Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
BY
NIRANJAN SHRESTHA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
LALITPUR, NEPAL
APRIL, 2012
1
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus may make this thesis freely available for the
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that the permission for extensive copying
of the thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor who supervised
the thesis work recorded herein or in his absence by the head of the department or
concerning M.Sc. program coordinator or the dean of the institute of engineering. It is
understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, and Pulchowk Campus in
any use of material in this thesis. Copying or publication or other use of the thesis for
financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus and the authors written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to take any other use of the material in this thesis in
whole or part should be addressed to:
.
Head of Department
(Department of Civil Engineering)
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk, Campus
Lalitpur, Nepal
2
2
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
M.Sc. PROGRAM IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled Seismic Performance Assessment of
High Rise Buildings with the Effect of Masonry Infill, submitted by Niranjan
Shrestha (066/MSS/F/107) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Structural Engineering.
.......................
Supervisor, Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal
.........................
External Examiner,
...........................
Committee Chairperson, Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal
APPROVAL PAGE
Date:
3
3
ABSTRACT
4
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli, who was
abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support and guidance whilst
allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level of my Masters
degree to his encouragement and effort and without him this thesis, too, would not
have been completed or written. Also, I would like to acknowledge the help of Er.
Suroj Paudel, engineer of Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC), Nepal.
Deepest gratitude are also due to all the teachers of IOE without whose knowledge
and assistance this study would not have been successful.
Special thanks also to all my graduate friends for sharing the literature and invaluable
assistance, without whom this thesis would not come to this form.
Niranjan Shrestha
066/MSS/F/107
5
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL PAGE .................................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................5
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................13
1.1 General ......................................................................................................................13
1.2 Need of Study ............................................................................................................13
1.3 Objective ...................................................................................................................13
1.4 Methodology .............................................................................................................14
1.5 Outlines of Chapters ..................................................................................................14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................15
2.1 Performance-Based Design .......................................................................................15
2.2 Structural Analysis ....................................................................................................16
a. Linear Procedures ................................................................................................................. 16
b. Nonlinear Procedures ............................................................................................................ 17
c. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis ...................................................................................... 17
2.3 Review on the past research on Masonry In filled Frames ....................................19
a. Micro-Models ....................................................................................................................... 19
b. Macro-Models ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Stiffness of Infilled Frame.........................................................................................25
2.5 Force Reduction Factor .............................................................................................26
3. DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................29
3.1 Column Sections .......................................................................................................29
3.2 Beam sections:...........................................................................................................38
3.3 Slab thickness: ...........................................................................................................39
3.4 Materials: ...................................................................................................................39
3.5 Selection of Model: ...................................................................................................42
4. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAME ..........................43
4.1 General ......................................................................................................................43
4.2 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Linear analysis ................................43
4.3 Model Description for Comparative Study ...............................................................45
4.4 Result of Linear Static Analysis ................................................................................47
4.5 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Pushover analysis ............................48
4.6 Result of Pushover analysis ......................................................................................50
4.7 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................52
6
6
5. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF STRUCTURES .........................................53
5.1 Parameters For Performance Evaluation ...................................................................53
5.2 Structural Modeling Parameters ................................................................................55
a Linear Elastic Model Properties............................................................................................ 55
b Parameters for Pushover analysis ......................................................................................... 55
c Opening Reduction factor For Equivalent Struts .................................................................. 56
6. RESULTS AND DISSCUSION ............................................................................58
6.1 Result of Pushover analysis ......................................................................................58
a Base Shear............................................................................................................................. 58
b Performance Point ................................................................................................................. 58
c Failure Mechanism................................................................................................................ 58
6.2 Response Reduction Factor .......................................................................................65
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................67
7.1 General ......................................................................................................................67
7.2 Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................................67
7.3 Recommendation For Future Extension ....................................................................68
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................69
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................71
7
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Pushover curve of a structure .................................................................... 18
Figure 2.2 Deformation under later load (Paulay and Priestley 1992) ........................ 21
Figure 2.3: Modified strut models Crisafulli (1997) .................................................... 24
Figure 2.4: Self consisting of frame and infill ............................................................. 25
Figure 2.5: Relationship between force reduction factor (R), over strength factor (d),
ductility reduction factor (R) and displacement ductility factor () [Mwafy and
Elnashai (2002)] ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.1 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-1................................... 30
Figure 3.2 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-2................................... 30
Figure 3.3 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-3................................... 31
Figure 3.4 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-4 ............................................... 31
Figure 3.5 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-5................................... 32
Figure 3.6 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-1........ 33
Figure 3.7 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-2........ 33
Figure 3.8 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-3........ 34
Figure 3.9 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-4...... 314
Figure 3.10 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-5...... 35
Figure 3.11 Area of stirrups at end-span of column of Structure-1 ............................. 35
Figure 3.12 Area of stirrups at mid-Span of col. of Structure-1 .................................. 35
Figure 3.13 Area of stirrups at end-span of col. of Structure-2 ................................... 36
Figure 3.14 Area of stirrups at mid-span of col. of Structure-2 ................................... 36
Figure 3.15 Area of stirrups at end-span of col. of Structure-3 ................................... 36
Figure 3.16 Area of stirrups at mid-span of col. of Structure-3 ................................... 36
Figure 3.17 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-4 ............................ 37
Figure 3.18 Area of stirrups at mid-span of columns of structure-4 ............................ 37
Figure 3.19 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-5 ............................ 38
Figure 3.20 Area of stirrups at mid span of columns of structure-5 ............................ 38
Figure 3.21 Plan of structure-1 .................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.22 Plan of structure-2 40
Figure 3.23 Plan of structure-3 .................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.24 Plan of structure-4 .................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.25 Plan of structure-5 .................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.1: Model 1 .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 4.2: Model 2 ................................................................................................ 476
Figure 4.3: Model 3 .................................................................................................. 47
8
8
Figure 4.4: Model 4 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.5: Model 5 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.6: Model 6 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.7 Effect of lateral load on connection between wall and frame .................... 48
Figure 5.1 Plan of Model-A ....................................................................................... 573
Figure 5.2 Plan of Model-B ....................................................................................... 575
Figure 5.3 Model A ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.4 Model B ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.1 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b) for
Model A ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 6.2 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b) for
Model B ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 6.3. Pushover Curve along X (model A) .......................................................... 61
Figure 6.4. Pushover Curve along Y (model A) .......................................................... 62
Figure 6.5. Pushover Curve along X (model B) ........................................................ 632
Figure 6.6. Pushover Curve along Y (model B) .......................................................... 63
Figure 6.7.Capacity Demand Curve along X for Bare Frame (model A) .................... 63
Figure 6.8.Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model A) ............................... 64
Figure 6.9.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Bare Frame (model A) .................... 64
Figure 6.10.Bilinear Representation of pushover curve of bare frame as given by SAP.
