SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING RC MOMENT FRAME BUILDINGS

UNDER REVISED SEISMIC HAZARD OF INDIA

P. Bansode1 & R. Goswami2

1 Ph.D. Student, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India, [email protected]

2 Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India

Abstract: Many regions of densely populated Indian landmass are prone to moderate to strong earthquake
shaking. Consequently, earthquake-resistant design and construction are essential for which national
standards are under improvement over the past several decades. The latest draft of Indian Standard 1893 (1)
2023 provides revised estimate of seismic hazard, including a new seismic zone map, based on probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) of the landmass of India. The PSHA considers the effect of plate tectonics
including location and geometry of faults, regional lithology, and amplification or de-amplification of seismic
waves depending on soil deposits. Three major changes made in the seismic hazard map are the (i) number
of zones, (ii) boundaries of the zones, and (iii) zone factors, corresponding to return period of 2,475 years.
Understanding expected performance of existing structures designed in compliance with the current Indian
design standards but under the revised seismic hazard, and identifying the requirement of retrofit measures to
be undertaken are important, especially for important and critical and lifeline structures. This paper
demonstrates the impact of the revised seismic hazard on performance of reinforced concrete (RC) frame
buildings. Nonlinear static analyses of typical 9-story RC moment frame buildings designed as per the current
design standards are performed to evaluate the expected displacement demand and identify potential damage
states (viz., minor, moderate, and severe) due to the revised seismic hazard. It is observed that the buildings
in lower seismic zones are likely to withstand minor to moderate damages, whereas buildings in higher zones
may suffer severe damage or even collapse, especially in the Himalayas and Northeast India warranting
suitable retrofit.

1. Introduction
About 80% of the total Indian population lives on approximately 60% of the Indian landmass which have
moderate to severe seismicity. Many inter and intraplate events like the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, 1991
Uttarkashi earthquake, 1993 Killari earthquake, 1997 Jabalpur earthquake, 1999 Chamoli earthquake, 2001
Bhuj earthquake and 2015 Nepal earthquake reported peak ground acceleration values of 0.25g to as high as
1.8g (Sreejaya et al., 2022). These events affected the built environment and thus the socioeconomic fabric of
the country. It is strongly felt that suitable earthquake-resistant design practices be implemented throughout
the country. The current seismic design practice uses a seismic zone map of India which is based on the
damages observed during past earthquakes with some consideration to the major tectonic features but is
believed to be underestimate the seismic hazard in the Himalayas and Northeast India due to scarcity of
recorded data of past earthquakes. The expected shaking intensity in each of the zones was determined
empirically based on engineering judgement without much consideration to type and design life of a structure
and uncertainties associated with occurrence of earthquakes in the region. It is believed that future earthquake
events can be much bigger than that considered by current Indian Standard. Thus, over the last two decades,
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

revisions were made in Indian standards to improve the overall design and construction practices in the
country. Continuing that endeavour, the latest draft of IS 1893 (1) 2023 provides for the first time probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) based estimates of design seismic hazard along with a revised zone map of
India (Figure 1) and specific design spectra (Figure 2) for different types of soil deposits (Draft IS 1893 (1, 2),
2023). The PSHA provide zone factors, which reflects the mean horizontal peak ground acceleration
normalized with acceleration due to gravity for 2,475 year return period events. These values are then modified
to obtain equivalent zone factors for other return periods in each zone, as listed in Table 1. It is important to
note that significant revisions of design standards occur either due to demonstrated poor performance of
structures during earthquakes, as was the case following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the 1994
Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (Hossam et al., 2022;
Jennings and Housner, 1974; Osamu et al., 2004; Science, 1994; Yamanouchi and Hasegawa, 1996), or due
to proof of or perceived threat due to deficiency in considered hazard or design provisions. This latest revision
of the Indian Standard can be attributed to the later.

