FINAL REPORT

Colorado Advanced Software Institute





NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES





Principal Investigator: Enrico Spacone, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil, Env. and
Arch. Engineering
University of Colorado, Boulder
Graduate Student Russel Martino, MS student
Department of Civil, Env. and
Arch. Engineering
University of Colorado, Boulder
Collaborating Company Greg Kingsley, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
KL&A of Colorado
Golden, Colorado








COLLABORATING COMPANY RELEASE PAGE



Project Title: NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
Principal Investigator: Enrico Spacone, Ph.D.
University: University of Colorado, Boulder
Collaborating Company: KL&A of Colorado
Collaborating Company Representative: Greg Kingsley, Ph.D., P.E.


As authorized representative of the collaborating company, I have reviewed this report
and approve it for release to the Colorado Advanced Software Institute.



__________________________________ _________________
Signature Date


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
I-A Background ................................................................................................. 1
I-B Objectives.................................................................................................... 2
II THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE.... 4
II-A Definition of the Non – Linear Static Procedure......................................... 4
II-B Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure............................................ 6
II-B-1 Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads .......................................... 6
II-B-2 Building Performance Level ......................................................... 8
II-B-3 Calculation of the Seismic Hazard................................................ 9
II-B-4 Calculation fo the Target Displacement........................................ 15
II-C Reasons for Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure........................ 18
III LIMITATIONS OF THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE............. 20
III-A Design of Three Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames .............. 20
III-A-1 Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in Design ............................. 22
III-A-2 Formulation of Wind Loads Used in Design ................................ 24
III-A-3 Formulation of Earthquake Loads Used in Design ....................... 24
III-A-4 Total Design Loads and Section Determination…………............ 28
III-B Performing the Pushover Analysis On the Moment Frames ....................... 34
III-B-1 Period Determination .................................................................... 34
III-B-2 Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads .......................................... 36
III-B-3 Element Reduction for Analysis of Frames……………............... 41
III-B-4 Determination of Seismic Hazard for Analysis…………............. 42
III-B-5 Calculation of Target Displacement for Analysis………............. 44
III-C Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analyses for Frames…………….......... 46
III-D Comparisons of Full Dynamic Results with Pushover Results……........... 49

ii
III-E Dependence of Target Displacement on Choice of V
y
………………......... 53
III-F Conclusions - Limitations and Accuracy of the Pushover Analysis…........ 54
IV FORMULATION OF ELEMENT SHEAR RESPONSE …………………… 55
IV-A Review of Timoshenko Beam Theory………………………………......... 56
IV-B Non – Linear Force – Based Timoshenko Beam Element…………........... 58
IV-C Section V – γ Constitutive Law……………………………………............ 63
IV-C-1 Shape of Shear Hysteretic Law………………………….............. 63
IV-C-2 Theoretical Values of Shear Hysteretic Law……………............. 65
IV-C-3 Values for Actual Sections – Shear Hysteretic Law……….......... 74
IV-D Observations on Element Shear Response Formulation ……………........ 76
V NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OR PROPOSED SHEAR MODEL……… 78
V-A Column Dimensions and Testing Conditions……………………….......... 78
V-B Calculated Shear Strength…………………………………………............ 80
V-C Numerical vs. Experimental Column Response……………………........... 89
V-D Conclusions………………………………………………………….......... 94
VI SHEAR WALL EXAMPLE.…..………………………………………….......... 95
VI-A Wall Configuration…………………………………………………........... 95
VI-B Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Shear Wall……………….. ....... 97
VI-C Complete Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis of the Shear Wall…………....... 98
VI-D Comparisons of Pushover and Dynamic Analysis……………………. ...... 9
VI-E Verification of Flexure Shear Interaction at Element Level…….….…...... 100
VI-F Conclusions……………………………………………………………...... 101
VII CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK………….......................................... 102
VIII BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………..……… 104
APPENDICES
I MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM FEAP TO PERFORM
NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS.......................................................... 106
AI-A FEAP Pushover Routines ........ …………………………………………… 106

iii
AI-A-1 ‘PUSH’ Mesh Command ...........………………………………… 106
AI-A-2 ‘VvsD’ Macro Command...........………………………………… 110
AI-B FEAP Shear Element Modifications ........………………………………… 113
II ADDITIONAL CASI REQUIREMENTS ......………………………………… 115
AII-A Evaluation.............................…………………………………………… 115
AII-B Technology Transfer.............…………………………………………… 115
AII-C Networking ...........................…………………………………………… 116
AII-D Publications ..........................…………………………………………… 116
AII-E Funding.................................…………………………………………… 116

iv
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results of a research conducted at the University of Colorado,
Boulder, aimed at developing a PC-based software tool for performing nonlinear pushover
analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. The program links two libraries to an existing finite
element program, FEAP, developed at the University of California, Berkeley. The two
libraries are a) a frame element library (which includes beam, beam-column and shear wall
elements); and b) a library of uniaxial material laws. The project first modified the existing
program to perform nonlinear pushover analyses on a routine basis. Current seismic code
suggested procedures for nonlinear pushover analyses were then reviewed. The applicability
of nonlinear pushover analyses to the seismic design of reinforced concrete frames was
evaluated by studying the response of frames of different heights. The responses of static and
dynamic nonlinear analyses on the same buildings were compared. A new shear element was
then introduced and a typical shear wall of a utility core was analyzed with a push-over
analysis. Details on the features added to program FEAP and on the new commands are
documented in the appendices.

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I-A Background
As the United States, Japan, and Europe move towards the implementation of Performance Based
Engineering philosophies in seismic design of civil structures, new seismic design provisions will require
structural engineers to perform nonlinear analyses of the structures they are designing. These analyses can
take the form of a full, nonlinear dynamic analysis, or of a static nonlinear Pushover Analysis. Because of
the computational time required to perform a full, nonlinear dynamic analysis, the Pushover Analysis, if
deemed applicable to the structure at hand, is a very attractive method for use in a design office setting.
For this reason, there is a need for easy to use and accurate, nonlinear Pushover Analysis tools which can
easily be applied in a design office. Even though recent years have seen a great amount of research in the
development of such nonlinear models and techniques, there is still a great deal of knowledge missing for
reinforced concrete structures. In particular, the following modeling issues still need to be thoroughly
addressed: bond slip, structural walls and shear deformations, joint response, and non – structural members.
In the United States, the reference document for performing the Nonlinear Static Procedure, or
Pushover Analysis, is currently the Federal Emergency Management Agency Document 273 (FEMA 273)
[6]. According to this procedure, a vertical distribution of static, monotonically increasing, lateral loads is
applied to a mathematical model of the structure. The loads are increased until the peak response of the
structure is obtained on a base shear vs. roof displacement plot. From this plot, and other parameters
representing the expected, or design, earthquake, the maximum deformations the structure is expected to
undergo during the design seismic event can be estimated. Because the mathematical model must capture
the inherent material nonlinearities of the structure, and because the load applied to the structure is
increased monotonically, detailed member information can be obtained. This procedure is more involved
than applying the approximate static lateral load all at once, as is done in current seismic design codes, in
that the loads are applied in increments. This allows the deformations of structural members (for example,
the plastic-hinge sequence) to be monitored throughout the nonlinear pushover analysis.

2
The Nonlinear Static Procedure must still be used with caution. The Pushover Analysis is meant
to represent a static approximation of the response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic
earthquake loads. The key word in this definition is approximation. There is a great saving in time when
performing the Pushover Analysis as compared with the full nonlinear dynamic analysis. But there are
bound to be drawbacks to the method. In particular, the maximum displacement achieved will be directly
related to the shape of the lateral load distribution applied to the structure. If the shape of the lateral load
differs from the shape the structure attains when loaded dynamically, the calculated maximum
displacement could grossly overestimate what the dynamic analysis would predict.
While there are currently some programs available to perform the Pushover Analysis on
Reinforced Concrete structures, the procedure needs to be refined and more experience is needed to fully
access its applicability. One of the several issues still open is modeling the shear deformations in reinfoced
concrete columns and structural walls. Shear deformations in Reinforced Concrete members are difficult to
model because of the complex mechanisms that govern them.
I-A Objectives
The main objective of this project was to develop an easy to use and accurate nonlinear Pushover
Analysis Software tool for civil structures following the procedures outlined in FEMA 273[6]. Even though
the procedure is general, the focus of this study is reinforced concrete frames. The objective is to develop
an accurate though easy to understand tool that can be routinely used in a design office by a structural
engineer that is familiar with both the Pushover Analysis procedure and with basic nonlinear structural
analysis techniques. The following are the main tasks of the projects:
a) A critical study of the Pushover Analysis procedure as defined by FEMA 273[6]. Comparisons between
Nonlinear Pushover Analyses and Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses are key to understanding the
limitations of the proposed Pushover Analyses.
b) Development of Software Tool for Nonlinear Pushover Analyses. This is achieved by modifying the
existing Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP) developed by Professor Robert Taylor at the
University of California at Berkeley [16]. Special steps need to be implemented to perform Nonlinear
Pushover Analyses following FEMA 273[6]

3
c) Development of a family of models for Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete structures.
Some of these models already exist and need to be linked to program FEAP (in particular, fiber beam
column elements with interaction between axial and normal forces). Other models, in particular
elements for reinforced concrete members with shear deformations, need to be developed.
d) Verification of the new tool via comparisons between experimental and analytical results.
e) Application of the new tool to studies of Reinforced Concrete structural systems.
With all of the foregoing arguments in mind, the organization of this report is as follows. Chapter
II, The Non – Linear Static Pushover Procedure, describes the steps followed in performing the Non –
Linear Static Procedure as given by FEMA 273[6]. Chapter III, Applications of the Non – Linear Static
Procedure (Pushover Analysis), discusses the applicability and shortcomings of the procedure. Chapter IV,
Formulation of Element Shear Response, describes the shear deformation formulation for a force – based
beam element. Chapter V, Numerical Verification of Proposed Shear Model, determines the applicability
and shortcomings of the shear formulation developed in chapter IV by comparing numerical results with
test data obtained from Reinforced Concrete columns failing in shear tested at the University of California
at San Diego. Chapter VI, Conclusions, summarizes the results and points to areas for future work.
Appendix I, Modifications to FEAP to Perform Pushover Analysis, describes the changes made to the
Finite Element Analysis Program to include shear deformations and to run the Pushover Analysis.
Appendix I presents the Modifications to Program FEAP to perform Non-Linear Pushover Analyses..
Finally, Appendix II includes Additional CASI Requirements for the Poject Report.


4

CHAPTER II
THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

II-A) Definition of the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis) - FEMA 273 [6]
The Non – Linear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis is defined in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency document 273 (FEMA 273) [6] as a non – linear static approximation of the
response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic earthquake loading. The static
approximation consists of applying a vertical distribution of lateral loads to a model which captures the
material non – linearities of an existing or previously designed structure, and monotonically increasing
those loads until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs. roof displacement
plot as shown in figure II-1.





Figure II-1: Static Approximation Used In the Pushover Analysis
The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or Building Performance
Level, is then decided upon by the owner, architect, and structural engineer. The Building
Performance Level is a function of the post event conditions of the structural and non – structural
components of the structure. Some common Building Performance Levels are shown in figure II-2.





Figure II-2: Building Performance Level
Lateral Loads
Structural Model
Structural
Response
Roof Displacement Base Shear
Base
Shear
Roof Disp
Owner, Architect, Engineer
Collapse
Prevention
Immediate
Occupancy
Life
Safety
Operational

5
Based on the desired Building Performance Level, the Response Spectrum for the design
earthquake may be determined. The Response Spectrum gives the maximum acceleration, or Spectral
Response Acceleration, a structure is likely to experience under the design ground shaking given the
structure’s fundamental period of vibration, T. This relation is shown qualitatively in figure II-3.







Figure II-3: Response Spectrum

From the Response Spectrum and Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement plot, the Target
Displacement, δt, may be determined. The Target Displacement represents the maximum
displacement the structure will undergo during the design event. One can then find the maximum
expected deformations within each element of the structure at the Target Displacement and redesign
them accordingly. The Target Displacement is shown qualitatively in figure II-4.








Figure II-4: Target Displacement

Response
Spectrum
Spectral
Response
Accel, Sa
Roof Displacement
Structural
Response
Target Displacement,
δt
Base
Shear

6
II-B) Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis)
The steps in performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis are:
1) Determine the gravity loading and the vertical distribution of the lateral loads.
2) Determine the desired Building Performance Level.
3) Calculate the Seismic Hazard.
4) Compute the maximum expected displacement or Target Displacement, δt.
Each of these steps are described in the sections following.
II-B-1) Determine the Vertical Distribution of the Lateral Loads
In addition to the gravity loads, the first thing that can be determined is the vertical
distribution of the lateral loads. The gravity loads to be used in the Pushover Analysis are calculated
by equation II.1, while the vertical distribution of lateral loads is given by the FEMA 273 [6] C
vx

loading profile reproduced as equation II.2.
) ( 1 . 1
S L D G
Q Q Q Q + + = (II.1)
Where, Q
G
is equal to the total gravity force, Q
D
is equal to the total dead load effect, Q
L
is equal to the
effective live load effect, defined as 25% of the unreduced live load, and Q
S
is equal to 70% of the full
design snow load except where the design snow load is less than thirty pounds per square foot in which
case it is equal to 0.0.


=
=
n
i
k
i i
k
x x
vx
h w
h w
C
1
(II.2)
The C
vx
coefficient represents the lateral load multiplication factor to be applied at floor level x, w
x

represents the fraction of the total structural weight allocated to floor level x, h
x
is the height of floor
level x above the base, and the summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total
number of floors in the structure, n. These values are shown schematically in figure II-5.




7







Figure II-5: Values for Determining the Vertical Distribution of the Lateral Loads

The parameter k varies with the structural fundamental period, T. k is 1.0 for T less than or equal to 0.5
seconds and 2.0 for T greater than or equal to 2.5 seconds. In between these values, k varies linearly
as shown in figure II-6. The effect that the parameter k has on the C
vx
loading profile is also shown in
figure II-6. For shorter, stiffer structures, the fundamental period will be small and the variation of the
lateral loading over the height of the building will approach the linear distribution shown in figure II-6
for a k value equal to 1.0. For taller, more flexible structures, the fundamental period will be greater
and the variation of the lateral loading over the height of the structure will approach the non – linear
distribution shown in figure II-6 for k equal to 2.0. The implication of this is that for stiffer structures
the higher mode response of the structure will be less significant and the lateral loading can enforce
purely first mode response. As the structure becomes more flexible however, the higher mode effects
become much more important and the k value attempts to account for this by adjusting the lateral load
distribution.






Figure II-6: Variation of k with Fundamental Period T, and Effect of k on Lateral Load
C
vn
w
n

C
v4

C
v3

C
v2

C
v1

w
4

w
3

w
2

w
1

h
1

h
2

h
3

h
4

h
n

Fundamental Period, T (sec)
0.5 1.5 2.5
2.0
1.0
Determination of k Effect of k on C
Floor 1
Floor 4
Floor 3
Floor 2
Floor 5
0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2
k = 2
k = 1
C
vx


8
II-B-2) Building Performance Level Determination
The next thing that may be determined is the Building Performance Level. The Building
Performance Level is the desired condition of the building after the design earthquake decided upon by
the owner, architect, and structural engineer, and is a combination of the Structural Performance Level
and the Non – Structural Performance Level. The Structural Performance Level is defined as the post
– event conditions of the structural building components. This is divided into three levels and two
ranges. The levels are, S – 1: Immediate Occupancy, S – 3: Life Safety, and S – 5: Collapse
Prevention. The ranges are S – 2: which is a range between S – 1 and S – 3, and S – 4: which is a
range between S –3 and S – 5. The ranges are included to describe any building performance level
which may be decided upon by the owner, architect, and structural engineer. The Non – Structural
Performance Level is defined as the post – event conditions of the non - structural components. This is
divided into five levels. They are N – A: Operational, N – B: Immediate Occupancy, N – C: Life
Safety, N – D: Hazards Reduced, and N – E: Non – Structural Damage Not Limited. By combining
the number from the Structural Performance Level with the second letter from the Non – Structural
Performance Level, one can attain the total Building Performance Level. The combinations to achieve
the most common Building Performance Levels, 1 – A: Operational, 1 – B: Immediate Occupancy, 3 –
C: Life Safety, and 5 – E: Collapse Prevention, are shown in figure II-7.








Figure II-7: Determination of Building Performance Level

Building Performance Level
S - 1 Immediate Occupancy
S - 2 Range Between S-1 & S-3
S - 5 Collapse Prevention
S - 3 Life Safety
S - 4 Range Between S-3 & S-5
Structural Level
1 - A
1 - B
3 - C
5 - E
N - A
Operational
N - E
Damage Not
Limited
N - C
Life Safety
N - D
Hazards
Reduced
Non - Structural Level
N - B
Immediate
Occupancy

9
The owner, architect, and structural engineer can now decide what Building Performance
Level they want their building to achieve after a range of ground shakings which are expected to occur
at a given design location. Referring to figure II-8, A would correspond to a Building Performance
level of Operational after a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 year seismic event, F would
correspond to a Building Performance Level of Immediate Occupancy after a 20% probability of
exceedance in 50 year seismic event and so on. The values K and P shown in bold in figure II-8
correspond to the performance one achieves when designing by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
[17]. This corresponds to Life Safety after a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 year event and
Collapse Prevention after a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year event, respectively. One can
easily see that the new design approach allows the designer to advance the state of the art from the
UBC code by giving many more design options and allowing the owner, architect, and engineer to
predict the post event conditions of the structure for a wide range of ground motions.






Figure II-8: Building Performance Level for Given Seismic Event

II-B-3) Calculation of the Seismic Hazard
An important parameter that must be determined for the Pushover Analysis is the Seismic Hazard
of a given location. The Seismic Hazard is a function of:
1) The Building Performance Level
2) The Mapped Acceleration Parameters (found from contour maps included with FEMA 273)
3) The Site Class Coefficients (which account for soil type)
4) The effective structural damping
Seismic
Event
Building Performance Level
H
D B
F
J
M N
I
E
L
P O
K
G
C A 50% / 50 years
20% / 50 years
10% / 50 years
2% / 50 years
1 - A 1 - B 3 - C 5 - E

10
5) The Fundamental Structural Period
The Building Performance Level enters into the Seismic Hazard through the return period of the
earthquake under consideration. The return period for the design earthquake, P
R
, is defined as:

) 1 ln( 02 . 0
50
1
1
E
P
R
e
P


= (II.3)
Where P
E50
is the probability of exceedance in 50 years under consideration. Referring to figure II-8,
if the owner, architect, and structural engineer determine that condition A, K, and P must be met,
corresponding to Operational after a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years event, Life Safety after
a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years event, and Collapse Prevention after a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years event respectively, then the Return Period would be calculated three separate
times with P
E50
equal to 0.5, 0.1, and 0.02 respectively. Since the Seismic Hazard is a function of this
Return Period, as will be shown subsequently, the Pushover Analysis would need to be run separately
for each % exceedance considered and the end results compared with the acceptance criteria given in
FEMA 273 [6] for the Building Performance Level at each % exceedance.
Once the Return Period for the % exceedance under consideration has been determined, the
mapped acceleration parameters are used to determine the modified mapped short period response
acceleration parameter, S
S
, and the modified mapped acceleration parameter at one second period, S
1
.
These parameters are found from:
If S
S2/50
is less than 1.5g and P
E50
is between 2% in 50 years and 10% in 50 years then
[ ] [ ] 73 . 3 ) ln( 606 . 0 * ) ln( ) ln( ) ln( ) ln(
50 / 10 50 / 2 50 / 10
− − + =
R i i i i
P S S S S (II.4)
When S
S2/50
is greater than or equal to 1.5g or S
S2/50
is less than 1.5g and P
E50
is greater than 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years then

n
R
i i
P
S S 





=
475
50 / 10
(II.5)
The subscript i in the above equations is equal to S if the modified mapped short period response
acceleration parameter is being determined and it is equal to 1 if the modified mapped response
acceleration parameter at a one second period is being determined. The parameter S
i2/50
in equation II.4
is the mapped short period acceleration parameter (i =S) or the mapped acceleration parameter at a one

11
second period (i=1) for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event. The parameter S
i10/50
in
equations II.4 and II.5 is the mapped short period acceleration parameter (i =S) or the mapped
acceleration parameter at a one second period (i=1) for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years
event. These parameters are found from contour maps which map the short period response
acceleration and the response acceleration at a one second period at probabilities of exceedance of 2%
in 50 years and 10% in 50 years for the for the entire United States and are included with FEMA 273.
The value n in equation II.5 is a parameter which depends on the mapped parameter S
S2/50
and P
E50
and
is tabulated in FEMA 273. These tables are reproduced in Table II-1.

Table II-1: Values for exponent n for use in equation II.5













Now that the modified mapped short period response acceleration parameter and the modified
mapped response acceleration parameter at a one second period have been determined, these
parameters must be further adjusted to account for the soil type at the site. The final design short
period spectral response acceleration parameter, S
XS
, and the final design spectral response
acceleration parameter at a one second period, S
X1
, shall be determined from:




Region
Value of n for use with S
S
Value of n for use with S
1

California
Pacific
Northwest
Mountain
Central US
Eastern US
2%
<P
E50
<
10%
& S
S2/50

>= 1.5g
P
E50
>
10%
& S
S2/50
<
1.5g
P
E50
>
10%
& S
S2/50

>= 1.5g
2%
<P
E50
<
10%
& S
S2/50

>= 1.5g
P
E50
>
10%
& S
S2/50
<
1.5g
P
E50
>
10%
& S
S2/50

>= 1.5g
0.29
0.54
0.54
0.89 0.67 0.59
0.44 0.44 0.29 0.44
0.54
1.09
0.93
0.98
0.50
0.56
0.60 0.59 0.59
0.96
0.44
1.05 0.80
0.80 0.77
1.25
0.89
1.25
0.89
0.77

12

S a XS
S F S = ( II.6)

1 1
S F S
v X
= (II.7)
F
a
is a function of the soil class at the site and the modified mapped short period response acceleration
parameter, S
S
, and F
v
is a function of the soil class at the site and modified mapped response
acceleration parameter at a one second period, S
1
. Values of F
a
and F
v
are tabulated in FEMA 273.
These tables are reproduced in tables II-2 and II-3 respectively. Linear interpolation shall be used for
values of S
S
or S
1
between tabulated values and the * represents a condition in which site – specific
geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses should be performed.

Table II-2: Values for Site Class coefficient, F
a
, for use in equation II.6







Table II-3: Values for Site Class coefficient, F
v
, for use in equation II.7







Definitions and classifications of soil type are included in FEMA 273 and are as follows:
Class A: Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, v
s
> 5,000 ft/s
Class B: Rock with 2,500 ft/s < v
s
< 5,000 ft/s, where v
s
is the measured shear wave velocity.
Site Class S <= 0.25 S = 0.50 S = 0.75 S = 1.00 S >= 1.25
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8
1.2 1.2 1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6 1.2
0.9 * 1.7 2.5
1.4
1.2
* * * * *
Site Class S <= 0.1 S = 0.2 S = 0.3 S = 0.4 S >= 0.5
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8
1.6 1.7 1.5
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
2.4 1.8
2.4 * 3.2 3.5
2.0
2.8
* * * * *

13
Class C: Very dense soil and soft rock with shear wave velocity, 1,200 ft/s < v
s
< 2,500 or
with either standard blow count, N > 50 or undrained shear strength, s
u
> 2,000 psf.
Class D: Stiff soil with shear wave velocity, 600 ft/s < v
s
<1,200 ft/s or with either standard
blow count, 15 < N < 50 or undrained shear strength, 1,000 psf < s
u
< 2,000 psf.
Class E: Any profile with more than 10 ft of soft clay defined as soil with plasticity index, PI
> 20, or water content, w > 40%, and undrained shear strength, s
u
< 500 psf or a soil profile with shear
wave velocity, v
s
< 600 ft/s. If insufficient data are available to classify a soil profile as type A through
D, a type E profile should be assumed.
Class F: Soils requiring site – specific evaluations are those soils that are vulnerable to
potential failure or collapse under seismic loading, such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly –
sensitive clays and collapsible weakly – cemented soils, peats and/or highly organic clays with a
thickness greater than 10 ft, very high plasticity clays that have a plasticity index, PI, greater than 75
and with a thickness greater than 25 ft, and soft or medium clays which have a thickness greater than
120 ft.
In the above classifications, the shear wave velocity, v
s
, the Standard Penetration Test blow
count, N, and the undrained shear strength, s
u
, are average values over a 100 ft depth of soil.
Based on the design spectral response acceleration parameters, S
XS
and S
X1
, the General
Response Spectrum can be formulated. The General Response Spectrum graphically relates the
Spectral Response Acceleration, S
a
, as a function of Structural Fundamental Period, T. The relation is
defined as:
) / 3 4 . 0 ( * ) / (
0
T T B S S
S XS a
+ = for
0
2 . 0 0 T T ≤ < (II.8)

S XS a
B S S / = for
0 0
2 . 0 T T T ≤ < (II.9)
) /(
1 1
T B S S
X a
= for
0
T T > ( II.10)
The values B
S
and B
1
in equations II.8 to II.10 are parameters which account for the effective
damping coefficient of the structure and are tabulated in FEMA 273. These values are reproduced in
table II-4 and linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of the effective damping
coefficient, β.

14

Table II-4: Damping Coefficients B
S
and B
1
to be used in equations II.8 to II.10








The value T
0
in equations II.8 to II.10 is the characteristic period of the response spectrum,
defined as the period associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the
spectrum to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum. It is calculated from:
) /( ) (
1 1 0
B S B S T
XS S X
= (II.11)
With the application of equations II.3 through II.11 the General Response Spectrum can be
formulated for the design event being considered. The General Response Spectrum is shown
qualitatively in figure II-9.










Figure II-9: General Response Spectrum
0.4S
XS
/B
S

S
X1
/B
1

S
a
= S
XS
/B
S

Fundamental Structural Period, T
Spectral
Response
Acceleration,
S
a

S
a
= S
X1
/(B
1
T)
0.2T
0
T
0
1.0
S
a
= (S
XS
/B
S
)(0.4+3T/T
0
)
Effective Damping, β
(% of critical)

B
S


B
1

< 2
5
10
20
30
> 50
40
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
1.3 1.2
1.8 1.5
2.3 1.7
2.7 1.9
3.0 2.0

15
The General Response Spectrum is a function of the many site and design event specific
parameters which are related by a complicated system of equations. However, once it has been
developed, since it is a function only of site location parameters and the design event under
consideration, it becomes a very useful tool as it describes the maximum acceleration a structure, with
a given fundamental period, must endure during the design event.
II-B-4) Calculation of the Target Displacement
The Target Displacement, i.e. the maximum displacement the structure is expected to undergo
during the design event, can now be obtained. The target displacement is calculated from the
following equation:
g
T
S C C C C
e
a t
2
2
3 2 1 0

δ = (II.12)
Where the value C
0
is a modification factor that relates spectral displacement and likely
building roof displacement. Values for C
0
are tabulated in FEMA 273 as a function of the total number
of stories of the structure and are included in table II-5.
Table II-5: Values for modification factor C
0
for use in equation II.12







C
1
is a modification factor which relates expected maximum inelastic displacements to
displacements calculated for linear elastic response. Values for C
1
are obtained from:
0 . 1
1
= C for
0
T T
e
≥ (II.13)
[ ] R T T R C
e
/ / ) 1 ( 0 . 1
0 1
− + = for
0
T T
e
< (II.14)
Number of Stories Modification Factor C
1

1
2
3
5
10 +
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1. Linear Interpolation should be used for intermediate values

16
T
e
is the effective fundamental period of the structure and is defined as given in equation II.17. T
o
is
the characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period associated with the transition
from the constant acceleration segment of the spectrum to the constant velocity segment of the
spectrum and is calculated as shown in equation II.11. R is the ratio of elastic strength demand to
calculated yield strength coefficient. Values for R are obtained from:

0
1
/ C W V
S
R
y
a
= (II.15)
S
a
is the Response Spectrum Acceleration, in g’s, ( where g must be in consistent units, usually in/s
2
) at
the effective fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration
as described in section II-B-3 and obtained from equations II.8 through II.10. V
y
is the yield strength
calculated using the results of the Pushover Analysis, where the non – linear force – displacement
curve of the building is characterized by a bilinear relation as shown in figure II-10. W is the total
dead load and anticipated live load, as calculated by equation II.1. C
0
is as defined above and values
are tabulated in table II-5.
C
2
is a modification factor that represenst the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum
displacement response of the structure. Values for C
2
are tabulated in FEMA 273 and are a function of
Building Performance Level, framing type, and the fundamental period of the structure. They are
included in table II-6.
Table II-6: Values for modification factor C
2
used in equation II.12










Building Performance
Level
Framing
Type 1
1

Framing
Type 2
2

Framing
Type 2
2

Framing
Type 1
1

T = 0.1 second T >T second
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.5 1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.3
1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by
components or elements whose strength and stiffness may deteriorate during the
design earthquake. Such elements and components include: ordinary moment –
resisting frames, concentrically braced frames, frames with partially restrained
connections, tension – only braced frames, unreinforced masonry walls, shear –
critical walls and piers, or any combination of the above.

2. All frames not assigned toFraming Type 1.

17
C
3
is a modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P – ∆ effects.
For buildings with positive post – yield stiffness, C
3
shall be set equal to 1.0. For buildings with
negative post – yield stiffness, C
3
shall be calculated from:

e
T
R
C
2 / 3
3
) 1 (
0 . 1

+ =
α
(II.16)
Values for R and T
e
are obtained from equations II.15 and II.17 respectively, and α is the ratio of post
– yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness, where the non – linear force – displacement relation is
characterized by a bilinear relation as shown in figure II-10.
The effective fundamental period of the structure in the direction under consideration, T
e
may
be calculated from:

e
i
e
K
K
T T = (II.17)
Where T is the elastic fundamental period of the structure (in seconds) in the direction under
consideration calculated by elastic dynamic analysis. K
i
is the elastic lateral stiffness of the building in
the direction under consideration and is found from the initial stiffness of the non – linear base shear
vs. roof displacement curve as shown in figure II-10. K
e
is the effective lateral stiffness of the building
in the direction under consideration and is defined as the slope of the line which connects the point of
intersection of the post – yield stiffness line with the horizontal line at the yield base shear value to
zero, while intersecting the original base shear vs. roof displacement curve at 60% of the yield base
shear value. K
i
and K
e
are shown in figure II-10.







Figure II-10: Bilinear Relation of Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Plot
K
i

Non – Linear
Structural
Response
Roof Displacement
Base
Shear
V
y

0.6 V
y

δ
K
e

α K

18
II-C) Reasons for Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis)
The procedure to perform the Pushover Analysis was thoroughly outlined in the previous
section. It is easily seen that it is by no means an easy procedure. This brings up the question of why
should one perform the pushover analysis, especially when it was defined as a static approximation to
an actual dynamic analysis? Also, since the analysis is applied to previously designed or existing
structures, why must one perform a more detailed analysis than just designing by an appropriate code
such as the UBC?
There are two reasons why the Pushover Analysis may be preferred to a full dynamic
analysis. The first reason is computational time. To run a full dynamic, non – linear analysis on even
a simple structure takes a long time. If the Pushover Analysis is deemed applicable (see chapter III for
applicability conditions) to the structure at hand, accurate results can be obtained in fractions of the
time it would take to get any useful results from the fully dynamic analysis. Since one of the main
goals of this research was to develop a computational tool which could be easily applied in a design
office, time is a very important parameter. This makes the Pushover Analysis much more applicable in
a design office.
The second reason has to do with earthquake unpredictability. When performing a dynamic
analysis, it is best to use a series of earthquakes. This further increases the computational time. If we
were to redesign a structure based on a maximum displacement achieved from a full dynamic analysis
based on one particular earthquake, it is easy to imagine that there could be an earthquake which had
the same probability of exceedance percentage but had a different frequency content. Based on the
fundamental period of the structure, this would increase or decrease the maximum response. So, one
would not know if the design was the maximum that could be expected until a great number of
earthquake ground motion records were tested. The Pushover Analysis naturally accounts for all
earthquakes with the same probability of exceedance by predicting the maximum displacement that
can be expected in the form of the Target Displacement. Now, computational time has been further
reduced, since only one analysis must be run for each exceedance probability that the designer is
interested in, strengthening the idea that the Pushover Analysis is much more practical in a design
office.

19
There are also two reasons why the Pushover Analysis may be preferred to designing
according to an existing code, such as the UBC. The first is that it advances the state of the art from
code design. The Pushover allows the designer to determine the building’s performance under a range
of ground shakings while the current code design just determines that the building won’t fall down or
threaten life under the worst possible shaking. This allows owners to choose in advance what the
condition of their building will be after a given event which in turn limits their costs in purchasing
earthquake insurance. Also, by knowing the resulting condition of the building after any ground
motion, including small ground motions which may be just large enough to cause some non –
structural damage, the designers can modify their design to protect expensive architectural fixtures or
to limit the inconvenience that can be caused to building occupants when mechanical or plumbing
components are damaged. This increases the overall effectiveness of the structure furthering its
applicability in a design office.
The second reason is that since the model directly incorporates the actual material
nonlinearities of each member, and the structure is monotonically forced into the inelastic response
range, the designer is able to get detailed member information at displacements up to and including the
maximum displacement. From this information, sections of members which will be most damaged by
the ground shaking can be located and these sections can be redesigned to develop the strength or
ductility that will be required of them. In comparison, when designing by an appropriate code, the
maximum loads are applied directly to the structure and only the maximum response is determined.
The relation at specific loading values before the maximum is lost and the interrelation among
contributing elements is not available. So, the designer has no idea of what the effect of increasing the
strength or ductility at one section will have upon the other. This requires that both sections obtain
their maximum strength or ductility, while the Pushover Analysis allows the designer to modify one
section which in turn could have a beneficial result on the other section lowering the maximum
response it would have to endure. So, the Pushover Analysis increases the effectiveness and efficiency
of the design.

20

CHAPTER III
APPLICATIONS OF THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (PUSHOVER ANALYSIS)

The Pushover Analysis was defined in chapter II as a non – linear static approximation of the
response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic earthquake loading. Because we are
approximating the complex dynamic loading characteristic of ground motion with a much simpler
monotonically increasing static load, there are bound to be limitations to the procedure. The objective of
this chapter is to quantify these limitations. This will be accomplished by performing the Pushover
Analysis and a full non – linear dynamic analysis on reinforced concrete moment resisting frames of six,
twelve, and twenty stories. The resulting Target Displacement obtained from the Pushover Analysis may
then be compared with the maximum displacement at the roof of each structure obtained from the dynamic
analysis. The Pushover Analysis will follow the steps outlined in chapter II, while the steps necessary to
perform the dynamic analysis will be described as they are evaluated.
III-A) Design of Three Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames
The design of each frame will be carried out according to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC)
[17] and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) structural concrete building code requirements 318-95 [1].
The frames are located in the Los Angeles, California area which falls under UBC earthquake zone 4. The
frames to be designed are each one of four moment resisting frames in the structure and have common bay
widths, story heights, and floor plans. The typical floor plan and section are shown in figure III-1, while
the frame dimensions are given in figure III-2 . Common floor area loads will be used for each frame as
given by the UBC code and are representative of a typical office building. These loads are also shown in
figure III-1. The design procedure described here will show the formulation of the gravity loads, wind
loads, and earthquake loads used in design.

21

Figure III-1: Typical Floor Plan, Floor Section, and Loads Common to All Frames



22
Figure III-2: Design Frame Dimensions and Member Sizes
III-A-1) Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in the Design of Frames.
The floor loads typical to each frame are shown in figure III-1. They consist of dead loads which
are the partition load, ceiling load, slab weight, and transverse beam weight, and a floor or roof live load.
In addition to these loads, the self weight of the girders and columns must be added. However, because the
girders and columns must be designed, their weight is not known at the start of the design process.
Through an iterative procedure, the required sections for each member can be found and their weight
included in the gravity loads. The concrete sections for use in the formulation of gravity loads are shown in
figure III-2, while the gravity loads are determined in table III-1.

