Comparative Study of Various Seismic Analysis Methods for RC Structure

Authors: Wahane Rasika Murlidhar, Phuke Rahul M.

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2025.67715

Abstract

A large number of RC frame buildings have been built in India in recent years. Huge number of similarlydesigned andconstructed buildings exist in the various towns and cities situated in moderate to severe seismiczones of the country. Analysis and design of such buildings for static forces is a routine affair these daysbecause of availability of affordable computers and specialized programs which can be used for the analysis. Onthe other hand, dynamic analysis is a time-consuming process and requiresadditional input related to mass ofthe structure, and an understanding of structural dynamics for interpretation of analytical results. ReinforcedConcrete (RC) frame buildings are most common type of constructions in urban India, which are subjected toseveral types of forces during their lifetime, such as static forces due to dead and live loads and dynamic forcesdue to earthquake. To ensure safety against seismic forces of multi-storied building hence, there is need to studyof seismic analysis to design earthquake resistance structures. In the present study a multi-storied framedstructure is selected, And Linear seismic analysis is done for the building by static method (Equivalent StaticMethod) and dynamic method (Response Spectrum Method & Time history Method) using ETABS as perthe IS-1893-2002-Part-1. As a result, the response of structure has been obtained for considered buildingmodels, based on each method of analysis, and then the results are compared with each other.

Introduction

Earthquakes caused by tectonic movements can severely damage structures, especially tall buildings that are more prone to resonance effects. To ensure safety, three seismic analysis methods—Equivalent Static, Response Spectrum, and Time History—are used along with soil-structure interaction studies. A case study of a 10-story concrete building using ETABS software showed that Equivalent Static Analysis predicts higher displacements and base shear compared to other methods. These insights help improve earthquake-resistant building designs.

Conclusion

In this study, the seismic vulnerability of building is shown through an example building. The main object of this investigation is to study the effect of horizontal loading on reinforced concrete frame for three different analysis models i.e.(I) Model 1- StructureAnalyzed by Equivalent Static Analysis, (II) Model 2- Structure Analyzed by Response Spectrum Analysis and (III) Model 3- Structure Analyzed by Time History Analysis. In this section only the conclusion obtain from the analysis result and their discussions are presented. This study leads to following conclusion. 1) As a result of comparison between three mentioned analysis it is observed that the displacement obtained by static analysis are higher than dynamic analysis including response spectrum and time history analysis 2) The spectral acceleration verces period is used to define the acceleration values in the both directions, i.e. THX and THY, to account for the directional uncertainty of the earthquake motions and the low probability of simultaneous occurrence of the maximum response for each direction, the time-history method allows a much more complete analysis because it provides the time evolution of any kind of result. For important structures time history analysis should be perform as it predicts the structural response more accurately in comparison with other two methods. 3) From results and discussion chapter, Linear static analysis of structures can be used for regular structures of limited height as in this process lateral forces are calculated as per code based fundamental time period of the structure. Linear dynamic analysis are an improvement over linear static analysis, as this analysis produces the effect of the higher modes of vibration and the actual distribution of forces in the elastic range in a better way. 4) Static analysis is not sufficient for high rise building and its necessary to provide dynamic analysis. The results of equivalent static analysis are approximately uneconomical because values of displacement are higher than dynamic analysis. 5) A quantitative comparison of the base shear for three models is presented. Their seismic performance during the seismic time period interval has been vary. Although the three analysis have different attributes, they all have acceptable performance and are expected to behave desirably in seismic events. 6) Suitable methods of analysis are provided in codes of practice; in general, the more complex and taller the building, the more stringent the analysis that is required. The linear time history method has huge potential to improve seismic performance in that dynamic amplification effects due to yielding are explicitly included in the evaluation.

References

[1] IS: 1893-2002 part-1 Code of Practice Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Part 1 : General Provision and Buildings) [2] IS: 4326-1993 Code of Practice Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings [3] IS: 13920-1993 Code of Practice Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic Forces [4] [1] MrunmayiGursale and P.S.Patil, Comparative parametric study of linear and nonlinear behavior of multistory structures, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr-2015 [5] Pankagagrawal, Manish shrikhande, Earthquake resistant design of structure. [6] S.K. duggal, Earthquake resistant design of structure. [7] Chopara A. K, Dynamic of structure [8] IS 1893(part 1) (2002), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Criteria for Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [9] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Criteria for Plain and Reinforcement concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi [10] EERI, 1999, Earthquake Engineering, Lessons Learnt Over Time – Learning from Earthquakes Series: Volume II Innovative Recovery in India, [11] IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tip, New Delhi, Research Institute, Oakland (CA), USA.Murty, C.V.R., 2004. [12] FEMA – 547. (2006). Federal emergency management Agency, ”Techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.” [13] Washington, D.C. FIB (2003).” Seismic Assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings: state of the art report – International (4), 552- 568. [14] IS 456 – 2016, Bureau of Indian standards, New-Delhi (2016), Code of practice for “Plain and Reinforced Concrete”. [15] IS 10262 – 2019, Bureau of Indian standards, New-Delhi (2019), Indian standard recommended guidelines for concrete mix design, [16] ACI 440. 1R(2007). American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440 Farmington Hills, MI, Report on “Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement”, [17] ACI 440. 2R (2008). American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440.Farmington Hills, MI. Guide for the “Design and Construction of externally bonded FRP Systems”, [18] ACI 544. 1R (2002), American Concrete Institute 544. Farmington Hills, MI, State of the Art report on “Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, [19] ACI 544. 5R (2010), American Concrete Institute 544, Farmington Hills, MI. Topic on the “Physical Properties and Durability of Fibre-Reinforced concrete”, [20] Alcocer, S.M. (1993), Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 5, app. 1413 – 1431, RC Frames Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing,” [21] Alcocer, S.M. and Jirsa, J.O (1993). ACI Structural journal, Vol. 90, No.3, Topic on “Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing”, [22] Austin, S; Robin, P. and Pan, Y. (1999). Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 1067- 1076. “Shear Bond Testing of Concrete Repairs”, [23] Bett, B.J; Klingner, R.E and Jirsa, J.O. (1988).”Lateral Load Response of strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Column”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85. 5, pp. 499-508 [24] Beushausen, H and Alexander, M.G. (2008). “Bond Strength Development Concretes of Different ages”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 60, No.1, pp. 65. [25] Seible, F; Priestly, M.J.N; Hegemier, G.A; and Innamorato, D (1997) ASCE –Journal of Composites for Construction, 1 (2), 52-62. “Seismic Retrofit of RCColumns with Continuous Carbon Fiber Jackets”, [26] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR and Jin L; (1997) ACI Structural Journal 94, Studyon “Repairs of Earthquake – Damaged RC Columns with FRP Wraps”, [27] Saadatmanesh, H; and Ehsani, M.R. (1990) Journal of Structural Engineering,ASCE, 117, PP. 3417 – 3433. “Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with GFRPplates I”, [28] Saadatmanesh, H; Ehsani, M.R; and Jin, L. (1996) “Seismic Strengthening ofcircular bridge pier models with fiber composite”, ACI Structural Journals, 93 (6), pp.639-647. [29] Saxena, P; Toutanji, H; and Noumowe, A. (2008) “Failures Analysis of FRP –strengthened RC Beams”, Journal of composites for construction, 12 (1), pp. 2-10

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Wahane Rasika Murlidhar, Phuke Rahul M.. 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.

Download Paper

Paper Id : IJRASET67715

Publish Date : 2025-03-21

ISSN : 2321-9653

Publisher Name : IJRASET

DOI Link : Click Here