Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 618
PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF RCC BUILDING
Mr. Chetan Ingale1, Prof. M.R.Nalamwar2
1,2 Civil Engineering Department, Jagadambha college of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal, 445105,
(M.S.) India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: Every Civil Engineering structure or building is
inimitable in nature unlike other engineering products
which are constructed in a massive scale using the same
technique repeatedly. The present Project is an attempt to
understand Performance Based Design Approach. The
performance-based seismic design approach enables us to
design new structures more efficiently andtoassessexisting
structures more realistically. The promise of performance-
based seismic engineering is to construct structures with
expected seismic performance. Performance based seismic
design precisely evaluates how building is likely to perform
in given possible earthquake threat. In performance based
design identifying and assessing performance capacity of
structure in an important part of design process, and guide
the many decisions that must be made. Present study based
on performance based seismic design and non-linear
analysis of multi-storey RCC building. Performance based
seismic design is an iterative process, begins with choice of
performance objective followed by preliminary design, an
evaluation whether or not the designmeetstheperformance
objective and finally redesign and reassessment, until
desired performance level is achieved. In this project work
we have carried out performance based seismic design of
multi-storey (G+5) RCC building. Once design is complete,
non-linear analysis is carried out to study seismic
performance of building and found out whether selected
objective is satisfied or not. In this work (G+5) RCC building
is designed as per IS code (IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, IS 456:
2000) for zone 5, 4 and 3 for Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) and Design based Earthquake (DBE) and
a nonlinear static analysis is carried out using auto plastic
hinges. After the building is designed itisimportedtoETABS
platform in order to carry out Pushover Analysis. The
Displacement controlled Pushover Analysis was carried out
and the Pushover Curve were obtained for the building as
per guidelines mentioned in ATC 40. TheCapacitySpectrum,
Storey Displacement, Storey Drift, Demand Spectrum and
Performance point of the building was found using the
analysis carried out in ETABS 2015. These results were
compared for each zone from which we can find out how the
building will perform in different zones. From the
Performance point it wasfoundthattheBuildingdesignedas
per Indian standards was found to be well above Life safety
performance level considering Designed Based Earthquake.
Keywords: Performance basedseismic design,Performance
objective, Capacity, Demand.
1. Introduction
The concept of performance based design evolved when
designers started realizing that conventional code design
method was not always the most appropriate method.
Different structures have different performance
requirements and it is not appropriate that the same
prescriptive criteria be used for designing different
structures. According to the code guidelines base shear is
calculated on the basis of Importance factor (“I”), Zone
factor (“Z”) and Averageresponseaccelerationcoefficient(Sa
/g). Calculated base shear is distributed to floorlevelswhich
depend on amount of mass present at storey level and its
height. After the analysis for lateral forces gives design
forces and moments andcombinedwithforcesandmoments
due to dead load and live loads according to load
combinations stated in IS 1893(Part 1) : 2002 according to
that we stabilize the structure byusingIS 456:2000followed
by pushover analysis. Performance based seismic design
suggest how a building will perform for given seismic
hazard. Performance based design begins with the selection
of performance objective then preliminary designandcheck
whether the building meets the performance objectiveifnot
than redesign and reassessment if required.
Fig.1 Performance based seismic design
Performance levels: In general, performance requirement
can be categorized into four classes as operational
(functioning fully after earthquake), immediate occupancy
(slightly damaged but any minor repair could be done
without disrupting the function of the building), immediate
occupancy (slightly damaged but any minor repair could be
done without disrupting the function of the building), life

safety (damaged but reparable although the building may
need to be evacuated for repair), collapse prevention (does
not collapse although the building may be severelydamaged
requiring demolition.
Fig: 2 Performance level
Performance objective: A desired level of seismic
performance of the building (performance level) which
describes maximum allowable structure or non structural
damage for a specified level of seismic hazard. Seismic
hazard and damage state are the two essential parts of a
performance objective. Seismic performance is describe by
designating the maximum allowable damage situation
(performance level) for an known seismic hazard
(earthquake ground motion).
Fig: 3 Performance objectives
Seismic hazard: Seismic hazard at a site due to ground
shaking are classified in three earthquake hazard levels
 The Serviceability Earthquake (SE)
 The Design Earthquake (DE)/ Design Based
Earthquake
 The Maximum Earthquake (ME)/ Maximum
Considered Earthquake
The Serviceability Earthquake (SE): Serviceability
Earthquake is defined as the level of groundshakingthat has
a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50 years period.
This level of earthquake ground shaking is on average about
0.5 times the level of ground shaking of the design
earthquake.
The Design Earthquake (DE) / Design Based Earthquake
(DBE): The design earthquake is defined probabilisticallyas
the level of ground shaking that has a 10 % chance of being
exceeded in a 50 year period.
The Maximum Earthquake (ME) / Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE): The maximum earthquake is defined
deterministically as the maximum level of earthquake
ground shaking which may ever be expected at the building
site within the known geological framework.Inseismiczone
3 and 4 this intensity of ground shaking may becalculatedas
the level of earthquake ground motion that has a 5%
probability of being exceeded in 50 years time period. This
level of ground shaking is typically about 1.25 to 1.5 times
the level of ground shaking of the design earthquake.
Capacity: The expected ultimate strength (in flexure, shear,
or axial loading) of a structural component excluding the
reduction (Ф) factors commonly used in design of concrete
members. The capacity usually refers to the strength at the
yield point of the element or structure’s capacity curve. For
deformation-controlled components, capacity beyond the
elastic limit generally includes the effects of strain
hardening.
Capacity Curve: The plot of the total lateral force V, of a
structure against the lateral deflection d of the roof of the
structure. This is often referred to as the “pushover” curve.
Fig: 4 Capacity curve

Demand (displacement): A representation of the
earthquake ground motion or shaking that the building is
subjected to. In nonlinear static analysisproceduresdemand
is represented by an estimation of the displacements or
deformations that the structure is predicted to experience.
Fig: 5 Demand Curve
Performance: It is an intersection point of Capacity curve
and Demand curve. The performance of building is
depending upon the performance of structural and
nonstructural components. From the performance pointthe
performance of thestructureischeckedagainstperformance
levels mentioned above.
Fig:6 Capacity spectrum curve Performance point
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Basis of the procedure
In Nonlinear static procedure/Pushover analysis, the basic
demand and capacity parameters from the analysis is the
lateral displacement of the building. Capacity curve is the
capacity of the building for particular force distribution and
displacement i.e. base shear v/s roof displacement. If the
building displaces laterally, its response must lie on this
capacity curve. A point on the curve defines a specific
damage state for the structure. By correlating this capacity
curve to the seismic demand generated by a specific
earthquake or ground shakingintensity,a pointcanbefound
on the capacity curve that estimates the maximum
displacement of the building the earthquake will cause. This
point defines the performance point or target displacement.
Location of performance point on the capacity curve is
related to the performance levels, which indicates whether
or not the design meets the performance objectives, and
finally redesign and reassessment, if required, until the
desired performance objective is achieved.
In this present work, G+5 storied reinforced concrete frame
building situated in zone 3, 4 and 5 maximum considered
earthquake and design based earthquake is considered for
this study. The number of bays and size is shown in Fig 7.
The total height of the building is 18m. Slab thickness is
considered as 120mm. Beam and column size is 500mm x
600 mm. The building is considered as Special RC moment-
resisting frame (SMRF) with response reduction factor as
5.0. This building is considered as an educational building as
per that Importance factor is considered as 1.5. Load
combinations are taken as per IS 456:2000andIS1893(part
1): 2002. Dead load on slab is taken as 5 Kn/m2. Live load on
slab is taken as 4 Kn/m2 not considered on roof. Outer
beams consist dead load of 12.5 kn/m and interior beams
consist dead load of 8.1 kn/m. Capacity spectrum method is
carried out as per guidelines mentioned in ATC 40.
Fig: 7 Building Plan and Elevation

2.2 Pushover Analysis using ETABS
1] Create the basic computer model. Assign sectional
properties, material properties and place columns, beams
and supports to the structure, apply gravity load i.e. dead
load and live load on the structure. Run analysis and find
shear force and bending moments for the applied load and
check whether structure is safe or not according to IS
456:2000.
2] Add lateral forces and allocate load combination as per IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 and check whether structure is safe or
not.
3] Add Response Spectrum function and assign Response
spectrum load cases, and find out max storey displacement,
max storey drift from Response spectrum method.
4] Add Time history function and assign Time history load
cases, find out peak acceleration, velocity and displacement
of the structure’s response to a ground motion.
5] Define and modify Pushover load cases. In ETABS more
than one pushover load case can be run in the same analysis.
Pushover load cases can be force controlled i.e. pushed to a
certain defined force level, or they can be displacement
controlled, i.e. pushed toa specifieddisplacementcontrolled.
ETABS contains several built-in hinges that are based on
average values from ATC- 40 for concrete members. M3
hinges have been defined at both the ends of all the beams
and PMM hinges have been defined at both the columnends.
6] Assign pushover hinge properties to beams and columns
by selecting all the frame members at particular hinge
location, run pushover analysis.
7] The capacity curve and capacity spectrum curve is
obtained. The performance point for a given set of values is
defined by intersection of the capacity curve and the single
demand spectrum curve. Observe plastic hinge formation
sequence.
Fig: 8 Load-Deformation Curve
1 Point 'A' corresponds to the unloaded condition.
2 Point 'B' corresponds to the onset of yielding.
3 Point 'C' corresponds to the ultimate strength.
4 Point 'D' corresponds to the residual strength.
5 Point 'E' corresponds to the maximum deformation
capacity with the residual strength.
3. Observation
Fig:9 Comparison of Capacity Curve Zone 5, 4 and 3
Maximum Considered Earthquake
Fig: 10 Comparison of Capacity Curve Zone 5, 4 and 3
Design Based Earthquake
Fig: 11Comparison of Capacity Curve Zone 5 Design
Based Earthquake and Maximum Considered
Earthquake

Fig: 12 Comparison of Storey Displacement Zone 5, 4
and 3 Maximum Considered Earthquake
Fig: 13 Comparison of Storey Displacement Zone 5, 4
and 3 Design Based Earthquake
Fig: 14 Comparison of Storey Displacement Zone 5
Design Based Earthquake and Maximum Considered
Earthquake
4.RESULTS
Table:1 Results obtained from storey displacement
Table:2 Results obtained from storey drift.
Target roof displacement ratio’s at various
performance level
Performanc
e level
Ope
rati
onal
Imme
diate
occup
ancy
Life
safety
Collapse
preventi
on
Lateral drift
ratio=(δ/h)
0.37 0.7 2.5 5
Zone 3 DBE 0.17
Zone 3 MCE 0.36
Zone 4 DBE 0.33
Zone 4 MCE 0.70
Zone 5 DBE 0.40
Zone 5 MCE 0.82
Performance Limit ATC40 Table no 11.2
Inter story
Drift Limit
Immediate
Occupancy
Damage
Control
Life
Safety
Maximum
Total Drift
0.01
0.01 –
0.02
0.02
Maximum
Inelastic
Drift
0.005
0.005 –
0.015
No
Limit
Results obtained
Inter story
Drift Limit
ZONE 3
RESP X
M
CE
0.022
D
B
E
0.010
Inter story
Drift Limit
ZONE 4
RESP X
M
CE
0.028
D
B
E
0.016
Inter story
Drift Limit
ZONE 5
RESPX
M
CE
0.040
D
B
E
0.024

Table:3 Results obtained from capacity spectrum
curve.
Plastic hinge formation results
A-B B-C C-D D-E >E
Total
hinges
A-IO
IO-
LS
LS-
CP
>CP
Zone
3DBE
1796 418 78 12
2304
Zone
3MCE
1908 392 4 0
2304
Zone
4DBE
2268 36 0 0
2304
Zone
4MCE
2000 296 0 8
2304
Zone
5DBE
1856 404 22 22
2304
Zone
5MCE
1918 378 0 8
2304
6. CONCLUSIONS
From the results it is concludedthatstoreydisplacementand
storey drift both goes on increasing with increase of zone
and are greater in MCE than DBE.
Base shear increasesanddisplacementdecreasesasthezone
increases hence load carrying capacity increases as thezone
decreases.
By using performance based design we can find actual
performance from practical point of building for applied
zone, lower zone and farther zone.
Plastic hinges formed in columns and beams are within
immediate occupancy and life safety, as they are designed
with “strong column and weak beam concept”.
7. REFRENCES
1] Mrugesh D.Shah, Atul N.Desai, Sumant B.Patil,
“Performance based analysis of RCC frames”, National
conference on recent trends in engineering and technology,
13-14 May 2011.
2] Suchita Hirde, Irshad Mullani, “Performance Based
Seismic Design of RCC Building”, International Journal of
Engineering Research, VolumeNo.5Issue:Special 3,pp: 745-
749, ISSN:2319-6890, 2347-5013,27-28 Feb. 2016.
3] Priyanka Bhave , Mayur Banarse , “Analysis and Capacity
Based Earthquake Resistance Design of Multy Bay Multy
Storeyed Residential Building”, International Journal of
Engineering and Applications, ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol.6, Issue
4, (Part-5) April 2016, pp. 78-84.
4] S.P.Akshara, , “Performance Based Seismic Evaluation of
Multi-Storeyed Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using
Pushover Analysis” , International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), volume:2 Issue: 03/
June-2015, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, p-ISSN: 2395-0072 .
5] Dilip J.Chaudhari, Gopal O.Dhoot, “Performance Based
Seismic Design Of Reinforced Concrete Building”, Scientific
Research Publishing, Open Journal of Civil Engineering,
2016, 6, 188-194.
6] Dr.Mohd.Hamraj, “Performance Based Pushover Analysis
Of RCC Frames For Plan Irregularity” , International Journal
of Science, Engineering and Technology, ISSN:2348-4098,
volume 2.
7] M J N Priestley, “Performance Based Seismic Design”, 12th
World ConferenceonEarthquakeEngineering,30Jan.-4Feb.
2000 New Zealand,2831.
8] Rajkuwar Dubal, Neha Gole, G.R.Patil, Sandip Vasanwala,
Chetan Modhera, ,“Application Of Performance Based
Seismic Design Method To Reinforced Concrete Moment
Resistant Frame With Vertical Geometric Irregularity With
Soft Storey”, American Journal of Engineering Research
(AJER), e-ISSN: 2320-0847, p-ISSN: 2320-0936, Volume-03,
Issue -12, pp-54-61.
9] Nilang Pansuriya, Prof. Tarak Vora, “Review On
Performance Based Of RCC Building”, Indian Journal of
Applied Research, Volume-5, ISSN- 2249-555X.
10] Dakshes J. Pambhar, “Performance Based Pushover
Analysis of RCC Frames”, International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Research and Studies, E-ISSN 2249-8974,
Volume -1.
11] Jigar Zala, Dr.S.P.Purohit, “Nonlinear Static (Pushover)
Analysis Of G+4 Storey R.C.C.Building”, International Journal
of Advance Research in Engineering, Science and
Technology, ISSN(O): 2393-9877, ISSN(P): 2394-2444,
Volume 2.
12] Ashish R.Akhare, Abhijeet A.Maske, “PerformanceBased
Seismic Design of R.C.C. Building With Plan Irregularity”
Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology,
Print ISSN: 2349-8404, Online ISSN:2349-879X, Volume 2.
13] S.C.Pednekar, H.S.Chore, S.B.Patil, “Pushover AnalysisOf
Reinforced Concrete Structures”, International Journal of
Computer Applications (0975-8887), International
conference on quality up-gradation in Engineering, Science
and Technology (ICQUEST2015).
14] Dr. Rehan A. Khan , “Performance Based Seismic Design
of Reinforced Concrete Building”, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science,Engineering andTechnology,
ISSN: 2319-8753, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2014.

Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance based Seismic Design of RCC Building