(model A) ..................................................................................................................... 65
9
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Properties of RC Members ......................................................................................45
Table 4.2 Properties Of Masonry Infill ....................................................................................46
Table 4.3.Forces In Frame Members .......................................................................................49
Table 5.1 Ca (Effective peak accleration of the ground) and Cv (5% damped response
of a 1 second system) values (Higher seismic zone and the soft soil type) ............54
Table 5.2 Global Performance Assessment Criteria ................................................................54
Table 5.3 Dual Level Performance Objective as given by ATC 40 (1996) .............................54
Table 6.1 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-A ..............................................................60
Table 6.2 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-B ..............................................................61
Table 6.3 Calculation of Response Reduction Factor ..............................................................66
10
10
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS
: Relative Stiffness between the RC frame and the Wall
: Angle between diagonal strut and Beam
y: Yield Displacement
OP: Operational
Z: Contact length
12
12
1. Introduction
1.1 General
Reinforced concrete buildings with masonry infill walls have become very
common in Kathmandu due to the availability and economy of the materials used to
construct these buildings. Rapid urbanization and economic growth has limited the
open spaces available for the new construction. So, the construction of high rise
buildings/apartments/commercials towers from ten to twenty floors in Kathmandu
valley has lifted up few years back due to high cost of land and other increasing living
facilities in vertical living such as security, water supply, electricity, sense of
community living etc. which are achieved at lower cost in vertical living.
However, in the design practice, stiff masonry infill are generally treated as
non- structural components and therefore are not considered in the analysis and design
of such buildings. In reality masonry infill tend to significantly increase the lateral
stiffness and lateral strength of RC frame buildings. Therefore, behavior of masonry
infilled frame is significantly different from that of bare frame. This fact emphases on
the necessity of considering masonry infill in analysis and design of buildings.
1.3 Objective
1. To assess seismic performance of high rise Buildings considering the effect of
infill wall, constructed at Kathmandu valley.
13
13
3. To evaluate the response reduction factors.
1.4 Methodology
1. Data collection regarding various types of high rise buildings.
Chapter 2: The Second chapter provide relevant literature reviews. The literature
review presented are mainly related to previous work relevant to this study
Chapter 3: The third chapter includes the description of data collected to be used for
the present study. It includes mainly the description of structural parts.
Chapter 4: The fourth chapter presents the analytical modeling techniques of the
masonry infilled frame. And selection of appropriate type of modeling technique.
Chapter 5: The fifth chapter deals with the parameters for the modeling of structures.
Chapter 6: The sixth chapter presents Result, conclusion and recommendation based
on the study.
14
14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
15
15
in Japan for buildings exceeding 60m since 1981. In China, height limits on tall
buildings are set out in the Chinese code for seismic design of buildings GB50011-
2001 and depend on the seismic zone, the structural material and the structural
systems adopted.
a. Linear Procedures
The linear analysis procedures provided in FEMA 356 consist of linear static
and linear dynamic analysis. The linear analysis procedures maintain the traditional
use of a linear stress-strain relationship, but incorporate adjustments to overall
building deformations and material acceptance criteria to permit better consideration
of the probable nonlinear characteristics of seismic response. In linear static or
dynamic procedures, used for seismic evaluation, the design seismic forces, the
distribution of applied loads over the height of the buildings, and the corresponding
displacements are determined using a linear elastic analysis. The results of the linear
procedures can be very inaccurate when applied to buildings with highly irregular
structural systems, unless the building is capable of responding to the design
16
16
earthquake(s) in a nearly elastic manner. Therefore, linear procedures may not be used
for irregular structures unless the earthquake demands on the building comply with
the demand capacity ratio (DCR) provided in the FEMA 356 guidelines.
b. Nonlinear Procedures
Nonlinear procedures consist of nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
analyses. The nonlinear static procedure shall be permitted for structures in which
higher mode effects are not significant, as defined by FEMA356. A nonlinear static
analysis, also known as a push-over analysis, is a static non-linear analysis under
permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads. This consists of
laterally pushing the structure in one direction with a certain lateral force or
displacement distribution until a specified drift is attained. This procedure has gained
popularity in recent years as a relatively simple way to evaluate the design of a
structure and predict the sequence of damage in the inelastic range of behaviour. Both
ATC-40 (ATC 1996) and FEMA 273 (FEMA 1997a) adopted an approach for
performance evaluation based on nonlinear static analysis.
17
17
an existing or previously designed structure, and monotonically increasing those
loads until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs. roof
displacement plot as shown in Figure 2.1
The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or Building
Performance Level, is decided upon by the owner, architect, and structural engineer.
The Building Performance Level is a function of the post event conditions of the
structural and nonstructural components of the structure. Some common Building
Performance Levels are Operational (OP) Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety
(LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). Based on the desired Building Performance
Level, the Response Spectrum for the design earthquake may be determined. The
Response Spectrum gives the maximum acceleration, or Spectral Response
Acceleration, a structure is likely to experience under the design ground shaking
given the structures fundamental period of vibration, T. This relation is shown
qualitatively in Figure 2.2.
From the Response Spectrum and Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement plot, the
Target Displacement, t, may be determined. The Target Displacement represents the
maximum displacement the structure will undergo during the design event. One can
then find the maximum expected deformations within each element of the structure at
the Target Displacement and redesign them accordingly.
18
18
2.3 Review on the past research on Masonry In filled Frames
Masonry is one of the most widely used construction material in the world. It
has been used as infill wall in RC frame buildings and initially, was considered
nothing other than creating the partitions. Latter on it was observed that the overall
strength and stiffness of infilled frame largely depends on the infill, if the frame is not
isolated from masonry infill. It has been observed in the past, that design of buildings
is done without taking into account the effect of the infill, mainly because of lack of
research and experimental work. The general idea behind ignoring infill panel during
analysis was its highly non-linear nature. The most important factors contributing to
the nonlinear behavior of infilled frames arise from material nonlinearity, which
required complex computational techniques for design. Recent studies have shown
that behavior of RC frames filled with masonry infill panel can significantly increase
the stiffness, strength and energy dissipation characteristics of framed structures. In
order to fully understand the behavior of infill panel and its mode of failure, several
analytical models have been proposed by researchers around the world. Experimental
work indicated that when an infilled frame is subjected to lateral loads, transfer of
load takes place through a truss action in the infill and this lead to development of
equivalent diagonal strut models in which infill are replaced by single or multiple
compression struts along the loaded diagonal. Several Finite Element models were
also proposed by various researches based on experimental results and finite element
studies. These models can be classified into two main groups, namely micro-models
(local) and macro-models (simplified).
a. Micro-Models
These models are represented by using Finite Element method. Mallick and
Severn [1967] were the first one to use this approach. Infill panel was represented by
linear elastic rectangular finite elements with 2 dof per node. It was assumed that the
slip would occur along the structural interface between frame and infill remaining in
contact so that there would be limiting or no friction at the separated interface. The
stiffness values obtained were found to be close matching with the experimental
values. Riddington and smith [1977] modeled the infill panel by a four noded
rectangular element with 2 dof per node and linearly varying displacement function
19
19
along the boundaries. The interface model of Riddington and smith were refined by
Liauwan and Kwan [1982] and the use of different element for infill and frame was
proposed. The infilled frame was modeled using panel element, frame element and
interface elements.
b. Macro-Models
In order to overcome the complexity and computational requirement using
micro-models, research has been done to simplify the modeling of infill panel with a
single element. The main idea has been to study the global effects of infill panel on
structures under lateral loads. Since first attempts from Polyakov (1956), analytical
and experimental tests have shown that a diagonal strut with appropriate mechanical
properties can provide a solution to the problem. Several authors have modified the
characteristics of single strut model with multi strut configurations to better
understand the effect of micro-cracking in the corner of the infill panel due to tensile
stresses and higher shear strength of the infill panel relative to the frame. A brief
review of the expressions developed because of this experimental work is presented
below.
Based on elastic studies Polyakov (1956) conducted one of the first analytical
studies on infilled frames. He considered the effect of infill in each panel as
equivalent to diagonal bracing. In 1961, Holmes took the idea and suggested that infill
panel can be replaced by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut. He proposed that
20
20
the diagonal strut to have the same material and thickness as the infill panel. The
width of strut was taken equal to one third of the strut length as
bw = dw/3
Figure 2.2 Deformation under later load (Paulay and Priestley 1992)
z =/2
Em t w sin(2 )
= 4
4 Ec I c hw
where represents the relative stiffness between the RC frame and the wall (mm -1).
Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry, the angle of the diagonal strut with the
beams, Ec and Ic represents elastic modulus and moment of inertia of concrete column
respectively, hw and tw represents height and thickness of infill wall respectively.
21
21
Using above expression for vertical contact length and similar expression for
horizontal contact length (zl ), Hendry[1998] proposed the following equation for the
calculation of effective width of diagonal strut.
1 2
z zl
2
bw=
2
where, zl = /l
Em t w sin(2 )
4
l =
4 Ec I b l w
Paulay & Priestley [1992] took a conservatively high value for the width of
equivalent strut. According to them, a high value of bw will result in a stiffer structure.
The relation given by them is as follows:
bw = dw /4
bw = 0.16h0.3 dw
Klingner and Berter (1978) based on scale test done by Mainstone (1971) proposed
the following equation:
bw = 0.175(.h )-0.4 dw
Liauw and Kwan (1984) found the following relation from previous experimental
data:
22
22
0.95hm cos
bw =
.h
An initial study was carried out to see the structure. The main focus was on
stiffness of the structure and in the actions induced in the surrounding frame.
Numerical results obtained from three strut models were compared with a
finite element micro-model formulation. The area of the equivalent strut was kept
constant and
static lateral load was applied assuming linear elastic behavior. Nonlinear effects were
considered for finite element model to represent the separation of panel frame
interface. Results from the test shows that, stiffness
23
23
Figure 2.3: Modified strut models Crisafulli (1997)
of the infilled frame is similar in cases considered, slightly decrease for two and three
strut model, however there was significant change in stiffness for three strut model
depending on the contact distance hz, which is function of contact length z. It was
also observed from the results that single strut model under-estimated the bending
moment, two strut model showed much larger values while three strut model
constituted better approximation with the finite element model. It was concluded from
the results, although single strut model represent good estimation of stiffness of the
infilled frame and axial forces by lateral forces, a more refined model is required
which could give realistic values for bending moment and shear force in frames.
Cavaleri et. al [2004], experimentally showed that the length of contact is the most
important parameter affecting the lateral response of infilled frame. Thiruvengadam
[1985],proposed a multi strut model for carrying out dynamic analysis of infilled
frame, where the contact lengths are determined using the equation 2.1 and 2.2
Chrysostomou et al.[1992] proposed a six compression only diagonal strut model. Out
of six three struts were provided along one diagonal for loading along that direction
and the remaining three were provided along opposite diagonal. Multi-Strut modeling
was found to be more realistic by several other researchers in the past because of
aforementioned reasons.[El-Dakhakhni et al.,2003,Sanlinajad & Hobbs
1995,Mosalam et al. 1997d,Buonopane & White 1999,Crisasfulli et al. 2000,Alcham
2002]
24
24
2.4 Stiffness of Infilled Frame
According Alessandro Vittorio Bergami (2007), In an elastic range, and
therefore in absence of cracks in the wall and detachment from the framing structure
that contains it, it is possible to presume that the reaction of the infilled frame is that
of a composed shelf consisting of the wall and the columns that confine it.
Considering the above, the stiffness of infilled frame KT can be relate to the frame and
infill as
Kfw= flexural stiffness of the infill panel adopting the elastic modulus in a vertical
direction Ewv, and thickness tw
25
25
Where I* is the fictitious inertia valid in the initial phase without any cracks. As far as
shear stiffness is concerned, reference can only be made to the contribution provided
by the infill:
He also performed both the analytical and experimental study on the masonry infilled
frame and found that three strut model is the best suited modeling technique than the
single strut model.
26
26
Experiments and performance of structure during earthquake have shown that the
structure designed for those reduced force level perform adequately, if properly
detailed. The value of R increases with the increase of structural ductility and its
energy dissipation capacity and degree of redundancy. The factor R is assigned to
different types of building structures generally on the basis of empirical or semi-
empirical judgment, experience with building performance in past earthquakes, on
analytical and experimental studies and on calibration with force levels in codes.
As stated by Mwafy and Elnashai (2002) the force reduction factor accounts for the
inherent ductility, over strength and damping of structures. Early definitions of the
force reduction factor proposed in the mid-1980s suggested sub-dividing R into the
three components mentioned above. Thus,
R= R* d* Rx
where R, is the ductility reduction factor, d is the over strength factor and Rx is the
damping factor. The effect of damping is generally included in the ductility reduction
factor (R). The Rx factor considered in above Eq. was included only to account for
response reduction provided by supplemental viscous damping devices [ATC-19,
19951, hence it could be excluded from above equation. Another term was introduced
by ATC-34 [I9951 to account for redundancy (RR). This factor is intended to quantify
the improved reliability of seismic framing systems that use multiple line of vertical
seismic framing in each principle direction of a building. The R factor is therefore
given by:
R= R* d* RR
Moreover, the over strength and redundancy are considered as one component, as has
been adopted by many investigators including some of the ATC researchers [e.g.
Freeman, 1990]. This is because the over strength parameter implicitly accounts for
redundancy through redistribution of actions; which leads to higher over strength. The
force reduction factor can be therefore defined as the product of the ductility
reduction factor (R) and the over strength factor (d), as shown in Figure. 3.4. Thus,
R= R* d
27
27
relationship of the structure, which can be determined either experimentally or
analytically.
Figure 2.5: Relationship between force reduction factor (R), over strength factor (d),
ductility reduction factor (R) and displacement ductility factor () [Mwafy and
Elnashai (2002)]
For structures that exhibit a period > 0.5 s, the ductility reduction factor (R) may be
taken equal to the displacement ductility factor (). The latter approximation follows
assumption, which is applicable to a wide range of structures and adopted in many
seismic design codes, the maximum displacements are considered comparable for
elastic and elasto-plastic systems. Multiplying the ductility factor () and the over
strength factor (d) results in the force reduction factor (R).
28
28
3. DATA COLLECTION
For the above said works drawings and designs were collected from
Kathmandu Division office of Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction. From the collected drawings, following important data were taken and
presented below:
From ten collected drawings, after studying, five drawings were selected for
further study. It was found that three were regular in plan, and two were irregular in
plan. Among the five buildings, one structure is with 18 floors including two
basement and its aspect ratio is 1.17 (structure-1), one structure with 13 floors
including one basement, with aspect ratio 1.02 (structure-2), one structure with 18
floors including two basement floors, with aspect ratio 1.25 (structure-3), one with 13
floors including two basement floors, with aspect ratio 2.01 (structure-4), and
structure with 13 floors including one basement floor, with aspect ratio 2.25
(structure-5)
Reinforcement
29
29
longitudinal reinforcements and the reinforcements used across the length of the
frame members are grouped into shear reinforcements.
a. Longitudinal reinforcements:
The longitudinal reinforcements provided in columns are found varied from structure
to structure. In structure-1,size of columns ranges from 160000 mm2 to 422500 mm2
and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at bottom floors range from
1.57% to 4.93% and minimum after curtailment to the top floors range from 1.52% to
2.44%. In structure-2, the column size is found to be from
30
30
405000 mm2 to 360000 mm2, the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at
bottom floors ranges from 4.26% to 4.37% and the minimum reinforcement provided
to top floors ranges from 1.09% to 1.21%.In structure-3, size of columns ranges from
202500 mm2 to 812901.6 mm2 and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided
at bottom floors range from 0.89% to 3.77% and minimum after curtailment to the top
floors range from 0.89% to 1.39%. In structure-4, size of columns ranges from
122500 mm2 to 375500 mm2 and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided
at bottom floors range from 3.21% to 5.36% and minimum after curtailment to the top
floors range from 1.46% to 2.73%. In structure-5, the column size is found to be
225000 mm2 to 135000 mm2, the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at
bottom floors ranges from 3.32% to 5.69% and the minimum reinforcement provided
to top floors ranges from 1.07% to 1.92%.
31
31
Figure 3.4 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-4
b. Shear Reinforcements:
Stirrups used in columns for the structures ranges from 8mm to 12 mm in
diameter. Reinforcement area provided for shear is maximum at top and bottom of
column and minimum at middle part. The details of shear reinforcement provided
(area per running meter) for the structures are presented in the form of bar diagram.
