IRJET- Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 11 | Nov 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1401
SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS UNDER
MAINSHOCK-AFTERSHOCK EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE
N.RATNA RAVEEN1 and V.RAMI REDDY2
1M.Tech Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Chintalapudi Engineering College, Ponnur (AP) India.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Chintalapudi Engineering College, Ponnur (AP) India.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: Earthquakes are rare natural catastrophes which have severe societal consequences in terms of fatalities and
casualties, financial losses and business interruption when they occur. Aftershocks induced by a large mainshock can
cause additional damage to structure, hampering building reoccupation and restoration activities in a post-disaster
situation. Aftershock ground motions may cause weakening and/or collapse of structures perhaps already damaged (but
not yet repaired) by mainshocks. However, their effect on seismic hazard is not explicitly accounted for in modern building
design codes. To assess the nonlinear damage potential due to aftershock, this study investigates the effect of aftershocks
by using fourteen mainshock(MS) and mainshock-aftershock(MS-AS) earthquake sequences applied to three low rise and
three high rise building models using nonlinear time history analysis. The three models consisted of a moment resisting
frame (MRF) structure, a structure with shear walls in the periphery and a structure with internal and external shear
walls. The building models were designed as per IS 1893:2002 specifications. The performance of the building was studied
using nonlinear time history analysis and response parameters like story drift, displacement, story shear, moment and
accelerations were compared in both x and y directions. The story drifts were compared for the limit states including slight
damage, moderate damage and extensive damage to show the seismic responses among the six buildings. The effect of
ground motion a/v ratio is also indicated in the results. As the amount of shear walls increased, it was seen that there was
an increase in the differences of the results obtained considering MS sequences only and MS-AS sequences. It was
observed from the results that, generally shear walls improve building seismic performance.
Keywords: Aftershock ground motions, seismic design, limit state damage.
1. Introduction
Earthquakes are natural calamities which have extreme societal outcomes in terms of fatalities and setbacks, monetary
misfortunes and business interference when they happen. A post-quake tremor is a littler seismic tremor that happens
after a past huge tremor, in a similar region of the fundamental stun. On the off chance that a postshock convulsion is
bigger than the primary stun, the post-quake tremor is re-assigned as the fundamental stun and the first principle stun is
re-assigned as a foreshock. Postshock convulsions are framed as the outside layer around the dislodged blame plane
acclimates to the impacts of the fundamental shock. Aftershocks can significantly affect the dynamic conduct of a structure
in wording of irreversible plastic strains and collected harm, as they influence a structure effectively debilitated amid a
mainshock. The mean rate of postshock convulsions diminishes with time t from the event of mainshock. Aftershocks
likewise ordinarily happen near the first burst zone. Subsequently if the mainshock was close to the structure of intrigue,
so will be at any rate some of this group of post-quake tremors. The ground movements from delayed repercussions
demonstrate the commonly high occasion to-occasion inconstancy, inferring the potential for bigger movements from little
sizes. The number, size, vicinity and inconstancy of post shock convulsions may speak to a noteworthy ground movement
peril. Delayed repercussion ground movements may cause debilitating or potentially fall of structures maybe officially
harmed (yet not yet repaired) by the mainshock. A schematic of the delayed repercussion condition is appeared in Figure
1.1.Reinforced cement (RC) outline structures that were built before present day seismic design codes tend to show non-
bendable conduct under seismic excitation, which leads to substantial setbacks and monetary misfortune amid tremors.
These structures also have higher seismic harm likelihood and expected repair cost for the harm induced by tremors than
their partners which were assembled per present day codes.
1.1 Significance of aftershocks in Performance Based Design
In the present code design procedures, there are instabilities concerning the seismic request and seismic limit of the
structure. Execution based outline is a more broad plan theory in which the outline criteria are communicated in terms of
accomplishing expressed execution destinations when the structure is subjected to expressed levels of seismic hazard. The
execution targets might be a level of stress not to be surpassed, a heap, relocation, an utmost state or a target harm state.
There have been distinctive elucidations of what is meant by execution based plan. The most appropriate definition is that
execution based design refers to the approach in which structural outline criteria are communicated as far as
accomplishing an arrangement of execution objectives. Performance-based quake building (PBEE) gives a capable

