Seismic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Structure

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

IJCIET

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 44- 55 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated (Ca lculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

©IAEME

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM STRUCTURE 1

Khaza Mohiddin Shaik , 1

2

Prof. Vasugi K  

B.Tech Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technologies, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India 2 Assosiate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Vellore Institute of Technologies, chennai, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT

In this study, Wind Force and Seismic forces acting on an Elevated water tank t ank e.g. Intze Tank are studied. Seismic forces acting on the tank are also calculated changing the Seismic Response Reduction Factor(R). IS: 1893-1984/2002 for seismic design and IS: 875-1987(Part III) for wind load has been referred. Then Analyzed the Elevated Tank by using the software STAAD PRO. Reinforcement detailing is done for the Tank. Base Shear and Base Moment are calculated and compared the results for Tank Full Condition and Empty Condition and found that the Base shear in the full tank condition is high and Base moment also high in the case of tank full condition. With the increase in R value Base Shear and Base Moment decreases. Considering the design aspect, the seismic forces remain constant in a particular Zone provided the soil properties remain same whereas the Wind force is predominant in coastal region, but in interior region earthquake forces are more predominant. Design of Elevated Tank is done by calculating the all Horizontal Thrust, Meridonal stress, Hoop Tension, Hoop Stress and Reinforcement is calculated for Top spherical Dome, Top Ring Beam, cylindrical wall, Bottom Ring Beam, Conical Portion, Circular Beam, Columns and Staging’s and then Detail Drawing of Reinforcement is Done. Keywords: Seismic Analysis, Staad Pro, Base Shear, Base Moment.  I. INTRODUCTION

An Earthquake is a phenomenon that results from and is powered by the sudden release of stored energy in the crust that propagates Seismic waves. At the Earth's surface, earthquakes may manifest themselves by a shaking or displacement of the ground and sometimes tsunamis, which may lead to loss of life and destruction of property. Seismic safety of liquid tanks is of considerable importance. Water storage tanks should remain functional in the post-earthquake period to ensure potable water supply to earthquake-affected regions and to cater the need for firefighting demand. 44 

 

International Journal of Civil ngin eerin ring g and and Te Techn chnol olog ogy y (IJC (IJCIET IET), ), IS N 0976 – 6308 nginee (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 IAEME 

Industrial Indust rial liq liquid uid contai containin ning g tanks tanks may contain highly highly toxic toxic and inflammable inflammable liquid liquids and these tanks the eear arth thqu quak ake. e. The The cur curre rent nt de desi sign gn of ssup uppo porr ing structures of should shou ld not not lose their their contents contents dur durin in the under lateral forces due to to an earthquake as it is elevated water tanks are extremely vulnerable un design des igned ed only only for for the the wind wind forces forces b t not the seismic forces. The strength analysis f a few damaged shaft ty types of of st staging’s cl clearly sho hows ws that that al alll of of the them m eith either er met met or or exc excee ee ed the strength requirement of IS: 1893-1984 however they were all found deficient when Compared with Code des. s. Fra rame me type type st stag agin ings gs are are gen gener eral ally ly reg regarded superior to requir req uireme ements nts of Intern Internati ationa onall B Build uildii g Co shaft ty type of of st staging’s fo for llaateral resis ista tanc ncee beca becaus usee of of thei theirr la larg rgee rred edun unda danc ncy y and and greater capacity to abs absorb se seism ismic en energy th through in inelastic actions. This implies that design base shear for a low ductility tank is double that of a high ductility tank. Indian Standard IS: 189 3-1984 provides design n of several several types types of structu structures res includ includii g liquid storage guidelines  for earthquake resistant desig the revised revised form form it has been been divided divided into five parts. First tanks.. This standard tanks standard is under under revis revisio io and in the general guidelines guidelines and provisions provisions fo buildings which part, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002; which eals with general for Duct Ductil ilee Det Detai aili ling ng th thee IS 1392 13920C 0Cod odee b ok is Preferred. is used as a Reference Code and for II. LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Guidelines of Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks.

the hei heig ght at whic which h the the resu result ltant of impulsive In the spring mass model of tank, hi  is  th cated d from from the bottom bottom of tank tank wall. wall. On the the oth other hand, hi*is the hydrody dyn nami amic pr pressure on on wa wall iiss llo ocate ulsive ve p pre ress ssur uree on wall wall and ba base se is is locat located ed fr fr m the bottom of height at which the resultant of im ulsi ssuree is not consi considered dered,, impulsiv impulsivee mass of liqui liqui , mi will act at a tan tank wall wall.. Thu Thuss, if ef effe fect ct of bas base pr preessur height of hi and if effect of base p essure is considered, mi will act at h i*. Heights hi and hi*, are schematically described in Figures.

