Comparative

Study of
Seismic
Analysis of
Structure with
Different Height

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wishes to record our appreciation to the help and guidance
received in preparation of this report. We would like to thank and express
deep sense of gratitude to project guide Mr. ABHISHEK VERMA, Assistant
Professor

of

Civil

Engineering,

Jaypee

University

of

Engineering

&

Technology, Guna, who suggested the problem and provided guidance at

each stage of work. The timely completion of the report was possible only
because of the enthusiastic help received from him at all stages of work.

We thanks Dr. S. Arunachalam, Professor and Head, Department of

Civil Engineering, for providing full facilities and extended help at all stages
of the study.

We also thanks Prof. N.J. Rao, Vice Chancellor Jaypee University of

Engineering & Technology, Guna for providing all facilities.

We would also like to thanks our parents, friends and well-wishers for
their constant encouragement and moral support at every stage during the
completion of this project.

Submitted By:Abhishek Gupta (121503)

Submitted To:-

Arun Yadav (121527)

Mr. Abhishek Verma

Bhupendra Singh (121533)

ABSTRACT
Tall buildings are susceptible to dynamic horizontal loads such as wind and
earthquakes.
These
horizontal
forces
cause
important
stresses,
displacements and vibrations due to the buildings inherent tallness and
flexibility. Wind induced displacements and vibrations become critical with
increasing height. Excessive displacements can cause damage to partitions,
cladding and interior finishes, whereas the human motion perception can
induce concern regarding the structural safety and cause nausea and
dizziness to the occupants. Analyzing and designing of buildings for static
forces is a routine affair these days because of availability of affordable
computers and specialized programs which can be used for the analysis.
Stiffness and ductility considerations rather than strength would govern the
design. The intent in seismic design then is to limit building movements, not
so much to reduce perception of motion but to maintain the buildings
stability and prevent danger to pedestrians due to breakage and falling down
of nonstructural elements. In this study, structural systems that can be used
for the lateral resistance of tall buildings are classified based on the basic
reaction mechanism/structural behavior for resisting the lateral loads.

In this Study G+6, G+12, G+18 storied regular building model has
been analyzed by static & dynamic analysis. This building has the plan area
of
25 m x 15 m with a storey height 3.0m and depth of foundation is 2.0 m.

The static & dynamic analysis has been done on computer with the
help of STAAD-Pro & etabs software using the parameters for the designing
as per the IS-1893- 2002-Part-1 for the all zones and different soils
conditions and the post processing result obtained has been summarized
later work.

Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1

Introduction about Seismic Loading

1.2

Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy

1.3

Seismic Wave Behavior

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURES

CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC ZONES

3.1 Introduction to Seismic zones
3.2 Need for Seismic Zonation
3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones
CHAPTER 4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
4.1 Determining Soil Profile Type for Identifying the
Response Spectrum
(a) Type I: Rock or Hard Soils
(b) Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils
(c) Type III: Soft Soils
4.2 Elastic Property of Foundation Soil
CHAPTER 5 FRAMES & BRACING
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Bracing System
CHAPTER 6 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
6.1 Plan of Building
CHAPTER 7 METHODOLOGY
7.1 Static Analysis
7.2 Dynamic Analysis
CHAPTER 8 REFRENCES
3

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction about Seismic Loading:
Apart from gravity loads, the structure will experience dominant lateral
forces of considerable magnitude during earthquake shaking. It is essential
to estimate and specify these lateral forces on the structure in order to
design the structure to resist an earthquake. It is impossible to exactly
determine the earthquake induced lateral forces that are expected to act on
the structure during its lifetime. However, considering the consequential
effects of earthquake due to eventual failure of the structure, it is important
to estimate these forces in a rational and realistic manner.
The earthquake forces in a structure depend on a number of factors such as:
Characteristics of the earthquake (Magnitude, intensity, duration,
frequency, etc.)
Distance from the fault
Site geology
Type of structure and its lateral load resisting system.
1.2 Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy:
Apart from the factors mentioned above, the consequences of failure of the
structure may also be of concern in the reliable estimation of design lateral
forces. Hence, it is important to include these factors in the lateral force
estimation procedures.
Code of practice for earthquake resistant design of structures primarily aims
at accomplishing two primary objectives; total safety against loss of life and
minimization of economic loss.
These objectives are fulfilled by design philosophy with following criteria:
Resist minor earthquake shaking without damage.
Resist moderate earthquake shaking without structural damage but
possibly with some damage to nonstructural members.
Resist major levels of earthquake shaking with both structural and
nonstructural damage, but the building should not collapse thus
endangerment of the lives of occupants is avoided.
4

Figure 1: Schematic diagram depicting earthquake resistant design

philosophy for different levels shaking [IITK-BMTPC (2004)]
The purpose of an earthquake-resistant design is to provide a structure with
features, which will enable it to respond satisfactorily to seismic effects.
These features are related to five major objectives, which are listed in order
of importance:

The likelihood of collapse after a very severe earthquake should be as

low as possible.
Damage to non-structural elements caused by moderate earthquakes
should be kept within reasonable limits. Although substantial damage
due to severe earthquakes, which have a low probability of occurrence
is acceptable, such damage is unacceptable in the case of moderate
tremors which are more likely to occur.
Buildings in which many people are usually present should have
deformability features which will enable occupants to remain calm
even in the event of strong shocks.
Personal injury should be avoided.
Damage to neighboring buildings should be avoided

1.3 Seismic Wave Behavior:

The P wave, or primary wave, is the fastest of the three waves and the
first detected by seismographs. They are able to move through both solid
rock as well as through liquids. These are compressional or longitudinal
waves that oscillate the ground back and forth along the direction of wave
travel, in much the same way that sound waves (which are also
compressional) move air back and forth as the waves travel from the sound
source to a sound receiver. Compressional waves compress and expand
matter as they move through it.

S waves, or secondary waves, are the waves directly following the P

waves. S waves travel in the same direction, but instead of being a
compressive wave, they oscillate with a shearing behavior at right angles to
the direction of motion. They travel about 1.7 times slower than P waves.
Because liquids will not sustain shear stresses, S waves will not travel
through liquids like water, molten rock, or the Earths outer core. S waves
are more dangerous than P waves because they have greater amplitude and
produce vertical and horizontal motion of the ground surface.

Surface waves travel at or near the surface of the Earth only. These can be
the most destructive waves in that they appear to roll along lifting and
dropping the ground as they pass and they are slowest. There are two types
of surface waves:
1) Love waves move like S waves in that they have a shearing motion in
the direction of travel, but the movement is back and forth horizontally.
2) Rayleigh waves move both horizontally and vertically in a vertical plane
pointed in the direction of travel.
Love and Rayleigh waves both produce ground shaking at the Earths surface
but very little motion deep in the Earth. Because the amplitude of surface
waves diminishes less rapidly with distance than the amplitude of P or S
waves, surface waves are often the most important component of ground
shaking far from the earthquake source, thus can be the most destructive.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURES

Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), Seismic

Behavior of Multi-Storied Buildings
The study deals with the comparison of base shear of multi storied buildings
with dimensions 20x20mts, 30x30mts,40x40mts,60x60mts at different
zones and different types of soils as per IS:1893(part-I):2002. A total of 224
multi storied buildings are analyzed for this paper. This work helps in
understanding the effect of earthquake with increase in area and height of
multi storied buildings and also the increase of base shear for different zones
and soil conditions.

Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF

BUILDINGS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL
Buildings are subjected to different earthquake loading and behaves
differently with diversification in the types of soil condition, such as dense
soil, medium and soft soil. Different soil properties can affect seismic waves
as they pass through a soil layer. When a structure is subjected to an
earthquake excitation, it interacts with the foundation and soil, and thus
changes the motion of the ground. It means that the movement of the whole
ground structure system is influenced by type of soil as well as by the type
of structure. As the seismic waves transfer from the ground which consist of
alteration in soil properties and performs differently according to soils
respective properties. In this study, different soil strata are taken and
corresponding base shear and lateral displacement is determined with
variation in floors as G+4, G+5 and G+6 and zone as 3, 4 and 5. IS 1893:
2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures gives response
spectrum for different types of soil such as hard, medium and soft. A
building is modeled in SAP-2000 having different Winklers springs as its
foundation corresponding to different soil properties. This research has
immense benefits in the Geotechnical Earthquake engineering field.

Abhyuday Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta, (2015), A Comparative Study

of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected To Seismic
Loadings
The objective of this study is to investigate the seismic behavior of the
structure having various structural configurations like OMRCF (Ordinary
Moment Resisting Concrete Frames), SMRCF (Special Moment Resisting
Frames) and BSF (Braced Steel Frames). A comparative study of all the
types of frames will shed light on the best suited frame to be adopted for
seismic loads in Indian scenario. For this purpose, a G+4 building was
designed for OMRCF, SMRCF and BSF framing configurations in Seismic Zone
V according to Indian codes. Tests were carried out to evaluate their
structural efficiencies in terms of storey drifts, Base shear, amount of
reinforcement etc. Moment frames have been widely used for seismic
resisting systems due to their superior deformation and energy dissipation
capacities. A moment frame consists of beams and columns, which are
rigidly connected. The components of a moment frame should resist both
gravity and lateral load. Lateral forces are distributed according to the
flexural rigidity of each component.

Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), Analysis of RC Building

Frames for Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems
In this study, seismic analysis of high rise RC building frames have been
carried out considering different types of bracing systems. Bracing systems
is very efficient and unyielding lateral load resisting system. Bracing systems
serves as one of the component in RC buildings for increasing stiffness and
strength to guard buildings from the incidence caused by natural forces like
earthquake force. In proposed problem G+ 10 story building frame is
analyzed for different bracing system under seismic loading. STADD-Pro
software is used for analysis purpose. The results of various bracing systems
(X Bracing, V Bracing, K Bracing, Inverted V Bracing, and Inverted K
Bracing) are compared with bare frame model analysis to evaluate the
effectiveness of a particular type of bracing system in order to control the
lateral displacement and member forces in the frame. It is found that all the
bracing systems control the lateral displacement of frame very effectively.
However Inverted V bracing is found to be most economical.

10

CHAPTER 3
SEISMIC ZONES
3.1 Introduction to Seismic zones:
1

Seismic Zonation may be termed as the geographic delineation of areas

having different potentials for hazardous effects from future earthquakes.
Seismic zonation can be done at any scale, national, regional, local, or
site.

The term Zoning implies that the parameter or parameters that

characterize the hazard have a constant value in each zone. If, for
example, for practical reasons, the number of zones is reduced (from five
as is the case in large majority of national codes), we obtain a rather
simplified representation of the hazard, which in reality has continuous
variation.

A seismic zone is a region in which the rate of seismic activity remains

fairly consistent. This may mean that seismic activity is incredibly rare, or
that it is extremely common. Some people often use the term seismic
zone to talk about an area with an increased risk of seismic activity,
while others prefer to talk about seismic hazard zones when discussing
areas where seismic activity is more frequent.

Many nations have government agencies concerned with seismic activity.

These agencies use the data they collect about seismic activity to divide
the nation into various seismic zones. A number of different zoning
systems are used, from numerical zones to colored zones, with each
number or color representing a different level of seismic activity.

A seismic zoning map for engineering use is a map that specifies the
levels of force or ground motions for earthquake-resistant design, and
thus it differs from a seismicity map, which provides only the occurrence
of earthquake information. The task of seismic zoning is multidisciplinary
and involves the best of input from geologist, seismologist, geotechnical,
earthquake and structural engineers.
11

3.2 Need for Seismic Zonation:

1. These maps identify the regions of a country or province in which
various intensities of ground shaking may have occurred or may be
anticipated.
2. Maps of probabilistic hazard give an idea of the underlying statistical
uncertainty, as is done in calculating insurance rates. These maps give,
for example, the odds at which specified earthquake intensity would be
exceeded at a site of interest within a given time span.
3. Seismic zoning is used to reduce the human and economic losses
caused by earthquakes, thereby enhancing Economic development and
Political stability.
4. New probabilistic maps have been developed as the basis of seismic
design provisions for building practice. These usually give the expected
intensity of ground shaking in terms of peak acceleration. The peak
acceleration can be thought of as the maximum acceleration in
earthquakes on firm ground at the frequencies that affect sizable
structures.
5. The losses due to damaging earthquakes can be mitigated through a
comprehensive assessment of seismic hazard and risk. Seismic
zonation of vulnerable areas for bedrock motion thus becomes
important so that the planners and administrators can make use of it
after applying appropriate amplification factors to take into account the
local soil conditions, for better land use planning and safe
development.
3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones:
Recent Seismic Zones in India
The 1993 Latur earthquake of magnitude 6.3 caused intensity IX damages
but prior to the earthquake, Latur was placed in seismic zone 1, where no
such magnitude of earthquake was expected. The Latur earthquake further
led to the revision of the seismic zonation map of India. The map was
12

revised again in 2002 with only four zones such as II, III, IV and V (IS: 1893
(Part 1): 2002) (Fig. 4). The Peninsular India was modified and Zones I and
II were combined. The new zone placed the 1993 Latur earthquake in zone
III. The areas falling under zone V is most seismically active. The areas
under this zone are the entire northeastern part of India, parts of
northwestern Bihar, the Kangra Valley in Himachal Pradesh, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, eastern part of Uttaranchal, the Rann of Kutchh in Gujarat
and the Srinagar area in Jammu and Kashmir. Two major metropolitan cities,
with a high population density, i.e. Delhi, lie in zone IV, and Kolkata, at the
boundary of zone III and IV of the zonation map. The recent four seismic

zones of India are assigned PGA values ranging from 0.1 g to 0.4 g with
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The changes in zonation map of
India with the occurrence of significant earthquakes are an indication that
the zoning at a national level does not provide the solution for tackling the
seismic hazards.
Zone

II

III

IV

Intensity

Low

Medium

Severe

Very Severe

Zone value

0.1

0.16

0.24

0.36

13

CHAPTER 4
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
4.1 Determining Soil Profile Type for Identifying the Response
Spectrum:
The soil profile mainly constituting the local soil below the foundation
required for use of response spectra is divided into three types.
It is quite natural to have variation in properties of soil, and most soil
deposits have both vertical as well as lateral variation of properties
depending on the geomorphic forces and source of soil formation. There may
be soil layers of varying properties of the similar soil type namely coarsegrained soils (Gravels, Sands or Sandy Gravels, or Gravelly Sands); finegrained soils (Clays or Silty Clays or Clayey Silts) or there may be interlaying
of coarse grained soils and fine grained soils. The importance of local site
conditions and its role on the response of structures has been well
recognized. The soil and rock at a site have specific characteristics that can
significantly amplify the incoming earthquake motions traveling from the
earthquake source.

14

IS: 1893-2002 - Part 1 has acknowledged the importance of local site effects
and has defined three soil profile types, which essentially are rock or hard
soils (Type I), medium soils (Type II), and soft soils (Type III). The code has
suggested a design spectrum for each of these soil profile types. However,
the code does not explain how to decide the type of soil profile to be used to
select the appropriate design acceleration spectrum, given the variation of
soil profile in a particular locality. Thus, a procedure is required to arrive at
the type of soil profile.
Soil profile types are to be characterized based on the average soil
properties for the upper 30 m of the soil profile. Standard penetration test is
a field test conducted at regular intervals in every borehole, which has a
good correlation with engineering properties of soil. N values, which are
corrected for overburden and dilatancy effects, are correlated with relative
density and hence the angle of internal friction for coarse-grained type of
soils and the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils. Relative density
reflects the state of compactness of coarse-grained soils, and the undrained
strength reflects the stiffness of fine-grained soils. These, in turn, reflect the
field behavior of a profile of soil. For layered soils having varying properties
over the exploration depth of 30 m, the average N values are to be obtained.
Type I: Rock or Hard Soils
1) Well graded gravel (GW) or well graded sand (SW) both with less than
5% passing 75 m sieve (Fines).
2) Well graded Gravel- Sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW).
3) Poorly graded Sand (SP) or clayey sand (SC), all having N above 30.
4) Stiff to hard clays having N above 16.
Where N is the Standard Penetration Test value.
Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils
1) Poorly graded sands or poorly graded sands with gravel (SP) with little or
no fines having N between 10 and 30.
2) and stiff to medium stiff fine-grained soils, like Silts of Low compressibility
(ML) or Clays of Low compressibility (CL) having N between 10 and 16.
Type III: Soft Soils
All soft soils other than SP with N<10. The various possible soils are:
1) Silts of Intermediate compressibility (MI).
15

2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Silts of High compressibility (MH).

Clays of Intermediate compressibility (CI).
Clays of High compressibility (CH).
Silts and Clays of Intermediate to High compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH).
Silt with Clay of Intermediate compressibility (MI-CI).
Silt with Clay of High compressibility (MH-CH).

Elastic Property of Foundation Soil

Type of Soil

Shear Modulus G Elastic Modulus E Poissons Ratio

(kN/m )
(KN/m )
2700
6750
0.25
451.1
1200
0.33
84.5
250
0.48
2

Hard
Medium
Soft

CHAPTER 5
FRAMES & BRACING
5.1 Introduction:
The selection of a particular type of framing system depends upon two
important parameters i.e. seismic risk of the zone and the budget. The
lateral forces acting on any structure are distributed according to the flexural
rigidity of individual components. Indian Codes divide the entire country into
four seismic zones (II, III, IV & V) depending on the seismic risks. OMRCF is
probably the most commonly adopted type of frame in lower seismic zones.
However with increase in the seismic risks, it becomes insufficient and
SMRCF or Steel Brace frames need to be adopted.
A rigid frame in structural engineering is the load-resisting skeleton
constructed with straight or curved members interconnected by mostly rigid
connections which resist movements induced at the joints of members. Its
members can take bending moment, shear, and axial loads. They are of two
types: Rigid-framed Structures & Braced-frames Structures. The two
16

common assumptions as to the behavior

of a building frame are that its beams are
free to rotate at their connections and
that its members are so connected that
the angles they make with each other do
not change under load.
Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear
assemblages of beams and columns, with
the beams rigidly connected to the

columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame

action-that is, by the development of bending moment and shear force in
the frame members and joints. Frames may be designed using concept of
strong column-weak girder proportions. There are two types of MRF: OMRF
and SMRF. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is a moment-resisting
frame not meeting special detailing requirements for ductile behavior.
Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is a moment-resisting frame
specially detailed to provide ductile behavior and comply with the
requirements given in IS-4326 or IS-13920 or SP6.
5.2 Bracing System:
The essential work of members of framed structure is to transfers the gravity
loads and lateral loads to the foundation of structure and then to the earth.
The main loads comes in the structure is gravity loads consists dead load,
live loads and some service loads. Beside this there is probability of structure
17

may undergo through lateral forces caused due to seismic activity, wind
forces, fire, and blasts etc. Here the columns and beams of the structures
are used to transfers the major portion of the gravity loads and some portion
of lateral loads but that is not significant to the stability of structure. So we
provide bracing systems, shear walls, dampers etc. to resist or transfer
these lateral forces to the structure uniformly without affecting the stability
and strength of the structure.
CASE-1:
CASE-2:
CASE-3:
CASE-4:
CASE-5:
CASE-6:

Building
Building
Building
Building
Building
Building

frame
frame
frame
frame
frame
frame

without bracing system (Bare Frame).

with X bracing system.
with V bracing system.
with K bracing system.
with Inverted V bracing system.
with Inverted K bracing system.

CHAPTER 6
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
6.1 Plan of Building:

18

CHAPTER 7
METHODOLOGY
In general, the methods of seismic analysis can be classified as (1)
Static and (2) Dynamic. Dynamic analysis can further be classified as (i)
Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis and (ii) Time Domain
Analysis. All of the above categories have their (a) Linear and (b) Non-linear
19

counterparts.
7.1 Static Analysis:
The static procedure of building is modelled with their linearly elastic
stiffness of the building. The equivalent viscous damps the approximate
values for the lateral loads to near the yield point. Design earthquake
demands for the LSP (LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE) are represented by
static lateral forces whose sum is equal to the pseudo lateral load. When it is
applied to the linearly elastic model of the building it will result in design
displacement amplitudes approximating maximum displacements that are
expected during the design earthquake. To design the earth quake loads to
calculate the internal forces will be reasonable approximate of expected
during to design earth quake.
a) Linear Analysis
Seismic Coefficient Method (SCM): Here the seismic base shear for the
building is determined by using an emphatically determined time period, and
distributed over the stories as lateral load proportional to an assumed mode
shape, which is parabolic (but interestingly with 100% mass participation
assumed). Here lateral load determination is all formula based, no modal
analysis is required, and the method is therefore STATIC.
b) Non-linear: This is done by running a non-linear analysis on a non-linear
building model. Non-linearity is incorporated in the analysis model in form of
non-linear hinges inserted into an otherwise linear elastic model which one
generates using a common analysis-design software package.

Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or Pushover Analysis: Unlike as

SCM (where the lateral load of a calculated intensity is applied in whole - in
one shot), in NSP, analysis model is gently 'pushed over' by a monotonically
increasing lateral load applied in steps up to a predetermined value or state.
Here also seismic base shear for the building is distributed over the stories
as lateral load proportional to an assumed mode shape, which is either
uniform or a power distribution with the value of k determined to be a
value between 1 (inverted triangular distribution) and 2 (parabolic
20

distribution) by an empirical method. You know why it is the method is

therefore STATIC.
(k is the power of h shown with k=2 in the formula under IS: 1893, Cl.7.7.1)

7.2 Dynamic Analysis:

The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree
freedom system having certain period and damping, during earthquake
ground motions. The maximum response plotted against of un-damped
natural period and for various damping values and can be expressed in
terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or
maximum relative displacement. For this purpose response spectrum case of
analysis have been performed according to IS 1893.
a) Linear
i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis:
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) (IS: 1893, 7.8.4) Here a
DYNAMIC (modal) analysis is done to get the dynamic characteristics of the
building (natural frequencies and mode shapes) from which the lateral loads
corresponding to each mode shape is calculated, with which a STATIC
analysis is performed for each mode, the results (BM, SF, etc.) of which are
then combined (SRSS) to get the design forces.

ii) Time Domain Analysis

Linear Time History Analysis (IS: 1893, Cl.7.8.3): In THA, the support
points of the model is oscillated back and forth in accordance to a recoded
ground motion of an actually occurred earthquake (as recorded by a
seismograph, and available in tabular form of time vs. acceleration). The
results (BM, SF, etc.) are usually taken as the maximum enveloped over
time (i.e., the max. BM on the mid span of a particular beam in the
21

maximum among all the BMs, each corresponding to each time point over
the duration of earthquake.
b) Non-linear: As said above, this is done by running a non-linear analysis
on a non-linear building model.
i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis:
Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or the same Pushover Analysis
mentioned above, but with the 1st mode proportionate lateral loads or more
rightly, a combination (SRSS) proportionate lateral loads. Note that unlike
the RSA, its not the results corresponding to each mode shape that is
SRSSed, but the loads themselves. No one considers putting this version of
pushover analysis under Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (and as the non-linear
counterpart of RSA.)
ii) Time Domain Analysis
Non-linear Time History Analysis (NL-THA) This is same as the, but
here since the structure has non-linear hinges inserted, the members can
undergo and stiffness degradation, strength deterioration in general,
damage, as a real building would, during the progress of an earthquake.

22

CHAPTER 8
REFRENCES
1. IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
2. IS 875 (Part-1): 1987 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS
(OTHER
THAN
EARTHQUAKE)
FOR
BUILDINGS
AND
STRUCTURES
3. IS 875 (Part-2): 1987 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS
(OTHER
THAN
EARTHQUAKE)
FOR
BUILDINGS
AND
STRUCTURES
4. IITK-GSDMA-Project on Building Codes

5. Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013),

Seismic Behavior of Multi-Storied Buildings

6. Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

OF BUILDINGS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL

7. Abhyuday Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta, (2015), A Comparative

Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected To
Seismic Loadings
8. Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), Analysis of RC
Building Frames for Seismic Forces Using Different Types of
Bracing Systems

23