32
32
Longitudinal Column Reinforcement
33
33
Figure 3.8 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-3
34
34
Figure 3.10 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-5
Figure 3.11 Area of stirrups at end span of Figure 3.12 Area of stirrups at mid
column of Structure-1 Span of col. Of Structure-1
35
35
Figure 3.13 Area of stirrups at end span Figure 3.14 Area of stirrups at mid span
of columns of structure-2 of column of structure-2
Figure 3.15 Area of stirrups at end span of Figure 3.16 Area of stirrups at mid
of column of structure-3 of column of structure-3
36
36
Figure 3.17 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-4
37
37
Figure 3.19 Area of stirrups at end Figure 3.20 Area of stirrups at mid span
Span of col.of structure-5 Span of col. of structure -5
38
38
3.3 Slab thickness:
In almost all structures the basement and ground floors are used for parking
and the slab thickness varies from 0-10 (250.0 mm) to 0-7.5 (190.5 mm). In other
slabs which are used for residential and official purpose have slab thickness from 0-
4.5 (114.5 mm) to 0-6 (152.4 mm).
3.4 Materials:
Concrete used by all buildings are of grade M20 for beams and slab. For column
members in structure-1, M40 grade of concrete is used. In structure-2, structure-4 and
structure-5 M30 concrete has been used, whereas in structure-3, M35 and M25 has
been used. For staircase and shear walls M20 grade of concrete are used and the
reinforcements provided are Fe 500 and Fe415.
39
39
Figure 3.22 Plan of structure-2
40
40
Figure 3.24 Plan of structure-4
41
41
3.5 Selection of Model:
After the detail study of the drawing collected, two types of simple models were
formed. They are as follows:
i. Buildings with lowest aspect ratio (i.e. dimensions along X-direction and Y-
direction are equal in plan).
ii. Buildings with highest aspect ratio (i.e. dimension in one direction X-direction
or Y-direction is much more greater than other).
From five buildings, it is seen that for lowest aspect ratio (aspect ratio=1),
structure-2 (model-A), for highest aspect ratio (aspect ratio=2.25) structure-5
(model-B), were selected for further analysis and study of performance of the
structures. Both of these buildings are identical in vertical direction, i.e. both are
of same 13 storey.
42
42
4. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAME
4.1 General
The mathematical modeling of RC frame is well established in literature.
Analytical modeling of infill wall on the response of RC frames subjected to seismic
action is widely recognized and has been subject of numerous experimental
investigations, while several attempts to model it analytically have been reported. But
still, as modeling of RC frame, modeling of infill in RC frame is not well established
in literature. Scarcity of material properties of masonry, especially stress-strain curves
required in non-linear analysis and the complexity related to handling it is the main
reason behind it. Various methods for modeling of masonry wall i.e. macro modeling
and micro modeling have been proposed in literature. Although, micro modeling,
models represented by finite element method, is best suited and appropriate method of
modeling masonry infill, it require more computing power and time than that required
by macro modeling i.e., equivalent diagonal strut method, which has been found to be
sufficiently accurate in not only estimating the initial stiffness, but also lateral
strength of masonry infilled RC frame building [Polyakov 1956, Holmes 1961,
Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969, Paulay & Priestley 1992].
Before choosing the best suitable modeling option for masonry infill,
depending upon factors like complexity, time required, past research, comparative
study of various option is required. For this purpose, a single bay single storey RC
frame loaded with dead load and lateral load at top was considered.
43
43
I. Equivalent diagonal strut
finite element method, masonry was modeled as shell element with membrane action
and bending action ignored. As specified by FEMA 273 (7.3.2.2), modulus of
elasticity of masonry was taken as:
Em=550fm
Em = 2255 Mpa
bw = dw /4
In case of 2 strut model width of struts were taken as one eight of diagonal
length and In case of 3 strut model width of diagonal struts was taken as one eight of
diagonal length and that of off diagonal strut were taken as half of diagonal strut
such that the total width of strut remained the same as in the case of single strut
model. Another important parameter for multi- strut modeling is the location of off-
diagonal struts. In 2 strut model off- diagonal strut was connected to column at one
third distance of vertical length of contact z between infill and column. Out of the
three struts, in 3 strut modeling, off-diagonal struts were connected to the column at a
distance of half of vertical length of contact, z between infill and column. The value
of z is calculated as proposed by [Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969]
44
44
z =/2 (mm)
Em t w sin(2 )
4
=
4 Ec I c hw
where represents the relative stiffness between the RC frame and the wall (mm -1).
Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry, the angle of the diagonal strut with the
beams, Ec and Ic represents elastic modulus and moment of inertia of concrete column
respectively, hw and tw represents height and thickness of infill wall respectively.
Similarly, the off- diagonal struts were connected to the beam at one third the
horizontal length of contact between beam and infill for 2 strut modeling whereas half
the horizontal length of contact for 3 strut modeling. Horizontal length of contact is
generally equal to the half of beam length, and it has been reported that the analysis
results are independent of the stiffness of the beam [Paulay & Priestley
1992].Therefore, for the purpose of present study, horizontal length of contact was
considered same as that of vertical length of contact.
45
45
Model 4: Three strut model along loaded diagonal
46
46
Figure 4.3: Model 3 Figure 4.4: Model 4
As we increase the lateral force, area of wall in contact with RC frame reduces
because of separation of wall from RC frame near the tension-diagonal
joints(fig4.7).In other words, effective lateral stiffness of wall, and therefore the
effective width of equivalent diagonal strut goes on reducing with the increase in
lateral forces) [Hemant B.Kaushik,2006]. This effect is similar to the creation of short
columns in RC members due to the varying unsupported length of column under
lateral load [Guevara and Garcia 2005].So the single strut model and the full shell
model does not capture the real behavior of masonry infilled RC frame as both of
47
47
these models consider same stiffness of wall irrespective of the extent of lateral force.
In reality with the increase in lateral forces effective lateral stiffness of infill wall
reduces, which is more accurately represented by multi strut models.
.
Figure 4.7 Effect of lateral load on connection between wall and frame
A consistent increase in axial force, shear force and bending moment was
observed when 3- strut model was used as compared to single and double strut model.
This was due to the partial contact between the RC frame and relatively stiffer
masonry infill. Forces in Column obtained using 3 struts model were found to be
matching more closely with that obtained using partial shell models. Hence the 3 strut
model appears to be more accurately representing the behavior of masonry infill under
lateral forces.
