Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Contents lists available at http://iosi.in/index.

php/iosijecs
ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science
Volume 1 Issue 1; Page No. 07-17

Effect of shear wall location in buildings subjected to seismic loads


Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan1, Mrs. Bindu Sunil2, Dr. Laju Kottallil3, Prof. Mercy Joseph Poweth4
1

Department of Civil Engineering, M.A. College of Engineering, Kothamangalam, India.


2

M.Tech (Structural) M.I.E, Technical Director, Geostructurals (P) Ltd. India

P. G. Coordinator, Department of Civil Engineering, M.A. College of Engineering, Kothamangalam, India.


4

HOD, Department of Civil Engineering, M.A. College of Engineering, Kothamangalam, India.

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Received 15 Nov. 2014


Accepted 20 Dec. 2014

Performance of structures under frequently occurring earth quake ground


motions resulting in structural damages as well as failures have repeatedly
demonstrated the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings, due to their
design based on gravity loads only or inadequate levels of lateral forces. This
necessitates the need for design based on seismic responses by suitable
methods to ensure strength and stability of structures. Shear wall systems
are one of the most commonly used lateral load resisting systems in high rise
buildings.. This study aims at comparing various parameters such as storey
drift, storey shear, deflection, reinforcement requirement in columns etc of
a building under lateral loads based on strategic positioning of shear walls.
Based on linear and nonlinear analysis procedures adopted, the effect of
shear wall location on various parameters are to be compared .Pushover
analysis is used to evaluate the expected performance of the structure by
estimating its strength and deformation demands in design earthquakes by
means of static inelastic analysis, and comparing these demands to available
capacities at the performance levels of interest. The capacity spectrum
method is used to obtain the overall performance level of a structure. The
software used is ETABS 9.5 and SAP 2000.V.14.1

Corresponding Author:
Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan
1 Department of Civil Engineering,
M.A. College of Engineering,
Kothamangalam, India.
.

they can form an efficient lateral force resisting system


by reducing lateral displacements under earthquake
loads. Therefore it is very necessary to determine
effective, efficient and ideal location of shear wall.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Structural behaviour under seismic loading requires an
understanding of the behaviour under large inelastic
deformations .Nonlinear Static Procedure/ Pushover
analysis can be used to evaluate building loaded
beyond the elastic range. The capacity spectrum
method is one of the most established and widely
accepted displacement based seismic design method
which is used for performance based seismic design.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Significance of Shear Wall in High rise Buildings
Static linear and nonlinear analysis procedures for
determining structure responses under seismic forces
Performance based analysis of structures.

Page

INTRODUCTION
There has been a considerable increase in the
construction of tall buildings both residential and
commercial and the modern trend is towards more tall
and slender structures. Thus the effects of lateral loads
like wind loads, earthquake loads and blast forces are
attaining increasing importance and almost every
designer is faced with the problems of providing
adequate strength and stability against lateral loads.
Shear wall system is one of the most commonly used
lateral load resisting system in high rise buildings. Shear
wall has high in plane stiffness and strength which can
be used to simultaneously resist large horizontal loads
and support gravity loads, which significantly reduces
lateral sway of the building and thereby reduces
damage to structure and its contents. Shear walls in
buildings must be symmetrically located in plan to
reduce ill-effects of twist in buildings. When shear walls
are situated in advantageous positions in the building,

2014, IOSI, All Right Reserved.

resistance and flexibility of structure. Building collapse


is caused due to these inertia forces. Because
earthquake ground motion is three-dimensional, the
structure, in general, deforms in a three dimensional
manner. Generally inertia forces generated by the
horizontal components of ground motion require
greater consideration for seismic design since adequate
resistance to vertical seismic loads is usually provided
by the member capacities required for gravity load
design. The type of analysis to obtain seismic force, and
their distribution to different levels along height of the
building and to various lateral load resisting elements,
depends on the height of the building, severity of the
seismic zone in which the building is located and on the
classification of the building as regular or irregular.
METHODOLOGY
Methods for Seismic analysis of buildings may be
classified as follows:
1) Equivalent Static Analysis (Linear Static)
2) Response Spectrum Analysis (Linear Dynamic)
3) Pushover Analysis (Nonlinear Static)
4) Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic)
EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS
In Equivalent static analysis it is assumed that the
structure responds in its fundamental mode. The
response is read from a design response spectrum,
given the natural frequency of the structure. This
method work well for low to medium-rise buildings
without significant coupled lateraltorsional modes, in
which only the first mode in each direction is of
significance.
NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear
analysis under a predefined pattern of permanent
vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads.
Typically the first pushover load case is used to apply
gravity load and then subsequent lateral pushover load
cases are specified to start from the final conditions of
the gravity pushover. Typically a gravity load pushover
is force controlled and lateral pushovers are
displacement controlled. Load is applied incrementally
to frameworks until a collapse mechanism is reached.
Thus it enables determination of collapse load and
ductility capacity on a building frame. Plastic rotation is
monitored, and a lateral inelastic force versus
displacement response for the complete structure is
analytically computed. This type of analysis enables
weakness in the structure to be identified. The decision
to retrofit can be taken in such studies. The ATC-40
document have developed modeling procedures,
acceptance criteria and analysis procedures for
pushover analysis. As shown in Figure 3, five points
labeled A, B, C, D, and E are used to define the force
deflection behavior of the hinge and three points
labeled IO, LS and CP are used to define the acceptance
criteria for the hinge. The range AB is elastic range ,IO,

Page

Bozdogan K.B.,Deierlein et.al.,2010 [1] discussed in


detail the modeling issues, nonlinear behavior and
analysis of the frame shear wall structural system. An
approximate method which is based on the continuum
approach and one dimensional finite element method
to be used for lateral static and dynamic analyses of
wall-frame buildings is presented. Shaik Kamal
Mohammed Azam.,2013 [2] presented a study on
seismic performance evaluation of multistoried rc
framed buildings with shear wall. A comparison of
structural behavior in terms of strength, stiffness and
damping characteristics is done.The provision of shear
wall has significant influence on lateral strength in taller
buildings while it has less influence on lateral stiffness
in taller buildings. The provision of shear wall has
significant influence on lateral stiffness in buildings of
shorter height while it has less influence on lateral
strength. The influence of shear walls is significant in
terms of the damping characteristics and period at the
performance point for tall buildings. Provision of shear
walls symmetrically in the outermost moment-resisting
frames and preferably interconnected in mutually
perpendicular direction forming the core will have
better seismic performance in terms of strength and
stiffness. Shahabodin ,Zaregarizi;2013 [4] presented a
study on Comparative investigation on using shear wall
and concrete infill to improve seismic performance of
existing buildings in areas with high seismic potential.
Results shows that concrete fills have considerable
strength than brick in fills. whereas the displacement
acceptance of brick infills is higher than concrete infills.
Masonry infills as lateral resisting elements have
considerable strength which can prevent even collapse
in moderate earthquakes. Performance of concrete
infills is dependent on adjacent elements especially
columns, so premature failure in columns due to strong
axial forces must be considered.Misam Abidi,
Mangulkar Madhuri. N;2012 [5] presented an
assessment to understand the behavior of Reinforced
Concrete framed structures by pushover analysis and
the Comparative study was done for different models in
terms of base shear, displacement, performance point.
The inelastic behaviour of the example structures are
examined by carrying out displacement controlled
pushover analysis.
III. SEISMIC RESISTANT DESIGN OF BUILDINGS
No building can remain entirely free of damage during
quake, still, all structures, big or small; can be made to
withstand earthquakes of a particular magnitude by
taking certain precaution.
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
The behavior of a building during an earthquake is a
vibration problem. If the base of a structure is suddenly
moved the lower portion of a building tends to vibrate,
but the upper part of the structure will not respond
instantaneously, but will lag because of inertial

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

LS and CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety


and Collapse Prevention respectively.
PERFORMANCE POINT
The intersection of capacity spectrum with appropriate
demand spectrum in capacity spectrum method. If the
performance point exists and damage state at that

Figure 1: Capacity spectrum curve

point is acceptable, we have a building that satisfies the


push-over criterion. Depending on the position and
state of the performance point the analyst may decide
on how safe or vulnerable the structure is and where
possible strengthening should be performed.

