Submitted By:-

Abhishek Gupta (121503)

Arun Yadav (121527)

Bhupendra Singh (121533)Submitted To:-

Mr. Abhishek Verma

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wishes to record our appreciation to the help and guidance

received in preparation of this report. We would like to thank and express

deep sense of gratitude to project guide Mr. ABHISHEK VERMA, Assistant

Professor of Civil Engineering, Jaypee University of Engineering &

Technology, Guna, who suggested the problem and provided guidance at

each stage of work. The timely completion of the report was possible only

because of the enthusiastic help received from him at all stages of work.

We thanks Dr. S. Arunachalam, Professor and Head, Department of

Civil Engineering, for providing full facilities and extended help at all stages

of the study.

We also thanks Prof. N.J. Rao, Vice Chancellor Jaypee University of

Engineering & Technology, Guna for providing all facilities.

We would also like to thanks our parents, friends and well-wishers for

their constant encouragement and moral support at every stage during the

completion of this project.

1

ABSTRACT

Tall buildings are susceptible to dynamic horizontal loads such as wind and earthquakes. These horizontal forces cause important stresses, displacements and vibrations due to the building’s inherent tallness and flexibility. Wind induced displacements and vibrations become critical with increasing height. Excessive displacements can cause damage to partitions, cladding and interior finishes, whereas the human motion perception can induce concern regarding the structural safety and cause nausea and dizziness to the occupants. Analyzing and designing of buildings for static forces is a routine affair these days because of availability of affordable computers and specialized programs which can be used for the analysis. Stiffness and ductility considerations rather than strength would govern the design. The intent in seismic design then is to limit building movements, not so much to reduce perception of motion but to maintain the building’s stability and prevent danger to pedestrians due to breakage and falling down of nonstructural elements. In this study, structural systems that can be used for the lateral resistance of tall buildings are classified based on the basic reaction mechanism/structural behavior for resisting the lateral loads.

In this Study G+6, G+12, G+18 storied regular building model has been analyzed by static & dynamic analysis. This building has the plan area of 25 m x 15 m with a storey height 3.0m and depth of foundation is 2.0 m.

The static & dynamic analysis has been done on computer with the help of STAAD-Pro & etabs software using the parameters for the designing as per the IS-1893- 2002-Part-1 for the all zones and different soils conditions and the post processing result obtained has been summarized later work.

2

Contents

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction about Seismic Loading

1.2 Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy

1.3 Seismic Wave Behavior

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURES

CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC ZONES3.1 Introduction to Seismic zones3.2 Need for Seismic Zonation3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones

CHAPTER 4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION4.1 Determining Soil Profile Type for Identifying the

Response Spectrum(a) Type I: Rock or Hard Soils(b) Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils(c) Type III: Soft Soils

4.2 Elastic Property of Foundation Soil

CHAPTER 5 FRAMES & BRACING5.1 Introduction5.2 Bracing System

CHAPTER 6 BUILDING DESCRIPTION6.1 Plan of Building

CHAPTER 7 METHODOLOGY7.1 Static Analysis7.2 Dynamic Analysis

CHAPTER 8 REFRENCES

3

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction about Seismic Loading:

Apart from gravity loads, the structure will experience dominant lateral forces of considerable magnitude during earthquake shaking. It is essential to estimate and specify these lateral forces on the structure in order to design the structure to resist an earthquake. It is impossible to exactly determine the earthquake induced lateral forces that are expected to act on the structure during its lifetime. However, considering the consequential effects of earthquake due to eventual failure of the structure, it is important to estimate these forces in a rational and realistic manner.

The earthquake forces in a structure depend on a number of factors such as:• Characteristics of the earthquake (Magnitude, intensity, duration, frequency, etc.)• Distance from the fault• Site geology• Type of structure and its lateral load resisting system.

1.2 Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophy:Apart from the factors mentioned above, the consequences of failure of the structure may also be of concern in the reliable estimation of design lateral forces. Hence, it is important to include these factors in the lateral force estimation procedures. Code of practice for earthquake resistant design of structures primarily aims at accomplishing two primary objectives; total safety against loss of life and minimization of economic loss.

These objectives are fulfilled by design philosophy with following criteria:• Resist minor earthquake shaking without damage.• Resist moderate earthquake shaking without structural damage but possibly with some damage to nonstructural members.• Resist major levels of earthquake shaking with both structural and nonstructural damage, but the building should not collapse thus endangerment of the lives of occupants is avoided.

4

Figure 1: Schematic diagram depicting earthquake resistant design philosophy for different levels shaking [IITK-BMTPC (2004)]

The purpose of an earthquake-resistant design is to provide a structure with features, which will enable it to respond satisfactorily to seismic effects. These features are related to five major objectives, which are listed in order of importance:

The likelihood of collapse after a very severe earthquake should be as low as possible.

Damage to non-structural elements caused by moderate earthquakes should be kept within reasonable limits. Although substantial damage due to severe earthquakes, which have a low probability of occurrence is acceptable, such damage is unacceptable in the case of moderate tremors which are more likely to occur.

Buildings in which many people are usually present should have deformability features which will enable occupants to remain calm even in the event of strong shocks.

Personal injury should be avoided. Damage to neighboring buildings should be avoided

5

1.3 Seismic Wave Behavior:

The P wave, or primary wave, is the fastest of the three waves and the first detected by seismographs. They are able to move through both solid rock as well as through liquids. These are compressional or longitudinal waves that oscillate the ground back and forth along the direction of wave travel, in much the same way that sound waves (which are also compressional) move air back and forth as the waves travel from the sound source to a sound receiver. Compressional waves compress and expand matter as they move through it.

S waves, or secondary waves, are the waves directly following the P waves. S waves travel in the same direction, but instead of being a compressive wave, they oscillate with a shearing behavior at right angles to the direction of motion. They travel about 1.7 times slower than P waves. Because liquids will not sustain shear stresses, S waves will not travel through liquids like water, molten rock, or the Earth’s outer core. S waves are more dangerous than P waves because they have greater amplitude and produce vertical and horizontal motion of the ground surface.

6

Surface waves travel at or near the surface of the Earth only. These can be the most destructive waves in that they appear to roll along lifting and dropping the ground as they pass and they are slowest. There are two types of surface waves:

1) Love waves move like S waves in that they have a shearing motion in the direction of travel, but the movement is back and forth horizontally.

2) Rayleigh waves move both horizontally and vertically in a vertical plane pointed in the direction of travel.

Love and Rayleigh waves both produce ground shaking at the Earth’s surface but very little motion deep in the Earth. Because the amplitude of surface waves diminishes less rapidly with distance than the amplitude of P or S waves, surface waves are often the most important component of ground shaking far from the earthquake source, thus can be the most destructive.

7

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURES

Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), “Seismic Behavior of Multi-Storied Buildings” The study deals with the comparison of base shear of multi storied buildings with dimensions 20x20mts, 30x30mts,40x40mts,60x60mts at different zones and different types of soils as per IS:1893(part-I):2002. A total of 224 multi storied buildings are analyzed for this paper. This work helps in understanding the effect of earthquake with increase in area and height of multi storied buildings and also the increase of base shear for different zones and soil conditions.

Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), “SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BUILDINGS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL” Buildings are subjected to different earthquake loading and behaves differently with diversification in the types of soil condition, such as dense soil, medium and soft soil. Different soil properties can affect seismic waves as they pass through a soil layer. When a structure is subjected to an earthquake excitation, it interacts with the foundation and soil, and thus changes the motion of the ground. It means that the movement of the whole ground structure system is influenced by type of soil as well as by the type of structure. As the seismic waves transfer from the ground which consist of alteration in soil properties and performs differently according to soil’s respective properties. In this study, different soil strata are taken and corresponding base shear and lateral displacement is determined with variation in floors as G+4, G+5 and G+6 and zone as 3, 4 and 5. IS 1893: 2002 “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” gives response spectrum for different types of soil such as hard, medium and soft. A building is modeled in SAP-2000 having different Winkler’s springs as its foundation corresponding to different soil properties. This research has immense benefits in the Geotechnical Earthquake engineering field.

