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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
IS 13920 (1993) Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces-code of practice. BIS, New Delhi
IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1 general provision and buildings (fifth revision), BIS, New Delhi
Plan Link. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/ai/robotlab/tmr/floor_1autocad_format.htm. Accessed 5 Aug 2013
IS 875 (Part 1) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures (second revision). BIS, New Delhi
IS 875 (Part 2) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures (second revision). BIS, New Delhi
IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice (fourth revision). BIS, New Delhi
Kumar R, Singh Y (2010) Stiffness of Reinforced concrete frame members for seismic analysis. ACI Struct J 107(5):60
FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Report FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)