V3i5 1163 PDF

Gaikwad Chandrakant Nilesh, Galatage A. Abhijeet, Kulkarni K.
Sumant, International Journal of Advance Research,

Ideas and Innovations in Technology.
ISSN: 2454-132X
Impact factor: 4.295
(Volume3, Issue5)
Available online at www.ijariit.com
Scaling Of Ground Motions for Performing Incremental

Dynamic Analysis of RC Framed Structures
Nilesh Chandrakant Gaikwad Abhijeet A. Galatage Dr. Sumant K. Kulkarni
Flora Institute of Technology, Pune Flora Institute of Technology, Pune Flora Institute of Technology, Pune
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract: In the modern world of structural engineering design of structures subjected to earthquake promotes a need of
developing simple and practical methods for estimating seismic demands of structures. These methods are based on their
behavior which is to be predicted prior to design. Researchers are implementing various static as well as dynamic, linear as
well as nonlinear to predict the performance of the structure. This study aims towards performing incremental dynamic
analysis of structures using SAP 2000 subjected to several scaled ground motions scaled using SEISMOMATCH 2016. This
procedure is followed by the pushover curves plotted for each structural model. The 5, 12 and 18-storey moment resisting RC
frames are used for study which is located in the highly active seismic region of north India. Due to improper knowledge of
seismic hazards buildings designed using modern principles observe earlier failure. This leads to loss of property as well as
lives.
Keywords: Seismic Hazard, IDA, Scaling, Pushover Curves, SAP 2000.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) approach has been successfully developed to do the same. It
promotes the idea of designing structures with higher levels of performance standards across multiple limit states. Apart from PBEE,
a new analysis approach, called Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), has been developed to evaluate the performance of structures.
It involves subjecting a structural model to one (or more) ground motion records, each scaled to multiple levels of intensity, thus
producing IDA curves of response versus intensity level. Many studies have been conducted in this domain to improve the accuracy
of prediction of response of the structure. However, the ground motions used in IDA play important role in increasing the efficiency
of the method. These ground motions are scaled using various scaling methods such as frequency matching, spectral matching etc.
to obtain suitable scale factors.
The selection and scaling of earthquake ground motions is an important step in defining the seismic loads that will be applied to a
structure during structural analysis and serves as the interface between seismology and engineering.
Lampery and Abrahmson [3] investigated limits on scaling of ground motions by comparing traditional magnitude-distance based
ground motion selection with the post scaling selection of ground motion. The study considered reference event of the magnitude
of MW =7 and compared it with 10 time series of similar magnitudes which were applied with scale factors ranging from 3.5- 12.6
and parameter considered was Newmark’s displacement. The study observed that for post scaling time series selection having
magnitude Mw ranging from 6.19 to 6.93 accuracy of response prediction with nearby values of Newmark’s displacements as design
event was increased.
Reyes and Kalkan [4] investigated the ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure to determine the number of records such that
scaled records provide accurate, efficient and consistent estimates of true median structural responses. Records were selected based
on magnitude, distance, soil type and period. The authors examined cases like fewer than seven and more than seven ground motions.
It was concluded that the above procedure was neither efficient nor consistent for less than seven records. It was also found that
increasing the number of records from 7 to 10 had a minor effect on the accuracy of procedure and use of 7 records was found
efficient.
© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 56