23
Table III-1: Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in Design
Self - Weight Dead Loads
Description t (in) h (ft) L (ft)
Conc wght,
w
c
(k/ft
3
)
P1
(kips)
P2
(kips) P (kips)
Slab 6 12 18 0.15 8.1 16.2 16.2
Transverse Beam 9 0.67 18 0.15 1.35 1.35 1.35
Superimposed Loads
Description W (ft) L(ft)
P1
(kips)
P2
(kips) P (kips)
Ceiling (DL) 12 18 1.1 2.2 2.2
Partition Walls (DL) 12 18 2.2 4.3 4.3
Floor Load (LL) 12 18 5.4 10.8 10.8
Roof Load (LL) 12 18 3.2 6.5 6.5
Description
H
1
(in)
W (in) L (ft)
Conc wght,
w
c
(k/ft
3
)
P1
(kips)
P2
(kips) P (kips)
26 x 18 (Girder) 26 18 12 0.15 2.9 5.9 5.9
28 x 20 (Girder) 28 20 12 0.15 3.5 7.0 7.0
32 x 22 (Girder) 32 22 12 0.15 4.4 8.8 8.8
C - 1 (Column) 20 20 14 0.15 5.8 5.8 0.0
C - 2 (Column) 24 24 14 0.15 8.4 8.4 0.0
C - 3 (Column) 28 28 14 0.15 11.4 11.4 0.0
C - 4 (Column) 32 32 14 0.15 14.9 14.9 0.0
1 All Values Are Illustrated Below
Note : The Force at a Given Location Is the Sum of the Forces Corresponding to the
Point Loads at That Location Due to Column Size, Beam Size, and Typical Floor
Loads. The Change In Dead Load at the Roof Is Due to 1/2 Column Length There.
Typical Floor Loads
Design Section Loads
Applied Surface Load
(psf)
10
20
50
30

24
III-A-2) Formulation of Wind Loads for Use in Design
The calculation of the wind loading to be applied to each frame will be carried out based on the
UBC wind loading profile. The wind pressure associated with each floor level is given by:

w s q e
I q C C P = (III.1)
P is equal to the design wind pressure and is based on the basic wind speed at the design location
and the exposure condition. For the Los Angeles area, the basic wind speed is 70 mph as given on the UBC
wind map, and the exposure for a structure which has surrounding buildings is exposure C. From these two
conditions, the remaining parameters can be determined.
C
e
is equal to the combined height, exposure and gust factor, and is a function of the exposure of
the building and height of each floor level. Values for this coefficient are tabulated in the UBC.
C
q
is equal to the pressure coefficient for the structure or portion of the structure under
consideration and is tabulated in the UBC.
q
s
is equal to the wind stagnation pressure at a standard height of 33’ at the design location as
tabulated in the UBC.
I
w
is equal to the importance factor of the structure also laid out in the UBC.
The total wind force acting at each floor level on a frame is the design wind pressure multiplied by
the floor height and the tributary width of the frame. Calculations for each frame are detailed in table III-2.
III-A-3) Formulation of Earthquake Loads for Use in Design
The calculation of earthquake loads to be applied to each frame will be carried out based on the
UBC earthquake loading profile. The force caused by an earthquake to be applied at each floor level is a
function of the Design Base Shear, V, which is given by:
W
RT
I C
V
v
= (III.2)
However, the Design Base Shear need not exceed:
W
R
I C
V
a
5 . 2
= (III.3)
Further, the Design Base Shear must not be less than the least of the following:

25
Table III-2: UBC Wind Load Calculations Used in Design

Data Common To All Frames
Wind Importance Factor, I
w
= 1.0
Wind Stagnation Pressure @33', q
s
= 12.6 psf
Pressure Coefficient, C
q
= 1.4
Six Story Frame
Heigth 1 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heigth 2 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heighth of
Floor, H
(ft)
C
e
associated
w/ H1
C
e
associated
w/ H2
C
e
associated
w/ Floor
Tributary
Width, W
(ft)
Wind Force,
P*WH
(kips)
0 15 14 1.06 1.06 1.06 18 4.71
25 30 28 1.19 1.23 1.214 18 5.40
40 60 42 1.31 1.43 1.322 18 5.88
40 60 56 1.31 1.43 1.406 18 6.25
60 80 70 1.43 1.53 1.48 18 6.58
80 100 84 1.53 1.61 1.546 18 6.87
Twelve Story Frame
Heigth 1 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heigth 2 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heighth of
Floor, H
(ft)
C
e
associated
w/ H1
C
e
associated
w/ H2
C
e
associated
w/ Floor
Tributary
Width , W
(ft)
Wind Force,
P*WH
(kips)
0 15 14 1.06 1.06 1.06 18 4.71
25 30 28 1.19 1.23 1.214 18 5.40
40 60 42 1.31 1.43 1.322 18 5.88
40 60 56 1.31 1.43 1.406 18 6.25
60 80 70 1.43 1.53 1.48 18 6.58
80 100 84 1.53 1.61 1.546 18 6.87
80 100 98 1.53 1.61 1.602 18 7.12
100 120 112 1.61 1.67 1.646 18 7.32
120 160 126 1.67 1.79 1.688 18 7.50
120 160 140 1.67 1.79 1.73 18 7.69
120 160 154 1.67 1.79 1.772 18 7.88
160 200 168 1.79 1.87 1.806 18 8.03
Twenty Story Frame
Heigth 1 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heigth 2 -
UBC tbl 16-G
(ft)
Heighth of
Floor, H
(ft)
C
e
associated
w/ H1
C
e
associated
w/ H2
C
e
associated
w/ Floor
Tributary
Width, W
(ft)
Wind Force,
P*WH
(kips)
0 15 14 1.06 1.06 1.06 18 4.71
25 30 28 1.19 1.23 1.214 18 5.40
40 60 42 1.31 1.43 1.322 18 5.88
40 60 56 1.31 1.43 1.406 18 6.25
60 80 70 1.43 1.53 1.48 18 6.58
80 100 84 1.53 1.61 1.546 18 6.87
80 100 98 1.53 1.61 1.602 18 7.12
100 120 112 1.61 1.67 1.646 18 7.32
120 160 126 1.67 1.79 1.688 18 7.50
120 160 140 1.67 1.79 1.73 18 7.69
120 160 154 1.67 1.79 1.772 18 7.88
160 200 168 1.79 1.87 1.806 18 8.03
160 200 182 1.79 1.87 1.834 18 8.15
160 200 196 1.79 1.87 1.862 18 8.28
200 300 210 1.87 2.05 1.888 18 8.39
200 300 224 1.87 2.05 1.9132 18 8.50
200 300 238 1.87 2.05 1.9384 18 8.62
200 300 252 1.87 2.05 1.9636 18 8.73
200 300 266 1.87 2.05 1.9888 18 8.84
200 300 280 1.87 2.05 2.014 18 8.95

26
IW C V
a
11 . 0 = (III.4)
W
R
I ZN
V
v
8 . 0
= (III.5)
In the above equations:
Z is equal to the seismic zone factor. For the Los Angeles area, the seismic zone is Zone 4 and the
seismic zone factor is equal to 0.4.
C
v
and C
a
are seismic coefficients and are functions of the soil type and the seismic zone factor.
A stiff soil profile will be the basis for design corresponding to soil type S
D
.
I is equal to the seismic importance factor for the structure under consideration.
W is equal to the total seismic dead load equal to the total dead load of each structure.
N
v
is equal to the near source factor of the structure to known faults. Under consideration will be a
site with a known fault greater than 15 km away and N
v
equals 1.0.
R is equal to the overstrength factor based on the lateral force resisting system of the structure.
Under consideration will be a system of reinforced concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames since no
special designs will be considered (i.e. plastic hinges etc.).
T is the elastic fundamental period of the structure (seconds) in the direction under consideration.
For UBC calculations, this period is defined as:

4 / 3
) (
n t
h C T = ( III.6)
C
t
is a numerical coefficient equal to 0.03 for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames.
h
n
is equal to the height in feet from the base to the roof of the structure.
Once the base shear, V, for each frame has been determined, the lateral force to be applied at the
top of the structure, F
t
, can be calculated. This is given in the UBC as:
TV F
t
07 . 0 = (III.7)
Where T and V are as described above.
From the base shear, V, and the fundamental period, T, as given by the UBC, the lateral force
distribution along the height of the structure, F
x
, can be determined. This is given as:

27


=

=
n
i
i i
x x t
x
h w
h w F V
F
1
) (
(III.8)
F
x
is equal to the lateral force to be applied at floor level x, w
x
is the fraction of the total structure
weight, W, allocated to floor level x, h
x
is the height of floor level x above the base of the structure, and the
summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total number of floors, n. The
calculations of the above equations leading to the lateral force distribution over the total height of each
structure is illustrated in table III-3.

Table III-3: UBC Earthquake Loads Used in Design


















0.4
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.0
3.5
Seismic Coefficient , C
a
=
Importance Factor, I =
Overstrength Factor, R =
Data Common to All Frames
Near Source Factor, N
v
=
Near Source Factor, N
a
=
Seismic Coefficient , C
v
=
Seismic Zone Factor, Z = Fundamental Period, T (s) = 0.832 UBC 30-8
Design Base Shear, V = 162 UBC 30-4 - 30-7
Concentrated Force at Top, F
t
= 9.4 UBC 30-14
Floor #
Floor
Weight,
W
i
(kips)
W
i
/W
total
w
i
(kips)
Floor
Height,
h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
Quake Force, F
x
(kips)
1 198 0.168 14 2.35 7.4
2 198 0.168 28 4.70 14.7
3 198 0.168 42 7.05 22.1
4 198 0.168 56 9.40 29.4
5 198 0.168 70 11.75 36.8
Roof 189 0.160 84 13.48 51.6
W
total
= 1180 Σw
i
*h
i
= 48.74
Fundamental Period, T (s) = 1.400 UBC 30-8
Design Base Shear, V = 226 UBC 30-4 - 30-7
Concentrated Force at Top, F
t
= 22.1 UBC 30-14
Floor #
Floor
Weight,
W
i
(kips)
W
i
/W
total
w
i
(kips)
Floor
Height,
h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
Quake Force, F
x
(kips)
1 213 0.086 14 1.21 2.8
2 213 0.086 28 2.41 5.5
3 213 0.086 42 3.62 8.3
4 213 0.086 56 4.82 11.0
5 213 0.086 70 6.03 13.8
6 213 0.086 84 7.23 16.5
7 205 0.083 98 8.13 18.6
8 205 0.083 112 9.30 21.2
9 198 0.080 126 10.10 23.1
10 198 0.080 140 11.23 25.6
11 198 0.080 154 12.35 28.2
Roof 189 0.077 168 12.88 51.5
W
total
= 2471 Σw
i
*h
i
= 89.31
Twelve Story Frame
Six Story Frame
Fundamental Period, T (s) = 2.053 UBC 30-8
Design Base Shear, V = 402 UBC 30-4 - 30-7
Concentrated Force at Top, F
t
= 57.8 UBC 30-14
Floor #
Floor
Weight,
W
i
(kips)
W
i
/W
total
w
i
(kips)
Floor
Height,
h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
Quake Force, F
x
(kips)
1 243 0.055 14 0.77 1.9
2 243 0.055 28 1.55 3.8
3 243 0.055 42 2.32 5.7
4 233 0.053 56 2.96 7.2
5 233 0.053 70 3.70 9.0
6 233 0.053 84 4.44 10.8
7 233 0.053 98 5.18 12.6
8 223 0.051 112 5.69 13.9
9 223 0.051 126 6.40 15.6
10 223 0.051 140 7.11 17.3
11 223 0.051 154 7.82 19.1
12 223 0.051 168 8.53 20.8
13 223 0.051 182 9.25 22.6
14 205 0.047 196 9.14 22.3
15 205 0.047 210 9.79 23.9
16 205 0.047 224 10.44 25.5
17 198 0.045 238 10.72 26.1
18 198 0.045 252 11.35 27.7
19 198 0.045 266 11.98 29.2
Roof 189 0.043 280 12.05 87.2
W
total
= 4400 Σw
i
*h
i
= 141.19
Twenty Story Frame

28
III-A-4) Total Design Loads and Section Determination
The total design loads are factored combinations of the gravity loads (dead and live), wind loads,
and earthquake loads determined previously. The total unfactored design loads are shown in figure III-3,
figure III-4, and figure III-5 for the six, twelve, and twenty story frames respectively.
Figure III-3: Gravity, Wind and Earthquake Loads for the Six Story Frame.

From these unfactored loads, we can apply the ACI load combinations and find the factored loads which
must be designed for. The ACI load combinations which must be checked are:
LL DL 7 . 1 4 . 1 + (III.9a)
WL LL DL 28 . 1 28 . 1 05 . 1 ± + (III.9b)
WL DL 3 . 1 9 . 0 ± (III.9c)
EL LL DL 4 . 1 28 . 1 05 . 1 + + (III.9d)
EL DL 43 . 1 9 . 0 + (III.9e)

29

Figure III-4: Gravity, Wind, and Earthquake Loads for the Twelve Story Frame


30



























Figure III-5: Gravity, Wind, and Earthquake Loads for the Twenty Story Frame

31
In equations III.9, DL is equal to the dead load, LL is equal to the live load, WL is equal to the
wind load, and EL is equal to the earthquake load. Once the loads have been factored, the members can be
designed. The resulting section locations are shown in figure III-6, while the resulting sections are shown
in figures III-7 and III-8.
Figure III-6: Design Section Locations for Six, Twelve and Twenty Story Frames

32

Figure III-7: Final Design Sections – Beams


33

Figure III-8: Final Design Sections – Columns

34
III-B) Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Moment Resisting Frames
Once the frames have been designed, the Pushover Analysis can be performed on each frame to
determine its maximum expected response. As described in chapter II, the first thing that needs to be
calculated is the vertical distribution of the lateral loads. However, since this distribution is a function of
the fundamental period of the structure through the exponent k, the period must first be determined. The
Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP) [16] will be used to perform the Pushover as well as the dynamic
analyses, so this will also be used to find the fundamental period of the structures. Once this period has
been determined, the lateral load distribution can be calculated, followed by the Seismic Hazard and the
Target Displacement. The Building Performance Level will not be included here since only the Target
Displacement is to be compared with the maximum dynamic displacement found at the roof of each
structure. So, an earthquake that has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years will be used as the
Building Performance Level requirement.
III-B-1) Period Determination
The fundamental period of a structure is a function of its mass and stiffness, so the masses at each
floor level must be calculated. The stiffness of each structure is a function of the member sizes, which
were designed in the previous section, and FEAP calculates this internally. The mass of the structure is a
function of the total gravity load to be used in the Pushover Analysis. The total gravity load to be used in
the Pushover Analysis was given in equation II.1 and is reproduced here as:
) ( 1 . 1
S L D G
Q Q Q Q + + = (III.10)
Recall that the live load to be used is 25% of the unreduced live load for the structure and the dead load is
the total dead load effect. Since the structures are located in Los Angeles, the design snow load is less than
30 psf and therefore equal to zero. So the total gravity load to be used in the Pushover Analysis is equal to
the dead load shown in figures III-3 to III-5 plus 25% of the live load shown in these figures all times the
factor 1.1. Note that the dead load and live load used here are the unfactored design loads. For the
determination of the total mass on the structure, FEAP requires an input mass per unit volume for each
element. Since the total gravity load of equation III.10 must be included in the mass, it must be converted

35
into a mass per unit volume for the input. This will be accomplished by including the total load at a floor
level, minus the column weight, as the input mass per unit volume for the beams. So, the mass per unit
volume input for each beam is the total load at each floor level, minus the column weight, divided by the
volume of the member. The volume of each member is its length times its width times its height. Since
this division gives a load per unit volume, this value must also be divided by the gravitational constant.
The input mass per unit volume for the columns will just be the unit weight of concrete. The masses per
each member as a function of the total Pushover Analysis gravity loads are formulated in table III-4.
Table III-4: Calculation of Mass Per Unit Volume for Each Member

Once the applicable masses have been included in the input, FEAP can determine the fundamental
period of each frame. The fundamental, second, and third periods of each frame are shown for comparison
in table III-5.
Table III-5: Fundamental, Second, and Third Periods for Each Frame
# Stories in Frame Fundamental Period, T (sec)
Second Period, T
2
(sec) Third Period, T
3
(sec)
6 1.61 0.517 0.294
12 2.66 0.954 0.550
20 3.59 1.39 0.797
Sect # P (kips)
ΣP = 6*P
(kips)
Width,
W (in)
Heigth,
H (in)
Length,
L (in) Distributed Mass input
Beam 1 - 1a 35.9 215.4 18 26 864 1.378634002E-06
Beam 2 - 2a 37.1 222.6 20 28 864 1.190655912E-06
Beam 3 - 3a 39.1 234.6 22 32 864 9.981699435E-07
Sect # Distributed Mass input
All Sections 2.246520589E-07
Beam mass per unit volume = (P1 + P2 + P3 + 4P) / (Beam L * W * H * g)
Where P1 = P3 = 1/2 P, and P2 = P because column mass is calculated seperately
Column mass per unit volume = (concrete unit weight) / g
0.15 8.68056E-05
Column Distributed Masses
Beam Distributed Masses
Conc Unit Weight (k/ft
3
) Conc Unit Weight (k/in
3
)

36
The second and third periods for each frame are shown because it is interesting to notice that the
second period of the twenty story frame is close to the first period of the six story frame. So, it can be
expected that the twenty story’s second mode will contribute in its dynamic response as much as the six
story’s first mode will to its dynamic response. A similar statement can be made about the second mode of
the twelve story building since its second period is about 60% of the six story’s first period. This may be
important when comparing the Pushover Analysis with the dynamic analysis because the C
vx
load
distribution is enforcing some variation of the first mode response in each of the structures. So, if a first
mode response is accurate for the six story frame, it is easy to see that for the other frames it will be less
accurate as higher modes contribute more to the dynamic response.
III-B-2) Calculation of the Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads
Now that the fundamental period for each frame structure has been determined, the vertical
distribution of the lateral loads for the Pushover Analysis can be calculated. The vertical distribution of the
lateral loads is given by the FEMA 273 C
vx
loading profile as given by equation II.2. This equation will be
reproduced here for convenience and is:


=
=
n
i
k
x i
k
x x
vx
h w
h w
C
1
(III.11)
The C
vx
loading coefficient is the value to be applied at each floor level of the frame. w
x
is the fraction of
the total weight, W, allocated to the floor at level x, h
x
is the height of the floor at level x above the base,
and the summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total number of stories, six,
twelve, or twenty for this example. All of these parameters are illustrated in figure II-5. The exponent k is
a factor which varies with fundamental period as shown in figure II-6. These C
vx
loading coefficients are
input into FEAP and the program multiplies them by the monotonically increasing load to get the lateral
loads at each increasing value. The formulation of the C
vx
loading coefficients for each frame is detailed in
table III-6. Once all of these values have been determined they can be combined with the Pushover
Analysis gravity loads determined in equation III.10 to get the total frame loading for analysis as shown in
figures III-9, III-10, and III-11 for the six, twelve, and twenty story frames, respectively.

37
Table III-6: Determination of the Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads for Each Frame
FEAP Fundamental Period, T = 1.61 sec
Period Dependent Factor, k = 1.55
Floor #
Weight,
QG
i
(kips)
QG
i
/ QG
total
,
w
i
Height of
floor, h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
k
Lateral Load
Factor, C
vx
1 236 0.170 14 10.2 0.0225
2 236 0.170 28 30.0 0.0659
3 236 0.170 42 56.3 0.1237
4 236 0.170 56 88.0 0.1934
5 236 0.170 70 124.5 0.2735
Roof 209 0.150 84 146.1 0.3210
QG
total
= 1388 Σw
i
* h
i
k
= 455
FEAP Fundamental Period, T = 2.66 sec
Period Dependent Factor, k = 2.00
Floor #
Weight,
QG
i
(kips)
QG
i
/ QG
total
,
w
i
Height of
floor, h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
k
Lateral Load
Factor, C
vx
1 252 0.0864 14 16.9 0.0017
2 252 0.0864 28 67.7 0.0066
3 252 0.0864 42 152.4 0.0149
4 252 0.0864 56 270.9 0.0266
5 252 0.0864 70 423.4 0.0415
6 252 0.0864 84 609.6 0.0597
7 243 0.0836 98 802.4 0.0786
8 243 0.0836 112 1048.1 0.1027
9 236 0.0810 126 1285.6 0.1260
10 236 0.0810 140 1587.1 0.1555
11 236 0.0810 154 1920.4 0.1882
Roof 209 0.0716 168 2020.0 0.1979
QG
total
= 2913 Σw
i
* h
i
k
= 10205
FEAP Fundamental Period, T = 3.59 sec
Period Dependent Factor, k = 2.00
Floor #
Weight,
QG
i
(kips)
QG
i
/ QG
total
,
w
i
Height of
floor, h
i
(ft) w
i
* h
i
k
Lateral Load
Factor, C
vx
1 285 0.0551 14 10.8 0.0004
2 285 0.0551 28 43.2 0.0016
3 285 0.0551 42 97.2 0.0037
4 274 0.0528 56 165.7 0.0063
5 274 0.0528 70 258.9 0.0098
6 274 0.0528 84 372.9 0.0142
7 274 0.0528 98 507.5 0.0193
8 264 0.0509 112 638.7 0.0243
9 264 0.0509 126 808.3 0.0307
10 264 0.0509 140 997.9 0.0379
11 264 0.0509 154 1207.5 0.0459
12 264 0.0509 168 1437.0 0.0546
13 264 0.0509 182 1686.5 0.0641
14 243 0.0470 196 1805.4 0.0686
15 243 0.0470 210 2072.5 0.0788
16 243 0.0470 224 2358.0 0.0896
17 236 0.0455 238 2578.9 0.0980
18 236 0.0455 252 2891.2 0.1099
19 236 0.0455 266 3221.3 0.1224
Roof 209 0.0403 280 3156.1 0.1199
QG
total
= 5179 Σw
i
* h
i
k
= 26315
Twenty Story Frame
Twelve Story Frame
Six Story Frame

38

Figure III-9: Gravity Loads and C
vx
Loading Coefficients for Six Story Frame

39

Figure III-10: Gravity Loads and C
vx
Loading Coefficients for Twelve Story Frame

40
Figure III-11: Gravity Loads and C
vx
Loading Coefficients for Twenty Story Frame

41
III-B-3) Element Reduction for Analysis of Frames
Because of the length of time required to run a complete non – linear dynamic analysis of these
structures, an effort was made to limit the numbers of elements and nodes in each frame. Since a
comparison is to be made between dynamic and Pushover analyses, this also applies to the Pushover. The
elements and nodes finally adopted for the FEAP input files are shown in figure III-12, while the
transformation of the midspan point loads shown in figures III-9 to III-11 are detailed in table III-7.

Figure III-12: Element and Node Configuration Used in FEAP Input
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43 1 8 15
2
3
4
5
6
7 14
13
12
11
10
9
21
20
19
18
17
16
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27

42
Table III-7: Transformation of Midspan Point Loads to Fixed End Forces and Moments

III-B-4) Determination of Seismic Hazard for Analysis
The calculation of the seismic hazard was detailed in section II-B-3 and is a function of the
probability of exccedance in 50 years under consideration, the mapped short period acceleration parameter,
the mapped acceleration parameter at a one second period, the soil site conditions, the effective structural
damping, and the fundamental period of the structure. The current analysis considers an earthquake with a
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, a Los Angeles location, stiff soil conditions and 5% effective
structural damping. The applicable equations are equations II.3 through II.11 to calculate the modified
floor #'s
P1 = P3
(kips) P (kips)
P2
(kips)
P1+P =
P3+P (kips)
P2+2*P
(kips)
M = 96*P
(kip-in) +/-
6 -20.4 -32.9 -36.1 -53.3 -101.9 3158.4
5 to 1 -25 -35.9 -42.2 -60.9 -114 3446.4
floor #'s
P1 = P3
(kips) P (kips)
P2
(kips)
P1+P =
P3+P (kips)
P2+2*P
(kips)
M = 96*P
(kip-in) +/-
12 -20.4 -32.9 -36.1 -53.3 -101.9 3158.4
11 to 9 -25 -35.9 -42.3 -60.9 -114.1 3446.4
8 to 7 -25.7 -37.1 -43.6 -62.8 -117.8 3561.6
6 to 1 -28.5 -37.1 -46.3 -65.6 -120.5 3561.6
floor #'s
P1 = P3
(kips) P (kips)
P2
(kips)
P1+P =
P3+P (kips)
P2+2*P
(kips)
M = 96*P
(kip-in) +/-
20 -20.4 -32.9 -36.1 -53.3 -101.9 3158.4
19 to 17 -25 -35.9 -42.2 -60.9 -114 3446.4
16 to 14 -25.7 -37.1 -43.6 -62.8 -117.8 3561.6
13 to 8 -29.5 -39.1 -48.3 -68.6 -126.5 3753.6
7 to 4 -32.8 -39.1 -51.7 -71.9 -129.9 3753.6
3 to 1 -36.7 -39.1 -55.6 -75.8 -133.8 3753.6
Six Story Frame
Twelve Story Frame
Twenty Story Frame

43
mapped short period and one second period acceleration parameters, S
S
and S
1
, at the probability of
exceedance under consideration, the Return Period, P
R
, at the probability of exceedance under
consideration, the design acceleration parameters, S
XS
and S
X1,
based on the soil type parameters, F
a
and F
v
,
and the Spectral Response Acceleration, S
a
, based on structural damping coefficients, B
S
and B
1
, the period
at which the constant acceleration region of the spectrum intersects with the constant velocity region of the
spectrum, T
0
, and the fundamental structural period, T. These calculations are carried out, and values for
the parameters are listed in table III-8, while the General Response Spectrum is shown in figure III-13.
Shown on the General Response Spectrum curve is where the six, twelve, and twenty story frames lie.
Table III-8: Formulation of the General Response Spectrum for Analysis
Figure III-13: General Response Spectrum for Analysis
Return Period
S
S
(g's) S
1
(g's) S
S
(g's) S
1
(g's) @ HL, P
R
(yrs) S
S
(g's) S
1
(g's)
2 0.75 1.25 0.5 475 1.25 0.50
Intersect Period
1
F
a
F
v
S
xs
(g's) S
x1
(g's) B
S
B
1
T
0
(sec)
1.0 1.5 1.25 0.75 1.0 1.0 0.6
1 Period at Which the Constant Velocity and Acceleration Regions of the Design Spectrum Intersect
Accelerations @ HL
Soil Site Class = D Design Accelerations Damping Coeff
10
Mapped 2% / 50yrs Mapped 10% / 50yrs Hazard Level,
HL (% / 50yrs)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Fundamental Structural Period, T (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

(
g
'
s
)
T
0
= 0.6 s
0.2 T
0
= 0.12 s
6 Story Frame, T = 1.61 s
12 Story Frame, T = 2.66 s
20 Story Frame, T = 3.59 s

44
III-B-5) Calculation of Target Displacement for Analysis
Finally the Target Displacement can be calculated for each of the analysis frames. Recall from
equation II.12 that the Target Displacement, δ
t
, is equal to:
g
T
S C C C C
e
a t
2
2
3 2 1 0

δ = (III.12)
All parameters in equation III.12 were defined in chapter II-B-4 and these parameters plus the values to
determine these parameters are shown in table III-9. The Effective Stiffness, the Elastic Stiffness, and the
post – yield stiffness, which enter into the parameters in equation III.12, must be calculated from the Base
Shear vs. Roof Displacement curve as defined in equation II.17 and illustrated for each of the analysis
frames in figures III-14 to III-16.
Table III-9: Values Used in Obtaining Target Displacements for Analysis
Figure III-14: Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Six Story Frame
# stories R T
0
(sec) K
i
(k/in) K
e
(k/in) αK
e
(k/in)
α
V
y
(kips)
6 3.27 0.6 14.1 12.6 1.35 0.107 140
12 3.22 0.6 8.68 8.26 0.748 0.091 170
20 2.94 0.6 8.11 7.40 0.198 0.027 245
# stories C
0
C
1
C
2
C
3
S
a
(g's) T
e
(sec) δ
t
(in)
6 1.42 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.469 1.70 18.8
12 1.50 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.282 2.73 30.8
20 1.50 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.209 3.76 43.3
Internal Values
Equation Values
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
K
i
= 14.1 kips/in
Ke = 12.6 kips/in
αK
e
= 1.35 kips/in
δ
t
= 18.8 in
Original Non - Linear Curve
Vy = 140 kips
0.6 Vy = 84 kips

45

Figure III-15: Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Twelve Story Frame

Figure III-16: Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Twenty Story Frame



0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Roof Displacement (in)
Vy = 170 kips
0.6 Vy = 102 kips
Ki = 8.68 kips/in
Ke = 8.26 kips/in
δ t = 30.8 in
Original Curve
α Ke = 0.748 kips/in
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Vy = 245 kips
0.6 Vy = 147 kips
δ t = 43.3 in
α Ke = 0.198 kips/in
Ke = 7.40 kips/in
Ki = 8.11 kips/in
Original Curve

46
III-C) Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analyses for Each Frame
The full non – linear dynamic analysis will now be run on each frame. The dynamic loading will
be a ground motion record as provided by the SAC joint venture [13]. SAC provides a number of ground
motions on their web page which [14] are scaled so that the mean response spectrum matches that given by
FEMA 273. To be consistent with the Pushover Analysis, the ground motion must be that for a Los
Angeles site, on stiff soil, with a 5% structural damping ratio, and a 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years. This happens to be the 1940 El Centro ground motion record as shown in figure III-17.
Figure III-17: 1940 El Centro Ground Motion Used in Dynamic Analysis

FEAP allows dynamic analysis for frames through the frame analysis additions added by Spacone
et al [15]. The ground motion is input as a file and the accelerations are converted to forces at each time
step by the effective force form of the equation of motion which is:
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } { }
eff g
p v M v K v C v M − = − = + + ' ' ' ' ' (III.13)
Where v’’, v’, and v are the relative acceleration, velocity, and displacement vectors of each element
respectively, and v
g
’’ is the acceleration vector due to the ground motion. M is equal to the mass matrix of
each element as formulated in table III-4, K is equal to the stiffness matrix of each element, and C is equal
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
/
s
2
)

47
to the element damping matrix formulated in FEAP through Rayleigh Damping coefficients. The Rayleigh
damping coefficients are given by Chopra [4] as:

j i
j i
ω ω
ω ω
ζ α
+
=
2
,
j i
ω ω
ζ β
+
=
2
(III.14 a)
K M C β α + = (III.14 b)
Where ζ is equal to the structural damping ratio, 5% in this case, and ω
i
and ω
j
are equal to the first and
second frequencies (rad/s) of the structure respectively for FEAP input. These values are formulated in
table III-10.
Table III-10: Rayleigh Damping Coefficients Used in Dynamic Analysis

The resulting dynamic displacements at the roof of each frame are shown in figures III-18 to III-
20. Included in these figures are the maximum and minimum dynamic displacements obtained at the roof
of each structure.
Figure III-18: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Six Story Frame
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
)
Max Disp = 15.0 in
Min Disp = -15.0 in
ω
1
ω
2
ζ
1
= ζ
2
α β
2.5111956 8.0407019 0.05 0.1913568 0.009477
ω
1
ω
2
ζ
1
= ζ
2
α β
1.4880482 4.206531 0.05 0.1099207 0.0175606
ω
1
ω
2
ζ
1
= ζ
2
α β
1.1086985 2.8633657 0.05 0.0799234 0.0251758
Six Story Frame
Twelve Story Frame
Twenty Story Frame

48

Figure III-19: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Twelve Story Frame

Figure III-20: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Twenty Story Frame

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
)
Max Disp = 14.2 in
Min Disp = -12.7 in
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
)
Max Disp = 10.7 in
Min Disp = -12.5 in

49
III-D) Comparisons of Full Dynamic Results With Pushover Analysis Results
The Target Displacements obtained from the Pushover Analysis and the maximum and minimum
displacements obtained at the roof of each structure from the complete dynamic analysis are tabulated in
table III-11.
Table III-11: Target Displacement and Maximum and Minimum Dynamic Displacements for Frames

In comparing these results, one can see that for the six story frame we get results which compare
very well. One thing to note is that even though the Target Displacement is greater than the dynamic
displacement, the results for the six story frame are good because this Target Displacement is a maximum
displacement expected for any earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This means
that a different earthquake with a different frequency content could give a higher maximum displacement
under dynamic loading. To clarify these results, the load distribution for the Pushover Analysis will be
compared to the dynamic displaced shape at several times. These times are described in figure III-21(a)
when the maximum dynamic roof displacement occurs before the minimum or III-21 (b) when the
minimum dynamic roof displacement occurs before the maximum.
Figure III-21: Times at Which Dynamic Displaced Shapes Will be Plotted
# Stories
Target
Displacement
(in)
Maximum
Dynamic Roof
Displacement
(in)
Minimum
Dynamic Roof
Displacement
(in)
6 18.8 15.0 -15.0
12 30.8 14.2 -12.7
20 43.3 10.7 -12.5

50
With the definition of these times, the Pushover static load distribution and the dynamic displaced
shape at the defined times can be plotted for the six story frame (figure III-22).
Figure III-22: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes – Six Story Frame

It can be seen in the above figure, that even though the displaced shape changes with time, there is
a definite participation of the second mode as is apparent by the non – linearity of the displaced shapes.
Furthermore, it can be seen that at the maximum and minimum displaced shapes the middle portion of the
building has a velocity which is opposite to the top portion. This is apparent by the displaced shapes at
times t5, t6, t2, and t3 in which the middle portion of the building has a greater displacement than the roof.
So, at the maximum and minimum displacements, when the velocity of the roof is equal to zero, the middle
portion of the building must be traveling in the opposite direction. This limits the maximum and minimum
displacements at the roof that will be obtained from the dynamic analysis because the middle portion of the
building cancels out some of the roof displacement. So, while the Pushover Analysis loading is enforcing a
first mode response in the structure, the El Centro earthquake excites the first and second modes of this six
story frame, however an earthquake with a different frequency content could excite only the first mode and
the maximum and minimum displacements would approach the Target Displacement.
In comparing the results for the twelve story frame, a much larger discrepancy between the
Pushover Analysis’s prediction and the actual dynamic displacement is recognized. Again, plotting the
Pushover load distribution and the dynamic displaced shape at several times (figure III-23), it is seen that
again the first mode response is being enforced in the Pushover’s static load, while the dynamic loading is
exciting the second, third, and even higher modes. This accounts for the large discrepancy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Cvx Load Factor
F
l
o
o
r

N
u
m
b
e
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-20 -10 0 10 20
Displacement (in)
F
l
o
o
r

L
e
v
e
l
min
t2
t1
t7
t4
t6 t5
t3 max

51

Figure III-23: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes – Twelve Story Frame

Finally, comparing the results for the twenty story frame, again a very large discrepancy is
apparent between the Pushover Analysis’s predicted result and the result obtained from the dynamic
analysis. In viewing the comparison of the Pushover’s static load with the dynamic displaced shape at
various times (figure III-24), it is seen that once again the Pushover is enforcing a first mode response in
the structure while the ground motion is exciting the higher modes.


Figure III-24: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes– Twenty Story Frame

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Cvx Load Factor
F
l
o
o
r

N
u
m
b
e
r
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-20 -10 0 10 20
Displacement (in)
F
l
o
o
r

L
e
v
e
l
min
t5
t6
t4
t7
t1
t2
t3 max
1
6
11
16
21
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Cvx Load Factor
F
l
o
o
r

N
u
m
b
e
r
0
5
10
15
20
25
-20 -10 0 10 20
Displacement (in)
F
l
o
o
r

L
e
v
e
l
min t5 t6 t3
t2
max
t7
t4
t1

52
The conclusions that can be drawn from these comparisons is that for stiffer, lower period
structures, such as the six story frame, the pushover analysis is accurate and includes expected
displacements that could be caused by a multitude of earthquakes. However, as the fundamental period of
the structure increases, there is less likely to be an earthquake that excites primarily the first mode response,
and the higher modes are more likely to be excited by every earthquake. This was illustrated in the twelve
and twenty story frame results. To further illustrate this statement, figure III-25 shows the frequency
content of the 1940 El Centro ground motion used in the analysis plotted as a function of period. Also
shown in the figure are the first three periods of each structure repeated here for convenience.
Figure III-25: Frequency Content of 1940 El Centro Ground Motion as a function of Period

While different earthquakes will vary in frequency content plots, it can easily be seen that as the
fundamental period, and therefore the higher periods, increases, an earthquake will be less likely to have a
frequency content distribution which excites primarily the first mode of the structure. As the higher periods
increase, they are entered into the range which will be excited by the earthquake, therefore contributing to
its overall dynamic response. So, the Pushover Analysis is accurate for stiff structures whose higher modes
will have less effect on the overall dynamic response.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Period, T (s)
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

F
o
u
r
i
e
r

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
,

|
C
(
w
)
|
T1 (s) T3 (s) T2 (s) Frame #
Stories
12
0.294 0.517 1.61 6
0.550 0.954 2.66
20 0.797 1.39 3.59

53

III-E) Dependence of Target Displacement on Choice of Vy
Since the accuracy of the Pushover Analysis is being determined, something must be said about
the subjective choice in the structural yield level on the base shear vs. roof displacement plot, V
y
. Because
the choice is subjective, there may be a significant change in the maximum expected displacement, or
Target Displacement, given different choices in the base shear vs. roof displacement plot yield level. To
quantify this, the target displacement is calculated for changes in the choice of V
y
in figure III-26 for the six
story frame.
Figure III-26 a Figure III-26 b
Figure III-26 c Figure III-26 d
Figure III-26: Target Displacements for Changes in the Choice of Vy

In figure III-26a, the original choice of V
y
is shown with its corresponding Target Displacement.
This is clearly the best choice in V
y
as the approximate bilinear post yield line is approximately tangent to
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
) Vy = 152 kips
δ t = 19.1 in
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Vy = 140 kips
δ t = 18.8 in
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Vy = 120 kips
δ t = 18.4 in
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Vy = 100 kips
δ t = 18.0 in

54
the actual base shear vs. roof displacement curve. However, the graphs III-26 b-d show other choices that
could be possible. Figure III-26b shows an intermediate value of the V
y
, and the corresponding change in
Target Displacement is approximately 2%. Figure III-26c shows the V
y
occurring at a very low value
which is clearly not the yield value of the structure. The resulting change in the Target Displacement is
approximately 4%. Figure III-26d shows the yield value equal to the ultimate value attained by the
structure, meaning the structure has zero post yield stiffness. This is also clearly not the yield value,
however the resulting change in the Target Displacement is only about 1.6%. So, the figure shows that for
even bad choices of V
y
, such as those shown in figures III-26 c and d especially, the resulting change in the
Target Displacement is less than 5%. So, the Target Displacement is not greatly affected by changes of the
choice in the yield level on the base shear vs. roof displacement plot, even when that choice is not very
reasonable.
III-F) Conclusions on the Limitations and Accuracy of the Pushover Analysis
From the comparison of the three reinforced concrete frames analyzed with both the Pushover
Analysis and the complete dynamic analysis, it is seen that the Pushover Analysis is accurate for shorter,
stiffer structures whose higher modes do not contribute significantly to the overall dynamic response.
Further, it is seen that the Pushover Analysis incorporates the maximum expected displacement that may
occur from a range of ground motions with a given percent exceedance in 50 years by assuming the worst
case scenerio, which is purely first mode response. However, as the higher mode effects become more
significant, the Pushover Analysis overestimates the maximum displacement expected during the design
event.
It has also been shown that, even though the Target Displacement is a function of the subjective
value of the structural yield level on the base shear vs. roof displacement plot, the results are not greatly
effected by even illogical choices in the value of V
y
.





