International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, ...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

20320140503002 2

81

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
81
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "20320140503002 2"

  1. 1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 15 PERFORMANCE OF LATERAL SYSTEMS IN TALL BUILDINGS FOR VARYING SOIL TYPES *Mohamed Fadil Kholo Mokin1 , R.K.Pandey1 , Prabhat Kumar Sinha2 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences (Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute), Allahabad, India 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences (Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute), Allahabad, India ABSTRACT Efficient lateral systems, decreases the lateral deformations caused by the seismic forces in the buildings. In this work, it is proposed to carry out an analytical study, on multistory buildings of 10, 20 and 30 stories, was carried out accounting for different seismic zones and soil types. The suitability and efficiency of different lateral bracing systems that are commonly used and also that of concrete in fills are investigated. The different bracing systems viz., X-brace, V-brace, inverted V or Chevron brace, Outriggers and in fills, are introduced in the buildings through analytical models. These building models were analyzed, using ETABS software, for the action of lateral forces employing linear static and linear dynamic methods as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002. The results of the analyses, in terms of lateral deformations and base shears, were obtained for all the different conditions discussed above The suitability of the types of lateral system for the buildings is suggested based on the soil type. Keywords: Tall buildings, Bracings, Type of Soils, Seismic coefficient method, Response spectrum method, Time History Method. 1. INTRODUCTION Mankind has always had a fascination for height and throughout our history; we have constantly sought to metaphorically reach for the stars. The design of skyscrapers is usually governed by the lateral loads imposed on the structure. As buildings have taller and narrower, the structural engineer has been increasingly challenged to meet the imposed drift requirements while INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET) ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJCIET ©IAEME
  2. 2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. minimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has proposed a multitude of lateral schemes that are now spoken in tall buildings across the globe. This study seeks to understand the evolution of the dif emerged and its associated structural behavior bracings are introduced in RCC building model at the same location to understand the suitability of the systems with respect to the seismic motions. the building is remain constants such as the size of the columns, beams, bracings and thickness of slabs. This study is done under considering the IS code for different soil done in ETABS. The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the above parameters. The seismic motion that reaches a structure on the surface of the earth is influenced by the local soil conditions. Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is close to the fundamental period of the structure. Tall buildings tend to experience greater structural damage when they are located on soils having a long period of m effect that develops between the structure and the underlying soils. If a building resonates in response to ground motion, its acceleration is amplified. It is possible that a number of underlying soils layers can have a period similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I) 2002, soils classification can be taken as Type mixtures with or without clay binder and clayey sands poorly graded or sand (standard penetration value) should be above 30. Type 10 and 30, and poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type All soils other than whose N is less than 10. 