Published on

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of Computer Science, Neural Networks, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Plastic Engineering, Food Technology, Textile Engineering, Nano Technology & science, Power Electronics, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Computational mathematics, Image processing, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, VLSI Testing & Low Power VLSI Design etc.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141504 | P a g eSeismic Evaluation and Retrofitting of RC Building by UsingEnergy Dissipating DevicesS. I. Khan1, Prof. P. O. Modani21(Department of Civil Engineering, B.N.C.O.E, Pusad)2(Assist. Professor Department of Civil Engineering, B.N.C.O.E, Pusad)ABSTRACTThe Buildings, which appeared to bestrong enough, may crumble like houses of cardsduring earthquake and deficiencies may beexposed. Experience gain from the recentearthquake of Bhuj, 2001 demonstrates that themost of buildings collapsed were found deficient tomeet out the requirements of the present daycodes. In last decade, four devastatingearthquakes of world have been occurred in India,and low to mild intensities earthquakes areshaking our land frequently. It has raised thequestions about the adequacy of framedstructures to resist strong motions, since manybuildings suffered great damage or collapsed.Under such circumstances, seismic qualification ofexisting buildings has become extremelyimportant. Seismic qualification eventually leadsto retrofitting of the deficient structuresIn the proposed investigation aperformance based evaluation and retrofit of anexisting hostel building in Babasaheb Naik Collegeof Engineering, Pusad. Built in 1987, the subjecthostel building is a four-story, rectangularstructure. A nonlinear static pushover analysisusing the displacement coefficient method, asdescribed in FEMA 356, is used to evaluate theseismic performance of the existing building. Aseismic retrofit using energy dissipating devicebased on pushover analysis is proposed for thelife-safety target performance of the existingbuilding.I. INTRODUCTION1.1 GeneralA large number of existing buildings inIndia are severely deficient against earthquake forcesand the number of such buildings is growing veryrapidly. This has been highlighted in the pastearthquake. Retrofitting of any existing building is acomplex task and requires skill, retrofitting of RCbuildings is particularly challenging due to complexbehavior of the RC composite material. The behaviorof the buildings during earthquake depends not onlyon the size of the members and amount ofreinforcement, but to a great extent on the placingand detailing of the reinforcement. There are threesources of deficiencies in a building, which have tobe accounted for by the retrofitting engineer:(i) Inadequate design and detailing(ii) Degradation of material with timeand use(iii) Damage due to earthquake or othercatastrophe.The three sources, suggest a retrofit schemeto make up for the deficiencies and demonstrate thatthe retrofitted structure will be able to safety resistthe future earthquake forces expected during thelifetime of the structure. In particular, the seismicrehabilitation of older concrete structures in highseismicity areas is a matter of growing concern, sincestructures vulnerable to damage must be identifiedand an acceptable level of safety must be determined[1].Thus, the structural engineering communityhas developed a new generation of design andseismic procedures that incorporate performancebased structures and is moving away from simplifiedlinear elastic methods and towards a more non-lineartechnique. Recent interests in the development ofperformance based codes for the design orrehabilitation of buildings in seismic active areasshow that an inelastic procedure commonly referredto as the pushover analysis is a viable method toassess damage vulnerability of buildings. Basically, apushover analysis is a series of incremental staticanalysis carried out to develop a capacity curve forthe building. Based on the capacity curve, a targetdisplacement which is an estimate of thedisplacement that the design earthquake will produceon the building is determined. The extent of damageexperienced by the structure at this targetdisplacement is considered representative of thedamage experienced by the building when subjectedto design level ground shaking. Many methods werepresented to apply the nonlinear static pushover(NSP) to structures. These methods can be listed as:(1) Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)(ATC)(2) Displacement Coefficient Method(DCM) (FEMA-356)(3) Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA).The approach has been developed by manyresearchers with minor variation in computationprocedure. Since the behavior of reinforced concretestructures may be highly inelastic under seismicloads, the global inelastic performance of RCstructures will be dominated by plastic yieldingeffects and consequently the accuracy of thepushover analysis will be influenced by the ability of
