Proceedings of the First Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering (MICCE2010), March 9-10, 2010, ISBN 978-602-95227-0-9

EVALUATING EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS OF IRANIAN CODE WITH NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
K. B. Marsono1 and H. R. Khoshnoud2

ABSTRACT: Iran is located on an active tectonic zone between Asian and Sweden Arabic Plates Which has experienced large ground motions. Manjil 1990 and Bam 2003 earthquakes that have devastated a large part of Iran have caused several changes in Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings Code2800 . This paper evaluates concrete frame buildings are designed based on equivalent static code2800 that are widely use in practice, with Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA) based on FEMA356, ATC40 and FEMA440. To achieve this objective a set of 5, 7 and 10 stories concrete frame building with different importance factors and different concrete compression strength, first based on equivalent static Code2800 have been analyzed and designed and then NSPA have been performed. According to the results of the analysis it can be concluded that the performance level of intermediate importance buildings, like residential and commercial ones analyzed and designated with code2800, is between life safety and collapse prevision. The performance level for very high importance buildings, like hospitals, is about Immediate occupancy and with increasing concrete compression strength, performance point shifts toward linear part of capacity curve that are acceptable with code2800 objectives. Keywords: Pushover analysis, material nonlinearity, performance based design, Iranian Code of practice, concrete moment resistant frame.

INTRODUCTION The recent earthquakes that devastated a large part of Iran have caused several changes in Iranian Code of Practice for seismic resistant design of buildings Code2800 . After Manjil earthquake in the North of Iran in 1990 and Bam earthquake in the Central part of Iran in 2003, the Second and Third revisions of Code2800 have been published. Although nonlinear time history analysis is mentioned in Iranian Code of Practice but the main focus is on linear static and dynamic analyses. Therefore in practice most of the analysis methods are limited to linear analysis especially equivalent static analysis based on code of practice Code2800 .
V CW ( ABI / R ) W ( Eq .1)

In equivalent static analysis a portion of structure s weight according to Eq.1 is laterally applied to the stories of buildings and the structure will be analyzed for these lateral and gravity loads. After the analysis phase, drifts of stories must be checked with the limitations of Code2800. These controls affect largely on the
1

dimension of cross sections of beams and columns in concrete moment resistance frame buildings. In the next step of structure designing, beams and columns will be designed for reinforcements. Although the whole process of analysis is linear, all nonlinear characteristics of the structure such as ductility, redundancy and inherent overstrength capacity are just considered in the building behavior factor, R. As the linear analysis can not lead us to any understanding toward the post yielding behavior of the structure, so estimation of building s response can not be performed for nonlinear phase of response with linear analysis. One of the popular static nonlinear analyses is the pushover analysis. In this approach, applying the lateral loads is divided to several steps. In each step a portion of lateral load is applied to the structure and linear analysis will be performed with regard to considering the material nonlinearity of the structure. If a section of an element(s) goes to nonlinear phase so its stiffness will be reduced and it can not completely participate in resisting system and its stiffness matrix must be changed. Therefore in each step the stiffness of the structure is controlled and if necessary, it will be modified. These steps will be iterated until the structure reaches to its target point or a

Professor, AKADIR@UTM.MY , 60-013-7257737, 60-07-5531606, 60-07-5532445, Faculty of civil engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. - Student, HRKHOSHNOUD@YAHOO.COM , 98-9111368654, 98-131-7224204, Faculty of civil engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.

mechanism is formed in the building. The target point has a key role in pushover analysis and it is the point that the capacity of the structure is equal to the demand of the structure. In fact in pushover analysis the target point is some how akin to the base shear forces in equivalent static analysis because we check and design structures for those forces that exist when structure reaches to its target point. There are several methods for pushover analysis: the capacity spectrum method ATC40, the coefficient method of FEMA356 and the modal pushover analysis. The approach of pushover analysis has been developed by many researchers. In general, material nonlinearity for frame elements like concrete frame structures is considered with two main methods: Concentrated and distributed plasticity. The concentrated plasticity or plastic hinge method is simpler than distributed plasticity but it can not take into account complex member behavior under plasticity zone. In this research we analyze regular concrete moment resistant frame structure without any special loading during the span of the beams so it can be predicted that our plastic zone will be limited to the ends of the members therefore concentrated plastic hinges is used for pushover analysis of concrete frames. MODELS CONSIDERED In this Study a set of 5, 7 and 10 story concrete frame buildings have been analyzed and designed with 3 spans of 4 meter in each direction and height of each story 3.06m, 3.06m and 3.24m respectively, first based on equivalent static Code2800 (3rd version) and then based on nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA). There are three groups of buildings, first group is a set of 5, 7 and 10 story buildings with importance factor I=1 and f `c=210 Kg/Cm2. The second group consists three buildings of 5-stories with concrete compression of f `c=210, 250, 280 Kg/Cm2 and importance factor I=1. The final group consists two buildings of 5-stories with importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 and concrete compression of f `c=210Kg/Cm2. it is assumed that buildings are located in high level seismic zone with a design base acceleration 0.3g and soil profile type IV (soft deposits and high moisture in north of Iran). All buildings have intermediate R.C. MRF system with behavior factor, R=7. The cracked moment of inertia has been considered 0.35Ig3 and 0.7Ig for beams and columns respectively to calculate the

design drift. All lateral loads are applied with 5% eccentricity according to Code2800. Table1- The specification of the 5 story building
Dimension Story 5 4 3 2 1 Beam 35x35 35x35 40x40 45x45 45x45 Column 35x35 40x40 45x45 45x45 45x45 Reinforcement Column Column Col2 Col1 8 18 8 20 8 18 8 20 8 20 12 20 8 20 12 20 12 25 12 25

Fig.1- The plan of a 5 story building with the details of column col1 The dead load is considered as 700 kg/m2 for the weight of floors and internal walls, 200 kg/m2 for live load for stories, 600 kg/m2 for dead load and 200 kg/m2 for live load for roof.

- Although according to the table 6-5, FEMA 356, Effective stiffness value for nonprestressed beam is 0.5EcIg but for similarities with code2800 it is assumed 0.35EcIg.

Fig. 2- The plan of a 7 story building with the details of column col1 Table2 The specification of the 7 story building
Story 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dimension Beam Column 35x35 35x35 40x40 40x40 45x45 45x45 45x45 45x45 50x50 50x50 50x50 50x50 50x50 50x50 Col1 8 18 8 18 8 20 12 20 12 20 12 20 16 25 Reinforcement Col2 Col3 8 20 8 20 12 20 8 20 12 25 12 25 12 25 12 25 16 20 16 20 16 25 16 25 16 25 16 25

Fig.3 The plan of a 10 story building with the detail of column col1 The assumption for the weight of external walls is 750 kg/m which applied on perimeter beams on stories.

To include the effective weight of last wall of the building for equivalent static analysis, a load of 375 kg/m2 is applied on perimeter beams of roof by type of Other (not calculated in design process). All building are from the type of intermediate reinforced concrete moment resisting frame with behavior factor, R=7. For buildings with importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 the C factor in Eq. 1 are 0.1178 and 0.165 respectively. Table3 The specification of the 10 story building
Story 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dimension Beam Column 35x35 35x35 40x40 45x45 45x45 60x60 60x60 60x60 60x60 60x60 60x60 60x60 60x60 70x70 60x60 70x70 60x60 70x70 60x60 70x70 Reinforcement Column C1 8 20 12 20 12 25 12 25 16 25 16 25 16 25 16 25 20 25 24 25

nonlinear behavior of elements especially for yielding and post-yielding behavior, plastic hinges can be define in two ends of beams or columns or any other location that may have a plastic zone formed. In SAP2000 Uncoupled moment, torsion, axial force and shear hinges are available. There is also a coupled P-M2-M3 hinges which yields based on the interaction of axial force and bi-axial bending moments at the hinge location [8]. During the pushover analysis the capacity curve of structure can be developed. The capacity curve may be presented in the form of force-displacement curve or ADRS format. Normally the monitored displacement is the roof of building. One of the key parts of pushover analysis is finding the target or performance point of the building. In fact the target point is the maximum expected displacement resulting from the earthquake intensity under consideration. In other words, target or performance point is the intersection of capacity curve with demand curve of structure as shown in figure 4.