55

CHAPTER IV
FORMULATION OF ELEMENT SHEAR RESPONSE

Chapter III describes the application of the NSP analysis to moment resisting frames whose
response is governed primarily by flexural deformation. However, seldom, if ever in reinforced concrete
structures, is the lateral force resisting system composed entirely of moment resisting frames. More
commonly it is composed of structural walls, or a combination of structural walls and moment resisting
frames. Since the primary goal in this research is to supply a Pushover Analysis tool which may easily be
applied in a design office, the program developed here must have the ability to analyze structural walls.
Some common configurations of structural walls used to resist lateral forces are illustrated in figure IV-1.
They are coupled walls, walls with openings, walls with varying dimensions or thicknesses, elevator and
stair cores, or any combination of these wall systems.
Figure IV-1: Common Configurations of Structural Walls

Even though the limitations of the Pushover Analysis were outlined in Chapter III, it lends itself
well to structural walls because they are very stiff and have very short periods, thus their response is
typically determined by their fundamental period of vibration. This benefit is offset by the fact that
structural walls, often called shear walls, have a low span to depth ratio, thus shear deformations must be

56
accounted for. To capture this behavior, the existing force – based fiber beam element presented in
Spacone et al [15], must be modified to include shear deformations. This chapter will extend the original
formulation to include the shear response of Reinforced Concrete elements. First, the Timoshenko beam
theory is reviewed, then the changes in the total element flexibility are illustrated, and the section flexibility
is modified to include shear deformations by developing a cyclic shear hysteretic law to relate shear
deformations to shear force at each section in the element. Also included are comments on possible
enhancements to the proposed formulation.
IV-A) Review of Timoshenko Beam Theory
In Euler – Bernoulli beam theory, shear deformations are neglected, and plane sections remain
plane and normal to the longitudinal axis. In the Timoshenko beam theory, plane sections still remain
plane but are no longer normal to the longitudinal axis. The difference between the normal to the
longitudinal axis and the plane section rotation is the shear deformation. These relations are shown in
figure IV-2.

Figure IV-2: Bernoulli and Timoshenko Beam Deformations

It can be seen in figure IV-2 that in the Euler - Bernoulli beam the deformation at a section,
dv
o
/dx, is just the rotation due to bending only, since the plane section remains normal to the longitudinal
axis. However, in the Timoshenko beam the section deformation is the sum of two contributions: one is

57
due to bending, dv
b
/dx, and the other is the shear deformation, dv
s
/dx. By considering an infinitetesimal
length of the beam, as shown in figure IV-3, it is seen that the shear deformation in Timoshenko beam
theory, dv
s
/dx, is the same as the shear strain related to pure shear, γ.
Figure IV-3: Infinitesimal Length of Beam Showing Bending and Shear Deformations

For linear elastic materials, Hooke’s law for shear applies and:
γ τ G = (IV.1)
Where τ is equal to the shear stress applied to the element and G is the shear modulus of elasticity for the
material. In the Timoshenko beam theory, the shear stress is assumed constant over the cross section. The
shear force, V, is related to the shear stress through:

s
A V τ = (IV.2)
where A
s
is equal to the shear area of the section. Combining these two equations:
γ
s
GA V = (IV.3)
While this equation only applies to linearly elastic materials, it will be the basis for the formulation of the
non-linear shear force - shear strain relation. In this study, it is assumed that V and γ are interrelated though
the shear area of the section multiplied by a value which accounts for the non-linear response of Reinforced
Concrete to shear force. The existing force based elements available in FEAP account for the deformation
resulting from bending alone, however they do not include the shear deformations. The shear deformations
will be added according to the following formulation.
κ =
γ =

58
IV-B) Nonlinear Force – Based Timoshenko Beam Element
To include shear deformations in the element, the element flexibility must be established. To
express clearly the modifications to the existing Bernoulli formulation, both the Timoshenko and Bernoulli
formulations will be carried out.
The beam elements added by Spacone et al [15] have five degrees of freedom, without rigid body
modes, in three dimensions at the element level. They are two bending moments, Q
1
– Q
4
, or rotations, q
1

q
4
, at each end and one axial force, Q
5
, or displacement, q
5
(figure IV-4).
Figure IV-4: Three Dimensional Flexibility Based Element

The capital X, Y, and Z in figure IV-4 are the global degrees of freedom while the lowercase x, y,
and z are the local degrees of freedom for the element. The element is divided into transverse sections
along its length at each one of the classic Guass or Guass – Lobatto integration points. Each of these
transverse sections is further divided into longitudinal fibers. This configuration is shown in figure IV-5.

Figure IV-5: Element Divided into Transverse Sections and Longitudinal Fibers

x y
z
X
Z
Y
Q
3
, q
3
Q
1
, q
1
Q
2
, q
2
Q
4
, q
4
Q
5
, q
5

59
To obtain the flexural and axial response along the element, the fibers are analyzed and the
stresses, σ, and moduli, E, are summed to compute the section response. The section responses (mainly
forces and flexibility) are then summed according to weight factors depending on the location of the section
and the integration scheme used to compute the total axial and flexural response along the element. The
fiber section model yields interaction between flexural and axial responses. The shear response for each
element is calculated at the section level. This response is then summed over all the sections, again
according to the weight factors depending on the location of the section and the integration scheme used, to
get the total element response due to shear. In the proposed approach shear response is independent of the
axial and flexural responses at the section level. However, since force equilibrium is satisfied pointwise
along the element, interaction among the axial – flexural and shear responses is enforced at the element
level. This will be clarified in the following formulation.
There are three major steps in the force – based formulation. In the first step, equilibrium, the
force fields are expressed as functions of the nodal forces:
Q x b x D ) ( ) ( = (IV.4)
Where D(x) are the section forces, b(x) contain the element force shape functions, and Q contain the nodal
forces as illustrated in figure IV-4.
The second step is to write the section constitutive law in which the section deformations, d(x), are
related to the section forces, D(x), through the section flexibility matrix, f(x):
) ( ) ( ) ( x D x f x d = (IV.5)
The third step is to satisfy compatibility (in an average sense). Starting from a compatible state of
deformations, the element relation between forces, Q, and corresponding deformations, q, is obtained with
the application of the principle of virtual forces:


=
L
T T
dx x d x D q Q
0
) ( ) ( δ δ (IV.6)
Putting together IV.4, IV.5 and IV.6, along with noting the arbitrariness of δQ, one obtains:


60
Q dx x b x f x b q
L
T

=
0
) ( ) ( ) ( (IV.7)
or:
FQ q = (IV.8a)
where:


=
L
T
dx x b x f x b F
0
) ( ) ( ) ( (IV.8b)
is the element flexibility.
The above equations apply to the force – based formulation of both Bernoulli and Timoshenko
beams. However there are differences in the individual components which enter into the equations. These
differences will be illustrated below. As shown in figure IV-4, the three dimensional element has five
degrees of freedom, two moments at each end and an axial load, irrespective of whether shear deformations
are included or not. However, on the section level, the number of non – zero deformations depend on
whether or not shear deformations are included. The section degrees of freedom are illustrated in figure
IV-6.

Figure IV-6: Three Dimensional Section Degrees of Freedom – Bernoulli and Timoshenko Beams
,ε ,ε
,φ ,φ
,φ ,φ



61
As can be seen from figure IV-6, the Bernoulli beam section has three non – zero deformations
while the Timoshenko beam section has five deformations. Because the shear forces are required in the
section formulation, the equilibrium statement must include these forces and therefore the shape functions
for the Timoshenko beam must include the relation between shear force applied at a section to the nodal
forces of the element. Adding these to the shape functions included in the Bernoulli beam formulation,
which assumes constant axial force and linear moment along the element, gives the constant shear force
distributions of the Timoshenko beam. The constitutive relation must also be modified because the
sections now include shear forces and deformations. The section flexibility, which is obtained by inverting
the section stiffness, contains the shear flexibility of the section decoupled from the axial and bending
terms. Weighted integration of f(x), however, couples shear, axial and bending responses on the element
level. These relations are detailed thoroughly in figure IV-7.
Referring to figure IV-7, it is interesting to note that while the constitutive equation for the
Bernoulli beam exhibits a full 3x3 section flexibility matrix, the same relation for the Timoshenko beam is
a full 3x3 matrix for the flexural and axial responses but is merely diagonal for the shear response resulting
in a 5x5 section flexibility matrix. This is due to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the fiber responses are
added over the section to obtain the response at each section. So, at the section level, the axial and flexural
responses are naturally coupled. The shear response is not calculated at the fiber level, but is determined
for the entire section as an average response. However, the flexibility equation for both beam types is a full
5x5 matrix. This is due to the fact that the element response is found by summing the responses of each
section weighted through the shape functions, b(x), that impose linear moments and constant shear in
equilibrium with the end moments. So, the formulation used here for the Timoshenko beam includes
coupling of axial and flexural responses on the section level, but shear responses are independent on the
section level. However, shear and axial – flexural responses are coupled at the element level. In other
words, because the shear forces are related to the end moments through equilibrium, the shear and bending
forces are coupled through equilibrium.


62

Figure IV-7: Comparison of Components in Bernoulli and Timoshenko Element Formulations
Element Level – 5 dof’s
Section Level – 3 dof’s
Element Level – 5 dof’s
Section Level – 5 dof’s
Bernoulli Beam Timoshenko Beam
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
·
N
M
M
x D
z
y
) (
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
·
) (
) (
) (
) (
x
x
x
x d
y
z
ε
φ
φ
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
·
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
x V
x V
x N
x M
x M
x D
z
y
y
z
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
·
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
x
x
x
x
x
x d
z
y
y
z
γ
γ
ε
φ
φ
1) Equilibrium
Q x b x D ) ( ) ( ·
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]



·
1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
) (
L
x
L
x
L
x
L
x
x b
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]



·
0
1 1
0 0
0 0 0
1 1
1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
) (
L L
L L
L
x
L
x
L
x
L
x
x b
2) Constitutive Law
) ( ) ( ) ( x D x f x d ·
]
]
]
]
]

·
f e c
e d b
c b a
x f ) (
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

·
h
g
f e c
e d b
c b a
x f
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
) (
f(x) is section flexibility from fiber section
and Nonlinear V-γ relation.
Axial and Bending Deformations Coupled
Shear Deformations Uncoupled
f(x) is section flexibility from fiber section.
Axial and Bending Deformations Coupled
3) Compatibility
FQ q ·
[ ] 5 5x F ·
F is full 5x5 Element Flexibility
Matrix With Coupling Among
Axial and Flexural Deformations
F is full 5x5 Element Flexibility Matrix
With Coupling Among Axial, Flexural
and Shear Deformations
[ ] 5 5x F ·
Note: a through h are values yet undefined. They are included to represent non – zero flexibility determined values

63
IV-C) Section V – γ Constitutive Law
With the element force based formulation carried out in the previous section, all the necessary
components of the element formulation are known except for the V – γ constitutive law. In the present
formulation, a generalized, nonlinear V – γ law is assumed, in the form:
( ) γ g V = (IV.9)
where g indicates the nonlinear function. If the material was still in the linearly elastic range, then:
γ γ
s
GA g = ) ( (IV.10)
IV-C-1) Shape of Shear Hysteretic Law
The shear hysteretic law implemented here will be a modified version of the bilinear law proposed
by Filippou et al [7]. This law, shown in figure IV-8, is clearly not readily applicable to this formulation
because the law relates section moment to shear rotation and the flexibility formulation developed
previously requires a law which relates shear force to shear strain. So, this law will be modified to be
applicable to the procedure developed previously and only the shape will be retained.

Figure IV-8: Filippou et al’s Moment – Shear Rotation Hysteretic Law

Referring to figure IV-8, M
cr
is the cracking moment of the section, M
y
is the yield moment of the
section, M
max
is the maximum moment attained on the previous loading cycle, θ
max
is the maximum
M, Moment
θ,Shear Rotation
M*
M max
θ max
+ M
y
+ M
cr
- M
cr
- M
y

64
previous rotation attained, and M* is a target moment reduced due to section damage. Damage occurs after
the section has yielded. The degraded stiffness is due to the closing of cracks which were opened when the
original loading occurred. The curve, upon reloading, aims for the intersection of this value with the
cracking moment. After reaching this intersection, there is an increase in stiffness as the flexural cracks
have now closed. The value of M* is given by Filippou et al [7] as:
) exp( *
max 1
max
y
c
M M
θ
θ −
= (IV.11)
Where θ
y
is the yield rotation of the section and c
1
is a factor given by Filippou [7] as 0.2 to 0.35.
As mentioned above, this law is applied here as a shear force – shear strain relation. Because only
the shape of the curve is being retained, the values can be interchanged to give the relation shown in figure
IV-9.
Figure IV-9: Filippou et al’s Law Converted to a Shear Force – Shear Strain Relation

Because the shape of the curve is being retained, it can be assumed that V* is related to the
maximum previous shear force in the same way that M* was related to the maximum previous moment in
equation IV.11 or:
) exp( *
max 1
max
y
c
V V
γ
γ −
= (IV.12)
V, Shear Force
γ ,Shear Strain
V*
V max
γ max
+ V
n
+ V
cr
- V
cr
- V
n
GAs

65
In figure IV-9, V
y
has been replaced by V
n
. This is because, for reinforced concrete members, the yield
strength of the section is not clearly defined, however the nominal strength of the member is easily
determined. Assuming a small strain hardening ratio in the steel, which is the only cause for an increase in
shear force past the yield level, V
n
is approximately equal to V
y
. Also shown in figure IV-9 is the elastic
shear stiffness of the member as given by equation IV.3. These values will be defined subsequently.
IV-C-2) Theoretical Values of Shear Hysteretic Law
Now that the shape of the shear force – shear strain hysteretic law has been determined, values for
each of the variables must be defined. The shear strength of a reinforced concrete member will be based on
Priestley et al’s equation as given by Xiao et al [18]. The shear str ength of a member is given as:

s p c n
V V V V + + = (IV.13)
In equation IV.13, V
n
is the nominal shear strength of the section, V
c
is the concrete shear contribution,
consisting primarily of aggregate interlock and dowel action of the flexural reinforcement, V
p
is the
increase in shear capacity through arching action provided by an axial load , and V
s
is the shear carried by
transverse stirrups through a truss mechanism. It is suggested that Priestley’s equation be multiplied by
0.85 for new design (Xiao et al [18]).
The concrete shear contribution is given by:
) ( ' psi A f k V
e c c
= (IV.14)
where f’
c
is the compressive strength of the concrete, A
e
is the effective area of the section approximated as
80% of the gross concrete area, and the factor k varies with the rotational ductility as shown in figure IV-
10.

Figure IV-10: Variation of Factor k with Rotational Ductility in Equation IV.14
The increase in shear resistance due to an applied axial load is defined as:
1 4 3 2
1.2
3.5
Rotational Ductility, m
k, psi units

66

u p
P
VD M D
a D
V
) / ( 2

= (IV.15)
Where P
u
is the factored axial load, D is the depth of the member, a is the depth of the flexural compression
block, and M and V are the moment and shear demands on the section, respectively. The denominator of
equation IV.15 can be approximated by assuming equal end moments in the Timoshenko equilibrium
equation in figure IV-7. With this assumption V is:

L
M
V
2
= (IV.16)
and the denominator reduces to the length of the member, L. This same result can also be achieved by
recognizing that M/VD is equal to the aspect ratio of the member which equals L/2D.
The shear carried by transverse stirrups through the truss mechanism is:
θ cot
'
s
D f A
V
yh v
s
= (IV.17)
Where A
v
is the cross sectional area of the transverse reinforcement in the section, f
yh
is the yield stress of
the transverse stirrups, s is the spacing of the stirrups, and θ is 30
o
in Priestley’s approach. The value D’ is
the distance between the centers of the peripheral hoop or spiral as shown in figure IV-11.
Figure IV-11: Definition of D’for Equation IV.17

With the substitution of equations IV.15 through IV.17 into equation IV.14, the nominal shear
strength of the section to be used in the shear hysteretic law is found. Next, an expression is needed for the
cracking shear force, V
cr
. The steel does not contribute to the shear resistance until the section is cracked,

67
so the cracking shear force is a function of only the concrete shear contribution and the increase in shear
resistance due to axial load. An assumption will be made that the cracking shear force occurs at the largest
rotational ductility value of k, i.e. k is equal to 3.5 from figure IV-10. For this reason, the effect of axial
load on the cracking shear force will be neglected and V
cr
is:

e c cr
A f V ' 5 . 3 = (IV.18)
With the determination of the nominal shear strength and the cracking shear force, the only value
left to determine is the shear force value, V*, at which the stiffness changes upon unloading and reloading.
The final hysteretic law which was implemented into FEAP does not include V* directly but handles this
value through the definition of pinching parameters. The law will now be described in detail followed by
the formulation of the pinching parameters and an explanation of their relation to V*.
Referring to figure IV-12, consider a load cycle that begins loading in the positive shear force
direction. The same arguments may be made for loading which begins in the negative shear force
direction.
The initial loading curve is bi-linear and the slope is equal to the shear modulus, G, multiplied by
the shear area, A
s
, up to the nominal shear value, V
n
(curve A-B). A
s
will be taken as 80% of the gross
concrete area of the section, and G will be as defined later.
Once the shear force exceeds the nominal shear value, there is a decrease in stiffness as the only
increase in shear force comes from strain hardening in the transverse steel (curve B-C). (The ACI code [1]
recommends that strain hardening be neglected) In case of unloading, the law always unloads parallel to
the initial stiffness (curve C-D).
Once loading in the positive direction has exceeded the nominal shear value and has completely
unloaded (curve A-B-C-D), the reloading in the negative direction exhibits a decrease in shear stiffness as
the crack which opened in the positive direction must close (branch D-E). Point E must occur at the
negative value of the cracking shear because the value at which the cracks close would be equal and
opposite to the force at which they opened. So, D-E aims for the cracking shear value in the negative
direction upon first reloading after the nominal shear value has been exceeded in the positive direction. It
is seen that the slope of D-E depends on the ratio of cracking shear force to nominal shear force. If the
cracking shear force was equal to the nominal shear force the stiffness would be much greater as D-E

68
would aim for the nominal shear value in the negative direction. Therefore, the slope of D-E is equal to the
cracking shear force divided by the shear strain value at D minus the shear strain value at E. Since E
occurs on a line whose slope is parallel to the initial stiffness, the shear strain value at E is the negative
cracking shear force value divide by the initial stiffness. Defining a coordinate system y and x, with axis x
parallel to the shear strain axis, and axis y parallel to the shear force axis, it is seen that the pinching in the y
direction is equal to V
cr
/ V
n
.
From point E, there is a significant increase in stiffness as all the shear cracks have now closed,
and the curve rejoins the original elastic stiffness curve (curve E-F).
At point F, when the nominal shear resistance in the negative direction is reached, there is again a
significant reduction in stiffness as the only strength increase is due to strain hardening (curve F-G). The
law then unloads elastically again (curve G-H).
From point H, there is a further reduction in stiffness as now cracks have been formed in the
positive and negative directions. The slope of the line H-I depends on both of the pinching parameters in
the x and y directions. Point I is located at the point at which the line connecting point H to V* intersects
the cracking shear value in the positive direction ( see figure IV-9). These values are formulated in the
discussion referring to figure IV-13.
At point I, the cracks formed from negative and positive loading have closed, and the curve
exhibits an increase in stiffness (line I-J), as it aims for the last cycle’s maximum shear force – shear strain
excursion, point J.
At point J, the curve rejoins the strain hardening curve, line J-K.
If reloading occurs during an unloading cycle before unloading has completed, the reloading
occurs parallel to the initial stiffness (line L-M-N).

69

Figure IV-12: Points Defining Shear Hysteretic Law

To determine the relation between the pinching parameters in the x and y directions and V*, two
extreme cases of the slope of line H-I ( line H-I is defined in figure IV-12 ) can be defined.
The first is the condition where V* is equal to a value which causes the line γ
n
– V*, where γ
n
is
equal to the shear strain at the value of negative unloading ( equal to point H in figure IV-12), to intersect
the unloading curve at the positive cracking shear value, figure IV-13a. The shear strain at this intersection
is labeled γ
2
.
The second case is that in which V* is equal to the maximum previous shear force, V
max
, figure IV-
13b. The value γ
1
is defined as the shear strain value of the point at which the γ
n
-V* curve in figure IV-13b
intersects the initial loading curve at a height equal to the positive cracking shear force.
Other values used in figures IV-13 a-c are the shear strain at positive unloading, γ
p
(point D in
figure IV-12 ), the pinching in the y direction, py, the pinching in the x direction, px, the initial shear
stiffness, GA
s
, the maximum previous shear strain, γ
max
, and the unknown shear strain, γ*, at the point
where the reloading curve changes slope ( point I in figure IV-13).

V, Shear Force
γ ,Shear Strain
+ V
n
+ V
cr
- V
cr
- V
n
x
y
A
B
C,J
K
I
D
E
F
G
H
L,N
M

70

Figure IV-13: Determining the Relationship of the Pinching Parameters to V*

As shown in figure IV-13, for small strain hardening ratios, the shear yield level is approximately
equal to the maximum shear force attained. Because of the requirement that the first reloading curve in the
negative direction, after loading in the positive direction has exceeded the yield shear value, must intersect
the elastic curve at the negative cracking shear force value, the pinching in the y direction is equal to the
cracking shear force divided by the yield shear force. With the assumption that the maximum shear force
and yield shear force are approximately equal for small strain hardening values, the pinching in the y
direction becomes:

max
max
pyV V
V
V
V
V
py
cr
cr
y
cr
= → ≈ = (IV.19)
This substitution is shown in figure IV-13.
From figure IV-13a, it is seen that the intermediate shear strain value, γ
2
, can be expressed as a
function of the previous maximum shear strain, γ
max
, and the previous maximum shear force, V
max
as:
γ
γ
γ γ
γ γ γ γ
γ
γ γ γ γ
γ∗
γ−γ ) (
γ

71

s
p
GA
pyV
max
2
+ = γ γ (IV.20a)

s
p
GA
V
max
max
− = γ γ (IV.20b)
( ) 1
max
max 2
− + = py
GA
V
s
γ γ (IV.20c)
Considering similar triangles m-n-o and m-q-r in figure IV-13b gives for the intermediate shear
strain, γ
1
:

n n
pyV V
γ γ γ γ −
=

1
max
max
max
(IV.21a)
( )
n n
py γ γ γ γ + − =
max 1
(IV.21b)
Finally, by considering figure IV-13c, an expression for the pinching parameter in the x direction,
px, as a function of the unknown shear strain, γ*, can be found:
( )px
1 2 1
* γ γ γ γ − + = (IV.22a)

1 2
1
*
γ γ
γ γ


= px (IV.22b)
In the numerical implementation of the V – γ law, px is an input parameter from which γ* is determined.
So, px must be determined as a function of known variables. The first thing that is noticed, referring to
figure IV-13c, is that the difference between the maximum shear strain, γ
max
, and the intermediate shear
strain, γ
2
, can be expressed as a function of the maximum shear force, V
max
:

s s
GA
V
py
GA
V
max max
2 max
− = −γ γ (IV.23)
The same type of relation can also be written for the difference between the yield shear strain, γ
y
, and the
intermediate shear strain value, γ
1
, which with using the approximation that the yield shear, V
y
, is
approximately equal to the maximum shear value, V
max
, for small strain hardening becomes:

s s
y
s s
y
y
GA
V
py
GA
V
GA
V
py
GA
V
max max
1
max
1
− = − → − = − γ γ γ γ (IV.24)

72
By substituting equation IV.23 into equation IV.24 and rearranging the terms gives:

1 2 max
γ γ γ γ − = −
y
(IV.25)
Equation IV.25 is the denominator in equation IV.22 b. A similar simplification for the numerator is
needed. By considering similar triangles present in figure IV-13c, a relation for the unknown shear strain
value can be written as:

n n
pyV V
γ γ γ γ −
=
− *
*
max
max
(IV.26a)
( )
n n
V
pyV
γ γ γ γ + − =
max
max
*
* (IV.26b)
Now, subtracting γ
1
, as given by equation IV.21b, from each side gives:
( ) 





− − = − 1
*
*
max
max 1
V
V
py
n
γ γ γ γ (IV.27)
This gives the numerator in equation IV.22b. However the value of shear strain at which the negative
unloading curve intersects the zero shear force axis, γ
n
, is unknown. To eliminate this value from the
equation, an assumption will be made that the member is symmetric and that the negative unloading shear
strain value is equal and opposite to the positive unloading shear strain value, or:

n p
γ γ − = (IV.28)
Substituting equations IV.28 and IV.20b into equation IV.27, along with noting that because the
assumption is being made that the yield shear force is approximately equal to the maximum shear force,
V
max
/ GA
s
can be replaced by the yield shear strain, γ
y
. The resulting relation is:
( ) 





− − = − 1
*
2 *
max
max 1
V
V
py
y
γ γ γ γ (IV.29)
Substituting equation IV.12 for V* into equation IV.29, then substituting equations IV.29 and IV.25 into
equation IV.22 gives the relation for the pinching parameter in the x direction, px:

( )
y
y
y
c
py
px
γ γ
γ
γ
γ γ



















=
max
max 1
max
1 exp 2
(IV.30)

73
The final theoretical values to be implemented into the hysteretic law are values which account for
damage in the section due to cyclic loading. These values, as of yet, have not been mentioned, but will be
explained in detail here. As a reinforced concrete section is cyclically loaded, it loses the ability to achieve
the nominal strength of the section as damage occurs in the concrete and in the bond with the steel. Cracks
which have previously opened, lose some of their strength upon reclosing as the cracks will never fully
attain their original uncracked configuration. In a cyclic loading lateral force vs. tip displacement curve,
this damage has the effect of lowering the shear force achieved under a given shear strain for increased
number of cycles of loading, and lowering the ability of the concrete to dissipate energy in the shear
hysteresis loops for increased cycles. There are two effects of damage, then, the first effect is to lower the
maximum resisting force of the section in the current load cycle, and the other is to narrow the hysteresis
loop for the given cycle as the section loses the ability to dissipate energy. The shear law then, should
account for these decreases in resistance due to damage. In the hysteretic law implemented into FEAP,
both of these damage characteristics have the effect of increasing the previous maximum shear strain used
in calculating values mentioned previously. These effects are shown in figure IV-14.
Figure IV-14: Illustration of Damage In Shear Cyclic Loading

It is seen in figure IV-14 that the effect of damage is to decrease the area under the hysteresis
curve, and therefore the energy dissipated, from that under curve q-r-s-t in the undamaged graph, to that
under curve q-r-s in the damaged graph. The maximum shear force attained in this loading cycle is
decreased from V
max
in the undamaged graph to V in the damaged graph. These effects combine to increase
the maximum shear strain, γ
max
, attained in the cycle.
γ γ γ γ γ γ

74
IV-C-3) Input Values for Actual Sections - Shear Hysteretic Law
Now that the theoretical values needed to generate the shear hysteretic law have been defined,
values for actual reinforced concrete sections must be determined.
The first value to be determined in generating the hysteretic curve is the yield shear force, V
y
. It
has already been mentioned that here an assumption is being made that the yield shear force is
approximately equal to the nominal shear of the section, V
n
. The nominal shear of the section is determined
from equations IV.13 through IV.17.
The next value to be determined is the cracking shear force, V
cr
. The cracking shear force is given
by equation IV.18. From this value and the nominal shear of the section, the pinching parameter in the y
direction, py, is determined from a modified version of equation IV.19 as:

n
cr
V
V
py = (IV.31a)
which upon substitution of the previously derived equations becomes:

s p c
e c
V V V
A f
py
+ +
=
' 5 . 3
(IV.31b)
The shear stiffness for the elastic section of the curve must be determined next. The elastic shear
stiffness is the shear modulus of concrete multiplied by the shear area of the section. The shear modulus of
concrete is given by:

( ) υ +
=
1 2
c
E
G (IV.32a)
Where E is the elastic modulus of concrete and υ is Poisson’s ratio. The elastic modulus of concrete can
be obtained from ACI [1] as:
) ( ' 57000 psi f E
c c
= (IV.32b)
Poisson’s ratio for concrete is hard to define, but Nilson [10] def ines a value of 0.2 as appropriate.
The next thing that can be determined is the pinching parameter in the x direction, px. This is
determined by equation IV.30. The shear ductility of the section, µ
shr
, is equal to the maximum shear
strain, γ
max
, divided by the yield shear strain, γ
y
, or:

75

y
shr
γ
γ
µ
max
= (IV.33a)
So, the ability of a section to develop shear ductility will be a function of the ratio of the total shear strain
developed to the yield strain of the section. Remembering that concrete is a brittle material, it can be
assumed that all the ductility in shear of the section comes from the shear reinforcement. So, the shear
force ductility of a section can be approximated as:

p c
s p c
shr
V V
V V V
+
+ +
= µ (IV.33b)
Which is to say that if there is no shear reinforcement, the ductility of the section is equal to unity. This is
in agreement with concrete being a brittle material. However, for this ductility equation to be applicable,
the section must be designed to yield the shear reinforcement before failing the concrete in shear, otherwise
the increase in shear reinforcement would not increase the ductility of the section because the concrete
would fail first still causing a brittle failure. From equation IV.33a, γ
max
is:

y shr
γ µ γ =
max
(IV.33c)
Substituting equations IV.33 into equation IV.30 yields a useful value for the pinching parameter in the x
direction composed of all known section values.
The last values which must be determined are parameters which account for damage. As was
mentioned above, damage has the effect of lowering the shear force achieved under a given shear strain for
increased number of cycles of loading, and lowering the ability of the concrete to dissipate energy. Let d
1

be a parameter which accounts for the loss of section strength and d
2
be a parameter which accounts for the
loss of the ability of the section to dissipate energy. With reference to figure IV-14, it can be seen that if all
the concrete was damaged, both the ability of the section to resist shear force and dissipate energy would be
reliant on the shear reinforcement. The damage factor d
1
is multiplied by the ratio of the difference
between the maximum shear strain and the yield shear strain to the yield shear strain of the section.
Referring to figure IV-14, the damage factor d
2
is multiplied by the ratio of the total energy dissipated in
the cycle, curve q-r-s in the damaged curve, to the elastic energy dissipated, curve m-n-o in the undamaged
curve. So the new maximum shear strain, γ
max
, given by the hysteretic law is:

76









+

+ =
elastic
dissipated
y
y
p
E
E
d d
2
max
1 max max
1
γ
γ γ
γ γ (IV.34)
Where γ
pmax
is the maximum shear strain in the previous cycle, E
dissipated
is the area under curve q-r-s in the
damaged curve of figure IV-14, and E
elastic
is the area under curve m-n-o in the undamaged curve of figure
IV-14. It is seen that the increase in the maximum shear strain due to damage is a function of the ability of
the section to develop ductility and to dissipate energy in the inelastic range. As was mentioned above, if
all the concrete was damaged, these abilities would be purely up to the shear reinforcement. From this
statement the damage factors can be approximated as the ratio of the steel shear resistance to that of the
concrete, or:

p c
s
V V
V
d d
+
= =
2 1
(IV.35)
Qualitatively, if a large part of the shear resistance came from the steel, the damage factors would
be large, increasing the maximum shear strain developed in the section, which corresponds to the high
ductility of steel. On the other hand, if a large part of the shear resistance was provided by the concrete,
the damage factors would be small, relating the maximum shear strain to concrete’s brittle behavior.
IV-D) Observations on Element Shear Response Formulation
The proposed V – γ law is an easy to implement procedure to introduce nonlinear shear
deformations in a Reinforced Concrete beam element. One of the main limitations on the shear element
formulation developed here is the uncoupling of the axial – flexural responses from shear response on the
section level. As was mentioned early on in the formulation, the responses are coupled at the element level
but at the section level the shear response is independent of axial – flexural response. This is definitely not
the case in real structures as shear diagonal tension cracks are related to flexural cracks. The flexural
cracks form on the tension side of the member, perpendicular to the member axis, where only flexural
stresses are present. These cracks propagate into the member and rotate in line with the principle tensile
stresses, which are due to both flexure and shear. Clearly, the location, orientation, and extent of the shear
diagonal tension cracks depends on the flexural stresses as well as the shear stresses. To account for this, a
coupled constitutive law should be implemented. Extension of the fiber section model to include shear

77
deformations is being studied. Such laws, however, may become quite complex, and, most importantly,
very time consuming. The main advantages of the approach suggested in this work are its simplicity, ease
of implementation, and low computational cost that make it applicable to the study of entire Reinforced
Concrete Structures.
The piecewise linearity is another limitation of the law implemented. Reinforced concrete is a
highly non – linear material even for low loads. The law implemented here assumes a bi – linear relation
for the material. This bi – linear relation will not capture the reduction in strength as the member begins to
fail in shear as will be shown in the next chapter when the numerical results are compared with test results.
While this may have some effect on the accuracy of the law when analyzing cyclic loading, the effect it
will have on the Pushover Analysis is negligible because the loads are monotonically increased and there is
no deterioration in strength of the member as is exhibited with cyclic loading. The initial stiffness of the
member and the maximum shear strength it obtains will determine its Pushover response.
In short, the hysteretic law implemented here is sufficient for use with the Pushover Analysis (as
will be shown in subsequent chapters), while modifications should be made to better describe the shear
cyclic response necessary for dynamic analysis.







78
CHAPTER V
NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OF PROPOSED SHEAR MODEL

The shear element formulation derived in chapter IV, along with the shear hysteretic law
implemented into FEAP, is verified here by modeling scaled Reinforced Concrete bridge piers tested at the
University of California at San Diego, UCSD (Xiao et al [18] ). The ability of the proposed model to
capture shear dominated response is of interest here, so the accuracy of the shear formulation will be
determined with respect to test data for columns failing in shear. Six large scale, short columns were tested
at UCSD, three as built columns, and three columns retrofitted with elliptical steel jackets. The two as built
columns that failed in shear, labeled test column R-3 and test column R-5, will be considered here.
V-A) Column Dimensions and Testing Conditions
The test columns were designed and built based on scale models of prototype columns, designed
according to mid 1960’s construction practice. Test dimensions for the two as built test columns R-3 and
R-5 are shown in figure V-1. The columns were designed to achieve complete fixity at each end, and while
this part of the testing apparatus is not shown, the resulting support conditions are shown in the figure.
Each of the columns used Grade 60 longitudinal steel, Grade 40 transverse stirrups, and 5 ksi concrete,
nominally. The axial load on each column was 114 kips and the aspect ratios ( M/VD in equations IV.15
and IV.16) for column R-3 and R-5 were 2 and 1.5, respectively. These design details are listed in table V-
1. The nominal strengths for the longitudinal steel, transverse stirrups, and concrete are replaced by the
actual tested values in the table. A lateral, cyclic, symmetric load was applied to the top of each column in
the push and pull directions. The loading consisted of force control up to the first yield of the longitudinal
steel, followed by displacement control in increments of increasing ductility as shown in figure V-2.

79

Figure V-1: Dimensions of Test Columns R-3 and R-5

Table V-1: Experimental Design Properties

Figure V-2: Experimental Loading Procedure
µ = 1
µ = 1.5
µ = 2
µ = 3
Column
Concrete
Strength (ksi)
Longitudinal
Steel Yield (ksi)
Stirrup
Yield (ksi)
Aspect Ratio
(M/VD)
Axial Load
(kips)
R-3
R-5
114
47.0
47.0
68.1 4.75
68.1 4.95
114 1.5
2

80
V-B) Design Shear Strength
The design shear resistance of each column will be computed here based on Priestley et al’s
equations (equation IV.13 – IV.17). These values are already included in Xiao et al [18], however, because
the shear law developed is for use in a design office, the procedure to calculate these values is as important
as the values themselves. The experimental report gives no procedure for calculating the values needed in
Priestley et al’s equation, so one method will be detailed here and the resulting shear strength found for
each column will be compared to the values obtained experimentally.
The concrete shear contribution, equation IV.14, and increased shear resistance due to axial load,
equation IV.15, for use in Priestley’s equation, equation IV.13, depend on the flexural response of the
section in that the concrete shear contribution depends on the rotational ductility of the section and the
increased shear resistance due to axial load depends on the depth of the flexural compression block at its
ultimate flexural strength. The determination of the rotational ductility of each section requires a Moment
– Curvature relation, which, because of the complex longitudinal steel configuration in each column, will
be obtained through the utilization of a fiber discretization of the section. Because the rotational ductility
requires the definition of the curvature at yield and the curvature at the maximum flexural strength ( i.e.
rotational ductility equals curvature at maximum flexural strength divided by curvature at yield), a direct
byproduct of this formulation will be the depth of the flexural compression block at the sections ultimate
flexural strength. The fiber discretization divides the section into concrete fibers and steel fibers as shown
in figure V-3. As can be seen, the section is divided into twenty concrete fibers and eight steel fibers. The
location of the centroid of the concrete or steel fiber is measured from the top of the section as denoted by
yc
i
or ys
i
for the concrete or steel fiber, respectively, with i ranging from 1 to 20 for concrete and 1 to 8 for
steel. The areas of each concrete fiber are equal to the total area of the section divided by the number of
concrete fibers, denoted by Ac in figure V-3, and the steel areas are equal to five #6 bars for As
1
, and two
#6 bars for As
2
. Also shown in figure V-3 is the qualitative strain distribution assumed in the section. In
the figure, ε
top
is equal to the strain at the top of the section, ε
ci
is equal to the strain in the concrete fiber i,
ε
si
is equal to the strain in the steel fiber i, c equals the location of the neutral axis, and κ is the curvature of
the section.