2. Key Changes
The adoption of the revised seismic hazard and zone map of India (Figure 1) leads to some unique situations.
The previous four seismic zones of the country are now demarcated into five zones. Thus, the shifting of
boundaries of seismic zones cause many towns and cities to now fall in one- or two-level higher zone. For
example, cities like Bareilly and Patiala, which were earlier in zone III, and Almora, Chandigarh, Darjeeling,
Dehra Dun, Gangtok, Nainital, and Shimla, which were previously in zone IV, now fall in zones V and VI,
respectively. Added to this is the fact that the estimate of peak ground acceleration has generally increased in
each zone. Further, all structures earlier were designed for the same level of hazard but for different levels of
design force based on their importance classification (viz., normal, important, and lifeline). Now, structures of
different type (viz., buildings, bridges) and importance (viz., normal, important, and lifeline) are required to be
designed for different levels of design force based on design peak ground acceleration for specified return
periods. Finally, design load combinations earlier used load factors greater than unity to account for uncertainty
in the seismic hazard considered in design, which is now eliminated; now load factor of one is used. A summary
of important key changes related to seismic design demand for buildings is provided in Table 2. Consequently,
the percent increase in seismic design force considering current and revised hazard for different types of
buildings is presented in Tables 3-5. The increase in design force for a building remaining in the same zone
varies between 0 to 85%.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Seismic Zone Map of India (a) current (2016 version) and (b) revised (2023 version)

2
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

Table 1. Earthquake Zone Factor Z for different return periods in different zones
Earthquake Zone Factor Z for different return periods (years)
Zone 73 225 475 975 2,475 4,975 9,975
II 0.0375 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.15 0.200 0.250
III 0.075 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.30 0.400 0.500
IV 0.180 0.225 0.300 0.360 0.45 0.540 0.675
V 0.240 0.300 0.400 0.480 0.60 0.750 0.900
VI 0.300 0.375 0.500 0.600 0.75 0.9375 1.125

Response Spectra, Response Spectra,

3.0 3.0
IS 1893: 2016 IS 1893: 2023
2.5 2.5
Hard Soil Site Hard Soil Site
2.0 2.0
Sa/g

Sa/g

Medium Stiff Soil Site Medium Stiff Soil Site

1.5 1.5
Soft Soil Site Soft Soil Site
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Natural Period T, s Natural Period T, s

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Current and revised design spectra of IS 1893

Table 2. Design parameters in current and revised Indian Standards

IS 1893 2016 (Current) IS 1893 2023 (Draft)
Considered Value For Tr (years)
irrespective of Return Period Tr (years) 475 975 2475
Zone factor, Z Zone II 0.10 Zone II 0.075 0.10 0.15
(in terms of g) for Zone III 0.16 Zone III 0.15 0.20 0.30
Strength Design Zone IV 0.24 Zone IV 0.30 0.36 0.45
Zone V 0.36 Zone V 0.40 0.48 0.60
Zone VI 0.50 0.60 0.75
Crucial Services: 1.5 All buildings: 1.0
Critical and Lifeline Buildings
Importance Important buildings: 1.2 Classification based on Importance of
Factor, I Business Continuity Buildings buildings is taken care by directly
All other buildings: 1.0 choosing the Z values for specific return
Normal Buildings period of earthquake (refer Table 1)

 Z I Sa   I Sa  *
EL =   W  L = AhW  L EL =  Z  W  L = AhW  L
Design Horizontal 2R g   R g 
Earthquake Force *
where, Ah and Ah are design force coefficient

Load Factor,  L 1.2, 1.5 (depending on load combination) 1.0

3
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

Table 3. Comparison of current and revised design force coefficient Ah in the same zone (LR)
Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Earthquake
I = 1.0 Tr = 475 % I = 1.2 Tr = 975 % I = 1.5 Tr = 2,475 %
Zone
Current Revised increase Current Revised increase Current Revised increase
II 0.015 0.015 0 0.018 0.020 11 0.023 0.030 33
III 0.024 0.030 25 0.029 0.040 39 0.036 0.060 67
IV 0.036 0.060 67 0.043 0.072 67 0.054 0.090 67
V 0.054 0.080 48 0.065 0.096 48 0.081 0.120 48
IV -- 0.100 85 -- 0.120 85 -- 0.150 85

Table 4. Comparison of current and revised design force coefficient Ah in 1 level higher zone (LR1)
Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Earthquake
I = 1.0 Tr = 475 % I = 1.2 Tr = 975 % I = 1.5 Tr = 2,475 %
Zone
Current Revised increase Current Revised increase Current Revised increase
II 0.015 0.030 100 0.018 0.040 122 0.023 0.060 167
III 0.024 0.060 150 0.029 0.072 150 0.036 0.090 150
IV 0.036 0.080 122 0.043 0.096 122 0.054 0.120 122
V 0.054 0.100 85 0.065 0.120 85 0.081 0.150 85

