*δ<sup>t</sup>* = (306.50, 348.60, 420.01) mm for three hazard levels

The building passes Life Safety (LS) performance under MCE level earthquake in case of 0.16 g and 0.18 g seismic hazard in Ahmedabad city for IS code-design case (refer **Figure 4**). Also, the building designed with IS code had performance of Collapse Prevention (CP) level while the building design with ACI-318 and EC-8 will collapse in 0.22 g hazard level. However, the location of failure hinge shown in **Figure 5**, describes the better behavior of structure designed using US and EN code provisions for buildings as only the base columns are failing. The columns at 4th and 7th level are failing in IS design case, hence the energy dissipation in the graph is poor. Important to note the strength of building designed as per IS code is highest and ductility achieved is more than the other design codes though the location of failure is not acceptable.

**Figure 4.** *Comparison of capacity curve of building as per design codes.*

**Figure 5.** *Location of failure hinge at the end of POA. (a) IS design. (b) ACI design. (c) EC8 design.*

coefficient method (DCM) is a better means to employ performance-based design procedure (PBD) as displacement gives better control. The target

level (refer Eq.(3)).

failure is not acceptable.

*Comparison of capacity curve of building as per design codes.*

*Location of failure hinge at the end of POA. (a) IS design. (b) ACI design. (c) EC8 design.*

**Figure 4.**

**Figure 5.**

**216**

displacement ð Þ *δ<sup>t</sup>* is estimated to obtain nonlinear displacement limit at structure

*T*2 *e*

<sup>4</sup>*π*<sup>2</sup> *<sup>g</sup>* (2)

*δ<sup>t</sup>* ¼ *C*0*C*1*C*2*Sa*

The building passes Life Safety (LS) performance under MCE level earthquake in case of 0.16 g and 0.18 g seismic hazard in Ahmedabad city for IS code-design case (refer **Figure 4**). Also, the building designed with IS code had performance of Collapse Prevention (CP) level while the building design with ACI-318 and EC-8 will collapse in 0.22 g hazard level. However, the location of failure hinge shown in **Figure 5**, describes the better behavior of structure designed using US and EN code provisions for buildings as only the base columns are failing. The columns at 4th and 7th level are failing in IS design case, hence the energy dissipation in the graph is poor. Important to note the strength of building designed as per IS code is highest and ductility achieved is more than the other design codes though the location of

*δ<sup>t</sup>* = (306.50, 348.60, 420.01) mm for three hazard levels

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*