81

Figure V-3: Section Fiber Discretization and Strain Distribution

By specifying the strain in the top of the section, and considering tensile strains negative, the
strain at any yc
i
or ys
i
location can be found by similar triangles.

( )
c
y c
ci top
ci

=
ε
ε (V.1a)

( )
c
y c
si top
si

=
ε
ε (V.1b)
The curvature of the section can be related to the top strain and location of the neutral axis by:

c
top
ε
κ = (V.2)
Where all values in equations V.1 and V.2 are as defined above. The only parameter left unavailable is the
location of the neutral axis, c, given a strain at the top of the section. This value can be found through
equilibrium. First, however, the stress at a given concrete or steel section must be defined.
The stress at a concrete section, given its strain value, will be determined through the Saenz
concrete law with a linear tensile portion included. The law defines a stress – strain relation as:
ε
ε
ε
κ

82























+








+








+
=
3 2
0
1
1
*
c c c
C B A
E
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε σ (V.3a)
2
'
0









+ =
c f
E C A
c
ε
(V.3b)
C B 2 1− = (V.3c)

c
cf
c
cf
cf
c
f
c f
c f
E C
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε

























=
2
0
1
1
'
'
(V.3d)
In equations V.3, E
0
is equal to the initial elastic stiffness of concrete which is given by ACI [1] and was
detailed in equation IV.32b, f’c is the compressive strength of concrete, f
cf
is equal to 85% of f’c, ε
cf
is equal
to 0.0035, ε
c
is equal to 0.0025, and ε is the strain in the concrete section under consideration. The tensile
portion of the law is linear elastic with stiffness equal to the initial stiffness of the concrete up to the
concrete rupture stress, f
r
. The rupture stress is given by ACI [1] as:
) ( ' 5 . 7 psi c f f
r
= (V.4)
The Saenz concrete law shown in figure V-4. For the steel stress – strain relation, an elastic perfectly
plastic law is used with initial stiffness equal to 29000 ksi.
Figure V-4: Normalized Saenz Concrete Curve
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Strain (in/in)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
t
r
e
s
s

f

/

f
'
c

83
Now that the concrete stress in a fiber can be found from its strain based on the above curve, and
the steel stress can be found from its elastic perfectly plastic relation, the force in each fiber can be found
by multiplying its stress by its area. The section resisting moment can be found with respect to its centroid
by multiplying the force in each fiber by that fiber’s centroidal distance to the section centroid and
summing these moments over all the concrete and steel fibers or:


=






− =
numfib
i
i i i
y
D
A M
1
sec
2
σ (V.5)
Where D is the section depth, equal to 24” in this case. To find the section neutral axis location, c, the
resulting forces must add up to the applied axial load or 114 kips in this case. With this requirement, c
relating to the implied ε
top
can be found giving the moment – curvature relation at this strain. By applying
this procedure to many different implied ε
top
values, the complete moment curvature relation for the section
can be found. The moment value obtained when ε
top
is equal to ε
cu
, the crushing strain of the concrete (ε
cu

is equal to 0.005 from the experimental data ), is the maximum resisting moment of the section. From the
neutral axis depth at this maximum moment value, the depth, a, of the flexural compression block can be
found from:
c a
1
β = (V.6)
Where β
1
varies with concrete compressive strength, f’c, (Nilson [11]).
Applying this procedure to both test columns R-3 and R-5, and varying the top strain of the section, yields
the complete Moment – Curvature responses for both sections. These responses are shown for column R-3
and R-5 in figures V-5 and V-6 respectively.

84

Figure V-5: Moment – Curvature Response for Column R-3


Figure V-6: Moment – Curvature Response for Column R-5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009
Curvature (rad/in)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p

-

i
n
)
κ at max M =
0.000575 (rad / in)
κ yield = 0.000245
(rad / in)
Area A
Area B
Moment - Curvature
Equivalent Elastic
Perfectly Plastic
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009
Curvature (rad/in)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p

-

i
n
)
κ at max M =
0.000559 (rad / in)
κ yield = 0.000245
(rad / in)
Area A
Area B
Moment - Curvature
Equivalent Elastic
Perfectly Plastic

85
When looking at figures V-5 and V-6, one instantly notices that they are almost identical. This is
because the two sections are nearly identical, the only difference being a small change in concrete
compressive strength. However, column R-5 has an aspect ratio of 1.5 compared to 2 for column R-3.
This is used in the calculation of the increase in shear strength due to an applied axial load and will have a
bearing on the shear strength of the section. Also detailed in the figures are the equivalent elastic perfectly
plastic responses for each section used to calculate the rotational ductility. The elastic perfectly plastic
response is based on equal energy absorption. The areas between the actual Moment – Curvature response
and the equivalent response, labeled Area A and Area B, must be equal. With this restriction, the rotational
ductility of the section can be found by dividing the curvature associated with the maximum moment of the
section by that associated with the yield moment of the equivalent system. As mentioned previously, the
depth of the concrete compression block at the ultimate strength of the section, corresponding to the point
of maximum curvature (corresponding to ε
cu
= 0.005 from experimental data), is a natural by – product of
this formulation. These values are shown in the following tables. Now that the rotational ductility and
depth of the concrete compression block have been found for each section, the shear strength of the section
can be calculated based on Priestley et al’s equation.
Priestley et al’s equation (equation IV.13) is repeated here for convenience:

s p c n
V V V V + + = (V.7)
Where V
n
is equal to the nominal shear strength of the section, V
c
is the concrete shear contribution,
consisting primarily of aggregate interlock and dowel action of the flexural reinforcement, V
p
is the
increase in shear capacity through arching action provided by an axial load , and V
s
is the shear carried by
transverse stirrups through a truss mechanism.
The concrete shear contribution is given by equation IV.14, repeated here as:

e c c
A f k V ' = (V.8)
Where f’
c
is the compressive strength of the concrete, A
e
is the effective area of the section approximated as
80% of the gross concrete area, and the factor k varies with rotational ductility as shown in figure IV-10.
The rotational ductility, µ, k factor, concrete compressive strength, f’c, and effective area for each section

86
are shown in table V-2. With these values known, the concrete contribution to shear resistance, also shown
in table V-2, can be calculated for each column.

Table V-2: Calculated Concrete Shear Contribution


The increase in shear resistance due to an applied axial load is defined in equation IV.15 as:

u p
P
VD M D
a D
V
) / ( 2

= (V.9)
Where P
u
is the applied axial load, D is the depth of the member, and a is the depth of the flexural
compression block. The value of D for each column is shown in figure V-1. The axial load for each
column is 114 kips and the aspect ration, M/VD, of columns R-3 and R-5 are 2 and 1.5 respectively. The
depth of the flexural compression block is determined from the Moment – Curvature relation as described
above. These values are shown in table V-3.

Table V-3: Shear Strength Due to Applied Axial Load

Lastly, the shear contribution of the transverse steel can be determined. This was given in
equation IV.17 as:
θ cot
'
s
D f A
V
yh v
s
= (V.10)
Column f’c (psi) µ k A
e
(in
2
) V
c
(kips)
R-3
R-5
67.2
3.18
3.11
2.28 4750
2.34 4950
67.3 307.2
307.2
Column D (in) a (in) M / VD P (kips) V
p
(kips)
R-3
R-5
22.6
1.5
2.0
5.14 24
4.94 24
29.9 114
114

87
The value A
v
is equal to the area of the transverse reinforcement, f
yh
is the yielding stress of the transverse
reinforcement, D’ is the distance between the centers of the peripheral hoop as shown in figure V-1, s is the
spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and θ is equal to 30
o
for Priestley’s equations. These values are
shown in table V-4.

Table V-4: Transverse Steel Shear Contribution

Now that all the individual values have been determined, they can be added to obtain the nominal
shear strength for each column. These values can then be compared to the experimental values. The
calculated shear strengths and the comparisons with the experimental values are shown in table V-5. In the
figure, V
cexp
is the experimental concrete shear contribution, V
sexp
is the experimental steel contribution, and
V
texp
is the total experimental shear strength of each column.

Table V-5: Numerical and Experimental Shear Strengths

Table V-5 clearly shows that the calculation procedure is conservative and underestimates the nominal
shear strength of the section with an average V
texp
/ V
n
of 1.2. One reason for the discrepancies is that the
stress – strain relation did not take into consideration the confining effect of the transverse reinforcement.
For a more accurate outcome, a stress – strain law for confined concrete could be used. Another reason for
the discrepancies could be the determination of the rotational ductility since the equal area method is
approximate. However, in comparison with other procedures as given by Xiao et al, the calculated values
Column A
v
(in
2
) f
yh
(ksi) D’ (in) s (in) V
s
(kips)
R-3
R-5
35.2
22.0
22.0
47.0 0.098
47.0 0.098
35.2 5.0
5.0
Col V
s

(kips)
V
texp
/
V
n

V
texp

(kips)
V
cexp

(kips)
V
sexp

(kips)
V
n

(kips)
V
c
+ V
p

(kips)
R-3
R-5
106.1
168
141
1.27
1.13
127.3
125
97.2
89.8
35.2
35.2
40.7
34.9
132.4

88
are very close to the experimental values. Other procedures are given by various codes and the average
V
texp
/ V
n
varies from 1.4 to 2.03 (The values calculated above were based on the Moment – Curvature
relation which utilized a concrete crushing strain of 0.005 in/in based on the experimental data). In new
design, an assumed ε
cu
of 0.003, and the 0.85 factor mentioned in chapter IV, would further increase the
conservatism of the formulation.
V-C) Numerical vs. Experimental Column Response
Now that the shear strength of each column has been calculated, the numerical response history
based on the implemented hysteretic law can be obtained. Some additional parameters must first be
calculated from the shear strength equation components. The first thing that needs to be calculated is the
cracking shear force, Vcr. This was given by equation IV.18 as:

e cr
A c f V ' 5 . 3 = (V.11)
With the calculation of the cracking shear force, the remaining values for the hysteretic law can be
determined. These are the pinching parameter in the y direction, py, the initial shear stiffness, GA
e
, the
pinching parameter in the x direction, px, which is a function of the shear ductility, µ
shr
,and the damage
factors, d
1
and d
2
. These parameters were developed in chapter IV and are detailed in equations IV.30 to
IV.35. The resulting values for columns R-3 and R-5 are shown in table V-6.

Table V-6: Hysteretic Input Values – Column R-3 and R-5
R-3 R-5
d
2

d
1

px
py
µ
shr

GA
e
(kips)
V
cr
(kips)
V
n
(kips)
f’c (ksi) 4.95
125
75.6
513318
0.605
1.39
0.885
0.392
0.392
74.1
502848
0.560
1.36
0.836
0.362
0.362
4.75
132

89
With the parameters for the shear hysteretic law developed, the numerical analysis can be
performed on both columns for comparison with the experimental data. The loading procedure used in the
numerical analysis will be a little different than that used in the experimental procedure because of the
limitations of the FEAP proportional loading command. The program does not allow a change from
displacement control to force control in the same analysis. Further, because the degradation of shear
resistance depends on the damage parameters and the pinching parameters, and these depend on the
maximum previous shear strain, there is no degradation for repeated loading cycles with the same ductility
value. So, only one cycle will be performed at each ductility level. The loading history used in the
numerical analysis is shown in figure V-7.
Figure V-7: Loading Procedure for Numerical Analysis

The results of the Numerical Analysis for columns R-3 and R-5 are shown in figure V-8 and V-9
respectively. It can be seen from these figures that the numerical response from the hysteretic law
implemented matches the experimental results well in capturing the initial stiffness and the maximum shear
resistance of the columns, however there are large discrepancies between the experimental and numerical
results once the peak lateral force has been exceeded. Namely, the hysteretic law implemented is not
capable of capturing the softening effect (from the opening of large shear diagonal cracks) apparent in the
experimental data. Also, the combination of increased pinching and reduced shear resistance once the peak
lateral force has been exceeded is missed by the numerical analysis. While the overall shape of the
response is satisfactory, some important response aspects are neglected. The question, however, arises as
to whether the law can be used accurately for the Pushover Analysis.
µ = 1 ∆ µ = 1.5
µ = 2

90
Figure V-8: Numerical and Experimental Results – Column R-3


Figure V-9: Numerical and Experimental Results – Column R-5

-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Top Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
s
)

Experimental
Numerical
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Top Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
s
)
Experimental
Numerical

91
To determine how well the law implemented applies to members subject to monotonically increased loads
such as those defined by the Pushover Analysis, this type of loading will be applied to both column R-3 and
R-5 for comparison to the experimental result envelopes. The resulting plots are shown in figure V-10 and
V-11 for columns R-3 and R-5 respectively.
Figure V-10: Monotonically Increasing Loads and Experimental Results – Column R-3

Figure V-11: Monotonically Increasing Loads and Experimental Results – Column R-5
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Top Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
s
)

Experimental
Numerical
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Top Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
s
)
Experimental
Numerical

92
From figures V-10 and V-11, it can be seen that while the hysteretic law implemented misses
some important information in comparison with the experimental results for cyclic loads, it is accurate
enough for the Pushover Analysis as it captures the initial stiffness of the structure and the maximum
resisting shear that was calculated above with the underestimation shown in table V-5. However, one thing
to note is that the displacement controlled loading shown in the figures could have increased forever
without the section ever losing its shear resistance. This is a definite draw back of the hysteretic law,
however since the shear ductility was calculated above, the engineer has a relation to obtain the maximum
displacement the structure would be able to undergo.
Mentioned in chapter IV was the fact that the shear deformations are uncoupled with the axial –
flexural deformations on the section level, but are coupled on the element level. Since the moment and
shear responses are linked through equilibrium on the element level, the maximum strength available in the
section will depend on the minimum of the individual components, i.e. axial – flexural or shear. This is
illustrated by plotting the Moment – Curvature response and the Shear Force – Shear Strain response for
column R-3 at different sections. For the numerical analysis, both columns were divided into five Guass –
Lobatto integration points as shown in figure V-12. Using the cyclic load analysis results for column R-3,
it is seen in figure V-14 that the Moment – Curvature response of the sections one and two vary slightly
corresponding to the linear moment distribution along the element. From figure V-13 it is seen that the
Shear Force – Shear Strain response of sections one and two are equal corresponding to constant shear
along the element. Further it is seen that the shear response of the element controls the total response as a
clear yielding point is recognized while the Moment – Curvature response remains basically elastic. This
corresponds to the column failing in shear which agrees with the experimental data. So, while the axial –
flexural and shear responses are uncoupled at the section level, coupling (through equilibrium) at the
element level ensures that the element response will be controlled by the minimum of the individual
components. This corresponds to reality in that the maximum strength of a member will depend on its
weakest component.

93
Figure V-12: Section Locations of Columns for Numerical Analysis

Figure V-13: Shear Force vs. Shear Strain Column R-3, Sections 1 and 2


Figure V-14: Moment vs. Curvature Column R-3, Sections 1 and 2
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Section 1 Shear Strain, γ
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1

S
h
e
a
r

F
o
r
c
e
,

V

-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Section 2 Shear Strain, γ
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2

S
h
e
a
r

F
o
r
c
e
,

V

-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
-0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004
Section 1 Curvature, κ
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

M


-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-0.0002 -0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0002
Section 2 Curvature, κ
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

M



94
V-D) Conclusions
The accuracy of the shear law, presented in chapter IV, was determined through the comparison of
numerical results and experimental results of columns failing in shear tested at the University of California
at San Diego. The use of Priestley et al’s [18] equations for the determination of the initial parameters
required for the hysteretic law required the quantification of the section rotational ductility and
compression block depth at the ultimate strength of each column section. One method to accomplish this
was detailed in that the complete Moment – Curvature response of each column was obtained. Once these
necessary values were obtained, the numerical analysis could be performed. It was shown that the
numerical analysis captures the initial stiffness and maximum lateral force resistance of each section, but
under cyclic loading the deterioration of the lateral force resistance and the increase in section pinching is
missed. It was further shown, that while this law is not appropriate for cyclic loads for the reasons
mentioned above, for monotonically increasing loads, such as those enforced by the Pushover Analysis, it
is accurate. Also, though the shear response of the element is uncoupled from the axial – flexural response
on the section level, the coupling of these responses on the element level causes element response to be
controlled by the weakest of the components.

95
CHAPTER VI
SHEAR WALL EXAMPLE

In the previous chapters, the Pushover Analysis Procedure was explained, Applications of the
Pushover Analysis were illustrated, a relation for shear deformations in Reinforced Concrete was
developed, and the accuracy of this relation was determined. In this chapter, all of the previous information
will be combined to perform the Pushover Analysis on an actual shear wall structure under construction. A
complete non linear dynamic analysis will be performed on the structure and the results of the two analyses
will be compared. Lastly, the nominal shear strength of the wall will be reduced to illustrate the coupling
of flexural and shear response at the element level to satisfy equilibrium.

VI-A) Wall Configuration
The wall under consideration is part of the lateral force resisting system in a nine story reinforced
concrete building. The wall to be analyzed is shown in figure VI-1. Also shown in figure VI-1 are the
fundamental, second, and third periods for the wall. The first thing that one notices is that the fundamental
period of the structure is much longer than the second and third periods, and it is smaller than the
fundamental period of the six story frame analyzed in chapter III. With this and arguments developed in
previous chapters in mind, close agreement between the Pushover and Dynamic Analyses is expected.
Another issue to point out is the calculation of the mass used in the determination of these periods. In
chapter III, when the periods for the three moment resisting frames were calculated, the total dead load and
the applicable live load made up the mass on the frame and also made up the gravity load applied to the
frame. However, in the case of a lateral force resisting system composed of structural walls, columns often
assist in carrying the gravity loads, while the structural walls must carry the entire lateral force. So, the
entire mass of the building is divided among the structural walls, while the gravity loads on the structure
are divided among the structural walls and columns according to tributary width. In this way, the mass
allocated to a particular wall can be different from the vertical loads it must support divided by the
gravitational constant.

96




Figure VI-1: Dimensions of Structural Wall With Periods Shown
76' - 6"
67' - 4"
58' - 2"
49' - 0"
39' - 10"
30' - 8"
20' - 8"
10' - 8"
0' - 0"
-9' - 0"

Fundamental
Period (s)

Second
Period (s)

0.187

0.140

Third
Period (s)

0.973
97
VI-B) Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Shear Wall
The structural wall analyzed here will be subject to the same Pushover Analysis and non linear
dynamic analysis conditions as the frames analyzed in chapter III. That is, the wall will be analyzed as if it
were located in the Los Angeles, California area, on stiff soil, with five percent structural damping, and a
10% probability of exceedence in 50 year event will be considered. With these conditions, and the
fundamental period shown in figure VI-1, the vertical distribution of lateral loads for use in the Pushover
analysis can be obtained as detailed in equation III.11 and in table III-6. The gravity loads applicable to the
structure can be obtained from equation III.10 where the typical dead load is 125 psf for all floors and the
typical live load is 50 psf for the first three floors, and 40 psf for floors four through to the roof. The self
weight of the wall must also be included in the dead load. The loads to be applied during the Pushover
Analysis are shown in figure VI-2.

Figure VI-2: Gravity Loads and C
vx
Loading Coefficients – Shear Wall
98
With the above loads determined, the Pushover Analysis, as explained in chapter II and detailed in
chapter III, can be performed on the shear wall. The results of this analysis are shown in figure VI-3. It
can be seen from the figure that the Target Displacement is 14 in. for a Base Shear Yield Value, V
y
, of 325
kips. Also seen in the figure are K
i
= 178 kips /in, and K
e
= 142 kips /in.
Figure VI-3: Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement with Target Displacement for Shear Wall

VI-C) Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analysis for the Shear Wall
The full non – linear dynamic analysis will now be run on the shear wall. The dynamic loading
will be the same El Centro ground motion that was used in chapter III and illustrated in figure III-17. To be
consistent with the Pushover Analysis, 5% structural damping will be considered for the shear wall. The
Rayleigh damping parameters will be determined from the first and second periods of the shear wall shown
in figure VI-1 using the relations of equations III.14. The time history of the roof displacement for the
structural wall under consideration is shown if figure VI-4. It is seen from looking at the maximum and
minimum displacements at the roof of the structure, that this result matches well with that predicted from
the Pushover Analysis. This agreement was foreseen from the fact that the fundamental period of this
structure was much greater than the second and third periods. It was also noted that this structure’s
fundamental period was shorter than that corresponding to the six story frame analyzed in chapter III. This
enforces once again the accuracy of the Pushover Analysis for shorter period structures.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Vy = 325 k
0.6 Vy = 195 k
Ki = 178 kip / in
Ke = 142 kip / in
Original Curve
αKe = 2.7 kip / in
δt = 14 in
99
Another interesting thing to note about figure VI-4 is that the structure’s roof displacement plot
shows permanent deformation. After the minimum displacement has been reached, the structure no longer
oscillates about the zero displacement axis, but about its permanent deformation. The structure under
consideration was designed for a Denver, CO site which falls under UBC earthquake zone 1. Obviously it
was not designed for these high seismic loads and that is apparent in its poor structural response.
Figure VI-4: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Shear Wall

VI-D) Comparisons of Pushover and Dynamic Analyses
Just as the reasons for the well corresponding results for the six story frame analysis, or the poorly
matching results for the twelve and twenty story frame analyses performed in chapter III were quantified,
the results obtained for the structural wall will now be explained. It has already been mentioned that the
Target displacement determined from the Pushover Analysis was expected to match the maximum or
minimum dynamic roof displacement well because of the short fundamental period of the structure and the
large difference between the first and second periods of the structure. This can further be understood by
looking at the frequency content of the ground motion used as shown in figure III-25. It is seen that the
fundamental period of this wall lies directly in the range of maximum amplification from the ground
motion. Also, the second and third periods being as short as they are fall in a range of reduced
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
)
Min Disp = -14.3 in
Max Disp = 5.88 in

106
APPENDIX I
MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM FEAP TO PERFORM
NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

In the preceding chapters the procedure to perform the Pushover Analysis was explained and the
formulations to include shear deformations in this analysis were illustrated. In this chapter, the
modifications made to the Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP), developed by Professor Taylor at the
University of California at Berkeley [16], to accomplish these tasks will be explained. To perform the
Pushover Analysis as described in chapter II, FEAP must be able to monotonically increase a specified
vertical distribution of lateral loads, plot structural base shear vs. roof displacement, and calculate the target
displacement based on the seismic event. In chapter IV, the shear element formulation, including the shear
hysteretic law which was added to FEAP, was thoroughly detailed. In chapter V, a procedure for
determining the values needed for the V – γ constitutive relation was outlined. In this chapter the input
commands to bring the law and section values together will be discussed.
AI-A) FEAP Pushover Routines
The Pushover Analysis is performed in FEAP through two user commands. These are the mesh
command ‘PUSH’ and the macro execution command ‘VVSD’. The ‘PUSH’ mesh command reads all of
the input variables necessary to perform the analysis. The ‘VVSD’ macro command reads the element data
from the element files specified with ‘PUSH’ and created with the existing frame analysis command
‘SENS’. The commands ‘PUSH’ and ‘VVSD’ are explained in detail below.
AI-A-1) ‘PUSH’ Mesh Command
The new mesh command, ‘PUSH’, will be described in detail with reference to the six story
moment resisting frame analyzed in chapter III. The element and node numbers for this frame shown in
figure III-12 are reproduced here as figure AI-1. The Pushover Analysis depends on the base shear vs. roof
displacement plot for the structure. The roof displacement for this six story frame will be measured at the
left hand side of the structure, node 7 in figure AI-1. Since each element output file created by the

107
command ‘SENS’ includes relative displacements, the roof displacement is the sum of the columns,
elements 1 through 6, on the left side of the structure. The support conditions are not shown in the figure,
but they are complete fixity at nodes 1, 8, and 15. The base shear for the structure is the sum of the shear
forces in the elements which are restrained, elements 1, 7, and 13 in figure AI-1. In the following
description, those elements used to calculate roof displacement, i.e. elements 1 through 6 in this example,
will be referred to as displacement elements. The elements used to calculate base shear, i.e. elements 1, 7,
and 13, will be referred to as base shear elements.
Figure AI-1: Element and Node Numbers – Six Story Frame

FEAP commands located in the input file are always four letter command names. In this case that
is ‘PUSH’. This is followed by the command parameters. For this mesh command, five lines of input
commands are required. The first line has three parameters. They are the number of displacement
elements to read, the displacement element generation, and the displacement element increment. The
second line consists of the displacement element numbers to read. This line could have one parameter or
many parameters depending on whether generation is used or not. If generation is used, i.e. the second
parameter in the first line of commands is equal to 1, then only the first displacement element to be read is
listed. If generation is not used, i.e. the second parameter in the first line of commands is equal to 0, all
displacement elements to be read are listed. The third and fourth lines are the base shear element
counterparts of the first and second line for the displacement elements. Line three has the number of base
shear elements to read, the base shear element generation, and the base shear element generation increment
1 8 15
2
3
4
5
6
7 14
13
12
11
10
9
21
20
19
18
17
16

108
as its parameters, and line four has the element numbers to read for the base shear calculation if generation
is not used, and has the first base shear element to read if generation is used. Command line five has the
seven independent values necessary to compute the Target Displacement. These are the base shear yield
value, V
y
, the spectral response acceleration, S
a
, the modification factor that relates spectral displacement
and likely building roof displacement, C
0
, the ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength
coefficient, R, the characteristic period of the response spectrum, T
0
, the modification factor that represents
the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response of the structure, C
2
, and the
gravitational constant, g. These values were thoroughly detailed in chapter two. The remaining values
necessary to compute the Target Displacement are functions of these values and are calculated internally.
The gravitational constant must be input because units may change for each problem being analyzed. The
command lines are shown in figure AI-2.

Figure AI-2: Input Parameters for Mesh Command ‘PUSH’

To clarify the displacement element and base shear element input commands the parameters for
these input commands will be listed for the six story frame example. These are shown in figure AI-3 for
both the case of generation and no generation. The values for the fifth command line for the mesh
command ‘PUSH’, i.e. the independent parameters for the calculation of the Target Displacement, are
listed in table III-9 and only their variable values are listed here.
push
# of
displacement
elements
displacement
element
generation
displacement element
generation increment
displacement element numbers
# of base shear
elements
base shear
element
generation
base shear element
generation increment
base shear element numbers
V
y
S
a
C
0
R T
0
C
2
g

109

Figure AI-3: ‘PUSH’ Input for Six Story Frame Example

It is seen from figure AI-3 that for the case when generation is not used, the second and third
parameters in the first command row and the third command row are zero. The first zero in each of these
rows specifies that generation will not be used and therefore, the third parameter in each of these rows,
which is the generation increment, is also zero. When specifying no generation, all elements that are to be
read must be entered. In the case with generation, the second parameter in the first and third rows are set to
one. Because of this, the generation increment must be specified. In the displacement element case, the
increment is equal to one and the first element to be read is equal to one. The elements to be read
subsequently are generated according to the increment and the total number of elements specified to be
read. In the base shear element case, the generation increment is equal to six and the first element is equal
to one. With these parameters, along with the total number of base shear elements being equal to six, the
base shear elements are generated as elements 1, 7, and 13.
Because the element responses are read from the element files created by mesh command ‘SENS’,
the base shear and displacement elements to be read must be specified in this file. Also, the ‘PUSH’
command must be located somewhere after the ‘SENS’ command. If either of these two conditions are not
met, the FEAP program stops with an error code “ERROR: elements in ‘PUSH’ for displacement must be
included in ‘SENS’ ” if a displacement element file can not be found or “ERROR: elements in ‘PUSH’ for
shear must be included in ‘SENS’ ” if a base shear element file can not be found. The command line
number five for ‘PUSH’ must include exactly seven parameters with no zeros. If this condition is not met,
the FEAP program stops with an error code “ERROR: Not enough values in line five of mesh command
‘PUSH’ (zero values not allowed)”.
push
6 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
3 0 0
1 7 13
V
y
S
a
C
0
R T
0
C
2
g
Generation Not Used
push
6 1 1
1
3 1 6
1
V
y
S
a
C
0
R T
0
C
2
g
With Generation

110
AI-A-2) ‘VVSD’ Macro Command
Once the parameters have been input using the ‘PUSH’ command, and the Pushover Analysis has
been run on the structure, the Target Displacement is determined using the ‘VVSD’ macro command. This
command reads the data from the files specified in ‘PUSH’ and created by ‘SENS’. The data written to the
element files by the mesh command ‘SENS’ include time, forces and displacements in the global x, y, and z
directions, and rotations and moments in the global x, y, and z directions. So, the relative displacement or
shear force for each element can be read and these are added to get the total response. In this manner, the
total base shear vs. roof displacement plot for the structure can be determined. From this base shear vs.
roof displacement plot, the initial stiffness, K
i
, and effective stiffness, K
e
, along with the post yield stiffness,
αK
e
, of the structure can be determined. These values are illustrated in figure II-10, and the procedure used
to calculate them from the ‘VVSD’ macro command will be described below.
The initial stiffness, K
i
, of the structure can be found from the stiffness of the base shear vs. roof
displacement curve at the start of the analysis. By dividing the base shear value at a particular instant by
the corresponding roof displacement at that instant, the initial stiffness of the structure is found. Because
the initial loading may be caused by gravity loads and the initial load increment may be extremely small,
the first ten values of base shear and roof displacement are bypassed and the average of the next 15 values
of base shear divided by roof displacement are taken as the initial stiffness. If the total number of analysis
pseudo time steps is less than the required 24 steps to determine the initial stiffness by the previously
mentioned method, the last value of base shear divided by the last value of roof displacement is taken as the
initial stiffness. It should be noted that if the total number of analysis time steps is less than 24, there may
be errors in the computed initial stiffness. The initial stiffness as calculated above can be written
symbolically as:


=

= ≥
24
10
15
1
24
i i
i
i
r
Vb
K then n if (AI.1a)

) (
) (
24
n r
n Vb
K then n if
i

= < (AI.1b)
where Vb is the base shear value, ∆r is the roof displacement, and n is the number of analysis steps.

111
The effective stiffness, K
e
, of the structure is calculated based on the base shear yield value, V
y
,
which was input in the mesh command ‘PUSH’. As shown in figure AI-4, the slope of the line which
intersects the original base shear vs. roof displacement plot at 0.6V
y
is the effective stiffness. So, the
effective stiffness of the structure is calculated by locating the displacement value corresponding to the
base shear equal to 0.6V
y
, ∆r
6
, and dividing 0.6V
y
by this value or:

6
6 . 0
r
V
K
y
e

= (AI.2)
Referring to figure AI-4, the post yield stiffness, αK
e
, is determined by dividing the maximum
base shear achieved, Vb
max
, minus the base shear yield value, V
y
, by the maximum roof displacement
achieved, ∆r
max
, minus the roof displacement at yield, ∆r
y
, or:

y
y
e
r r
V Vb
K
∆ − ∆

=
max
max
α (AI.3)

Figure AI-4: Values to Define K
e
and αK
e

Because the calculations mentioned above require the input of the base shear yield value, V
y
, and
this value is not known at the start of the analysis, the ‘VVSD’ macro command can include three factors as
input. These factors are multiplied to the base shear yield value input in the mesh command ‘PUSH’,
allowing the analysis of four separate choices of V
y
at once (including the one input with the ‘PUSH’ mesh
command). To clarify this, the ‘VVSD’ macro command is shown in a typical macro solution statement in
figure AI-5.
K
i

Non – Linear
Structural
Response
Roof Displacement
Base
Shear
V
y

0.6 V
y

∆r
max

K
e

α K
∆r ∆r
y

Vb
max


112

Figure AI-5: Typical Macro Solution Routine Using the ‘VVSD’ Macro Command

Shown in figure AI-5 are the factors used with the ‘VVSD’ macro command when the comparison was
made in chapter III of different choices in Vy and the effect that had on target displacement, figure III-25.
The original ‘PUSH’ input of Vy was equal to 140. Three other values, 120, 100, and 152, were analyzed
at the same time. In this way, four different results were obtained with one analysis.
The solution routine in figure AI-5 shows some important properties of using the ‘VVSD’
command. First, because the Target Displacement is a function of the initial elastic period of the structure,
the period determination must be included in the solution routine ( tang; mass,lump; subspace,print,1). If
this is left out of the routine FEAP execution discontinues and an error message is displayed reading
“ERROR: in ‘pushover’ (VvsD) fundamental frequency = 0 must have subspace solution scheme in
macro”. The other thing to notice is that the ‘VVSD’ command is included after the time loop is
completed ( loop,time,153; … next,time). This is where it must be located otherwise it will compute at
discrete time intervals instead of considering the whole base shear vs. roof displacement plot.
The output from the ‘VVSD’ command includes all the data necessary to generate the plots of
figures III-14 to III-16. The data is output into files named ‘pushover1’, ’pushover2’, ‘pushover3’, and
‘pushover4’ if all the available choices for V
y
are utilized. There are as many files created as choices in V
y

input ( with a maximum of four). The data is output in a format which is easily opened with excel. Upon
macro
nopri
tang
mass,lump
subspace,print,1
prop,,1,2
dt,,1
loop,time,153
loop,step,10
tang,,1
next,step
stre,all
time
next,time
VvsD,,120/140,100/140,152/140
end

113
opening the output files in excel, the graphs mentioned above can be created by merely selecting columns
A through G. Also located in the output files are the calculated values of the base shear yield value, the
effective period, the initial, effective, and post yield stiffnesses, and the Target Displacement.
AI-B) FEAP Shear Element Modifications
The shear element formulation, in which a V – γ relation was created for implementation at the
section level, was developed in chapter IV. Also defined in that chapter were the values needed as input for
the hysteretic law. In chapter V, a procedure was illustrated for determining these values for a given
Reinforced Concrete Section. Here, the instructions for entering these values into the FEAP input file are
given. For each element, a material type is assigned based on the previously existing mesh command,
‘MATE’. From this command the input parameters representing the one dimensional material laws for
shear, located in the mesh command ‘ML1D’ are accessed. The necessary input then, are the parameters
representing the implemented hysteretic law into the mesh command ‘ML1D’. For a complete description
of the previously existing mesh commands, see Spacone et al [15]. The necessary data for this mesh
command, in relation to shear deformations, are shown in figure AI-6. These are, the material ID, the type
of material relation, the model used in the material relation and the model parameters. The model
parameters for shear deformations are the nominal shear strength of the section in the positive loading
direction, V
n
, the positive elastic section stiffness, GAs
p
, the positive strain hardening ratio, sh
p
, the nominal
strength of the section in the negative loading direction, -V
n
, the negative elastic section stiffness, GAs
n
, the
negative strain hardening ratio, sh
n
, the pinching parameters in the x and y directions, p
x
and p
y
respectively
and the damage factors d
1
and d
2
. All of these values were defined in chapter IV. The material ID used
must be greater than or equal to 9. This material ID must be identical to the number used in ‘MATE’ to
call the shear material law (see Spacone et al [15]). The type of material relation is ‘hyste’ for hysteretic
diagram and the model is ‘ciam’ for Ciampi law (though this really isn’t Ciampi’s law). Model parameters
are such as those defined in chapter V for test columns R-3 and R-5.

