DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF SLOPED BUILDINGS:

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDIES

A Thesis

submitted by

SANDEEP GOYAL

(213CE2062)

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the award of the degree

of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

in

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Under the guidance of

Prof. K. C. BISWAL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ROURKELA-769008, ODISHA, INDIA

MAY 2015
`

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ROURKELA-769008, ODISHA, INDIA

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF SLOPED BUILDINGS:

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDIES” submitted by Sandeep Goyal bearing

Roll No. 213CE2062 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of

Technology Degree in Civil Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering during

2013-2015 session to the National Institute of Technology Rourkela is an authentic work

carried out by him under my supervision and guidance. The contents of this thesis, in full or in

parts, have not been submitted to any other Institute or University for the award of any Degree or

Diploma.

Date Prof. K. C. Biswal

Department of Civil Engineering
NIT, Rourkela
`

Dedicated
To

MY BELOVED PARENTS
`

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to God who helped me throughtout my life and granting wisdom to human

beings.

I express my gratitude and sincere thanks to Prof. Kishore Chandra Biswal, for his

guidance and constant support and encouragement during entire course of work during the

last one year. I truly appreciate his esteemed guidance and his immeasurable contribution

through the knowledge and advices. It is my utmost pleasure to work under highly respected

professor and his company will be remembered lifelong at the time of crisis.

I express my sincere thanks to Prof. S. K. Sharangi, Director of National Institute of

Technology, Rourkela and Prof. S.K. Sahu, HOD, Department of Civil Engineering for their

help and providing the necessary facilities in the department.

A special thanks to Prof. M. R. Barik, my faculty and adviser and all the faculties Prof. P.

Sarkar, Prof. A. K. Panda, Prof. A. K. Sahoo, Prof. U. K. Mishra, Prof. Robin Davis

P.and Prof. Asha Patel for helping me in settling down in the first year. I also thank Prof. A.

V Asha, PG Coordinator for providing suitable slots during presentation and Viva.

I also thank my teachers who taught me in my schooling and all the Professors of my

undergraduate studies. I specially thank Prof. Nishant Yadav for his constant support and

guidance during 4 years of B.E. programme.

iv
`

I would also thank R. Lagun and other staff members of the structural laboratory and staffs of

central workshop of Mechanical Engineering Department for their help during the entire

experimental work.

I am also thankful to all my friends who helped me directly or indirectly in my project work.

I specially thank to Padmabati Sahoo, Piyush Rajput, Debadatta Jena (Research Scholar,

NIT Rourkela) for their help in experimental setup. I would also like to thank Sharmili,

Vijay and Samrat for their assistance during the project. I thank all who supported me

directly or indirectly during the project work.

Last but not the least I am highly thankful to my Father Mr. Vinod Agrawal and my mother

Mrs. Shobha for infinite blessings and supporting me morally and without them I could not

have achieved the successful completion of my work.

Sandeep Goyal
M.Tech (Structural Engineering)
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Rourkela-769008

v
`

Abstract

The buildings situated in hilly areas are much more prone to seismic environment in

comparison to the buildings that are located in flat regions. Structures on slopes differ from

other buildings since they are irregular both vertically and horizontally hence torsionally

coupled and are susceptible to severe damage when subjected to seismic action. The columns

of ground storey have varying height of columns due to sloping ground. In this study,

behaviour of two storied sloped frame having step back configuration is analyzed for

sinusoidal ground motion with different slope angles i.e., 15°, 20° and 25° with an

experimental set up and are validated by developing a Finite Element code executed in

MATLAB platform and using structural analysis tool STAAD Pro. by performing a linear

time history analysis. From the above analysis, it has been observed that as the slope angle

increases, stiffness of the model increases due to decrease in height of short column and that

results in increase of earthquake forces on short column which is about 75% of total base

shear and chances of damage is increased considerably due to the formation of plastic hinges

therefore proper analysis is required to quantify the effects of various ground slopes.

Keywords: Ground Motion, linear time history analysis, frequency content, finite element

code

vi
`

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xiv

Chapter 1 1

Introduction 2

1.1 Introduction 2

1.2 Origin of the Project 3

1.3 Research Significance 3

1.4 Objective and Scope 4

Chapter 2 5

Literature Review 6

2.1 Overview 6

2.2 Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Buildings on slopes in India 6

2.3 Seismic Behaviour of buildings with Different Configurations 8

Chapter 3 12

Experimental Modeling 13

3.1 Introduction 13

3.2 Experimental Modeling 13

3.2.1 Details of Laboratory Equipments 13

3.2.2 Fabrication and Arrangement 17

vii
`

3.2.3 Free and Forced Vibration Analysis 18

3.3 Experimental Models 19

3.3.1 Experimental Model for 15° slope 19

3.3.2 Experimental Model for 20° slope 20

3.3.3 Experimental Model for 25° slope 21

3.4 Experimental Results and Discussions 22

3.5 Frequency Response Analysis 24

Chapter 4 28

Numerical Modeling 29

4.1 Introduction 29

4.2 Finite Element Modeling 29

4.2.1 Newmark Direct Integration Approach 29

4.2.2 Newmark’s Method 30

4.2.3 Procedure 30

4.2.4 Details about M, C and K matrices 32

4.2.4.1 Mass matrix [M] 32

4.2.4.2 Stiffness matrix [K] 33

4.2.4.3 Damping matrix [C] 36

STAAD Modeling 39

4.3 Introduction 39

4.4 Frame Modeling in STAAD 39

4.4.1 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 15° to the horizontal 39

4.4.2 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 20° to the horizontal 40

4.4.3 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 25° to the horizontal 41

viii
`

4.5 Loads 42

4.6 Material Properties 43

4.7 Structural Elements 44

4.8 Ground Motion and Time History Analysis 44

4.8.1 Ground Motion 44

4.8.2 Time History Analysis 46

4.9 Numerical Results and Discussions 48

4.9.1 Overview 48

4.10 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 15° 48

4.11 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 20° 57

4.12 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 25° 67

4.13 Mass Participation factor for both modes for considered slope angles 76

Chapter 5 78

Summary and Conclusions 79

5.1 Summary 79

5.2 Conclusions 79

5.3 Future Work 81

References 81

ix
`

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Buildings on sloping ground 3

Figure 3.1: Wooden Wedge and logs 14

Figure 3.2: Shake Table 15

Figure 3.3: Vibration Analyser 15

Figure 3.4: Control Panel 16

Figure 3.5: Accelerometer 17

Figure 3.6: Experimental Model for 15° slope 19

Figure 3.7: Experimental Model for 20° slope 20

Figure 3.8: Experimental Model for 25° slope 21

Figure 3.9: Frequency Response analysis 24

Figure 3.10(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 25

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 1.62 Hz and 2.05 Hz

Figure 3.10(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 25

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.05 Hz and 2.80 Hz

Figure 3.11(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 26

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 1.8 Hz and 2.21 Hz

Figure 3.11(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 26

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.21 Hz and 2.8 Hz

Figure 3.12(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 27

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.02 Hz and 2.6 Hz

Figure 3.12(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion 27

with amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.61 Hz and 2.8 Hz

Figure 4.1: Flow chart for Classification of Vibration 29

x
`

Figure 4.2: Plan of sloped frame for 15° inclination 39

Figure 4.3: Elevation of sloped frame for 15° inclination 40

Figure 4.4: Plan of sloped frame for 20° inclination 40

Figure 4.5: Elevation of sloped frame for 20° inclination 41
Figure 4.6: Plan of sloped frame for 25° inclination 41
Figure 4.7: Elevation of sloped frame for 25° inclination 42
Figure 4.8: Load distribution in Longitudinal-X and Vertical-Y direction 43
Figure 4.9: Compatible Time History as per spectra of IS 1893 (Part1):2002 46

Figure 4.10: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height 49

Figure 4.11: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro 50

Figure 4.12: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM 51

(b) STAAD Pro for 15° slope

Figure 4.13: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 15° slope 52

Figure 4.14: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for 53

15° slope

Figure 4.15: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 54

Pro for 15° slope

Figure 4.16: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height 54

Figure 4.17: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 55

Pro for 15° slope

Figure 4.18: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM 56

(b) STAAD Pro for 15° slope

xi
`

Figure 4.19: Time History of Base Shear for 15° slope 57

Figure 4.20: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height for 20° slope 58