Table 5. Comparison of current and revised design force coefficient Ah in 2 levels higher zone (LR2)
Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Earthquake
I = 1.0 Tr = 475 % I = 1.2 Tr = 975 % I = 1.5 Tr = 2,475 %
Zone
Current Revised increase Current Revised increase Current Revised increase
II 0.015 0.060 300 0.018 0.072 300 0.023 0.090 300
III 0.024 0.080 233 0.029 0.096 233 0.036 0.120 233
IV 0.036 0.100 178 0.043 0.120 178 0.054 0.150 178

3. Design Philosophy
The intent of building design standards is to provide design and ductile detailing guidelines for buildings to
resist earthquake shaking, and guarantee life safety by preventing catastrophic collapse of normal buildings,
and to maintain functionality after a major earthquake in case of essential facilities (important and critical lifeline
buildings). The standards recognize the ability of carefully designed and detailed concrete structural
components to dissipate input seismic energy through hysteresis; design entails maintaining continuous load
path, limiting inter-storey distortion, maintaining hierarchy of strength in structural members to ensure
inelasticity at predetermined locations by adopting capacity-based design and providing suitable ductile
detailing. Thus, reinforced concrete members may undergo damage states such as cracking of concrete,
yielding of reinforcing steel, spalling of cover concrete, and crushing of core concrete during earthquake
shaking depending on the type and design of the member. Thus, though the intent of the design standard is
simple, the actual behavior of a building and its members is challenging to control and could substantially
deviate from the intended behavior. The reasons being the uncertainty in the actual ground shaking, intricacy
of the structure, manner and range of strength deterioration and stiffness degradation of members, and
redistribution of forces during inelastic excursions. The aim of this study is to investigate probable seismic
performance of RC moment frame buildings designed as per current Indian standards under both current and
the revised seismic hazard. The expected damage state of a building is determined based on the displacement
demand for different levels of seismic hazard.

4
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

4. Building Description
Nine-story reinforced concrete (RC) moment frame buildings of rectangular plan (Figure 3) are designed and
detailed as per the provisions of Indian Standards (IS 456, 2000; IS 1893 (1), 2016; IS 13920, 2016). The
buildings consist of 4 bays in x-direction and 8 bays in y-direction, each of 8 m and 6 m span length,
respectively. The typical story height is 3.7 m, and RC diaphragm is 180 mm thick at all levels. Imposed load,
floor finish, and roof finish considered are 2.5 kPa, 0.5 kPa, and 1 kPa, respectively. The buildings are designed
for commercial purpose and constructed on rocky soil site (Hard Soil). Normal-density concrete with unit weight
of 25 kN/m3 and compressive strength, fc of 30 MPa is used. The concrete modulus of elasticity is determined
according to IS 456 and found to be 27.8 GPa. Mander’s concrete model is used to represent unconfined cover
and confined core concretes (Mander et al., 1988(a, b)). The ultimate strain of confined concrete is limited to
a value in proportion to crushing strain of unconfined concrete (Zahn et al., 1990; Paulay and Priestley, 1992).
High yield strength deformed steel reinforcement is considered with yield strength, fy, of 500 MPa and yield
strain of 0.0025. The overstrength factor considered for HYSD steel bars is 1.25, with at least elongation of
14.5 percent (Thompson and Park, 1978; IS 13920, 2016). The dimensions of members of the buildings are
determined based on minimum stiffness requirements of IS 1893 (1) 2016 (IS 1893 (1), 2016) by restricting
inter-story drift ratio, and limiting axial compressive stress to 0.4 fc in all columns (IS 13920, 2016). Lumped
plastic moment hinges and distributed fibre hinges are defined and modelled in beams and columns,
respectively. Several studies support that the capacity-based shear design of RC beams and columns ensures
a dominant flexural failure prior to shear failure (Badal and Sinha, 2022; Ebrahimian et al., 2018; Jeong and
Elnashai, 2004). Thus, the shear hinges are not modeled in this study. Nonlinear static pushover analyses are
performed using Perform 3D (Computers and Structures Inc., 2021), using a displacement profile resembled
by the fundamental mode shape of the building in the x-direction (which typically is designed to have mass
participation of about 80 percent). The roof displacement of a building is monitored against the base shear
induced under the action of displacement loading. The first occurrence of different damage states (i.e., cracking
of cover concrete, yielding of reinforcing steel, spalling of cover concrete, and crushing of core concrete) is
monitored for the purpose of performance assessment; lateral roof displacement corresponding to first
crushing of core concrete is assumed to represent the deformability or collapse state of the building.
Displacement demand for performance assessment is determined as per capacity spectrum method described
in FEMA 440 (FEMA 440, 2005).
Z Y
8 storeys of 3.7 m each

8 × 6 m = 48 m

4.5m
X
X

4 × 8 m = 32 m

(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) Plan and (b) elevation of study buildings

5
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Percent increase in Design Seismic Coefficient, Ah
The zone factors considered in current Indian standard are believed to correspond to 2,475-year return period
events in the four current zones and are often represented as those corresponding to maximum considered
earthquake. Half of these values are used in design and are referred as those for 475-year return period
events. Response reduction factors (usually R = 5) are used in estimating the design force allowing damage
in normal moment frame buildings. Thereafter, importance factor (I = 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5) is used to limit damage
in important, and critical and lifeline buildings when subjected to maximum considered earthquake. In the new
proposal, design force for normal, important, and critical and lifeline buildings are obtained directly using zone
factor corresponding to 475-year, 975-year and 2,475-year return period events. The net effect of these
changes in terms of percent increase in design force coefficient is reported in Table 3-5. All categories of
buildings (i.e., normal, important, and critical and lifeline) in lower seismic zones have a marginal increase in
design seismic force. In contrast, buildings in moderate to high seismic regions see increase in design forces
by 60 to 85 %. But, due to shifting of boundaries of zones in the zone map and increase is design hazard in
each zone, buildings now sited on one higher zone is estimated to be subjected to 100 to 160 % higher seismic
forces, and those falling in two higher zone could experience 180 to 300 % higher seismic force.
5.2 Building Inherent Capacity
Earthquake performance of a building is evaluated based on the damage state experienced by its members
at different levels of earthquake demand. The different damage states are pre-defined at beam cross-sections
through the moment curvature response (Figure 4) while at column cross-sections, these are identified directly
using the strains in the respective materials. The damage states considered are the first occurrence of yielding
in longitudinal tension reinforcement, first occurrence of spalling of cover concrete in compression, and first
occurrence of crushing of core concrete. The damage states observed from nonlinear static analyses of the
study buildings designed for 12 cases (4 seismic zones, and 3 levels of importance) are reported in Table 6.
It can be observed that, buildings located in higher zones have lesser deformability than those located in lower
zones. Same trend is observed in buildings located in same zone, but of higher categories. With increase in
design force, stiffness and strength increases and but deformability reduces in general. Also reported are the
displacement demands required to induce different damage states in these 12 designed buildings.

RC Beam RC Moment Frame Building

Cross-section Moment Curvature Collapse Mechanism Load Deformation
Δ
3Y25 EL H 1st Spalling 1st
Moment, kNm

No Significant Crushing
1st
500 SD No Collapse
Yielding
2Y25 No SD
Moment Curvature
300
Yielding
Spalling
Crushing
Curvature, m/m
H Δ

Figure 4. Nonlinear response of beam cross-sections and moment frame buildings

Table 6. Drift (%) at different Damage States

Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Seismic
1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st
Zone
Yielding Spalling Crushing Yielding Spalling Crushing Yielding Spalling Crushing
Zone II 0.83 1.35 2.14 0.83 1.35 2.14 0.87 1.38 2.19
Zone III 0.76 1.31 2.11 0.80 1.28 2.13 0.80 1.37 1.98
Zone IV 0.81 1.40 2.05 0.83 1.40 2.13 0.61 1.32 1.68
Zone V 0.65 1.34 1.82 0.65 1.38 1.60 0.55 1.15 1.52

6
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

5.3 Displacement Demand and Damage State

Performance assessment of the study building is carried out for the following four levels of seismic demand:
(1) LC: seismic hazard based on current standard, (2) LR: revised seismic hazard in the same seismic zone,
(3) LR1: revised seismic hazard in one higher seismic zone, and (4) LR2: revised seismic hazard in two higher
seismic zone. Here, displacement demand is estimated for 2,475 year return period. The drift demands on
designed buildings in different zones and at the four levels of demand are listed in Table 7. The same is shown
graphically in Figure 5. The results indicate that all categories of buildings (i.e., normal, important, and lifeline)
designed for current seismic hazard with different importance factors (i.e., I = 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5) can safely
withstand the current seismic hazard (L0) with minor to moderate damage (i.e., yielding of reinforcing steel or
spalling of cover concrete). Buildings designed for zones II, III and IV are expected to remain elastic, whereas
buildings designed for zone V would exhibit nominal nonlinearity. This demonstrates that the current design
ensures expected behavior of designed buildings. Further, it can be observed from the results presented in
Tables 6-7 that under current seismic hazard (L0), the displacement demand on normal buildings in seismic
zone II has 60 percent margin up to the displacement capacity corresponding to first yielding of reinforcing
steel. Likewise, in zone III and IV, percent margin is 36 and 17, respectively. Interestingly, in zone V, the
displacement demand surpasses the damage state corresponding to first yielding of reinforcing steel by 25
percent. The expected damage states in the buildings corresponding to displacement demand imposed by
different levels of hazard are tabulated in Table 8.

Table 7. Roof Drift Demand (%) for different Levels of Hazard (LC to LR2)
Seismic Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Zone LC LR LR1 LR2 LC LR LR1 LR2 LC LR LR1 LR2
Zone II 0.33 0.51 1.03 2.04 0.33 0.51 1.03 1.99 0.33 0.51 1.03 1.89
Zone III 0.49 0.91 1.61 2.92 0.49 0.91 1.58 2.53 0.45 0.84 1.40 2.14
Zone IV 0.67 1.38 2.51 4.31 0.67 1.38 2.30 3.61 0.54 1.00 1.60 2.16
Zone V 0.81 1.76 2.58 -- 0.74 1.38 2.34 -- 0.64 1.10 2.08 --

Table 8. Expected Damage States for different Levels of Hazard (LC to LR2)
Seismic Normal Buildings Important Buildings Critical & Lifeline Buildings
Zone LC LR LR1 LR2 LC LR LR1 LR2 LC LR LR1 LR2
Zone II E E Y S E E Y S E E Y S
Zone III E Y Y C E Y S C E Y S C
Zone IV E Y C C E Y C C E Y S C
Zone V Y S C -- Y S C -- Y Y C --
Notations:: E: Elastic Response Y: 1st Yielding of Reinforcing Steel
S: 1st Spalling of Cover Concrete C: 1st Crushing of Core Concrete

For the revised seismic hazard in the same zone (LR), all buildings in zone II demonstrate elastic behaviour;
and those in zone III experience nominal yielding of reinforcing steel. Moderate to severe damage is observed
in normal and important buildings in zones IV and V, whereas critical and lifeline buildings experience
comparatively less damage. Thus, the role of importance factor to control and even reduce damage in buildings
of higher category is observed to work well.
Given that the boundaries of seismic zones have now changed, the vulnerability of existing buildings shifted
to one or two higher zones has increased too. All buildings in zones II and III, now shifted to one higher zone
(LR1), is expected to suffer moderate to severe damage; and all buildings in zone IV and V would fail to
guarantee no collapse criterion, except the critical and lifeline buildings is zone IV. Also, the buildings in zones
III, IV and V shifted to two higher zone (LR2) would fail under no collapse criterion. These buildings require
immediate attention in terms of putting in place a retrofit strategy to prevent disasters in future.

7
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

Zone II Zone II Zone II

0.16 0.16 0.16
I = 1.0 I = 1.2 I = 1.5
0.12 0.12 0.12
V/W

0.08 0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04 0.04

0 0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Zone III Zone III Zone III

0.16 0.16 0.16
I = 1.0 I = 1.2 I = 1.5
0.12 0.12 0.12
V/W

0.08 0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04 0.04

0 0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Zone IV Zone IV Zone IV

0.16 0.16 0.16
I = 1.0 I = 1.2 I = 1.5
0.12 0.12 0.12
V/W

0.08 0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04 0.04

0 0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Zone V Zone V Zone V

0.16 0.16 0.16
I = 1.0 I = 1.2 I = 1.5
0.12 0.12 0.12
V/W

0.08 0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04 0.04

0 0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, % Drift, % Drift, %

Figure 5. Load Deformation relationship of buildings designed as per current Indian Seismic Standard and
performance assessment as per different levels

6. Conclusion
The seismic hazard of India is revised based on probabilistic hazard assessment. Thus, the need was felt to
study the performance of existing buildings in the country under the revised hazard. Consequently, the
performance of 12 buildings designed as per current Indian seismic standards is assessed for four levels of
seismic hazards. The state of damage anticipated in buildings against the current hazard is found to be well
within the anticipated limits. But, the expected damage under the revised hazard is considerably large, raising
alarm on the performance of some of the existing buildings in the country. The reason is that the revised
estimate of seismic hazard has led to 2 to 4 times higher seismic force demand on existing buildings. With the
change in boundaries of zone map, buildings in many important cities designed for lower seismicity are now
falling in regions of high seismicity.

8
WCEE2024 Bansode & Goswami

Thus, the results obtained from this limited study indicate that existing buildings in seismic zone II can
withstand the revised hazard with moderate to severe damage and ensure no collapse. But, buildings in
seismic zones III, IV, and V would suffer extensive damage and, in some cases, reach the collapse state. The
findings of the present study reveal that extensive performance evaluation and retrofit strategies are required
for existing buildings. In this context, it is noteworthy to remember that significant modifications to design
standards are usually the consequences of disasters caused by earthquakes, but those incorporated during
peacetime go a long way in reducing loss of life and damage to structures in the future.

7. References
Badal P.S. and Sinha R. (2022). A framework to incorporate probabilistic performance in force-based seismic
design of RC buildings as per Indian Standards. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 26(3), 1253-1280
Draft IS 1893 (1): 2023. Design Earthquake Hazard and Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
- Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
Ebrahimian H., Astroza R., Conte J.P. and Hutchinson T.C. (2018). Pretest nonlinear finite-element modeling
and response simulation of a full-scale 5-story reinforced concrete building tested on the NEES-UCSD
shake table. Journal of Structural Engineering 144(3): 0418009
El-Sokkary H. and Elsharawy M. (2022) ‘Impact of revised seismic hazard values in NBCC 2015 on RC shear
wall buildings’, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 28(3)
FEMA (2005). FEMA 440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC
IS 456 (2000): Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS 1893 (1): 2016. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures—Part 1: General
Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
IS 13920: 2016. Indian Standard Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Forces—Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
Jennings P.C., and Housner G.W. (1974). The San Fernando, California, Earthquake of February 9, 1971”,
Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rome, Italy
Jeong S.H. and Elnashai A.S. (2004). Analytical assessment of an irregular RC full scale 3D test structure.
PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., Park R. (1988a). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8): 1804-1826
Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., Park R. (1988b). Observed stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8): 1827-1849
Osamu M., Taro I., Itsuki N. (2004). Evaluation of Building Reconstruction Process in Chi-Chi area based on
a GIS- Database After The 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan”, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada
Paulay T., Priestley M.J.N (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley
& Sons, New York
PERFORM-3D (2021), Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Computers and
Structures, USA
Scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Southern California Earth Source (1994). The Magnitude 6.7
Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January 1994, Science, New Series, 266(5184), 389-397
Sreejaya K.P., Raghukanth S.T.G., Gupta I.D., Murty C.V.R., and Srinagesh D. (2022). Seismic hazard map
of India and neighbouring regions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 163, 107505
Thompson K.J., and Park R. (1978). Stress-Strain Model for Grade 275 Reinforcing Steel with Cyclic Loading.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 11(2)
Yamanouchi H., and Hasegawa T. (1996). Seismic Performance of model structures designed by old and new
Japanese seismic design codes, against the 1995 Kobe earthquake ground motions”, Proceedings of the
11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico
Zahn F.A., Park R., Priestley M.J.N. (1990). Flexural strength and ductility of circular hollow reinforced concrete
columns without confinement on inside face, ACI Structural Journal, 87(2)