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BASED ON CODE2800 All groups of buildings have been analyzed and designed based on Code2800. After linear analysis, drifts of stories have been controlled with the limitations of Code2800. According to the limitations of Code2800 the drifts of stories are as follows:
M M
M

0.025h for T 0.020h for T

0. 7 R
0.07h 3 / 4
w

0.7 Sec (Eq. 2) 0.7 Sec (Eq. 3)

(Eq. 4) (Eq. 5)

(for reinforcement concrete frame)

M
w

The Actual design story drift The design story drift Building behavior factor

Fig.4- performance point in capacity and demand curve

In fact M and w are drifts of inelastic and elastic of buildings, therefore drift limitations for 5, 7 and 10 stories are 0.0051,0.0051 and 0.0041 respectively. After the drift control, each building has been designed for reinforcement. The results of the building s design for group one for 5, 7 and 10 stories have been depicted in figure 1, 2 and 3 and in table 1, 2 and 3. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS Pushover analysis is a series of incremental linear analysis and in each step a portion of lateral load is applied to the structure. For monitoring the material

Fig.5 - Performance levels

The evaluation of building s performance is the main objective of performance based design. There are several performance levels according to the location of performance point of structure like IO (immediate occupancy), LS (life safety) and CP (collapse prevention). If the performance point shifts toward linear part (point B in figure 5) it means there is more tolerance for more deformation. On the other hands if the performance point shifts towards point C it means there is no more capacity for any deformation so the collapse may occur. Distribution of lateral loads is one of the important parts of a pushover analysis. According to section 3.3.2.3, for all analyses, at least two vertical distributions of lateral load shall be applied. In this study two distributions of lateral load is used one based on Equation 3-12 of FEMA356 and another based on uniform distribution.

Table 4 - The target displacement and base shear for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings
story 5 7 10 target disp. (cm) 28 36 52 Vp base shear (ton) (pushover ) 292 359 489 Vs base shear (ton) (static analysis) 116 175 303 Ratio of Vp/Vs 2.52 2.05 1.61

Table 5- periods and modal participating Mass

Mode 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Period (Sec) 1.064 1.064 0.907 0.390 0.390 1.255 1.255 1.071 0.474 0.474 1.247 1.247 1.037 0.523 0.523 Mass UX 0.66 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.046 0.005 0.731 0.000 0.009 0.097 Mass UY 0.08 0.66 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.000 0.749 0.000 0.046 0.084 0.731 0.005 0.000 0.097 0.009 Mass RZ 0 0 0.756 0 0 0 0 0.756 0 0 0 0 0.744 0 0

10

Fig.6 - Capacity curve for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings Figure 6 shows three capacity curves for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings after pushover analysis of the buildings of group one. Each curve stars with a linear part and with the formation of the first plastic hinge in elements, the response of structure will go to nonlinear part. When more lateral loads are applied to the building more plastic hinges will be formed and the slope of capacity cure will be reduced. It means that in nonlinear part, structures are not able to carry more lateral load because of the reduction of their stiffness but they may tolerate more deflection. The target displacement and base shear for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings are 28, 36, 52cm and 292, 359 and 489ton respectively as shown in table 4. Table 5 shows the periods and modal participating mass for buildings of group one. The drift limitations for 7 and 10 stories are 0.0051 and 0.0041 respectively according to Code2800.

Therefore the dimension of cross section elements of 10 story buildings is relatively greater than 7 story buildings. It means that the stiffness of 10 story buildings is relatively more than 7 stories because the 10 story building s drift limitation is smaller than the one of the 7 story building. Also according to table 5, modal participating mass in x direction for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings are 66%, 75% and 73% respectively. Therefore it is not accurate if we use the distribution of lateral load based on Equation 3-12 of FEMA356. PERFORMANCE OF FIRST GROUP OF BUILDINGS Table 6 shows the pushover curve or performance of the 5 story building. As shown before step 3, all hinges are behind the point B or in elastic range and have a lateral displacement around 8cm for control point (roof displacement). The first plastic hinges have been formed in beams of story 1 as shown in figure 7. Before step 8, the lateral displacements are around 16cm for control point and all hinges are behind point of IO. In step 8, plastic hinges expand to upper stories beams and first plastic hinges have been formed in lower parts of first story columns as depicted in figure 8. In step 11, around 31cm all plastic hinges are behind CP points. The target point for 5 story building is 28cm so it can be concluded that the performance of 5 story building is between LS and CP points as shown in figure 8.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

8.7 10.3 12.9 15.3 16.2 21.4 23.4 27.4 31.4

218.2 247.9 269.9 280.6 282.8 288.7 290.3 292.2 294.1

392 360 330 304 296 276 264 264 264

8 40 70 96 104 76 56 48 24

0 0 0 0 0 48 80 88 104

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig.7- plastic hinges formation in step 3 (uniform pattern)