114

Figure AI-6: Input Parameters for Shear Hysteretic Law
Material ID
d
1
p
y
d
2
V
n
GAs
n
p
x
sh
n
-V
n
sh
p
GAs
p

Material Relation Type Material Model

115
APPENDIX II
ADDITIONAL CASI REQUIREMENTS
AII-A) Evaluation
The project was carried out under joint supervision by the University PI and the Collaborating
Company representative. This allowed control and evaluation of the results and provided constant guidance
to the graduate student working on the project. Even though meetings with the Cooperating Company
representative were not as frequent as originally scheduled, the Cooperating Company representative was
in continuous contact with the student. At the end of the research a formal presentation was made by the
graduate student to a panel that included the Cooperating Company representative, the University PI and
two University Professors. Dissemination of the project results via regular mail (to be done in the following
months) will encourage feedback from other research groups and from the practicing engineers’
community. A copy of the final report will be distributed to major Universities and Structural Engineering
Companies throughout the country and comments will be encouraged. Partial results have been presented at
a Seminar on Post-Peak Behavior of RC Structures held in Japan in October 1999. A conference paper will
be presented at the ASCE Structures Congress to be held in Philadelphia, PA in May 2000.
AII-B) Technology Transfer
As initially planned, the technology transfer between the University and the Collaborating
Company has worked both ways. The cooperating company benefited from the experience the University
research group in nonlinear analysis of structures, while the University took advantage of the real design
problems and needs the Collaborating Company faces in projects throughout the country. This is a critical
point for earthquake engineering design in the United States: researchers and code developing bodies are
advancing the level of sophistication required for professionals in building design, when in fact there are no
computer programs available to the professional for the task. For many years research in nonlinear
structural analysis has not looked at the needs and expectations of the structural engineering community.
The Collaborating Company representative's experience in testing and behavior of shear walls helped
developing of a new shear-wall model. Finally, Russel Martino, the graduate student who worked on the

116
project, will join the Collaborating Company immediately following completion of his MS thesis. The
experience he will bring to the Collaborating Company in terms of new seismic code knowledge and
nonlinear pushover analysis understanding is part of the knowledge and technology transfer between
University and Collaborating Company.
From the Collaborating Company's (KL&A of Colorado) point of view, guidance of the project
while it was ongoing was satisfactory, and critical to the successful completion of the work. The primary
technology transfer is envisioned to occur primarily following the employment of Russel Martino, and with
the implementation of the software as a working design tool. Russel will present his work to the company,
and will work individually with future program users as they perform seismic design on shear wall
buildings. Evaluation of the program user interface will occur at that time. Ongoing collaborations with
the PI are expected and encouraged
AII-C) Networking
The work developed in the course of this project has been presented and will be presented at:
a) Seminar on Post-Peak Behavior of RC Structures, Lake Yamanaka, Japan, October 1999;
b) ASCE Structures Congress, Philadelphia, PA, May 2000.
AII-D) Publications
R. Martino, E. Spacone and G. Kingsley "Nonlinear Pushover Analyses of RC Frames", ASCE Structures
Congress, Philadelphia, PA, May 2000.
AII-E) Funding
1) NSF Proposal: Models for R/C Structures Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Plastics, $200,000 +
30,000$ matching from CU Boulder (1998-2001): awarded.
2) NSF Proposal for International Cooperation with Slovenia: Testing of R/C Columns Strengthened with
Fiber Reinforced Plastic jackets, (2000-2001), $40,000: submitted.
3) NATO Collaborative Grant Proposal: Cooperation with Slovenia and Italy, (2000-2001), 25,000$:
submitted

117
4) NSF Proposal: Sensitivity Study of RC Structures Subjected to Ground Motions, under preparation.
5) NSF Career Proposals: Models for Performance-Based Design and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, $200,000 + (1999-2003): submitted and declined.

COLLABORATING COMPANY RELEASE PAGE

Project Title:

NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES Enrico Spacone, Ph.D. University of Colorado, Boulder KL&A of Colorado Greg Kingsley, Ph.D., P.E.

Principal Investigator: University: Collaborating Company: Collaborating Company Representative:

As authorized representative of the collaborating company, I have reviewed this report and approve it for release to the Colorado Advanced Software Institute.

__________________________________ Signature

_________________ Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... I-A I-B II Background ................................................................................................. Objectives.................................................................................................... 1 1 2 4 4 6 6 8 9 15 18 20 20 22 24 24 28 34 34 36 41 42 44 46 49

THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE.... II-A Definition of the Non – Linear Static Procedure......................................... II-B Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure............................................ II-B-1 II-B-2 II-B-3 II-B-4 II-C Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads .......................................... Building Performance Level ......................................................... Calculation of the Seismic Hazard ................................................ Calculation fo the Target Displacement........................................

Reasons for Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure........................

III LIMITATIONS OF THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE ............. III-A Design of Three Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames .............. III-A-1 Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in Design ............................. III-A-2 Formulation of Wind Loads Used in Design ................................ III-A-3 Formulation of Earthquake Loads Used in Design ....................... III-A-4 Total Design Loads and Section Determination…………............ III-B Performing the Pushover Analysis On the Moment Frames ....................... III-B-1 Period Determination .................................................................... III-B-2 Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads .......................................... III-B-3 Element Reduction for Analysis of Frames……………............... III-B-4 Determination of Seismic Hazard for Analysis…………............. III-B-5 Calculation of Target Displacement for Analysis……… ............. III-C Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analyses for Frames…………….......... III-D Comparisons of Full Dynamic Results with Pushover Results…… ...........

i

. IV-C-2 Theoretical Values of Shear Hysteretic Law…………… ...... …………………………………………… 106 106 ii ....................... Experimental Column Response…………………….. AI-A FEAP Pushover Routines .... VI-C Complete Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis of the Shear Wall…………......... IV-C-3 Values for Actual Sections – Shear Hysteretic Law……….. VI SHEAR WALL EXAMPLE..... VIII BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………….. ............ V-D Conclusions………………………………………………………… ....... VII CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK…………...... IV-D Observations on Element Shear Response Formulation …………… ..... V-C Numerical vs...…..III-E Dependence of Target Displacement on Choice of Vy……………… .......... VI-D Comparisons of Pushover and Dynamic Analysis……………………...............… ... V-B Calculated Shear Strength………………………………………… ......……… 104 APPENDICES I MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM FEAP TO PERFORM NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ... .......…............................ VI-A Wall Configuration…………………………………………………... VI-B Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Shear Wall………………. VI-E Verification of Flexure Shear Interaction at Element Level……...…………………………………………............................................. IV FORMULATION OF ELEMENT SHEAR RESPONSE …………………… 53 54 55 56 58 63 63 65 74 76 78 78 80 89 94 95 95 97 98 9 100 101 102 IV-A Review of Timoshenko Beam Theory……………………………… . IV-C-1 Shape of Shear Hysteretic Law…………………………............................................. V NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OR PROPOSED SHEAR MODEL……… V-A Column Dimensions and Testing Conditions……………………… ...... III-F Conclusions ............... IV-B Non – Linear Force – Based Timoshenko Beam Element………… ...Limitations and Accuracy of the Pushover Analysis… ........ VI-F Conclusions…………………………………………………………… ..... IV-C Section V – γ Constitutive Law…………………………………… ...............

......…………………………………………… Networking ......………………………………… AII-A AII-B AII-C AII-D AII-E Evaluation ............................………………………………… II ADDITIONAL CASI REQUIREMENTS ...........................…………………………………………… Technology Transfer.............................…………………………………………… Funding......………………………………… AI-B FEAP Shear Element Modifications ..AI-A-1 ‘PUSH’ Mesh Command ..…………………………………………… 106 110 113 115 115 115 116 116 116 iii .........………………………………… AI-A-2 ‘VvsD’ Macro Command.....…………………………………………… Publications .............................................

iv .ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results of a research conducted at the University of Colorado. developed at the University of California. and b) a library of uniaxial material laws. FEAP. aimed at developing a PC-based software tool for performing nonlinear pushover analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. beam-column and shear wall elements). Current seismic code suggested procedures for nonlinear pushover analyses were then reviewed. The two libraries are a) a frame element library (which includes beam. The responses of static and dynamic nonlinear analyses on the same buildings were compared. Details on the features added to program FEAP and on the new commands are documented in the appendices. The project first modified the existing program to perform nonlinear pushover analyses on a routine basis. The program links two libraries to an existing finite element program. Berkeley. A new shear element was then introduced and a typical shear wall of a utility core was analyzed with a push-over analysis. The applicability of nonlinear pushover analyses to the seismic design of reinforced concrete frames was evaluated by studying the response of frames of different heights. Boulder.

joint response. lateral loads is applied to a mathematical model of the structure. or Pushover Analysis. the following modeling issues still need to be thoroughly addressed: bond slip. and Europe move towards the implementation of Performance Based Engineering philosophies in seismic design of civil structures. Because the mathematical model must capture the inherent material nonlinearities of the structure. and non – structural members. if deemed applicable to the structure at hand. Japan. 1 . For this reason. and other parameters representing the expected. According to this procedure. nonlinear Pushover Analysis tools which can easily be applied in a design office. structural walls and shear deformations. earthquake. the reference document for performing the Nonlinear Static Procedure. as is done in current seismic design codes. In the United States. These analyses can take the form of a full. monotonically increasing. the maximum deformations the structure is expected to undergo during the design seismic event can be estimated. This procedure is more involved than applying the approximate static lateral load all at once. nonlinear dynamic analysis. is currently the Federal Emergency Management Agency Document 273 (FEMA 273) [6]. there is a need for easy to use and accurate. the Pushover Analysis. the plastic-hinge sequence) to be monitored throughout the nonlinear pushover analysis. roof displacement plot. detailed member information can be obtained. or of a static nonlinear Pushover Analysis. a vertical distribution of static. Even though recent years have seen a great amount of research in the development of such nonlinear models and techniques. The loads are increased until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs.CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I-A Background As the United States. Because of the computational time required to perform a full. or design. in that the loads are applied in increments. In particular. there is still a great deal of knowledge missing for reinforced concrete structures. new seismic design provisions will require structural engineers to perform nonlinear analyses of the structures they are designing. is a very attractive method for use in a design office setting. nonlinear dynamic analysis. and because the load applied to the structure is increased monotonically. This allows the deformations of structural members (for example. From this plot.

Special steps need to be implemented to perform Nonlinear Pushover Analyses following FEMA 273[6] 2 . Shear deformations in Reinforced Concrete members are difficult to model because of the complex mechanisms that govern them. the maximum displacement achieved will be directly related to the shape of the lateral load distribution applied to the structure. One of the several issues still open is modeling the shear deformations in reinfoced concrete columns and structural walls. the procedure needs to be refined and more experience is needed to fully access its applicability. Even though the procedure is general.The Nonlinear Static Procedure must still be used with caution. This is achieved by modifying the existing Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP) developed by Professor Robert Taylor at the University of California at Berkeley [16]. I-A Objectives The main objective of this project was to develop an easy to use and accurate nonlinear Pushover Analysis Software tool for civil structures following the procedures outlined in FEMA 273[6]. The Pushover Analysis is meant to represent a static approximation of the response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic earthquake loads. b) Development of Software Tool for Nonlinear Pushover Analyses. While there are currently some programs available to perform the Pushover Analysis on Reinforced Concrete structures. the focus of this study is reinforced concrete frames. There is a great saving in time when performing the Pushover Analysis as compared with the full nonlinear dynamic analysis. The key word in this definition is approximation. In particular. If the shape of the lateral load differs from the shape the structure attains when loaded dynamically. the calculated maximum displacement could grossly overestimate what the dynamic analysis would predict. But there are bound to be drawbacks to the method. The following are the main tasks of the projects: a) A critical study of the Pushover Analysis procedure as defined by FEMA 273[6]. The objective is to develop an accurate though easy to understand tool that can be routinely used in a design office by a structural engineer that is familiar with both the Pushover Analysis procedure and with basic nonlinear structural analysis techniques. Comparisons between Nonlinear Pushover Analyses and Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses are key to understanding the limitations of the proposed Pushover Analyses.

3 . need to be developed. Chapter V. d) Verification of the new tool via comparisons between experimental and analytical results. e) Application of the new tool to studies of Reinforced Concrete structural systems. Chapter III. describes the shear deformation formulation for a force – based beam element. the organization of this report is as follows. Some of these models already exist and need to be linked to program FEAP (in particular. describes the changes made to the Finite Element Analysis Program to include shear deformations and to run the Pushover Analysis. Conclusions..c) Development of a family of models for Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete structures. Chapter II. Numerical Verification of Proposed Shear Model. Appendix I. Appendix I presents the Modifications to Program FEAP to perform Non-Linear Pushover Analyses. Other models. The Non – Linear Static Pushover Procedure. summarizes the results and points to areas for future work. fiber beam column elements with interaction between axial and normal forces). discusses the applicability and shortcomings of the procedure. Modifications to FEAP to Perform Pushover Analysis. Formulation of Element Shear Response. Chapter VI. describes the steps followed in performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure as given by FEMA 273[6]. Applications of the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis). in particular elements for reinforced concrete members with shear deformations. Chapter IV. Finally. Appendix II includes Additional CASI Requirements for the Poject Report. With all of the foregoing arguments in mind. determines the applicability and shortcomings of the shear formulation developed in chapter IV by comparing numerical results with test data obtained from Reinforced Concrete columns failing in shear tested at the University of California at San Diego.

roof displacement plot as shown in figure II-1. or Building Performance Level.FEMA 273 [6] The Non – Linear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis is defined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency document 273 (FEMA 273) [6] as a non – linear static approximation of the response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic earthquake loading. architect. The Building Roof Displacement Performance Level is a function of the post event conditions of the structural and non – structural components of the structure.CHAPTER II THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE II-A) Definition of the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis) . Architect. Some common Building Performance Levels are shown in figure II-2. Owner. The static approximation consists of applying a vertical distribution of lateral loads to a model which captures the material non – linearities of an existing or previously designed structure. is then decided upon by the owner. Engineer Operational Immediate Occupancy Life Safety Collapse Prevention Figure II-2: Building Performance Level 4 . and monotonically increasing those loads until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs. and structural engineer. Lateral Loads Roof Disp Base Shear Structural Response Base Shear Structural Model Figure II-1: Static Approximation Used In the Pushover Analysis The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings.

Based on the desired Building Performance Level. Sa Response Spectrum Figure II-3: Response Spectrum From the Response Spectrum and Base Shear vs. The Response Spectrum gives the maximum acceleration. Base Shear Structural Response Target Displacement. the Target Displacement. the Response Spectrum for the design earthquake may be determined. The Target Displacement is shown qualitatively in figure II-4. Spectral Response Accel. Roof Displacement plot. This relation is shown qualitatively in figure II-3. One can then find the maximum expected deformations within each element of the structure at the Target Displacement and redesign them accordingly. T. or Spectral Response Acceleration. δt Roof Displacement Figure II-4: Target Displacement 5 . δt. may be determined. a structure is likely to experience under the design ground shaking given the structure’s fundamental period of vibration. The Target Displacement represents the maximum displacement the structure will undergo during the design event.

4) Compute the maximum expected displacement or Target Displacement. n. δt.0. C vx = wx h x n i =1 k ∑w h (II. QG = 1. 2) Determine the desired Building Performance Level. Each of these steps are described in the sections following. and the summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total number of floors in the structure. QD is equal to the total dead load effect. 6 .1(QD + QL + QS ) (II.II-B) Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis) The steps in performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis are: 1) Determine the gravity loading and the vertical distribution of the lateral loads.1) Where. QL is equal to the effective live load effect. 3) Calculate the Seismic Hazard. the first thing that can be determined is the vertical distribution of the lateral loads. wx represents the fraction of the total structural weight allocated to floor level x.1.2. hx is the height of floor level x above the base.2) k i i The Cvx coefficient represents the lateral load multiplication factor to be applied at floor level x. These values are shown schematically in figure II-5. The gravity loads to be used in the Pushover Analysis are calculated by equation II. while the vertical distribution of lateral loads is given by the FEMA 273 [6] Cvx loading profile reproduced as equation II. QG is equal to the total gravity force. defined as 25% of the unreduced live load. and QS is equal to 70% of the full design snow load except where the design snow load is less than thirty pounds per square foot in which case it is equal to 0. II-B-1) Determine the Vertical Distribution of the Lateral Loads In addition to the gravity loads.

2 Cvx 0. k varies linearly as shown in figure II-6. k is 1.5 1.5 2.0 Floor 1 0. T.5 seconds.0 for T less than or equal to 0. the higher mode effects become much more important and the k value attempts to account for this by adjusting the lateral load distribution. the fundamental period will be greater and the variation of the lateral loading over the height of the structure will approach the non – linear distribution shown in figure II-6 for k equal to 2. The effect that the parameter k has on the Cvx loading profile is also shown in figure II-6.Cvn Cv4 Cv3 Cv2 Cv1 wn w4 w3 w2 w1 h1 h2 h3 hn h4 Figure II-5: Values for Determining the Vertical Distribution of the Lateral Loads The parameter k varies with the structural fundamental period. stiffer structures. Determination of k Floor 5 Floor 4 2.0 for T greater than or equal to 2.1 0.4 Fundamental Period.0.5 Floor 3 Floor 2 k=1 k=2 Effect of k on C 0. For taller. For shorter.3 0.5 7 . T (sec) Figure II-6: Variation of k with Fundamental Period T. As the structure becomes more flexible however. and Effect of k on Lateral Load 0. The implication of this is that for stiffer structures the higher mode response of the structure will be less significant and the lateral loading can enforce purely first mode response.5 seconds and 2.0 1. the fundamental period will be small and the variation of the lateral loading over the height of the building will approach the linear distribution shown in figure II-6 for a k value equal to 1.0. more flexible structures. In between these values.

The Non – Structural Performance Level is defined as the post – event conditions of the non . S – 3: Life Safety. They are N – A: Operational.structural components. and structural engineer.II-B-2) Building Performance Level Determination The next thing that may be determined is the Building Performance Level. N – B: Immediate Occupancy. The Structural Performance Level is defined as the post – event conditions of the structural building components. By combining the number from the Structural Performance Level with the second letter from the Non – Structural Performance Level. The ranges are S – 2: which is a range between S – 1 and S – 3. and structural engineer. architect.4 Collapse Prevention S-5 5-E Building Performance Level Figure II-7: Determination of Building Performance Level 8 . N – C: Life Safety. 1 – B: Immediate Occupancy. and S – 4: which is a range between S –3 and S – 5. one can attain the total Building Performance Level. The Building Performance Level is the desired condition of the building after the design earthquake decided upon by the owner. This is divided into five levels. and is a combination of the Structural Performance Level and the Non – Structural Performance Level. and N – E: Non – Structural Damage Not Limited. The ranges are included to describe any building performance level which may be decided upon by the owner. The levels are. S – 1: Immediate Occupancy. 3 – C: Life Safety.Structural Level Operational Immediate Occupancy N-B Life Safety N-C Hazards Reduced N-D Damage Not Limited N-E Structural Level Immediate Occupancy S-1 N-A 1-A 1-B Range Between S-1 & S-3 S . Non . 1 – A: Operational. architect.2 Life Safety S-3 3-C Range Between S-3 & S-5 S . are shown in figure II-7. and S – 5: Collapse Prevention. The combinations to achieve the most common Building Performance Levels. and 5 – E: Collapse Prevention. This is divided into three levels and two ranges. N – D: Hazards Reduced.

The values K and P shown in bold in figure II-8 correspond to the performance one achieves when designing by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) [17]. Building Performance Level Seismic Event 50% / 50 years 20% / 50 years 10% / 50 years 2% / 50 years 1-A A E I M 1-B B F J N 3-C C G K O 5-E D H L P Figure II-8: Building Performance Level for Given Seismic Event II-B-3) Calculation of the Seismic Hazard An important parameter that must be determined for the Pushover Analysis is the Seismic Hazard of a given location. architect. architect. This corresponds to Life Safety after a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 year event and Collapse Prevention after a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year event. respectively. The Seismic Hazard is a function of: 1) The Building Performance Level 2) The Mapped Acceleration Parameters (found from contour maps included with FEMA 273) 3) The Site Class Coefficients (which account for soil type) 4) The effective structural damping 9 . Referring to figure II-8. and engineer to predict the post event conditions of the structure for a wide range of ground motions. and structural engineer can now decide what Building Performance Level they want their building to achieve after a range of ground shakings which are expected to occur at a given design location. One can easily see that the new design approach allows the designer to advance the state of the art from the UBC code by giving many more design options and allowing the owner. F would correspond to a Building Performance Level of Immediate Occupancy after a 20% probability of exceedance in 50 year seismic event and so on.The owner. A would correspond to a Building Performance level of Operational after a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 year seismic event.

5g or SS2/50 is less than 1. These parameters are found from: If SS2/50 is less than 1. corresponding to Operational after a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years event.02 respectively. the mapped acceleration parameters are used to determine the modified mapped short period response acceleration parameter. SS. the Pushover Analysis would need to be run separately for each % exceedance considered and the end results compared with the acceptance criteria given in FEMA 273 [6] for the Building Performance Level at each % exceedance. S1. The parameter Si2/50 in equation II. if the owner.02 ln(1− PE 50 ) (II.4) When SS2/50 is greater than or equal to 1.5) The subscript i in the above equations is equal to S if the modified mapped short period response acceleration parameter is being determined and it is equal to 1 if the modified mapped response acceleration parameter at a one second period is being determined.5.73] (II. and structural engineer determine that condition A.3) Where PE50 is the probability of exceedance in 50 years under consideration. Since the Seismic Hazard is a function of this Return Period. Life Safety after a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years event.5) The Fundamental Structural Period The Building Performance Level enters into the Seismic Hazard through the return period of the earthquake under consideration. K.606 ln( PR ) − 3.4 is the mapped short period acceleration parameter (i =S) or the mapped acceleration parameter at a one 10 . The return period for the design earthquake. is defined as: PR = 1 1− e 0. and 0. 0.1. and the modified mapped acceleration parameter at one second period. then the Return Period would be calculated three separate times with PE50 equal to 0. architect.5g and PE50 is greater than 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years then  P  S i = S i10 / 50  R   475  n (II. PR. and Collapse Prevention after a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event respectively. and P must be met. as will be shown subsequently. Once the Return Period for the % exceedance under consideration has been determined. Referring to figure II-8.5g and PE50 is between 2% in 50 years and 10% in 50 years then ln(S i ) = ln(S i10 / 50 ) + [ln(S i 2 / 50 ) − ln(S i10 / 50 )]* [0.

77 PE50 > 10% & SS2/50 >= 1.5g 0.77 0.29 0.96 0.54 0.09 1. shall be determined from: 11 .67 0.54 0.25 Region California Pacific Northwest Mountain Central US Eastern US Now that the modified mapped short period response acceleration parameter and the modified mapped response acceleration parameter at a one second period have been determined.59 0.98 0. These tables are reproduced in Table II-1.54 0.5 Value of n for use with SS 2% <PE50< 10% & SS2/50 >= 1.59 0.60 1.second period (i=1) for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event.5g 0. The value n in equation II. these parameters must be further adjusted to account for the soil type at the site.89 0.80 PE50 > 10% & SS2/50 >= 1. These parameters are found from contour maps which map the short period response acceleration and the response acceleration at a one second period at probabilities of exceedance of 2% in 50 years and 10% in 50 years for the for the entire United States and are included with FEMA 273.5g 0.44 0.44 0.5 is a parameter which depends on the mapped parameter SS2/50 and PE50 and is tabulated in FEMA 273.89 1.80 0.93 PE50 > 10% & SS2/50 < 1.89 1.5g 0.59 0. SX1. Table II-1: Values for exponent n for use in equation II. SXS.44 0.4 and II.5 is the mapped short period acceleration parameter (i =S) or the mapped acceleration parameter at a one second period (i=1) for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years event. The parameter Si10/50 in equations II. and the final design spectral response acceleration parameter at a one second period.5g 0. The final design short period spectral response acceleration parameter.29 0.50 0.56 0.5g 0.05 PE50 > 10% & SS2/50 < 1.25 Value of n for use with S1 2% <PE50< 10% & SS2/50 >= 1.44 0.

8 1.000 ft/s.0 1.8 1.25 0.25 0.2 1.8 1. S1.8 * S = 0.S XS = Fa S S S X 1 = Fv S1 ( II.2 * S = 0.5 * S = 0.8 1.0 3.3 0.9 * S >= 1.8 1. Values of Fa and Fv are tabulated in FEMA 273. and Fv is a function of the soil class at the site and modified mapped response acceleration parameter at a one second period.0 1.50 0.1 1.0 1. SS.6 2.00 0.000 ft/s Class B: Rock with 2. for use in equation II.0 1.6 2.7 Site Class A B C D E F S <= 0.5 * S = 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 1. 12 .7) Fa is a function of the soil class at the site and the modified mapped short period response acceleration parameter.0 * * Table II-3: Values for Site Class coefficient.3 1.4 * S >= 0.500 ft/s < vs < 5.5 0.8 1.7 * S = 0.4 0.8 1.5 * * Definitions and classifications of soil type are included in FEMA 273 and are as follows: Class A: Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity. where vs is the measured shear wave velocity.1 0.4 3.8 2.2 1.2 0.8 1. for use in equation II.6 2.8 1. Table II-2: Values for Site Class coefficient.0 1.0 1.6 Site Class A B C D E F S <= 0. vs > 5. These tables are reproduced in tables II-2 and II-3 respectively.75 0.4 1. Fa.4 1.2 * S = 1.6) (II.0 1.2 1. Fv.5 1.0 1.0 1.7 2. Linear interpolation shall be used for values of SS or S1 between tabulated values and the * represents a condition in which site – specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses should be performed.

Class D: Stiff soil with shear wave velocity. w > 40%. PI > 20. PI. a type E profile should be assumed. Class E: Any profile with more than 10 ft of soft clay defined as soil with plasticity index. the shear wave velocity.9) ( II.4 + 3T / T0 ) S a = S XS / BS for 0 < T ≤ 0.000 psf.8 to II. very high plasticity clays that have a plasticity index. 13 . su > 2. Based on the design spectral response acceleration parameters. and undrained shear strength. Sa. Class F: Soils requiring site – specific evaluations are those soils that are vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading. In the above classifications. The relation is defined as: S a = ( S XS / BS ) * (0. T. SXS and SX1. 1.200 ft/s or with either standard blow count. vs. peats and/or highly organic clays with a thickness greater than 10 ft. are average values over a 100 ft depth of soil.500 or with either standard blow count.200 ft/s < vs < 2.2T0 < T ≤ T0 for T > T0 S a = S X 1 /( B1T ) The values BS and B1 in equations II. If insufficient data are available to classify a soil profile as type A through D.000 psf < su < 2. quick and highly – sensitive clays and collapsible weakly – cemented soils. These values are reproduced in table II-4 and linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of the effective damping coefficient. N > 50 or undrained shear strength.10 are parameters which account for the effective damping coefficient of the structure and are tabulated in FEMA 273. the General Response Spectrum can be formulated. such as liquefiable soils.10) for 0.000 psf.8) (II. or water content. N.2T0 (II. 1. greater than 75 and with a thickness greater than 25 ft. su. 15 < N < 50 or undrained shear strength.Class C: Very dense soil and soft rock with shear wave velocity. The General Response Spectrum graphically relates the Spectral Response Acceleration. as a function of Structural Fundamental Period. β. and soft or medium clays which have a thickness greater than 120 ft. 600 ft/s < vs <1. and the undrained shear strength. the Standard Penetration Test blow count. su < 500 psf or a soil profile with shear wave velocity. vs < 600 ft/s.

0 1. T Figure II-9: General Response Spectrum 14 . β (% of critical) <2 5 10 20 30 40 > 50 BS 0. qualitatively in figure II-9. defined as the period associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the spectrum to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum.7 1.3 2.Table II-4: Damping Coefficients BS and B1 to be used in equations II.5 1.11) With the application of equations II. It is calculated from: T0 = ( S X 1 BS ) /( S XS B1 ) (II.7 3.8 1.0 1.10 is the characteristic period of the response spectrum.4SXS/BS Sa = SX1/(B1T) 0.8 2. The General Response Spectrum is shown Sa = (SXS/BS)(0.11 the General Response Spectrum can be formulated for the design event being considered.3 through II.3 1.8 1.10 Effective Damping.0 The value T0 in equations II.8 to II. Sa SX1/B1 0.8 to II.0 Fundamental Structural Period.2 1.9 2.4+3T/T0) Sa = SXS/BS Spectral Response Acceleration.2T0 T0 1.0 B1 0.

However.14) C1 = [1. with a given fundamental period. once it has been developed.0 for Te ≥ T0 for Te < T0 (II.12 Number of Stories 1 2 3 5 10 + Modification Factor C 1.13) (II. Table II-5: Values for modification factor C0 for use in equation II.The General Response Spectrum is a function of the many site and design event specific parameters which are related by a complicated system of equations. Values for C1 are obtained from: C1 = 1. the maximum displacement the structure is expected to undergo during the design event. must endure during the design event. Linear Interpolation should be used for intermediate values C1 is a modification factor which relates expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response.3 1.12) Where the value C0 is a modification factor that relates spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement.e. Values for C0 are tabulated in FEMA 273 as a function of the total number of stories of the structure and are included in table II-5.0 1. since it is a function only of site location parameters and the design event under consideration. i. it becomes a very useful tool as it describes the maximum acceleration a structure.4 1.2 1.0 + ( R − 1)T0 / Te ]/ R 15 . can now be obtained. following equation: The target displacement is calculated from the δ t = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 S a Te2 g 4π 2 (II.5 1 1. II-B-4) Calculation of the Target Displacement The Target Displacement.

0 Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by components or elements whose strength and stiffness may deteriorate during the design earthquake.1 second Building Performance Level Immediate Occupancy Life Safety Collapse Prevention 1.3 1. 2. usually in/s2) at the effective fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration as described in section II-B-3 and obtained from equations II. defined as the period associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the spectrum to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum and is calculated as shown in equation II. tension – only braced frames. where the non – linear force – displacement curve of the building is characterized by a bilinear relation as shown in figure II-10. concentrically braced frames.0 1. C2 is a modification factor that represenst the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response of the structure.0 Framing Type 11 1. T >T second Framing Type 11 1.17. in g’s. 16 . To is the characteristic period of the response spectrum.5 Framing Type 22 1. R is the ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength coefficient.0 1. frames with partially restrained connections.1 1. Table II-6: Values for modification factor C2 used in equation II.Te is the effective fundamental period of the structure and is defined as given in equation II. Values for C2 are tabulated in FEMA 273 and are a function of Building Performance Level.0 1.0 1. Values for R are obtained from: R= Sa 1 V y / W C0 (II. or any combination of the above. shear – critical walls and piers.11.1. C0 is as defined above and values are tabulated in table II-5. unreinforced masonry walls. ( where g must be in consistent units. and the fundamental period of the structure.12 T = 0.0 1. Vy is the yield strength calculated using the results of the Pushover Analysis. framing type.15) Sa is the Response Spectrum Acceleration.0 1. W is the total dead load and anticipated live load.8 through II. All frames not assigned toFraming Type 1. Such elements and components include: ordinary moment – resisting frames. as calculated by equation II.2 Framing Type 22 1. They are included in table II-6.10.

C3 is a modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P – ∆ effects.15 and II.16) Values for R and Te are obtained from equations II. Ki is the elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration and is found from the initial stiffness of the non – linear base shear vs.17) Where T is the elastic fundamental period of the structure (in seconds) in the direction under consideration calculated by elastic dynamic analysis.6 Vy Non – Linear Structural Response Ke δ Roof Displacement Figure II-10: Bilinear Relation of Base Shear vs. C3 shall be calculated from: α ( R − 1) 3 / 2 C 3 = 1. C3 shall be set equal to 1.0 + Te (II. Ki Base Shear αK Vy 0. roof displacement curve at 60% of the yield base shear value. For buildings with positive post – yield stiffness. where the non – linear force – displacement relation is characterized by a bilinear relation as shown in figure II-10.0. while intersecting the original base shear vs. For buildings with negative post – yield stiffness. roof displacement curve as shown in figure II-10. Ke is the effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration and is defined as the slope of the line which connects the point of intersection of the post – yield stiffness line with the horizontal line at the yield base shear value to zero. The effective fundamental period of the structure in the direction under consideration.17 respectively. Te may be calculated from: Te = T Ki Ke (II. and α is the ratio of post – yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness. Roof Displacement Plot 17 . Ki and Ke are shown in figure II-10.

The second reason has to do with earthquake unpredictability. accurate results can be obtained in fractions of the time it would take to get any useful results from the fully dynamic analysis. The first reason is computational time. especially when it was defined as a static approximation to an actual dynamic analysis? Also. it is easy to imagine that there could be an earthquake which had the same probability of exceedance percentage but had a different frequency content. since only one analysis must be run for each exceedance probability that the designer is interested in. So. This brings up the question of why should one perform the pushover analysis. non – linear analysis on even a simple structure takes a long time. The Pushover Analysis naturally accounts for all earthquakes with the same probability of exceedance by predicting the maximum displacement that can be expected in the form of the Target Displacement. one would not know if the design was the maximum that could be expected until a great number of earthquake ground motion records were tested. If the Pushover Analysis is deemed applicable (see chapter III for applicability conditions) to the structure at hand. If we were to redesign a structure based on a maximum displacement achieved from a full dynamic analysis based on one particular earthquake.II-C) Reasons for Performing the Non – Linear Static Procedure (Pushover Analysis) The procedure to perform the Pushover Analysis was thoroughly outlined in the previous section. Now. 18 . strengthening the idea that the Pushover Analysis is much more practical in a design office. This makes the Pushover Analysis much more applicable in a design office. When performing a dynamic analysis. it is best to use a series of earthquakes. This further increases the computational time. It is easily seen that it is by no means an easy procedure. time is a very important parameter. since the analysis is applied to previously designed or existing structures. Based on the fundamental period of the structure. this would increase or decrease the maximum response. why must one perform a more detailed analysis than just designing by an appropriate code such as the UBC? There are two reasons why the Pushover Analysis may be preferred to a full dynamic analysis. Since one of the main goals of this research was to develop a computational tool which could be easily applied in a design office. computational time has been further reduced. To run a full dynamic.

This allows owners to choose in advance what the condition of their building will be after a given event which in turn limits their costs in purchasing earthquake insurance.There are also two reasons why the Pushover Analysis may be preferred to designing according to an existing code. while the Pushover Analysis allows the designer to modify one section which in turn could have a beneficial result on the other section lowering the maximum response it would have to endure. In comparison. the designer has no idea of what the effect of increasing the strength or ductility at one section will have upon the other. the maximum loads are applied directly to the structure and only the maximum response is determined. So. the Pushover Analysis increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the design. From this information. and the structure is monotonically forced into the inelastic response range. Also. when designing by an appropriate code. The Pushover allows the designer to determine the building’s performance under a range of ground shakings while the current code design just determines that the building won’t fall down or threaten life under the worst possible shaking. 19 . The relation at specific loading values before the maximum is lost and the interrelation among contributing elements is not available. This increases the overall effectiveness of the structure furthering its applicability in a design office. So. the designers can modify their design to protect expensive architectural fixtures or to limit the inconvenience that can be caused to building occupants when mechanical or plumbing components are damaged. by knowing the resulting condition of the building after any ground motion. The first is that it advances the state of the art from code design. This requires that both sections obtain their maximum strength or ductility. such as the UBC. the designer is able to get detailed member information at displacements up to and including the maximum displacement. sections of members which will be most damaged by the ground shaking can be located and these sections can be redesigned to develop the strength or ductility that will be required of them. including small ground motions which may be just large enough to cause some non – structural damage. The second reason is that since the model directly incorporates the actual material nonlinearities of each member.

Common floor area loads will be used for each frame as given by the UBC code and are representative of a typical office building. The Pushover Analysis will follow the steps outlined in chapter II. twelve. The resulting Target Displacement obtained from the Pushover Analysis may then be compared with the maximum displacement at the roof of each structure obtained from the dynamic analysis. and floor plans. This will be accomplished by performing the Pushover Analysis and a full non – linear dynamic analysis on reinforced concrete moment resisting frames of six. III-A) Design of Three Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames The design of each frame will be carried out according to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) [17] and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) structural concrete building code requirements 318-95 [1]. The design procedure described here will show the formulation of the gravity loads. while the frame dimensions are given in figure III-2 . The objective of this chapter is to quantify these limitations. The frames to be designed are each one of four moment resisting frames in the structure and have common bay widths. and earthquake loads used in design.CHAPTER III APPLICATIONS OF THE NON – LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (PUSHOVER ANALYSIS) The Pushover Analysis was defined in chapter II as a non – linear static approximation of the response a structure will undergo when subjected to dynamic earthquake loading. California area which falls under UBC earthquake zone 4. while the steps necessary to perform the dynamic analysis will be described as they are evaluated. These loads are also shown in figure III-1. 20 . there are bound to be limitations to the procedure. The typical floor plan and section are shown in figure III-1. The frames are located in the Los Angeles. wind loads. Because we are approximating the complex dynamic loading characteristic of ground motion with a much simpler monotonically increasing static load. and twenty stories. story heights.

and Loads Common to All Frames 21 . Floor Section.Figure III-1: Typical Floor Plan.

They consist of dead loads which are the partition load.Figure III-2: Design Frame Dimensions and Member Sizes III-A-1) Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in the Design of Frames. the required sections for each member can be found and their weight included in the gravity loads. slab weight. The concrete sections for use in the formulation of gravity loads are shown in figure III-2. However. In addition to these loads. while the gravity loads are determined in table III-1. and a floor or roof live load. Through an iterative procedure. because the girders and columns must be designed. the self weight of the girders and columns must be added. 22 . ceiling load. and transverse beam weight. their weight is not known at the start of the design process. The floor loads typical to each frame are shown in figure III-1.

2 5.4 14.5 6.1 (Column) C .8 8. 23 .15 0. Beam Size.9 7.1 2.15 0.8 8.5 t (in) 6 9 h (ft) 12 0.4 3.2 1.0 0.4 5.15 0.0 0.0 8.8 5.8 0.35 16.3 (Column) C .4 11.9 3.35 Description 26 x 18 (Girder) 28 x 20 (Girder) 32 x 22 (Girder) C .9 7.1 1.4 (Column) Design Section Loads Conc wght.15 P1 (kips) 8. 3 wc (k/ft ) 0.Weight Dead Loads Description Slab Transverse Beam Superimposed Loads Description Ceiling (DL) Partition Walls (DL) Floor Load (LL) Roof Load (LL) W (ft) 12 12 12 12 L(ft) 18 18 18 18 Applied Surface Load (psf) 10 20 50 30 P1 (kips) 1.15 0.4 14.2 P2 (kips) P (kips) 2.5 4.3 4.0 8.2 2.0 1 All Values Are Illustrated Below Note : The Force at a Given Location Is the Sum of the Forces Corresponding to the Point Loads at That Location Due to Column Size.15 0.8 10.3 10.15 0.2 (Column) C . The Change In Dead Load at the Roof Is Due to 1/2 Column Length There.35 P2 (kips) P (kips) 16.67 L (ft) 18 18 Conc wght.8 6.15 P1 (kips) 2.9 P (kips) 5.9 P2 (kips) 5. 1 3 H (in) W (in) L (ft) wc (k/ft ) 26 28 32 20 24 28 32 18 20 22 20 24 28 32 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 0.Table III-1: Formulation of Gravity Loads Used in Design Typical Floor Loads Self . and Typical Floor Loads.15 0.2 1.4 11.2 4.0 0.

Ce is equal to the combined height.2) However. The force caused by an earthquake to be applied at each floor level is a function of the Design Base Shear. the basic wind speed is 70 mph as given on the UBC wind map. For the Los Angeles area.5C a I W R (III. From these two conditions. exposure and gust factor. and is a function of the exposure of the building and height of each floor level. which is given by: V= Cv I W RT (III. Iw is equal to the importance factor of the structure also laid out in the UBC. Calculations for each frame are detailed in table III-2.III-A-2) Formulation of Wind Loads for Use in Design The calculation of the wind loading to be applied to each frame will be carried out based on the UBC wind loading profile.1) P is equal to the design wind pressure and is based on the basic wind speed at the design location and the exposure condition. and the exposure for a structure which has surrounding buildings is exposure C. the remaining parameters can be determined. Cq is equal to the pressure coefficient for the structure or portion of the structure under consideration and is tabulated in the UBC. III-A-3) Formulation of Earthquake Loads for Use in Design The calculation of earthquake loads to be applied to each frame will be carried out based on the UBC earthquake loading profile. The total wind force acting at each floor level on a frame is the design wind pressure multiplied by the floor height and the tributary width of the frame. the Design Base Shear must not be less than the least of the following: 24 . The wind pressure associated with each floor level is given by: P = Ce C q q s I w (III.3) Further. V. Values for this coefficient are tabulated in the UBC. qs is equal to the wind stagnation pressure at a standard height of 33’ at the design location as tabulated in the UBC. the Design Base Shear need not exceed: V= 2.

67 1.06 1.84 18 8.31 1.73 18 8.03 Ce associated w/ H1 1.62 18 8.05 2.19 1.9888 2. W P*WH (ft) (kips) 18 4.79 1.79 1.61 1. Iw = Wind Stagnation Pressure @33'.688 1.834 1.50 18 7.79 1.05 2. Width .06 1.87 1.0 12.43 1.19 1.4 psf Ce associated w/ H2 1.79 1.43 1.79 Ce associated w/ H2 1.12 18 7.53 1.79 1.40 18 5.25 18 6.67 1.546 1.53 1.772 1.87 1.48 1.406 1.48 1.406 1.888 1.602 1.23 1.43 1.87 1.806 1.87 1.58 18 6.88 18 8.6 1.88 18 8. Cq = Six Story Frame Heigth 2 .28 18 8.06 1.406 1.06 1. qs = Pressure Coefficient.06 1.05 2.71 18 5.61 1.9132 1.31 1.58 18 6.Table III-2: UBC Wind Load Calculations Used in Design Data Common To All Frames Wind Importance Factor.53 1.322 1.58 18 6.61 1.05 Ce associated w/ Floor 1.06 1. H (ft) (ft) (ft) 0 15 14 25 30 28 40 60 42 40 60 56 60 80 70 80 100 84 80 100 98 100 120 112 120 160 126 120 160 140 120 160 154 160 200 168 Twenty Story Frame Heigth 1 Heigth 2 .73 1.014 Tributary Wind Force.88 18 6.214 1. P*WH Width.9636 1.87 25 .Heighth of Heigth 1 UBC tbl 16-G UBC tbl 16-G Floor. Width.31 1.25 18 6.87 2.31 1.43 1.88 18 6.19 1.862 1.87 Ce associated w/ H2 1.61 1.61 1.67 1.602 1.79 1.67 1.53 1.87 1.32 18 7.67 1.79 1.06 1.67 1.53 1.23 1.806 Tributary Wind Force.50 18 7.23 1.50 18 8. H (ft) (ft) (ft) 0 15 14 25 30 28 40 60 42 40 60 56 60 80 70 80 100 84 80 100 98 100 120 112 120 160 126 120 160 140 120 160 154 160 200 168 160 200 182 160 200 196 200 300 210 200 300 224 200 300 238 200 300 252 200 300 266 200 300 280 Ce associated w/ H1 1.88 18 6.688 1.40 18 5.25 18 6.71 18 5.43 1. H (ft) (ft) (ft) 0 15 14 25 30 28 40 60 42 40 60 56 60 80 70 80 100 84 Twelve Story Frame Heigth 1 Heigth 2 .772 1.546 1.322 1.05 2.12 18 7.95 Ce associated w/ H1 1.Heighth of UBC tbl 16-G UBC tbl 16-G Floor.79 1.53 1. W (kips) (ft) 18 4.79 1.87 18 7.87 1.214 1.87 1.05 2.31 1.87 18 7.Heighth of UBC tbl 16-G UBC tbl 16-G Floor.43 1.53 1.9384 1.40 18 5.67 1.87 Ce associated w/ Floor 1.06 1.67 1.48 1.61 1.69 18 7.214 1.43 1.69 18 7.32 18 7.71 18 5.646 1.39 18 8.43 1.322 1.546 Tributary Wind Force.43 1.06 1.73 1.646 1.31 1.61 Ce associated w/ Floor 1.03 18 8. W P*WH (ft) (kips) 18 4.15 18 8.53 1.

Cv and Ca are seismic coefficients and are functions of the soil type and the seismic zone factor. hn is equal to the height in feet from the base to the roof of the structure. Ft. This is given in the UBC as: Ft = 0. R is equal to the overstrength factor based on the lateral force resisting system of the structure. as given by the UBC.07TV Where T and V are as described above. For the Los Angeles area.). V. the lateral force distribution along the height of the structure. For UBC calculations.0. can be calculated. W is equal to the total seismic dead load equal to the total dead load of each structure.e.11C a IW V= In the above equations: (III. the lateral force to be applied at the top of the structure. this period is defined as: T = Ct (hn ) 3 / 4 ( III.4. A stiff soil profile will be the basis for design corresponding to soil type SD. Under consideration will be a system of reinforced concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames since no special designs will be considered (i. Nv is equal to the near source factor of the structure to known faults.8ZN v I W R (III.4) 0. V. (III. can be determined. Under consideration will be a site with a known fault greater than 15 km away and Nv equals 1. Once the base shear. the seismic zone is Zone 4 and the seismic zone factor is equal to 0. plastic hinges etc. T is the elastic fundamental period of the structure (seconds) in the direction under consideration.5) Z is equal to the seismic zone factor. Fx. T.03 for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. This is given as: 26 .V = 0. I is equal to the seismic importance factor for the structure under consideration. and the fundamental period.6) Ct is a numerical coefficient equal to 0. for each frame has been determined.7) From the base shear.

40 11.6 22. Z = 0.086 56 5 213 0.5 Twenty Story Frame Fundamental Period.23 25.053 98 8 223 0.4 UBC 30-14 Floor Floor Weight.05 9.168 70 Roof 189 0.6 wi * hi 2. Ft = 57.168 56 5 198 0.083 112 9 198 0.047 210 16 205 0. and the summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total number of floors. Floor # Wi (kips) wi (kips) hi (ft) 1 243 0.047 224 17 198 0.080 154 Roof 189 0. Wi/Wtotal Height.18 5.2 12. Fx (kips) 1.7 22. Fx (kips) 7.77 1.2 10.168 28 3 198 0.0 Seismic Coefficient .96 3.88 51. Table III-3: UBC Earthquake Loads Used in Design Six Story Frame Fundamental Period.168 14 2 198 0.1 29.8) i i Fx is equal to the lateral force to be applied at floor level x.72 11.53 9.2 87.6 9.080 126 10 198 0.045 238 18 198 0. T (s) = 0.4 Importance Factor.8 22.3 23. hx is the height of floor level x above the base of the structure.44 10.2 Twelve Story Frame Fundamental Period. V = 226 UBC 30-4 . Nv = 1.35 11.051 112 9 223 0. Ca = 0.051 168 13 223 0.083 98 8 205 0.086 14 2 213 0.8 51.0 10.70 7.41 5.32 2.62 8.400 UBC 30-8 Design Base Shear.5 3. W. Wi/Wtotal Height.05 141.9 25.6 13.045 252 19 198 0.3 19.19 27 .0 Overstrength Factor.9 15.14 9.055 28 3 243 0.21 2.31 wi * hi 0.98 12.23 16.051 182 14 205 0.0 6.70 4.053 70 6 233 0. V = 402 UBC 30-4 . R = 3.25 9.79 10. wx is the fraction of the total structure weight.8 5.1 27.2 9.051 154 12 223 0. T (s) = 1.080 140 11 198 0.8 7. V = 162 UBC 30-4 .051 140 11 223 0.053 UBC 30-8 Design Base Shear.043 280 Wtotal = Σwi*hi = 4400 Quake Force.5 8.086 28 3 213 0.086 84 7 205 0.44 5.35 4. Ft = 9.053 56 5 233 0.13 18.30-7 Concentrated Force at Top.7 7. Ft = 22. I = 1.48 48. Wi/Wtotal Height.55 2.055 14 2 243 0. Floor # Wi (kips) wi (kips) hi (ft) 1 213 0.69 6.832 UBC 30-8 Design Base Shear. n.82 11.30-7 Concentrated Force at Top.75 13.086 70 6 213 0.0 Near Source Factor. T (s) = 2.3 4.4 Near Source Factor.168 42 4 198 0. Fx (kips) wi * hi 1.8 UBC 30-14 Floor Floor Weight.077 168 Wtotal = Σwi*hi = 2471 Quake Force.11 7.160 84 Wtotal = Σwi*hi = 1180 Quake Force.Fx = (V − Ft ) wx hx ∑w h i =1 n (III.1 UBC 30-14 Floor Floor Weight.40 7.1 20.82 8. Floor # Wi (kips) wi (kips) hi (ft) 1 198 0.6 12.30 21.053 84 7 233 0.9 3.8 12.4 14.086 42 4 213 0.051 126 10 223 0.30-7 Concentrated Force at Top.35 28.03 13.4 36.5 26.045 266 Roof 189 0.4 Seismic Coefficient . Cv = 0.8 2. The calculations of the above equations leading to the lateral force distribution over the total height of each structure is illustrated in table III-3.7 29.047 196 15 205 0. Na = 1.10 23.74 Data Common to All Frames Seismic Zone Factor.6 17.055 42 4 233 0.1 11. allocated to floor level x.5 89.

9b) (III. we can apply the ACI load combinations and find the factored loads which must be designed for.05 DL + 1.9c) (III.3WL 1. wind loads.9e) 28 . and earthquake loads determined previously. Wind and Earthquake Loads for the Six Story Frame. The ACI load combinations which must be checked are: 1.43EL (III.28WL 0.III-A-4) Total Design Loads and Section Determination The total design loads are factored combinations of the gravity loads (dead and live).9 DL + 1.28 LL + 1. and twenty story frames respectively.4 EL 0.9d) (III.28 LL ± 1. figure III-4.05 DL + 1.7 LL 1. From these unfactored loads.9 DL ± 1. twelve.9a) (III. Figure III-3: Gravity. The total unfactored design loads are shown in figure III-3.4 DL + 1. and figure III-5 for the six.

and Earthquake Loads for the Twelve Story Frame 29 .Figure III-4: Gravity. Wind.

and Earthquake Loads for the Twenty Story Frame 30 .Figure III-5: Gravity. Wind.

DL is equal to the dead load. Twelve and Twenty Story Frames 31 . while the resulting sections are shown in figures III-7 and III-8.9.In equations III. Figure III-6: Design Section Locations for Six. WL is equal to the wind load. The resulting section locations are shown in figure III-6. and EL is equal to the earthquake load. Once the loads have been factored. the members can be designed. LL is equal to the live load.

Figure III-7: Final Design Sections – Beams 32 .

Figure III-8: Final Design Sections – Columns 33 .

The Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP) [16] will be used to perform the Pushover as well as the dynamic analyses. which were designed in the previous section. Once this period has been determined. the Pushover Analysis can be performed on each frame to determine its maximum expected response. For the determination of the total mass on the structure. The stiffness of each structure is a function of the member sizes. followed by the Seismic Hazard and the Target Displacement. The mass of the structure is a function of the total gravity load to be used in the Pushover Analysis. So the total gravity load to be used in the Pushover Analysis is equal to the dead load shown in figures III-3 to III-5 plus 25% of the live load shown in these figures all times the factor 1. the design snow load is less than 30 psf and therefore equal to zero. As described in chapter II. Note that the dead load and live load used here are the unfactored design loads. III-B-1) Period Determination The fundamental period of a structure is a function of its mass and stiffness. it must be converted 34 .1(QD + QL + QS ) (III. the lateral load distribution can be calculated. So. FEAP requires an input mass per unit volume for each element. The total gravity load to be used in the Pushover Analysis was given in equation II. so this will also be used to find the fundamental period of the structures. the first thing that needs to be calculated is the vertical distribution of the lateral loads. an earthquake that has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years will be used as the Building Performance Level requirement.1 and is reproduced here as: QG = 1. Since the total gravity load of equation III.1. The Building Performance Level will not be included here since only the Target Displacement is to be compared with the maximum dynamic displacement found at the roof of each structure.10 must be included in the mass.III-B) Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Moment Resisting Frames Once the frames have been designed. the period must first be determined.10) Recall that the live load to be used is 25% of the unreduced live load for the structure and the dead load is the total dead load effect. However. so the masses at each floor level must be calculated. Since the structures are located in Los Angeles. since this distribution is a function of the fundamental period of the structure through the exponent k. and FEAP calculates this internally.

Table III-4: Calculation of Mass Per Unit Volume for Each Member Beam Distributed Masses ΣP = 6*P Width.into a mass per unit volume for the input.4 18 26 864 222. and Third Periods for Each Frame # Stories in Frame Fundamental Period.9 37. minus the column weight. This will be accomplished by including the total load at a floor level.1 Distributed Mass input 1.39 Third Period. the mass per unit volume input for each beam is the total load at each floor level.1 39. and P2 = P because column mass is calculated seperately Column mass per unit volume = (concrete unit weight) / g Once the applicable masses have been included in the input.6 22 32 864 Sect # Beam 1 .190655912E-06 9. this value must also be divided by the gravitational constant. and third periods of each frame are shown for comparison in table III-5.3a P (kips) 35.1a Beam 2 .6 20 28 864 234.294 0. FEAP can determine the fundamental period of each frame.550 0. T2 (sec) 6 1. The fundamental.2a Beam 3 .66 0.517 12 2. divided by the volume of the member. The masses per each member as a function of the total Pushover Analysis gravity loads are formulated in table III-4. The volume of each member is its length times its width times its height.59 1. Heigth. T (sec) Second Period. T3 (sec) 0.981699435E-07 Sect # All Sections Column Distributed Masses 3 3 Conc Unit Weight (k/ft ) Conc Unit Weight (k/in ) 0.68056E-05 Distributed Mass input 2. second. The input mass per unit volume for the columns will just be the unit weight of concrete.378634002E-06 1. as the input mass per unit volume for the beams. (kips) W (in) H (in) L (in) 215.246520589E-07 Beam mass per unit volume = (P1 + P2 + P3 + 4P) / (Beam L * W * H * g) Where P1 = P3 = 1/2 P.954 20 3.61 0. minus the column weight. Length.797 35 . So.15 8. Table III-5: Fundamental. Since this division gives a load per unit volume. Second.

All of these parameters are illustrated in figure II-5.2. and III-11 for the six. it can be expected that the twenty story’s second mode will contribute in its dynamic response as much as the six story’s first mode will to its dynamic response. The exponent k is a factor which varies with fundamental period as shown in figure II-6. III-10. A similar statement can be made about the second mode of the twelve story building since its second period is about 60% of the six story’s first period. So. if a first mode response is accurate for the six story frame. or twenty for this example. and twenty story frames. This may be important when comparing the Pushover Analysis with the dynamic analysis because the Cvx load distribution is enforcing some variation of the first mode response in each of the structures. the vertical distribution of the lateral loads for the Pushover Analysis can be calculated. six. 36 .10 to get the total frame loading for analysis as shown in figures III-9. The vertical distribution of the lateral loads is given by the FEMA 273 Cvx loading profile as given by equation II. W. So. These Cvx loading coefficients are input into FEAP and the program multiplies them by the monotonically increasing load to get the lateral loads at each increasing value.The second and third periods for each frame are shown because it is interesting to notice that the second period of the twenty story frame is close to the first period of the six story frame. This equation will be reproduced here for convenience and is: C vx = w x hx n i =1 i k ∑w h (III. III-B-2) Calculation of the Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads Now that the fundamental period for each frame structure has been determined. hx is the height of the floor at level x above the base. respectively. The formulation of the Cvx loading coefficients for each frame is detailed in table III-6. twelve. and the summation in the denominator is the sum of these values over the total number of stories. Once all of these values have been determined they can be combined with the Pushover Analysis gravity loads determined in equation III. wx is the fraction of the total weight. twelve.11) k x The Cvx loading coefficient is the value to be applied at each floor level of the frame. allocated to the floor at level x. it is easy to see that for the other frames it will be less accurate as higher modes contribute more to the dynamic response.

61 Period Dependent Factor. QGi (kips) 236 236 236 236 236 209 1388 QGi / QGtotal.1 26315 k Lateral Load Factor.0455 0.0 56.0864 0.0455 0.3210 wi * hi 10.0528 0.0004 0.9 67.0864 0.0836 0. Cvx 0.0896 0.4 2072.1555 0.4 609.0546 0.0225 0.0 1686.1934 0.0066 0.0509 0.55 Floor # 1 2 3 4 5 Roof QGtotal = Weight.0016 0.1 k Σwi * hi = 455 Twelve Story Frame FEAP Fundamental Period.3 997.4 270.0243 0.1260 0.0786 0. k = 2.0037 0.2 97.7 152.170 0.0 k Lateral Load Factor.0810 0.1099 0.9 2891. k = 1.0810 0.0470 0.0509 0.170 0.3 3156. Cvx 0.7 808.0193 0.0149 0.3 88.0864 0.9 507.7 258. wi 0.2 3221.0098 0.0864 0.150 Height of floor.0528 0.0470 0. QGi (kips) 252 252 252 252 252 252 243 243 236 236 236 209 2913 QGi / QGtotal. hi (ft) 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 126 140 154 168 182 196 210 224 238 252 266 280 Σwi * hi = k Floor # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Roof QGtotal = wi * hi 10.0509 0. QGi (kips) 285 285 285 274 274 274 274 264 264 264 264 264 264 243 243 243 236 236 236 209 5179 QGi / QGtotal.6 802.0597 0.9 1207.0509 0.0551 0.0379 0.0659 0.0 2578.0836 0.0980 0.Table III-6: Determination of the Vertical Distribution of Lateral Loads for Each Frame Six Story Frame FEAP Fundamental Period.1027 0.5 1437.0509 0.1882 0.0788 0.0864 0.2735 0. hi (ft) 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 126 140 154 168 k Floor # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Roof QGtotal = wi * hi 16.0266 0.4 2020.8 43.9 372.1979 Σwi * hi = 10205 Twenty Story Frame FEAP Fundamental Period. Cvx 0.0459 0.0063 0.0528 0.0017 0.0142 0.2 165.0528 0.0509 0.0641 0.0864 0.0415 0.4 1048. k = 2.5 638. wi 0.1237 0.0403 Height of floor.170 0.1199 37 .1224 0.1 1920. T = 1.59 sec Period Dependent Factor.0551 0.00 Weight.6 1587.2 30.00 Weight.5 1805. wi 0.0716 Height of floor.5 2358.0810 0.0470 0.0551 0.170 0. T = 3.9 423.5 146.0307 0.0686 0.0455 0.1 1285.170 0.0 124.66 sec Period Dependent Factor. hi (ft) 14 28 42 56 70 84 k sec Lateral Load Factor. T = 2.

Figure III-9: Gravity Loads and Cvx Loading Coefficients for Six Story Frame 38 .

Figure III-10: Gravity Loads and Cvx Loading Coefficients for Twelve Story Frame 39 .

Figure III-11: Gravity Loads and Cvx Loading Coefficients for Twenty Story Frame 40 .

The elements and nodes finally adopted for the FEAP input files are shown in figure III-12. Since a comparison is to be made between dynamic and Pushover analyses. an effort was made to limit the numbers of elements and nodes in each frame. this also applies to the Pushover. while the transformation of the midspan point loads shown in figures III-9 to III-11 are detailed in table III-7.III-B-3) Element Reduction for Analysis of Frames Because of the length of time required to run a complete non – linear dynamic analysis of these structures. 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Figure III-12: Element and Node Configuration Used in FEAP Input 41 .

Table III-7: Transformation of Midspan Point Loads to Fixed End Forces and Moments floor #'s 6 5 to 1 floor #'s 12 11 to 9 8 to 7 6 to 1 floor #'s 20 19 to 17 16 to 14 13 to 8 7 to 4 3 to 1 Six Story Frame P1 = P3 P2 P1+P = P2+2*P M = 96*P (kips) P (kips) (kips) P3+P (kips) (kips) (kip-in) +/-20.7 -37.11 to calculate the modified 42 .9 -42.3 -65.9 3158. the effective structural damping.8 -117.9 -42.4 -32.6 Twenty Story Frame P1 = P3 P2 P1+P = P2+2*P M = 96*P (kips) P (kips) (kips) P3+P (kips) (kips) (kip-in) +/-20.1 -43.3 -101.6 -28.6 -126.6 -29.1 -53.1 -43.4 -32. the soil site conditions.9 3158.5 3561.6 -120.3 -60.9 -36.3 -101. The current analysis considers an earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.9 -42.6 -75.1 -51. and the fundamental period of the structure.2 -60.1 -46.6 -36.1 -53.4 -32.8 3561.1 -55. stiff soil conditions and 5% effective structural damping. The applicable equations are equations II.1 -53. the mapped acceleration parameter at a one second period.6 III-B-4) Determination of Seismic Hazard for Analysis The calculation of the seismic hazard was detailed in section II-B-3 and is a function of the probability of exccedance in 50 years under consideration.9 -114 3446.7 -37.6 -62.8 -133.6 -62.4 -25.8 3753.4 Twelve Story Frame P1 = P3 P2 P1+P = P2+2*P M = 96*P (kips) P (kips) (kips) P3+P (kips) (kips) (kip-in) +/-20. a Los Angeles location.8 -39. the mapped short period acceleration parameter.4 -25 -35.4 -25 -35.5 -39.4 -25 -35.8 -117.8 3561.7 -39.6 -32.3 through II.9 -114.3 -68.2 -60.1 -48.9 3158.9 -36.5 -37.9 -36.9 -129.9 -114 3446.3 -101.9 3753.5 3753.1 3446.7 -71.4 -25.

61 s 0. while the General Response Spectrum is shown in figure III-13.mapped short period and one second period acceleration parameters.0 1. T.25 0.50 1 Period at Which the Constant Velocity and Acceleration Regions of the Design Spectrum Intersect 1. Sa (g's) 0.5 1.6 Accelerations @ HL SS (g's) S1 (g's) 1. T = 1. HL (% / 50yrs) 10 Damping Coeff BS B1 1. at the probability of exceedance under consideration.0 Return Period @ HL.0 1.12 s 1 6 Story Frame.75 12 Story Frame. Shown on the General Response Spectrum curve is where the six. and the Spectral Response Acceleration. T0. Sa.5 3 3. T = 3. based on structural damping coefficients. and values for the parameters are listed in table III-8. T (sec) Figure III-13: General Response Spectrum for Analysis 43 . and the fundamental structural period. PR (yrs) 475 Intersect Period1 T0 (sec) 0. at the probability of exceedance under consideration.5 2 2.25 T0 = 0. SXS and SX1.25 0.6 s 0 0 0.59 s 0.5 Mapped 10% / 50yrs SS (g's) S1 (g's) 1. BS and B1. T = 2.2 T0 = 0.5 1 1. the Return Period. These calculations are carried out. the design acceleration parameters.66 s 20 Story Frame.75 Hazard Level. the period at which the constant acceleration region of the spectrum intersects with the constant velocity region of the spectrum. SS and S1. Fa and Fv.5 0.25 0.75 Soil Site Class = D Fa Fv 1. and twenty story frames lie.5 Design Accelerations Sxs (g's) Sx1 (g's) 1.5 4 Fundamental Structural Period. Table III-8: Formulation of the General Response Spectrum for Analysis Mapped 2% / 50yrs S1 (g's) SS (g's) 2 0. twelve. PR. based on the soil type parameters.25 Spectral Response Acceleration.

76 Vy (kips) 140 170 245 δt (in) 18.027 Equation Values C2 C3 Sa (g's) Te(sec) 1.68 8. δt.6 0. must be calculated from the Base Shear vs. Table III-9: Values Used in Obtaining Target Displacements for Analysis # stories 6 12 20 # stories 6 12 20 160 R 3.209 3.6 C1 1.50 1.73 1.6 kips/in 60 40 0.6 0.Linear Curve Base Shear (kips) 100 80 Ke = 12.0 0.35 0.22 2. which enter into the parameters in equation III.0 1.0 1. is equal to: Te2 g δ t = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 S a 4π 2 (III.III-B-5) Calculation of Target Displacement for Analysis Finally the Target Displacement can be calculated for each of the analysis frames. The Effective Stiffness.0 Internal Values α Ki (k/in) Ke (k/in) αKe (k/in) 14.8 in 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Roof Displacement (in) Figure III-14: Base Shear vs.8 43.94 C0 1.40 0.12) All parameters in equation III. the Elastic Stiffness. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Six Story Frame 44 .1 kips/in 120 αKe = 1.282 2.17 and illustrated for each of the analysis frames in figures III-14 to III-16. and the post – yield stiffness.0 1.35 kips/in Original Non .42 1.26 0. Recall from equation II.0 0.107 8.70 1.091 8.6 Vy = 84 kips 20 δ t = 18.748 0.11 7.6 1.1 12.0 1.198 0.0 1.0 0.12. Roof Displacement curve as defined in equation II.8 30.50 T0 (sec) 0.27 3.469 1.12 that the Target Displacement.12 were defined in chapter II-B-4 and these parameters plus the values to determine these parameters are shown in table III-9.3 Vy = 140 kips 140 Ki = 14.

40 kips/in 150 Ki = 8.11 kips/in 100 0.3 in 0 0 20 40 60 Roof Displacement (in) 80 100 120 Figure III-16: Base Shear vs.198 kips/in Original Curve 200 Base Shear (kips) Ke = 7.200 Vy = 170 kips 180 160 Ki = 8.26 kips/in Original Curve 80 60 0.68 kips/in 140 120 100 α Ke = 0.6 Vy = 102 kips 40 δ t = 30. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Twenty Story Frame 45 .748 kips/in Ke = 8.8 in 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof Displacement (in) Figure III-15: Base Shear vs.6 Vy = 147 kips 50 δ t = 43. Roof Displacement With Target Displacement for Twelve Story Frame 300 Vy = 245 kips 250 α Ke = 0.

and displacement vectors of each element respectively. This happens to be the 1940 El Centro ground motion record as shown in figure III-17. and a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. 300 200 100 Acceleration (in/s2) 0 0 -100 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -200 -300 Time (s) Figure III-17: 1940 El Centro Ground Motion Used in Dynamic Analysis FEAP allows dynamic analysis for frames through the frame analysis additions added by Spacone et al [15]. and vg’’ is the acceleration vector due to the ground motion. and v are the relative acceleration. and C is equal 46 . the ground motion must be that for a Los Angeles site. K is equal to the stiffness matrix of each element.13) Where v’’. with a 5% structural damping ratio. M is equal to the mass matrix of each element as formulated in table III-4. SAC provides a number of ground motions on their web page which [14] are scaled so that the mean response spectrum matches that given by FEMA 273. The ground motion is input as a file and the accelerations are converted to forces at each time step by the effective force form of the equation of motion which is: [M ]{v' '}+ [C ]{v'}+ [K ]{v}= −[M ]{vg ' '}= −{peff } (III. To be consistent with the Pushover Analysis. on stiff soil.III-C) Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analyses for Each Frame The full non – linear dynamic analysis will now be run on each frame. velocity. v’. The dynamic loading will be a ground motion record as provided by the SAC joint venture [13].

1099207 0.206531 0. Table III-10: Rayleigh Damping Coefficients Used in Dynamic Analysis Six Story Frame α β ω1 ω2 ζ1 = ζ2 2.0 in -20 Time (s) Figure III-18: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Six Story Frame 47 . β =ζ 2 ωi + ω j (III.8633657 0.0175606 Twenty Story Frame α β ω1 ω2 ζ1 = ζ2 1.1913568 0.0251758 The resulting dynamic displacements at the roof of each frame are shown in figures III-18 to III20.009477 Twelve Story Frame α β ω1 ω2 ζ1 = ζ2 1.to the element damping matrix formulated in FEAP through Rayleigh Damping coefficients.14 a) C = αM + βK (III. These values are formulated in table III-10. The Rayleigh damping coefficients are given by Chopra [4] as: α =ζ 2ω iω j ωi + ω j .0407019 0.0799234 0.5111956 8.05 0. Included in these figures are the maximum and minimum dynamic displacements obtained at the roof of each structure.0 in 15 10 Roof Displacement (in) 5 0 0 -5 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -15 Min Disp = -15. 20 Max Disp = 15.1086985 2. 5% in this case.14 b) Where ζ is equal to the structural damping ratio.05 0.4880482 4.05 0. and ωi and ωj are equal to the first and second frequencies (rad/s) of the structure respectively for FEAP input.

2 in 15 10 Roof Displacement (in) 5 0 0 -5 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -15 Min Disp = -12.5 in -20 Time (s) Figure III-20: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Twenty Story Frame 48 .20 Max Disp = 14.7 in 10 Roof Displacement (in) 5 0 0 -5 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -15 Min Disp = -12.7 in -20 Time (s) Figure III-19: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Twelve Story Frame 20 15 Max Disp = 10.

8 15.2 -12.7 43. These times are described in figure III-21(a) when the maximum dynamic roof displacement occurs before the minimum or III-21 (b) when the minimum dynamic roof displacement occurs before the maximum. This means that a different earthquake with a different frequency content could give a higher maximum displacement under dynamic loading.3 10. Table III-11: Target Displacement and Maximum and Minimum Dynamic Displacements for Frames # Stories 6 12 20 Maximum Minimum Target Dynamic Roof Dynamic Roof Displacement Displacement Displacement (in) (in) (in) 18. the load distribution for the Pushover Analysis will be compared to the dynamic displaced shape at several times.8 14. one can see that for the six story frame we get results which compare very well.0 -15.0 30.5 In comparing these results.7 -12. the results for the six story frame are good because this Target Displacement is a maximum displacement expected for any earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. To clarify these results. Figure III-21: Times at Which Dynamic Displaced Shapes Will be Plotted 49 .III-D) Comparisons of Full Dynamic Results With Pushover Analysis Results The Target Displacements obtained from the Pushover Analysis and the maximum and minimum displacements obtained at the roof of each structure from the complete dynamic analysis are tabulated in table III-11. One thing to note is that even though the Target Displacement is greater than the dynamic displacement.

at the maximum and minimum displacements. So. while the dynamic loading is exciting the second.40 Floor Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -20 -10 0 t7 min t5 t6 t4 t1 t3 max t2 10 20 Displacement (in) Figure III-22: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes – Six Story Frame It can be seen in the above figure. This is apparent by the displaced shapes at times t5. it can be seen that at the maximum and minimum displaced shapes the middle portion of the building has a velocity which is opposite to the top portion. third. a much larger discrepancy between the Pushover Analysis’s prediction and the actual dynamic displacement is recognized. it is seen that again the first mode response is being enforced in the Pushover’s static load. 7 6 Floor Number 5 4 3 2 1 0. Furthermore. and t3 in which the middle portion of the building has a greater displacement than the roof. while the Pushover Analysis loading is enforcing a first mode response in the structure. the El Centro earthquake excites the first and second modes of this six story frame. So. and even higher modes. there is a definite participation of the second mode as is apparent by the non – linearity of the displaced shapes.10 0. Again. t6. plotting the Pushover load distribution and the dynamic displaced shape at several times (figure III-23). This limits the maximum and minimum displacements at the roof that will be obtained from the dynamic analysis because the middle portion of the building cancels out some of the roof displacement.20 Cvx Load Factor 0. the Pushover static load distribution and the dynamic displaced shape at the defined times can be plotted for the six story frame (figure III-22).30 0. t2.00 0. In comparing the results for the twelve story frame. that even though the displaced shape changes with time. when the velocity of the roof is equal to zero. 50 . This accounts for the large discrepancy. the middle portion of the building must be traveling in the opposite direction.With the definition of these times. however an earthquake with a different frequency content could excite only the first mode and the maximum and minimum displacements would approach the Target Displacement.

00 0.15 min t5 t6 t1 t3 16 11 6 1 0.15 0.05 0.00 t2 max t7 -20 -10 0 Displacement (in) 10 20 Cvx Load Factor Figure III-24: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes– Twenty Story Frame 51 .10 0. 21 Floor Number 25 20 Floor Level 15 t4 10 5 0 0.05 0.20 0. again a very large discrepancy is apparent between the Pushover Analysis’s predicted result and the result obtained from the dynamic analysis.25 Floor Level 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -20 t2 t1 min t3 t7 t4 t6 max t5 -10 0 Displacement (in) 10 20 Cvx Load Factor Figure III-23: Pushover Load Distribution and Dynamic Displaced Shapes – Twelve Story Frame Finally. comparing the results for the twenty story frame. it is seen that once again the Pushover is enforcing a first mode response in the structure while the ground motion is exciting the higher modes.13 11 Floor Number 9 7 5 3 1 0. In viewing the comparison of the Pushover’s static load with the dynamic displaced shape at various times (figure III-24).10 0.

As the higher periods increase.59 T2 (s) 0. and the higher modes are more likely to be excited by every earthquake. Figure III-25: Frequency Content of 1940 El Centro Ground Motion as a function of Period 250 Frame # Stories 6 12 T1 (s) 1.61 2. T (s) 5 6 7 8 While different earthquakes will vary in frequency content plots.66 3. However. This was illustrated in the twelve and twenty story frame results. they are entered into the range which will be excited by the earthquake.39 T3 (s) 0.294 0. |C(w)| 200 150 20 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 Period. So. it can easily be seen that as the fundamental period. increases. there is less likely to be an earthquake that excites primarily the first mode response.517 0. therefore contributing to its overall dynamic response.The conclusions that can be drawn from these comparisons is that for stiffer. and therefore the higher periods. an earthquake will be less likely to have a frequency content distribution which excites primarily the first mode of the structure. To further illustrate this statement. 52 . as the fundamental period of the structure increases.954 1.797 Absolute Value of Fourier Transform. the pushover analysis is accurate and includes expected displacements that could be caused by a multitude of earthquakes. Also shown in the figure are the first three periods of each structure repeated here for convenience. lower period structures. figure III-25 shows the frequency content of the 1940 El Centro ground motion used in the analysis plotted as a function of period. the Pushover Analysis is accurate for stiff structures whose higher modes will have less effect on the overall dynamic response.550 0. such as the six story frame.

given different choices in the base shear vs. or Target Displacement.4 in Vy = 120 kips Figure III-26 a Figure III-26 b 160 140 Base Shear (kips) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Roof Displacement (in) 25 Vy = 100 kips 160 Base Shear (kips) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Roof Displacement (in) 25 δ t = 19.8 in Vy = 140 kips 160 Base Shear (kips) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Roof Displacement (in) 25 δ t = 18. 160 140 Base Shear (kips) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Roof Displacement (in) 25 δ t = 18. roof displacement plot yield level. To quantify this. Because the choice is subjective. something must be said about the subjective choice in the structural yield level on the base shear vs. there may be a significant change in the maximum expected displacement. This is clearly the best choice in Vy as the approximate bilinear post yield line is approximately tangent to 53 . the original choice of Vy is shown with its corresponding Target Displacement.0 in Figure III-26 c Figure III-26 d Figure III-26: Target Displacements for Changes in the Choice of Vy In figure III-26a. the target displacement is calculated for changes in the choice of Vy in figure III-26 for the six story frame.1 in Vy = 152 kips δ t = 18. roof displacement plot. Vy.III-E) Dependence of Target Displacement on Choice of Vy Since the accuracy of the Pushover Analysis is being determined.

even though the Target Displacement is a function of the subjective value of the structural yield level on the base shear vs. even when that choice is not very reasonable. the resulting change in the Target Displacement is less than 5%. the results are not greatly effected by even illogical choices in the value of Vy. meaning the structure has zero post yield stiffness. However. however the resulting change in the Target Displacement is only about 1. roof displacement plot. stiffer structures whose higher modes do not contribute significantly to the overall dynamic response. and the corresponding change in Target Displacement is approximately 2%. roof displacement curve. So. the Pushover Analysis overestimates the maximum displacement expected during the design event. Further.6%. It has also been shown that. 54 . as the higher mode effects become more significant. the graphs III-26 b-d show other choices that could be possible. which is purely first mode response. Figure III-26b shows an intermediate value of the Vy. Figure III-26c shows the Vy occurring at a very low value which is clearly not the yield value of the structure. roof displacement plot. This is also clearly not the yield value. Figure III-26d shows the yield value equal to the ultimate value attained by the structure. So. it is seen that the Pushover Analysis incorporates the maximum expected displacement that may occur from a range of ground motions with a given percent exceedance in 50 years by assuming the worst case scenerio.the actual base shear vs. such as those shown in figures III-26 c and d especially. the figure shows that for even bad choices of Vy. the Target Displacement is not greatly affected by changes of the choice in the yield level on the base shear vs. However. it is seen that the Pushover Analysis is accurate for shorter. The resulting change in the Target Displacement is approximately 4%. III-F) Conclusions on the Limitations and Accuracy of the Pushover Analysis From the comparison of the three reinforced concrete frames analyzed with both the Pushover Analysis and the complete dynamic analysis.

More commonly it is composed of structural walls. often called shear walls. have a low span to depth ratio. or a combination of structural walls and moment resisting frames. thus shear deformations must be 55 .CHAPTER IV FORMULATION OF ELEMENT SHEAR RESPONSE Chapter III describes the application of the NSP analysis to moment resisting frames whose response is governed primarily by flexural deformation. Some common configurations of structural walls used to resist lateral forces are illustrated in figure IV-1. it lends itself well to structural walls because they are very stiff and have very short periods. thus their response is typically determined by their fundamental period of vibration. walls with openings. the program developed here must have the ability to analyze structural walls. They are coupled walls. Since the primary goal in this research is to supply a Pushover Analysis tool which may easily be applied in a design office. seldom. elevator and stair cores. Figure IV-1: Common Configurations of Structural Walls Even though the limitations of the Pushover Analysis were outlined in Chapter III. is the lateral force resisting system composed entirely of moment resisting frames. This benefit is offset by the fact that structural walls. or any combination of these wall systems. walls with varying dimensions or thicknesses. However. if ever in reinforced concrete structures.

Figure IV-2: Bernoulli and Timoshenko Beam Deformations It can be seen in figure IV-2 that in the Euler . plane sections still remain plane but are no longer normal to the longitudinal axis. and the section flexibility is modified to include shear deformations by developing a cyclic shear hysteretic law to relate shear deformations to shear force at each section in the element. To capture this behavior. shear deformations are neglected. since the plane section remains normal to the longitudinal axis. The difference between the normal to the longitudinal axis and the plane section rotation is the shear deformation. First. then the changes in the total element flexibility are illustrated. This chapter will extend the original formulation to include the shear response of Reinforced Concrete elements. However. Also included are comments on possible enhancements to the proposed formulation. in the Timoshenko beam the section deformation is the sum of two contributions: one is 56 . In the Timoshenko beam theory. IV-A) Review of Timoshenko Beam Theory In Euler – Bernoulli beam theory. is just the rotation due to bending only.Bernoulli beam the deformation at a section. the Timoshenko beam theory is reviewed. must be modified to include shear deformations. dvo/dx. These relations are shown in figure IV-2.accounted for. the existing force – based fiber beam element presented in Spacone et al [15]. and plane sections remain plane and normal to the longitudinal axis.

57 . In the Timoshenko beam theory. dvb/dx. In this study. By considering an infinitetesimal length of the beam. The existing force based elements available in FEAP account for the deformation resulting from bending alone. Combining these two equations: (IV. γ.3) While this equation only applies to linearly elastic materials. V. it will be the basis for the formulation of the non-linear shear force . however they do not include the shear deformations. The shear force.due to bending.2) V = GAsγ (IV. is related to the shear stress through: V = τAs where As is equal to the shear area of the section. dvs/dx. the shear stress is assumed constant over the cross section. The shear deformations will be added according to the following formulation. Hooke’s law for shear applies and: τ = Gγ (IV. dvs/dx. it is seen that the shear deformation in Timoshenko beam theory. as shown in figure IV-3. it is assumed that V and γ are interrelated though the shear area of the section multiplied by a value which accounts for the non-linear response of Reinforced Concrete to shear force. γ= κ= Figure IV-3: Infinitesimal Length of Beam Showing Bending and Shear Deformations For linear elastic materials. and the other is the shear deformation.shear strain relation. is the same as the shear strain related to pure shear.1) Where τ is equal to the shear stress applied to the element and G is the shear modulus of elasticity for the material.

q5 Q2. To express clearly the modifications to the existing Bernoulli formulation. in three dimensions at the element level. or rotations. both the Timoshenko and Bernoulli formulations will be carried out. Q1 – Q4. at each end and one axial force. Each of these transverse sections is further divided into longitudinal fibers. and z are the local degrees of freedom for the element. Q5. Y y Q4. The element is divided into transverse sections along its length at each one of the classic Guass or Guass – Lobatto integration points. y. or displacement. q1 The capital X.IV-B) Nonlinear Force – Based Timoshenko Beam Element To include shear deformations in the element. q4 Q3. q1 – q4. They are two bending moments. This configuration is shown in figure IV-5. Figure IV-5: Element Divided into Transverse Sections and Longitudinal Fibers 58 . The beam elements added by Spacone et al [15] have five degrees of freedom. without rigid body modes. and Z in figure IV-4 are the global degrees of freedom while the lowercase x. the element flexibility must be established. Y. q2 Z z Figure IV-4: Three Dimensional Flexibility Based Element Q1. q5 (figure IV-4). q3 X x Q5.

q. However. b(x) contain the element force shape functions. Q.6) Putting together IV. and corresponding deformations. The shear response for each element is calculated at the section level. σ. and Q contain the nodal forces as illustrated in figure IV-4. the element relation between forces. In the proposed approach shear response is independent of the axial and flexural responses at the section level. through the section flexibility matrix. to get the total element response due to shear. D(x).4. the fibers are analyzed and the stresses. and moduli.To obtain the flexural and axial response along the element. along with noting the arbitrariness of δQ. The second step is to write the section constitutive law in which the section deformations. This will be clarified in the following formulation. are summed to compute the section response.5 and IV.6. are related to the section forces.4) Where D(x) are the section forces. There are three major steps in the force – based formulation. interaction among the axial – flexural and shear responses is enforced at the element level.5) The third step is to satisfy compatibility (in an average sense). The fiber section model yields interaction between flexural and axial responses. f(x): d ( x) = f ( x ) D ( x ) (IV. The section responses (mainly forces and flexibility) are then summed according to weight factors depending on the location of the section and the integration scheme used to compute the total axial and flexural response along the element. In the first step. Starting from a compatible state of deformations. the force fields are expressed as functions of the nodal forces: D( x) = b( x)Q (IV. d(x). since force equilibrium is satisfied pointwise along the element. is obtained with the application of the principle of virtual forces: δQ T q = ∫ δD T ( x)d ( x)dx 0 L (IV. one obtains: 59 . This response is then summed over all the sections. equilibrium. again according to the weight factors depending on the location of the section and the integration scheme used. IV. E.

φ .γ Figure IV-6: Three Dimensional Section Degrees of Freedom – Bernoulli and Timoshenko Beams 60 .φ . the number of non – zero deformations depend on whether or not shear deformations are included.φ .7) or: q = FQ where: (IV.8a) F = ∫ b T ( x) f ( x)b( x)dx 0 L (IV. The section degrees of freedom are illustrated in figure IV-6.φ . These differences will be illustrated below. two moments at each end and an axial load. As shown in figure IV-4. However. the three dimensional element has five degrees of freedom.ε . However there are differences in the individual components which enter into the equations. on the section level.8b) is the element flexibility. . The above equations apply to the force – based formulation of both Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams. irrespective of whether shear deformations are included or not.γ .q = ∫ b T ( x) f ( x)b( x)dx Q 0 L (IV.ε .

The constitutive relation must also be modified because the sections now include shear forces and deformations. This is due to the fact that. Adding these to the shape functions included in the Bernoulli beam formulation. because the shear forces are related to the end moments through equilibrium. but shear responses are independent on the section level. gives the constant shear force distributions of the Timoshenko beam. it is interesting to note that while the constitutive equation for the Bernoulli beam exhibits a full 3x3 section flexibility matrix.As can be seen from figure IV-6. the Bernoulli beam section has three non – zero deformations while the Timoshenko beam section has five deformations. which is obtained by inverting the section stiffness. the axial and flexural responses are naturally coupled. the fiber responses are added over the section to obtain the response at each section. shear and axial – flexural responses are coupled at the element level. that impose linear moments and constant shear in equilibrium with the end moments. Because the shear forces are required in the section formulation. The section flexibility. at the section level. In other words. the flexibility equation for both beam types is a full 5x5 matrix. couples shear. The shear response is not calculated at the fiber level. These relations are detailed thoroughly in figure IV-7. the shear and bending forces are coupled through equilibrium. as mentioned earlier. However. the same relation for the Timoshenko beam is a full 3x3 matrix for the flexural and axial responses but is merely diagonal for the shear response resulting in a 5x5 section flexibility matrix. So. the formulation used here for the Timoshenko beam includes coupling of axial and flexural responses on the section level. contains the shear flexibility of the section decoupled from the axial and bending terms. b(x). the equilibrium statement must include these forces and therefore the shape functions for the Timoshenko beam must include the relation between shear force applied at a section to the nodal forces of the element. 61 . but is determined for the entire section as an average response. Weighted integration of f(x). axial and bending responses on the element level. which assumes constant axial force and linear moment along the element. So. This is due to the fact that the element response is found by summing the responses of each section weighted through the shape functions. Referring to figure IV-7. however. However.

They are included to represent non – zero flexibility determined values Figure IV-7: Comparison of Components in Bernoulli and Timoshenko Element Formulations 62 . Flexural and Shear Deformations F = [5 x 5 ] F is full 5x5 Element Flexibility Matrix With Coupling Among Axial and Flexural Deformations Note: a through h are values yet undefined. Axial and Bending Deformations Coupled f(x) is section flexibility from fiber section and Nonlinear V-γ relation.Bernoulli Beam Element Level – 5 dof’s Section Level – 3 dof’s M y    D( x) =  M z  N    Timoshenko Beam Element Level – 5 dof’s Section Level – 5 dof’s  M z ( x)  φ z ( x)  M ( x)  φ ( x)   y   y      D( x) =  N ( x)  d ( x) =  ε ( x)   V ( x)  γ ( x)   y   y       Vz ( x)  γ z ( x)  φ z ( x)    ( x ) = φ y ( x) d  ε ( x)    1) Equilibrium D( x) = b( x)Q x  L −1   0  b( x ) =  0  1  L   0  x L 0 0 1 L 0 0 0  0  0  1 0   0  x x  L −1 L  0 b( x ) =  0  0  0   0 0 x x −1 L L 0 0  0  0  1   x x −1 L L 0 0 0 1 L 0 1 L 2) Constitutive Law d ( x) = f ( x ) D ( x) a b b d  f ( x) =  c e  0 0 0 0  c e f 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0  0  0 h  a b f ( x ) = b d  c e  c e  f  f(x) is section flexibility from fiber section. Axial and Bending Deformations Coupled Shear Deformations Uncoupled 3) Compatibility q = FQ F = [5 x 5 ] F is full 5x5 Element Flexibility Matrix With Coupling Among Axial.

My Figure IV-8: Filippou et al’s Moment – Shear Rotation Hysteretic Law Referring to figure IV-8. If the material was still in the linearly elastic range.IV-C) Section V – γ Constitutive Law With the element force based formulation carried out in the previous section. is clearly not readily applicable to this formulation because the law relates section moment to shear rotation and the flexibility formulation developed previously requires a law which relates shear force to shear strain. My is the yield moment of the section.9) where g indicates the nonlinear function.Mcr . M. In the present formulation.10) The shear hysteretic law implemented here will be a modified version of the bilinear law proposed by Filippou et al [7]. So. a generalized. shown in figure IV-8. in the form: V = g (γ ) (IV. Mmax is the maximum moment attained on the previous loading cycle. Mcr is the cracking moment of the section. θmax is the maximum 63 . then: g (γ ) = GAs γ IV-C-1) Shape of Shear Hysteretic Law (IV. Moment + My M max M* + Mcr θ max θ. nonlinear V – γ law is assumed. This law. all the necessary components of the element formulation are known except for the V – γ constitutive law. this law will be modified to be applicable to the procedure developed previously and only the shape will be retained.Shear Rotation .

Because only the shape of the curve is being retained. The curve.Shear Strain V max . As mentioned above. Shear Force + Vn GAs V* + Vcr γ max γ .12) 64 . there is an increase in stiffness as the flexural cracks have now closed.Vcr . The degraded stiffness is due to the closing of cracks which were opened when the original loading occurred.Vn Figure IV-9: Filippou et al’s Law Converted to a Shear Force – Shear Strain Relation Because the shape of the curve is being retained. aims for the intersection of this value with the cracking moment.previous rotation attained. upon reloading. and M* is a target moment reduced due to section damage.11 or: V * = Vmax exp( − c1γ max ) γy (IV. V.2 to 0.35. After reaching this intersection. The value of M* is given by Filippou et al [7] as: M * = M max exp( − c1θ max ) θy (IV. it can be assumed that V* is related to the maximum previous shear force in the same way that M* was related to the maximum previous moment in equation IV.11) Where θy is the yield rotation of the section and c1 is a factor given by Filippou [7] as 0. Damage occurs after the section has yielded. this law is applied here as a shear force – shear strain relation. the values can be interchanged to give the relation shown in figure IV-9.

3. It is suggested that Priestley’s equation be multiplied by 0. Assuming a small strain hardening ratio in the steel. Ae is the effective area of the section approximated as 80% of the gross concrete area. which is the only cause for an increase in shear force past the yield level.13) In equation IV. psi units 1. Also shown in figure IV-9 is the elastic shear stiffness of the member as given by equation IV. consisting primarily of aggregate interlock and dowel action of the flexural reinforcement. and the factor k varies with the rotational ductility as shown in figure IV10.14) where f’c is the compressive strength of the concrete. 3. The shear str ength of a member is given as: Vn = Vc + V p + Vs (IV. for reinforced concrete members.5 k. The shear strength of a reinforced concrete member will be based on Priestley et al’s equation as given by Xiao et al [18]. the yield strength of the section is not clearly defined.85 for new design (Xiao et al [18]). m Figure IV-10: Variation of Factor k with Rotational Ductility in Equation IV. Vp is the increase in shear capacity through arching action provided by an axial load .14 The increase in shear resistance due to an applied axial load is defined as: 65 . Vc is the concrete shear contribution. values for each of the variables must be defined. Vn is the nominal shear strength of the section.13. These values will be defined subsequently. This is because. however the nominal strength of the member is easily determined. IV-C-2) Theoretical Values of Shear Hysteretic Law Now that the shape of the shear force – shear strain hysteretic law has been determined.In figure IV-9.2 1 2 3 4 Rotational Ductility. The concrete shear contribution is given by: Vc = k f 'Ae ( psi ) c (IV. Vy has been replaced by Vn. Vn is approximately equal to Vy. and Vs is the shear carried by transverse stirrups through a truss mechanism.

With this assumption V is: V= 2M L (IV.15 through IV.16) and the denominator reduces to the length of the member. Next.14. Vcr. Figure IV-11: Definition of D’ for Equation IV. L. a is the depth of the flexural compression block.17) Where Av is the cross sectional area of the transverse reinforcement in the section. The value D’ is the distance between the centers of the peripheral hoop or spiral as shown in figure IV-11. fyh is the yield stress of the transverse stirrups. The steel does not contribute to the shear resistance until the section is cracked.17 With the substitution of equations IV. the nominal shear strength of the section to be used in the shear hysteretic law is found. and θ is 30o in Priestley’s approach.15 can be approximated by assuming equal end moments in the Timoshenko equilibrium equation in figure IV-7. The shear carried by transverse stirrups through the truss mechanism is: Vs = Av f yh D' cot θ s (IV. The denominator of equation IV.Vp = D−a Pu 2 D( M / VD) (IV.17 into equation IV. This same result can also be achieved by recognizing that M/VD is equal to the aspect ratio of the member which equals L/2D. and M and V are the moment and shear demands on the section. D is the depth of the member. respectively. 66 .15) Where Pu is the factored axial load. s is the spacing of the stirrups. an expression is needed for the cracking shear force.

Once the shear force exceeds the nominal shear value.18) With the determination of the nominal shear strength and the cracking shear force. the law always unloads parallel to the initial stiffness (curve C-D). The final hysteretic law which was implemented into FEAP does not include V* directly but handles this value through the definition of pinching parameters. the only value left to determine is the shear force value. there is a decrease in stiffness as the only increase in shear force comes from strain hardening in the transverse steel (curve B-C).so the cracking shear force is a function of only the concrete shear contribution and the increase in shear resistance due to axial load. V*. The law will now be described in detail followed by the formulation of the pinching parameters and an explanation of their relation to V*. Point E must occur at the negative value of the cracking shear because the value at which the cracks close would be equal and opposite to the force at which they opened. direction. (The ACI code [1] recommends that strain hardening be neglected) In case of unloading. the effect of axial load on the cracking shear force will be neglected and Vcr is: Vcr = 3. For this reason. So. consider a load cycle that begins loading in the positive shear force direction. An assumption will be made that the cracking shear force occurs at the largest rotational ductility value of k. The initial loading curve is bi-linear and the slope is equal to the shear modulus.5 f 'Ae c (IV.e. As. at which the stiffness changes upon unloading and reloading.5 from figure IV-10. the reloading in the negative direction exhibits a decrease in shear stiffness as the crack which opened in the positive direction must close (branch D-E). up to the nominal shear value. It is seen that the slope of D-E depends on the ratio of cracking shear force to nominal shear force. If the cracking shear force was equal to the nominal shear force the stiffness would be much greater as D-E The same arguments may be made for loading which begins in the negative shear force 67 . i. multiplied by the shear area. and G will be as defined later. Referring to figure IV-12. Vn (curve A-B). G. k is equal to 3. D-E aims for the cracking shear value in the negative direction upon first reloading after the nominal shear value has been exceeded in the positive direction. As will be taken as 80% of the gross concrete area of the section. Once loading in the positive direction has exceeded the nominal shear value and has completely unloaded (curve A-B-C-D).

The slope of the line H-I depends on both of the pinching parameters in the x and y directions. Therefore. 68 . The law then unloads elastically again (curve G-H). the cracks formed from negative and positive loading have closed. and the curve rejoins the original elastic stiffness curve (curve E-F). the reloading occurs parallel to the initial stiffness (line L-M-N). Point I is located at the point at which the line connecting point H to V* intersects the cracking shear value in the positive direction ( see figure IV-9). Since E occurs on a line whose slope is parallel to the initial stiffness. line J-K. From point H. when the nominal shear resistance in the negative direction is reached. as it aims for the last cycle’s maximum shear force – shear strain excursion. with axis x parallel to the shear strain axis. and the curve exhibits an increase in stiffness (line I-J).would aim for the nominal shear value in the negative direction. and axis y parallel to the shear force axis. the slope of D-E is equal to the cracking shear force divided by the shear strain value at D minus the shear strain value at E. it is seen that the pinching in the y direction is equal to Vcr / Vn. the curve rejoins the strain hardening curve. At point J. Defining a coordinate system y and x. These values are formulated in the discussion referring to figure IV-13. there is again a significant reduction in stiffness as the only strength increase is due to strain hardening (curve F-G). the shear strain value at E is the negative cracking shear force value divide by the initial stiffness. At point I. there is a significant increase in stiffness as all the shear cracks have now closed. If reloading occurs during an unloading cycle before unloading has completed. From point E. point J. there is a further reduction in stiffness as now cracks have been formed in the positive and negative directions. At point F.

figure IV-13a. GAs. and the unknown shear strain. Vmax.N C. The shear strain at this intersection is labeled γ2. figure IV13b. the pinching in the x direction. γ*. two extreme cases of the slope of line H-I ( line H-I is defined in figure IV-12 ) can be defined. The first is the condition where V* is equal to a value which causes the line γn – V*. the pinching in the y direction.Vn Figure IV-12: Points Defining Shear Hysteretic Law To determine the relation between the pinching parameters in the x and y directions and V*. where γn is equal to the shear strain at the value of negative unloading ( equal to point H in figure IV-12). px.J K y + Vcr H E A . γmax.V. the initial shear stiffness. The second case is that in which V* is equal to the maximum previous shear force.Shear Strain x G F . Shear Force + Vn B M L. to intersect the unloading curve at the positive cracking shear value. at the point where the reloading curve changes slope ( point I in figure IV-13). py.Vcr I D γ . 69 . γp (point D in figure IV-12 ). Other values used in figures IV-13 a-c are the shear strain at positive unloading. The value γ1 is defined as the shear strain value of the point at which the γn-V* curve in figure IV-13b intersects the initial loading curve at a height equal to the positive cracking shear force. the maximum previous shear strain.

the pinching in the y direction is equal to the cracking shear force divided by the yield shear force.γ γ γ γ γ γ γ γ (γ −γ ) γ γ γ γ∗ γ γ γ Figure IV-13: Determining the Relationship of the Pinching Parameters to V* As shown in figure IV-13. and the previous maximum shear force.19) This substitution is shown in figure IV-13. after loading in the positive direction has exceeded the yield shear value. γmax. for small strain hardening ratios. γ2. the pinching in the y direction becomes: py = Vcr V ≈ cr → Vcr = pyVmax V y Vmax (IV. With the assumption that the maximum shear force and yield shear force are approximately equal for small strain hardening values. it is seen that the intermediate shear strain value. Because of the requirement that the first reloading curve in the negative direction. From figure IV-13a. must intersect the elastic curve at the negative cracking shear force value. Vmax as: 70 . the shear yield level is approximately equal to the maximum shear force attained. can be expressed as a function of the previous maximum shear strain.

by considering figure IV-13c. for small strain hardening becomes: γ y −γ1 = Vy GAs − py Vmax V V → γ y − γ 1 = max − py max GAs GAs GAs (IV. γ2. Vmax.20c) Considering similar triangles m-n-o and m-q-r in figure IV-13b gives for the intermediate shear strain. px must be determined as a function of known variables.γ2 =γ p + pyVmax GAs Vmax GAs (IV.24) 71 . γ1: Vmax pyVmax = γ max − γ n γ 1 − γ n (IV. can be expressed as a function of the maximum shear force. and the intermediate shear strain. γy. as a function of the unknown shear strain. px is an input parameter from which γ* is determined. Vy. γ*. px. an expression for the pinching parameter in the x direction. So. Vmax : γ max − γ 2 = Vmax V − py max GAs GAs (IV.21a) γ 1 = py (γ max − γ n ) + γ n (IV. referring to figure IV-13c. can be found: γ * = γ 1 + (γ 2 − γ 1 )px px = (IV. γ1. is that the difference between the maximum shear strain.22a) (IV.23) The same type of relation can also be written for the difference between the yield shear strain.22b) γ * −γ 1 γ 2 −γ1 In the numerical implementation of the V – γ law. The first thing that is noticed. and the intermediate shear strain value. which with using the approximation that the yield shear.20b) Vmax ( py − 1) GAs (IV. γmax.21b) Finally. is approximately equal to the maximum shear value.20a) γ p = γ max − γ 2 = γ max + (IV.

Vmax / GAs can be replaced by the yield shear strain. subtracting γ1.29 and IV.25 is the denominator in equation IV. or: γ p = −γ n (IV.22 b. γn.22b.30) 72 . a relation for the unknown shear strain value can be written as: pyVmax V* = γ max − γ n γ * −γ n (IV.23 into equation IV.27. A similar simplification for the numerator is needed.26b) Now. By considering similar triangles present in figure IV-13c.By substituting equation IV. as given by equation IV.20b into equation IV. then substituting equations IV.26a) γ* = pyVmax (γ max − γ n ) + γ n V* (IV.29) Substituting equation IV. To eliminate this value from the equation.25) Equation IV.22 gives the relation for the pinching parameter in the x direction.28) Substituting equations IV.27) This gives the numerator in equation IV.21b.28 and IV. an assumption will be made that the member is symmetric and that the negative unloading shear strain value is equal and opposite to the positive unloading shear strain value.29.12 for V* into equation IV. However the value of shear strain at which the negative unloading curve intersects the zero shear force axis. px:  c γ py (2γ max − γ y ) exp 1 max  γ   y  px = γ max − γ y    − 1     (IV. γy.24 and rearranging the terms gives: γ max − γ y = γ 2 − γ 1 (IV. The resulting relation is: V  γ * −γ 1 = py (2γ max − γ y ) max − 1 V*  (IV. is unknown. from each side gives: V  γ * −γ 1 = py (γ max − γ n ) max − 1 V*  (IV.25 into equation IV. along with noting that because the assumption is being made that the yield shear force is approximately equal to the maximum shear force.

These effects are shown in figure IV-14. both of these damage characteristics have the effect of increasing the previous maximum shear strain used in calculating values mentioned previously. In a cyclic loading lateral force vs. and lowering the ability of the concrete to dissipate energy in the shear hysteresis loops for increased cycles. attained in the cycle. as of yet. The shear law then. Cracks which have previously opened. lose some of their strength upon reclosing as the cracks will never fully attain their original uncracked configuration. There are two effects of damage. have not been mentioned. The maximum shear force attained in this loading cycle is decreased from Vmax in the undamaged graph to V in the damaged graph. These effects combine to increase the maximum shear strain. 73 . to that under curve q-r-s in the damaged graph. γmax. it loses the ability to achieve the nominal strength of the section as damage occurs in the concrete and in the bond with the steel. from that under curve q-r-s-t in the undamaged graph.The final theoretical values to be implemented into the hysteretic law are values which account for damage in the section due to cyclic loading. this damage has the effect of lowering the shear force achieved under a given shear strain for increased number of cycles of loading. and therefore the energy dissipated. In the hysteretic law implemented into FEAP. These values. the first effect is to lower the maximum resisting force of the section in the current load cycle. and the other is to narrow the hysteresis loop for the given cycle as the section loses the ability to dissipate energy. should account for these decreases in resistance due to damage. tip displacement curve. then. but will be explained in detail here. As a reinforced concrete section is cyclically loaded. Figure IV-14: Illustration of Damage In Shear Cyclic Loading γ γ γ γ γ γ It is seen in figure IV-14 that the effect of damage is to decrease the area under the hysteresis curve.

IV-C-3) Input Values for Actual Sections .32a) Where E is the elastic modulus of concrete and υ is Poisson’s ratio. px. The next thing that can be determined is the pinching parameter in the x direction. the pinching parameter in the y direction. This is determined by equation IV. Vn. The first value to be determined in generating the hysteretic curve is the yield shear force. The next value to be determined is the cracking shear force. The cracking shear force is given by equation IV. The elastic modulus of concrete can be obtained from ACI [1] as: E c = 57000 f '( psi ) c (IV.13 through IV. values for actual reinforced concrete sections must be determined.5 f 'Ae c Vc + V p + V s (IV. is determined from a modified version of equation IV.30.Shear Hysteretic Law Now that the theoretical values needed to generate the shear hysteretic law have been defined. is equal to the maximum shear strain. The shear modulus of concrete is given by: G= Ec 2(1 + υ ) (IV. From this value and the nominal shear of the section. py. divided by the yield shear strain. Vcr.19 as: py = Vcr Vn (IV. or: 74 . It has already been mentioned that here an assumption is being made that the yield shear force is approximately equal to the nominal shear of the section. µshr. γmax. but Nilson [10] def ines a value of 0. The shear ductility of the section. Vy.18.31a) which upon substitution of the previously derived equations becomes: py = 3.2 as appropriate.32b) Poisson’s ratio for concrete is hard to define. The elastic shear stiffness is the shear modulus of concrete multiplied by the shear area of the section.17. The nominal shear of the section is determined from equations IV.31b) The shear stiffness for the elastic section of the curve must be determined next. γy.

33 into equation IV. the ability of a section to develop shear ductility will be a function of the ratio of the total shear strain developed to the yield strain of the section. it can be seen that if all the concrete was damaged.33c) Substituting equations IV. the shear force ductility of a section can be approximated as: µ shr = Vc + V p + Vs Vc + V p (IV. So the new maximum shear strain. So. damage has the effect of lowering the shear force achieved under a given shear strain for increased number of cycles of loading. curve q-r-s in the damaged curve. γmax. to the elastic energy dissipated. Referring to figure IV-14. This is in agreement with concrete being a brittle material. However. and lowering the ability of the concrete to dissipate energy. it can be assumed that all the ductility in shear of the section comes from the shear reinforcement. the damage factor d2 is multiplied by the ratio of the total energy dissipated in the cycle. The damage factor d1 is multiplied by the ratio of the difference between the maximum shear strain and the yield shear strain to the yield shear strain of the section. for this ductility equation to be applicable. Let d1 be a parameter which accounts for the loss of section strength and d2 be a parameter which accounts for the loss of the ability of the section to dissipate energy. Remembering that concrete is a brittle material.33a. γmax is: γ max = µ shrγ y (IV.µ shr = γ max γy (IV.33a) So. otherwise the increase in shear reinforcement would not increase the ductility of the section because the concrete would fail first still causing a brittle failure. the section must be designed to yield the shear reinforcement before failing the concrete in shear.30 yields a useful value for the pinching parameter in the x direction composed of all known section values. As was mentioned above. both the ability of the section to resist shear force and dissipate energy would be reliant on the shear reinforcement. From equation IV. the ductility of the section is equal to unity.33b) Which is to say that if there is no shear reinforcement. The last values which must be determined are parameters which account for damage. given by the hysteretic law is: 75 . curve m-n-o in the undamaged curve. With reference to figure IV-14.

Edissipated is the area under curve q-r-s in the damaged curve of figure IV-14. increasing the maximum shear strain developed in the section.34) Where γpmax is the maximum shear strain in the previous cycle. One of the main limitations on the shear element formulation developed here is the uncoupling of the axial – flexural responses from shear response on the section level. relating the maximum shear strain to concrete’s brittle behavior. and extent of the shear diagonal tension cracks depends on the flexural stresses as well as the shear stresses. γ max − γ y E dissipated γ max = γ p max 1 + d1 + d2  γy E elastic      (IV. which are due to both flexure and shear. orientation. perpendicular to the member axis. which corresponds to the high ductility of steel. As was mentioned above. if all the concrete was damaged. These cracks propagate into the member and rotate in line with the principle tensile stresses. As was mentioned early on in the formulation. The flexural cracks form on the tension side of the member. On the other hand. the responses are coupled at the element level but at the section level the shear response is independent of axial – flexural response. It is seen that the increase in the maximum shear strain due to damage is a function of the ability of the section to develop ductility and to dissipate energy in the inelastic range. the damage factors would be small. or: d1 = d 2 = Vs Vc + V p (IV. the location. the damage factors would be large. these abilities would be purely up to the shear reinforcement. if a large part of the shear resistance came from the steel. and Eelastic is the area under curve m-n-o in the undamaged curve of figure IV-14. From this statement the damage factors can be approximated as the ratio of the steel shear resistance to that of the concrete. if a large part of the shear resistance was provided by the concrete. Extension of the fiber section model to include shear 76 . To account for this. where only flexural stresses are present. Clearly. IV-D) Observations on Element Shear Response Formulation The proposed V – γ law is an easy to implement procedure to introduce nonlinear shear deformations in a Reinforced Concrete beam element.35) Qualitatively. This is definitely not the case in real structures as shear diagonal tension cracks are related to flexural cracks. a coupled constitutive law should be implemented.

however. may become quite complex. the hysteretic law implemented here is sufficient for use with the Pushover Analysis (as will be shown in subsequent chapters). In short. 77 . and low computational cost that make it applicable to the study of entire Reinforced Concrete Structures. The main advantages of the approach suggested in this work are its simplicity. the effect it will have on the Pushover Analysis is negligible because the loads are monotonically increased and there is no deterioration in strength of the member as is exhibited with cyclic loading. The initial stiffness of the member and the maximum shear strength it obtains will determine its Pushover response. This bi – linear relation will not capture the reduction in strength as the member begins to fail in shear as will be shown in the next chapter when the numerical results are compared with test results. while modifications should be made to better describe the shear cyclic response necessary for dynamic analysis. Reinforced concrete is a highly non – linear material even for low loads. The law implemented here assumes a bi – linear relation for the material. most importantly. very time consuming. and. The piecewise linearity is another limitation of the law implemented.deformations is being studied. While this may have some effect on the accuracy of the law when analyzing cyclic loading. Such laws. ease of implementation.

CHAPTER V NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OF PROPOSED SHEAR MODEL

The shear element formulation derived in chapter IV, along with the shear hysteretic law implemented into FEAP, is verified here by modeling scaled Reinforced Concrete bridge piers tested at the University of California at San Diego, UCSD (Xiao et al [18] ). The ability of the proposed model to

capture shear dominated response is of interest here, so the accuracy of the shear formulation will be determined with respect to test data for columns failing in shear. Six large scale, short columns were tested at UCSD, three as built columns, and three columns retrofitted with elliptical steel jackets. The two as built columns that failed in shear, labeled test column R-3 and test column R-5, will be considered here. V-A) Column Dimensions and Testing Conditions The test columns were designed and built based on scale models of prototype columns, designed according to mid 1960’s construction practice. Test dimensions for the two as built test columns R-3 and R-5 are shown in figure V-1. The columns were designed to achieve complete fixity at each end, and while this part of the testing apparatus is not shown, the resulting support conditions are shown in the figure. Each of the columns used Grade 60 longitudinal steel, Grade 40 transverse stirrups, and 5 ksi concrete, nominally. The axial load on each column was 114 kips and the aspect ratios ( M/VD in equations IV.15 and IV.16) for column R-3 and R-5 were 2 and 1.5, respectively. These design details are listed in table V1. The nominal strengths for the longitudinal steel, transverse stirrups, and concrete are replaced by the actual tested values in the table. A lateral, cyclic, symmetric load was applied to the top of each column in the push and pull directions. The loading consisted of force control up to the first yield of the longitudinal steel, followed by displacement control in increments of increasing ductility as shown in figure V-2.

78

Figure V-1: Dimensions of Test Columns R-3 and R-5

Table V-1: Experimental Design Properties Column R-3 R-5 Concrete Strength (ksi) 4.95 4.75 Longitudinal Steel Yield (ksi) 68.1 68.1 Stirrup Yield (ksi) 47.0 47.0 Aspect Ratio (M/VD) 2 1.5 Axial Load (kips) 114 114

µ=3 µ=1 µ = 1.5 µ=2

Figure V-2: Experimental Loading Procedure

79

V-B) Design Shear Strength The design shear resistance of each column will be computed here based on Priestley et al’s equations (equation IV.13 – IV.17). These values are already included in Xiao et al [18], however, because the shear law developed is for use in a design office, the procedure to calculate these values is as important as the values themselves. The experimental report gives no procedure for calculating the values needed in Priestley et al’s equation, so one method will be detailed here and the resulting shear strength found for each column will be compared to the values obtained experimentally. The concrete shear contribution, equation IV.14, and increased shear resistance due to axial load, equation IV.15, for use in Priestley’s equation, equation IV.13, depend on the flexural response of the section in that the concrete shear contribution depends on the rotational ductility of the section and the increased shear resistance due to axial load depends on the depth of the flexural compression block at its ultimate flexural strength. The determination of the rotational ductility of each section requires a Moment – Curvature relation, which, because of the complex longitudinal steel configuration in each column, will be obtained through the utilization of a fiber discretization of the section. Because the rotational ductility requires the definition of the curvature at yield and the curvature at the maximum flexural strength ( i.e. rotational ductility equals curvature at maximum flexural strength divided by curvature at yield), a direct byproduct of this formulation will be the depth of the flexural compression block at the sections ultimate flexural strength. The fiber discretization divides the section into concrete fibers and steel fibers as shown in figure V-3. As can be seen, the section is divided into twenty concrete fibers and eight steel fibers. The location of the centroid of the concrete or steel fiber is measured from the top of the section as denoted by yci or ysi for the concrete or steel fiber, respectively, with i ranging from 1 to 20 for concrete and 1 to 8 for steel. The areas of each concrete fiber are equal to the total area of the section divided by the number of concrete fibers, denoted by Ac in figure V-3, and the steel areas are equal to five #6 bars for As1, and two #6 bars for As2. Also shown in figure V-3 is the qualitative strain distribution assumed in the section. In the figure, εtop is equal to the strain at the top of the section, εci is equal to the strain in the concrete fiber i,

εsi is equal to the strain in the steel fiber i, c equals the location of the neutral axis, and κ is the curvature of
the section.

80

given a strain at the top of the section.1a) ε top (c − y si ) c (V. This value can be found through equilibrium. The only parameter left unavailable is the location of the neutral axis. c. The law defines a stress – strain relation as: 81 .2 are as defined above. given its strain value.1 and V. will be determined through the Saenz concrete law with a linear tensile portion included. ε ci = ε si = ε top (c − y ci ) c (V. First. The stress at a concrete section. the stress at a given concrete or steel section must be defined. however. the strain at any yci or ysi location can be found by similar triangles.ε ε κ ε Figure V-3: Section Fiber Discretization and Strain Distribution By specifying the strain in the top of the section.1b) The curvature of the section can be related to the top strain and location of the neutral axis by: κ= ε top c (V. and considering tensile strains negative.2) Where all values in equations V.

an elastic perfectly plastic law is used with initial stiffness equal to 29000 ksi.002 0 0.3d) In equations V.3c)  f'  c  −1   ε cf ε  f cf C = E0 c  − 2 f '   ε cf c   εc   ε − 1      c (V. Normalized Stress f / f'c 1.4) The Saenz concrete law shown in figure V-4. fcf is equal to 85% of f’c. For the steel stress – strain relation.2 1 0.3. f’c is the compressive strength of concrete. The tensile portion of the law is linear elastic with stiffness equal to the initial stiffness of the concrete up to the concrete rupture stress. The rupture stress is given by ACI [1] as: f r = 7.0035.0025.3b) (V. and ε is the strain in the concrete section under consideration. εcf is equal to 0.3a)  ε  A = C + E0  c  − 2  f '  c B = 1 − 2C (V.4 0.004 0. εc is equal to 0.32b.002 Strain (in/in) Figure V-4: Normalized Saenz Concrete Curve 0.006 82 .6 0.8 0.2 -0.2 0 -0.   σ = E0 ε *   ε  1 + A ε  c     1  2 3  ε  ε    + B  + C     ε  ε    c  c  (V. fr.5 f ' ( psi ) c (V. E0 is equal to the initial elastic stiffness of concrete which is given by ACI [1] and was detailed in equation IV.

(V. f’c .5) Where D is the section depth. of the flexural compression block can be found from: a = β 1c Where β1 varies with concrete compressive strength. By applying this procedure to many different implied εtop values. the resulting forces must add up to the applied axial load or 114 kips in this case. the depth. a. equal to 24” in this case.005 from the experimental data ). c relating to the implied εtop can be found giving the moment – curvature relation at this strain. and the steel stress can be found from its elastic perfectly plastic relation.6) Applying this procedure to both test columns R-3 and R-5. 83 . To find the section neutral axis location. The moment value obtained when εtop is equal to εcu. The section resisting moment can be found with respect to its centroid by multiplying the force in each fiber by that fiber’s centroidal distance to the section centroid and summing these moments over all the concrete and steel fibers or: M sec = numfib i =1 ∑σ i D  Ai  − y i  2  (V. is the maximum resisting moment of the section. and varying the top strain of the section. yields the complete Moment – Curvature responses for both sections. the force in each fiber can be found by multiplying its stress by its area. the crushing strain of the concrete (εcu is equal to 0. From the neutral axis depth at this maximum moment value. These responses are shown for column R-3 and R-5 in figures V-5 and V-6 respectively. With this requirement. (Nilson [11]). the complete moment curvature relation for the section can be found.Now that the concrete stress in a fiber can be found from its strain based on the above curve. c.

000559 (rad / in) Figure V-6: Moment – Curvature Response for Column R-5 84 .0003 0.0003 0.0008 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0009 Curvature (rad/in) Equivalent Elastic Perfectly Plastic κ yield = 0.0004 0.000575 (rad / in) Figure V-5: Moment – Curvature Response for Column R-3 8000 Area B 7000 6000 Moment (kip .0001 0.8000 Area B 7000 6000 Moment (kip .0008 0.0006 0.in) Area A 5000 Moment .0001 0.Curvature 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0.0007 0.000245 (rad / in) κ at max M = 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0007 0.0009 Curvature (rad/in) Equivalent Elastic Perfectly Plastic κ yield = 0.in) Area A 5000 Moment .Curvature 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0.000245 (rad / in) κ at max M = 0.

Vp is the increase in shear capacity through arching action provided by an axial load . The concrete shear contribution is given by equation IV. f’c . This is because the two sections are nearly identical. The rotational ductility.5 compared to 2 for column R-3. The areas between the actual Moment – Curvature response and the equivalent response. column R-5 has an aspect ratio of 1. the shear strength of the section can be calculated based on Priestley et al’s equation. the only difference being a small change in concrete compressive strength.14. k factor. one instantly notices that they are almost identical. the rotational ductility of the section can be found by dividing the curvature associated with the maximum moment of the section by that associated with the yield moment of the equivalent system. and effective area for each section 85 . These values are shown in the following tables. As mentioned previously. must be equal.13) is repeated here for convenience: Vn = Vc + V p + Vs (V. and the factor k varies with rotational ductility as shown in figure IV-10. µ. repeated here as: Vc = k f 'Ae c (V.When looking at figures V-5 and V-6. Also detailed in the figures are the equivalent elastic perfectly plastic responses for each section used to calculate the rotational ductility. With this restriction. is a natural by – product of this formulation. concrete compressive strength.7) Where Vn is equal to the nominal shear strength of the section. Vc is the concrete shear contribution. consisting primarily of aggregate interlock and dowel action of the flexural reinforcement. However. the depth of the concrete compression block at the ultimate strength of the section.8) Where f’ c is the compressive strength of the concrete. This is used in the calculation of the increase in shear strength due to an applied axial load and will have a bearing on the shear strength of the section. Priestley et al’s equation (equation IV. The elastic perfectly plastic response is based on equal energy absorption. Now that the rotational ductility and depth of the concrete compression block have been found for each section. corresponding to the point of maximum curvature (corresponding to εcu = 0.005 from experimental data). and Vs is the shear carried by transverse stirrups through a truss mechanism. labeled Area A and Area B. Ae is the effective area of the section approximated as 80% of the gross concrete area.

14 M / VD 2. Table V-2: Calculated Concrete Shear Contribution Column R-3 R-5 f’c (psi) 4950 4750 µ 2.17 as: Vs = Av f yh D' cot θ s (V. These values are shown in table V-3. The axial load for each column is 114 kips and the aspect ration.3 The increase in shear resistance due to an applied axial load is defined in equation IV.6 29. and a is the depth of the flexural compression block. of columns R-3 and R-5 are 2 and 1. M/VD.94 5.5 P (kips) 114 114 Vp (kips) 22.18 Ae (in2) 307. Table V-3: Shear Strength Due to Applied Axial Load Column R-3 R-5 D (in) 24 24 a (in) 4. the shear contribution of the transverse steel can be determined.2 Vc (kips) 67.10) 86 . The depth of the flexural compression block is determined from the Moment – Curvature relation as described above.5 respectively.0 1. also shown in table V-2.34 2.28 k 3.are shown in table V-2. D is the depth of the member. can be calculated for each column.11 3.15 as: Vp = D−a Pu 2 D( M / VD) (V. With these values known. the concrete contribution to shear resistance.9) Where Pu is the applied axial load. This was given in equation IV.9 Lastly.2 67. The value of D for each column is shown in figure V-1.2 307.

4 Vsexp (kips) 34. These values can then be compared to the experimental values. The calculated shear strengths and the comparisons with the experimental values are shown in table V-5. Another reason for the discrepancies could be the determination of the rotational ductility since the equal area method is approximate.2 Vc + Vp (kips) 89. Table V-4: Transverse Steel Shear Contribution Column R-3 R-5 Av (in2) 0. and θ is equal to 30o for Priestley’s equations.098 0.The value Av is equal to the area of the transverse reinforcement.0 D’ (in) 22. fyh is the yielding stress of the transverse reinforcement.2 Now that all the individual values have been determined. they can be added to obtain the nominal shear strength for each column. and Vtexp is the total experimental shear strength of each column. However. These values are shown in table V-4. in comparison with other procedures as given by Xiao et al. s is the spacing of the transverse reinforcement.2 35.0 22.7 Vcexp (kips) 106. Vsexp is the experimental steel contribution.2. One reason for the discrepancies is that the stress – strain relation did not take into consideration the confining effect of the transverse reinforcement.8 97.1 127. In the figure.3 Vtexp (kips) 141 168 Vtexp / Vn 1.0 5.2 Vn (kips) 125 132.9 40.27 R-3 R-5 Table V-5 clearly shows that the calculation procedure is conservative and underestimates the nominal shear strength of the section with an average Vtexp / Vn of 1.0 47.2 35. For a more accurate outcome. Table V-5: Numerical and Experimental Shear Strengths Col Vs (kips) 35. D’ is the distance between the centers of the peripheral hoop as shown in figure V-1. the calculated values 87 .13 1.0 s (in) 5. Vcexp is the experimental concrete shear contribution.0 Vs (kips) 35.098 fyh (ksi) 47. a stress – strain law for confined concrete could be used.

605 1. py.885 0.03 (The values calculated above were based on the Moment – Curvature relation which utilized a concrete crushing strain of 0.85 factor mentioned in chapter IV.6 513318 0. This was given by equation IV. The resulting values for columns R-3 and R-5 are shown in table V-6. the numerical response history based on the implemented hysteretic law can be obtained. an assumed εcu of 0. the remaining values for the hysteretic law can be determined.11) With the calculation of the cracking shear force.39 0. d1 and d2.30 to IV.95 125 75.36 0. and the 0. These are the pinching parameter in the y direction. These parameters were developed in chapter IV and are detailed in equations IV.362 0.1 502848 0. Vcr.are very close to the experimental values. the pinching parameter in the x direction. Table V-6: Hysteretic Input Values – Column R-3 and R-5 R-3 f’c (ksi) Vn (kips) Vcr (kips) GAe (kips) py 4. which is a function of the shear ductility. µshr . the initial shear stiffness. Other procedures are given by various codes and the average Vtexp / Vn varies from 1.362 µshr px d1 d2 88 .and the damage factors. px.18 as: Vcr = 3.836 0.005 in/in based on the experimental data). Some additional parameters must first be calculated from the shear strength equation components.4 to 2. GAe .5 f ' Ae c (V.35. V-C) Numerical vs. Experimental Column Response Now that the shear strength of each column has been calculated.75 132 74.560 1.003.392 R-5 4. would further increase the conservatism of the formulation. In new design. The first thing that needs to be calculated is the cracking shear force.392 0.

Also. the hysteretic law implemented is not capable of capturing the softening effect (from the opening of large shear diagonal cracks) apparent in the experimental data.With the parameters for the shear hysteretic law developed. the numerical analysis can be performed on both columns for comparison with the experimental data. and these depend on the maximum previous shear strain. While the overall shape of the response is satisfactory. however. however there are large discrepancies between the experimental and numerical results once the peak lateral force has been exceeded. 89 . The program does not allow a change from displacement control to force control in the same analysis. The question. Further. because the degradation of shear resistance depends on the damage parameters and the pinching parameters. arises as to whether the law can be used accurately for the Pushover Analysis. the combination of increased pinching and reduced shear resistance once the peak lateral force has been exceeded is missed by the numerical analysis. Namely. some important response aspects are neglected. The loading procedure used in the numerical analysis will be a little different than that used in the experimental procedure because of the limitations of the FEAP proportional loading command. only one cycle will be performed at each ductility level. It can be seen from these figures that the numerical response from the hysteretic law implemented matches the experimental results well in capturing the initial stiffness and the maximum shear resistance of the columns.5 µ=2 Figure V-7: Loading Procedure for Numerical Analysis The results of the Numerical Analysis for columns R-3 and R-5 are shown in figure V-8 and V-9 respectively. ∆ µ = 1 µ = 1. The loading history used in the numerical analysis is shown in figure V-7. So. there is no degradation for repeated loading cycles with the same ductility value.

5 Experimental Numerical -1 -0.200 150 100 Lateral Force (kips) 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 2 Top Displacement (in) Experimental Numerical Figure V-8: Numerical and Experimental Results – Column R-3 200 150 100 Lateral Force (kips) 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Top Displacement (in) Figure V-9: Numerical and Experimental Results – Column R-5 90 .5 1 1.

this type of loading will be applied to both column R-3 and R-5 for comparison to the experimental result envelopes.To determine how well the law implemented applies to members subject to monotonically increased loads such as those defined by the Pushover Analysis.5 1 1.5 2 Top Displacement (in) Figure V-11: Monotonically Increasing Loads and Experimental Results – Column R-5 91 . 200 150 100 Lateral Force (kips) 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -2 -1.5 Experimental Numerical -1 -0.5 1 1. The resulting plots are shown in figure V-10 and V-11 for columns R-3 and R-5 respectively.5 0 0.5 -1 -0.5 2 Top Displacement (in) Experimental Numerical Figure V-10: Monotonically Increasing Loads and Experimental Results – Column R-3 200 150 100 Lateral Force (kips) 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -1.5 0 0.

it is accurate enough for the Pushover Analysis as it captures the initial stiffness of the structure and the maximum resisting shear that was calculated above with the underestimation shown in table V-5. while the axial – flexural and shear responses are uncoupled at the section level. but are coupled on the element level. 92 . This is a definite draw back of the hysteretic law. one thing to note is that the displacement controlled loading shown in the figures could have increased forever without the section ever losing its shear resistance. both columns were divided into five Guass – Lobatto integration points as shown in figure V-12. This is illustrated by plotting the Moment – Curvature response and the Shear Force – Shear Strain response for column R-3 at different sections. This corresponds to the column failing in shear which agrees with the experimental data. Using the cyclic load analysis results for column R-3. For the numerical analysis. it can be seen that while the hysteretic law implemented misses some important information in comparison with the experimental results for cyclic loads. Mentioned in chapter IV was the fact that the shear deformations are uncoupled with the axial – flexural deformations on the section level. Further it is seen that the shear response of the element controls the total response as a clear yielding point is recognized while the Moment – Curvature response remains basically elastic. coupling (through equilibrium) at the element level ensures that the element response will be controlled by the minimum of the individual components. From figure V-13 it is seen that the Shear Force – Shear Strain response of sections one and two are equal corresponding to constant shear along the element. However. the engineer has a relation to obtain the maximum displacement the structure would be able to undergo. it is seen in figure V-14 that the Moment – Curvature response of the sections one and two vary slightly corresponding to the linear moment distribution along the element. the maximum strength available in the section will depend on the minimum of the individual components. axial – flexural or shear. This corresponds to reality in that the maximum strength of a member will depend on its weakest component.e. Since the moment and shear responses are linked through equilibrium on the element level. So. however since the shear ductility was calculated above. i.From figures V-10 and V-11.

0001 0 0.0002 Section 1 Moment.0002 0 0.01 Section 1 Shear Strain. γ 0. M -0.01 0 0. V 100 50 0 -50 150 Section 2 Shear Force. κ 0.02 Figure V-13: Shear Force vs.Figure V-12: Section Locations of Columns for Numerical Analysis 150 Section 1 Shear Force. M Section 2 Moment.02 -0. Sections 1 and 2 93 . V 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -0.0004 -0.0002 Figure V-14: Moment vs. Sections 1 and 2 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2000 -4000 -6000 -8000 -0.02 -100 -150 -0.01 Section 2 Shear Strain.0001 Section 2 Curvature.01 0 0. Shear Strain Column R-3.0002 Section 1 Curvature. κ 0. γ 0.02 -0. Curvature Column R-3.0004 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 -5000 -0.

Also. but under cyclic loading the deterioration of the lateral force resistance and the increase in section pinching is missed. the coupling of these responses on the element level causes element response to be controlled by the weakest of the components.V-D) Conclusions The accuracy of the shear law. The use of Priestley et al’s [18] equ ations for the determination of the initial parameters required for the hysteretic law required the quantification of the section rotational ductility and compression block depth at the ultimate strength of each column section. presented in chapter IV. such as those enforced by the Pushover Analysis. One method to accomplish this was detailed in that the complete Moment – Curvature response of each column was obtained. it is accurate. was determined through the comparison of numerical results and experimental results of columns failing in shear tested at the University of California at San Diego. the numerical analysis could be performed. for monotonically increasing loads. though the shear response of the element is uncoupled from the axial – flexural response on the section level. 94 . that while this law is not appropriate for cyclic loads for the reasons mentioned above. It was further shown. It was shown that the numerical analysis captures the initial stiffness and maximum lateral force resistance of each section. Once these necessary values were obtained.

close agreement between the Pushover and Dynamic Analyses is expected. while the structural walls must carry the entire lateral force. 95 . and third periods for the wall. So. In this way. However. VI-A) Wall Configuration The wall under consideration is part of the lateral force resisting system in a nine story reinforced concrete building. columns often assist in carrying the gravity loads. the mass allocated to a particular wall can be different from the vertical loads it must support divided by the gravitational constant. The wall to be analyzed is shown in figure VI-1. the Pushover Analysis Procedure was explained. The first thing that one notices is that the fundamental period of the structure is much longer than the second and third periods. Applications of the Pushover Analysis were illustrated. the total dead load and the applicable live load made up the mass on the frame and also made up the gravity load applied to the frame. and the accuracy of this relation was determined. while the gravity loads on the structure are divided among the structural walls and columns according to tributary width. the nominal shear strength of the wall will be reduced to illustrate the coupling of flexural and shear response at the element level to satisfy equilibrium. Another issue to point out is the calculation of the mass used in the determination of these periods. all of the previous information will be combined to perform the Pushover Analysis on an actual shear wall structure under construction. when the periods for the three moment resisting frames were calculated. second. the entire mass of the building is divided among the structural walls. In this chapter. With this and arguments developed in previous chapters in mind. Lastly. in the case of a lateral force resisting system composed of structural walls. A complete non linear dynamic analysis will be performed on the structure and the results of the two analyses will be compared. and it is smaller than the fundamental period of the six story frame analyzed in chapter III. Also shown in figure VI-1 are the fundamental.CHAPTER VI SHEAR WALL EXAMPLE In the previous chapters. In chapter III. a relation for shear deformations in Reinforced Concrete was developed.

8" 0' .140 Figure VI-1: Dimensions of Structural Wall With Periods Shown 96 .0" 39' .0" Fundamental Period (s) 0.973 Second Period (s) 0.4" 58' .187 Third Period (s) 0.10" 30' .2" 49' .8" 20' .0" -9' .8" 10' .76' .6" 67' .

The gravity loads applicable to the structure can be obtained from equation III. The loads to be applied during the Pushover Analysis are shown in figure VI-2. and a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 year event will be considered. and the fundamental period shown in figure VI-1.11 and in table III-6. the wall will be analyzed as if it were located in the Los Angeles. That is.VI-B) Performing the Pushover Analysis on the Shear Wall The structural wall analyzed here will be subject to the same Pushover Analysis and non linear dynamic analysis conditions as the frames analyzed in chapter III. and 40 psf for floors four through to the roof. California area. the vertical distribution of lateral loads for use in the Pushover analysis can be obtained as detailed in equation III. With these conditions. Figure VI-2: Gravity Loads and Cvx Loading Coefficients – Shear Wall 97 . with five percent structural damping. on stiff soil. The self weight of the wall must also be included in the dead load.10 where the typical dead load is 125 psf for all floors and the typical live load is 50 psf for the first three floors.

The Rayleigh damping parameters will be determined from the first and second periods of the shear wall shown in figure VI-1 using the relations of equations III. It can be seen from the figure that the Target Displacement is 14 in. for a Base Shear Yield Value. that this result matches well with that predicted from the Pushover Analysis. Roof Displacement with Target Displacement for Shear Wall VI-C) Complete Non – Linear Dynamic Analysis for the Shear Wall The full non – linear dynamic analysis will now be run on the shear wall.With the above loads determined. and Ke = 142 kips /in. 98 . This enforces once again the accuracy of the Pushover Analysis for shorter period structures. 5% structural damping will be considered for the shear wall. The results of this analysis are shown in figure VI-3.6 Vy = 195 k δt = 14 in αKe = 2. of 325 kips.7 kip / in Original Curve Figure VI-3: Base Shear vs.14. This agreement was foreseen from the fact that the fundamental period of this structure was much greater than the second and third periods. The dynamic loading will be the same El Centro ground motion that was used in chapter III and illustrated in figure III-17. can be performed on the shear wall. Also seen in the figure are Ki = 178 kips /in. as explained in chapter II and detailed in chapter III. To be consistent with the Pushover Analysis. Vy. It is seen from looking at the maximum and minimum displacements at the roof of the structure. It was also noted that this structure’s fundamental period was shorter than that corresponding to the six story frame analyzed in chapter III. the Pushover Analysis. 400 Ki = 178 kip / in 350 300 Base Shear (kips) 250 Ke = 142 kip / in 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Roof Displacement (in) Vy = 325 k 0. The time history of the roof displacement for the structural wall under consideration is shown if figure VI-4.

the second and third periods being as short as they are fall in a range of reduced 99 . This can further be understood by looking at the frequency content of the ground motion used as shown in figure III-25.3 in -20 Time (s) Figure VI-4: Dynamic Roof Displacement for Shear Wall VI-D) Comparisons of Pushover and Dynamic Analyses Just as the reasons for the well corresponding results for the six story frame analysis. The structure under consideration was designed for a Denver. 10 Max Disp = 5. Obviously it was not designed for these high seismic loads and that is apparent in its poor structural response. It has already been mentioned that the Target displacement determined from the Pushover Analysis was expected to match the maximum or minimum dynamic roof displacement well because of the short fundamental period of the structure and the large difference between the first and second periods of the structure. It is seen that the fundamental period of this wall lies directly in the range of maximum amplification from the ground motion. but about its permanent deformation. Also. or the poorly matching results for the twelve and twenty story frame analyses performed in chapter III were quantified. After the minimum displacement has been reached. the results obtained for the structural wall will now be explained.Another interesting thing to note about figure VI-4 is that the structure’s roof displacement plot shows permanent deformation.88 in 5 Roof Displacement (in) 0 0 -5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -10 -15 Min Disp = -14. the structure no longer oscillates about the zero displacement axis. CO site which falls under UBC earthquake zone 1.

The ‘VVSD’ macro command reads the element data from the element files specified with ‘PUSH’ and created with the existing frame analysis command ‘SENS’. the shear element formulation. including the shear hysteretic law which was added to FEAP. node 7 in figure AI-1.APPENDIX I MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM FEAP TO PERFORM NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS In the preceding chapters the procedure to perform the Pushover Analysis was explained and the formulations to include shear deformations in this analysis were illustrated. These are the mesh command ‘PUSH’ and the macro execution command ‘VVSD’. In this chapter. the modifications made to the Finite Element Analysis Program (FEAP). roof displacement plot for the structure. Since each element output file created by the 106 . The roof displacement for this six story frame will be measured at the left hand side of the structure. The Pushover Analysis depends on the base shear vs. will be described in detail with reference to the six story moment resisting frame analyzed in chapter III. In chapter V. was thoroughly detailed. The ‘PUSH’ mesh command reads all of the input variables necessary to perform the analysis. developed by Professor Taylor at the University of California at Berkeley [16]. AI-A-1) ‘PUSH’ Mesh Command The new mesh command. In chapter IV. a procedure for determining the values needed for the V – γ constitutive relation was outlined. To perform the Pushover Analysis as described in chapter II. The element and node numbers for this frame shown in figure III-12 are reproduced here as figure AI-1. FEAP must be able to monotonically increase a specified vertical distribution of lateral loads. and calculate the target displacement based on the seismic event. The commands ‘PUSH’ and ‘VVSD’ are explained in detail below. ‘PUSH’. In this chapter the input commands to bring the law and section values together will be discussed. AI-A) FEAP Pushover Routines The Pushover Analysis is performed in FEAP through two user commands. to accomplish these tasks will be explained. plot structural base shear vs. roof displacement.

e. The base shear for the structure is the sum of the shear forces in the elements which are restrained. If generation is used. The support conditions are not shown in the figure. five lines of input commands are required. the second parameter in the first line of commands is equal to 0. Line three has the number of base shear elements to read. If generation is not used. i. the displacement element generation. The first line has three parameters. This line could have one parameter or many parameters depending on whether generation is used or not. elements 1 through 6. i. Figure AI-1: Element and Node Numbers – Six Story Frame FEAP commands located in the input file are always four letter command names. i. but they are complete fixity at nodes 1. those elements used to calculate roof displacement.e.e. and 13 in figure AI-1. then only the first displacement element to be read is listed. In the following description. all displacement elements to be read are listed. They are the number of displacement elements to read.command ‘SENS’ includes relative displacements. For this mesh command. The elements used to calculate base shear. In this case that is ‘PUSH’. and the displacement element increment. and 15. elements 1 through 6 in this example. will be referred to as base shear elements. the roof displacement is the sum of the columns. on the left side of the structure. 8. elements 1. elements 1. The third and fourth lines are the base shear element counterparts of the first and second line for the displacement elements. This is followed by the command parameters. the base shear element generation. i. The second line consists of the displacement element numbers to read. 7. 7. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 and 13. and the base shear element generation increment 107 . will be referred to as displacement elements.e. the second parameter in the first line of commands is equal to 1.

The remaining values necessary to compute the Target Displacement are functions of these values and are calculated internally. are listed in table III-9 and only their variable values are listed here. and line four has the element numbers to read for the base shear calculation if generation is not used. the independent parameters for the calculation of the Target Displacement.e. C2. T0. the modification factor that relates spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement. R. the modification factor that represents the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response of the structure. The values for the fifth command line for the mesh command ‘PUSH’. i. These values were thoroughly detailed in chapter two. Command line five has the seven independent values necessary to compute the Target Displacement. and has the first base shear element to read if generation is used. the ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength coefficient. Sa. 108 .as its parameters. push # of displacement elements displacement element generation displacement element generation increment displacement element numbers # of base shear elements base shear element generation base shear element generation increment base shear element numbers Vy Sa C0 R T0 C2 g Figure AI-2: Input Parameters for Mesh Command ‘PUSH’ To clarify the displacement element and base shear element input commands the parameters for these input commands will be listed for the six story frame example. the characteristic period of the response spectrum. Vy. These are the base shear yield value. C0. and the gravitational constant. The command lines are shown in figure AI-2. the spectral response acceleration. The gravitational constant must be input because units may change for each problem being analyzed. These are shown in figure AI-3 for both the case of generation and no generation. g.

If either of these two conditions are not met. the generation increment must be specified. the increment is equal to one and the first element to be read is equal to one. which is the generation increment. the base shear and displacement elements to be read must be specified in this file. is also zero. When specifying no generation. the third parameter in each of these rows. In the case with generation. Also.push 6 0 0 123456 3 0 0 1 7 13 Vy Sa C0 R T0 C2 g Generation Not Used push 6 1 1 1 3 1 6 1 Vy Sa C0 R T0 C2 g With Generation Figure AI-3: ‘PUSH’ Input for Six Story Frame Example It is seen from figure AI-3 that for the case when generation is not used. the FEAP program stops with an error code “ERROR: Not enough values in line five of mesh command ‘PUSH’ (zero values not allowed)”. With these parameters. The elements to be read subsequently are generated according to the increment and the total number of elements specified to be read. If this condition is not met. The command line number five for ‘PUSH’ must include exactly seven parameters with no zeros. 7. In the displacement element case. Because of this. the second parameter in the first and third rows are set to one. the base shear elements are generated as elements 1. the second and third parameters in the first command row and the third command row are zero. the generation increment is equal to six and the first element is equal to one. 109 . the FEAP program stops with an error code “ERROR: elements in ‘PUSH’ for displacement must be included in ‘SENS’ ” if a displacement element file can not be found or “ERROR: elements in ‘PUSH’ for shear must be included in ‘SENS’ ” if a base shear element file can not be found. Because the element responses are read from the element files created by mesh command ‘SENS’. In the base shear element case. The first zero in each of these rows specifies that generation will not be used and therefore. and 13. along with the total number of base shear elements being equal to six. the ‘PUSH’ command must be located somewhere after the ‘SENS’ command. all elements that are to be read must be entered.

and the Pushover Analysis has been run on the structure. These values are illustrated in figure II-10. of the structure can be found from the stiffness of the base shear vs. It should be noted that if the total number of analysis time steps is less than 24.1a) if n < 24 then K i = (AI. there may be errors in the computed initial stiffness. the initial stiffness of the structure is found. The initial stiffness.AI-A-2) ‘VVSD’ Macro Command Once the parameters have been input using the ‘PUSH’ command. Because the initial loading may be caused by gravity loads and the initial load increment may be extremely small. Ke. and rotations and moments in the global x. Ki. By dividing the base shear value at a particular instant by the corresponding roof displacement at that instant. and the procedure used to calculate them from the ‘VVSD’ macro command will be described below. the Target Displacement is determined using the ‘VVSD’ macro command. the total base shear vs. The data written to the element files by the mesh command ‘SENS’ include time. and z directions. of the structure can be determined. along with the post yield stiffness. Ki. From this base shear vs. and z directions. the first ten values of base shear and roof displacement are bypassed and the average of the next 15 values of base shear divided by roof displacement are taken as the initial stiffness. roof displacement plot for the structure can be determined. This command reads the data from the files specified in ‘PUSH’ and created by ‘SENS’. y. So. In this manner. forces and displacements in the global x. the last value of base shear divided by the last value of roof displacement is taken as the initial stiffness. 110 . the initial stiffness. If the total number of analysis pseudo time steps is less than the required 24 steps to determine the initial stiffness by the previously mentioned method. and n is the number of analysis steps. the relative displacement or shear force for each element can be read and these are added to get the total response. roof displacement curve at the start of the analysis. αKe. and effective stiffness. y.1b) where Vb is the base shear value. symbolically as: The initial stiffness as calculated above can be written if n ≥ 24 then K i = 1 24 Vbi ∑ 15 i =10 ∆ri Vb(n) ∆r (n) (AI. roof displacement plot. ∆r is the roof displacement.

αKe. by the maximum roof displacement achieved. minus the base shear yield value.The effective stiffness. the effective stiffness of the structure is calculated by locating the displacement value corresponding to the base shear equal to 0. So. and dividing 0. 111 .6 Vy αK Non – Linear Structural Response Ke ∆r ∆r y Roof Displacement Figure AI-4: Values to Define Ke and αKe ∆r max Because the calculations mentioned above require the input of the base shear yield value. is determined by dividing the maximum base shear achieved.6Vy by this value or: Ke = 0.3) Base Shear Vbmax Vy 0. To clarify this. Vbmax. minus the roof displacement at yield. Ke. and this value is not known at the start of the analysis. the ‘VVSD’ macro command can include three factors as input. Vy. ∆rmax. allowing the analysis of four separate choices of Vy at once (including the one input with the ‘PUSH’ mesh command). roof displacement plot at 0. or: αK e = Vbmax − V y ∆rmax − ∆ry Ki (AI. which was input in the mesh command ‘PUSH’. ∆ry.2) Referring to figure AI-4. As shown in figure AI-4.6V y ∆r6 (AI. the ‘VVSD’ macro command is shown in a typical macro solution statement in figure AI-5. the post yield stiffness. Vy. These factors are multiplied to the base shear yield value input in the mesh command ‘PUSH’. of the structure is calculated based on the base shear yield value. ∆r6.6Vy . Vy.6Vy is the effective stiffness. the slope of the line which intersects the original base shear vs.

and 152.1 loop.153..time). The other thing to notice is that the ‘VVSD’ command is included after the time loop is completed ( loop. The output from the ‘VVSD’ command includes all the data necessary to generate the plots of figures III-14 to III-16. mass. … next.1).all time next. were analyzed at the same time.step. and ‘pushover4’ if all the available choices for Vy are utilized.2 dt. Three other values.100/140. four different results were obtained with one analysis.print. ’pushover2’.. 100.step stre. First. The original ‘PUSH’ input of Vy was equal to 140.10 tang. Upon 112 .1 prop. the period determination must be included in the solution routine ( tang.1. The data is output in a format which is easily opened with excel.time VvsD.macro nopri tang mass. If this is left out of the routine FEAP execution discontinues and an error message is displayed reading “ERROR: in ‘pushover’ (VvsD) fundamental frequency = 0 must have subspace solution scheme in macro”.1 next.lump. subspace.153 loop.time..120/140. There are as many files created as choices in Vy input ( with a maximum of four). because the Target Displacement is a function of the initial elastic period of the structure. In this way. The data is output into files named ‘pushover1’. roof displacement plot.lump subspace.152/140 end Figure AI-5: Typical Macro Solution Routine Using the ‘VVSD’ Macro Command Shown in figure AI-5 are the factors used with the ‘VVSD’ macro command when the comparison was made in chapter III of different choices in Vy and the effect that had on target displacement. figure III-25. ‘pushover3’. This is where it must be located otherwise it will compute at discrete time intervals instead of considering the whole base shear vs.time. 120.print.. The solution routine in figure AI-5 shows some important properties of using the ‘VVSD’ command.

‘MATE’. the pinching parameters in the x and y directions. Model parameters are such as those defined in chapter V for test columns R-3 and R-5. shp. These are. Here. The type of material relation is ‘hyste’ for hysteretic diagram and the model is ‘ciam’ for Ciampi law (though this really isn’t Ciampi’s law). are the parameters representing the implemented hysteretic law into the mesh command ‘ML1D’. was developed in chapter IV. This material ID must be identical to the number used in ‘MATE’ to call the shear material law (see Spacone et al [15]). in relation to shear deformations. the type of material relation. Also located in the output files are the calculated values of the base shear yield value. In chapter V. are shown in figure AI-6. see Spacone et al [15]. in which a V – γ relation was created for implementation at the section level. the initial. All of these values were defined in chapter IV. a procedure was illustrated for determining these values for a given Reinforced Concrete Section. AI-B) FEAP Shear Element Modifications The shear element formulation. the material ID. located in the mesh command ‘ML1D’ are accessed. -Vn. px and py respectively and the damage factors d1 and d2. effective. 113 . and the Target Displacement. the model used in the material relation and the model parameters. the effective period. The necessary input then. For each element. The material ID used must be greater than or equal to 9. and post yield stiffnesses.opening the output files in excel. the positive elastic section stiffness. Vn. the instructions for entering these values into the FEAP input file are given. From this command the input parameters representing the one dimensional material laws for shear. The necessary data for this mesh command. the negative elastic section stiffness. the nominal strength of the section in the negative loading direction. the graphs mentioned above can be created by merely selecting columns A through G. the positive strain hardening ratio. The model parameters for shear deformations are the nominal shear strength of the section in the positive loading direction. Also defined in that chapter were the values needed as input for the hysteretic law. For a complete description of the previously existing mesh commands. shn. a material type is assigned based on the previously existing mesh command. GAsn. the negative strain hardening ratio. GAsp.

Material ID Material Relation Type Vn GAsp shp -Vn GAsn shn px Material Model py d1 d2

Figure AI-6: Input Parameters for Shear Hysteretic Law

114

APPENDIX II ADDITIONAL CASI REQUIREMENTS

AII-A) Evaluation

The project was carried out under joint supervision by the University PI and the Collaborating Company representative. This allowed control and evaluation of the results and provided constant guidance to the graduate student working on the project. Even though meetings with the Cooperating Company representative were not as frequent as originally scheduled, the Cooperating Company representative was in continuous contact with the student. At the end of the research a formal presentation was made by the graduate student to a panel that included the Cooperating Company representative, the University PI and two University Professors. Dissemination of the project results via regular mail (to be done in the following months) will encourage feedback from other research groups and from the practicing engineers’ community. A copy of the final report will be distributed to major Universities and Structural Engineering Companies throughout the country and comments will be encouraged. Partial results have been presented at a Seminar on Post-Peak Behavior of RC Structures held in Japan in October 1999. A conference paper will be presented at the ASCE Structures Congress to be held in Philadelphia, PA in May 2000.

AII-B) Technology Transfer

As initially planned, the technology transfer between the University and the Collaborating Company has worked both ways. The cooperating company benefited from the experience the University research group in nonlinear analysis of structures, while the University took advantage of the real design problems and needs the Collaborating Company faces in projects throughout the country. This is a critical point for earthquake engineering design in the United States: researchers and code developing bodies are advancing the level of sophistication required for professionals in building design, when in fact there are no computer programs available to the professional for the task. For many years research in nonlinear structural analysis has not looked at the needs and expectations of the structural engineering community. The Collaborating Company representative's experience in testing and behavior of shear walls helped developing of a new shear-wall model. Finally, Russel Martino, the graduate student who worked on the

115

project, will join the Collaborating Company immediately following completion of his MS thesis. The experience he will bring to the Collaborating Company in terms of new seismic code knowledge and nonlinear pushover analysis understanding is part of the knowledge and technology transfer between University and Collaborating Company. From the Collaborating Company's (KL&A of Colorado) point of view, guidance of the project while it was ongoing was satisfactory, and critical to the successful completion of the work. The primary technology transfer is envisioned to occur primarily following the employment of Russel Martino, and with the implementation of the software as a working design tool. Russel will present his work to the company, and will work individually with future program users as they perform seismic design on shear wall buildings. Evaluation of the program user interface will occur at that time. Ongoing collaborations with the PI are expected and encouraged

AII-C) Networking

The work developed in the course of this project has been presented and will be presented at: a) Seminar on Post-Peak Behavior of RC Structures, Lake Yamanaka, Japan, October 1999;

b) ASCE Structures Congress, Philadelphia, PA, May 2000.

AII-D) Publications

R. Martino, E. Spacone and G. Kingsley "Nonlinear Pushover Analyses of RC Frames", ASCE Structures Congress, Philadelphia, PA, May 2000.

AII-E) Funding

1) NSF Proposal: Models for R/C Structures Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Plastics, $200,000 + 30,000$ matching from CU Boulder (1998-2001): awarded. 2) NSF Proposal for International Cooperation with Slovenia: Testing of R/C Columns Strengthened with Fiber Reinforced Plastic jackets, (2000-2001), $40,000: submitted. 3) NATO Collaborative Grant Proposal: Cooperation with Slovenia and Italy, (2000-2001), 25,000$: submitted

116

$200. under preparation. 117 . 5) NSF Career Proposals: Models for Performance-Based Design and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Structures.4) NSF Proposal: Sensitivity Study of RC Structures Subjected to Ground Motions.000 + (1999-2003): submitted and declined.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful