Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Evaluate the Magnification Factors for Building with Respect to Zone and Height of the OGS Building

Vinay Kumar Singh Chandrakar


Infill dividers can be showed up in business programming using two-dimensional zone part with fitting material properties for direct flexible examination. In any case, this kind of showing may not work for non-direct examination since the non-straight material properties for a two-dimensional orthotropic area isn't amazingly knew. Seismic evaluation of a current reinforced bond (RC) encompassed structure would reliably require a non-straight examination. Spread piece around there supports a straight slanting swagger way to deal with oversee manage model infill divider for both direct (Equivalent Static Analysis and Response Spectrum Analysis) and nonlinear examinations (Pushover Analysis and Time History Analysis). A current RC confined structure (G+3) with open ground story composed in Seismic Zone-V is considered for this examination. This structure is dismembered for two exceptional cases: (a) considering both infill mass and infill quality and (b) considering infill mass yet without considering infill consistent quality. Two separate models were made using business programming STAAD PRO. Infill burdens were appeared through applying static dead weight and separating masses considered from this dead weight for fragment examinations. Infill quality was exhibited using to the opposite side swagger procedure. Two irrefutable sponsorship conditions, expressly changed end fortify condition and stuck end reinforce condition, are considered to check the effect of assistance conditions in the duplication factors. Straight and non-direct examinations were rehearsed for the models and the results were considered. The examination results exhibit that a section of 2.5 is too high to even consider evening consider night consider being in any capacity reached out to the bar and part powers of the ground story of low-climb open ground story structures. This examination expect that the issue of open ground story structures can't be seen fittingly through flexible examination as the quality of open ground story building and a proportionate revealed edge building are fundamentally same. Nonlinear examination reveals that open ground story making misses the mark through a ground story part at an essentially low base shear and evacuation and the procedure for disappointment as far as anyone knows is touchy. Speedy and nonlinear examinations exhibit that sponsorship condition impacts the response broadly and can be a basic parameter to pick the power augmentation part.

Full Text:



Albanesi T, Biondi S, Petrangeli M (2002), “Pushover analysis: An energy based approach, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering”, Paper 605. Elsevier Science Ltd.,

Antoniou S, Pinho R, (2004), “Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp. 497−522.

Antoniou S, Pinho R, (2004), “Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 643−661.

ASCE, (2000), “Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356 Report’, American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

ATC (1996), “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings”, Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 Report, Volume 1and 2, Redwood City, California.

ATC (2005), “Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures”, FEMA 440 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

Aydinoglu MN (2003), “An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral deformation for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Issue 1, pp. 3−36.

Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1999), “The effective duration of earthquake strong motion”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 127−172.

Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004), “The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 43−91.

Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM (1997), “Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 123, Issue 1, pp. 3−10.

Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2003), “Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames”, Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999), “Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum”, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp. 637−656.

Chopra AK, Goel RK (January 2001), “A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings: Theory and preliminary evaluation”, PEER Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002), “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 31, pp. 561−582.

Chopra AK, Goel RK (17-21 April 2006), “Evaluation of the Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Unsymmetric-Plan Buildings”, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California.

Der Kiureghian A (1981), “A response spectrum method for random vibration

analysis of MDOF systems”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 9, pp. 419−435.

Elnashai AS (2001), “Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp. 51−69.

Fajfar P (1999), “Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Issue 28, pp. 979−993.


  • There are currently no refbacks.