instrument for analyzing the seismic execution of structures with express thought of all the uncertainties. PBEE likewise
offers the partners probabilistic explanation about the execution of building frameworks, for example, money related
misfortune, downtime, and fatalities, to enable them to better comprehend the cost and advantage of the retrofit technique
and consequently settle on better educated choices.
1.2 Challenges of Aftershock Risk Analysis
The aftershock condition represents a few applied difficulties that are not the same as those in the mainshock condition.
Post-quake tremor ground movement risk and the instigated undesirable building conduct danger are non homogeneous
in time: they are at their greatest instantly after the mainshock and diminishing after that. The size conveyance of post-
quake tremors is autonomous of the slipped by time after the mainshock, so aftershock convulsions of extensive sizes are
as yet conceivable quite a while after the mainshock. The mean rate and them magnitude circulation of aftershock
convulsions are subject to the mainshock greatness and the likelihood appropriation of post-quake tremor areas are
reliant on the mainshock crack zone geometry. On account of the expanded mean rate of aftershock convulsions, the
changeability in ground movements and the harm maintained by the structure, delayed repercussions of littler extents can
conceivably create bigger site ground movement force measure (IM) values and bigger building request parameter (EDP)
values than the mainshock.
2. Literature Review
Tso et al. (1992) examined the building ramifications of ground movement A/V proportion. A tremor informational index
comprising of 45 in number movement records was dissected to examine the hugeness of the pinnacle ground speeding up
to-speed (A/V) proportion as a parameter to demonstrate the dynamic qualities of quake ground movements. It was
discovered that the earthquake records with high a/v proportions are for the most part of brief term with seismic vitality
in the high recurrence extend; quakes with high a/v proportions associated to ground movements shut in region to a little
or direct tremor. On the other hand, seismic tremors with low a/v proportions ordinarily have long span with vitality in
the low recurrence go; quakes with low a/v proportions associate with ground movements far off from expansive seismic
tremors.
Luco et al. (2004) examined the remaining limit against fall of a mainshock-harmed fabricating combined with the
aftershock ground movement risk (request) at its site to settle on a target choice in regards to the occupancy of the
building in light of its likelihood of crumple in a aftershock convulsion. For a contextual analysis fabricating, a moderately
basic nonlinear static-weakling way to deal with registering lingering limits is found to think little of the middle
consequences of more exact nonlinear dynamic examinations. By mirroring the reliance saw from the dynamic
examinations of remaining limit on deposit rooftop float, an "adjusted" static approach is suggested that figures more
predictable lingering limits. The "aligned" calculation considers the leftover rooftop float of the mainshock-harmed
working, as possibly (i) quantified in the field or (ii) expected for the watched condition of harm in view of, for instance,
nonexclusive research after effects of NDA's of structures. The adjustment additionally mirrors the perception from the
mainshock-post-quake tremor dynamic calculations that, as the remaining rooftop float approaches zero, the middle
lingering limit approaches the middle limit of the working in it sun harmed state. Without the adjustment, the static
calculation of middle remaining limit is seen to think little of the more exact consequences of the dynamic calculation.
Given the financial and different expenses related with confined or denied occupancy (i.e., yellow or red labels), it is
essential that the leftover limits of mainshock damaged buildings be processed precisely.
Duan and Pappin (2008) embraced HAZUS approach for evaluating the potential misfortunes of a current building stock
caused by quake ground shaking with the end goal of measuring seismic hazard in a locale or a urban zone. Nonlinear
sucker examination of run of the mill structures is required for setting up building limit and delicacy bends. The creators
displayed a technique for building up the required delicacy bends for different harm states, specifically for the more
serious harm states, in light of nonlinear sucker examination comes about. An answer was proposed for defeating the
trouble experienced while deciding the middle otherworldly relocations for the more serious harm states. A case is given
to represent the whole procedure. The proposed technique has been effectively connected by the creators in late seismic
misfortune evaluate investigations of present day urban areas with thickly populated structures in locales of direct
seismicity.
Huang et al. (2012) introduced a numerical examination on the total harm of structures subjected to mainshock-delayed
repercussion seismic successions. For this reason, a three-story RC outline demonstrate structure was constructed and
subjected to rehashing mainshock-post-quake tremor ground movements and mainshock seismic tremor as it were. The
harm condition of the edge demonstrate was measured by the Park and Ang's harm record. It was discovered that, not at
all like past outcomes in light of the pinnacle and remaining float requests, aftershock convulsion does essentially build the
harm condition of the structure. Moreover, the harm condition of the structure might be firmly reliant on the cumulated

harm caused by past seismic tremor. The remaining uprooting of structure under a solid mainshock will turn into the new
adjust pivot for the subsequent quakes, and must be thought about in figuring the Park and Ang's harm list.
3. Description and Design of RC buildings
Table 1 Description of building
Property
Building Model
M1 M2
Height 15 m 30 m
Plan Dimensions 13.5m x 20m 27m x 36m
Size of beams 230mm x 375mm 300mm x 375mm
Size of columns 300mm x 375mm 550mm x 550mm
Slab thickness 125mm
Figure 1 Plan dimensions of model M1FB
Figure 2 Plan dimensions of model M1SW1

Figure 4 Plan dimensions of model M2FB

Figure 7 Elevation view of model M1SW1
4. Results and Discussions
Albeit just initial three models are appeared, the quantity of mode shapes considered for the building models M1 and M2
were 12 and 18 separately. The mode shapes were viewed as to such an extent that no less than 95% mass cooperation
happens. The central day and age for the principal influence mode in Y and X headings is shown underneath by Modes 1
and 2. The principal torsional mode shows up at Mode3 and is trailed by the second influence and torsional modes spoke
to by Modes 4, 5 and6. Table 5.1 records basic eras of the building models in orthogonal and torsional bearings utilized as
a part of the analysis. It can be watched that the eras diminished in both the models M1 and M2 when the measure of shear
divider is expanded bringing about expanded firmness.