45 

 

International Journal of Civil ng ngin inee eerin ring g and and Te Techn chnol olog ogy y (IJC (IJCIET IET), ), IS N 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 IAEME 

Provisions:-

Description:-

Ti= Time period of impulsive mode Tc = Time period of convective mode   (Ah) i = Design horizontal seismic c efficient for Impulsive mode. (Ah) c = Design horizontal seismic c efficient for Convective mode. Vi = Base shear at the bottom of staging, in impulsive mode. Vc  =Base ase shear at the the bottom of staging, in convective mode. V =Total =Total base base shear shear at the botto botto of staging Mi* = Overturning moment at the the ase of staging in mode M c* = Over Overtu turn rnin ing g mom momen entt at at the the base of staging in convective mode M =Total overturning moment d max =Sloshing Wave Height 46 

 

International Journal of Civil ng ngin inee eerin ring g and and Te Techn chnol olog ogy y (IJC (IJCIET IET), ), IS N 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 IAEME 

Response acceleration coefficient (Sa /g).   Fig.1 & Table 1: Geometry and size of the Structure

 

1

Code Books Preferred IS 337 (part 1):2009 water structures general.

2

IS 337 (part 2):2009 water structures using RCC.

3 4 5 6 7 8

IS 337 (part 4):2009.General tables. IS 875(part 3):2009: wind load. IS 189 -2002 design for earthquake loads. Is-13920-Ductile Detailing IS 456:2000 design for RCC structures. SP: 16 esign aids. Hand Ha nd b boo ook k for for conc concre reti ting ng & SP: 3

Sl.No.

deta detaili ili g

Reinforcement.

9

Table 2: Code Books Preferred for Analysis Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Component Top Dome Top Ring Beam Cylindrical wall Bottom Ring Beam Circular Ring Beam Bottom Dome Conical Dome Braces

Size(mm) 120 thick 250*300 200 thick 500*300 500*600 200 thick 250 thick 300*600

9

Columns

650 Dia

47 

of

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   LOAD COMBINATION FOR FOUNDATION (IS1893) 1) 1(SW+D.L+L.L) 2) 0.75(SW+D.L±ELX) 3) 0.75(SW+D.L±ELZ) 4) 0.75(SW+D.L+R.LL±ELX) 5) 0.75(SW+D.L+R.LL±ELZ) Wind Load Combination in accordance with IS 875: 1964 Part3 1) DL+LL 2) 0.75 (DL + C, X WL,) 3) 0.75 (DL + c, X WL2) 4) 0.75 (DL + C, X WL,) Where C = 0.75 SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATION (As per IS1893): 1) ELX ± seismic load 2) ELZ ± seismic load 3) 1(SW+D.L+L.L) 4) 1.5(SW+D.L+L.L)

5) 1.2(SW+D.L+L.L±ELX) 6) 1.2(SW+D.L+L.L±ELZ) 7) 1.5(SW+D.L±ELX) 8) 1.5(SW+D.L±ELZ) 9) 0.9(SW+D.L) ±1.5ELX 10) 0.9(SW+D.L) ±1.5ELZ SPECIFICATIONS: 1) Grade of concrete - M25 2) Grade of steel - Fe Fe 500D 3) Unit weight of concrete concrete - 25 kN/m3 kN/m3 4) Height of Tank =16 m III. LOAD APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ELEVATED TANK USING STAAD PRO Geometry (Size) &Property:

48 

 

International Journal of Civil ng ngin inee eerin ring g and and Te Techn chnol olog ogy y (IJC (IJCIET IET), ), IS N 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 IAEME  STAAD MODEL

Hydrostatic Load Application

  P st Processing (Mode Shape)

Staad Analysis for the Model

49 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   IV. WEIGHT CALCULATIONS Top Dome (120thick): Radius of Curvature (Rc) =(r^2+h^2)/2h h=1750-60=1690=1.69m r=8.6+0.2=8.8

(Rc)= (((8.8)^2/1.69)+1 (((8.8)^2/1.69)+1.69)/2=6.57 .69)/2=6.57 Weight=2* π*6.57*1.69*0.12* *6.57*1.69*0.12*25=209.3 25=209.3 KN. Top Ring Beam (250*300): r= (8.6+0.25) =8.85 Weight=π*8.85*0.25*0. *8.85*0.25*0.3*25= 3*25= 52.1 KN Cylindrical Wall (200thick): r=8.6+0.2=8.8 Weight=π*8.8*0.2*0.4* *8.8*0.2*0.4*1000*25= 1000*25= 552.9KN Bottom Ring Beam (500*300): r=8.6+0.5=9.1 Weight= (π*9.1*0.5*0.3*25 *9.1*0.5*0.3*25)) = 107.2 KN Circular Ring Beam (500*600): r or l =3.14+3.14=6.28 Weight=π*6.28*0.5*0.6*25=148KN. Bottom Dome (200 thick):   r2=(r^2+h^2)/2h r=6.28/2=3.14 r2=1/2((3.14^2)/1.4) +1.4) =4.22m Weight=2*π*4.22*1.40*0.20*25=185.6KN Conical Dome (250 thick): Length of cone=l=square root of of (h^2+r^2) (h^2+r^2) h=1.65, r = 1.41, l=2.17 Weight=π*((8.8+6.28)/2)*2.17*0.25*25 =321.1KN Water: (((π*8.6^2*3.7)/4+π*1.5(8.6^2+5.63^2+ (8.6*5.63)/12))*9.81=2508 (8.6*5.63)/12))*9.81=2508 KN Total Weight of Water=2508 KN. Stagging Columns Weight: (650φ) Weight= (π*0.65^2*15.7*6*2 *0.65^2*15.7*6*25)/4 5)/4 =782 KN Braces (300*600): Weight=3.14*0.3*0.6*3*6*25=254KN From Above Results: Weight of Empty Container=Top Dome +Top Ring Beam + Cylindrical Wall + Bottom Ring Beam + Circular Ring Beam + Bottom Dome +Conical Dome =209.3+52.1+552.9+107.2+148+185.6+32 =209.3+52.1+552 .9+107.2+148+185.6+321.3 1.3 =1576KN. Weight of Stagging=Weight of Columns + Weight of Bracings = 782+ 254 =1036KN. Hence, Weight of empty Container + 1/3(Weight of Stagging) =1576+ (1036/3) =1921KN Centre of Gravity of empty Container above top Circular Ring Beam= ((209.3*7.22) + (52.1*5.9) + (552.9*3.8) + (107.2*1.65) + (321.3*1) + (185.6*0.92)+ (148*0.3))/1576=2.88m Height of C.G. of empty container from top of footing =h cg

Height up to Circular Ring Beam from the Footing = (4+4+4+4+ (0.6/2))=16.3 hcg =16.3+2.88=19.18m 50 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   V. PARAMETERS OF SPRING MASS MODEL

Total Weight of Water =2508000N. Volume=2508 KN/9.81=255.65 m^3 Mass =255658kg D=8.6m Let h be height of equivalent circular Cylinder, (D/2) ^2*h=255.65h=4.4m Volume of water = 2,508 / 9.81 = 255.65 m^3 h / D = 4.4 / 8.6 = 0.51 m i / m = 0.55; mi = 0.55 x 2,55,658 = 1,40,612 kg mc /m = 0.43; mc = 0.43 x 2,55,658 = 1,09,933 kg hi / h = 0.375; *

hi = 0.375 x 4.4 = 1.65 m

hi  /h =0.78,

hi*= 0.78 x 4.4 = 3.43 m

hc /h  /h

=0.61,

hc = 0.61 x 4.4 = 2.68 2.68 m

hc * /h =0.78,

hc*= 0.78 x 4.4 = 3.43 m

According to IS code,About 55% of Liquid mass is excited in impulsive mode while 43% liquid mass participates participates in convective mode mode.Sum .Sum of impulsive and convective mass is 2,50,545kg which is about 2% less than the total mass of liquid. Mass of empty container+one third mass of staging, ms=(1576+1036/3)*(1000/9.81)=195821kg. Table 3: Comparison of Base Shear and Moment for full tank and Empty E mpty Tank

51 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   VI. DESIGN OF ELEVATED TANK CONSIDERING SEISMIC FORCE  

I.Sphe rical I.Sphe rical Roof Roo f Dome   (120mm)

Total Load=4.5KN/m^ Load=4.5KN /m^2 2 Maximun Maxim un Hoop Stres Str esss =0.083(N/mm^2) =0.083(N/mm^2)

Meridonial Stress= 0.22 N/mm2 2

II.Des ign of Top Top Ring Ring B e am   (300x300mm)

Horizontal Thrust/cm length= 22.2 KN/m Hoop Tension= 106.61 KN

III.Design of Conical Dome

Tensile Stress= 10.9 Kg/cm Tensile Total Vertical Load= 4814.758KN

2

2

IV.Des IV .Des ign of Bottom Dome Dome :

