3. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
161
interaction is unsafe. During an earthquake,
the load and deformation characteristic of the
structural and geotechnical (soil) components
of the foundations of structures can effect, and
in some cases dominate, seismic response
and overall performance. Understanding this
importance structural engineers/researchers
has included the foundation strength and
stiffness in seismic analysis models. The
modelling of soil and structural parts of
foundations inherently accounts the interaction
of soil and structure.
In soil structure interaction the appropriate
modelling of the flux of energy from the soil to
the structure, and then back from the structure
to the soil is accounted and the process is
called SSI. Stewart et al. (1999) indicates that
there is a high correlation between the
lengthening ratio of the structural period due
to the flexibility of the foundation and structure
to soil stiffness ratio. As a general trend when
the structure is stiff and underlying soil is soft
the soil structure effect gets important, on the
other hand as the structural period gets longer
and stiffness of the soil under the structure gets
higher soil structure interaction losses its
importance. The response to earthquake
motion of a structure situated on a deformable
soil differs from structure supported on a rigid
foundation. The ground motion recorded at the
base of the structure differs from the records
without building. The dynamic characteristic
such as vibration modes and frequencies very
much correlate with the induced changes in
dynamic characteristic of soil during seismic
excitation which shows the significance of soil
structure interaction on the response of the
structure to earthquake motion that is
investigated in the present study. Boonyapinyo
et al. (2008) studied the seismic performance
evaluation of reinforced-concrete buildings by
static pushover and nonlinear dynamic
analyses. Evaluated the seismic performance
of building by nonlinear static analyses
(pushover analysis and modal pushover
analysis) and nonlinear time history analysis.
Hayashi et al. (2004) pointed out that the
damage reduction effects by soil-structure
interaction greatly depend on the ground motion
characteristics, number of stories and horizontal
capacity of earthquake resistance of buildings.
They brought out the importance of soil-structure
interaction including nonlinear phenomena such
as base mat uplift to evaluate the earthquake
damage of buildings properly. The main
objective of this paper is to better understand
the soil structure interaction analysis and
performance of a nine- storey RC building
situated in soft soil of seismic zone III. For this
purpose the three-dimensional (3D) frame
structures is analyzed by using SAP 2000 for
three conditions: (1) Fixed base without
considering SSI, (2) Flexible base by
considering SSI in hard soil condition; and (3)
Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil
condition. Equivalent springs under raft
foundation are used to simulate SSI in this study
NINE-STOREY REINFORCED
CONCRETE FRAME
BUILDING
Building Details
A nine-storey RC building located in
Trivandrum, Kerala designed for gravity and
earthquake loads is studied. The rectangular
plan of building is 15.31 m by 7.82 m. The story
height is 2.85 m with a total height of 27.15 m.
The structural system is asymmetrical and plan
4. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
162
layout is shown in Figure 1. The frames of
building were designed as gravity frames. The
thickness of floor slab is taken as 0.15 m and
roof slab is taken as 0.10 m, 0.11 m and 0.25
m depending upon whether the slab is balcony,
roof, sunken slab, respectively.
All columns and beam dimensions are given
in Tables 1 and 2, and building is supported
on raft slab of thickness 0.40 m. It is designed
for a soil bearing capacity of 120 kN/m2. The
cylinder compressive strengths of concrete
columns and beams are 30 MPa. The
expected yield strength of steel deformed bars
is 500 MPa.