Table 2 Time periods for building models used in the study
Mode
Time Period
M1FB M1SW1 M1SW2 M2FB M2SW1 M2SW2
1(Sway) 1.634 0.556 0.416 2.931 1.475 1.31
2(Sway) 1.487 0.444 0.375 2.775 1.423 1.067
3(Torsion) 1.401 0.35 0.329 2.516 1.019 0.94
4.1 Drift Results
Inter story drift is defined as the difference between the roof and floor displacements of any given story. The limiting drift
ratios for different damage states are also indicated in the figure.
Moment Resisting Fixed Based Model 1(M1FB):
Table 3 Story drifts for model M1FB in X and Y directions
M1FB
Drift
X Direction Y Direction
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
Low a/v High a/v Low a/v High a/v Low a/v High a/v Low a/v High a/v
1 0.0080 0.0045 0.0085 0.0049 0.0090 0.0043 0.0093 0.0047
0.8 0.0124 0.0054 0.0130 0.0060 0.0140 0.0055 0.0142 0.0061
0.6 0.0144 0.0039 0.0146 0.0044 0.0161 0.0046 0.0158 0.0051
0.4 0.0167 0.0050 0.0165 0.0057 0.0173 0.0055 0.0174 0.0060
0.2 0.0117 0.0040 0.0118 0.0044 0.0134 0.0049 0.0134 0.0053
ii. Y D ire c tio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 2 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
L o w a /v M S - A S
H ig h a /v M S - A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage

i . X D ir e c ti o n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 2 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
L o w a / v M S - A S
H i g h a / v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage
H i g h a / v M S - A S
Figure 8 Story drifts for model M1FB in X and Y directions
Moment Resisting Fixed Base with Shear Wall at Exterior (M1SW1):
Table 4 Story drifts for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions
M1SW1
Drift
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 0.0038 0.0032 0.0043 0.0034 0.0064 0.0038 0.0069 0.0041
0.8 0.0038 0.0031 0.0043 0.0034 0.0066 0.0039 0.0071 0.0042
0.6 0.0034 0.0028 0.0039 0.0030 0.0061 0.0036 0.0066 0.0039
0.4 0.0026 0.0020 0.0029 0.0022 0.0048 0.0028 0.0052 0.0030
0.2 0.0011 0.0009 0.0013 0.0010 0.0021 0.0012 0.0022 0.0013
i. X D ire c tio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 6
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ii. Y D ire ctio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 8
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
Figure 9 Story drifts for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions

Moment Resisting Fixed base with Shear Wall at Exterior and Interior (M1SW2):
M1SW2
Drift
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 0.0024 0.0020 0.0026 0.0023 0.0031 0.0023 0.0035 0.0025
0.8 0.0023 0.0020 0.0026 0.0022 0.0032 0.0023 0.0036 0.0025
0.6 0.0021 0.0018 0.0023 0.0020 0.0030 0.0021 0.0033 0.0023
0.4 0.0016 0.0013 0.0018 0.0015 0.0023 0.0016 0.0026 0.0018
0.2 0.0007 0.0006 0.0008 0.0007 0.0010 0.0007 0.0011 0.0008
i. X D ire c tio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 3
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ii. Y D ire ctio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 6
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
Moment Resisting Fixed Based Model 2 (M2FB):
Table 6 Story drifts for model M2FB in X and Y directions
M2FB
Drift
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 0.0090 0.0031 0.0092 0.0034 0.0102 0.0032 0.0104 0.0038
0.9 0.0120 0.0034 0.0122 0.0039 0.0132 0.0036 0.0134 0.0040
0.8 0.0141 0.0037 0.0143 0.0041 0.0149 0.0035 0.0151 0.0039
0.7 0.0151 0.0037 0.0152 0.0041 0.0159 0.0036 0.0159 0.0041

0.6 0.0151 0.0040 0.0151 0.0037 0.0163 0.0041 0.0165 0.0046
0.5 0.0149 0.0046 0.0150 0.0038 0.0164 0.0045 0.0166 0.0050
0.4 0.0163 0.0043 0.0160 0.0040 0.0183 0.0041 0.0181 0.0047
0.3 0.0177 0.0039 0.0175 0.0041 0.0195 0.0037 0.0193 0.0042
0.2 0.0167 0.0042 0.0165 0.0040 0.0182 0.0038 0.0181 0.0043
0.1 0.0085 0.0023 0.0084 0.0022 0.0092 0.0021 0.0091 0.0024
i. X D irectio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0 0 .0 2 5
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage
ii. Y D irection
D r if t
NormalizedHeight
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0 0 .0 2 5
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage
Figure 10 Story drifts for model M2FB in X and Y directions

Moment Resisting Fixed Base with Shear Wall at Exterior Model 2 (M2SW1):
M2SW1
Drift
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 0.0083 0.0025 0.0083 0.0028 0.0088 0.0026 0.0088 0.0029
0.9 0.0085 0.0025 0.0085 0.0029 0.0090 0.0026 0.0090 0.0029
0.8 0.0086 0.0024 0.0086 0.0028 0.0091 0.0025 0.0090 0.0029
0.7 0.0086 0.0022 0.0086 0.0025 0.0090 0.0023 0.0089 0.0026
0.6 0.0084 0.0019 0.0083 0.0023 0.0086 0.0021 0.0086 0.0024
0.5 0.0078 0.0017 0.0079 0.0020 0.0080 0.0017 0.0079 0.0020
0.4 0.0070 0.0016 0.0070 0.0019 0.0070 0.0015 0.0070 0.0018
0.3 0.0056 0.0015 0.0057 0.0017 0.0057 0.0014 0.0057 0.0016
0.2 0.0039 0.0011 0.0039 0.0013 0.0039 0.0011 0.0039 0.0013
0.1 0.0015 0.0005 0.0016 0.0006 0.0015 0.0005 0.0015 0.0006
i. X D irection
D r if t
NormalizedHeight
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a/v M S
L o w a/v M S -A S
H ig h a/v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage
ii. Y D irection
D r ift
NormalizedHeight
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a/v M S
L o w a/v M S -A S
H ig h a/v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage
ExtensiveDamage

M2SW2
Drift
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 0.0068 0.0021 0.0070 0.0023 0.0077 0.0024 0.0077 0.0028
0.9 0.0070 0.0021 0.0072 0.0023 0.0078 0.0024 0.0079 0.0028
0.8 0.0071 0.0021 0.0073 0.0023 0.0079 0.0023 0.0079 0.0027
0.7 0.0071 0.0021 0.0073 0.0022 0.0077 0.0022 0.0078 0.0026
0.6 0.0069 0.0020 0.0071 0.0021 0.0074 0.0020 0.0074 0.0024
0.5 0.0064 0.0017 0.0066 0.0019 0.0068 0.0018 0.0068 0.0021
0.4 0.0057 0.0015 0.0059 0.0016 0.0059 0.0016 0.0060 0.0019
0.3 0.0046 0.0012 0.0047 0.0013 0.0047 0.0013 0.0048 0.0016
0.2 0.0031 0.0008 0.0032 0.0009 0.0032 0.0009 0.0032 0.0011
0.1 0.0012 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0.0013 0.0004 0.0013 0.0004
i. X D irection
D r if t
NormalizedHeight
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 8
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamage

ii. Y D ire c tio n
D r i f t
NormalizedHeight
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 1 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
SlightDamage
ModerateDamageFigure 12 Story drifts for model M2SW2 in X and Y directions
5.4 Displacement Results
Table 9 Displacements for model M1FB in X and Y directions
M1FB
Displacement
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 184.31 50.1 185.71 56.84 202.36 57.17 202.36 62.6
0.8 164.78 39.47 164.47 45.47 179.53 47.43 179.53 51.87
0.6 133.45 32.63 131.8 37.69 141.71 37.4 141.71 40.89
0.4 87.76 24.09 87.66 27.7 94.01 27.46 94.01 29.89
0.2 35.07 10.14 35.4 11.6 40.03 12.66 40.03 14.09
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D i s p l a c e m e n t , m m
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
H i g h a /v M S - A S
H i g h a /v M S
i. X D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
H i g h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire c tio n
Figure 13 Displacements for model M1FB in X and Y directions

Table 10 Displacements for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions
M1SW1
Displacement
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 43.37 35.83 49.94 39.07 78.57 43.56 84.26 49.79
0.8 32.01 26.36 36.96 28.81 59.20 32.63 63.50 37.43
0.6 20.86 17.04 24.09 18.70 39.31 21.53 42.19 24.79
0.4 10.81 8.79 12.53 9.69 20.73 11.29 22.27 13.01
0.2 3.29 2.67 3.84 2.91 6.24 3.40 6.71 3.87
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i. X D ire c tio n
D i s p la c e m e n t , m m
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 4 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire ctio n
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
Figure 14 Displacements for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions

M1SW2
Displacement
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 26.37 23.99 29.94 25.67 37.71 27.04 42.44 29.86
0.8 19.54 18.03 22.19 18.84 28.53 20.23 32.07 22.40
0.6 12.73 12.14 14.51 12.36 19.01 13.34 21.39 14.79
0.4 6.66 6.54 7.57 6.49 10.10 6.97 11.34 7.76
0.2 2.03 2.16 2.30 1.99 3.07 2.09 3.46 2.33
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i. X D irection
D is p la c e m e n t , m m
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 2 0 3 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire ctio n
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S

Table 12 Displacements for model M2FB in X and Y directions
M2FB
Displacement
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 346.70 78.90 346.66 82.27 376.09 76.51 376.09 82.74
0.9 327.04 73.71 326.99 76.83 353.71 71.27 353.73 77.99
0.8 303.44 70.13 303.54 72.86 325.83 66.84 325.99 73.09
0.7 274.46 65.34 274.39 67.70 294.74 62.13 294.67 68.23
0.6 242.51 57.11 242.40 59.26 262.41 55.29 262.39 60.96
0.5 209.57 45.63 209.60 47.94 225.54 45.11 225.57 50.54
0.4 171.27 40.64 171.21 42.97 182.34 36.84 182.31 41.84
0.3 125.74 31.90 125.67 34.06 133.07 28.77 133.06 32.84
0.2 74.01 19.76 74.09 21.21 78.10 17.84 77.99 20.41
0.1 25.09 6.97 25.19 7.57 26.34 6.37 26.24 7.37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i. X D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
H i g h a /v M S
Figure 16 Displacements for model M2FB in X and Y directions
M2SW1
Displacement
Normalized Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 202.89 48.64 202.91 56.54 210.14 50.91 210.16 58.49
0.9 178.54 41.69 178.53 48.44 184.29 43.84 184.33 50.56

0.8 153.49 35.21 153.50 40.76 157.83 36.79 157.83 42.64
0.7 127.89 29.64 127.93 34.47 131.26 30.20 131.29 35.09
0.6 102.21 25.24 102.21 29.17 104.89 25.76 104.94 29.59
0.5 77.14 20.31 77.16 23.39 79.51 20.94 79.51 23.84
0.4 53.86 15.16 53.87 17.37 55.51 15.69 55.53 17.83
0.3 33.19 9.96 33.19 11.30 34.04 10.27 34.04 11.69
0.2 16.29 5.19 16.29 5.86 16.61 5.34 16.61 6.09
0.1 4.63 1.56 4.63 1.76 4.70 1.60 4.70 1.81
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i. X D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 2 5 5 0 7 5 1 0 0 1 2 5 1 5 0 1 7 5 2 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
H i g h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a / v M S
H i g h a /v M S
M2SW2
Displacement
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1 167.29 46.76 171.63 49.64 180.44 49.50 181.33 58.36
0.9 147.01 40.51 150.76 43.23 157.49 42.94 158.31 50.60
0.8 126.27 34.10 129.39 36.70 134.14 36.41 134.84 42.87
0.7 105.10 27.97 107.79 30.16 111.01 30.26 111.63 35.53
0.6 83.89 22.04 86.13 23.76 88.16 24.19 88.64 28.54
0.5 63.26 16.39 64.99 17.69 66.10 18.20 66.44 21.67
0.4 44.00 11.19 45.26 12.09 45.64 12.67 45.90 15.21
0.3 26.93 6.69 27.74 7.36 27.74 7.81 27.87 9.46
0.2 13.11 3.17 13.51 3.57 13.50 3.97 13.54 4.81
0.1 3.70 0.87 3.81 1.00 3.81 1.19 3.83 1.43
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

i. X D ire c tio n
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D ire ctio n
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
5.5 Story Shear Results
Table 15 Story shear for model M1FB in X and Y directions
M1FB
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
Low a/v
High
a/v
Low a/v
High
a/v
Low a/v
High
a/v
Low a/v High a/v
1
Top 1556.20 789.60 1563.03 904.89 1500.69 651.46 1524.78 723.68
Bottom 1556.20 789.60 1563.03 904.89 1500.69 651.46 1524.78 723.68
0.8
Top 2517.27 966.69 2529.76 1079.09 2460.12 916.85 2460.12 1010.36
Bottom 2517.27 966.69 2529.76 1079.09 2460.12 916.85 2460.12 1010.36
0.6
Top 3029.57 1030.45 3029.57 1152.57 2851.68 982.86 2851.68 1075.76
Bottom 3029.57 1030.45 3029.57 1152.57 2851.68 982.86 2851.68 1075.76
0.4
Top 3707.04 1208.25 3707.04 1344.60 3385.84 1041.18 3385.84 1158.93
Bottom 3707.04 1208.25 3707.04 1344.60 3385.84 1041.18 3385.84 1158.93
0.2
Top 4286.42 1285.85 4286.42 1444.00 4124.79 1263.98 4124.79 1413.67
Bottom 4286.42 1285.85 4286.42 1444.00 4124.79 1263.98 4124.79 1413.67

i. X D irection
S to r e y S h e a r , k N
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D irection
S to r ey S h ea r , k N
NormalizedHeight
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a/v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a/v M S
Figure 19 Story shear for model M1FB in X and Y directions
Table 16 Story shear for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions
M1SW1
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1
Top 2964.71 2967.90 3367.79 3240.39 3743.10 2434.27 3983.03 2724.54
Bottom 2964.71 2967.90 3367.79 3240.39 3743.10 2434.27 3983.03 2724.54
0.8
Top 5541.73 5023.63 6300.13 5438.26 6673.40 3957.80 7136.60 4282.60
Bottom 5541.73 5023.63 6300.13 5438.26 6673.40 3957.80 7136.60 4282.60
0.6
Top 7343.62 6289.68 8358.41 6823.84 8656.10 4913.34 9297.84 5294.88
Bottom 7343.62 6289.68 8358.41 6823.84 8656.10 4913.34 9297.84 5294.88
0.4
Top 8666.90 6944.86 9858.92 7594.19 9923.61 5384.24 10686.75 5771.82
Bottom 8666.90 6944.86 9858.92 7594.19 9923.61 5384.24 10686.75 5771.82
0.2
Top 9556.36 7143.33 10836.24 7808.22 10678.54 5746.54 11502.67 6174.85
Bottom 9556.36 7143.33 10836.24 7808.22 10678.54 5746.54 11502.67 6174.85
i. X D irection
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
ii. Y D irection
S torey S h ear, k N
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
L o w a/v M S -A S
H igh a/v M S -A S
L o w a/v M S
H igh a/v M S
Figure 20 Story shear for model M1SW1 in X and Y directions

M1SW2
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1
Top 2493.40 2540.95 2755.85 2850.47 2949.76 2698.18 3286.69 2981.94
Bottom 2493.40 2540.95 2755.85 2850.47 2949.76 2698.18 3286.69 2981.94
0.8
Top 4739.87 4256.61 5218.15 4823.32 5631.42 4609.49 6289.78 5108.12
Bottom 4739.87 4256.61 5218.15 4823.32 5631.42 4609.49 6289.78 5108.12
0.6
Top 6411.28 5662.84 7035.45 6377.81 7543.85 5795.58 8439.18 6367.58
Bottom 6411.28 5662.84 7035.45 6377.81 7543.85 5795.58 8439.18 6367.58
0.4
Top 7936.79 6662.14 8620.15 7452.07 8941.14 6420.88 10008.24 7095.43
Bottom 7936.79 6662.14 8620.15 7452.07 8941.14 6420.88 10008.24 7095.43
0.2
Top 8878.83 7131.10 9559.83 7996.89 9679.17 6577.83 10833.67 7349.80
Bottom 8878.83 7131.10 9559.83 7996.89 9679.17 6577.83 10833.67 7349.80
i. X Direction
Storey Shear, kN
NormalizedHeight
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Low a/v M S-A S
High a/v M S-AS
Low a/v M S
High a/v M S
ii. Y Direction
Storey Shear, kN
NormalizedHeight
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Low a/v M S-A S
High a/v M S-AS
Low a/v M S
High a/v M S

Table 18 Story shear for model M2FB in X and Y directions
M2FB
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1
Top 3563.00 1606.90 3638.20 1989.97 3693.96 1530.78 3787.44 1954.97
Bottom 3563.00 1606.90 3638.20 1989.97 3693.96 1530.78 3787.44 1954.97
0.9
Top 5610.96 1934.88 5617.68 2138.18 5704.42 1806.90 5679.98 2057.48
Bottom 5610.96 1934.88 5617.68 2138.18 5704.42 1806.90 5679.98 2057.48
0.8
Top 6906.31 2073.31 6891.20 2310.04 6662.81 1891.13 6618.82 2298.11
Bottom 6906.31 2073.31 6891.20 2310.04 6662.81 1891.13 6618.82 2298.11
0.7
Top 7627.97 2127.32 7678.47 2462.17 7574.29 2009.68 7512.58 2376.00
Bottom 7627.97 2127.32 7678.47 2462.17 7574.29 2009.68 7512.58 2376.00
0.6
Top 8648.34 2276.07 8538.59 2553.71 8338.09 2149.19 8387.89 2486.75
Bottom 8648.34 2276.07 8538.59 2553.71 8338.09 2149.19 8387.89 2486.75
0.5
Top 9547.66 2360.57 9583.12 2656.10 9108.76 2192.78 9206.38 2587.03
Bottom 9547.66 2360.57 9583.12 2656.10 9108.76 2192.78 9206.38 2587.03
0.4
Top 10133.07 2537.89 10133.42 2787.64 9735.16 2278.05 9762.56 2693.55
Bottom 10133.07 2537.89 10133.42 2787.64 9735.16 2278.05 9762.56 2693.55
0.3
Top 10979.14 2652.01 10906.80 3001.60 10605.09 2334.14 10796.07 2882.18
Bottom 10979.14 2652.01 10906.80 3001.60 10605.09 2334.14 10796.07 2882.18
0.2
Top 12189.01 2877.69 12199.07 3276.12 12064.57 2496.37 11953.41 3000.58
Bottom 12189.01 2877.69 12199.07 3276.12 12064.57 2496.37 11953.41 3000.58
0.1
Top 12733.33 3159.94 12929.49 3874.48 12678.98 2655.38 12517.80 3261.80
Bottom 12733.33 3159.94 12929.49 3874.48 12678.98 2655.38 12517.80 3261.80
i. X D irection
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a/v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a/v M S
ii. Y D irection
S to r ey S h ea r , k N
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
H ig h a/v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a/v M S
Figure 22 Story shear for model M2FB in X and Y directions

