CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1General:

In developing cities increase population in the city and there are not sufficient spaces
provided by large number of buildings to accommodate the increasing population. High-rise
buildings address this challenge as one of the solutions for the developing countries and mega
cities. In addition, high-rise buildings give aesthetic to cities and they are signs of modern
development. Comparatively, lower high-rise buildings (approximately 8~20 stories) are more
common than super high-rise buildings (usually more than 30 stories) over the worlds. It is
important to know structural behaviour of both buildings including their seismic
performances. High-rise buildings exhibit far more complex dynamic properties that require
careful study and a complete understanding before they can be confidently resided in. In this
study the development fragility functions for Reinforced Concrete (RC) building is presented.
Fragility functions provide probability of exceeding a prescribed level of damage for wide
range ground motion intensities. Vulnerability analysis can be carried out for buildings,
essential facilities, lifelines etc. Fragility functions (or curves) are extremely important for
estimating the overall risk to the civil infrastructure from potential earthquakes and for
predicting the economic impact of future earthquakes. They can also be very useful for
emergency response and disaster planning by a national authority, as well as insurance
companies that wish to estimate the overall loss after a scenario earthquake. Furthermore,
fragility functions can be used to design retrofitting schemes by carrying out cost/benefit
studies for different types of structural intervention schemes. Seismic vulnerability and
effectiveness of strengthening techniques different types of structure (e.g., bridges, buildings
etc.) are usually investigated via seismic probabilistic analysis through development of
fragility curves. As a short definition, seismic fragility gives probability a structure or
structural component reach or exceeds specific level of damage during earthquakes of certain
intensity. Therefore, fragility curves may be used to make probabilistic estimates of different
damages during ground motion.
1.2 Fragility Curve: Former to an earthquake, vulnerability evaluations of buildings are
normally carried out for judging the requirement for strengthening vital facilities and

1
buildings against later earthquakes. The best way to accomplish such assessments is Fragility
curves. Fragility curves epitomise the conditional probability that a response of a particular
structure may exceed the performance limit at a given ground motion intensity. These curves
are valuable tools for the valuation of probability of structural damage due to earthquakes as a
function of ground motion indices otherwise design parameters. Fragility curves show the
probability of failure verse us peak ground acceleration. Fig 1.1 shows a typical fragility
curve with peak ground acceleration (PGA) along the x-axis and probability of failure along
y-axis. A point in the curve represents the probability of exceed of the damage parameter,
which can be lateral drift, storey drift, base shear etc., over the limiting value mentioned, at a
given ground motion intensity parameter.

Fig 1.1.1 Fragility curve

For a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of say x, the fragility curve gives the corresponding
probability of exceed of limiting damage parameter as p %. It can be interpreted as if 100
earthquakes of peak ground acceleration (PGA) x occur, p times the damage parameter will
exceed the limiting value for which the fragility curve is plotted. Fragility curves for different
limiting values for damage parameter. The intensity measure here is the spectral displacement
of the earthquake. As the limiting value increases the curve shifts towards right and becomes
more flat. From the figure it can be seen that at weak shaking the probability of increase in the
limit state corresponding to slight damage is high. For strong earthquakes probability of
exceed is 100% for the first curve, which means slight damage is sure, moderate and
extensive damages are likely to occur. But probability that complete damage will occur is
low. Regions of various damage states such as slight, moderate, Extensive and complete

2
damages are marked between each fragility curves. With the severity of damage, the
parameter defining the limit state of damage increases, and the exceeded probability
decreases. For an earthquake with spectral intensity corresponding to weak shaking, the
exceeded probability for the slight damage is quite high and the levels defined by higher
damage states such as moderate, Extensive, complete are very negligible. Whereas if there is
an earthquake of strong intensity the building is more likely to be crossed the damage states of
slight and moderate. The exceeded probability for the extensive damage state is more than
that of complete damage state.

Fig 1.1.2

1.3Shear wall

Shear wall is a vertical structural element used to resist the horizontal forces such as wind
force, seismic force. These forces act parallel to the plane of the wall. Shear walls are
generally used in high rise buildings where effect of wind forces and seismic forces is more.

1.4Types of Shear Walls

Based on type of material used, shear walls are classified into following types.

1. Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

2. Concrete Block Shear Wall
3. Steel Shear Wall
4. Plywood Shear Wall
5. Mid-Ply Shear Wall
3
1.4.1 Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
Reinforced concrete shear walls are widely used shear walls for residential buildings. The
reinforcement is provided in both horizontal and vertical directions. But at the end of each
wall, bars are closely spaced and anchored. So, the end zone of RC shear wall is called as
boundary elements or barbells. The wall thickness of RC shear wall is varied depending upon
many factors like thermal insulation requirements of building, age of building, number of
floors of building etc. It varies from 140 mm to 500 mm. In general, the provision of shear
wall is continuous throughout the height of building. But sometimes it is discontinued where
there is a building entrance or parking space etc.

Fig 1.2.1 Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

1.4.2 Concrete Block Shear Wall

Concrete block shear walls are constructed using Hollow concrete blocks along with Steel
reinforcement bars. Reinforcement is generally used to maximize the effect of concrete block
masonry against seismic loads. The Reinforcement bars are arranged through spaces of
concrete blocks in both vertical and horizontal directions. After placing bars in concrete block
masonry, fresh concrete grout is poured into the hollow space and is allowed to set. This type
of walls can take both gravity loads and lateral loads. So, they can work like shear wall as
well as load bearing wall.

4
 Fig 1.2.2 Concrete Block Shear Wall

1.4.3 Steel Shear Wall

Steel shear wall consists of a steel plate wall, boundary column and horizontal floor beam.
The action of steel shear wall is more like a plate girder. Steel plate wall acts as web of plate
girder, boundary columns acts as flanges and horizontal beams acts as stiffeners of plate
girder.

Fig 1.2.3 Steel Shear Wall

5
1.4.4 Plywood Shear Wall
Plywood shear walls are traditional type walls which are also called as timber shear walls. It
consists of plywood sheets and studs. Plywood sheets transfer shear force while studs resists
the tension or compression. Now a day’s plywood shear walls are redesigned using new
technical advancements. Steel sheets, sure boards etc. are using in place of plywood.

Fig 1.2.4 Plywood Shear Wall

1.4.5 Mid-Ply Shear Wall

Mid-ply shear wall is an improved version of normal plywood shear wall. In this case, extra
plywood sheet is arranged at the centre of normal plywood wall and series of pairs of studs
are positioned on the both sides of mid-ply. Studs joint the mid-ply with outer plywood
sheets. Here, Studs are rotated to 90 o relative to those is plywood shear walls.
The mid-ply shear wall eliminates the problems caused in standard shear walls and lateral
load carrying capacity is higher for mid-ply shear walls.

Fig 1.2.5 Mid-Ply Shear Wall

6
1.5Efficiency of Shear Walls
Efficiency of a shear wall is purely depends upon its rigidity or its stiffness. A solid shear wall
is more efficient than a shear wall with openings. But sometimes it is not possible to construct
a shear wall without openings such as openings for doors, windows etc.

Fig 1.2.6 Shear Walls – Solid, with Openings, Coupled

In case of openings to improve the efficiency of shear wall, connect the piers of shear walls
by spandrels. Pier is nothing but the portion of shear wall between two openings and spandrel
is the portion of shear wall above the opening. The resulting wall appeared by interconnecting
spandrels of piers of shear walls is known as coupled shear wall. Provision of openings in
balanced pattern can also make the shear wall efficient. In flanged shear walls, the walls will
meet at right angles to each other. This type of shear walls is less efficient since they are
affected by seismic forces in both principal directions of the building.

Fig 1.2.7 Flanged Shear Walls

7
 CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General:

A brief review of previous studies on the fragility curve is presented in this section. This
literature review focuses on recent contribution related to analysis of the fragility curve of RC
structures.

