Original Paper Volume 3 Issue 3 November 2015 …International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research ISSN: 2347-1697 Original Paper Volume 3 Issue 3 November 2015 Abstract In

1021

Available online through - http://ijifr.com/searchjournal.aspx Published Online On: November 30, 2015

Copyright©IJIFR 2015

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research ISSN: 2347-1697

Volume 3 Issue 3 November 2015 Original Paper

Abstract In past few years, passive control protective systems including base isolation systems are gaining large attention as mean to protect structures against seismic hazard. The base isolation system separates the structure from its foundation and primarily moves the natural frequency of the structure away from the dominant frequency range of the excitation via its low stiffness relative to that upper structure. In order to verify the e ffect of base isolation system, two different structures are presented as symmetrical and asymmetrical buildings in which the seismic responses of the 'fixed-base' and 'base-isolated' conditions have been compared using a well-known computer program ETABS2015 (version15.0.0). In this work (G+5) storey symmetrical and asymmetrical RC building is taken as to analyzed and designed. The aim of this study is to reduce the storey shear, storey drifts and storey acceleration due to earthquake ground excitation, applied to the superstructure of the building by installing base isolation devices at the foundation level and then to compare the different performances between the fixed base condition and base -isolated condition of symmetric and asymmetric building. All three basic seismic isolation system i.e. high damping rubber bearing (HDRB), lead rubber bearing (LRB) and friction pendulum system (FPS) have been used at the foundation level. Nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis has been performed on Bhuj earthquake which intensity is 7.7 on the anniversary of India’s 51st Republic Day, 2001. In the second part of this study seismic response of combined or mixed isolation system (like HDRB & LRB, HDRB & FPS, FPS & HDRB) has presented for symmetric and asymmetric building. As far as the protection level is concerned, the seismic response of the structure on the mixed isolation system has been compared with that of the structure mounted on separately base isolation system, confirming the effectiveness of the base isolation system in terms of reduced structural responses under seismic loading. Comparing the results of the base-isolated condition with those obtained from the fixed-base condition has been shown that the base isolation system reduces the Storey shear, storey drifts and storey acceleration, also increasing the storey

displacement and time period.

Non Linear Dynamic Response Of Combined Isolation

System On Symmetric And Asymmetric Buildings

Paper ID IJIFR/ V3/ E3/ 078 Page No. 1021-1035 Research Area Structural &

Earthquake

Engineering

Keywords Base Isolation, HDRB, LRB, FPS, Asymmetry, Non-Linear Time History,

ETABS2015 (V15.0.0)

1st Manoj U. Deosarkar

M.Tech. Student

Applied Mechanics Department,

Government College of Engineering, Amravati,

Maharashtra, India

2nd

S. D. Gowardhan

Assistant Professor

Applied Mechanics Department,

Government College of Engineering, Amravati,

Maharashtra, India

1022

ISSN: 2347-1697 International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research (IJIFR)

Volume - 3, Issue -3, November 2015 Continuous 27th Edition, Page No.: 1021-1035

Manoj U. Deosarkar, S. D. Gowardhan :: Non Linear Dynamic Response Of Com bined Isolation System On Sym m etric And Asym m etric Buildings

1. Introduction

The Indian subcontinent has a history of devastating earthquakes. The shaking memories of high

intensity earthquakes of Bhuj (7.7) (on the anniversary of India‟s 51st Republic Day, 2001) and

Latur (6.2)(1993) are still live in our minds. Third deadliest earthquake in the history of the world,

the Sumatra–Andaman earthquake,2004(9.3), and the tsunami generated thereafter, killed over

2,30,000 people in fourteen countries, including15,000 people in India and inundating coastal

communities with waves up to 100 ft height . Even now there is frequent occurrence of

earthquakes in the Kashmir and Himalayan region. The major reason for the high frequency and

intensity of the earthquakes is that the Indian plate is driving into Asia at a rate of approximately

47 mm/year. Geographical statistics of India show that almost 54% of the land is vulnerable to

earthquakes. A World Bank & United Nations report shows estimates that around 200 million city

dwellers in India will be exposed to storms and earthquakes by 2050.

The latest version of seismic zoning map of India given in the earthquake resistant design code of

India [IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002] divides India into 4 seismic zones (Zone 2, 3, 4 and 5), with Zone 5

expects the highest level of seismicity whereas Zone 2 is associated with the lowest level. Each

zone indicates the effects of an earthquake at a particular place based on the observations of the

affected areas and can also be described using a descriptive scale like Modified Mercalli intensity

scale or the Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK) scale. The MSK intensity broadly associated

with the various seismic zones is VI (or less), VII, VIII and IX (and above) for Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5,

respectively, corresponding to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Zone 5, which is

referred to as the Very High Damage Risk Zone in the IS code, assigns zone factor of 0.36 to it,

which is indicative of effective (zero period) peak horizontal ground accelerations of 0.36 g (36%

of gravity) that may be generated during MCE level earthquake in this zone. The state of Kashmir,

the western and central Himalayas, the North-East Indian region and the Rann of Kutch fall in this

zone.

The application of the base isolation techniques to protect structures against damage from

earthquake attacks has been considered as one of the most effective approaches and has gained

increasing acceptance during the last two decades. This is because base isolation limits the effects

of the earthquake attack, a flexible base largely decoupling the structure from the ground motion,

and the structural response accelerations are usually less than the ground acceleration [6].Many

comparative studies have revealed that the responses of the isolated structure are significantly

smaller than the fixed base structure [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Most of these studies compared the

seismic demands (e.g. storey displacement, storey drift, storey acceleration and storey shear) for

the two types of building structures, but only a limited number of studies investigated the

responses of the isolated structure using high damping rubber (HDR) isolation with detailed

procedures of the design of HDR. Skinner et al. [7] indicated that a base isolator with hysteretic

force-displacement characteristics can provide the desired properties of isolator flexibility, high

damping and force limitation under horizontal earthquake loads, together with high stiffness under

smaller horizontal loads to limit wind-induced motions.

Kelly [8] gave a brief introduction to the response mechanisms of base isolated buildings through

two degrees of freedom linear system. The effectiveness of the isolation system to mitigate the

seismic response is through its ability to shift the fundamental frequency of the system out of the

range of frequencies where the earthquake is strongest. Also, Skinner et al. [7] demonstrated that

1023




the most important feature of seismic isolation is that its increased flexibility increases the natural

period of the structure. Because the period is increased beyond that of the earthquake, resonance is

avoided and the seismic acceleration response is reduced.

2. Modelling of 3D Building And Design Data

At present the six storied symmetric and asymmetric R.C.C. building is modelled and nonlinear

dynamic analysis (i.e. Time-history analysis) is carried out and response of the buildings are

calculated.

2.1 Modelling Approach

Three dimensional nonlinear time history analysis is carried out with the ETABS 2015 v15.0.0

software program. The building has square plan dimensions of 20m x 20m area and slab is

modelled as a rigid diaphragm. Comparisons of results are given for the (G+5) storey building

which is taken as an application example for this study. The model building is analyzed in the

nonlinear time history analysis both for fixed base situation and also by earthquake protection

alternatives such as isolators. The nonlinear time history analysis is carried out by considering

Bhuj time history data. Comparison between the fixed base and the base isolated structure is

carried out and the parameters such as storey shear, modal period, storey displacement, storey drift

and storey acceleration are compared using ETABS 2015 v15.0.0.

2.2 Design Data

Buildings representing regular and irregular buildings are considered in this study. For the present

study, structures of (G+5) stories are chosen. These structures are designed according to Indian

Standards. The details of structure are considered to all regular and irregular buildings shown

below in table 2.2.1.

Table 2.2.1: Design Data & Structural elements

Sr. No. Specifications Dimensions/Data

1 Grade of concrete M25

2 Grade of steel Fe415

3 Floor to floor height 3.2m

4 Plinth height above GL 1.5m

5 Parapet height 1.2m

6 Slab thickness 150mm

7 External wall thickness 230mm

8 Internal wall thickness 115mm

9 Size of columns 300mm width x 500mm depth

10 Size of beams 300mm width x 400mm depth

11 Live load on floor 3 kN/m2

12 Live load on roof 1.5kN/m2

13 Floor finish on floor 1.5 kN/m2

14 Floor finish on roof 2 kN/m2

15 Density of concrete 25 kN/m3

16 Density of brick masonry 20 KN/m3

1024




2.3 Building Geometry

The structural analysis program, ETABS 2015 Version (15.0.0) was used to perform

analyses. Regular building and irregular building of (G+5) storey is selected for presented study.

2.3.1 Regular (Symmetric) Building

The plan of regular building and 3D elevation model is shown in figure 2.3.1.1.

Figure 2.3.1.1: Plan of building and 3D elevation model

2.3.2 Irregular (plan Asymmetric) Building

The plan of C shape plan irregularity building and 3D elevation model is shown in figure 2.3.2.1.

Figure 2.3.2.1: Plan of building and 3D elevation model

1025




2.4 Models considered for analysis

Symmetric and asymmetric (G+5) storey RC buildings was isolated at its base using three types of

isolation systems discussed above. First we used the HDRB as the only device (let‟s call it BI-

HDRB), then we used the LRB (BI-LRB) and finally the FPS (BI-FPS). The isolation devices

designed for it using the UBC-97 (UBC, 1997) requirement. As a first remark it is evident from

the geometric characteristic (size) of isolators that the BI-LRBs will cost more than the other

buildings, and this must be taken into account. A nonlinear time history analysis using

ETABS2015 (v15.0.0) (Computers and Structures, 2015) assuming the Bhuj (India) record was

carried out for all structure.

Plan of symmetric and asymmetric (G+5) storey RC buildings with separately mounted &

different combinations of isolators showing in figure 2.4.1 & figure 2.4.2 respectively are as

follows-

FIXED: Plan of building with fixed base

HDRB: Plan of building with High Damping Rubber Bearing

LRB: Plan of building with Lead Rubber Bearing

FPS: Plan of building with Friction Pendulum System Bearing

Model 1A: Plan of building with Combinations of HDRB & LRB i.e. HDRB on external column

base and LRB on internal column base

Model 1B: Plan of building with Combinations of HDRB & LRB i.e. LRB on external column

base and HDRB on internal column base

Model 2A: Plan of building with Combinations of HDRB & FPS i.e. HDRB on external column

base and FPS on internal column base

Model 2B: Plan of building with Combinations of HDRB & FPS i.e. FPS on external column base

and HDRB on internal column base

Model 3A: Plan of building with Combinations of FPS & LRB i.e. FPS on external column base

and LRB on internal column base

Model 3B: Plan of building with Combinations of FPS & LRB i.e. LRB on external column base

and FPS on internal column base

Figure 2.4.1: Symmetric building plan of different combinations of isolators considered

1026




Figure 2.4.2: Asymmetric building plan of different combinations of isolators considered

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Results of Symmetric building

Time Period

From figure 3.1.1, it is observed that the time period in all 9 models is increased more than 45%

compared to fixed base. But FPS increases the time period compared to other combinations. In

combinations, Model 2B & Model 3A more increases as compared to other combinations.

Figure 3.1.1: Time period

Storey shear

From figure 3.1.2, it is observed that storey shear in X-direction is reduced in all 9 models as

compared to fixed base, but storey shear more reduced in HDRB & in combinations model 1B as

compared to others. Same conclusion is made for storey shear in Y-direction for figure 3.1.3.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

.

TIM

E P

ER

IOD

(se

c)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1027




Figure 3.1.2: Storey Shear in X-Direction

Figure 3.1.3: Storey Shear in Y-Direction

Storey Displacement

From figure 3.1.4 & 3.1.5, it is observed that the storey displacement in X & Y-Direction is

increased for the all 9 models when compared with fixed base. But in case of FPS is more

increased with other models. In Combinations, model 2B & model 3B is more increased.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY SHEAR IN X DIRECTION (kN)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY SHEAR IN Y DIRECTION (kN)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1028




Figure 3.1.4: Storey Displacement in X-Direction

Figure 3.1.5: Storey Displacement in Y-Direction

Storey Drift

Figure 3.1.6: Storey Drift in X-Direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DISPLACEMENT IN X DIRECTION (mm)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DISPLACEMENT IN Y DIRECTION (mm)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DRIFT IN X DIRECTION (m)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1029




Figure 3.1.7: Storey Drift in Y-Direction

From figure 3.1.6 & 3.1.7, it is seen that the storey drift in X & Y-Direction is reduced in all 9

models compared with fixed base.

Storey Acceleration

From figure 3.1.8 & 3.1.9, it is shown that the story acceleration in X & Y-Direction is reduced in

all 9 models when compared with fixed base.

Figure 3.1.8: Storey Acceleration in X-Direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DRIFT IN Y DIRECTION (m)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY ACCELERATION IN X DIRECTION (mm/s2)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1030




Figure 3.1.9: Storey Acceleration in Y-Direction

3.2 Results of asymmetric (Irregular) building

Time Period

Figure 3.2.1 Time period

From figure 3.2.1, it is observed that the time period in all 9 models is increased more than 45%

compared to fixed base. But FPS increases the time period compared to other combinations. In

combinations, Model 2B & Model 3A more increases as compared to other combinations.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY ACCELERATION IN Y DIRECTION (mm/s2)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

.

TIM

E P

ERIO

D (

sec)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1031




Storey shear

Figure 3.2.2: Storey Shear in X-Direction

Figure 3.2.3: Storey Shear in Y-Direction

From figure 3.2.2, it is observed that storey shear in X-direction is reduced in all 9 models as

compared to fixed base, but storey shear more reduced in HDRB & in combinations model 1A as

compared to others. Same conclusion is made for storey shear in Y-direction for figure 3.2.3.

Storey Displacement

Figure 3.2.4: Storey Displacement in X-Direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY SHEAR IN X DIRECTION (kN)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY SHEAR IN Y DIRECTION (kN)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DISPLACEMENT IN X DIRECTION (mm)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1032




Figure 3.2.5: Storey Displacement in Y-Direction

From figure 3.2.4 & 3.2.5, it is observed that the storey displacement in X & Y-Direction is

increased for the all 9 models when compared with fixed base. But in case of FPS is more

increased in Y-direction with other models. In Combinations, model 2B & model 3B is more

increased in X-direction.

Storey Drift

From figure 3.2.6 & 3.2.7, it is seen that the storey drift in X & Y-Direction is reduced in all 9 models compared with fixed base.

Figure 3.2.6: Storey Drift in X-Direction

Figure 3.2.7: Storey Drift in Y-Direction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DISPLACEMENT IN Y DIRECTION (mm)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DRIFT IN X DIRECTION (m)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

2

4

6

8

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY DRIFT IN Y DIRECTION (m)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1033




Storey Acceleration

From figure 3.2.8 & 3.2.9, it is shown that the story acceleration in X & Y-Direction is reduced in

all 9 models when compared with fixed base.

Figure 3.2.8: Storey Acceleration in X-Direction

Figure 3.2.8: Storey Acceleration in Y-Direction

4 Conclusions

In this work, Performance of Base Isolation System on (G+5) storey RC regular building and

irregular building having plan irregularity such a „C‟ shaped buildings have been done by using

non-linear time history analysis. Three different isolation systems i.e. HDRB, LRB & FPS have

investigated when mounted separately and when mounted in combination. By analyzing the

structure using non-linear time history analysis method, it is concluded that:

i.) From analytical results, it is observed that base isolation reduces the seismic response of

symmetric and asymmetric buildings when mounted separately and when mounted in

combination in comparison to fixed base building and control the damages in building

during strong ground shaking.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY ACCELERATION IN X DIRECTION (mm/s2)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

STO

REY

LEV

EL

STOREY ACCELERATION IN Y DIRECTION (mm/s2)

FIXED

HDRB

LRB

FPS

MODEL 1A

MODEL 1B

MODEL 2A

MODEL2B

MODEL 3A

MODEL 3B

1034




ii.) From the comparison between all 9 model of base isolated and fixed base building, it has

been observed that storey shear, storey drift, storey acceleration decrease whereas

generally increases time period, lateral displacements were observed for base isolated

building.

iii.) It is concluded that the reduction of storey shear is more in HDRB and in combination

HDRB & LRB i.e. MODEL1A for symmetric and asymmetric building.

iv.) It is concluded that, the storey drift is reduced in all 9 isolation models but the reduction of

storey drift is more in HDRB as compared to LRB & FPS.

v.) It is concluded that, the storey acceleration is reduced in all base isolators but in HDRB, it

is more reduced as compared to LRB & FPS.

vi .) Increase in storey displacement is observed for bottom storey then gradually decreases for

top storey of base isolated building as compared with fixed base building.

vii.) It is observed that fixed base building have zero displacement at base of building whereas,

all base isolated building models shows increase in amount of lateral displacements at

base. Also it has been observed that as floor height increases, lateral displacements

increases drastically in fixed base building as compare to base isolated building. Due to

this reduction in lateral displacement during earthquake damages of structural as well as

non-structural is minimized.

viii.) At base more increasing storey drift is observed for all base isolated models as compared

to model of fixed base building. As storey height increases, the storey drift in all base

isolated building models drastically decreases as compared to model of fixed base

building.

ix.) It is observed that combined isolation system helps to increase time period & storey

displacement and to decrease storey shear, storey drift and storey acceleration.

x.) When isolators are arranged that inner and outer column at base in plan of building such a

combination of HDRB&LRB, HDRB&FPS and FPS&LRB, it is observed that in

combination of HDRB&FPS and FPS&LRB, when FPS is placed on outer column at base

i.e. Model 2B & Model 3A are more effective as compared to other combination models.

5. References [1] M. Leblouba, “Combined Systems For Seismic Protection Of Buildings”, International symposium on

strong vrancea earthquakes and risk mitigation, Bucharest, Romania, Oct. (4-6) 2007, pp. 1-11(2007).

[2] T.R. Wankhade and A.R. Wankhade, “Effect Of Combined Isolation System On Low-Rised RC

Structure”, International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research (IJIFR) Volume - 3, Issue -2,

October 2015, pp. 538-550(2015).

[3] F. Braga, M. Laterza and R. Gigliotti, “Seismic isolation using slide and rubber bearings: large

amplitude vibration tests on Rapolla Residence Building”, 7th International Symposium on Seismic

Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures, Assisi, Italy, pp.1-

31(2001).

[4] N. Torunbalci and G. Ozpalanlar, “Earthquake Response Analysis of Mid-Story Buildings Isolated with

Various Seismic Isolation Techniques” The 14 World conference on earthquake engineering, October

12-17, 2008, pp. 1-8(2008).

[5] N. Torunbalci and G. Ozpalanlar, “Evaluation of Seismic Response for Low-Rise Base Isolated

Building”, The 14 World conference on earthquake engineering, October 12-17, 2008, pp. 9-16(2008).

[6] S.K. Sabu, H.S. Chore, S.B. Patil, “Effectiveness of Lead Rubber Base Isolators, for seismic resistance

of Buildings, supported on different soil stratas”, International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and

Computer Systems (IJEECS) Volume -2, Issue-4, 2014,pp.53-59(2014).

[7] R.I. Skinner, W.H. Robinsonand G.H. Mc Verry, “An Introduction to Seismic Isolation”, New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; (1993).

1035




[8] N. Naeim and J.M . Kelly, “Design of Seismic Isolated Structures from Theory of Practice”, The

reference book , (1999).

[9] N. Takalkar and D.K. Paul, “Seismic Response of Friction Pendulum Isolated Medium Rise Multi-

storeyBuildings”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST) , Vol. 4 No. 06,

June 2012, pp. 1-12(2012).

[10] CSI Analysis Reference Manual for ETABS®, SAP2000®, and SAFE™.

[11] UBC97, “Uniform Building Code”, Chap. 16, Div. I 1601 1605.2.1 Volume 2.

Author Biography

Manoj U. Deosarkar, Pursuing Post Graduation In M.Tech Structural

Engineering In Applied Mechanics Department At Government College Of

Engineering, Amravati (An Autonomous Institute), Maharashtra, India-

444604. He Completed His Graduation (B.E. Civil Engineering) In Year 2012

From G.H. Raisoni College Of Engineering, Nagpur (An Autonomous

Institute), Maharashtra, India.

Documents

Original Paper Volume 3 Issue 3 November 2015 …International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research ISSN: 2347-1697 Original Paper Volume 3 Issue 3 November 2015 Abstract In