Gaikwad Chandrakant Nilesh, Galatage A. Abhijeet, Kulkarni K. Sumant, International Journal of Advance Research,
Tayyebi S. [9] performed and compared different types of nonlinear analysis methods for evaluating the seismic performances of
structures. The study considered three models representing low-rise, medium-rise and high-rise structures consisting of a moment
resisting reinforced concrete structures with no shear walls, located in a high-seismicity region of Turkey. The capacity curves of
the structures, as derived by both DAP and FEMA440 pushover curves were compared with the IDA envelopes by using the
SeismoStruct software. Both Adaptive Pushover Analysis as well as Incremental Dynamic Analysis were performed using 20 ground
motions. The study concluded that IDA provides an optimal solution over ADP.
Pasticier et al. [11] investigated the application of SAP 2000 for incremental dynamic analysis of masonry building. Two walls
modelled using equivalent frame modelling analyzed and compared with analysis of an existing two story building having stone
masonry walls located in north-east Italy. The static and dynamic pushover analyses were performed to plot dynamic pushover
curves followed by fragility curves. The study considered a two story existing building in North-east of Italy. Plastic hinges,
nonlinear links were introduced in building and static pushover analysis, time history analysis was performed. The study observed
that the minimum base shear strength was always obtained when the triangular distribution of seismic forces is applied.
Vamvatsikos and Cornell [14] compared Incremental Dynamic Analysis with the nonlinear static pushover and R-factor methods
for prediction of response of the structure. The study illustrated single record IDA as well as multi-record IDA by analyzing 20
storey steel moment resisting frame and 5-storey steel chevron braced frame including P- delta effects. The study showed that for
elastic range SPO and IDA had nearly equal displacements while IDA proved to be an effective tool as it addressed both capacities
as well as demand.
Moniri [16] evaluated the seismic performance of RC framed buildings using IDA for near field earthquakes. The study considered
three buildings of 6, 10 and 15 storey designed as per ACI code specifications using ETABS software. Also, the non-linear structural
analysis was carried out using OpenSees software by applying 14 near -field and 14 far-field ground motions scaled using ASCE
07-05 standard. The results of study observed parameters like storey shear, storey drift, and inter-story displacement. The study
showed that Near-fault conditions produce higher requirements’ when compared to far-fault conditions and proved to be less
efficient at higher periods.
Javanpour M. and Zarfan P. [20] investigated the application of IDA for studying the dynamic behavior of steel structures during
the earthquakes. The two same-order steel structures with two types of structural systems (coaxial moment frames and moment
frame) were modeled using OpenSees software. Seismic loading was based on the Fourth Edition of Iranian 2800 instruction. The
study showed that depending on the type of IM and DM parameters, 20% to 90% of vulnerability values of steel moment frames
were less than coaxial braced frame structures (cross).
II. OBJECTIVE
Following are the objectives of the proposed work:
1. To learn the extraction of time history data from PEER NGA-WEST ground motion database and COSMOS VDC.
2. To select and scale ground motions using the appropriate method to match the target spectrum.
3. To perform the incremental dynamic analysis for a building using scaled ground motions.
4. To understand the concept of EDP parameters using IDA curves for base shear, spectral displacement, storey displacement,
storey drift.
III. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
PSHA provides a frame work in which these uncertainties can be identified, quantified and combined in a rational manner to provide
a
A complete picture of the seismic hazard. The accuracy of PSHA depends on the accuracy with which uncertainty in earthquake
size, location, recurrence, and effects can be characterized. Although models and procedures for characterization of the uncertainty
of these parameters are available they may be based on data collected over periods of time that, geologically, are very short.
3.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
IDA is able to estimate limit-state capacity and seismic demand by performing a series of nonlinear time history analyses under a
suite of multiple scaled accelerogram records of earthquake ground motion acceleration. In IDA method, the intensity of selected
ground motion is incrementally increased until the intended limit state seismic capacity of the global structural system is achieved.
Besides, it contains plotting an intensity measure (i.e. first mode spectral acceleration.) Moreover, the accuracy of IDA results
depends on the number of chosen accelerogram records. According to research performed by Shome and Cornell (1999), it is usually
enough to select ten to twenty accelerograms records to estimate limit-state capacity and seismic demand of structures with sufficient
accuracy. Appropriate post processing can present the results in terms of IDA curves, one for each ground motion record, of the
seismic intensity, typically represented by a scalar Intensity Measure (IM), versus the structural response or Damage measure(DM),
as measured by an Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP).
3.3 PEER Strong Motion Database
The web-based Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) ground motion database provides tools for searching,
selecting and downloading ground motion data. All downloaded records are unscaled and as-recorded. The scaling tool available
on this site is to be used to determine the scale factors to be used in the simulation platform. These scale factors can be found with

