Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/237236342
CITATIONS READS
9 944
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of high performance concrete for nuclear-energy containment structural facilities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelhamid Charif on 09 April 2015.
A. Shuraim , A. Charif
ABSTRACT
The nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) as introduced by ATC-40 was applied for
the evaluation of existing design of a reinforced concrete frame, in order to examine the
applicability of the pushover for evaluating design of new buildings. Potential structural
deficiencies in the frame were assessed by the code seismic-resistant design and pushover
approaches, for the sake of comparison. In the first approach, the potential deficiencies were
determined by redesigning under one selected seismic combination in order to show which
members would require additional reinforcement. In the second approach, a pushover analysis
was conducted to assess the seismic performance of the frame and detect the locations of the
plastic hinges. The paper shows that vulnerability locations revealed from the two procedures
are significantly different, where the latter procedure tends to overestimate column strength,
consequently, concealing earlier detection of column weaknesses. The paper provides rational
explanations for the apparent discrepancy that can be taken into consideration in order to make
pushover methodology applicable when designing or evaluating existing design of new
buildings.
INTRODUCTION
The generalized nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) is a key element in the
methodology introduced by ATC-40 for the seismic evaluation and retrofit design of existing
buildings which represents a fundamental change for the structural engineering profession.
The methodology is performance-based where the design criteria are expressed as
performance objectives, which define desired levels of seismic performance when the building
is subjected to specified levels of seismic ground motion. The generalized nonlinear static
analytical procedure incorporated in the methodology has three primary elements ( as shown
in Figure 1): capacity curve of a structure by use of a static pushover analysis, a method to
determine displacement demand by use of reduced demand spectra, and the resulting
identification of the performance point and the subsequent check for acceptable performance.
Plastic hinges observed prior to the performance point reveals the locations of the potential
deficiencies as well as the damage extent. ATC-40 asserts that although the methodology is
not intended for the design of new buildings, the analytical procedures are applicable.
Demand Spectrum
Spectral Acceleration
ve
Performance point
ur
yC
ci t
pa
Ca
Spectral Displacement
Over the previous decade, pushover analysis has been carried out for either user-defined
nonlinear hinge properties or default-hinge properties, available in some programs based on
the ATC-40[1] and FEMA-356 [2] guidelines. In the implementation of pushover analysis,
modeling is one of the important steps where all material plasticity is lumped at appropriately
located hinges. The capacity response of the structure is closely related to the plastic
properties assigned to the various members (beams and columns). Such a model requires the
determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure that are
quantified by strength and deformation capacities. Some programs (i.e. SAP2000 [3, 4]) have
already implemented these default nonlinear properties. The use of this implementation is very
common among the structural engineering profession and researchers. In the past several
years, many researchers [5-10] have discussed the underlying assumptions and limitations of
pushover analysis. The pushover has been utilized to investigate the seismic performance of
reinforced concrete frames with emphasis on the suitability of default material assumptions
[11-12].
The ATC-40 [1] assertion that the analytical procedure is applicable to new buildings raises
some questions in view of the known significant differences in the underlying assumptions of
the pushover procedure in comparison to those in design codes [13-17] for new buildings. In
new building design, the code always maintains certain factor of safety that comes from load
factors, materials reduction factors, and ignoring some post yielding characteristics
(hardening). In the modeling assumptions of ATC-40, reduction factor is assumed to be one,
and hardening is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is important to evaluate
pushover accuracy and reliability in comparison to code design criteria that are relevant to
seismic design.
The paper addresses the applicability of the pushover to the design of new buildings, through a
2D RC frame case study having been designed for gravity load only. The adequacy/deficiency
of the existing longitudinal reinforcement in the frame for resisting moderate seismic forces
will be assessed by the code seismic-resistant design and pushover approaches. In the former
approach, new longitudinal reinforcements for the frame members will be compared with the
existing reinforcement where the increase in the reinforcement represents potential deficiency
in the original design. In the latter approach, the capacity curve, spectrum demand and
performance point will be determined on the basis of the existing gravity design. Plastic
hinges formed prior to the performance point represent the locations of the deficiency in the
original design. Locations of deficiency from the two approaches will be evaluated and
discussed. It is always believed that verifications of design/analysis procedures and their
underlying assumptions are an essential step for safety and economic considerations.
CASE STUDY
The case study is a typical regular 2D frame with three bays and three stories (Figure 2). All
column and beams sections are 300 x 500 mm but internal columns are used in the weak
direction ( b = 500 mm and h = 300 mm) deliberately to make them more vulnerable than
external columns. The ground beams were included in the model with a much lower loading
and the base is assumed fixed.
The frame was first analyzed and designed with SAP2000 [1] using a standard linear analysis
combining dead and live loading. Figure 3 shows the various reinforcement percentages for
the gravity load combination (U1= 1.4 D + 1.7 L). A unique steel percentage is given for
columns whereas for beams, top and bottom values are given at both ends as well as at mid-
span.
Figure 2: frame labeling numbers
SEISMIC-RESISTANT DESIGN
Earthquake-induced inertia forces depend on the response characteristics of the structure and
the intensity of ground motion at the site. The latter depends primarily on three factors: the
distance between the source and the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type of soil
at the site. Different individual structures shaken by the same earthquake respond differently.
One important characteristic is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. Shape or
configuration is another important characteristic that affects structure response.
In this paper, base shear was computed and distributed vertically in accordance with UBC97
seismic provisions, assuming Ca = Cv =0.2 (Zone 2B soil SB). The total base shear computed
was modified slightly (V =428.1 kN) in order to permit comparison with one of the critical
pushover cases.
Following the same provisions, there are a number of load combinations that need to be
considered. However, for the sake of this study, the frame was designed under one load
combination only (termed seismic 1), namely: U2 = 1.1( 1.2 D +1 L+ 1 E).
Based on the above load combination, the RC frame was designed where the longitudinal
reinforcement ratios are presented in Figure 4. The reinforcement from U1 and U2
combinations are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 for columns and beams, respectively. The
positive percentage of change indicates the deficiency in a member if subjected to seismic
loading under U2 combination. The findings from this procedure can be summarized as:
1. Twelve columns out of the sixteen columns require additional reinforcement. Six of
them need more than one-hundred percent increase, indicating their deficiency under
U2. Column 26 exhibits the highest increase, where the original reinforcement under
gravity amounts to only 1500 mm2, and becomes 6060 mm2, under U2 and thus would
require strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building. It should be pointed
out that negative percentage of change should not be interpreted as a need for
decreasing reinforcement.
2. Four beams out of the sixteen beams require additional top reinforcement exceeding
one-hundred percent, at their right end. Other beams show modest increase. Beam 21
exhibits the highest increase, where the original top reinforcement under gravity
amounts to only 351 mm2, and becomes 998 mm2, under U2 and thus would require
strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building.
3. Overall, columns in this case study need more strengthening than beams.
Figure 5 shows the structure capacity response up to failure. The structure developed a
maximum base shear of about 612 kN and the ultimate roof lateral displacement is about 141
mm. The nonlinear pushover curve illustrates the successive formation and evolution of plastic
hinges. These were formed in seven different steps. Figure 6 shows the plastic hinge patterns
at the third step of loading, corresponding to a base shear value of 475 kN. The figures show
the locations of the hinges as well as their state illustrated by appropriate colors.
This nonlinear response curve illustrates also the first yielding and may be used to quantify the
ductility of the structure. It cannot however serve to evaluate the actual seismic performance
of the structure unless it is compared to the actual demand of the seismic action.
1. The capacity-demand intersection suggests that the frame is expected to withstand the
assumed moderate seismic shaking of 2B soil SB, even though it was not designed for
any earthquake forces.
2. All beams have reached their nominal yield capacity at one or more points and some
redistribution of moments have taken place. Plasticity promulgation at the right end of
Beam 6 is illustrated in Figure 8. The sectional moment is 463 kN-m which is higher
than its nominal yield flexural capacity of 448 kN-m, computed on the basis of SBC
304 assumptions without reduction factor. The excess moment beyond the yield is
assumed to be carried by the contribution of hardening that is not considered in the
design.
3. Only one column has reached its nominal yield capacity, namely Column 26. This is
illustrated by the interaction diagram in Figure 9. The column is subjected to a demand
point (M= 272 kN-m and an axial load of 1327 kN) which is shown to be located
approximately on the perimeter of the nominal interaction diagram.
4500
3500
3000
2500
Axial load, kN
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
‐500
Column Moment , kN‐m
If the procedure is to be used for designing new structures, code provisions should be fully
observed regardless of the method used. On the other hand, for an existing building some
reduction of nominal capacity should be imposed based on the actual conditions and the level
of safety deemed acceptable.
6000
4000
3000
Axial load, kN
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
‐1000
Column Moment , kN‐m
‐2000
The paper has discussed the reasons behind the apparent discrepancy which is mainly
due to the default assumptions of the method as implemented by the software versus the
code assumptions regarding reduction factors and maximum permissible limits. In new
building design, the code always maintains certain factor of safety that comes from load
factors, materials reduction factors, and ignoring some post yielding characteristics
(hardening). In the modeling assumptions of ATC-40, reduction factor is assumed to
be one, and hardening is to be taken into consideration.
Hence, the paper suggests that engineering judgment should be exercised prudently
when using the pushover analysis and that engineer should follow the code limits when
designing new buildings and impose certain reductions and limits in case of existing
buildings depending on their conditions. In short software should not substitute for
code provisions and engineering judgment.
REFERENCES
1. Applied Technology Council, 1996, ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Concrete Buildings, vols. 1 and 2. California.
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, FEMA-356: Prestandard and
Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, DC.
3. CSI. SAP2000 V-10. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic
analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures Inc; 2006.
4. Habibullah, A., Pyle, S., 1998, “Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static
Pushover Analysis”, Structure Magazine, Winter, 1998.
5. Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G.D. , 1998, “Pros and Cons of a Pushover
Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation”, ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 452-464.
6. Naeim, F., Lobo, R. M., 1998, “Common Pitfalls in Pushover Analysis.”
Proceedings of the SEAOC Annual Convention, Reno, Nevada.
7. Kim, B., D’Amore, E., 1999, “Pushover Analysis Procedure in Earthquake
Engineering.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13(2), pp. 417-434.