**3. Performance evaluation of building**

The aim of design engineers is always towards the optimum use of materials with proper strength regulations. Seismic engineering requires separate framework to keep the structures functioning or regulate damages under multiple earthquake events. The providence of ductility and sizing hierarchy through strong columnweak beam philosophy is a different routine for design of structures. The importance of appropriate seismic hazard (PGA/PGV/Mw), modeling parameters, methodology and mapping of required performance thresholds are part of performance-based design procedure. The performance of building is evaluated following ASCE-41. The performance target for the building is Life Safety (LS) under MCE level earthquake (7.0 M in Bhuj, located at 250 kms from building).

#### **3.1 Estimation of hazard for seismic demand**

The building is in a city where risk reduction measures are employed after observing severe damages in Bhuj earthquake in 2001. The hazard actions are

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94303*

handled by Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) and mitigation measures are suggested by Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA). The understanding of local seismic hazard of Ahmedabad city is done and there seems to be under-estimation of hazard in BIS zoning map (refer **Figure 3**). Hence, the three hazard levels suggested for Ahmedabad city will be used to check the performance of building using capacity-spectrum method (CSM, FEMA-440) and displacementcoefficient method (DCM, ASCE-41). The equivalent static analysis results are shown in **Table 2**.


#### **3.2 Performance evaluation using seismic design codes and ASCE-41**

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is the governing body that regulates the professional minimum standards to be followed in India. The codes that are applicable for seismic design of buildings are IS 1893 (P1)-2016 and IS 13920–2016. The building is designed using these provisions and the capacity of building at structure level is noted for comparison with design standards of US (ACI-318) and Europe (EC-8). This can be a significant evaluation criterion in terms of performance evaluation, as the design and evaluation standards are different due to lack of performance evaluation guidelines in India.

The nonlinear static analysis (NSA) is a simpler means to evaluate performance and behavior of buildings under multiple excitations, (4 Mw – 7 Mw). The capacity spectrum method (CSM) is much debated as the demand-capacity are compared in one graph where hazard may be a partial information. Displacement

**Figure 3.** *Response spectrum for different hazard levels as per IS 1893–2016.*


**Table 2.**

*Equivalent static analysis as per IS-1893-2016.*

TBEC-2018 for design of new buildings with taller stature [10]. Also, the design of buildings with FIB Model Code 2010 is considered to upgrade the force-based provisions of EC-8 to displacement-based procedure [11]. Various studies have suggested competence of EC-8 towards better design of buildings compared to Indian and ACI codes [12]. SIRCO tool is developed to simulate and estimate seismic risk in Portugal to plan, prevent and respond to future earthquakes [13]. Engineering parameters are identified to rate the world-wide seismic code quality index and formally 166 countries have some form of seismic code with 510 revisions since 1900 [14]. Optimum solution technique is proposed to reduce computational efforts towards performance-based design using displacement procedure [15].

The above literatures do not focus towards mapping of performance of building and its elements using design codes and design tools to move towards standardization in performance-based design. The effectiveness of code provisions for building design and detailing are put under the lens, in-order to plan structures for the future

The aim of design engineers is always towards the optimum use of materials with proper strength regulations. Seismic engineering requires separate framework to keep the structures functioning or regulate damages under multiple earthquake events. The providence of ductility and sizing hierarchy through strong columnweak beam philosophy is a different routine for design of structures. The importance of appropriate seismic hazard (PGA/PGV/Mw), modeling parameters, methodology and mapping of required performance thresholds are part of performance-based design procedure. The performance of building is evaluated following ASCE-41. The performance target for the building is Life Safety (LS) under MCE level earthquake (7.0 M in Bhuj, located at 250 kms from building).

The building is in a city where risk reduction measures are employed after observing severe damages in Bhuj earthquake in 2001. The hazard actions are

H-V-E model in seismic prone regions.

*Plan and section sizes of building (20 m* � *16 m).*

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*

**Figure 2.**

**214**

**3. Performance evaluation of building**

**3.1 Estimation of hazard for seismic demand**

coefficient method (DCM) is a better means to employ performance-based design procedure (PBD) as displacement gives better control. The target displacement ð Þ *δ<sup>t</sup>* is estimated to obtain nonlinear displacement limit at structure level (refer Eq.(3)).

$$\delta\_t = C\_0 C\_1 C\_2 S\_a \frac{T\_e^2}{4\pi^2} \text{g} \tag{2}$$

**3.3 Element wise performance in the building using ETABS v15.0**

hence better performance will be available at local level.

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94303*

**Figure 6.**

**217**

The performance of building at structure level is shown in previous section, which gives the global picture of stability in the building and the performance level achieved at the end of pushover analysis. However, the deformation in each element of building (beam and column) during each step of nonlinear analysis gives the local performance level for that element and the concerned storey of building as the weak link may be established. The elements are modeled in ETABS using confined concrete model [16]. The performance of elements that failed in the structure at end of POA are shown in **Figure 6**. Performance of elements designed as per ACI and EN code is found to be higher in terms of post yield deformation and

*Results of M θ of all columns of building (ETABS 2015) at ground floor. (a) Ground storey column hinge results for IS code designed building. (b) Ground storey column hinge results for ACI code designed building.*

*(c) Ground storey column hinge results for EC8 code designed building.*
