Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Hindawi
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Volume 2022, Article ID 4518848, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4518848
Research Article
Seismic Evaluation of Advanced Reinforced Concrete Structures
Vijayakumar Arumugam ,1 Lakshmi Keshav ,2 Aravindan Achuthan ,3

and Somashekar Dasappa 4
1
Department of Civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, VR Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational Foundation, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522 502, India
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Samara University, Samara, Ethiopia
Correspondence should be addressed to Somashekar Dasappa; [email protected]
Received 16 March 2022; Revised 25 April 2022; Accepted 3 May 2022; Published 16 May 2022
Academic Editor: Samson Jerold Samuel Chelladurai
Copyright © 2022 Vijayakumar Arumugam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Many reinforced concrete frame buildings were developed and constructed in Coimbatore zone III before 2002. In 2002, the
seismic code IS 1893 was updated. As a result, structures constructed earlier in 2002 do not meet the codal criterion. The majority
of structures through infilled walls were nondesigned with infills in consideration. This paper goals to appraise seismic exposure of
an advanced reinforced present concrete building with infilled and without infilled frames. A pushover analysis was used to
conduct this analysis. According to ATC40, the analysis shows the comportment levels of several building components for various
stated concert objectives.
1. Introduction Coimbatore region. An existing structure in the Coimbatore