Fig.9- plastic hinges formation in step 11 (uniform pattern) Table 7- Pushover Curve for 7 stories building (Eq. 3-12 pattern)
Step 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Disp. (Cm) 0 6.0 10.2 12.1 12.7 18.8 24.9 31.0 37.0 42.2 48.2 48.9 48.9 Base Force (Ton) 0 153.3 259.5 303.3 310.4 334.9 347.0 354.0 360.3 364.6 366.9 367.0 367.0 A-B 560 560 560 509 485 448 424 414 401 386 380 379 379 BIO 0 0 0 51 75 112 87 50 42 38 44 45 45 IOLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 96 76 64 41 40 40 LSCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 51 42 36 36 CPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig.8- plastic hinges formation in step 8 (uniform pattern) Table 6- Pushover Curve for 5 stories building (uniform pattern)
Step 0 1 2 Disp. cm 0 4.0 7.9 Base Force ton 0 100.5 199.1 A-B 400 400 400 BIO 0 0 0 IOLS 0 0 0 LSCP 0 0 0 CPC 0 0 0

Table 7 shows the pushover curve or performance of a 7 stories building. As shown before step 3 all hinges are behind point B and in around 10cm, the first plastic hinges have been formed (Fig. 10). Before step 6, in around 19cm, all hinges are before point of IO. In step 6 all hinges are before point of LS (Fig. 11). In step 8, in around 37cm all plastic hinges are behind CP points. The

target point for the 7 story building is 36cm so it can be concluded that the performance of the 7 story building is between LS and CP points (Fig. 12).

Fig.12- plastic hinges formation in step 8 (Esq. 3-12 pattern)

Fig.10- plastic hinges formation in step 3 (Esq. 3-12 pattern)

Fig.11- plastic hinges formation in step 6 (Esq. 3-12 pattern)

Fig.13- plastic hinges formation in step 4 (Esq. 3-12 pattern)

Table 8 shows the pushover curve or performance of a 10 story building. As shown before the step 4 all hinges are behind point B and in around 12cm the first plastic hinges have been formed (Fig. 13). Before step 10, in around 27cm, all hinges are before point of IO. In the step 10, all hinges are before point of LS (Fig. 14). Table 8- Pushover Curve for 10 stories building (Eq. 312 pattern)
Step 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Disp. cm 0.002 6.002 10.451 10.348 11.914 12.130 12.575 13.566 20.751 27.147 35.822 42.735 50.852 57.652 Base Force ton 0.0 222.2 387.0 383.2 438.9 442.7 445.6 448.7 458.8 466.2 475.1 481.1 488.0 493.7 A-B 800 800 800 800 733 685 650 611 578 570 562 560 558 556 BIO 0 0 0 0 67 115 150 189 222 230 142 83 58 28 IOLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 157 174 100 LSCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 116 CPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

story building is 52cm so it can be concluded that the performance of the 10 story building is between LS and CP points (Fig. 15).

Fig.15- plastic hinges formation in step 13 (Esq. 3-12 pattern) PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS OF SECOND GROUPS OF

Fig.14- plastic hinges formation in step 10 (Esq. 3-12 pattern)

In step 13, around 58cm all plastic hinges are before CP point. The target point for the 10

The second group of buildings consists three 5-story buildings with concrete compression strength of f `c=210, 250, 280 Kg/Cm2, and importance factor I=1. The pushover curves have been shown in figure 16. The target displacement and base shear for buildings with concrete compression of f `c=210, 250, 280 Kg/Cm2, are 28, 26.5, 22.7cm and 292, 299.3, 305 ton respectively. Table 9 shows the target displacements and base shear forces for this group. Table 10 shows the performance on building with concrete compression strength of f `c=280 Kg/Cm2. As shown before step 9, in about 24 cm all hinges are behind LS. The target point is about 23cm so it can be concluded that the performance of the 5 story building with f `c=280 Kg/Cm2 is between IO and LS. Therefore the conclusion will be drawn as with increasing concrete compression strength, the stiffness of building increases and the performance point of it shifts to linear part. For our case, the performance point of building shifts from LS-CP to IO-LS part.

Table 9- The target displacement and base shear for buildings group 2
f 'C
210 250 280 target disp. (cm) 28 26.5 22.7 Vp base shear (ton) (pushover ) 292 299 305 Vs base shear (ton) (static analysis) 116 116 116 Ratio of Vp/Vs 2.52 2.57 2.63

11 shows the target displacements and base shear forces for this group.

Fig. 17- the pushover curves for buildings group 3

Table 11 - the target displacement and base shear for buildings group 3
target displ. (cm) Vp base shear (ton) (pushover) 291 250 Vs base shear (ton) (static analysis) 116 177 Ratio of Vp/Vs 2.51 1.41

Fig. 16- The pushover curves for buildings group 2 Table 10- Pushover Curve (Uniform pattern, FEM356, I=1,)
Step 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Disp. (Cm) 0.0 4.0 7.6 8.8 10.4 12.6 15.2 19.4 24.0 31.7 35.7 39.5 39.5 39.8 Base Force (Ton) 0 116.7 220.9 250.4 269.5 284.9 295.5 302.1 305.6 311.2 313.9 316.2 316.2 316.4 A-B 400 400 398 364 340 314 296 268 264 262 260 260 260 260 BIO 0 0 2 36 60 86 104 84 60 6 4 4 4 4 IOLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 76 124 62 38 38 36 LSCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 72 72 72 72 CPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I=1 I=1.4

25.3 20

Table 12- Pushover Curve (Uniform pattern, FEM356, I=1.4)

Step 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Disp cm 0.0 3.6 5.6 7.4 12.3 15.7 19.7 23.7 28.7 30.2 30.6 33.7 33.7 34.1 34.1 34.6 34.6 35.5 35.5 37.0 37.0 38.1 38.1 38.6 38.6 40.0 Base Force Ton 0 139.6 180.8 199.9 227.0 240.3 249.0 257.7 268.6 271.1 271.6 273.2 273.2 273.4 273.4 273.6 273.6 274.0 274.0 274.6 274.6 274.9 274.9 275.1 275.1 275.5 A-B 400 394 344 318 304 280 280 280 272 266 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 BIO 0 6 56 82 96 92 50 30 8 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 IOLS 0 0 0 0 0 28 70 90 78 70 66 42 42 40 40 40 40 34 34 24 24 20 20 18 18 12 LSCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 44 42 48 48 44 44 38 38 38 38 40 40 38 38 32 32 36 CPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS

OF

THIRD

GROUP

OF

The third group of buildings are two 5 story buildings with importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 and concrete compression of f `c=210 Kg/Cm2. The pushover curves have been shown in figure 17 for buildings of the second group. The target displacement and base shear based on FEMA356, for buildings with importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 are 25, 20cm and 291, 250ton respectively. Table

Table 12 shows the performance on buildings with importance factor I=1.4. As shown before step 8, in about 24 cm all hinges are behind LS. The target point is about 20cm so it can be concluded that the performance of the 5 story building with importance factor I=1.4 is between IO and LS. It can be concluded that with increasing the importance factor, the structure should be analyzed and designed for larger lateral forces in equivalent static analysis therefore the designed buildings are more rigid in comparison to the same buildings with I=1. On the other hand, increasing the stiffness of buildings causes the performance point of it shifts from LS-CP to IO-LS part. CONCLUSION There are the conclusions drawn from comparing the results from the equivalent static analysis based on Code2800 and the pushover analysis: The performance of concrete moment resisting frame buildings that have analyzed and designed with Code2800 with importance factor 1 and 1.4 are between LS and CP and between IO and LS, respectively. It has good compatibility with expectation of Code2800. Consideration of the formation of plastic hinges shows they formed in lower stories; grow up to upper stories and in column of lower story. This pattern of plastic hinges shows the compatibility with the philosophy of strong columns and weak beams. Increasing the concrete compression strength improves the performance of buildings. The ductility of structures and the ability of tolerate more deformation is an essential factor for moment resistant frames buildings. The pushover analysis is a simple and straight forward method for giving us a reasonable perspective of yielding and post yielding behavior of buildings. It is needed more investigation of concrete moment resisting frames based on Code2800, especially on studying the irregular buildings in plan or in height and on considering the amount of behavior factor, R and the effective parameters which impacts on it.

ATC40, Seismic and evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Volume 1, applied technology council, 1996. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington D.C., 2000. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings Earthquake Engineering and structural Dynamics 31(3), 561-582, 2002 Fajfar, P. Structural analysis in earthquake engineering a breakthrough of simplified nonlinear methods, 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper Reference 843, 2002 Elansha, A. S. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications, Structural Engineering and Mechanics 12(1), 51-69, 2001. CSI analysis reference manual, SAP2000, Ver. 14, integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley (CA, USA), Computers and Structures ING; 2009.

REFERENCES Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (Standard No. 2800), 3rd edition, Building and housing research center, 2007. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear static seismic analysis procedure, Washington D.C., 2005.