8

Abhyuday Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta, (2015), “A Comparative Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected To Seismic Loadings”The objective of this study is to investigate the seismic behavior of the structure having various structural configurations like OMRCF (Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frames), SMRCF (Special Moment Resisting Frames) and BSF (Braced Steel Frames). A comparative study of all the types of frames will shed light on the best suited frame to be adopted for seismic loads in Indian scenario. For this purpose, a G+4 building was designed for OMRCF, SMRCF and BSF framing configurations in Seismic Zone V according to Indian codes. Tests were carried out to evaluate their structural efficiencies in terms of storey drifts, Base shear, amount of reinforcement etc. Moment frames have been widely used for seismic resisting systems due to their superior deformation and energy dissipation capacities. A moment frame consists of beams and columns, which are rigidly connected. The components of a moment frame should resist both gravity and lateral load. Lateral forces are distributed according to the flexural rigidity of each component.

Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), “Analysis of RC Building Frames for Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems”In this study, seismic analysis of high rise RC building frames have been carried out considering different types of bracing systems. Bracing systems is very efficient and unyielding lateral load resisting system. Bracing systems serves as one of the component in RC buildings for increasing stiffness and strength to guard buildings from the incidence caused by natural forces like earthquake force. In proposed problem G+ 10 story building frame is analyzed for different bracing system under seismic loading. STADD-Pro software is used for analysis purpose. The results of various bracing systems (X Bracing, V Bracing, K Bracing, Inverted V Bracing, and Inverted K Bracing) are compared with bare frame model analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular type of bracing system in order to control the lateral displacement and member forces in the frame. It is found that all the bracing systems control the lateral displacement of frame very effectively. However Inverted V bracing is found to be most economical.

9

CHAPTER 3SEISMIC ZONES

3.1 Introduction to Seismic zones:

1 Seismic Zonation may be termed as the geographic delineation of areas having different potentials for hazardous effects from future earthquakes. Seismic zonation can be done at any scale, national, regional, local, or site.

2 The term Zoning implies that the parameter or parameters that characterize the hazard have a constant value in each zone. If, for example, for practical reasons, the number of zones is reduced (from five as is the case in large majority of national codes), we obtain a rather simplified representation of the hazard, which in reality has continuous variation.

3 A seismic zone is a region in which the rate of seismic activity remains fairly consistent. This may mean that seismic activity is incredibly rare, or that it is extremely common. Some people often use the term “seismic zone” to talk about an area with an increased risk of seismic activity, while others prefer to talk about “seismic hazard zones” when discussing areas where seismic activity is more frequent.

4 Many nations have government agencies concerned with seismic activity. These agencies use the data they collect about seismic activity to divide the nation into various seismic zones. A number of different zoning systems are used, from numerical zones to colored zones, with each number or color representing a different level of seismic activity.

5 A seismic zoning map for engineering use is a map that specifies the levels of force or ground motions for earthquake-resistant design, and thus it differs from a seismicity map, which provides only the occurrence of earthquake information. The task of seismic zoning is multidisciplinary and involves the best of input from geologist, seismologist, geotechnical, earthquake and structural engineers.

3.2 Need for Seismic Zonation:

10

1. These maps identify the regions of a country or province in which various intensities of ground shaking may have occurred or may be anticipated.

2. Maps of probabilistic hazard give an idea of the underlying statistical uncertainty, as is done in calculating insurance rates. These maps give, for example, the odds at which specified earthquake intensity would be exceeded at a site of interest within a given time span.

3. Seismic zoning is used to reduce the human and economic losses caused by earthquakes, thereby enhancing Economic development and Political stability.

4. New probabilistic maps have been developed as the basis of seismic design provisions for building practice. These usually give the expected intensity of ground shaking in terms of peak acceleration. The peak acceleration can be thought of as the maximum acceleration in earthquakes on firm ground at the frequencies that affect sizable structures.

5. The losses due to damaging earthquakes can be mitigated through a comprehensive assessment of seismic hazard and risk. Seismic zonation of vulnerable areas for bedrock motion thus becomes important so that the planners and administrators can make use of it after applying appropriate amplification factors to take into account the local soil conditions, for better land use planning and safe development.

3.3 Classification of Seismic Zones:

Recent Seismic Zones in IndiaThe 1993 Latur earthquake of magnitude 6.3 caused intensity IX damages but prior to the earthquake, Latur was placed in seismic zone 1, where no such magnitude of earthquake was expected. The Latur earthquake further led to the revision of the seismic zonation map of India. The map was revised again in 2002 with only four zones such as II, III, IV and V (IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002) (Fig. 4). The Peninsular India was modified and Zones I and II were combined. The new zone placed the 1993 Latur earthquake in zone III. The areas falling under zone V is most seismically active. The areas under this zone are the entire northeastern part of India, parts of northwestern Bihar,

11

the Kangra Valley in Himachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, eastern part of Uttaranchal, the Rann of Kutchh in Gujarat and the Srinagar area in Jammu and Kashmir. Two major metropolitan cities, with a high population density, i.e. Delhi, lie in zone IV, and Kolkata, at the boundary of zone III and IV of the zonation map. The recent four seismic zones of India are assigned PGA values ranging from 0.1 g to 0.4 g with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The changes in zonation map of India with the occurrence of significant earthquakes are an indication that the zoning at a national level does not provide the solution for tackling the seismic hazards.

Zone II III IV V

Intensity Low Medium Severe Very Severe

Zone value 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36

CHAPTER 4SOIL CLASSIFICATION

12

4.1 Determining Soil Profile Type for Identifying the Response Spectrum:The soil profile mainly constituting the local soil below the foundation required for use of response spectra is divided into three types. It is quite natural to have variation in properties of soil, and most soil deposits have both vertical as well as lateral variation of properties depending on the geomorphic forces and source of soil formation. There may be soil layers of varying properties of the similar soil type namely coarse-grained soils (Gravels, Sands or Sandy Gravels, or Gravelly Sands); fine-grained soils (Clays or Silty Clays or Clayey Silts) or there may be interlaying of coarse grained soils and fine grained soils. The importance of local site conditions and its role on the response of structures has been well recognized. The soil and rock at a site have specific characteristics that can significantly amplify the incoming earthquake motions traveling from the earthquake source.

IS: 1893-2002 - Part 1 has acknowledged the importance of local site effects and has defined three soil profile types, which essentially are rock or hard soils (Type I), medium soils (Type II), and soft soils (Type III). The code has suggested a design spectrum for each of these soil profile types. However, the code does not explain how to decide the type of soil profile to be used to select the appropriate design acceleration spectrum, given the variation of soil profile in a particular locality. Thus, a procedure is required to arrive at the type of soil profile.

Soil profile types are to be characterized based on the average soil properties for the upper 30 m of the soil profile. Standard penetration test is a field test conducted at regular intervals in every borehole, which has a good correlation with engineering properties of soil. N values, which are corrected for overburden and dilatancy effects, are correlated with relative density and hence the angle of internal friction for coarse-grained type of soils and the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils. Relative density reflects the state of compactness of coarse-grained soils, and the undrained strength reflects the stiffness of fine-grained soils. These, in turn, reflect the field behavior of a profile of soil. For layered soils having varying properties over the exploration depth of 30 m, the average N values are to be obtained.

Type I: Rock or Hard Soils

13

1) Well graded gravel (GW) or well graded sand (SW) both with less than 5% passing 75 µm sieve (Fines).2) Well graded Gravel- Sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW).3) Poorly graded Sand (SP) or clayey sand (SC), all having N above 30.4) Stiff to hard clays having N above 16. Where N is the Standard Penetration Test value.

Type II: Stiff or Medium Soils1) Poorly graded sands or poorly graded sands with gravel (SP) with little or no fines having N between 10 and 30.2) and stiff to medium stiff fine-grained soils, like Silts of Low compressibility (ML) or Clays of Low compressibility (CL) having N between 10 and 16.

Type III: Soft SoilsAll soft soils other than SP with N<10. The various possible soils are:1) Silts of Intermediate compressibility (MI).2) Silts of High compressibility (MH).3) Clays of Intermediate compressibility (CI).4) Clays of High compressibility (CH).5) Silts and Clays of Intermediate to High compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH).6) Silt with Clay of Intermediate compressibility (MI-CI).7) Silt with Clay of High compressibility (MH-CH).

Elastic Property of Foundation SoilType of Soil Shear Modulus G

(kN/m2)Elastic Modulus E (KN/m2)

Poisson’s Ratio ν

Hard 2700 6750 0.25 Medium 451.1 1200 0.33 Soft 84.5 250 0.48

CHAPTER 5FRAMES & BRACING

5.1 Introduction:

14

The selection of a particular type of framing system depends upon two important parameters i.e. seismic risk of the zone and the budget. The lateral forces acting on any structure are distributed according to the flexural rigidity of individual components. Indian Codes divide the entire country into four seismic zones (II, III, IV & V) depending on the seismic risks. OMRCF is probably the most commonly adopted type of frame in lower seismic zones. However with increase in the seismic risks, it becomes insufficient and SMRCF or Steel Brace frames need to be adopted.

A rigid frame in structural engineering is the load-resisting skeleton constructed with straight or curved members interconnected by mostly rigid connections which resist movements induced at the joints of members. Its members can take bending moment, shear, and axial loads. They are of two types: Rigid-framed Structures & Braced-frames Structures. The two common assumptions as to the behavior of a building frame are that its beams are free to rotate at their connections and that its members are so connected that the angles they make with each other do not change under load.

15

Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear assemblages of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame action-

that is, by the development of bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. Frames may be designed using concept of strong column-weak girder proportions. There are two types of MRF: OMRF and SMRF. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is a moment-resisting frame not meeting special detailing requirements for ductile behavior. Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is a moment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile behavior and comply with the requirements given in IS-4326 or IS-13920 or SP6.

5.2 Bracing System:The essential work of members of framed structure is to transfers the gravity loads and lateral loads to the foundation of structure and then to the earth. The main loads comes in the structure is gravity loads consists dead load, live loads and some service loads. Beside this there is probability of structure may undergo through lateral forces caused due to seismic activity, wind forces, fire, and blasts etc. Here the columns and beams of the structures are used to transfers the major portion of the gravity loads and some portion of lateral loads but that is not significant to the stability of structure. So we provide bracing systems, shear walls, dampers etc. to resist or transfer these lateral forces to the structure uniformly without affecting the stability and strength of the structure.

16

CASE-1: Building frame without bracing system (Bare Frame).CASE-2: Building frame with X bracing system.CASE-3: Building frame with V bracing system.CASE-4: Building frame with K bracing system.CASE-5: Building frame with Inverted V bracing system.CASE-6: Building frame with Inverted K bracing system.

CHAPTER 6BUILDING DESCRIPTION

6.1 Plan of Building:

17

CHAPTER 7METHODOLOGY

In general, the methods of seismic analysis can be classified as (1) Static and (2) Dynamic. Dynamic analysis can further be classified as (i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis and (ii) Time Domain Analysis. All of the above categories have their (a) Linear and (b) Non-linear counterparts. 

7.1 Static Analysis:

The static procedure of building is modelled with their linearly elastic stiffness of the building. The equivalent viscous damps the approximate values for the lateral loads to near the yield point. Design earthquake demands for the LSP (LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE) are represented by static lateral forces whose sum is equal to the pseudo lateral load. When it is applied to the linearly elastic model of the building it will result in design displacement amplitudes approximating maximum displacements that are expected during the design earthquake. To design the earth quake loads to calculate the internal forces will be reasonable approximate of expected during to design earth quake.

a) Linear Analysis

• Seismic Coefficient Method (SCM): Here the seismic base shear for the building is determined by using an emphatically determined time period, and distributed over the stories as lateral load proportional to an assumed mode shape, which is parabolic (but interestingly with 100% mass participation assumed). Here lateral load determination is all formula based, no modal analysis is required, and the method is therefore STATIC.

b) Non-linear: This is done by running a non-linear analysis on a non-linear building model. Non-linearity is incorporated in the analysis model in form of

18

non-linear hinges inserted into an otherwise linear elastic model which one generates using a common analysis-design software package.

• Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or Pushover Analysis: Unlike as SCM (where the lateral load of a calculated intensity is applied in whole - in one shot), in NSP, analysis model is gently 'pushed over' by a monotonically increasing lateral load applied in steps up to a predetermined value or state. Here also seismic base shear for the building is distributed over the stories as lateral load proportional to an assumed mode shape, which is either uniform or a power distribution with the value of “k” determined to be a value between 1 (inverted triangular distribution) and 2 (parabolic distribution) by an empirical method. You know why it is the method is ‘therefore’ STATIC.

(k is the power of h shown with k=2 in the formula under IS: 1893, Cl.7.7.1)

7.2 Dynamic Analysis: The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having certain period and damping, during earthquake ground motions. The maximum response plotted against of un-damped natural period and for various damping values and can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement. For this purpose response spectrum case of analysis have been performed according to IS 1893.

a) Linear

i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis:

• Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) (IS: 1893, 7.8.4) – Here a DYNAMIC (modal) analysis is done to get the dynamic characteristics of the building (natural frequencies and mode shapes) from which the lateral loads corresponding to each mode shape is calculated, with which a STATIC analysis is performed for each mode, the results (BM, SF, etc.) of which are then combined (SRSS) to get the design forces.

19

ii) Time Domain Analysis

• Linear Time History Analysis (IS: 1893, Cl.7.8.3): In THA, the support points of the model is oscillated back and forth in accordance to a recoded ground motion of an actually occurred earthquake (as recorded by a seismograph, and available in tabular form of time vs. acceleration). The results (BM, SF, etc.) are usually taken as the maximum enveloped over time (i.e., the max. BM on the mid span of a particular beam in the maximum among all the BMs, each corresponding to each time point over the duration of earthquake.

b) Non-linear: As said above, this is done by running a non-linear analysis on a non-linear building model.

i) Dynamic Characteristics based (static) Analysis:

• Non-linear Static Analysis (NSP) or the same Pushover Analysis mentioned above, but with the 1st mode proportionate lateral loads or more rightly, a combination (SRSS) proportionate lateral loads. Note that unlike the RSA, it’s not the results corresponding to each mode shape that is SRSS’ed, but the loads themselves. No one considers putting this version of pushover analysis under Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (and as the non-linear counterpart of RSA.)

ii) Time Domain Analysis

• Non-linear Time History Analysis (NL-THA) This is same as the, but here since the structure has non-linear hinges inserted, the members can undergo and stiffness degradation, strength deterioration – in general, damage, as a real building would, during the progress of an earthquake.

20

CHAPTER 8

REFRENCES

1. IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 “CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES”

2. IS 875 (Part-1): 1987 “CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS (OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES”

3. IS 875 (Part-2): 1987 “CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS (OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES”

4. IITK-GSDMA-Project on Building Codes

5. Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N and S. V. Satyanarayana, (2013), “Seismic Behavior of Multi-Storied Buildings”

6. Ketan Bajaj and Jitesh T Chavda, (2013), “SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BUILDINGS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL”

7. Abhyuday Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta, (2015), “A Comparative Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected To Seismic Loadings”

8. Rishi Mishra and Dr. Abhay Sharma, (2014), “Analysis of RC Building Frames for Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems”

21