Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 10, 2015 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 571
Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve
Slope Ground
Md Sadruddin1
Prof. Amaresha2
1
M. Tech Student 2
Assistant Professor
1,2
Department of Structural Engineering
1,2
Veerappa Nisty Engineering College, Shorapur, District Yadgir, Karnataka
Abstract— Most of the hilly regions of India are highly
seismic. Buildings on hill slopes differ in a way from other
buildings. The soft storeies are typical feature in modern
constructions specially in seismic areas which has been
experience by the previous studies and past earthquakes.
Due to verious type of structures on sloped ground
structures are comes under irregularity and asymmetricity.
Structures on slope leads to seismic cases.The damages to
the structures are determined and acceptable safety can be
provided. The linear-elastic analysis is not adequate in
highly seismic areas. Thus for the design of building in
seimic areas and sloped areas inelastic procedure is used. In
the present dissertation work, 3D analytical model of eleven
storeyed buildings on plain and curved ground have been
generated. Models are analyze using „„ETABS”to get the
behavior of structure due to change in column height in
ground story due to curved sloped ground. The analytical
model of the building includes all important components
that influence the mass, strength, stiffness and deformability
of the structure. To study the effect of infill, concrete shear
wall and concrete core wall during earthquake, seismic
analysis using both elastic and inelastic method of analyses
i.e., linear static (equivalent static method), linear dynamic
(response spectrum method) has been performed. The
deflections at each storey level has been compared by
performing equivalent static method, response spectrum
method. Storey drifts are within the permissible limit given
for linear static and linear dynamic method. Again contrary
to common practice, the presence of masonry infills,
concrete shear and concrete core wall may affect the overall
behavior of structure while subjected to earthquake forces.
Key words: ETABS, Plain Ground, Curve Ground, Seismic
Evaluation, Soft Storey, Infills, Shearwalls and Core Walls,
etc…
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General:
The structures which are design and construct as per earliear
code provision do not have satisfied requirements for
current earthquakes.Thus many of the structures in seismic
areas are suffering from hazards.Therefore the new code
provisions are made for such cases.
Multistoried R.C. framed buildings are getting
popular in hilly areas because of increase in land cost and in
unavoidable circumstances.Thus the structures in the hilly
areas should have adequate strength to avoid the failure of
structure during earthquakes.
Indian subcontinent has been experienced with
some of the most earthquakes in the world. The youngest
mountain series of Himalayas covers whole northeast
boundary regions of India. The tectonic activities are still
continuing which may result into severe earthquake in future
as anticipated by many scientists and researchers. More than
50% of our land is seismically prone and is being visited by
earthquakes time and again incurring socio-economic losses
in huge proportions and at the same time reminding us the
need of earthquake resistant design.
The latest seismic zoning map of BIS 1893:2002
shows that 12% of our land area is in zone V i.e., MSK IX
or more (it means that more than 50% of reinforced concrete
buildings would suffer large cracks, gaps in walls leading to
collapse of parts of buildings whereas masonry and adobe
structures may even collapse), 18% in zone IV i.e., MSK
VII and 27% in zone III i.e., MSK VII. All these are
damaging earthquake intensities and the structures coming
up in these regions has to have special earthquake resistant
features. Therefore it is essential to seismically evaluate the
many existing building structures as per code current
requirements. The buildings found inadequate for resisting
future earthquake needs to be retrofitted.
The coceptss of earthquake resist design needs
nonlinear analysis to get damages for different levelses of
earthquakes.In performance based ideas reactions of
building for different levels of motion are specified. In this
dissertation, hypothetical multistoried buildings (i.e., eleven
storeyed with concrete shear wall ,concrete core wall ,infill
and without infill) assumeded in zone v of medium soil site
analyzed and designed as for load combinationns given by
code.
B. Analysis Procedures:
There aretwo types of linear analysis procedures , linear and
nonlinear.Further the liner analysis is divided into
linearstatic and lineardynamic procedure and nonlinear
analysis is divided into nonlinearstatic and
nonlineardynamic procedure.
1) Linear Static Procedures:
In linear static procedures structure is modeled as equivalent
singledegreeof freedom system with linear static stiffness
and an equivalent viscouss damping. The inputis modeled
by an equivalent lateral forces to found same stresses and
strains as earthquake may gives. From first fundamental
frequency of structure using Rayleigh‟s method, spectral
acceleration Sa is calculated from the appropriate response
spectrum, whichis, multiply by mass of the building M,
results in the equivalent lateral force, V
-------- 1.1
The coefficient Ci takes into accounto issue order
effects, stiffness degradation also force reduction due to
inelastic behaviour. These lateral forces are distributed
along height of building.The internalforces and
displacements are determined using linear elastic analysis.
This procedure is used for design purposess and

