Seismic Evaluation of Multi-storeyed Buildings On Plain Ground And Curve Slope Ground

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 10, 2015 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground Md Sadruddin1 Prof. Amaresha2 M. Tech Student 2Assistant Professor 1,2 Department of Structural Engineering 1,2 Veerappa Nisty Engineering College, Shorapur, District Yadgir, Karnataka 1

Abstract— Most of the hilly regions of India are highly seismic. Buildings on hill slopes differ in a way from other buildings. The soft storeies are typical feature in modern constructions specially in seismic areas which has been experience by the previous studies and past earthquakes.

Due to verious type of structures on sloped ground structures are comes under irregularity and asymmetricity.

Structures on slope leads to seismic cases.The damages to the structures are determined and acceptable safety can be provided. The linear-elastic analysis is not adequate in highly seismic areas. Thus for the design of building in seimic areas and sloped areas inelastic procedure is used. In the present dissertation work, 3D analytical model of eleven storeyed buildings on plain and curved ground have been generated. Models are analyze using „„ETABS”to get the behavior of structure due to change in column height in ground story due to curved sloped ground. The analytical model of the building includes all important components that influence the mass, strength, stiffness and deformability of the structure. To study the effect of infill, concrete shear wall and concrete core wall during earthquake, seismic analysis using both elastic and inelastic method of analyses i.e., linear static (equivalent static method), linear dynamic (response spectrum method) has been performed. The deflections at each storey level has been compared by performing equivalent static method, response spectrum method. Storey drifts are within the permissible limit given for linear static and linear dynamic method. Again contrary to common practice, the presence of masonry infills, concrete shear and concrete core wall may affect the overall behavior of structure while subjected to earthquake forces.

Key words: ETABS, Plain Ground, Curve Ground, Seismic Evaluation, Soft Storey, Infills, Shearwalls and Core Walls, etc…

I. INTRODUCTION A. General: The structures which are design and construct as per earliear code provision do not have satisfied requirements for current earthquakes.Thus many of the structures in seismic areas are suffering from hazards.Therefore the new code provisions are made for such cases.

Multistoried R.C. framed buildings are getting popular in hilly areas because of increase in land cost and in unavoidable circumstances.Thus the structures in the hilly areas should have adequate strength to avoid the failure of structure during earthquakes.

Indian subcontinent has been experienced with some of the most earthquakes in the world. The youngest mountain series of Himalayas covers whole northeast boundary regions of India. The tectonic activities are still continuing which may result into severe earthquake in future as anticipated by many scientists and researchers. More than

50% of our land is seismically prone and is being visited by earthquakes time and again incurring socio-economic losses in huge proportions and at the same time reminding us the need of earthquake resistant design.

The latest seismic zoning map of BIS 1893:2002 shows that 12% of our land area is in zone V i.e., MSK IX or more (it means that more than 50% of reinforced concrete buildings would suffer large cracks, gaps in walls leading to collapse of parts of buildings whereas masonry and adobe structures may even collapse), 18% in zone IV i.e., MSK VII and 27% in zone III i.e., MSK VII. All these are damaging earthquake intensities and the structures coming up in these regions has to have special earthquake resistant features. Therefore it is essential to seismically evaluate the many existing building structures as per code current requirements. The buildings found inadequate for resisting future earthquake needs to be retrofitted.

The coceptss of earthquake resist design needs nonlinear analysis to get damages for different levelses of earthquakes.In performance based ideas reactions of building for different levels of motion are specified. In this dissertation, hypothetical multistoried buildings (i.e., eleven storeyed with concrete shear wall ,concrete core wall ,infill and without infill) assumeded in zone v of medium soil site analyzed and designed as for load combinationns given by code.

B. Analysis Procedures: There aretwo types of linear analysis procedures , linear and nonlinear.Further the liner analysis is divided into linearstatic and lineardynamic procedure and nonlinear analysis is divided into nonlinearstatic and nonlineardynamic procedure.

1) Linear Static Procedures: In linear static procedures structure is modeled as equivalent singledegreeof freedom system with linear static stiffness and an equivalent viscouss damping. The inputis modeled by an equivalent lateral forces to found same stresses and strains as earthquake may gives. From first fundamental frequency of structure using Rayleigh‟s method, spectral acceleration Sa is calculated from the appropriate response spectrum, whichis, multiply by mass of the building M, results in the equivalent lateral force, V

-------- 1.1 The coefficient Ci takes into accounto issue order effects, stiffness degradation also force reduction due to inelastic behaviour. These lateral forces are distributed along height of building.The internalforces and displacements are determined using linear elastic analysis.

This procedure is used for design purposess and

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

571

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

incorporated in more codes. Their expenditureis very less.

However their applicability is restricted to regular structure.

2) Linear Dynamic Procedures: In linear dynamic procedure structureis modeled as a multidegreeof freedom with linear elastic stiffness matrix and equivalent viscous damping matrix. The input is modeled as time history analysis. Time-history analysis based on a time stepbystep evaluationof building charecterstics by recording synthetic ground motion. In this case internal forces and displacements are determined by linear elastic analyses.

The scope of this procedure is highermodes can be considered which makes it suitable for irregularstuctures.

3) Nonlinear Static Procedures: In this procedure the modeled incorrporate directly to the nonlinear forcedeformation characterstics of every part of structure due to inelastic reaction of various parts of structure. Several methods of nonlinear static procedure exists (e.g. ATC 40, FEMA 273[9]).

Clearly, the advantage of these procedures with respect to the linear procedures is that they take into account directly the effects of nonlinear material response and hence the calculated internal forces and deformations will be more reasonable approximations of those expected during an earthquake. However, only the first mode of vibration is considered and hence these methods are not suitable for irregular buildings for which higher modes become important.

4) Nonlinear Dynamic Procedures: In this procedure same modeled is used as in nonlinearstatic procedure by directly introducing inelastic reaction using finiteelements. The main differrence is seismicinput is modeled using a timehistory analyses.

This method is most valuable to get internal forces and displacements under seismic input but the calculated responses are very sensitive to individual ground motion used as seismic input.

cncrtshear wall minimizes lateral displacement considerably.

Rayyan-Ul-Hassan and H.S Vidyadhara, [2013] carried out “Analysis Of Earthquake Resisting Multistory Multibay RC Frames.They Analyze Seismic Behavior Of Bareframe, Building With Firstsoft Story (Infillwall In Above Stories) With Presence Of Infill And Cncrt Shear Wall At Corner”. They used fourbay 12storey building on sloping ground situated in seismic zoneV.These buildings are analysed by E.S.Method and R.S.Methods.Based on E.S.Method they found reduce in displacement of modeled with infill and cncrtshear wall at corner compare to bareframe by almost 78.14% and 88.26% respectively and from R.S.Method they noted almost 51.96% and 74.98% respectively.Hence they found presence of infill and cncrtshear wall reduces displacement considerably. It can be observed that there is increase in baseshear due to influence of cncrtshear wall when compare to bareframe. As per IS 1893 part (I) 2002code, the permissible storeydrifts are restricted to 0.004 times the storyheight and they notice all buiidings are under sufficient conditions.

Haroon Rasheed Tamboli and Umesh.N.Karadi, [22] studied “Seismic Analysis Using E.S.Method For Varied Rcframe Modeled Which May Have Bareframe,Infill Walls And Soft Stories At Different Levels”. The Infill walls should be considered in seismic regions because the story drift of soft storey is much more compared to infill storey which may leads to collaps of structures.The use of infill walls may increases the strength and stiffness of structure.

M C Griffth and A R Pinto, [6] have investigated on the “Three Bay Four Story Building Including Unreinforced Brick Masonry Walls”. The building was expected to have maximum lateral deformation capacities corresponding to about 2% lateral drift.The unreinforced infill walls are being cracking at very small drift and completey lost its load carrying capacity.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

III. ANALYTICAL MODELLING

A. General: Several studies, experiments, and research works are carried out since a long time to got the effect of seismic forces on buildings. The concept of modeling and analysis used for this purpose are getting improved day by day as advancement of engineering improved.

A. Description of The Sample Building: The plan layout for building on a plain and on curved slope ground models are shown in below figures. column hight of each storey is 3m for all models 1) Model 1: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick infillmasonry walls (230mm) thick in the upper stories.

Building is modeled as bareframe .However, masses of the walls are considered.

2) Model 2: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick infillmasonry walls (230 mm thick) in the upper stories.

Stiffness and mass of the walls are considered.

3) Model 3: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and halfbrick infillmasonry walls (110 mm thick) in the upper stories..

Stiffness and mass of the walls are considered.

4) Model 4: Building has one full infillmasonry wall (230 mm thick) in all stories including the firststorey. The stiffness and mass of the walls are included.

B. Review: Mohammad Umar Farooq Patel, et al., [2014], has studies on “Seismic Evaluation Of RC Building On Scurved Ground”. They studied behavior of frame on curved ground with cncrtshear wall at different levels..A parametric study is made on 8storey building including bareframe and cncrtshear wall in seismic zone III.For comparisonthey consider modeled on plainground with 5bays in Lgtd and Trvs directions..Seismic analysis is done by E.S.Method and R.S.Method.Based on E.S.Method building with cncrtshear wall at centre and corner have 41.41% 60.50% respectively lessdisplacement compared to bare frame on curved ground.

Based on R.S.Method they got that building have 24.60%, 39.10% lessdisplacement by bare frame modeled on curved slopedground.From above studies he concluded building on curveslope ground has more displacement the influence of

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

572

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

5) Model 5: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories and L-shaped shear walls (230mm thick) are provided at the corners.Stiffness and masses of the walls are considered.

6) Model 6: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories and a central service concrete core wall (230mm thick) is provided. Stiffness and masses of the walls are considered.

7) Model 7: Building has nowalls in the firststorey and one fullbrick infillmasonry walls (230mm thick) in the upper stories, Lshaped shear walls (230mm thick) are provided at the corners and a central service concrete core wall (230mm thick) is provided.Stiffness and masses of the walls are considered.

Elevation of Building 3D view of Building Fig. 3.1: Elevation and 3D view of Model-1.

Elevation of Building 3D-view of Building Fig. 3.2: Elevation and 3D view of Model-5.

Elevation of Building 3D- view of Building Fig. 3.4: Elevation and 3D view of Building Model-1 on Curve Ground.

B. Design Data: 1) Material Properties: Young‟s modulus of (M25) concrete, E= 25x106 kN/m² Density of Reinforced (M25) Concrete= 25 kN/m³ Modulus of elasticity of brick masonry= 3500x10³ kN/m² Density of brick masonry= 20 kN/m³ Upper Storey Height= 3.0 m No. of Storeys= 11 2) Assumed Dead load intensities: Floor finishes= 1.0 kN/m² Live load intensities Floor= 3.0 kN/m² Roof= 0 kN/m² 3) Member properties: Thickness of Slab= 0.125m Column size= (0.4m x 0.7m) Beam size= (0.3m x 0.45m) Thickness of wall= 0.23m Thickness of wall 2= 0.11m Thickness of shear wall and core wall= 0.23m 4) Earthquake Live Load on Slab as per clause 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of IS 1893 (Part-I)- 2002: Roof (clause 7.3.2) = 0 Floor (clause 7.3.1) = 0.25x3.0=0.75kN/m2 IS: 1893-2002 Equivalent Static method Design Spectrum Zone –V Zone factor, Z (Table2) – 0.36 Importance factor, I (Table 6) – 1.00 Response reduction factor, R (Table 7) – 5.00 Vertical Distribution of Lateral Load,

f i  VB

wi hi

2

n

 wj hj 2

j 1

IS: 1893-2002 R.S.Method: Spectrum is applied from fig.2 of the code corresponding to medium soil sites.

The spectrum is applied in the Lgtd and Trvs directions.

Elevation of Building

3-D view of Building

C. Calculations: 1) Natural periods: For model 1, Fundamental Natural period, longitudinal and transverse direction, Ta=0.075*350.75=1.079 sec For model 2, 3, 4, 5,6,7:

Fig. 3.3: Elevation and 3-D view of Model-3.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

573

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

Fundamental Natural period, longitudinal direction, Ta=0.09x35 / ( =0.63sec Fundamental Natural period, transverse direction, Ta=0.09x35 / ( =0.704sec MODEL NO EQX (KN) EQY (KN) MODEL 1 2110.8096 1994.5560 MODEL 2 6113.0321 4606.9972 MODEL 3 4804.0486 3743.7886 MODEL 4 7702.1604 7702.1604 MODEL 5 7552.9334 7552.9334 MODEL 6 7459.8769 7459.8769 MODEL 7 7645.9898 7645.9898 Table 3.1: Base shear for models on plain ground LEVEL

VX(KN)

VY(KN)

11 231.9026 219.1305 10 461.8628 436.4255 9 379.3229 358.4316 8 304.9016 288.1090 7 238.5991 225.4582 6 180.4152 170.4787 5 130.3499 123.1709 4 88.4035 83.5346 3 54.5755 51.5698 2 28.8665 27.2766 1 11.2759 10.6549 PB LEVEL 0.3341 0.3157 Table 3.2: Distribution of lateral seismic shear forces for building on plain ground for Model 1.

LEVEL

VX(KN)

VY(KN)

11 835.5064 651.1090 10 976.3714 760.8849 9 801.8831 624.9064 8 644.5577 502.3029 7 504.3949 393.0744 6 381.3951 297.2206 5 275.5579 214.7420 4 186.8836 145.6381 3 115.372 89.9092 2 61.0232 47.5553 1 20.1591 15.7100 PB LEVEL 0.9442 0.7358 Table 3.3: Distribution of lateral seismic shear forces for building on plain ground for Model-3 LEVEL

VX(KN)

VY(KN)

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PB LEVEL

1226.5649 1556.9433 1278.7005 1027.8259 804.3193 608.1810 439.4108 298.0087 183.9747 97.3090 30.1855 1.5098

1226.5649 1556.9433 1278.7005 1027.8259 804.3193 608.1810 439.4108 298.0087 183.9747 97.3090 30.1855 1.5098

Table 3.4: Distribution of lateral seismic shear forces for building on plain ground for Model-5 MODEL NO EQX (KN) EQY (KN) MODEL 01 2319.3089 2106.6816 MODEL 02 7073.3196 7073.3196 MODEL 03 5323.7196 5323.7196 MODEL 04 7114.7196 7114.7196 MODEL 05 7249.0856 7249.0856 MODEL 06 7138.4393 7138.4393 MODEL 07 7314.2053 7314.2053 Table 3.5: Base shear for models on curve slope ground LEVEL

VX(KN)

VY(KN)

10 255.1863 231.7916 9 508.2353 461.6418 8 417.4081 379.1414 7 335.5147 304.7557 6 262.5551 238.4849 5 198.5294 180.3288 4 143.4375 130.2876 3 97.2795 88.3611 2 60.0551 54.5495 1 31.7647 28.8526 PB LEVEL 8.0916 7.3498 Table 3.6: Distribution of lateral seismic shear force for building on curve slope ground for model-1 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Natural Periods: Fundamental natural Periods T (Sec) Model ANALYSIS CODAL No. Building On Building On Curved Slope Plain Ground Ground Eleven Storeyed Building 1 1.079 2.009 1.839 2 0.63 0.870 0.448 3 0.63 0.816 0.500 4 0.63 0.512 0.446 5 0.63 0.864 0.455 6 0.63 0.868 0.472 7 0.63 0.864 0.481 Table 4.1: Codal and Analytical Fundamental N.P for different building modeled along Lgtd direction Fundamental natural Periods T(Sec) ANALYSIS Model CODAL Building On No. Building On Curved Slope Plain Ground Ground Eleven Storeyed Building 1 1.079 2.009 1.839 2 0.704 0.870 0.448 3 0.704 0.816 0.500 4 0.704 0.512 0.446 5 0.704 0.864 0.455 6 0.704 0.868 0.472 7 0.704 0.864 0.481

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

574

B. Lateral Displacement For Models On Plain Ground: ST0REY NO

BUILDING MODELS ON PLAIN GROUND E.S.METHOD

R.S.METHOD

Ux Uy Ux Uy 12 42.3 43.8 30.4 31.8 11 41.1 42.8 29.7 31.2 10 39.1 40.9 28.5 30.1 9 36.4 38.1 26.8 28.4 8 32.9 34.5 24.6 26.2 7 28.8 30.4 22.0 23.6 6 24.2 25.8 19.0 20.6 5 19.4 21.0 15.6 17.2 4 14.4 15.9 11.8 13.4 3 9.3 10.8 7.9 9.3 2 4.6 5.7 4.0 5.1 1 1.0 1.3 0.8 1.1 Table 4.3: Lateral Displacements (mm) along Lgtd and Trvs direction for model-1

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

M7 M6 M5 M4 M3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Table 4.2: Codal and Analytical Fundamental N.P for different building modeled along Trvs direction

DISPLACEMENTS (MM)

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

STO REY NUMBER

M2 M1

Fig. 4.3: Displacements of Models on plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method)

Fig. 4.4: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method) C. Lateral Displacement for Models on Curve Slope Ground

120 M7

100 80

M6

60

M5

40

M4

20

M3

0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

DISPLAC EMENTS (MM)

Fig. 4.1: Displacements of Models on plain ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

STO REY NUMBER

M2

M1

ST0REY NO

BUILDING MODELS ON CURVE SLOPE GROUND E.S.METHOD

R.S.METHOD

Ux Uy Ux Uy 11 38.9 40.9 27.0 29.3 10 37.6 39.9 26.2 28.7 9 35.5 37.9 24.8 27.4 8 32.5 34.9 22.9 25.6 7 28.6 31.2 20.5 23.3 6 24.2 26.9 17.7 20.5 5 19.2 22.1 14.4 17.3 4 14.0 17.1 10.7 13.7 3 8.7 11.8 6.8 9.7 2 3.8 6.5 3.0 5.5 1 0.6 3.3 0.5 2.9 Table 4.4: Lateral Displacements (mm) along Lgtd and Trvs direction for model-1