Meridonial Stress= 1.444 N/mm Thickness of Conical Dome= 350mm. Radius of Bottom Dome = 4.567 m 200mm thickness is provided. Total Load= 3591.946 KN 2

Meridonial Stress= 0.946 N/mm 2

Hoop Stress= 0.2349 N/mm Tank will be at Chennai:  Wind Speed: 50 m/s

V.Design of Cylindrical Wall

VI.Design of Ring Beam at junction of cylindrical wall and conical wall

VII.Design of Circular Beam

Hoop Tension (Ft) = 172 KN/m Wall thickness is 250mm thick at base and 150mm at top Total Load= 48.925 KN/m Meridonia l Thrust in the Conica l Dome= 48925N Total Hoop Tension= 313.577 KN Tensile Stress= 1.05<1.2 N/mm Horizo Hori zontal ntal Thrust Thrust on circul circular ar beam= 1086 10860 0 Kg/ Vertical load on beam /m= 36580 Kg/m Maximum Bending Moment (-ve) = 31330Kgm

VIII.Design of Column(650Dia) IX.Design of Braces

Total vertical load on column: 1944K N Proviide 10 Prov 10m mm   Φ-2 leg egg ged sti stirr rru ups @22 @225mm c/c  

52 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   VII. REINFORCEMENT DETAILING 󰁓󰀮󰁎󰁯󰀮

󰁃 󰁃󰁯 󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁯󰁮󰁥󰁮󰁴

󰁒󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁣󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴

󰀱 󰁓󰁰󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁓󰁰󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁦 󰁄󰁯󰁭󰁥

󰀸󰁭󰁭 󰀸󰁭󰁭φ󰁀󰀱 φ󰁀󰀱󰀶󰀰 󰀶󰀰 󰁭󰁭 󰁣󰀯󰁣 󰁢󰁯󰁴󰁨 󰁷󰁡󰁹󰁳

󰀲 󰁔󰁯󰁰 󰁒󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁂󰁥󰁡󰁭

8,12mm Φ bars Main Reinforcement and 6mm Φ stirru  stirrups ps @ 20cm c/c are provi provided ded

󰀳 󰁃󰁹󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁗󰁡󰁬󰁬

(0-2m) Main Hoop Stee l 10mm-180m 10mm-180mmc/c mc/c (2-4) vertical distribution 10mm-250mmc/c, (2-4m)Main Hoop Steel 10mm-180mmc/c 10mm-180mmc/c (2-4 ( 2-4) vertical distribution 10mm-250mmc/c.

󰀴 󰁃󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁄󰁯󰁭󰁥

Provide 25mm Φ bars @180mmc/con both faces of the slab

󰀵 󰁂󰁯󰁴󰁴󰁯󰁭 󰁄󰁯󰁭󰁥

Distribution Steel :10mmΦ @130mm c/c both faces along meridons 12mm Φ bars @ 120mm centers both circumferentially and meridonally.

󰀶 󰁃󰁩󰁲󰁣󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁂󰁥󰁡󰁭

Provide 6 bars of 20mm Φ at center and 5, 16mm Φ at support Shear Reinforcement: Provide 12 mm Φ, 6 legged stirrups @ 9cm c/c at support.

Shear Rein Reinforcement: forcement: Provide 1 12mm 2mm Φ, 4 leg legged ged stirru stirrups ps @ 9cm c/c at center Φ

Longitudinal Steel: Provide 8 bars of 12mm

, 4 cm each face

󰀷 󰁃󰁯󰁬󰁵 󰁃󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁭󰁮 󰁭󰁮

󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁶 󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥 󰁩󰁤󰁥 󰀸󰁢󰁡 󰁢󰁡󰁲󰁳 󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰀳󰀲 󰁭󰁭 Φ 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰀱󰀰󰁭󰁭 Φ 󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰀳󰀰󰀰 󰁭󰁭 󰁣󰀯󰁣 󰁣󰀯󰁣

󰀸 󰁂󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁳

󰁐󰁲󰁯 󰁐󰁲󰁯 󰁶 󰁶󰁩󰁩 󰁤 󰁤󰁥 󰁥 󰀱󰀰󰁭󰁭 Φ 󰀭 󰀲 󰁬 󰁥󰁧 󰁥󰁧󰁧󰁥 󰁤 󰁳 󰁴󰁴󰁩󰁩 󰁲󰁲 󰁲󰁲󰁵󰁰󰁳 󰁀󰀲󰀲󰀶󰁭󰁭 󰁣󰀯 󰁣 󰁣󰀮󰀮

VIII. REINFORCEMENT DRAWING OF ELEVATED WATER TANK

53 

 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   IX. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.  In India elevated tanks are widely used and these tanks have various types of supports. 2.  Maintains hydraulic grade lines without automated controls. Provides pressure when power is lost. 3.  Simple to operate Lower power cost because an elevated tank can be filled in evening when power costs are less. 4.  The seismic design of the R/C elevated tanks, based on the rough Assumption that the subsoil is rigid or rock without any site investigation, may lead to a wrong assessment of the seismic base shear and overturning moment. 5.  Suitable value of lower bound limits on spectral values for structure including tanks needs to be arrived at does not recommend consideration of Convective Mode of vibration. R Value taken in IS 1893:1984 is nowhere in the range corresponding to that value in different international Codes. 6.  As per observed from Table 1, Base Shear and Base Moment have increased from Empty Tank Condition to Full Tank Condition. 7.  we observe that due to change in place from Base Shear due to Wind Force decreases by 26% and Base Moment decreases by 18% 8.  Analysis & design of elevated water tanks against earthquake effect is of Considerable importance. These structures must remain functional even after an earthquake. Elevated water tanks, which typically consist of a large mass supported on the top of a slender staging, are particularly susceptible to earthquake damage. Thus, analysis & design of such structures against the earthquake effect is of considerable importance. 9.  Most elevated water tank are never completely filled with water. Hence, a two – mass idealization of the tank is more m ore appropriate as compared to one-mass idealization. 10. Basically, there are three cases that are generally considered while analyze the Elevated water tank – (1) Empty condition. (2) Partially filled condition. (3) Fully Filled condition. For (1) & (3) case, the tank will behave as a one-mass structure and for (3) case the tank will behave as a two-mass structure. 11. If we compared the case (1) & (3) with case (2) for maximum earthquake force, the Maximum force to which the partially filled tank is subjected may be less than half the force to which the fully filled tank is subjected. Actual forces may be as little as 1/3 of the forces anticipated on the basis of a fully filled tank. 12. During the earthquake, water in the tank get vibrates. Due to this vibration water Exerts impulsive & convective hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall and the tank base in addition to the hydrostatic pressure. 13. The effect of impulsive & convective hydrodynamic pressure should consider in the analysis of tanks. For small capacity tanks, the impulsive pressure is always greater than the convective pressure, but it is vice-versa for tanks with large capacity. Magnitudes of both the pressure are different. 14. The effect of water sloshing must be considered in the analysis. Free board to be provided in the tank may be based on maximum value of sloshing wave height. If sufficient free board is not provided, roof structure should be designed to resist the uplift pressure due to sloshing of water. 15. Earthquake forces increases with increase in Zone factor & decreases with increase in staging height. Earthquake force are also depends on the soil condition.

54 

 

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 44-55 © IAEME   REFERENCES

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

Rai Durg Durgesh esh C; “Performance of of Elevated Tanks in Bhurj Earthquake”; Proc. Indian Indian Acad. Sci. (Earth Planet Sci.), 112, No. 3, September 2003, pp 421-429. Jaiswal O. R., Rai Durgesh C and Jain Sudhir Sudhir K; “Review of Code Provisions Provisions on Design Seismic forces for Liquid Storage Tanks”; Document No.: IITK-GSDMA-EQ01-V1.0, Final Report: A - Earthquake Codes, IITK. Indian Institute of Technology Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, IITK GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks. IS 1893:1984, Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures. Structures. IS 1 1893(Part 893(Part I): 2002, 2002, Criteria Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures. Structures. (PART 1: General Provisions and Buildings). IS 875:19 875:1987, 87, Code of Practice Practice for Design Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures Part 3: Wind Loads. Vazirani & Ratwani, “Concrete Structures”, Khanna Publishers, Year of Publication 1996. Damodar Maity, C. Naveen Raj and Indrani Gogoi, “Dynamic Response of Elevated Liquid Storage Elastic Tanks with Baffle”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 1, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 27 - 45, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. Damodar Maity, C. Naveen Raj and Indrani Gogoi, “Dynamic Response of Elevated Liquid

Storage Elastic Tanks with Baffle”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 1, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 27 - 45, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. 10. Ming Narto Wijaya, Takuro Katayama, Ercan Ercan Serif Kaya and Tos Toshitaka hitaka Yamao, “Earthquake Response of Modified Folded Cantilever Shear Structure with Fixed-Movable-Fixed subFrames”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, 2013, pp. 194 - 207, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. 6316. 11. Vidula S. Sohoni and Dr.M.R.Shiyekar, “Concrete–Steel Composite Beams of a Framed Structure for Enhancement in Earthquake Resistance”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 99 - 110, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

55