Similarly, slight increase in axial force was observed in beam in case of 3 strut
model as compared to the single and double strut model. In contrary, slight reduction
was observed in shear force and bending moment in beam when 3 strut model was
used as compared to single and double strut model. However, the forces obtained
using 3 strut model were also found to be more closely matching with that obtained
using the partial shell models. This further supports the case of using a 3 strut model
for masonry infill rather than using the single strut model. Further to gain confidence
on 3 strut model, non-linear pushover analysis will be performed on the bare frame
and strut models.
48
48
Table 4.3.Forces In Frame Members
Forces in Column
Load case: Dead
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 6
Model 5
Models Bare Single Double Three Partial
Shell
Frame strut strut strut Shell
49
49
structures. Output of pushover analysis can be conveniently plotted as a relationship
between lateral shear at the base of structures and corresponding displacement at any
point on the structure, called Pushover curves, for several lateral displacement
increments until target displacement is reached or structure becomes unstable because
of failure of critical elements.
Non-linear material properties are required for the pushover analysis. In SAP
2000, non- linearity in members is not distributed along their whole length, instead,
lumped plasticity is modelled at desired location on the member.
All the beam column joints in frame were assumed 50% rigid and non-linear
column (P-M2-M3) hinge were assigned at both I and J end of column, from FEMA
356, table 6-8. Similarly, nonlinear beam hinge (M3) was assigned at both end of
beam, from FEMA 356, table 6-7.
Masonry infill were modeled as equivalent diagonal compression struts .Since,
the struts were modeled as compression only member, only axial hinges were
assumed to develop in struts. Length of plastic hinge in strut was assumed to be equal
to half of diagonal length of strut (H.B Kaushik, D.C Rai, S.K Jain). Non-linear
compressive stress- strain curves of masonry (H.B Kaushik, 2006) (Figure.4.8) are
assigned as hinge properties to equivalent diagonal struts used to model masonry infill.
50
50
than single strut model. In 3 strut model, presence of off diagonal struts
Figure 4.8 Idealised Stress-Strain Curve For Masonry (1:6 c/s ratio)
51
51
created short column effects in the frame and high shear forces developed in columns
of infilled frame. Firstly only an off diagonal strut failed, and therefore the lateral
strength of the frame did not reduce drastically. The remaining two struts continued to
resist considerable amount of lateral forces even after failure of one off diagonal strut.
Finally, the frame in which 3 strut model was used failed. Hence the use of strut
model appears to be more realistic and rational choice because of presence of off
diagonal struts, which distribute the stiffness of infill to larger area, and therefore
enforce gradual failure of infill walls in the frame.
4.7 Conclusions
Result of linear static analysis and the pushover analysis indicated that the
strut model is more appropriate than finite element model because of its simplicity
and among strut models, 3 strut model is more appropriate than other strut models,
because under lateral load when strut action develops, a finite area of infill is
physically connected to the beams and columns. This finite area is responsible for the
local failures in beam and columns, and the 3 strut model was found to be estimating
force resultants in frame members more accurately and realistically and also found to
effectively predicting the local failure in the frame.3 strut model was also favored by
researchers like Gergely et al. 1994, Crisafulli et al. 2000,EI Dakhakhni et al.
2003.Moreover FEMA 356 also recommends the use of compression struts eccentric
from the beam column joint. Therefore the 3 strut model app ears to be a better choice
than the other models.
52
52
5. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF STRUCTURES
For the purpose of performance assessment of high rise buildings, the two
models were selected model-A with aspect ratio of 1.02 (Lowest among the collected
Buildings) and the model-B with aspect ratio of 2.25 (Highest among collected
buildings). Both the selected models are of same 13 storeys. Non-linear static analysis
of selected models were performed in SAP2000V.14 to compare the performance of
buildings.
53
53
Table 5.1 Ca (Effective peak acceleration of the ground) and Cv (5% damped
response of a 1 second system) values (Higher seismic zone and the soft soil type)
IS Code ATC-40
Parameters
Design EQ Max. EQ Design EQ Max. EQ
Ca 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.45
Cv 0.3 0.6 0.96 1.2
FEMA 356 suggests two approaches for seismic evaluation i.e Global- level and
member level using three performance levels (Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and
Collapse Prevention). For global level evaluation, the maximum inter storey drifts for
each floor level were determined based on non-linear static analysis.
Essential
Immediate Occupancy-1% -
Facilities
Low probability
Life Safety -2% Serviceability limit -0.4%
of threats to life
Stability under
Collapse Prevention -4% No collapse (Ductile detailling)
gravity load
Serviceability EQ (SE)
Design EQ (DE)
Maximum EQ (ME)
54
54
5.2 Structural Modeling Parameters
were taken as described in the chapter 3. All the RC member sizes and reinforcements
were taken according to the actual design. And load in the model were given
according to IS475.
55
55
multi-step pushover analysis with hinge unload method called Restart Using Secant
Stiffness, in separate models by applying unit acceleration in both directions.
All the beam column joints in frame were assumed 50% rigid and this was
attained by the modelling technique already explained in section 4.2. Non-linear
column (P-M-M) hinge were assigned at both I and J end of column, from Default
FEMA 356, table 6-8, available in SAP 2000 V.14. Similarly, nonlinear beam hinge
(M3) were assigned at both end of beam, from Default FEMA 356, table 6-7,available
in SAP 2000 V.14.The basement wall was modeled as a shell element. Since the
failure mechanism of basement wall is not a subject of our concern in this study,
hinges were not assigned on it.
Hinge properties For Equivalent Struts.
Masonry infill were modeled as equivalent diagonal strut (3 compression
struts) considering the effect of openings. Since, the struts were modeled as
compression only member, only axial hinges were assumed to develop at the middle
length of struts. Length of plastic hinge in strut was assumed to be equal to half of
diagonal length of strut (H.B Kaushik, D.C Rai, S.K Jain). Non-linear compressive
stress-strain curves of masonry as shown in Figure.4.8 (H.B Kaushik, 2006) are
assigned as hinge properties to equivalent diagonal struts to model masonry infill.
ac =0.78e-0.322lnAa + 0.93e-0.762lnAc<= 1
56
56
Ac\%\ = Ratio of opening length/ infill length
Actual width of strut were calculated by multiplying the reduction factor with
that calculated from the method described in chapter4.
