Page 9 - August-Month

TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 8: Variation of the storey drift of building for different cases of Figure 9: Crack pattern in the beam column joint (frame - model-2 RC)
earthquake (frame - Model-2)

maximum drift is 28 mm in the second storey during SFTM- 4.2 Reinforced concrete building-Model1 Non-
100%.
ductile detailing
In the frame model 2, the damages are distributed along the The magnitude of the SFTM earthquake time history is increased
height but more damage has occurred in the ground storey. from 10 to 120% and the response of the reinforced concrete
Cracks are formed at first floor beams and propagate as column frame model (Prakashvel et al. ) is studied. The maximum
[6]
hinge in the first and second floors. Due to very high shear peak ground acceleration is 7.99 m/s during the SFTM-120%
2
flow emanating from heavy floor masses beyond the capacity earthquake. The maximum response acceleration at the third
of member, the extreme lateral beams suffered 45° “V” cracks floor measured is 11.44 m/s . Hence magnification factor is 1.43.
2
during the failure stage. (Figure 9). Model reinforced concrete frame has undergone a maximum
displacement of 48.75 mm at third floor level during SFTM-120%
The variation in strain magnitude in the ground storey column earthquake whose PGA value is 7.99 m/s . The shake table
2.
of frame model 2 building with ductile detailing is higher than in testing of RC frame carried out up to failure. Maximum base
the second story column during different Earthquake (SFT10% shear of 116.48 kN has occurred during SFTM-110% earthquake.
to SFT 100%). Figure 10 shows the comparison of natural It is observed the maximum drift is 48 mm in the ground storey
frequencies. The maximum strain magnitude in the ground during SFTM-120% earthquake input. During the shake table
column is nearly 4000 micro strain, whereas it is 1670 microstrain test, predominant failure hinge are formed in the ground storey
in the second-storey column (Figure 11). columns. It is found that the magnitude of strain variation in

Figure 10: Comparison of natural frequencies Figure 11: Comparison of strain response of Buildin

14 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | AUGUST 2021