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)
incorporated in more codes. Their expenditureis very less.
However their applicability is restricted to regular structure.
2) Linear Dynamic Procedures:
In linear dynamic procedure structureis modeled as a
multidegreeof freedom with linear elastic stiffness matrix
and equivalent viscous damping matrix. The input is
modeled as time history analysis. Time-history analysis
based on a time stepbystep evaluationof building
charecterstics by recording synthetic ground motion. In this
case internal forces and displacements are determined by
linear elastic analyses.
The scope of this procedure is highermodes can be
considered which makes it suitable for irregularstuctures.
3) Nonlinear Static Procedures:
In this procedure the modeled incorrporate directly to the
nonlinear forcedeformation characterstics of every part of
structure due to inelastic reaction of various parts of
structure. Several methods of nonlinear static procedure
exists (e.g. ATC 40, FEMA 273[9]).
Clearly, the advantage of these procedures with
respect to the linear procedures is that they take into account
directly the effects of nonlinear material response and hence
the calculated internal forces and deformations will be more
reasonable approximations of those expected during an
earthquake. However, only the first mode of vibration is
considered and hence these methods are not suitable for
irregular buildings for which higher modes become
important.
4) Nonlinear Dynamic Procedures:
In this procedure same modeled is used as in nonlinearstatic
procedure by directly introducing inelastic reaction using
finiteelements. The main differrence is seismicinput is
modeled using a timehistory analyses.
This method is most valuable to get internal forces
and displacements under seismic input but the calculated
responses are very sensitive to individual ground motion
used as seismic input.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. General:
Several studies, experiments, and research works are carried
out since a long time to got the effect of seismic forces on
buildings. The concept of modeling and analysis used for
this purpose are getting improved day by day as
advancement of engineering improved.
B. Review:
Mohammad Umar Farooq Patel, et al., [2014], has studies
on “Seismic Evaluation Of RC Building On Scurved
Ground”. They studied behavior of frame on curved ground
with cncrtshear wall at different levels..A parametric study
is made on 8storey building including bareframe and
cncrtshear wall in seismic zone III.For comparisonthey
consider modeled on plainground with 5bays in Lgtd and
Trvs directions..Seismic analysis is done by E.S.Method and
R.S.Method.Based on E.S.Method building with cncrtshear
wall at centre and corner have 41.41% 60.50% respectively
lessdisplacement compared to bare frame on curved ground.
Based on R.S.Method they got that building have 24.60%,
39.10% lessdisplacement by bare frame modeled on curved
slopedground.From above studies he concluded building on
curveslope ground has more displacement the influence of
cncrtshear wall minimizes lateral displacement
considerably.
Rayyan-Ul-Hassan and H.S Vidyadhara, [2013]
carried out “Analysis Of Earthquake Resisting Multistory
Multibay RC Frames.They Analyze Seismic Behavior Of
Bareframe, Building With Firstsoft Story (Infillwall In
Above Stories) With Presence Of Infill And Cncrt Shear
Wall At Corner”. They used fourbay 12storey building on
sloping ground situated in seismic zoneV.These buildings
are analysed by E.S.Method and R.S.Methods.Based on
E.S.Method they found reduce in displacement of modeled
with infill and cncrtshear wall at corner compare to
bareframe by almost 78.14% and 88.26% respectively and
from R.S.Method they noted almost 51.96% and 74.98%
respectively.Hence they found presence of infill and
cncrtshear wall reduces displacement considerably. It can be
observed that there is increase in baseshear due to influence
of cncrtshear wall when compare to bareframe. As per IS
1893 part (I) 2002code, the permissible storeydrifts are
restricted to 0.004 times the storyheight and they notice all
buiidings are under sufficient conditions.
Haroon Rasheed Tamboli and Umesh.N.Karadi,
[22] studied “Seismic Analysis Using E.S.Method For
Varied Rcframe Modeled Which May Have Bareframe,Infill
Walls And Soft Stories At Different Levels”. The Infill
walls should be considered in seismic regions because the
story drift of soft storey is much more compared to infill
storey which may leads to collaps of structures.The use of
infill walls may increases the strength and stiffness of
structure.
M C Griffth and A R Pinto, [6] have investigated
on the “Three Bay Four Story Building Including
Unreinforced Brick Masonry Walls”. The building was
expected to have maximum lateral deformation capacities
corresponding to about 2% lateral drift.The unreinforced
infill walls are being cracking at very small drift and
completey lost its load carrying capacity.
III. ANALYTICAL MODELLING
A. Description of The Sample Building:
The plan layout for building on a plain and on curved slope
ground models are shown in below figures. column hight of
each storey is 3m for all models
1) Model 1:
Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick
infillmasonry walls (230mm) thick in the upper stories.
Building is modeled as bareframe .However, masses of the
walls are considered.
2) Model 2:
infillmasonry walls (230 mm thick) in the upper stories.
Stiffness and mass of the walls are considered.
3) Model 3:
Building has nowalls in the firststorey and halfbrick
infillmasonry walls (110 mm thick) in the upper stories..
Stiffness and mass of the walls are considered.
4) Model 4:
Building has one full infillmasonry wall (230 mm thick) in
all stories including the firststorey. The stiffness and mass of
the walls are included.