the record metadata in the download. However strict limit has been imposed on the number of records that can be downloaded
within a unique time window. The current limit is set at approximately 200 records every two weeks, 400 every month.
NGA-West2 -- Shallow Crustal Earthquakes in Active Tectonic Regimes
The NGA-West2 ground motion database includes a very large set of ground motions recorded in worldwide shallow crustal
earthquakes in active tectonic regimes. The database has one of the most comprehensive sets of meta-data, including different
distance measure, various site characterizations, earthquake source data, etc.
NGA-East -- Central & Eastern North-America
The objective of NGA-East is to develop a new ground motion characterization (GMC) model for the Central and Eastern North-
American (CENA) region. The GMC model consists of a set of new ground motion models (GMMs) for median and standard
deviation of ground motions (GMs).
3.4 Seismo Match 2016
SeismoMatch2016, V1.3.0 is an application capable of adjusting earthquake accelerograms to match a specific target response
spectrum, using the wavelets algorithm proposed by Abrahamson (1992) and Hancock et al. (2006). Some of its features are:
i. Simultaneous matching of a number of accelerograms, and then the creation of a mean matched spectrum whose maximum misfit
respects a pre- defined tolerance.
ii. The possibility of using this software in combination with records selection tools and record appropriateness verification
algorithms to define adequate suites of records for nonlinear dynamic analysis of new or existing structures.
iii. The capability of reading single accelerograms defined in both single- or multiple-values per line formats or of reading a number
of accelerograms at the same time.
iv. Creation of the target spectrum by following Eurocode 8 rules, by computing the spectrum of a specific accelerogram or by
simply loading a user- defined spectrum.
3.5 COSMOS Virtual Data Centre
The VDC is a public, web-based search engine for accessing worldwide earthquake strong ground motion data. While the primary
focus of the VDC is on data of engineering interest, it is also an interactive resource for scientific research and government and
emergency response professionals. The VDC was developed at University of California Santa Barbara with funds from the National
Science Foundation, with initial support provided by the Southern California Earthquake Center. Subsequent support has been
provided by the US Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey. The VDC was incorporated as a part of the Center for
Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) in 2012. The Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems
(COSMOS) serves as a liaison in facilitating data access from international strong-motion networks.
IV. PRESENT STUDY
The present study aims at performing IDA using scaled ground motion records for three models from low, medium and high rise
category. The structural elements which are provided for analysis of RC framed building are presented in following tables.
Table 4.1 Details of building
No.of Story 5,12,18
Bottom story ht. 3m
Story ht. 3.2m
Soil type Medium
Zone IV
Thickness of floor 0.18m
Beam size 0.23 m x0.6 m
Column size 0.3m x0.9 m
Material properties
Grade of concrete M45
M30

Grade of steel Fe500
Fe415
Dead load intensities
F.F. on floor 1.75KN/m2
F.F. on roof 2 KN/m2
Live load intensities
L.L. on floors 2 KN/m2
L.L. on roof 1 KN/m2
Fig. 4.1 Model of G+5 storey building
Table 4.2 Earthquake Records

All the earthquake records are obtained from COSMOS VDC within magnitude range of 6-7 as the aim of the study was to subject
the structures to a higher magnitude. Also, most of the ground motion records are from Indian earthquakes to achieve a more accurate
response of structures as they are located in the Indian region. After downloading these records are scaled to obtain scale factors
using SEISMOMATCH 2016 as mentioned in Table 4.2. The scaling was carried out within the range of 0.2T 1-1.5T1 as specified
by US codes. T1 is the fundamental time period for the structure. Further Incremental Dynamic Analysis is carried out using
commercially available SAP 2000 V15. The structures are designed according to Indian standard codes.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of IDA are plotted in form of IDA curves. An IDA curve is a plot between intensity measure (IM) which can be 5% Damped
spectral acceleration, pseudo acceleration, spectral velocity etc. and damage measure (DM) which can be base shear, storey drift,
storey displacement etc.
5.00E+04
4.50E+04
4.00E+04
PSA(mm/sec)
3.50E+04
3.00E+04
2.50E+04
2.00E+04
1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
Period (sec)
UNSCALED BHUJ SCALED BHUJ
Fig.5.1 Response spectrum for Bhuj

7.0000E+03
8.00E+02
6.0000E+03
7.00E+02
PSA (mm/sec)
5.0000E+03
PSA (mm/sec2)
6.00E+02
4.0000E+03 5.00E+02
3.0000E+03 4.00E+02
2.0000E+03 3.00E+02
2.00E+02
1.0000E+03
1.00E+02
0.0000E+00
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6
Period (sec) UNSCALED
Period (sec)
CHAMBA
SCALED CHAMOLI
SCALED CHAMBA UNSCALED CHAMOLI
Fig.5.2 Response spectrum for Chamba Figure 5.3 Response spectrum for Chamoli
2.50E+01 7.00E+03
6.00E+03
2.00E+01
PSA (mm/sec2)
PSA (mm/sec2)
5.00E+03
1.50E+01
4.00E+03
1.00E+01 3.00E+03
2.00E+03
5.00E+00
1.00E+03
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
SCALED UNSCALED
Period (sec) Period (sec)
ELCENTRO INDOBURMA
UNSCALED EL SCALED
CENTRO INDOBURMA
Fig.5.4 Response spectrum for El Centro Fig.5.5 Response spectrum for Indo-Burma
1.20E+04
1.00E+04
PSA (mm/sec2)
8.00E+03
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
SCALED
Figure 5.6 Response spectrum for Northridge

3.50E+03
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
PSA (mm/sec2)
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
SCALED
Period (sec)
UNSCALED
Figure 5.7 Response spectrum for Uttarkashi
Storey BHUJ
CHAMBA
3
CHAMOLI
ELCENTRO
2
INDOBURMA
NORTHRIDGE
1 UTTERKASHI
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement(m)
Figure 5.8 Storey displacement for G +5 storey
The above figures show response spectra as well as storey displacements for each of the ground motion records obtained for G+5
storey building. The comparison of storey displacements is also shown in tabular format in Table 5.1 below. The maximum
displacement is obtained for Chamba earthquake.

TABLE 5.1 COMPARISON OF STOREY DISPLACEMENT
7 Sr. Earthquake Max. Displacement

No Record (m)
1 Bhuj 0.031552
6
5 2 Chamba 0.090586
BHUJ
CHAMBA
4
CHAMOLI
3 Chamoli 0.010485
Storey
ELCENTRO
3
INDOBURMA 4 El Centro 0.007257
NORTHRIDGE
2
UTTERKASHI 5 Indo-Burma 0.041018
Border
1
6 Northridge 0.033445
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Drift (m)
7 Uttarkashi 0.031899
Figure 5.9 Storey drift for G +5 storey
Table 5.2 Comparison of Storey Drift for G+5 storey

Sr. no Earthquake Record Max. Drift
1 Bhuj 0.002055
2 Chamba 0.005901
3 Chamoli 0.000683
4 El Centro 0.000473
5 Indo-Burma Border 0.002672

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2 BHUJ
Sa (5%)
CHAMBA
0.15
CHAMOLI
0.1 EL CENTRO
INDO-BURMA
BORDER
0.05 NORTHRIDGE
UTTARKASHI
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.10 IDA curves for G +5 storey
The above figure shows IDA curves plotted for G+5 storey building where IM is 5% damped spectral acceleration and DM is
Displacement.
5.2 Results for G+12 storey
3.00E+04
2.50E+04
2.00E+04
PSA (mm/sec2)
1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
BHUJ
SCALED BHUJ
Figure 5.11 Response spectrum for Bhuj
9.00E+04
8.00E+04
7.00E+04
PSA (mm/sec2 )
6.00E+04
5.00E+04
4.00E+04
3.00E+04
2.00E+04
1.00E+04
0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
SCALED
UNSCALED
Figure 5.12 Response spectrum for chamba

8.00E+02
7.00E+02
PSA (mm/sec2 )
6.00E+02
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
2.00E+02
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 SCALED 6
Period (sec)
UNSCLAED
Figure 5.13 Response spectrum for chamoli
6.00E+01
PSA (mm/sec2 )
5.00E+01
4.00E+01
3.00E+01
2.00E+01
1.00E+01
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
SCALED
Period (sec) UNSCLAED
Figure 5.14 Response spectrum for El Centro
4.50E+03
4.00E+03
3.50E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
Period (sec)
SCALED
UNSCALED
Figure 5.15 Response spectrum for Indo-Burma
7.00E+03
6.00E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
5.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
Period (sec)
SCALED
UNSCALED

2.50E+03
2.00E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6
Period (sec) SCALED
UNSCALED
14
12
10
6 BHUJ
Storey CHAMBA
CHAMOLI
4
EL CENTRO
INDOBURMA
2
NORTHRIDGE
UTTERKASHI
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
Displacement(m)
Figure 5.18 Storey Displacement for G+12 storey
Table 5.3 Comparison of Storey displacement
Sr. no Earthquake Record Max. Displacement (m)
1 Bhuj 0.070
2 Chamba 0.202
3 Chamoli 0.023
4 El Centro 0.016
6 Northridge 0.075
7 Uttarkashi 0.071

14
12
10 BHUJ
CHAMBA
8 CHAMOLI
EL CENTRO
Storey INDOBURMA
6
NORTHRIDG
E
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Drift (m)
Figure 5.19 Storey Drift for G+12 storey
TABLE 5.4 COMPARISON OF STOREY DRIFT

Sr. no Earthquake Record Max. Drift
1 Bhuj 0.002359
2 Chamba 0.006773
3 Chamoli 0.000784
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Sa (5%)
0.08
CHAMBA
0.06 CHAMOLI
EL CENTRO
0.04
INDOBURM
A
0.02 NORTHRIDG
E
UTTERKASH
0 I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)

Figure 5.20 IDA curves for G+12 storey
5.4 RESULTS FOR 18 STORY BUILDING
1.80E+04
1.60E+04
1.40E+04
1.20E+04
PSA (mm/sec2 )
1.00E+04
8.00E+03
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
SCALED
Fig.5.21 Response spectrum for Bhuj
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
SCALED
Period (sec)
UNSCALED
Fig.5.22 Response spectrum for Chamba
5.00E+02
4.50E+02
4.00E+02
PSA (mm/sec2 )
3.50E+02
3.00E+02
2.50E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02
1.00E+02
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
SCALED
Period (sec)
UNSCALED
Figure 5.23 Response spectrum for Chamoli
6.00E+01
5.00E+01
PSA (mm/sec2 )
4.00E+01
3.00E+01
2.00E+01
1.00E+01
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
SCALED
Period (sec)
UNSCALED

Fig.5.24 Response spectrum for El Centro
3.50E+03
3.00E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
Period (sec) SCALED
UNSCALED
1.80E+03
1.60E+03
1.40E+03
PSA (mm/sec2 )
1.20E+03
1.00E+03
8.00E+02
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8
Period (sec) SCALED
UNSCALED
20
18
16
14
12
10
Storey
8 BHUJ
CHAMBA
6
CHAMOLI
EL CENTRO
4
INDOBURMA
2 NORTHRIDGE
UTTERKASHI
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.28 Storey Displacement for G+18 storey

Table 5.5 Comparison of Storey Displacement

Sr. No Earthquake Max. Displacement (m)
Record
1 Bhuj 0.11259
2 Chamba 0.323246
3 Chamoli 0.037414
5 Indo-Burma 0.146367
Border
20 BHUJ
CHAMBA
18
CHAMOLI
EL CENTRO
16
INDOBURMA
14 NORTHRIDGE
UTTERKASHI
12
Storey
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Storey Drift(m)
Figure 5.29 Storey Drift for G+18 storey

Table 5.6 Comparison of Maximum Storey Drift

Sr no. Earthquake record Max. Drift (m)
1 Bhuj 0.002559
2 Chamba 0.007416
3 Chamoli 0.000839
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Sa (5%) UTTERKASHI
0.06 CHAMOLI
BHUJ
0.04 CHAMBA
ELCENTRO
0.02 INDOBURMA
NORTHRIDGE
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.30 IDA curves for G+18 storey

CONCLUSION
Incremental Dynamic Analysis of three RC framed buildings of a different number of stories i.e 5, 12, 18 have been carried out
using commercially available SAP 2000 V.15 software. The purpose of the analysis was to predict the behavior of the structures
under a suite of seven ground motions scaled using SeismoMatch 2016 program. The results are presented in form of Storey
displacement, story drift, and IDA curves.
Following conclusions were obtained from results:
1) All the ground motions were properly extracted from PEER Strong motion database as well as COSMOS VDC to input in
SeismoMatch 2016 successfully.
2) Use of SeismoMatch 2016 for scaling of ground motions have yielded good results and accurate scale factors were obtained by
using Spectral matching for all the ground motions as shown in table 4.2. Maximum Scale factor was found to be 9.85 for Chamba.
3) Storey displacement and Storey drift for the 12-storey building was found to be maximum for Chamba earthquake record having
PGA of 0.47g and scale factor of 9.85.
4) The minimum value of Storey displacement and Storey drift was obtained for El Centro earthquake record having PGA of 0.41g
and scale factor of 0.79
5) The earthquake records having more PGA and scale factors produced greater displacement as well as drift as Compared to those
having least values, hence one can conclude that behavior of the structure is highly dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake.
6) The selection of earthquake records should be done carefully to increase the efficiency of the procedure. i.e. No aftershocks
should be selected.
FUTURE SCOPE
In this work IDA analysis of regular RC framed structure was conducted by using SAP 2000, hence any other software can be used
and compared. Also irregularities in shape, the height of the building can be considered using different methods of scaling the time
history records. The number of ground motions can also be varied. The present study analyzed RC frame only, however composite
structures, structures other than building such as, bridges can also be analyzed.
REFERENCES
[1] Baker O., Akkar S. (2012) “Record Selection and Scaling for Nonlinear Structures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics Vol. 3, Wiley Online Library.
[2] Lin T., Haselton C., Baker J. (2013) “Conditional Spectrum Based Ground Motion Selection part-I: Hazard Consistency
for Risk Based Assessments”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Vol.42, No.12, pp. 1847-1865.
[3] Lampery J., Abrahmson N. (2006) “Selection of Ground Motion Time Series and Limits on Scaling”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol.26, pp. 477-482.
[4] Reyes J., Kalkan E. (2012) “How Many Records Should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 Ground Motion Scaling Procedure?”
Earthquake Spectra, Vol.28, No.3, pp. 1223-1242.
[5] Charney (2015), “Example 6 Ground Motion Scaling for Response History Analysis” Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic
Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10, Ex-6, pp.29-36.
[6] Odonell A., Kurama Y. (2013) “Experimental Evaluation of Ground Motion Scaling Methods for Nonlinear Analysis of
Structural Systems”, Structures Congress 2013, ASCE.
[7] Bodin P., Manlangnini L. (2004) “Ground Motion Scaling in Kachchh basin, India Deduced from Aftershocks of the 2001
Mw 7.6 Bhuj Earthquake”, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94 No.5, pp. 1658-1669.
[8] Kalkan E., Chopra A. (2011) “Modal Pushover Based Scaling Procedure”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137,
No.3, pp. 298-310.
[9] Tayyebi S. (2014), “Nonlinear Analysis Methods for Evaluating Seismic Performance of Multi-Story RC Buildings”,
Eastern Mediterranean University.
[10] Chan G. (2005), “Nonlinear Analysis of Multistory Structures using NONLIN” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
[11] Pasticier et al. (2008), “Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the
SAP2000 V.10 code”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol.37, pp.467–485.
[12] Vejdani H., and Sooshthuri A. (2008) “Comparison of Exact IDA and MPA based IDA for Reinforced Concrete frames”,
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
[13] Lew M. and Naeem F. (1996), “Use of Design Spectrum Compatible Time Histories in Non-Linear Analysis”, 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

[14] Vamvatsikos D., and Cornell C. (2002) “Incremental Dynamic Analysis”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics Vol.31, No.12, pp. 491-514.
[15] Huang Y., Whittakar A., Luco N., Hamburger R. (2011), “Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performance-Based
Assessment of Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering Vol.137, pp. 311-321.
[16] Moniri H. (2014), “Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Incremental Dynamic
Analysis (IDA) for Near Field Earthquakes”, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus.
[17] Dana M., Stojadinovic B. (2005), “Incremental Dynamic Analysis for Structures with Gap”, ASCE Structures Congress.
[18] Tirca L., Serban O., Wang M. and Modica D. (2013), “Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Existing Steel Braced Frame
Buildings in Moderate Seismic Zones”, ASCE Structures Congress.
[19] Yun S., Hamburger R., Cornell C., and Fourth D. (2002), “Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames”,
Journal of Structural Engineering Vol.128, pp-534-545.
[20] Javanpour M. and Zarfan P. (2017), “Application of Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) Method for Studying the
Dynamic Behavior of Structures during Earthquakes”, Journal of Engineering, Technology and Applied science research
Vol.7, pp-1338-1344.
[1] IS 1893-2002, “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings”
[2] SeismoMatch 2016 user guide.
[3] SAP 2000 V.15 user guide.

V3i5 1163 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

V3i5 1163 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

V3i5 1163 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaikwad Chandrakant Nilesh, Galatage A. Abhijeet, Kulkarni K.

Sumant, International Journal of Advance Research,

Scaling Of Ground Motions for Performing Incremental

Keywords: Seismic Hazard, IDA, Scaling, Pushover Curves, SAP 2000.

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 56

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 57

Bottom story ht. 3m

Story ht. 3.2m

Soil type Medium

Thickness of floor 0.18m

Beam size 0.23 m x0.6 m

Column size 0.3m x0.9 m

Grade of concrete M45

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 58

Grade of steel Fe500

Dead load intensities

F.F. on floor 1.75KN/m2

F.F. on roof 2 KN/m2

Live load intensities

L.L. on floors 2 KN/m2

L.L. on roof 1 KN/m2

Fig. 4.1 Model of G+5 storey building

Fig. 4.2 Model of G+12 storey building

Fig. 4.3 Model of G+18 storey building

Table 4.2 Earthquake Records

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 59

UNSCALED BHUJ SCALED BHUJ

Fig.5.1 Response spectrum for Bhuj

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 60

Figure 5.6 Response spectrum for Northridge

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 56

Figure 5.7 Response spectrum for Uttarkashi

Figure 5.8 Storey displacement for G +5 storey

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 57

TABLE 5.1 COMPARISON OF STOREY DISPLACEMENT

7 Sr. Earthquake Max. Displacement

Figure 5.9 Storey drift for G +5 storey

Table 5.2 Comparison of Storey Drift for G+5 storey

5 Indo-Burma Border 0.002672

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 58

Figure 5.10 IDA curves for G +5 storey

Figure 5.11 Response spectrum for Bhuj

Figure 5.12 Response spectrum for chamba

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 59

Figure 5.13 Response spectrum for chamoli

Figure 5.14 Response spectrum for El Centro

Figure 5.15 Response spectrum for Indo-Burma

Figure 5.16 Response spectrum for Northridge

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 60

Figure 5.17 Response spectrum for Uttarkashi

Figure 5.18 Storey Displacement for G+12 storey

Table 5.3 Comparison of Storey displacement

Sr. no Earthquake Record Max. Displacement (m)

5 Indo-Burma Border 0.091

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 61

Figure 5.19 Storey Drift for G+12 storey

TABLE 5.4 COMPARISON OF STOREY DRIFT

5 Indo-Burma Border 0.003067

© 2017, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 62