Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of RC Buildings Designed as per Indian Seismic Codes: A Study on Frames with Vertical Geometric Irregularity

  • N. K. Manjula
  • Praveen Nagarajan
  • T. M. Madhavan Pillai
Original Contribution
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Analyses on RC frames designed as per the Indian standards (IS 1893:2002 and IS 13920:1993 (2008)) and draft proposal (IITK-GSDMA EQ 11 v 4.0, 2008) are done in this paper. Based on the results, certain provisions in the latest codes (IS 1893:2016 and IS 13920:2016) are reviewed. The study is focused on frames with vertical geometric irregularity. However, analyses of regular frames are also done to make certain comparisons. The necessity of strengthening/retrofitting for the buildings located in places whose seismic zones are revised as per IS 1893:2002 is also examined. Regular structures are found to sustain the earthquake events with sufficient safety. The design of regular frames can be made more economic by reducing their design base shear. The column/beam moment-capacity ratio (M.R.) in IS 13920:2016 is found uneconomical for regular frames. Improvements to the design of irregular frames can be made by reducing their response reduction (R) factors and following the M.R. value of 1.4 adopted in the recent code (13920:2016).

Keywords

Indian Standard Seismic codes Design base shear Vertically irregular frames Strong column–weak beam action Ductile detailing Performance levels 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India for Funding this project.

References

  1. 1.
    Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS 1893 Part 1, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS 13920:1993, Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces—Code of Practice (Reaffirmed 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N.R. Chandak, Response spectrum analysis of RC buildings. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 93(2), 121–128 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-012-0012-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Singh, V.N. Khose, D.H. Lang, A comparative study of code provisions for ductile RC frame buildings, in Proceedings of the 15 WCEE, LISBOA (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Prakash, Whither performance-based engineering in India? ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 41(1), 201–222 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MdS Bari, T. Das, A comparative study of seismic analysis of Bangladesh National Building code (BNBC) with other Building codes. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 94(3), 131–137 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-014-0053-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.K. Jain, Review of Indian Seismic Code IS1893 (Part 1): 2002, Indian Concr. J. 77, 1414–1422 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Haldar, Y. Singh, Seismic performance and vulnerability of Indian code designed RC frame buildings. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 46(1), 29–45 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.M. Rizwan, Y. Singh, Effect of strength eccentricity on torsional behaviour of RC frame building. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 93(1), 15–26 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-012-0004-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.V. Itti, A. Pathade, R.B. Karadi, A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and International Building Codes for RC buildings, www.sefiindia.org. Accessed on 25 April 2014
  11. 11.
    Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS 13920:2016, Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS 1893 Part 1, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, Plain and Reinforced Concrete (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.K. Jain, C.V.R Murthy, Proposed draft provisions and commentary on ductile detailing of RC structures subjected to seismic forces, in IITK GSDMA EQ 11 v 4.0, Final Report A—Earthquake Codes, IITK GSDMA Project on Building Codes (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    SAP 2000 NL, V 14.0 (Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, 2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    STAAD Pro—Bentley Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.J. Shah, S.K. Jain, Design Example of a Six-Storey Building, Document No. IITK-GSDMA-EQ 26-V3.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T.L. Karavasilis, N. Bazeos, D.E. Beskos, Seismic response of plane steel MRF with setbacks: estimation of inelastic deformation demands. J. Constr. Steel Res. 64, 644–654 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Sarkar, A.M. Prasad, D. Menon, Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building frames. Eng. Struct. 32, 2175–2182 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. MacRae, B. Deam, Building Regularity for Simplified Modelling, EQC Project No. 06/514, University of Canterbury, New Zealand (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G.H. Powell, Performance Based Design using Nonlinear Analysis. Seminar Notes (Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, 2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Inel, H.B. Ozmen, Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng. Struct. 28, 1494–1502 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Formisano, G. De Matteis, F.M. Mazzolani, Numerical and experimental behaviour of a full-scale RC structure upgraded with steel and aluminium shear panels. Comput. Struct. 88, 1348–1360 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    http://www.peer.berkeley.edu/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2014
  27. 27.
    European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, BS EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8 Part-1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.V.R. Murthy, Earthquake Tip-4, Learning Earthquake Design and Construction (IIT Kanpur, BMTPC, New Delhi, 2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. De Matteis, A. Formisano, F.M. Mazzolani, An innovative methodology for seismic retrofitting of existing RC buildings by metal shear panels. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38, 61–78 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    New Zealand Standard-Concrete Structures Standard, Part 1 The Design of Concrete Structures, Incorporating amendments 1 and 2, NZS 3101-Part 1: 2006 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ACI Committee 352, 352R-02: Recommendation for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    E.D. Booth, D. Key, Earthquake Design Practice for Buildings, 2nd edn. (Thomas Telford, London, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. K. Manjula
    • 1
  • Praveen Nagarajan
    • 1
  • T. M. Madhavan Pillai
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentNational Institute of TechnologyCalicutIndia

Personalised recommendations