Plastic Hinge Model
Seismic response of reinforced concrete 3D
moment frame is modelled through nonlinear
element representations of column, beam and
beam column joints. Nonlinear element
formulations for reinforced concrete members
Figure 1: Plan of the Building
Table 1: Dimension of Components of the Building-Beams
Reinforcement
Beam Dimension Section Fe Fc Top Bottom Clear
No. (MPa) (MPa) Reinf Reinf Stirrups Cover
(mm)
B1 200 x 500 G1 500 30 2Y20 2Y16, 2Y25 Y8-100 30
B2 200 x 600 G2 500 30 2Y20, 3Y25 3Y25 Y8-100 30
B12 200 x 500 G10 500 30 5Y25 2Y25, 2Y20 Y8-100 30
B16 200 x 400 G14 500 30 2Y16 2Y16 Y8-100 30
B22 200 x 500 G19 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 3Y25 Y8-100 30
B23 200 x 500 G20 500 30 2Y16, 1Y12 3Y16 Y8-100 30
B30 200 x 600 G26 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20, 1Y25 Y8-100 30
B31 200 x 500 G27 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20 Y8-100 30
B31a 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30
B32 200 x 400 G29 500 30 2Y16 4Y16 Y8-150 30
B33 200 x 500 G30 500 30 3Y16 2Y16, 1Y12 Y8-150 30
B34 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30
B48 200 x 600 G39 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 2Y25 Y8-100 30
5. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
Table 2: Dimension of Components of the Building-Columns
Column Dimension Section No. Fe (MPa) Fc (MPa) Long.Reinf Stirrups Clear Cover (mm)
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
163
Ground Floor
C1 300 x 800 C1 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40
C4 300 x 1000 C4 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40
C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40
C9 300 x 1200 C9 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40
C10 250 x 1000 C10 500 30 24Y25 Y8-250 40
C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40
C12 300 x 1200 C12 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40
C13 250 x 800 C13 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40
C16 300 x 1400 C16 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40
Typical Floor
C1 200 x 800 C17 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40
C4 200 x 1000 C20 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40
C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40
C9 200 x 1200 C24 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40
C10 250 x 1000 C25 500 30 22Y25 Y8-250 40
C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40
C12 200 x 1200 C26 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40
C13 250 x 800 C27 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40
C16 200 x 1400 C30 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40
range from 3D continuum finite element models
to lumped plasticity concentrated hinge
models. Lumped plasticity models consist of
elastic elements with concentrated plastic
hinges at each end. Concentrated plastic
hinges are represented by rotational springs
with back bone and cyclic deterioration
properties that have been calibrated to results
from experimental studies [FEMA 356]. Plastic
hinge form at the maximum moments regions
of RC members. The accurate assessment of
plastic hinge length is important in relating the
structural level response to member level
response. The length of plastic hinge depends
on many factors: (1) level of axial load (2)
moment gradient, (3) level of shear stress in
6. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
164
plastic region, (4) mechanical properties of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, (5)
concrete strength, (6) level of confinement and
its effectiveness in potential hinge region. For
the present study length of plastic hinge is
taken as 0.5 H, where H is the depth of cross
section.
Stress Strain Relation for Confined
Concrete
In order to define moment-curvature relation
to simulate the onset of damage, the stress-strain
model of confined concrete and typical
steel stress-strain model with strain hardening
is essential. In this study modified mander’s
confined concrete model as per CEN
Eurocode 8 is used. A comparison of confined
and unconfined stress-strain relation observed
is shown in Figure 2.
which include distribution of steel including
spacing of longitudinal and lateral steel,
amount of lateral steel, type of anchorage and
grade of concrete. Under estimation of ultimate
curvature may result brittle shear failure even
the members are well detailed for ductile
flexural behavior. In this study, nonlinear static
analyses are carried out using user-defined
plastic hinge properties. Definition of user-defined
hinge properties requires moment-curvature
characteristics of each element. The
obtained moment-curvature behavior of beams
and columns are shown in Figures 3-5.
Figure 2: Comparison of Stress Vs
Strain Relation Of Confined And
Unconfined Concrete
Moment – Curvature Relationship
The moment curvature relations are essential
to model nonlinear behavior of structure and
members. The ultimate deformation capacity
of a member depends on the ultimate
curvature and the plastic hinge length (Inel et
al., 2006). The conservative estimation of
ultimate curvature depends on several factors
Figure 3: Moment Vs Curvature
for Beams
Figure 4: Moment vs Curvature
for Ground floor Columns
7. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
165
The moment-curvature analyzes are carried
out considering section properties and a
constant axial load on the structural element.
In development of user-defined hinges for
columns, the maximum load due to several
possible combinations considered need to be
given as input in SAP2000. Following, the
calculation of the ultimate curvature capacity
of an element, acceptance criteria are defined
and labelled as IO, LS and CP. The typical
user-defined (moment-curvature) hinge
properties for beams and columns (M2-M3
and PMM hinges in SAP 2000) used for the
analysis are shown in Figures 6 and 7,
respectively. The values of these performance
levels can be obtained from the test results in
the absence of the test data, and the values
recommended by ATC-40. The acceptance
criteria for performance within the damage
control performance range are obtained by
interpolating the acceptance criteria provided
for the IO and the LS structural performance
levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance
within the limited safety structural performance
range are obtained by interpolating the
acceptance criteria provided for the life safety
and the collapse prevention structural
performance levels. A target performance is
defined by a typical value of roof drift, as well
as limiting values of deformation of the
structural elements. To determine whether a
building meets performance objectives,
response quantities from the pushover analysis
should be considered with each of the
performance levels.