5) Model 5:
infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories and
L-shaped shear walls (230mm thick) are provided at the
corners.Stiffness and masses of the walls are considered.
6) Model 6:
infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories and a
central service concrete core wall (230mm thick) is
provided. Stiffness and masses of the walls are considered.
7) Model 7:
infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories, L-
shaped shear walls (230mm thick) are provided at the
corners and a central service concrete core wall (230mm
thick) is provided.Stiffness and masses of the walls are
considered.
Elevation of Building 3D view of Building
Fig. 3.1: Elevation and 3D view of Model-1.
Elevation of Building 3D-view of Building
Fig. 3.2: Elevation and 3D view of Model-5.
Elevation of Building 3-D view of Building
Fig. 3.3: Elevation and 3-D view of Model-3.
Elevation of Building 3D- view of Building
Fig. 3.4: Elevation and 3D view of Building Model-1 on
Curve Ground.
B. Design Data:
1) Material Properties:
Young‟s modulus of (M25) concrete, E= 25x106
kN/m²
Density of Reinforced (M25) Concrete= 25 kN/m³
Modulus of elasticity of brick masonry= 3500x10³ kN/m²
Density of brick masonry= 20 kN/m³
Upper Storey Height= 3.0 m
No. of Storeys= 11
2) Assumed Dead load intensities:
Floor finishes= 1.0 kN/m²
Live load intensities
Floor= 3.0 kN/m²
Roof= 0 kN/m²
3) Member properties:
Thickness of Slab= 0.125m
Column size= (0.4m x 0.7m)
Beam size= (0.3m x 0.45m)
Thickness of wall= 0.23m
Thickness of wall 2= 0.11m
Thickness of shear wall and core wall= 0.23m
4) Earthquake Live Load on Slab as per clause 7.3.1 and
7.3.2 of IS 1893 (Part-I)- 2002:
Roof (clause 7.3.2) = 0
Floor (clause 7.3.1) = 0.25x3.0=0.75kN/m2
IS: 1893-2002 Equivalent Static method
Design Spectrum
Zone –V
Zone factor, Z (Table2) – 0.36
Importance factor, I (Table 6) – 1.00
Response reduction factor, R (Table 7) – 5.00
Vertical Distribution of Lateral Load,


 n
j
jj hw
ii
Bi
hw
Vf
1
2
2
IS: 1893-2002 R.S.Method: Spectrum is applied
from fig.2 of the code corresponding to medium soil sites.
The spectrum is applied in the Lgtd and Trvs directions.
C. Calculations:
1) Natural periods:
For model 1,
Fundamental Natural period, longitudinal and transverse
direction, Ta=0.075*350.75
=1.079 sec
For model 2, 3, 4, 5,6,7:

Fundamental Natural period, longitudinal direction,
Ta=0.09x35 / ( =0.63sec
Fundamental Natural period, transverse direction,
Ta=0.09x35 / ( =0.704sec
MODEL NO EQX (KN) EQY (KN)
MODEL 1 2110.8096 1994.5560
MODEL 2 6113.0321 4606.9972
MODEL 3 4804.0486 3743.7886
MODEL 4 7702.1604 7702.1604
MODEL 5 7552.9334 7552.9334
MODEL 6 7459.8769 7459.8769
MODEL 7 7645.9898 7645.9898
Table 3.1: Base shear for models on plain ground
LEVEL VX(KN) VY(KN)
11 231.9026 219.1305
10 461.8628 436.4255
9 379.3229 358.4316
8 304.9016 288.1090
7 238.5991 225.4582
6 180.4152 170.4787
5 130.3499 123.1709
4 88.4035 83.5346
3 54.5755 51.5698
2 28.8665 27.2766
1 11.2759 10.6549
PB LEVEL 0.3341 0.3157
Table 3.2: Distribution of lateral seismic shear forces for
building on plain ground for Model 1.
LEVEL VX(KN) VY(KN)
11 835.5064 651.1090
10 976.3714 760.8849
9 801.8831 624.9064
8 644.5577 502.3029
7 504.3949 393.0744
6 381.3951 297.2206
5 275.5579 214.7420
4 186.8836 145.6381
3 115.372 89.9092
2 61.0232 47.5553
1 20.1591 15.7100
PB LEVEL 0.9442 0.7358
building on plain ground for Model-3
LEVEL VX(KN) VY(KN)
11 1226.5649 1226.5649
10 1556.9433 1556.9433
9 1278.7005 1278.7005
8 1027.8259 1027.8259
7 804.3193 804.3193
6 608.1810 608.1810
5 439.4108 439.4108
4 298.0087 298.0087
3 183.9747 183.9747
2 97.3090 97.3090
1 30.1855 30.1855
PB LEVEL 1.5098 1.5098
building on plain ground for Model-5
MODEL NO EQX (KN) EQY (KN)
MODEL 01 2319.3089 2106.6816
MODEL 02 7073.3196 7073.3196
MODEL 03 5323.7196 5323.7196
MODEL 04 7114.7196 7114.7196
MODEL 05 7249.0856 7249.0856
MODEL 06 7138.4393 7138.4393
MODEL 07 7314.2053 7314.2053
Table 3.5: Base shear for models on curve slope ground
LEVEL VX(KN) VY(KN)
10 255.1863 231.7916
9 508.2353 461.6418
8 417.4081 379.1414
7 335.5147 304.7557
6 262.5551 238.4849
5 198.5294 180.3288
4 143.4375 130.2876
3 97.2795 88.3611
2 60.0551 54.5495
1 31.7647 28.8526
PB LEVEL 8.0916 7.3498
Table 3.6: Distribution of lateral seismic shear force for
building on curve slope ground for model-1
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Natural Periods:
Model
No.
CODAL
Fundamental natural Periods T
(Sec)
ANALYSIS
Building On
Plain Ground
Building On
Curved Slope
Ground
Eleven Storeyed Building
1 1.079 2.009 1.839
2 0.63 0.870 0.448
3 0.63 0.816 0.500
4 0.63 0.512 0.446
5 0.63 0.864 0.455
6 0.63 0.868 0.472
7 0.63 0.864 0.481
Table 4.1: Codal and Analytical Fundamental N.P for
different building modeled along Lgtd direction
Model
No.
CODAL
Fundamental natural Periods T(Sec)
ANALYSIS
Building On
Plain Ground
Building On
Curved Slope
Ground
Eleven Storeyed Building
1 1.079 2.009 1.839
2 0.704 0.870 0.448
3 0.704 0.816 0.500
4 0.704 0.512 0.446
5 0.704 0.864 0.455
6 0.704 0.868 0.472
7 0.704 0.864 0.481

Table 4.2: Codal and Analytical Fundamental N.P for
different building modeled along Trvs direction
B. Lateral Displacement For Models On Plain Ground:
ST0REY
NO
BUILDING MODELS ON PLAIN
GROUND
E.S.METHOD R.S.METHOD
Ux Uy Ux Uy
12 42.3 43.8 30.4 31.8
11 41.1 42.8 29.7 31.2
10 39.1 40.9 28.5 30.1
9 36.4 38.1 26.8 28.4
8 32.9 34.5 24.6 26.2
7 28.8 30.4 22.0 23.6
6 24.2 25.8 19.0 20.6
5 19.4 21.0 15.6 17.2
4 14.4 15.9 11.8 13.4
3 9.3 10.8 7.9 9.3
2 4.6 5.7 4.0 5.1
1 1.0 1.3 0.8 1.1
Table 4.3: Lateral Displacements (mm) along Lgtd and Trvs
direction for model-1
Fig. 4.1: Displacements of Models on plain ground along
Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static
Method)
Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static
Method)
Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum
Method)
Fig. 4.4: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground
along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent
Static Method)
C. Lateral Displacement for Models on Curve Slope
Ground
ST0REY
NO
BUILDING MODELS ON CURVE SLOPE
GROUND
E.S.METHOD R.S.METHOD
Ux Uy Ux Uy
11 38.9 40.9 27.0 29.3
10 37.6 39.9 26.2 28.7
9 35.5 37.9 24.8 27.4
8 32.5 34.9 22.9 25.6
7 28.6 31.2 20.5 23.3
6 24.2 26.9 17.7 20.5
5 19.2 22.1 14.4 17.3
4 14.0 17.1 10.7 13.7
3 8.7 11.8 6.8 9.7
2 3.8 6.5 3.0 5.5
1 0.6 3.3 0.5 2.9
Table 4.4: Lateral Displacements (mm) along Lgtd and Trvs
direction for model-1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DISPLACEMENTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DISPLACEMENTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1

along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent
Static Method)
along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent
Static Method)
along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response
Spectrum Method)
along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response
Spectrum Method)
D. Storey Drifts for Models On Plain Ground:
Fig. 4.9: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along
Method)
Method
Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum
Method)
Method)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10S11
DISPLACEMENTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11
DISPLACEMENTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
STOREYDRIFTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12
STOREYDRIFTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7

E. Storey Drifts for Models on Curve Slope Ground:
Method)
Method)
Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum
Method)
Method)
V. CONCLUSIONS
1) As the infills, cncrt shear and cncrt core walls are
provides which leads to reduces in fundamental natural
periods.
2) Storey drifts are found within the specified limit.
3) The masonry infill walls increases the behaviour of
structure during earthquake.
4) The influence of masonry infills may reduces the
displacement of structure.
5) The strength of structure can be increases by avoiding
soft stories.
6) The presence of central concrete core wall and
concrete shear wall at corners has not affected much on
behavior of the object, While action of lateral forces
comes into contact, as compared to other models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My heart full thanks to PROF. AMARESHA my beloved
guide, for their valuable Suggestions and Last but not the
least I am indebted to my Parents, Brother, Friends and my
colleagues for their support and supplications.
REFERENCES
[1] Krawinkler Helmut and Seneviratna G. D. P. K. :
“Earthquake resistant design of structures”, Prentice-
Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
[2] An experimental study on cyclic tests on RC frames
[Murthy and Jain, 2000]. “Seismic Response of RC
Frame Buildings with Soft First Storeys”, Proceedings
of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on Natural
Hazards in Urban Habitat, New Delhi, 1997.
[3] Applied Technology Council (1996): Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC-
40, Vol. 1.
[4] Elnashai, [2001]: e-conference proceedings, January
28; 2002.
[5] IS: 1893 (Part-I) 2002 (2002): Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Part-I General
Provisions and Buildings, Fifth Revision, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[6] (Kabeyasawa, 1993; Eberhard and Sozen 1993)
“Seismic Performance of Conventional Multi-storey
Buildings with Open Ground Storey for Vehicular
Parking”, Indian Concrete Journal, February 2004.
[7] Lee, H.S., and Woo, W.S., “Effect of masonry infills
on seismic performance of a 3-storey RC frame with
non-seismic detailing”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2001.
[8] Murthy, C.V.R., and Jain, S.K., “The Beneficial
Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on the Seismic
Performance of RC Framed Buildings”, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January 2000;
Auckland, New Zealand.
[9] Jack Moehle, Yousef Bozorgnia and T.Y.Yong. “The
Effect of Concrete Core Wall on Tall Buildings” .
[10]Ravi Sinha et al. “Earthquake Resistant Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings”, Technical
Project Report, Vol. 2: Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
STOREYDRIFTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12
STOREYDRIFTS(MM)
STOREY NUMBER
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7

[11]David, M. Scott, “Some Recent Key Developments in
the Design of Tall Buildings”, Proceedings of National
Workshop on High Rise Buildings; Hyderabad 2008.
[12]Santha Kumar, A.K., “Design of Ductile Shear Walls
for Tall Buildings”.
[13]Mahesh Tandon and Vinay Gupta, Prerna Sohal,
“Recommendations for the seismic design of high rise
buildings”.
[14]ATC-72. Proceedings of Workshop on Tall Building
Seismic Design and Analysis Issues.

Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground

Similar to Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground (20)

More from IJSRD

More from IJSRD (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground