Sie sind auf Seite 1von 72

EFFECTS OF POUNDING OF ADJACENT

BUILDINGS AND ITS MITIGATION


MEASURES

A thesis submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Technology
In
Structural Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering

By
GEETOPRIYO ROY
Scholar No: 16-21-204

Under Supervision of
Assistant Prof. Pallab Das

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SILCHAR
MAY 2018

1
©NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR, 2018
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2
DECLARATION

Thesis Title: Effects of pounding of adjacent buildings and its mitigation measures.

Degree: Master of Technology in Civil Engineering.

I declare that the presented thesis represents largely my own ideas and work in my own
words, where other ideas or words also have been included as reference. I have adequately
cited and listed in reference materials. The thesis has been prepared without resorting to
plagiarism. I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity. No falsified
data have been presented in the thesis. I understand that any violation of the above will cause
for disciplinary action by the institute, including revoking the conferred degree, if conferred,
and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been properly cited or from
whom proper permission has not been taken.

___________________________
(Signature)
Name of the Student: Geetopriyo Roy
Registration no.: 16-21-204

Date: __/__/__

3
CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in this thesis entitled “Effects of pounding of adjacent
buildings and its mitigation measures” submitted by Geetopriyo Roy, Registration no.
16-21-204, for the award of the Master of Technology degree is absolutely based on his own
work carried out under my supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere
for any degree.

(Pallab Das)
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology, Silchar
Date: __/__/__

4
ABSTRACT

Pounding refers to the collision of adjacent structures during strong ground motions.
Actually when an earthquake occurs, the structures which are having different dynamic
properties vibrate out of phase and collide with each other resulting in heavy damage of life
and property. The main reason behind pounding of structures is the insufficient separation
distance provided between the buildings. Different countries having different codes provide
different rules and regulations regarding the separation distance to be provided between the
structures to prevent pounding but the insufficient land area and high land prices especially
in metropolitan cities, the separation distance is bound to be given very less in order to have
effective use of land area during construction. So, in order to prevent the structures from
colliding with each other, some cost effective mitigation measures like RCC cross bracings
and RC shear wall have been discussed in this study. SAP2000 v19 software has been used
for modeling and analysis of the structures. This study includes two types of frame structures
i.e. (i) bare frame structure and (ii) structure having infill walls in the form of diagonal strut
in it. Pushover analysis as well as nonlinear time history analysis has been carried out to
check the building performance level and find out the maximum displacements of the
buildings. Analysis results shows that seismic pounding is more severe in the case of
adjacent bare frame buildings compared to buildings having infill walls in it i.e.
displacements of bare frame buildings are larger than the buildings having infill walls. The
mitigation methods such as use of shear wall and bracings proved to be effective in all the
cases. Also the best location of bracings and shear wall are studied by placing them at various
locations in the structures and observe the reduction of displacements.

5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work presented in this thesis would not have been possible without any close association
with many people. I take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to
all those who made this M-Tech thesis possible.

First and foremost I take this opportunity to show my deep sense of gratitude towards my
project supervisor Assistant Professor Pallab Das for his dedicated help, advice, inspiration,
encouragement and continuous support, throughout my M-Tech. His enthusiasm, integral
view on research and his mission for providing high quality work, has made deep impression
on me.

I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. U. Kumar (Head of the Civil Engineering Department),
for providing me with an environment to complete the project successfully.

I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to my ever inspiring father Gautam Roy, and my
mother Swapna Roy for their support and encouragement.

The support, best wishes and blessings of my family has been the constant source of
inspiration and encouragement throughout the project related work. I am thankful to them
for allowing me to go for whatever I wanted to achieve in my life.

I would like to extend my regards to Ms. Subhra Das and Mr. Partha Pratim Debnath, Alumni
of this department, for their guidance and encouragement.

My regards would not be completed without thanking my friends Prateek, Mriganka, Ankit,
Dibyendu for helping me throughout the year to understand my problems and finding their
solution.

My special regards to my teachers because of whose teaching at different stages of education


has made it possible for me to see this day and made me able to reach that stage where I
could write this thesis.

Date: __/__/__ (Geetopriyo Roy)

6
Table of Contents

Declaration
Certificate
Abstract
Acknowledgement
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Symbols
List of Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General ……………………………………………………
1.2 Diagonal strut………………………………………………....
1.3 Analysis procedure…………………………………………
1.3.1 Linear Static Procedure (LSP)……………………………
1.3.2 Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP)…………………….
1.3.2.1 Response Spectrum Method………………………….
1.3.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP)……………………..
1.3.3.1 Pushover Analysis……………………………………
1.3.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP)……………………
1.3.4.1 Time History Analysis…………………………………….
1.3.4.1.1 Inter-storey Drift…………………………………………..
1.4 Design Procedure as per IS 1893 (part I):2002………………
1.4.1 Fundamental natural time period ……………………
1.4.2 Distribution of design force …………………………………
1.5 Response of the building under earthquake……………..
1.5.1 Building frequency and period………………………
1.5.2 Building stiffness…………………………………..

7
1.5.3 Ductility……………………………………………….
1.5.4 Damping………………………………………………

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE


3.1 Objectives……………………………………………….
3.2 Scope……………………………………………………..

CHAPTER 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OF THE MODELS


4.1 Modelling………………………………………………….
4.1.2 Material property considered…………………………………
4.1.3 Other details considered………………………………………….
4.1.4 Loading combination considered…………………………….
4.2 Pushover analysis……………………………………………..
4.3 Time history analysis………………………………………
4.3.1 Earthquake data considered…………………………………..
4.4 Bracing….……………………………………………………….
4.5 Shear wall……………………………………………………….
4.6 Masonry infill…………………………………………………….

CHAPTER 5 OBSERVATIONS
5.1 General……………………………………………………
5.2 Linear seismic analysis………………………………………..
5.3 Nonlinear seismic analysis……………………………………….
5.3.1 Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover analysis)………………….
5.3.2 Nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history analysis)…………..
5.3.2.1 Variation of displacement with time……………………………
5.3.2.2 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR)……………………………………
5.3.2.3 Storey displacements………………………………………..

8
CHAPTER 6 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 General……………………………………………………..
6.2 Bare frame………………………………………………….
6.2.1 Bracing……………………………………………………….
6.2.1.1 Position 1…………………………………………………….
6.2.1.1.1 Pushover analysis…………………………………………….
6.2.1.1.2 Time history analysis………………………………………….
6.2.1.1.2.1 Variation of displacement with time……………………………
6.2.2 Shear wall………………………………………………
6.3 Frame with infill walls………………………………….
6.3.1 Bracing………………………………………………..
6.3.2 Shear wall…………………………………………….

CHAPTER 7 COMPARISON OF RESULTS


7.1 General…………………………………………………..
7.2 Bare frame……………………………………………….
7.2.1 Pushover analysis (Bracing in bare frame)…………………
7.2.2 Storey displacements (Bracing in bare frame)…………….
7.2.3 Pushover analysis (Shear wall in bare frame)……………….
7.2.4 Storey displacements (Shear wall in bare frame)……………
7.3 Frame with infill walls………………………………………….
7.3.1 Pushover analysis (Bracing along with infill walls)………….
7.3.2 Storey displacements (Bracing along with infill walls)……
7.3.3 Pushover analysis (Shear wall along with infill walls)……
7.3.4 Storey displacements (Shear wall along with infill walls)…..

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

9
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Force deformation curve for pushover hinge………………………


Figure 1.2 Interstorey Drift…………………………………………………
Figure 1.3 Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5% damping…………
Figure 4.1 Plan and elevation of 8 storey building………………………….
Figure 4.2 Plan and elevation of 5 storey building…………………………….
Figure 4.3 Elevation of the two adjacent buildings……………………………..
Figure 4.4 Haflong ground motions……………………………………………
Figure 4.5 Hojai ground motions………………………………………………
Figure 4.6 Tabas ground motions……………………………………………..
Figure 4.7 Uttarakhand ground motions………………………………………..
Figure 4.8 Baigao ground motions……………………………………………..
Figure 5.1 Pushover curve of 8 storey building along short and long
direction respectively………………………………………………..
Figure 5.2 Pushover curve of 5 storey building along short and long
direction respectively…………………………………………………
Figure 5.3 Demonstration of pounding phenomenon………………………….
Figure 5.4 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used
(bare frame)……………………………………………………………
Figure 5.5 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used
(Frame with infill walls)……………………………………………….
Figure 5.6 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey and 5 storey
respectively (bare frame)……………………………………………..
Figure 5.7 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey and 5 storey
respectively (Frame with infill walls)………………………………
Figure 5.8 Storey displacements (8 storey)……………………………….
Figure 5.9 Storey displacements (5 storey)……………………………………
Figure 6.1 Bracing position no. 1 (bare frame) of 8 storey and 5 storey
respectively…………………………………………………………