2.2 Literature Review:

Tanvir Manzur, et.al.[7], 2006 This study describes the methods by which it is possible to
determine the vulnerability of existing engineering structures and building stock. The tool that
is employed to assess the seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structures is the
fragility curve. By definition, fragility curves provide estimates for the probabilities of
reaching or exceeding various limit states at given levels of ground shaking intensity for an
individual structure or population of structures (MAE Report, 2003). A limit state; which is in
the same terms as the response, usually represents a damage condition or a limitation of
usage. The primary focus of this paper is to present a proper methodology that can be
followed to construct fragility curves for R.C.C frame structures in Bangladesh and to
generate fragility curves for some specific type of RCC frame structures using this
methodology.
I. Zentner, et.al. [5] 2008. In nuclear engineering practice, fragility curves are often
determined by means of margin factors, using the scaling method this approach allows for
determining fragility curves in a very convenient way but makes strong simplifying
hypothesis. This is why it can be interesting to directly propagate uncertainties by means of
Monte Carlo simulation. In this paper, we will discuss statistical estimation of the parameters
of fragility curves and present results obtained for a reactor coolant system of nuclear power
plant.

Marco Vona, et.al.[11], 2014 In seismic risk mitigation policies, fragility functions of existing
buildings play a fundamental role. In this paper, a procedure to develop analytical fragility
curves for Moment Resisting Frame Reinforced Concrete buildings is presented. The design
of the selected building typologies was performed according to the codes at the time of
8
construction using force-based methods and the state of the practice at the time of
construction. A total of 216 building classes were defined, considering different ages, number
of storeys, infill panels, plan dimensions, beam stiffness, and concrete strength. The
investigated buildings can be considered low-engineered buildings, using no seismic codes or
old seismic codes. The seismic capacity of the selected models representing the existing RC
buildings has been evaluated through non-linear dynamic simulations. Seismic response has
been analyzed, considering various peak and integral intensity measures and various response
parameters, such as ductility demands and Interstate Drift Ratio (IDR). A new relationship
among structural performance, damage levels and interstate drift ratios for each studied type
is introduced, which is calibrated using the damage levels described in EMS98. It is important
to highlight that in this study, different thresholds of IDR have been associated with different
typologies, considering their different ductility member levels after their different structural
responses. Fragility Curves (FCs) for the studied structural types are set up, developed and
discussed.
Suraj V. Borele, et.al.[6], 2015 The damage to the buildings during recent earthquakes in
India has demonstrated the need of seismic risk assessment of the building that is capable of
predicting the probability of damage of the building. This paper focuses on the generation of
fragility curve which is the graphical representation of the seismic risk of a
structure. For the development of fragility curve guidelines given by HAZUS technical
manual have been used. For the study, RC building models with bare frame and infilled frame
are considered. The infill wall is modelled as an equivalent diagonal strut in which width of
the struts for each infill panel is evaluated by using the guidelines given
in FEMA 356.The RC buildings modelled in SAP-2000 considering IS 456:2000 and IS
1893(Part 1):2002 by using M 25 concrete and Fe 415 reinforcement steel. The structure was
designed for only gravity load. Non-linear analysis of the building models have been done by
using pushover analysis. The results of the capacity curve were used to plot the fragility
curve. The fragility curves developed from this study were used to compare the seismic
performance of the building models.
Tiziana Rossetto, et.al.[2], 2016 This paper presents a new approach for the derivation of
fragility curves, named Fragility through Capacity spectrum Assessment (FRACAS).
FRACAS adapts the capacity spectrum assessment method and uses inelastic response spectra
derived from earthquake ground motion acceleration to construct fragility curves. Following a

9
description of the FRACAS approach, the paper compares the predicted maximum inter story
drift (MIDR) response obtained from FRACAS and nonlinear time history analyses (NLTHA)
for two case-study buildings subjected to 150 natural acceleration. FRACAS is seen to
represent well the response of both case-study structures when compared to NLTHA.
Observations are made as to the sensitivity of the derived fragility curves to assumptions in
the capacity spectrum assessment and fragility curve statistical model fitting. The paper also
demonstrates the ability of FRACAS to capture inelastic record-to-record variability and to
properly translate this into the resulting fragility curves.
Sumit.A.Patel , et.al.[3], 2016. In general the most suitable choice in improvement of high-
rise building structure against lateral loading is used steel bracing system. The use of steel
bracing was potential advantage over other scheme like higher strength and stiffness,
economical, occupies less space, add much less weight to existing structure. The use of steel
bracing systems for strengthening seismically inadequate high-rise building was a viable
solution for enhancing earthquake resistance. Almost all the software like ETABS linear or
non-linear static analysis presented by RC structure. Main parameters consider fragility
curves etc. It was found that all bracing system the lateral displacement of building very
effectively. The fragility curves developed in terms of PGA for Limit state: slight, Moderate,
major and collapse in lognormal distribution. The aim of study is development of analytical
fragility curves for High-Rise Building structure. Exact analysis using ETABS software
(ETBS’09, a 30 days trial version 2015) is carried out for G+9, G+14, and G+ 19 building
using X-bracing, V-bracing fragility analysis of high-rise structure.
Vazurkar U. Y. , et.al.[8], 2016 The damage to the buildings during recent earthquakes has
demonstrated the need of seismic evaluation which is used to predict the probability of
damage to the building. This paper describes the vulnerability assessment of reinforced
concrete buildings using fragility curves. Fragility curves are used to describe the probability
of damage being exceeded a particular damage state. For the development of fragility curves,
guidelines given by HAZUS technical manual have been used. For the analysis, the RC
buildings were modelled in SAP2000 v14. Non-linear static analysis procedure is used for the
analysis of RC buildings. The pushover analysis is carried out as per the ATC40 guidelines.
Capacity curve is generated as a result of pushover analysis. Results from pushover analysis
are used for plotting fragility curves. The Fragility Curves are plotted considering Spectral
Displacement as a ground motion parameter. Various damages states’ are used to describe the

10
damage level of the building given in HAZUS technical manual. Finally, using constructed
fragility curves the spectral displacement values that satisfy the ‘slight’, ‘moderate’,
‘extensive’, ‘complete’ performance level
Requirements were estimated. The fragility curves developed from the analysis were used to
study the seismic performance of building models.
Vinay T V, et.al.[10], 2017 Earthquakes are the most destructive and divesting calamities
among all the natural disasters since they cause injuries and as well as economic losses. In the
present study highlights a very simplified procedure of Non Linear Static Analysis which is
nothing but Non Linear Static Pushover Analysis of RC frame structures. In this study by
treating uncertainty in strength as a parameter the seismic risk evaluation of RC building has
been carried using SAP 2000 version 18 and for the modelling Menders model and Kent and
Park model are considered. From the obtained pushover curve the comparison of results of
analytical and experimental are carried. The performance level of the structure has been
defined. The seismic fragility curves and damage state thresholds are established. Also the
comparison of results of Mender model and Kent and Park model is done.
Wasekar S. B. , et.al.[12], 2017 The damage to the buildings during recent earthquakes has
demonstrated the need of seismic evaluation which is used to predict the probability of
damage to the building. This paper describes the vulnerability assessment of reinforced
concrete buildings using fragility curves. Fragility curves are used to describe the probability
of being exceeding a particular damage state. For the development of fragility curves,
guidelines given by Cornell (2002) have been used. For the analysis, the RC buildings were
modelled in ETABS 2015. Non-linear dynamic analysis procedure is used for the analysis of
RC buildings. Models of buildings designed are developed in ETABS Software for nonlinear
dynamics analysis on which a set of twenty natural time histories is applied. In the present
study, Fragility Curves are generated for each building, by developing a Probabilistic Seismic
Demand Model (PSDM). The time history analysis is carried out as per the FEMA P-58
guidelines. Results from time history analysis were used for plotting fragility curves.
Vulnerability curve is generated as a result of time history analysis. The Fragility Curves are
plotted considering Peak Ground Acceleration as a ground motion parameter. The
performance of each building is studied using the Fragility Analysis method introduced by
Cornell (2002). Finally, using constructed fragility curves various performance level

11
requirements were estimated. The fragility and vulnerability curves developed from the
analysis were used to study the seismic performance of building model

Do-Soo Moon, et.al.[1], 2018, Because significant damages to structures having structural
irregularity in their plans were repeatedly observed during many past earthquakes, there have
been great research efforts to evaluate their seismic vulnerability. Although most of the
previous studies used simplified structural representations such as one-dimensional or two-
dimensional models in the fragility analysis of plan-irregular structures simple analytical
models could not represent true seismic behaviour from the complicated nonlinear coupling
between lateral and torsion responses as the degree of irregularity increased. For space
structures with high irregularity, more realistic representations such as three dimensional
models are needed for proper seismic assessment. However, the use of computationally
expensive models is not practically feasible with existing approaches of fragility analysis.
Thus, in this study, a different approach is adopted that can produce vulnerability curves
efficiently, even with a three-dimensional model. In this approach, an integrated
computational framework is established that combines reliability analysis and structural
analysis. This enables evaluation of the limit-state faction without constructing its explicit
formula, and the failure probability is calculated with the first-order reliability method
(FORM) to deal with the computational challenge. Under the integrated framework, this study
investigates the seismic vulnerability of space reinforced concrete frame structures with
varying plan irregularity Material uncertainty is considered, and more representative seismic
fragility curves are derived with their three-dimensional analytical models. The effectiveness
of the adopted approach is discussed, and the significant effect of structural irregularity on
seismic vulnerability is highlighted.

Tanvi Apte1, et.al.[9], 2018 The uncertain nature of future ground motions is leading to the
development of probabilistic structural damage estimation procedures. The fragility curve
method is a useful method for estimating the structural damage for certain type of structure
under the effect of potential earthquakes. Earthquake response analysis is basically done
either by non-linear static procedure or non-linear dynamic procedure. Non-linear static
procedure may or may not be based on record to record variability, however non-linear
dynamic procedure are based on record to record variability. Based on structural response

12
results the two parameters mean and standard deviation are obtained for development of
fragility curve.

A. Bakhshi, et.al.[4], 2019 The objective of this study is to develop analytical fragility curves
for an ensemble of existing 3- to 6-story residential steel buildings with concentrically braced
frames in 2 directions, designed during 2010 to 2015 in Qazvin, Iran. The buildings were
modelled three-dimensionally in Open Sees considering braces buckling behaviour.
Maximum Inter-story Drift Ratio (MIDR) and spectral acceleration at fundamental period of
the structure with 5% viscous damping (Sa(T1; 5%)) were considered as Damage Index (DI)
and Intensity Measure (IM), respectively. Limit states were specie as discussed in FEMA 356.
Ground motion record selection and uncertainties assessment were carried out based on
FEMA P695 methodology. Analysis was performed using truncated Incremental Dynamic
Analysis (IDA). Fragility function was dinned as a log-normal Cumulative Distribution
Function (CDF) and maximum likelihood method was used to estimate fragility parameters.
According to the fragility curves obtained, seismic vulnerability of the structures generally
increased as the number of stories rose. Concentration of the inelasticity was also found to be
mainly at the first story level. The results also corned the fact that the record to record
variability is the main source of uncertainty in structural probabilistic evaluation.

2.3 Gap in earlier studies:

Future scope of studies can be summarized as follows:
 The comparative data of analytical fragility curve with respect to experimental curves
based on real life earthquake is very less so further study is required
 More study work can be done on fragility curve obtained by different location of shear
wall so further study can be done.

2.4 Aim of work:

Based on the future scope of work following aim can be established:
 To study the different type of fragility curve obtained from different locations of shear
wall.
 Comparison of fragility curves with and without shear wall at different location

13
 CHAPTER 3

WORK METHODOLOGY

3.1 General:

The work methodology can be briefly divided into the following:

Problem Formulation

Description of Building

Methods of Analysis

Structural Modelling

Analysis of Models (Using E-Tab software)

Results and discussion

Conclusion and Future Scope

14
3.2 Problem Formulation:
RCC building normal and with Shear wall at different location G+29 storeys was analysed to
resist the gravity loads and earthquake loads using ETABS. Seismic parameters such as storey
drift, storey displacement, base shear and fundamental time period and fragility curve were
computed in the analysis phase using ETABS. The result obtained from the analysis was
compared among all.

The pushover analysis was used which was most suited to the present problem and was used
in the analysis and conclusions were made on the basis of analysis performed. This is the
summary of the work methodology adopted in achieving the target objectives defined.