Figure 4.21: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 59

Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.22: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM 60

(b) STAAD Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.23: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 20° slope 61

Figure 4.24: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 62

Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.25: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 63

Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.26: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height for 20° slope 64

Figure 4.27: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 65

Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.28: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM 66

(b) STAAD Pro for 20° slope

Figure 4.29: Time History of Base Shear 67

Figure 4.30: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height for 25° slope 68

Figure 4.31: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 69

Pro for 25° slope

xii
`

Figure 4.32: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM 70

(b) STAAD Pro for 25° slope

Figure 4.33: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 25° slope 71

Figure 4.34: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro 72

for 25° slope

Figure 4.35: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD 73

Pro for 25° slope

Figure 4.36: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height for 25° slope 73

Figure 4.37: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro 75

for 25° slope

Figure 4.38: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM 75

(b) STAAD Pro for 25° slope

Figure 4.39: Time History of Base Shear 76

xiii
`

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Dimensions and Mass of mild steel plate 13

Table 3.2: Natural frequencies of model with different slope inclinations 22

Table 3.3: Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 15° inclination 23

Table 3.4: Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 20° inclination 23

Table 3.5: Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 25° inclination 23

Table 4.1: Steel and Column Bar Properties 43

Table 4.2: Details of Beam and Column with length and cross section dimensions 44

Table 4.3: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 15° inclination validated with 48

Present FEM

Table 4.4: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element 49

and STAAD model

Table 4.5: Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model 51

Table 4.6: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model 54

Table 4.7: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model 56

Table 4.8: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 20° inclination validated with 57

Present FEM

Table 4.9: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element 58

and STAAD Pro. model

xiv
`

Table 4.10: Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model 60

Table 4.11: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model 63

Table 4.12: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model 66

Table 4.13: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 25° inclination 67

Table 4.14: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element 68

and STAAD model

Table 4.15: Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model 70

Table 4.16: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model 73

Table 4.17: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model 76

Table 4.18: Mass Participation Factor (%) of both modes for different slope angle 77

xv
`

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1
`

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Earthquake is the most disastrous and unpredictable phenomenon of nature. When a structure

is subjected to seismic forces it does not cause loss to human lives directly but due to the

damage cause to the structures that leads to the collapse of the building and hence to the

occupants and the property. Mass destruction of the low and high rise buildings in the recent

earthquakes leads to the need of investigation especially in a developing country like India.

Structure subjected to seismic/earthquake forces are always vulnerable to damage and if it

occurs on a sloped building as on hills which is at some inclination to the ground the chances

of damage increases much more due to increased lateral forces on short columns on uphill

side and thus leads to the formation of plastic hinges. Structures on slopes differ from those

on plains because they are irregular horizontally as well as vertically. In north and north-

eastern parts of India have large scale of hilly terrain which fall in the category of seismic

zone IV and V. Recently Sikkim (2011), Doda (2013) and Nepal earthquake (2015) caused

huge destruction. In this region there is a demand of construction of multistory RC framed

buildings due to the rapid urbanization and increase in economic growth and therefore

increase in population density. Due to the scarcity of the plain terrain in this region there is an

obligation of the construction of the buildings on the sloping ground.

In present work, a two storeyed framed building with an inclination of 15°, 20° and 25° to the

ground subjected to sinusoidal ground motion is modelled with an experimental setup and

validated with a finite element coding executed in the MATLAB platform and results

obtained are validated by performing linear time history analysis in structural analysis and

design software (STAAD Pro.).

2
`

Figure 1: Buildings on sloping ground

1.2 Origin of the Project

Few research works is carried out on the seismic behaviour of structures on slopes subjected

to ground motion of sinusoidal nature. Sreerama and Ramancharla (2013) studied

numerically the effect on seismic behaviour on varying slope angle and compared with the

same on flat ground. No work is carried out regarding the seismic behaviour of the structures

on sloping ground with an experimental set up.

1.3 Research Significance

India consists of great arc of mountains which consists of Himalayas in its northern part

which was formed by on-going tectonic collision of plates. In this region the housing

3
`

densities were approximately 62159 per square Km as per 2011 census. Hence there is need

of study of seismic safety and the design of the structures on slopes.

The response of a sloped building depends on frequency content of the earthquake as it

affects its performance when it is subjected to ground motion. In this research work

experimental and numerical study is done by varying sloping angle. .

1.4 Objective and Scope

The purpose of this project is to study experimentally and numerically the dynamic response

of sloped building subjected to sinusoidal ground motion and earthquake excitations.

The scope of this study is summarized as follows:

 The experimental study is undertaken with a two storied sloped frame model mounted

rigidly to a shake table, capable of producing sinusoidal acceleration to study the

dynamic response of sloped frame due to change of slope inclination by keeping the

total height of frame constant.

 Finite element method is used as a numerical tool to solve the governing differential

equation for undamped free vibration to find the natural frequency of model.

 Newmark method is used for numerical evaluation of dynamic response of the frame

model.

 Linear time history analysis is performed using structural analysis tool i.e., STAAD

Pro. by introducing compatible time history as per spectra of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002

for 5 % damping at rocky soil.

4
`

Chapter 2

LITERATURE
REVIEW

5
`

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

In this review, characteristics of the structures due to the variation of the slope angle are

explained. Then the effect of the irregular configurations on vulnerability due to seismic

forces is discussed. There are very few researchers who explained the effect of change of

sloping angle.

No research work is done based on experimental investigation of the structures on sloping

ground.

2.2 Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Buildings on slopes in India

Ravikumar et al. (2012) studied two kinds of irregularities in building model namely the plan

irregularity with geometric and diaphragm discontinuity and vertical irregularity with setback

and sloping ground. Pushover analysis was performed taking different lateral load cases in all

three directions to identify the seismic demands. All the buildings considered are three storied

with different plan and elevation irregularities pattern. Plan irregular models give more

deformation for fewer amounts of forces where the vulnerability of the sloping model was

found remarkable. The performances of all the models except sloping models lie between life

safety and collapse prevention. Hence it can be concluded that buildings resting on sloping

ground are more prone to damage than on buildings resting on flat ground even with plan

irregularities.

Sreerama and Ramancharla (2013) observed that recent earthquakes like Bihar-Nepal (1980),

Shillong Plateau and the Kangra earthquake killed more than 375,000 people and over

100,000 of the buildings got collapsed. Dynamic characteristics of the buildings on flat

ground differ to that of buildings on slope ground as the geometrical configurations of the

6
`

building differ horizontally as well as vertically. Due to this irregularity the centre of mass

and the centre of stiffness does not coincide to each other and it results in torsional response.

The stiffness and mass of the column vary within the storeys that result in increase of lateral

forces on column on uphill side and vulnerable to damage. In their analysis they took five

G+3 buildings of varying slope angles of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60° which were designed and

analysed using IS-456 and SAP2000 and further the building is subjected and analysed for

earthquake load i.e., N90E with PGA of 0.565g and magnitude of M6.7. They found that

short column attract more forces due to the increased stiffness. The base reaction for the

shorter column increases as the slope angle increases while for other columns it decreases and

then increases. The natural time period of the building decreases as the slope angle increases

and short column resist almost all the storey shear as the long columns are flexible and cannot

resist the loads.

Patel et al. (2014) studied 3D analytical model of eight storied building was analysed using

analysis tool ETabs with symmetric and asymmetric model to study the effect of variation of

height of column due to sloping ground and the effect of concrete shear wall at different

locations during earthquake. In the present study lateral load analysis as per seismic code was

done to study the effect of seismic load and assess the seismic vulnerability by performing

pushover analysis. It was observed that vulnerability of buildings on sloping ground increases

due to formation of plastic hinges on columns in each base level and on beams at each storey

level at performance point. The number of plastic hinges are more in the direction in which

building is more asymmetric. Buidings on sloping ground have more storey displacement as

compared to that of buildings on flat ground and without having shear wall. Presence of shear

wall considerably reduces the base shear and lateral displacement.