M2SW1
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1
Top 4296.69 2440.73 4417.29 2899.20 4138.51 2267.92 4258.36 2743.87
Bottom 4296.69 2440.73 4417.29 2899.20 4138.51 2267.92 4258.36 2743.87
0.9
Top 7722.98 3252.35 7845.22 3895.93 7518.92 3107.96 7666.38 3743.17
Bottom 7722.98 3252.35 7845.22 3895.93 7518.92 3107.96 7666.38 3743.17
0.8
Top 10208.22 3675.34 10239.26 4345.82 9739.22 3496.87 9774.30 4140.43
Bottom 10208.22 3675.34 10239.26 4345.82 9739.22 3496.87 9774.30 4140.43
0.7
Top 11543.23 3967.57 11541.76 4744.79 10939.33 3691.85 10988.67 4369.11
Bottom 11543.23 3967.57 11541.76 4744.79 10939.33 3691.85 10988.67 4369.11
0.6
Top 12488.41 4295.56 12505.05 5057.09 12023.71 4006.30 12074.32 4680.20
Bottom 12488.41 4295.56 12505.05 5057.09 12023.71 4006.30 12074.32 4680.20
0.5
Top 13802.85 4549.97 13819.56 5395.21 13316.15 4479.50 13375.97 5261.23
Bottom 13802.85 4549.97 13819.56 5395.21 13316.15 4479.50 13375.97 5261.23
0.4
Top 15365.85 6121.33 15374.24 7004.57 14770.67 6018.73 14850.65 6883.79
Bottom 15365.85 6121.33 15374.24 7004.57 14770.67 6018.73 14850.65 6883.79
0.3
Top 17147.71 7299.21 17148.93 8231.11 16118.62 7311.62 16174.54 8169.11
Bottom 17147.71 7299.21 17148.93 8231.11 16118.62 7311.62 16174.54 8169.11
0.2
Top 18707.14 7996.16 18721.15 9075.56 17662.96 8049.82 17667.63 9063.91
Bottom 18707.14 7996.16 18721.15 9075.56 17662.96 8049.82 17667.63 9063.91
0.1
Top 19513.12 8144.40 19543.91 9326.70 18577.50 8218.33 18566.55 9337.63
Bottom 19513.12 8144.40 19543.91 9326.70 18577.50 8218.33 18566.55 9337.63
i. X D irection
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S
i. X D irection
NormalizedHeight
0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H ig h a /v M S

M2SW1
Story Shear
Normalized
Height
MS MS-AS MS MS-AS
1
Top 5424.54 3101.53 5730.682 3473.54 4353.625 2364.243 4453.216 2990.677
Bottom 5424.54 3101.53 5730.682 3473.54 4353.625 2364.243 4453.216 2990.677
0.9
Top 10322.88 4575.72 10851.02 5059.653 8226.808 3534.669 8344.908 4114.861
Bottom 10322.88 4575.72 10851.02 5059.653 8226.808 3534.669 8344.908 4114.861
0.8
Top 14378.25 5032.56 15003.74 5591.259 11022.38 3898.214 11099.94 4635.978
Bottom 14378.25 5032.56 15003.74 5591.259 11022.38 3898.214 11099.94 4635.978
0.7
Top 17273.45 5506.90 17882.1 6213.711 13084.35 4189.823 13079.25 4922.598
Bottom 17273.45 5506.90 17882.1 6213.711 13084.35 4189.823 13079.25 4922.598
0.6
Top 19134.98 6015.90 19656.78 6720.962 14426.26 4690.392 14487.96 5457.234
Bottom 19134.98 6015.90 19656.78 6720.962 14426.26 4690.392 14487.96 5457.234
0.5
Top 20322.93 6273.96 21078.54 7071.827 15436.51 5074.722 15562.8 5823.942
Bottom 20322.93 6273.96 21078.54 7071.827 15436.51 5074.722 15562.8 5823.942
0.4
Top 21916.76 6621.52 22668.29 7969.097 16623.03 6367.229 16751.43 7408.955
Bottom 21916.76 6621.52 22668.29 7969.097 16623.03 6367.229 16751.43 7408.955
0.3
Top 22875.62 7671.77 23715.17 9441.418 18130.17 7406.097 18239.38 8910.169
Bottom 22875.62 7671.77 23715.17 9441.418 18130.17 7406.097 18239.38 8910.169
0.2
Top 24085.81 8613.03 24931.23 10679.11 19630.26 8920.714 19804.4 10389.78
Bottom 24085.81 8613.03 24931.23 10679.11 19630.26 8920.714 19804.4 10389.78
0.1
Top 24625.92 9013.88 25539.79 11389.06 20575.45 9490.06 20717.1 11022.41
Bottom 24625.92 9013.88 25539.79 11389.06 20575.45 9490.06 20717.1 11022.41
i. X D irection
S torey S h ear, k N
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a/v M S -A S
H igh a/v M S -A S
L o w a/v M S
H igh a/v M S
ii. Y D irection
S tor ey S h ear , k N
NormalizedHeight
0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
L o w a /v M S -A S
H igh a/v M S -A S
L o w a /v M S
H igh a/v M S

