seismic response of rc building by considering soil structure interaction

7/27/2019 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC BUILDING BY CONSIDERING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

1/15


2/15

160

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijscer.com/currentissue.php

Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014 Jinu Mary Mathew et al., 2014

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC BUILDING BY

CONSIDERING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Jinu Mary Mathew1*, Cinitha A2, Umesha P K2, Nagesh R Iyer2and Eapen Sakaria3

This study is to investigate the effect of earthquake motions on the response of a three-

dimensional nine storey reinforced concrete structure with and without considering soil-structureinteraction. Numerical modelling of such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear

properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation capacities.

Nine storey RC building asymmetric in plan, height below 45 m, located in seismic zone III

designed as per IS 456:2000 and IS1893:2002 and detailed as per IS13920:1993. Properties of

nonlinear hinge properties are computed as per FEMA-356 and ATC 40 guidelines. Pushover

analysis is carried out in X- and Y- directions using user-defined nonlinear hinge properties. The

analysis has been carried out for the three different cases: (1) Fixed base without considering

soil structure interaction (SSI), (2) Flexible base by considering SSI in hard soil condition, and

(3) Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil condition. It was found that SSI can affect the

seismic performance of building in terms of seismic force demands and deformations. Fromthe capacity curve, it is observed that SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions and

negligible for stiff soil conditions.

1 Saintgits College of Engineering, Kottayam.

2 CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,Chennai-113.

3 Saintgits College of Engineering, Kottayam.

*Corresponding author:Jinu Mary [email protected]

ISSN 2319 6009 www.ijscer.com

Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2014

2014 IJSCER. All Rights Reserved

Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2014

Research Paper

Keywords:Soil structure interaction, Push-over analysis, Plastic hinge, Seismic performance

INTRODUCTION

Structural failures during Bhuj (2001) and

Sikkim (2011) earthquakes demonstrated the

importance of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)

effects and its consideration to avoid failure

and ensure safety. The possible bedrock

movements during earthquakes intensify the

dynamic effects of site and changes the

structural response. Thus, the influence of

foundation flexibility is so much important. The

soil-structure interaction is an important issue,

especially for stiff and massive structures

constructed on the relatively soft ground, which

may alter the dynamic characteristics of the

structural response significantly. Past

experiences showed that the soil under

foundation can alter dynamic behavior of

structure. The dynamic response of structures

depends upon soil nature located under

foundation, so neglecting of soil-structure


3/15

161



interaction is unsafe. During an earthquake,

the load and deformation characteristic of the

structural and geotechnical (soil) components

of the foundations of structures can effect, and

in some cases dominate, seismic response

and overall performance. Understanding this

importance structural engineers/researchers

has included the foundation strength and

stiffness in seismic analysis models. The

modelling of soil and structural parts of

foundations inherently accounts the interaction

of soil and structure.

In soil structure interaction the appropriate

modelling of the flux of energy from the soil to

the structure, and then back from the structure

to the soil is accounted and the process is

called SSI. Stewart et al.(1999) indicates that

there is a high correlation between the

lengthening ratio of the structural period due

to the flexibility of the foundation and structure

to soil stiffness ratio. As a general trend when

the structure is stiff and underlying soil is soft

the soil structure effect gets important, on the

other hand as the structural period gets longer

and stiffness of the soil under the structure gets

higher soil structure interaction losses its

importance. The response to earthquake

motion of a structure situated on a deformable

soil differs from structure supported on a rigid

foundation. The ground motion recorded at the

base of the structure differs from the recordswithout building. The dynamic characteristic

such as vibration modes and frequencies very

much correlate with the induced changes in

dynamic characteristic of soil during seismic

excitation which shows the significance of soil

structure interaction on the response of the

structure to earthquake motion that is

investigated in the present study. Boonyapinyo

et al.(2008) studied the seismic performance

evaluation of reinforced-concrete buildings by

static pushover and nonlinear dynamic

analyses. Evaluated the seismic performance

of building by nonlinear static analyses

(pushover analysis and modal pushover

analysis) and nonlinear time history analysis.

Hayashi et al. (2004) pointed out that the

damage reduction effects by soil-structure

interaction greatly depend on the ground motion

characteristics, number of stories and horizontal

capacity of earthquake resistance of buildings.

