You are on page 1of 118

Abstract

Due to the inelastic behavior intended in most structures subjected to infrequent


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

CHAPTER NO TITLE PAGE NO

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.METHODOLOGY OF PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS


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.TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS


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

Av Shear area in mm2


(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

Take notations from chapter 7.

11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATC Applied Technology Council


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.

1.2 NEED FOR PERFORMANCE -BASED ANALYSIS


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.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY


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.

The objectives of the study are:-


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.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

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.

An essential and critical component of evolving performance-based design


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.

Inelastic time-history analysis using an ensemble of representative ground motions are


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).

2.2 BASIC CONCEPT

The performance-based design methodology requires the proper matching of two


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.

2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

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

R. Sadjadi, M.R. Kianoush and S. Talebi[24] has concluded Pushover analysis is


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.

The FEMA-356[12] Prestandard is intended to serve as a nationally applicable tool for


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.

Advancement of present-generation performance-based seismic design procedures is


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.

The ATC-40[4] document provides a comprehensive, technically sound recommended


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.

Define Performance Level

Define Earthquake Hazard Level

Select Performance Objective

Develop Preliminary Design

Analyze the Structure

Evaluate the Seismic Performance

Figure.3.1. Performance-based Analysis Procedure

The following sections summarize recommendations for performance level,


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

3.2.1 Immediate Occupancy Performance Level (S-1)


 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.

3.2.2 Damage Control Performance Range (S-2)


 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.

3.2.3 Life Safety Performance Level (S-3)


 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.

3.2.4 Limited Safety Performance Range (S-4)


 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.

3.2.6 Structural Performance Not Considered (S-6):


 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.

Figure.3.2 - Performance Levels

3.3 SEISMIC HAZARD LEVELS


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.

3.3.1 Deterministic 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.

3.3.2 Describing the earthquake level is the probabilistic method

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)

Thus, a set of values of p and t or a value of N can describe an earthquake level.


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.

Table.3.2. Earthquake Levels (FEMA 356)


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

3.5. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


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)

Table.3.3 Selection of Performance Objectives


Earthquake levels Probability Target building performance level
of Operational Immediate Life Collapse

exceedance Occupancy Safety Prevention

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)

3.5. CALCULATION OF TARGET DISPLACEMENT

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.

Table.3.4 Values for Modification Factor C01

Shear Buildings2 Other Buildings


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

C1 is a modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to


displacement calculated for linear elastic response and is given by

C1 = 1.0 for Te ≥ Ts ----- (3.3)

= [1.0+(R-1) Ts/Te]/R for Te<Ts ----- (3.4)

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

Where Ke is effective lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction


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.

Table3.5 Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm1


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.

C2 is modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,


stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response and
shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Values of Modification Factor C2

Structural T ≤ 0.1 second3 T ≥Ts second3


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.

C3 is modification factor to represent increased displacement due to dynamic P-Δ


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.

C3 = 1.0 + (|α| (R-1)3/2)/Te -----


(3.7)

Sa – Response Spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period and


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 MODELLING OF MEMBERS


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.

4.2.2 Modelling of Beams and Columns


 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

4.2.3 Modelling of Infill Walls


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.

4.2.4 Modelling of Shear Walls


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.

Figure 4.2 Shear Wall Modelled using Area Elements


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.

4.2..2 Water Tanks


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.

4.2..3 Cantilever Slabs


Cantilever slabs are also not modeled with the main structure. Instead its mass
contribution is applied as lumped mass on the supporting elements.

4.2.6 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation


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)

Frame elements are modeled as line elements along their centers


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.

 Non-rigid zone with a rigid zone factor equal to 0


 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.

Figure 4.5 Rigid Zone Factor Calculations


`

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.

4.31 Concrete Properties


 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.

4.4 DETERMINATION OF CENTER OF RIGIDITY AND CENTER OF MASS


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.

4.55 Determination of Center of Rigidity


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

Figure 4.8 Calculation of ( z)


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

4.56 Determination of Center of Mass


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)

4.58 Design Eccentricity


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.

4.6 MODELLING OF NON-LINEAR PROPERTIES AND ITS


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.

4.52.2 Large Displacement


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.

 Large displacement option should be used for cable structures undergoing


significant deformation.
 For most other structures, the P-Delta option is adequate, particularly when
material nonlinearity dominates.

4.6 DEVELOPMENT OF MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP FOR


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

Define section and reinforcement

Assume strain in extreme compression fibre of concrete

Assume neutral
axis depth, kd

kd =kd’+ kd Equate T=C


kd’ = kd
2 No & find kd’
Yes

Calculate Moment

Calculate curvature

Figure 3.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment 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

There will be four distinct points.

 Point A corresponds to unloaded stage.


 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.

A sample calculation for generating moment curvature relationship is shown


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

Table 4.3 Cross-sectional, Material and Reinforcement details


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.

Figure 4.15 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete

  c   c 2 
f c 0.446f ck 2     0   c  0.002 (4.13)
  0.002   0.002  

  c  
2

f c 0.446f ck 1  0.25  1   0.002   c  0.0035


  0.002   (4.14)

c = strain in the extreme compression fibre in concrete

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.

Figure 4.16 Stress block for Concrete Section

Equation 4.17 represents the force equilibrium across the section.


k 1 k 3 f ck bkd  A st f s (4.17)

k2kd= depth of resultant compressive force developed in concrete from the


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.

Table 4.4 Equation for  , k1 and k2

0< c< 0  0< c< u


 c/0 0/c
k1  
k2 (1/3- (6-4

52
Here
0 = strain corresponding to peak stress
u = ultimate strain

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


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

Table 4.5 Calculation of Values  , k1 and k2

c  k1 k2 K3
0.0005 0.25 0.229 0.3409 0.446

Assume a neutral axis depth of 300mm

Total tensile force developed in tension steel, T1 = 125.00 kN

Total compression force in compression steel, C1 = 117.17 kN

Total compressive force in concrete, C2 = 0.919kd kN

Neutral axis depth, kd = 8.52 mm

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

Moment is calculated using equation 4.18.


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

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

5.1. INTRODUCTION

Pushover analysis is a static non-linear procedure in which the magnitude of the


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.

5.2. METHODS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

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.

 A single concentrated horizontal force at the top


 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

 A distribution proportional to storey shear resistances at each step

These adaptive load distributions require more computational effort. However, their
superiority over the simpler fixed load distributions has not been established.

ii) Displacement Control

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.

5.3. Pushover Analysis and Pushover Curve

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.

5.4. Pushover Analysis by SAP 2000 Package

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.

3. An arbitrary static load pattern may be defined.

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:

1. Base shear versus displacement at a specified control joint can be plotted.

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.

The following general sequence of steps is involved in a nonlinear static pushover


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.

3. Define the pushover load cases.

4. Define hinge properties.

5. Assign hinge properties to frame elements.

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.

7. Review the pushover results.

8. If necessary, revise the model and repeat steps 2 through 7.

5.5 METHODOLOGY OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS


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.

Figure 5.1 Static Approximations in the Pushover Analysis

Pushover analysis is an efficient way to analyze the behavior of the structure,


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
j1
2

Qi = Design lateral force at floor i


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).

5.6 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS


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).

Figure 5.2 Base Shear Vs Roof Displacement

Figure 5.3 Determination of Performance Point

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

Where Δm is the maximum displacement and Δy is the yield deformation.

5.63 Interstorey Drift and Plastic Hinge Formation


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.

6.2 TYPES OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS


There are two important types of dynamic analysis of structures which are namely
Linear Dynamic analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic analysis.

6.2.1 Linear 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.

6.2.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

The Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP) is for seismic analysis of the


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.

6.3 METHODOLOGY OF NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS


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

6.3.1 Acceleration Time Histories


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).

Figure 6.2 Typical Acceleration Time-History Record


(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.

6.3.2 Evaluation of Nonlinear Static Analysis


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

ANALYSIS OF 6-STOREY FRAME USING “SAP 2000”

7.1 MODEL OF 6-STOREY FRAME

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

7.2. BUILDING DESCRIPTION

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.

Fig. 7.2 Elevation of 6-storey RC building

7.3 Geometric properties of members


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.

7.4 Analysis and Design of 6-storey building


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.

7.5 Preliminary data for 6-storey RC frame building


The salient features of the frame are given below,

1. Type of structure - Multi-storey rigid jointed frame

2. Zone -V

3. Layout - As shown in Figure 7.1

4. Number of stories - Six Storey (G+5) as shown in Figure 7.2

5. Floor to floor height - 4.0m

6. Grand storey - 4.775m

7. Walls - 250mm thickness including plaster

8. Live load - 5kN/m2 on floor and 3kN/m2 on the roof

9. Materials - M25 and Fe415

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

11. Design philosophy- According to ATC-40 document.

12. Size of exterior columns - 300×300mm, 300×400, 300×500mm

13. Size of interior columns - 300×300mm, 450×450mm, 500×500mm,


550×550mm, 600×600mm, 650×650mm.

14. Size of beams in both direction- 300×600mm

15. Total depth of slab-200mm

7.5.1 Loading data for 6-storey RC frame building

Dead load (DL)

72
Weight of slab = 25*D kN/m2 (where D is total depth of slab)

Weight of Floor finishes (F.F) =0.5kN/m2

Weight of Ceiling finishes =0.5kN/m2

Walls - 230mm thickness including plaster

Parapet wall self weight per meter length = 0.115x20x0.7=1.61kN/m

Live Load (LL)

On roof = 3 kN/m2

On floor = 5 kN/m2

Earthquake Load (EQ) data: According to 1893 (Part 1):2002

ZI S a
Ah 
2R g
Where,

Zone factor (Z) = 0.36 (Zone V)

Importance factor (I) =1.0 (office buildings)

Response Reduction factor (R) = 3.0 (OMRF-add in abbreviation table)

Fundamental time period Ta= 0.075h0.75 = 0.90 Sec


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

23
1.52  0.0912

7.5.2 Analysis of 6-storey RC frame (considering only single frame)

7.5.2.1. Load Calculation at roof level:-

Dead load analysis at roof level

Load Calculation at roof level along X-direction

73
Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2

Weight of Floor finishes (F.F) =0.5kN/m2

Weight of Ceiling finishes =0.5kN/m2

Total weight = 5+0.5+0.5 =6 kN/m2

Total weight on roof level beams

Tributary Floor area on beam = (0.5×3×10) ×2 = 30m2

Slab weight on beam = 30×6 = 180.0kN

Weight on beam per meter = 180/8 = 22.5kN/m

Self weight of beam = 25×0.3× (0.6-0.2) = 3.0kN/m

Total weight = 22.5+ 3.0 = 25.5kN/m

Load Calculation at roof level along Y-direction

Point load due to (Slab+ Ceiling +Finishes) on end column = (0.5x3.0x18) +


(0.5x3.0x18) =54kN

Point load due to (Slab+ Ceiling +Finishes) on central column= (0.5x3.0x2.0x18)


+ (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

Live Load Analysis at roof level

Weight of live load = 3 kN/m2

Tributary floor area on beam = 0.5×3×6 = 9kN/m

Point load on end columns = (0.5x3x (6/2)) = 18kN

Point load on end columns = (0.5x3x (6/2)) x2 = 36kN

7.5.2.2. Load Calculation at fifth floor level:-

Dead load analysis at fifth floor level

Load Calculation at fifth floor level along X-direction

74
Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2

Weight of Floor finishes (F.F) =0.5kN/m2

Weight of Ceiling finishes =0.5kN/m2

Total weight = 5+0.5+0.5 =6 kN/m2

Total weight on floor level beams

Tributary Floor area Load on beam = (0.5×3×10) ×2 = 30m2

Slab weight on beam = 30×6 = 180.0kN

Weight on beam per meter = 180/8 = 22.5kN/m

Self weight of beam = 25×0.3× (0.6-0.2) = 3.0kN/m

Wall load in X-direction = 0.23x20x (4.0-60) = 15.64kN/m

Self weight of column = 0.30x0.30x (4.0-60) x25= 7.65kN

Total weight = 22.5+ 3.0 = 25.5kN/m

Load Calculation at fifth floor level along Y-direction

Point load due to (Slab+ Ceiling +Finishes) on end column = (0.5x3.0x18) +


(0.5x3.0x18) =54kN

Point load due to (Slab+ Ceiling +Finishes) on central column= (0.5x3.0x2.0x18)


+ (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

Live Load Analysis at fifth floor level

Weight of live load = 5 kN/m2

Tributary floor load on beam = 0.5×6×5 = 15m2

Peak intensity of Trapezoidal load on beam = 15kN/m

Point load on end columns = (0.5x3x3x5) x2 = 45kN

75
Point load on end columns = ((0.5x3x3x5) x2) x2 = 90kN

Calculation of Loads is similar for other floor levels.

7.5.2.3. Load Calculation at Plinth level:-

Dead load analysis at Plinth level

Load Calculation at Plinth level along X-direction

Self weight of beam = 25×0.3×0.6 = 4.5kN/m

Wall load in X-direction = 0.23x20x (4.775-0.60) = 19.205kN/m

Self weight of column = 0.30x0.50x ((4.775-0.60)/2) x25= 7.83kN

Self weight of column = 0.65x0.65x ((4.775-0.60)/2) x25= 22.05kN

Total weight = 4.5+ 19.20 + 7.83 + 22.05 = 53.58kN/m

Load Calculation at Plinth level along Y-direction

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

7.6. Earth quake load analysis


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

3 Fourth 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 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

4 Third 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 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

5 Second 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 0.30x0.30x(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

6 First 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 0.30x0.50x((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

Total Weight (W) = DEAD LOAD + LIVE LOAD

Total Weight (W) = 4571.245+ 1272 =5835.90kN / 5843.245

Total base shear= Ah× W = 0.0912×5843.245 = 532.21kN / 532.90

7.7. Seismic Load Distribution

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

Where Qi = Design lateral force at floor i,

Wi = Seismic weight of floor i,

VB = Base shear of the building

hi = Height of floor i measured from base, and

n = Number of storeys in the building is the number

of levels at which the masses are located.

7.7.1. Determination of design lateral loads at each floor as per IS 1893(part1):2002

Table 4.2 Lateral loads applied on 6-storey RC building(Parabolic distribution)


Storey Level Wi(kN) Hi(m) Wi hi2 Wi hi2/∑Wi hi2 Qi (kN)

Roof level 686.82 27.28 149.86


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
∑= ∑= ∑=

7.8. LOAD COMBINATIONS

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,

Table 4.5 Load combinations used in the analysis of 3-storey RC building

Load Case Details of load cases


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)

7.9. DESIGN OF 3-STOREY RC BUILDING

7.9.1 Design of a flexure member

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.

Design of beam (For roof, floors and plinth level beams)

Size of the beam – 300× 600mm

Grade of concrete = M 25

Grade of steel reinforcement = Fe 415

Load Combination is 1.5DL +1.5LL

(A). Design of beam at Support Moment

Factored moment (From SAP 2000 analysis) = 617.83 kN-m

80
Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear
cover of 30mm,

Effective depth, d = 600 - 30-12.50-8.0 = 550.0mm

From Table D, SP 16,

For, fy = 415 N/mm2, fck = 25 N/mm2,

Mu,lim /bd2 = 6.80 N/mm2,

Mu, lim = 0.139 x fck x b x d2 =0.139x25x300x5502 = 315.36 kN-m

Actual moment (617.83kN-m) is greater than Mu, lim (315.36kN-m),

So, the beam is to be designed as a doubly reinforced section.

Reinforcement from tables 51, SP 16:1980,

Mu, lim /bd2 =301.73×106/300×5502 = 6.80N/mm2,

d’/d = 50/600 = 0.08~0.1,

Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.

Referring to table 51, SP 16, corresponding to

Mu/bd2 = 6.80 and d//d = 0.1,

Pt = 2.226%, Pc = 1.09%,

Pt = 100 Ast/b d

There fore Ast=Ptbd/100 = 2.226×300×550/100 = 3673.0mm2 ~ 3885mm2

Providing 3 No’s of 32 mm diameter bars and 3 No’s of 25 mm diameter bars in


tension.

Pc= 100 Asc/b d, Asc = Pcbd/100 = 1.09×550/100 = 1799.0mm2 ~ 1848mm2

Providing 3 No’s of 28 mm diameter bars in compression.

Check

Actual, d = 600 - 30-16-8.0 = 546.0mm

d’= 30+ 16 +8.0 = 54 mm

81
d’/d = 54/546 = 0.09~0.1,

fsc = 352.54 N/mm2

Pt, Provided Pt = 100 Ast /bd = (100x3885) / (300x546) = 2.37%

Pc, Provided Pc = 100 Asc /bd = (100x1848) / (300x546) = 1.13%

Pc* = (0.87 fy (Pt – Pt, lim)) / (fsc - 0.447 x fck)

= (0.87x415(2.37-1.2)) / (352.54 – 0.447x25) = 1.24%,

Pc < Pc*, Hence section is slightly over reinforced.

Asc > (Pc* bd /100) = (1.24/100)x300x546 = 2031mm2

Provide 3 No’s of 32 mm diameter bars (2412 mm2) in compression.

Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 2412) / (300 x 546) =1.472% > Pc* OK

(B). Design of beam at Mid Span Moment

Factored moment (From SAP 2000 analysis) = 398.89 kN-m

Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear
cover of 30mm,

Effective depth, d = 600 - 30-12.50-8.0 = 550.0mm

From Table D, SP 16,

For, fy = 415 N/mm2, fck = 25 N/mm2,

Mu,lim /bd2 = 6.80 N/mm2,

Mu, lim = 0.139 x fck x b x d2 =0.139x25x300x5502 = 315.36 kN-m

Actual moment (398.89kN-m) is greater than Mu, lim (315.36kN-m),

So, the beam is to be designed as a doubly reinforced section.

Reinforcement from tables 51, SP 16:1980,

Mu, lim /bd2 =301.73×106/300×5502 = 4.4N/mm2,

82
d’/d = 50/600 = 0.08~0.1,

Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.

Referring to table 51, SP 16, corresponding to

Mu/bd2 = 4.4 and d//d = 0.1,

Pt = 1.49%, Pc = 0.309%,

Pt = 100 Ast/b d

There fore Ast=Ptbd/100 = 1.49×300×550/100 = 2459.0mm2 ~ 2790mm2

Providing 3 No’s of 28 mm diameter bars and 3 No’s of 20 mm diameter bars in


tension.

Pc= 100 Asc/b d, Asc = Pcbd/100 = 0.309×550/100 = 511.50mm2 ~ 556mm2

Providing 2 No’s of 16 mm diameter bars and 1 No’s of 14 mm diameter bars in


compression.

Check

Actual, d = 600 - 30-14-8.0 = 548.0mm

d’= 30+ 14 +8.0 = 52 mm

d’/d = 52/546 = 0.09~0.1,

fsc = 352.54 N/mm2

Pt, Provided Pt = 100 Ast /bd = (100x2790) / (300x548) = 1.7%

Pc, Provided Pc = 100 Asc /bd = (100x556) / (300x548) = 0.34%

Pc* = (0.87 fy (Pt – Pt, lim)) / (fsc - 0.447 x fck)

= (0.87x415(1.7-1.2)) / (352.54 – 0.447x25) = 0.53%,

Pc < Pc*, Hence section is slightly over reinforced.

Asc > (Pc* bd /100) = (0.53/100) x300x548 = 871mm2

Provide 3 No’s of 20 mm diameter bars (942 mm2) in compression.

Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 942) / (300 x 548) = 0.573% > Pc* OK

83
7.9.2 Design of exterior column

Column subjected to bending and axial load

Size of the column = 300 × 300 mm

Grade of concrete = M 25

Grade of steel reinforcement = Fe 415

Maximum Axial load from SAP 2000 analysis result = 566.543kN

Maximum Moment from SAP 2000 analysis result = 274.715 kN-m

IS: 13920:1993 Specification will be applicable, if axial stress > 0.1fck,

i.e. 566.543×1000/(300×530) = 3.36 N/mm2> 0.1×20 = 2 N/mm2

Therefore ok.

Vertical (longitudinal) reinforcement

Assume 25mm diameter and 40mm clear cover,

d' = 40+12.5 = 52.5mm

d'/d = 52.5/530 = 0.099 = 0.1

From chart 44, SP 16:1980,

For d'/d = 0.1 and fy = 415 N/mm2

Pu /fckbd= 566.54 × 103/(20×300×530) =0.178

Mu/ fckbD2 = 274.715× 106/ (20×300×5302) = 0.163

P/fck= 0.1, Reinforcement in percentage = 0.1×20 = 2%

As= Pbd/100= 3180mm2

Provide 8 No’s of 25mm diameter bars.

7.9.3. Design of Interior column

Size of column- 300 × 300 cm

Maximum Axial load from SAP 2000 analysis result =841.93 kN.

84
Maximum moment from SAP 2000 analysis result = 72.39 kN.m

Vertical (longitudinal) reinforcement

Assuming 25mm diameter bar with 40 mm clear cover

d/ = 40+12.5 = 52.5mm

d//d = 52.5/300 = 0.175

From chart 454, SP 16:1980, for d//d = 0.15 and fy = 415 N/mm2

Pu /fckbd= 841.93 × 103/ (20×300×300) =0.46

Mu/ fckbD2 = 72.39× 106/ (20×300×3002) = 0.13

P/fck= 0.14, Reinforcement in percentage = 0.14×20 = 2.8 %

As= Pbd/100= 2.8 × 300 × 300/100 =3180mm2

Provide 6 No’s of 25mm diameter bars.

7.10. Calculation of Proportional Damping

General Equation of Motion

All three options can be expressed as:

[M]ϋ+[C]ύ+[K]u=[M]ϋg
Where

ϋ, ύ, u = Acceleration , Velocity and Displacement

ϋg = Ground displacement

[M] = Mass matrix

[C] = Damping matrix

[K] = Stiffeness matrix

85
The viscous damping matrix is calculated in the program using one of the following
options:

a) Mass proportional damping

b) Stiffness proportional damping

c) Rayleigh damping

All three options can be expressed as:

C     M    k  K t
Where the coefficients a M and a K are calculated depending on the type of damping

Matrix selected:

Fig 3.2. Computation of shear due to p-delta effects


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.

Frame: Gravity Designed

87
Time Period T1 = 1.26624

Time Period T2 = 0.47742

ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 4.958939

ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 13.15404

For 5% Damping (  ) 0.05


2  

i j
 i
= 0.360129
 
2 2
j i

2
β  = 0.005521
 
2 2
j i

Frame: Earthquake Designed

Time Period T1 = 0.99557

Time Period T2 = 0.37832

ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 6.307944

ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 16.5997

For 5% Damping (  ) 0.05


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

8.1 PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF 2D RC FRAME WITHOUT


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.

Table 8.1 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement


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.

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. 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.

Table 8.2 Input Earthquake Ground Motions


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

8.1.2.1 BASE SHEAR


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

Figure 8.4 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Maximum Considered


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

(a) Results from Time-history (b) Results from Time-history


Analysis at DBE Level Analysis at MCE Level

Figure 6.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis

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.

8.1.2.4 Plastic Hinge Patterns


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

Figure 8.7 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level

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.

8.2.2 DETAILS OF THE FRAME STRUCTURE

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.

Table 8.4 Column and Beam Reinforcement Details (mm2)


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)

Lb = distance of plastic hinge in beam measured from the centerline of column.

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.

Table 6.5 Calculation of Plastic Hinge Length and its Location


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.

The hinge properties can be


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

R = strength of infill wall corresponding to any strain level


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.

a) Model without strut b) Model with strut c) Model showing releases


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

a) Model showing releases b) Model showing Hinges

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.

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


Storey Frame, Using Pushover Analysis

8.2.4.2 Time History 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.

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


Storey Frame using Time History Analysis

8.2.5 Results and Discussions


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

Figure 8.16 Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using Time


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.

9.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM EXAMPLE-1


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.

9.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM EXAMPLE 2


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.

9.4 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK


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.

2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), “Seismic Design of R/C Buildings


with the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23,
319–332.

3. Asokan A. “Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls for Non-linear Static Analysis of


Buildings Under Seismic Loads”, M.Tech. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, January 2006

4. ATC 40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”, Applied


Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.

5. Chopra A.K. (1995), “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to


Earthquake Engineering”, Prentice Hall Publishers.

6. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, “Seismic Analysis of Bridges using


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.

8. Enrico Spacone, Russel Martino and Greg Kingsley, “Nonlinear Pushover


Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures” Final Report to Colorado Advanced
Software Institute, pp. 1-117.

9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the


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.

13. FEMA-445 (2006), “Next Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design


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.

19. “Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Mutli-storeyed RC Buildings”, by


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.

25. Zou X. K, Chan C.M (2005), “Optimal Seismic Performance-based Design of


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:

ECC is equipped with the requisite expertise and wide-ranging experience to


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:

ECC’s range of services includes:

 Pre-engineering, feasibility studies and detailed project reports.


 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.

Research and Testing Centre:

LTCRTC (L&T Construction Research and Testing Centre) handles testing


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.

LTCRTC focuses its study on innovation of new construction materials and


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.

ECC go through a process of continuous learning, assisted by training


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.

ECC has always believed in experimentation with and implementation of new


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

 Recruitment based solely on merit by following well-defined and systematic


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

Maintain a quality Human Resource Management System to meet the international


standards as per ISO 9001. Plan, design, train, equip and motivate the department staff to
meet this standard of expectation.

Construction skill training institute (CSTI):

ECC promotes construction vocational training in India in a professional manner


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):

EDRC provides a broad spectrum of Engineering, Design and Consultancy


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).

Buildings & Factories:

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:

 A week long Supervisory Development Programme and a 10 day Executive


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.

 For top level management, there is an arrangement with Management


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.

Employee involvement in Training:

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

Self Learning Packages:

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