  2. 2. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141505 | P a g ethe analytical models to capture these effects. Ingeneral, analytical models for the pushover analysisof frame structures may be divided into two maintypes: (1) distributed plasticity (plastic zone) and (2)concentrated plasticity (plastic hinge). Although theplastic hinge approach is simpler than the plasticzone, this method is limited to its incapacity tocapture the more complex member behavior thatinvolve severe yielding under the combined actionsof compression and bi-axial bending and bucklingeffects [1].1.2 Seismic RetrofittingAll buildings those are constructed, beforethe modern regulations came up for the design ofbuildings in seismic areas, those which areconstructed before thirty years or those constructedrecently but not properly designed, constructed ormaintained can be considered as a possiblecandidates for retrofitting. These buildings may bedamaged by earthquake action. It is not alwayspossible to strengthen the existing buildings to thelevel corresponding to modern seismic codes due toeconomic reasons. The building should be retrofittedto achieve the required performance level. Althoughengineering safety is the prime criterion, othercriteria such as social, cultural, financial, historical,artistic, and political should also be considered [13].Existing building can become seismicallydeficient whena) Seismic design code requirements are up gradedsince the design of these buildings is with an olderversion of the code,b) Seismic design codes used in their design aredeficient,c) Engineering knowledge makes advances renderinginsufficient the previous understanding used in theirdesign, andd) Designers lack understanding of the seismicbehavior of the structures.Indian buildings built over the pasttwo decades are deficient because of items (b), (c)and (d) above. The last revision of the Indian seismiccode in 1987 IS 1893 (1984) is deficient from manypoints of view, and engineering knowledge hasadvanced significantly from what was used. Also theseismic design was not practiced in most buildingsbeing built [2].1.3 Seismic DesignRC frame building would become massive ifthey were to be designed to behave elasticallywithout incurring damage, and hence the project maybecome economically unviable. On the contrary, thebuilding must undergo damage necessarily to be ableto dissipate the energy input to it during theearthquake. Thus, as per the seismic designphilosophy, (a) under occasional strong shaking,structural damage is acceptable. Therefore,structures are designed philosophy, (a) underoccasional strong shaking, structural damage isacceptable, but collapse is not, and (b) under semioccasional moderate shaking, structural damage islimited oven though non-structural damage is notacceptable. Therefore, structures are designed onlyfor a fraction of the force that they would experienceif they were designed to remain elastic during theexpected strong ground shaking and therebypermitting damage under minor shaking refer figure2.1 Thus, seismic design balances reduced cost andacceptable damage, thereby making the project viable[2]Fig. 1.1 Basic Strategy of Earthquake Design1. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECTa) To analyse the response of existing RCbuilding subjected to seismic loading bypushover analysis using SAP2000.b) To suggest a retrofit scheme to existing RCbuilding as per seismic analysis.c) To identify the suitable retrofittingtechnique for resisting the seismic loadsefficiently and effectively.d) To compare response of conventional rcbuilding and the building having energydissipating devices subjected to seismicloads.II. PUSHOVER ANALYSISOnce the target performance of astructure has been determined by the engineerafter having met the requirements of the buildingand design codes. There are different methods ofanalysis which provides different degree ofaccuracy. Based on the type of external actionand behavior of structure the seismic analysismethods are classified asTable 3.1: Types of analysis methodsStatic DynamicLinear Nonlinear Linear NonlinearSeismiccoefficientPushoveranalysisResponsespectrumTimehistory
