IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol.

3, Issue 11, 2016 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613

Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric

Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
Anilkumar S Katageri1 Sharanabasava G2
1,2
Assistant Professor
1,2
Department of Civil Engineering
1,2
RYMEC, Ballari, India
Abstract— Many reinforced concrete structures were irregularity, plan and vertical geometric irregularities etc.
severely damaged in past earthquakes have indicated the Therefore, it is very important to design the structure to
need for retrofit. This seismic rehabilitation of older resist moderate to severe earthquakes depending on its site
concrete structures in high seismicity areas is a matter of location and importance. If the existing building is not
growing concern. Simplified linear-elastic methods are not designed to resist earthquakes, then its retrofitting becomes
adequate to assess such seismic deficient buildings. Thus important [2].
here we carried out the project using Pushover analysis a
non-linear elastic method which helps to assess the seismic
deficiency or damage vulnerability of buildings.
Earthquakes cause the loss in terms of life and property of
any region so they are the most devastating natural hazards.
size, shape and geometry of that structure i.e, vertical and
horizontal irregularities and path of load transferring to the
supporting ground will affect the behaviour of the structure.
Irregularity in building attracts forces which lead to stress
concentration at the point of irregularity and leads to
collapse or localized failure of that structure. The present
study focuses on seismic performance of irregular RC
models having irregularities i.e. vertical geometric
irregularity. ETABS a finite element software has been used
to analyse the structure. Here 3-D RC models are modeled
and analyzed for seismic zones IV and V. Roof
displacement; Performance point; Base shear carried;
Number of Hinges formed are the parameters used to Fig. 1.1: Ground storey collapse of a 4-storey building with
quantify the performance of the structure. vertical irregularity at Bhuj [12]
Key words: Vertical Geometric Irregularity, Pushover The procedures to determine lateral forces in the
Analysis, Performance Point, Hinge code, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 are based on the approximation
effects, yielding can be accounted for linear analysis of the
I. INTRODUCTION building using the design spectrum. This analysis is carried
out either by modal analysis procedure or dynamic analysis
An earthquake is a manifestation of the rapid release of procedure. A simplified method may also be adopted that
stress in the form of waves during the process of brittle
will be referred as lateral force procedure or equivalent
rupture of rock. Earthquakes are the natural disasters of a
static procedure. The main difference between the
generally unpredictable nature. A major earthquake is
equivalent static procedure and dynamic analysis procedure
usually rather short in duration, often lasting only a few
lies in the magnitude and distribution of lateral forces over
seconds. Although the magnitude of the earthquake is the height of the buildings. In the dynamic analysis
measured in terms of the energy released at the location of
procedure, the lateral forces are based on properties of the
the ground fault, its critical effect on any given structure is
natural vibration modes of the building, which are
determined by the ground movements at the location of that
determined by distribution of mass and stiffness over height.
structure. The effect of these movements is affected mostly
In the equivalent lateral force procedure, the magnitude of
by the distance of the structure from the epicenter, but they
forces is based on an estimation of the fundamental period
are also influenced by the geological conditions prevalent and on the distribution of forces as given by a simple
directly beneath the structure and also by the nature of the
formula that is appropriate only for regular buildings. The
entire earth mass between the epicenter and the structure [1].
following sections will discuss in detail the above-
The complexity of earthquake ground motion is
mentioned equivalent static and the dynamic procedure to
primarily due to the factors such as the source effect, path
determine the design lateral forces in detail [3].
effect and local site effect. Earthquake causes the ground to
In Bhuj itself, open ground storey structures
vibrate and in turn the structures supported on them are collapsed as in Fig. 1.1. That shows Vertical irregularity did
subjected to motion. Thus, the dynamic loading on the
not lead to collapse of buildings, they did contribute to
structure during an earthquake is not an external loading, but
building damage in Bhuj. In U.S itself, open ground storey
a loading arising due to the motion of support. Some of the
structures collapsed as in Fig. 1.2. Although Vertical
factors contributing to the structural damage during
irregularity did not lead to collapse of buildings, they did
earthquakes are plan and vertical irregularities, irregularity contribute to building damage.
in strength and stiffness, mass irregularity, torsional

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 83

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

Many buildings with an open ground storey combinations of gravity and lateral loads and for different
accommodated for parking were collapsed or severely zones. Here five reinforced concrete frames of five storyes
damaged in Gujarat during 2001 Bhuj earthquake because of have been considered. Model 1 is treated as a benchmark
discontinuity in load path at lower, upper stories suggested frame as there is no vertical irregularity in it. From Model 2
by clients, architectures due to site requirement and to Model 5, the degree of vertical irregularity is increased by
improper planning. removing bay at a time successively in the upper floors in
two opposite corners along each direction as shown in Fig.
3.1. The building parameters and earthquake parameters are
shown in Table 3.1 and 3.2.
The vertical configuration consists of:
 Model 1- Building in square shape regular building
 Model 2- Building having offset (setback) of 20%
on both side at top storey.
 Model 3- Building having offset (setback) of 40%
on both side at top storey.
 Model 4- Building having offset (setback) of 60%
on both side at top storey.
 Model 5- Building having offset (setback) of 80%
on both side at top storey.
Parameter Type / Value
Number of storey 5 storey
Fig. 1.2: Ground storey collapse of a 4-storey building with
open ground storey at 240 Park avenue south in New York, Dimension of building 25m × 25m
US. [14] Storey height (typical) 3.5m
The following objects are defined to analyse the Imposed load (all floors) 4kN/m2
reason for failures from the past earthquakes and how these Concrete M25,
failures could be minimized in design consideration. Materials
reinforcement Fe415
 To study the stiffness and ductility of the structure Super dead load 1kN/m2
with vertical geometric irregularity.
Specific weight of RCC 25 kN/m3
 To carry out non-linear static (pushover) analysis to
evaluate the capacity and access the performance of Size of column 0.4m × 0.4m
reinforced concrete framed structure with vertical Size of beam 0.25m × 0.4m
geometric irregularity under ground motion using Thickness of slab 0.125m
non-linear inelastic method called pushover analysis. Table 3.1: Building parameters considered for elevation
 To understand the seismic behavior of structures irregular models
having irregularities in vertical (elevation
irregularity) in different zones (i.e. IV and V).

II. METHODOLOGY
The present study is carried out to understand the non-linear
behavior of reinforced concrete structures under earthquake
loading of much higher magnitude that takes the structural
frame to a level beyond the elastic limit and upto failure. For
this purpose, incremental lateral load is applied to the RC
model and pushover analysis is carried out using a suitable
analysis and design software such as ETABS. The capacity
curve is plotted which indicates the capacity of the model.
The seismic demand curve is plotted depending on the (Model-1)
magnitude of shaking. This graph suggests the seismic
performance of a system and its adequacy against the design
earthquake. Later an attempt has been made to understand
the seismic behavior of some structures having plan re-
entrant corners irregularity using pushover analysis in
different zones (i.e. IV and V).

III. STRUCTURAL MODELING

A. Building With Vertical Geometric Irregularity
In the present study, buildings having different percentage
of vertical geometric irregularity have been considered. The
modeling is carried out in ETABS v9.6 a finite element
software. The models are analyzed for different (Model-2)

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 84

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. General
The modeling and design is carried out, default plastic hinge
properties available in ETABS 9.6 as per ATC-40 are
assigned to the frame elements, and then the models are
subjected to pushover analysis in sismic zone IV and V. The
target displacement for pushover analysis is taken as 4% of
the total height of the frame. Base shear (in terms of the
pushover curves), roof displacement (in terms of the
collapse displacement of the model), number and status of
plastic hinges formed in the models are some of the
parameters used to judge the performance of the building
models.
(Model-3)
B. Performance Study of Elevation Irregular Models
1) Pushover Curve Variation

(Model-4) Fig. 4.1: Pushover curves for models with elevation

irregularity in X-direction for zone IV

Fig. 4.2: Pushover curves for models with elevation

(Model-5) irregularity in X-direction for zone V
Fig. 3.1: Typical 3D views of elevation irregular models The pushover curves for the six models having
considered for the study (M1-M5) elevation irregularity are shown in Fig 4.1 and Fig 4.2 in X-
Parameter Type / Value direction for seismic zone IV and V respectively. The curves
show similar features as they are initially linear but start to
Type of structure Special RC moment resisting
deviate from linearity. The six curves from six models show
Seismic zone frame
IV, V a decrease in the lateral load carrying capacity and increase
Zone factor 0.24, 0.36 in the collapse displacement of the buildings well before the
Importance factor 1 target displacement i.e 1.232m is reached, indicating the
need for seismic retrofitting. From Fig. 4.1 and Fig 4.2, it is
Damping 5%
observed that the lateral load carrying capacity of the
Response reduction models reduces and collapse displacement increases as the
5
factor building becomes more and more asymmetric in elevation.
Type of soil Medium soil Initial stiffness of the buildings is more in the seismic zone
Table 3.2: Earthquake parameters considered for irregular IV than the seismic zone V. The elevation irregular models
models show higher displacements for lower base shears as
compared to model 1 in both seismic zone IV & V. This
shows that there is a lack of transferring of forces to each
vertical member due to irregular shape of opening.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 85

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

2) Table of results from pushover analysis

Performance point
Model Pushover base Elastic base Ratio Collapse Disp. D
no shear Vpo (kN) shear Ve (kN) Vpo/ Ve (m) Base shear V Roof disp. d
(kN) (m)
Model 1 3379.81 1118.77 3.02 0.1784 3021.67 0.093
Model 2 3275.19 1050.24 3.11 0.1820 2899.18 0.094
Model 3 3178.68 947.46 3.35 0.1892 2794.68 0.090
Model 4 3110.29 844.67 3.68 0.1942 2735.14 0.083
Model 5 3079.43 776.15 3.96 0.1938 2706.08 0.077
Table 4.1: Pushover analysis results for elevation irregular models in push-X direction for seismic zone IV
Pushover base shear Elastic base shear Ratio Performance point
Model no Collapse Disp. D (m) Base shear V Roof disp. d
Vpo (kN) Ve (kN) Vpo/ Ve
(kN) (m)
Model 1 3882.83 1678.15 2.31 0.1494 3881.91 0.149
Model 2 3713.18 1575.37 2.35 0.1516 3746.75 0.146
Model 3 3650.55 1421.19 2.56 0.1562 3584.13 0.139
Model 4 3575.29 1267.01 2.82 0.1605 3464.51 0.131
Model 5 3525.56 1164.22 3.02 0.1584 3388.01 0.124
Table 4.2: Pushover analysis results for elevation irregular models in push-X direction for seismic zone V
The results obtained from the pushover analysis of load carrying capacity of the building suggesting good
elevation irregular models of seismic zone IV and V are structural behavior.
represented in the Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 respectively. From Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 it is observed that, as
Model 1 is taken as the benchmark as it is regular the building becomes more and more asymmetric in
building, the pushover base shear for the models decreases elevation, there is a decrease in the lateral load carrying
and collapse displacement increases as the irregularity capacity and a large amount of reserve strength of the
increases. The percentage of decrease in pushover base structure will remain unutilized as indicated by the increase
shear as compared to model 1 in seismic zone IV are 3.09% in the ratio (Vpo /Ve) from model 1 to model 5. This
for model 2, 5.95% for model 3, 7.97% for model 4, 8.88% indicates that the models with elevation irregularity fail
for model 5. earlier than the regular models.
The percentage of decrease in pushover base shear From the Table 4.1 & Table 4.2 for the seismic
as compared to model 1 in seismic zone V are 4.36% for zone IV & V the base shear at performance point from
model 2, 5.98% for model 3, 7.92% for model 4, 9.20% for model 1 to model 5 decreases as the irregularity increases.
model 5, 20.75%. From the Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 it was The percentage of variation of the base shear at performance
also noticed that model 1 shows less collapse displacement point as compared to model 1 is 4.05% for model 2, 7.51%
as it has more base shear compare to other irregular models for model 3, 9.48% for model 4, 10.4% for model 5. The
respectively in seismic zone IV & V. percentage of variation of the base shear at performance
The elastic base shear for all the models is obtained point as compared to model 1 is 3.48% for model 2, 7.67%
from the equivalent static analysis as per IS-1893-Part I: for model 3, 10.75% for model 4, 12.72% for model 5. It
2002 and compared with the pushover analysis base shear. shows the performance point base shear decreases as the
The results are presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. For offset increases.
model 1 in seismic zone IV shows a collapse displacement For the building models considered in the study the
of 0.1784m and the pushover base shear of the structure was base shear at performance point is 2.70, 2.76, 2.94, 3.23 and
3379.81 kN which is equivalent to 3.02 times that of the 3.48 times higher in seismic zone IV for model 1 to model 5
structure under elastic seismic design. For model 1 in respectively and 2.31, 2.37, 2.52, 2.73 and 2.91 times higher
seismic zone V shows a collapse displacement of 0.1494 m in seismic zone V for model 1 to model 5 respectively than
and the pushover base shear of the structure was 3882.83 kN the design base shear. Hence the building models are
which is equivalent to 2.31 times that of the structure under capable of resisting more base shear than it is designed for.
elastic seismic design. It shows no large difference in lateral 3) Hinge Status
MODEL NO
HINGES
MODEL-1 MODEL-2 MODEL-3 MODEL-4 MODEL-5
NO % NO % NO % NO % NO %
A-B 1274 81.6 1207 81.5 1102 81.0 993 80.0 922 79.4
B-IO 100 6.41 93 6.28 82 6.02 68 5.48 57 4.91
IO-LS 60 3.84 56 3.78 50 3.67 48 3.87 45 3.87
LS-CP 90 5.76 117 7.90 116 8.52 117 9.43 117 10.0
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 2 0.13 6 0.44 1 0.08 1 0.08
D-E 6 0.38 4 0.27 2 0.14 12 0.96 15 1.29

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 86

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

>E 30 1.92 1 0.06 2 0.14 1 0.08 3 0.25

TOTAL 1560 1480 1360 1240 1160
PL B-IO IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS
Table 4.3: Number and status of hinges for elevation irregular models in X-direction for seismic zone IV
HINGES MODEL NO
MODEL-1 MODEL-2 MODEL-3 MODEL-4 MODEL-5
NO % NO % NO % NO % NO %
A-B 1350 86.5 1277 86.2 1154 84.8 1032 83.2 939 80.9
B-IO 84 5.38 76 5.13 62 4.55 61 4.91 90 0.77
IO-LS 56 3.58 53 3.58 65 4.77 49 3.95 30 2.58
LS-CP 34 2.17 57 3.85 73 5.36 92 7.41 90 7.75
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 6 0.38 2 0.13 2 0.14 2 0.16 1 0.08
D-E 28 1.79 11 0.74 3 0.22 3 0.24 9 0.77
>E 2 0.12 4 0.27 1 0.07 1 0.08 1 0.08
TOTAL 1560 1480 1360 1240 1160
PL CP-C CP-C CP-C CP-C >E
Table 4.4: Number and status of hinges for elevation irregular models in X-direction for seismic zone V
Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 shows the status of plastic
C. Pushover Results Comparison of Seismic Zones IV and
hinges in different states for the elevation irregular building
V for Elevation Irregular Models
models considered in the present study. The hinges change
their states namely- operational, immediate occupancy, life 1) Pushover Base Shear
safety, collapse prevention, collapse-Reduced hazard and Pushover base shear (kN)
non- structural damage depending on the severity of the Model no Zone IV Zone V
ground motion. Most of the designs are carried out such that Model 1 3379.81 3882.83
the plastic hinges do not exceed the elastic limit if it exceed Model 2 3275.19 3713.18
the status will be likely to worsen. Model 3 3178.68 3650.55
In the present work, it can be observed that the Model 4 3110.29 3575.29
severity of plastic hinges formed increases from model 1 to Model 5 3079.43 3525.56
model 5 as the building becomes more and more asymmetric Table 4.5: Pushover base shear for elevation irregular
in elevation. This indicates that the asymmetry in elevation models in push-X direction in seismic zone IV and V
of the building increases the severity of lateral forces on the
buildings. The total number of hinges were varies from
model to model that is mainly because of the shape of the
building the structural members i.e. beams and columns are
getting reduced. The percentage of the hinges formed from
model 1 to other irregular models at A-B and B-IO
performance levels decreases and at IO-LS and LS-CP
performance levels increases. This shows the more number
of hinges formed in elastic range in A-B and B-IO
performance levels. As same more number of hinges formed
in inelastic range in IO-LS and LS-CP performance levels.
Performance level of all the building models is Fig. 4.3: Pushover base shear variation for models with
satisfactory and show different performance levels. Model 1 elevation irregularity in push –X direction in seismic zone
i.e. regular model shows the B-IO performance level in IV and V
seismic zone IV and CP-C in seismic zone V. Model 2, The Table 4.5 and Fig. 4.3 show the pushover base
model 3 and model 4 shows the performance levels at IO-LS shear for elevation irregular models in seismic zone IV and
in seismic zone IV and C-PC in seismic zone V. Model 5 seismic zone V respectively. The pushover base shear in
shows IO-LS performance level in seismic zone IV and >E seismic zone V 1.14 times for model 1, 1.13 times for model
in seismic zone V. This show the models are more severe to 2, 1.14 times for model 3, 1.14 times for model 4, 1.15 times
the lateral forces in seismic zone V than in zone IV. It shows for model 5 are higher than the pushover base shear in
model 6 was the most vulnerable building considered in the seismic zone IV. This shows the base shear will increases
study. Some of the frame elements have crossed the LS-CP when the zone changes from zone IV to zone V.
performance level and are on the verge of failure and thus 2) Performance point base shear
under incremental lateral loading the frames will undergo Performance point base shear (kN)
sufficient structural damage and thus they need to be
Model no Zone IV Zone V
retrofitted to perform better under increased lateral loading.
Model 1 3021.67 3881.91
Model 2 2899.18 3746.75
Model 3 2794.68 3584.13

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 87

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

Model 4 2735.14 3464.51 shear. It also shows the same models in seismic zone V has
Model 5 2706.08 3388.01 less ductility compared to the seismic zone IV.
Table 4.6: Performance point base shear for elevation 4) Performance Point Displacement
irregular models in push-X direction in seismic zone IV and Performance point displacement (m)
V Model no Zone IV Zone V
The Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.4 shows the base shear at Model 1 0.093 0.149
performance point for elevation irregular models in seismic Model 2 0.094 0.146
zone IV and seismic zone V respectively. The base shear at Model 3 0.09 0.139
performance point in seismic zone V 1.28 times for model 1,
Model 4 0.083 0.131
1.29 times for model 2, 1.28 times for model 3, 1.26 times
Model 5 0.077 0.124
for model 4, 1.23 for model 5 are higher than the base shear
Table 4.8: Performance point displacements for elevation
at performance point in seismic zone IV. This shows the
irregular models in push-X direction in seismic zone IV and
base shear will increases when the zone changes from zone
V
IV to zone V.

Fig. 4.4: Performance point base shear variation for models Fig. 4.6: Performance point displacements variation for
with elevation irregularity in push –X direction in seismic models with elevation irregularity in push –X direction in
zone IV and V seismic zone IV and V
3) Collapse Displacement The Table 4.8 and Fig. 4.6 shows the displacement
Collapse displacement (m) at performance point for elevation irregular models in
Model no Zone IV Zone V seismic zone IV and seismic zone V respectively. The
Model 1 0.1784 0.1494 displacements at performance point in seismic zone V are
Model 2 0.182 0.1516 higher than the displacements at performance point in
Model 3 0.1892 0.1562 seismic zone IV. This shows the displacement at
Model 4 0.1942 0.1605 performance point will increases when the zone changes
from zone IV to zone V.
Model 5 0.1938 0.1584
Table 4.7: Collapse displacements for elevation irregular
V. CONCLUSIONS
models in push-X direction in seismic zone IV and V
The following conclusions were drawn from the present
study:
1) As the buildings become more and more asymmetric in
elevation, there is an increase in the amount of reserve
strength of the buildings. This reserve strength will
remain unutilized and is wasted. This means that the
buildings with asymmetric elevation will fail earlier
than the symmetric buildings.
2) For the building models considered in the study having
elevation irregularity, the base shear at performance
point is higher than the design base shear in seismic
zone IV and V. Hence the building models are capable
Fig. 4.5: Collapse displacements variation for models with of resisting more the base shear than it is designed.
elevation irregularity in push –X direction in seismic zone 3) All the elevation irregular models either in seismic zone
IV and V IV or seismic zone V show different performance
The Table 4.7 and Fig. 4.5 show the collapse levels. This shows that, performance levels of the
displacement for elevation irregular models in seismic zone buildings changes as the asymmetry increases in
IV and seismic zone V respectively. The displacements for elevation or as seismic zones changes from IV to V.
the models in seismic zone IV are higher than the 4) The pushover base shear and base shear at performance
displacements in seismic zone. This show the displacements point decreases as the buildings become more and more
for all the models will decreases when the zone changes asymmetric in elevation.
from zone IV to zone V, because of the increase in the base 5) The collapse displacement increases as the buildings
become more and more asymmetric in elevation. This

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 88

 Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Vertical Geometric Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 11/2016/018)

shows that irregular models in elevation have less [11] Athanassiadou C. J., (2008) “Seismic performance of
stiffness than the regular model. R/C plane frames irregular in elevation”, Science Direct
6) The pushover base shear and base shear at performance Journal. Engineering Structures 30, pages 1250- 1261.
point for the same models in seismic zone V increases [12] Saraswati Setia and Vineet Sharma, (2012) “Seismic
than in the seismic zone IV. This shows that pushover Response of RC Building with Soft storey”,
base shear and performance point base shear increases International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,
as the seismic zone changes i.e. from zone IV to zone ISSN 0973-4562, Vol. 7, No.11.
V. [13] Robin Davis, Praseetha Krishnan, Devdas Menon,
7) The collapse displacement for the same models in Meher Prasad A., (2004) “Effect of Infill stiffness on
seismic zone V is less than in the seismic zone IV. This Seismic performance of Multi-storey RC framed
shows that collapse displacement decreases as the buildings in India”, 13th World Conference on
seismic zone changes i.e. from zone IV to zone V. Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver B.C, Canada,
8) The displacement at performance point for the same Paper no. 1198.
models in seismic zone V increases than in the seismic [14] V.K.Sadashiva, G.A.MacRae & B.L.Deam (2010)
zone IV. This shows that displacement at performance “Simple Methods to Evaluate Structural Irregularity
point increases as the seismic zone changes i.e. from Effects” university of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
zone IV to zone V. Zealand.
9) It is observed that the percentage of formation of [15] Raul Gonzalez Herrera and Consuelo Gomez Soberon
severity of plastic hinges increases as the building (2008) “Influence of plan irregularity of buildings”, the
becomes more and more asymmetric in elevation. Thus, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
irregularity in elevation leads to the severity of lateral October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
forces on the building this may result in its failure. [16] C.M. Ravi Kumar, K.S. Babu Narayan, M.H. Prashanth,
H.B Manjunatha and D. Venkat Reddy (2012) “Seismic
REFERENCES Performance Evaluation Of RC Buildings With Vertical
[1] Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, (2008) Irregularity” Paper No. E012, October 20-21, 2012.
“Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Prentice [17] Ashraf Habibullah S. E. and Stephen Pyle S. E., (1998)
Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India. “Practical three dimensional nonlinear static pushover
[2] Madhusudan g. kalibhat, Arun kumar y.m, Kiran analysis”, Structural Magazine, winter edition.
kamath, prasad .s.k, Shrinath shet “Seismic [18] IS- 456: 2000, “Indian Standard Code of practice for
Performance of R.C. frames with Vertical Stiffness Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian
Irregularity from Pushover Analysis” IOSR journal of Standards, New Delhi.
mechanical and civil engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-issn: [19] T.Mahdi and V. Soltan Gharaie (2011) “Plan Irregular
2278-1684, p-issn: 2320-334x, pp 61-66. RC Frames: Comparison of Pushover With Non-linear
[3] Naresh Kumar B. G. and Avinash Gornale, (2012) Dynamic Analysis”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
“Seismic Performance Evaluation of Torsionally Vol.12, No.6, Pages 679-690.
Asymmetric Buildings”, International Journal of [20] Poonam, Anilkumar and Ashoka K. Gupta (2012)
Science and Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 6, “Study of Response of Structurally Irregular Building
ISSN 2229-5518. Frames to Seismic Excitations”, International Journal of
[4] IS- 1893- Part I: 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Civil, Structural Engineering, Vol.2, Issue 2 25-31.
Resistant Design of Structures”, Bureau of Indian [21] Dr. S.K. Dubey , P.D. Sangamnerkar “Seismic
Standards, New Delhi. Behaviour Of Assymetric Rc Buildings” International
[5] Rucha S. Banginwar, M.R. Vyawahare, P.O. Modani Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN
(2012) “Effect of Plans Configurations on the Seismic 0976-3945.
Behaviour of the Structure By Response Spectrum
Method”, International Journal of Engineering
Research, Vol.2, Issue 3, May-Jun, pp.1439-1443.
[6] Prakash Siyani, Saumil Tank, Paresh (2009)V. Patel
“Learning Of Etabs Software” Eterdcs-Nirma Uni. 25-
29 May 2009.
[7] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 273:
1997) “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
rehabilitation of Buildings”, Washington D.C.
[8] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 356:
2000) “Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings”, Washington D.C.
[9] Applied Technology Council (ATC 40) document,
(1996) “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings”, Vol. 1, Report no. SSC 96-01, California.
[10] Kadid A. and Boumrkik A., (2008) “Pushover Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures”, Asian
Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing)
Vol. 9, No. 1, Pages 75-83.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 89