1 views

Uploaded by Ouseppachan Ambooken

DSFHGRR

- Pile Design
- 2004 Int Ansys Conf 160
- A Review of Research on Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Building Structures Since 2002
- Limits of Applicability of Conventional and Adaptative Pushover Analysis for Seismic Response Assessment v. K.- Papanikolau, A.S. Elnashai, J. F. Pareja
- 6_SN3-6_fullpaper_Bhagat (1)
- staad eq
- Static Pushover Analysis for Seismic Design (Suharwardy, I. 2009)
- Civil Engineering Collections.pdf
- Torre Mayor
- American Journal of Civil Engineering.pdf
- Seismic Analysis
- Articulo Sis Mico
- Differt Types of Pushor Analysis
- Plan Civseism
- Modal pushover ananlysis of SAC buildings.pdf
- 183 Dicleli
- Fundações-Piled raft- Randolph
- ListProposals_InfraRisk
- Analysis of 3d RC Frame on Sloping Ground
- Lecture 1(1)

You are on page 1of 118

earthquake loading, the use of nonlinear analyses is essential to capture behavior of

structures under seismic effects. This paper presents nonlinear pushover and time-history

analyses technique for performance evaluation of 2D reinforced concrete frame subjected

to earthquake loading. The building considered for analysis is a typical 6-storey RC

frame designed only for gravity loads as per IS code. The performance of the reinforced

concrete frame is evaluated in terms of maximum base shear, maximum displacement,

ductility, performance point and sequence of plastic hinge formation. The results from

pushover analysis are compared with that obtained from nonlinear time-history analysis.

1

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS

CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE ii

TRAINING CERTIFICATE iii

UNDERTAKING iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

ABSTRACT vi

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiii

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Need for Performance Based Analysis 2

1.3 Objectives of the Present Study 2

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 3

2.LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Basic Concept 5

2.3 Literature Review 5

3.1 General 9

3.2 Performance Levels and Ranges 9

3.2.1 Immediate Occupancy Performance Level 10

3.2.2 Damage Control Performance Range 10

3.2.3 Life Safety Performance Level 10

3.2.4 Limited Safety Performance Range 11

3.2.5 Collapse Prevention Performance Level 11

3.2.6 Structural Performance Not Considered 12

2

3.3 Seismic Hazard Levels 14

3.3.1 Deterministic Method 14

3.3.2 Describing the Earthquake Level is Probabilistic

Method 14

3.4 Performance Objectives 15

3.5 Calculation of Target Displacement 16

4.MODELLING OF STRUCTURE

4.1 General 20

4.2 Modelling of members 20

4.2.1 Modelling of Slabs 20

4.2.2 Modelling of Beams and Columns 21

4.2.3 Modelling of Infill Walls 21

4.2.4 Modelling of Shear Wall 23

4.2.5 Modelling of Appendages 23

4.2.5.1 Staircases 23

4.2.5.2 Water Tank 24

4.2.5.3 Cantilever Slabs 24

4.2.6 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation 24

4.2.7 End offsets and rigid zone factors 24

4.3 Modelling of Material Properties 27

4.3.1 Concrete Properties 27

4.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties 27

4.3.3 Material Damping 27

4.3.4 Modal Damping 27

4.3.5 Viscous Proportional Damping 27

4.4 Determination of Centre of Rigidity and Centre of Mass 28

4.4.1 Determination of Centre of Rigidity 28

4.4.2 Determination of Centre of Mass 31

4.4.3 Static Eccentricity 32

4.4.4 Design Eccentricity 32

4.5 Modelling Non-Linear Properties and its Calculation 32

4.5.1 Material Nonlinearity 33

4.5.2 Geometric Nonlinearity 34

4.5.2.1 P-Delta 34

4.5.2.2 Large Displacement 34

Development of moment curvature

4.6

relationship for beam 34

5.PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction 44

3

5.2 Methods of Pushover Analysis 44

5.3 Pushover Analysis and Pushover Curve 45

5.4 Pushover Analysis by SAP 2000 Package 46

5.5 Methodology of Pushover Analysis 48

5.6 Results from Pushover Analysis 44

5.6.1 Performance point 49

5.6.2 Displacement Ductility 50

5.6.3 Interstorey Drift & Plastic Hinge Formation 51

6.1 Introduction 52

6.2 Types of Dynamic Analysis 52

6.2.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis 52

6.2.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis 53

6.3 Methodology of nonlinear Time History Analysis 53

6.3.1 Acceleration Time Histories 54

6.3.2 Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis 55

Comparison between pushover analysis and Time History

6.4

Analysis 56

7. LOAD CALCULATION

7.1 Model of 6-Storey Frame 58

7.2 Building Description 58

7.3 Geometric properties of members 59

7.4 Analysis and Design of 6-storey building 59

7.5 Preliminary data for 6-storey RC frame building 60

7.5.1 Loading data for 6-storey RC frame building 60

7.5.2 Analysis of 6-storey RC frame 61

7.5.2.1 Load Calculation at roof level 61

7.5.2.2 Load Calculation at fifth floor level 62

7.5.2.3 Load Calculation at Plinth level 64

7.6 Earth quake load analysis 64

7.7 Seismic Load Distribution 66

7.7.1. Determination of design lateral loads at each floor as

per IS 1893(part1):2002 67

7.8 Load Combinations 67

7.9 Design of 3-Storey RC Building 68

7.9.1 Design of a flexure member 68

7.9.2 Design of exterior column 71

7.9.3 Design of Interior column 72

4

7.10 Calculation of Proportional Damping 73

8.EXAMPLES

Performance Based Analysis of 2D RC Frame without Infill

8.1

Action 76

8.1.1 Description of Structure 77

8.1.2 Results and Discussion 77

8.1.2.1 Base Shear 78

8.1.2.2 Performance Point 79

8.1.2.3 Interstorey Drift 80

8.1.2.4 Plastic Hinge Pattern 82

Pushover and Time-history Analyses of 2D RC Frame with

8.2

Infill Action 84

8.2.1 Effect of Infill Action 84

8.2.2 Detail of Frame Structure 84

8.2.3 Modelling Aspects 86

8.2.4 Analysis 90

8.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis 90

8.2.4.2 Time History Analysis 91

8.2.5 Results and Discussion 92

9.CONLCUSIONS

9.1 General 94

9.2 Conclusion from Example-1 94

9.3 Conclusion from Example-2 95

9.4 Scope for Further Work 95

REFERENCES 97

ABOUT ORGANISATION Annexure-1

5

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table Title

No.

3.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356) 9

3.2 Earthquake Levels (FEMA 356) 11

3.3 Selection of Performance Objectives 12

3.4 Values for Modification Factor C0 13

3.5 Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm 14

3.6 Values of Modification Factor C2 14

4.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns 16

4.2 Type of Fixity and Location for Column Bases 21

4.3 Cross-sectional, Material and Reinforcement details 36

4.4 Equation for , k1 and k2 39

4.5 Calculation of Values , k1 and k2 39

7 Load TABLES

8.1 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement 57

8.2 Input Earthquake Ground Motions 58

8.3 Dimensions of beams and columns 65

8.4 Column and Beam Reinforcement Details (mm2) 65

8.5 Calculation of Plastic Hinge Length and its Location 67

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Title Page No

No

3.1 Performance-based Analysis Procedure 5

3.2 Performance Levels 10

4.1 A Typical Panel of an Infill Frame 19

4.2 Shear Wall Model using Area Elements 20

4.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected

22

Profile

4.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile 22

4.5 Rigid Zone Factor Calculation 23

4.6 3D Model of the Structure 27

4.7 3D Model with bottom of First Storey Column Fixed 27

4.8 Calculation of (z)x 27

4.9 Calculation of (z)y 28

4.10 Calculation of (z)z 28

4.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature Relationship for a

33

Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre

4.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship 34

4.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship 35

4.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M- Curve 36

4.15 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete 37

4.16 Stress block for Concrete Section 38

4.17 Calculation of Moment 40

4.18 Calculation of curvature 41

4.19 Moment Curvature Relationship generated for the Sample Section 41

5.1 Static Approximation in the Pushover Analysis 43

5.2 Base Shear Vs. Roof Displacement 45

5.3 Determination of Performance Point 45

6.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis 52

6.2 Typical Acceleration Time-History Record 53

7.1 LOAD

8.1 6-Storey Frame with Dimensions 56

8.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame 59

8.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake 60

8.4 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Maximum Considered

60

Earthquake

8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios 61

8.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis 61

8.7 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level 63

8.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level 63

8.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis 64

8.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building 66

8.11 G+3 Storey 2D Frame Modelling for Pushover Analysis 69

8.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) with Infill Used for 69

7

Time History Analysis

Figure

Title Page No

No

8.13 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3

70

Storey Frame, using Pushover Analysis.

8.14 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3

71

Storey Frame using Time History Analysis

8.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using Time

72

History Analysis.

8.16 Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using

72

Time History Analysis.

8

LIST OF SYMBOLS

(CR)x Co-ordinate of center of rigidity along X-axis

(CR)y Co-ordinate of center of rigidity along Y-axis

(z)x Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian

(z)y Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian

(z)z Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian

a End offset in m

Acol Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column in mm2

Ast Area of tension reinforcement in beam in mm2

b Width of the beam in mm

bi Width in a direction perpendicular to the applied force

BSO Basic Safety Objective

C0 Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF

system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system.

C1 Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to

displacement calculated for linear elastic response

C2 Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,

stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement

response

C3 Modification factor to represent increased displacement due to dynamic P-Δ

effect

Cm Effective mass factor

CMx Co-ordinate of center of mass along X-axis

CMy Co-ordinate of center of mass along X-axis

d Diagonal length of the panel (center line) in m

d’ Effective cover of beam in mm

Db Depth of beam (cross-sectional dimension) in mm

DBE Design Basis Earthquake

Dc Depth of column (cross-sectional dimension) in mm

Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/mm2

edi Design eccentricity

Em Modulus of elasticity of infill material in N/mm2

Es Modulus of Elasticity of steel N/mm2

esi Static eccentricity

esix The static eccentricity along X direction

esiy The static eccentricity along Y direction

f’m Compressive strength of infill in N/mm2

fc Compressive stress in concrete in N/mm2

fck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube in N/mm2

fs Tensile stress in steel in N/mm2

G Shear modulus

G Acceleration due to gravity in m2/sec

H Depth of beam or column cross-section in mm

h Length of column (along center line) in m

9

h’ Height of infill panel in m

hi Height of floor i measured from base in m

I Moment of inertia of the cross section in mm4

Ie Effective second moment of area in mm4

Ig Gross moment of area in mm4

k Neutral axis depth factor

k Constant = 550 as per IS 1905

kd Assumed neutral axis depth in mm

kd’ Final neutral axis depth in mm

Ke Effective lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under

consideration

Ki Initial lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under

consideration

l Length of beam (along center line) in m

L Full length in m

L’ Length of infill panel in m

lb Length of the beam

Lb Distance of plastic hinge in beam measured from the centerline of column in

mm

lc Length of the column.

Lc Distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam in

mm

Lf Flexible length in m

Lp Plastic hinge length in m

M Moment in kNm

m Modular ratio between steel and concrete.

MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake

N Mean return period in years

N Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the

masses are loads

p Probability of exceedance of a certain earthquake level in a specified period

Pi Axial force in the column in ith storey in kN

Qi Design lateral force at floor i in kN

R Ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength

R Strength of infill wall corresponding to any strain level

r Rigid zone factor in m

Rc Strength corresponding to corner crushing failure

Rs Strength corresponding to shear cracking failure

Ru Ultimate strength of infill which is the lower value of Rc and Rs

Sa Spectral Acceleration in m2/sec

t Period in years

Te Effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under

consideration in sec

Ti Elastic fundamental time period of structure in the direction under

consideration in sec

Ts Characteristic period of the response spectrum in sec

10

VB Design seismic base shear in kN

Vy Yield strength in kN

W Effective seismic weight in kN

w Width of equivalent strut

Wi Seismic weight of floor i in kN

x Distance from the free end of the beam in m

xi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the X direction

from the reference point in m

yi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y direction

from the reference point in m

Z Zone factor

α Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness

δ Relative horizontal displacement of two adjacent floors in m

Δm Maximum displacement in m

δt Target displacement in m

Δy Yield deformation in m

μ Displacement ductility demand

Deflection at the free end in m

Curvature of beam section in rad/mm

h Diameter of the stirrup in mm

Mass coefficient

Stiffness coefficient

0 Strain corresponding to peak stress

c Strain in the extreme compression fibre in concrete

s Strain at each level of reinforcement

u Ultimate strain

xial strain in the strut

Diameter of pile

Ratio between strains

11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BSO Basic Safety Objective

CP Collapse Prevention

DBE Design Basis Earthquake

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

IO Immediate Occupancy

IS Indian Standard

LDP Linear Dynamic Procedure

LS Life Safety

MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake

MDOF Multi Degree of Freedom

NDP Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

NSP Nonlinear Static Procedure

NTHA Nonlinear Time-History Analysis

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration

RC Reinforced Concrete

SDOF Single Degree of Freedom

12

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

While conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design approach

having concern for the service-operational and ultimate-strength limit states for a

building, performance-based design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach that

additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a building at intermediate limit

states related to such issues as occupancy and life-safety standards. With the emergence

of the performance-based approach to design, there is a need to develop corresponding

analysis tools.

There is a hierarchy of structural analysis appropriate for performance based

analysis of structures. Each higher level procedure provides a more accurate method of

the actual performance of a building subjected to earthquake loads, but requires greater

effort in terms of data preparation, time and computational efforts.

1. The Linear Static Procedure is suitable only for regular buildings which

respond primarily within the elastic range.

2. The Linear Dynamic Procedure is able to model irregular buildings but is also

suitable for buildings which respond primarily within the elastic range.

3. The Non-linear Static Procedure can evaluate buildings loaded beyond the

elastic range but is unable to fully capture the dynamics of response,

especially higher mode effects.