7
`

2.3 Seismic Behaviour of buildings with Different Configurations

Birajdar and Nalawade (2004) performed 3D analysis of 24 RC buildings with three different

configurations like set back, step back and step set back building. Response spectrum

analysis including the torsional effect has been carried out. The dynamic properties which are

top storey displacement, base shear and fundamental time period have been studied

considering the suitability of buildings on sloping ground. In this study three types of

configuration mentioned above are used in two (step back and step set back building) are on

sloping ground while the third one (set back) is on plain ground. The sloping angle is taken as

27 degrees. The number of stories taken is from 4 to 11 and hence total of 24 RC buildings

where studied. Set back building- As the number of stories increases there is a linear increase

in top storey displacement and time period for the earthquake in longitudinal direction. The

value of top storey displacement and fundamental time period in transverse direction are

higher compared to longitudinal direction due to increase in torsional moments due to effect

of static and accidental eccentricity. From design point of view proper attention should be

given to the strength, orientation and ductility demand of shortest column at ground level to

ensure its safety under worst combination of load case in X and Y direction. Step set back

building-The results obtained in the static and dynamic analysis do not differ substantially as

in the case of step back building. The top storey displacement is about 3.8 to 4 times higher

in transverse direction than the corresponding values in longitudinal direction. Set back

building- Shear forces induced in set back building is found to be least in comparison with

the other two buildings. The distribution of shear forces in set back building is even and there

is little problem of development of torsional moment. Step back buildings are found to be

most vulnerable compared to other configurations and the development of torsional moment

is highest in step back building. The column at ground level is prone to damage as it is worst

affected.

8
`

Singh et al. (2012) carried out an analytical study using linear and nonlinear time history

analysis. They considered 9 story RC frame building (Step back) with 45 degrees to the

horizontal located on steep slope. The number of storeys was 3 and 9 and 7 bays along the

slope and 3 across the slope. They took 5 set of ground motions i.e., 1999 Chi-Chi, 1979

Imperial Valley, 1994 Northridge , 1971 San Fernando , 1995 Kobe from strong motion

database of pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER). They observed that

almost all the storey shear is resisted by the short column. The effect of torsional irregularity

is represented by the ratio of maximum to average inter storey drifts (Δmax/Δavg) in a storey.

They observed the step back buildings are subjected to considerable amount of torsional

effects under cross slope excitations.

Babu et al. (2012) performed pushover analysis of various symmetric and asymmetric

structures constructed on plain as well as on sloping ground. They conducted analysis using

structures with different configurations which are plan symmetry and asymmetry having

different bay sizes. They considered a 4 storey building in which one storey is above ground

level and it is constructed at a slope of 30 degree. They observed that the short column

subjected to worst level of severity and lie beyond collapse prevention (CP) from pushover

analysis. They obtained displacement as 104 mm and base shear as 2.77*10 3 kN. Based on

these results they developed pushover curves with X-axis as displacement and Y-axis as base

shear and gave various comparisons for the cases they considered. They found that up to

failure limit for maximum displacement by symmetric structure is 70% and by asymmetric

building is 24% more than the structure on plain ground. They concluded that structure is

more critical in elevation irregularity than in plan irregularity.

Prashant and Jagadish (2013) studied the seismic response of one way slope RC building with

a soft storey. They have focussed their work to the buildings with infill wall and without infill

wall i.e., bare frame. They carried out pushover analysis in a 10 storey building which

9
`

include bare frame with and without infill wall. The buildings were situated at an inclination

of 27 degrees to the horizontal and having 5 bays along the slope. Frame system considered

was specially moment resisting frame (SMRF). In this study, they found that time period of

building consisting of bare frame is 1.975 sec. which is about 96-135% higher as compared to

the building having infill walls which is due to the reason of increased stiffness of the

building and hence the increase in frequency. Further they observed that the displacement of

the building is more in case of bare frame due to reduced stiffness and absence of infill wall.

They also found that the base shear in infilled frames is about 250% more as compared to

bare frame. Therefore formation of plastic hinges is more in bare frame model consisting of

soft storey.

Halkude et al. (2013) conducted seismic analysis of buildings resting on sloping ground by

varying number of bays and slope inclination. They studied the dynamic characteristics of the

building i.e., base shear, top storey displacement and natural time period with respect to

variation in number of stories and number of bays along the slope and hill slope. They

considered a step back building of 4 to 11 storey and 3 to 6 bays in longitudinal directions.

They have not considered the variation of bays in transverse direction so they have kept the

single bay in Y-direction. The slope angles taken are 16.32°, 21.58°, 26.56° and 31.50° with

the horizontal and seismic zone III. In all configurations it was observed that base shear

increases with increase in number of storey, increases with increase in number of bays but

decreases with increase in slope angle. Comparing within different configurations, step back

building have higher base shear with respect to the step set back buildings. They also found

time period increases with the increase in number of storey in both the configurations, with

the increase in number of bays in step back building time period increases while in case of

step set back building time period decreases. As the slope angle increases the stiffness of the

building increases therefore the time period in all the configurations decreases. Top storey

10
`

displacement decreases with the increase in hill slope, increases with the increase in the

number of storey and decreases when the number of bays is increased. They concluded that

more number of bays are better as this increases the time period and therefore it reduces top

storey displacement.

11
`

Chapter 3

EXPERIMENTAL
MODELING

12
`

Experimental Modeling

3.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with experimental works performed on free vibration and forced

vibration on sloped frame model. The results obtained from the experimental analysis are

compared with the finite element coding executed in MATLAB platform. The work

performed is categorized into three sections which are as follows:-

 Details of Laboratory Equipments

 Fabrication and Arrangement

 Free and Forced Vibration Analysis

3.2 Experimental Modeling

3.2.1 Details of Laboratory Equipments

1. Three Mild Steel plates- In this model, there are three mild steel plates, two of same sizes

and the other of different size. Plate no. 1 and 2 are used in each storey level and plate no. 3

used as base plate. The dimension of plates is shown in table 3.1:-

Table 3.1: Dimensions and Mass of mild steel plate

Plate No. Dimension (cm) Mass (kg)

Plate 1 & 2 50x40x1 15.44

Plate 3 70x40x1 21.76

2. Four Threaded rods- The threaded rods are used as columns which are connected with

mild steel plates in each storey level. The diameter of threaded rod used is 7.7 mm.

13
`

3. Nuts and washers- The number of set of Nuts and washers used is 32. Each 8 sets for two

storey levels to connect threaded rods with steel plates and 8 nos. for base plate and 8 nos. for

connecting threaded rod to the plate of shake table.

4. Wooden logs and planks- The wooden logs and planks are used to obtain firm ground.

The logs of wood are inserted in between base plate and shake table to fill the space between

inclined base plate and platform of shake table. Wedge shaped small logs of wood are also

used which facilitates in erect fitting of column with plates.

Figure 3.1: Wooden Wedge and logs

5. Shake Table- Shake table is used to simulate the seismic event happening on the site. The

shake table consists of horizontal, unidirectional sliding platform of size 1000 mm x 1000

mm. It consists 81 tie down points at a grid of 100 mmx 100mm. The maximum payload is

100 kg. The maximum displacement of the table is 100 mm (±50 mm). The rectangular

platform is used to test the response of structures to verify their seismic performance. In this

table the test specimen is fixed to the platform and shaken. The frequency of the table is

controlled by a control panel which is run by input voltage of 440 volts.

14
`

Figure 3.2: Shake Table

6. Vibration Analyser- Vibration analyser (VA) is an important component to condition

monitoring program. It is also referred as predictive maintenance. It is used to measure the

acceleration, velocity and displacement displayed in time waveform (TWF). But the

commonly used spectrum is that derived from a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Vibration

Analyser provides key information about the frequency information of the model.

Figure 3.3: Vibration Analyser

15
`

7. Control Panel- This device is used to allow the user to view and manipulate the forcing

frequency of the model. The range of frequency available for the operation of shake table is

from 0 to 20 Hz.

Figure 3.4: Control Panel

8. Personal Computer – The computer system used to perform the test consists of Intel(R)

Core (TM) i5 processor with 4 GB RAM, 32-bit operating system and running Windows 7

professional. The software used for data acquisition is NV Gate. This software facilitates user

to conduct the FFT analysis of the received signal and record various graphs i.e., time versus

acceleration, time versus velocity and time versus displacement. All the records obtained

during the vibration of the model is simultaneously displayed in the monitor.

9. Accelerometer- It is a device which is used to measure the proper acceleration. Proper

acceleration does not meant to be the co-ordinate acceleration (rate of change of velocity with

tim) but it is the acceleration which it experiences due to the free fall of an object.

Accelerometer transfers its record to the vibration analyser which is received by computer

and transforms it to a signal.

16
`

Figure 3.5: Accelerometer

3.2.2 Fabrication and Arrangement

The holes of 8 mm diameter are driven in the plates 4 nos. through which threaded bar

passes. The holes are made at a radial distance of 5√ cm from each corner of the plate. In

plate 3 slot cut of 2 cm is done at a radial distance of 5√ cm from each corner of base plate

which is connected to platform of shake table. A slot cut of 5 cm is made on base plate to

accommodate slope angle of 15°, 20° and 25° at a distance of 41 cm from slot cut of

connected leg. The threaded rods are passed through these slots and holes and are fixed to the

platform using nuts and washers. Now the base plate is fixed maintaining the slope angle of

15°, 20° and 25° (one at a time). Now the Plate 1 and 2 are fixed at a clear distance of 51 cm

and 92.5 cm from connected end of base plate respectively. The screw is tightened well to

ensure proper fixity. The wooden logs are inserted in between base plate and platform to

achieve firm base similar to that of a sloping ground. Now three accelerometers are

connected to the plates, two of them with plate 1 and one with plate 2. These accelerometers

are connected with the vibration analyser and this analyser is connected to the computer. The

readings obtained due to the vibration are recorded through the accelerometer. One LVDT

(Linear Variable Displacement Transducer) is also used to record the displacement of the

17
`

shake table at the time of forced vibration. The maximum amplitude of the ground motion is

kept 5 mm. The entire tests were conducted in the “Structural Engineering” laboratory of NIT

Rourkela.

3.2.3 Free and Forced Vibration Analysis

Free Vibration Analysis

A vibration is said to be free when a mechanical system is set off to an initial input and then

set to vibrate freely. The vibrating system will damp to zero before that it will provide one or

more natural frequency. In this experimental model, free vibration analysis is performed to

obtain the natural frequencies of the model. By conducting FFT analysis we obtained two

dominating frequencies which are natural frequencies. These two frequencies will be used as

a basis for further analysis. A slight push is given to the Plate 1 (Top storey) and the readings

are taken and by doing FFT analysis natural frequency of the system are obtained.

Forced Vibration Analysis-

A forced vibration is one in which system is subjected to disturbance varying with time. The

disturbance may be load, displacement or velocity and it may be periodic or non-periodic,

transient or steady. The periodic input may be harmonic or non-harmonic in nature. Example

vibration of building subjected to earthquake. If the frequency of vibration of the model is

equal to its natural frequency then the system will be said to have condition of resonance. The

response of the system is large during the resonance and it may be of such magnitude that it

may lead to failure of structure.

18
`

3.3 Experimental Models

Following are figures showing the experimental model with different slope angle:-

3.3.1 Experimental Model for 15° slope

Figure 3.6: Experimental Model for 15° slope

19
`

3.3.2 Experimental Model for 20° slope

Figure 3.7: Experimental Model for 20° slope

20
`

3.3.3 Experimental Model for 25° slope

Figure 3.8: Experimental Model for 25° slope

21
`

3.4 Experimental Results and Discussions

During the experiment, free vibration analysis was performed for each frame model as

mentioned in article 3.2.3. The first two natural frequencies obtained for two modes are

shown in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Natural frequencies of model with different slope inclinations

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Type of Model
Mode 1 Mode 2

15° 2.05 5.80

20° 2.2 5.945

25° 2.6 6.55

Each of the above frame model were excited with sinusoidal harmonic loading which is

defined by following expression

x = xo sinωt ; [ω = 2πf]

where xo is the amplitude of excitation (mm)

f is the frequency of excitation (Hz)

In the above expression, the frequency of excitation is applied over a range which included

the natural frequency of the model. The displacement amplitude of excitation was kept

constant i.e., xo = 5 mm. The maximum storey displacements obtained at resonance condition

22
`

i.e., when excitation frequency matches with the natural frequency of the model for all the

slope angles is shown in table 3.3, table 3.4 and table 3.5.

Table 3.3: Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 15° inclination

Storey No. Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

1 55.2

2 76.6

Table 3.4 : Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 20° inclination

Storey No. Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

1 44

2 68.3

Table 3.5: Maximum Storey Displacements (Absolute) for frame model of 25° inclination

Storey No. Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

1 32.9

2 58.3

23
`

3.5 Frequency Response Analysis

Figure 3.9 shows the response of frequency (Hz) on X-axis with Top storey displacement

(mm) on Y-axis for all three slope angles. In this plot the displacement is decreasing due to

the increase in frequency and slope angle and the increased stiffness of short column on hill

side.

Figure 3.9: Frequency Response analysis

Figure 3.10(a) and 3.10(b) for acceleration (top storey) versus time showing the dominance

of first fundamental frequency (2.05 Hz) obtained by superimposing it with the excitation

frequency of value lower (1.62 Hz) than the fundamental frequency and of value higher (2.80

Hz) than the fundamental frequency. In both the plots it is observed that fundamental

frequency dominates the response over the excitation frequencies of 1.62 Hz and 2.80 Hz.

24
`

Figure 3.10(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 1.62 Hz and 2.05 Hz

Figure 3.10(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.05 Hz and 2.80 Hz

Figure 3.11(a) and 3.11(b) for acceleration (top storey) versus time showing the dominance

of first fundamental frequency (2.21 Hz) obtained by superimposing it with the forcing

frequency of value lower (1.80 Hz) than the fundamental frequency and of value higher (2.80

25
`

Hz) than the fundamental frequency. In both the plots it is observed that fundamental

frequency dominates the response over the excitation frequencies of 1.80 Hz and 2.8 Hz.

Figure 3.11(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 1.8 Hz and 2.21 Hz

Figure 3.11(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.21 Hz and 2.8 Hz

Figure 3.12(a) and 3.12(b) for acceleration (top storey) versus time showing the dominance

of first fundamental frequency (2.6 Hz) obtained by superimposing it with the forcing
26
`

frequency of value lower (2.02 Hz) than the fundamental frequency and of value higher (2.80

Hz) than the fundamental frequency. In both the plots it is observed that fundamental

frequency dominates the response over the excitation frequencies of 2.02 Hz and 2.80 Hz.

Figure 3.12(a): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.02 Hz and 2.6 Hz

Figure 3.12(b): Time history of Top floor acceleration under sinusoidal ground motion with

amplitude of 5 mm and frequencies 2.61 Hz and 2.8 Hz

27
`

Chapter 4

NUMERICAL
MODELING
28
`

Numerical Modeling

4.1 Introduction

Form the literature review we observed that there is a need to develop a Finite Element model

on sloped frame to validate the results obtained from the commercial software like STAAD

Pro., ETABs, and SAP 2000 etc. Therefore a finite element modeling is carried out for the

forced vibration analysis. A finite element model is developed for the sloped frame and its

natural frequencies are computed by conducting free vibration analysis. Forced vibration

analysis is used to study the dynamic response of the frame model with the help of

Newmark’s integration method and the results obtained are validated with structural analysis

tool i.e., STAAD Pro.

4.2 Finite Element Modeling

4.2.1 Newmark Direct Integration Approach

Flow chart is developed to understand the classification of analysis. In this numerical model,

out of various direct integration approach, newmark’s direct integration approach is used.

Damped
Free
Undamped

Vibration Harmonic
Steady Central
Periodic Difference
Backward
Forced Modal Explicit Difference
Methods
Forward
Transient Difference
Direct
Integration
Houbolt

Implicit Wilson-θ

Newmark

Figure 4.1: Flow chart for Classification of Vibration

29
`

Direct integration method considers a step by step integration in time. These are of two types:

1. Explicit

2. Implicit

In explicit type of direct integration data used from past n number of steps to protect forward

in time. It is popular for non-linear cases and is easy to code. It can become unstable and its

stability require small steps i.e., accuracy is directly related to step size. Thus it is

conditionally stable. Used in linear acceleration method for Δt ≤ 0.551Tj, where Tj is natural

period of jth mode.

In implicit type, information from the past time and equation of motion at the present time is

used. It is tougher than explicit method to program. It can be made unconditionally stable

independent of step size. It has a strong filtering action to smoothen and attenuate the

predictive response and we don’t get the response that calculated response diverges or

oscillates and the penalty to use the large step size is to lose the high frequency character to

smooth out the response. Used in average acceleration method.

4.2.2 Newmark Method

It is an implicit method which can be made unconditionally stable. It is a method of

numerical integration used to solve the differential equation. It has parameters ß and γ that are

adjusted for accuracy and stability.

4.2.3 Procedure

What Newmark (1959) proposed has become the most popular to solve the problems in

structural dynamics among the family of algorithms. The method of Newmark relies on the

following interpolation that relate the response-displacement, velocity and acceleration-

increments over the time step n to n+1.

vn+1 = vn + Δt [ (1- γ) an + γ an+1] ......(1)

xn+1 = xn + Δt vn+ [(1-2ß) an + 2ßan+1] ......(2)

30
`

where, xn, vn, an are the approximation to the position, velocity and acceleration vectors at

time step n.

Δt is the time increment in each step.

ß and γ are the parameters whose values define the method.

The general approach is unconditionally stable when γ ≥ 0.5 and ß ≥ 0.25 (γ + 0.5) 2.

Newmark showed γ = 0.5 is the only responsible value otherwise get damping (didn’t get

effect of artificial damping). Newmark chose ß = 0.25 as the best comparison between

accuracy and stability. Use of γ = 0.5 and ß = 0.25 is called as Newmark- ß (Beta) method.

If the value of γ = 0.5 and ß = 1/6 then this method is conditionally stable and it is used as the

basis for another important method known as Wilson- θ (theta) method.

Similar to multistep methods, the implicit algorithms of equations 1 and 2 with fixed point

iteration can be used in fashion of predictor- corrector. But it is not done in such way

interpolations of equations 1 and 2 are introduced directly into the equations of motion.

Depending upon the type of problem linear or non-linear set of algebraic equations are

developed.

The algebraic equation are solved by substituting an+1, vn+1 in terms of xn, vn, an and xn+1, with

xn+1 as primary unknown.

Rewriting the equations (1) and (2) as follows:

an+1 = (xn+1-xn) - vn – (1- )an ......(3)

vn+1 = (xn+1 - xn)-( -1) vn- ( -1) an ......(4)

These equations are applied to linear dynamic structural problem to explain the procedure

which has following form,

31
`

M an+1 + C vn+1 + K xn+1 = F(t) ......(5)

Where M represents mass matrix, C represents damping matrix and K represents the stiffness

matrix. F(t) is the force vector for externally applied force.

Substituting equations (3) and (4) in equation (5),

[ ]xn+1 = F(t) + M [ xn + vn + (1- ) an] +

C[ ]

If the constant matrix on the left hand side of the above equation which is the multiple of xn+1

is triangularized, then solution for displacement only requires formation of right hand side of

equation (6) plus a forward reduction and a backward substitution. Newmark converted

dynamic equation to a linear static equation.

Feff =Keff * x .....(7)

Where Feff is the effective force and is equal to all the terms in right hand side of equation (6)

Keff is the effective force and is equal to the multiples of x n+1 of equation (6)

x is displacement at a particular time step.

4.2.4 Details about M, C and K matrices

4.2.4.1 Mass matrix [M]

m1 0
[M] =[ ] …..(8)
0 m2

32
`

where m1 and m2 are the mass of storey 1 and 2.

15.44 0
[M] = [ ] ……(8A)
0 15.44

4.2.4.2 Stiffness matrix [K]

The stiffness matrix is calculated for a slope angle of 15°, 20° and 25° by calculating

effective length of varying length of column in bottom floor.

Calculation of effective length for 15° slope

Effective stiffness of columns in a storey for single bay is given by

k=k1+ k2 .….(9)

where k is the effective stiffness of the storey

k1 is the stiffness of long column

k2 is the stiffness of short column

k1 = ; instead of is because for two columns in one bay in transverse

direction

k2 =

k = 2*

where, E is modulus of elasticity of column (Threaded rod) =77.3*103 MPa.

E for Mild steel plate = 2*105 Mpa.

I is moment of inertia of column

33
`

I = d4/64;

I = (22*.00774)/(7*64)

I = 1.72626*10-10 m4

l1 = 0.51 m

l2 = 0.4165 m

Putting the above values in equation (8)

2* = +

= + ….. (10)

l = 0.446779 m

Calculation of effective length for 20° slope

l1 = 0.51 m

l2 = 0.373 m

From equation (9)

= +

Effective length

l =0 .42097 m

Calculation of effective length for 25° slope

l1 = 0.51 m

34
`

l2 = 0.32 m

Again from equation (9)

= +

Effective length

l = 0.37457 m

Element Stiffness matrix for one element-

ke1  ke1
[Ke] = [ ]
 ke1 ke1

ke1=

Global stiffness Matrix-

ke1  ke2  ke2

[K]= [ ] …..(11)
 ke2 ke2

Global Stiffness Matrix for entire building for 15° slope

[K] = [ ]*104 .…(11A)

Global Stiffness Matrix for entire building for 20° slope

[K] = [ ]*104 …(11B)

Global Stiffness Matrix for entire building for 25° slope

[K] = [ ]*104 …(11C)

35
`

4.2.4.3 Damping matrix [C]

Damping Matrix [C] is given by,

C = [M]* **([Mn] -1 * c * [Mn]-1)* T

*[M]

[C] = [ ]

c = 2* ζ * Mn*

where, c is coefficient of damping and ζ is damping factor or ratio, ζ = 0.12

Following steps are used to calculate the damping matrix-

1. Calculate the natural frequency of the model by using eigen value solution

Governing differential equation for free undamped vibration of structure is given by

[M]{ } + [K]{x} = {0} ......(12)

Assuming a solution that satisfies displacement boundary condition

x= Asin t

By differentiating above equation with respect to ‘t’ we get

= Aωcosωt

= -Aω2 sinωt

Putting the values of and x in above governing equation (12) we obtain

2
{[K]- ω [M]}{ }= {0} …...(12A)

where, is the vector representing mode shape and is the natural frequency of the model.

36
`

Putting the values from equations 8(A), (11A), (11B) and (11C) into equation (12A)

Mode shapes and Natural frequencies

Mode shapes and Natural frequencies ( ) for 15° slope

=[ ]

= 14.0063 and 38.7699 rad/s.

In Hz , the frequency can be converted as

f=

= 2.2283 and 6.1679 Hz.

Mode shapes and Natural frequencies ( ) for 20° slope

=[ ]

= 14.9854 and 39.6197 rad/s.

In Hz, the frequency can be converted as

f=

= 2.384 and 6.3031 Hz.

Mode shapes and Natural frequencies ( ) for 25° slope

=[ ]

= 16.8973 and 41.8639 rad/s.

37
`

In Hz, the frequency can be converted as

f=

= 2.6882and 6.6602 Hz.

2. Calculation of normalized mass matrix [Mn] Matrix

T
Mn = *M*

For 15° slope

[C] is calculated as

[C] = [ ] .….(14A)

For 20° slope

[C] = [ ] …..(14B)

For 25° slope

[C] = [ ] …..(14C)

The calculation of [M], [C] and [K] matrices have been done by writing finite model coding

and executed in MATLAB platform and the result obtained are shown in the equations

above.

38
`

STAAD MODELING

4.3 Introduction

In this study, numerical modeling in STAAD Pro platform of the sloped frame is described.

The plan and elevation of two storied sloped building subjected to ground motion record as

per spectra of IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002 is shown. There are three different slope angle taken

which are 15°, 20° and 25°. All the material properties of steel beam and column element are

explained. Gravity loads considered are also explained. At the end the size of the elements

are described.

4.4 Frame Modeling in STAAD

In this article, modelling is done in STAAD Pro. A two storied sloped frame model with plan

and elevation is shown from figure 4.2 to figure 4.7 with different slope angle. But the total

height of the building in all the three model is kept same i.e., 92.5cm of which height of first

floor is 51 cm and 41.5 cm for the second floor. The length of bay is taken as 40 cm in

longitudinal direction and 30 cm in transverse direction.

4.4.1 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 15° to the horizontal

Plan

Figure 4.2: Plan of sloped frame for 15° inclination

39
`

Elevation

Figure 4.3: Elevation of sloped frame for 15° inclination

4.4.2 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 20° to the horizontal

Plan

Figure 4.4: Plan of sloped frame for 20° inclination

40
`

Elevation

Figure 4.5: Elevation of sloped frame for 20° inclination

4.4.3 Two storied sloped frame with inclination of 25° to the horizontal

Plan

Figure 4.6: Plan of sloped frame for 25° inclination

Elevation
41
`

Figure 4.7: Elevation of sloped frame for 25° inclination

4.5 Loads

Uniformly distributed load of 0.5044 kN/m is applied in both longitudinal (X) direction and

Y-direction at each storey level. The figure 4.8 shows front and side elevation of applied

loads in X and Y directions.

The load applied is the mass of plate which is experimental model multiplied by the

acceleration due to gravity i.e., 15.44*9.81=151.466 N or .151466 kN.

This value of load is uniformly distributed throughout the length of beam

0.151466/0.3=.50488 kN/m.

42
`

Figure 4.8: Load distribution in Longitudinal-X and Vertical-Y direction

4.6 Material Properties

The table 4.1 shows the properties of materials that are used in the modelling of structure in

STAAD Pro.

Table 4.1: Steel and Column Bar Properties

Title Steel Properties Column Bar Properties

Modulus of Elasticity 20000 GPa 77.3 GPa

Poisons ratio (ν) 0.3 0.3

Mass Density (Kg/m3) 7720 7300

Shear modulus 7692.307 GPa 29.615 GPa

43
`

4.7 Structural Elements

In STAAD Pro. Linear Time History Analysis is performed on above models subjected to

ground motion of intermediate frequency content as per spectra of IS 1893(Part I): 2002.

Height of storey for first and second floor is taken as 51 cm and 41.5 cm respectively. While

the length of short column (on right) is 40.65 cm , 37.3 cm and 32 cm for slope of 15°, 20°

and 25° respectively. The length of beam is 40 cm in longitudinal (X) direction and 30 cm in

transverse (Z) direction. The details of size of beam and column are shown in table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Details of Beam and Column with length and cross section dimensions

Element Cross Section Dimension(mm) Length (cm)

Beam (X) 100x100 40

Beam (Y) 80x80 30

Column 1st floor 7.7 51

Column 2nd floor 7.7 41.5

4.8 Ground Motion and Time History Analysis

4.8.1 Ground Motion

It is the motion of earth’s surface due to the earthquake or any explosion. It is produced due

to the waves which are generated by slip of fault plane or sudden pressure at the explosive

source which travel through the surface of the earth.

Earthquake is a term which is used to refer sudden release of seismic energy caused by

sudden slip on a fault or due to any volcanic or magmatic activity. The strain energy stored

inside the earth crust is released due to tectonic movement of the plates and maximum part of

it changes into heat and sound and the remaining is transforms into the form of seismic

waves. Most of the earthquakes occur due to the plate tectonics. The tectonic plates are large

in size thin and rigid plates that moves relative to one another on the earth’s outer surface.

44
`

These plates are found in uppermost part of mantle which is together referred to as

lithosphere. There are seven major plates which are Pacific, American, Australian, Indian,

Eurasian, African and Antarctic plates.

The main concern of Engineers is the property and nature of ground motion while the

scientists and researchers are interested in the nature and property of earthquake. Engineers

use accelerograph to measure the ground acceleration whereas scientists use seismograph to

record the seismic waves. The seismic waves are mainly of two types i.e., body waves and

surface waves. The body waves further comprises of two types which are primary waves (P-

wave) and secondary waves (S-wave). The surface waves are also of two types i.e., Rayleigh

and Love waves.

When the shaking of earth is strong that is close to 50 km range is referred to as strong

ground motion. The motion occurs in three linear displacements and three rotational

displacements. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the maximum absolute value of ground

acceleration. The frequency content, PGA and time duration are the three most important

characteristics of an earthquake. The frequency content of an earthquake is the ratio of peak

ground acceleration (PGA) in terms of acceleration due to gravity (g) to the peak ground

velocity (m/s) (PGV). It is classified into three high, intermediate and low frequency content.

PGA/PGV > 1.2 High Frequency Content

0.8 < PGA/PGV > 1.2 Intermediate Frequency Content

PGA/PGV < 0.8 Low frequency content

The first natural frequency (corresponding to first mode) of a structure is termed as the

fundamental frequency. When the excitation frequency and natural frequency matches then

the resonance occurs. Earthquake ground motion is dynamic in nature and can be classified as

deterministic non-periodic transient load as well as probabilistic load.

45
`

Earthquake is classified based on focal depth, location, epicentral distance, causes and

magnitude. Intensity and magnitude are two specific parameters of earthquake. The intensity

of earthquake is measured by the severity of shaking of ground at a certain location. It is a

qualitative measure of an earthquake and is measured by MM scale (Modified Mercalli)

scale. Magnitude is the amount of seismic energy released at the source of earthquake. It is a

quantitative measure of an earthquake which is determined by Richter magnitude scale. For a

particular earthquake the magnitude is constant irrespective of its location but its intensity

varies from one location to another.

Figure 4.9 shows the variation of ground acceleration with time. The duration of ground

motion is 40 seconds and its peak value is -1.0g which occurs at time t=11.90 seconds.

IS 1893 (Part1): 2002

PGA=-1.0g at t=11.9s

Figure 4.9: Compatible Time History as per spectra of IS 1893 (Part1):2002 for 5% damping

at rocky soil

4.8.2 Time History Analysis

Structural analysis deals with finding out physical response of a structure when subjected to

any action (force). This action can be static or dynamic. If the action is constant for a span of

time then it is termed as static and if it varies fairly quickly then it is termed as dynamic. The

study of response of the structure subjected to dynamic loading is called as structural

dynamics. Ground motion comes under type of dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis is also

46
`

related to inertial forces developed when the structure is subjected by suddenly applied loads

for example wind blasts, explosion and earthquake.

Time history analysis is the dynamic response of a structure applied over the increment of

time steps as a function of acceleration, force, moment or displacement. It provides the

response under the loading which varies according to specified time function. The closer

spacing of interval the greater is the accuracy achieved. This method is considered to be more

realistic compared to response spectrum method. This method is useful for tall or high rise

structures i.e., flexible structures. In linear dynamic model, structure is modelled with linear

elastic stiffness matrix and equivalent damping matrix for multi degree of freedom structure.

The main advantage of linear dynamic method over static method is that higher modes can

also be taken into account.

In this study linear time history dynamic analysis is carried out to see the response of a two

storied building. STAAD Pro. platform is used to perform the analysis. The structure is

subjected to ground motion record [IS 1893 (Part1):2002 (Artificial ground motion)]

compatible to time history of acceleration as per spectra of IS 1893 (Part1) for structural

design in India (Refer figure 4.9: Time History of Ground Acceleration).

47
`

Numerical Results and Discussions

4.9 Overview

In this chapter, the response of the structure subjected to ground motion and the results for

two storied sloped building with ground inclination of 15°, 20° and 25° in terms of roof

displacement, roof velocity and roof acceleration and base shear are presented. Also the

storey displacement, story velocity and story acceleration for each inclination is illustrated.

The responses due to ground motion as per spectra of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 are shown. The

results obtained based on numerical studies are shown with validation with experimental

model.

4.10 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 15°

With reference to the details in the article 3.2.3 and 4.2.4.3 by performing free vibration

analysis we obtained the natural frequencies of the model for two different modes shown in

table 4.3:

Table 4.3: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 15° inclination validated with Present

FEM

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Type of Model
Mode 1 Mode 2

Experimental 2.05 5.80

Present FEM 2.2283 6.1679

48
`

Table 4.4 shows maximum storey displacement (absolute) for both experimental and finite

element and STAAD Pro. model for 15° slope.

Table 4.4: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element and

STAAD model

Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

Storey No.
Experimental Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 55.2 52.43 54.4

2 76.6 77.3 80.2

Figure 4.10 shows Maximum Storey Displacement (Absolute) vs Storey Height for

experimental and numerical model.

Figure 4.10: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height

49
`

Figure 4.11 (a) and (b) and 4.12 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) displacement and displacement of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical

model i.e., Finite Element and STAAD Pro. model.

Figure 4.11: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro

(a)

50
`

(b)

Figure 4.12: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD

Pro for 15° slope

Table 4.5 shows Maximum storey velocity (Absolute) for both Finite Element and STAAD

Pro. model for 15° slope.

Table 4.5: Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 733.8 751

2 1133 1169

Figure 4.13 for Absolute Maximum Storey velocity (mm/s) vs Storey Height (m) for Present

FEM and STAAD Pro model

51
`

Figure 4.13: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 15° slope

Figure 4.14 (a) and (b) and Figure 4.15 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of

top storey (roof) velocity and velocity of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical i.e.,

Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

983.3mm/s
6.80s

-1133mm/s
4.42s

52
`

(b)

Figure 4.14: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for 15°

slope

709.7mm/s
6.80s

733.8mm/s
4.41s

(a)

53
`

Figure 4.15: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

15° slope

Table 4.6 shows Maximum storey acceleration (Absolute) for both Finite Element and

STAAD Pro. model for 15° slope

Table 4.6: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 15.06 14.9

2 21.08 21.9

Figure 4.16 shows Absolute Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) vs Storey Height (m) for

Present FEM and STAAD Pro. model

Figure 4.16: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height

54
`

Figure 4.17 (a) and (b) and Figure 4.18 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of

top storey (roof) acceleration and acceleration of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical

i.e., Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

16.78m/s2
5.39s

-21.08m/s2
11.91s

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.17: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

15° slope

2
12.49m/s
5.39s

2
-15.06m/s
11.91s

55
`

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.18: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD

Pro for 15° slope

Table 4.7 showing Maximum Base Shear (Absolute) (N) of frame with respect to Finite

Element and STAAD Pro. model.

Table 4.7: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Model Maximum Base Shear (N)

Present FEM 393.6

STAAD Pro. 389.97

Figure 4.19 shows time history of base shear for FEM model for 15° slope

56
`

392.4 N
5.18s

- 393.6 N
4.52s

Figure 4.19: Time History of Base Shear for 15° slope

4.11 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 20°

With reference to the details in the article 3.2.3 and 4.2.4.3 by performing free vibration

analysis we obtained the natural frequencies of the model for two different modes shown in

table 4.8:

Table 4.8: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 20° inclination

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Type of Model

Mode 1 Mode 2

Experimental 2.2 5.945

Present FEM 2.38 6.303

57
`

Table 4.9 shows maximum storey displacement (absolute) for both experimental and finite

element and STAAD Pro. model for 20° slope

Table 4.9: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element and

STAAD Pro. model

Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

Storey No.
Experimental Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 44 44.58 46.8

2 68.3 70.57 73.7

Figure 4.20 shows Maximum Storey Displacement (Absolute) vs Storey Height for

experimental and numerical model.

Figure 4.20: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height for 20° slope

58
`

Figure 4.21 (a) and (b) and 4.22 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) displacement and displacement of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical

i.e., Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

63.6mm
6.37s

70.57mm
4.5s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.21: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

20° slope

59
`

43.55mm
5.15s

-44.58mm
4.51s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.22: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD

Pro for 20° slope

Table 4.10 shows Maximum storey velocity (Absolute) for both Finite Element and STAAD

Pro. model for 20° slope

Table 4.10: Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 720.5 697

2 1145 1134

60
`

Figure 4.23 for Absolute Maximum Storey velocity (mm/s) vs Storey Height (m) for Present

FEM and STAAD Pro model

Figure 4.23: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 20° slope

Figure 4.24 (a) and (b) and 4.25 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) velocity and velocity of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical i.e., Finite

Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

993.1mm/s
4.61s

-1145mm/s
11.95s

(a)

61
`

(b)

Figure 4.24: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for 20°

slope

627.5mm/s
4.6s

-720.5mm/s
11.95s

(a)

62
`

(b)

Figure 4.25: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

20° slope

Table 4.11 shows Maximum storey acceleration (Absolute) for both Finite Element and

STAAD Pro. model for 20° slope

Table 4.11: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 14.13 14.8

2 20.4 21.1

63
`

Figure 4.26 shows Absolute Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) vs Storey Height (m) for

Present FEM and STAAD Pro. model

Figure 4.26: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height for 20° slope

Figure 4.27 (a) and (b) and 4.28 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) acceleration and acceleration of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical i.e.,

Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model

64
`

2
19.07m/s
12.04s

2
-20.4 m/s
6.86 s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.27: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for
20° slope

65
`

2
12.86m/s
12.04s

2
-14.13 m/s
6.84 s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.28: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD
Pro for 20° slope

Table 4.12 showing Maximum Base Shear (Absolute) (N) of frame with respect to Finite

Element and STAAD Pro. model

Table 4.12: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model

66
`

Model Maximum Base Shear (N)

Present FEM 400

STAAD Pro. 401.14

Figure 4.29 shows time history of base shear for FEM model for 20° slope

390.7N
5.15s

-400N
4.51s

Figure 4.29: Time History of Base Shear

4.12 Two storied sloped frame with ground inclination of 25°

With reference to the details in the article 3.2.3 and 4.2.4.3 by performing free vibration

analysis we obtained the natural frequencies of the model for two different modes shown in

table 4.13:

Table 4.13: Natural Frequency of sloped frame with 25° inclination

67
`

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Type of Model
Mode 1 Mode 2

Experimental 2.6 6.55

Present FEM 2.688 6.6602

Table 4.14 shows maximum storey displacement (absolute) for both experimental and finite

element and STAAD Pro. model for 25° slope

Table 4.14: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm) for Experimental, Finite Element and

STAAD model

Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)

Storey No.
Experimental Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 32.9 31.46 31.8

2 58.3 59.15 59.4

Figure 4.30 shows Maximum Storey Displacement (Absolute) vs Storey Height for

experimental and numerical model.

68
`

Figure 4.30: Storey Displacement vs Storey Height for 25° slope

Figure 4.31 (a) and (b) and 4.32 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) displacement and displacement of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical

i.e., Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

59.15mm
9.88s

-58.39mm
10.06s

(a)

(b)

69
`

Figure 4.31: Time History of Top storey Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

25° slope

30.47mm
9.88s

-31.46mm
10.06s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.32: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Displacement (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD

Pro for 25° slope

Table 4.15 shows Maximum storey velocity (Absolute) for both Finite Element and STAAD

Pro. model for 25° slope

Table 4.15: Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s) for Present FEM and STAAD model
70
`

Maximum Storey Velocity (mm/s)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 582 550

2 1146 1111

Figure 4.13 for Absolute Maximum Storey velocity (mm/s) vs Storey Height (m) for Present

FEM and STAAD Pro model.

Figure 4.33: Storey Velocity vs Storey Height for 25° slope

Figure 4.34 (a) and (b) and 4.35 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) velocity and velocity of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical i.e., Finite

Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

71
`

1013mm/s
9.82s

-1146mm/s
9.97s

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.34: Time History of Top Storey Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for 25°

slope

528.2mm/s
9.82s

-582mm/s
9.96s

72
`

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.35: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Velocity (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for

25° slope

Table 4.16 shows Maximum storey acceleration (Absolute) for both Finite Element and

STAAD Pro. model for 25° slope

Table 4.16: Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2)

Storey No.
Present FEM STAAD Pro.

1 11.57 11

2 20.67 20.5

Figure 4.36 shows Absolute Maximum Storey Acceleration (m/s2) vs Storey Height (m) for

Present FEM and STAAD Pro. model

73
`

Figure 4.36: Storey Acceleration vs Storey Height for 25° slope

Figure 4.37 (a) and (b) and 4.38 (a) and (b) are the four plots shown for time history of top

storey (roof) acceleration and acceleration of storey of 1 st floor obtained in the numerical i.e.,

Finite Element model and STAAD Pro. model.

18.03m/s2
9.73s

-20.67m/s2
9.9s

(a)

74
`

(b)

Figure 4.37: Time History of Top Storey Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD Pro for
25° slope

10.61m/s2
11.2s

- 11.57m/s2
9.87s

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.38: Time History of Storey (1st Floor) Acceleration (a) Present FEM (b) STAAD

Pro for 25° slope

75
`

Table 4.17 shows Maximum Base Shear (Absolute) of frame with respect to Finite Element

and STAAD Pro. model

Table 4.17: Maximum Base Shear (N) (Absolute) for Present FEM and STAAD model

Model Maximum Base Shear (N)

Present FEM 400.7

STAAD Pro. 387.21

Figure 4.39 shows time history of base shear for FEM model for 25° slope

388.1N
9.88s

-400.7N
10.05s

Figure 4.39: Time History of Base Shear

4.13 Mass Participation factor of both modes for considered slope angles

In the analysis of structures, the number of modes considered should have at least 90% of the

total seismic mass as per IS 1893-2002 (Part I). Table 4.18 shows that the number of modes

considered here are satisfying the criteria. The Mass participation factor (%) for both modes 1

and 2 and all the three slope inclination is tabulated and it is observed that the mass

participation factor decreases with increase in slope inclination.

76
`

Table 4.18: Mass Participation Factor (%) of both modes for different slope angle

Mass Participation Factor (%)

Slope angle
Mode 1 Mode 2

15° 96.40 3.60

20° 95.08 4.92

25° 91.33 8.67

77
`

Chapter 5

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS
78
`

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary

Earthquake is caused when it is subjected to the ground motion and due to which structures

suffers damage and to take care of such effects it is important to know the properties of

earthquake and predicts its possible response which can incur on the buildings. These

properties are base shear, maximum storey displacement, velocity and acceleration, etc.

In this study, such analysis has been done experimentally with validation in structural

analysis tool and finite element modeling to know the response of building mentioned above.

The responses for each slope angle is studied and compared.

5.2 Conclusions

Following conclusions can be drawn for the three sloped frame model from the results

obtained in analysis:

 15 degree sloped frame experiences maximum storey displacement due to low value

of stiffness of short column while the 25 degree frame experiences minimum storey

displacement.

 15 degree sloped frame experiences nearly the same storey velocity as of 20 degree

and 25 degree in the top storey but the velocity is maximum for the storey level of

first floor while for 25 degree frame velocity is minimum for level of first floor.

 15 degree sloped frame experiences maximum storey acceleration for the top floor

with little variations with the 20 degrees and 25 degrees model but for the storey level

of the first floor, acceleration is maximum and is minimum for the storey level of the

first floor for 25 degrees frame.

79
`

 The natural frequencies of the sloped frame increases with the increase in the slope

angle.

 The number of modes considered in the analysis is satisfying the codal provisions.

The modal mass participation of the sloped frame model are decreasing for the first

mode and increasing for the second mode with the increase in slope angle.

 For all the three frame models, time history response of the top floor acceleration is

maximum at resonance condition i.e., when excitation frequency matches with

fundamental frequency.

 The base shear of all the buildings are nearly the same with little variations but their

distribution on columns of ground storey is such that the short column attracts the

majority (75% approx.) of the shear force which leads to plastic hinge formation on

the short column and are vulnerable to damage. Proper design criteria should be

applied to avoid formation of plastic hinge.

80
`

5.3 Future work

There is a scope for future work in this area of study. The analysis can be performed for

varying frequency content i.e., for low, intermediate and high frequency content. In this study

linear time history analysis is performed, one can also perform non-linear time history

analysis for the sloped frame model.

References

1. Agarwal, P. K. and Shrikhande, M. “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure”

Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall 2006.

2. Ashwani, K., Pushplata, “Building Regulations for Hill Towns of India”, HBRC
Journal, 2014.

3. “AutoCAD 2012 software”, Autodesk, Inc.

4. Babu, N. J. and Balaji, K.Y.G.D, “Pushover analysis of unsymmetrical framed

structures on sloping ground” International Journal of Civil, Structural,
Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development
(IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-6866 Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 45-54.
5. Bathe, K. J., “Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis”, Prentice-Hall,
(1982).
6. Birajdar, B. G. and Nalawade, S. S., “Seismic analysis of buildings resting on
sloping ground”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1472, 2004.

7. Chatpan, C. and Chopra, A.K., “Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using

generic frames”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 32, No.3,
pp. 417-442, 2003.
8. Chen, B. F., Nokes, R. “Time-independent finite difference analysis of fully non-
linear and viscous fluid sloshing in a rectangular tank” Journal of Computational
Physics 209 (2005) 47–81.
9. Chopra, A. K., “Dynamic of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake
Engineering” [M]. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007.
81
`

10. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K., “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 561-582, 2002.
11. Fajfar, P., “A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design”,
Earthquake Spectra, vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 573-592, 2000.
12. Halkude, S. A. et al. “Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on Sloping Ground With
Varying Number of Bays and Hill Slopes” International Journal of Engineering
Research and Technology ISSN:2278-0181,Vol.2 Issue 12, December-2013
13. https://www.google.co.in, https://www.nitrkl.ac.in

14. IS 1893-2002(Part-1), “Criteria for Earthquake resistant design of structures Part,

General provisions and buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 110002.

15. Kattan, P.I., MATLAB Guide to Finite Elements, P.O. BOX 1392, Amman
11118Jordan, Edition II.

16. Khadiranaikar, R. B. and Masali, A., “Seismic performance of buildings resting on

sloping ground-A review”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, e-
ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11, Issue 3 Ver. III (May- Jun. 2014),
PP 12-19.

17. Knight, J., “Seismic Time History Analysis Examples and Verification in S-FRAME”,
S-Frame Software.
18. Liu, A., “Seismic Design of Hillside Light Timber Frame Buildings”, 15 WCEE
LISBOA.
19. MATLAB R2007b, Version 7.5.0.342, August 15, 2007.

20. Mwafy, A.M. and Elnashai, A.S., “Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis
of RC buildings”, Engineering Structures, vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 407-424, 2001.
21. Nagargoje, S. M. and Sable, K. S., “Seismic performance of multi-storeyed building
on sloping ground", Elixir International Journal, December 7, 2012.

22. Nayak, S. K. and Biswal, K. C., “Quantification of Seismic Response of Partially

Filled Rectangular Liquid Tank with Submerged Block” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 2013.

82
`

23. Patel, M. U. F. et al., “A Performance study and seismic evaluation of RC frame

buildings on sloping ground” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN: 2320-334X-, PP 51-58, 2014.
24. Prashant, D., Jagadish, K. G., “Seismic Response of one way slope RC frame building
with soft storey” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Development Issue 3, Vol.5 (September 2013).
25. Ravikumar, C. M., Babu Narayan, K. S., “Effect of Irregular Configurations on
Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings” Architecture Research,
2(3):2026DOI:10.5923/j.arch.02 03.01.2012

26. Shuyan, J. et al., “Analysis of factors influencing dynamic characteristics of building

structures on slope”, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural
Dynamics, EURODYN 2011.
27. Singh, Y. and Phani, G., “Seismic Behaviour of Buildings Located on Slopes” - An
Analytical Study and Some Observations From Sikkim Earthquake of September 18,
2011. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Journal 2012.
28. Sreerama, A. K. and Ramancharla, P. K., “Earthquake behaviour of reinforced
concrete framed buildings on hill slopes”, International Symposium on New
Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia (USMCA 2013), Report No:
IIIT/TR/2013/-1.
29. "Structural Analysis And Design (STAAD Pro) software" Bentley Systems, Inc.
30. Yang, P. and Wang, Y., “A study on improvement of pushover analysis”,
Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, Auckland,
New Zealand.

83