They brought out the importance of soil-structureinteraction including nonlinear phenomena such

as base mat uplift to evaluate the earthquake

damage of buildings properly. The main

objective of this paper is to better understand

the soil structure interaction analysis and

performance of a nine- storey RC building

situated in soft soil of seismic zone III. For this

purpose the three-dimensional (3D) frame

structures is analyzed by using SAP 2000 forthree conditions: (1) Fixed base without

considering SSI, (2) Flexible base by

considering SSI in hard soil condition; and (3)

Flexible base by considering SSI in soft soil

condition. Equivalent springs under raft

foundation are used to simulate SSI in this study

NINE-STOREY REINFORCED

CONCRETE FRAME

BUILDING

Building Details

A nine-storey RC building located in

Trivandrum, Kerala designed for gravity and

earthquake loads is studied. The rectangular

plan of building is 15.31 m by 7.82 m. The story

height is 2.85 m with a total height of 27.15 m.

The structural system is asymmetrical and plan


4/15

162



layout is shown in Figure 1. The frames of

building were designed as gravity frames. The

thickness of floor slab is taken as 0.15 m and

roof slab is taken as 0.10 m, 0.11 m and 0.25

m depending upon whether the slab is balcony,

roof, sunken slab, respectively.

All columns and beam dimensions are given

in Tables 1 and 2, and building is supported

on raft slab of thickness 0.40 m. It is designed

for a soil bearing capacity of 120 kN/m2. The

cylinder compressive strengths of concrete

columns and beams are 30 MPa. The

expected yield strength of steel deformed bars

is 500 MPa.

Plastic Hinge Model

Seismic response of reinforced concrete 3D

moment frame is modelled through nonlinear

element representations of column, beam andbeam column joints. Nonlinear element

formulations for reinforced concrete members

Figure 1: Plan of the Building

Table 1: Dimension of Components of the Building-Beams

Reinforcement

Beam Dimension Section Fe

Fc

Top Bottom Clear

No. (MPa)(MPa) Reinf Reinf Stirrups Cover

(mm)

B1 200 x 500 G1 500 30 2Y20 2Y16, 2Y25 Y8-100 30

B2 200 x 600 G2 500 30 2Y20, 3Y25 3Y25 Y8-100 30

B12 200 x 500 G10 500 30 5Y25 2Y25, 2Y20 Y8-100 30

B16 200 x 400 G14 500 30 2Y16 2Y16 Y8-100 30

B22 200 x 500 G19 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 3Y25 Y8-100 30

B23 200 x 500 G20 500 30 2Y16, 1Y12 3Y16 Y8-100 30

B30 200 x 600 G26 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20, 1Y25 Y8-100 30

B31 200 x 500 G27 500 30 2Y20, 2Y25 2Y20 Y8-100 30

B31a 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30

B32 200 x 400 G29 500 30 2Y16 4Y16 Y8-150 30

B33 200 x 500 G30 500 30 3Y16 2Y16, 1Y12 Y8-150 30

B34 200 x 600 G28 500 30 2Y20, 1Y25 3Y16 Y8-100 30

B48 200 x 600 G39 500 30 2Y25, 1Y20 2Y25 Y8-100 30


5/15

163



Table 2: Dimension of Components of the Building-Columns

Column Dimension Section No. Fe (MPa) Fc (MPa) Long.Reinf Stirrups Clear Cover (mm)

Ground Floor

C1 300 x 800 C1 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40

C4 300 x 1000 C4 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40

C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40

C9 300 x 1200 C9 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40

C10 250 x 1000 C10 500 30 24Y25 Y8-250 40

C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40

C12 300 x 1200 C12 500 30 18Y25 Y8-150 40

C13 250 x 800 C13 500 30 14Y25 Y8-150 40

C16 300 x 1400 C16 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40

Typical Floor

C1 200 x 800 C17 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40

C4 200 x 1000 C20 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40

C6 300 x 900 C6 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40

C9 200 x 1200 C24 500 30 20Y25 Y8-150 40

C10 250 x 1000 C25 500 30 22Y25 Y8-250 40

C11 300 x 900 C11 500 30 24Y25 Y8-150 40

C12 200 x 1200 C26 500 30 16Y25 Y8-150 40

C13 250 x 800 C27 500 30 12Y25 Y8-150 40

C16 200 x 1400 C30 500 30 22Y25 Y8-150 40

range from 3D continuum finite element models

to lumped plasticity concentrated hinge

models. Lumped plasticity models consist of

elastic elements with concentrated plastic

hinges at each end. Concentrated plastic

hinges are represented by rotational springs

with back bone and cyclic deterioration

properties that have been calibrated to results

from experimental studies [FEMA 356]. Plastic

hinge form at the maximum moments regions

of RC members. The accurate assessment of

plastic hinge length is important in relating the

structural level response to member level

response. The length of plastic hinge depends

on many factors: (1) level of axial load (2)

moment gradient, (3) level of shear stress in


6/15

164



plastic region, (4) mechanical properties of

longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, (5)

concrete strength, (6) level of confinement andits effectiveness in potential hinge region. For

the present study length of plastic hinge is

taken as 0.5 H, where H is the depth of cross

section.

Stress Strain Relation for ConfinedConcrete

In order to define moment-curvature relation

to simulate the onset of damage, the stress-

strain model of confined concrete and typical

steel stress-strain model with strain hardening

is essential. In this study modified manders

confined concrete model as per CEN

Eurocode 8 is used. A comparison of confined

and unconfined stress-strain relation observed

is shown in Figure 2.

which include distribution of steel including

spacing of longitudinal and lateral steel,

amount of lateral steel, type of anchorage andgrade of concrete. Under estimation of ultimate

curvature may result brittle shear failure even

the members are well detailed for ductile

flexural behavior. In this study, nonlinear static

analyses are carried out using user-defined

plastic hinge properties. Definition of user-

defined hinge properties requires moment-

curvature characteristics of each element. The

obtained moment-curvature behavior of beams

and columns are shown in Figures 3-5.

Figure 2: Comparison of Stress VsStrain Relation Of Confined And

Unconfined Concrete

Moment Curvature Relationship

The moment curvature relations are essential

to model nonlinear behavior of structure and

members. The ultimate deformation capacity

of a member depends on the ultimate

curvature and the plastic hinge length (Inel et

al., 2006). The conservative estimation of

ultimate curvature depends on several factors

Figure 3: Moment Vs Curvaturefor Beams

Figure 4: Moment vs Curvaturefor Ground floor Columns


7/15

165



The moment-curvature analyzes are carried

out considering section properties and a

constant axial load on the structural element.

In development of user-defined hinges for

columns, the maximum load due to several

possible combinations considered need to be

given as input in SAP2000. Following, thecalculation of the ultimate curvature capacity

of an element, acceptance criteria are defined

and labelled as IO, LS and CP. The typical

user-defined (moment-curvature) hinge

properties for beams and columns (M2-M3

and PMM hinges in SAP 2000) used for the

analysis are shown in Figures 6 and 7,

respectively. The values of these performance

levels can be obtained from the test results in

the absence of the test data, and the values

recommended by ATC-40. The acceptance

criteria for performance within the damage

control performance range are obtained by

interpolating the acceptance criteria provided

for the IO and the LS structural performance

levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance

within the limited safety structural performance

range are obtained by interpolating the

acceptance criteria provided for the life safety

and the collapse prevention structural

performance levels. A target performance is

defined by a typical value of roof drift, as well

as limiting values of deformation of the

structural elements. To determine whether a

building meets performance objectives,

response quantities from the pushover analysis

should be considered with each of the

performance levels.

Soil Structure Interaction

According to the seismic improvement of

current structure provision, the members of

structure and foundation must be modelled

Figure 5: Moment vs Curvaturefor Typical Floor Columns

Figure 6: Typical user-definedMoment-rotation Hinge Properties

(M2-M3)-Beams

Figure 7: Moment vs. RotationCurves (P-M-M) - Columns


8/15

166



together in unified model to consider soil-

structure interaction. In this study two

orthogonal springs, a vertical spring and three

rotational springs were used in main direction

of structures to simulate soil structure

interaction. The stiffness of springs are

estimated using Richart and Lysmer model

and incorporated in the analysis.

Foundation Model

Behavior of foundation components and

effects of soil-structure interaction were

investigated. Soil-structure interaction can leadto modification of building response. Soil

flexibility results in period elongation and

damping increase. The main relevant impacts

are to modify the overall lateral displacement

and to provide additional flexibility at the base

level that may relieve inelastic deformation

demands in the superstructure. In this study,

the stiffness of springs are estimated using

Richart and Lysmer model which can be

represented by a series of 3 translational and

3 rotational springs. The soil is treated as an

isotropic, homogenous and elastic half space

medium. For linear analysis, the unit weight of

soil (), shear wave velocity (Vs) and Poisson

ratio () are the inputs. Two scenarios were

assumed for the soil deposit used in the

present study, namely: Type I corresponding to

Rock or hard soil; Type III corresponding to

soft soil in accordance with the site

classification of the IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. Table

3 lists the properties assigned for these two soil

classes in the current study from the ranges

specified by ATC 40. The study primarily

attempts to see the effect of soil-structure

interaction on buildings resting on different

types of non-cohesive soil, viz., soft and rock.

Richart et al. (1970) idealized the

foundation as a lumped mass supported on

soil which is idealized as frequency

independent springs which he described in

terms of soil parameter dynamic shear

modulus of shear wave velocity of the soil.

Table 3 along with Table 4 shows the different

values of spring as per Richart and Lysmer. In

which, G = dynamic shear modulus of soil and

is given by; G = Vs2; = Poissons ratio of

the soil; = mass density of the soil; K =

equivalent spring stiffness of the soil; r =

equivalent radius of a circular foundation; L =

length of the foundation; and B = width of the

foundation.

To examine the dynamic behavior while

considering the effect of soil-structure

interaction, building frames of nine storey was

Table 3: Soil Parameters Assigned For Type I and Type III

Description Type I Type III

Unit Weight 2563.00 kg/m3 1522.00 kg/m3

Mass density of soil = /g 261.26 N/m3 155.15 N/m3

Shear wave velocity Vs 1220.00 m/s 150.00 m/s

Shear Modulus G =Vs2 388859.00 kN/m2 3491.00 kN/m2

Poissons Ratio 0.25 0.50


9/15

167



idealized as 3D space frames using standardbeam element at each node. Slabs at different

storey level were modelled with shell elements

with consideration of adequate thickness. The

storey height of the building frames is

considered as 2.85 m. The gravity loads

assigned to the building was seismic weight

of structural components, including the beams

and columns and the reinforced concrete

slabs. The weight of the non-structuralcomponents (e.g., Brick partitions, Plastering,

floor finishing, etc.) in addition to the live load

are also considered. Since the slabs were not

modelled explicitly, their weight and the live

load they carry were included in the structural

model by distributing its reaction on the

supporting beams.

PUSH OVER ANALYSIS

Amongst the natural hazards, earthquakes

have the potential for causing the greatest

damages. Since earthquake forces are

random in nature and unpredictable, the

engineering tools need to be improved for

analyzing structures under the action of these

forces. Earthquake loads are to be carefully

modelled so as to assess the real behavior of

structure with a clear understanding that

damage is expected but it should be regulated.

In this context pushover analysis which is an

iterative procedure is looked upon as an

alternative for the conventional analysis

procedures. Pushover analysis of multi-story

RCC framed buildings subjected to increasing

lateral forces is carried out until the pre-set

performance level (target displacement) is

Table 4: Values of Soil Springs as Per Richart and Lysmer (1970) Model

Direction Spring Value Equivalent Radius Remarks

Vertical 4

1

zz

GrK

z

LBr

This is in vertical Z direction

Horizontal

32 1

7 8

x

x

GrK

x

LBr

This induce sliding in horizontal X or Y Direction

Rocking

38

3 1

x

x

GrK

4 3

3x

LB

r

This produces rocking about Y axis

Rocking

38

3 1

y

y

GrK

4 3

3y

LBr

This produces rocking about X axis

Twisting

316

3z

GrK

4 3 3

6z

LB BLr

This produces twisting about vertical Z axis


10/15

168



reached. The promise of Performance-Based

Seismic Engineering (PBSE) is to produce

structures with predictable seismic

performance.

The recent advent of performance based

design has brought the non linear static push

over analysis procedure to the forefront.

Pushover analysis is a static non linear

procedure in which the magnitude of the

structural loading along the lateral direction of

the structure is incrementally increased in

accordance with a certain pre-defined pattern.

It is generally assumed that the behavior of the

structure is controlled by its fundamental mode

and the predefined pattern is expressed either

in terms of story shear or in terms of

fundamental mode shape. Push over

procedure is gaining popularity during the last

few years as appropriate analytical tools are

now available (SAP-2000, ETABS).

In this study SAP 2000 version 14 is used.Building is modelled using the materials M30

concrete and Fe500 Steel and assigned all

the beams and columns including with their

reinforcement, all loads (dead load, live load,

and earthquake load) and user defined hinges.

Eight sets of analysis were carried out, for a

combination with and without considering SSI

for hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction.

Four different models were created for two

different soil conditions. Figure 8 shows the

building with fixed base model and Figure 9

shows building by considering SSI effect. The

SSI effect are modelled for 1) fixed base and

flexible base for soft soil in X- direction, 2) fixed

base and flexible base for soft soil in Y -

direction, 3) fixed base and flexible base for

hard soil in X- direction, 4) fixed base and

flexible base for hard soil in Y- direction.

Figure 8: Building with Fixed Base

Figure 9: Building with Flexible Base


11/15

169



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the present study, user defined stress- strain

curve based on CEN Eurocode-8 is adoptedand incorporated in SAP2000. The

percentage variation of stress and strain for

confined concrete is found to be 10-20% and

237-266%, respectively compared to

unconfined concrete.

From the study of moment-curvature

relationship, it is clear that as the area of

reinforcement increases the moment also

increases considerably. If the area ofreinforcement is same, but the area of the

section differs, the moment is high for the

section having greater area. So it is clear that

the moment curvature depends mainly on

percentage of reinforcement and the gross

area of the section. Eight sets of pushover

analysis were carried out, for a combination

of with and without considering SSI effect for

hard and soft soil in both X- and Y- direction. In

general the two cases are studied, case 1-

capacity curve without considering SSI and

case 2 capacity curve with considering SSI.

The observed pushover curves for the nine-

storey RC building with above base condition

were shown in Figures 10-13.

Figure 10: Displacement Vs Base Forcefor Hard Soil in X Direction

Figure 11: Displacement Vs BaseForce for Hard Soil in Y Direction

Figure 12: Displacement Vs BaseForce for Soft Soil in X Direction

Figure 13: Displacement Vs Base Forcefor Soft Soil in Y Direction

CONCLUSION

Based on analytical studies on nine-storey RC

building frame, the following conclusions are

arrived

The stress-strain relationship is observed

for the material used in the structural


12/15

170



components and a significant variation in

strength and failure, strain is observed for

confined and unconfined concrete.

It is found that the moment-curvature

characteristics of beam and column

elements varies according to the type of

reinforcement and spacing of bars.

The non-linear static analysis was

conducted using the SAP 2000. The results

indicate that the SSI can considerably affect

the seismic response of building founded

on soft soil conditions.

In general, the results showed that SSI

effects are important for buildings founded

on soft ground conditions. However, for firm

ground conditions, its effects can be

neglected.

The deformations of the structural

components of the buildings have also

been affected by the SSI. The deformations

of buildings with flexible bases have shown

a considerable increase that ranged from

10% to about 230% compared to the fixed

base case for buildings found between soil

type I and Soil Type III. This would in turn

increase the lateral deflection of the whole

building. Thus, SSI can have a detrimental

effect on the performance of buildings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors thanks the Director, CSIR-

Structural Engineering Research Centre,

Chennai, India for the help provided during the

preparation of paper.

REFERENCES

1. Design Aids for, Reinforced Concrete to

IS 456 1978, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi, India, SP 16:

1980.

2. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40,(1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit

of Concrete Buildings, Vol. 1 and 2,

California.

3. Chinmayi H K and Jayalekshmi B R

(2013), Soil-structure interaction analysis

of RC frame shear wall buildings over raft

foundations under seismic loading,

International journal of scientific and

Engineering Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.99-102.

4. Cinitha A (2013), Evaluation of seismic

Performance and review on retrofitting

strategies of existing RC Buildings,

International conference on civil

engineering and infrastructural issues in

emerging economics, Proceedings,

February, pp. 609-621.

5. Deepa B S (2012), Seismic Soil

Structure Interaction Studies On

Multistorey Frames, International

Journal Of Applied Engineering

Research And Development (Ijaerd),

Issn 22501584, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 45-

58.

6. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete

structures subjected to seismic forces -

code of practice, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi, India,IS

13920:1993, 1993.

7. Eurocode 8(2001) Design of Structures

for Earthquake Resistance, Part-1.

European Standard PREN 1998-1. Draft

no. 4. Brussels: European Committee for

Standardization.


13/15

171



8. FEMA 356 (2000), Pre-standard and

Commentary for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC.

9. Ganainy H E and Naggar M H E I (2009),

Seismic Performance of three-

dimensional frame structures with

underground stories, Soil Dynamics and

Earthquake Engineering, Vol 29, pp.

1249-1261.

10. Indian standard code of practice for plainand reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi, India, IS

456:2000,2000.

11. Inel M Ozmen and Hayri Baytan (2006),

Effects of plastic hinge properties in

nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete

buildings,Eng Struct., Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.

1494-1502.

12. IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard

Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design

of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi 110002.

13. Jayalekshmi B R (2013), Effect of soil-

flexibility on lateral natural period in RC

framed buildings with shear wall,

International Journal of Innovative

Research in Science, Engineering and

Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 6, pp. 2067-

2076.

14. Jenifer Priyanka R M (2012), Studies on

Soil Structure Interaction of Multi Storeyed

Buildings with Rigid and Flexible

Foundation, International Journal of

Emerging Technology and Advanced

Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 12, pp. 111-

118.

15. Julio A Garca (2008), Soil StructureInteraction In The Analysis And Seismic

Design of Reinforced Concrete Frame

Buildings, The 14thWorld Conference on

Earthquake Engineering October 12-17,

2008, Beijing, China.

16. Magade S B (2009), Effect of Soil Structure

Interaction On The Dynamic Behaviour of

Buildings, IOSR Journal of Mechanical

and Civil Engineering(IOSR-JMCE) ISSN:2278-1684, pp. 09-14.

17. Muberra Eser Aydemir (2010), Soil

Structure Interaction Effects On

Multistorey R/C Structures,International

Journal Of Electronics; Mechanical And

Mechatronics Engineering,Vol. 2, No.

3, pp. 298-303.

18. Nagaraj H B and Murthy C C R (2013),

Review of Geotechnical Provisions in

Indian Seismic Code IS1893 (Part

1):2002; Document No:IITK-GSDMA-

EQ13-V1.0; Final Report: A Earthquake

codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building

Codes.

19. Pandey A D (2011), Seismic Soil-

Structure Interaction Of Buildings On Hill

Slopes, International Journal Of Civil

And Structural Engineering,Vol. 2, No.

2, pp. 544-555.

20. Pfrang E O, Siess C P and Sozen M A

(1964), Load moment curvature

charateristics of Reinforced concrete

cross sections,Journal of the American

concrete structuers, July, pp. 764-778.


14/15

172



21. Poonam (2012), Study Of Response Of

Structurally Irregular Building Frames To

Seismic Excitations, International

Journal Of Civil, Structural

Environmental And Infrastructure

Engineering Research And

Development (IJCSEIERD), ISSN 2249-

6866, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 25-31.

22. Rama Raju K, Cinitha A and Nagesh R

Iyer (2012), Seismic Performance

evaluation of existing RC Buildings

designed as per past codes of practice,Sadhana,Vol. 37, Part 2, pp. 281-297.

23. Shah H J and Sudhir K Jain (2010),

Design Example of a Six Storey

Building; Document No:IITK-GSDMA-

EQ26-V3.0; Final Report: A Earthquake

codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building

Codes.

24. Stewart J P, Fenves G L and Seed R B

(1999), Seismic soilstructure

interaction in buildings I: analytical

method, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geo-environmental Engineering,

American Society of Civil Engineers,

Vol. 125, pp. 26-37.

25. Stewart J P, Seed R B and Fenves G L

(1999), Seismic soilstructure

interaction in buildings II: empirical

findings, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering,

American Society of Civil Engineers,

Vol. 125, pp. 38-48.

26. Tavakoli H R, Naeej M and Salari A

(2011), Response of RC structures

subjected to near-fault and far-fault

earthquake motions considering soil-

structure interaction, International

Journal of Civil and Structural

Engineering,Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 881-896.

27. Virote Boonyapinyo, Norathape

Choopool and Pennung Warnitchai

(2008), Seismic Performance

Evaluation of Reinforced-Concrete

Buildings by Static Pushover and

Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses, The 14th

World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, October 12-17, 2008,Beijing, China.

28. Yasuhiro Hayashi and Ikuo Takahashi

(2004), Soil Structure Interaction Effects

on Building Response in Recent

Earthquake, Proceedings Third UJNR

workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction,

March.


15/15

seismic response of rc building by considering soil structure interaction

Documents