You are on page 1of 6

VSRD International Journal of Mechanical, Civil, Automobile and Production Engineering, Vol.

IV Issue IV April 2014

e-ISSN : 2249-8303, p-ISSN : 2319-2208 VSRD International Journals :

/ 41



Yadav* and 2Ashish Nim

1,2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, I.E.S. I.P.S. Academy, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, INDIA.
*Corresponding Author:

For structural design and assessment of reinforced concrete members, the non-linear analysis has become an important tool. The
method can be used to study the behavior of reinforced concrete structure. The previous earthquake in which many concrete structure
have been severely damaged or collapsed, have indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy of buildings. A Pushover
analysis is non linear static analysis, a tool for seismic evaluation of existing structures. The pushover analysis shows the pushover
curve between the displacement and base shear.

Keywords: Pushover Analysis, Capacity, Linear Static Procedures.

The previous earthquakes (Bihar earthquake, Great
Sumatra earthquake, Garhwal Earthquake, Jabalpur
Earthquake, Chamoli (Himalaya, India) Earthquake, Bhuj
Earthquake, diglipur earthquake) in which many concrete
structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, have
indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy of
buildings. In particular, the rehabilitation of older
concrete structures in high seismicity areas is matter of
growing concern, since structures venerable to damage
must be identified and an acceptable level of safety must
be determined. To make such assessment, simplified
linear-elastic methods are not adequate. Thus, the
structural engineering community has developed a new
generation of design and seismic procedures that
incorporate performance based structures and are moving
away from Simplified linear elastic methods and towards
a more non-linear technique. Recent interests in the
development of performance based codes for the design
or rehabilitation of buildings in seismic active areas show
that an inelastic procedure commonly referred to as the
pushover analysis is a viable method to assess damage
vulnerability of buildings. Basically, a pushover analysis
is a series of incremental static analysis carried out to
develop a capacity curve for the building.
Four procedures are presented for seismic analysis of
buildings: two linear procedures, and two nonlinear
procedures. The two linear procedures are termed the
Linear Static Procedure (LSP) and the Linear Dynamic
Procedure (LDP). The two nonlinear procedures are
termed the Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) and
Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP).
Types of analysis: Different types of analysis are as
Linear Static Analysis.
Linear Dynamic Modal Response Spectrum

Linear Dynamic Modal Response History Analysis.

Linear Dynamic Explicit Response History Analysis.

Linear Static Procedure (LSP): Under the Linear Static

Procedure (LSP), design seismic forces, their distribution
over the height of the building, and the corresponding
internal forces and system displacements are determined
using a linearly elastic, static analysis. In the LSP, the
building is modeled with linearly-elastic stiffness and
equivalent viscous damping that approximate values
expected for loading to near the yield point. Design
earthquake demands for the LSP are represented by static
lateral forces whose sum is equal to the pseudo lateral
Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP): Under the Linear
Dynamic Procedure (LDP), design seismic forces, their
distribution over the height of the building, and the
corresponding internal forces and system displacements
are determined using a linearly elastic, dynamic analysis.
The basis, modeling approaches, and acceptance criteria
of the LDP are similar to those for the LSP. The main
exception is that the response calculations are carried out
using either modal spectral analysis or Time-History
Analysis. Modal spectral analysis is carried out using
linearly-elastic response spectra that are not modified to
account for anticipated nonlinear response. The LDP
includes two analysis methods,
The Response Spectrum and
Time-History Analysis Methods.
The Response Spectrum Method uses peak modal
responses calculated from dynamic analysis of a
mathematical model. Only those modes contributing
significantly to the response need to be considered.
Modal responses are combined using rational methods to
estimate total building response quantities. The TimeHistory Method (also termed Response-History Analysis)
involves a time-step-by-time-step evaluation of building
response, using discredited recorded or synthetic
earthquake records as base motion input.

