linear Equivalent
Static analysis is performed for regular
buildings up to 90m height in zone I and
II, Dynamic Analysis is performed for
regular and irregular buildings in zone IV
and V. Behavior of structures is found by
comparing responses in the form of storey
displacement for regular and irregular
structures. They concluded that structure
built-in with stiffness irregularity will be
on non-conservative side and as seen
from time history analysis, as storey
increases behavior of stiffness irregularity
and diaphragm irregularity becomes
reverse.
M V Naresh, K J Brahma ChariIn this
paper seismic reaction of a private G+10
RC outline building is breaking down by
the direct examination methodologies of
Equivalent Static Lateral Force and
Response Spectrum techniques utilizing
ETABS Ultimate software according to
the Seems to be 1893-2002-Part-1. These
analyses are carried out by considering
different seismic zones. A substitute
response like lateral force, story drift,
displacements, base shear are plotted to
think about the consequences of the static
and dynamic investigation. It is
concluded that for high rise buildings
static analysis is not enough its necessary
to provide dynamic analysis, base shear
approval is more in the zone 5 and that in
the delicate soil in normal setup, the
maximum displacement is increased from
first storey to last storey and
unpredictable shapes are seriously
influenced amid quakes particularly in
high seismic zones.
Prof. P. S. Lande discussed about flat
slab structure is most vulnerable to the
seismic excitation therefore the careful
analysis of flat slab is important. In this
paper the seismic analysis on flat slab is
performed and compared it with the
conventional RC building. To improve
the performance of flat slab system shear
wall and beam at periphery is applied and
the seismic response of the same is
determined and compared it with the flat
slab building.
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 8
Model Geometry:
The structure analyzed is a six-storied,
three bays along X-direction and three
bays along Y-direction moment-resisting
frame of reinforced concrete with
properties as specified above. The
concrete floors are modeled as rigid. The
details of the model are given as:
Number of stories = 6
Number of bays along X-direction = 3
Number of bays along Y-direction = 3
Storey height = 3 m
Bay width along X-direction = 5 m
Bay width along Y-direction = 5 m
PlanofBuilding:
Fig1Planofbuilding
ElevationofBuilding:
Fig2Elevationofbuilding
3d-ViewofBuilding:
Fig 3 3DViewofbuilding
FLOWCHARTOFMETHODOLOGY
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 9
ResultsandDiscussions
Studiedthenonlinearstaticbehaviorofthestr
ucturewithandwithoutconsideringstiffness
ofslabsubjectedtoseismicloading.Bycomp
aringthetwomodelsofframesuchhasSkelet
onframedstructure(SFS)andSkeletonfram
edStructurewithconsideringstiffnessofslab
(SFWS)atdifferentseismiczones,theeffect
ofincreasedstiffnessontheaboveparameter
s&increasedcapacityofframedsystemswer
estudied.
Case I. The R.C Framed Structure
without considering Stiffness of slab
(SFS)
Figure5: Deformed shape of the
structure
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 10
CaseII.TheR.CFramedStructurewithco
nsideringStiffnessofslab
Figure10: Deformed shape of the
structure
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 11
Comparison of Pushover Curves:
Pushover or nonlinear static analysis is
carried out for all the cases considering in
the thesis and finally pushover curves are
obtained. Pushover curves are obtained
with displacement on x-axis and base
reaction on y-axis Depending on the
pushover curves comparisons are carried
out between.
The comparison of R.C Framed
Structure without and with
considering stiffness of slab(SFS
&SFWS) to seismic zones-II, III, IV,
V.
The comparison of R.C Framed
Structure without considering
stiffness of slab(SFS) to seismic zone-
II and with considering stiffness of
slab(SFWS) for seismic zones-III
The comparison of R.C.C Framed
Structure without considering
stiffness of slab(SFS) to seismic zone-
III and with considering stiffness of
slab(SFWS) for seismic zones-IV
The comparison of R.C Framed
Structure without considering
stiffness of slab(SFS) to seismic zone-
IV and with considering stiffness of
slab(SFWS) for seismic zones-V.
Comparison -1: The R.C Framed
Structure with and without considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS & SFS) for
seismic zone-II:
R.C Framed structure with considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS) can take the
base force of 2.072x10 3
kN and
Displacement of 164.7x10 -3
m.
R.C Framed structure without considering
Stiffness of slab (SFS) can take the base
force of 2.057x10 3kN and Displacement
of 154.6x10 -3
m.
Comparison-2: The R.C Framed
Structure with and without considering
Stiffness Of slab (SFWS & SFS) for
seismic zone-III:
R.C Framed structure with considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS) can take the
base force of 2.061x10 3
KN and
displacement of 164.9x10 -3
m.
R.C Framed structure without considering
Stiffness of slab (SFS) can take the base
force of 2.057x10 3 KN and displacement
of 153.7x10 -3
m.
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 12
Comparison - 3: The R.C Framed
Structure with and without considering
Stiffness Of slab (SFWS & SFS) for
seismic zone-IV:
R.C. Framed structure with considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS) can take the
base force of 2.061x10 3
kN and
Displacement of 165.1x10 -3
m.
R.C. Framed structure without
considering Stiffness of slab (SFS) can
take the base force of 1.473x10 3kN and
Displacement of 154.6x10 -3
m.
Comparison -4: The R.C Framed
Structure with and without considering
Stiffness Of slab (SFWS & SFS) to
seismic zone-V:
R.C Framed structure with considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS) can take the
base force of 2.006x10 3
kN and
Displacement of 173.9x10 -3
m.
R.C Framed structure wit out considering
Stiffness of slab (SFS) can take the base
force of 1.472x10 3kN and Displacement
of 155.4x10 -3
m.
Conclusions:
The performance R.C frame with &
without considering stiffness of slab (SFS
& SFWS) was investigated using the
pushover analysis. Following were the
major conclusions drawn from the Study.
Zone – II:
a) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Base Shear is 7.2% less than
SFWS.
b) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Displacement is 6.53% less than
SFWS.
Zone – III:
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 13
a) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Base Shear is 1% less than
SFWS.
b) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Displacement is 7.2% less than
SFWS.
Zone – IV:
a) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Base Shear is 3.9% less than
SFWS.
b) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Displacement is 6.7% less than
SFWS.
Zone – V:
a) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Base Shear is 3.6% less than
SFWS.
b) Comparing with SFS and SFWS, The
SFS Displacement is 11% less than
SFWS.
1. In the comparison of performance
based study on R.C. framed structure
with and without considering
Stiffness of slab (SFWS & SFS) to
seismic load at different zones-II, III,
IV, V, the capacity curve based on
with considering stiffness of slab
(SFWS) can with stand for more
deformation and base shear than
without considering stiffness of slab
(SFS).
2. From the pilot study, non-linear
analysis of R.C structures with
considering stiffness of slab (SFWS)
to seismic load can resist for more
deformation than Skelton framing
system (SFS).
Scope for Further Study:
1. The similar study can be carried out
for structures with irregularities
2. In this present work, studied the effect
of stiffness of slab elements along
with frames. Can also study the
effects of infill walls.
REFERRENCES
1. Applied Technology Council, ATC-4,
1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Concrete Buildings, Volume1-2,
Redwood City, California.
2. CERONI. Francesca, MANFREDI
Gaetano, Maria Rosario PECCE. A
formulation of plastic hinge length in
R.C. Columns. Department of
Engineering, University of Sannio.
Department of Analysis and
Structural Design, University of
Naples Federico II. 17 May 2007.
3. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures:
theory and applications to earthquake
engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ;
1995
4. J.P. Moehle. Performance-based
seismic design of tall buildings in the
U.S. The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering October 12-
17, 2008, Beijing, China
5. Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen.
Effects of plastic hinge properties in
nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings. Department of
Civil Engineering, Pamukkale
University, 2007Denizli, Turkey.
Available online 300March 2006.
6. Moehle JP, Mahin SA. Observations
on the behavior of reinforced concrete
buildings during earthquakes. In:
Ghosh SK, editor. Earthquake-
resistant concrete
Volume 04, Issue 04, Apr 2020 ISSN 2581 – 4575 Page 14
7. Shuraim, A. Charif. Performance of
pushover procedure in evaluating the
seismic adequacy of reinforced
concrete frames.
8. Structures inelastic response and
design. American Concrete Institute
SP-127; 1991.
9. Chung- Yue Wang and Shaing-Yung
Ho. Pushover Analysis for Structure
Containing RC Walls. The 2nd
International Conference on Urban
Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan.
November, 27-29, 2007.
10. IS1893 (Part-1):2002, Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake resistant
design of structures.
11. CSI Reference Manual on ETABS9.4
software.
12. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA-273, NEHRP
Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997.
13. IS 456:2000, Indian Standard
Guidelines for design of plain and
reinforced concrete structures.
14. IS 875 (Part-3):1987, Indian Standard
Code of Practice for design loads for
buildings and structures.
15. Prof. P. S. Lande, Aniket B. Raut, “ Comparative Study of Flat Slab
Building with Traditional Two Way
Slab Building under the Seismic
Excitation ” International Journal of
Pure and Applied Research in
Engineering and Technology
(IJPRET), Vol.3, Issue 8, pp. 51-58,
April 2015.
16. K.Venkatarao, N.Nageswarao “ Seismic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Framed structure with Flat
and Conventional floor slab system”
International Journal and magazine of
Engineering, Technology,
Management and Research
(IJMETMR) Vol.3, Issue 4, pp. 536-
5450, April 2016.
top related