3.3 Description of Building:

Table-1

1 Building type Residential building

2 No. of storeys G+29
3 Storey height 3m
4 Total height 87m
5 Floor height 3m
6 Column 600 x 600
7 Beam 300 x 450
8 Thickness of slab 150mm
9 Seismic zone III
10 Importance factor 1
11 Response reduction factor 5
12 Soil type Medium
13 Grade of concrete M25
14 Live load 3KN/ m2 (As per IS 875 part -2)
15 Total Dead load Self wt. of structure
16 IS Code for concrete IS 456:2000
17 IS Code for earthquake IS 1893:2016 (part I)
18 Floor finish load 1 KN/ m2
19 Grade of steel Fe415

15
3.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS AS PER IS1893: 2016 PART 1

1. 1.5 (DL + IL)

2. 1.2[DL + IL ± (ELx ± 0.3 ELy)]&

1.2[DL+IL ± (ELy ± 0.3 ELx)]

3. 1.5[DL ± (ELx ± 0.3 ELy)]&

1.5[DL ± (ELy ± 0.3 ELx)]

4. 0.9 DL ± 1.5 (ELx ± 0.3 ELy)&

0.9 DL ± 1.5 (ELy ± 0.3 ELx)

Where,

DL = Dead load

IL = Imposed load

ELx = Earthquake load in X-direction

ELy = Earthquake load in Y-direction

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS:

Methods of analysis

Linear Analysis Non-linear Analysis

“ Static Analysis” “ ” “ Static Analysis

Dynamic Analysis ” “ ”
Dynamic Analysis

“ Equivalent Static Method”

“ Response Spectrum “ Time History “ Pushover “ Time History

Method” Analysis” Analysis” Analysis”

16
Following methods are used in the seismic Analysis:

3.5.1 Equivalent Static Analysis:

In this method there is computation of design base shear, and then the distribution is with the
height of the structure which is totally based on formula which is taken out for the structure
with the normal distribution of mass and stiffness. According to the code IS 1893 (part
I):2016 there are following points for evaluating the forced by the method known by
equivalent static method.

The total design base shear in any main direction can be determined and evaluated with the
help of formula which is given below

• Time Period (Clause 7.6.2 of IS 1893 Part I: 2016)

Ta =0.075h0.75 (for RC MRF Building)

Ta =0.080h0.75 (for RC-steel composite MRF Building)

Where h is height of building (in m)

• Design horizontal seismic Coefficient

𝒁 𝑺
(𝟐)( 𝒈𝒂 )
Ah = 𝑹 (Clause 6.4.2 of IS 1893 Part I: 2016)
(𝑰)

Where,

R = the response reduction factor,

Z = the zone factor,

I = the importance factor,

Sa/g = design acceleration coefficient for different soil types corresponding to natural Period
(Ta) of structure.

• Base shear The total design lateral force or design base shear along any principal direct
shall be determined by the following expression,

17
Vb = Ah x W (Clause 7.6.1 of IS 1893 part I: 2016)

Where, Ah = Seismic coefficient for structure

W = Seismic weight of building

• Design lateral force

𝑾𝒊 𝒉𝟐𝒊
Qi =(∑𝒏 𝟐 )Vb(Clause7.6.3(a) of IS 1893 Part I:2016)
𝒋=𝟏 𝑾𝒋 𝒉𝒋

Where,

Qi= Design lateral force at floor 1

Wi= seismic weight of the floor 1

hi= height of the floor 1 from the base

n= number of storeys of the building at which masses are located.

3.5.2 Response Spectrum Analysis:

Response spectrum method is a method in which there is a plot of curves shown between the
maximum response of Single Degree Of Freedom system which is subjected to a specified
seismic or earthquake ground motion and with its time period (or frequency). Response
spectrum method is also illustrated that it is the locus of maximum response of a Single
Degree Of Freedom system for the given damping ratio. Response spectra method also
helpful in determining the maximum structural responses which is under the linear range, this
linear range helps for evaluating the lateral forces which occurred in the structure due to
seismic or earthquake thus providing in the earthquake-resistant design of structures. The
responseof a Single Degree Of Freedom system is examine by the domain analysis of
frequency and time, and also for the given period of time of a system, then the maximum
response is examined. Hence the all process is taken in consideration for the all range of
possible time periods of Single Degree Of Freedom system. There is final plot of time period
in X-axis and response quantity on Y-axis which gives the required response spectra which is
103 pertaining to a given damping ratio and the input ground motion. The above procedure is
continued with the different damping ratios for calculating the overall response spectra. The

18
multiple modes of response of a building is taken into consideration by the above continued
process (in the frequency domain). This type of above process is helpful in many of the
building codes which is simple or in complexity of the structures. The structural response can
be explained as it is the combination of many special modes in which a vibration in string is
related to the "harmonics". There is a analysis done by computer which can be used for
determination of modes of a building. For each and every mode, a responses which is readable
from the design spectrum, which is totally based on the frequency of modal and for the mass
of modal, and it is combined to give an evaluation of the all responses of the structure. There
is calculation of the force magnitude in X, Y and Z direction and then there is a determination
of effects on the building or structure.

3.5.3 Linear Dynamic Analysis:

In this analysis there is a Static procedure which is appropriate when the higher mode effects
are not significant. It is valid for the regular buildings. Hence, the dynamic procedure is taken
into consideration for the tall buildings with torsion irregularities, or non-orthogonal systems,
the building is modelled as a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system with a linear elastic
stiffness matrix and an equivalent viscous damping matrix for the linear dynamic procedure.
The seismic input is designed by using modal spectral analysis or time history analysis but
from the both cases we determined linear elastic analysis for internal forces and
displacements. There is merit of linear dynamic process with reference to linear static
procedures is that the higher modes can be taken into consideration. Therefore, linear dynamic
processes are depended on linear elastic response and hence there is aapplicability decreases
with the increment of nonlinear behaviour, which is determined by global force reduction
factors.

3.5.4 Non-Linear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis):

A pattern of applied forces to a structural model which exhibits the properties of non-linear
(such as steel yield), and there is a curve plotted against the total force with reference to
displacement for defining a curve of capacity. Then Capacity curve can be combined with a
demand curve which is basically in the form of an acceleration-displacement response
spectrum (ADRS). By which it reduces the problem for a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
system. It is a static, non-linear procedure using simplified nonlinear technique for seismic

19
structural deformations. Pushover Analysis is an incremental static analysis which is used to
examine the force-displacement relationship or the capacity curve for structures. This analysis
having the plot curve between the shear force and associated lateral displacement with
horizontal loads, plotting the curve at each increment, till the structure/model is fail or
collapse in the condition. Due to increment in intensity of lateral loads there is a result in the
cracks, yielding and plastic hinge formation and failure of various components. Pushover
analysis gives a merit steps into the weak points in the seismic performance of the structure.

3.5.5. Linear Time History Analysis Method:

A time history analysis is an analysis which reduces all the demerits of model response
spectrum analysis. There is mysterious merit of time history analysis is that it is the relative
sign of response quantities saved previously which are in the response histories. It is
important type of analysis when interaction effects are considered among stress resultants .

3.6 METHOD ADOPTED FOR ANALYSIS:

Pushover Analysis:

A pattern of applied forces to a structural model which exhibits the properties of non-linear
(such as steel yield), and there is a curve plotted against the total force with reference to
displacement for defining a curve of capacity. Then Capacity curve can be combined with a
demand curve which is basically in the form of an acceleration-displacement response
spectrum (ADRS). By which it reduces the problem for a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
system. It is a static, non-linear procedure using simplified nonlinear technique for seismic
structural deformations. Pushover Analysis is an incremental static analysis which is used to
examine the force-displacement relationship or the capacity curve for structures. This analysis
having the plot curve between the shear force and associated lateral displacement with
horizontal loads, plotting the curve at each increment, till the structure/model is fail or
collapse in the condition. Due to increment in intensity of lateral loads there is a result in the
cracks, yielding and plastic hinge formation and failure of various components. Pushover
analysis gives a merit steps into the weak points in the seismic performance of the structure.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29