Soil Structure Interaction
According to the seismic improvement of
current structure provision, the members of
structure and foundation must be modelled
Figure 5: Moment vs Curvature
for Typical Floor Columns
Figure 6: Typical user-defined
Moment-rotation Hinge Properties
(M2-M3)-Beams
Figure 7: Moment vs. Rotation
Curves (P-M-M) - Columns
8. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
166
together in unified model to consider soil-structure
interaction. In this study two
orthogonal springs, a vertical spring and three
rotational springs were used in main direction
of structures to simulate soil structure
interaction. The stiffness of springs are
estimated using Richart and Lysmer model
and incorporated in the analysis.
Foundation Model
Behavior of foundation components and
effects of soil-structure interaction were
investigated. Soil-structure interaction can lead
to modification of building response. Soil
flexibility results in period elongation and
damping increase. The main relevant impacts
are to modify the overall lateral displacement
and to provide additional flexibility at the base
level that may relieve inelastic deformation
demands in the superstructure. In this study,
the stiffness of springs are estimated using
Richart and Lysmer model which can be
represented by a series of 3 translational and
3 rotational springs. The soil is treated as an
isotropic, homogenous and elastic half space
medium. For linear analysis, the unit weight of
soil (γ), shear wave velocity (Vs) and Poisson
ratio (υ) are the inputs. Two scenarios were
assumed for the soil deposit used in the
present study, namely: Type I corresponding to
“Rock or hard soil”; Type III corresponding to
“soft soil” in accordance with the site
classification of the IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. Table
3 lists the properties assigned for these two soil
classes in the current study from the ranges
specified by ATC 40. The study primarily
attempts to see the effect of soil-structure
interaction on buildings resting on different
types of non-cohesive soil, viz., soft and rock.
Richart et al. (1970) idealized the
foundation as a lumped mass supported on
soil which is idealized as frequency
independent springs which he described in
terms of soil parameter dynamic shear
modulus of shear wave velocity of the soil.
Table 3 along with Table 4 shows the different
values of spring as per Richart and Lysmer. In
which, G = dynamic shear modulus of soil and
is given by; G = ρVs2; υ = Poisson’s ratio of
the soil; ρ = mass density of the soil; K =
equivalent spring stiffness of the soil; r =
equivalent radius of a circular foundation; L =
length of the foundation; and B = width of the
foundation.
To examine the dynamic behavior while
considering the effect of soil-structure
interaction, building frames of nine storey was
Table 3: Soil Parameters Assigned For Type I and Type III
Description Type I Type III
Unit Weight γ 2563.00 kg/m3 1522.00 kg/m3
Mass density of soil ρ = γ /g 261.26 N/m3 155.15 N/m3
Shear wave velocity Vs 1220.00 m/s 150.00 m/s
Shear Modulus G = ρVs2 388859.00 kN/m2 3491.00 kN/m2
Poisson’s Ratio υ 0.25 0.50
9. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
Table 4: Values of Soil Springs as Per Richart and Lysmer (1970) Model
Direction Spring Value Equivalent Radius Remarks
4
1
z
This is in vertical Z direction
This induce sliding in horizontal X or Y Direction
8 3
3 1
x
This produces rocking about Y axis
8 3
3 1
y
This produces rocking about X axis
LB BL
This produces twisting about vertical Z axis
r
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
167
idealized as 3D space frames using standard
beam element at each node. Slabs at different
storey level were modelled with shell elements
with consideration of adequate thickness. The
storey height of the building frames is
considered as 2.85 m. The gravity loads
assigned to the building was seismic weight
of structural components, including the beams
and columns and the reinforced concrete
slabs. The weight of the non-structural
components (e.g., Brick partitions, Plastering,
floor finishing, etc.) in addition to the live load
are also considered. Since the slabs were not
modelled explicitly, their weight and the live
load they carry were included in the structural
model by distributing its reaction on the
supporting beams.
PUSH OVER ANALYSIS
Amongst the natural hazards, earthquakes
have the potential for causing the greatest
damages. Since earthquake forces are
random in nature and unpredictable, the
engineering tools need to be improved for
analyzing structures under the action of these
forces. Earthquake loads are to be carefully
modelled so as to assess the real behavior of
structure with a clear understanding that
damage is expected but it should be regulated.
In this context pushover analysis which is an
iterative procedure is looked upon as an
alternative for the conventional analysis
procedures. Pushover analysis of multi-story
RCC framed buildings subjected to increasing
lateral forces is carried out until the pre-set
performance level (target displacement) is
Vertical z
Gr
K
z
LB
r
Horizontal
32 1
7 8
x
x
Gr
K
x
LB
r
Rocking x
Gr
K
4 LB
3
x
3 r
Rocking y
Gr
K
4 LB
3
y
3 r
Twisting
16 Gr
3
z
3 K
4 3 3
6 z
10. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
168
reached. The promise of Performance-Based
Seismic Engineering (PBSE) is to produce
structures with predictable seismic
performance.
The recent advent of performance based
design has brought the non linear static push
over analysis procedure to the forefront.
Pushover analysis is a static non linear
procedure in which the magnitude of the
structural loading along the lateral direction of
the structure is incrementally increased in
accordance with a certain pre-defined pattern.
It is generally assumed that the behavior of the
structure is controlled by its fundamental mode
and the predefined pattern is expressed either
in terms of story shear or in terms of
fundamental mode shape. Push over
procedure is gaining popularity during the last
few years as appropriate analytical tools are
now available (SAP-2000, ETABS).
In this study SAP 2000 version 14 is used.
Building is modelled using the materials M30
concrete and Fe500 Steel and assigned all
the beams and columns including with their
reinforcement, all loads (dead load, live load,
and earthquake load) and user defined hinges.
Eight sets of analysis were carried out, for a
combination with and without considering SSI
for hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction.
Four different models were created for two
different soil conditions. Figure 8 shows the
building with fixed base model and Figure 9
shows building by considering SSI effect. The
SSI effect are modelled for 1) fixed base and
flexible base for soft soil in X- direction, 2) fixed
base and flexible base for soft soil in Y -
direction, 3) fixed base and flexible base for
hard soil in X- direction, 4) fixed base and
flexible base for hard soil in Y- direction.
Figure 8: Building with Fixed Base
Figure 9: Building with Flexible Base
11. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
169
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the present study, user defined stress- strain
curve based on CEN Eurocode-8 is adopted
and incorporated in SAP2000. The
percentage variation of stress and strain for
confined concrete is found to be 10-20% and
237-266%, respectively compared to
unconfined concrete.
From the study of moment-curvature
relationship, it is clear that as the area of
reinforcement increases the moment also
increases considerably. If the area of
reinforcement is same, but the area of the
section differs, the moment is high for the
section having greater area. So it is clear that
the moment curvature depends mainly on
percentage of reinforcement and the gross
area of the section. Eight sets of pushover
analysis were carried out, for a combination
of with and without considering SSI effect for
hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction. In
general the two cases are studied, case 1-
capacity curve without considering SSI and
case 2 – capacity curve with considering SSI.
The observed pushover curves for the nine-storey
RC building with above base condition
were shown in Figures 10-13.
Figure 10: Displacement Vs Base Force
for Hard Soil in X Direction
Figure 11: Displacement Vs Base
Force for Hard Soil in Y Direction
Figure 12: Displacement Vs Base
Force for Soft Soil in X Direction
Figure 13: Displacement Vs Base Force
for Soft Soil in Y Direction
CONCLUSION
Based on analytical studies on nine-storey RC
building frame, the following conclusions are
arrived
• The stress-strain relationship is observed
for the material used in the structural
12. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
170
components and a significant variation in
strength and failure, strain is observed for
confined and unconfined concrete.
• It is found that the moment-curvature
characteristics of beam and column
elements varies according to the type of
reinforcement and spacing of bars.
• The non-linear static analysis was
conducted using the SAP 2000. The results
indicate that the SSI can considerably affect
the seismic response of building founded
on soft soil conditions.
• In general, the results showed that SSI
effects are important for buildings founded
on soft ground conditions. However, for firm
ground conditions, its effects can be
neglected.
· The deformations of the structural
components of the buildings have also
been affected by the SSI. The deformations
of buildings with flexible bases have shown
a considerable increase that ranged from
10% to about 230% compared to the fixed
base case for buildings found between soil
type I and Soil Type III. This would in turn
increase the lateral deflection of the whole
building. Thus, SSI can have a detrimental
effect on the performance of buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thanks the Director, CSIR-Structural
Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai, India for the help provided during the
preparation of paper.
REFERENCES
1. Design Aids for, Reinforced Concrete to
IS 456 – 1978, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, SP 16:
1980.
2. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40,
(1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Concrete Buildings”, Vol. 1 and 2,
California.
3. Chinmayi H K and Jayalekshmi B R
(2013), “Soil-structure interaction analysis
of RC frame shear wall buildings over raft
foundations under seismic loading”,
International journal of scientific and
Engineering Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.
99-102.
4. Cinitha A (2013), “ Evaluation of seismic
Performance and review on retrofitting
strategies of existing RC Buildings,
International conference on “civil
engineering and infrastructural issues in
emerging economics”, Proceedings,
February, pp. 609-621.
5. Deepa B S (2012), “Seismic Soil
Structure Interaction Studies On
Multistorey Frames”, International
Journal Of Applied Engineering
Research And Development (Ijaerd),
Issn 2250–1584, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 45-
58.
6. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic forces -
code of practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India,IS
13920:1993, 1993.
7. Eurocode 8(2001) – Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance, Part-1.
European Standard PREN 1998-1. Draft
no. 4. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization.
13. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
171
8. FEMA 356 (2000), “Pre-standard and
Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings”, Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
9. Ganainy H E and Naggar M H E I (2009),
“Seismic Performance of three-dimensional
frame structures with
underground stories,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol 29, pp.
1249-1261.
10. Indian standard code of practice for plain
and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, IS
456:2000,2000.
11. Inel M Ozmen and Hayri Baytan (2006),
“Effects of plastic hinge properties in
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings”, Eng Struct., Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.
1494-1502.
12. IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi 110002.
13. Jayalekshmi B R (2013), “Effect of soil-flexibility
on lateral natural period in RC
framed buildings with shear wall,”
International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 6, pp. 2067-
2076.
14. Jenifer Priyanka R M (2012), “Studies on
Soil Structure Interaction of Multi Storeyed
Buildings with Rigid and Flexible
Foundation”, International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 12, pp. 111-
118.
15. Julio A García (2008), “Soil Structure
Interaction In The Analysis And Seismic
Design of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Buildings”, The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering October 12-17,
2008, Beijing, China.
16. Magade S B (2009), “Effect of Soil Structure
Interaction On The Dynamic Behaviour of
Buildings”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical
and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN:
2278-1684, pp. 09-14.
17. Muberra Eser Aydemir (2010), “Soil
Structure Interaction Effects On
Multistorey R/C Structures”, International
Journal Of Electronics; Mechanical And
Mechatronics Engineering, Vol. 2, No.
3, pp. 298-303.
18. Nagaraj H B and Murthy C C R (2013),
Review of Geotechnical Provisions in
Indian Seismic Code IS1893 (Part
1):2002; Document No:IITK-GSDMA-EQ13-
V1.0; Final Report: A Earthquake
codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building
Codes.
19. Pandey A D (2011), “Seismic Soil-
Structure Interaction Of Buildings On Hill
Slopes”, International Journal Of Civil
And Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No.
2, pp. 544-555.
20. Pfrang E O, Siess C P and Sozen M A
(1964), “Load moment curvature
charateristics of Reinforced concrete
cross sections”, Journal of the American
concrete structuers, July, pp. 764-778.
14. Int. J. Struct. Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php
172
21. Poonam (2012), “Study Of Response Of
Structurally Irregular Building Frames To
Seismic Excitations”, International
Journal Of Civil, Structural
Environmental And Infrastructure
Engineering Research And
Development (IJCSEIERD), ISSN 2249-
6866, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 25-31.
22. Rama Raju K, Cinitha A and Nagesh R
Iyer (2012), “Seismic Performance
evaluation of existing RC Buildings
designed as per past codes of practice”,
Sadhana, Vol. 37, Part 2, pp. 281-297.
23. Shah H J and Sudhir K Jain (2010),
“Design Example of a Six Storey
Building”; Document No:IITK-GSDMA-EQ26-
V3.0; Final Report: A Earthquake
codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building
Codes.
24. Stewart J P, Fenves G L and Seed R B
(1999), “Seismic soil–structure
interaction in buildings I: analytical
method,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geo-environmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 125, pp. 26-37.
25. Stewart J P, Seed R B and Fenves G L
(1999), “Seismic soil–structure
interaction in buildings II: empirical
findings,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 125, pp. 38-48.
26. Tavakoli H R, Naeej M and Salari A
(2011), “Response of RC structures
subjected to near-fault and far-fault
earthquake motions considering soil-structure
interaction”, International
Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 881-896.
27. Virote Boonyapinyo, Norathape
Choopool and Pennung Warnitchai
(2008), “Seismic Performance
Evaluation of Reinforced-Concrete
Buildings by Static Pushover and
Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses”, The 14th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China.
28. Yasuhiro Hayashi and Ikuo Takahashi
(2004), “Soil Structure Interaction Effects
on Building Response in Recent
Earthquake”, Proceedings Third UJNR
workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction,
March.
