Seismic Performance Evaluation

1560 Words7 Pages
Seismic performance evaluation of setback buildings using nonlinear static and dynamic methods
Shibajee Sutar1, Lipika Halder2* Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Agartala, India, 799046 2*Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Agartala, India, 799046 Abstract: Three ten-storey reinforced concrete framed buildings comprising of one regular in elevation and two setbacks at different level are considered in this study to address the seismic response of vertically irregular buildings. Both inelastic static and dynamic analysis are performed considering three different load patterns and an ensemble of 4
…show more content…
2. The performance point IO, LS, CP along with median value of nonlinear dynamic analysis at MCE and DBE level are shown in the curve. The trend in the capacity curve is similar for all the buildings. The figure shows that higher stiffness and base shear capacity is yielded from uniform load pattern as compared with triangular and IS code load pattern. However, for any base shear, the displacement due to uniform lateral load pattern is minimum where as IS code load produce maximum displacement. From the figure it could also be inferred that the inelastic time history median results for 0.36 g nearly match the pushover curve obtained from the IS code lateral load pattern in both X and Y…show more content…
4. The figure shows that interstorey drift ratio of all the three building frames resulting from pushover analysis have large values at the bottom and middle stories and smaller value in the upper stories, which indicate the susceptibility of bottom and middle stories. From the three different load patterns, uniform load pattern shows smaller values and IS load pattern shows large values of interstorey drift ratio for all the building. However, interstorey drift ratio at of all the three building satisfies the requirement of LS performance level i.e. limiting drift of 2% as suggested in ATC-40 [8]. It also seems that, comparing the results of inelastic analysis, pushover analysis overestimates the interstorey drift at the bottom level and underestimates at the top. The interstorey ratio obtained from nonlinear time history analysis is less than ATC-40 [8] global limit of IO of

More about Seismic Performance Evaluation

Open Document