  3. 3. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141506 | P a g emethod method method methodNonlinear static analysis is an improvement over thelinear static or dynamic analysis in the sense that itallows the inelastic behavior of the structure. Themethod assumes a set of static incremental lateralload over the height of the structure. The method isrelatively simple to be implemented, and providesinformation of the strength, deformation and ductilityof the structure and the distribution of demands.1.1 3D Pushover AnalysisIn this analysis method, earthquake load isapplied on the model in an incremental basis.Earthquake load distribution is selected for whichanalysis is required. For this load distribution aninitial load step is selected 3 D static analysis is donefor this initial load step and checking for plasticmoment capacity of elements to reach. If no elementreaches plastic moment capacity, then load appliedincrease and analysis is done for new load. When inany element, plastic moment capacity is reached,plastic hinge is introduced in that element now. Newanalysis is done on this structure with newearthquake distribution (since earthquake loaddistribution will depend on structural properties. Wecan also continue with same distribution ofearthquake load).and checking plastic momentcapacity in other elements. And when plasticmoment capacity is reacted, plastic hinge isintroduced in that element.At each step, load required for each event to occurredis noted down (event is the formation of plastic hingein any element) same procedure is repeated untilplastic mechanism is formed in the entire structurethat leads to collapse of structure. Now collapse loadis calculated which’s nothing but load required forfinal event to occur.3.2 Advantages of Pushover Analysis1) It allows us to evaluate overall structuralbehaviors and performance characteristics.2) It enables us to investigate the sequentialformation of plastic hinges in the individualstructural elements constituting the entirestructure.3) When a structure is to be strengthened througha rehabilitation process, it allows us toselectively reinforce only the required membersmaximizing the cost efficiency4) The pushover analysis provides good estimateof global and local inelastic deformationdemands for structures that vibrate primarily inthe fundamental mode.3.3 Limitations of Pushover Analysis1) Deformation estimates obtained from apushover analysis may be grosslyinaccurate for structures where highermode effects are significant.2) In most cases it will be necessary toperform the analysis with displacementrather than force control, since the targetdisplacement may be associated with verysmall positive or even a negative lateralstiffness because of the development ofmechanisms and P-delta effects.3) Pushover analysis implicitly assurancesthat damage is a function only of the lateraldeformation of the structure, neglectingduration effects, number of stress reversalsand cumulative energy dissipation demand4) The procedure does not take into accountfor the progressive changes in modalproperties that take place in a structure as itexperiences cyclic non-linear yieldingduring earthquake.5) Most critical is the concern that thepushover analysis may detect only the firstlocal mechanism that will form in anearthquake mechanism that will form in anearthquake and may not expose otherweakness that will be generated when thestructures dynamic characteristics changeafter formation of first local mechanism.III. MODELING AND ANALYSIS OFBUILDING4.1 Introduction to SAP 2000The software used for the present study isSAP 2000. It is product of Computers and Structures,Berkeley, USA. SAP 2000 is used for analyzinggeneral structures including bridges, stadiums,towers, industrial plants, offshore structures,buildings, dam, silos, etc. It is a fully integratedprogram that allows model creation, modification,execution of analysis, design optimization, andresults review from within a single interface. SAP2000 is a standalone finite element based structuralprogram for analysis and design of civil structures. Itoffers an intuitive, yet powerful user interface withmany tools to aid in quick and accurate constructionof models, along with sophisticated technique neededto do most complex projects.SAP 2000 is objecting based, meaning that themodels are created with members that representphysical reality. Results for analysis and design arereported for the overall object, providing informationthat is both easier to interprets and consistent withphysical nature.The SAP 2000 structural analysis programme offersfollowing features- Static and Dynamic Analysis Linear and Nonlinear Analysis Dynamic seismic analysis and Static pushover analysis Geometric Nonlinearity including P-∆ effect
  4. 4. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141507 | P a g e Frame and shell structural elements 2-D and 3-D plane and solid elementsNonlinear link and support analysis4.2 Modeling and Analysis of BuildingFig. 4.1 Elevation of BuildingFig 4.2 Plan of buildingFig 4.3 Elevation of X Braced Building4.3 Building DescriptionIV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION5.1 GeneralIn the present study, non-linear response ofexisting RC frame building using SAP 2000 underthe loading has been carried out. The objective of thisstudy is to see the variation of load-displacementgraph and check the maximum base shear anddisplacement of the frame.After running the analysis, the pushovercurve is obtained as shown in figures.A table also obtain which gives the coordinates ofeach step of the pushover curve and summarizes thenumber of hinges in each state (for example, betweenIO, LS, CP or between D and E). This data is shownin following table.i) Zone Vii) Zone factor 0.36iii)Response reductionfactor5iv) Important factor 1v) Soil condition Mediumvi) Height of building 12.50 mvii) Wall thicknessExternal 230 mmInternal 115 mmviii) Weight density of Brickmasonry20 kN/m3ix)Weight density of RCmaterial25 kN/m3x) Thickness of slab 120 mmxi) Floor to floor height 3.5 mxii)Plinth height aboveground level2.0 mxiii) Size of columns 230 mm x 450 mmxiv) Size of beams 230 mm x 400 mmxv) Size of brace ISMC 250xvi) Type of bracing system X- bracingxv) Grade of steel Fe-415xvi) Grade of concrete M20xvii) Floor finish 1.0 kN/m2xviii) Imposed load 4.0 kN/m2
  5. 5. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141508 | P a g eFig. 5.1 Pushover Curve of an Existing Building in X directionFig. 5.2 Pushover Curve of an Existing Building inY directionFig. 5.3 Capacity Spectrum Curve of an ExistingBuilding in X directioNFig. 5.4 Capacity Spectrum Curve of an ExistingBuilding in Y DirectionTable 5.1 Tabular data for pushover curve in X directionStepsDisplacement (mm)BaseForce(KN)A to B B toIOIO toLSLS toCPCP toCC toDD toEBeyond E Total0 0 0 1164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11641 12 2897 1164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11642 22 4724 986 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 11643 26 5244 837 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 11644 35 5579 714 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 11645 97 6373 532 357 275 0 0 0 0 0 11646 104 6417 476 406 282 0 0 0 0 0 11647 189 6637 444 83 435 201 0 1 0 0 11648 189 6573 449 77 436 201 0 0 1 0 11649 189 6593 451 81 428 203 0 0 1 0 116410 189 6599 438 82 436 207 0 0 1 0 116411 189 6602 437 82 427 217 0 0 1 0 116412 192 6611 445 77 420 220 1 0 1 0 1164010002000300040005000600070000 50 100 150 200 250BaseForce(KN)Displacement (mm)010002000300040005000600070000 50 100 150 200 250BaseForce(KN)Displacement (mm)
  6. 6. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141509 | P a g e13 192 6556 445 78 421 218 0 0 2 0 116414 192 6589 445 78 421 218 0 0 2 0 116415 192 6602 445 78 421 218 0 0 2 0 116416 200 6625 443 79 422 218 0 0 2 0 116417 200 6575 422 80 411 247 0 0 4 0 1164Table 5.2 Tabular data for pushover curve in Y directionStepsDisplacement (mm)BaseForce(KN)A to B B toIOIO toLSLS toCPCP toCC toDD toEBeyond E Total0 0 0 1164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11641 26 2771 1150 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 11642 39 3728 960 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 11643 57 4319 858 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 11644 110 5290 730 242 192 0 0 0 0 0 11645 161 5891 714 150 300 0 0 0 0 0 11646 202 6370 686 85 217 159 0 17 0 0 11647 202 6163 696 85 233 134 0 0 16 0 11648 206 6280 702 48 264 134 0 0 16 0 11649 208 6308 703 25 293 125 0 2 16 0 116410 208 6267 695 26 293 132 0 0 18 0 116411 210 6300 700 22 297 130 0 2 13 0 116412 192 6393 708 19 297 100 0 0 40 0 1164After Pushover analysis hinges formation ineach stage of a building are calculated, also fromfig.5.3 and fig. 5.4 it is obvious that the demandcurve tend to intersect the capacity curve near theevent point, which means an elastic response andthe security margin is greatly enhanced. Therefore,it can be concluded that the margin safety againstcollapse is high and there are sufficient strengthand displacement reserves.To improve the seismic performance ofexisting building, X-bracing systems is proposedand the analysis is carried out for existing buildingwith X-bracing system. The analysis results aredemonstrated with the help of figures and charts.Finally, the comparative study is carried out basedon different parameters such as lateraldisplacement, base shear.After running the analysis of building withdifferent bracing combinations, the pushover curveis obtained as shown in figure 5.5 to 5.8. Tablesalso obtain which gives the coordinates of eachstep of the pushover curve.Fig. 5.5 Pushover Curve of X-Braced Building inX direction02000400060008000100000 10 20 30 40 50BaseForce(KN)Displacement (mm)
  7. 7. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141510 | P a g eFig. 5.6 Pushover Curve of X-Braced Building inY directionFig. 5.7 Capacity Spectrum Curve of X-Braced Building in X directionFig. 5.8 Capacity Spectrum Curve of X-Braced Building in Y directionTable 5.3 Tabular data for pushover curve of X-braced building in X directionStepsDisplacement (mm)BaseForce(KN)A to B B toIOIO toLSLS toCPCP toCC toDD toEBeyond E Total0 0 0 1164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11641 1 4611 1162 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11642 2 7537 1030 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 11643 2 7761 966 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 11644 3 7951 943 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 11645 4 8096 924 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 11646 4 8113 915 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 11647 4 8172 910 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 11648 7 8284 908 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 11649 36 8933 891 83 0 185 0 5 0 0 116410 36 8470 887 87 0 179 0 0 11 0 1164Table 5.4 Tabular data for pushover curve of X-braced building in Y direction0500010000150002000025000300003500040000450000 20 40 60 80BaseForce(KN)Displacement (mm)
  8. 8. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141511 | P a g eStepsDisplacement (mm)BaseForce(KN)A to B B toIOIO toLSLS toCPCP toCC toDD toEBeyond E Total0 0 0 1164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11641 8 5646 1163 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11642 60 31370 994 8 138 24 0 0 0 0 11643 73 37814 991 23 0 133 0 17 0 0 11644 73 37298 989 25 0 123 0 0 27 0 11645 73 37573 986 27 0 115 0 8 28 0 11646 73 37279 981 33 0 114 0 0 36 0 1164After Pushover analysis of differentbraced systems building, hinges formation in eachstage of a building are calculated, from table 5.1 itcan been seen that total number of yielding occursin building without bracing in X direction at eventB, IO, LS, and E respectively is 742 while fromtable 5.3 it can be seen that total number ofyielding occurs in building with X-bracing, bracingin X direction is 277. Also from fig.5.7 it isobvious that the demand curve is not intersectingthe capacity curve which mean building is safeagainst collapse.From table 5.2 it can been seen that totalnumber of yielding occurs in building withoutbracing in Y direction at event B, IO, LS, and Erespectively is 456 while from table 5.4 it can beseen that total number of yielding occurs inbuilding with X-bracing in Y direction is 183. Alsofrom fig.5.8 it is obvious that the demand curvetend to intersect the capacity curve near the eventpoint, as the performance point is obtained in Ydirection is at very lateral stage as compared towithout braced building which means some sort ofan elastic response and the security margin is to beenhanced in Y direction.5.4 Plastic Hinges MechanismPlastic hinge formation for the withoutbraced building and building with different bracedsystems have been obtained at differentdisplacement levels. The hinging patterns areplotted in figures 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16. Fromfigure 5.13 it can be seen that the plastic hingesformation starts with beam ends and base columnsof lower stories, then propagates to upper storiesand continue with yielding of interior intermediatecolumns in the upper stories.Comparison of the figures 5.14, 5.15 and5.16 reveals that the patterns of plastic hingeformation for the different braced building are quitesimilar. But since yielding occurs at events B, IOand LS respectively, the amount of damage in thethree buildings will be limitedFig. 5.9 Hinges Pattern of Without BracedBuilding at Different Pushover StepsFig. 5.10 Hinges Pattern of X-Braced Building atDifferent Pushover StepsFrom figure 5.10 it can be seen that maximumplastic hinges are forming at the base storeybecause due to practical difficulty bracing cannotbe provided below the ground level. Though thebase force is increasing.5.5 Lateral Displacement:-
