Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
IndexTermsPushoverAnalysis,uncerta inty,geometric
modeling, Base shear.
I. INTRODUCTION
Inelastic static analysis, or pushover analysis, has been
the preferred method for seismic performance evaluation due
to its simplicity. In recent years, the nonlinear pushover
analysis method has been viewed as an attractive alternative
to the nonlinear time history analysis. This is primarily
because of the ability of the nonlinear pushover analysis to
provide component and system deformation demands in an
approximate manner without the computational and modeling
effort of a nonlinear time history analysis. However, an
assessment of the uncertainty in the nonlinear pushover
analysis methods must be made in order to incorporate this
method in the reliability framework of performance-based
design [1]. The procedure involves certain approximations
and simplifications that some amount of variation is always
expected to exist in seismic demand prediction of pushover
analysis.
In literature lot of research has been carried out on
conventional pushover analysis and after knowing deficiency
efforts have been made to improve it. Advantages and
disadvantages of Pushover Analysis has been discussed in
several publications .Krawinkler and Seneveritna (1998) [2]
discussed about Pros and cons of the Push over analysis
They presented the precision of this method and identified
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010
Figure1.
A. Section Details
Both beam and column sections are 150mm x 200mm in
size with 2-12 bars at top and bottom in case of beam and 216 bars at top and bottom in case of columns. The transverse
reinforcement for both beams and columns is provided by 21
Full Paper
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
legged 6 stirrups/ties @ 150mm c/c. The slab is 50 mm thick.
Fig. 2 shows the section properties for the beams and
columns.
B. Material Properties
The design material properties for the structure were
Concrete=M20 grade
Steel=Fe415 HYSD bars.
The actual material properties from tests were found as:
Average concrete strength = 35 MPa
Average Reinforcement yield stress = 478 Mpa and
Average Reinforcement ultimate stress = 665 Mpa.
TABLE I. MOMENT
A
Origin
Yielding
Ultimate
Strain
Strain
hardening
hardening
Points
C. Modeling Details
Using the graphical interface of SAP2000 [4] a basic
computer model is created and the material properties,
Geometric properties defined. The program includes several
built-in default hinge properties that are based on average
values from ATC-40[5] for concrete members and average
values from FEMA-273[6] for steel members. Earlier study on
the same model has been carried out by Monica Thapa [ 7]
by considering Kent and Park stress-strain model for confined
concrete and British code recommended (CP 110-1972) [8]
stress-strain curve for steel. In SAP 2000 there is option of
using default hinges or user defined hinges. User defined
hinges are more preferred and hence in this paper user defined
hinge option is used and for which moment curvature values
are obtained by considering IS recommended stress strain
model for unconfined concrete shown in Fig.3 and British
code recommended (CP 110-1972) stress-strain curve for steel
as shown in Fig.4.
fy=478N/
mm2
M=0
fck=35N/
mm2
=0
M=21.55
M=23.34
M=25.12
M=26.94
=0.0134
=0.088
=0.099
=0.111
Strain
Strain
hardening
hardening
Points
Origin
Yielding
Ultimate
fy=478N
/mm2 M=0
M=12.76
M=14.58
M=16.40
M=18.23
fck=35
N/mm2 =0
=0.011
=0.078
=0.090
=0.105
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010
Full Paper
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
FEMA 356 [9], given by equation(1) and then in-cooperated
in the model.
Fx
W x h xk
N
k
i
W h
i
(1)
i 1
C vx
W x hxk
N
k
i i
W h
i 1
IV. ANALYSIS
Initial study is carried out by considering the actual material properties of the test results and modeling of the frame
is done in SAP2000.Userdefined hinge properties are
incorporated by inputting moment curvature data generated
as shown in Table I and Table II. Two frame models are considered for carrying out this study.viz Frame modeled as bare
frame and frame with slab modeled as rigid diaphragm. Slabs
were modeled using the four node quadrilateral shell elements, which is an area element used to model slabs/plates in
planar and three dimensional structures. SAP 2000 offers features such that slab can be modeled as a shell element as well
as a rigid diaphragm. In present study slab is modeled as
rigid diaphragm. The results of pushover Analysis carried
out is shown in Fig.5 and Fig.6 respectively.
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010
Full Paper
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
above mentioned uncertain parameters, the new moment
curvature data is generated and incoperated in SAP2000 as
user defined hinge properties in the model ..
About 200 iterations for each model is carried out by using
model alive and data base interactive editing in SAP2000.User
defined hinge properties and default hinge length is adopted
in performing the analysis. The results of pushover analysis
for rigid frame are shown in Table III.
TABLE III. P AND VALUES
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Sr.N
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
fck
39.31
39.56
32.34
38.20
29.67
31.82
37.11
33.33
34.36
32.57
39.50
40.20
37.80
39.23
37.60
29.88
37.01
37.95
35.53
33.54
29.98
29.18
34.38
34.8
33.04
35.43
38.22
36.52
36.88
32.07
30.74
36.82
37.35
39.12
30.96
32.18
29.36
31.25
30.74
31.62
29.07
33.45
33.45
34.97
31.05
29.83
32.65
39.15
30.8
39.89
32.66
39.81
36.51
37.58
33.48
fy
507.6
431.73
501.57
471.22
500.45
431.9
410.48
443.18
494.5
496.69
466.06
408.73
499.25
486.64
416.49
492.99
486.46
476.43
446.88
437.96
473.7
428.23
484.72
409.04
455.57
449.02
495.48
523.3
517.52
415.72
427.84
523.56
464.6
459
538.28
521.33
457.49
442.34
503.25
468.89
507.92
439.58
439.58
528.47
419.81
461.88
444.86
477.03
438.19
450.65
466.41
497.6
474.94
418.46
421.19
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010
Cover
24.05
19.38
26.89
20.75
17.26
11
24.13
26.03
12.97
26.28
14.31
17.7
11.67
29.87
11.26
18.96
14.07
11.73
13.87
13.01
23.54
12.82
18.73
24.86
10.68
13.77
20.13
22.76
16.43
10.50
28.22
25.99
27.76
22.62
22.16
28.77
12.72
14.52
10.59
16.1
12.96
18.54
18.54
17.17
17.32
20.62
13.87
20.49
15.49
20.61
24.17
29.97
20.73
20.33
13.13
P
287.16
268.4
262.9
271.8
274.74
261.18
245.3
246.80
292.23
266.59
295.27
258.14
303.5
258
272.6
274.26
293.77
287
268.9
274.4
253.26
256.68
282.2
228.91
272.52
267.66
289.09
251.4
303.15
251.89
195.89
280.84
252.22
276.04
287
270.68
270.5
252.46
298.02
266.17
276.65
262.73
262.73
301.94
248.43
258.97
264.64
278.4
264.54
265.82
259.5
278.98
277.55
254.8
257.8
0.176
0.169
0.21
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.19
0.2
0.187
0.21
0.18
0.176
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.21
0.185
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.2
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.2
0.19
0.19
0.22
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.2
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.2
0.18
0.2
0.18
0.186
0.19
0.18
0.2
0.21
0.196
0.180
0.17
30.50
37.73
33.07
40.15
29.51
36.5
35.03
36.02
36.04
31.47
29.91
35.74
39.59
34.94
35.49
35.73
30.72
34.07
28.81
33.91
36.82
33.73
39.84
36.36
37.22
33.11
31.63
33.83
33.76
32.64
31.09
39.74
39.78
34.66
33.72
31.31
33.48
32.34
30.5
34.04
36.95
36.99
32.12
36.87
31.59
34.86
37.20
38.67
39.61
33.01
35.89
28.79
38.95
39.79
32.16
39.48
39.46
29.83
37.12
29.76
37.7
35.70
37.88
39.52
30