Fig. 4.2: Displacements of Models on plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

575

D. Storey Drifts for Models On Plain Ground: M7 M6 M5 M4 M3 M2

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10S11

2

M1 1.5

M1

DISPLACEMENTS (MM)

Fig. 4.7: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method) M7

50

M6

40

M5 M4

20 10

M3

0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 STO REY NUMBER

M5 0

M2 M1

M7

Fig. 4.10: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method

Fig. 4.11: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method) 2.5 2

M1

1.5

M2 M3

1

M4

0.5

M5

0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

STO REY NUMBER

Fig. 4.8: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method)

M6

Fig. 4.9: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

STO REY DRIFTS (MM)

Fig. 4.6: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

30

M4

STO REY NUMBER

Fig. 4.5: Displacements of Models on Curve slope ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

60

M3

0.5

STO REY NUMBER

70

M2

1

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

STO REY DRIFTS (MM)

DISPLACEMENTS (MM)

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

M6 M7

Fig. 4.12: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method)

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

576

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

2

V. CONCLUSIONS M1

1.5

M2

1

M3

0.5

M4 M5

0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

STO REY DRIFTS (MM)

E. Storey Drifts for Models on Curve Slope Ground:

M6

STO REY NUMBER

M7

Fig. 4.13: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

1) As the infills, cncrt shear and cncrt core walls are provides which leads to reduces in fundamental natural periods.

2) Storey drifts are found within the specified limit.

3) The masonry infill walls increases the behaviour of structure during earthquake.

4) The influence of masonry infills may reduces the displacement of structure.

5) The strength of structure can be increases by avoiding soft stories.

6) The presence of central concrete core wall and concrete shear wall at corners has not affected much on behavior of the object, While action of lateral forces comes into contact, as compared to other models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My heart full thanks to PROF. AMARESHA my beloved guide, for their valuable Suggestions and Last but not the least I am indebted to my Parents, Brother, Friends and my colleagues for their support and supplications.

REFERENCES

Fig. 4.14: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Equivalent Static Method)

STO REY DRIFTS (MM)

Fig. 4.15: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Longitudinal direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method) 2.5 2

M1

1.5

M2 M3

1

M4

0.5

M5

0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

STO REY NUMBER

M6 M7

Fig. 4.16: Storey Drifts of Models on Plain ground along Transverse direction (Analysis cases: Response Spectrum Method)

[1] Krawinkler Helmut and Seneviratna G. D. P. K. : “Earthquake resistant design of structures”, PrenticeHall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.

[2] An experimental study on cyclic tests on RC frames [Murthy and Jain, 2000]. “Seismic Response of RC Frame Buildings with Soft First Storeys”, Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, New Delhi, 1997.

[3] Applied Technology Council (1996): Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC40, Vol. 1.

[4] Elnashai, [2001]: e-conference proceedings, January 28; 2002.

[5] IS: 1893 (Part-I) 2002 (2002): Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part-I General Provisions and Buildings, Fifth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

[6] (Kabeyasawa, 1993; Eberhard and Sozen 1993) “Seismic Performance of Conventional Multi-storey Buildings with Open Ground Storey for Vehicular Parking”, Indian Concrete Journal, February 2004.

[7] Lee, H.S., and Woo, W.S., “Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance of a 3-storey RC frame with non-seismic detailing”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2001.

[8] Murthy, C.V.R., and Jain, S.K., “The Beneficial Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on the Seismic Performance of RC Framed Buildings”, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January 2000; Auckland, New Zealand.

[9] Jack Moehle, Yousef Bozorgnia and T.Y.Yong. “The Effect of Concrete Core Wall on Tall Buildings” .

[10] Ravi Sinha et al. “Earthquake Resistant Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings”, Technical Project Report, Vol. 2: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

577

Seismic Evaluation of Multistoried Buildings on Plain Ground and Curve Slope Ground (IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 10/2015/120)

[11] David, M. Scott, “Some Recent Key Developments in the Design of Tall Buildings”, Proceedings of National Workshop on High Rise Buildings; Hyderabad 2008.

[12] Santha Kumar, A.K., “Design of Ductile Shear Walls for Tall Buildings”.

[13] Mahesh Tandon and Vinay Gupta, Prerna Sohal, “Recommendations for the seismic design of high rise buildings”.

[14] ATC-72. Proceedings of Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

578