region requires seismic evaluation for a variety of reasons,
Because design code standards are regularly updated as including noncompliance with code requirements, code
engineering knowledge advances, existing buildings may updates, poor design practice, and changes in the building’s
become seismically weak. Furthermore, due to a lack of use. Existing defective structures in Coimbatore zone III, on
knowledge about the seismic behavior of structures, Indian the other hand, can be rehabilitated to maintain the pro-
buildings developed in the last two decades are seismically jected recital level. Beforehand beginning the restoration
weak. The distribution of mass and stiffness is one of the effort, it is required to assess the current structure’s capa-
most critical aspects in the seismic design of moderate- to bility and determine whether it fulfills the desired perfor-
high-rise buildings. These components invariably create mance level.
coupling effects and nonlinearity in the system; thus, for The nonlinear static pushover analysis is highlighted in
seismic evaluation of structures, it is critical to adopt a the publication [1]. It is a practical way of assessing the
nonlinear static analysis technique using specialized pro- performance of a structure that is subjected to seismic loads.
grams such as SAP2000, ETABS, and IDARC, among others. The capability curve, capability spectrum approach, and
Coimbatore, India’s fastest-growing city, is situated in movement coefficient method are all steps in the pushover
seismic zone III. Many reinforced concrete frame buildings analysis process. This report is detailed with modeling
were developed and constructed in Coimbatore before 2002. components of the hinge behavior, taking criteria, and the
In 2002, the seismic code IS 1893 was updated. As a result, location of the routine point employing these procedures. A
structures constructed before 2002 do not meet the code’s pushover study [2, 3] involves exposing a building to a
requirements. The majority of structures with infilled walls steadily increasing pattern of lateral stresses that replicate
were not designed with infills in mind. Furthermore, the the inertial forces it would experience if it were subjected to
structure chosen for analysis is located in zone III of the ground shaking various structural parts which may yield
5928, 2022, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/4518848, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
consecutively under steadily increasing stresses. As a result, reinforced concrete structures. *e dimensions of all
the structure loses rigidity as each event occurs. A char- building components is in accordance with the existing
acteristic of a nonlinear force-displacement relationship framework.
can be found via a pushover analysis. *e pushover analysis
is highlighted in reports [1, 2, 4]. It is a realistic way of
assessing the recital of a structure that is exposed to seismic 2.1. Bare Frame Model. Beam and column members are
loads. *e capacity curve, demand curve, and performance frame elements that have the necessary proportions and
point are all determined by a step-by-step approach in the steel. Slabs are defined as an area element with shell-like
pushover analysis. *ese studies cover hinge behavior features and a specified thickness. Rigid diaphragms have
modeling, acceptability criteria, and methodologies for been used to represent slabs [9, 10]. *e following load cases
locating the performance point. *e paper referred to in are examined after the structural components have been
[3, 5] demonstrates how to perform a pushover study of 3D modeled: beams, columns, slabs, and other permanent parts
architecture using SAP2000. SAP2000 is a cutting-edge, all- such as infills all contribute to the structure’s gravity stresses.
purpose, 3D structural analysis application. SAP2000 in- *e application automatically considers the individual mass
cludes fully integrated static pushover analysis capabilities of beams, columns (frame members), and slabs (area
that enable rapid and informal deployment of pushover element).
procedures for both 2D and 3D frames. *e reference [6]
discusses the structural examination of RC buildings in 2.1.1. Seismic Weight of the Building. *e deck, all gravity,
various Indian zones. All seismic zones in India are sub- and lateral members, and all walls all contribute to the
jected to response spectrum evaluations, both with and structure’s self-weight. *e column and wall weights in each
without infill stiffness. Pushover analysis, which comprises story are evenly distributed to the floors above and below the
the capacity spectrum, demand spectrum, and performance story when estimating the seismic weight of each floor di-
point, is used to produce a pushover curve. *e perfor- aphragm. *e total seismic mass of the building without
mance of building components as well as the structures’ infill is computed as 9966.418 kN as per IS code.
maximum base shear carrying capacity for different zones Based on the building’s remaining functional life, the
are revealed through a pushover study. Succeeding steps proposed methodology allows for a reduction in the design
will help you to achieve the goal of selecting a represen- base shear [9, 11]. *e reduced base shear was calculated as
tative existing building with and without infill that was per modification formula 580 kN. U � (Trem /Tdes )0.5 ≥ 0.7.
built before 2002 and for which data is available. Make a
three-dimensional model of the structure, taking into ac-
count the infill influence of partitions, carrying out a 2.2. Infill Frame Method (Equivalent Diagonal Strut Method).
pushover analysis of the with and without infilled struc- Under seismic loads, the effects of infill walls might be
tures. Based on the analysis, identify the hinge formation, advantageous or negative. *e distribution of infill
base shear capacity, and performance of the building as per throughout the building floors, on the other hand, had a
ATC40. significant impact on this improvement. It is well known that
the presence of infill walls boosts the lateral strength and
2. Description of the Frame Structures stiffness of the frames significantly when compared to bare
frames while lowering average drifts. However, depending
*e selected building’s three-dimensional frame has dis- on the situation, these consequences may or may not be
similar kinds of earthquake weight battling systems with and beneficial. *e parts that make up the infill walls are sturdy
without infilled frames, which are taken into account. but fragile. Infill walls can produce unforeseen damages such
Figure 1 displays the building’s proposal of the structure and as early column failures due to shear, compression, or
brace configuration model that represents infills that are tension failures if the surrounding structure is not robust
used in the analysis. SAP2000 software is used for creating enough. *e growth of soft-story mechanisms in the
three-dimensional models and analysis of the existing structure could also have a detrimental impact. Structures
building. lacking infill walls at the bottom storey are more likely to
*e structure is located in Coimbatore and is repre- experience this process. Soft-story mechanisms, in partic-
sentative of several others in the area. M15 concrete and ular, may emerge as a result of drift concentrations at lower
Fe415 steel were used to construct it. M20 [7, 8] is the stories. *ese negative impacts may be mitigated by an
concrete grade required by IS 456 : 2000 for structural orderly stiffness distribution along with the structure’s
purposes. Many structures in the Coimbatore region, on the height.
other hand, were constructed using solely M15 grade con- Some methodologies for simulating the behavior of
crete. *e pushover analysis was performed to check the infilled structures are now available in the literature; ex-
susceptibility of such structures using concrete and steel perimental and numerical studies have shown that a diag-
strength based on test results. Concrete strength was de- onal strut with appropriate geometrical and mechanical
termined to be 16.5 N/mm2 for the example building, characteristics could be a good solution for accounting for
whereas steel strength was determined to be Fe 420 N/mm2 the influence of infills in seismic behavior. *e most com-
using the various NDT tests. In the pushover analysis, these mon way of researching infilled frame systems is to utilize a
values were employed. We chose G + 2 hostel buildings with macro-model [12, 13] that substitutes a single equivalent-
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
Figure 1: *e representation infills the frame with bracing in three dimensions.
Centre line modelling of frame

Frame
Wm
hi
Hinge
dm
h
Hinge
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Brick infill panel as equivalent diagonal strut.
strut for the entire infill panel, as seen in Figure 2, and axis accelerations that simulate the forces that the struc-
seismic mass of the building as 9966.418 kN and reduced tures would feel if they were subjected to ground shaking.
base shear 580 kN. Some elements may yield sequentially under steadily in-
creasing stresses. As a result, the structures’ stiffness
3. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis changes at each event, as shown in Figure 3. *e material
model utilized in the static nonlinear pushover analysis is
*e NSP approach, also known as pushover analysis, or based on the processes described in the [1, 2] publications,
POA, is a technique in which a computer model of a which define force-deformation criteria for the pushover
structure is exposed to a preset lateral load pattern that hinges. Figure 3 depicts the structure’s typical force-de-
approximates the relative inertia forces generated at sig- formation relationship.
nificant mass positions. *e lateral force is increased in *e force-deflection behavior of the structure is defined
intensity, causing the structure to be “pushed,” and the by 5 points designated A, B, C, D, and E. A to B, elastic state; B
sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge forms, and the to IO, below immediate occupancy; IO to LS, between im-
load at which various structural components fail is recorded mediate occupancy and life safety; LS to CP, between life
as a function of the growing lateral stress. *is technique is safety and collapse prevention; CP to C, between collapse
repeated until a predefined displacement limit is reached. prevention and ultimate capacity; C to D, between C and
Nonlinear behavior inside frame elements is anticipated residual strength; D to E, between D and collapse > E collapse.
to occur at concentrated plastic hinges in SAP2000.
Uncoupled moment hinges, uncoupled axial hinges, 4. Results and Discussion
uncoupled shear hinges, coupled axial force, and biaxial
bending moment hinges are the default types. *e appli- 4.1. General. *e experiment used a three-story existing
cation of gravity loads and a realistic lateral load pattern are hostel reinforced concrete with and without an infill frame.
used in the pushover study. *e applied lateral loads are X- *e frame was exposed to X and Y earthquake loads, as
C 1400
B ΔU
LS CP 1200
Force IO
ΔY
D E 1000
P Ductility Factor =Ultimate load
Base shear in kN
800 /Yield load
=1.305
A Stiffness =Linear Load
Deformation 600
/CorrespondingDeflection
Figure 3: Force-deformation for pushover analysis. =8,2250 kN/m
400
stated by the IS code for zone III level. *e reactions of the 200
frames are discussed more below. δ
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200
4.2. Base Shear Displacement in m
4.2.1. Without Infill Frame. In both directions, the base Figure 4: Bare frame in the X direction.
shear was computed using IS 1893 (part-1)-2002 and
SAP2000 software as 580 kN and 335 kN, respectively. *e 3500
base shear as per IS 1893 (part-1)-2002 is 1.75 times higher as
compared to SAP2000 in both directions. Based on the 3000 ΔU
analysis, base shear values in the X direction are higher than
in the Y direction because of the configuration of the 2500
ΔY
Base shear in kN
building.
2000 P Ductility Factor=Ultimate load
/Yield load
4.2.2. Infill Frame. *e base shear was computed as 580 kN 1500 =1.346
and 446 kN in both directions using IS 1893 (part-1)-2002 Stiffness =linear Load
and SAP2000 software. *e base shear as per IS 1893 (part- 1000
=2,71,437 kN/m
1)-2002 is 1.3 times higher as compared to SAP2000 in both
directions. Based on the analysis, base shear values in the X 500
direction are higher than in the Y direction because of the
0 δ
configuration of the building. 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Displacement in m
4.3. Pushover Curve Figure 5: Bare frame in the Y direction.
4.3.1. Without Infill Frame. Figures 4 and 5 show the X and
Y directions of the building’s pushover curves. *ese curves 1600
show the overall behavior of the frame in terms of stiffness ΔU
and ductility. According to pushover studies, bare frame 1400
base shear at a displacement of 0.180 m in the X direction is 1200
ΔY
1288 kN. At a displacement of 0.030 m in the Y direction,

Base shear in kN
1000 P
pushover analysis provides a base shear of 2924 kN. *e base Ductility Factor =Ultimate load
shear in the Y direction is stronger than in the X direction 800 /Yield load
due to the configuration of the columns in the frames. =1.342
600 Stiffness =Linear Load
400 =1,02,846 kN/m
4.3.2. Infill Frame. Figures 6 and 7 depict the building’s
pushover curves in the X and Y orientations. Base shear from 200
pushover analysis for the infilled frame is 1381 kN at a 0 δ
displacement of 0.36 m in the X direction and 3270 kN at a 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
displacement of 0.023 m in the Y direction. As a result, infill Displacement in m
frame stiffness will exceed bare frame stiffness in terms of Figure 6: Infill frame in the X direction.
earthquake resilience. *e structure’s base shear perfor-
mance has been improved thanks to the application of infill.
elastic range, then the structure has good resistance. If the
4.4. Capacity Spectrum. *e main output of a pushover demand curve intersects the capacity curve with little reserve
analysis is in terms of response demand versus capacity. If of strength and deformation capacity, then it can be con-
the demand curve intersects the capacity envelope near the cluded that the structure will behave poorly during the
3500
ΔU
3000
2500
ΔY
Base Shear in kN
2000 P
1500 Ductility Factor =Ultimate load

/Yield load
1000 =1.297
Stiffness =Linear Load
500 =2,61,068 kN/m
δ
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Displacement in m
Figure 7: Infill frame in the Y direction.
imposed seismic excitation and need to be retrofitted to 4.5.1. Without Infill Frame. At a load of 664.45 kN and a
avoid future major damage or collapse. displacement of 0.007 m, the first hinge forms in the X
direction. *e idealized moment rotation curve of initial
yielding, instantaneous occupancy, and collapse prevention
4.4.1. Without Infill Frame. At a base shear level of is shown in Figure 8. For point B (yielding), the moment and
1016.436 kN and a displacement of 0.015 m in the X di- rotation values are 1.5767 kN-m and 0.0017 radians, re-
rection, the bare frame performance point is attained. *e spectively. For point IO (immediate occupancy), the mo-
structure reached immediate occupancy at this point in its ment and rotation values are 1.5849 kN-m and 0.0254
performance. At a base shear level of 1,330.743 kN and a radians, respectively. For point CP (collapse prevention), the
displacement of 0.0044 m in the Y-direction, the perfor- moment and rotation values are 1.9344 kN-m and 0.0356
mance point is reached. *e structure had reached the level radians, respectively.
of collapse prevention at this stage in its performance. As a *e first hinge is formed in the Y direction at a base shear
result, the structure appears to be more significant in the Y and displacements of 596.41 kN and 0.002 m, respectively.
direction than in the X direction, as expected. *e idealized moment rotation curve of initial yielding,
collapse prevention, and the ultimate moment of resistance
4.4.2. Infill Frame. At a base shear level of 1090.675 kN and a is depicted in Figure 9. For point B (yielding), the moment
displacement of 0.018 m in the X direction, the infill frame and rotation values are 7.34730 kN-m and 0.00146 radians,
performance point is attained. At a base shear level of respectively. For point CP (collapse prevention), the mo-
1632.520 kN and a displacement of 0.005 m in the Y-di- ment and rotation values are 7.408 kN-m and 0.00156 ra-
rection, the performance point is attained. Based on failure dians, respectively. For point C (ultimate moment of
mechanisms, the structure’s status at the performance point resistance), the moment and rotation values are 8.00880 kN-
is discussed afterward [13, 14]. m and 0.00251 radians, respectively. *e beam first reaches
its capacity and rotates 0.00156 radians at the performance
point level, according to the analysis.
4.5. Plastic Hinges. *e seismic response of RC structures is
investigated using a G+2 RC existing frame structure with
and without masonry infill walls. Nonlinear analysis for 4.5.2. Infill Frame. Figure 10 shows how the plastic hinge
SAP2000 is used to obtain pushover curves for the struc- creation begins with infills, columns, and beams in the X
tures. Maximum plastic rotations are calculated using the direction. Columns fail before beams, hence this is unac-
pushover curves and storey displacement. As a consequence ceptable for design consideration. When the first hinge oc-
of the analysis, the structural behavior under earthquake was curs in the infill, the base shear and displacement values are
identified. A nonlinear static pushover analysis was per- 733 kN and 0.0073 m in the X direction. At the performance
formed to evaluate the performance of framed buildings level, the moment and rotation values for initial yielding are
during future predicted earthquakes. In the event of a bare 52.785 kN-m and 0.0528 radians, respectively.
frame, the majority of the hinges developed in the beams, Figure 11 shows how the plastic hinge development
with a few in the columns sustaining minor damage. When begins with infills, columns, and beams in the Y direction.
contemplating the infilled frame, first consider the hinges Columns fail before beams, hence this is unacceptable for
generated in the column, then the beams. *e following design consideration. When the first hinge occurs in the
findings in terms of demand, capacity, and plastic hinges infill, the base shear and displacement values are 550 kN and
provide insight into structural behavior in real life. 0.001 m in the X direction. *e moment and rotation value
Figure 8: Sequence of hinges formation in the X direction.
Performance Point Level
CP
Moments in kNm
IO
B
A
Rotation in radians
A -Zero Loading
B -Initial Yielding
CP -Collapse Prevention level
IO -Immediate Occupancy
Figure 9: Moment versus rotation curve.
Performance Point Level
C
CP
Moments in kNm
A
Rotation in radians
A -Zero Loading
B -Initial Yielding
CP -Collapse Prevention level
C -Ultimate Moment of Resistance
Figure 10: Moment versus rotation curve.
8 IO LS CP C D E
Figure 11: Sequence of hinges formation in the Y direction.
for initial yielding are 106.434 kN-m and 0.0328 radians, (iii) To avoid premature column collapse, the columns
respectively, at the performance level. must be refitted with sufficient strength so that they
*e order in which the hinges form implies that the do not approach the yield level at the performance
column hinge comes first, followed by the beam hinge. *is point [18–22].
is unacceptably bad. As a result, the columns in such a
structure must be updated such that they do not reach Data Availability
capacity before the beams [15–17].
*e data used to support the findings of this study are in-
5. Conclusions cluded within the article.
*e pushover analysis is a useful method for evaluating the Disclosure

seismic performance of structures at various levels of
shaking. *e pushover analysis is a straightforward approach *is study was performed as a part of the employment of
to investigating a building’s nonlinear behavior. *e findings Samara University, Ethiopia, and GMR Institute of Tech-
in terms of demand, capacity, and plastic hinges provided nology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
insight into how structures behave.
*e pushover analysis treating the structure as a bare Conflicts of Interest
frame shows that
*e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
(i) *e performance point is reached in the X direction regarding the publication of this paper.
and permits immediate occupancy level, and at this
stage, the critical beam rotation is 0.0254 radians.
Acknowledgments
(ii) However, the performance point reached in the Y
direction is only at a collapse prevention level; at this *e authors appreciate the supports from Samara Univer-
stage, the critical beam rotation is 0.00156 radians. sity, Ethiopia. *e authors thank GMR Institute of Tech-
nology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, for the technical assistance
At the initial hinge formation level, the base shear ca-
to complete this experimental work.
pacity in the Y direction is lower than in the X direction.
*e pushover analysis treating the structure as an infill
frame shows that References
(i) *e performance point in the X direction is reached, [1] Atc 40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of concrete Buildings,
and at this stage, infills had collapsed and the column Applied Technology Council, California, CA, USA, 1996.
had reached yield and has a rotation of 0.0528 radians. [2] Fema 273, NEHRP – Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
(ii) *e behavior in the Y direction is similar to X di- Washington, D.C, USA, 1997.
rection but at a higher base shear level. *e critical [3] Fema 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP
column hinge reaches a rotation of 0.03284 radians. Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, Chapitre3, Washington, D. C,

USA, 1997.
[4] S. E. Ashraf Habibullah and S. E. Stephen, Practical three-
dimensional nonlinear static pushover analyseswinter, Hei-
delberg, Germany, 1998.
[5] R. C. Barros and R. Almeida, “Pushover analysis of asym-
metric three-dimensional building frames,” Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2005.
[6] A. Kadid and A. Boumrkik, “Pushover analysis of reinforced
concrete frame structures,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
(building and housing), vol. 9, pp. 75–83, 2008.
[7] A. Ghobarah, N. M. Aly, and M. El-Attar, “Seismic reliability
assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings,” Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 569–592, 1998.
[8] FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic re-
habilitation of buildings, American society of civil engineers,
Reston VA, USA, 2000.
[9] Is 456, Plain and Reinforced Concrete- code of Practice, Bureau
of Indian standards, New delhi, India, 2000.
[10] Is 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures
(Fifth Revision), Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2002.
[11] Dr. Durgesh and C. Rai, Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and
Strengthening of Buildings, Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation
Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat,India, 2005.
[12] P. Ramkumar and K. Baskar, “Structural Evaluation of RC
Framed Building under Various Seismic Zones,” in Pro-
ceedings of the National Conference on Failure Studies and
Remedial Measures to concrete Structures, pp. 124–135, Tir-
uchengode, India, 2008.
[13] M. Prasad, “Structural Analysis for Seismic Retrofit,”
Handbook on Seismic Retrofit of Buildings, pp. 8.1–8.27, IITM,
Chennai,India, 2008.
[14] F. Jalayer, I. Iervolino, and G. Manfredi, “Structural modeling
uncertainties and their influence on seismic assessment of
existing RC structures,” Structural Safety, vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 220–228, 2010.
[15] D. Perrone, M. A. Aiello, M. Pecce, and F. Rossi, “Rapid visual
screening for seismic evaluation of RC hospital buildings,”
Structures, vol. 3, pp. 57–70, 2015.
[16] CSI America, “ETABS Extended 3D Analysis of Building
Systems,” Computer and Structures, Inc. CA 94704, Nonlinear
Version 15, University Avenue, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2015.
[17] A. Mosleh, H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A. Costa, and A. Arêde,
“Seismic behavior of RC building structures designed
according to current codes,” Structures, vol. 7, pp. 1–13, 2016.
[18] M. Causevic and S. Mitrovic, “Comparison between non-linear
dynamic and static seismic analysis of structures according to
European and US provisions,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engi-
neering, Springer, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 467–489, 2011.
[19] P. Poluraju and P. V. S. Nageswara Rao, “Pushover analysis of
reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000,” Inter-
national Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, vol. 4,
no. 6, pp. 684–690, 2011.
[20] A. Koçak, B. Zengin, and F. Kadioğlu, “Performance assessment
of irregular RC buildings with shear walls after earthquake,”
Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 55, pp. 157–168, 2015.
[21] M. Hosseini, B. Hashemi, and Z. Safi, “Seismic design eval-
uation of reinforced concrete buildings for near-source
earthquakes by using nonlinear time history analyses,” Pro-
cedia Engineering, vol. 199, pp. 176–181, 2017.
[22] S. I. Pardalopoulos, S. J. Pantazopoulou, V. A. Lekidis, and
V. A. Lekidis, “Simplified method for rapid seismic assess-
ment of older R.C. buildings,” Engineering Structures, vol. 154,
pp. 10–22, 2018.

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering - 2022 - Arumugam - Seismic Evaluation of Advanced Reinforced Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering - 2022 - Arumugam - Seismic Evaluation of Advanced Reinforced Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering - 2022 - Arumugam - Seismic Evaluation of Advanced Reinforced Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindawi

Vijayakumar Arumugam ,1 Lakshmi Keshav ,2 Aravindan Achuthan ,3

Correspondence should be addressed to Somashekar Dasappa; [email protected]

Academic Editor: Samson Jerold Samuel Chelladurai

1. Introduction Coimbatore region. An existing structure in the Coimbatore

Figure 1: *e representation inﬁlls the frame with bracing in three dimensions.

Centre line modelling of frame

Figure 2: Brick inﬁll panel as equivalent diagonal strut.

1288 kN. At a displacement of 0.030 m in the Y direction,

1500 Ductility Factor =Ultimate load

Figure 8: Sequence of hinges formation in the X direction.

Performance Point Level

Performance Point Level

*e pushover analysis is a useful method for evaluating the Disclosure

Buildings and Other Structures, Chapitre3, Washington, D. C,

You might also like