Department of civil engineering

Jamia Millia Islamia

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

OF SETBACK BUILDING
Submitted by:
Parshant kumar
Under the supervision of
Dr. S.M. Mudassir
 OBJECTIVE

• To investigate the seismic performance of one side setback buildings

with different setback ratio using incremental dynamic analysis
subjected to simultaneous action of two orthogonal ground motion
components and both horizontal (unidirectional) ground motion
component.
 INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METHOD
• Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a computational analysis method of
earthquake engineering for performing a comprehensive assessment of the
behavior of structures under seismic load It has been developed to build upon
the results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in order to estimate the
seismic risk faced by a given structure. IDA involves performing multiple
nonlinear dynamic analyses of a structural model under a suite of ground
motion records, each scaled to several levels of seismic intensity. The scaling
levels are appropriately selected to force the structure through the entire range
of behavior, from elastic to inelastic and finally to global dynamic instability,
where the structure essentially experience collapse. The results are present in
terms of IDA curves, one for each ground motion record, of the seismic intensity,
typically represented by a scalar Intensity Measure (IM), versus the structural
response, as measured by an engineering demand parameter (EDP).
LITERATURE REVIEW
 LITERATURE REVIEW
• 2002 Vamvatsikos,D., Cornell C.A “IDA.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
• Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a parametric analysis method that has
recently emerged in several different forms to estimate more thoroughly
structural performance under seismic loads. It involves subjecting a structural
model to one (or more) ground motion records, each scaled to multiple levels
of intensity, thus producing one (or more) curves of response parameterized
versus intensity level. To establish a common frame of reference, the
fundamental concepts are analysed, a unified terminology is proposed, suitable
algorithms are presented, and properties of the IDA curve are looked for that
structures. Finally, in the framework of performance-based earthquake
engineering, the assessment of demand and capacity is viewed through the
lens of an IDA study.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
• 2010 Lagaros, N.D. “multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis
• considering variable incident angle”. Struct. Inf.
Eng.
• Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is considered as one of the most efficient
tool for estimating the seismic capacity of a structural system; therefore it is
often incorporated into the PBEE framework. Most of the real world reinforced
concrete buildings can only be represented accurately with 3D models, hence a
multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) is required in order to
carry out an IDA based PBEE framework. In this work the implementation of IDA
studies in 3D structures is examined where a two component seismic excitation
is applied; while a new procedure for performing MIDA is proposed. According
to the proposed procedure the MIDA is performed over a sample of record-
incident angle pairs generated using the hypercube sampling.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
• 2010 Pirizadeh, M. ”Response of setback frame buildings due to seismic
Shakib, H random vibration analysis”. 14th symp. Earthquake
Eng. IIT Roorkee.
the seismic response of setback building subjected to random earthquake
excitations is evaluated by means of the power spectral density analysis. The
stochastic parameters which are investigated in each storey include the root
mean-squared responses of displacement, velocity and acceleration. These values
are compared in structures with different setback ratios. The statistical results
show that the height setback ratio, the area setback ratio and the direction of
earthquake excitation significantly influence the height wise distribution of seismic
demands. Also, the response frequency content of setback structures are more
predominant on the top stories compared to the regular structures.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
2012 Rezaeian , S., “Simulation of orthogonal horizontal ground
motion
Der Kiureghian components for specified earthquake and site
characteristics.”
In this study A method for generating an ensemble of orthogonal horizontal
ground motion components with correlated parameters for specified earthquake
and site characteristics is presented.
1990 Shahrooz , B.M. “Seismic response and design of setback building”.
Moehle, J.P J.struct.Eng.
In this study Effects of setbacks on the earthquake response of multistory
building structures are evaluated.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
• 2013 Pirizade, M. ”Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of
Shakib, H. Non- geometric vertically irregular steel
building.”

In the framework of probabilistic performance based earthquake engineering, it is

possible to quantify the effects of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of
structures. In this study the seismic performance of different vertical irregular
structures is compared to a regular structure at various performance levels with a
probabilistic approach. The result show that the non-uniform distribution of lateral
resisting properties over the height of structure influences the seismic performance
especially at the limit-states close to global dynamic instability. These effects may be
on the seismic intensity capacity or on the ductility capacity of the structure based on
the type and the position of vertical irregularities
ANALYSIS OF SETBACK BUILDING
USING SAP2000
 METHODOLOGY

• Selecting setback buildings configuration of different setback ratio

which we want to analyse .
• Selecting dimensions and material properties of building
configuration.
• Modeling of setback buildings in SAP2000.
• Apply loads to building configuration(dead, live, earthquake).
• Run the analysis.
• Presentation of results using graphs.
• Conclusion.
STEP-1 :- Setback building configuration of different
setback ratio
• We consider nine different structures with 25% (one missing bay
along the X axis), 50% (two missing bays), and 75% (three missing
bays) reduction in floor area.
• The setback occur in different height levels at the third, fifth, and
seventh stories of the structure.
• Area setback ratio = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
• Height setback ratio = 3/7, 5/5, 7/3
STEP- 2 :-Dimension and material properties of building
configurations
• We consider ten story structure and the height of each stories is 3 m.
• The plan bay widths in the x and y directions are 5m. And there are
four bays in both x and y directions.
• Dimension of all beams of frames = 500mm x 600mm
• Dimension of all columns of frames = 650mm x650mm
• Thickness of roof and floor slab = 200mm
• Grade of concrete = M25
• Grade of steel = Fe415
STEP -2 Continue….

• Diameter of longitudinal bar = 25mm

• Diameter of tie bar = 8mm
Dead load = calculated self weight of building
• Consider residential type of buildings situated in zone IV
• Response reduction factor = 5
• Component of Earthquake is consider in both x and y direction.
 TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

• Time history analysis is a step by step analysis of the

dynamic response of a structure to a specified loading
that may vary with time.
• Time history analysis is used to determine the seismic
response of a structure under dynamic loading of
representative earthquake.
Events Sp. Acceleration(g)

Landers 0.05

Imperial valley 0.133

Kobe 0.289

Kokaeli 0.459

Altadena 0.170

Array 0.311

Corralit 0.314

Holliste 0.184

Laccnor 0.1107

Lexing 0.179

Lucerne 0.265

Chi chi 0.18

Friuli 0.3513

Loma prieta 0.3678

Northridge 0.2235

Trinidad 0.193

Landers (USA 1992) 0.6715

Hollister (USA 1961) 0.194

Imperial valley (USA 1979) 0.2899

Kobe Japan (1995) 0.3447

Kocaeli turkey (1999) 0.2046

STEP-3 :-MODELING OF SETBACK BUILDING
IN SAP 2000
Event Unidirectional (EDP) Bidirectional (EDP)

Landers 0.0214 0.0309

Imperial valley 0.2091 0.2094

Kobe 0.2391 0.74

Kokaeli 0.094 1.4

Altadena 0.06987 0.087

Corralit 0.0842 0.085

Holliste 0.08824 0.0986

Laccnor 0.0897 0.09134

Lexing 0.052 0.053

Lucerne 0.038 0.04

Array 0.0851 0.09836

Chi chi 0.3229 2.7

Friuli 0.2439 0.2665

Hollister (USA1961) 0.2028 0.2605

Imperial valley(1979) 0.207 0.3255

Kobe (japan 1995) 0.2536 1.3

Kokaeli (turkey1999) 0.2208 0.2725

Northridge 0.2118 0.303

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-1
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

EDP
Events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.012 0.023

Imperial valley 0.0966 0.0997

Kobe 0.1013 0.1115

Kokaeli 0.09713 0.2198

Altadena 0.05822 0.06383

Holliste 0.0734 0.2764

Laccnor 0.04031 0.06083

Lexing 0.05847 0.0732

Array 0.0597 0.1006

Chi chi 0.1138 0.1345

Friuli 0.1125 0.1327

Hollister(USA1961) 0.1135 0.1344

Kobe japan(1995) 0.1019 0.1129

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-2
unidirectional bidirectional

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
Sp. acc.

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

EDP
Events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.01947 0.0214

Imperial valley 0.122 0.1277

Kobe 0.4872 4.08

Kokaeli 0.8617 5

Altadena 0.0257 0.0928

Corralit 0.02559 0.02561

Holliste 0.05175 0.0627

Laccnor 0.02721 0.0292

Lexing 0.0097 0.0175

Lucerne 0.00986 0.0098

Array 0.02637 0.02641

Chi chi 0.3682 5.13

Friuli 0.3337 2.2

Hollister(USA1961) 0.1087 0.2

Imperial valley(1979) 0.3996 2.79

Kobe( japan 1995) 0.452 4.1

Kokaeli turkey1999 0.2633 2.2

Northridge 0.1545 0.7686

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-3
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

EDP(%)
events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.0539 0.0675

Imperial valley 0.1326 0.3987

Kobe 0.4528 3.2

Kokaeli 1.017 4.18

Altadena 0.1742 0.2068

Holliste 0.1752 0.182

Laccnor 0.1841 0.191

Lexing 0.184 0.1857

Lucerne 0.184 0.2

Friuli 1.079 3.66

Hollister(USA1961) 1.02 3.1

Kobe (japan 1995) 0.569 5.2

Kokaeli (turkey1999) 0.569 0.786

Northridge 0.5664 1.2

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-4
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

EDP
Events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.0121 0.032

Imperial valley 0.1356 3.13

Kobe 0.1228 0.13

Kokaeli 0.1137 0.126

Altadena 0.03823 0.0679

Corralit 0.0364 0.0375

Laccnor 0.03102 0.03102

Lucerne 0.03354 0.04675

Array 0.031 0.102

Chi chi 0.1318 3.3

Hollister(USA1961) 0.1635 0.22

Landers USA 0.1 0.3037

Kobe( japan1995) 0.1235 1.3

Kokaeli turkey1999 0.1249 1.4

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-5
unidirectional bidirectional

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Sp. acc.

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

EDP
events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.105 0.202

Imperial valley 0.1293 0.1396

Kobe 0.1162 0.1187

Kokaeli 0.765 5.6

Altadena 0.1062 0.1087

Corralit 0.1037 0.105

Holliste 0.04558 0.0456

Laccnor 0.03257 0.033

Lexing 0.0177 0.3733

Lucerne 0.0179 0.018

Array 0.0596 0.07

Chi chi 0.1336 0.1442

Friuli 0.1 0.13

Hollister(USA1961) 0.09751 0.1

Kokaeli turkey 1999 0.1021 0.103

Northridge 0.103 0.1035

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-6
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

EDP
Events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.0531 0.14

Imperial valley 0.04694 0.0473

Kobe 1.024 2.61

Kokaeli 1.218 1.7769

Altadena 0.04031 0.04575

Corralit 0.02505 0.02646

Holliste 0.03243 0.047

Laccnor 0.02512 0.0252

Lexing 0.019 0.01975

Lucerne 0.01079 0.01081

Array 0.0135 0.06735

Chi chi 0.9308 2.35

Friuli 1.08 1.42

Hollister (USA1961) 1.014 2

Imperial valley1979 1.05 1.32

Loma prieta 1.14 1.21

Trinidad 0.9932 1.62

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-7
0.5 unidirection bidirectional

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

EDP
events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.0572 0.2

Imperial valley 0.07976 0.1633

Kobe 0.092 0.1855

Kokaeli 0.1082 0.2186

Altadena 0.034 1.2

Corralit 0.01422 1.3

Holliste 0.02697 0.098

Laccnor 0.02779 0.0966

Lexing 0.0189 0.0191

Lucerne 0.02264 0.023

Array 0.02946 0.099

Chi chi 0.08594 0.1694

Hollister(USA1961) 0.0925 0.1

Kobe (japan1995) 0.0928 0.112

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-8
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

EDP
events Unidirectional(EDP) Bidirectional(EDP)

Landers 0.0915 0.21

Imperial valley 0.2117 0.22

Kobe 0.2116 0.212

Kokaeli 0.2043 0.23

Altadena 0.2751 0.2881

Corralit 0.0508 0.054

Holliste 0.07529 0.0875

Laccnor 0.07878 0.0904

Lexing 0.0338 1.76

Lucerne 0.03382 0.039

IDA CURVE FOR MODEL-9
unidirectional bidirectional

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Sp. acc.

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

EDP
 Conclusion

• From the above results it is obtained that when the one side setback
structure is subjected to unidirectional earthquake excitation it gives
more resistance against failure as compare to structure subjected to
bidirectional earthquake excitation.
• The maximum inter-storey drift ratio is more under bidirectional
excitation as compare to unidirectional excitation at same sp. Acc.
• The IDA curve plotted above is useful to find the limit state
performance of these setback structure.
• From the above IDA curve we find that the structure which has area
setback ratio less than or equal to 0.5 and height setback ratio more
than or equal to 1 have less resistance against failure.
THANK
YOU