4. The Non-linear Dynamic Procedure is the most complete form of analysis,

modeling both dynamic effects and inelastic response. However it is sensitive

to modeling and ground motion assumptions.

This report explains the performance based evaluation of reinforced concrete

frames by two advanced analysis techniques, Non-linear Static Procedure and Non-linear

Dynamic Procedure. Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear procedure in

which a predefined pattern of earthquake loads is applied incrementally to frameworks

until a collapse mechanism is reached. Nonlinear dynamic procedure is the time-history

method of analysis through which both inelastic behaviour and earthquake induced

13

actions changing with time can be accounted. It is a step by step analysis of the

dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time.

Earthquakes in recent years have emphasized the need for performance-based

seismic analysis. An essential element in many seismic evaluations is the determination

of ultimate inelastic response of the structure. Performance-based methods require

reasonable estimates of inelastic deformation or damage in structures which are better

quantities to assess damage than stress or forces.

The performance based analysis is based on quantifying the deformation of the

members and the building as a whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a

certain level of seismic hazard. Existing codes are based on elastic analysis which has no

measure of the deformation capability of members or of building. The performance based

analysis gives the analyst more choice of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to

the limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on limit state method.

The objective of the thesis is the performance evaluation of Reinforced Concrete

multi-storey buildings using Pushover and Time History analysis procedures. The

Pushover and Time History analysis procedures are considered as the powerful tools for

analyzing the buildings using performance based seismic design procedures.

1. To carry out performance based analysis of 2D RC frame by pushover analysis.

2. To make a comparison of the parameters obtained from pushover analysis with

that of time-history analysis.

3. To develop moment-curvature relationship for reinforced concrete members.

4. To study the effect of infill on seismic performance of frame.

14

In first chapter, a general introduction to the necessity to seismic performance evaluation

of buildings and the importance of Performance based seismic analysis and design

philosophy is described. The objectives and the scope of the thesis are highlighted. In the

second chapter, a brief review of literature on performance based seismic analysis, design

procedures, different force, displacement based pushover analysis and Time History

analysis procedures are presented. In the third chapter, different types of Performance

Levels and Ranges, Seismic Hazard Levels, Performance Objectives and Calculation of

Target Displacement is described. In the fourth chapter, using software packages such as

SAP-2000 modelling of structural members, material properties and geometric properties

are obtained. And in this chapter moment curvature relationship for beam is developed. In

the fifth chapter, Analysis procedures and detailed description about carrying pushover

analysis using software packages such as SAP-2000 is presented for RC buildings. In the

sixth chapter, Analysis types and procedures have detailed description about carrying

Time History analysis using software packages such as SAP-2000 is presented for RC

buildings. In seventh chapter, consists of loading pattern, seismic load calculations and

load combinations of the model generation of the 6-storey RC frame and 3-storey RC

frame. In the eighth chapter, Pushover and Time History Analysis for 6-storey RC

building without Infill action and 3-storey RC building with Infill action is carried out

using SAP-2000 software. Results are compared and discussions of the 6-storey RC

building are presented, and a discussion of the 3-storey RC building has been done. In the

ninth chapter, summary and conclusions of the work carried out in this thesis and the

scope for further studies has been explained.

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This literature review and introduction will focus on recent contributions related to

seismic evaluation and past efforts most closely related to the needs of the present work.

The goal of seismic evaluation of building is to determine how buildings will response to

a design of earthquake described by the recommended spectra. In other words, the goal is

to find the weak links and to identify, how their behavior will affect the response of the

structural system. The location and behavior of a weak link in a load path of lateral force

existing system must be evaluated. The weak links may function as a base isolator that

Will limit the structural response of lateral force resisting system (NEHRP, Washington,

D.C 1992).

The capacity spectrum method, which is non-linear static procedure, provides a

graphical representation of the global force displacement capacity curve of the structure

and compares it to the response spectra representation of the earthquakes demands.

methodologies is the accurate estimation of seismic demand parameters. Nonlinear static

procedures (NSPs) and nonlinear dynamic procedures (NDPs) are now widely used in

engineering practice to predict seismic demands in building structures. NSPs are included

in Euro code 8, 2001 and Japanese Design Code, 2001 to aid in performance assessment

of structural systems. The current trend in new seismic design code development is

incorporation of performance based design methodology. In this methodology, every

building is designed to have the desired levels of seismic performance corresponding to

different specified levels of earthquake ground motion. For example, a building would be

designed for immediate occupancy at one level of ground shaking and for possible

damage but not collapse at a higher level of ground motions. To achieve this goal,

engineers need information regarding the distribution of forces and deformation in the

building elements during earthquakes. Elastic analyses are insufficient because they

cannot realistically predict the force and deformation distributions after the initiation of

damage in the building. Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to identify the

16

modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The need to perform some

form of inelastic analysis is already incorporated in many building codes.

probably the most realistic analytical approach for evaluating the performance of a

building. However, the inelastic time-history analysis is usually too complex and time

consuming in the design of most buildings. This approach includes consideration of

effect of with infill wall and without infill wall of frame structure. The inelastic capacity

of a building is then a measure of its ability to dissipate earthquake energy (ATC 40).

basic quantities, the seismic capacity and the seismic demand. Demand is a description of

the earthquake ground motion effects on the building. Capacity is a representation of the

ability of the building to resist the seismic effects. The performance is measured by the

manner with which the capacity is able to handle the demand.

Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee and Et al[01] (2001) had presented an analytical

study of seismic damage evaluation of a tall reinforced concrete building and the

characteristics of the plastic hinge formation patterns obtained by using computer

programs for dynamic analysis. Damage indices obtained by computer programs are

interpreted and their implications compared with those of drift ratios. The results of

collapse mechanism approach are compared with that of static push-over analysis. It is

concluded that drift limits in codes do not necessarily predict the degree of damage that

this type of construction can sustain in sever earthquakes.

Asokan. A and Amlan K. Sengupta [03] (2007) had presented an study on seismic

analysis of a framed building with masonry infill walls, it is necessary to model the effect

of the walls on the lateral stiffness, strength and ductility of the building. The equivalent

strut method is a convenient for modelling the walls. Out of the two approaches of

equivalent strut method, the one based on elastic analysis is suitable for linear methods of

seismic analysis, such as equivalent static and response spectrum methods. The approach

17

based on ultimate load is suitable for nonlinear methods of seismic analysis, such as

pushover analysis. The present study proposes a nonlinear axial load versus deformation

behaviour for the equivalent strut to be used in conjunction with a pushover analysis.

Zou and Chan [25] (2005) had presented an effective computer-based technique that

incorporates pushover analysis together with numerical optimization procedures to

automate the pushover drift performance design of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings.

Steel reinforcement, as compared with concrete materials, appears to be the more cost-

effective material that can be effectively used to control drift beyond the occurrence of

first yielding and to provide the required ductility of RC building frameworks

carried out for either user-defined nonlinear hinge properties or default-hinge properties,

available in some programs based on the FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines. While such

documents provide the hinge properties for several ranges of detailing, programs may

implement averaged values. Plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing are

assumed to be effective parameters in the user-defined hinge properties. Observations

show that plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing have no influence on

the base shear capacity, while these parameters have considerable effects on the

displacement capacity of the frames. Comparisons point out that an increase in the

amount of transverse reinforcement improves the displacement capacity.

The FEMA-273[10] document provides technically sound and acceptable guidelines for the

seismic rehabilitation of buildings. The Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings are intended to serve as a ready tool for design professionals, a reference

document for building regulatory officials, and a foundation for the future development

and implementation of building code provisions and standards. This document provides

different Seismic performance levels of buildings for structural and Non-structural

components in detail. It also gives different analysis procedures used for Seismic

rehabilitation of buildings.

The FEMA-349[11] Action Plan presents a rational and cost effective approach by which

building stakeholders: owners, financial institutions, engineers, architects, contractors,

researchers, the public and governing agencies, will be able to move to a performance

18

based design and evaluation system. The Plan recognizes that there is a strong demand

from stakeholder groups for more reliable, quantifiable and practical means to control

building damage. It also recognizes that there is not a focused understanding among these

groups as to how these goals can be obtained. This Plan describes how performance

based seismic design guidelines can be developed and used to achieve these goals. It

engages each of the groups in the development of these guidelines, by which future

building design will become more efficient and reliable.

design professionals, code officials, and building owners undertaking the seismic

rehabilitation of existing buildings. The procedures contained in this standard are

specifically applicable to the rehabilitation of existing buildings and are, in general, more

appropriate for that purpose than are new building codes.

widely recognized in the earthquake engineering community as an essential next step in

the nation’s drive to develop resilient, loss-resistant communities. This FEMA 445[13]

Program Plan offers a step-by-step, task-oriented program that will develop next-

generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines for structural

and nonstructural components in new and existing buildings. This Program Plan is a

refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA plans: FEMA 283 Performance-Based

Seismic Design of Buildings – an Action Plan, which was prepared by the Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley in 1996, and FEMA

349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design, which was prepared by the

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in 2000. The state of practice for

performance-based assessment, performance-based design of new buildings, and

performance-based upgrades of existing buildings will all be significantly advanced

under this Program Plan.

methodology for the seismic evaluation and retrofit design of existing concrete buildings.

Although it is not intended for the design of new buildings, the analytical procedures are

applicable. The document applies to the overall structural system and its elements and

19

components. The methodology used here is performance based: the evaluation and

retrofit design criteria are expressed as performance objectives, which defines desired

levels of seismic performance when the building is subjected to specified levels of

seismic ground motion. Acceptable performance is measured by the level of structural

and/or non-structural damage expected from the earthquake shaking. Damage is

expressed in terms of post yield, inelastic deformation limits for various structural

components and elements found in concrete buildings. The analytical procedure

incorporated in the methodology accounts for post elastic deformations of the structure

by using simplified nonlinear static analysis methods.

In this thesis, Pushover and Time History analyses of two different RC buildings are

carried out using software packages. Pushover and Time History analyses of 6-storey RC

building are carried out using SAP-2000 software. Pushover and Time History analyses

methodology given in ATC-40 document was incorporated in SAP-2000 software

package and the same is used for seismic performance of a 3-storey RC building has been

carried out.

20

CHAPTER-3

METHODOLOGY OF PERFORMANCE-BASED ANALYSIS

3.1 GENERAL

Performance-based seismic analysis requires that the engineer should complete

the tasks indicated in the flowchart shown in Figure 3.1.

earthquake hazard level and performance objective within the context of performance-

based analysis. Since two types of nonlinear analyses methods i.e. nonlinear pushover

and nonlinear time-history are to be described in their respective chapters.

21

3.2 PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RANGES

The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or

building performance level, is decided by structural engineer. The building performance

level is a function of the post event conditions of the structural and non-structural

components of the structure. The performance levels as per FEMA 356 are as follows:

a) Immediate Occupancy

b) Life Safety

c) Collapse Prevention

Structural Performance Level S-1, Immediate Occupancy, means the post-

earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage has

occurred.

The basic vertical-and lateral-force-resisting systems of the building retain nearly

all of their pre-earthquake strength and stiffness.

In the primary concrete frames, there will be hairline cracking. There may be a

few locations where the rebar will yield, but the crushing of concrete is not

expected.

The transient drift will be about 1%, with negligible permanent drift.

In the brick infill walls, there will be minor cracking and minor spalling of plaster.

The risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural damage is very low, and

although some minor structural repairs may be appropriate, these would generally

not be required prior to reoccupancy.

Structural Performance Range S-2, Damage Control, means the continuous range

of damage states that entail less damage than that defined for the Life Safety

level, but more than that defined for the Immediate Occupancy level.

Design for Damage Control performance may be desirable to minimize repair

time and operation interruption; as a partial means of protecting valuable

22

equipment and contents; or to preserve important historic features when the cost

of design for Immediate Occupancy is excessive.

Acceptance criteria for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the

values provided for the Immediate Occupancy (S-1) and Life Safety (S-3) levels.

Structural Performance Level S-3, Life Safety, means the post-earthquake damage

state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred, but some margin

against either partial or total structural collapse remains.

Some structural elements and components are severely damaged, but this has not

resulted in large falling debris hazards, either within or outside the building.

In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive damage in the beams.

There will be spalling of concrete cover and shear cracking in the ductile

columns.

The transient drift will be around 2%, with 1% being permanent.

In the brick infill walls, there will be extensive cracking and some crushing. But

the walls are expected to remain in place.

The transient drift will be about 0.5%, with 0.3% being permanent. Injuries may

occur during the earthquake; however, it is expected that the overall risk of life-

threatening injury as a result of structural damage is low.

It should be possible to repair the structure; however, for economic reasons this

may not be practical.

While the damaged structure is not an imminent collapse risk, it would be prudent

to implement structural repairs or install temporary bracing prior to re-occupancy.

Structural Performance Range S-4, Limited Safety means the continuous range of

damage states between the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention levels.

Design parameters for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the

values provided for the Life Safety (S-3) and Collapse Prevention (S-5) levels.

23

3.2.5 Collapse Prevention Performance Level (S-5)

Structural Performance Level S-5, Collapse Prevention, means the building is on

the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse.

Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially including significant

degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting system, large

permanent lateral deformation of the structure, and to a more limited extent

degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all significant

components of the gravity load-resisting system must continue to carry their

gravity load demands.

In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive cracking and formation of

hinges in the ductile elements.

There will be about 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.

There will be extensive cracking and crushing in the brick infill walls. Walls may

dislodge due to out-of-plane bending.

There will be 0.6% inelastic drift, transient or permanent. Significant risk of

injury due to falling hazards from structural debris may exist.

The structure may not be technically practical to repair and is not safe for

reoccupancy, as aftershock activity could induce collapse.

Some owners may desire to address certain nonstructural vulnerabilities in a

rehabilitation program-for example, bracing parapets, or anchoring hazardous

materials storage containers-without addressing the performance of the structure

itself. Such rehabilitation programs are sometimes attractive because they can

permit a significant reduction in seismic risk at relatively low cost.

The performance levels for the non-structural components are Operational (N-A),

Immediate Occupancy (N-B), Life Safety (N-C) and Hazards Reduced (N-D). When the

performance of the nonstructural components is neglected while addressing the design of

the building structure, the non-structural performance level is referred to as Not

24

Considered (N-E). The notations of the nonstructural performance levels are alphabetic

with a prefix N.

As mentioned before, that a building level is a combination of the structural

performance levels and the nonstructural performance levels. The various combinations

are expressed in the form of the matrix given below. The notations of the building

performance levels are numeric-alphabetic, where the number corresponds to the

structural performance level and the alphabet corresponds to non-structural performance

level.

Table 3.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356)

Nonstructural S–1 SP – 2 SP – 3 SP – 4 SP – 5 SP – 6

Performance Immediate Damage Life Limited Collapse Not Considered

Levels Occupancy Control Safety Safety Prevention

N –A 1 –A 2–A NR NR NR NR

Operational Operational

N–B 1–B 2–B 3–B NR NR NR

Immediate Immediate

Occupancy Occupancy

N–C 1–C 2–C 3–C 4–C 5–C 6–C

Life Safety Life

Safety

N–D NR 2–D 3–D 4–D 5–D 6–D

Hazards

Reduced

N–E NR NR 3–E 4–E 5–E No rehabilitation

Not Collapse

Considered Prevention

(NR-Not Recommended)

It can be observed from the above table that for the three building performance

levels of Operational (1-A), Immediate Occupancy (1-B) and Life Safety (3-C), due

regard has to be given to both structural and nonstructural performance levels. For the

building performance level of Collapse prevention, the performance of the nonstructural

25

component can be neglected. A more common way of representing standard structural

performance levels is shown in Figure 3.2.

In the performance based analysis, seismic hazard level (or earthquake hazard

level or simply, earthquake level) refers to the level of ground motion. The earthquake

level can be described by two types of methods,

a) Deterministic method

b) Describing the earthquake level is the probabilistic method.

The engineering characteristic of the shaking at a site due to an earthquake are

represented through response spectra or ground motion time histories. A response

spectrum provides the special acceleration of a single degree of freedom system for a

range of time periods. This is frequently used in the traditional approach of seismic

design. A suite of ground motion acceleration time histories can be used in a linear or

nonlinear time history analysis. The important features of an acceleration time history are

the peak ground acceleration and the duration of the ground motion (total or bracketed).

The seismic zones of IS 1893: 2002 were developed from seismic intensity levels of past

earthquakes. This is a deterministic method of quantifying the earthquake level at site.

26

An earthquake level is associated with a probability of occurrence. Assuming a

nominal probability distribution of the earthquake levels at a site, the probability of

exceedance (p) of a certain earthquake level in a specified period (t in years) is related to

the mean return period (N, in years) by the following equation

t

N -------- (3.1)

ln(1 p)

Usually the design life of a building is 50 years. Based on selected values of p for t = 50

years, five earthquake levels can be defined for a site.

In IS 1893:2002, the zone factor Z corresponds to the maximum considered

earthquake (MCE). As mentioned earlier, the values of Z were evaluated based on a

deterministic method. It cannot be directly related to the definitions given in Table. A

simplistic method was adopted to define the design basis earthquake (DBE). The DBE is

defined as ½ MCE and hence, Z/2 is substituted in place of Z. A partial load factor of 1.5

is applied to DBE in the load combinations.

Earthquake levels p t N Approximate Remarks

(years) (years) N (years)

Serviceability earthquake – 1 50% 50 72 75 Frequent

Serviceability earthquake – 2 20% 50 224 225 Occasional

Design basis earthquake 10% 50 475 500 Rare

Maximum considered earthquake – 1 5% 50 975 1000 Very rare

10% 100 949

Maximum considered earthquake – 2 2% 50 2475 2500 Extremely

10% 250 2373 rare

A performance objective is the pairing of a building performance level and a

seismic hazard level. If the objective includes two building performance levels under two

earthquake levels, then it is a dual level performance objective. Similarly there can be

27

multiple level performance objectives. A basic safety objective (BSO) satisfies the dual

requirement of Life Safety under DBE and Collapse Prevention under MCE

(combinations k+p in below table.3.1.1). The aim of BSO is to have a low risk of life

threatening injury during a moderate earthquake (as defined by DBE) and to check the

collapse of the vertical load resisting system during a severe earthquake (as defined by

MCE)

Earthquake levels Probability Target building performance level

of Operational Immediate Life Collapse

in a period

Serviceability 50% in 50

a b c d

earthquake – 1 years

Serviceability 20% in 50

e f g h

earthquake – 2 years

Design basis 10% in 50

i j k l

earthquake (DBE) years

Maximum considered 2% in 50

earthquake – 2 years m n 0 p

(MCE)

The target displacement i.e. the maximum displacement the structure is expected

to undergo during a design event is now calculated. The target displacement is calculated

as per the following equation of FEMA 356.

2

T

t C 0 C1 C 2 C 3 S a e 2 g ----- (3.2)

4

28

C0 is Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF

system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system. The values of C 0 are

tabulated in FEMA 356 and are included in Table 3.4.

No of Stories Triangular Load Uniform Load

Any Load Pattern

Pattern Pattern

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

2 1.2 1.15 1.2

3 1.2 1.2 1.3

5 1.3 1.2 1.4

10+ 1.3 1.2 1.5

1. Linear interpolation shall be used to calculate intermediate values.

2. Buildings in which, for all stories, interstory drift decreases with increasing height

displacement calculated for linear elastic response and is given by

Te is the effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under

consideration and is defined as per the following equation,

Ki

Te Ti ----- (3.5)

Ke

under consideration, Ki is initial lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction

under consideration and Ti is elastic fundamental time period of structure in the direction

under consideration in sec.

Ts is characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period

associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the spectrum. R

29

is ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength and is obtained from

equation,

R = Sa/(Vy/W) .Cm ----- (3.6)

Vy is yield strength calculated using results of the NSP for the idealized nonlinear

force displacement curve developed for the building. W is the effective seismic weight

and Cm is the effective mass factor from Table 3.5. Alternatively, C m is taken as the

effective model mass calculated for the fundamental mode using an Eigen value analysis

shall be permitted.

No of Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Steel Steel other

Stories Moment Shear Pier Moment Concentric Eccentric

Frame Wall Spandrel Frame Braced Braced

Frame Frame

1-2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3 or 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0

more

1. Cm shall be taken as 1.0 if the fundamental period, T is greater than 1.0 second.

stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response and

shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Values of Modification Factor C2

Framing Framing Framing Framing

Performance

Type 11 Type 22 Type 11 Type 22

Level

Immediate

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Occupancy

Life Safety

1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0

Collapse

1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0

Prevention

30

1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by any combination of the

following components, elements, or frames: ordinary moment-resisting frames, concentrically-braced

frames, frames with partially-restrained connections, tension-only braces, unreinforced masonry walls,

shear-critical, piers, and spandrels of reinforced concrete or masonry.

2. All frames not assigned to Framing Type 1.

3. Linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of T.

effect. For buildings with positive post-yield stiffness, C 3 shall be set equal to 1.0. For

buildings with negative post-yield stiffness, values of C3 shall be calculated using

equation. α = Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness, where the

nonlinear force-displacement relation shall be characterized by a bilinear relation.

(3.7)

damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration.

g – Acceleration of gravity.

CHAPTER 4

MODELLING OF STRUCTURES

4.1 GENERAL

For any detailed structural analysis, development of computational model is a

must. Modelling of a structure means modelling of all its members and its material

property. The members are connected so that it will represent the actual load flow path.

The model should accurately represent mass distribution, strength, stiffness and

deformability. The different types of computational models are three dimensional model,

two dimensional model, lumped ass model and soil structure interaction model. This

chapter gives an overall idea about the three dimensional computational modelling

31

aspects of reinforced concrete structures, which is used for both linear and non-linear

analysis.

4.2.1 Modelling of Slabs

Conventionally reinforced concrete slabs are not modeled for analysis of regular

structures. Instead its load contribution is transferred to the adjacent beams as equivalent

trapezoidal and triangular loads. But in-plane stiffness of reinforced concrete slabs is very

large. So its effect should be modeled, especially when lateral load analysis (wind or

seismic) is carried out. It is assumed that slabs are rigid in its plane. This in-plane rigidity

of slab is modelled by assigning rigid diaphragm behaviour in that plane by connecting

all the column beam joints in that floor. In SAP and ETABS, diaphragm constraint is used

for modelling in-plane rigidity where as in STAAD master-slave is used.

But in the case of slabs with large aspect ratio, especially in the case of flat slabs,

the in-plane bending of slabs under lateral loads will be too high to be neglected. The in-

plane bending of slabs generate chord forces. The chord forces should be calculated by

dividing the slab into finite elements. The size of each element will depend on the stress

gradient generated in slab under lateral loading.

The beams and columns are modeled as frame elements. The joints are considered

to be rigid.

For linear analysis, modulus of elasticity of the material, cross-sectional

dimension and length of the member should be defined.

For non-linear analysis, in addition to this load versus deformation has to be

modeled. Hence here reinforcement details should also be added.

Since concrete cracks under loading, full cross section of the concrete member is

not available to resist deforming forces. Hence the effective cross sectional area

should be considered. The values taken from ATC 40 as shown in Table 4.1 can be

32

used. These factors are important since moment distribution to the members

meeting at a joint will depend on the relative stiffness of the members.

Table 4.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns

Frame Element Cross-sectional shape Ieff

Rectangular 0.5Ig

Beams T-Beam 0.7Ig

L-Beam 0.6Ig

Columns 0.7Ig

Infill walls are non-structural elements in a building. The walls are built for

partition purpose after the construction of frames. No gap is expected between a wall and

the bounding columns. Figure 4.1 shows a typical panel of an infilled frame. Any gap

between the top of the wall and the soffit of the beam above is expected to be packed

with mortar. The dead loads of the slabs are carried by the beams to the supporting

columns and hence, it is not transferred to the wall. The live load also will not cause

substantial deflection of the beam for the load to be transferred to the wall. Hence the

infill wall is not considered to be gravity load bearing and is not designed. But infill walls

are modeled to incorporate its stiffness contribution in the lateral direction. Finite element

modelling of infill although rigorous is time consuming to develop. Hence an

approximate method based on equivalent strut is adopted.

Strut is a compression member similar to frame element. It will carry only axial

compressive forces. Hence both the ends of the strut are assigned pin connection or it can

be modeled as truss member.

33

Figure 4.1 A Typical Panel of an Infilled Frame

Here

l’ = length of infill panel

h’ = height of infill panel

l = length of beam (along center line)

h = length of column (along center line)

d = diagonal length of the panel (center line)

The properties of infill that should be assigned to equivalent strut while modelling

it for linear analysis are modulus of elasticity (equation 4.1), cross-sectional dimension of

the equivalent strut and the diagonal length of infill panel.

E m kf m' (4.1)

Here

Em = modulus of elasticity of infill material

f’m = compressive strength of infill

k = 550 (IS: 1905)

34

In the case of non-linear analysis, deformations are expected to go beyond the

elastic range. Hence it is necessary to model the non-linear load versus deformation

behaviour of infill also. Since struts are modeled to carry only axial compressive forces,

the axial force versus deformation behaviour of infill has to be modeled. Calculation of

cross-sectional dimension, non-linear modelling and a comparative study of few 2D

frames with and without infill modelling are explained in detail in section 4.7 of this

chapter.

Shear walls are structural elements primarily designed to resist lateral loads. It is

modelled using area elements. It is then meshed into finite elements based on the stress

gradient. If shear walls are meant for lateral load resistance only, it can be modelled using

membrane elements. But if it is for resisting both lateral and gravity loads, it has to be

modelled using shell elements. A typical SAP model of a G+1 3D structure with shear

wall is shown in Figure 4.2.

4.2.5 Modelling of Appendages

4.2..1 Staircases

Staircases connect successive floors. Conventionally staircases are not modeled.

Instead load is applied on the supporting structures at both ends. But when the stiffness of

the structure is very less, then the stiffness contribution of staircase will become

35

significant. In such cases, staircases can be modeled using inclined truss member or

inclined beam member.

Water tanks on the floor slabs are not conventionally modeled along with the

structure. Instead the support reaction obtained from the supports of water tanks are

applied as point loads or as uniformly distributed loads on the columns or beams of the

main structure.

Cantilever slabs are also not modeled with the main structure. Instead its mass

contribution is applied as lumped mass on the supporting elements.

In conventional analysis, fixed or hinged condition is assigned to the column base,

based on the soil property and type of footing. The type of fixity and the location for

conventionally used footings are explained in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Type of Fixity and Location for Column Bases

Types of footing Type of fixity and location

If on hard strata, column ends are fixed at top of the footing

Isolated

If on soft strata, column ends are hinged at bottom of the footing

Combined If adequately restrained at column base, fixity can be assigned.

Raft Column ends are fixed at top of the raft

Single pile Column end fixed at a depth of 5 -10 from the top of the pile cap

Multiple pile Column end fixed at top of the pile cap

is the diameter of pile.

4.2.7 End Offsets and Rigid Zone Factor (Beam-column joints)

connected at joints. Since members have finite size, it will overlap at joints (e.g. beam

and column). This will be significant when the member cross section is very large. This

can lead to over estimation of deflections and bending moments in the elements due to

more length than the actual. To avoid this overlapping, we have to provide offsets at

36

joints. The offset values are selected such that one member will flush with the face of the

other member. Figure 4.3 shows a typical beam column joint before giving offset and

corresponding deflected profile. Figure 4.4 shows the joint with offsets and the

corresponding deflected profile.

Figure 4.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected Profile

Figure 4.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile

The junction of beam is modeled using rigid zone factor. Rigid zone factor is

defined as the fraction of offset which should be considered as rigid for bending and

shear deformation. Three types of zones are defined.

Fully rigid zone with a rigid zone factor equal to 1.

37

Partially rigid zone with a rigid zone factor varying from 0 to 1.

Conventionally a rigid zone factor of 0.5 is assumed which will make the initial

half length of offset rigid. The mathematical significance of rigid zone factor is explained

using equation 4.2 and Figure 4.5.

`

L = full length

Lf = L – ra = flexible length

a = end offset

r = rigid zone factor (r can be any value from 0 to 1)

P = loading on the beam.

x = distance from the free end of the beam.

= deflection at the free end

Lf L L L

Px 2 Px 2 f

P P

dx dx dx dx (4.2)

0

EI Lf

EI 0

GA v Lf

GA v

E = Young’s modulus

of elasticity

I = Moment of inertia of the cross section

G = Shear modulus

Av= Shear area

Since the initial length “ra” is rigid 2 nd and 4th terms of the above equation

becomes zero.

38

4.3 MODELLING OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material properties of members are required to model the stiffness, as well as the

strength of the members. The Young’s modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete is calculated

using equation 4.3 as given in IS: 456-2000.

E c 5000 f ck

(4.3)

Here, fck =Characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube in MPa.

Cube compressive strength, fck

Modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec

4.51 Reinforcing Steel Properties

Yield strength of steel

Modulus of Elasticity of steel, Es

4.52 Material Damping

Material damping is a property of the material and affects all analysis cases.

Additional damping may be specified in each analysis case.

Damping has such a significant affect upon dynamic response. Hence care should

be taken in defining your damping parameters.

Damping values of 5% and 2% are considered conventionally for concrete and

steel structures respectively.

4.53 Modal Damping

The material modal damping is stiffness weighted.

It is used for all response spectrum and modal time history analysis.

4.54 Viscous Proportional Damping

This damping is used for direct integration time history analysis.

For each material, you may specify a mass coefficient, , and a stiffness

coefficient, .

Material damping is a property of the material and affects all analysis cases.

39

Additional damping may be specified in each analysis case.

Even though more accurate method of seismic analysis is available, in the case of

low to medium height structures with regular configuration, equivalent static method is

performed for seismic analysis. It is based on the assumption that the predominant mode

of vibration will be in first mode. In such cases, the vertical shear distribution calculated

as per IS: 1893(2002) codal provisions has to be applied at the shifted center of mass on

each floor. This section explains the procedure to find the shifted center of mass in a

floor.

Center of rigidity is defined for each floor levels. It is defined as that point in each

floor level, where the resultant restoring force in a storey acts. In simple words, it is the

point in the slab, where even if a large force is applied, there will only translational

movement but there will not be any rotation. A simple procedure for calculating center of

rigidity of roof slab of a G+1 structure (Figure 4.6) is explained below using Figure 4.8 to

Figure 4.10.The column bases of first floor are given fixity (Figure 4.7).A test point is

selected (it can be any node). Let the co-ordinates of the test point be (0, 0).The test point

is connected to all other beam column joints in the roof slab level by diaphragm action. A

unit load is applied along X, along Y and a unit moment is applied about Z at the above

test point (Figure 4.8 a, Figure 4.9a and Figure 4.10a) The rotations due to these unit

loads are then obtained as shown in Figure 4.8b, Figure 4.9b and Figure 4.10b.

The co-ordinates of center of rigidity are calculated using equation 4.4 and

equation 4.5 as follows.

z y

CR x

z z (4.4)

z x

CR y

(4.5) z z

40

Rotation about Z due to unit load along X, (z) x =2.24 × 10-6 radian

Rotation about Z due to unit load along Y, (z) y = 2.3 ×10-6 radian

Rotation about Z due to unit moment about Z, (z) z = 7.37×10-7 radian

z y

CR x = 2.3 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.12m

z z

z x

CR y

z z = 2.24 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.04m

(z)x, (z)y and (z)z are shown as R3 in Figures 4.8b, 4.9b and 4.10b respectively.

Figure 4.6 3D Model of the Structure Figure 3.7 3D Model with bottom of First

Storey Column Fixed

41

a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis

in X direction at the Test Point

x

a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis

in Y direction at the Test Point

Figure 4.9 Calculation of ( z)

y

42

a) Roof Slab showing Unit Moment applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis

about Z axis at the Test Point

Figure 4.10 Calculation of ( z) z

It is the point where the total mass of any storey level is assumed to be

lumped. It is calculated by taking moments of the axial forces in columns as obtained

from gravity load analysis about a reference point in X and Y directions separately. The

co-ordinates of the center of mass with respect to the reference point are then calculated

using equation 4.6 and equation 4.7.

CM x

P x

i i

P i

(4.6)

CM y

P y

i i

P i

(4.7)

Here

Pi = Axial force in the column in ith storey

xi = Distance of column under consideration in the i th storey along the X

direction from the reference point

yi = Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y

direction from the reference point

43

4.57 Static Eccentricity

Static eccentricity is the distance between center of rigidity and center of mass.

The static eccentricity along X direction (e six) is calculated using equation 4.8. Similarly

the static eccentricity along Y direction (esiy) is calculated using equation 4.9.

e six CM x CR x (4.8)

e siy CM x CR x (4.9)

In order to account for dynamic amplification and accidental eccentricity, the

above static eccentricity is modified using a dynamic amplification factor of 1.5 and an

accidental eccentricity of 5% of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of

force. The design eccentricity is determined using equation 4.10 and equation 4.11 in

both X and Y directions

e di 1.5e si 0.05b i (4.10)

or

e di e si 0.05b i (4.11)

The value which will give more severe effect in the shear of frame is used for analysis.

In equi-static method of lateral load analysis the vertical base shear distribution

are applied at design eccentricity from the center of rigidity. This point is defined as

shifted center of mass.

CALCULATIONS

The two types of non-linearity namely material non-linearity and geometric non-

linearity are briefly explained below.

4.51 Material Non-linearity

44

When a material is strained beyond its proportional limit, the linear stress-strain

relationship is no longer valid. In order to assign the material non-linearity to the

structure, plastic hinges are modelled at locations where bending moment are expected to

be maximum. Plastic hinges can be provided at any number of locations along the clear

length of any frame element. Each hinge represents concentrated post yield behaviour.

Hinges only affect the behavior of the structure in non-linear static (Pushover) and

nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis. The different types of hinge properties

are

Default Hinge Property calculated by the software based on the section defined

and default stress strain.

User Defined Hinge Property

Default hinge properties can not be modified, since it is section dependent. The

default properties can not be fully defined by the program until the section to which they

are applied has been 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 can be viewed. The built-in default hinge properties for concrete members

are generally based on Tables 9.6, 9.7 and 9.12 of ATC-40. Calculation of user defined

hinge properties are explained in section 4.7 of this chapter.

The hinges in the frame members form near the joints and not exactly at joint. It is

assumed that these plastic hinges in the members from at a distance equal to half the

average plastic hinge length, Lp, from the face of the member to which it frames into. The

plastic hinge length is calculated using Baker’s formula (equation 4.12)

L p 0.5H

(4.12)

Here

H = depth of beam or column cross-section

45

4.52 Geometric Nonlinearity

The geometric nonlinearities are P-Delta effect and are displacement/rotation

effects. Strains within the elements are assumed to be small. Geometric nonlinearity can

be considered on a step-by-step basis in nonlinear static and direct-integration time

history analysis, and incorporated in the stiffness matrix for linear analysis.

4.52.1 P-Delta

The equilibrium equations take into partial account the deformed configuration of

the structure. The tensile force stiffens the structure and the compressive force

destabilizes the structure. But this analysis requires a moderate amount of iteration.

All the equilibrium equations are written in the deformed configuration of the

structure. This may require a large amount of iterations. Although large displacement and

large rotation effects are modeled, all strains are assumed to be small.

significant deformation.

For most other structures, the P-Delta option is adequate, particularly when

material nonlinearity dominates.

BEAM AND COLUMN

Moment curvature relation is developed for a particular section of a frame

element. It will depend on the cross sectional property, reinforcement details, material

properties and the stress strain curve. The following flow chart (Figure 4.11) shows, how

the moment curvature relationship is generated for a section for a particular strain value

in the extreme compression fiber.

46

Define material

Assume neutral

axis depth, kd

kd’ = kd

2 No & find kd’

Yes

Calculate Moment

Calculate curvature

Relationship for a Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre

Figure 4.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature Relationship for a

Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre

Similarly moment and curvature values are calculated for different strain values

up to ultimate strain for the same section. A typical moment curvature relation ship

developed is shown in Figure 4.12. Here kd is the assumed neutral axis depth for the trial

and error procedure and kd’ is the final neutral axis depth as obtained by equating total

tensile and total compressive forces at the section for that particular strain at the extreme

compression fiber in concrete.

47

Figure 4.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship

Point A’ represents cracking in concrete. Till that stage, entire load is resisted by

concrete alone. Once the section cracks, steel starts to take tensile load.

Point B represents yielding stage.

Point C corresponds to ultimate strength and ultimate curvature u, following

which failure takes place.

But for computational stability two more points has to be defined. Also the

cracking stage will not be plotted in idealised conditions. In actual practice we have to

convert the curve in Figure 4.12 into an idealised shape as shown in Figure 4.13.

48

Figure 4.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship

Idealised moment curvature curve for a typical section should have the following

well defined points.

Point A corresponds to unloaded stage.

Point B corresponds to nominal yield strength and yield rotation y.

Point C corresponds to ultimate strength and ultimate rotation u, following

which failure takes place.

Point D corresponds to residual strength beyond point C. Conventionally a value

of 20% of the yield strength is assumed.

Point E corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the residual

strength. Conventionally a high value of deformation capacity is assumed.

below. The section considered for calculating moment curvature values is shown in

Figure 3.14. Cross-sectional and material properties of the section considered are shown

in Table 3.3.

49

Figure 4.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M-Curve

b 300 mm

D 500 mm

fck 25 N/mm2

fy 415 N/mm2

Cover 25 mm

h 8 mm

20 mm

Es 200000 N/mm2

Ec 25000 N/mm2

m 8

Here

b = width of the beam

D = depth of the beam

h = diameter of the stirrup

= diameter of the main reinforcement considered

Es = modulus of elasticity of the steel reinforcement

Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete.

m = modular ratio between steel and concrete.

Figure 4.15 shows the stress strain diagram for concrete, which is used to generate

moment curvature relationship. It has an ascending and a descending part. The ascending

50

part is represented by equation 4.13. The descending part is represented by equation 4.14.

The corresponding stress block is shown in Figure 4.16.

c c 2

f c 0.446f ck 2 0 c 0.002 (4.13)

0.002 0.002

c

2

0.002 (4.14)

The strain at each level of reinforcement can be calculated assuming linear strain

variation along the depth as shown in equation 4.15 and the corresponding stress in the

steel is calculated using equation 4.16.

s c

kd d'

(4.15)

kd

fs s Es

(4.16)

Here

51

s = strain in reinforcement at a depth d’ from the extreme compressive fibre

in concrete which is equal to the strain in the surrounding concrete

layer.

k 1 k 3 f ck bkd A st f s (4.17)

extreme compression fiber in concrete.

k3fck = maximum compressive stress in the stress block (here a value of 0.446

is taken as k3)

Table 4.4 explains how to calculate , k1 and k2 for different ranges of c, whereas

Table 4.5 shows the values of , k1 and k2 calculated based on the above equation for a

strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression fiber in concrete.

c/0 0/c

k1

k2 (1/3- (6-4

52

Here

0 = strain corresponding to peak stress

u = ultimate strain

fiber of concrete. (Clear vertical spacing between reinforcement layers is 40mm)

c k1 k2 K3

0.0005 0.25 0.229 0.3409 0.446

The neutral axis depth that is used for next trial, kd = (300+8.52)/2 =154.26 mm

Repeat the procedure till the input kd exactly matches with the kd calculated.

Here for input kd = 214.69 mm, the calculated kd also gave the same value. The

calculation procedure is graphically shown in Figure 4.17.

53

Figure 4.17 Calculation of Moment

M k 1 k 3 f ck bkd d k 2 kd (4.18)

M = 106kNm

Calculation of curvature for a strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression

fiber of concrete is explained below using Figure 4.18 and equation 4.19.

54

Figure 4.18 Calculation of Curvature

c

(4.19)

kd

= 0.0005/213.25 = 0.0000023446 rad/m

Similarly moment and curvature are determined for strain values 0.001, 0.0015,

0.002, 0.0025, 0.003 and 0.0035. The values obtained are plotted in the graph as shown in

Figure 4.19. The moment curvature relation generated for a particular section will depend

on the stress strain curves used. The values are validated with the in-house software

developed by IIT-Madras.

Figure 4.19 Moment Curvature Relationship Generated for the Sample Section

55

CHAPTER 5

5.1. INTRODUCTION

lateral load is incrementally increased maintaining a predefined distribution pattern along

the height of the building. With the increase in the magnitude of loads, weak links and

failure modes of the building can be found. Pushover analysis can determine the behavior

of a building, including the ultimate load and the maximum inelastic deflection. Local

non linear effects are modeled and the structure is pushed until a collapse mechanism is

developed. At each step, the base shear and the roof displacement can be plotted to

generate the pushover curve.

There are different methods followed for pushover analysis. Basically it has been

classified into two ways are.

i) Force Control

In force control, the structure is subjected to lateral forces and the displacements are

calculated. There are so many ways of applying force on the structure. It was broadly

classified in to two types. They are a) Fixed Load Distribution and b) Variable Load

Distribution. In the Fixed load distribution, the load distribution is determined prior and

remains unchanged during the pushover. Some of the fixed distributions used are as

follows.

Uniform load distribution on all floors

Triangular or standard code load distribution

A load distribution proportional to the product of the mass vector and the fundamental

mode shape

56

Lateral force distribution based on a linear elastic dynamic analysis or response

spectrum analysis of the building.

In the Variable load distribution, the distribution is determined with the changes in

inertial forces with the level of inelastic deformation, some researchers have proposed

adaptive load patterns to be used in the pushover. The load distribution changes as the

building is deformed to larger and larger displacements. The following are some of the

variable load distributions.

A distribution proportional to the product of the mass vector and the fundamental mode

shape is used initially until first yielding takes place. Then, for each load increment

beyond yielding, the forces are adjusted to be consistent with the deflected shape in the

inelastic state. The load distribution is based on the product of the current floor

displacements and masses.

A distribution based on mode shapes derived from secant stiffness at each load step

These adaptive load distributions require more computational effort. However, their

superiority over the simpler fixed load distributions has not been established.

In displacement control, the structure is subjected to a displacement profile and the lateral

forces are calculated. In the displacement control, the user must specify the target

maximum deformation profile of the structure. This profile is internally divided by the

number of steps specified by the user, and then incrementally applied to the structure.

After assigning all properties of the model, the force controlled pushover analysis of

the building model is carried out. The models are pushed in monotonic increasing order

in a particular direction till the collapse of the structure. For this purpose, value of

maximum displacement (4% of height of building) at roof level and number of steps in

which this displacement must be applied, are defined. The global response of structure at

each displacement level is obtained in terms of the base shear, which is presented by

pushover curve. Pushover curve is a base shear force versus roof displacement curve,

57

which tells about the shear force developed at the base of the structure at any push level.

The peak of this curve represents the maximum base shear, i.e. maximum load carrying

capacity of the structure; the initial stiffness of the structure is obtained from the tangent

at pushover curve at the load level of 10% that of the ultimate load and the maximum

roof displacement of structures is taken that deflection beyond which collapse of structure

takes place.

Nonlinear static pushover analysis capabilities are provided in the nonlinear version

of SAP2000 only. The nonlinear behavior occurs in discrete user-defined hinges.

Currently, hinges can be introduced into frame objects only and assigned at any location

along the frame object. Uncoupled moment, torsion, axial force and shear hinges are

available. There is also a coupled P-M2-M3 hinge that yields based on the interaction of

axial force and bending moments at the hinge location. More than one type of hinge can

exist at the same location; for example, both an M3 (moment) and a V2 (shear) hinge

may be assigned to the same end of a frame object. A pushover analysis can consist of

more than one pushover load case. Each pushover load case can have a different

distribution of load on the structure. For example, a typical pushover analysis might

consist of three pushover load cases. The first would apply gravity load to the structure,

the second would apply one distribution of lateral load over the height of the structure,

and the third would apply another distribution of lateral load over the height of the

structure. There are four different methods of describing the distribution of load on the

structure for a pushover load case:

1. A uniform acceleration can be automatically applied. In this case, the lateral force

automatically applied at each node is proportional to the mass tributary to that

node.

2. A lateral force that is proportional to the product of a specified mode shape times

its circular frequency squared (2) times the mass tributary to a node can be

automatically applied at each node. The user may specify the mode shape to be

used in that instance.

58

4. Any of the methods described in 1, 2 and 3 can be combined.

Several types of output can be obtained from the nonlinear static pushover analysis:

2. Base shear versus displacement at a specified control joint can be plotted in the

ADRS format where the vertical axis is spectral acceleration and the horizontal

axis is spectral displacement. The demand spectra can be superimposed on that

plot.

3. The sequence of hinge formation and the color-coded state of each hinge can be

viewed graphically, on a step-by-step basis, for each step of the pushover.

4. The member forces can be viewed graphically, on a step-by-step basis, for each

step of the analysis.

5. Tabulated values of base shear versus displacement at each point along the

pushover curve, along with tabulations of the number of hinges beyond certain

control points on their hinge property force-displacement curve can be viewed on

the screen, printed, or saved to a file.

6. Tabulated values of the capacity spectrum (ADRS capacity and demand curves),

the effective period and the effective damping can be viewed on the screen,

printed, or saved to a file.

analysis:

1. Create a model.

2. Define arbitrary static load patterns, if needed, for use in the pushover analysis.

Note that the program also has built-in capability to define the distribution of

lateral load over the height of the structure based on both uniform acceleration

and mode shapes.

59

6. Run the pushover analysis by selecting a static nonlinear analysis case on the Set

Analysis Cases to Run . The analysis case will be available only if there is at least

one frame object with a hinge property assigned to it, and there is at least one

pushover load case defined. If frame objects are specified to be designed by the

program, this design automatically will be performed before the pushover analysis

routine begins.

Pushover analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is

subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic, inverted triangular or

uniform) which is shown in Figure 5.1. In such analysis, a monotonic steadily increasing

lateral load is applied to the structure, in the presence of the full gravity dead load, until a

predetermined level of roof displacement is approached. The magnitude of lateral loads

at floor levels do not affect the response of the structure in displacement-controlled

pushover analysis, but the ratio in which they are applied at each floor level alters the

response of the structures.

highlighting the sequence of member cracking and yielding as the base shear value

increases. This information then can be used for the evaluation of the performance of the

60

structure and the locations with inelastic deformation. The primary benefit of pushover

analysis is to obtain a measure of over strength and to obtain a sense of the general

capacity of the structure to sustain inelastic deformation.

The loads acting on the structure are contributed from slabs, beams, columns,

walls, ceilings and finishes. They are calculated by conventional methods according to IS

456 – 2000 and are applied as gravity loads along with live loads as per IS 875 (Part II) in

the structural model. The lateral loads and their vertical distribution on each floor level

are determined as per IS 1893 – 2002 and calculated from equation 4.1. These loads are

then applied in “PUSH - Analysis case” during the analysis.

2

Wi h i

Qi VB n

------- (5.1)

Wjhj

j1

2

VB = Design seismic base shear

Wi = Seismic weight of floor i

hi = Height of floor i measured from base

N = Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the

masses are loads

The sections of beams and columns are then designed for the moments and axial

forces obtained from the analysis using IS 456–2000 for the load combination

1.5(DL+LL).

5.61 Performance Point

The seismic performance of a building can be evaluated in terms of pushover

curve, performance point, displacement ductility, plastic hinge formation etc.. The base

shear Vs. roof displacement curve (Figure 5.2) is obtained from the pushover analysis

from which the maximum base shear capacity of structure can be obtained. This capacity

curve is transformed into capacity spectrum by SAP10 as per ATC40 and demand or

response spectrum is also determined for the structure depending upon the seismic zone,

61

soil conditions and required building performance level. The intersection of demand and

capacity spectrum at 5% damping gives the performance point of the structure analyzed.

This is illustrated in Figure 5.3. At the performance point, the resulting responses of the

building should then be checked using certain acceptability criteria. The performance

point thus obtained from pushover analysis is then compared with the target displacement

calculated using Equation 2.2 (FEMA 356).

62

5.62 Displacement Ductility

Ductility may be broadly defined as the ability of a structure or member to

undergo inelastic deformations beyond the initial yield deformation with no decrease in

the load resistance. The displacement ductility demand (μ) for a given earthquake load is

obtained from the pushover curve and is calculated by the following equation,

m

------- (5.2)

y

It has been recognized that the interstory drift performance of a multistory

building is an important measure of structural and non-structural damage of the building

under various levels of earthquake motion. In performance based design, interstory drift

performance has become a principal design consideration. The system performance levels

of a multistory building are evaluated on the basis of the interstory drift values along the

height of the building under different levels of earthquake motion.

Interstorey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal displacement of two

adjacent floors (δ) and corresponding storey height (h).

Interstorey Drift = = -------

h

(5.3)

The sequence of plastic hinge formation and state of hinge at various levels of

building performance can be obtained from SAP output. This gives the information about

the weakest member and so the one which is to be strengthened in case of a building need

to be retrofitted. Accordingly the detailing of the member can be done in order to achieve

the desired pattern of failure of members in case of severe earthquakes. It is concluded

that pushover analysis is a successful method in determination of the sequence of

yielding of the components of a building, possible mode of failure, and final state of the

building after a predetermined level of lateral load is sustained by the structure.

63

CHAPTER 6

TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. A time history function may be a

list of time and function values or just a list of function values that are assumed to occur

at equally spaced intervals. The function values in a time history function may be

normalized ground acceleration values or they may be multipliers for specified (force or

displacement) load cases.

There are two important types of dynamic analysis of structures which are namely

Linear Dynamic analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic analysis.

The Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) is for seismic analysis of the building, the

design seismic forces, and the distribution over the height of the building, and the

corresponding internal forces and system displacements shall be determined using a

linearly elastic, dynamic analysis in compliance with the requirements of this section.

Buildings shall be modeled with linearly elastic stiffness and equivalent viscous damping

values consistent with components responding at or near yield level.

The LDP includes two analysis methods, namely, the Response Spectrum Method

and the Time History Method. 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

Time- History Method (also termed Response-History Analysis) involves a time-step-by-

time-step evaluation of building response, using discretized recorded or synthetic

64

earthquake records as base motion input. Pairs of ground motion records for simultaneous

analysis along each horizontal axis of the building should be consistent. Consistent pairs

are the orthogonal motions expected at a given site based on the same earthquake.

building, a mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load-deformation

characteristics of individual components and elements of the building shall be subjected

to earthquake shaking represented by ground motion time histories to obtain forces and

displacements. Calculated displacements and internal forces shall be compared directly

with acceptance criteria.

With the NDP, the design displacements are not established using a target

displacement, but instead are determined directly through dynamic analysis using ground

motion time histories. Calculated response can be highly sensitive to characteristics of

individual ground motions; therefore, the analysis should be carried out with more than

one ground motion record. Because the numerical model accounts directly for effects of

material inelastic response, the calculated internal forces will be reasonable

approximations of those expected during the design earthquake.

To perform the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP), or what usually is called

Nonlinear Time-History Analysis (NTHA), acceleration time-history records should be

available. The nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis provides a more accurate estimate

of the dynamic response of the structure. However, because the results computed by the

nonlinear dynamic procedure can be sensitive to characteristics of individual ground

motions, the analysis should be carried out with several ground motion records and the

average response be taken into account. Figure 6.1 shows the steps involved in the

nonlinear time history analysis.

65

Figure 6.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis

Time history analysis shall be performed with no fewer than three data sets (each

containing two horizontal components or, if vertical motion is to be considered, two

horizontal components and one vertical component) of ground motion time histories that

shall be selected and scaled from no fewer than three recorded events. Time histories

shall have magnitude, fault distances, and source mechanisms that are equivalent to those

that control the design earthquake ground motion. Figure 6.2 shows the typical

Northridge earthquake ground motion record in which abscissa represents the time in

seconds and ordinate represents the acceleration in terms of g. Where three recorded

ground-motion time history data sets having these characteristics are not available,

66

simulated time history data sets having equivalent duration and spectral content shall be

used to make up the total number required. For each data set, the square root of the sum

of the squares (SRSS) of the 5%-damped site-specific spectrum of the scaled horizontal

components shall be constructed. The data sets shall be scaled such that the average value

of the SRSS spectra does not fall below 1.4 times the 5% damped spectrum for the design

earthquake for periods between 0.2T seconds and 1.5T seconds (where T is the

fundamental period of the building).

(Northridge EQ Motion Record)

Where three time history data sets are used in the analysis of a structure, the

maximum value of each response parameter (e.g., force in a member, displacement at a

specific level) shall be used to determine design acceptability. Where seven or more time

history data sets are employed, the average value of each response parameter shall be

permitted to determine design acceptability.

The validity of pushover procedures based on the load distributions is examined

using the results of non-linear time-history analyses as a benchmark. To facilitate the

comparison with pushover analyses, the ground motions are scaled in such a manner so

that the resulting peak roof displacement is equal to the target displacement computed for

each building. A conventional technique is to scale ground motions such that the spectral

acceleration at the fundamental period matches a given design spectrum.

67

6.4 Comparison between Pushover Analysis and Time-History Analysis

Nonlinear static procedures are generally not effective in predicting inter-story

drift demands compared to nonlinear dynamic procedures. Drifts are generally

under-estimated at upper levels and sometimes over-estimated at lower levels.

Nonlinear static methods will not capture yielding of columns at the upper levels.

This inability can be a significant source of concern in identifying local upper

story mechanisms.

The static pushover analysis for irregular structures can not be accurate for higher

modes. But Time history analysis incorporates the higher mode effects also.

The computational time required to perform a pushover analysis is comparatively

much lesser than that required to run a full nonlinear dynamic analysis. 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

which also increases the computational 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. 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.

The pushover analysis 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

68

plumbing components are damaged. This increases the overall effectiveness of the

structure furthering its applicability in a design office.

The pushover 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.

69

CHAPTER 7

LOAD CALCULATIONS

Modeling of frame structure consists of several steps. In first step, geometry of all

members of the structure is modeled. Then, materials and its properties such as

compressive strength, Poisson’s ratio and shear strength of materials are defined. Frame

sections such as Beams and columns and its dimensions are defined. In next step, applied

loads and load combinations for the whole structure is defined. Flexural hinge properties

are defined: in terms of moment rotation and axial force moment interaction relations for

columns, and moment rotation relations for beams. Shear hinge property of beams and

columns are defined in terms of shear force-shear deformation relation. The potential

location of hinges in the member needs to be specified; it depends on hinge length. And

finally, the whole model is analyzed for various load conditions to determine the global

response of the structure.

6m

6m

8m 8m

Fig. 7.1Typical Plan of the 6-storey RC building

The building selected to carry out seismic analysis, is an Office building located in

seismic zone V. The 6-storey RC building designed only for Gravity load as per IS

456:2000 and SP 16:1980. The floor plan and elevation of a typical building is as shown

in figs. 7.1 and 7.2 respectively. The plan is regular in nature in the sense that it has all

70

beams and column equally placed in both X and Y directions. Thus, entire building space

frame is similar. The frame shown in Figure 7.2 is considered for Pushover and Time

History analyses and is carried out using SAP-2000 software package.

The Beams and Columns are modeled as frame elements with moment transferring rigid

joints and infill panels as pin joined diagonal strut members so that the ends of strut

coincide with the joints between beams and columns. The lateral displacement of each

vertical member is taken same at the floor level and also the displacements in the

directions other than the direction of applied load are neglected.

The basic analyses i.e. determination of forces and moments are carried out for 6-storey

RC frame in “SAP-2000”. These analyses results are taken for the design of 6-storey

building. Design of the 6-storey building was carried out using IS 13920:1993 following

71

the IS 456:2000 and SP 16:1980. The structural element of the building i.e. beams and

columns are designed by taking the maximum values of shear and moment. After

designing the building, the designed elements are incorporated in the model. Then the

pushover and Time History analyses were done.

The salient features of the frame are given below,

2. Zone -V

10. Lateral load calculation - Static method (IS 1893 (Part1):2002) and ATC-40

550×550mm, 600×600mm, 650×650mm.

72

Weight of slab = 25*D kN/m2 (where D is total depth of slab)

On roof = 3 kN/m2

On floor = 5 kN/m2

ZI S a

Ah

2R g

Where,

Sa S a 1.36

For Ta = 0.90 sec, Spectral accelerate co-efficient = 1.52 ( = T 0.55 T

g g

4.0)

0.36 1

A h

23

1.52 0.0912

73

Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2

(0.5x3.0x18) =54kN

+ (0.5x3.0x2.018) =108kN

Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns = 3.0x3.0=9kN

Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (1.6x3.0) + (1.6x3.0) =9.66kN

74

Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2

(0.5x3.0x18) =54kN

+ (0.5x3.0x2.018) =108kN

Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns =

3.0x3.0x2.0=18.0kN

Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (15.64x3.0) x2.0 =93.84kN

75

Point load on end columns = ((0.5x3x3x5) x2) x2 = 90kN

Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns = (4.5x3.0)

x2.0=27.0kN

Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (19.205x3.0) x2.0 =115.23kN

Determination of total Base Shear -Dead Load

Dead

Sl. Dimension in Cubic Density

Object Number Weight

NO Meter kN/m3

kN (W)

DEAD LOAD

1 Roof Level

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.3x0.3x(4/2) 3 25 13.50

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480.0

Parapet-X -------------------------- ---- 20 ------

Parapet-Y 3.0x0.7x0.115 4 20 19.32

Total 614.82

76

2 Fifth floor Level

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.30x0.30x4.0 3 25 27.00

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480.0

Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96.00

Total 705

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.30x0.30x4.0 2 25 18.00

Column 0.30x0.30x(4/2) 1 25 4.50

Column 0.45x0.45x(4/2) 1 25 10.125

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480.0

Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96.00

Total 710.625

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.30x0.30x4.0 2 25 18.00

Column 0.50x0.50x(4/2) 1 25 12.50

Column 0.45x0.45x(4/2) 1 25 10.125

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480.0

Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96.00

Total 718..625

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.30x0.30x(4/2) 2 25 9.00

Column 0.30x0.40x(4/2) 2 25 12.00

Column 0.50x0.50x(4/2) 1 25 12.50

Column 0.55x0.55x(4/2) 1 25 15.125

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480

Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96

Total 726.625

Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00

Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00

Column 0.30x0.50x((4/2)+(4.77 2 25 32.91

5/2))

Column 0.30x0.40x((4/2)+(4.77 2 25 26.33

77

5/2))

Column 0.60x0.60x((4/2)+(4.77 1 25 39.86

5/2))

Column 0.55x0.55x((4/2)+(4.77 1 25 33.18

5/2))

Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480

Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96

Total 810.28

7 Plinth Level

Beam-X 0.30x0.6x8.0 2 25 72.00

Beam-Y 0.30x0.6x(6/2) 6 25 81.00

Column 0.30x0.50x((4.775/2)+2 2 25 36.66

.5))

Column 0.60x0.60x4.8875 1 25 43.99

Column 0.65x0.65x4.8875 1 25 51.62

Total 285.27

4571.245

Determination of Total Base Shear - Live Load

Imposed

Imposed

Sl. Dimension in Imposed load as per

Object Weight

No Cubic Meter load IS-1893

kN (W)

kN/m3

8 LIVE LOAD

Roof Level 6x16 3 3x25%=0.75 6x16x0.75=72

Fifth Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

Fourth Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

Third Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

Second Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

First Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

Plinth Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240

1272.00

Concentrated mass

78

Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure will be

displaced incrementally. Most of the studies focus on the choice of a proper load shape

because of its influence on the structural response. It has not been recognized that which

pattern is most reasonable. In this study, three different lateral load patterns as per IS

1893(part 1):2002 and ATC-40 have been applied to the 3-storey RC building.

W

2

h

Q V

i B n

i i

Parabolic lateral load pattern

W h j 1

j

2

j

Storey Level Wi(kN) Hi(m) Wi hi2 Wi hi2/∑Wi hi2 Qi (kN)

Fifth Floor Level 945 23.28 152.089

Fourth Floor Level 950.625 19.28 104.315

Third Floor Level 958..625 15.28 65.52

Second Floor Level 966.625 11.28 35.71

First Floor Level 1050.28 7.28 14.94

Plinth Level 525.27 2.5 0.783

∑= ∑= ∑=

The analysis has been carried out for dead load (DL), Live Load or Super imposed load

(IL), and Earth Quake load (EL) in SAP 2000 software package. The combination of the

79

above cases has been made according to clause 6.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 as given

below,

1 1.5 (DL+IL)

2 0.9DL+1.5EQ (add to abrivations)

3 1.2(DL+IL-EQ)

4 1.5(DL+EQ)

5 1.5(DL-EQ)

6 LL+DL

7 0.9DL-1.5EL

8 1.2(DL+IL+EL)

For designing the beams two types of beams are considered. One type of beams is

designed for roof level beams and the other for 1st and 2nd story levels. It is difficult to

design each and every beam separately by considering their respective maximum

moment; only two types of beams are considered. The maximum moment of these two

types of beams at their respective storey levels are taken from SAP 2000 analysis results.

Grade of concrete = M 25

80

Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear

cover of 30mm,

Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.

Pt = 2.226%, Pc = 1.09%,

Pt = 100 Ast/b d

tension.

Check

81

d’/d = 54/546 = 0.09~0.1,

Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 2412) / (300 x 546) =1.472% > Pc* OK

Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear

cover of 30mm,

82

d’/d = 50/600 = 0.08~0.1,

Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.

Pt = 1.49%, Pc = 0.309%,

Pt = 100 Ast/b d

tension.

compression.

Check

Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 942) / (300 x 548) = 0.573% > Pc* OK

83

7.9.2 Design of exterior column

Grade of concrete = M 25

Therefore ok.

Maximum Axial load from SAP 2000 analysis result =841.93 kN.

84

Maximum moment from SAP 2000 analysis result = 72.39 kN.m

d/ = 40+12.5 = 52.5mm

From chart 454, SP 16:1980, for d//d = 0.15 and fy = 415 N/mm2

[M]ϋ+[C]ύ+[K]u=[M]ϋg

Where

ϋg = Ground displacement

85

The viscous damping matrix is calculated in the program using one of the following

options:

c) Rayleigh damping

C M k K t

Where the coefficients a M and a K are calculated depending on the type of damping

Matrix selected:

a) Mass proportional damping:

M 2 i i

k 0

Where ξi and ωi are the critical damping ratio for the circular frequency of mode “i”.

b) Stiffness proportional damping:

M 0

2 i

k

i 86

(C) Rayleigh damping:

2 2

2 2

i i j j j i

M 2 2

j i

2 2

k

j j i i

2 2

i j

When the damping ratio is the same in both modes considered (ξi = ξ j = ξ) the

expressions simplify to

2

i j

i

M 2 2

j i

2

k

i j

= Equal to structural damping ratio.

,i j = First and Second frequencies of structure respectively in rad/sec

The circular frequency corresponding to the first mode of vibration is used for the

mass and stiffness proportional damping, while the circular frequencies corresponding to

the first and second modes are used for the Rayleigh damping type. Under these

conditions, mass proportional damping will yield a smaller damping ratio for the higher

modes, while stiffness proportional and Rayleigh damping will yield a higher critical

damping ratio for the higher modes.

87

Time Period T1 = 1.26624

ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 4.958939

ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 13.15404

2

i j

i

= 0.360129

2 2

j i

2

β = 0.005521

2 2

j i

ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 6.307944

ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 16.5997

2

i j

i

= 0.457.96

2 2

j i

2

β = 0.004365

2 2

j i

88

CHAPTER 8

EXAMPLES/CASE STUDY

INFILL ACTION

8.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE

The building considered for analysis is a typical 6- storey RC frame designed only

for gravity loads as per IS 456 – 2000. The seismic performance of the frame is evaluated

in terms of Interstorey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base shear, roof displacement and

plastic hinge formation. Material properties are assumed to be 25MPa for the concrete

compressive strength and 415MPa for the yield strength of longitudinal and shear

reinforcement. The labels of beam and column along with the frame dimensions are

shown in Figure 7.2. The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with

tension and compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The

column dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in

Table 8.1.

Column Cross Acol

Label Section (mm2)

mm x mm

1&9 300 x 500 5892

2 & 10 300 x 500 4020

3 & 11 300 x 400 3216

4 & 12 300 x 300 3080

21& 23 300 x 300 1232

24& 26 300 x 300 905

27& 29 300 x 300 905

5 650 x 650 14784

6 600 x 600 12744

7 550 x 550 10620

8 500 x 500 7856

22 450 x 450 6372

25 300 x 300 4928

28 300 x 300 804

89

Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column

8.1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Two types of nonlinear analyses were carried out to evaluate the seismic

performance of frame namely, pushover and time–history analyses. The pushover

analysis consists of the application of gravity loads and a

representative lateral load pattern. The frame was subjected to gravity

loads and simultaneous lateral loading. Gravity loads were in place

during lateral loading. Lateral forces calculated according to IS 1893 –

2002 were applied monotonically in a step-by-step nonlinear static

analysis. P-Delta effect was not taken into consideration. In pushover

analysis, the behavior of the structure is characterized by a capacity

curve that represents the relationship between the base shear force

and the displacement of the roof. This is a very convenient

representation in practice, and can be visualized easily by the

engineer.

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. The validity of pushover

procedure is examined using the results of non-linear time-history analyses as a

benchmark. A set of seven strong ground motions having a magnitude range of 6.6 to 7.5

are selected for the nonlinear time-history evaluation. The peak displacements obtained in

time-history analysis do not correspond to the ultimate displacement capacity on the push

over curve. To facilitate the comparison with pushover analyses, the ground motions are

scaled in such a manner so that the resulting peak roof displacement is equal to the target

displacement computed for each building. A conventional technique is to scale ground

motions such that the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period matches a given

design spectrum. The earthquake motions taken for analysis and the scale factors

corresponding to target displacement at DBE and MCE levels are presented in Table 8.2.

Year Earthquake Magnitude PGA EQ. Scale Factor

90

EQ Recording in g DBE MCE

No. Station

1 1979 El Centro Array #7 7.0 0.338 0.45 0.785

2 1999 Duzce Turkey 7.1 0.348 0.8 1.15

3 1971 San Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9

Fernando Route

4 1995 Kobe KJM 6.9 0.343 0.35 0.5

5 1976 Friuli Tolmezzo 6.5 0.315 0.95 1.2

6 1994 Northridge Arleta 6.7 0.344 0.6 1.0

7 1989 Loma Prieta Gilroy #2 7.1 0.322 0.35 0.515

The pushover curve is shown in Figure 8.2. It is observed that

maximum base shear was 571kN which is about 10% of seismic weight

of frame and the maximum displacement corresponding to this base

shear is 1.02m. The displacement ductility of frame is 2.3. The frame

is pushed to a maximum displacement of 4% of its height. The base

shear obtained at DBE and MCE levels from push over analysis were

116kN and 171kN respectively. The corresponding values obtained

from nonlinear time-history analysis were 151kN and 251kN

respectively. The results from time-history analysis were 23% and 32%

higher than that of the pushover analysis results.

91

Figure 8.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame

8.1.2.2 PERFORMANCE POINT

The performance point of frame is obtained from the intersection of capacity and

demand spectra from SAP analysis. The performance is assessed for two levels of

performance objectives, Life Safety (LS) under design basis earthquake (DBE) and

Collapse Prevention (CP) under maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The capacity

vs. demand spectrum for the frame under DBE and MCE is shown in Figures 8.3 and 8.4

respectively. The base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral

displacement, effective time period and effective damping corresponding to the

performance point is shown in same figures. The displacement at performance point at

DBE level is 0.123m (Figure 8.3) and it is greater than target displacement given by

FEMA 356 for life safety which is 0.119m. The displacement at performance point at

MCE level is 0.171m (Figure 8.4) and is lesser than corresponding target displacement as

per FEMA 356 which is 0.177m.

92

Figure 8.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake

Earthquake

8.1.2.3 Interstorey Drift

93

The interstorey drift has long been recognized as an important indicator of

building performance. Interstorey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal

displacement of two adjacent floors and corresponding storey height. Interstorey drift

ratio from pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels is presented in Figure 8.5(a). It is

observed that 3rd storey level experienced the largest interstorey drift values of 0.58% and

0.85% at both DBE and MCE levels. It is seen that the interstorey drift ratio increased

with increase in storey level up to first 4 stories and thereafter showed a reverse trend at

both levels of earthquake.

(a) Results from Pushover Analysis (b) Comparison between Pushover &

at DBE & MCE Levels Time-history

Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios Results at DBE & MCE Levels

Analysis at DBE Level Analysis at MCE Level

The interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis is compared with that of time-

history analysis as shown in Figure 8.5(b). At DBE level, pushover analysis over-estimated

the interstorey drift ratio at lower storey levels and underestimates the same at upper storey

94

levels. At MCE level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift ratio at almost

all storey levels.

The interstorey drift ratios from time-history analyses for the seven earthquake

ground motions at DBE and MCE levels are shown in Figures 8.6(a) and 8.6(b)

respectively. The average interstorey drift ratio is also shown in same figures which were

compared with the interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis.

The plastic hinge patterns of frame at DBE and MCE levels from pushover analysis

are compared with that of results from time-history analysis (Figures 8.7&8.8). In both the

analyses, it is observed that more number of columns underwent yielding than beams at the

displacement levels corresponding to DBE and MCE levels. It is also seen that more

number of beam ends showed hinges at yielding level in model of time-history analysis

than the model from pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE levels. Comparison of

plastic hinging pattern at MCE level indicates that middle columns in 5 th and 6th stories

yielded in the model from time-history analysis whereas there was no hinge formation in

the middle columns in the model from pushover analysis.

The plastic hinge pattern from pushover analysis at last step i.e. when roof of frame

is pushed to 4% of total height is shown in Figure 8.9. Plastic hinge formation started with

yielding of outer columns at all stories with yielding of few beam ends in upper stories.

Then middle columns at upper stories start to yield with simultaneous yielding of base

columns. Although the beams experienced less number of hinges than columns, they were

all at significant damage or failure stage. All the hinges in columns were only at the

yielding stage. Thus the model with default hinge properties shows significant damage in

beams, though such mechanism is not guaranteed for structures designed only for gravity

loads as per IS 456-2000.

95

(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time – history Analysis

96

(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time - history Analysis

Figure 8.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level

Figure 8.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis

8.2 PUSHOVER AND TIMEHISTORY ANALYSIS OF 2D RC FRAME WITH

INFILL ACTION

8.2.1 EFFECT OF INFILL ACTION

In the conventional seismic analysis of framed structures, stiffness contribution

due to infill walls is not considered. The presence of infill increases the demand and

capacity of the structure. Even though we are considering the increase in demand due to

infill, we are neglecting the increase in capacity due to infill. Thus we are under

estimating the actual lateral strength of the structural system. Hence modeling of infill

wall is necessary. The present example studies the behaviour of 2D frames with and

without infill action under lateral loads using pushover and time history analysis.

97

A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed (G+5) and a

seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the present study. All the buildings are

rectangular in plan with same plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and

sectional elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure 8.10. The X and Y direction

were selected along the width and length of the building respectively. A raft foundation

was considered.

To study the difference in behaviour of structures with and without infill action, a

single bay 2D frame (frame 2-2) is selected from all the buildings described above. To get

the worst effect in analysis, seismic zone V and an importance factor of 1.5 is considered.

All the frames considered are ordinary moment resisting frames only.

The dimensions and other details of beams and columns are shown in Table 8.3.

For all the frames considered in this study, only the reinforcement details vary, while the

other dimensions remain the same.

Table 8.3 Dimensions of beams and columns

b Dc or Db fck fy

(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

Beam 250 400 25 415

Column 250 400 25 415

Here

b = width of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)

Db = depth of beam (cross-sectional dimension)

Dc = depth of column (cross-sectional dimension)

fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete

fy = yield strength of reinforcement.

G + 6 Storey Frame G + 5 Storey Frame

Ast Beam Ast Beam

Asc Asc

Storey End End

Column Column

(Top) End(bottom) (Top) End(bottom)

6th 923 780

5th 785.39 1256 780

4th 1608 804

3rd 2412 1540

1577 742

2nd 3694.5 2413 1577 742

1st 4926 3695

G 4926 4247

98

G + 4 Storey Frame G + 3 Storey Frame

Ast Beam Ast Beam

Asc Asc

Storey End End

Column Column

(Top) End(bottom) (Top) End(bottom)

4th 1885 927 116.7

3rd 1206 1608 927 116.7

1704 876

2nd 1885 1256 1704 876

1st 2513 2513

G 3927 2513

Figure 8.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building

8.2.3 MODELLING ASPECTS

The beams and columns are modeled as frame elements and the infill wall is

modeled as equivalent strut by truss elements. Since the deformation is expected to go

beyond the elastic range in a pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the nonlinear

properties also. The following are the non-linear properties assigned for different

elements.

1) Flexural hinge for beams

2) Flexural-axial interaction hinge for columns.

3) Axial hinge for equivalent diagonal struts

The length of plastic hinge was calculated using the following equation.

l p 0.5H

(8.1)

99

lp = length of plastic hinge.

H= depth of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)

For beams flexural hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance of plastic hinge was

calculated based on the following equation.

L b 0.5 l p D c (8.2)

For columns flexural-axial interaction hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance was

calculated based on the following equation.

L c 0.5 l p D b

(8.3)

Lc = distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam.

Calculation of plastic hinge length and its location is shown in Table 8.5.

H lp lc lb Lc Lb

mm mm mm mm mm mm

400 250 7000 4000 300 300

Here

lc = length of the column.

lb = length of the beam.

1) User defined

2) Automatically generated

For the present case, SAP generated hinge properties were assigned for beams and

columns. But for modeling equivalent strut, user defined property is used.

Axial hinges are assigned at the center of the strut. For the case of pushover

analysis, infill panel is modeled as single diagonal strut connected between two

100

compressive diagonal corners. The diagonal strut is assumed to be connected to the frame

through pin connections at both ends. The modeling of infill panel as single diagonal strut

is based on the assumption that the masonry is weak in tension and the bond strength at

the panel-frame interface is very low. Axial hinges were assigned at the center of each

strut. In the case of time history analysis, equivalent struts are modeled along both

diagonal directions, since the structure is subjected to lateral deformations in both

directions. Here also axial hinges were assigned at the center of strut in each direction.

For the axial hinge, a non-linear variation of load versus deformation relation

proposed by Asokan A. is used. He assumed a parabolic variation of load versus

deformation from a strain value of 0 to 0.0026. From the strain value of 0.0026 to a strain

value of 0.004, the load is assumed to be constant for different deformation levels.

R

2

2

For 0 ≤ ≤ 0, R 0 (8.4)

u

0

R

For 0 ≤ ≤ u, R 1 (8.5)

u

Ru = ultimate strength of infill which is the lower value of Rc and Rs

Rc = strength corresponding to corner crushing failure

Rs = strength corresponding to shear cracking failure

= axial strain in the strut

= strain in the strut when R/Ru attains unity

u = maximum strain in the strut.

The curve obtained from above equation is idealized and used for the present study.

Width of Equivalent struts

d

w (8.6)

3

Here

w = width of equivalent strut

d = diagonal length of infill.

Thickness of the strut is kept equal to the thickness of the infill.

101

Figure 8.11 shows a 2D frame with G+3 stories, modeled in SAP for pushover

analysis. Figure 8.11a shows the model of the frame without strut. Figure 6.11c shows the

releases assigned to the structure, whereas Figure 8.11b shows the hinges assigned to the

frame and strut. Similarly Figure 8.12 shows the G+3, 2D frame modeled in SAP for

time-history analysis.

Figure 8.11 G +3 Storey 2D Frame Modelling for Pushover Analysis.

102

Figure 8.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) With Infill Used for Time

History Analysis

8.2.4 ANALYSIS

8.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis

To study the sequence of hinge formation in structures with and without infill

action, pushover analysis is carried for a G+3 structure with and without equivalent

diagonal strut. Here loading is static and applied in one direction. So struts are modeled

in one direction only. Figure 8.11 shows the 2D model of the G+3 frame developed in

SAP with and without strut action. Figure 8.13 shows a typical frame with axial hinge

developed in its infill as obtained from pushover analysis. The analysis is repeated for

G+4, G+5, G+6 and G+7,2D frames.

Storey Frame, Using Pushover Analysis

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. A time history function may be a

list of time and function values or just a list of function values that are assumed to occur

at equally spaced intervals. In this paper, an attempt is made to compare the behaviour of

structures with and without infill stiffness modeling. Northridge earthquake motion

103

record of 0.344g PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) was selected from ATC40 for analysis.

Here loading is dynamic and the frame moves laterally in both directions. Hence struts

are required in both directions. Figure 8.14 shows a typical frame with axial hinge

developed in its infill as obtained from time-history analysis.

Storey Frame using Time History Analysis

Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier in frames of structures

without strut action than frames of structures with strut action. Figure 8.15 compares the

fundamental time period of G+3, G+4, G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action

as obtained from time history analysis. It is observed that, in all the cases, the

fundamental time period of the structure with strut action is considerably less than the

structures without strut action. This is due to the additional stiffness offered by the strut in

the lateral direction. Figure 6.16 compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4, G+5 and

G+6 frames with and without strut action. The graph shows that roof displacement get

considerably (50%) reduced with strut action. From the pushover analysis, it is found that

performance point parameters such as roof displacement and base shear get reduced due

to strut action.

104

Figure 8.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using Time

History Analysis

History Analysis

105

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS

9.1 GENERAL

Nonlinear static pushover and time-history analyses were carried out to evaluate

seismic performance and effect of infill of 2D RC frames. Beam and column elements

were modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by defining plastic

hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. The frames were modeled with default

hinge properties. The moment curvature relationship developed for beams can be used for

determining user-defined hinge properties in modeling the nonlinear behaviour of

reinforced concrete beams.

The following findings were observed from performance based analysis of 2D RC

frames without infill:

1. The time-history analysis gave 23% and 32% higher values of base shear at

DBE and MCE levels than pushover analysis.

2. The roof displacement of frame at DBE and MCE levels indicates that the frame

satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance at DBE level whereas it

does not satisfy the requirement for Collapse Prevention performance at MCE

level. The satisfactory performance at DBE level may be attributed to the

default hinge properties assigned to structural members; an observation

consistent with that noticed by others.

3. From pushover and time-history analyses, it is seen that 3 rd storey experienced

the maximum interstorey drift ratio at both DBE and MCE levels. At MCE

level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift when compared to

time-history analysis.

106

4. There is no significant difference in the plastic hinge pattern for the frame at

DBE and MCE levels from both the analyses; but time-history analysis gave

more number of beam hinges than pushover analysis.

5. The last step of pushover analysis of frame shows beam failure mechanism with

only yielding of columns.

From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with infill, the

following conclusions are drawn:

1) It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get considerably

reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response of the structure to lateral

loads.

2) In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof displacement. This will

increase the safety level of the structure.

Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent diagonal struts for

any lateral load analysis.

1. Pushover and time-history analysis for 3D structure with default hinge properties

and user-defined hinge properties shall be carried out.

2. Moment-curvature relation for column shall be developed and 3D buildings with

user-defined properties for beam and column can be carried out.

3. Nonlinear time-history analysis of 3D structures with isolators, dampers shall be

done.

4. Pushover and time-history analysis for 3D structure with P-Delta effect shall be

done.

5. Refinement of infill modelling shall be carried out.

107

REFERENCES

1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and Andrew Scanlon (2001),

“Comparative Evaluation of Seismic Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-

Story Reinforced Concrete Office Building”, Journal of Seismology and

Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44.

with the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23,

319–332.

Buildings Under Seismic Loads”, M.Tech. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,

Madras, January 2006

Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.

Earthquake Engineering”, Prentice Hall Publishers.

Displacement-Based Approach”, 1-20.

7. Das D. and Murty C.R. (2004), “Brick Masonry Infills in Seismic Design of R.C.

Frame Buildings”, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.78, No.8, pp. 31-38.

Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures” Final Report to Colorado Advanced

Software Institute, pp. 1-117.

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November

2000.

10. FEMA 273 (1997), “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA.

108

11. FEMA 349(2000), FEMA/EERI, Action Plan for Performance -Based Seismic

Design, Washington DC.

12. FEMA-356 (2000), “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

buildings”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Guidelines”, Program plan for New and Existing Buildings, August 2006, Applied

Technology Council and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,

D.C.

14. Hasan R., Xu L. and Grierson D.E.(2002), “Push-over Analysis for Performance-

Based Seismic Design”, Computers and Structures, Vol.80, pp.2483-2493

15. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice,

Bureau of Indian Standards.

16. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design

of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.

17. IS: 875(Part 2) – 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake)

for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.

18. Kunnath S.K and Kalkan E(2004), “Evaluation of Seismic Deformation Demands

using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistorey Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”,

ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No 445, Vol 41, No1, pp159-181.

IIT Madras and SERC Chennai.

20. Mehmet Inel and Hayri Baytan Ozmen (2006), “Effects of Plastic Hinge

Properties in Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, Engineering

Structures, Vol. 28, pp.1494-1502.

21. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande (2006), “Earthquake Resistant Design of

Structures”, Prentice Hall of India Pt. Ltd.

22. Park R. and Paulay T. (1975), “Reinforced Concrete Structures”, John Wiley

Publishers.

109

23. Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N (1991), “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete

and Masonry Buildings”, A Wiley Interscience Publication.

24. Sadjadi R., Kianoush M.R. and Talebi S. (2007), “Seismic Performance of

Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 9,

pp.2365-2380.

Reinforced Concrete Buildings using Nonlinear Pushover Analysis”, Engineering

Structures, Vol. 27, pp.1289-1302.

110

ANNEXURE 1

COMPANY PROFILE

About L&T:

Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) ranked 54 among global contractors and 62

among international contractors as per the survey conducted by ENR (August 2006).

ECC – the Engineering Construction & Contracts Division is India’s largest construction

organization. Many of the country’s prized landmarks – its exquisite buildings, tallest

structures, largest industrial projects, longest flyovers, highest viaducts, longest pipelines

and several benchmark projects – have been built by ECC. ECC’s leading-edge

capabilities cover every discipline of construction: civil, mechanical, electrical and

instrumentation.

Turnkey Capabilities:

undertake lump sum turnkey (LSTK) contracts with single-source responsibility. LSTK

assignments are executed using state-of-the-art design tools and project management

techniques.

Service Spectrum:

Engineering, design and consultancy services.

Complete civil and structural construction services for all types of buildings,

industrial and infrastructure projects.

Complete mechanical system engineering including fabrication and erection of

structural steel works; manufacture, supply, erection, testing and commissioning

of plant and equipment; heavy lift erection; high-pressure piping; fire-fighting;

HVAC and LP/ utility piping networks.

Electrical system design, project electrification, automation and control system

including instrumentation for all types of industrial and telecom projects.

Design, manufacture, supply and installation of EHV switchyards, transmission

lines.

111

History:

Larsen & Toubro Limited is the biggest legacy of two Danish Engineers, who

built a world-class organization that is professionally managed and a leader in India's

engineering and construction industry. It was the business of cement that brought the

young Mr. Henning Holck-Larsen and Mr. S.K. Toubro into India. They arrived on Indian

shores as representatives of the Danish engineering firm F L Smidth & Co in connection

with the merger of cement companies that later grouped into the Associated Cement

Companies. Together, Mr. Holck-Larsen and Mr. Toubro founded the partnership firm of

L&T in 1938, which was converted into a limited company on February 7, 1946. Today,

this has metamorphosed into one of India's biggest success stories. The company has

grown from humble origins to a large conglomerate spanning engineering and

construction. ECC was conceived as Engineering Construction Corporation Limited in

April 1944 and was incorporated as wholly owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro

Limited. L&T's founders Mr. Holck - Larsen and Mr. Toubro laid the foundation for

ECC. It has today emerged as India's leading construction organization.

services and R&D on construction materials, and construction methods. It has a full

fledged laboratory with sophisticated equipments to test all construction materials such as

pre-stressed strands, reinforcement rods up to 50mm diameter, flat steel plates, bolts etc

up to 100T capacity in compression, tension and bending. The 10T UTM can simulate

variety of fatigue loading on asphalt mixtures, concrete and granular materials to

determine mechanical parameters like resilient modulus, poisons ratio, etc., . The basic

construction materials like cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, concrete blocks,

bricks, plywood, water, chemical admixtures, geo-textiles, soil, rock and asphalt can be

evaluated as per national as well as international standards.

LTCRTC laboratory has acquired NABL (National accreditation board for testing

and calibration laboratories) certification for mechanical and chemical testing of

construction materials. About 112 tests were approved under this accreditation. It is the

112

first major testing centre got accredited by NABL for testing on wide varieties of

construction materials by a construction company in India.

techniques of construction. The center also conducts prototype testing, field investigation

on structures by NDT techniques.

This center also undertakes research and development works in the areas of

concrete technology, Geotechnical engineering and pavement and runway engineering.

The solutions developed at laboratory scale have been transformed and implemented at

site. Many of the technical papers from this center have won the best technical paper

award for innovative solution applicable to the construction industry.

HR in ECC Division:

ECC recognizes that people are the real source of competitive advantage. It is

through people that ECC delivers total customer satisfaction. These values are reflected

in our Human Resources practices which have earned national recognition several times.

programmes. Apart from on-the-job training and technical training, over 100

programmes on general management and behavioural topics are conducted each year.

Interactive CD-ROM based programmes have enabled employees learn at their pace.

ideas. HR practices such as collaborative performance appraisal, career & succession

planning, team rewards have been institutionalized. An extensive and rigorous

recruitment process ensures quality induction. L&T's Graduate Engineer Trainee

recruitment process covers India's major engineering colleges and

institutions. Programmes, plant visits and comprehensive information-sharing facilitate

induction. ECC Division has an ongoing organization development programme, which is

one of the longest sustaining OD efforts in India.

HR Policy:

113

The basic principles of ECC's Human Resources policies include

selection procedures without discrimination

Sustain motivated and quality work force through appropriate and fair

performance evaluation, reward and recognition systems

Identify training needs within the Organisation and design and implement those

need based training programmes resulting in continuous up gradation of

knowledge, skills and attitudes of the employees

standards as per ISO 9001. Plan, design, train, equip and motivate the department staff to

meet this standard of expectation.

through Construction Skills Training Institute (CSTI) and turns out significant numbers

of trained workers. CSTI has been set up in an area of 5 acres land in Chennai and Panvel

near Mumbai with permanent infrastructure and training facilities. In order to meet the

demands of world-class standards, CSTI has entered into an MOU with Henry Boot

Training Limited and the Construction Industry Training Board of UK for the

development of modular training. At present, basic training is imparted in seven trades -

Formwork Carpentry, Masonry (brick work), Bar Bending and Steel Fixing, Plumbing &

Sanitary, trade assistants, welding and Electrical Wiring.

To meet the ever-increasing demand for trained workmen for site operations, CSTI has

opened four more Training Institutes in Ahmadabad, Bangalore, Delhi and Kolkata.

Vocational training for Millwright Fitters, Transmission Line Tower Erection Fitters,

Tiling Masons, Surveyors, etc. is proposed to be taken up in the near future.

114

Engineering Design and Research Centre (EDRC):

services, ranging from concept to commissioning of all types of projects: Buildings and

Housing, Sports Complexes, Bio-tech Parks, Exhibition Centers, Cement Plants and

Factories, Airports, Hydro Power Plants, Nuclear Power Plants, Infrastructure,

Hydrocarbon, Power, Water and Effluent Treatment Plants, Water Supply Schemes,

Metallurgical and Industrial Projects, Bulk Material Handling, Industrial Electrical

Systems and Sub-stations, Telecommunication, Control and Instrumentation Projects and

High Voltage Transmission lines. For all these projects, EDRC provides engineering

services, viz., feasibility studies, project reports and due diligence reports; system

engineering, including process and instrumentation diagrams (PID); architectural,

structural and civil design; procurement engineering; detailed engineering with bill of

quantities (BOQ); building services; mechanical system engineering; electrical and

instrumentation engineering; geo-technical engineering; hydraulic engineering; erection

and commissioning supervision; inspection and quality assurance supports.

EDRC offers designs for certain specialized and complicated structures like high-

rise buildings, long-span bridges, large storage silos, prill towers, RCC pylons, system

housing, tall chimneys, natural and induced draft cooling towers, erection schemes for

heavy lifts and all types of geo-technical engineering solutions.

EDRC’s pioneering work includes large-span pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete structures,

high rise structures; natural and induced draft cooling towers, effluent and water

treatment plants, public buildings and system housing including IT parks, hotels,

hospitals, stadiums, airports. EDRC is ISO 9001:2000 certified for all its operations by

Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance (LRQA).

The Buildings & Factories group of EDRC handles all the projects that are

functionally under the classification of buildings and industrial structures. The group

comprises of six main divisions (including architecture and services like geo-technical,

115

electrical, public health and environmental engineering, fire protection, IT, quantity

survey, etc.), which have expertise ranging from handling long span pre-cast pre-stressed

structures to large span steel structures with patented connection details. The group also

develops schemes for tall buildings and structures.

Training:

ECC's Human Resources Department believes that Quality is the hallmark of any

successful venture. Quality Training and Development of Human Resources is

realized through: Identifying training needs within the Organization and designing and

implementing those need based training programmes to bring about continuous up

gradation of knowledge, skills and employee attitudes. The following brief

highlights ECC's training methodology for the comprehensive development of its 7000-

odd employees

Training Plan:

Companies succeed in today's free market economy, only because their employees

perform to their fullest potential. Alive to this home truth, ECC draws up an annual

training calendar, highlighting the training activities for the year. Inputs to formulate this

training plan are taken from the performance review form, by interacting with ECC's

Regional Offices and the higher echelons of the management on the present and future

requirements of the construction industry. It also includes detailed discussions with the

faculty. ECC's training plan includes civil, mechanical, electrical, finance related and

behavioural programmes, covering a wide cross-section of employees, as follows:

Development Programme are designed to provide an exposure to functional

management and behavioural skills to the site based engineers.

Development of managerial staff is through intensive two-week long programmes

providing exposure to holistic understanding of the business, Strategic Planning,

Customer Relationship, Enhancing Shareholder Value, Financial Management.

116

For middle management, there is an exclusive nine-day programme, designed in

collaboration with Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad.

Development Institute, Gurgaon to conduct development programmes at

Company's Management Development Center, Lonavla

Sustained effort in training has led to creation of highly skilled and motivated

employees ready to take on higher roles and responsibilities in the company.

Line executives and managers involve themselves as faculty for most of the In-

house programme. 90% of in-house programme are conducted by them.

As line mangers have better understanding of the nature of business and the

unique problem associates with the company/industry, they are able to design and deliver

effective training sessions keeping the company's and participant's need in mind. It

has been experienced that the concept of "Learning Organisation" is getting effectively

rooted in ECC through the above process

Employees increasingly feel, "Let me learn at my own choice of time, topic and

pace!”To make this happen, ECC promoted the concept of self-learning. Training Desks

(Multi-media computers) are available in the Head Office, Regional Offices and factories

of ECC. Various CD ROMs and CBTs of varied operational, behavioral, finance, quality

related topics are made available to enable the employees learn at their own pace.

ECC strongly believes that to be in business, up gradation of employees' knowledge and

skills are essential. Hence investment in Human Resources is one of the top priorities of

the Management.

117

118

- Pile DesignUploaded byteomalancu
- 2004 Int Ansys Conf 160Uploaded byVicky Gautam
- A Review of Research on Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Building Structures Since 2002Uploaded byhemalcmistry
- Limits of Applicability of Conventional and Adaptative Pushover Analysis for Seismic Response Assessment v. K.- Papanikolau, A.S. Elnashai, J. F. ParejaUploaded byTem Pouno
- 6_SN3-6_fullpaper_Bhagat (1)Uploaded byMagui
- staad eqUploaded bynajm123
- Static Pushover Analysis for Seismic Design (Suharwardy, I. 2009)Uploaded byJose Manuel
- Civil Engineering Collections.pdfUploaded byAravindan
- Torre MayorUploaded byTomislav Šimag
- American Journal of Civil Engineering.pdfUploaded byAriunbold
- Seismic AnalysisUploaded byaditya2053
- Articulo Sis MicoUploaded byLuz Mery Rodriguez
- Differt Types of Pushor AnalysisUploaded byÇhårū Kêsh
- Plan CivseismUploaded bygawoke
- Modal pushover ananlysis of SAC buildings.pdfUploaded bydinu69in
- 183 DicleliUploaded byوليد الجاسم
- Fundações-Piled raft- RandolphUploaded bymartinhocandido8448
- ListProposals_InfraRiskUploaded bySai Kiran
- Analysis of 3d RC Frame on Sloping GroundUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Lecture 1(1)Uploaded byKaaviyan Thirunyanam
- IJRI-CCE-01-001Uploaded byijripublishers
- Foundation DesignUploaded byPrasad GN
- Pushover Analysis of RC Building by Considering the Effect of infill wall to check the Non linear behaviourUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- TR 45-2013 - ETAG 001.pdfUploaded byCarmine Cacchione
- Cutting List FormUploaded byFroilan Espinosa
- Cercha - RISA-2D Educational Report DataUploaded byrigobertoguerrag
- DddUploaded byyozovugas
- Response SpectrumUploaded bydaman
- F-BB pptUploaded byNaziyaghanchi
- Analisis Ged.3 LantaiUploaded byNur AlamSyah

- Rgrid 27-28 ColumnUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- EQTip18Uploaded byninja619sit
- Tubular Sections-Hazira Project (Available)Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Tubular Sections-Hazira Project (Available)Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- SE104_15Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Content-with Page NumbersUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- yt5eryUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Earthquake Resistant DesignUploaded byyeswanthr
- bathe-fem book.pdfUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- fr34Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Performane Based Seismic Analysis ReportUploaded byRAJKUMAR
- Performane Based Seismic Analysis ReportUploaded byRAJKUMAR
- Topic07-ConceptsofEarthquakeEngineering.pdfUploaded bysam
- Topic07-ConceptsofEarthquakeEngineering.pdfUploaded bysam
- Is 1893 PART1 Exp.examplesUploaded byjonnyprem
- Chapter 39Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-13-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-13-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-17-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-18-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Bolted Connections ProbsUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Bolted Connections ProbsUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Bolted Connections – IIUploaded byJoey Johnson
- Bolted Connections – IIUploaded byJoey Johnson
- SE104_15Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- Bolted Connections ProbsUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-16-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- C-BF-WI-15-R0Uploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken
- WELDS- STATIC AND FATIGUE STRENGTH – II.docUploaded byOuseppachan Ambooken

- Lintel++Beam+(When+Height+Less+)Uploaded byasingh400
- SONY VoiceRecorderUploaded byronny
- 3 dec 2013Uploaded bysarb007
- c01_revit_2009_evalUploaded byJonas hernandez
- Chapter 5_interpersonal Strategies and SkillsUploaded byAbe Ranggi
- Different Algorithms for Auto-Classification of ProductsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- SAIC-H-2032 Rev 7Uploaded bySatheesh Rama Samy
- NeORA Awards Nomination FormUploaded byMarty Paul
- I2C TSOPUploaded byChayan Shah
- 8.2.1.4Uploaded byMarc Wallin
- Eleven Commandments of Film SoundUploaded bycccww
- Optimization of Acid Treatments by Assessing Diversion Strategies in Carbonate and Sandstone FormationsUploaded byNisar Khan
- The Future of Crowd Work, 2013Uploaded bycoxfn
- credits of simulation bus.txtUploaded byHamdan Fadhillah
- Case Study Donna Dubinsky and Apple ComputerUploaded bycskalra
- Thought TransferenceUploaded byapi-3822407
- Rational FunctionsUploaded byTannao
- ccUploaded byferdi tayfun
- The Art of TrollingUploaded byRaicu Ioan
- AACR2r-pagesUploaded byAgricéfala SoleLuna
- 167443759 Windows2012 20410B ENU TrainerHandbookUploaded byDhaval Pandya
- Cobol Db2 Program DclgenUploaded bySumana Chakraborty
- Sorbitol 70% Non Crystallizing Liquid RM COAUploaded byASHOK KUMAR LENKA
- 2018 PSAT 10 Answers and Score ConversionUploaded bymmdabral
- Macro Code SAP BW.pdfUploaded bysumit754
- 65018-1A_-_Rev_0_-_QSF_75_65018-1A_Parts_ManualUploaded byandrei20041
- husqvarna 444 workshop manualUploaded byAndreea Muresan
- chetnaUploaded byPriya N Ashu
- Oracle Fusion Intelligence for E-Business Suite IG - R12Uploaded byraoofbasheer
- Mareco Broadcasting Network DWBM-FM 105.1 Crossover Corporate ProfileUploaded byJohn Castillo Soberano