Skip to main content

Comparison of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings Designed for Higher Force Versus Higher Ductility

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Structural Engineering
  • 3446 Accesses

Abstract

Seismic vulnerability assessment is a complex problem involving input from various analyses. Pushover analysis is a commonly used method, which provides input for vulnerability analysis. Different level of ductility in a building can be considered by using different response reduction factor in linear analysis; however, the actual non-linear behavior of the building cannot be predicted on same basis. Therefore, response reduction factor (R) considered in designing, plays an important role in actual performance of building. The effect of different response reduction factors used in design on expected damage of building has been ascertained using vulnerability analysis. The seismic performance of low-rise and mid-rise RC buildings designed as per Indian codes with consideration of seismic forces (with two sets design levels SMRF and OMRF) and only gravity forces (designed for only gravity loadings) have been evaluated by fragility relationships. Nonlinear static analyses were performed to derive the fragility relationships. Based on nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis the seismic performances in terms of ductility capacity and ductility demand have been obtained. The observations showed that the performance of buildings designed for higher ductility (R as 5) can be better relied than the buildings designed for higher forces (R as 3). The results showed that there is higher probability of damage in case of OMRF design buildings as compared to SMRF designed buildings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. IS 13920 (1993) Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces-code of practice. BIS, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  2. IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1 general provision and buildings (fifth revision), BIS, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  3. Plan Link. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/ai/robotlab/tmr/floor_1autocad_format.htm. Accessed 5 Aug 2013

  4. IS 875 (Part 1) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures (second revision). BIS, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  5. IS 875 (Part 2) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures (second revision). BIS, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  6. IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice (fourth revision). BIS, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar R, Singh Y (2010) Stiffness of Reinforced concrete frame members for seismic analysis. ACI Struct J 107(5):60

    Google Scholar 

  8. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Report FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2006) Macro-seismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. NIBS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model-HAZUS-MH: technical manual, report prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chande Smita .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer India

About this paper

Cite this paper

Smita, C., Kumar, R. (2015). Comparison of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings Designed for Higher Force Versus Higher Ductility. In: Matsagar, V. (eds) Advances in Structural Engineering. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_76

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_76

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi

  • Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2192-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2193-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics