Assessment of RC Residential Frames in Kathmandu Under

Earthquake Loading

S. Hada
Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Western Region Campus, IOE
Tribhuvan University, Nepal

P.A. Mendis
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT: This study presents a design assessment of typical moment resisting concrete frames
of low-rise residential buildings in Kathmandu under seismic load. A two bay, 5 storey frame was
used for analysis as it represents majority of the buildings. Inelastic time history analysis was carried
out by using Ruaumoko computer program. Various proportions of Elcentro earthquakes one of which
representing the design earthquake were used as ground acceleration. The assessment was made under
the basis of two important parameters: ductility and drift. The analysis was also carried out for the
frames of various heights to determine the maximum number of storeys that could safely be
constructed.
The frame was modelled by using experimental data to reflect the real behaviour during excitation.
The deformation behaviour of beam and columns were calibrated based on the experimental results
presented in literature.
It was found that the 5-storey frame was gravity load dominated and beam hinging was predominant in
selected proportions of Elcentro earthquake (25, 33, 50%). The member ductility demands were found
excessively higher than the capacities.
The assessment with the variation of storeys indicated that the frame structure is adequate only for the
construction of single storey buildings under design earthquake level. The ductility demands in all the
members in this structure were found to be within the capacity.

KEY WORDS: Earthquake resistance design, Assessment of frames, Time history analysis, Dynamic
Analysis of RC frames, Residential frames.

1 INTRODUCTION

Nepal lies within the Himalayan range between the Indian subcontinent and Eurasia. The convergence
between these has resulted in high levels of seismicity and tectonic deformation causing four major
earthquakes in the past 100 years. Teleseismic data also show that there is a clearly defined accurate
trend of moderate sized earthquakes in Nepal around the Himalayan arc. Most of the well-located
epicentres occur in a fairly narrow belt about 50km wide, between the MBT and the MCT lines (Beca
Worely et al., 1994) where Kathmandu city lies in (Fig.1).

In addition, Kathmandu is resting on sediments left behind by a lake similar to that of Turkey where a
catastrophic earthquake took thousands of people’s lives in 2000. Recent research carried out by
Sakai, a geologist at Department of Earth Sciences in Kyushu University, Japan has also reported that
the soil condition of Kathmandu is very weak (Sakai, 2000).

Nepal introduced an official building code in 1994. However, almost all the residential buildings both
in urban and rural areas are constructed without an engineer’s input. Kathmandu probably is the most
affected city with such constructions due to rapid urbanization. Though over 90% of the new
residential buildings there are constructed of reinforced concrete frames, their structural design part
often goes into the hands of contractors or even to masons without having sufficient technical
background. They usually adopt the same section and reinforcement in every construction project.
As researches have not been carried out so far to show the vulnerability of such sections, people have
been repeatedly using them. Studies have shown that the moment resisting concrete frames designed
only for gravity loads are capable of resisting substantial lateral load (Braci et al., 1995). However, the
resistance of these frames to a design earthquake in the country like Nepal is always questionable.
In this study, a 2-bay 5-storey RC building, representing a typical house in Kathmandu constructed
over a predominant plot size of 135 sqm. was chosen for analysis. This is the usual plot size for
residential construction in Kathmandu. The maximum height of the building is restricted to 13.7m and
the maximum possible storey is 5. In such constructions, the common transverse span of such building
frames is usually 3.73m. More details of these buildings are given in Fig 2.

The building structure was modelled as a two-dimensional frame and inelastic time history analysis
was carried out using Ruaumoko (Carr, 1988) program. The useful parameters like ductility and drift
demands were calculated and compared with the section capacities. The analysis was also carried out
for the frames with the same sections but varying the heights to determine the maximum number of
storeys the building can have to resist the design earthquake. As described later the design earthquake
is assumed to be equivalent to 33% of Elecentro earthquake.

China

Nepal

India

Figure 1. Source: Beca Worely et al. (1994)

2 DUCTILITY AND DRIFT

The concept of ductility and ductility factor was introduced in the U.S.A. for the first time in 1961
(Blume et al., 1961). Two different types of ductility factors are generally used in earthquake
resistance design: Displacement ductility factor and Curvature ductility factor.
The displacement ductility factor (µ∆) is defined as the ratio of the ultimate deformation at failure to
the yield deformation. This is commonly used for structures and also called the system ductility. The
maximum displacement can be taken at the top (with negligible error as the real situation is to take
maximum displacement at the point where resultant lateral force acts).

µ∆ = ∆u/∆y ……………………………………………………………..(1)

In structural members inelastic structural deformations are characterized by the rotation of potential
plastic hinges. The curvature ductility factor (µF ) is thus expressed by the ratio of the maximum
curvature expected to be attained or relied on and the yield curvature.

µF = F m/ F y y ………………………………………………….…….(2)

Priestley and Park (1987) have derived the relationship between the displacement ductility and
curvature ductility factor for a structure, which is reasonably modeled as a vertical cantilever of height
L with plastic hinge length Lp at its base such that

µ∆ = 1 + (3/C)(µF -1) Lp/L(1- 0.5 Lp/L) …………………(3)

Where C is a coefficient depending upon the flexibility of the foundation. For Lp/L= 0.1 and C =1,
µF corresponding to µ∆ = 4 is found to be 11.5. This implies that in general the required curvature
ductility is significantly higher than the corresponding displacement ductility. Moreover, sometimes
ductility factor does not give an indication of the actual ductility, as its value depends on the yield
displacement. Therefore, it is more correct to describe inelastic response in terms of both ductility
factor and maximum displacement (Kappos et al., 1997).

Another parameter for assessment of structures is to check the drift limit. Buildings under earthquakes
should not undergo beyond its set drift limits to avoid damage to non-structural elements. The
permissible drift is determined by type of building and is not the total drift but the maximum allowable
drift in a storey. For buildings housing essential facilities necessary for post earthquake recovery such
as hospitals and power facilities, the maximum allowable drift is taken as 1 percent and for all other
buildings it is 1.5 percent (Green, 1986). Also the drift has to be limited to control the P delta effects in
a structure.

3 STRUCTURAL DETAILS

The plan and elevation of the typical frame, and beam column section are shown in the Figs 2 and 3.
Other relevant data are presented below.
10100 74600

900
2700 25 Cover

4m x 3.5m 4m x 3.5m

4- Y12
13400 13500
Staircas2.1m
Staircase 2.1m
e PassagePassage

R6-230 c/c
4m x 3.5m 4m x 3.5m

1500
Figure 3
3730

Dimensions are in mm
Figure 2.

3.1 Data for analysis

The size of the plot: 10.10 m x 13.42m = 135.4 sqm.

Setbacks: Minimum 0.90 m in the sides where windows are not allowed
Minimum of 1.5 m in the sides where windows are allowed
Height of the building: Maximum 13.5 m, Floor height: 2.7m
Section details: As per section drawing.
Cement sand and concrete ratio: 1:2:4, Water cement ratio: Approximately: 0.3
Mode of mixing: Hand mix, Grade of the concrete: M15 (Test strength = 20 MPa)
Density of concrete: 25 kN/m 3, Density of brick: 19 kN/m 3
Live load on roof and floor: 1.5 kN/m 2 and 2 kN/m2
The other data as obtained from spreadsheet program,
Ultimate moment capacity of beam section: 17.2 kNm
Total load in the critical column: 493.6 kN, Corresponding bending moment: 28.4 kNm
It is to be noted that the data acquired were based on the observation and practical experience of the
author. The other calculations like capacity of beam and columns required for the input in Ruaumoko
program were obtained from the spreadsheet program developed in The University of Melbourne.
4 STRUCTURAL MODELING IN RUAUMOKO

The accuracy of the analytical result in non-linear analysis of RC members is based on a realistic
idealization of behavior of member states and estimation of stiffness, strength and damping
characteristics. (Hashish and Aktan, 1987). Many experiments are involved in estimation of such
characteristics. Researches in this regard have been taking place since three decades.

At present, there are various models available for modeling non-linear structures. The first model is
known as a point plastic hinge model. It assumes that the non-linearties are confined to member ends,
which are modeled as non-linear rotational springs. The model can be further divided into one
component and two-component models. In the one component model (Otani, 1972, Giberson, 1967),
the element span consists of an elastic element with one equivalent non-linear rotational spring
attached at each end. The inelastic behavior of a beam and beam-column member, in general, follows
the concept of the Giberson one-component model (Sharp, 1974). In the two-component model
(Mahin and Bertero, 1975), the element consists of an elastic component and an elasto plastic
component, which develops, in a plastic hinge at either end when the moment exceeds a specified
yield value. Sometimes the plastic hinge concept is found to be unconservative as it does not represent
the realistic behavior due to its property of constant yielding stiffness (Hashish and Aktan, 1987).

The second model is called the finite region model, which is assumed to rectify the problem associated
with the plastic hinge model by taking the finite size of the plastic regions into consideration. The
shortcoming of the finite plastic region model is that the flexural rigidities of the plastic hinge regions
are evaluated at the element ends and are assumed to remain constant throughout the length of the
plastic zone. However this model is more accurate compared to the point hinge model. It is included in
the program Ruaumoko used in this study. Moreover, Ruaumoko has many options to model mass,
damping and stiffness matrices for a structure. The masses have been used in the form of lumped
masses and linear damping of 5% was considered.

4.1 Hysteretic restoring force model

One of the most important steps for modeling a non-linear frame structure is to accurately represent
the hysteretic restoring force of the structural member. Numerous models for example Elasto-Plastic,
Bilinear, Ramberg-Osgood, Clough and Johnson and Takeda have been developed. In this study,
Modified Takeda hysteretic model was used as it is based on the actual experimental results and
represents the real behavior very closely. The model is represented by a trilinear hysteresis curve as
shown in Fig 4 and degradation in area under the hysteresis curve is reflected in stiffness or strength.

Figure 4, Source: Ruaumoko Manual

4.2. Assumptions for analysis

In the study, the proportions of north south component of Elcentro earthquake data were used as the
basic inputs as many scientists have been using it for research purposes. A proportion of Elcentro
earthquake (33% as shown later) that represents the design earthquake of Nepal was determined based
on the maximum acceleration parameter. The analyses were also carried out for 25 and 50% of
elcentro earthquakes to obtain the behavior of the structure under these proportions. Some other
assumptions are as follows:
i) The effect of slab contributing to beam strength is not considered.
ii) P delta effects were included and axial force- bending moment interaction was considered explicitly
in the column.
iii) The Gravity loads were applied considering the load combination of G + 0.4Q and these loads are
converted to the point loads as required by Ruaumoko. The load from wall to the beam is considered
to be triangularly distributed. The small members were modeled such that their ends are capable of
forming hinges. There are total of 65 members and 58 joints in the frame under consideration as seen
from Fig 5.
iv) The beam and column displacement behavior was modeled based on the experiment carried out by
Bracci et al. (1992) and Atalay et al. (1995) respectively. The parameters of the Bracci et al.’s
experimental beam member closely matched with the beams considered in this study. There was
approximately same amount of reinforcement but the grade of the steel was lower in Aycardi et al.’s
1 0 . 3 6 2 0 . 7 2 1 0 . 3 6
6 . 4 5 6 . 4 5 6 .4 5 6 . 4 5 6 . 4 5 6 . 4 5 6 .4 5 6 . 4 5
5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0
4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8
5 3 5 4 5 5
8 . 8 9 8 . 8 9
3 6 . 1 6 8 . 3 3 8 . 3 3 6 8 . 6 4 3 6 . 1 6
4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2
3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7
4 0 4 1 4 2
8 .8 9 8 .8 9
3 6 . 1 6 8 . 3 3 8 . 3 3 6 8 . 6 4 3 6 . 1 6
4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2
2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6
2 7 2 8 2 9
3 6 . 1 6 8 .8 9 8 .8 9 6 8 . 6 4 3 6 . 1 6
8 . 3 3 8 . 3 3
4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2
1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5
1 4 1 5 1 6
8 . 8 9 8 . 8 9
3 6 . 1 6 8 . 3 3 8 . 3 3 6 8 . 6 4 3 6 . 1 6
4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4
0 . 7 4 6
1 2 3
1 2 3

1 M e m b e r n o . L o a d s i n k N , D istance in m

Figure 5.
5
beams (276 MPa as against 415 MPa). The stiffness difference due to the difference of steel grade
was assumed to be compensated by the slightly larger size of the section and the higher grade of the
concrete used by Aycardi et al. (Section size = 300 x 300, grade = 24 MPa as against 230mm x
230mm and 20MPa, in the beam considered in the study).

This difference however would have a negligible effect since the stiffness calculation was based on the
actual data (Section 230mm x 230mm with reinforcement of 4- 12 mm deformed steel bars). The
hysteresis diagram (Fig 6) was used to obtain the relationship of yield displacement (Y) with ultimate
displacement (U) and degradation point (D). For instance, in the beam, the relationship was found as
∆U= 1.5 ∆Y and ∆D = 2.5 ∆Y. The yield deformation was simply calculated by using a bending
formula for cantilever where the actual load 9.1 kN and span 1.87 (half of span 3.73 m) were used. But
an equivalent moment of inertia, which is equal to 40% of the gross value, was used to take account of
the variation of stiffness along the length of member due to stress reversal in earthquake (Paulay and
Priestly, 1992). The Fig 7 shows the deflection behavior of the actual beam.

Similarly, the experimental hysteresis, Atalay et. al. (1975) (Fig 8) was used to determine the
deformation behavior of the columns. Moment of inertia (I) here is taken as 60% of Ig (gross). After
the calibration, the deformation behavior of column is shown in Fig 9. The deformation behavior data
along with the data of the second column of Table 1 were the input for the Spreadsheet program
(Edwards 2000) developed in The University of Melbourne. The output from the Spreadsheet program
is shown in the third and fourth columns, which were the required parameters to model the frame in
Ruaumoko.
 12 (1.62, 10.31)
U (2.71, 6.07)
Y D
(1.08, 9.12)

Load (kN)….
(KN)….
8

(2.16, 9.12)
4

0 1 2
D e f o r m a t i o n xX 1100 m
mmm

Figure 6., Source: Bracci et. al., 1994 Figure 7.

24
(0.98, 22.24)
(0.63, 20.98)

16

Load (kN)...
(1.62, 12.59)

8
(2.12, 7.76)

0
0 1 2 3 4
Deformation x 10 (mm)

Figure 8., Source: Atalaya and Penzien (1975) Figure 9.

Table 1

O u t p u t f r o m t h e s p r e a d s h e e t
G iberson G iberson
M e m b e r Input to spreadsheet strength d e g r a d .
4
E c = 22610.0 M p a I = 1 . 0 0 5 E + 0 8 m m Duct 1 = 2.23
2
B e a m G = 9044.0 M p a A g = 5 .2 9 0 E + 0 4 m m Duct 2 = 3.96
A s = 1 . 0 4 2 E + 0 3 m m 2
H p = 2 5 8 . 4 m m Duct 3 = 6.23
Takeda Alpha = 0.30 R d u c t = 0 . 6 8
Takeda Beta = 0.10 M r + = 1 0 . 2 2
p = 9 . 4 0 1 E - 0 2
M y+ = 17.2 k N m
M y- = -17.2 k N m
4
C o lu m n E c = 22610.0 M p a I = 1 . 5 8 4 E + 0 8 m m Duct 1 = 2.35
2
G = 9044.0 M p a A g = 5 .2 9 0 E + 0 4 m m Duct 2 = 5.86
2
H p = 2 1 7 . 6 m m A s = 2 . 4 8 5 E + 0 3 m m Duct 3 = 8.37
p = 4 . 4 5 3 E - 0 2 R d u c t = 0 . 3 6
Takeda Alpha = 0.30 M r + = 1 0 . 8 2
Takeda Beta = 0.10
M y+ = 28.3 k N m
M y- = -28.3 k N m

5 DESIGN ACCELERATION FOR KATHMANDU

As described earlier Nepal is a developing country with no enforced seismic design provisions.
Detailed studies in seismic design have not been carried out so far except for the report of
UNDP/UNCHS “Seismic hazard mapping and risk assessment for Nepal” in 1994. In the report the
hazard spectra for different locations of Nepal including Kathmandu are systematically presented.
These were compared with the Indian design spectrum factored by 3.7 (Over strength factor).
Comparing the values of acceleration responses of Fig 10 for ground group 1 and 2 with the maximum
spectral acceleration of Elcentro earthquake, the design acceleration level for Kathmandu was
determined. The value of it was found to be 33% of Elcentro earthquake (0.27g / 0.81g). The ground
group 3 is not considered here.
 .70

Acceleration response(g) for 5%

Acceleration response(g) for

30 Years .70 30 Years

.60 50
.60 50
100
5% damping

.50 100
150 .50

damping
150

damping
.40
200 .40 200
.30 3.7XIS 1893/84 .30 3.7XIS
3.7XIS
.20 .20 1893/84
.10 .10
.00 .00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Structural periods(s) StructuralStructural
periods(s) periods(s)

Figure 10. Source: Beca Worely et. al.(1994)

6 ANALYSIS OF FIVE STOREY BUILDING

6.1 Member ductility capacity and demand

The ductility capacities of the structural members were determined by using a spreadsheet developed
at the University of Melbourne (Edwards, 2000). It is based on modified Scott model and the moment
curvature relationship as shown in Fig 11 was obtained under monotonic loading. The member
ductility capacity of the frame was found to be 2.24. The member ductility is equal to the ratio
between ultimate curvature F max and yield curvature F y. F max is the curvature corresponding to a load
80% of the maximum.
35.0
30
30.0 Member 4 end 1
20
Moment KN-m

25.0

10
Moment ( kNm)

20.0

15.0
0

10.0
-10
(-0.042, -12.0)
5.0 -20
(-0.0076,-17.2)
0.0 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Curvature, φ (rad/mm x 106)
-0.05 -0.03 -0.02 0.00
Curvature, 1/m
Figure 11. Figure 12.

The capacity of the members is then compared with the curvature ductility demand imposed with
various proportions of Elcentro earthquakes. The values are shown here only for 33% of Elcentro. For
other proportions, one may refer to Master thesis work (Hada and Mendis, 2001). The values of
ductility demands were obtained by the hysteretic diagrams. Due to the limitation of space, the
hysteretic diagram is just shown here for member 4. But for other members, the demand and capacity
values obtained from similar diagrams are presented in the Table 2. The sixth and eleventh columns in
Table 2 indicate the ratio of ductility capacity to demand for the first and second ends of the members
respectively. It is clear that the ductility demand of the members is significantly larger than the
capacity of the members as the ductility ratio is greater than 1 for most of the members indicating their
failure.

For all the proportions of Elcentro earthquake, most of the members included in the frames have
failed. The other members, which remained elastic, are not shown in the table. The failure of members
occurred even under 25% of Elcentro. However, it was not a surprising result as the frames consist of
small sections of low-grade concrete with little reinforcement. The amount of lateral reinforcement for
both beams and columns was also too small.

The frame was dominated by gravity load. The beams in particular were heavily loaded than columns.
The beam hinging was evident in all the proportions of Elcentro earthquake for the five-storey frame.
But for 25 and 33% of Elcentro, all the column members remained elastic. The columns started
hinging only under a 50% of Elcentro earthquake.
Table 2
Table 2

33% of Elcentro earthquake

End 1 End 2
Members F, yield F, max Ductility Ductility Ratio Demand F, yield F, max Ductility Ductility Ratio Demand
demand capacity by Capacity demand capacity by Capacity
4 0.008 0.042 5.53 2.24 2.47
9 0.007 0.042 5.68 2.24 2.53
13 0.01 0.03 4.53 2.24 2.02
17 0.009 0.053 2.89 2.24 2.63
21 0.01 0.05 7.14 2.24 3.19
22 0.007 0.05 7.14 2.24 3.19
26 0.01 0.05 7.14 2.24 3.19
30 0.007 0.016 2.29 2.24 1.02
34 0.01 0.01 0.71 2.24 0.32
35 0.008 0.02 2.5 2.24 1.12
39 0.01 0.05 7.14 2.24 3.19

6.2 Drifts

The drift of the frame is shown in Fig 13. The increase in proportion of earthquake seems to have
increased the displacements in floors. But the maximum displacement of 5- storey building did not
occur at the top floor due to the dominance of other modes of vibration than the first mode. The Figure
also shows that the drift limit is exceeded only for the 50% Elcentro earthquake, but for 25 and 33%
earthquakes, it was within the safe limit. It is also noted that a soft storey mechanism did not occur in
the structure although with such small sections except for the one storey building.
For the design earthquake, the maximum drift (0.7%) occurred in the second storey.

7 ANALYSIS FOR ONE TO FOUR STOREY BUILDINGS

Analyses were carried out for different number of storeys from one to four under the design
earthquake for Kathmandu. The ductility demand of members were found to be exceeded the capacity
for 2, 3 and 4 storey buildings indicating failure whereas for single storey building, the demand was
lesser than the capacity. Column hinging was also apparent for the single storey building and Fig 13
shows the hysteresis for the most critical column.

6
50% Elcentro
5 33% Elcentro
4 25% Elcentro
Storeys

0
.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Inter storey drift ( %)

Figure 13. Figure 14.

8 CONCLUSION

The analysis has revealed that the ductility capacity of the sections was too small for the five-storey
building compared to the demand imposed by the design earthquake. This indicated that the
conventional construction is not good enough. The analysis has also shown that the maximum
deflection imposed by the design earthquake is larger than the deflection capacity showing an
unfavorable condition. The sections however, are satisfactory for the construction of single storey
buildings for which both the ductility and drifts demands were lesser than the capacity of the structure
and hence found to be safe for the design earthquake.
Beam hinges, which is in general a favorable condition for behavior under an earthquake is evident in
the 5-storey frame. However, due to very small stiffness of the sections, demand of ductility exceeded
the capacity causing structure to fail. The weakness of the structure is characterized by its slender
dimensions, small amount of reinforcement and the low grade of the concrete. A proper design
solution is necessary for the residential buildings of more than one storey in Kathmandu. The
permission for the prevailing way of construction of buildings may be granted for one storey building
only and the construction for more than one storey need to be stopped immediately.

REFERENCES

Atalay. M. B. and Penzien, J. (1975), “The Seismic Behavior of Critical Regions of Reinforced Concrete
Components as Influenced by Moment, Shear and Axial Force”. A report to National Science Foundation,
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Report No. EERC pp75- 19.
Beca Worley International Consultants, Golder Associates Ltd, TAEC Consult (P) Ltd., Silt Consultants and
Urban Regional Research, USA (1994), “Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal”.
UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat), United Nations.
Blume, J. N., Corning, L. N and Newmark, M. N. (1961), “Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete for
Earthquake Motion”. Portland Cement Association, Chicago.
Bracci, J.M., Mander, J.B. and Reinhorn, A.M. (1995), “Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Structures Designed for Gravity Loads”. Performance of Structural System. ACI Structural Journal pp92-
s58.
Bracci, J.M., Mander, J.B. and Reinhorn, A.M. (1992), “Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads”. State University of New York at Buffalo, USA, Part II,
Experimental Performance of Subassemblages,( Technical Report No. NCEER-92-0028).
Carr, A. J. (1988), “Ruaumoko”. Program Mannual, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Edwards, M. R. (2000), “Displacement based method from an Intra plate prospective”.
University of Melbourne, A Phd thesis in preparation.
Giberson, M. F. (1967), “The Response of Non-linear Multistorey Structures subjected to Earthquake
excitation”. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory and Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Green, N. B (1987), “Earthquake Resistance Building Design”. III Edition, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.,
U.S.A., III Edition.
Hada, S., and Mendis, P. A. (2001), “Assessment of RC Residential Buildings under Earthquake Loading". The
University of Melbourne, MSc. Minor thesis,
Kappos, J. A., and Penelis, G. G. (1997), “Earthquake Resistance Concrete Structures”. E and Fn Spon, U.K.
Mahin, S. A. and V. V. Bertero (1975), “Evaluation of Some Methods for Predicting Seismic Behaviour of RC
Buildings”. University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, EERC No. pp85-05.
Otani, S. (1971), “Effectiveness of structural walls in RC building during earthquakes”.
University of Illinois, Illinois. Structural Research No. 492.
Paulay, T., and Priestly, M.J.N. (1992), “Seismic Design of Reinforce Concrete and Masonry Buildings”. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA
Sakai, H. (2000), “Researchers to Date Valley Changes”. The Kathmandu Post, Nov. 2, 2000.
Sharpe, R. D. (1974), “Seismic Response of Inelastic Structures”. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Ph.D Thesis.