  9. 9. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141512 | P a g eThe graphs are plotted taking pushoversteps as the abscissa and displacement as ordinatefor different bracing systems.5.5.1 Comparison of displacement at variouspushover steps of without braced building andbuilding with different bracing system.The graphs for ISMC 250 are plotted in Xdirection as shown in fig. 5.17From fig. 5.17 it can be seen that lateraldisplacement in braced buildings with bracingsection ISMC 250 are reduced as compared to thewithout braced building in X direction.Fig. 5.11 Displacement of Floor at Various Stepsin X-DirectionThe displacement at last step at the topstorey reduces by 82.17, for X bracing in Xdirection.The graphs for ISMC 250 are plotted in Ydirection as shown in fig. 5.18Fig. 5.12 Displacement of Floor at Various Stepsin Y-DirectionThe displacement at last step at the topstorey reduces by 61.93% for X bracing in Ydirection.V. CONCLUSIONA. IntroductionFor buildings that needed to berehabilitated, it is easy to investigate the effect ofdifferent strengthening and retrofitting schemes. Byusing pushover analysis we can select the suitablestrengthening and retrofitting schemes by changingmember properties of weaker sections and carryingout the analysis again. For retrofitting pushoveranalysis provides better and economical solution ascompared to other methods. The results of presentstudy demonstrate that most of the plastic hingesare forming within beam element. In that case, wecan restrengthen the structure by providing X-bracing systems which provides an excellentmechanism for energy dissipation.ConclusionBased on analysis results following conclusion aredrawn1. The joints of the structure have displayedrapid degradation and the inter storeydeflections have increased rapidly in non-linear zone in structure without bracings.Severe damages have occurred at joints atlower floors whereas moderate damageshave been observed in the first and secondfloors. Minor damage has been observedat roof level.2. The behavior of properly detailedreinforced concrete frame building isadequate as indicated by the intersectionof the demand and capacity curves and thedistribution of hinges in the beams and thecolumns. Most of the hinges developed inthe beams and few in the columns.3. The results obtained in terms of demand,capacity and plastic hinges gave an insightinto the real behavior of structures.4. It is observed that inherent deficiencies inthe detailing of the beam-column jointsget reflected even after providing bracingsystems in Y-direction, though theperformance factors indicate significantimprovement. There is a need to evolvesuitable performance factors when thesystem shows a negative stiffness.5. The floor displacement is maximum forwithout braced building frame ascompared to X-braced building frame.REFERENCES[1] V.S.R. Pavan Kumar.Rayaprolu, P. PoluRaju, Incorporation of Various SeismicRetrofitting Techniques and Materials forRC Framed Building Using SAP2000,International Journal of Emerging trends in0501001502002500 4 8 12 16 20Displacement(mm)Pushover StepsDisplacement(mm)WithoutBracingDisplacement(mm) X-Bracing0501001502002500 4 8 12 16Displacement(mm)Pushover StepsDisplacement(mm) WithoutBracingDisplacement(mm) X-Bracing
  10. 10. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141513 | P a g eEngineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149 Issue 2,Vol.3 (April-2012)[2] Murty C.V.R. (2002). “Quantitativeapproach to seismic strengthening of RCframe buildings”, Seminar on seismicassessment and retrofitting of buildings atmumbai, 16thFeb 2002[3] W. Huang, L.A. Toranzo-Dianderas, A CaseStudy Of Performance-Based SeismicEvaluation And Retrofit Of An ExistingHospital Building In California, U.S, The14thWorld Conference on EarthquakeEngineering October12-17, 2008, Beijing,China.[4] Giuseppe Oliveto and Massimo Marletta,Seismic Retrofitting Of Reinforced ConcreteBuildings Using Traditional And InnovativeTechniques, ISET Journal of EarthquakeTechnology, Paper No. 454, Vol. 42, No. 2-3, June-September 2005, pp. 21-46[5] Ghobarah, Rehabilitation of a ReinforcedConcrete Frame Using Eccentric SteelBracing, Engineering Structures Volume. 23Pages 745–755, 2001.[6] Keiji Kitajima, Hideaki Chikui, HideakiAgeta and Hajime Yokouchi, Application ToResponse Control Retrofit Method ByMeans Of External Damping Braces UsingFriction Dampers, 13th World Conferenceon Earthquake Engineering Vancouver,B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No.2112[7] Mitsukazu Nakanishi and Hiromi Adachi,Pseudo-Dynamic Test On An Existing R/CSchool Building Retrofitted With FrictionDampers, 13th World Conference onEarthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C.,Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 2112[8] N. Lakshmanan, Seismic Evaluation AndRetrofitting Of Buildings And Structures,ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology,Paper No. 469, Vol. 43, No. 1-2, March-June 2006, pp. 31-48[9] CERONI. Francesca, MANFREDI Gaetano,Maria Rosaria PECCE. A formulation ofplastic hinge length in R.C. Columns.Department of Engineering, University ofSannio. Department of Analysis andStructural Design, University of NaplesFederico II. 17 May 2007.[10] X.-K. Zou, C.-M. Chan. Optimal seismicperformance-based design of reinforcedconcrete buildings using nonlinear pushoveranalysis. Department of Civil Engineering,Hong Kong University of Science andTechnology, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.May 2005.[11] Cosenza, E., Greco, C., Manfredi, G. Anequivalent steel index in the assessment ofthe ductility performances of thereinforcement. Ductility-Reinforcement,Comitè Euro- International du Béton,Bulletin N°242: 157-170, 1998.[12] A. Shuraim, A. Charif. Performance ofpushover procedure in evaluating theseismic adequacy of reinforced concreteframes. King Saud Universityashuraim@gmail.com.(2007)[13] Collins K. R. (1995). “A reliability baseddual level seismic design procedure forbuilding structures”, Earthquake spectra,Vol. 11 No. 3, August.[14] Sermin Oguz. A thesis on “EVALUATIONOF PUSHOVER ANALYSISPROCEDURES FOR FRAMESTRUCTURES‖ , April, 2005.[15] Fib Bulletin of TG7.2 (in press).Displacement-based design and assessment,(2003).[16] ATC (1996). Seismic Evaluation andRetrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volume 1,ATC – 40 Report, Applied TechnologyCouncil, Redwood City, California.[17] FEMA (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for theSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,Developed by the Building Seismic SafetyCouncil for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (Report No. FEMA273), Washington, D.C)[18] IS: 1893 (Part1): 2002. “Criteria forearthquake resistant design of structure“Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.[19] IS: 456 (2000) “Indian standard code ofpractice for plain reinforced concrete“Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.[20] P. Poluraju, Pushover Analysis OfReinforced Concrete Frame Structure UsingSAP 2000, International Journal of EarthSciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904,Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp.684-690[21] Egor Popov, Seismic Steel Framing Systemsfor Tall Buildings, Sino-AmericanSymposium on Bridge and StructuralEngineering, Volume. 17 (3), Sept. 1982.[22] A. Kadid∗ and A. Boumrkik, “PUSHOVERANALYSIS OF REINFORCEDCONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURE”,Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering(Building And Housing) Vol. 9, NO. 1PAGES 75-83 (2008)[23] Priestley, M. J. N. & Park, R. “Strength andDuctility of Concrete Bridge ColumnsUnder Seismic Loading”’. ACI StructuralJournal, Technical paper, Title n° 84-S8,79(1), pp. 61-76, January-February, 1987.
  11. 11. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1504-15141514 | P a g e[24] Rohit Bansal. A thesis on “PUSHOVERANALYSIS OF REINFORCEDCONCRETE FRAME”, July, 2011.[25] Michael Fardis. (April 2005) “SeismicPerformance Assessment and Rehabilitationof Existing Buildings”. Proceedings ofInternational workshop at EuropeanLaboratory for Structural Assessment(ELSA) I-21020 Ispra – Italy[26] S. S. Vidhale. “SEISMIC RESPONSE OFSTEEL BUILDING WITH LINEARBRACING SYSTEM (A SoftwareApproach)”. International Journal ofElectronics, Communication & SoftComputing Science and Engineering ISSN:2277-9477, Volume 2.[27] Pankaj Agrawal, Manish Shrikhande.“Earthquake Resistant Design ofStructures”.2006 PHI Learning PrivateLimited, New Delhi.[28] www.mosttutorials.blogspot.com[29] www.slideserve.com/delling/analysis-and-design-of-rc-buildings-using-sap-2000.