16th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,

20-22 December 2018, IIT Roorkee, India

Paper No. 301

NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME

STRUCTURE
Sauhardra Ojha1,Arunendra Mishra2, Mohd Firoj3, and Dr.K.Narayan4
1
student Dept. of civil Engg.IET Lucknow, sauhadra.ojha@gmail.com
2
student Dept. of civil Engg.IET Lucknow, arunendrakm@gmail.com
3
student Dept. of civil Engg.IET Lucknow, mohdfiroj2493@gmail.com
4
Professor Dept. of civil Engg.IET Lucknow, kncediet@gmail.com

Abstract
The performance-based modeling and analysis of a 10-story building with special moment
resisting frame (SMRF) as force-resisting system and SMRF with shear wall (Dual System),
lateral load resisting system is presented here. The performance based analysis, assess how
structure is expected to behave. It is an iterative process with selection of concert objective
followed by preliminary design. It is an assess that analysis meets the performance points or
not. For structural design and estimate of reinforced concrete members, the non-linear static
analysis has evolve into an relevant tool, method can be adopt to review the performance of
reinforced concrete structures including force redistribution. The paper presents a simple
computer-based push-over analysis technique for performance-based design of building
using non-linear static analysis to developed the capacity and demand curve, push over
curve, rotation of hinge for CP (collapse prevention) performance point. The seismic
response of RC structure frame and dual RC system in terms of performance point and the
effect of seismic forces on multi storey building frame with the help of Non Linear Static
analysis is performed in this paper. In this study the building frame is analyzed using
ETAB’S V.16.03, as per IS 456:2000 and IS 1893:2002 and for non-linear parameter ASCE-
41-13 and EC8-2004 is used.

Introduction
Many intra-tectonic plate zones are favor to have low to steady seismic uncertainty.
However, after overwhelming earthquakes, Bhuj (2001) occur in these zones and grow in
high consequences in terms of casualties and economy losses .The Low to medium raise
structures of reinforced concrete (RC) cover the majority of these territory are investigate
and designed mainly for combinations of gravity loads. So, occurrence of a unpredictable
seismic excitation, satisfactory feedback of such framed structures rely on their inherent
factors of ductility and over-strength, also the absence of knowledge regarding site specific
earthquake records in these province cause it difficult to develop suitable design spectra for
seismic investigation (Limin et al. 2000). Venerability to damage of structures should be
recognize and an adequate level of safety must be there (Kadid and Boumrkik, 2008). To
accomplish such judgment, simplified linear-elastic process is not proportionate. Thus, the
structural engineering people has advanced a new technique of analysis and design that also
integrate performance of structure.

1
 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE

Non-linear analysis of structures is distant from Simplified linear elastic technique and step
towards a more improved assessment of structure during an earthquake (Zou and Chan, 2005)

The dual system consist combination of the two lateral load resisting systems i.e. bare frame
and structural wall or bracing as a leading lateral load endure system (ASCE, 2000). In these
systems the pattern of the deformation will differ from those in bare frames systems.

A new method based on the nonlinear model of structural behavior due to seismic action,
broadly called the Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis or (NSPA), has been developing over
the past two decades, and an extensive (Naeim, 2001) research aimed at its further
improvement is still under way. The NSPA analysis is founded on the modeling of
geometrically and materially non-linear behavior of structures, while treating seismic actions
as a static load, explicitly through forces or implicitly through displacements. The NSPA
analysis is generally conducted in two phase. The first phase is performed using the multi
degree of freedom (MDOF) model, (Kadid and Boumrkik, 2008) while in the second phase
the target displacement analysis is done using the single degree of-freedom (SDOF) system.

Non-linear static analysis

Nonlinear static analysis procedures (pushover analysis) have been evolved for routine
operation in the practice of performance-based seismic investigation due to their conceptual
simplicity and computational effectiveness. A NSPA is executed by subjecting a structure to
an increasing lateral load in each step (Naeim, 2001) showing the inertial forces which would
be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. This result to evolution of
capacity curve. Based on capacity curve target displacement is determined, under
incrementally raising loads various structural component may yield regularly (Naeim, 2001).
Consequently, at each event of load step, the structure experiences a fall in stiffness. Using a
pushover analysis, a distinctive non-linear force displacement relationship can be established.
Several practical methodologies involving nonlinear pushover analysis using an invariant
height-wise lateral force distribution, such as the ATC-40, FEMA-356, FEMA-440, EC8-
2004 and ASCE 41-13.

Performance objectives
Any performance level has two inherent parts, a damage state and a level of seismic threat.
Seismic threat is depicted by assign the maximum allowable damage state with drift limit as
defined in FEMA-356 (Szabolcs et al. 2016). A performance threat shown in Fig.1 may
incorporate consideration of damage express for several stage of ground motion and would
be termed as multiple-level performance threat. Based on performance level the capacity and
demand curve is drawn and based on it the suitable design is chosen.

2
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

Figure1: capacity curve of structure

Capacity:
This term is relates that how structure will perform under seismic threat. In brief, it provides
an information about how large is the maximum inelastic load that our structure can
withstand before collapse occur. The difference intersection of demand curve to capacity
curve is shows the performance of structure as shown in figure 2 and figure 3.

Demand:
It shows the maximum seismic threat that deform the structure in Non Linear range, demand
is describe by an prediction of the maximum deformations that any structure is wonted to
undergo.

Figure2: capacity-demand curve (safe) Figure3: capacity -demand curve (unsafe)

Deformation Controlled: Due to seismic excitation structure component which allow it

to deform by exceeding their elastic limit in ductile manner.
Force Controlled: Due to seismic excitation of structure systems which do not allowed to
super pass their elastic limits, this kind of elements, referred to as Non ductile, experiences
significant reduction in strength, and have only limited post-yield deformation.
Target displacement: The target displacement is intended to represent the maximum
displacement likely to be experienced for the selected Seismic Hazard Level. As per
displacement coefficient process the target displacement is the identical of the performance
level in the capacity spectrum process (Kadid and Boumrkik, 2008). In ASCE 41-13 target
displacement is estimated by use of a series of coefficients.

Material properties and data description

In the model, the support condition was assumed to be fixed Building was a symmetric
structure with respect to both the horizontal directions. Soil structure interaction is not
considered during analysis, the data used during analysis is given Table 1.
Table 1. Modeling Detail of Structure

1 Number of story 10 (G+9)

2 Floor to floor height 3.2m
3 Bottom story height 4.0m

3
 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE

4 Slab thickness 150mm

5 Size of beam 350mm x 500mm
6 Size of column 550mm x 550mm
7 Thickness of shear wall and it’s grade 150mm, M40
8 Zone and zone factor IV, 0.24
9 Importance factor 1
10 Response factor (R) 5
11 Soil type II ( Medium )
12 Grade of concrete and rebar in beam M35, Fe500
13 Grade of concrete (Slab) M35
14 Grade of concrete rebar in column M40, Fe415
15 Grade of shear wall M40
16 Live load and floor finish load 3kN/m2 and 1kN/m2
17 Top floor load 2kN/m2
18 Masonry load Half brick wall, 7.2kN/m

Figure 4: Plan of bare RC frame Figure 5: Plan of dual RC frame with side
center shear wall

Target displacement calculation

a. As Per ASCE 41-13
as per ASCE 41-13 [3] the target displacement is given by equation

T 2e
δ t=C0 C1 C2 S a g (1.0)
4 π2

Where T e is calculated as

Ki
T e =T i
√ Ke
(1.1)

4
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

T e is the effective fundamental period in the direction under consideration shall be based on
the idealized force–displacement curve.
T i, is the elastic fundamental period in the direction under consideration evaluated by elastic
dynamic analysis.
K i , It is elastic lateral stiffness of the structure in the considered direction.

K e , It is effective lateral stiffness of the structure in the considered direction.

Sa , is Response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period and damping ratio
of the structure in the considered direction.
C 0, is Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) system to the roof displacement of the building multi degree of-freedom
(MDOF) system.
C 1, is Modification factor to relate to likely maximum inelastic displacements calculated for
linear elastic response.
C 2C 2 is modification factor for the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness
degradation, and strength deterioration on the maximum displacement response.

b. As Per EC 8-2004

The following relation between normalized lateral forces F́ iand normalized displacements ∅ i
is assumed,[8]

F i=mi ∅i (2.0)

Where m i is mass at ith storey

The mass of an equivalent SDOF system m¿ is presented as:

m ¿ = ∑ mi ∅ i=∑ F́ i (2.1)

And the transformation factor is given by:

m¿
γ= (2.2)
∑ mi ∅ 2
i

The force F ¿ and displacement d ¿ of equivalent SDOF is describe as:

Fb dn
F¿ = ¿
and d =
γ γ

Where F b,d n is respectively, the base shear force and the control node displacement of the
Multi Degree of Freedom (MDOF) system.
¿
Based on this assumption, the yield displacement of the idealized SDOF system d y is given
by-

5
 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE

E ¿m
¿
d =2 d −
y
Fy ( ¿
m ) (2.3)

¿
Where, Em is the actual deformation energy up to the formation of the plastic mechanism,

The period T ¿of the idealized equivalent SDOF system is determined by:

m¿ d¿y
T = 2π ¿

√ F ¿y
¿
(2.4)

For the determination of the target displacement d t for structures in the short-period range and
for structures in the medium and long-period ranges different expressions.

d ¿et T
dd = ¿ ¿
t t
qu T (
1+ ( qu−1 ) c¿ ≥ d et
¿
) (2.5)

The target displacement of the MDOF system corresponding to control node is given by:

d t = γ d ¿t (2.6)

Results
As per the objective, work methodology and structural modeling, analysis of both structure
bare RC frame and dual RC frame structure is done with help of ETAB v16.03.The result of
the analyzed structure is presented using codes, ASCE 41-13, and EC 8-2004.
Push over data
Push over (base shear vs. roof
Base shear vs Monitored displacement in displacaement) data for bare RC and
X25000
direction dual RC frame in X and Y direction
20000
Base shear (KN)

15000

10000

5000

0
0 25 50 60 75 100 122
Monitored displacement (mm)
RC bare frame RC frame with shear wall

Figure 6:(a) pushover curve in X direction (b) push over in Y direction

1. Natural time period

The structure consist shear wall shows lees time period which leads to increase in
rigidity and less deformation in the structure.

6
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

Figure 7: natural Time Period of Structure

2. Target Displacement as Per ASCE 41-13

a - bare RC frame in X direction

Figure 8: Target displacement In X direction of bare RC frame

Table2:Target displacement in X direction of bare RC frame

Target Displacement Maximum Shear

182.65mm 21459.73 kN
(δ) (V)

Yield displacement ( Yield base shear

56.15mm 12556.76 kN
Dy ¿ (V y )

b- Dual RC frame in X direction

Figure 9: Target displacement In X direction of dual RC frame

7
 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE

Table-3.Target displacement In X direction of dual RC frame

Target Displacement 198.64mm Maximum 20051.61 kN

(δ) Shear (V)

Yield displacement ( 33.04mm Yield base 11771.21 kN

Dy¿¿ shear (V y )

3. Target displacement as per EC 8 2004

a- RC frame in X direction

Figure 10: Target displacement In X direction of bare RC frame

Target Displacement, d t = 111.751 mm

Table4.Table Target displacement data

Target Displ. Found Yes E¿m 11.202 mm

F ¿y 0.222 T¿ 1.18 sec
d ¿y 76.943 mm se (T )
¿ 0.257
d ¿et 88.819 mm Tc 0.5 sec
d ¿t 88.819 mm γ 1.258178

b- Dual RC frame in X direction

8
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

Figure 11: Target displacement In X direction of dual RC frame

Target Displacement, d t = 168.996 mm

Table 5: Target displacement data

Target displ. Found Yes E¿m 5.342 mm

F ¿y 0.241 T¿ 2.214 sec
d ¿y 293.637 mm se (T )¿ 0.319
d ¿et 168.996 mm Tc 0.5 sec
¿
d t 168.996 mm γ 1

Conclusions
The performance of reinforced concrete bare and dual frame with side center shear wall was
investigated using the pushover Analysis in ETAB’s. The conclusions drawn from the
analysis is given here.

 From Pushover data of both structure we can say that displacement in both X and Y
direction is less for RC dual frame structure and dual RC frame has more base shear
at less displacement which shows that dual RC frame shows more resistance against
lateral loads
 The critical time period for bare RC frame is 1.305sec., more as compared to dual RC
frame which has 0.967sec., which shows the stiffness of the dual RC frame is
increased and the dual system behaves better during lateral load.

 Target displacement data shows that shear wall is more suitable for non-linear range
where yield displacement of dual RC frame is reduced as compare to bare one due to
the rigidity of structure.
 Target displacement as per EC-8-2004 is more accurate as compare to ASCE because
it is based on MDOF

References

9
 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF DUAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE

1. ASCE, 41-13 (2000)“Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation and retrofit of

existing Buildings.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

2. CEN, “European Standard EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for

earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”.
Stage 51 Draft, Brusells: Comite Europeen de Normalisation, December 2003.

3. FEMA-356 (2000). “Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings.” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

4. Kadid A. and Boumrkik A., (2008) “Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame
Structures.”Asian journal of civil engineering (building and housing) Vol. 9, No. 1 pp.
75-83.
5. Limin JIN, Atila ZEKIOGLU and King-Le CHANG,(2000) “Performance Based
Analysis and Modeling of a Dual Seismic force-Resisting System.” 12 WCEE 2000.
6. Naeim F (Ed). (2001) “The seismic design handbook.” Kluwer Academic Publishers,
MA,

7. Szabolcs Vargaa, Cosmin and G. Chiorean, (2016) “Seismic Assessment of

Reinforced Concrete Frameworks through Advanced Pushover Analysis and
Nonlinear Response of A SDOF oscillator.” Procedia Engineering Vol. 161,pp. 332-
336.

8. X.-k. Zou, c.-m. Chan, (2005) “performance-based design of reinforced concrete

Buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis.” Engineering structures Vol. 27, pp.
1289-1302.

10