10
Figure 6.2 Pushover curve for position no. 1…………………………………
Figure 6.3 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used…………………..
Figure 6.4 Bracing position 2 (bare frame)…………………………………
Figure 6.5 Bracing position 3 (bare frame)…………………………………..
Figure 6.6 Bracing position 4 (bare frame)……………………………………
Figure 6.7 Bracing position 5 (bare frame)……………………………………..
Figure 6.8 Bracing position 6 (bare frame)………………………………………
Figure 6.9 Shear wall position 1 (bare frame)………………………………..
Figure 6.10 Shear wall position 2 (bare frame)………………………………..
Figure 6.11 Shear wall position 3 (bare frame)………………………………..
Figure 6.12 Shear wall position 4 (bare frame)….………………………………
Figure 6.13 Shear wall position 5 (bare frame)…………………………………..
Figure 6.14 Shear wall position 6 (bare frame)……………………………………
Figure 6.15 Bracing position 1 (with infill wall)……………………………
Figure 6.16 Bracing position 2 (with infill wall)……………………………..
Figure 6.17 Bracing position 3 (with infill wall)…………………………………
Figure 6.19 Bracing position 5 (with infill wall)……………………………
Figure 6.20 Bracing position 6 (with infill wall)…………………………
Figure 6.21 Shear wall position 1 (with infill wall)………………………….
Figure 6.22 Shear wall position 2 (with infill wall)……………………………….
Figure 6.23 Shear wall position 3 (with infill wall)………………………………..
Figure 6.24 Shear wall position 4 (with infill wall)……………………………
Figure 6.25 Shear wall position 5 (with infill wall)………………………………
Figure 6.26 Shear wall position 6 (with infill wall)………………………………..
Figure 7.1 Pushover curve for different positioning type (bracing
in bare frame) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively…………………..
Figure 7.2 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (bracing in
bare frame)……………………………………………………………
Figure 7.3 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (bracing in
bare frame)……………………………………………………………

11
Figure 7.4 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey (position 3)
and 5 storey (position 4) respectively (bracing in bare frame)……..
Figure 7.5 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and
5 storey respectively (bracing in bare frame)……………….
Figure 7.6 Pushover curve for different positioning type (shear wall
in bare frame) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively…………………
Figure 7.7 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (shear wall in
bare frame)……………………………………………………………
Figure 7.8 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (shear wall in
bare frame)………………………………………………………….
Figure 7.9 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey (position 3)
and 5 storey (position 3) respectively (shear wall in bare frame)……
Figure 7.10 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and
5 storey respectively (shear wall in bare frame)……………………….
Figure 7.11 Pushover curve for different positioning type (bracing
along with infill wall) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively……….
Figure 7.12 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (bracing
along with infill wall)…………………………………………….
Figure 7.13 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (bracing
along with infill wall)……………………………………………….
Figure 7.14 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey (position 4)
and 5 storey (position 4) respectively (bracing
along with infill wall)…………………………………………………
Figure 7.15 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and
5 storey respectively (bracing along with infill wall)…………………
Figure 7.16 Pushover curve for different positioning type (shear wall
along with infill wall) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively…………..
Figure 7.17 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (shear wall
along with infill wall)………………………………………………

12
Figure 7.18 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (shear wall
along with infill wall)……………………………………….
Figure 7.19 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey (position 3)
and 5 storey (position 3) respectively (shear wall
along with infill wall)……………………………………………
Figure 7.20 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and
5 storey respectively (shear wall along with infill wall)…………..

13
List of tables

Table 4.1 Building details…………………………………………………..


Table 4.2 Details of Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion used………….
Table 4.3 Bracing properties………………………………………………
Table 4.4 Shear wall properties……………………………………………..
Table 5.1 Base shear variation along short direction…………………………
Table 5.2 Base shear variation along long direction……………………………
Table 5.3 Maximum positive and negative displacements of 8 storey
and 5 storey respectively (bare frame)…………………………….
Table 5.4 Maximum positive and negative displacements of 8 storey
and 5 storey respectively (Frame with infill walls)…………………..
Table 6.1 Maximum positive and negative displacements of 8 storey
and 5 storey respectively (position 1 bare frame)………………………
Table 6.2 Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative
displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey building for 5
different SCGMs records (Bracing in bare frame)…………………….
Table 6.3 Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative
displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey building for 5
different SCGMs records (Shear wall in bare farme)…………………
Table 6.4 Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative
displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey building for 5
different SCGMs records (Bracing with infill wall)…………………
Table 6.5 Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative
displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey building for 5
different SCGMs records (Shear wall with infill wall)………………..

14
List of symbols

t Thickness of diagonal strut.


Wds Width of the diagonal strut.
Lds Diagonal length of the strut.
Em Modulus of elasticity of materials of URM infill.
Ef Modulus of elasticity of RC moment resisting frame.
ϴ Angle of diagonal strut with horizontal.
Ic Moment of inertia of adjoining column.
h Centre line height of frame.
h’ Height of infill wall.
∆i Displacement of ith floor.
∆i+1 Displacement of (i+1)th floor.
H1 Height of ith floor from the base of building.
H2 Height of (i+1)th floor from base of building.
VB Design seismic base shear.
Ah Design horizontal acceleration spectrum.
W Seismic weight of the building.
Z Zone factor for MCE earthquake.
I Importance factor of the building.
R Response reduction factor.
Sa
Average response acceleration coefficient.
g

Ta Fundamental natural period.


h Height of building.
d Base dimension of building.
Qi Design lateral force at ith floor.
Wi Seismic weight at ith floor.
hi Height of ith floor from base.
Ø Diameter of bar.

15
List of Abbreviations

ATC Applied Technology Council.


IO Immediate Occupancy.
LS Life Safety.
CP Collapse Prevention.
URM Unreinforced Masonry.
LSP Linear Static Procedure.
LDP Linear Dynamic Procedure.
NSP Nonlinear Static Procedure.
NDP Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure.
SRSS Square Root of Sum of Squares.
CQC Combined Quadratic Combination.
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency.
IDR Interstorey Drift Ratio.
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake.
DBE Design Based Earthquake.
SCGM Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion.
USGS United States Geological Survey.
UPBD Unified Performance Based Design.
NLTHA Nonlinear Time History Analysis.
RC Reinforced Concrete.

16
CHAPTER

1
Introduction

1.1 General
It is a well-known fact that earthquakes can cause a massive loss to human lives and
property. The primary aim of the structural designers around the world is to make a structure
earthquake resistant. Indian sub-continent is highly vulnerable to natural disasters like
earthquakes, floods, cyclones, landslides etc. Hence the researchers should focus on the
structures that are under earthquake loads and carry out effective disaster mitigating
measures so that the structures remain in function. Earthquake is the result of a sudden
release of energy in the earth crust that creates seismic waves. The seismic activity of an
area refers to the frequency, type and size of earthquakes experienced over a period of time.
The occurrence of earthquake, its measurements and the response of the structures have been
studied for many years. Structural analysis is the backbone of civil engineering. During past
years, there has been a growing emphasis on using computer aided software and tools to
analyze the structures. There has also been advancement in finite element analysis of
structures using Finite Element Analysis methods or matrix analysis. These developments
help the engineers from lengthy calculations and procedures which are required to be
followed while large or complicated structures are analyzed using classical methods.
In metropolitan cities, due to insufficient land areas and also high land prices, the separation
distance between the adjacent buildings are kept very less due to which when an earthquake
occurs, the buildings which are having different dynamic properties vibrate out of phase and
collide with each other resulting in heavy damage of life and property. Pounding is the
phenomena of collision between adjacent buildings or different parts of the same building
during strong vibrations. It may cause either architectural or structural damage and may lead
to partial or complete collapse of the structure.
When there are more than two buildings in a row which is common case in city blocks, the
problem of pounding appears quite different since the interior buildings are subjected to two-
sided imparts. Numerical and experimental studies have shown that, in case of structural
poundings, both floor accelerations and interstorey deflections are significantly amplified,
threatening the functionality of the structure, as well as to the non-functional components of
the structure. Pounding is usually associated with large relative velocities causing a massive

17
and sudden force at the point of impact. Hence, the assessment of seismic performance of
structures under strong ground motions represents an important problem in earthquake
engineering. Modern seismic codes propose a large enough separation, which appears to be
ineffective in many cases due to insufficient amount of land. Although the majority of
modern seismic design codes, as for example EC8 (2005), examining the nonlinear behavior
of structures, the structural pounding, a phenomenon with strong nonlinearities is not
considered.

1.2 Diagonal strut

Masonry infill walls or brick infill walls play an important role in providing lateral stiffness
in RC frame buildings. Masonry behaves highly in nonlinear manner. Various analytical
models for masonry infill are available in literature, for example equivalent diagonal strut
models, finite element models, etc. In the present study equivalent diagonal strut has been
used for modelling infill walls. The connection between diagonal strut and beam to column
junction is a pinned joint. The required properties of an equivalent strut are the effective
width, thickness, length and elastic modulus. The thickness (t) is assumed to be same as that
of the infill wall. The length (d) is the diagonal length of the frame. The remaining properties
to be determined are the effective width (w) and elastic modulus (Es) of the equivalent strut.
The strength of the equivalent strut is required to check its capacity with the axial load
demand in the strut. The width of the strut shall be taken as Wds= 0.175.αh-0.4.Lds, where
Em.t.sin2ϴ
αh= h(4√ ), where Em and Ef are modulli of elasticity of the materials of the
4 𝐸𝑓.𝐼𝑐.ℎ
URM infill and RC moment resisting frame, Ic is moment of inertia of adjoining column, t
is thickness of the infill wall and ϴ is angle of diagonal strut with the horizontal.

1.3 Analysis Procedures


Four procedures are presented for seismic analysis of the buildings: two linear procedures
and two nonlinear procedures. The two linear procedures are, the Linear Static Procedure
(LSP) and the Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP). The two nonlinear procedures are termed
as the Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) and Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP).

1.3.1 Linear Static Procedure (LSP)


In this procedure, design seismic forces, their distribution over the height of the building,
and the corresponding internal forces and system displacements are determined using a
linearly elastic static analysis. Here, the building is modeled with linearly elastic stiffness
and equivalent viscous damping that approximate values expected from loading near the
yield point. Design earthquake demands are represented by static lateral storey shear forces
whose sum is equal to the base shear acting at the base of the building. The magnitude of the
base shear has been selected on the basis that when it is applied to the linearly elastic model
of the building, it will result in design displacements that are expected during the design
earthquake. If the building responds elastically to the design earthquake, the calculated
internal forces will be matching to those approximations that are expected during the design
earthquake and if the building responds inelastically to the deign earthquake as will
commonly be the case, the internal forces that would develop in the yielding will be less

18
than the internal forces calculated on an elastic basis. Calculated internal forces typically
will exceed those forces that the building can develop.

1.3.2 Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP)


In this procedure, design seismic forces, their distribution over the height of the building,
and the corresponding internal forces and system displacements are determined using a
linearly elastic dynamic analysis. This method is almost similar to that of the previous one.
The only exception is that the response calculations are carried out using modal spectral
analysis or time history analysis. It is expected that this method will produce displacements
and will produce internal forces which will exceed those that would be obtained in a yielding.
This method includes two analysis methods namely the Response Spectrum method and
Time history analysis method. The Response Spectrum method uses peak responses
calculated from dynamic analysis of a mathematical model. The modes which are
contributing significantly to the response should be considered. Modal responses are
combined using rational methods to estimate total building response quantities. The Time
history method involves a time step by step evaluation of building response using earthquake
records as ground motion input.

1.3.2.1 Response Spectrum Method


In this method, the modes to be used in the response analysis should capture atleast 90% of
the participating mass of the building in each of the building’s principle horizontal
directions. Modal damping ratios reflect the damping inherent in the building. The peak
responses can be member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base
reactions for each mode of response and it shall be combined by recognized methods to
estimate total response. Modal combination by either the SRSS (square root sum of squares)
rule or the CQC (complete quadratic combination) rule is acceptable.

1.3.2.2 Time History Method


The requirement for the mathematical model for time history analysis are same to those
developed for Response Spectrum Analysis. Time history analysis shall be performed using
earthquake records as ground motion input. Response parameters shall be calculated for each
time history analysis. If four time history analysis are performed, the maximum response out
of them shall be used for design. If seven or more pair of horizontal ground motion records
are used, the average response of the parameter may be used for design.

1.3.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP)


In this procedure, a model directly incorporating inelastic material response is subjected to
a target displacement and resulting internal deformations and forces are determined. The
mathematical model of the building is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral load or
displacements upto that condition when either a target displacement is exceeded or the
building collapses. The target displacement represents the maximum displacement likely to
be experienced during the design earthquake. The target displacement may be calculated by
any procedure that accounts for the effects of nonlinear response on displacement amplitude.

19
1.3.3.1 Pushover analysis
The recent emphasis on performance based design has brought the nonlinear static pushover
analysis procedure to the upfront. Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear procedure in which
the magnitude of the structural loading is monotonically increased in accordance with a
certain predefined pattern. With the increase in the magnitude of loading, weak joints and
failure modes of the structure are found. Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the
structural engineering profession to evaluate the real strength of the structure and it promises
to be a useful and effective tool for performance based design. The ATC-40 and FEMA-273
documents have developed modeling procedures, acceptance criteria and analysis
procedures for pushover analysis. These documents define force-deformation criteria for
nonlinear hinges used in pushover analysis. As shown in figure 1.1, three point levelled IO,
LS and CP are used to define the force deflection behavior of the hinges. (IO, LS and CP
stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention respectively). The
values assigned to each of these points vary depending on the type of member as well as
many other parameters defined in the ATC-40 and FEMA-273 documents.

Figure 1.1 Force- deformation curve for Pushover Hinge.

1.3.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP)


In this procedure, design seismic forces, their distribution over the height of the building,
and the corresponding internal forces and system displacements are determined using an
inelastic response history dynamic analysis. The basis, modeling approaches and acceptance
criteria are similar to those for the nonlinear static procedure. The only exception is that the
response calculations are carried out using Time history analysis. The design displacements
are not established using a target displacement, but instead they are determined directly
through dynamic analysis using ground motion histories. Calculated response can be highly
sensitive to characteristics of individual ground motions; therefore it is recommended to
carry out the analysis with more than one ground motion record. Since the numerical model
accounts directly for effects of material inelastic response, the calculated internal forces will
be reasonable approximations of those expected during the design earthquake. Results of
this method are to be checked using the applicable acceptance criteria. Calculated
displacements and internal forces are compared directly with allowable values.

20
1.3.4.1 Time History analysis
Nonlinear time history analysis plays an important role in verification of performance of the
structure. Nonlinear time history analysis is used to evaluate the system performance. Time
history method calculates building response at discrete time steps using discretized recorded
or synthetic time histories as ground motion. For the nonlinear time history analysis,
spectrum compatible ground motion records should be selected from actual earthquakes
considering magnitude, distance, site conditions and other parameters that control the ground
motion characteristics. If three or more time history analysis is performed, the maximum
response of the parameter of interest shall be used for the design.

1.3.4.1.1 Inter-storey Drift


Interstorey drift ratio (IDR) is defined as the difference in the displacement values of the
adjacent storey divided by the storey height. It is calculated from the time history analysis
by finding the drift for each time for each storey and then the maximum absolute value is
taken as the interstorey drift of that particular storey.

Figure 1.2 Interstorey Drift.

1.4 Design procedure as per IS 1893 (part 1):2002


The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principle direction
shall be determined by the following expression:
VB= Ah W
Where,
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum
W = Seismic weight of the building
The design horizontal acceleration spectrum (Ah) is given by
Z I Sa
Ah =
2 R g

21
Where,
Z= Zone factor for the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) and service life of structure
in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator of Z is used so as to reduce the maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) zone factor to the factor for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
I= Importance factor depending upon the functional use of the structure characterized by
hazardous consequences of its failure, post-earthquake functional needs, historical value or
economic importance.
R= Response reduction factor depending on the perceived seismic damage performance of
the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformation. However the ratio (I/R) shall
not be greater than 1.
Sa
= Average response acceleration coefficient for rock or soil sites based on appropriate
g
natural periods and damping of the structure.

Figure 1.3 Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5% damping.

1.4.1 Fundamental natural time period


The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in seconds, of a moment
resisting RC frame building without brick infill panels is given by
Ta= 0.075 h0.75
And for frames with brick infill panels, time period is given by
0.09
Ta=
√d
Where,
h= Height of building, in metre.
d= Base dimension of the building at the plinth level in metre, along the considered direction
of the lateral force.

22
1.4.2 Distribution of design force
The computed design base shear (VB) shall be distributed along the height of the building as
per the following expression:

Where,
Qi= Design lateral force at ith floor.
Wi= Seismic weight of ith floor.
hi= Height of floor i measured from base.
n= Number of level at which the masses are located.

1.5 Response of the building under earthquake


1.5.1 Building frequency and period
The magnitude of building response i.e. acceleration depends primarily upon the frequencies
of input ground motions and building’s natural frequency. When these are equal or nearly
equal to each other, the building’s response reaches a peak level or resonating condition
might occur. In some cases, this dynamic amplification level can increase the building
acceleration to a value two times higher than that of ground acceleration at the base of the
building. When the frequency content of the ground motion is around the building’s natural
frequency, it is said that the building and the ground motion are in resonance with each other.
Resonance tend to increase or amplify the building response by which building suffer the
greatest damage from ground motion at a frequency close to its own natural frequency.
1.5.2 Building stiffness
Taller the building, longer the natural period and the building is more flexible than shorter
building.
1.5.3 Ductility
Ductility is the ability to undergo deformation without complete failure. In order to be
earthquake resistant the building will possess enough ductility to withstand the size and type
of earthquake which it is likely to experience during its lifetime.
1.5.4 Damping
All building possess some inherent damping. Damping is due to internal friction and
adsorption of energy by buildings structural and non-structural components. Earthquake
resistant design and construction employ added damping devices like shock absorbers to
amplify artificially the inherent damping of a building.

23
CHAPTER

2
Literature Review

Konstantinos V. Spiliopoulos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos in the year 1992 studied


measures against earthquake pounding between adjacent buildings. In this paper, to deal
with the problem of pounding, they provided an alternative ways to the code specified
separation distance. Use of filling of the gaps between the building with a material,
connecting them structurally, or by using bumper walls have been studied. Filling of gaps
with an absorbing material did produce any favorable effects on the response of the building,
but the accelerations are got greatly reduced. Structural connection was also not found
suitable as it not only increase the response and penalize one of the two structures, while
benefiting the other. Out of these, only bumper walls proved to be the best alternative to the
seismic separation problem.

G.L Cole, R.P Dhakal and N.Chouw in the year 2012 studied pounding damage which is
observed in Christchurch earthquake occurred in 2011. Approximately 6% of buildings in
Christchurch were observed to have suffered serious pounding damage. Almost all the types
of building pounding damage are found in unreinforced masonry buildings, which shows
how risky it is to build such type of structures especially when the separation between
buildings is very less. The buildings in which overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components
were installed in existing building separations also suffered heavy damage. The relative
movement of the buildings is found mainly due to variation of soil. Pounding damage can
occur in buildings as small as one storey. Greatly differing overall building height was also
found being damaged. The influence of nonlinear soil behavior on the dynamic behavior of
the adjacent structures and consequently on their pounding potential needs to be further
investigated.

Panayiotis C. Polycarpou, Petros Komodromos, and Anastasis C. Polycarpou in the


year 2012 studied a nonlinear impact model for simulating the use of rubber shock absorbers
for mitigating the effects of structural pounding during earthquakes. A layer of soft material,
such as rubber has been incorporated to prevent the sudden impact pulses. A nonlinear

24
inelastic force-based impact model, which is able to appropriately describe the behavior of
rubber under impact loading is also taken into account the limited thickness of the bumper.
Considering rubber bumpers at impact locations, pounding between two multistory buildings
is numerically presented. The proposed impact model has been validated using experimental
results from the literature, on which it demonstrated very good correlation. Further a simple
numerical application has been presented to demonstrate the effect of using rubber shock
absorbers as a mitigation measure for earthquake-induced pounding of two neighboring
buildings. Though the results seem very good, more simulations and parametric studies need
to be performed in order to completely assess the effectiveness of such an impact mitigation
measure.

Abbas Moustafa, Sayed Mahmoud in the year 2014 studied damage assessment of
adjacent buildings under earthquake loads. In this paper, pounding of adjacent buildings is
assessed using input energy, dissipated energy and damage indices. Damage indices (DI) are
computed by comparing the structure’s demand from earthquakes and the associated
structural capacities. This study has investigated the influence of the separation distance
between adjacent buildings and the yield strength of both buildings on the associated
structural response and damage indices. It has been found that damage indices increase as
the separation distance decreases due to the effect resulting from the pounding force between
adjacent buildings. Furthermore, fixed-base adjacent buildings dissipate larger energy by
hysteretic mechanism compared to isolated-base adjacent buildings which dissipate less
hysteretic energy. This could be attributed to the fact that isolated-base buildings are more
flexible structures compared to fixed-base buildings.

Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos in the year 1987 studied pounding of buildings in series during
earthquakes. A model of several adjacent buildings in a block is used to study the pounding
of such buildings due to strong earthquakes. The structure is modelled as an S.D.O.F. system
and pounding is simulated using impact elements. An investigation of this problem shows
that the end structures experience more response than interior structures. When several
buildings are next to each other forming a row in a block, then there is some evidence that
the end or corner buildings are more heavily damaged by pounding. It is because a building
at the end of a row pounds on one side only while being free to move towards the opposite
side. On the other hand, if a building is between two other buildings, it will pound on both
sides but at same time it will not be free to move excessively in either direction. He
concluded that the effects of earthquake induced pounding on the overall response of a
structure in a row of several adjacent structures depend primarily on (a) the properties of the
structure itself and in relation to the properties of the two other structures that are next to it
on either side, (b) whether the structure is subjected to one or two-sided impacts (i.e. whether
an exterior structure-at the end of the row-or an interior structure), and (c) the gap size.
Increasing the gap size decreases the effects of pounding.

Chenna Rajaram, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla in the year 2012 studied comparison of
codal Provisions on pounding between adjacent buildings. The aim of this paper is to study
the impact of collision according to the codal provisions for five different earthquakes. For
the purpose of doing time history analysis five earthquake records are considered which are
Loma-Prieta earthquake, Elcentro earthquake, Park field earthquake, Petrolia earthquake and
Northridge earthquake. Separation distance between buildings is provided according to
codal provisions of various countries and the buildings are subjected to different ground
motions of PGA ranging from 0.22 g to 0.88 g. Later impact force due to collision is
calculated and the results were analyzed. They concluded that as the PGA value increases,

25
the minimum separation between the structures also increases. The separation distance
between the two structures decreases, the amount of impact is increases, which is not
applicable in all cases. It is only applicable when the impact time is same. It may also
decreases when separation distance decreases, which leads to less impact time. For Petrolia
earthquake, the magnitude and duration of ground motion are more, but there is very slight
collision happens. For Elcentro earthquake, the PGA value and duration are slightly less than
Petrolia earthquake, but the collision is significant. The minimum separation distances are
different in both cases and less in Elcentro earthquake. For Park field earthquake, magnitude
and duration are less and predominant time period structures are near to the existing
structures. Hence collision happens. For Northridge earthquake which are less magnitude
and duration than Park field, the collision is more because of resonant frequencies. The
amount of impact not only depends on response and velocity of the structure but also
magnitude and duration of earthquake. Among all the Indian and ASCE codal provisions
having no pounding between adjacent structures for different earthquakes data and spacing.
Majority of maximum pounding happens for NBC-PERU codal provision, because it has
least spacing between the structures among all the codal provisions. For IBC, UBC and
FEMA codal provisions, pounding happens in almost every structures having different
dynamic properties when El-Centro ground motion is given to the structures. From all the
above observations, the duration of strong motion increases with an increase of magnitude
of ground motion. As the PGA value increases, the minimum separation distance is also
increases between the structures.

26
CHAPTER

3
Objectives & Scope

3.1 Objectives
The main objectives of the present study are as follows:
1) To study two types of moment resisting frames, (a) frames without brick infill walls, (b)
frames with brick infill walls in the form of diagonal strut in analytical methods.
2) Two adjacent buildings are considered. One is 8 storey and the other is 5 storey.
3) To study two adjacent buildings of different height having different dynamic properties
with a very minor separation distance (90 mm) in between them in SAP2000 v19 software.
4) To analyze the structures for both linear and nonlinear seismic analysis.
5) The structure should be safe in linear analysis and then it should be followed by nonlinear
analysis.
6) Nonlinear analysis includes nonlinear static (pushover analysis) and nonlinear dynamic
(time history analysis).
7) To evaluate different response parameters like performance level of the building,
maximum displacements, interstorey drift ratio (IDR), base shear etc.
8) In both the nonlinear analysis, hinges should not be formed in columns in any condition
otherwise the members should be redesigned. Hinges in beams are acceptable.
9) After the analysis is done, the buildings are checked for pounding. It can be find out by
considering the maximum positive displacement of 5th floor level of 8 storey building and
the maximum negative displacement of roof level of 5 storey building. If the summation of
the above displacements exceeds the separation gap provided, then the structures will collide
with each other otherwise not.
10) If the pounding is occurring, various mitigating measures like bracings, shear wall need
to be used simultaneously. Also the best positioning of bracings and shear wall are to be
studied by placing the bracings and shear wall at different location in the building and
evaluate the response of the buildings.

27
3.2 Scope
Pounding of adjacent buildings depends mainly on the displacements of the buildings. If the
displacements are more than the separation gap, then pounding condition arises. In the
present study the two buildings are modelled very close to each other and the seismic
analysis is carried out. In the analysis, the buildings are checked for stability in both the
linear and nonlinear seismic analysis. In linear analysis, the buildings are analyzed for
gravity loading condition i.e. DL (Dead load), LL (Live load), FF (Floor finish), RF (Roof
live). After analysis, concrete design is done and are checked whether the bending moment
created due to loading is greater than or less than moment of resistance of the member,
whether the member is able to take the loading or not. If any member fails the stress carrying
capacity, the members should be redesigned. After the buildings become safe in linear
analysis part, next the nonlinear analysis should be carried out. Nonlinear analysis consists
of Pushover analysis and Time history analysis. Practically during earthquakes, it is not
possible for a building to stay always in linear condition. Some plastic deformation is bound
to happen. During nonlinear analysis, plastic hinges form in both the beams and columns. In
order to make the structure earthquake resistant, the failure in beams can be acceptable but
not in columns. The whole structure is dependent on the stability of the columns. So in any
manner the plastic hinges should not be allowed to form in columns. From the pushover
analysis, roof displacement vs base shear of a structure can be evaluated from which
structures capacity to take base shear can be known. Also performance point of the structure
can be find out. Performance point is that point where the structure’s demand and structure’s
capacity becomes equal and that performance point lies in which performance level i.e. (IO,
LS, CP) also can be find out. Pushover analysis is a nonlinear static analysis and when an
earthquake occurs, the building response at different instant of time varies according to time.
So it is not static, therefore the buildings should be subjected to nonlinear dynamic analysis
i.e. time history analysis and then the building response should be noted. From time history
analysis, different response parameters can be evaluated like maximum displacement,
interstorey drift, earthquake data last second hinge formation etc. After the structure become
safe in both linear and nonlinear analysis, the next step is to find out the maximum
displacements of the buildings to observe pounding. To prevent the collision between the
buildings if happens, preventive measures in the form of bracings and shear wall are used
and also the best location of both the bracings and shear wall are studied by placing it at
various location of the buildings. The study consists of (a) bare frame and (b) frame with
infill walls. All the above processes are to be applied for both the type of frames.

28
CHAPTER

4
Design Considerations of the Models

4.1 Modelling
In the present study two buildings have been considered, one is 8 storey building and the
other is 5 storey building. All the buildings are fixed in the base. The height of bottom storey
from plinth level is kept 4 m and 3.5 m each for the rest storeys. The plinth level is kept at
1.2 m from the fixed support. Plan and geometry of the two buildings are kept same for both
the types of moment resisting frames except the elevation on which brick infill walls that are
introduced in the form of diagonal strut. The details of the buildings are given below:

No. of No. of No. of Bay Bay Beam Column


storeys bays along bays along length length (mm) (mm)
X Y along X along Y
direction direction (m) (m)
8 4 5 4 4 350*550 550*750
5 3 5 4 4 300*450 400*600

Table 4.1 Building details.

The plan and elevation of the two buildings (without brick infill walls) are given below:

29
Figure 4.1 Plan and elevation of 8 storey building

Figure 4.2 Plan and elevation of 5 storey building

Now the frames with brick infill walls in the form of diagonal strut are shown below:

30
Figure 4.3 Elevation of the two adjacent buildings

4.1.2 Material property considered


Materials used for the design are concrete of characteristic strength 30 MPa for beams and
40 MPa for columns, reinforcing steel of yield strength of 500 MPa for longitudinal
reinforcing bars and 415 MPa for confinement bars.

4.1.3 Other details considered


Slab of eight stories and five stories is modeled as rigid diaphragm element of 125 mm
thickness. Live load on floor is taken as 2.5 kN/m2 and on roof is 1 kN/m2 for eight storey
building and live load as 3 kN/m2 and roof load as 0.9 kN/m2 for five storey building. The
seismic weight is calculated conforming to IS 1893-2002(part-I). The unit weight of concrete
is taken as 25 kN/m3. The earthquake zone V and medium type soil is considered in the
study. Since it is RCC structure, 5% damping is considered.

4.1.4 Loading combination considered


(a) DL+LL
(b) 1.2 (DL+LL± EQX)
(c) 1.2 (DL+LL± EQY)
(d) 1.5 (DL± EQX)
(e) 1.5(DL± EQY)

31
4.2 Pushover analysis
For this analysis, a separate joint is created on the roof at center of gravity of the building to
find out the roof displacement at that joint as pushover curve evaluates base shear vs roof
displacement curve. Pushover analysis is done considering both mode proportional method
and mass proportional method. Nonlinear hinges are assigned to all the members at 0 and 1
relative distance. Finally when the analysis is done, the capacity of the building to take base
shear can be evaluated.

4.3 Time history analysis


4.3.1 Earthquake data considered
For nonlinear seismic analysis, the ground motion has to be represented through time
histories. Five Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion (SCGM) has been generated. For this
five different earthquake records are taken from USGS (United States Geological Survey)
site and are converted into SCGMs (Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion) by KUMAR
software (2004). The table below shows the earthquake location, date of occurrence, its
magnitude and duration of occurrence.

S.NO DATE PLACE MAGNITUDE(Mw) DURATION(sec)


SCGM 1 18.05.1987 Haflong 5.9 13.52
SCGM 2 06.08.1988 Hojai 7.2 63.76
SCGM 3 16.09.1978 Tabas 7.35 33
SCGM 4 19.10.1991 Uttarakhand 7.0 89
SCGM 5 06.02.1988 Baigao 5.8 10.12

Table 4.2 Details of spectrum compatible ground motion used.

The acceleration vs time graphs of above ground motions considered in this study are shown
below:
ACCELERATION(g)

TIME(sec)

Figure 4.4 Haflong ground motion

32
ACCELERATION (g)

TIME(sec)

Figure 4.5 Hojai ground motion


ACCELERATION (g)

TIME(sec)

Figure 4.6 Tabas ground motion


ACCELERATION (g)

TIME (sec)

Figure 4.7 Uttarakhand ground motion


ACCELERATION (g)

TIME (sec)

Figure 4.8 Baigao ground motion

33
4.4 Bracing
RCC bracing is used in this study. The configuration used is cross bracing. The properties
of cross bracing used are given in tabular form.
NUMBER AND
STOREY MATERIALS SECTION (mm) DIAMETER OF
BARS
8 storey M30 and Fe 415 250*350 8-12 mm Ø
5 storey M30 and Fe 415 200*300 6-12 mm Ø

Table 4.3 Bracing properties

Nonlinear hinges are assigned to the bracing only at relative distance of 0.5 as per FEMA 356.

4.5 Shear wall


In this study RC shear wall has been used in between the two columns but a very minor gap
has been kept in between the outer face of the column and outer face of the shear wall in
both the opposite sides of it. This minor gap will be filled by some compresive material in
order to not leave those gaps blank.
The properties of the shear wall are given below:

SECTION (mm) MATERIALS


2500*230 M30 Unconfined concrete and Fe415

Table 4.4 Shear wall properties

4.6 Masonry infill


Masonry infill walls have been used in the form of diagonal strut in software. The width of
the diagonal strut is taken as Wds= 0.175.αh-0.4.Lds. Here the length of the diagonal strut
is found as 4.54 m for 8 storey building and 4.71 m for 5 storey building. The width of the
strut is found as 0.65 m for 8 storey building and 0.61 m for 5 storey building. Therefore the
section size of diagonal strut is found as 0.25*0.65 (m) for 8 storey building and 0.27*0.61
(m) for 5 storey building.

34
CHAPTER

5
Observations

5.1 General
Since the present study comprises of two types of moment resisting frames (bare frame and
frame with infill walls), each and every design procedure is followed for the above two types
of frames. The analysis part is divided into linear and nonlinear analysis. First of all the
buildings are designed on the basis of linear seismic analysis and if found safe, then only it
should be analyzed for nonlinear analysis otherwise the members should be redesigned.

5.2 Linear seismic analysis


The two adjacent buildings considered in this study for the types of frames are analyzed for
gravity loading and are designed by IS 456:2000 and here it is found that all the members
are safe. No failures of beams and columns are recorded. Hence it is now subjected to
nonlinear seismic analysis.

5.2 Nonlinear seismic analysis


5.2.1 Nonlinear Static analysis (Pushover analysis)
The pushover graphs plotted shows the changes in the behavior of the buildings modelled
for both the types of frames i.e. buildings without infill walls and buildings with infill walls.
The changes in the base shear of the buildings or in other words the capability of the
buildings to take base shear is noted and are discussed here. The pushover analysis is done
for both mode proportional and mass proportional load. Out of these two, the one which is
having greater roof displacement is considered and are shown here for both along short and
long direction. Here the short direction is along ‘X’ and long direction is along ‘Y’.
Following curves shows the pushover curves carried out for buildings with and without infill
walls.

35
BARE FRAME BARE FRAME
FRAME WITH INFILL WALL FRAME WITH INFILL WALL
14000 25000

12000

BASE SHEAR (kN)


BASE SHEAR (kN)

20000
10000
8000 15000

6000 10000
4000
5000
2000
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m) ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

Figure 5.1 Pushover curve of 8 storey building along short and long direction respectively.

BARE FRAME BARE FRAME


FRAME WITH INFILL WALL FRAME WITH INFILL WALL
12000
8000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

BASE SHEAR (kN)

7000 10000
6000
8000
5000
4000 6000
3000
4000
2000
1000 2000
0
0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m) ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

Figure 5.2 Pushover curve of 5 storey building along short and long direction respectively.

The infill walls will provide more lateral stiffness than frames without infill walls. Therefore
from the pushover analysis, it is clearly seen that the base shear of a building increases and
roof displacement decreases in case of building with infill walls as compared to building
without infill walls (bare frame). The base shear variation for the two types of frames are
shown below:
STOREY BARE FRAME WITH INFILL WALLS
8 STOREY ~8000 ~11800
5 STOREY ~3800 ~6800

Table 5.1 Base shear variation along short direction

36
STOREY BARE FRAME WITH INFILL WALLS
8 STOREY ~9000 ~20000
5 STOREY ~5000 ~9000

Table 5.2 Base shear variation along long direction

Actually pushover analysis is also used for finding out building’s performance level (IO, LS
or CP) as per the target objectives but since the present study does not deal with the Unified
Performance Based Design (UPBD), Choudhury and Singh 2013, therefore this part is not
discussed here. The present study is based upon forced based method or codal method where
the design provisions are as per IS 1893:2002 (part I).

5.2.2 Nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history analysis)


After carrying out pushover analysis, next the buildings are subjected to nonlinear dynamic
analysis or nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) which has been carried out with 5
Spectrum Compatible Ground Motions (SCGMs). The SCGMs used in this study are given
in details in chapter 4 and are named as SCGM1, SCGM2, SCGM3, SCGM4, and SCGM5
The performance of the buildings have been evaluated for Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) level. From this analysis, various response parameters like storey maximum
displacements,interstorey drift and are evaluated. The main objective of this study i.e. to
observe pounding, the maximum positive displacement of fifth floor level of eight storey
building and the maximum negative displacement of roof level of five storey building along
short direction (X) are evaluated and if the summation of these displacements exceed the
initial separation gap provided (120 mm) then the pounding will occur. Since in this study
pounding will occur along short direction, therefore the main concern of this study is only
along short direction.

Figure 5.3 Demonstration of pounding phenomenon

5.2.2.1 Variation of displacement with time


The maximum positive displacement of fifth floor level of eight storey building and the
maximum negative displacement of roof level of five storey building from various SCGMs
used are shown below:

37
HAFLONG

DISPLACEMENTS (m)
0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.1

-0.2
TIME (sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

HOJAI
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.1
-0.2
TIME (sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

TABAS
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.1
TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STOTY

UTTARAKHAND
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.1
-0.2
TIME(sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

38
BAIGAO

DISPLACEMENTS (m)
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.1
-0.2
TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

FIGURE 5.4 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used (BARE Frame)

From the above graphs, the maximum positive and maximum negative displacements are
noted and are given below:

EARTHQUAKE 8 STOREY (mm) 5 STOREY (mm) SUMMATION


(mm)
Haflong 50.56 107.74 158.3
Hojai 101.19 101.38 202.57
Tabas 131.89 83.04 214.93
Uttarakhand 79.33 110.76 190.09
Baigao 76.08 116.36 192.44

TABLE 5.3 Maximum positive and negative displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey respevtively (BARE
Frame)

Here , in all the SCGM records, the summation of the displacements are exceeding the initial
separation gap provided, therefore the buildings are colliding with each other. Now again
the displacements vs time graphs for both 8 and 5 storey buildings having infill walls are
evaluated and are shown below:

HAFLONG
DISPLACEMENT (m)

1.00E-01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-5.00E-02

-1.00E-01

TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

39
HOJAI
1.00E-01
DISPLACEMENT (m) 5.00E-02
0.00E+00
-5.00E-02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1.00E-01
-1.50E-01

TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

TABAS
DISPLACEMENT (m)

1.50E-01
1.00E-01
5.00E-02
0.00E+00
-5.00E-02 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1.00E-01
TIME (sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

UTTARAKHAND
DISPLACEMENT (m)

1.00E-01
5.00E-02
0.00E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-5.00E-02
-1.00E-01
TIME (sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

BAIGAO
DISPLACEMENT (m)

1.00E-01
5.00E-02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-5.00E-02
-1.00E-01
TIME (sec)

8 STORY 5 STORY

FIGURE 5.5 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used (Frame with INFILL WALLS)

40
EARTHQUAKE 8 STOREY (mm) 5 STOREY (mm) SUMMATION
(mm)
Haflong 80.21 59.95 140.16
Hojai 72 88.66 160.66
Tabas 94 71.29 165.29
Uttarakhand 82 61 143
Baigao 64 66.55 130.55

TABLE 5.4 Maximum positive and negative displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey respevtively ( Frame
with INFILL WALLS)

In this case also, pounding between buildings is occuring although the displacements are
greatly reduced but it is not sufficient enough to maintain a gap between buildings lower
than 120 mm. Therefore, some preventive measures need to be used in both the bare frame
and the frame having infill walls in order to prevent the collision.

5.2.2.2 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR)

9 6
8
5
7 SCGM4 SCGM3
6 4
STOREY

STOREY

5 SCGM1 SCGM1
3
4 SCGM2 SCGM2
3 2
SCGM3 SCGM4
2
SCGM5 1 SCGM5
1
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 5.6 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (BARE frame)

9 6
8
5
7 SCGM3 SCGM2
STOREY

6
STOREY

SCGM1 4 SCGM1
5
4 SCGM2 3 SCGM3
3 2
SCGM4 SCGM4
2
1 SCGM5 1 SCGM5
0
0
0 1 2
0 0.5 1 1.5
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 5.7 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (frame with INFILL walls)

41
The interstorey drift ratio values varies according to different SCGMs used. Out of these,
maximum IDR for 8 storey building is found as 1.7% for bare frame and 1.55% for frame
with infill walls. Similarly the maximum IDR for 5 storey building is found as 1.6% for bare
frame and 1.45% for frame with infill walls. Since in performance based design, the target
drift value for LS is taken in between 1.5-2%, therefore if the buildings are designed for LS
performance level, then the separation gap provided will not be enough to prevent collision.

5.2.2.3 Storey displacements


In 5.2.2.1, only the maximum displacement for concerned floor level is found out i.e. 5th
floor level of both 8 storey and 5 storey building. Now the maximum displacement of roof
level of both the buildings and the corresponding lower storey displacements are evaluated
and are shown below:

BARE FRAME FRAME WITH INFILL

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

FIGURE 5.8 Storey displacements (8 storey)

BARE FRAME FRAME WITH INFILL

0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

FIGURE 5.9 Storey displacements (5 storey)

42
CHAPTER

6
Mitigation measures

6.1 General
Since pounding between adjacent buildings can cause severe damage to the structures under
strong ground motions, it may lead to discomfort to the people residing inside it or it may
collapse due to strong impact force of collision, therefore some cost effective preventive
measures need to be implemented like bracings, shear wall, dampers etc. In this study RCC
cross bracings and RC shear wall has been used. The configuration, material and sectional
properties for both bracings and shear wall are given in details in chapter 4. Also the
positioning of bracings and shear wall are studied thoroughly by putting them at various
locations in the buildings and observe the response of the buildings and out of these various
positioning, the best location of bracing and shear wall has been discussed in this study. In
the previous chapter it is noticed that the building’s performance level attained was Life
safety which was not suitable for preventing pounding and therefore the drift of the buildings
should be reduced. IDR value for all the positions are not evaluated in this study but rather
the positioning in which the displacement gets mostly reduced is considered for evaluating
IDR and observe the drift in that particular type of positioning. First type of frame structure
i.e. bare frame structure has been studied and then it is followed by study of another type of
frame structure i.e. frame with infill walls.

6.2 Bare frame


In bare frame structure, the cross bracings and shear wall are installed throughout the height
of the structure and they are placed at four number of bays along short direction such that
the symmetry of the structure gets maintained. Unsymmetrical position of bracings and shear
wall are avoided in order to prevent torsion in the structure. A total of six type of positions
of both bracings and shear wall has been analyzed and the structure’s response parameters
are observed. Here 8 storey has 4 bays and 5 storey has 3 bays. Therefore building

43
configuration is not same for 8 storey and 5 storey building along short direction and thus
same position of bracings and shear wall for both the buildings is not possible as it will
hamper symmetry. Hence both the buildings have their own bracing and shear wall positions
and it has been given below.

6.2.1 Bracing

6.2.1.1 Position 1
Here the cross bracings are provided at the two outer face of the building at coordinate Y=0m
and Y=20m.

FIGURE 6.1 Bracing position no. 1 of 8 storey and 5 srorey respectively

6.2.1.1.1 Pushover analysis


Here the base shear vs roof displacement curve for both the buildings are evaluated and are
shown below:

8 STOREY 5 STOREY
12000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

FIGURE 6.2 Pushover curve for position no. 1

44
6.2.1.1.2 Time history analysis
6.2.1.1.2.1 Variation of displacement with time
As discussed in chapter 5, to check if pounding between buildings is occurring, the
maximum positive and negative displacement of concerned floor level is evaluated and are
shown below:

HAFLONG
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

-0.1
TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

HOJAI
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-0.1
TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

TABAS
DISPLACEMENTS (m)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-0.1
TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

45
UTTARAKHAND

DISPLACEMENTS (m)
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.1
TIME (SEC)
8 STORY 5 STORY

BAIGAO
DISPLACEMENTS

0.1
(m)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.1

TIME (sec)
8 STORY 5 STORY

FIGURE 6.3 Displacement vs time graphs of SCGMs used

From the above graphs, the maximum positive and maximum negative displacements are
noted and are given below:

EARTHQUAKE 8 STOREY (mm) 5 STOREY (mm) SUMMATION


(mm)
Haflong 50.28 40.52 90.8
Hojai 44.28 59.29 103.57
Tabas 60.21 45.65 105.86
Uttarakhand 51.92 49.38 101.3
Baigao 48.16 48.7 96.86

TABLE 6.1: Maximum positive and negative displacement of 8 storey and 5 storey respevtively.

In this case, pounding is prevented in all the SCGM records where the summation of positive
and negative displacement of 8 storey building and 5 building are not exceeding the separtion
gap of 120 mm. Therefore this type of positioning is suitable for preventing pounding.
Similarly different location of positioning of bracings are studied and are compared for best
location in the next chapter. Here also, the maximum positive and maximum negative
displacement of concerned floor level of both the buildings are evaluated to observe
pounding and instead of showing the graphs, only the summation of displacements are
shown in table 6.2 in order to avoid similar pattern of graphs. Also the pushover analysis has
been carried out and the curves are shown in the next chapter where comparisons among the
different positioning are being made. So, the different positionings are shown below:

46
FIGURE 6.4 Bracing Position 2

FIGURE 6.5 Bracing Position 3

FIGURE 6.6 Bracing Position 4

47
FIGURE 6.7 Bracing Position 5

FIGURE 6.8 Bracing Position 6

LOCATION HAFLONG HOJAI TABAS UTTARAKHAND BAIGAO


Position 2 76.55 92.39 103.63 91.99 89.11
Position 3 78.12 94.94 103.28 91.4 89.73
Position 4 80.93 105.27 103.51 98.59 88.55
Position 5 75.24 91.7 104.46 92.18 88.72
Position 6 82.01 101.66 107.09 97.93 92.64

TABLE 6.2: Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative displacement of 8 storey and 5
storey building for 5 different SCGMs records (Bracing)

After analyzing all the type of positioning of bracing, it is found that all the positioning are
suitable for preventing pounding between adjacent buildings. But not all the types are giving
equal response of the buildings. So out of these 6 positioning, the positioning in which the
building’s response is found less, is going to be the best location and has been discussed here
in the next chapter. Now the shear wall has been used and is discussed below:

48
6.2.2 Shear wall
Just like bracings which is discussed in section 6.2.1, six type of positioning of shear wall
has been studied and both the pushover and time history analysis are being carried out. The
pushover curves are discussed in the next chapter and the maximum positive and maximum
negative displacement of 8 and 5 storey building are evaluated from the time history analysis
but similarly as discussed in previous section, only the summation of the displacements are
shown in table 6.3 in order to avoid similar pattern of graphs.

FIGURE 6.9 Shear wall position 1

FIGURE 6.10 Shear wall position 2

FIGURE 6.11 Shear wall position 3

49
FIGURE 6.12 Shear wall position 4

FIGURE 6.13 Shear wall position 5

FIGURE 6.14 Shear wall position 6

50
LOCATION HAFLONG HOJAI TABAS UTTARAKHAND BAIGAO
Position 1 84.43 84.48 85.44 84.24 67.52
Position 2 83.71 84.31 91.51 83.01 67.64
Position 3 73.48 70.69 89.8 72.19 75.48
Position 4 86.69 98.34 107.79 91.93 91.48
Position 5 80.43 79.2 96 81.53 71.42
Position 6 82.98 95.95 106.07 87.91 89.5

TABLE 6.3: Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative displacement of 8 storey and 5
storey building for 5 different SCGMs records (Shear wall)

After analyzing all the type of positioning of shear wall, it is found that all the positioning
are suitable for preventing pounding between adjacent buildings. Similarly not all the types
are giving equal response of the buildings. So out of these 6 positioning, the positioning in
which the building’s response is found less, is going to be the best location and has been
discussed here in the next chapter. With this note, positions of bracings and shear wall for
bare frame structure has been completed and out of these the best location of placing them
is discussed in the next chapter. Now the second type i.e. frame with infill walls has been
discussed in the following section.

6.3 Frame with infill walls


In this type of frame structure, the cross bracings and shear wall are installed only in the soft
storey which is bottom storey and not throughout the height of the structure. Since they are
placed only at bottom storey, the number of bays of positioning has been increased from
four to eight in 8 storey and six in 5 storey and it is located in such a way that the symmetry
of the structure gets maintained. Unsymmetrical position of bracings and shear wall are
avoided in order to prevent torsion in the structure. Here 8 storey has 4 bays and 5 storey has
3 bays and therefore same position of bracings and shear wall for both the buildings is not
possible as it will hamper symmetry. A total of 6 type of positions of both bracings and
shear wall in 8 storey building and in 5 storey building has been analyzed and the structure’s
response parameters are observed. Hence both the buildings have their own bracing and
shear wall positions and it has been given below:
6.3.1 Bracing

FIGURE 6.15 Bracing position 1

51
FIGURE 6.16 Bracing position 2

FIGURE 6.17 Bracing position 3

FIGURE 6.18 Bracing position 4

52
FIGURE 6.19 Bracing position 5

FIGURE 6.20 Bracing position 6

LOCATION HAFLONG HOJAI TABAS UTTARAKHAND BAIGAO


Position 1 84.23 103.1 112.51 88.49 96.54
Position 2 84.58 102.6 112.21 88.5 96.25
Position 3 84.56 102 112.45 88.68 95.57
Position 4 81.69 100 111.19 86.9 94.3
Position 5 83.24 101.3 112.45 87.68 95.54
Position 6 82.67 101.08 111.56 87.56 95.5

TABLE 6.4: Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative displacement of 8 storey and 5
storey building for 5 different SCGMs records (Bracing with infill wall)

After analyzing all the type of positioning of bracing, it is found that all the positioning are
suitable for preventing pounding between adjacent buildings. But not all the types are giving
equal response of the buildings. So out of these 6 positioning, the positioning in which the
building’s response is found less, is going to be the best location and has been discussed here
in the next chapter. Now the shear wall has been used and is discussed below:

53
6.3.2 Shear wall
Just like bracings which is discussed in section 6.3.1, six type of positioning of shear wall
has been studied and both the pushover and time history analysis are being carried out.
Similarly the pushover curves are discussed in the next chapter and the maximum positive
and maximum negative displacement of 8 and 5 storey building are evaluated from the time
history analysis but as discussed in previous section, only the summation of the
displacements are shown in table 6.5 in order to avoid similar pattern of graphs.

FIGURE 6.21 Shear wall position 1

FIGURE 6.22 Shear wall position 2

FIGURE 6.23 Shear wall position 3

54
FIGURE 6.24 Shear wall position 4

FIGURE 6.25 Shear wall position 5

FIGURE 6.26 Shear wall position 6

55
LOCATION HAFLONG HOJAI TABAS UTTARAKHAND BAIGAO
Position 1 79 87.4 99.4 83.6 82.8
Position 2 83.95 83.79 97.49 83.22 78.73
Position 3 79.33 87.15 100.31 82.05 81.53
Position 4 80.44 86.18 100.46 82 81.31
Position 5 80.44 87.26 101.1 82.04 80.93
Position 6 79.55 87.59 99.14 82.43 81.16

TABLE 6.5: Summation of maximum positive and maximum negative displacement of 8 storey and 5
storey building for 5 different SCGMs records (Shear wall with infill wall)

After analyzing all the type of positioning of shear wall, it is found that all the positioning
are suitable for preventing pounding between adjacent buildings. Similarly not all the types
are giving equal response of the buildings. So out of these 6 positioning, the positioning in
which the building’s response is found less, is going to be the best location and has been
discussed here in the next chapter. With this note, positions of bracings and shear wall for
frame structure with infill wall has been completed and out of these the best location of
placing them is discussed in the next chapter.

56
CHAPTER

7
Comparison of results

7.1 General
In the present study, a total of six type of positions of both bracings and shear wall has been
studied for both the type of moment resisting frames and it has been found that all the
positions proved successful in preventing pounding. Now the best location of bracings and
shear wall for both the buildings are studied by evaluating the building’s displacements and
observe the type of positioning in which minimum displacement is recorded. Also the base
shear carrying capacity of the buildings for all the type of positioning are evaluated by
pushover analysis and are shown below.

7.2 Bare frame


7.2.1 Pushover analysis (Bracing in bare frame)

12000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

10000

8000 POSITION 1
POSITION 2
6000
POSITION 3
4000 POSITION 4
2000 POSITION 5
POSITION 6
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

57
7000

6000

BASE SHEAR (kN)


5000 POSITION 1
4000 POSITION 2
3000 POSITION 3

2000 POSITION 4
POSITION 5
1000
POSITION 6
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

FIGURE 7.1 Pushover curve for different positioning type (Bracingin bare frame) of 8 storey and 5 storey
respectively

From the pushover curves, the curve which is showing minimum roof displacement is taken
as the more stiffen building. Here in this case, position number 3 of 8 storey building and
position number 4 of 5 storey building proved to be the best location of placing bracing.

7.2.2 Storey displacements (Bracing in bare frame)


Since we are concerned with the maximum positive displacement of 8 storey building and
maximum negative displacement of 5 storey building, therefore the maximum positive roof
displacement of 8 storey building and the corresponding lower storey displacements are
evaluated. Similarly the maximum negative roof displacement of 5 storey building and their
corresponding lower storey displacements are also evaluated and they are compared for
minimum displacement.

9
8
7
6 POSITION 1
STOREY

5 POSITION 2
4 POSITION 3
3 POSITION 4

2 POSITION 5

1 POSITION 6

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.2 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (bracing in bare frame)

58
6

4 POSITION 1

STOREY 3
POSITION 2
POSITION 3

2 POSITION 4
POSITION 5
1 POSITION 6

0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.3 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (bracing in bare frame)

Here also it is clearly seen that for 8 storey building, position number 3 proved quite
impressive as after analyzing, this position has got the minimum displacement. Similarly for
5 storey building, position number 4 has got the minimum displacement. Now if the IDR
value is checked for both the building with that particular best position, then we can know
the performance level attained by the buildings. Therefore, the IDR value for different
SCGMs records of position 3 of 8 storey building and position 4 of 5 storey building are
shown below:

9 6
8
5
7
6 SCGM 1 4 SCGM 1
STOREY

STOREY

5
SCGM 2 3 SCGM 2
4
SCGM 3 SCGM 3
3 2
2 SCGM 4 SCGM 4
1
1 SCGM 5 SCGM 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 7.4 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey ( Position 3) and 5 storey (Position 4) respectively
(bracing in bare frame)

The interstorey drift ratio values varies according to different SCGMs used. Out of these,
maximum IDR for 8 storey building is found as 0.95% and maximum IDR for 5 storey
building is found as 0.8%. Since the drift attained is below 1.5%, therefore the IO
performance level is achieved in order to stiffen the structure for preventing pounding.

59
Also the time history last second hinge formation of that particular best location is checked
in order to ensure that no nonlinear hinges should form on columns. The SCGMs records in
which worst kind of hinges are forming is taken into consideration and are shown here.
Hence it is found that only IO level hinges are forming on beams and columns are free from
hinges. Bracings are also forming hinges but this is only built for strengthening the frame
structure which it is maintaining well in this study.

FIGURE 7.5 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (Bracing in bare frame)

7.2.3 Pushover analysis (Shear wall in bare frame)

30000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

25000
POSITION 1
20000
POSITION 2
15000
POSITION 3
10000
POSITION 4
5000
0 POSITION 5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 POSITION 6
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

14000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

12000
POSITION 1
10000
8000 POSITION 2
6000 POSITION 3
4000
2000 POSITION 4
0 POSITION 5
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 POSITION 6
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

FIGURE 7.6 Pushover curve for different positioning type (Shear wall in bare frame) of 8 storey and 5
storey respectively

60
From the pushover curves, the curve which is showing minimum roof displacement is
position number 3 of 8 storey building and position number 3 of 5 storey building which is
proved to be the best location of placing shear wall

7.2.4 Storey displacements (Shear wall in bare frame)

9
8
7
6 POSITION 1
STOREY

5 POSITION 2
4 POSITION 3
3 POSITION 4
2 POSITION 5
1 POSITION 6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.7 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (shear wall in bare frame)

4 POSITION 1
STOREY

POSITION 2
3
POSITION 3
2 POSITION 4
POSITION 5
1
POSITION 6
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.8 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (shear wall in bare frame)

It is clearly seen that for 8 storey building, position number 3 proved quite impressive as
after analyzing this position has got the minimum displacement. Similarly for 5 storey
building, position number 3 has got the minimum displacement. The IDR value for different
SCGMs records of position 3 of 8 storey building and position 3 of 5 storey building are
shown below:

61
9 6
8
5
7
6 4 SCGM 1
STOREY

STOREY
SCGM 1
5 SCGM 2
SCGM 2 3
4
SCGM 3
3 SCGM 3 2
SCGM 4
2 SCGM 4
1 SCGM 5
1 SCGM 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 7.9 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey ( Position 3) and 5 storey (Position 3) respectively
(shear wall in bare frame)

The interstorey drift ratio values varies according to different SCGMs used. Out of these,
maximum IDR for 8 storey building is found as 0.74% and maximum IDR for 5 storey
building is found as 0.5%. Since the drift attained is below 1.5%, therefore the IO
performance level is achieved. Also the time history last second hinge formation of that
particular best location is checked in order to ensure that no nonlinear hinges should form
on columns. The SCGMs records in which worst kind of hinges are forming is taken into
consideration and are shown here. Here it is found that only IO level hinges are forming on
beams and columns are free from hinges. Similarly shear wall are also forming hinges but
this is only built for strengthening the frame structure which it is maintaining well in this
study.

FIGURE 7.10 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (Shear wall in bare
frame)

62
Both the bracings and shear wall are being studied for best location in bare frame structure
and now similarly for the other type of moment resisting frame i.e. frame with infill walls,
bracing and shear wall are studied for best location.

7.3 Frame with infill walls


7.3.1 Pushover analysis (Bracing along with infill wall)

20000
18000
16000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

14000 POSITION 1
12000 POSITION 2
10000
8000 POSITION 3
6000 POSITION 4
4000
POSITION 5
2000
0 POSITION 6
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

9000
8000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

7000
POSITION 1
6000
5000 POSITION 2
4000 POSITION 3
3000
POSITION 4
2000
1000 POSITION 5
0 POSITION 6
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

FIGURE 7.11 Pushover curve for different positioning type (Bracing along with infill wall) of 8 storey and
5 storey respectively

From the pushover curves, it is found that all the positioning are showing almost equal
responses to the buildings and it is difficult to choose the best one which is showing
minimum roof displacement.

7.3.2 Storey displacements (Bracing along with infill wall)


In this case also, all the positions are showing almost equal amount of displacements but
position number 4 of both 8 storey and 5 storey building shows minor good results as
compared to other positions. So, it is difficult to choose the best location of placing bracing
which is placed only at soft storey along with infill wall in the rest storeys.

63
9
8
7
6 POSITION 1

STOREY
5 POSITION 2
4 POSITION 3
3 POSITION 4
2
POSITION 5
1
0 POSITION 6
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.12 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (bracing along with infill wall)

4 POSITION 1
STOREY

POSITION 2
3
POSITION 3
2
POSITION 4
1 POSITION 5
0 POSITION 6
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.13 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (bracing along with infill wall)

The IDR value for different SCGMs records of position 4 of 8 storey building and position
4 of 5 storey building are shown below:

9 6
8
5
7
6 SCGM 1 4 SCGM 1
STOREY

STOREY

5 SCGM 2 SCGM 2
3
4
SCGM 3 SCGM 3
3 2
2 SCGM 4 SCGM 4
1
1 SCGM 5 SCGM 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 7.14 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey ( Position 4) and 5 storey (Position 4) respectively
(bracing along with infill wall)

64
Out of these, maximum IDR for 8 storey building is found as 0.78% and maximum IDR for
5 storey building is found as 0.63%. Since the drift attained is below 1.5%, therefore the IO
performance level is achieved. Also the time history last second hinge formation of that
particular best location is checked in order to ensure that no nonlinear hinges should form
on columns. The SCGMs records in which worst kind of hinges are forming is taken into
consideration and are shown here. Here it is found that only IO level hinges are forming on
beams and columns are free from hinges.

FIGURE 7.15 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (bracing along with
infill wall)

7.3.3 Pushover analysis (Shear wall along with infill wall)

35000

30000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

25000
POSITION 1
20000 POSITION 2
15000 POSITION 3
POSITION 4
10000
POSITION 5
5000 POSITION 6
0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

65
25000

20000

BASE SHEAR (kN)


POSITION 1
15000
POSITION 2
10000 POSITION 3
POSITION 4
5000
POSITION 5
0 POSITION 6
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (m)

FIGURE 7.16 Pushover curve for different positioning type (Shear wall along with infill wall) of 8 storey
and 5 storey respectively

From the pushover curves, here it is also found that all the positioning are showing almost
equal responses to the buildings and it is difficult to choose the best one which is showing
minimum roof displacement.

7.3.4 Storey displacements (Shear wall along with infill wall)


In this case also, it is clearly seen from the graph that all the type of positioning are showing
equal amount of responses to the buildings and it is difficult to judge the best location among
them. Though very minor changes are there, position 3 of both the buildings show good
results. Position 3 of both the buildings is taken for checking IDR value.

9
8
7
6 POSITION 1
STOREY

5 POSITION 2
4 POSITION 3
3 POSITION 4
2
POSITION 5
1
POSITION 6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.17 Positive displacement of 8 storey building (shear wall along with infill wall)

66
6

4 POSITION 1

STOREY
POSITION 2
3
POSITION 3
2 POSITION 4
POSITION 5
1
POSITION 6
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIGURE 7.18 Negative displacement of 5 storey building (shear wall along with infill wall)

The IDR value for different SCGMs records of position 3 of both 8 storey building and 5
storey building are shown below:

9 6
8
5
7
6 SCGM 1 4 SCGM 1
STOREY
STOREY

5 SCGM 2
SCGM 2 3
4
3 SCGM 3 2 SCGM 3
2 SCGM 4 SCGM 4
1
1 SCGM 5
SCGM 5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
DRIFT (%) DRIFT (%)

FIGURE 7.19 Interstorey Drift Ratio (IDR) of 8 storey ( Position 3) and 5 storey (Position 3) respectively
(shear wall along with infill wall)

Out of these, maximum IDR for 8 storey building is found as 0.52% and maximum IDR for
5 storey building is found as 0.42%. Since the drift attained is below 1.5%, therefore the IO
performance level is achieved. Also the time history last second hinge formation of position
3 of both the buildings are checked in order to ensure that no nonlinear hinges should form
on columns. The SCGMs records in which worst kind of hinges are forming is taken into
consideration and are shown here. Here it is found that only IO level hinges are forming on
beams and columns are free from hinges.

67
FIGURE 7.20 Last time second hinge formation of 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (shear wall along with
infill wall)

Hence the study of different positioning of bracing and shear wall for both 8 storey and 5
storey building has been completed and now it is clearly visible that which type of
positioning of bracing and shear wall should be used for better response of the buildings.
Now the present study is concluded in the next chapter.

68
CHAPTER

8
Conclusions and Future works

8.1 Conclusions
In this present study, the two adjacent buildings which are separated by 120 mm gap, are not
found safe during strong ground motions. The gap provided is found insufficient for the
buildings to vibrate freely. In every ground motions considered in this study, the buildings
collide with each other. So, the main purpose of this study i.e. to reduce the displacement in
order to prevent pounding needs to be proposed. For that purpose, increasing the cross
section of the member can be implemented but this will not lead to economical design of the
structure. Therefore, RC shear wall and RCC bracings have been used. After carrying out
analysis, it is found that both the bracings as well as shear wall served the purpose. Now it
is obvious that after installing bracing or shear wall, the displacements are bound to decrease.
There is nothing new in this. So, therefore the study concentrated on the effective location
of bracings or shear wall. Various locations are studied keeping in mind about the symmetry
of the structure. A total of six type of positions of both bracings and shear wall for both the
type of moment resisting frames are studied and are compared in this study. The best location
for out of the various positions are shown below:

FIGURE 8.1 Best location of bracing in 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (Bare frame)

69
FIGURE 8.2 Best location of shear wall in 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (Bare frame).

FIGURE 8.3 Best location of bracing in 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (frame with infill wall).

FIGURE 8.4 Best location of shear wall in 8 storey and 5 storey respectively (frame with infill wall).

For bare frame structure, bracings and shear wall are installed throughout the height of the
structure and for frame with infill wall, they are installed only at the bottom storey. In this
study, before using bracing and shear wall i.e. when the pounding was occurring, the drift of
the building was 1.5%-2%. So, performance level attained was Life Safety (LS) but after the
use of bracing and shear wall, the drift gets reduced to below 1% and thus the Immediate
Occupancy (IO) performance level was attained. The present study is based forced based

70
method of design. If the structures are designed according to performance based design
where some target drift should be decided first for design, then designing for LS performance
level will not help the structure from colliding with the adjacent building. Therefore it can
be concluded that the two adjacent buildings prone to pounding should be designed
according to IO performance level.

8.2 Future works


The present study deals with only RCC bracing and RC shear wall. The use of steel bracing
and its best location can also be an alternative solution. The various types of dampers like
Friction dampers, viscous dampers, Metallic damper, Lead Injection Damper (LED) etc. can
also be used to stiffen the structure and helps to prevent pounding.

71
CHAPTER

9
References

1) Abbas Moustafa, Sayed Mahmoud (2014) Damage assessment of adjacent buildings


under earthquake loads, Engineering structures 61(2014) 153-165.
2) Panayiotis C. Polycarpou, Petros Komodromos, and Anastasis C. Polycarpou (2012)
A nonlinear impact model for simulating the use of rubber shock absorbers for
mitigating the effects of structural pounding during earthquakes, the journal of the
international association for earthquake engineering 42:81–100.
3) Ravindranatha, Tauseef M Honnyal, Shivananda S.M, H Suresh (2014) A study of
seismic pounding between adjacent buildings, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology Volume: 03.
4) Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos (1987) Pounding of buildings in series during
earthquakes, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL
DYNAMICS, VOL. 16,443-456 (1988).
5) Chenna Rajaram, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla (2012) Comparison of Codal
Provisions on Pounding between Adjacent Buildings, International Journal of Earth
Sciences and Engineering Report No: IIIT/TR/2012/-1.

72