Typical seismic demand vs capacity plots.


Figure 2: (a)safe design (b)unsafe design

CAPACITY CURVE

Figure 3: Idealized force- deformation curve for a Hinge

relatively low uncertainty. In nonlinear dynamic


analyses, the detailed structural model subjected to a
ground-motion record produces estimates of
component deformations for each degree of freedom in
the model and the modal responses are combined using
schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares.
IV. STRUCTURAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS
The Finite Element analysis software ETABS 9.5 is used
to create the 3-D model and run the linear static and
dynamic analyses and Pushover analysis is done in
SAP2000 .V.14.1 .Eight
different models were
considered.
DETAILS OF THE MODELS
The model adopted for the study is a symmetric sixteen
storey (G+15) residential building having ground storey
height of 3m and typical floor height of 3m founded
on medium soil .

Page

PERFORMANCE LEVEL
Performance Level is defined as the expected behavior
of the building in the design earthquake in terms of
limiting levels of damage to the structural and
nonstructural components .
METHODS OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
1) Linear Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
Response spectra are curves plotted between
maximum response of SDOF system subjected to
specified earthquake ground motion and its time period
(or frequency). Plot with system time period on x - axis
and response quantity on y - axis is the response
spectra pertaining to specified damping ratio and input
ground motion
2) Nonlinear Dynamic Time History Analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of
ground motion records with a detailed structural
model, therefore is capable of producing results with

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

Figure 4: Floor Plan (Typical)

calculated and assigned as uniformly distributed loads


on beams. Rest is automatically considered by program
itself.
Live loads have been assigned as uniform area loads on
slab elements as per IS 875(Part 2)
Live load on roof=2kN/ m2
4.5 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The load combinations considered for the analysis and
design is as per IS: 1893-2002.
ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE
1) Equivalent Static method
2) Response Spectrum Analysis
3) Pushover Analysis
EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD
The natural period of the building is calculated by the
expressions T= 0.075 x h0.75 for bare frame and

T 0.09 h d for in filled frame as given in


IS 1893 (Part 1) -2002, wherein h is the height and d is
the base dimension of the building in the considered
direction of vibration. The lateral load calculation and
its distribution along the height are done as per IS: 1893
(part 1)-2002. The seismic weight is calculated using full
dead load plus 25% of live load.
Ta =
= 0.85sec in x- direction
(1)
Ta =

= 0.94 sec in y direction

(2)

10

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS


Response spectrum analysis of all the models are done
.The parameters provided are
Z=0.16 ,considering zone factor III
I=1 ,considering residential building.
R=5.0, considering special RC moment resisting
frame.(SMRF)

Page

MODEL I - (MAC) : The model is symmetric in plan and is


modeled with only column elements and no shear walls
in layout.
MODEL II - (MCE) : Model consists of shear wall
provided in central core area and columns in all other
positions .
MODEL III - (MX) : Model consists of columns in all
positions along with shear walls placed parallel to the X
(Longitudinal)axis
MODEL IV - (MY) : Model consists of columns in all
positions along with shear walls placed parallel to the Y
(Transverse)axis
MODEL V - (MCO) : Shear wall is provided in all four
corners of the building .
MODEL VI - (MCC) : Model is assigned with shear walls
at central core area as well as corners .
MODEL VII - (MCX) : Model is assigned with shear walls
at central core area and as well as in direction parallel
to the X (Longitudinal)axis.
MODEL VIII - (MCY) : Model is assigned with shear walls
at central core area and also in direction parallel to the
Y (Transverse)axis
MATERIAL AND FRAME ELEMENT PROPERTIES
The mix of concrete used for beams and slabs is M20
and that for columns is M40.
Beams of size 200x600 and columns of size 300x1000
have been defined. Slab thickness is provided as
required for the spans as per code. Shear walls
provided are of thickness 200 mm and length 2500 mm
except for core area where the central portion consists
of a shear wall of length 2000 mm.
Fixed supports are provided at base.
LOADS ASSIGNED
Gravity loads on structure include the weight of beams,
slabs, columns and walls. The wall loads have been

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
CREATE 3D MODEL

GRAVITY PUSHOVER
(FORCE CONTROLLED)

ASSIGN END OFFSETS

LATERAL PUSHOVER
RUN
STATIC PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS
(DISPLACEMENT
CONTROLLED)

DEFINE HINGE PROPERTIES

ASSIGN HINGE PROPERTIES

ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE POINT

BEAM - DEFAULT V2&M 3


COLUMN - DEFAULT PM2M3
DEFINE STATIC PUSHOVER CASE
STRUT AXIAL P

Figure 5: Flow chart for Pushover analysis

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


COMPARISON BETWEN EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD
AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD
From the analysis results obtained following
parameters are taken into consideration for the present
study.
STOREY DRIFT
Story drift can be defined as the lateral displacement of
one level relative to the level above or below it: As per
Clause no. 7.11.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, the storey
drift in any storey due to specified design lateral force
with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004

Figure 6: Story Drift comparison of the models


(Equivalent Static Method - X direction)

times the storey height. Maximum drift permitted =


0.004 x 3000 = 12mm.By comparing the drift values
obtained for all models obtained using both methods ,it
could be seen that in models with shear wall provided
at core as well as in corners the inter story drift has
considerably been reduced when compared to the bare
frame model as well as those models in which shear
walls are provided only in longitudinal or transverse
directions.
Fig 6 & 7 illustrates the comparison of story drift in X
and Y directions in mm for all models using Equivalent
Static Method.

Figure 7: Story Drift comparison of the models


(Equivalent Static Method - Y direction

Figure 8: Story Drift comparison of the models


(Response Spectrum Method- X direction)

Figure 9: Story Drift comparison of the model


(Response Spectrum Method-Y direction)

Page

11

Fig 8 & 9 illustrates the comparison of story drift in X and Y directions in mm for all models using Response Spectrum
Method

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science
Table 1: Percentage variation in maximum Story drift values in X and Y directions using Equivalent static and Response spectrum methods

Percentage variation in maximum Story drift values in X and Y directions


using Equivalent static and Response spectrum methods
(In comparison with bare frame model)
Equivalent
static Response
spectrum
method
method
MODEL
X direction
Y direction X direction
Y direction
M
19.4
13.9
33.9
20
CE
M
39.9
-9.5
49.5
-14.9
X

-5.4

16.9

0.7

24

31.4

25.1

41.5

25.6

M
M

40.03
52.3

32.6
8.2

46.3
46.3

29.5
12.1

15.9

25.5

30.6

31.8

Y
CO
CC
CX
CY

BASE SHEAR
Base shear is the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to seismic ground motion at the base of
structure.
Fig 10 & 11 compares the Base shear values of the models in X and Y directions respectively using Equivalent Static
Method.

Figure 10: Base Shear VBx

Figure 11: Base Shear VBy

5.3.3 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT


Fig 12 & 13 compares the Lateral displacement values in X and Y directions respectively using Equivalent Static
Method.

Fig 14 & 15 compares the Lateral Displacement values in X and Y directions respectively using Response Spectrum
Method.

12

Figure 13: Lateral Displacement in Y direction


(Equivalent static method)

Page

Figure 12: Lateral Displacement in X direction


(Equivalent static method)

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

Figure 14: Lateral Displacement in X direction


(Response Spectrum Method)

Figure 15: Lateral Displacement in Y direction


(Response Spectrum Method)

Table 2: Percentage reduction in maximum Lateral displacement values in X and Y directions using Equivalent static and Response spectrum
methods
Percentage reduction in maximum Lateral displacement values in X
and Y directions using Equivalent static and Response spectrum
methods(In comparison with bare frame model)
Response spectrum
method
X direction Y direction

Equivalent static method


MODEL

X direction

Y direction

MCE

23.68

15.3

19.06

MX

34.3

-12.46

40.8

-9.2

MY

-6.1

16.6

28.8

21.1

MCO

31.5

19.2

28.8

21.1

MCC

42.6

22.6

52.08

28.8

MCX

54.7

7.3

36.7

6.2

MCY

19

24.7

14.6

21.9

12.4

From the above results it can be observed that the maximum reduction in displacement value is obtained for Model
M (Frame with Core and corner shear wall).
CC

REINFORCEMENT DEMAND IN COLUMNS


In order to determine the effect of shear walls on columns, reinforcement requirement in columns C11, C18 and C24
are compared for all the models. The variation in steel quantity requirement is shown graphically for all the
models.
2

Table 3: Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column 11


2

Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column


11(In comparison with bare frame model)
M

CE

CO

CC

CX

CY

FIRST

34.7

28.9

-40

44.6

34.7

34.7

34.7

SECOND

24.9

1.53

-69.8

4.7

7.4

7.6

27.6

THIRD

0.76

7.7

-95

0.08

16.5

9.1

FOURTH

-0.5

26.9

-81

-0.2

34.37

34.37

3.76

FIFTH

-4.2

21.2

-74

5.9

21.2

21.2

-4.9

SIXTH

-6.16

7.07

-66.5

-0.3

7.07

7.07

-9

SEVENTH

-9.4

10.75

-99

-0.4

10.75

10.75

4.24

13

Page

Story No:

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

Table 4: Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column 18


2

Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column no


18(In comparison with bare frame model)
M

CE

FIRST

11.6

-2.2

SECOND

-1

THIRD

M
Y

CO

CC

CX

CY

-14.1

14.02

18.3

18.1

18.03

2.98

-23.4

0.83

6.7

4.95

1.23

-1.5

4.2

-33.9

1.17

1.74

FOURTH

-1.61

4.5

-55.7

1.29

7.54

-2.45

FIFTH

-13.6

12.6

-80

7.73

13.4

17.2

-19

SIXTH

-29.7

9.09

-110

9.09

9.09

-40.5

SEVENTH

-5

-89

-15.96

14

Page

Story No:

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science
2

Table 5: Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column 24


2

Percentage variation in column reinforcement in mm for Column no 24


(In comparison with bare frame model)
Story No:

CE

FIRST

21.7

-44

SECOND

-14.5

THIRD

CO

CC

CX

CY

-89.9

49.02

21.7

15.8

21.2

0.72

-60

6.1

11.8

14.3

-18.2

-20.8

0.23

-66

7.05

16.2

17.6

-19.06

FOURTH

-27

2.37

-64.8

4.12

26.3

18.4

-25.85

FIFTH

-34.9

8.8

-74

13.19

20.32

20.82

-37

SIXTH

-26.5

-82.3

-35.6

SEVENTH

-42.9

-0.16

From the results obtained it can be observed that


though the reinforcement requirement in columns for
top storeys are converging to minimum values ,for
bottom storey's the reinforcement requirement in
column shows considerable variation when provided
with shear walls as compared to the bare frame model.
In Model M and M ie.models with core shear walls
CO

CC

and that with shear wall at core and corners, the


percentage of steel required in columns in ground floor
has come down by 44%, 18% and 49% and up to 34.7%

Figure 19: Pushover curve for model M

CC

,13.4% and 26.3% respectively in top floors when


compared with bare frame model.
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Pushover analysis is carried out for all the models .The
results obtained are shown below.
Pushover curve is a plot of base shear versus roof
displacement which is also known as the capacity curve.
This curve gives an assessment of base shear induced at
performance point. The performance point is obtained
by superimposing demand spectrum and capacity curve
transformed into spectral coordinates. The capacity
spectrum obtained for model is shown below.

Figure 20: Capacity spectrum for model M

CC

PLASTIC HINGE LOCATIONS


Location of weak points and potential failure modes that structure would experience in case of a seismic event is
expected to be identified by pushover analysis. The possible hinge locations in model VI & I ie.
M and M predicted by pushover analysis is shown in Fig 5.16 and 5.17.

Figure 21: Location of Plastic hinges in model M

CC

Figure 22: Location of Plastic hinges in model M

AC

15

AC

Page

CC

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

Fig 23 shows the plastic hinge formation in frame element 734.Hinge is formed within the immediate occupancy
range. So member is safe within applied load limit.

Figure 23: Plastic hinge formation in


frame element 734

Figure 24: Plastic hinge formation in


frame element 2040

situated near to core area show a reduction in steel


requirement up to 44.6% when shear wall is provided at
the core and 34.7% when shear wall is located at core
and corner of the structure.
5) Push over analysis results provides an insight into the
performance of structures in post elastic range which
thereby helps in assessing the weakness and possible
failure mechanisms of structure which is not possible
when using equivalent static and response spectrum
method of analysis .This could be useful in rectifying
the detrimental effects in the design stage itself or for
adopting suitable retrofitting methods in case of post
earthquake seismic hazard estimation.
VI. SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The volume of work undertaken in this study is limited
to comparison of seismic response parameters in a
building with different shear wall locations using linear
and nonlinear analyses and Performance level
evaluation using Pushover analysis .The study could be
extended by including various other parameters such
as torsional effects and soft storey effects in a building
.Non linear dynamic analysis may be carried out for
further study for better and realistic evaluation of
structural response under seismic forces .

Page

V. CONCLUSIONS
From the present investigation and the results obtained
it can be concluded as following:
1) In medium high rise buildings (ie greater than 10
storeys) provision of shear walls is found to be effective
in enhancing the overall seismic capacity characteristics
of the structure.
2) From the comparison of story drift values it can be
observed that maximum reduction in drift values is
obtained when shear walls are provided at corners of
the building .
3) Lateral displacement values obtained from static
method of analysis indicate that shear wall provision
along longitudinal and transverse directions are
effective in reducing the displacement values in the
same directions.
Response spectrum analysis results provides a more
realistic behavior of structure response and hence it
can be seen that the displacement values in both X and
Y directions are least in model with shear wall in core
and corners when compared to all other models.
4) The reinforcement requirement in column is affected
by the location and orientation of adjacent shear walls
and columns ,ie alignment along weaker or stronger
axis for the structure under consideration. Though the
demand is varying ,it could be seen that the columns

16

Table 6: Performance point comparison of models

Prof. Jayasree Ramanujan, et al. ISOI Journal of Engineering and Computer science

6.

7.

8.

9.

17

1. Himalee Rahangdale , S.R.Satone, Design And


Analysis Of Multi storied Building With Effect Of
Shear Wall, Vol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.223232.
2. M.Y. Kaltakci, M.H. Arslan and G. Yavuz, Effect of
Internal and External Shear Wall Location on
Strengthening Weak RC Frames, Sharif University of
Technology, August 2010,Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 312323.
3. Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, Vinod Hosur,
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multistoried RC
framed buildings with Shear wall, International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume
4, Issue 1, January-2013
4. P. B. Oni, Dr. S. B.Vanakudre, Performance Based
Evaluation of Shear Walled RCC Building by
Pushover Analysis, International Journal of Modern
Engineering Research (IJMER) , Vol. 3, Issue. 4, Jul Aug. 2013 pp-2522-2525.
5. D. B. Karwar, Dr. R. S. Londhe, Performance of RC
framed structure using Pushover analysis

,International Journal of Emerging Technology and


Advanced Engineering, Volume 4, Issue 6, June
2014
Yousuf Dinar, Md. Imam Hossain, Rajib Kumar
Biswas, Md. Masud Rana, Descriptive study of
Pushover analysis in RC structures of Rigid joint,
IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(IOSR-JMCE), Volume 11, Issue 1 Ver. II (Jan. 2014),
PP 60-68
ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings. Volume 1 and 2. Applied Technology
Council, California, 1996. [5] FEMA-273. NEHRP
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC, 1997.
FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC,
2000.
IS: 1893 (Part 1) 2002- Indian standard- Criteria for
earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi

Page

REFERENCES: