SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTISTOREY BUILDING

WITH FLOATING COLUMN

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

Master of Technology
In
Structural Engineering

By
Sukumar Behera

Roll No. : 210CE2261

Department of Civil Engineering,

National Institute of Technology
Rourkela- 769008
MAY 2012
“SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTISTOREY BUILDING
WITH FLOATING COLUMN”

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

Master of Technology
In
Structural Engineering

By
Sukumar Behera

Roll No. : 210CE2261

Under the guidance of

Prof. A V Asha & Prof. K C Biswal

Department of Civil Engineering,

National Institute of Technology
Rourkela- 769008
MAY 2012
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ROURKELA, ODISHA-769008
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF

MULTISTOREY BUILDING WITH FLOATING COLUMN” submitted by
SUKUMAR BEHERA bearing roll no. 210CE2261 in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the award of Master of Technology degree in Civil
Engineering with specialization in “Structural Engineering” during 2010-
2012 session at the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is an
authentic work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance.
To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the thesis has not been
submitted to any other University / Institute for the award of any Degree or
Diploma.

Prof. Kishore Chandra Biswal Prof. A VAsha

Dept of Civil Engineering Dept of Civil Engineering
National Institute of technology National Institute of technology
Rourkela, Odisha-769008 Rourkela, Odisha-769008
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with a feeling of great pleasure that I would like to express my most sincere heartfelt
gratitude to my guides, Prof. A V Asha and Prof. K C Biswal, professors, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, NIT, Rourkela for their encouragement, advice, mentoring and research support
throughout my studies. Their technical and editorial advice was essential for the completion of
this dissertation. Their ability to teach, depth of knowledge and ability to achieve perfection will
always be my inspiration.
I express my sincere thanks to Prof. S. K. Sarangi, Director of NIT, Rourkela & Prof. N Roy,
Professor and HOD, Dept. of Civil Engineering NIT, Rourkela for providing me the necessary
facilities in the department.
I would also take this opportunity to express my gratitude and sincere thanks to Prof. P Sarakar,
my faculty and adviser and all faculty members of structural engineering, Prof. M. R. Barik,
Prof. S K Sahu for their invaluable advice, encouragement, inspiration and blessings during the
project.
I would like to express my eternal gratitude to Er. S C Choudhury, a M.Tech(Res) student,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, NIT ,Rourkela for his enormous support, encouragement and
advices. I would like to thank all my friends; they really were at the right place at the right time
when I needed. I would also express my sincere thanks to laboratory Members of Department of
Civil Engineering, NIT, Rourkela.
Last but not the least I would like to thank my parent, who taught me the value of hard work by
their own example. I would like to share this bite of happiness with my father Mr Gopinath
Behera, my mother Mrs Sarada Behera and my brother Mr Sunil Behera(IITR). They
rendered me enormous support during the whole tenure of my stay at NIT, Rourkela.

Sukumar Behera
Roll No. – 210CE2261
 CONTENTS

Pages

1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1-7

1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1

1.2 What is floating column…………………………………………………………….2

1.3 Objective and scope of present work………………………………………………..7

1.4 Organization………………………………………………………………………...7

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURES………………………………………...8-12

3 FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION………………………………13-21

3.1 Static analysis……………………………………………………………………….13

3.1.1 Plane frame element………………………………………………………………13

3.1.2 Steps followed for the analysis of frame…………………………………………15

3.2 Dynamic analysis……………………………………………………………………16

3.2.1 Time history analysis……………………………………………………………...17

3.2.2 Newmark’s method………………………………………………………………..20

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………22-70

4.1 Static analysis………………………………………………………………………..22

4.2 Free vibration analysis……………………………………………………………...26

4.3 Forced vibration analysis……………………………………………………………28

5 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………...71

6 REFERENCES………………………………………………………...72-74
 ABSTRACT

In present scenario buildings with floating column is a typical feature in the modern multistory

construction in urban India. Such features are highly undesirable in building built in seismically

active areas. This study highlights the importance of explicitly recognizing the presence of the

floating column in the analysis of building. Alternate measures, involving stiffness balance of the

first storey and the storey above, are proposed to reduce the irregularity introduced by the

floating columns.

FEM codes are developed for 2D multi storey frames with and without floating column to study

the responses of the structure under different earthquake excitation having different frequency

content keeping the PGA and time duration factor constant. The time history of floor

displacement, inter storey drift, base shear, overturning moment are computed for both the

frames with and without floating column.

i
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Pages

Fig. 3.1 The plane frame element 14

Fig. 4.1 2D Frame with usual columns 23

Fig.4.2 2D Frame with Floating column 23

Fig. 4.3 Geometry of the 2 dimensional framework 26

Fig. 4.4 Mode shape of the 2D framework 27

Fig. 4.5 Geometry of the 2 dimensional frame with floating column 28

Fig. 4.6 Compatible time history as per spectra of IS 1893 (part 1): 2002. 29

Fig. 4.7 Displacement vs time response of the 2D steel frame with floating column

obtained in present FEM 30

Fig. 4.8 Displacement vs time response of the 2D steel frame with floating column

obtained in STAAD Pro 30

Fig. 4.9 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

given by STAAD Pro 32

Fig. 4.10 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

plotted in present FEM 33

Fig. 4.11 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame without floating

column under IS code time history excitation 34

ii
Fig. 4.12 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation 34

Fig. 4.13 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame without floating

column under IS code time history excitation 35

Fig. 4.14 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation 35

Fig. 4.15 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 37

Fig. 4.16 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 37

Fig. 4.17 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 38

Fig. 4.18 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 38

Fig. 4.19 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 39

Fig. 4.20 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 40

Fig. 4.21 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 40

Fig. 4.22 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

iii
 under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 41

Fig. 4.23 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 42

Fig. 4.24 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 42

Fig. 4.25 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 43

Fig. 4.26 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 43

Fig. 4.27 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under

IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 44

Fig. 4.28 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under

IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 45

Fig. 4.29 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under

IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 45

Fig. 4.30 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under

IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 46

Fig. 4.31 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 47
Fig. 4.32 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 47
Fig. 4.33 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

iv
 under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 48

Fig. 4.34 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 48

Fig. 4.35 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 49

Fig. 4.36 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 50

Fig. 4.37 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 50

Fig. 4.38 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 51

Fig. 4.39 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 52

Fig. 4.40 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 52

Fig. 4.41 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 53

Fig. 4.42 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 53

Fig. 4.43 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 54

v
Fig. 4.44 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 55

Fig. 4.45 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 55

Fig. 4.46 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m) 56

Fig. 4.47 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 57

Fig. 4.48 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 57

Fig. 4.49 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 58

Fig. 4.50 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 59

Fig. 4.51 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 59

Fig. 4.52 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 60

Fig. 4.53 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 61

Fig. 4.54 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

vi
 under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 61

Fig. 4.55 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 62

Fig. 4.56 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 63

Fig. 4.57 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 63

Fig. 4.58 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m) 64

Fig. 4.59 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 59

Fig. 4.60 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 65

Fig. 4.61 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 66

Fig. 4.62 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 67

Fig. 4.63 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 68

Fig. 4.64 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column

under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 68

vii
Fig. 4.65 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m) 69

Fig. 4.66 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating

column under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m) 70

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Pages

Table 4.1 Global deflection at each node for general frame obtained in present FEM 24

Table 4.2 Global deflection at each node for general frame obtained in STAAD Pro 24

Table 4.3 Global deflection at each node for frame with floating column obtained in

present FEM 25

Table 4.4 Global deflection at each node for frame with floating column obtained in

STAAD Pro 25

Table 4.5 Free vibration frequency of the 2D frame without floating column 27

Table 4.6 Comparison of predicted frequency (Hz) of the 2D steel frame with

floating column obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro. 29

Table 4.7 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D steel

frame with floating column in present FEM and STAAD Pro 31

Table 4.8 Comparison of predicted frequency(Hz) of the 2D concrete frame

with floating column obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro 32

Table 4.9 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) in MATLAB

platform of the 2D concrete frame with floating column with the value

given by STAAD Pro 32

Table 4.10 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D

concrete frame with and without floating column under IS code

ix
 time history excitation 36

Table 4.11 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame

with and without floating column under IS code time history excitation 36

Table 4.12 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing

order 39

Table 4.13 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order 41

Table 4.14 Comparison of predicted base shear (KN) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order 43

Table 4.15 Comparison of predicted overturning moment (KN-m) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing

order 46

Table 4.16 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column

in increasing order 49

Table 4.17 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing

order 51

Table 4.18 Comparison of predicted base shear (KN) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing

x
 order 54

Table 4.19 Comparison of predicted overturning moment (KN-m) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column

in increasing order 56

Table 4.20 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing

order 58

Table 4.21 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order 60

Table 4.22 Comparison of predicted base shear (KN) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order 62

Table 4.23 Comparison of predicted overturning moment (KN-m) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing

order 64

Table 4.24 Comparison of predicted top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column

in increasing order 66

Table 4.25 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in

increasing order 67

Table 4.26 Comparison of predicted base shear (KN) of the 2D concrete frame with

xi
 floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in

increasing order 69

Table 4.27 Comparison of predicted overturning moment (KN-m) of the 2D concrete

frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column

in increasing order 70

xii
 NOMENCLATURE

The principal symbols used in this thesis are presented for easy reference. A symbol is used
for different meaning depending on the context and defined in the text as they occur.

English Description

notation

A Area of the beam element

Amax Maximum amplitude of acceleration of sinusoidal load

Ä Sinusoidal acceleration loading

c Damping of a single DOF system

[C] Global damping matrix of the structure

𝑑𝑑0 , 𝑑𝑑̇0 , 𝑑𝑑̈0 Displacement, velocity, acceleration at time t=0 used in

Newmark’s Beta method

𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1, 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖+1 , 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 Displacement, velocity, acceleration at ith time step used in

Newmarks Beta method

E Young’s Modulus of the frame material

F0 Maximum displacement amplitude of sinusoidal load

F(t) Force vector.

F(t)I, F(t)D, F(t)S Inertia, damping and stiffness component of reactive force.

K Stiffness of a single DOF system

ke Stiffness matrix of a beam element

[Ke] Transformed stiffness matrix of a beam element

[K] Global stiffness matrix of the structure.

L Length of the beam element

m Mass of a single DOF system.

mLe Lumped mass matrix

me Consistent mass matrix of a beam element

xiii
 [Me] Transformed consistent mass matrix of a beam element

[M] Global mass matrix of structure

t Time

[T] Transformation matrix

u(t) Displacement of a single DOF system

u̇ (t) Velocity of a single DOF system

ü (t) Acceleration of a single DOF system

U(t) Absolute nodal displacement.

U̇ (t) Absolute nodal velocity.

Ü (t) Absolute nodal acceleration.

Ü g(t) Ground acceleration due to earthquake.

ρ Density of the beam material

β, γ Parameters used in Newmarks Beta method

𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥 Time step used in Newmarks Beta method

μ Mass ratio of secondary to primary system in 2 DOF system

𝜔𝜔 Sinusoidal forcing frequency

ζ Damping ratio

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Many urban multistorey buildings in India today have open first storey as an unavoidable

feature. This is primarily being adopted to accommodate parking or reception lobbies in the first

storey. Whereas the total seismic base shear as experienced by a building during an earthquake is

dependent on its natural period, the seismic force distribution is dependent on the distribution of

stiffness and mass along the height.

The behavior of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its overall shape, size and

geometry, in addition to how the earthquake forces are carried to the ground. The earthquake

forces developed at different floor levels in a building need to be brought down along the height

to the ground by the shortest path; any deviation or discontinuity in this load transfer path results

in poor performance of the building. Buildings with vertical setbacks (like the hotel buildings

with a few storey wider than the rest) cause a sudden jump in earthquake forces at the level of

discontinuity. Buildings that have fewer columns or walls in a particular storey or with unusually

tall storey tend to damage or collapse which is initiated in that storey. Many buildings with an

open ground storey intended for parking collapsed or were severely damaged in Gujarat during

the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Buildings with columns that hang or float on beams at an intermediate

storey and do not go all the way to the foundation, have discontinuities in the load transfer path.

1
1.2 What is floating column

A column is supposed to be a vertical member starting from foundation level and transferring the

load to the ground. The term floating column is also a vertical element which (due to

architectural design/ site situation) at its lower level (termination Level) rests on a beam which is

a horizontal member. The beams in turn transfer the load to other columns below it.

There are many projects in which floating columns are adopted, especially above the ground

floor, where transfer girders are employed, so that more open space is available in the ground

floor. These open spaces may be required for assembly hall or parking purpose. The transfer

girders have to be designed and detailed properly, especially in earth quake zones. The column is

a concentrated load on the beam which supports it. As far as analysis is concerned, the column is

often assumed pinned at the base and is therefore taken as a point load on the transfer beam.

STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP2000 can be used to do the analysis of this type of structure.

Floating columns are competent enough to carry gravity loading but transfer girder must be of

adequate dimensions (Stiffness) with very minimal deflection.

2
Looking ahead, of course, one will continue to make buildings interesting rather than

monotonous. However, this need not be done at the cost of poor behavior and earthquake safety

of buildings. Architectural features that are detrimental to earthquake response of buildings

should be avoided. If not, they must be minimized. When irregular features are included in

buildings, a considerably higher level of engineering effort is required in the structural design

and yet the building may not be as good as one with simple architectural features.

Hence, the structures already made with these kinds of discontinuous members are endangered in

seismic regions. But those structures cannot be demolished, rather study can be done to

strengthen the structure or some remedial features can be suggested. The columns of the first

storey can be made stronger, the stiffness of these columns can be increased by retrofitting or

these may be provided with bracing to decrease the lateral deformation.

3
Some pictures showing the buildings built with floating columns:

240 Park Avenue South in New York, United States

4
Palestra in London, United Kingdom

5
 Chongqing Library in Chongqing, China

One-Housing-Group-by-Stock-Woolstencroft-in-London-United-Kingdom

6
1.3 Objective and scope of present work

The objective of the present work is to study the behavior of multistory buildings with floating

columns under earthquake excitations.

Finite element method is used to solve the dynamic governing equation. Linear time history

analysis is carried out for the multistory buildings under different earthquake loading of varying

frequency content. The base of the building frame is assumed to be fixed. Newmark’s direct

integration scheme is used to advance the solution in time.

1.4 Organization

Presentation of the research effort is organized as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the literature survey on seismic analysis of multi storey frame

structures.

• Chapter 3 presents some theory and formulations used for developing the FEM program.

• Chapter 4 presents the validation of the FEM program developed and prediction of

response of structure under different earthquake response.

• Chapter 5 concludes the present work. An account of possible scope of extension to the

present study has been appended to the concluding remarks.

• Some important publication and books referred during the present investigation have
been listed in the references.

7
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURES

Current literature survey includes earthquake response of multi storey building frames with usual

columns. Some of the literatures emphasized on strengthening of the existing buildings in

seismic prone regions.

Maison and Neuss [15], (1984), Members of ASCE have preformed the computer analysis of an

existing forty four story steel frame high-rise Building to study the influence of various modeling

aspects on the predicted dynamic properties and computed seismic response behaviours. The

predicted dynamic properties are compared to the building's true properties as previously

determined from experimental testing. The seismic response behaviours are computed using the

response spectrum (Newmark and ATC spectra) and equivalent static load methods.

Also, Maison and Ventura [16], (1991), Members of ASCE computed dynamic properties and

response behaviours OF THIRTEEN-STORY BUILDING and this result are compared to the

true values as determined from the recorded motions in the building during two actual

earthquakes and shown that state-of-practice design type analytical models can predict the actual

dynamic properties.

Arlekar, Jain & Murty [2], (1997) said that such features were highly undesirable in buildings

built in seismically active areas; this has been verified in numerous experiences of strong shaking

during the past earthquakes. They highlighted the importance of explicitly recognizing the
presence of the open first storey in the analysis of the building, involving stiffness balance of the

open first storey and the storey above, were proposed to reduce the irregularity introduced by the

open first storey.

Awkar and Lui [3], (1997) studied responses of multi-story flexibly connected frames subjected

to earthquake excitations using a computer model. The model incorporates connection flexibility

as well as geometrical and material nonlinearities in the analyses and concluded that the study

indicates that connection flexibility tends to increase upper stories' inter-storey drifts but reduce

base shears and base overturning moments for multi-story frames.

Balsamoa, Colombo, Manfredi, Negro & Prota [4] (2005) performed pseudodynamic tests on

an RC structure repaired with CFRP laminates. The opportunities provided by the use of Carbon

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) composites for the seismic repair of reinforced concrete (RC)

structures were assessed on a full-scale dual system subjected to pseudodynamic tests in the

ELSA laboratory. The aim of the CFRP repair was to recover the structural properties that the

frame had before the seismic actions by providing both columns and joints with more

deformation capacity. The repair was characterized by a selection of different fiber textures

depending on the main mechanism controlling each component. The driving principles in the

design of the CFRP repair and the outcomes of the experimental tests are presented in the paper.

Comparisons between original and repaired structures are discussed in terms of global and local

performance. In addition to the validation of the proposed technique, the experimental results

will represent a reference database for the development of design criteria for the seismic repair of

RC frames using composite materials.

9
Vasilopoulos and Beskos [23], (2006) performed rational and efficient seismic design

methodology for plane steel frames using advanced methods of analysis in the framework of

Eurocodes 8 and 3 . This design methodology employs an advanced finite element method of

analysis that takes into account geometrical and material nonlinearities and member and frame

imperfections. It can sufficiently capture the limit states of displacements, strength, stability and

damage of the structure.

Bardakis & Dritsos [5] (2007) evaluated the American and European procedural assumptions

for the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing buildings via pushover analyses. The

FEMA and the Euro code-based GRECO procedures have been followed in order to assess a

four-storeyed bare framed building and a comparison has been made with available experimental

results.

Mortezaei et al [17] (2009) recorded data from recent earthquakes which provided evidence that

ground motions in the near field of a rupturing fault differ from ordinary ground motions, as they

can contain a large energy, or ‘‘directivity” pulse. This pulse can cause considerable damage

during an earthquake, especially to structures with natural periods close to those of the pulse.

Failures of modern engineered structures observed within the near-fault region in recent

earthquakes have revealed the vulnerability of existing RC buildings against pulse-type ground

motions. This may be due to the fact that these modern structures had been designed primarily

using the design spectra of available standards, which have been developed using stochastic

processes with relatively long duration that characterizes more distant ground motions. Many

recently designed and constructed buildings may therefore require strengthening in order to

perform well when subjected to near-fault ground motions. Fiber Reinforced Polymers are

10
considered to be a viable alternative, due to their relatively easy and quick installation, low life

cycle costs and zero maintenance requirements.

Ozyigit [19], (2009) performed free and forced in-plane and out-of-plane vibrations of frames

are investigated. The beam has a straight and a curved part and is of circular cross section. A

concentrated mass is also located at different points of the frame with different mass ratios. FEM

is used to analyze the problem.

Williams, Gardoni & Bracci [24] (2009) studied the economic benefit of a given retrofit

procedure using the framework details. A parametric analysis was conducted to determine how

certain parameters affect the feasibility of a seismic retrofit. A case study was performed for the

example buildings in Memphis and San Francisco using a modest retrofit procedure. The results

of the parametric analysis and case study advocate that, for most situations, a seismic retrofit of

an existing building is more financially viable in San Francisco than in Memphis.

Garcia et al [10] (2010) tested a full-scale two-storey RC building with poor detailing in the

beam column joints on a shake table as part of the European research project ECOLEADER.

After the initial tests which damaged the structure, the frame was strengthened using carbon fibre

reinforced materials (CFRPs) and re-tested. This paper investigates analytically the efficiency of

the strengthening technique at improving the seismic behaviour of this frame structure. The

experimental data from the initial shake table tests are used to calibrate analytical models. To

simulate deficient beam_column joints, models of steel_concrete bond slip and bond-strength

degradation under cyclic loading were considered. The analytical models were used to assess the

efficiency of the CFRP rehabilitation using a set of medium to strong seismic records. The CFRP

strengthening intervention enhanced the behaviour of the substandard beam_column joints, and

11
resulted in substantial improvement of the seismic performance of the damaged RC frame. It was

shown that, after the CFRP intervention, the damaged building would experience on average

65% less global damage compared to the original structure if it was subjected to real earthquake

excitations.

Niroomandi, Maheri, Maheri & Mahini [18] (2010) retrofitted an eight-storey frame

strengthened previously with a steel bracing system with web- bonded CFRP. Comparing the

seismic performance of the FRP retrofitted frame at joints with that of the steel X-braced

retrofitting method, it was concluded that both retrofitting schemes have comparable abilities to

increase the ductility reduction factor and the over-strength factor; the former comparing better

on ductility and the latter on over-strength. The steel bracing of the RC frame can be beneficial if

a substantial increase in the stiffness and the lateral load resisting capacity is required. Similarly,

FRP retrofitting at joints can be used in conjunction with FRP retrofitting of beams and columns

to attain the desired increases.

12
 CHAPTER 3

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

The finite element method (FEM), which is sometimes also referred as finite element analysis

(FEA), is a computational technique which is used to obtain the solutions of various boundary

value problems in engineering, approximately. Boundary value problems are sometimes also

referred to as field value problems. It can be said to be a mathematical problem wherein one or

more dependent variables must satisfy a differential equation everywhere within the domain of

independent variables and also satisfy certain specific conditions at the boundary of those

domains. The field value problems in FEM generally has field as a domain of interest which

often represent a physical structure. The field variables are thus governed by differential

equations and the boundary values refer to the specified value of the field variables on the

boundaries of the field. The field variables might include heat flux, temperature, physical

displacement, and fluid velocity depending upon the type of physical problem which is being

analyzed.

3.1 Static analysis

3.1.1 Plane frame element

The plane frame element is a two-dimensional finite element with both local and global

coordinates. The plane frame element has modulus of elasticity E, moment of inertia I, cross-

sectional area A, and length L. Each plane frame element has two nodes and is inclined with an

13
angle of θ measured counterclockwise from the positive global X axis as shown in figure. Let C=

cosθ and S= sinθ.

y
x
Y

Ө X
Fig. 3.1 The plane frame element

It is clear that the plane frame element has six degree of freedom – three at each node (two

displacements and a rotation). The sign convention used is that displacements are positive if they

point upwards and rotations are positive if they are counterclockwise. Consequently for a

structure with n nodes, the global stiffness matrix K will be 3n X 3n (since we have three degrees

of freedom at each node). The global stiffness matrix K is assembled by making calls to the

MATLAB function PlaneFrameAssemble which is written specially for this purpose.

Once the global stiffness matrix K is obtained we have the following structure equation:

[K]{U} = {F} (3.1)

Where [K] is stiffness matrix, {U} is the global nodal displacement vector and {F} is the global

nodal force vector. At this step boundary conditions are applied manually to the vectors U and F.

Then the matrix equation (3.1) is solved by partitioning and Gaussian elimination. Finally once

the unknown displacements and reactions are found, the nodal force vector is obtained for each

element as follows:

{f} = [k] [R] {u} (3.2)

14
Where {f} is the 6 X 1 nodal force vector in the element and {u} is the 6 X 1 element

displacement vector. The matrices [k] and [R] are given by the following:

EA −EA
⎡ L 0 0 0 0⎤
L
⎢ 0 12EI 6EI
0
−12EI 6EI ⎥
⎢ L3 L2 L3 L2 ⎥
⎢ 0 6EI 4EI 6EI 2EI ⎥
0
⎢ L2 L L2 L ⎥
[k] = (3.3)
⎢−EA 0 0
EA
0 0⎥
⎢ L −12EI 6EI
L
12EI 6EI
⎥
⎢ 0 L3 L2
0
L3 L2
⎥
⎢ 6EI 2EI 6EI 4EI ⎥
⎣ 0 L2 L
0
L2 L ⎦

𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆 0 0 0 0
⎡−𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶 0 0 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
[R] = ⎢0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
(3.4)
⎢0 0 0 𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆 0⎥
⎢0 0 0 −𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶 0⎥
⎣0 0 0 0 0 1⎦

The first and second element in the vector {u} are the two displacements while the third element

is the rotation, respectively, at the first node, while the fourth and fifth element are the two

displacements while the sixth element is the rotation, respectively, at the second node.

3.1.2 Steps followed for the analysis of frame

1. Discretising the domain: Dividing the element into number of nodes and numbering them

globally i;e breaking down the domain into smaller parts.

15
2. Writing of the Element stiffness matrices: The element stiffness matrix or the local

stiffness matrix is found for all elements and the global stiffness matrix of size 3n x 3n is

assembled using these local stiffness matrices.

3. Assembling the global stiffness matrices: The element stiffness matrices are combined

globally based on their degrees of freedom values.

4. Applying the boundary condition: The boundary element condition is applied by suitably

deleting the rows and columns which are not of our interest.

5. Solving the equation: The equation is solved in MATLAB to give the value of U.

6. Post- processing: The reaction at the support and internal forces are calculated.

3.2 Dynamic analysis

Dynamic analysis of structure is a part of structural analysis in which behavior of flexible

structure subjected to dynamic loading is studied. Dynamic load always changes with time.

Dynamic load comprises of wind, live load, earthquake load etc. Thus in general we can say

almost all the real life problems can be studied dynamically.

If dynamic loads changes gradually the structure’s response may be approximately by a static

analysis in which inertia forces can be neglected. But if the dynamic load changes quickly, the

response must be determined with the help of dynamic analysis in which we cannot neglect

inertial force which is equal to mass time of acceleration (Newton’s 2nd law).

Mathematically F = M x a

Where F is inertial force, M is inertial mass and ‘a’ is acceleration.

16
Furthermore, dynamic response (displacement and stresses) are generally much higher than the

corresponding static displacements for same loading amplitudes, especially at resonant

conditions.

The real physical structures have many numbers of displacement. Therefore the most critical part

of structural analysis is to create a computer model, with the finite number of mass less member

and finite number of displacement of nodes which simulates the real behavior of structures.

Another difficult part of dynamic analysis is to calculate energy dissipation and to boundary

condition. So it is very difficult to analyze structure for wind and seismic load. This difficulty

can be reduced using various programming techniques. In our project we have used finite

element analysis and programmed in MATLAB.

3.2.1 Time history analysis

A linear time history analysis overcomes all the disadvantages of modal response spectrum

analysis, provided non-linear behavior is not involved. This method requires greater

computational efforts for calculating the response at discrete time. One interesting advantage of

such procedure is that the relative signs of response qualities are preserved in the response

histories. This is important when interaction effects are considered in design among stress

resultants.

Here dynamic response of the plane frame model to specified time history compatible to IS code

spectrum and Elcentro (EW) has been evaluated.

The equation of motion for a multi degree of freedom system in matrix form can be expressed as

[𝑚𝑚]{𝑥𝑥̈ } + [𝑐𝑐 ]{𝑥𝑥̇ } + [𝑘𝑘]{𝑥𝑥 } = −𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈ (𝑡𝑡)[𝑚𝑚]{𝐼𝐼} (3.5)

17
Where,

[𝑚𝑚]= mass matrix

[𝑘𝑘]= stiffness matrix

[𝑐𝑐 ]= damping matrix

{𝐼𝐼}= unit vector

𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈ (𝑡𝑡)= ground acceleration

The mass matrix of each element in global direction can be found out using following

expression:

m = [TT] [me] [T] (3.6)

140 0 0 70 0 0
⎡ 0 156 22L 0 54 −13L⎤
⎢ ⎥
ρAL
⎢ 0 22L 4L2 0 13L −3L2 ⎥
[me]= (3.7)
420 ⎢ 70 0 0 140 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 54 13L 0 156 −22L⎥
⎣ 0 −13L −3L2 0 −22L 4L2 ⎦

C S 0 0 0 0
⎡−S C 0 0 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
[T] = ⎢0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
⎢0 0 0 C S 0⎥
⎢0 0 0 −S C 0⎥
⎣0 0 0 0 0 1⎦

The solution of equation of motion for any specified forces is difficult to obtain, mainly due to

due to coupling variables {x} in the physical coordinate. In mode superposition analysis or a

modal analysis a set of normal coordinates i.e principal coordinate is defined, such that, when

expressed in those coordinates, the equations of motion becomes uncoupled. The physical

18
coordinate {x} may be related with normal or principal coordinates {q} from the transformation

expression as,

{ 𝑥𝑥 } = [Φ] { 𝑞𝑞 }

[Φ] is the modal matrix

Time derivative of { 𝑥𝑥 } are,

{𝑥𝑥̇ } = [Φ] {𝑞𝑞̇ }

{𝑥𝑥̈ } = [Φ] {𝑞𝑞̈ }

Substituting the time derivatives in the equation of motion, and pre-multiplying by [Φ]T results

in,

[Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑚𝑚][Φ]{q̈ } + [Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑐𝑐 ][Φ]{𝑞𝑞̇ } + [Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑘𝑘][Φ]{q} = (−𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈ (𝑡𝑡)[Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑚𝑚]{𝐼𝐼}) (3.8)

More clearly it can be represented as follows:

[𝑀𝑀]{q̈ } + [𝐶𝐶 ]{𝑞𝑞̇ } + [𝐾𝐾 ]{q} = {Peff (t)} (3.9)

Where,

[𝑀𝑀]= [Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑚𝑚][Φ]

[𝐶𝐶 ]= [Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑐𝑐 ][Φ] = 2 ζ [M] [ω]

[𝐾𝐾 ]= [Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑘𝑘][Φ]

{Peff (t)}= (−𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈ (𝑡𝑡)[Φ]𝑇𝑇 [𝑚𝑚]{𝐼𝐼})

19
[M], [C] and [K] are the diagonalised modal mass matrix, modal damping matrix and modal

stiffness matrix, respectively, and {Peff(t)} is the effective modal force vector.

3.2.2 Newmark’s method

Newmark’s numerical method has been adopted to solve the equation 3.9. Newmark’s equations

are given by

𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖 + (𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥 )�(1 − 𝛾𝛾)𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 � (3.10)

1
𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖 + (𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥 )𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖 +(𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥)2 �� − 𝛽𝛽� 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 � (3.11)
2

Where β and γ are parameters chosen by the user. The parameter β is generally chosen between 0

and ¼, and γ is often taken to be ½. For instance, choosing γ = ½ and β = 1/6, are chosen, eq.

4.12 and eq. 4.13 correspond to those foe which a linear acceleration assumption is valid within

each time interval. For γ = ½ and β =¼, it has been shown that the nu merical analysis is stable;

that is, computed quantities such as displacement and velocities do not become unbounded

regardless of the time step chosen.

To find 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1 , we first multiply eq. 4.13 by the mass matrix 𝑀𝑀 and then substitute the value of

𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 into this eq. to obtain

1
𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 + (Δ𝑡𝑡)𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖 + (Δ𝑡𝑡)2 𝑀𝑀 � − 𝛽𝛽� 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽(Δ𝑡𝑡)2 �𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖+1 − 𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1 � ( 3.12)
2

Combining the like terms of eq. 4.14 we obtain

1
�𝑀𝑀 + 𝛽𝛽 (Δt)2 𝐾𝐾�𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝛽𝛽 (Δ𝑡𝑡)2 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖+1 + 𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 + (Δ𝑡𝑡)𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖 + (Δ𝑡𝑡)2 𝑀𝑀 � − 𝛽𝛽� 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖 (3.13)
2

Finally, dividing above eq. by 𝛽𝛽 (Δ𝑡𝑡)2 , we obtain

20
 𝐾𝐾′𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝐹𝐹′𝑖𝑖+1 (3.14)

1
𝐾𝐾 ′ = 𝐾𝐾 + 𝑀𝑀 (3.15)
𝛽𝛽 (∆𝑡𝑡)2

𝑀𝑀 1
𝐹𝐹′𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖+1 + �𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑖 + ( ∆𝑡𝑡 ) 𝑑𝑑̇ 𝑖𝑖 + � − 𝛽𝛽� (∆𝑡𝑡)2 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖 � (3.16)
𝛽𝛽 (∆𝑡𝑡)2 2

The solution procedure using Newmark’s equations is as follows:

1. Starting at time t=0, 𝑑𝑑0 is known from the given boundary conditions on displacement,

and 𝑑𝑑̇0 is known from the initial velocity conditions.

2. Solve eq. 4.5 at t=0 for 𝑑𝑑̈0 (unless 𝑑𝑑̈0 is known from an initial acceleration condition);

that is,

𝑑𝑑̈0 = 𝑀𝑀−1 �𝐹𝐹0 − 𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑0 �

3. Solve eq. 4.16 for 𝑑𝑑1 , because 𝐹𝐹′𝑖𝑖+1 is known for all time steps and , 𝑑𝑑0 , 𝑑𝑑̇0 , 𝑑𝑑̈0 are

known from steps 1 and 2.

4. Use eq. 4.13 to solve for 𝑑𝑑̈1 as

1 1
𝑑𝑑̈1 = �𝑑𝑑1 − 𝑑𝑑 0 − ( ∆𝑡𝑡 ) 𝑑𝑑̇ 0 − (∆𝑡𝑡)2 � − 𝛽𝛽� 𝑑𝑑̈0 �
𝛽𝛽 (∆𝑡𝑡)2 2

5. Solve eq. 4.12 directly for 𝑑𝑑̇1

6. Using the results of steps 4 and 5, go back to step 3 to solve for 𝑑𝑑2 and then to steps 4

and 5 to solve for 𝑑𝑑̈2 and 𝑑𝑑̇2 . Use steps 3-5 repeatedly to solve for 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+1, 𝑑𝑑̇𝑖𝑖+1 and 𝑑𝑑̈𝑖𝑖+1 .

21
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The behavior of building frame with and without floating column is studied under static load,

free vibration and forced vibration condition. The finite element code has been developed in

MATLAB platform.

4.1 Static analysis

A four storey two bay 2d frame with and without floating column are analyzed for static loading

using the present FEM code and the commercial software STAAD Pro.

Example 4.1

The following are the input data of the test specimen:

Size of beam – 0.1 X 0.15 m

Size of column – 0.1 X 0.125 m

Span of each bay – 3.0 m

Storey height – 3.0 m

Modulus of Elasticity, E = 206.84 X 106 kN/m2

Support condition – Fixed

Loading type – Live (3.0 kN at 3rd floor and 2 kN at 4th floor)

22
Fig. 4.1 and Fig.4.2 show the sketchmatic view of the two frame without and with floating

column respectively. From Table 4.1 and 4.2, we can observe that the nodal displacement values

obtained from present FEM in case of frame with floating column are more than the

corresponding nodal displacement values of the frame without floating column. Table 4.3 and

4.4 show the nodal displacement value obtained from STAAD Pro of the frame without and with

floating column respectively and the result are very comparable with the result obtained in

present FEM.

. Fig. 4.1 2D Frame with usual columns Fig.4.2 2D Frame with Floating column

23
Table 4.1 Global deflection at each node Table 4.2 Global deflection at each node
for general frame obtained for general frame obtained
in present FEM in STAAD Pro.

Horizontal Vertical Rotational Horizontal Vertical Rotational

Node Node
X mm Y mm rZ rad X mm Y mm rZ rad
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
4 1.6 0 0 4 1.4 0 0
5 1.6 0 0 5 1.4 0 0
6 1.6 0 0 6 1.4 0 0
7 3.8 0 0 7 3.6 0 0
8 3.8 0 0 8 3.6 0 0
9 3.8 0 0 9 3.6 0 0
10 5.8 0 0 10 5.6 0 0
11 5.8 0 0 11 5.6 0 0
12 5.8 0 0 12 5.6 0 0
13 6.7 0 0 13 6.8 0 0
14 6.7 0 0 14 6.8 0 0
15 6.7 0 0 15 6.8 0 0

24
Table 4.3 Global deflection at each node Table 4.4 Global deflection at each node
for frame with floating column for frame with floating column
obtained in present FEM obtained in STAAD Pro

Horizontal Vertical Rotational Node Horizontal Vertical Rotational

Node
X mm Y mm rZ rad X mm Y mm rZ rad
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 2.6 0 0 3 2.6 0 0
4 2.6 0 0 4 2.6 0 0
5 2.6 0 0 5 2.6 0 0
6 4.8 0 0 6 4.8 0 0
7 4.8 0 0 7 4.8 0 0
8 4.8 0 0 8 4.8 0 0
9 6.8 0 0 9 6.8 0 0
10 6.8 0 0 10 6.8 0 0
11 6.8 0 0 11 6.8 0 0
12 7.8 0 0 12 7.7 0 0
13 7.8 0 0 13 7.7 0 0
14 7.8 0 0 14 7.7 0 0

25
4. 2 Free vibration analysis

Example 4.2

In this example a two storey one bay 2D frame is taken. Fig.4.3 shows the sketchmatic view of

the 2D frame. The results obtained are compared with Maurice Petyt[21]. The input data are as

follows:

Span of bay = 0.4572 m

Storey height = 0.2286 m

Size of beam = (0.0127 x 0.003175) m

Size of column = (0.0127 x 0.003175) m

Modulus of elasticity, E = 206.84 x106 kN/m2

Density, ρ = 7.83 x 103 Kg/m3

0.4572

0.2286

Y 0.2286

Fig. 4.3 Geometry of the 2 dimensional framework. Dimensions are in meter

26
Table 4.5 shows the value of free vibration frequency of the 2D frame calculated in present

FEM. It is observed from Table 4.5 that the present results are in good agreement with the result

given by Maurice Petyt [21].

Table 4.5 Free vibration frequency(Hz) of the 2D frame without floating column

Mode Maurice Petyt [21] Present FEM % Variation

1 15.14 15.14 0.00
2 53.32 53.31 0.02
3 155.48 155.52 0.03
4 186.51 186.59 0.04
5 270.85 270.64 0.08

Fig. 4.4 Mode shape of the 2D framework

27
4. 3 Forced vibration analysis

Example 4.3

For the forced vibration analysis, a two bay four storey 2D steel frame is considered. The frame

is subjected to ground motion, the compatible time history of acceleration as per spectra of IS

1893 (part 1): 2002.

The dimension and material properties of the frame is as follows:

Young’s modulus. E= 206.84 x 106 kN/m2

3 3

Density, ρ = 7.83 x103 Kg/m3

3
Size of beam = (0.1 x 0.15) m

Size of column = (0.1 x 0.125) m

3

Fig. 4.5 Geometry of the 2 dimensional frame with floating column. Dimensions are in meter

Fig.4.6 shows the compatible time history as per spectra of IS 1893 (part 1): 2002. Fig.4.7 and

4.8 show the maximum top floor displacement of the 2D frame obtained in present FEM and

STAAD Pro respectively.

28
 Fig. 4.6 Compatible time history as per spectra of IS 1893 (part 1): 2002

Free vibration frequencies of the 2D steel frame with floating column are presented in Table 4.6.

In this table the values obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro are compared. Table 4.7 shows

the comparison of maximum top floor displacement of the frame obtained in present FEM and

STAAD Pro which are in very close agreement.

Table 4.6 Comparison of predicted frequency (Hz) of the 2D steel frame with floating
column obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro.

Mode STAAD Pro Present FEM % Variation

1 2.16 2.17 0.28
2 6.78 7.00 3.13
3 11.57 12.62 8.32
4 12.37 13.04 5.14

29
Fig. 4.7 Displacement vs time response of the 2D steel frame with floating column obtained in
present FEM

Fig. 4.8 Displacement vs time response of the 2D steel frame with floating column obtained in
STAAD Pro

30
Table 4.7 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D steel
frame with floating column in present FEM and STAAD Pro.

Maximum top floor displacement (mm)

% Variation
STAAD Pro. Present FEM

123 124 0.81

Example 4.4

The frame used in Example 4.3 is taken only by changing the material property and size of

structural members. Size and material property of the structural members are as follows:

Size of beam = (0.25 x 0.3) m

Size of column = (0.25 x 0.25) m

Young’s modulus, E= 22.36 x 109 N/m2

Density, ρ = 2500 Kg/m3

Fig.4.9 and 4.10 show the maximum top floor displacement of the 2D frame obtained in STAAD

Pro and present FEM and respectively. Free vibration frequencies of the 2D concrete frame with

floating column are presented in Table 4.8. In this table the values obtained in present FEM and

STAAD Pro are compared. Table 4.9 shows the comparison of maximum top floor displacement

of the frame obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro which are in very close agreement.

31
Table 4.8 Comparison of predicted frequency(Hz) of the 2D concrete frame with floating
column obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro.

Mode STAAD Pro Present FEM % Variation

1 2.486 2.52 1.37
2 7.78 8.09 3.98
3 13.349 14.67 9.89
4 13.938 14.67 5.25

Table 4.9 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with floating column obtained in present FEM and STAAD Pro.

Maximum top floor displacement

% Variation
STAAD Pro. Present FEM
118 121.2 2.71

Fig. 4.10 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column plotted
in present FEM

32
Fig. 4.9 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column given by
STAAD Pro

Example 4.5

In this example two concrete frames with and without floating column having same material

property and dimension are analyzed under same loading condition. Here “Compatible time

history as per spectra of IS 1893 (part 1): 2002” is applied on the structures. IS code data is an

intermediate frequency content data. IS code data has PGA value as 1.0g This frame is also

analyzed under other earthquake data having different PGA value in further examples, hence it

has scaled down to 0.2g. The section and material property for present study are as follows:

Young modulus, E= 22.36 x 106 kN/m2, Density, ρ = 2500 Kg/m3

Size of beam = (0.25 x 0.4) m, Size of column = (0.25 x 0.3) m

Storey height, h = 3.0m, Span = 3.0m

33
Fig. 4.11 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame without floating column under
IS code time history excitation

Fig. 4.12 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation

34
Fig. 4.13 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame without floating column under
IS code time history excitation

Fig. 4.14 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation

35
Table 4.10 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with and without floating column under IS code time history excitation

Maximum top floor displacement (mm)

% Increase
Frame with general columns Frame with floating column

12.61 17.14 35.92

Table 4.11 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with and
without floating column under IS code time history excitation

Storey drift (mm)

% Increase
Max storey drift as Frame with general Frame with floating
per IS Code (0.004h) columns column
12 13.36 18.47 38.25

Table 4.10 and 4.11 show that with the application of floating column in a frame the

displacement and storey drift values are increasing abruptly. Hence the stiffness of the columns

which are eventually transferring the load of the structure to the foundation are increased in

further examples and responses are studied.

Example 4.6

In this example a concrete frame with floating column taken in Example 4.5 is analyzed by

gradually increasing only the size of the ground floor column. The time history of top floor

displacement is obtained and presented in figures 4.15-4.18. The maximum displacement of the

top floor is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.12. It is observed that the

maximum displacement decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

36
Fig. 4.15 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.16 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

37
Fig. 4.17 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Fig. 4.18 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

38
Table 4.12 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Max displacement

Time (sec) % Decrease
column (m) (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 17.14 -
0.25 x 0.35 9.99 15.19 11.37
0.25 x 0.4 7.72 12.5 27.07
0.25 x 0.45 7.7 11.58 32.44

The time history of inter storey drift is obtained and presented in figures 4.19-4.22. The

maximum inter storey drift is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.13. It

is observed that the maximum inter storey drift decreases with strengthening the ground floor

columns.

Fig. 4.19 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

39
Fig. 4.20 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.21 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

40
 Fig. 4.22 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

Table 4.13 Comparison of predicted storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete frame with
floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor

Time (sec) Storey drift (mm) % Decrease
column (m)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 18.47 -
0.25 x 0.35 9.99 16.49 1072
0.25 x 0.4 7.72 13.48 27.02
0.25 x 0.45 7.7 12.47 32.48

The time history of base shear is obtained and presented in figures 4.23-4.26. The maximum base

shear is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.14. It is observed that the

maximum base shear decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

41
Fig. 4.23 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.24 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

42
Fig. 4.25 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Fig. 4.26 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

43
Table 4.14 Comparison of predicted base shear (kN) of the 2D concrete frame with floating
column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground
Time (sec) Base shear (kN) % Variation
floor column (m)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 54.19 -
0.25 x 0.35 9.99 54.8 1.12 (↑)
0.25 x 0.4 12.57 45.9 15.29 (↓)
0.25 x 0.45 8.4 41.95 22.58 (↓)

The time history of overturning moment is obtained and presented in figures 4.27-4.30. The

maximum overturning moment is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table

4.15. It is observed that the maximum overturning moment decreases with strengthening the

ground floor columns.

Fig. 4.27 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS code
time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

44
Fig. 4.28 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS code
time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.29 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS code
time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

45
Fig. 4.30 Moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS code
time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

Table 4.15 Comparison of predicted maximum overturning moment (kN-m) of the 2D

concrete frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Maximum overturning

Time (sec) % Variation
column (m) moment (kN-m)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 46.34 -
0.25 x 0.35 9.99 49.52 6.86 (↑)
0.25 x 0.4 7.73 42.71 7.83 (↓)
0.25 x 0.45 8.4 43.88 5.31 (↓)

Example 4.7

In this example the same concrete frame with floating column taken in Example 4.5 is analyzed

with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing order. The time history of

maximum displacement is obtained and presented in figures 4.31-4.34. The maximum

46
displacement is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.16. It is observed

that the maximum displacement decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

Fig. 4.31 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.32 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

47
Fig. 4.33 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Fig. 4.34 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

48
Table 4.16 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in
increasing order

Size of ground and Max displacement

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 17.14 -
0.25 x 0.35 7.72 12.43 27.48
0.25 x 0.4 9.98 11.39 33.55
0.25 x 0.45 9.96 10.2 40.49

The time history of inter storey drift is obtained and presented in figures 4.35-4.38. The

maximum inter storey drift is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.17. It

is observed that the maximum inter storey drift decreases with strengthening the ground floor

columns.

Fig. 4.35 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

49
Fig. 4.36 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.37 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

50
 Fig. 4.38 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

Table 4.17 Comparison of predicted maximum inter storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete
frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing
order

Size of ground and Maximum storey

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) drift (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 18.47 -
0.25 x 0.35 12.56 13.55 26.64
0.25 x 0.4 9.98 12.4 32.86
0.25 x 0.45 9.96 11.1 39.9

The time history of base shear is obtained and presented in figures 4.39-4.42. The maximum base

shear is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.18. It is observed that the

maximum base shear increases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

51
Fig. 4.39 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.40 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

52
Fig. 4.41 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Fig. 4.42 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under IS
code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

53
Table 4.18 Comparison of predicted maximum base shear (kN) of the 2D concrete frame
with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing order

Size of ground and Maximum base

Time (sec) % Variation
first floor column (m) shear (kN)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 54.19 -
0.25 x 0.35 12.56 48.47 10.55 (↓)
0.25 x 0.4 9.97 55.35 2.14 (↑)
0.25 x 0.45 9.96 57.81 6.68 (↑)

The time history of overturning moment is obtained and presented in figures 4.43-4.46. The

maximum overturning moment is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table

4.19. It is observed that the maximum overturning moment increases with strengthening the

ground floor columns.

Fig. 4.43 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

54
Fig. 4.44 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.45 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

55
Fig. 4.46 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under IS code time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.45 m)

Table 4.19 Comparison of predicted maximum overturning moment (kN-m) of the 2D

concrete frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in
increasing order

Size of ground and Maximum overturning

Time (sec) % Variation
first floor column (m) moment (kN-m)
0.25 x 0.3 10.01 46.34 -
0.25 x 0.35 12.56 43.41 6.32 (↓)
0.25 x 0.4 9.97 51.49 11.11 (↑)
0.25 x 0.45 9.96 56.42 21.75 (↑)

Example 4.8
In this example the same problem in Example 4.6 is analyzed under Elcentro(EW) earthquake

time history data. Elcentro time history data is a low frequency content data. It has PGA of

0.2141g. But to compare the response of the structure under IS code time history data it is also

scaled down to 0.2g. The duration of excitation is also taken upto 40sec.

56
The time history of displacement is obtained and presented in figures 4.47-4.50. The maximum

displacement is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.20. It is observed

that the maximum displacement decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

Fig. 4.47 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

57
 Fig. 4.48 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.49 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Table 4.20 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Max displacement

Time (sec) % Decrease
column (m) (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 4.66 13.61 -
0.25 x 0.35 11.48 11.68 14.18
0.25 x 0.4 11.44 9.954 26.86

The time history of inter storey drift is obtained and presented in figures 4.50-4.52. The

maximum inter storey drift is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.21. It

is observed that the maximum inter storey drift decreases with strengthening the ground floor

columns.

58
Fig. 4.50 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

59
 Fig. 4.51 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Fig. 4.52 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Table 4.21 Comparison of predicted maximum inter storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete
frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Maximum storey

Time (sec) % Decrease
column (m) drift (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 4.66 14.68 -
0.25 x 0.35 11.48 12.66 13.78
0.25 x 0.4 11.44 10.8 26.43

The time history of base shear is obtained and presented in figures 4.53-4.55. The maximum base

shear is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.22. It is observed that the

maximum base shear decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

60
Fig. 4.53 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.54 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

61
 Fig. 4.55 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Table 4.22 Comparison of predicted maximum base shear (kN) of the 2D concrete frame
with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Maximum base

Time (sec) % Decrease
column (m) shear (kN)
0.25 x 0.3 4.68 45.06 -
0.25 x 0.35 11.48 44.78 0.62
0.25 x 0.4 11.44 41.29 8.36

The time history of overturning moment is obtained and presented in figures 4.56-4.58. The

maximum overturning moment is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table

4.23. It is observed that the maximum overturning moment decreases with strengthening the

ground floor columns.

62
Fig. 4.56 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.57 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

63
 Fig. 4.58 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.4 m)

Table 4.23 Comparison of predicted maximum overturning moment (kN-m) of the 2D

concrete frame with floating column with size of ground floor column in increasing order

Size of ground floor Maximum overturning

Time (sec) % Increase
column (m) moment (kN-m)
0.25 x 0.3 4.68 38.54 -
0.25 x 0.35 11.48 40.89 6.09
0.25 x 0.4 11.44 40.29 4.54

Example 4.9
In this example the same problem in Example 4.7 is analyzed under Elcentro(EW) earthquake

time history data. The time history of displacement is obtained and presented in figures 4.59-

4.60. The maximum displacement is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table

4.24. It is observed that the maximum displacement decreases with strengthening the ground

floor columns.
64
Fig. 4.59 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.60 Displacement vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

65
Table 4.24 Comparison of predicted maximum top floor displacement (mm) of the 2D
concrete frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in
increasing order

Size of ground and Max displacement

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 4.66 13.61 -

0.25 x 0.35 11.44 10.18 25.2

The time history of inter storey drift is obtained and presented in figures 4.61-4.62. The

maximum inter storey drift is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.25. It

is observed that the maximum inter storey drift decreases with strengthening the ground floor

columns.

Fig. 4.61 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

66
 Fig. 4.62 Storey drift vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Table 4.25 Comparison of predicted maximum inter storey drift (mm) of the 2D concrete
frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing
order

Size of ground and Maximum storey

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) drift (mm)
0.25 x 0.3 4.66 14.68 -

0.25 x 0.35 11.44 11.04 24.79

The time history of base shear is obtained and presented in figures 4.63-4.64. The maximum base

shear is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table 4.26. It is observed that the

maximum base shear decreases with strengthening the ground floor columns.

67
Fig. 4.63 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

Fig. 4.64 Base shear vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column under
Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

68
Table 4.26 Comparison of predicted maximum base shear (kN) of the 2D concrete frame
with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in increasing order

Size of ground and Maximum base

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) shear (kN)
0.25 x 0.3 4.68 45.06 -

0.25 x 0.35 11.44 42.64 5.37

The time history of overturning moment is obtained and presented in figures 4.65-4.66. The

maximum overturning moment is obtained from the time history plot and tabulated in Table

4.27. It is observed that the maximum overturning moment decreases with strengthening the

ground floor columns.

Fig. 4.65 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.3 m)

69
 Fig. 4.66 Overturning moment vs time response of the 2D concrete frame with floating column
under Elcentro time history excitation (Column size- 0.25 x 0.35 m)

Table 4.27 Comparison of predicted maximum overturning moment (kN-m) of the 2D

concrete frame with floating column with size of both ground and first floor column in
increasing order

Size of ground and Maximum overturning

Time (sec) % Decrease
first floor column (m) moment (kN-m)
0.25 x 0.3 4.68 38.54 -

0.25 x 0.35 11.46 38.24 0.78

70
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The behavior of multistory building with and without floating column is studied under different

earthquake excitation. The compatible time history and Elcentro earthquake data has been

considered. The PGA of both the earthquake has been scaled to 0.2g and duration of excitation

are kept same. A finite element model has been developed to study the dynamic behavior of

multi story frame. The static and free vibration results obtained using present finite element code

are validated. The dynamic analysis of frame is studied by varying the column dimension. It is

concluded that with increase in ground floor column the maximum displacement, inter storey

drift values are reducing. The base shear and overturning moment vary with the change in

column dimension.

71
 CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES

1. Agarwal Pankaj, Shrikhande Manish (2009), “Earthquake resistant design of structures”,

PHI learning private limited, New Delhi.

2. Arlekar Jaswant N, Jain Sudhir K. and Murty C.V.R, (1997), “Seismic Response of RC

Frame Buildings with Soft First Storeys”. Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee

Conference on Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, 1997, New Delhi.

3. Awkar J. C. and Lui E.M, “Seismic analysis and response of multistory semirigid frames”,

Journal of Engineering Structures, Volume 21, Issue 5, Page no: 425-442, 1997.

4. Balsamoa A, Colombo A, Manfredi G, Negro P & Prota P (2005), ”Seismic behavior of a

full-scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates”. Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 769–

780.

5. Bardakis V.G., Dritsos S.E. (2007), “Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of

existing buildings “.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223–233.

6. Brodericka B.M., Elghazouli A.Y. and Goggins J, “Earthquake testing and response

analysis of concentrically-braced sub-frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research

,Volume 64, Issue 9, Page no: 997-1007,2008.

7. Chopra, Anil k. (1995), “Dynamics of structures”, Prentice Hall.

8. Daryl L. Logan (2007), “A First Course in the Finite Element Method”, Thomson, USA

9. Fall H.G (2006), “Direct Stiffness Method For 2D Frames-Theory of structure”.

72
10. Garcia Reyes, Hajirasouliha Iman, Pilakoutas Kypros, (2010),”Seismic behaviour of

deficient RC frames strengthened with CFRP composites”. Engineering Structures 32 (2010)

3075-3085.

11. Hartley Gilbert and Abdel-Akher Ahmed, “Analysis of building frames” Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, Page no:468-483, 1993.

12. Kattan P I (2003), “MATLAB guide to Finite Element”, Springer, Berlin & New York.

13. K. N. V. Prasada Rao, K. Seetharamulu, and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Frames with staggered

panels: experimental study”, Journal of Structural Engineering, VOL 110, No. 5, Page no:

1134-1148, 1984.

14. Krishnamoorthy CS, Finite element analysis, TMH Publications, 1987

15. Maison Bruce F. and Neuss Carl F., “Dynamic analysis of a forty four story building”,

Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 7, Page No:1559- 572,July, 1985.

16. Maison Bruce F. and Ventura Carlos E., “DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THIRTEEN-

STORY BUILDING”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 12, Page no:3783-

3803,1991.

17. Mortezaei A., Ronagh H.R., Kheyroddin A., (2009), “Seismic evaluation of FRP

strengthened RC buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions having fling step”.

Composite Structures 92 (2010) 1200–1211.

18. Niroomandia A., Maherib A, Maheric Mahmoud R., Mahini S.S. (2010) “Seismic

performance of ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets”. Engineering

Structures 32 (2010) 2326- 2336.

19. Ozyigit H. Alper, “Linear vibrations of frames carrying a concentrated mass”, Mathematical

and Computational Applications, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 197-206, 2009.

73
20. Paz Mario (2010), “Structural dynamics”, CBS publishers.

21. Petyt Maurice (2010), “Introduction to Finite element vibration analysis” Cambridge

University Press, New York.

22. Sekulovic Miodrag, Salatic Ratko and Nefovska Marija, “Dynamic analysis of steel

frames with flexible connections”, Journal of computer and structures, Volume 80, Issue 11,

Page no: 935-955, Volume 80, 2002.

23. Vasilopoulosa A.A and Beskos D.E., “Seismic design of plane steel frames using advanced

methods of analysis”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Volume 26, Issue 12,

December 2006, Pages 1077-1100.

24. Williams Ryan J., Gardoni Paolo, Bracci Joseph M., (2009), “Decision analysis for

seismic retrofit of structures”. Structural Safety 31 (2009) 188–196.

25. Wilson E.L “Three dimensional Static and Dynamic analysis of structures-A physical

approach with emphasis on earthquake engineering”, Computers and Structures, Inc

Publication, 3rd Edition 2002.

74