57
57
6. RESULTS AND DISSCUSION
Two selected buildings were modeled in SAP 2000, considering and without
considering the effect of masonry infill. In order to evaluate the performance of
buildings, pushover analysis of both bare frame and strut model were performed,
assigning the nonlinear column hinge (P-M-M), beam hinge (M) and masonry hinge
(p). The results obtained from the analysis are presented below.
Pushover analysis shows that the base shear capacity of building increase with
the introduction of masonry infill panel in the form of three compression struts,
which is very much matching with the experimental values. The base shear capacity
of model A for a typical displacement was found to be enhanced by 21% along X
direction and by 61 % along y direction. Similarly base shear capacity of model B for
a typical displacement was found to be enhanced by 68% along x direction and
34%along y direction. Comparison of the base shear has been tabulated below for
both the models.
b Performance Point
The maximum earthquake performance level as specified by IS Code was
found to meet in both bare frame and strut model of both buildings.
c Failure Mechanism
In bare frame model, the stiffness and strength of masonry infill walls were
not considered, however, its weight was included. In bare frame pushover analysis of
both models, the first plastic hinge was found to develop in beam and gradually the
formations of hinges were seen in columns. Initially, the concentrations of hinges
were found high at the lower storey and gradually the non-linearity was found to be
well distributed along the height of frame.
58
58
In strut model, the stiffness and strength of infill were considered in all storey
in the form of three compression struts. Similar to the bare frame model, the
formation of hinges start from beam and gradually the formation of hinges were found
(a) (b)
Figure 6.1 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b)
for Model A
(a) (b)
Figure 6.2 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b)
for Model B
59
59
in column and compression struts. Concentration of beam column as well as masonry
wall hinges were found very high in the lower and mid floor whereas no hinge
formation was observed at upper floor.
In both of the strut model, the comparative study of hinge formation shows
that at the normal hinge formation level of beam- column hinge ,excessive failure of
compression struts were observed. This indicates that the masonry infill wall
undergoes excessive crack at the normal hinge formation level of beam column hinge.
Moreover, the failures of infill were concentrated at low and mid floor whereas the
failures of wall panel at the upper floor were not observed.
60
60
Table 6.4 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-B
MODEL-B
Base shear(KN)
Enhancement
Direction Displacement(mm) Bare Frame Strut in Base Shear
model Model
10 711 1600 125%
40 2593 5600 116%
80 4627 9600 107%
Along Px
120 5797 10400 79%
160 6560 11000 68%
200 6965 11000 58%
50 3611 4800 33%
100 6661 9200 38%
150 7931 10600 34%
Along Py 200 8644 11400 32%
250 8949 12000 34%
300 9356 12400 33%
350 9610 12150 26%
61
61
Figure 6.4 Pushover Curve along Y (model A)
62
62
Figure 6.6 Pushover Curve along Y (model B)
Figure 6.7 Capacity Demand Curve along X for Bare Frame (model A)
63
63
Figure 6.8 Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model A)
Figure 6.9 Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Bare Frame (model A)
64
64
6.2 Response Reduction Factor
Base Shear
Roof Displacement
Figure 6.8 shows the pushover curve for the bare frame model A Obtained
from non- linear static analysis. Now for the estimation of reduction of spectral
demand bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is drawn as shown in
fig.6.13.The bilinear curve is drawn by equating the area of curve that lies inside and
outside the straight line. For the instance, the bilinear curve has been taken as given
by SAP for bare frame model A. Here in the bilinear representation the yield strength
(Vy) of the building is found to be 9380, yield displacement (y) and maximum
displacement capacity (max) of the building are found as 131.4 and 350.4. For the
design force (Vd), the linear analysis of the building was done under the load
combination as given by IS code for the design of buildings and was found to be
3638. Using the fore mentioned formula, ductility reduction factor () was found to
be 2.7 and over strength factor was found to be 2.6. Thus the force reduction factor
for the bare frame model A was determined as 6.9.
Using the above mentioned procedure ductility factor, Over strength factor
and finally force reduction factor were found for other buildings which are tabulated
65
65
below.
Bare Frame
Description Strut Model
model
Yield Base Shear, Vy (KN) 9380.0 12300.0
Yield Displacement, y (mm) 131.4 141.0
Maximum Displacement, max (mm) 350.4 245.0
Design Base Shear, Vd (KN) 3638.0 3638.0
Displacement Ductility Factor, 2.7 1.7
Over Strength Factor, d 2.6 3.4
Force Reduction Factor, R 6.9 5.9
MODEL-B
Bare Frame
Description Strut Model
model
66
66
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 General
For the purpose of performance assessment of high rise buildings, the two
models were selected model-A with aspect ratio of 1.02 (Lowest among the collected
Buildings) and the model-B with aspect ratio of 2.25 (Highest among collected
buildings). Non-linear static analysis of selected models was performed in
SAP2000V.14 to compare the performance of buildings.
3. The comparison of failure mechanism in all the models shows that the
initiation of the failure starts from the bottom level and gradually moves to the
mid floor. This strongly recommends the enhancement of flexural capacity at
the base of bottom storey column for the better failure mechanism and
performance enhancement of structure.
4. Collapse level hinge formation was found in the masonry struts before the
formation collapse level hinges in the RC members. This indicates that the
cracking of wall panel is very excessive (non structural damage) when it is
attached to the frame .Consideration of this non structural damage may be the
matter of further research.
6. In overall R value seems reduced in strut model than that of bare frame, but
the difference is very much small.
67
67
7.3 Recommendation For Future Extension
1. As various current researches have shown the direct impact of the monolithic
slab on beam flexural capacity enhancement, the present research could be
extended with the consideration of the same.
3. In the current study, only the non-linear static analysis was performed. The
study can be extended through the dynamic analysis.
4. The work in this thesis is limited to the RC buildings only. This can be done
for the steel frame also.
68
68
REFERENCES
5. CSI (2005), CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP 2000, ETABS, and SAFE,
Computers and Structures Inc. Berkley, California, USA.
69
69
13. Maharajan, Dharma Ratna (2010) Seismic Performance Assessment of High rise
Buildings, A thesis submitted to IOE, Tribhuvan University.
14. .Nepal National Building Code NBC 105:1994, Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
16. Smyrou Eleni (2006), Implementation and Verification of Masonry Panel model
for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Infilled RC Frame., A Dissertation submitted
to ROSE SCHOOL
18. Ying Zhou and Xilin Lu (2006) Seismic Performance Evaluation of an Irregular
High Rise Building , 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering
,Taipei, Taiwan
70
70
APPENDIX
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-1
Type of Size of column Area of Area of
Floor % steel
column b d Column steel
basement-2 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
C1 B-1 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
GF 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
basement-2 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
B-1 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
GF 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
1 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
2 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
3 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
4 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
5 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
6 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
C2 7 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
8 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
9 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
10 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
11 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
12 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
13 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
14 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
15 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
16 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
basement-2 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
B-1 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
GF 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
1 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
2 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
3 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
4 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
5 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
6 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
C3 7 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
8 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
9 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
10 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
11 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
12 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
13 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
14 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
15 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
16 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
71
71
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-2
Type of Size of column Area of Area of %
Floor
column b d Column steel steel
basement 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
GF 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
1 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
2 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
3 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
4 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
5 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
C0
6 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
7 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
8 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
9 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
10 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
11 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
12 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
basement 600 600 360000.00 5680.00 1.58
GF 600 600 360000.00 12315.04 3.42
1 600 600 360000.00 9817.48 2.73
2 600 600 360000.00 7853.98 2.18
3 600 600 360000.00 6440.26 1.79
4 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
5 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
C1
6 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
7 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
8 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
9 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
10 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
11 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
12 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
basement 450 900 405000.00 4498.76 1.11
GF 450 900 405000.00 6157.52 1.52
1 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
2 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
3 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
4 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
5 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
C2
6 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
7 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
8 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
9 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
10 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
11 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
12 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
72
72
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-3
Type of Size of column Area of Area of
Floor % steel
column b d Column steel
basement-2 450 450 202500.00 2060.88 1.02
C1
B-1 450 450 202500.00 2060.88 1.02
basement-2 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
B-1 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
C2 GF 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
1 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
2 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
C3 GF 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
C3'
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
C4 GF 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
1 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
2 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
C5 GF 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
1 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
2 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
C6 GF 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
C6'
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
basement-2 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
B-1 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
C7 GF 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
1 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
2 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
basement-2 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
B-1 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
C8 GF 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
1 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
2 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
73
73
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-4
size of
Type of area of area of
floor column % steel
column column steel
b d
basement-2 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
B-1 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
GF 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
1 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
2 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
3 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
4 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
C1
5 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
6 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
7 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
8 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
9 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
10 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
11 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
basement-2 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
B-1 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
GF 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
1 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
2 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
3 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
4 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
C2
5 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
6 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
7 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
8 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
9 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
10 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
11 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
basement-2 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
B-1 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
GF 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
1 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
2 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
3 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
4 230 750 172500.00 3769.91 2.19
C3
5 230 750 172500.00 3769.91 2.19
6 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
7 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
8 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
9 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
10 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
11 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
74
74
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-5
Type of Size of column Area of Area of
Floor % steel
column b d Column steel
basement 300 750 225000.00 10799.22 4.80
GF 300 750 225000.00 10799.22 4.80
1 300 750 225000.00 9110.62 4.05
2 300 750 225000.00 9110.62 4.05
3 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
4 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
C0
5 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
6 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
7 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
8 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
9 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
10 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
basement 300 750 225000.00 9817.48 4.36
GF 300 750 225000.00 9817.48 4.36
1 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
2 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
3 300 750 225000.00 5890.49 2.62
4 300 750 225000.00 5890.49 2.62
C1
5 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
6 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
7 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
8 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
9 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
10 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
basement 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
GF 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
1 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
2 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
3 300 750 225000.00 5183.63 2.30
4 300 750 225000.00 5183.63 2.30
C2
5 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
6 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
7 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
8 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
9 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
10 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
basement 300 750 225000.00 5026.55 2.23
GF 300 750 225000.00 5026.55 2.23
1 300 750 225000.00 3317.52 1.47
2 300 750 225000.00 3317.52 1.47
C3 3 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
4 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
5 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
6 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
7 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
75
75
Calculation Of strut Width for model B
width width
infill infill Ac reduction of of off-
Grid span Aa %
length height % factor diagonal diagonal
strut strut
Floor:FF
Grid 1-1
C-D 4116 3.741 2.45 62.84 64.2 0.24 127 64
Grid 2-2
B-C 4873 4.723 2.45 27.22 44.5 0.32 200 100
Grid 3-3
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
C-D 4116 520 260
grid 4-4
A-B 1800 341 171
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
Grid 5-5
A-B 2922 2.547 2.45 26.92 31.4 0.34 138 69
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
C-D 5715 692 346
Grid 6-6
A-B 2922 409 205
Grid 7-7
C-D 5715 5.565 2.45 12.32 14.4 0.47 349 174
76
76
Calculation Of strut Width for model A
Floor: GF
Grid 1-1
D-E 7163 878 439
Grid 2-2
A-B 4000 528 264
B-C 7048 873 437
C-D 2744 424 212
D-E
E-F 7430 909 455
F-G 4000 528 264
Grid 3-3
A-B 4000 513 256
B-C 7048 830 415
C-D 2744 388 194
D-E
E-F
F-G
grid 4-4
A-B 4000 513 256
B-C 7048 830 415
C-D 2744 388 194
D-E 7163 6.263 2.5 24 24 0.362 OK 305 152
E-F
F-G
77
77
Figure 1.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Strut Model (model A)
78
78
Figure 3. Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model B)
79
79
Figure 5.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Strut Model (model B)
80
80
Figure 5.Bilinear curve for bare frame Model (model B)
81
81