SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 64
1
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Deepak S Bashetty
Reg.No:060918003
PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC
ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS
Under the Guidance of
  
 Mr.S.VEERAMANI                                       Dr.KRISHNAMOORTHY
Chief Engineering Manager (Civil) Professor,
Engineering Design Research Centre Department of Civil Engineering
(Building & Factories Sector) Manipal Institute of Technology,
ECC Division L&T, Chennai – 600089 Manipal –576 104
External Guide Internal Guide
2
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods of analysis
3. Modeling Approach
4. Details of Analysis
5. Result and Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. References
3
Introduction
4
Performance-based Design
 The basic concept of performance based seismic
design is to provide engineers with the capability to
design buildings that have a predictable and reliable
performance in earthquakes.
 Thus the Performance-based seismic design is a
process that permits design of new buildings or
upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic
understanding of the risk of life, occupancy and
economic loss that may occur as a result of future
earthquakes.
5
Performance-based design begins with the selection
of design criteria stated in the form of one or more
performance objectives. Each performance objective
is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring
specific levels of damage, and the consequential
losses that occur as a result of this damage, at a
specified level of seismic hazard.
6
Performance Objectives
Fully Operational,
Operational
Immediate-occupancy,
life-safety and
collapse-prevention
7
Selecting Performance Present
Generation
Beer!Beer!
Food!
Operational
Operational – negligible impact on building
Beer!Beer!
Food!Food!
Joe’s
Beer!Beer!
Food!Food!
Beer!Beer!
Food!
Joe’s
Immediate
Occupancy
Immediate Occupancy – building is safe to occupy but
possibly not useful until cleanup and repair has occurred
Beer!Beer!
Food!Food!
Joe’s
Beer!Beer!
Food!Food!
Beer!Beer!
Food!
Life
Safety
Life Safe – building is safe during event but possibly not
afterward
Collapse
Prevention
CollapsePrevention–building is onvergeof
collapse, probabletotal loss
8
Performance based design
Performance Levels
Building Damage States
Immediate
occupancy
Life
safety
Collapse
prevention
Displacement
parameter
Force
parameter
Demand for specific hazard level
9
A simple flow chart explaining the
“Performance based design”
10
Determination of Performance
Point
11
Generally, a team of decision makers, including the
building owner, design professionals, and
building officials, will participate in the selection
of performance objectives for a building.
Once the performance objectives are set, a series
of simulations (analyses of building response to
loading) are performed to estimate the probable
performance of the building under various
design scenario events.
If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the
performance objectives, the design is complete
otherwise it has to be redesigned.
12
Advantages of Performance
Based Seismic Design
Systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building
Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence
Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance and lower potential
losses.
Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with
regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance
intended by present building codes
Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate
potential losses in the event of a seismic event.
Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both more
efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid future
earthquake losses
13
Differences between traditional approach
and performance based approach
1) Conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design
approach having concern for the service operational and
ultimate-strength limit states for a building, performance-
based design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach
that additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a
building at intermediate limit states related to such issues as
occupancy and life-safety standards.
2) The performance based analysis is based on quantifying
the deformation of the members and the building as a whole,
under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a certain level of
seismic hazard. Traditional Approach-Force based Design
has no measure of the deformation capability of members or
of building.
14
3) The deformation or strains are better quantities to assess
damage than stress or forces. Since the deformation are
expected to go beyond the elastic values.
4) The performance based analysis gives the analyst more
choice of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to the
limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based
on limit state method.
5)Traditional based design uses Elastic behavior where as
Performance based design uses inelastic behavior
15
Methods of analysis
16
Methods of analysis
Generally for analyzing the structure the following analysis
methods are used depending upon the requirements.
1) Linear static procedure
2) Linear dynamic procedure
3) Nonlinear static procedure
1. Pushover analysis
2. Capacity spectrum method
4) Nonlinear dynamic procedure
1. Time history Analysis
Push-over and Time History analyses tools to perform non-linear
analysis are considered.
17
 pushover analysis is the one which is suitable for the
performance based seismic design, because elastic
analyses are insufficient, therefore they cannot realistically
predict the force and deformation distributions after the
initiation of damage in the building.
 Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to
identify the modes of failure and the potential for
progressive collapse.
 Inelastic time-history analysis are most realistic analytical
approach for evaluating the performance of a building.
However, the inelastic time-history analysis is usually too
complex and time- consuming in the design of most
buildings.
18
What is Push-Over Analysis?
• Push-over analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the
building is subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic,
inverted triangular or uniform).
• Building is pushed in one horizontal direction. The intensity of the lateral
load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic
hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is recorded.
• Proportion of applied force on each floor is constant , only its magnitude
is increased gradually (i.e., Load pattern may be 1st mode shape,
parabolic, uniform, inverted triangular etc.).
• Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting plastic hinge at potential
location.
19
Continued…
• A series of iterations are usually required during which, the structural
deficiencies observed in one iteration, are rectified and followed by
another.
• This iterative analysis and design process continues until the design
satisfies a pre-established performance criteria.
• The performance criteria for push-over analysis is generally established
as the desired state of the building given a roof-top or spectral
displacement amplitude.
• Push over analysis requires a large number of assumptions and
member response curves are to be provided to the program before it
can analyze.
20
VB
Δroof
Δroof
VB
Continued…Continued…
21
Why Push-Over Analysis?
• Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also known as sequential yield
analysis, or simply "push-over" analysis.
• To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic load.
• Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account for
redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.
• The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an attempt to
help engineer better understand how structures will behave when
subjected to major EQ, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of
the structure will be exceeded.
22
What is Time History Analysis?
• Time History analysis is a step by step analysis of the
dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading
that may vary with time.
• The performance analysis may be
– Linear
– Non-linear
23
Why Linear Time History Analysis?
• To get the variation of forces at each time step and to get the maximum
response under the the particular time history.
• To verify the design of structure. If forces in the member are within the
design forces, then no need to do Non- Linear time history analysis.
• If the forces are exceeding the design forces, then Non-Linear time
history analysis is required to understand the performance of structure.
24
Why Non-Linear Time History
Analysis?
• Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account
for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.
• Certain part may yield when subject to major earthquake.
• To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic
load.
• The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an
attempt to help engineer to better understand how the
structures will behave when subjected to major EQ.
25
Pushover Analysis Procedure
Create 2D/3D Model
Assign end offsets
Design Structure
Assign Hinge properties
Beams – M3, V2
Columns –PMM, V2
Define Static Pushover
Cases
Gravity Pushover
(Force controlled)
Lateral Pushover
(Displacement controlled)
Define Load case
(Lateral Load at centre of mass)
Analyze
Run analysis, Run Now
Establish Performance point
Base shear Vs Roof Displacement
Sequential Hinge Formation
26
Performance Analysis
Create Model as Designed
Define Time History Function
Define Linear Time History cases
Analyze
Check
Member Forces ≤ Design Force
Define Non linear Time
History Case
Assign Plastic Hinges
(Material Nonlinearity)
Define Geometric Nonlinearity
Analyze
Results
Check the performance of the
structure and if required, redesign
YESYES
NoNo
 Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting
plastic hinge at potential location.
27
Modeling
28
Modeling of Beams and Columns
• 3D Frame Elements
• Cross Sectional dimensions, reinforcement details, material
type
• Effective moment of inertia (As per ATC 40)
Beams
Rectangular 0.5 Ig
T-Beam 0.7 Ig
L-Beam 0.6 Ig
Columns 0.7 Ig
29
Modeling approach
Lp = 0.5H
Location of hinges in beams and columns:
• Beam & column elements - nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity -
defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns.
lcolumn
Dcolumn
lbeam
Dbeam
Moment and shear hinge
Axial-moment and shear hinge
L = Critical distance from critical section of
plastic hinge to point of contra flexure
fye = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
dbl= diameter of transverse reinforcement
30
Modelling Approach
• Plastic hinge is defined in terms of Force-deformation
behaviour of the member.
• Values are depend on type of element, material properties,
longitudinal and transverse steel content - axial load level on
the element.
• For beam, flexural hinge is assigned
• For Column, axial and flexural hinges
are assigned
• A-unloaded condition, B-effective
yield, C-ultimate strength, D- residual
strength and E-maximum deformation
Force-deformation Relationship
of a Typical Plastic Hinge
31
EXAMPLE-1
32
Description of Structure
Building Type
RC frame without brick infill
Concrete compressive
strength
Yield Strength of
reinforcement
– 25 MPa
– 415 MPa
Number of stories Ground + 5 Storey
Plan dimensions 16 m × 12 m
Building height 24.775 m above plinth level
Type of footing Raft footing (fixed)
•Seismic performance - inter-storey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base
shear, roof displacement and plastic hinge formation.
33
Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement
Column
Label
Cross
Section
mm x mm
Acol
(mm2
)
1 & 9 300 x 500 5892
2 & 10 300 x 500 4020
3 & 11 300 x 400 3216
4 & 12 300 x 300 3080
21& 23 300 x 300 1232
24& 26 300 x 300 905
27& 29 300 x 300 905
5 650 x 650 14784
6 600 x 600 12744
7 550 x 550 10620
8 500 x 500 7856
22 450 x 450 6372
25 300 x 300 4928
28 300 x 300 804
Acol
= Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column
The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with tension and
compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The column
dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in
Table
34
Details of Analysis
• Pushover Analysis
 Gravity analysis is an Force controlled.
 Pushover analysis is a Displacement controlled.
 Behaviour of structure characterized by capacity curve
(base shear force Vs. roof displacement)
• Time-History Analysis
 Step by step analysis of the dynamical response of structure
to a time varying load.
 7 sets of strong ground motion in the magnitude range of
6.5-7.5 were selected.
 The peak displacement from NTH is not correspond to
ultimate displacement from pushover analysis.
 To facilitate comparison the ground motion records scaled
according to
peak roof displacement =target displacement
35
Input Ground Motions
EQ
No.
Year Earthquake Recording
Station
Magnit
ude
PGA
in g
EQ. Scale Factor
DBE MCE
1 1979 El Centro Array #7 7.0 0.338 0.45 0.785
2 1999 Duzce Turkey 7.1 0.348 0.8 1.15
3 1971 San Fernando Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9
4 1995 Kobe KJM 6.9 0.343 0.35 0.5
5 1976 Friuli Tolmezzo 6.5 0.315 0.95 1.2
6 1994 Northridge Arleta 6.7 0.344 0.6 1.0
7 1989 Loma Prieta Gilroy #2 7.1 0.322 0.35 0.515
36
Base shear
• Maximum base shear -
571kN - 10% of seismic
weight - displacement
corresponding to base
shear - 1.02m.
• Displacement ductility -
2.32.
• Base shear values - DBE
& MCE levels from
Pushover analysis - 116
kN & 171kN
• From NTH - 151kN &
51kN.
• Results from NTH are
23% & 32% higher than
pushover analysis.
37
Target Displacement
• Represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced
during the design earthquake
• Performance levels are calculated based on equation from
FEMA 356.
C0 = Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of building MDOF system
C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to
displacements calculated for linear elastic response
C2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,
stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement
response
C3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic
P- ∆ effects
Te = Effective fundamental period of building, sec
Sa = Response Spectrum Acceleration at effective fundamental period and
damping ratio of building
g
4
T
SCCCC 2
2
e
a3210t
π
=δ
38
Performance Point
• Intersection of capacity & demand spectrum.
• Performance assessed for two levels of performance - Life
Safety (LS) under Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) & Collapse
Prevention (CP) under Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE).
• Base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement, effective time period and effective damping -
performance point - shown.
• Displacement @ performance point in DBE level - 123mm
greater than target displacement 119mm.
• Displacement @performance point in MCE level - 171mm
lesser than target displacement 177mm.
39
Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum
DBE Level
MCE Level
Demand SpectrumDemand Spectrum
Capacity SpectrumCapacity Spectrum
40
• Important indicator of building performance.
• 3rd storey level- the largest interstorey drift values -0.58% and 0.85% at
both DBE and MCE levels.
• Interstorey drift ratio - increased with increase in storey level up to first 4
stories - thereafter - reverse trend at both levels of earthquake.
• DBE level - pushover analysis over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio -
lower storey levels - underestimated - upper storey levels.
• MCE level -pushover analysis -over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio - all
storey levels.
Interstorey Drift
htStoreyHeig
ntfloorsntofadjaceDisplaceme
izontallativedHorRe
ydriftInterstore =
41
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Interstorey drift in %
StoreyLevel
DBE
MCE
(a) Results from Pushover Analysis at DBE &
MCE Levels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Intersotrey drift in %
StoreyLevel
NTH-DBE
NSP-MCE
NSP-DBE
NTH-MCE
(b) Comparison between Pushover &
Time-history Results at DBE & MCE Levels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Interstorey Drift Ratio in %
StoreyLevel
Elcentro
Duzce
San Fernando
Friuli,Italy
Kobe
Northridge
LomaPrieta
Average 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Interstorey Drift Ratio in %
StoreyLevel
Elcentro
Duzce
San Fernando
Friuli,Italy
Kobe
Northridge
LomaPrieta
Average
(a) Results from Time-history Analysis at DBE
Level
(b) Results from Time-history Analysis at MCE
Level
Figure 8.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis
Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios
42
Plastic Hinge Pattern
• Pushover analysis
• Outer columns at all storey level yielded first
• Beams showing hinges in yielding stage at one end only in
the DBE level
• Beams in the MCE Level at all the storey levels except
topmost showing hinges in yielding stage.
• Time History Analysis
• More number of hinges at yielding in beam ends model
compared to pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE
levels.
• At MCE level middle columns in upper stories also yielded;
but in the pushover analysis not showing hinges in any
column.
43
Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level
(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time History Analysis
44
Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level
(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time History Analysis
45
Plastic Hinge Pattern
• Pushover analysis
 At final step (frame roof pushed up to
4% of height of frame) - hinge
formation started with yielding in outer
columns at all stories
 and yielding of few beam ends in
upper stories.
 Middle columns in the upper stories
start yielding with simultaneous
yielding of base columns.
 Beams experienced less number of
hinges than columns but shows
significant damage or failure stage.
46
Conclusions
• Base shear from time history analysis are 23% and 32%
higher than pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels.
• Roof displacement at DBE and MCE levels indicates that
frame satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance
at DBE level and not satisfies the requirement for Collapse
Prevention performance at MCE level.
• From analyses the middle storey experience the maximum
interstorey drift ratio at both levels.
• Pushover analysis over estimate the interstorey drift ratio
compared with time history analysis
47
• No significant difference of plastic hinge pattern at
DBE and MCE levels from both analyses
• Time-history analysis shows more number of beam
hinges at both levels.
• From time history analysis at MCE level, middle
column shows yielding but not in pushover
analysis.
• The behaviour of frame designed for gravity load
shows column side sway mechanism.
Conclusions
48
EXAMPLE-2
49
Description of Structure
A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed
(G+5) and a seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the
present study. All the buildings are rectangular in plan with same
plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and sectional
elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure.
50
Figure: Comparison of Variation of
Fundamental Time Period using Time History
Analysis
Figure :Comparison of Variation of
Roof Displacement using Time History Analysis
Results
51
• Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier
in frames of structures without strut action than frames of
structures with strut action
• It is observed that, in all the cases, the fundamental time
period of the structure with strut action is considerably
less than the structures without strut action.
• Figure, compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4,
G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action.
• The graph shows that roof displacement get
considerably (50%) reduced with strut action.
52
CONCLUSIONS
From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with
infill, the following conclusions are drawn:
• It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get
considerably reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response
of the structure to lateral loads.
• In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof
displacement. This will increase the safety level of the structure.
• Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent
diagonal struts for any lateral load analysis.
53
References
1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and
Andrew Scanlon (2001), “ComparativeEvaluation of Seismic
Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-Story Reinforced
Concrete Office Building”, Journal of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44.
2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), “Seismic
design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical
techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23, 319–332
3. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, “Seismic Analysis of
Bridges Using Displacement-BasedApproach”, 1-20.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November 2000.
54
Contd…
5. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - code
of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards.
6. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.
7. Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen, (2006) “Effects of plastic hinge
properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”,
Engineering Structures, 28, 1494–1502.
8. SAP2000. Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and
design of structures. Ver.10.0. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers
and Structures, Inc.
9. Sashi K. Kunnath and Erol Kalkan (2004), “Evaluation of Seismic
Deformation Demands using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistory
Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”, ISET Journal of
Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 445, Vol. 41, No. 1, March
2004, pp. 159-181
10. ATC 40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.
55
56
Moment curvature
relationship for singly
reinforced sections
57
Finding Mcr & Φcr Values
( )
bc
cr
cr
bt
tstt
ckcr
cr
cr
yE
f
yyD
ydmA
D
ybDbDI
ff
y
If
M
=
+=
−+





−+=
=
=
φ
2
2
3
2
7.0
58
Finding M-Φ values
• Assume ec
• Find k1& k2 for corresponding ec
• Assume initially a value for kd , now
• Compare the assumed kd & the calculated kd. If
matching take that value , otherwise try with new kd.
( )
sstck
sss
cs
fAbkdfkk
Ef
kd
kdd
=
=
−
=
31
ε
εε
59
Finding M-Φ values (cont…)
( )kdkdbkdfkkM ck 231 −=
kd
cε
φ=
εc <
εo <
εu
εo <
εc <
εu
η εc
/εo
εo
/εc
k1 η - η2
/3 1 - η/3
k2
(1/3 −η/12)/(1−η/3) (6−4η + η2
)/(12 − 4 η)
60
Stress block
0.002 0.0035
kd
fc
k2kd
T
C=C3fckbkdC1
61
Stress block parameters
002.00
002.0002.0
2446.0
2
≤<














−





= c
cc
ckc ff ε
εε

0035.0002.01
002.0
25.01446.0
2
≤<














−−= c
c
ckc ff ε
ε

62
Section considered for calculating M-
Φ relationship
Assumed 25 mm clear cover
All dimensions in mm
63
εc M Φ
start 0 0
cracked 8033504.196 9.74069E-07
0.0005 8283594.419 4.05201E-06
0.001 15378489.83 7.84424E-06
0.0015 21200915.35 1.13588E-05
0.002 25649262.16 1.45742E-05
0.0025 27587840.7 1.85134E-05
0.003 28996952.56 2.22161E-05
0.0035 29959200.87 2.59188E-05
M-Φ values for the section considered
M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm
M-Phi
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003
Phi
M
64
Comparison of M-Φ values for different pt
values.
M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm
M-Phi
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
0 5E-06 0.00001 1.5E-05 0.00002 2.5E-05 0.00003 3.5E-05 0.00004 4.5E-05
Phi
M
0.25% 0.50%
0.75% 0.96%

More Related Content

What's hot

CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design Philosophy
CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design PhilosophyCE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design Philosophy
CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design PhilosophyFawad Najam
 
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structures
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structuresSeismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structures
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structuresDaanish Zama
 
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”ankialok
 
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...AIT Solutions
 
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...AIT Solutions
 
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic Design
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic DesignIntroduction to Capacity-based Seismic Design
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic DesignFawad Najam
 
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)MachenLink
 
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...Ijripublishers Ijri
 
Seismic Analysis
Seismic AnalysisSeismic Analysis
Seismic AnalysisKrishnagnr
 
Ductile detailing IS 13920
Ductile detailing IS 13920Ductile detailing IS 13920
Ductile detailing IS 13920INTEZAAR ALAM
 
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water TankSeismic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water TankKalaivanan Murthy
 
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC Members
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC MembersCE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC Members
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC MembersFawad Najam
 
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)Ramil Artates
 
SEISMIC EVALUATION
SEISMIC EVALUATIONSEISMIC EVALUATION
SEISMIC EVALUATIONJKIB93
 
International Bridge Design Standards and Approaches
International Bridge Design Standards and ApproachesInternational Bridge Design Standards and Approaches
International Bridge Design Standards and ApproachesAIT Solutions
 
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc building
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc buildingA comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc building
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc buildingTameem Samdanee
 

What's hot (20)

CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design Philosophy
CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design PhilosophyCE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design Philosophy
CE 72.32 (January 2016 Semester) Lecture 2 - Design Philosophy
 
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structures
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structuresSeismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structures
Seismic Analysis of regular & Irregular RCC frame structures
 
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”
Seismic analysis of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings frame”
 
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...
Integrated Performance Based Design of Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake...
 
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...
CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DUAL SYST...
 
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic Design
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic DesignIntroduction to Capacity-based Seismic Design
Introduction to Capacity-based Seismic Design
 
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure (IS 456:2000)
 
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...
PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURE UNDER VARIOUS SE...
 
Shear wall and its design guidelines
Shear wall and its design guidelinesShear wall and its design guidelines
Shear wall and its design guidelines
 
Seismic Analysis
Seismic AnalysisSeismic Analysis
Seismic Analysis
 
IS 1893 part 1-2016
IS 1893 part 1-2016IS 1893 part 1-2016
IS 1893 part 1-2016
 
Ductile detailing IS 13920
Ductile detailing IS 13920Ductile detailing IS 13920
Ductile detailing IS 13920
 
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water TankSeismic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank
Seismic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank
 
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC Members
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC MembersCE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC Members
CE 72.52 - Lecture 8a - Retrofitting of RC Members
 
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)
Aitc step by-step procedure for pbd of 40-story rc building_overall (20141105)
 
SEISMIC EVALUATION
SEISMIC EVALUATIONSEISMIC EVALUATION
SEISMIC EVALUATION
 
Shear walls
Shear wallsShear walls
Shear walls
 
International Bridge Design Standards and Approaches
International Bridge Design Standards and ApproachesInternational Bridge Design Standards and Approaches
International Bridge Design Standards and Approaches
 
ETABS Modelling
ETABS ModellingETABS Modelling
ETABS Modelling
 
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc building
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc buildingA comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc building
A comparative study of static and response spectrum analysis of a rc building
 

Viewers also liked

1223989 static pushover analysis
1223989 static pushover analysis1223989 static pushover analysis
1223989 static pushover analysismansoor_yakhchalian
 
Performance Based Analysis & Practical Design
Performance Based Analysis & Practical DesignPerformance Based Analysis & Practical Design
Performance Based Analysis & Practical DesignKittelson Slides
 
Performance based design project
Performance based design projectPerformance based design project
Performance based design projectJoe Heinowski
 
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul Leslie
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul LeslieModelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul Leslie
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul LeslieRahul Leslie
 
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic AnalysisDynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysisopenseesdays
 
Membrane - Plate - Shell
Membrane - Plate - ShellMembrane - Plate - Shell
Membrane - Plate - Shellneikrof
 
Tbi peer2010 05 guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...
Tbi peer2010 05  guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...Tbi peer2010 05  guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...
Tbi peer2010 05 guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...Ramil Artates
 
A Picture Album of the Finite Element Method
A Picture Album of the Finite Element MethodA Picture Album of the Finite Element Method
A Picture Album of the Finite Element MethodRahul Leslie
 
Seismic Analysis of Structures - I
Seismic Analysis of Structures - ISeismic Analysis of Structures - I
Seismic Analysis of Structures - Itushardatta
 
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABS
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABSBook for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABS
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABSYousuf Dinar
 
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...eSAT Publishing House
 
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric Modeling
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric ModelingAssessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric Modeling
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric ModelingIDES Editor
 
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...eSAT Journals
 
FinalDraft dissertation
FinalDraft dissertationFinalDraft dissertation
FinalDraft dissertationMohammed Odeh
 
Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings
Seismic Conceptual Design of BuildingsSeismic Conceptual Design of Buildings
Seismic Conceptual Design of BuildingsMohd Danish
 
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...Franco Bontempi Org Didattica
 
Etabs example-rc building seismic load response-
Etabs example-rc building seismic load  response-Etabs example-rc building seismic load  response-
Etabs example-rc building seismic load response-Bhaskar Alapati
 
Time History Analysis With Recorded Accelerograms
Time History Analysis With Recorded AccelerogramsTime History Analysis With Recorded Accelerograms
Time History Analysis With Recorded AccelerogramsAlessandro Palmeri
 

Viewers also liked (20)

1223989 static pushover analysis
1223989 static pushover analysis1223989 static pushover analysis
1223989 static pushover analysis
 
Performance Based Analysis & Practical Design
Performance Based Analysis & Practical DesignPerformance Based Analysis & Practical Design
Performance Based Analysis & Practical Design
 
Performance based design project
Performance based design projectPerformance based design project
Performance based design project
 
Pushover Analysis
Pushover AnalysisPushover Analysis
Pushover Analysis
 
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul Leslie
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul LeslieModelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul Leslie
Modelling Building Frame with STAAD.Pro & ETABS - Rahul Leslie
 
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic AnalysisDynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis with Examples – Seismic Analysis
 
Membrane - Plate - Shell
Membrane - Plate - ShellMembrane - Plate - Shell
Membrane - Plate - Shell
 
Tbi peer2010 05 guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...
Tbi peer2010 05  guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...Tbi peer2010 05  guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...
Tbi peer2010 05 guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buil...
 
A Picture Album of the Finite Element Method
A Picture Album of the Finite Element MethodA Picture Album of the Finite Element Method
A Picture Album of the Finite Element Method
 
Seismic Analysis of Structures - I
Seismic Analysis of Structures - ISeismic Analysis of Structures - I
Seismic Analysis of Structures - I
 
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABS
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABSBook for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABS
Book for Beginners, RCC Design by ETABS
 
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...
Non linear static pushover analysis of irregular space frame structure with a...
 
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric Modeling
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric ModelingAssessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric Modeling
Assessing Uncertainty of Pushover Analysis to Geometric Modeling
 
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...
Effect of variation of plastic hinge length on the results of non linear anal...
 
FinalDraft dissertation
FinalDraft dissertationFinalDraft dissertation
FinalDraft dissertation
 
Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings
Seismic Conceptual Design of BuildingsSeismic Conceptual Design of Buildings
Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings
 
Seismic Design - Introduction
Seismic Design - IntroductionSeismic Design - Introduction
Seismic Design - Introduction
 
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...
Design for Robustness, Resilience and Anti-Fragility in the Built and Urban E...
 
Etabs example-rc building seismic load response-
Etabs example-rc building seismic load  response-Etabs example-rc building seismic load  response-
Etabs example-rc building seismic load response-
 
Time History Analysis With Recorded Accelerograms
Time History Analysis With Recorded AccelerogramsTime History Analysis With Recorded Accelerograms
Time History Analysis With Recorded Accelerograms
 

Similar to Performance Based Design Presentation By Deepak Bashetty

Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Usi...
Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft  Storey Effect Usi...Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft  Storey Effect Usi...
Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Usi...IJMER
 
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...IRJET Journal
 
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover Analysis
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover AnalysisPerformance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover Analysis
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover AnalysisIOSR Journals
 
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDINGSEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDINGJournal For Research
 
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptx
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptxADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptx
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptxfdpnitkce19
 
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...IRJET Journal
 
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC BuildingPerformance based Seismic Design of RCC Building
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC BuildingIRJET Journal
 
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS General
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS GeneralAnalysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS General
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS Generalijtsrd
 
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...IRJET Journal
 
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)irjes
 
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)irjes
 
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...eSAT Journals
 
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...eSAT Publishing House
 
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear WallNon Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear WallIRJET Journal
 
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame Structure
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame StructureNon Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame Structure
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame StructureIRJET Journal
 
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building Diaphragms
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building DiaphragmsPerformance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building Diaphragms
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building DiaphragmsIRJET Journal
 
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...IRJET Journal
 
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...IRJET Journal
 
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...IRJET Journal
 
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABS
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABSIRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABS
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABSIRJET Journal
 

Similar to Performance Based Design Presentation By Deepak Bashetty (20)

Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Usi...
Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft  Storey Effect Usi...Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft  Storey Effect Usi...
Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Usi...
 
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...
IRJET- Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Structures When Exposed to Earth Qu...
 
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover Analysis
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover AnalysisPerformance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover Analysis
Performance of Flat Slab Structure Using Pushover Analysis
 
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDINGSEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
 
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptx
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptxADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptx
ADCS Full ppt-Lec 1-5 - Copy.pptx
 
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...
Seismic Evolution of Soft Storeyed Buildings when Subjected to Real Time Eart...
 
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC BuildingPerformance based Seismic Design of RCC Building
Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building
 
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS General
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS GeneralAnalysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS General
Analysis of Multi Storey Building using Structural Software MIDAS General
 
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...
IRJET- Pushover Analysis of Existing RC Frame Structure : A State of the Art ...
 
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
 
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
 
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...
Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types ...
 
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...
Performance evaluation of a multi storey car parking structure under strength...
 
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear WallNon Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall
Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall
 
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame Structure
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame StructureNon Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame Structure
Non Linear Static Analysis of Dual RC Frame Structure
 
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building Diaphragms
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building DiaphragmsPerformance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building Diaphragms
Performance Based Approach for Seismic Design of Tall Building Diaphragms
 
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...
IRJET- Comparative Study on Conventional Slab and Flat Slabs RCC Structure us...
 
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR STRUCTURE WITH...
 
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...
IRJET- Effect of Vertical Irregularities in R.C Frame Structures on Accuracy ...
 
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABS
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABSIRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABS
IRJET- Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Building using ETABS
 

Performance Based Design Presentation By Deepak Bashetty

  • 1. 1 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Deepak S Bashetty Reg.No:060918003 PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS Under the Guidance of     Mr.S.VEERAMANI                                       Dr.KRISHNAMOORTHY Chief Engineering Manager (Civil) Professor, Engineering Design Research Centre Department of Civil Engineering (Building & Factories Sector) Manipal Institute of Technology, ECC Division L&T, Chennai – 600089 Manipal –576 104 External Guide Internal Guide
  • 2. 2 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Methods of analysis 3. Modeling Approach 4. Details of Analysis 5. Result and Discussion 6. Conclusion 7. References
  • 4. 4 Performance-based Design  The basic concept of performance based seismic design is to provide engineers with the capability to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable performance in earthquakes.  Thus the Performance-based seismic design is a process that permits design of new buildings or upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic understanding of the risk of life, occupancy and economic loss that may occur as a result of future earthquakes.
  • 5. 5 Performance-based design begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of one or more performance objectives. Each performance objective is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring specific levels of damage, and the consequential losses that occur as a result of this damage, at a specified level of seismic hazard.
  • 7. 7 Selecting Performance Present Generation Beer!Beer! Food! Operational Operational – negligible impact on building Beer!Beer! Food!Food! Joe’s Beer!Beer! Food!Food! Beer!Beer! Food! Joe’s Immediate Occupancy Immediate Occupancy – building is safe to occupy but possibly not useful until cleanup and repair has occurred Beer!Beer! Food!Food! Joe’s Beer!Beer! Food!Food! Beer!Beer! Food! Life Safety Life Safe – building is safe during event but possibly not afterward Collapse Prevention CollapsePrevention–building is onvergeof collapse, probabletotal loss
  • 8. 8 Performance based design Performance Levels Building Damage States Immediate occupancy Life safety Collapse prevention Displacement parameter Force parameter Demand for specific hazard level
  • 9. 9 A simple flow chart explaining the “Performance based design”
  • 11. 11 Generally, a team of decision makers, including the building owner, design professionals, and building officials, will participate in the selection of performance objectives for a building. Once the performance objectives are set, a series of simulations (analyses of building response to loading) are performed to estimate the probable performance of the building under various design scenario events. If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance objectives, the design is complete otherwise it has to be redesigned.
  • 12. 12 Advantages of Performance Based Seismic Design Systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance and lower potential losses. Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance intended by present building codes Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate potential losses in the event of a seismic event. Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both more efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid future earthquake losses
  • 13. 13 Differences between traditional approach and performance based approach 1) Conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design approach having concern for the service operational and ultimate-strength limit states for a building, performance- based design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach that additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a building at intermediate limit states related to such issues as occupancy and life-safety standards. 2) The performance based analysis is based on quantifying the deformation of the members and the building as a whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a certain level of seismic hazard. Traditional Approach-Force based Design has no measure of the deformation capability of members or of building.
  • 14. 14 3) The deformation or strains are better quantities to assess damage than stress or forces. Since the deformation are expected to go beyond the elastic values. 4) The performance based analysis gives the analyst more choice of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to the limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on limit state method. 5)Traditional based design uses Elastic behavior where as Performance based design uses inelastic behavior
  • 16. 16 Methods of analysis Generally for analyzing the structure the following analysis methods are used depending upon the requirements. 1) Linear static procedure 2) Linear dynamic procedure 3) Nonlinear static procedure 1. Pushover analysis 2. Capacity spectrum method 4) Nonlinear dynamic procedure 1. Time history Analysis Push-over and Time History analyses tools to perform non-linear analysis are considered.
  • 17. 17  pushover analysis is the one which is suitable for the performance based seismic design, because elastic analyses are insufficient, therefore they cannot realistically predict the force and deformation distributions after the initiation of damage in the building.  Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to identify the modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse.  Inelastic time-history analysis are most realistic analytical approach for evaluating the performance of a building. However, the inelastic time-history analysis is usually too complex and time- consuming in the design of most buildings.
  • 18. 18 What is Push-Over Analysis? • Push-over analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic, inverted triangular or uniform). • Building is pushed in one horizontal direction. The intensity of the lateral load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is recorded. • Proportion of applied force on each floor is constant , only its magnitude is increased gradually (i.e., Load pattern may be 1st mode shape, parabolic, uniform, inverted triangular etc.). • Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting plastic hinge at potential location.
  • 19. 19 Continued… • A series of iterations are usually required during which, the structural deficiencies observed in one iteration, are rectified and followed by another. • This iterative analysis and design process continues until the design satisfies a pre-established performance criteria. • The performance criteria for push-over analysis is generally established as the desired state of the building given a roof-top or spectral displacement amplitude. • Push over analysis requires a large number of assumptions and member response curves are to be provided to the program before it can analyze.
  • 21. 21 Why Push-Over Analysis? • Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also known as sequential yield analysis, or simply "push-over" analysis. • To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic load. • Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding. • The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an attempt to help engineer better understand how structures will behave when subjected to major EQ, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded.
  • 22. 22 What is Time History Analysis? • Time History analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. • The performance analysis may be – Linear – Non-linear
  • 23. 23 Why Linear Time History Analysis? • To get the variation of forces at each time step and to get the maximum response under the the particular time history. • To verify the design of structure. If forces in the member are within the design forces, then no need to do Non- Linear time history analysis. • If the forces are exceeding the design forces, then Non-Linear time history analysis is required to understand the performance of structure.
  • 24. 24 Why Non-Linear Time History Analysis? • Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding. • Certain part may yield when subject to major earthquake. • To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic load. • The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an attempt to help engineer to better understand how the structures will behave when subjected to major EQ.
  • 25. 25 Pushover Analysis Procedure Create 2D/3D Model Assign end offsets Design Structure Assign Hinge properties Beams – M3, V2 Columns –PMM, V2 Define Static Pushover Cases Gravity Pushover (Force controlled) Lateral Pushover (Displacement controlled) Define Load case (Lateral Load at centre of mass) Analyze Run analysis, Run Now Establish Performance point Base shear Vs Roof Displacement Sequential Hinge Formation
  • 26. 26 Performance Analysis Create Model as Designed Define Time History Function Define Linear Time History cases Analyze Check Member Forces ≤ Design Force Define Non linear Time History Case Assign Plastic Hinges (Material Nonlinearity) Define Geometric Nonlinearity Analyze Results Check the performance of the structure and if required, redesign YESYES NoNo  Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting plastic hinge at potential location.
  • 28. 28 Modeling of Beams and Columns • 3D Frame Elements • Cross Sectional dimensions, reinforcement details, material type • Effective moment of inertia (As per ATC 40) Beams Rectangular 0.5 Ig T-Beam 0.7 Ig L-Beam 0.6 Ig Columns 0.7 Ig
  • 29. 29 Modeling approach Lp = 0.5H Location of hinges in beams and columns: • Beam & column elements - nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity - defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. lcolumn Dcolumn lbeam Dbeam Moment and shear hinge Axial-moment and shear hinge L = Critical distance from critical section of plastic hinge to point of contra flexure fye = yield strength of transverse reinforcement dbl= diameter of transverse reinforcement
  • 30. 30 Modelling Approach • Plastic hinge is defined in terms of Force-deformation behaviour of the member. • Values are depend on type of element, material properties, longitudinal and transverse steel content - axial load level on the element. • For beam, flexural hinge is assigned • For Column, axial and flexural hinges are assigned • A-unloaded condition, B-effective yield, C-ultimate strength, D- residual strength and E-maximum deformation Force-deformation Relationship of a Typical Plastic Hinge
  • 32. 32 Description of Structure Building Type RC frame without brick infill Concrete compressive strength Yield Strength of reinforcement – 25 MPa – 415 MPa Number of stories Ground + 5 Storey Plan dimensions 16 m × 12 m Building height 24.775 m above plinth level Type of footing Raft footing (fixed) •Seismic performance - inter-storey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base shear, roof displacement and plastic hinge formation.
  • 33. 33 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement Column Label Cross Section mm x mm Acol (mm2 ) 1 & 9 300 x 500 5892 2 & 10 300 x 500 4020 3 & 11 300 x 400 3216 4 & 12 300 x 300 3080 21& 23 300 x 300 1232 24& 26 300 x 300 905 27& 29 300 x 300 905 5 650 x 650 14784 6 600 x 600 12744 7 550 x 550 10620 8 500 x 500 7856 22 450 x 450 6372 25 300 x 300 4928 28 300 x 300 804 Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with tension and compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The column dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in Table
  • 34. 34 Details of Analysis • Pushover Analysis  Gravity analysis is an Force controlled.  Pushover analysis is a Displacement controlled.  Behaviour of structure characterized by capacity curve (base shear force Vs. roof displacement) • Time-History Analysis  Step by step analysis of the dynamical response of structure to a time varying load.  7 sets of strong ground motion in the magnitude range of 6.5-7.5 were selected.  The peak displacement from NTH is not correspond to ultimate displacement from pushover analysis.  To facilitate comparison the ground motion records scaled according to peak roof displacement =target displacement
  • 35. 35 Input Ground Motions EQ No. Year Earthquake Recording Station Magnit ude PGA in g EQ. Scale Factor DBE MCE 1 1979 El Centro Array #7 7.0 0.338 0.45 0.785 2 1999 Duzce Turkey 7.1 0.348 0.8 1.15 3 1971 San Fernando Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9 4 1995 Kobe KJM 6.9 0.343 0.35 0.5 5 1976 Friuli Tolmezzo 6.5 0.315 0.95 1.2 6 1994 Northridge Arleta 6.7 0.344 0.6 1.0 7 1989 Loma Prieta Gilroy #2 7.1 0.322 0.35 0.515
  • 36. 36 Base shear • Maximum base shear - 571kN - 10% of seismic weight - displacement corresponding to base shear - 1.02m. • Displacement ductility - 2.32. • Base shear values - DBE & MCE levels from Pushover analysis - 116 kN & 171kN • From NTH - 151kN & 51kN. • Results from NTH are 23% & 32% higher than pushover analysis.
  • 37. 37 Target Displacement • Represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced during the design earthquake • Performance levels are calculated based on equation from FEMA 356. C0 = Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF system to the roof displacement of building MDOF system C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response C2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response C3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P- ∆ effects Te = Effective fundamental period of building, sec Sa = Response Spectrum Acceleration at effective fundamental period and damping ratio of building g 4 T SCCCC 2 2 e a3210t π =δ
  • 38. 38 Performance Point • Intersection of capacity & demand spectrum. • Performance assessed for two levels of performance - Life Safety (LS) under Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) & Collapse Prevention (CP) under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). • Base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral displacement, effective time period and effective damping - performance point - shown. • Displacement @ performance point in DBE level - 123mm greater than target displacement 119mm. • Displacement @performance point in MCE level - 171mm lesser than target displacement 177mm.
  • 39. 39 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum DBE Level MCE Level Demand SpectrumDemand Spectrum Capacity SpectrumCapacity Spectrum
  • 40. 40 • Important indicator of building performance. • 3rd storey level- the largest interstorey drift values -0.58% and 0.85% at both DBE and MCE levels. • Interstorey drift ratio - increased with increase in storey level up to first 4 stories - thereafter - reverse trend at both levels of earthquake. • DBE level - pushover analysis over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio - lower storey levels - underestimated - upper storey levels. • MCE level -pushover analysis -over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio - all storey levels. Interstorey Drift htStoreyHeig ntfloorsntofadjaceDisplaceme izontallativedHorRe ydriftInterstore =
  • 41. 41 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Interstorey drift in % StoreyLevel DBE MCE (a) Results from Pushover Analysis at DBE & MCE Levels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Intersotrey drift in % StoreyLevel NTH-DBE NSP-MCE NSP-DBE NTH-MCE (b) Comparison between Pushover & Time-history Results at DBE & MCE Levels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Interstorey Drift Ratio in % StoreyLevel Elcentro Duzce San Fernando Friuli,Italy Kobe Northridge LomaPrieta Average 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Interstorey Drift Ratio in % StoreyLevel Elcentro Duzce San Fernando Friuli,Italy Kobe Northridge LomaPrieta Average (a) Results from Time-history Analysis at DBE Level (b) Results from Time-history Analysis at MCE Level Figure 8.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios
  • 42. 42 Plastic Hinge Pattern • Pushover analysis • Outer columns at all storey level yielded first • Beams showing hinges in yielding stage at one end only in the DBE level • Beams in the MCE Level at all the storey levels except topmost showing hinges in yielding stage. • Time History Analysis • More number of hinges at yielding in beam ends model compared to pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE levels. • At MCE level middle columns in upper stories also yielded; but in the pushover analysis not showing hinges in any column.
  • 43. 43 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level (a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time History Analysis
  • 44. 44 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level (a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time History Analysis
  • 45. 45 Plastic Hinge Pattern • Pushover analysis  At final step (frame roof pushed up to 4% of height of frame) - hinge formation started with yielding in outer columns at all stories  and yielding of few beam ends in upper stories.  Middle columns in the upper stories start yielding with simultaneous yielding of base columns.  Beams experienced less number of hinges than columns but shows significant damage or failure stage.
  • 46. 46 Conclusions • Base shear from time history analysis are 23% and 32% higher than pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels. • Roof displacement at DBE and MCE levels indicates that frame satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance at DBE level and not satisfies the requirement for Collapse Prevention performance at MCE level. • From analyses the middle storey experience the maximum interstorey drift ratio at both levels. • Pushover analysis over estimate the interstorey drift ratio compared with time history analysis
  • 47. 47 • No significant difference of plastic hinge pattern at DBE and MCE levels from both analyses • Time-history analysis shows more number of beam hinges at both levels. • From time history analysis at MCE level, middle column shows yielding but not in pushover analysis. • The behaviour of frame designed for gravity load shows column side sway mechanism. Conclusions
  • 49. 49 Description of Structure A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed (G+5) and a seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the present study. All the buildings are rectangular in plan with same plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and sectional elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure.
  • 50. 50 Figure: Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using Time History Analysis Figure :Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using Time History Analysis Results
  • 51. 51 • Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier in frames of structures without strut action than frames of structures with strut action • It is observed that, in all the cases, the fundamental time period of the structure with strut action is considerably less than the structures without strut action. • Figure, compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4, G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action. • The graph shows that roof displacement get considerably (50%) reduced with strut action.
  • 52. 52 CONCLUSIONS From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with infill, the following conclusions are drawn: • It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get considerably reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response of the structure to lateral loads. • In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof displacement. This will increase the safety level of the structure. • Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent diagonal struts for any lateral load analysis.
  • 53. 53 References 1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and Andrew Scanlon (2001), “ComparativeEvaluation of Seismic Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-Story Reinforced Concrete Office Building”, Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44. 2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), “Seismic design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23, 319–332 3. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, “Seismic Analysis of Bridges Using Displacement-BasedApproach”, 1-20. 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November 2000.
  • 54. 54 Contd… 5. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards. 6. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards. 7. Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen, (2006) “Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”, Engineering Structures, 28, 1494–1502. 8. SAP2000. Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and design of structures. Ver.10.0. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures, Inc. 9. Sashi K. Kunnath and Erol Kalkan (2004), “Evaluation of Seismic Deformation Demands using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistory Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 445, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2004, pp. 159-181 10. ATC 40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.
  • 55. 55
  • 56. 56 Moment curvature relationship for singly reinforced sections
  • 57. 57 Finding Mcr & Φcr Values ( ) bc cr cr bt tstt ckcr cr cr yE f yyD ydmA D ybDbDI ff y If M = += −+      −+= = = φ 2 2 3 2 7.0
  • 58. 58 Finding M-Φ values • Assume ec • Find k1& k2 for corresponding ec • Assume initially a value for kd , now • Compare the assumed kd & the calculated kd. If matching take that value , otherwise try with new kd. ( ) sstck sss cs fAbkdfkk Ef kd kdd = = − = 31 ε εε
  • 59. 59 Finding M-Φ values (cont…) ( )kdkdbkdfkkM ck 231 −= kd cε φ= εc < εo < εu εo < εc < εu η εc /εo εo /εc k1 η - η2 /3 1 - η/3 k2 (1/3 −η/12)/(1−η/3) (6−4η + η2 )/(12 − 4 η)
  • 61. 61 Stress block parameters 002.00 002.0002.0 2446.0 2 ≤<               −      = c cc ckc ff ε εε  0035.0002.01 002.0 25.01446.0 2 ≤<               −−= c c ckc ff ε ε 
  • 62. 62 Section considered for calculating M- Φ relationship Assumed 25 mm clear cover All dimensions in mm
  • 63. 63 εc M Φ start 0 0 cracked 8033504.196 9.74069E-07 0.0005 8283594.419 4.05201E-06 0.001 15378489.83 7.84424E-06 0.0015 21200915.35 1.13588E-05 0.002 25649262.16 1.45742E-05 0.0025 27587840.7 1.85134E-05 0.003 28996952.56 2.22161E-05 0.0035 29959200.87 2.59188E-05 M-Φ values for the section considered M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm M-Phi 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 Phi M
  • 64. 64 Comparison of M-Φ values for different pt values. M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm M-Phi 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 0 5E-06 0.00001 1.5E-05 0.00002 2.5E-05 0.00003 3.5E-05 0.00004 4.5E-05 Phi M 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 0.96%

Editor's Notes

  1. &amp;lt;number&amp;gt;
  2. &amp;lt;number&amp;gt; The damage evaluation procedures are performance-based; that is, they measure acceptability (and changes in acceptability) on the basis of the degree to which a structure achieves one or more performance levels for the hazard posed by one or more hypothetical future earthquakes. A performance level typically is defined by a particular damage state for the components of a building. Commonly-used performance levels, in order of decreasing amounts of damage, are Collapse Prevention, Life Safety, and Immediate Occupancy. Hazards associated with future hypothetical earthquakes commonly are defined in terms of ground shaking intensity with a certain likelihood of being exceeded over a defined time period, or in terms of a characteristic earthquake likely to occur on a given fault. The combination of a performance level and a hazard defines a Performance Objective. For example, a common Performance Objective for a building is that it maintain Life Safety for ground motion with a ten percent chance of exceedance in fifty years.