34.17
30.75
32.99
31.42
35.75
458.65
524.69
468.89
528.64
438.82
481.75
512.81
418.25
493.10
498.79
484.28
506.04
450.10
408.5
495.42
429.73
546.36
506.56
484.35
478.39
439.09
436.63
434.30
526.95
470.01
431.83
453.55
418.11
463.58
432.38
427.09
463.61
450.48
427.65
539.99
507.05
519.76
479.53
477.16
441.72
429.81
534.49
513.61
435.31
451.72
498.46
546.66
458.82
424.89
475.36
517.67
486.78
450.13
464
428.5
536.41
486.43
544.05
510.4
442.79
418.24
407.57
423.46
517.54
480.31
455.85
464.6
409.6
542.61
463.87
14.3
28.71
21.77
10.04
24.14
18.52
10.23
24.62
16.69
28.69
28.41
18.04
11.27
29.85
24.93
11.50
21.60
19.59
27.28
29.85
29.94
15.49
27.33
18.57
19.89
17.13
20.44
15.01
12.95
13.50
10.28
22.24
19.13
22.76
27.71
17.90
29.65
22.93
19.21
14.64
23.68
12.11
29.04
28.78
15.10
13.11
16.96
26.91
21.64
12.48
23.78
10.60
15.71
25.43
28.16
18.3
29.23
28.96
14.28
22.18
29.31
10.10
23.19
19.98
22.14
19.96
14.82
27.41
20.18
26.85
261.3
281.6
267.38
321.27
237.23
281.17
301.05
236.37
279.08
252.56
272.87
291.58
282.27
220.91
276.73
277.2
285.03
274.75
249.23
256.42
247.62
253.17
254.02
292.66
266.29
268.74
260.08
257.5
237.45
266.88
260.7
280.65
268.04
248.5
283.66
271.7
264.13
257.59
265.71
274.81
242.91
310.62
255.4
250.70
270.38
296.58
319.10
263.67
225.57
284.5
279.11
281.22
269.12
273.33
235.87
317.4
268.46
261.89
310
242.36
238.39
261.97
250.7
296.3
255.38
263.6
261.8
229.5
295
255.2
0.18
0.21
0.2
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.19
0.169
0.187
0.21
0.18
0.22
0.189
0.22
0.218
0.20
0.17
0.195
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.179
0.18
0.21
0.206
0.19
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.14
0.18
0.2
0.19
0.17
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.22
0.23
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.196
0.22
0.21
Full Paper
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
30.70
28.90
33.15
31.05
39.3
29.73
39.43
37.42
34.77
33.74
37.55
29.58
37.19
35.43
29.71
32.04
31.21
36.66
38.69
40.20
34.01
32.73
38.84
31.36
32.73
37.98
33.76
28.99
39.14
38.25
37.48
36.31
31.03
30.40
35.84
31.50
36.80
32.77
39.84
33.29
35.22
30.95
32.48
29.10
31.89
39.97
35.45
37.55
37.81
39.05
35.80
40.24
38.74
34.24
37.57
31.16
36.10
34.37
37.09
38.45
30.33
35.75
31.16
39.89
28.89
31.07
39.43
37.42
34.77
33.74
467.86
430.4
540.41
524.67
465.5
456.63
520.3
459.84
517.66
498.60
533.26
437.31
533.27
483.16
484.48
439.00
430.71
504.49
459.95
472.71
424.67
503.21
515.32
487.58
423.66
492.96
478.20
474.82
502.31
481.4
548.64
513.17
492.
462.61
457.53
427.13
547.62
516.44
539.85
531.70
537.73
507.38
538.46
448.87
527.12
547.5
519.10
426.4
408.02
435.19
547.34
494.43
416.82
535.79
472.74
504.66
474.06
540.33
518.68
474.65
430.81
414.54
435.58
475.99
434.17
521.36
520.3
459.84
517.66
498.60
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010
26.67
21.2
26.68
13.33
27.86
29.74
25.45
26.95
24.19
24.35
11.97
12.37
10.54
20.28
17.32
18.17
24.23
22.28
23.51
21.95
15.52
10.25
29.19
23.74
19.77
14.42
10.29
1094.
25
21.59
16.37
22.32
19.15
15.41
23.83
16.68
19.55
15.56
17.05
25.09
29.74
29.98
25.07
14.95
20.07
28.08
26.73
10.77
14.72
14.54
22.73
19.60
13.94
10.37
14.42
21.11
21.16
26.75
22.70
23.31
16.27
20.07
29.10
19.84
29.75
27.04
25.45
26.95
24.19
24.35
253.8
238.38
281
292.2
264.5
213.19
283.36
255.34
286.48
263.54
315.80
227.82
315.89
269.2
261.61
252.47
235.84
290.44
271.09
243.78
257.05
300.18
271.72
262.8
239.52
299.77
295.13
268.26
247.39
288.06
322.5
286.1
268.5
257.9
268.2
252.31
309.6
287.8
322.96
286.81
275.52
259.44
279
264.83
285.83
296.76
269.38
271.75
268.90
274.05
296.25
285.30
252.82
309.06
279.82
280.01
271.6
275.01
255.12
267.54
243.28
243.29
226.11
285.19
222.71
264.84
283.36
255.34
286.48
263.54
196
197
198
199
200
0.22
0.197
0.22
0.196
0.2
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.14
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.193
0.20
0.19
0.15
0.179
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.177
0.187
0.188
0.182
0.16
0.20
0.2
0.2
0.199
0.182
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.219
0.2
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.17
0.18
0.176
0.206
0.182
0.18
0.185
0.173
0.22
0.19
0.20
0.16
0.1876
0.177
0.176
0.197
0.189
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.19
37.55
29.58
37.19
35.43
29.71
533.26
437.31
533.27
483.16
484.48
11.97
12.37
10.54
20.28
17.32
315.80
227.82
315.89
269.2
261.61
0.18
0.14
0.18
0.18
0.19
Mean (P) kN
Stdev(P)
95%
Confidence Interval
Bare Frame
176.1
14.45
269.6
22.14
(174.05,178.08)
Rigid frame
(266.54, 272.72)
M ea n (m )
95%
Std ev( )
C o n fiden ce Interval
B are Fra m e
0 .3 5 2
0 .01 9
(0 .3 5 0 05 , 0 .3 5 5 4 )
0 .1 9
0 .01 7
(0 .1 8 7 58 , 0 .1 9 2 5 )
R igid
fra m e
Full Paper
ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb 2014
and for displacement by considering Null hypothesis as
Ho: = 0.11 and alternative hypothesis as
Ha: 0.11
The results of t-test carried out for base shear shows that
the mean of the sample differs from 286.5 for the models
considered and 95 % confident interval lies between (174.05178.08) and (266.54- 272.72) for bare frame and rigid frame
model respectively.
The results of t-test carried out for Displacement shows
that the mean of the sample differs from 0.11m for the two
models and 95 %confident interval lies between (0.350050.3554) and (0.18758-0.1925) for bare frame and rigid model
respectively.
REFERENCES
[1] Matthew J.Skokan and Gary C. Hart, Reliability of Nonlinear
Static methods for the seismic Performance Prediction of steel
Frame Buildings12WCEE 2000.
[2] Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, . Pros and cons of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. J. of Engineering
Structures; 1998.
[3] A.Habibullah, and Pyle, S. Practical three dimensional
nonlinear static pushover analyses. Structure Magazine
Berkley, CA; 1998.
[4] CSI, SAP2000 Integrated finite element analysis and design of
structures basic analysis reference manual, Berkeley
:Computers and Structures.
[5] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40.Seismic evaluation and
retrofit of concrete buildings;1996.
[6] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-273.NEHRP
guideline for Seismic rehabilitation of buildings Washington
(DC); 1997
[7] Monica Thapa and Dr.K.S.Babunarayan, Sensitivity of
Pushover Analysis to the methods of modeling ,MTech Thesis,
National Institute of Technology, Surathkal; 2009
[8] CP 110: PART 1:1972- British code of practice
[9] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA356.Prestandard and commentary for Seismic rehabilitation
of buildings Washington (DC); 2000.
VI. CONCLUSION
It has been observed that there is variation between analytically obtained pushover results when compared to experimental values for the geometric models considered. The
large variation between the observed test results and the
predicted behavior from analytical models needs consideration and refinement .It can be concluded that the variation
is because the pushover results are very sensitive to geometric model and material model adopted Further study needs
to be carried out by considering other material models ,random hinge location and random hinge lengths calculated from
various formulations available in literature and the results
compared with experimental observations .Also frame with
slab modeled as shell can be considered as geometric model
and results compared with bare frame and rigid frame model.
2014 ACEE
DOI: 01.IJCEE.3.1.1010