**5.3 Element level performance evaluation: Code & tool comparisons**

• The yield strain (*εy*) is dependent on yield moment (*My*) and ultimate strain (*εcu*) is given by section properties as per EC-8 and TEC-2007. This helps the design engineer to make buildings with specific target.

• The moment estimates using ETABS, RCA and SEMAp show similarities. The ultimate moment estimation of ETABS and RCA are nearer while the estimate of yield moment of ETABS and SEMAp are nearer. The ductility values are

*Failure hinges in GF elements designed as per seismic codes. (a) IS design. (b) ACI design. (c) EC-8 design.*

• RCA and SEMAp tools have distinct advantages to explore. Both the platforms help to exercise performance-based design. These tools give engineers the domain to evaluate elements considering different concrete models and different expressions for plastic hinge length to give more practical output in

• The mapping of threshold limits for Life Safety (LS) performance for column C19 is done based on results of **Table 3**. The ultimate curvature values obtained from RCA and SEMAp are the same i.e. 0.22 (1/m). However, the difference in

• To map the threshold limits based on the ultimate strain (*εcu*), the moments vary significantly when seen from the window of TEC-2007, EC-8, RCA and SEMAp (refer **Figure 19**). Based on the strain limit values, SEMAp is able to map the criteria set by EC-8 for LS performance while RC analysis results show

**Tool IS-1893 ACI-318 EC-8** RCA 6.67 6.23 3.09 SEMAp 7.32 8.75 8.07

LS threshold for C19 is in the limiting moment (refer **Figure 18**).

the EC-8 (LS) threshold to be at Near Collapse (NC) performance.

different in RCA and SEMAp (refer **Table 4**).

*Performance point of building designed as per IS codes.*

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

terms of performance.

*Curvature ductility (φu=φy) for column C19.*

**Figure 16.**

**Figure 17.**

**Table 4.**

**225**

**Figure 15.**

*Comparison of column to beam capacity ratio for GF elements. (a) Design as per IS-13920: Minimum 1.4 ratio in strong direction. (b) Design as per ACI-318: Minimum 2.6 in weak direction. (c) Design as per EC-8: Minimum 3.13 in weak direction.*

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

**Figure 16.**

**Case 2:** ACI-318 V (kN): 6200 D (mm): 360 **Case 3:** EC-8 V (kN): 6000 D (mm): 340

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*

**5.3 Element level performance evaluation: Code & tool comparisons**

design engineer to make buildings with specific target.

**Figure 15.**

**224**

*Minimum 3.13 in weak direction.*

• The yield strain (*εy*) is dependent on yield moment (*My*) and ultimate strain (*εcu*) is given by section properties as per EC-8 and TEC-2007. This helps the

*Comparison of column to beam capacity ratio for GF elements. (a) Design as per IS-13920: Minimum 1.4 ratio in strong direction. (b) Design as per ACI-318: Minimum 2.6 in weak direction. (c) Design as per EC-8:*

*Failure hinges in GF elements designed as per seismic codes. (a) IS design. (b) ACI design. (c) EC-8 design.*

**Figure 17.**

*Performance point of building designed as per IS codes.*



**Table 4.** *Curvature ductility (φu=φy) for column C19.*

**6. Conclusion**

RCA tool.

shall be done.

**227**

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

• Though, pushover analysis and displacement procedures have inaccuracy for capturing higher modes, they significantly contribute towards understanding

• The building to be designed in Ahmedabad city shall consider higher hazard

• Code provisions need to be updated for Gujarat state as it is having five seismic zones (0.36 g – 0.1 g) and a hazard map is required to consider it in design of buildings. BIS provisions are based on intensity parameters, but the seismic-

• The building designed as per IS-1893 can sustain hazard of 0.22 g though it is designed for 0.16 g, due to higher reinforcement in elements (4.2% against 2%

• The building designed as per ACI and EC have better performance in terms of energy dissipation and control of failure. EC-8 has better potential to apply

• Design tools have significant effect on performance evaluation of building. RCA is based on ACI-08 while SEMAp covers TEC-07 & ACI-08 parameters.

• SEMAp software gives results for four concrete models which can be a feature to use in performance evaluation and hence it has a wider range as compared to

• RCA has feature of generating multiple curves for analysis of many sections and hence it can give faster results. Also, RCA tool has other important curves

• The results of SEMAp for four concrete models show significant variations that can lead to change in local and global performance of building. This feature is a

• The tools and software packages shall be checked for failure modes before applying them in design. Hence, correlation of results with physical testing

• The design tools support the outputs for new design as they simulate results better for flexure failure. The limitations are discussed in literature [22].

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

support to the design and quick method to attempt PBD.

in ACI/EN for C19). However, the building did not satisfy the beam

design problems and highlight limitations of code designed buildings.

following points can be summarized from the study:

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

micro-zonation results are not considered in IS-1893.

mechanism principle and hinges formed in mid stories.

more control for achieving target performance.

that can show better analysis insights.

levels than that suggested by BIS.

**Figure 18.** *Comparison of column C19 limits based on ultimate curvature.*

**Figure 19.**

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