Search

The study was planned with objective to screen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in bovine HSPB1 gene and to find its effect on age at calving in Karan-Fries (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) and Sahiwal (Bos indicus) breeds of cattle. Genomic DNA was extracted from whole blood of 180 cows of both breeds. Based on publically available bovine HSPB1 gene sequence, one primer set was used for polymerase chain reaction amplification of the target region. Further DNA sequencing revealed a transition of thymine to cytosine at SNP rs208395876 in 5’UTR and a silent transversion of guanine to thymine at SNP rs723061520 in first coding sequence of bovine HSPB1 gene in both the studied breeds. Effect of individual SNP genotypes of bovine HSPB1 gene with age at calving (months) was analyzed separately in both breeds via regression using a repeated gene substitution MIXED model and least-squares means.The overall observed heterozygosity in both breeds and the F-Statistics values indicated that there was lesser genetic diversity in studied genomic region of bovine HSPB1 gene in Bos indicus compared to crossbred cattle. Association analysis revealed that SNP rs208395876 significantly delayed age at calving in Karan-Fries cows. In conclusion, the studied genomic region of bovine HSPB1 gene is polymorphic. In addition, these polymorphisms were informative with regard to age at calving of crossbred cows. Therefore, this gene is an important candidate for cow fertility.

The ground motion caused by an earthquake can be considered as the resultant of three orthogonal translation components along three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z; and three rotational components about these three co-ordinate axes. Though it is well recognized that the response of important structures like nuclear reactor components, dams, tall buildings, asymmetric buildings, and long-span bridges, may be dependent on all the three translational components of motion, but due to the complexity of the three-dimensional analysis and various uncertainties in spatial combination procedures, most of the studies considered only one component of earthquake motion. Many investigators have recognized the necessity of finding the response of structures under multi-component earthquake excitation however, the methods for such analysis cannot be applied directly to irregular structures without well-defined principal axes. In the present study, a simple three-dimensional irregular steel moment-resisting single-story building is analyzed to propose a combination rule for the simultaneous action of two components of horizontal excitation. Numerical analysis based on the geometric mean response spectrum [SAGM] is compared with the principal directional response spectrum [SAXP] and critical response spectrum [SACRIT]. Dynamic analysis of the building is performed using CSI SAP2000. Based on the comprehensive analysis of the response of the selected simple building has revealed that the SRSS of the response due to two horizontal components of excitation applied in any two arbitrary orthogonal direction provides an adequate combination rule for such irregular buildings.

The paper investigates the validity of the [Max +30%] rule by comparing the results for a typical six-story steel building with the exact results based on the response spectrum in the principal direction and, the critical response spectrum providing an upper bound to the multi-directional component response. Three different sets of real earthquake ground motions with widely differing characteristics are used. It has been found that the [Max + 30%] rule, which is included in IS 1893 (2016) may not lead to realistic results in all the cases., {"references":["Bolotin, V. V. (1963) Structural Response of the Multi-component Seismic Loading considered as a Non-Stationary Random Process. Proc. of the first Chilean session on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering.; Santiago.","Penzien J and Watae M. (1975) Characteristics of threedimensional earthquake ground motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural dynamics.; 3:365-373.","Chen C. (1975) Definition of Statistically Independent Time Histories. Journal of Structural Division ASCE.; 101:449-451.","Rosenblueth E and Contreras H. (1977) Approximate Design for Multi-Component Earthquake Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE.; 103:881-893.","Wilson E. L. and Button M.R. (1982) Three-Dimensional dynamic analysis for multi-component Earthquake Spectra', Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.; 10:471-479.","Chu S.L., Amin. M. and Singh S. (1972) Special treatment of actions of three earthquakes components on structures. Nuclear Engineering and Design.; 21:126-316.","U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1973) Combining Modal Responses and Spatial components in Seismic Response Analysis. Regulatory Guide 192, Revision-1.; Washington D. C.","Anagnostopoulos S.A. (1981) Response Spectrum Techniques for Three Component Earthquake Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural dynamics.; 9:459-476.","O'Hara G.J. and Cunnif P.F. (1953) Elements of Normal Mode Theory- NRL Report 6002, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.; Washington D.C.","Hadjian A.H. (1978) On the Correlation of the components of strong ground motion. Proc 2nd International Conference on Micro-zonation San Francisco.; 3:1199-1120.","Haluk S. Oguz C.C., Feridun C. (2004) Review and evaluation of combination rules for structures under bi-directional earthquake excitations. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.; 2079.","Gupta I. D. and M. D. Trifunac (1987), Order Statistics of Peaks of the Response to multi-component seismic excitation. Bull. Ind. Soc. Earthquake Tech.; 258, 24:135-259."]}

The ground motion caused by an earthquake can be considered as the resultant of three orthogonal translation components along three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z; and three rotational components about these three co-ordinate axes. Though it is well recognized that the response of important structures like nuclear reactor components, dams, tall buildings, and long-span bridges, may be dependent on all the three translational components of motion, due to the complexity of the three-dimensional analysis and various uncertainness in spatial combination procedures, most of the studies in the past considered only one component of earthquake motion. Many investigators have recognized the necessity of finding the response of structures under multi-component earthquake excitation. The vertical component of the ground motion is excluded, assuming that the horizontal components are the governing components for building analysis. In the present study, the validity of the [Max +30%] rule of combining bi-directional response is investigated by comparing the results with the exact results based on the response spectrum in the principal direction [SAXP] and, the critical response spectrum [SACRIT] providing an upper bound to the multi-directional component response. A typical six-story steel building is modeled as a shear building with lateral and torsional degrees-of-freedom at each floor. Dynamic analysis of the building is performed using CSI SAP2000. Three different sets of real earthquake ground motions, with widely differing characteristics used in the study, are Uttarkashi(1991) earthquake, Sikkim (2011) earthquake, and Nepal (2015) earthquake. After analysis, it has been found that the [Max +30%] rule of combining bi-directional response, which is included in IS 1893 (2016) may not lead to realistic results in all the cases. [Max+30%] rule may not work equally well in all cases and it may lead to higher or lower estimates of response when compared with the desired estimate in the principal directional response spectrum. However, in no case, the 30% combination rule exceeds the estimate based on the critical response spectrum [SACRIT]. It may be found that estimation of the response of the multi-directional excitation can be performed in a much simpler and efficient way, using unidirectional principal response spectrum analysis. Thus, it can be stated that the Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE) must be developed for the principal as well as the critical response spectrum., {"references":["Bolotin, V. V. (1963) Structural Response of the Multi-component Seismic Loading considered as a Non-Stationary Random Process. Proc. of the first Chilean session on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering.; Santiago.","Penzien J and Watae M. (1975) Characteristics of threedimensional earthquake ground motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural dynamics.; 3:365-373.","Chen C. (1975) Definition of Statistically Independent Time Histories. Journal of Structural Division ASCE.; 101:449-451.","Rosenblueth E and Contreras H. (1977) Approximate Design for Multi-Component Earthquake Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE.; 103:881-893.","Wilson E. L. and Button M.R. (1982) Three-Dimensional dynamic analysis for multi-component Earthquake Spectra', Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.; 10:471-479.","Chu S.L., Amin. M. and Singh S. (1972) Special treatment of actions of three earthquakes components on structures. Nuclear Engineering and Design.; 21:126-316.","U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1973) Combining Modal Responses and Spatial components in Seismic Response Analysis. Regulatory Guide 192, Revision-1.; Washington D. C.","Anagnostopoulos S.A. (1981) Response Spectrum Techniques for Three Component Earthquake Design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural dynamics.; 9:459-476.","O'Hara G.J. and Cunnif P.F. (1953) Elements of Normal Mode Theory- NRL Report 6002, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.; Washington D.C.","Hadjian A.H. (1978) On the Correlation of the components of strong ground motion. Proc 2nd International Conference on Micro-zonation San Francisco.; 3:1199-1120.","Haluk S. Oguz C.C., Feridun C. (2004) Review and evaluation of combination rules for structures under bi-directional earthquake excitations. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.; 2079.","Gupta I. D. and M. D. Trifunac (1987), Order Statistics of Peaks of the Response to multi-component seismic excitation. Bull. Ind. Soc. Earthquake Tech.; 258, 24:135-259."]}