**6. Conclusion**

The building is designed as per current versions of seismic design codes (IS, US, EN) to understand the parameters that swing the performance. The effectiveness of design provisions was evaluated using the non-linear static analysis procedures outlined in ASCE-41 and tools available to support performance-based design. The following points can be summarized from the study:


Without knowledge of hazard, design of building is a fluke attempt and seismic-micro-zonation helps in mitigation plan. The vulnerability is judged by

**5.4 Evaluation of effectiveness of code provisions for target performance**

Collapse (NC) for 0.22 g hazard.

*Comparison of column C19 thresholds based on strain-limits.*

*Comparison of column C19 limits based on ultimate curvature.*

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*

**Figure 18.**

**Figure 19.**

**226**

• The building designed using IS codes showed Life Safety (LS) performance level under 0.16 g and 0.18 g hazards while the building performance was Near

• The building designed using ACI-318 and EC-8 behaved better in terms of failure mode, but it did not meet the LS performance target in three hazard levels. The effectiveness of ACI and EC-8 design provisions as the performance

• Controlling the element performance is necessary for improving the overall performance. The use of EC-8 provisions, which shows lowest capacity of building in current case, is suggested. ASCE-41 can be used for existing buildings while the provisions of EC-8 apply towards design of building and

• Similarly, TEC-2007 is systematic towards achieving target performance.

under defined hazard of 0.16 g was better in all respects.

leads to less iterations for achieving LS-NC performance level.

design principles and its effectiveness towards safety. The study was concentrated towards design of buildings which will reduce its vulnerability in MCE level earthquakes.

**References**

[1] Mishra PK. The Kutch Earthquake 2001: Recollections, Lessons & Insights.

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

> rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. In: EN 1998–1:2004, EC-8. Cmite Europeen de Normalisation:

[9] Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-2007). Specifications for buildings to be built in seismic areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey.

[10] Aksoylu C, Mobrak A, Arslan MH, Erkan IH. A comparative study on ASCE7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Construction, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. 2020;

[11] Michael F. N. From performance and displacement-based assessment of existing buildings per EN1998–3 to design of new concrete structures in *fib* MC2010. In: Ansal A. (eds) Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Geotechnical,

Geological and Earthquake Engineering, Springer Cham. 2014;34:227–266. DOI:

[12] Hassan W, Anwar N, Norachan P, Majam F. The seismic performance evaluation of RC high-rise buildings designed to various building codes. In: Proceedings of IABSE conference – Engineering the developing world; 25-27th April 2018; Kuala Lumpur.

[13] Sa Luis, Esteban A. M, Durand P. A seismic risk simulator for Iberia. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America. 2016;106–3:1198. DOI: http://d

x.doi.org/10. 1785/0120150195.

[14] Daniell JE, Wenzel F, Khazai B, Santiago JG, Schaefer A. A worldwide seismic code index, country-by-country global building practice factor and socio-economic vulnerability indices for

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

Brussels; 2004

**19**(2):282-305

319-07118-3\_7.

Malaysia.

2007.

published; 2004. 258p 81-8347-000-9

[2] Sairam B, Rastogi BK, Patel V, Pancholi V. Site effects: Case study of the 2001 Bhuj earthquake damages in the Ahmedabad city, Gujarat. India. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America. 2018;**4**:2170-2182. DOI:

[3] Porter K. A beginner's guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. University of Colorado Boulder, SPA Publications. 2020. 136 p. https://www. sparisk.com/pubs/Porter-beginnersg uide.pdf. (also getting published in

[4] Celep Z, Ilki A. Earthquakes, existing buildings and seismic design codes in Turkey. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2012;**37**(2):365-380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-012-

[5] Roeslin S, Ma M.T.Q, Garcia H J. Damage assessment on buildings following the 19th September 2017 Puebla, Mexico earthquake. Frontiers in

Reconnaissance – Building the Risk and Resilience Evidence Base. 2018;4–72:1– 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fb

[6] IS 1893-Part 1 (2016). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards

[7] ASCE 41. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/SEI Standard.

[8] CEN. Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General

Built Environment: Earthquake

National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM): Report

10.1785/0120170266.

Springer, 2021)

uil.2018. 00072.

(BIS), New Delhi.

Reston: VA; 2017. p. 41

**229**

0183-8

The exposure can be controlled only when design engineers with wholesome view of hazards, methods and safety are able to change the outcome from local level to global level which is the new norm of *fib*-MC2010 [11]. Optimization in design using analysis procedures for code provisions is needed [23]. Attempt shall be towards reduction in non-fatal injuries which form about 96% of the claims of government expenses post disaster [24]. NZSEE 2017 proposes index for existing buildings with design having hazard under-estimated to manage the next earthquake [25].

The focus in India is towards use of ASCE-41 performance limits while this scheme in design is not yet achieved. The performance of buildings has improved from past and newer methods are getting a place in design offices, yet the mechanism to control the performance of buildings shall be the way ahead in line with the disaster mitigation needs. Tools for displacement-based approaches need to be further developed. Experimental and computational procedures cannot be alienated.