2. ANALYTICAL MODELLING A plan of 36mx36m is taken into consideration having 6mx6m bays on both the sides. The different types of Bracings (X,V, Inverted V), Outriggers, Infills are introduced in the system at center in 2 bays . The floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 16 inimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has proposed a multitude of lateral schemes that are now spoken in tall buildings across the globe. This study seeks to understand the evolution of the different lateral systems that have emerged and its associated structural behavior for different types of soil types. The different type of bracings are introduced in RCC building model at the same location to understand the suitability of espect to the seismic motions. While other properties of the structural members in the building is remain constants such as the size of the columns, beams, bracings and thickness of This study is done under considering the IS code for different soils. Analyt . The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the The seismic motion that reaches a structure on the surface of the earth is influenced by the local soil Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is close to the fundamental period of the structure. Tall buildings tend to experience greater structural damage when they are located on soils having a long period of motion because of the resonance effect that develops between the structure and the underlying soils. If a building resonates in response to ground motion, its acceleration is amplified. It is possible that a number of underlying riod similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I) 2002, soils classification can be taken as Type – I, Rock or Hard soil: Well graded gravel and sand mixtures with or without clay binder and clayey sands poorly graded or sand clay mixtures, whose N (standard penetration value) should be above 30. Type – II, Medium soils: All soils with N between graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type is less than 10. 2. ANALYTICAL MODELLING A plan of 36mx36m is taken into consideration having 6mx6m bays on both the sides. The different types of Bracings (X,V, Inverted V), Outriggers, Infills are introduced in the system at floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown. PLAN International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), inimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has proposed a multitude of lateral schemes that are now spoken in tall buildings across the globe. ferent lateral systems that have he different type of bracings are introduced in RCC building model at the same location to understand the suitability of While other properties of the structural members in the building is remain constants such as the size of the columns, beams, bracings and thickness of s. Analytical modeling is . The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the The seismic motion that reaches a structure on the surface of the earth is influenced by the local soil Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is close to the fundamental period of the structure. Tall buildings tend to experience greater structural otion because of the resonance effect that develops between the structure and the underlying soils. If a building resonates in response to ground motion, its acceleration is amplified. It is possible that a number of underlying riod similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I) – I, Rock or Hard soil: Well graded gravel and sand clay mixtures, whose N II, Medium soils: All soils with N between graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type – III, Soft Soils: A plan of 36mx36m is taken into consideration having 6mx6m bays on both the sides. The different types of Bracings (X,V, Inverted V), Outriggers, Infills are introduced in the system at floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown.
  3. 3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 17 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 3. BUILDING DIMENSIONS The building is 36m x 36m in plan with columns spaced at 6m from center to center. A floor to floor height of 3.0m is assumed. The variation is considered in different types of soils. Structural systems of the Building: Slab thickness 115 mm Beam dimensions 350 mm x 450 mm Column dimensions 600mm x 600mm Brace Members size 230mm x 230 mm Infills Wall Thickness 250 mm Grade of Concete and Steel M20 concrete, Tor steel Table: Design Variable for analysis Design variable Value Reference Dead loads (a)Masonry (b) Concrete 20 kN/m3 25 kN/m3 IS 875:1987(part 1) Live loads (a) Floor load (b) Roof load (c) Floor Finishes 4kN/m2 2.0kN/m2 1.0kN/m2 IS 875:1987(part 2) Importance factor 1.0 IS 1893:2002 Response Reduction Factor 5 IS 1893:2002
  4. 4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 18 The Static load case, viz., seismic coefficient method, and the Dynamic load case, viz., Response spectrum method is adopted along with different loading combinations discussed. 3.1 Equivalent lateral force Seismic analyses of most of the structures are still carried out on the basis of lateral (horizontal force assumed to be equivalent to the actual (dynamic) loading. The base shear which is the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on the basis of structure mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding mode shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of structures in terms of lateral forces according to code formula. 3.2 Response Spectrum Analysis This method is applicable for those structures where modes other than the fundamental one significantly the response of the structure. In this method the response of Multi-Degree-of –Freedom (MDOF) system is expressed as the superposition of modal response, each modal response being determined from the spectral analysis of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, which is then combined to compute the total response. Modal analysis leads to the response history of the structure to a specified ground motion; however, the method is usually used in conjunction with a response spectrum. 4. OPTIMUM LOCATION OF BRACES IN BUILDING MODEL To obtain the optimum location of braces in building model, braces are introduce in the different bays in the elevation of the building model in all the direction symmetrically, i.e., the braces are introduced in bays of the building model in outer periphery symmetrically. As the plan of size 36m x 36m is taken having 6 bays of 6m length in each direction. The outer frame is taken and braces are introduce in 1st bay in both sides from center of the frame, then in 2nd bay in both sides from center of the frame and then in the 3rd bay in both sides from the center. The results of the deflection are shown in below table. From the above table it is found that by introducing the brace in the centre position shows the minimum value for displacement as compared with other locations. Hence the braces will be introduces in the center location in all building frame in all direction in elevation to have minimum displacements, then these models are analyzed for the objective Location of Brace (bay–bay from center) Max. Displacement (lateral) mm Bay (1-1 from center) 168.4 Bay (2-2 from center) 159.6 Bay (3-3 from center) 145.3
  5. 5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 19 5. RESULTS CASE 2: THE ROOF DISPLACEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SOIL TYPES ROOF DISPLACEMENTS STRY. SOIL TYPE WITHOUT BRACE X-BRACE V-BRACE INV V-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. 10 I 31.4 22.2 22.7 16.3 23.3 16.7 22.7 16.3 19.8 14.5 16.7 12.1 II 42.7 30.2 30.9 22.1 31.7 22.7 30.9 22.1 26.9 19.7 16.6 16.6 III 52.4 37 37.9 27.1 38.9 27.8 37.9 27.1 33.1 24.2 27.9 20.2 20 I 65.5 44.9 53.2 36.8 53.8 37.2 52.9 36.6 47.9 33.9 46.7 31.3 II 89.1 89.1 72.3 50.1 73.2 50.7 71.9 49.9 65.2 46.1 63.6 42.5 III 109.5 77.2 88.8 61.5 90 62.2 88.3 61.2 80.1 56.7 78.1 52.1 30 I 126.8 88.3 86.9 59.3 87.5 59.8 86.5 59 80.6 55.6 80.8 53.5 II 172.5 120.1 118.3 80.6 119.1 81.4 117.7 80.3 109.8 75.8 110 72.7 III 211.9 147.5 145.3 99 146.3 100 144.6 98.7 134.9 93.1 135.1 89.3 NOTE : ALL UNITS ARE IN MM ; I = HARD SOIL ; II = MEDIUM SOIL ; III = SOFT SOIL AS PER IS CODE . The deflection in the soft soil is higher when compared to all other soils types i.e. hard rock and medium soil, while the height of the buildings has a impact on the deflection to be higher. As discussed in the previous case the roof displacement obtained in the static method is greater than the displacements obtained in the response spectrum method. CASE 3: THE ROOF DISPLACEMENT VS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. STOREY LATERAL DISPLACEMENTS WITHOUT BRACE X-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.0 2 11.1 9.6 7.0 6.4 7.3 6.6 5.6 5.2 3 19.6 16.7 11.2 9.9 11.6 10.3 8.0 7.0 4 28.4 24.1 15.7 13.6 16.2 14.1 10.9 9.1 5 37.4 31.4 20.4 17.4 21.0 18.0 14.1 11.5 6 46.4 38.6 25.4 21.3 26.1 21.9 17.8 14.0 7 55.5 45.7 30.7 25.2 31.4 25.9 21.7 16.8 8 64.6 52.6 36.1 29.1 36.8 29.9 25.9 19.6 9 73.7 59.4 41.7 33.1 42.4 33.9 30.4 22.6 10 82.8 66.0 47.4 37.0 48.0 37.8 35.1 25.7 11 91.8 72.5 53.2 40.9 53.7 41.7 39.9 28.9 12 100.7 78.7 59.0 44.8 59.3 45.6 44.9 32.1 13 109.5 84.8 64.9 48.6 65.0 49.4 50.0 35.4 14 118.2 90.7 70.7 52.4 70.5 53.1 55.3 38.7 15 126.7 96.3 76.6 56.2 72.3 54.1 60.5 42.0 16 135.1 101.7 82.4 59.8 77.5 57.5 65.8 45.3 17 143.2 106.9 88.1 63.4 83.0 60.9 71.2 48.6 18 151.1 111.9 93.7 66.9 88.3 64.3 76.5 51.9 19 158.7 116.5 99.2 70.3 93.6 67.5 81.8 55.2 20 166.0 121.0 104.6 73.6 98.7 70.7 87.0 58.5 21 172.9 125.1 109.8 76.8 103.7 73.5 92.2 61.7 22 179.4 128.9 114.8 79.9 108.5 76.7 97.4 65.0 23 185.5 132.5 119.5 82.8 113.0 79.5 102.4 68.2 24 191.1 135.7 124.1 85.6 117.3 82.1 107.4 71.3 25 196.1 138.6 128.4 88.3 121.4 84.7 112.3 74.5 26 200.6 141.1 132.4 90.8 125.1 87.0 117.1 77.6 27 204.4 143.3 136.1 93.2 128.6 89.2 121.8 80.6 28 207.6 145.1 139.6 95.4 131.8 91.2 126.4 83.7 29 210.1 146.6 142.8 97.5 134.6 93.2 131.0 86.7 30 211.9 147.5 145.3 99.0 134.9 93.1 135.1 89.3
  6. 6. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 20 For 10 storey building model, it is found as the Infills are most effective against the lateral displacement then comes Outrigger system then come Braced system, when compared with normal bare frame model. The velocity and the acceleration values are found to be increasing in infills, outriggers, bracing systems respectively. For 30 storey building model, it is found as the Infills system and Brace system are most effective to withstand the time history function against displacements. The difference of displacements in normal bare frame model and the lateral system building models are found to be less. This indicates that the effect of lateral systems are not much effective with the increase in the height of the buiding model for this time history loading. This is due to the infills are predominant upto certain height and after this it reacts in a negative way while attractive the inertia forces hence increasing the lateral displacements. CASE 5: LATERAL STOREY DRIFT WITH RESPECT TO HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. STORE Y LATERAL DRIFTS WITHOUT BRACE X-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS STATIC DYNAMI C STATI C DYNAMI C STATIC DYNAMI C STATIC DYNAMI C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.0 2 7.3 6.3 4.1 3.7 4.2 3.8 2.6 2.2 3 8.5 7.1 4.2 3.5 4.3 3.7 2.4 1.8 4 8.8 7.4 4.5 3.7 4.6 3.8 2.9 2.1 5 9.0 7.3 4.7 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.2 2.4 6 9.0 7.2 5.0 3.9 5.1 3.9 3.7 2.5 7 9.1 7.1 5.3 3.9 5.3 4.0 3.9 2.8 8 9.1 6.9 5.4 3.9 5.4 4.0 4.2 2.8 9 9.1 6.8 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.0 4.5 3.0 10 9.1 6.6 5.7 3.9 5.6 3.9 4.7 3.1 11 9.0 6.5 5.8 3.9 5.7 3.9 4.8 3.2 12 8.9 6.2 5.8 3.9 5.6 3.9 5.0 3.2 13 8.8 6.1 5.9 3.8 5.7 3.8 5.1 3.3 14 8.7 5.9 5.8 3.8 5.5 3.7 5.3 3.3 15 8.5 5.6 5.9 3.8 1.8 1.0 5.2 3.3 16 8.4 5.4 5.8 3.6 5.2 3.4 5.3 3.3 17 8.1 5.2 5.7 3.6 5.5 3.4 5.4 3.3 18 7.9 5 5.6 3.5 5.3 3.4 5.3 3.3 19 7.6 4.6 5.5 3.4 5.3 3.2 5.3 3.3 20 7.3 4.5 5.4 3.3 5.1 3.2 5.2 3.3 21 6.9 4.1 5.2 3.2 5.0 2.8 5.2 3.2 22 6.5 3.8 5 3.1 4.8 3.2 5.2 3.3 23 6.1 3.6 4.7 2.9 4.5 2.8 5.0 3.2 24 5.6 3.2 4.6 2.8 4.3 2.6 5 3.1 25 5 2.9 4.3 2.7 4.1 2.6 4.9 3.2 26 4.5 2.5 4 2.5 3.7 2.3 4.8 3.1 27 3.8 2.2 3.7 2.4 3.5 2.2 4.7 3 28 3.2 1.8 3.5 2.2 3.2 2 4.6 3.1 29 2.5 1.5 3.2 2.1 2.8 2 4.6 3 30 1.8 0.9 2.5 1.5 0.3 0 4.1 2.6 NOTE: ALL UNITS ARE IN 'mm'.
  7. 7. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 21 5. CONCLUSIONS Based on the study of analysis of results the following conclusions are drawn (a) The structural performance among three bracing systems (X-brace, V-brace, Inverted V- brace), one outrigger system (introduced at Top and Middle levels), one infill system (introduced at the place of braces), the variation of displacement is smaller in infill system. This statement is true in all the zones for all the soil conditions and for different loading conditions. (b) The values of displacements and base shears obtained in X-Brace, V-Brace and Chevron Brace structure models, does not shows much variations, these values are found to be almost identical, this statement is true in all types of soils, for different heights and for all loading conditions. (c) The sudden variation in the storey drift is seen at the location of the outriggers in the building models. At the storey where outrigger placed observed to be more stiff than other stories. (d) With the provisions of Infills and Bracings in the analytical models, Time Period of the structures are found to be lesser in these models when compared to Bare frame system. 6. REFERENCES 1. Zhixin Wang, Haitao Fan and Haungjuan Zhao, “Analysis of the seismic performance of RC frame structures with different types of bracings” Applied Mechanics and Material Vols. 166-169 , pp 2209-2215, May 2012. 2. Huanjun Jiang, Bo Fu and Laoer Liu, “Seismic Perfromance Evaluation of a Steel- Concrete Hybrid Frame-tube High-rise Building Structure” Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 137, pp 149-153, Oct 2011. 3. Behruz Bagheri Azar, Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi, “Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structure” American Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-223X Issue 53, pp 24-34, 2012. 4. Shi Qun Guo, “Analysis on Seismic Behavior of Irregular High-rise RC structure Using Eccentrically Braces” Advance Materials Research Vols. 243-249, pp 4001-4004, May 2011. 5. Paul Richards W., P.E., M.ASCE, “Seismic Column Demands in Ductile Braced Frames”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No.1, ISSN 0733-9445/2009/1-33-41, January 2009. 6. Mir Ali M. and Kyoung Sun Moon, “Structural Developments in Tall Buildings; Current Trends and Future Prospects”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 50.3, pp 205-223, June 2007. 7. Jinkoo Kim, Hyunhoon Choi, “Response modification factors of Chevron-braced frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol-27, pp 285-300, October 2004. 8. Mahmoud R. Maheri, Akbarik R., “Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings” Engineering Structures, Vol.25, pp 1505-1513, May 2003. 9. Hoenderkamp J.C.D. and Bakker M.C.M., “Analysis of High-Rise Braced Frames with Outriggers” The structural design of tall and special buildings, Vol. 12, , pp 335-350, July 2003. 10. Wu J.R. and LI Q.S., “Structural performance of multi-outrigger-braced Tall Buildings”. The structural design of tall and special buildings, Vol.12, pp 155-176, October 2003. 11. Kapur V. and Ashok Jain K., “Seismic response of shear wall frame versus braced concrete frames” University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 247 672, April 1983.
  8. 8. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME 22 12. IS -1893, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – Part I, General provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision)”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002. 13. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, 2010. 14. Taranath B.S., “Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings” McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988. 15. Taranath B.S., “Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings Structural Analysis and Design” Marcel Dekker, New York, 2005. 16. SAP 2000 Version 15, “Documentation and Training Manuals”. 17. ETABS 9.5, “Documentation and Training Manuals. 18. Abusalah Mohamed Alakhdar Abdlaziz, R.K. Pandey, Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Ashok Tripathi and Anshuman, “Time and Schedule Management by using Primavera”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 78 - 87, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. 19. Mohammed Hashim Ameen and Dr. R. K. Pandey, “Delineation of Irrigation Infrastructural, Potential and Land Use/ Land Cover of Muzaffarnagar by using Remote Sensing and GIS”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 1 - 11, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

×