5. Conclusions
Based on the study conducted the following conclusions can be drawn:
 The modal analysis results indicate that increasing the amount of shear wall in the building resulted in decreased
fundamental period due to increased stiffness.
 From the figure5.1 to 5.6, it is clear that from the drift criteria for slight damage limit state the fixed base
buildings M1FB, M1SW1, M2FB, M2SW1 and M2SW2 have similar performance for low a/v earthquake records
whereas for high a/v earthquake records M1FB, M1SW1 and M2FB show similar performance and exceed the
limit prescribed. The building models M1SW2, M2SW1 and M2SW2 have higher performance i.e., they require
higher earthquake intensity to reach slight damage limit state.
 At moderate damage limit state, it can be observed that for model M1, M1SW2 is the best building configuration
and M1FB is the worst and for model M2, M1SW2 is the best building configuration and M1FB is the worst
illustrating
That increasing shear wall effectively increases the seismic performance.
 At extensive damage limit state, when subjected to low a/v records, M2FB just satisfies the limit state and rest of
the models show higher performance. For high a/v records all the models satisfy the extensive damage limit
state.
 It can also be observed that the buildings having both external and internal shear walls seem to be more stable
with significant difference compared to MRF buildings and buildings having shear walls on in its periphery.
Therefore, shear wall configuration is as important as shear wall amount in improving the seismic responses,
especially at the extensive and collapse limit state.
 From moment point of view, it can be concluded from the figures 5.19 to 5.24 that for low a/v ratio, the difference
between the MS and MS-AS for fixed base building is negligible, for shear wall buildings the maximum difference
is 20 %. For high a/v the difference between for fixed base is almost negligible and the shear wall configuration
building showing the difference of 15%.
 Due to the contribution of higher modes, the story acceleration is smaller and doesn’t vary linearly along height.
So it can be concluded from the figures 5.25 to 5.30 that for a high rise building due to the addition of shear walls
the accelerations are linear up to some extent.
 From the shear perspective, the difference between MS and MS-AS is 12% for low a/v ratio and 26% for high a/v
ratio for the shear wall building models where as for the fixed base is 1.5% for low a/v ratio and 23% for high a/v
ratio as seen in figures 5.13 to 5.18.
References
 Abdelnaby, A. E. (2012).Multiple earthquake effects on degrading reinforced concrete structures, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U. S.
 Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2006). Earthquake resistant design of structures, PHI
learning Pvt. Ltd.
 Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall, NJ.
 Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, McGraw Hill, New York.
 Deka, B., Rahman, S. N., andTamuly, P. (2014).“Damage Assessment of RC Frame Structures under Long Duration
Aftershock Ground Motions.” Int. J. Innovative Research in Science Eng., and Tech., 3(9), 16144-16149.
 Di Sarno L. (2013).Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng.Struct.,54.
 Duan, X., and Pappin, J. W. (2008). “A Procedure for Establishing Fragility Functions for Seismic Loss Estimate of
Existing Buildings Based on Nonlinear Pushover Analysis.” Proc., 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.

 Dulinska, M, J.,andMurzyn, I, J. (2016). “Dynamic behaviour of a concrete building under a mainshock–aftershock
seismic sequence with a concrete damage plasticity material model.” Geomatics, Natural Hazard and Risk., 7, 25-
34.
 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (1997).“NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.” FEMA 273, Washington, D.C.
 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). “Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology.” Hazus –MH 2.1,
Washington, D.C.

IRJET- Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a IRJET- Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence

Semelhante a IRJET- Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence (20)

Mais de IRJET Journal

Mais de IRJET Journal (20)

Último

Último (20)

IRJET- Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence