PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI STOREY REINFORCED

CONCRETE BUILDING
Prakhar Varshney*

*
Department of Civil Engineering, Amity University

Abstract- The past earthquakes show poor performance of large number of buildings leading to severe causalities and economic
damage. This shows inefficiency of codes based on which these buildings were designed. The code proposed procedure mainly
ignores the aspect of material and geometric non linearity. The present research work aims to study the effect of geometric and
material non – linearity on seismic response of buildings by use of push over analysis. The results have been tabulated and
presented to show the effect of non - linearity on seismic response. The analysis results show that seismic demands get aggravated
with increase in storey height and presence of non – linearity increases the stress concentration in buildings leading to formation of
the plastic hinge.

Index Terms- pushover analysis, non-linear static analysis, RC framed building, Etabs

I. INTRODUCTION

T he Non-Linear Static Analysis is a suitable means for evaluating the inelastic strength and deformation demands in the structure,
and for exposing design weakness. (ATC-40)
Benefit for its usage is that it enables the design engineer to recognize significant quantities of seismic response & engineering
judgment to be used to alter aptly the force & deflections and the capacities that control the seismic response near to the failure.
In pushover analysis, gradually increasing lateral loads are applied on the structure until the target displacement is reached. In
Displacement controlled method which is used to perform the nonlinear static analysis, structure is exposed to lateral displacement
by inducing incremental displacement gradually in the top storey of the structure. Pushover curves or capacity curves drawn
between Base shear and roof displacement is obtained from pushover analysis. The performance point is given by the intersection of
these curves with the curve of seismic demand. Krawinkler (1998) studied by using the pushover analysis the non-linear behavior like
yielding and mechanism of failure.
It may be noted that the pushover analysis is approximate and does not account for dynamic characteristics such as hysteresis,
higher mode participation etc. It is known to give good results for regular buildings (without torsional irregularity). In such cases, the
pushover curve can be converted to acceleration versus displacement response spectrum, where it represents the “seismic capacity”
of the structure. It is possible to include in the same plot the “seismic demand”, to see whether the capacity meets the demand. The
meeting of seismic capacity and demand is called a performance point. (Poleswara Rao. Kovela, 2017)

II. OBJECTIVE

 To analyze the effect of lateral loads (Seismic Loads) on plane frames.

 To analyze plane frames under the inelastic response using non-linear static analysis.
 To analyze the pushover curve for the variations in a plane framed structure, same structure having shear RC walls, a
structure with columns jacketed and the structure with jacketed columns and shear RC walls.

III. METHODOLOGY
For study purposes, a G+6 structure is taken, where ground level is the stilt floor. For the non-linear static analysis, plane frame
elements at each floor level are analyzed & then designed for dead and live loads according to IS 875(part-1): and IS 1893 (part-
1):2002 for seismic lateral loads.
 IV. MODELLING
All the beam members and column members are drafted in auto cad and imported to ETABS. The loads and properties of beams,
column and slabs were assigned there and then the analyzation was performed and results tabulated.

1. MATERIALS USED
As per IS 456:2000, modulus of elasticity of reinforced concretes shall be given for the steel rebar, modulus of elasticity, yield
stress and ultimate strength are the necessary required information. The widely used HYSD bars having a yield strength of 500
N/mm2 is assumed for this study.

2. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
The details of the adopted modelling parameters for the elements in the RC framed structure are as follows-
• Beams & Columns- All columns, beams and slabs were modelled as frame elements. The framed element represents the
stiffness, strength and limit of deformation of the members. When beams and columns were modelled, the properties that
were assigned are cross sectional dimensions, the type of reinforcement details and the materials used.
• Beam-Column Joints - Joints of beam-column are presumed rigid.
• Foundation Modelling- At the ends of the supporting column, fixed supports were provided.

3. LOADS CONSIDERED
All the loads applied on the structure are as follows-
• Dead Load
• Live Load
• Lateral Load due to Earthquake
Wind load will not govern any loads on the members was assumed.

4. MEMBER PROPERTIES
• Beam section size- 230 x 450 mm
• Column size- 300 x 450 in case-I
• Column size (Ground Floor)- 300 x 600 mm, (Above Floors)- 300 x 450 mm in case-II
• Thickness of slab- 100 mm
• Concrete Grade- M30
• Hinge (Beams)- Default M3hinge
• Hinge (Columns)- Default P-M-M hinge

Figure 2 3D VIEW OF RCC FRAME

Figure 1 PLAN OF RCC FRAME
 V. RESULTS

The analysis results are the shape of deflection and these formation of the plastic hinges with the gradually growing load & their
levels of the performance. The frames differences are found through the graphs which represents the base reaction and
displacement graphs i.e., the curves of pushover analysis. The analyzed plot of the structure gives us the capacity spectrum curves.
The existence of performance dot can be noted by the capacity spectrum curve. If performance dot isn’t there, the target
performance level is failed to be attained. The multi storied building with and without the reinforced concrete shear walls provides
us with the pushover curves-
• CASE-1- Multistoried Structure without Shear Wall.
• CASE-2- The RC wall is placed up to I floor, II Floor, III Floor, IV Floor, V Floor & VI Floor separately.
• CASE-3- Jacketed columns in Multi Storey Frame without Shear RC Wall.
• CASE-4- For Jacketed Columns Shear Wall have been placed up to I floor, II Floor, III Floor, IV Floor, V Floor & VI Floor
separately.

Type Displacement (mm) Base force (kN) Type Displacement (mm) Base force (kN)

Jacketed Columns
Without Shear Wall 198 1280 204.5 1421
without shear wall

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall (First
152.6 1248 with Shear Wall (First 135.9 1527
Floor)
Floor)

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall
167 1485 with Shear Wall 149 1544
(Second Floor)
(Second Floor)

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall
186.8 1615 with Shear Wall 165.2 1827
(Third Floor)
(Third Floor)

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall
201.5 1660 with Shear Wall 175 1881
(Fourth Floor)
(Fourth Floor)

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall (Fifth
208 1702 with Shear Wall (Ffith 181 1934
Floor)
Floor)

Jacketed Columns
With Shear Wall
215.5 1750 with Shear Wall (Sixth 192.5 1992
(Sixth Floor)
Floor)
 VI. CONCLUSION
1. After analyzing the push-over curve (with shear-wall), conclusion is that the placing of shear RC wall up to the first floor is
found to be more substantial in the case of the base shear & displacement and above than that i.e., (4th, 5th & 6th
floors),the base shear slightly increases.
2. After analysis of the pushover curves, conclusion is that the RCC Frames with Shear Walls resist more base-shear than that
of the normal Reinforced concrete Frames.
3. Hinges formation in the beam is more than column and demonstrates rational nonlinear displacement-based analysis
methods for a more objective performance-based seismic evaluation of the masonry infilled R/C frames with seismically
undesirable (and preferred) distribution of masonry infill panels over the frame elevation.
4. Negligible harm was observed at the ground floor level but extreme harm is aroused at the joints at the upper floors
whereas moderate harm has been observed in the I, II & III floors.

REFERENCES
1. ATC-40. (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Vol-1. California: Californian Seismic Safety Commission.
2. B. K. Raghu Prasad, A. S. (2004, August). CAPACITY SPECTRUM FOR STRUCTURES ASYMMETRIC IN PLAN. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
3. Centeno, J. (2016, July 8). The Meaning of “Performance Based Seismic Design”. Retrieved from https://glotmansimpson.com/:
https://glotmansimpson.com/2016/07/08/the-meaning-of-performance-based-seismic-design/
4. KADID A.*, B. A. (2008). PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURES. ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND
HOUSING), 47-59.
5. Poleswara Rao. Kovela, B. K. (2017). Nonlinear Pushover Analysis for Performance Based Engineering Design – A Review. ISSN: 2321-9653 (p. 8).
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering.
6. Supriya R. Kulkarni, K. B. (2018). Pushover analysis – result borders due to hinge formation orders. Structural Monitoring and Maintenance, Vol. 5, No. 2
(2018) 173-187, 173-187.

AUTHORS
First Author – Prakhar Varshney, M.tech Structural Engineering, Amity University, Noida, prakhar9apr@gmail.com