Sonam Yadav and Ashish Nim

Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP): Under the Nonlinear

Static Procedure (NSP), a model directly incorporating
inelastic material response is displaced to a target
displacement, and resulting internal deformations and
forces are determined. The nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of individual components and elements of
the building are modeled directly. The mathematical
model of the building is subjected to monotonically
increasing lateral forces or displacements until either a
target displacement is exceeded or the building collapses.
The target displacement is intended to represent the
maximum displacement likely to be experienced during
the design earthquake.
Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP): Direct nonlinear dynamic analysis, which takes into account the
non-linear characteristics of masonry structural elements,
is the only way to obtain accurate information regarding
the actual behavior of a masonry structure subjected to
seismic loads. However, to avoid the sophisticated direct
non-linear dynamic analysis, the non-linear behavior and
energy dissipation capacity of the structure is taken into
account by performing simple linear elastic analysis, but
considering a reduced response spectrum, called a design
spectrum , obtained by introducing the behavior factor,
i.e. force reduction factor q. The vulnerability of existing
structures to probable earthquake hazard is a matter of
concern nationally/internationally. Seismic vulnerability
and hazard assessment are useful for retrofitting
decisions, damage estimation, loss estimation, evaluation
of loss of functionality, evaluation of facility loss,
estimation of fatalities, estimation of down time and
disaster response planning with suitable retrofitting
schemes. Identifying potential hazards ahead of time and
advance planning can save lives and significantly reduce
injuries and property damage. However, advanced
methodologies, which can be used by the local
consultants and local regulating bodies which are based
on study of Indian stock of masonry buildings, are not
available. The current Indian seismic codes lack in
defining step by step procedural details for assessing
seismic vulnerability of the of the buildings under
consideration using nonlinear procedures. Collapse
prevention under the expected maximum seismic load is
one of the objectives of a performance-based design. The
proposed research focuses on the performance based
probabilistic seismic vulnerability assessment of existing
masonry buildings. The development of probabilistic
structural damage estimation procedures are justified
looking at the uncertain nature of future ground motions.
It is important to evaluate such buildings and improve the
seismic resistance of the buildings that are found to be
vulnerable. Analyses of these types of buildings require
very sophisticated material and structural modeling,
computational tools and rational estimates of probable
future ground motions. For this purpose, fragility curves
are useful tools, since they allow estimation of the
probability of structural damage due to earthquakes as a
function of ground motion indices or intensity measures
(IM), e.g., peak ground acceleration (PGA), elastic
spectral acceleration (Sa), elastic spectral displacement
(Sd) etc. The analyses determine the probabilities of

VSRDIJMCAPE, Vol. IV (IV) April 2014 / 42

exceeding various specified limit-states, thus failing

certain performance objective under the effect of
probable seismic hazard.
A pushover analysis is performed by subjecting a
structure to a monotonically increasing pattern of lateral
loads, representing the inertial forces which would be
experienced by the structure when subjected to ground
shaking. Under incrementally increasing loads various
structural elements may yield sequentially. Consequently,
at each event, the structure experiences a loss in stiffness.
Using a pushover analysis, a characteristic non linear
force displacement relationship can be determined. Main
steps involved in pushover methodology.
Definition of plastic hinges: In SAP2000, nonlinear
behavior is assumed to occur within a structure at
concentrated plastic hinges. The default types include
an uncoupled moment hinges, an uncoupled axial
hinges, an uncoupled shear hinges and a coupled
axial force and biaxial bending moment hinges.
Definition of the control node: control node is the
node used to monitor displacements of the Structure.
Its displacement versus the baseshear forms the
capacity (pushover) curve of the Structure.
Developing the pushover curve which includes the
evaluation of the force distributions. To have a
displacement similar or close to the actual
displacement due to earthquake, it is important to
consider a force displacement equivalent to the
expected distribution of the inertial forces. Different
forces distributions can be used to represent the
earthquake load intensity
Estimation of the displacement demand: This is a
crucial step when using pushover analysis. The
control is pushed to reach the demand displacement
displacement resulting from the earthquake intensity
under consideration.
Evaluation of the performance level: Performance
evaluation is the main objective of a performance
based design. A component or action is considered
satisfactory if it meets a prescribed performance.
The main output of a pushover analysis is in terms of
response demand versus capacity. If the demand curve
intersects the capacity envelope near the elastic range,
Fig.1a, then the structure has a good resistance. If the
demand curve intersects the capacity curve with little
reserve of strength and deformation capacity, Fig.1b, then
it can be concluded that the structure will behave poorly
during the imposed seismic excitation and need to be
retrofitted to avoid future major damage or collapse.
The overall capacity of a structure depends on the
strength and deformation capacities of the individual
components of the structure. A Pushover analysis
procedure uses a series of sequential elastic analysis,
superimposed to approximate a force displacement
capacity diagram of the overall structure. The

Sonam Yadav and Ashish Nim

VSRDIJMCAPE, Vol. IV (IV) April 2014 / 43

mathematical model of the structure is modified to

account for reduced resistance of yielding components. A
lateral force distribution is again applied until a
predetermined limit is reached. Pushover capacity curves
approximate how structure behaves after exceeding the
elastic limits.
Ground motions during an earthquake produce complex

Fig.1: Safe Design

After assigning all properties of the models, the
displacement controlled pushover analysis of the models
are carried out. The models are pushed in monotonically
increasing order until target displacement is reached or
structure loses equilibrium; whichever occurs first. For
this purpose, target displacement at roof level and number
of steps in which this displacement must be defined. In
this study, target displacement is taken 4% of building
height. Pushover curve is a base shear force versus roof
displacement curve. The peak of this curve represents
maximum lateral load carrying capacity of the structure.
The initial stiffness of the structure is obtained from the
tangent at pushover curve at zero load level. The collapse


horizontal displacement patterns in structure that may

vary with time. Tracking this motion at every time step to
determine structural design requirements is judged
impractical. For nonlinear method it is easier and more
direct to use a set of lateral displacement as a design
condition for a given structure and ground motion, the
displacement is an estimate of the maximum expected
response of the building during ground motion. Typical
seismic demand Vs. Capacity is shown in Fig 1 & 2.

Fig.2: Unsafe Design

is assumed when structure losses its 75% strength and
corresponding roof displacement is called maximum
roof displacement.
It is a plot drawn between base shear and roof
displacement. Performance point and location of hinges
in various stages can be obtained from pushover curve as
shown in Fig.5. The range AB is elastic range, B to IO is
the range of immediate occupancy IO to LS is the range
of life safety and LS to CP is the range of collapse
The Different Building performance levels are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Different Building Performance Levels

Building Performance Levels
Life Safety






Very light


Little residual
stiffness and
strength, but
Columns and
Function. Large
Some exits
blocked. In fills
and unbraced
Parapets failed
or at incipient

Some residual
Strength and stiffness left
in all stories. Gravityload-bearing elements
function. No
Out-of-plane failure of
walls or tipping of
parapets. Some permanent
Damage to partitions.
Building may be beyond
economical repair.

No permanent drift.
retains original
Strength and
Minor cracking of
facades, partitions,
and ceilings as well
as structural
Elevators can be
restarted. Fire
protection operable.

No permanent
drift; structure
Retains original strength and
stiffness. Minor cracking of
facades, partitions, and ceilings as
well as structural elements. All
Systems important to normal
operation are functional.

Sonam Yadav and Ashish Nim

VSRDIJMCAPE, Vol. IV (IV) April 2014 / 44

Building is near


Falling hazards
mitigated but many
mechanical, and
electrical systems

When a hinge reaches point C on its force-displacement

curve that hinge must begin to drop load. The way load is
dropped from a hinge that has reached point C is that the
pushover force (base shear) is reduced until the force in
that hinge is consistent with the force at point D. as the
Force is dropped, all elements unload, and the
displacement is reduced. Once the yielded hinge reaches
the Point D force level, the pushover force is again
increased and the displacement begins to increase again.
If all the hinges are within the CP limit then the structure
is said to be safe. However, depending upon the
importance of structure the hinges after IO range may
also need to be retrofitted.

Fig. 3: Different stages of plastic hinge

For seismic performance evaluation, a structural analysis
of the mathematical model of the structure is required to
determine force and displacement demands in various
components of the structure. Several analysis methods,
both elastic and inelastic, are available to predict the
seismic performance of the structures.
Elastic Methods of Analysis: The force demand on each
component of the structure is obtained and compared with
available capacities by performing an elastic analysis.
Elastic analysis methods include code static lateral force
procedure, code dynamic procedure and elastic procedure
using demand-capacity ratios. These methods are also
known as force-based procedures which assume that
structures respond elastically to earthquakes. In code
static lateral force procedure, a static analysis is
performed by subjecting the structure to lateral forces
obtained by scaling down the smoothened soil-dependent
elastic response spectrum by a structural system
dependent force reduction factor, "R". In this approach, it
is assumed that the actual strength of structure is higher
than the design strength and the structure is able to
dissipate energy through yielding. In code dynamic
procedure, force demands on various components are

Equipment and
contents are
secure, but may not
operate due to

Negligible damage occurs. Power

other utilities are
available, possibly

determined by an elastic dynamic analysis. The dynamic

analysis may be either a response spectrum analysis or an
elastic time history analysis. Sufficient number of modes
must be considered to have a mass participation of at least
90% for response spectrum analysis. Any effects of
higher modes are automatically included in time history
analysis. In demand/capacity ratio (DCR) procedure, the
force actions are compared to corresponding capacities as
demand/capacity ratios. Demands for DCR calculations
must include gravity effects. While code static lateral
force and code dynamic procedures reduce the full
earthquake demand by an R-factor, the DCR approach
takes the full earthquake demand without reduction and
adds it to the gravity demands. DCRs approaching 1.0 (or
higher) may indicate potential deficiencies. Although
force-based procedures are well known by engineering
profession and easy to apply, they have certain
drawbacks. Structural components are evaluated for
serviceability in the elastic range of strength and
deformation. Post-elastic behavior of structures could not
be identified by an elastic analysis. However, post-elastic
behavior should be considered as almost all structures are
expected to deform in inelastic range during a strong
earthquake. The seismic force reduction factor "R" is
utilized to account for inelastic behavior indirectly by
reducing elastic forces to inelastic. Force reduction factor,
"R", is assigned considering only the type of lateral
system in most codes, but it has been shown that this
factor is a function of the period and ductility ratio of the
structure as well. Elastic methods can predict elastic
capacity of structure and indicate where the first yielding
will occur, however they dont predict failure
mechanisms and account for the redistribution of forces
that will take place as the yielding progresses. Real
deficiencies present in the structure could be missed.
Moreover, force-based methods primarily provide life
safety but they cant provide damage limitation and easy
repair. The drawbacks of force-based procedures and the
dependence of damage on deformation have led the
researches to develop displacement-based procedures for
seismic performance evaluation. Displacement-based
procedures are mainly based on inelastic deformations
rather than elastic forces and use nonlinear analysis
procedures considering seismic demands and available
capacities explicitly.
Inelastic methods of Analysis: Structures suffer
significant inelastic deformation under a strong
earthquake and dynamic characteristics of the structure
change with time so investigating the performance of a
structure requires inelastic analytical procedures
accounting for these features. Inelastic analytical

Sonam Yadav and Ashish Nim

procedures help to understand the actual behavior of

structures by identifying failure modes and the potential
for progressive collapse. Inelastic analysis procedures
basically include inelastic time history analysis and
inelastic static analysis which is also known as pushover
The inelastic time history analysis is the most accurate
method to predict the force and deformation demands at
various components of the structure. However, the use of
inelastic time history analysis is limited because dynamic
response is very sensitive to modeling and ground motion
characteristics. It requires proper modeling of cyclic loaddeformation characteristics considering deterioration
properties of all important components. Also, it requires
availability of a set of representative ground motion
records that accounts for uncertainties and differences in
severity, frequency and duration characteristics.
Moreover, computation time, time required for input
preparation and interpreting voluminous output make the
use of inelastic time history analysis impractical for
seismic performance evaluation. Inelastic static analysis,
or pushover analysis, has been the preferred method for
seismic performance evaluation due to its simplicity. It is
a static analysis that directly incorporates nonlinear
material characteristics. Inelastic static analysis
procedures include Capacity Spectrum Method,
Displacement Coefficient Method and the Secant
The existing building can become seismically deficient
since seismic design code requirements are constantly
upgraded and advancement in engineering knowledge.
Further, Indian buildings built over past two decades are
seismically deficient because of lack of awareness
regarding seismic behavior of structures. The widespread
damage especially to RC buildings during earthquakes
exposed the construction practices being adopted around
the world, and generated a great demand for seismic
evaluation and retrofitting of existing building stocks.
The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the
expected performance of structural systems by estimating
performance of a structural system by estimating its
strength and deformation demands in design earthquakes
by means of static inelastic analysis, and comparing these
demands to available capacities at the performance levels
of interest. The evaluation is based on an assessment of
important performance parameters, including global drift,
inter story drift, inelastic element deformations (either
absolute or normalized with respect to a yield value),
deformations between elements, and element connection
forces (for elements and connections that cannot sustain
inelastic deformations), The inelastic static pushover
analysis can be viewed as a method for predicting seismic
force and deformation demands, which accounts in an
approximate manner for the redistribution of internal

VSRDIJMCAPE, Vol. IV (IV) April 2014 / 45

forces that no longer can be resisted within the elastic

range of structural behavior.
There are three types of hinge properties in SAP2000.
They are default hinge properties, user-defined hinge
properties and generated hinge properties. Only default
hinge properties and user-defined hinge properties can be
assigned to frame elements. When these hinge properties
are assigned to a frame element, the program
automatically creates a different generated hinge property
for each and every hinge.
Default hinge properties cannot be modified. They also
cannot be viewed because the default properties are
section dependent. The default properties cannot be fully
defined by the program until the section that they apply to
is identified. Thus to see the effect of the default
properties, the default property should be assigned to a
frame element, and then the resulting generated hinge
property should be viewed. The built-in default hinge
properties are typically based on FEMA-273 and/or ATC40 criteria.
User-defined hinge properties can be either is based on
default properties or they can be fully user-defined. When
user-defined properties are based on default properties,
the hinge properties cannot be viewed because, again, the
default properties are section dependent. When userdefined properties are not based on default properties,
then the properties can be viewed and modified.
The generated hinge properties are used in the analysis.
They can be viewed, but they cannot be modified.
Generated hinge properties have an automatic naming
convention of LabelH#, where Label is the frame element
label, H stands for hinge, and # represents the hinge
number. The program starts with hinge number 1 and
increments the hinge number by one for each consecutive
hinge applied to the frame element. For example if a
frame element label is F23, the generated hinge property
name for the second hinge applied to the frame element is
F23H2. The main reason for the differentiation between
defined properties (in this context, defined means both
default and user-defined) and generated properties is that
typically the hinge properties are section dependent. Thus
different frame section type in the model. This could
potentially mean that a very large number of hinge
properties would need to be defined by the user.
Pushover analysis is a solution for complicated problems
of estimating the capacity and deformation problems for
certain type of structure. The results obtained in the terms
of demand, capacity and plastic hinges gave an insight
into the real behavior of structure.

Sonam Yadav and Ashish Nim

VSRDIJMCAPE, Vol. IV (IV) April 2014 / 46

[1] Sudhir K. Jain,(1988) On better engineering preparedness:
lessons from the 1988 bihar earthquake. Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, Vol.8, No.3, 1992.
[2] Sudhir K. Jain et al, (1997) Some Observations on
Engineering Aspects of the Jabalpur Earthquake of 22 May
1997 EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter,
Vol.32, No.2, August 1997.
[3] Sudhir K. Jain et al, (1998) Indian Earthquakes : An
Overview The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 72, No. 11,
November 1998.
[4] Sudhir K. Jain et al, (1999) Chamoli (Himalaya, India)
Earthquake of 29 March 1999 EERI Special
Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter Vol.33, No.7, July
[5] Sudhir K. Jain et al, (2001) A field report on structural
and geotechnical damages sustained during the 26 January
2001 M7.9 Bhuj Earthquake EERI RECONNAISSANCE.
[6] Prabuddha dasgupta et al, (2001) the structural
deficiencies of engineered building:exposed during 2001
bhuj earthquake
[7] Durgesh C. Rai et al, (2002) north andaman (diglipur)
earthquake of 14 september 2002 RECONNAISSANCE
[8] Nicola Augenti et al, (2002) Performance of School
Buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 20, No. S1, pages S257
S270, July 2004; 2004, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
[9] C.V.R. Murty et al, (2004) Performance of Structures in
the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (India) during the
December 2004 Great Sumatra Earthquake and Indian
Ocean Tsunami Earthquake Spectra, Volume 22, No. S3,
pages S321S354, June 2006; 2006, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
[10] Durgesh C Rai et al, (2005) preliminary report on the
2005north kashmir earthquake of october 8, 2005 Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur, India.
[11] Naeem et al, (2005) a summary report on muzaffarabad
earthquake, Pakistan Earthquake Engineering Center at
the Department of Civil Engineering, N-W.F.P. University
of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan.
[12] Hemant B. Kaushik et al, (2006) Performance of
structures during the Sikkim earthquake of 14 February
2006 current science, vol. 91, no. 4, 25 august 2006.